Grass versus trees: A proxy debate for deeper anxieties about competing stream worlds

IF 3 2区 社会学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Caroline Gottschalk Druschke, Eric G. Booth, Rebecca Lave, Sydney Widell, Emma Lundberg, Ben Sellers, Paige Stork
{"title":"Grass versus trees: A proxy debate for deeper anxieties about competing stream worlds","authors":"Caroline Gottschalk Druschke, Eric G. Booth, Rebecca Lave, Sydney Widell, Emma Lundberg, Ben Sellers, Paige Stork","doi":"10.1177/25148486231210408","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Stream restoration has become an increasingly important focus in southwestern Wisconsin's Driftless Area, an unglaciated, hilly pocket of the Upper Mississippi River Basin rich in groundwater-driven coldwater streams, recreationally important trout species, and agricultural communities. Climate change is driving a major increase in precipitation and flooding across this rural and often under-resourced region, effects complicated by the ongoing legacies of white settlement and the changes it wrought to area streams, including the burial of floodplains in sediment displaced off area hillslopes. As managers work to consider how to “restore” Driftless streams, riparian vegetation—grass versus trees—has become a central and surprisingly controversial node. Current stream restoration practice typically includes the removal of riparian trees, though that practice has come under increasing criticism. Grounded in more than 5 years of qualitative and biophysical fieldwork in the region, we build from interviews gathered with 18 Driftless Area stream restoration managers from 2018 to 2020 to point to the ways that managers leverage arguments about erosion, flooding, habitat, and angler access, among other things, in service of grass and trees. Indexing the surface flows and underflows of this restoration debate, we introduce the rhetorical concept of the proxy debate to argue that debates about grass versus trees are tethered to competing perspectives on scale, temporality, and dynamism, surficial distractions from much deeper anxieties about what a stream is and should be. We turn to the ways that these distractions serve to further distance the stream restoration enterprise from acknowledging the ongoing human and hydrologic legacies of settler colonialism, and we close by suggesting that careful attention to rhetorical power—both to what arguments say and do, and to what they elide—offers a tentative first step toward restoring lands and relations by questioning what is taken for granted and what lies beneath.","PeriodicalId":11723,"journal":{"name":"Environment and Planning. E, Nature and Space","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environment and Planning. E, Nature and Space","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/25148486231210408","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Stream restoration has become an increasingly important focus in southwestern Wisconsin's Driftless Area, an unglaciated, hilly pocket of the Upper Mississippi River Basin rich in groundwater-driven coldwater streams, recreationally important trout species, and agricultural communities. Climate change is driving a major increase in precipitation and flooding across this rural and often under-resourced region, effects complicated by the ongoing legacies of white settlement and the changes it wrought to area streams, including the burial of floodplains in sediment displaced off area hillslopes. As managers work to consider how to “restore” Driftless streams, riparian vegetation—grass versus trees—has become a central and surprisingly controversial node. Current stream restoration practice typically includes the removal of riparian trees, though that practice has come under increasing criticism. Grounded in more than 5 years of qualitative and biophysical fieldwork in the region, we build from interviews gathered with 18 Driftless Area stream restoration managers from 2018 to 2020 to point to the ways that managers leverage arguments about erosion, flooding, habitat, and angler access, among other things, in service of grass and trees. Indexing the surface flows and underflows of this restoration debate, we introduce the rhetorical concept of the proxy debate to argue that debates about grass versus trees are tethered to competing perspectives on scale, temporality, and dynamism, surficial distractions from much deeper anxieties about what a stream is and should be. We turn to the ways that these distractions serve to further distance the stream restoration enterprise from acknowledging the ongoing human and hydrologic legacies of settler colonialism, and we close by suggesting that careful attention to rhetorical power—both to what arguments say and do, and to what they elide—offers a tentative first step toward restoring lands and relations by questioning what is taken for granted and what lies beneath.
草与树:对竞争的溪流世界的更深层次焦虑的代理辩论
在威斯康星州西南部的无流区(Driftless Area),溪流恢复已经成为一个越来越重要的焦点。无流区是密西西比河上游流域的一个没有冰川覆盖的丘陵地带,富含地下水驱动的冷水流,具有重要娱乐意义的鳟鱼物种和农业社区。气候变化正在推动这个农村地区和资源匮乏地区的降水和洪水大幅增加,白人定居的持续遗产及其对地区溪流的影响使影响变得更加复杂,包括淹没在从地区山坡转移的沉积物中。当管理者们努力考虑如何“恢复”无漂移的溪流时,河岸植被——草与树——已经成为一个中心和令人惊讶的争议节点。目前恢复河流的做法通常包括移除河岸树木,尽管这种做法受到越来越多的批评。我们在该地区进行了5年多的定性和生物物理实地调查,从2018年到2020年,我们对18名无流区溪流恢复管理人员进行了采访,指出了管理人员利用侵蚀、洪水、栖息地和垂钓者进入等问题来为草和树服务的方式。索引这种恢复辩论的表面流动和底流,我们引入代理辩论的修辞概念,认为关于草和树的辩论与规模、时间性和动态性的竞争观点有关,表面上分散了对河流是什么和应该是什么的更深层次的焦虑。我们转而讨论这些干扰使溪流恢复事业进一步远离承认殖民者殖民主义对人类和水文遗产的影响,最后我们建议仔细关注言辞的力量——无论是争论说了什么、做了什么,还是他们忽略了什么——通过质疑什么是理所当然的,什么是隐藏的,为恢复土地和关系提供了试探性的第一步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
13.80%
发文量
101
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信