18953
wp-singular,page-template,page-template-blog-large-image,page-template-blog-large-image-php,page,page-id-18953,page-child,parent-pageid-1815,wp-theme-stockholm,theme-stockholm,stockholm-core-2.2.1,woocommerce-no-js,eio-default,select-theme-ver-8.0,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode_menu_,qode-mobile-logo-set,qode-single-product-thumbs-below,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-6.6.0,vc_responsive,elementor-default,elementor-kit-31
Title Image

Blog Large Image

We're quite the bloggers

Two Practices, One Way of Seeing

The above image is an interesting one – not because it’s unique in some way but because it represents the intersection of the two main paths of my work – community and landscape resilience and forms of traveling in landscapes. Both these ultimately contribute to sustainable futures.

Conversations with Communities (CwC) and LoST Travel (Landscapes of Stories and Time) might initially seem like two quite different practices. One is concerned with how we work with communities, the other with how we travel through landscapes and places. Yet both begin with many of the same questions, questions like: What are we noticing? Who are we listening to? What stories shape this place? What has happened here over time? Whose knowledge matters? And what responsibilities do we carry when we enter a community or landscape that is not our own?

This is the idea behind Two Practices, One Way of Seeing. CwC and LoST remain distinct, but they share an approach based on attention, curiosity, listening, reflection and respect. Both ask us to slow down so that we understand a place. Both encourage us to recognise that what we encounter has a history that began long before we arrived. And both challenge the assumption that our role is necessarily to intervene, interpret or provide answers.

Through Conversations with Communities, this way of seeing is applied to community practice. Too often, communities are approached through projects, programs, consultations or problems that need to be solved. We arrive with objectives, timelines, professional knowledge and ideas about what needs to change. CwC asks us to begin somewhere else: with conversation. It encourages us to listen for local knowledge, recognise different voices and perspectives, understand relationships and power, and pay attention to the ways communities themselves understand their circumstances. Community practice then becomes less about doing things to or for communities and more about creating the conditions for people to participate, contribute and shape change themselves.

LoST Travel applies a similar approach to travel. Landscapes are easily reduced to scenery, destinations, attractions and experiences. We arrive, photograph, walk, cycle, paddle or pass through, often knowing relatively little about the places around us. LoST asks us to slow down and look again. A mountain valley is not simply a beautiful landscape. A village is not simply somewhere along a walking route. A river is not simply something to cross or to paddle down. Each is part of a landscape shaped by people, ecology, livelihoods, movement, memory, conflict, adaptation and change.

This is where the two practices begin to speak to each other.

CwC reminds the traveller that communities are not backdrops. LoST reminds the community practitioner that landscapes are not backdrops. People can’t easily be separated from the places in which they live, just as landscapes can’t be understood without considering the people, histories and relationships that have shaped them.

There are other connections. Observation matters before engagement. Listening matters before interpretation. Stories are forms of knowledge. Time matters because the present has been shaped by what came before it. Power influences whose stories are heard and whose versions of a place become dominant. Restraint matters because sometimes the most appropriate response is not to intervene, photograph, explain or speak, but simply to listen and understand.

This doesn’t mean turning community practitioners into travellers or travellers into community development practitioners. The value lies in allowing each practice to challenge the other. What might someone working with communities learn from slowing down, walking through a landscape and observing before asking questions? What might a traveller learn from community development about power, participation, local knowledge and the ethics of entering another person’s place?

These questions sit at the heart of the LST Collaboration Hub (Localities. Sustainabilities. Transformations). The Hub brings CwC and LoST together without collapsing the distinction between them. CwC explores how we engage with communities. LoST explores how we move through landscapes and places.

The connection is a shared practice of seeing.

To see more carefully is to recognise stories where we once saw only scenery, relationships where we once saw individuals, histories where we once saw the present, and complexity where we once expected simple answers.

Two practices. One way of seeing. And perhaps, through seeing differently, different ways of engaging, travelling and contributing to change.

0

Why Conversations with Communities Matter

Conversations with communities matter because communities can’t be understood from a distance.

They can’t be fully understood through reports, plans, statistics, maps or strategies alone –  these have value, but they only ever give us part of the picture. Communities are made through relationships, memory, experience, knowledge, conflict, reciprocity and change. But much of this is not immediately visible. It’s carried in stories, silences, local practices and everyday ways of knowing.

This is why conversations matter.

These aren’t conversations as token consultation. They’re not conversations as a way of extracting information. They’re not conversations that are shaped by a predetermined outcome or set of assumptions. These are conversations that create space for people to reflect on their own experience, share what matters, and make visible the knowledge that already exists within communities.

In community resilience work, these conversations are essential.

Resilience is often discussed in broad terms. We talk about adaptation, preparedness, recovery, capacity and systems. But resilience is not only a policy idea. It is something lived in place. It’s found in how communities respond to change, how relationships are maintained, how local knowledge is used, and how people continue to care for each other and their landscapes under pressure.

If we want to understand community resilience, we need to understand communities themselves.

That requires conversation.

Conversations allow us to hear how people experience change. They reveal what communities value, what they fear losing, what they have already adapted to, and what forms of support might strengthen rather than undermine local capacity. They also reveal tensions. Communities are not simple or uniform. They contain different voices, histories, positions and forms of power. A good conversation does not flatten these differences. It allows them to be recognised.

Real conversations do something different.

