The Ouroboros and Other External Effects of the Field Scientific Infrastructure

Acknowledgments: The results of the project "Infrastructure of Scientific Knowledge and Territorial Development", carried out within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE University) in 2019, are presented in this work. The article examines the functioning of the field research infrastructure (marine biological stations, specially protected natural areas, museum-reserves) in terms of the external effects it generates. These processes are described in the context of contemporary transformations of the conservation policy in Russia. The proposed analytical typology of these types of impact includes a consideration of negative and positive externalities - both those associated with the scientific activity itself (the emergence of private research stations) and the emergence of new economic forms of activity (tourism) - as well as the spread of new social practices. The paradoxical "Ouroboros effect" has been identified and described: the principle of noninterference, implicit in the conservation regime, in some cases prevents the use of measures aimed at saving protected flora and fauna. Examples of how these external effects contribute to the processes of touristifica-tion, revitalization, and gentrification of rural areas are also considered. Particular attention is paid to the role of scholars in the formation of local historical and cultural identity. Overall, the study allows us to draw a general conclusion about the significant and diverse effects of the presence of field research infrastructure on home territories, effects not directly related to the core activities of these institutions. The emergence of these effects is determined by the concentration, in research stations, of people with a high level of cultural capital. These people may foster the emergence of new forms of economic activity in the territory, as well as acts as the transmitters of social and organisational practices new to this local context.

1. Brain S. (2011) Song of the Forest: Russian Forestry and Stalinist Environmentalism, 1905–

2. , Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

3. De Bont R. (2015) Stationsin the Field: A History of Place-Based Animal Research, 1870–1930,

4. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.

5. Fortin M.-J., Gagnon C. (1999) As assessment of social impacts of national parks on

6. communities in Quebec, Canada. Environmental Conservation, 26 (3): 200-211. (http://

7. www.uqac.ca/portfolio/christianegagnon/files/2013/02/article05.pdf)

8. Jover J., D ́ıaz-Parra I. (2020) Gentrification, transnational gentrification and touristification in Seville, Spain. Urban Studies, 57 (15): 3044-3059.

9. Koens K., Postma А., Papp В. (2018) Is Overtourism Overused? Understanding the

10. Impact of Tourism in a City Context. Sustainability, 10 (4384): 1-15.

11. Kucheruk N.V., Maksimova O.V., Azovskiy A.I. (2013) White Sea: Black River, Moscow:

12. Black River.

13. Kuklick H., Kohler R.E. (1996) Introduction. Osiris, Science in the Field, 2 (11): 1-14.

14. KurennoyV. (2021) Contemporary StateCultural Policy inRussia: Organization, Political

15. Discourse and Ceremonial Behavior. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 27 (2): 163-176.

16. Lee J.H. et al. (2018) Examining the Conflicting Relationship between US National

17. Parks and Host Communities: Understanding a Community’s Diverging Perspectives. Sustainability, 10 (10): 3667.

18. Lorenzen M. (2021) Rural Gentrification, Touristification, andDisplacement: Analysing Evidence from Mexico. Journal of Rural Studies, (86): 62-75.

19. Mayer M., Müller M., Woltering M. et al. (2010) The Economic Impact of Tourism in

20. six German National Parks. Landscape and urban planning, 97 (2): 73-82.

21. Ojedaab A.B., Kiefferc M. (2020) Touristification. Empty Concept or Element of Analysis in Tourism Geography? Geoforum, 115: 143-145.

22. Pickel-Chevalier S. (2012) Les processus de mise en tourisme d’une ville historique:

23. l’exemple de Rouen. Mondes du Tour: 46-60. (https://doi.org/10.4000/tourisme.558)

24. Pigou A.C. (2002) Welfare and Economic Welfare, Routledge.

25. Sequera J., Nofre J. (2018) Shaken, not Stirred: New Debates on Touristification and

26. the Limits of Gentrification. City, 22 (5-6): 843-855.

27. Solecki W.D. (1994) Putting the Biosphere Reserve Concept into Practice: Some Evidence ofImpactsin Rural Communitiesin theUnited States. Environmental Conservation, 21 (3): 242-247.

28. Varian H.R. (2014) Intermediate Microeconomics: A Modern Approach, New York; London:

29. W.W. Norton & Company: 663-686.

30. Weiner D. (1999) A Little Corner of Freedom: Russian Nature Protection from Stalin to Gorbachev, Berkeley: University of California Press.

31. West P., Igoe J., Brockington D. (2006) Parks and Peoples: The Social Impact of Protected Areas. Annual Review of Anthropology, 35: 251-277.