This research project begins from a central problem: as natural and historic environments are increasingly mobilised to provide wellbeing in multiple geographical contexts, barriers to accessing such spaces are widely approached in research circles and public life as naturalised and descriptive identities.

However, recent feminist Marxist scholarship shows that identities such as race, class, gender and ethnicity are related to the structural conditions of capitalism and configured through specific historical encounters (see Bohrer’s (2022) ‘intersectional Marxism’). Therefore, capitalism must be at the centre of how we understand marginalisation as process.

Despite the popularity of blue-scape therapeutic practices – bathing, swimming, soaking in, or consuming therapeutic water – recent legal action, commercialisation, shifting tacit access agreements and land ownership regime changes in Devon, Mongolia and Sikkim mean that such spaces have become difficult to access.

 Addressing the process of resource-making illuminates issues of ownership, access and governance (High 2010). It also helps us to understand how inequalities are made and remade. As Bear and colleagues (2015) show, when something – ‘people, labour, sentiments, plants, animals, life-ways’ – is converted into a resource for various projects of production, inequality emerges.

 

Engaging historical, ethnographic, and comparativist analysis, our project asks the following questions:

  • What can the process of resource-ifying natural and historic sites for human health and wellbeing reveal about experiences of social exclusion and the identities typically used to understand them?

  • How have the economic and post-/neo-colonial situations in Mongolia, northeast India and southwest England played a role both in the conversion of historic and natural sites into wellbeing providers, and in restricted access to them?

  • From where are notions of efficacy and legitimacy derived with respect to therapeutic blue spaces, and what tensions and contradictions arise in the process of legitimacy-making? This is a multi-perspectival, political economic analysis of value from the standpoint of users, in the eyes of the state and institutions, and as constructed by facilitators and practitioners.

  • How has re-valuation, the promotion of visitor economies, green tourism and/or commodification of such places influenced their interpretation as legitimate in popular discourse?