They slow the process down. They allow stories to emerge. They help us understand how people make sense of their own places. They remind us that communities are not projects. They existed before our work began and they will continue after our work ends.

To have a conversation with a community is to accept that we do not already know. It is to place ourselves in a position of humility. It is to recognise that expertise does not only sit with professionals, academics, consultants or travellers. It sits with people who live in place, who know its changes, who have experienced its pressures, and who understand its meanings in ways that outsiders cannot immediately grasp.

This is why conversations matter so much.

They change what counts as knowledge.

They challenge quick assumptions.

They reveal power.

They make visible what is often overlooked.

And they remind us that communities aren’t passive recipients of resilience strategies or background features in travel experiences. They are active holders of knowledge, memory and adaptation.

For those of us working in community resilience, conversations are not optional. They are the foundation of meaningful practice.

We need to slow down enough to listen even if we have deadlines. We need to pay attention to place rather than a ‘community’. We need to recognise that stories are knowledge. And we need to approach communities not as sources of information, but as living systems of relationship, memory and resilience.

Conversations with communities matter because they are how deeper understanding begins.

They’re how we move beyond surface. They’re how we learn what resilience already looks like on the ground. And they’re how we begin to engage in ways that are more thoughtful, more respectful and more connected to the landscapes of stories and time in which communities live.

This is one of the reasons Conversations with Communities exists.

It’s based on the idea that community development and resilience work needs reflective spaces. Practitioners, researchers, facilitators and community members need places where they can think together about power, voice, listening, participation and resilience. Too much community engagement is rushed. Too much consultation is procedural. Too many processes ask communities to respond to frameworks that have already been decided elsewhere. Conversations with Communities provides a space where we can share, reflect and have our own conversations.

0

Landscapes Are Not Backdrops to Communities

When we talk about communities, we often talk about people. We talk about relationships, networks, participation, identity and belonging. We talk about needs, aspirations, strengths and challenges. These conversations matter. But there is something that is often left in the background – literally and conceptually.


Place.


More specifically, the landscapes within which communities exist.


Landscapes and communities


Too often, landscapes are treated as some kind of background to community life. They are acknowledged as context but rarely understood as actively shaping how communities function.


We might refer to a coastal town, a mountain village or an urban neighbourhood, where we use landscapes as a marker, but still the landscape itself is too often treated as secondary to the people within it. But landscapes are not backdrops. They are systems and they are systems connected to people and communities and all that connection entails. Remembering this can change how we think about communities and ultimately how we think about resilience.


A landscape influences resilience.


Rivers shape movement and settlement. Terrain influences access and connection. Climate affects livelihoods and patterns of daily life. Infrastructure changes how places relate to each other. Even in cities and suburbs, streets, green spaces, waterways and transport networks structure how people interact and how communities form.

This doesn’t mean landscapes determine everything. Communities are not passive products of geography. But landscapes create conditions, opportunities and constraints that shape how community life develops over time.


When we begin to see landscapes in this way, community resilience also starts to look different. Think about what resilience actually looks like on the ground. It might appear as spiritual connections to place, or local knowledge of seasonal change. It might be reflected in how people use water, respond to environmental pressures, or maintain networks across distance. It might show up in decisions about land use, movement, food systems or everyday acts of care and adaptation.

But these aren’t separate from landscapes. They’re expressions of living within it and understanding it.


This becomes particularly visible when communities experience change. Economic shifts, environmental pressures, population movement and infrastructure development all reshape how places function. Communities respond but they do so from within existing systems of relationships with land and place.

This means resilience is not only about strengthening social connections. It is also about understanding the landscapes those connections depend upon. These are not just social connections but are socio-ecological connections.


Communities, landscapes and LoST


This is where the LoST Framework becomes useful. LoST begins from the idea that landscapes are not passive settings but dynamic systems shaped by stories, relationships and change over time – the hyphen in socio-ecological connections.


Therefore the framework encourages us to ask different questions.


Instead of asking What does this community need? LoST wants us to ask How does this place shape those needs?

We then begin to ask other questions:


What stories exist here?


What socio-ecological relationships sustain this community?


What changes are visible in the landscape?


What histories continue to influence the present?


These questions shift us from seeing communities as isolated groups and toward understanding them as parts of broader systems.


Importantly, LoST is not only relevant to community practitioners. It matters equally for travellers.


Travel often reproduces the same problem. Landscapes become scenery. Communities become experiences. Places become consumed rather than understood.


But if landscapes are no longer understood as backdrops, travel changes too. Walking, cycling and paddling become more than movement. They become ways of observing how landscapes work. They reveal how communities connect to place, how environments shape everyday life, and how change appears on the ground.


Movement becomes a method of understanding.


The above points create an interesting connection between LoST Travel and Conversations with Communities.

At first glance they can appear different with one focused on movement through landscapes, the other on facilitating community resilience. But both begin with the same premise: understanding requires context.


There are some important commonalities:

  • Both ask us to observe before acting.
  • Both recognise stories as forms of knowledge.
  • Both emphasise attention and understanding over speed.
  • Both seek to understand relationships rather than isolate problems.


In this sense, landscapes become more than physical environments. They become places where social, ecological and cultural systems intersect.


This changes practice.


It changes travel.


And it changes resilience.


Resilience emerges not apart from place, but through it.


Watch out for more posts further exploring this over the coming months.


Join the conversations at conversationswithcommunities.com.


0