Nature and Culture

The battle against invasive alien species (IAS) rages on, and is being driven by recently articulated global biodiversity agendas. While the current United Nations Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) seeks to ensure pristine, protected areas comprise 30 percent of the world's total surface area by 2030, there remains much to be done for the remaining 70 percent, areas dominated by human habitat and industrial activities. Many non-native species have partly or wholly naturalized in these mixed ecosystems, becoming entangled in people's livelihoods. We therefore argue that initiatives to not only aggressively eradicate such IAS but also to enroll the help of citizens in doing so will likely meet with resistance. Biodiversity dilemmas may arise where the cure may be worse than the disease; animal welfare standards may have to be sacrificed; and socioeconomic utility may have to be set aside. We therefore advocate the need for an alternative perspective on biodiversity justice and the proper place of IAS.

This article takes a historical coproductionist approach to examine the pivotal claim of novelty on which circular economy (CE) discourse is centered. CE proponents argue that it represents a paradigm shift: concepts from nature—most notably the efficiency of biological cycles posited to be “without waste”—can be productively applied to the linear economy, resulting in a novel partnership that will correct human–nature relationality. We bring a historical perspective to critically appraise this claim, providing examples of how concepts of circularity have been transmitted between medical, economic, and engineering texts across the history of modern thought. We show how these ideas have been coproduced with political agendas, acting as legitimizing forces for powerful normative claims while shaping collective imaginations of right moral order in nature and culture.

The restricted mobility and homebody life people experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic implied a dramatic change of the time–space configuration in everyday life. Based on a qualitative interview study with 35 participants in Ireland and Sweden, this article presents theoretical perspectives and empirical illustrations on how changes in the sociotemporal rhythms in everyday life can shape conditions for making people's lifestyles more environmentally sustainable. Its findings suggest that the experience of a slower tempo can contribute to how people reflect on and engage in more sustainable practices, but they also reveal that people can have ambiguous and differentiated positive and negative experiences of time, and that said experience was often perceived as a temporary break rather than a lasting change. The article contributes by offering a nuanced understanding of the promises of slowing down as a way to encourage sustainable consumption.

Flood risk is increasing, and residents are expected to undertake adaptation measures to minimize flood damage. This requires them to be aware of the risk they face and how they can adapt, but this is often not the case. Through risk communication, residents’ relation to their flood-prone environment could be strengthened, but the effect remains limited. This article aims to understand how residents across countries prefer flood risk communication and provides a basis for developing communication strategies that manage to raise awareness on risk and adaptation. Residents living in flood risk areas in England and the Netherlands were interviewed on their preferences for flood risk communication. The Q-methodology, consisting of 34 Q-sorts, resulted in four significantly different sets of preferences: (1) localist; (2) sufficientist; (3) imperfectionist; and (4) conventionalist. Moreover, cultural and individual factors, such as country of residence, flood experience, and responsibility division, prove potential determiners for these distinctly different perspectives.