How do we represent territories whose histories, economies, and ecologies have been shaped by centuries of extraction, yet are still often perceived as peripheral or empty?

1. Introduction

In his book Norrland, journalist Po Tidholm opens with a poem that captures a long-standing reality: northern Sweden has long been a site of resource extraction— iron ore, forests, hydropower, railways and so forth—whose wealth has flowed south, enriching state powers and capitalists’ interests while leaving local communities with the loss (Tidholm, 2014). These are not isolated episodes but part of an ongoing process of uneven development across northern Scandinavia, Indigenous lands and globally (Figure 1, Figure 5).

This view resonates with Henri Lefebvre’s insight that urbanization as a process does not begin or end at the city’s boundary. Observing his own hometown in the Pyrenees transformed by sulphur extraction, Lefebvre was led to theorize the transition of the rural to the urban—or what he called the process of urbanization (Elden, 2015), a work that would later lead him to the formulation of the radical hypothesis of the complete urbanization of society (Lefebvre, 1970).

Contemporary scholars have extended this idea through the lens of planetary urbanization, a framework that draws attention to the remote territories—mostly of primary commodity production, circulation and waste disposal—that sustain urban life but are rarely seen as urban themselves (Brenner, 2019; Brenner & Schmid, 2015). These are spaces of extended urbanization, critical to the material metabolism of cities.

One such territory of extraction is the malm territory in what today’s Swedish-Norwegian Sápmi, a problématique that has been forming and expanding across scales since the mid-1500s (Flaquer 2020, 2022, see also Flaquer 2023 for an in-depth analysis). Today, nearly 90% of Europe’s iron ore is extracted from this area—where only 0.0002% of the population live—alongside vast hydropower, forestry operations and other extractive operations (LKAB, 2013).

In an era of climate crisis and ecological reckoning, it becomes urgent to rethink how we represent such territories—not as passive resource zones, but as active frontiers of appropriation. This article proposes a method to do so: by mapping palimpsests of appropriation—layered histories of how land, labor, and nature are continuously reshaped under capital (building on Flaquer et al. 2020).

Through a theoretical framing and a test case in the malm territory, the article proposes a new approach to represent and understand extraction as central to urbanization itself.

2. Challenges From Territories of Extraction

Contemporary urbanization extends far beyond city limits. Through the lens of planetary urbanization, we understand urbanization as a process deeply embedded within the broader dynamics of capitalist development. This includes not only dense agglomerations, but also dispersed and often overlooked territories—those of primary production, circulation, and waste disposal. These so-called “remote” zones, such as mines, forests, and rivers, are not peripheral; they are operational landscapes, deeply embedded in the material reproduction of urban life (Brenner & Katsikis, 2020).

This processual view helps trace the historical formation of such territories in the age of capital, or the Capitalocene (Brenner & Katsikis, 2020; Moore, 2017, 2018). Yet while planetary urbanization offers a compelling alternative to traditional urban theory it often remains abstract, insufficient to grasp the socio-ecological specificity of these landscapes. To move beyond spatial distribution and engage with the mode of production and its socio-nature implications, this article turns to urban political ecology and world-ecology. Both reposition nature as actively produced—a dynamic, relational field. At their intersection lies the concept of appropriation, central for critically analyzing territories of extraction and for rethinking urbanization in and through the socio-ecological processes of the Capitalocene.

2.1 From Planetary Urbanization to Appropriation

The theory of planetary urbanization, developed by Brenner and Schmid, is based on three mutually constitutive processes of (1) concentrated urbanization, (2) extended urbanization and (3) differential urbanization (Brenner & Schmid, 2015; Khan & Karak, 2018). Concentrated urbanization (1), which refers to dense settlement and built infrastructure, often wrongly assumed to be the exclusive terrain of the urban. Extended urbanization (2), describing the outward spread of urban processes into landscapes of extraction, logistics, and primary commodity production or operational landscapes. Differential urbanization (3), emphasizing the continual creative destruction of space under capitalism: where infrastructures and socio-natural relations are built up, rendered obsolete, and restructured for renewed accumulation.

