Search results

Worldwide, an emerging trend can be observed towards coastal management that works "with nature" – and not against it. A growing "community of practice" (Wenger 1998) is getting involved into projects of so-called "soft" coastal protection. The paper localises the emergence of this "sociotechnical imaginary" (Jasanoff 2015) at the Aotearoa New Zealand coast. It provides an ethnographic analysis of soft coastal protection as a socio-material practice, focusing on coastal dune reshaping. This technique promises a sustainable approach to coastal management that overcomes dualist meanings of coastal protection, understood either as erosion control and property protection, or as nature conservation (Cooper and McKenna 2008). Two examples from the North Island of Aotearoa New Zealand are analysed: a successful project in Whangapoua Beach (Coromandel Peninsula), where dune reshaping has been used by local houseowners as a temporary alternative to a seawall, and the "dune enhancement" part of a contested, Council-commissioned seawall construction project in Waihi Beach (Western Bay of Plenty), which has been perceived as utter failure. The cases show that when soft coastal protection projects are put into practice, the recognition and inclusion of local stakeholders can have manifest material consequences. The paper therefore argues that sustainable coastal protection is not only a technical question, but has a sociomaterial dimension. In order for artificial dunes to "work" as socio-natural objects, local understandings of the rights and responsibilities to care for the coast need to be considered.

This article analyses the formation of a new global network, the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy (GCoM), by two existing initiatives, the EU-based Covenant of Mayors and the UN-supported Compact of Mayors. While this merger of two transnational networks provides evidence for the increased coordination and standardisation of transnational municipal climate action, this remains a contentious and incomplete process. The article identifies different modes of transnational climate governance that have contributed to conflict between the founding networks and zooms in on the role of municipal climate data. Using empirical evidence, it analyses the contested politics of municipal climate data, including the role of the Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories (GPC) as a standard tool, the definition of a common target, and the inclusion of financial actors. Concerns over the reshaping of public-private boundaries and the possible commodification of public data are identified as major obstacles for the (EU) Covenant of Mayors, which consequentially seeks to remain as independent as possible within the new GCoM. Data politics emerges as a crucial factor for the future direction of transnational municipal climate policy and the ongoing processes of standardisation and coordination.

This article analyses the formation of a new global network, the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy (GCoM), by two existing initiatives, the EU-based Covenant of Mayors and the UN-supported Compact of Mayors. While this merger of two transnational networks provides evidence for the increased coordination and standardisation of transnational municipal climate action, this remains a contentious and incomplete process. The article identifies different modes of transnational climate governance that have contributed to conflict between the founding networks and zooms in on the role of municipal climate data. Using empirical evidence, it analyses the contested politics of municipal climate data, including the role of the Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories (GPC) as a standard tool, the definition of a common target, and the inclusion of financial actors. Concerns over the reshaping of public-private boundaries and the possible commodification of public data are identified as major obstacles for the (EU) Covenant of Mayors, which consequentially seeks to remain as independent as possible within the new GCoM. Data politics emerges as a crucial factor for the future direction of transnational municipal climate policy and the ongoing processes of standardisation and coordination.

Working with nature - and not against it - is a global trend in coastal management. This ethnography of coastal protection follows the increasingly popular approach of "soft" protection to the Aotearoa New Zealand coast. It analyses a political controversy over hard and soft protection measures, and introduces a growing community of practice involved in projects of working with nature. Dune restoration volunteers, coastal management experts, surfer-scientists, and Maori conservationists are engaged in projects ranging from do-it-yourself erosion control, to the reconstruction of native nature, and soft engineering "in concert with natural processes". With soft protection, the author argues, we can witness a new sociotechnical imaginary in the making. ; Bielefeld

This rich ethnography analyses coastal protection as a sociomaterial practice. Coastal protection, Friederike Gesing argues, coproduces natural and cultural orders. In the context of the Aotearoa New Zealand coast, it follows the emergence of a new sociotechnical imaginary: coastal management working »with nature« - and not against it. The analysis of a seawall controversy and of different coastal protection projects shows how »soft« protection slowly takes hold. Dune restoration volunteers, coastal management experts, surfer-scientists, and Maori conservationists engage in different practices of making coastal naturecultures: dune restoration as do-it-yourself erosion control, reconstructing native nature, or soft engineering »in concert with natural processes«.

This paper develops a methodological framework for event-ethnographic research in online and offline settings based on the authors' ethnographic experiences in the fields of environmental governance and sociotechnical transition before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Drawing on empirical event studies, we outline the particularities of organized events as ethnographic research sites, identifying key challenges related to the spatio-temporal ephemerality, socio-material infrastructures and interactive unboundedness of events. We address these challenges along three axes of reflection, asking how we (1) attend, (2) infrastructure, and (3) take part in organized events. The framework we propose promotes a co-constructive understanding of organized events and raises broader methodological issues regarding power dynamics, our role as ethnographers in transdisciplinary contexts and fair and transparent ethnographic data collection. The framework is designed to explore how the (post-)pandemic transition from real-world to virtual event interactions affects both our research fields and our ethnographic research in transdisciplinary contexts.