Restoring Nature in a Mobile Society

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterAcademicpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Drenthen explores interesting lines of argument within debates on nature restoration in the Netherlands. For this purpose he applies dichotomies such as locals versus visitors, ecocentrism versus anthropocentrism and nature-centered landscapes versus human-centered landscapes – dichotomies that are characteristic of nature conservation debates to date. In this commentary I will critique these dichotomies from a socio-cultural history perspective. Just as the activists in Drenthen’s text emphasize the different layers of cultural history in our landscapes, I will highlight some of the socio-cultural layers in our visions of nature. After discussing these dichotomies, I will return to the issue of nature conservation to date, and present some thoughts on another key notion in Drenthen’s argument: alienation from nature
LanguageEnglish
Title of host publicationNew Visions of Nature. Complexity and Authenticity. Part 4
EditorsM. Drenthen, J. Keulartz, J. Proctor
Place of PublicationDordrecht
PublisherSpringer
Pages229-236
Number of pages285
ISBN (Print)9789048126101
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2009

Fingerprint

Dichotomy
Nature
Nature Conservation
Layer
Cultural History
The Netherlands
Ecocentrism
Restoration
Anthropocentrism
Alienation
Activists

Cite this

van Koppen, C. S. A. (2009). Restoring Nature in a Mobile Society. In M. Drenthen, J. Keulartz, & J. Proctor (Eds.), New Visions of Nature. Complexity and Authenticity. Part 4 (pp. 229-236). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2611-8_17
van Koppen, C.S.A. / Restoring Nature in a Mobile Society. New Visions of Nature. Complexity and Authenticity. Part 4. editor / M. Drenthen ; J. Keulartz ; J. Proctor. Dordrecht : Springer, 2009. pp. 229-236
@inbook{1d2d74f5a9054bd7b46a96db7b66891a,
title = "Restoring Nature in a Mobile Society",
abstract = "Drenthen explores interesting lines of argument within debates on nature restoration in the Netherlands. For this purpose he applies dichotomies such as locals versus visitors, ecocentrism versus anthropocentrism and nature-centered landscapes versus human-centered landscapes – dichotomies that are characteristic of nature conservation debates to date. In this commentary I will critique these dichotomies from a socio-cultural history perspective. Just as the activists in Drenthen’s text emphasize the different layers of cultural history in our landscapes, I will highlight some of the socio-cultural layers in our visions of nature. After discussing these dichotomies, I will return to the issue of nature conservation to date, and present some thoughts on another key notion in Drenthen’s argument: alienation from nature",
author = "{van Koppen}, C.S.A.",
year = "2009",
doi = "10.1007/978-90-481-2611-8_17",
language = "English",
isbn = "9789048126101",
pages = "229--236",
editor = "M. Drenthen and J. Keulartz and J. Proctor",
booktitle = "New Visions of Nature. Complexity and Authenticity. Part 4",
publisher = "Springer",

}

van Koppen, CSA 2009, Restoring Nature in a Mobile Society. in M Drenthen, J Keulartz & J Proctor (eds), New Visions of Nature. Complexity and Authenticity. Part 4. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 229-236. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2611-8_17

Restoring Nature in a Mobile Society. / van Koppen, C.S.A.

New Visions of Nature. Complexity and Authenticity. Part 4. ed. / M. Drenthen; J. Keulartz; J. Proctor. Dordrecht : Springer, 2009. p. 229-236.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterAcademicpeer-review

TY - CHAP

T1 - Restoring Nature in a Mobile Society

AU - van Koppen, C.S.A.

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - Drenthen explores interesting lines of argument within debates on nature restoration in the Netherlands. For this purpose he applies dichotomies such as locals versus visitors, ecocentrism versus anthropocentrism and nature-centered landscapes versus human-centered landscapes – dichotomies that are characteristic of nature conservation debates to date. In this commentary I will critique these dichotomies from a socio-cultural history perspective. Just as the activists in Drenthen’s text emphasize the different layers of cultural history in our landscapes, I will highlight some of the socio-cultural layers in our visions of nature. After discussing these dichotomies, I will return to the issue of nature conservation to date, and present some thoughts on another key notion in Drenthen’s argument: alienation from nature

AB - Drenthen explores interesting lines of argument within debates on nature restoration in the Netherlands. For this purpose he applies dichotomies such as locals versus visitors, ecocentrism versus anthropocentrism and nature-centered landscapes versus human-centered landscapes – dichotomies that are characteristic of nature conservation debates to date. In this commentary I will critique these dichotomies from a socio-cultural history perspective. Just as the activists in Drenthen’s text emphasize the different layers of cultural history in our landscapes, I will highlight some of the socio-cultural layers in our visions of nature. After discussing these dichotomies, I will return to the issue of nature conservation to date, and present some thoughts on another key notion in Drenthen’s argument: alienation from nature

U2 - 10.1007/978-90-481-2611-8_17

DO - 10.1007/978-90-481-2611-8_17

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9789048126101

SP - 229

EP - 236

BT - New Visions of Nature. Complexity and Authenticity. Part 4

A2 - Drenthen, M.

A2 - Keulartz, J.

A2 - Proctor, J.

PB - Springer

CY - Dordrecht

ER -

van Koppen CSA. Restoring Nature in a Mobile Society. In Drenthen M, Keulartz J, Proctor J, editors, New Visions of Nature. Complexity and Authenticity. Part 4. Dordrecht: Springer. 2009. p. 229-236 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2611-8_17