In landscapes transformed by centuries of extractivism like those from northern Swedish Sápmi, these dimensions are visible in the spatial form of mining towns, hydroelectric infrastructures, railway corridors and so forth. However, while useful, these categories fall short of capturing the historical-material processes of dispossession, reorganization, and socio-nature transformation at play.

Thus, the framework of planetary urbanization must be expanded and radicalized—to move beyond a focus on geographical distribution and toward questioning the deeper appropriation of nature, energy, and labor that underpins urbanization itself.

2.2 Appropriation and the Ecological Surplus

At the heart of this expanded view is the concept of appropriation—the process by which capitalism mobilizes unpaid work from both humans and nature. Marx referred to this as the “free gifts of nature”: geological processes, hydrological cycles, and social reproductive labor that are not compensated but are essential to capital accumulation (Marx & Mandel, 1976).

Jason Moore, working from the world-ecology perspective describes this as the ecological surplus—the ratio between paid inputs (labor, capital) and unpaid ones (natural energy, care work, time). Capitalism depends on appropriating these surpluses, but over time they tend to decline, forcing capital to seek new frontiers through expansion, technological innovation, and reorganization (Moore, 2015a).

This process is not limited to historical episodes of so-called primitive accumulation, allowing for unpaid work/energy to be mobilized for capital accumulation. Rather, appropriation is a continuous, structural logic of separation that reappears across accumulation cycles and crises—going far beyond the geographical expansion of capital. It is mediated through state, science, finance and technological change. These instruments enable capitalism to transform entire territories—physically and institutionally—to maintain flows of ecological surplus (Moore 2015b).

For example, in the early phases of mining, high-yield geological formations may be exploited with minimal effort. As these resources are exhausted, new strategies emerge: deeper extraction, intensified automation, enclosure of land, or financialization of natural assets. These shifts reflect declining surplus and the need to generate new “natures” that can be made productive again—what Smith (2007) and others call the transition from first nature to second nature, and eventually to the production of nature.

2.3 The Production of Nature and Socio-Nature Dialectics

Urban political ecology reminds us that nature is not external to society, but historically produced through social relations (Angelo & Wachsmuth, 2015; Arboleda, 2016; Katsikis & Ibañez, 2014; Tzaninis, Mandler, Kaika, & Keil, 2020). The mine, the reservoir, the wind power park—these are not simply neutral infrastructural or environmental elements. They are active landscapes continuously transforming socio-natures shaped by the articulation of a whole set of relations—of capital (accumulation), (pursuit of) power, labour, and (the production of) nature.

In extraction territories, this means that nature is constantly being reorganized—cleared, commodified, regulated, and technologized. These changes are not simply spatial or technical, but deeply political (Elden, 2019; Mezzadra & Neilson, 2013). They involve state violence, dispossession (especially of Indigenous peoples), and regulatory structures that define who can access, use, or profit from land and water.

Capitalism does not only exploit nature by appropriating socio-natures; it re-makes it into its own image for capital to work harder and faster (Arboleda, 2020). As Smith (2007) argued, this process entails the vertical and horizontal integration: the layering of science, finance, and infrastructure to transform landscapes into productive machines, and the expansion of extractive logics into new domains (such as carbon markets, green energy, green minerals, and other forms of commodified nature).

The territory, then, is not a fixed space, but a process—continuously produced through the interplay of capital, state, and socio-natures. It is both outcome and instrument: the object of extraction and the medium through which extraction is organized.

This view aligns with Stuart Elden’s argument that territory is a political technology—a spatial form continually redefined to suit shifting regimes of accumulation (Elden, 2019; Mezzadra & Neilson, 2013). In extraction zones, this is especially visible: extraction is not merely the forced removal of raw materials to supply distant urban centers, but a historically embedded process deeply entwined with finance, logistics, and urbanization itself (Arboleda, 2020; Gago & Mezzadra, 2017; Mezzadra & Neilson, 2017).

2.4 Differential Urbanization and Historical Crisis

Appropriation is not smooth or static; it unfolds in cycles of boom, bust, and restructuring. The moment of differential urbanization—between extended and concentrated forms of urbanization—implies a process of creative destruction, in which socio-spatial configurations of built environments, resource regimes, and labor arrangements are tendentially established, only to be rendered obsolete and superseded in response to accumulation crisis, driven by the relentless forward motion of the accumulation process (Brenner & Schmid, 2015).

