Alongside ‘wilderness’ the category ‘national park’ is one of the most powerful within nature conservation, and it in turn rests on a historical legacy of numerous and varied categories. Recent critique against conventional approaches to conservation has resulted in a shift towards more public participation and the inclusion of local development – at least in policy rhetoric. However, our research on a proposed new national park in the Swedish mountains (Jämtland County) shows how difficult it is to change rooted understandings of existing categories, such as ‘national park’.
The proposed park is perceived differently by different stakeholders, there exists tension and mistrust between them, and the park is contested for several reasons. Here categories and categorisation are important. Categories create paradoxes that may lead to tension and conflict, and they often act to block change in thinking and practice. These effects can occur when a piece of land belongs to different categories, when a category remains static while the local context changes, when the material and immaterial ‘components inherent in landscapes are categorised differently by different users, and when they use the same category it may be attributed different values. A lack of awareness of this impedes novel solutions and potential trade-offs. This is equally relevant at the interface of science and policy, science and public, policy and public – and at the interface of these and the landscape. A critical analysis of how categories are formed, by whom, and their effects, are important for understanding and moving beyond conflicts in conservation.