These cycles are not merely economic; they are socio-natural. Each crisis reflects the declining productivity of existing ecological surpluses and the emergence of new modes of appropriation (Moore, 2015b). Over time the ecological surplus may take different forms: (i) underproduction —when resources remain largely untapped, requiring minimal investment to yield high returns; (ii) high surplus — a phase of rapid growth and accumulation, characterized by minimal resistance and limited ecological degradation; (iii) erosion — the surplus begins to decline and further expansion is spurred by added technological advancement; (iv) contraction — landscapes degrade further and the accumulation crisis intensifies, in the stagnation and shifting of the financialization of the economy, and (v) conjuncture —when the tendency towards underproduction reasserts itself.

These moments are historically visible in extraction zones like the malm territory. Each threshold marks not just a spatial change, but a shift in how nature and labor are organized, valued, and appropriated.

The notion of creative destruction is key here. Capital constantly reinvents spatial configurations, institutional frameworks, and socio-nature relations to overcome crisis of accumulation. This process is visible not only in cities but equally—and often more violently—through the territories that feed them.

2.5 Appropriation as an Ongoing Dynamic

To summarize, appropriation in this article is understood as a historically ongoing and structurally embedded process that lies at the heart of urbanization. It involves (i) the separation of people from land, water, and commons; (ii) the mobilization of unpaid labor from both humans and nature; (iii) the transformation of socio-natures into commodified and infrastructural forms; (iv) the reorganization of space through economic forces, science, and state power.

Appropriation is not simply about taking resources; it is about remaking socio-nature relations to make them work harder for capital. This includes reorganizing labor regimes, altering ecological cycles, and redefining the terms of value and access.

In this sense, the frontier is no longer a distant edge. It is a condition of urbanization itself—always shifting, always producing new “outsides” to bring within the circuits of capital (Swyngedouw & Ernstson, 2018).

3. Representing Extraction: Mapping Palimpsests of Appropriation

The representation of territories of extraction has gained increasing attention within urban and landscape research, particularly through two interpretive lenses: (1) the operational landscape approach, prevalent in the English-speaking world, and (2) the morphology approach, emerging from French- and Italian-speaking worlds. Together, these offer distinct yet complementary insights into how extraction spaces are conceptualized, mapped, and politically framed.

In the (1) operational landscape approach, extraction zones are understood as extended but essential parts of urbanization. These are not margins but highly productive zones that provide cities with raw materials, energy, and goods (Brenner & Katsikis, 2020; Bhatia & Casper, 2013). Their spatial forms include logistical infrastructures—railways, harbors, pipelines—as well as often temporary settlements tied to the extractive industry (Correa, 2016; Sordi et al., 2017). However, this approach tends to dematerialize nature, treating land as a passive surface and overlooking the socio-natural transformations these infrastructures impose.

A more critical stance emerges in Empire of Extraction (Bélanger & Lister, 2018), which frames the state itself as an extractive apparatus—mapping, surveying, and imposing control through legal and technological regimes. Here, territory is not just mapped but made; mapping becomes the technology of domination, especially over Indigenous land and non-urban geographies.

In contrast, the (2) morphology approach, developed by scholars like Claude Raffestin and André Corboz, understands territory as a product of historical transformation. It is formed not simply through state demarcation or infrastructure, but through layers of social, economic, and ecological processes. Corboz’s metaphor of the palimpsest suggests that land is constantly rewritten—bearing traces of past uses and meanings, while enabling new ones (Corboz, 1983a).

While the morphological view offers a more material and processual understanding, it can still reinforce binary distinctions: between society and nature, production and distribution, urban and non-urban. To challenge these, this article introduces the concept of the palimpsest of appropriation—a method for spatializing and visualizing the hidden work of nature and labor that has been continually expropriated and reorganized under capitalist urbanization.

3.1 Mapping Palimpsests of Appropriation

The palimpsest of appropriation is not just a metaphor but a methodological tool. It traces how unpaid human and ecological labor—what Marx called “the free gifts of nature”—have been historically mobilized to sustain accumulation. Drawing from Marx, Harvey, and Arboleda’s reading of the circulation of capital, this method seeks to map appropriation over time and scales, revealing how extraction reshapes land, institutions, and socio-nature relations (Arboleda, 2019; Harvey, 1989; Marx & Mandel, 1993).

To do so, the method proposes three intertwined analytical frames: (1) production, which includes all physical infrastructures and landscapes tied directly or indirectly to the extraction process—mining pits, shafts, tailings, processing plants, worker housing, public facilities, and administrative buildings; (2) distribution, which maps the infrastructural networks that move extracted materials from site to market—railways, roads, ports, cableways, fiber optics, and energy grids—routes that not only transport goods but also redistribute environmental costs and labor burdens across space; and (3) mediation, that encompasses the institutional, legal, financial, and scientific systems that make extraction possible and reshape it over time, including land tenure, laws, zoning regulations, public subsidies, investors, and universities that legitimize and sustain processes of appropriation).

These three frames are neither sequential nor hierarchical; rather, they constitute a matrix of relational processes (Table 1) that continuously shape and reshape extractive territories. They offer a lens through which to interpret how spatial configurations—such as open-pit mines, railway lines, or temporary settlements—materialize from specific historical constellations of production, distribution, and mediation. Yet, to make the palimpsest analytically operational, three partially overlapping mapping operations—or gazes—are introduced. Each is designed to capture a distinct dimension of spatial transformation, corresponding to: (1) the elementary, (2) the inter-scalar, and (3) the chronological.

The elementary gaze (1) is a descriptive operation. It isolates and catalogs individual elements of the landscape—geological features, infrastructures, housing, vegetation, energy systems—and disaggregates their forms and functions. It allows us to trace how these parts relate, overlap, or conflict, and prepares them to be layered in more complex compositions (Cavalieri & Viganò, 2018).

The second gaze, the inter-scalar (2), follows how territories of extraction operate across scales, and this operation captures the interactions between them. The analysis moves from: (1) plot scale (1:2,500): plot form, materiality, architectural artefact, land use variations; (2) settlement scale (1:5,000): socio-nature morphologies (plot, housing, production facilities, pits, shafts, tailings, underground galleries, paths, roads, railway and water); (3) regional scale (1:500,000): rivers, railways, reindeer herding areas, mines, settlements, harbours, seaways, military zones, plots, paths, hydropower plants, electricity lines, wind parks, data centers, cableways; (4) national and (5) global interconnectedness, scales (1:10,000,000 and 1:20,000,000) tracing the flows of iron ore, from the sites of appropriation and linked harbours to the global markets. This gaze insists that spatial processes in remote regions are never isolated but always shaped by decisions and dependencies far beyond their borders.

The Chronological Gaze (3), looks through the temporal dimension, identifying key historical thresholds—moments when the ecological surplus changes, and with it, the dominant mode of socio-natural organization. These thresholds include: (a) 1550–1888: underproduction — early structuring of appropriation regimes; (b) 1889–1939: very high surplus — industrial expansion and infrastructural layering; (c) 1940–1970: erosion — post-war intensification and labor regulation; (d) 1971–2020: contraction — automation, financialization, abandonment; (e) Future conjuncture: emerging contradictions and green transitions.

Each period is mapped in comparison with the previous one at each scale, creating a synchronic visualization of spatial transformation over time. Elements are categorized as permanent, persistent, transitioning or disappeared. Permanent, for when the element stays invariable in position, shape and dimension. Persistent, for those that have slightly changes while keeping the same position. Transitioning, when moved while keeping the same shape and dimensions, or with minor changes. Disappeared, for those elements no longer there.

At the end of the successive synchronic comparisons, a final interpretation of each scale provides a diachronic image that directly reveals the historical traces still in place as well as those that are hidden from view—showing the present landscape as shaped by overlapping pasts and emerging futures.

4. The malm territory: A Palimpsest of Appropriation

The malm territory—stretching across northern Swedish-Norwegian Sápmi and beyond—has long been the subject of historical study and critical analysis (Forsgren, 1995; Forsström, 1973, 1977; Hansson, 1994, 1998, 2015; Luciani & Sjöholm, 2018; Müller & Engström, 2015; Öhman, 2016, 2020; Tidholm, 2014; Viklund, 2015). It illustrates how extractive landscapes are dynamic, continually reshaped through successive waves of appropriation. Extending from the iron ore mines of Kiruna, Malmberget, and Svappavaara, along the Malmbanan railway, to the ports of Luleå and Narvik and the hydropower plants on the Lule River, this region exemplifies extractive urbanization—constantly transformed by cycles of creative destruction.

Yet the story begins long before the arrival of railways or mining companies. For over 11,000 years, the Sámi people have lived across all Fennoscandia—today’s Sweden, Norway, Finland and eastern Russia. Recent research even shows that Sámi communities had developed advanced iron and steel production long before the Swedish state and LKAB industrialized the region (Bennerhag, 2017). The colonial erasure of this history—through mapping, displacement, and legal control—is foundational to what we now call the malm territory.

Beginning in the mid-1500s, with Gustav Vasa ascending the throne—when the nation of Sweden was established—and coinciding with the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, appropriation became a structured process. The church, the state, and its financial and institutional systems sought control over Sámi lands and peoples through legal proclamations, surveys, and settler colonial strategies—laying the groundwork for centuries of extraction and expropriation (Lundmark, 2008). This process formed the earliest production-distribution-mediation triad that would structure the transformation of Sámi territories—at multiple scales and beyond—into an extractive capitalist operational landscape.

4.1 Production Palimpsest

The production palimpsest in the malm territory reflects five key historical thresholds—each tied to changes in the ecological surplus and the reorganization of land, labor, and energy (see Figure 2a, b, c, d, e, Figure 3a, b, c, d, e, and Figure 4).

– In the underproduction phase (1550–1888), production was dispersed and small-scale. Mining and processing occurred through smelting near rivers and towards the coast; while farming and settlements were clustered around churches and market towns. These early distributed patterns reflect socio-natures shaped by Sámi livelihoods vis-à-vis early settler colonialist appropriation.
– During the very high surplus phase (1889–1939), iron ore mining exploded. Informal housing and shantytowns initially sprang up adjacent to mining sites to accommodate the influx of workers. Over time, these gave way to entire company-planned towns rapidly established alongside expanding mining operations and hydropower plant construction. Landscapes were carved into patterns of concentrated and extended urbanization: dense settlements and infrastructures abutting vast extraction zones. Notably, informal housing and shantytowns emerged alongside formal municipal structures—reflecting the separation of workers from land ownership and planning power.
– In the erosion phase (1940–1969), state-led modernization further intensified production. Hydropower expanded dramatically; roads, airports, and forestry infrastructure multiplied. Housing projects were densified, while some towns—especially those built for temporary hydropower construction—were erased or its buildings moved to new locations. This period also saw the growing use of second nature: energy, infrastructure, and technology organized for national industrial growth and fueling the development of the Swedish welfare state.
– By the contracting phase (1970–2020), land subsidence caused by underground mining led to the physical disappearance—or relocation—of public buildings and homes in places like Kiruna and Malmberget. At the same time, financialization and specialization shifted settlements’ focus toward commercial services, scientific research, and technological innovation, with technical and managerial labor increasingly brought in from elsewhere. “Green” growth narratives promoted wind farms and data centers, appropriating new lands—often Sámi reindeer grazing areas or protected nature reserves—for further so-called “sustainable” development.
– Looking ahead, the future conjuncture reveals cumulative transformations: a region over-inscribed with extraction infrastructure, moving and sinking towns, and social fragmentation. Yet it also contains dormant traces—spaces of resistance and potential alternative futures.

4.2 Distribution Palimpsest

The distribution palimpsest reveals how connectivity infrastructures mediate and reshape extraction. The arrival of the Malmbanan railway in the late 19th century transformed not only the economy but the spatial logic of the territory. Ore could then move rapidly from mines to the harbour in Luleå, then to European markets. Later, the extension to Narvik via the Ofotenbanan opened year-round export through the ice-free Norwegian Sea (see Figure 6 a, b, c, d, e, Figure 7a, b, c, d, e).

– In the very high surplus phase (1889-1939), electricity—generated from hydropower—was routed primarily to mining sites, not nearby populations. Infrastructure was built first for extraction, then secondarily for habitation. Also, aerial transport for hydropower construction, followed later by long-distance electricity transmission, further accelerated spatial detachment.
– In the erosion and contracting phases (1940-1969, 1970-2020), obsolete lines like the Inlandsbanan were decommissioned or disappearing, while new airports and energy lines emerged. Railway passenger transport declined, while cargo—especially iron ore—was intensified and sped up. Meanwhile, the expansion of the electricity grid with new high-voltage transmission lines enabled the export of electricity from the region, shifting the earlier focus from industrializing the north to supplying southern Sweden, as well as supporting the later large-scale electrification of mining and heavy industry in the north.

Throughout, these shifts in distribution infrastructure did more than move materials—they reshaped settlement patterns, labor geographies, and environmental relations. They enacted a territorial logic of enclosure, separating municipal and company towns, paid labor from subsistence practices, and displacing Indigenous ways of life.

4.3 Mediation Palimpsest

The mediation palimpsest—though less visible on maps—structures every layer of appropriation using the section tool (Figures 8 and 9). From early expropriation campaigns (e.g., the Lappmark Proclamation of 1673) to the establishment of state-controlled mining corporations and the modern influx of foreign capital, the institutional terrain of the malm territory is deeply political.

– In the early periods, the church and state legislation parceled land to settlers, undermining to eventually dispossess Sámi ownership of their lands and waters (Lundmark, 2008). Borders were drawn, grazing taxes imposed, schools established, and Indigenous ways of knowledge marginalized.
– With the arrival of global capital in the 19th century, investment laws and infrastructure subsidies enabled extraction to scale. LKAB became state-partnered in 1907; the hydropower plant at Porjus was commissioned in 1910; the fortress at Boden was built to protect extractive assets—not communities.
– The postwar welfare state invested heavily in housing, education, and public services—especially in temporary hydropower towns. These settlements, while among the most modern and well-equipped of their time, were often designed for male, expendable workers, discouraging family life or local rootedness.
– In recent decades, the financialization of the extractive sector has intensified. Mining companies enjoy legal exemptions from environmental taxes, may operate without landowner consent, and pay only a fraction of the value they extract. Meanwhile, data centers (e..g., Facebook data center in Luleå) framed as part of the “green transition,” benefit from vast public incentives, including tax reductions of up to 97% in a single year, while continuing to expand.

Yet amidst these accumulations, cracks are appearing. In 2020, the Swedish Supreme Court ruled in favor of Girjas Sameby, affirming Sámi rights to control hunting and fishing on their traditional lands—without requiring state permission. This landmark decision legally acknowledged historical dispossession and recognized customary law as a legitimate foundation for territorial governance. It signaled a potential shift: from extractive sovereignty to Indigenous stewardship.

Since then, however, a new layer of territorial intervention has emerged. Under the banner of the “green transition,” northern Sweden has become a hotspot for industrial mega-projects: battery gigafactories, hydrogen hubs, rare earth exploration, and expanded transport corridors. While these projects are marketed as climate solutions, they often replicate colonial patterns—reconfiguring land without Sámi consent, overriding ecological thresholds, and redistributing public resources to speculative ventures. The dredging of Luleå’s harbor and the early signs of instability in projects like Northvolt expose the risks of green growth logics, both materially and politically.

In sum, the malm territory is not merely a zone of mineral wealth. It is a layered landscape of socio-natural transformation, structured through production, circulation, and institutional mediation. Mapping it as a palimpsest of appropriation reveals how unpaid human and ecological labor have been continuously reorganized—first by state power and church, later by railways and corporations, and now by climate policy and green capital. But it also reveals the possibility of counter-mapping—of tracing resistances, remainders, memory, and alternative ways of living that persist within even the most extractive terrains.

5. Conclusion

This article has proposed the palimpsest of appropriation as a spatial method to critically map extraction territories—interpreting them as layered socio-nature formations shaped by successive waves of capitalist urbanization. Through the intertwined frames of production, distribution, and mediation, the method reveals how unpaid human and ecological work has been continuously reorganized across time, scale, and institutional regimes.

By applying this approach to the malm territory, the article challenges dominant representations of extraction as distant or peripheral. Instead, it situates these landscapes as central to the metabolism of urbanization—structured by processes of separation, appropriation, and creative destruction.

Mapping synchronically and diachronically allows us to visualize both what persists and what has been erased, offering new ways to interpret historical crises, infrastructural layering, and socio-natural reconfigurations.

Ultimately, the power of the palimpsest lies in its capacity to destabilize dominant spatial narratives—moving beyond flat or technocratic maps to trace deeper contradictions and hidden potentials. It invites us to rethink urbanization not only as the distribution of resources, but as the active production of socio-natures. And in doing so, it opens space to imagine and design urban futures grounded in care, justice, and socio-ecological reciprocity.

References

Angelo, Hillary, and David Wachsmuth. 2015. “Urbanizing Urban Political Ecology: A Critique of Methodological Cityism.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 39 (1): 16–27.

Arboleda, Martín. 2016. “In the Nature of the Non-City: Expanded Infrastructural Networks and the Political Ecology of Planetary Urbanisation.” Antipode 48 (2): 233-251.

Arboleda, Martín. 2019. “From Spaces to Circuits of Extraction: Value in Process and the Mine/City Nexus.” Capitalism Nature Socialism 0 (0): 1–20.

Bélanger, Pierre, and Nina-Marie Lister. 2018. Extraction Empire: Undermining the Systems, States, and Scales of Canada’s Global Resource Empire, 2017–1217. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bhatia, Neeraj, and Mary Casper. 2013. The Petropolis of Tomorrow. Barcelona: Actar.

Brenner, Neil. 2019. New Urban Spaces: Urban Theory and the Scale Question. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Brenner, Neil, and Nikos Katsikis. 2020. “Operational Landscapes: Hinterlands of the Capitalocene.” Architectural Design, 90(1): 22–31.

Brenner, Neil, and Christian Schmid. 2015. “Towards a new epistemology of the urban?” City 19(2-3): 151–182.

Bennerhag, Carina. Järn i Norr [Iron in the North]. YouTube video, 1:09:25. Posted November 22, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5QQshzKQPU.

Cavalieri, Chiara, and Paola Viganò. 2018. Horizontal Metropolis: A Radical Project. Zurich: PARK Books.

Corboz, André. 1983. “Le Territoire Comme Palimpseste.” [The Land as Palimpsest]. Diogène 121: 12–31.

Correa, Felipe. 2016. Beyond the City: Resource Extraction Urbanism in South America. First edition. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Elden, Stuart. Territory: Political Technology, Volume, Terrain. YouTube video, 1:31:34. Posted November 13, 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QiS714BXxc

Elden, Stuart. 2019. “Territory/Territoriality.” In The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Urban and Regional Studies, edited by A. M. Orum, 1-11. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society.

Elenius, Lars, Hallvard Tjelmeland, Maria Lähteenmäki, and Alexey Golubev. 2015. The Barents Region: A Transnational History of Subarctic Northern Europe. Oslo: Pax forlag.

Flaquer, Berta, Chiara Cavalieri, Agatino Rizzo, and Andrea Luciani. 2020. “Territories of Extraction: Mapping Palimpsests of Appropriation.” Urban Planning 5 (2).

Flaquer, Berta. 2022. “Reconstructing Historical Natures through the Malm Territory of Extraction.” In A Landscape Approach: From Local Communities to Territorial Systems, edited by Hannes Zanders, Shelagh McCartney, Samantha Solano, and Sonja Vangjeli, October. Novato, CA: ORO Editions.

Flaquer, Berta. 2023. Urbanization as Socionatures’ Reproduction: From Territories of Extraction. Doctoral thesis, Luleå: Luleå University of Technology.

Forsgren, Nils. 1995. Harsprånget : Storverket Som Aldrig Höll Påatt Bli Av. Porjus: Porjus arkivkommité.

Forsström, Gösta. 1973. Malmberget: Malmbrytning och bebyggelse [Malmberget: Ore mining and settlement]. Luleå: Norrbottens Museum.

Forsström, Gösta. 1977. Gällivare: tatört och landsbygd [Gällivare: Urban and rural areas]. Luleå: Norrbottens Museum.

Gago, Verónica, and Sandro Mezzadra. 2017. “A Critique of the Extractive Operations of Capital: Toward an Expanded Concept of Extractivism.” Rethinking Marxism 29 (4): 574–91.

Hansson, Staffan. 1994. Porjus: En Vision för Industriell Utveckling i Ôvre Norrland [Porjus: A Vision for Industrial Development in Upper Norrland]. Luleå: Luleå University of Technology.

Hansson, Staffan. 1998. “Malm, räls och elektricitet: Skapandet av ett teknologiskt megasystem i Norrbotten 1880–1920” [Ore, rail and electricity: Creation of a technological megasystem in Norrbotten 1880-1920]. In Den konstruerade världen, edited by Pär Blomkvist and Arne Kaijser, 45–76. Eslöv: B. Östlings bokförlag Symposion.

Hansson, Staffan. 2015. Malmens Land: Gruvnäringen i Norrbotten under 400 år [The Ore’s Land: The Mining Industry in Norrbotten for 400 years]. Luleå: Tornedalica.

Harvey, David. 1989. The Urban Experience. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Katsikis, Nikos, and Daniel Ibáñez, eds. 2014. New Geographies 06: Grounding Metabolism. Cambridge: Harvard Graduate School of Design.

Khan, Danish, and Anirban Karak. 2018. “Urban Development by Dispossession: Planetary Urbanization and Primitive Accumulation.” Studies in Political Economy 99 (3): 307–30.

Lefebvre, Henri. 1970. La Révolution Urbaine [The Urban Revolution]. Paris: Gallimard.

LKAB. 2013. Integrated report: Annual and sustainability report 2012. Luleå: LKAB. Retrieved from https:// www.lkab.com/en/SysSiteAssets/documents/ finansiell-information/en/annual-reports/ lkab_2012_annual_and-sustainability_report.pdf

Luciani, Andrea, and Jennie Sjöholm. 2018. “Norrbotten’s Technological Megasystem as a Heritage Discourse: Paradoxes and Controversies.” In AMPS Proceedings, 292–300. London.

Lundmark, Lennart. 2008. Stulet land: Svensk Makt på Samisk Mark [Stolen Land: Swedish Power in Sami Land]. Stockholm: Ordfront.

Marx, Karl. 1993. Capital: A critique of political economy. Vol. 2. Edited by Ernest Mandel. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Mezzadra, Sandro, and Brett Neilson. 2017. “On the Multiple Frontiers of Extraction: Excavating Contemporary Capitalism.” Cultural Studies 31 (2–3): 185–204.

Moore, Jason. W. 2015a. Capitalism in the Web of Life: Ecology and the Accumulation of Capital. First edition. New York: Verso.

Moore, Jason. W. 2015b. “Nature in the limits to capital (and vice versa).” Radical Philosophy 193 (September/October): 9–19.

Moore, Jason. W. 2017. “The Capitalocene, Part I: On the Nature and Origins of Our Ecological Crisis.” Journal of Peasant Studies, 44(3).

Moore, Jason. W. 2018. “The Capitalocene Part II: Accumulation by Appropriation and the Centrality of Unpaid Work/Energy.” Journal of Peasant Studies, 45(2).

Müller, Arne. 2015. Norrlandsparadoxen: En Utvecklingsdröm med Problem [The Norrland Paradox: A Development Dream with Problems]. Skellefteå: Ord & visor.

Öhman, May-Britt. 2016. “TechnoVisions of a Sámi Cyborg: Reclaiming Sámi Body-, Land-, and Waterscapes After a Century of Colonial Exploitations in Sábme.” In Illdisciplined Gender: Engaging Questions of Nature/Culture and Transgressive Encounters, edited by Jacob Bull and Margaretha Fahlgren, 63–98. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Öhman, May-Britt. 2020. Gut la dån? Ver är du? Kukas sie olet? [Who are you? An Alternative Perspective on the History of the North]. In Kiruna Forever, edited by Daniel Golling & Carlos Mínguez Carrasco, 238–46. Stockholm: Arkitektur förlag.

Smith, Neil. 2007. “Nature as accumulation strategy.” Socialist Register 43, 16–36.

Sordi, Jeannette, Luis Valenzuela, and Felipe Vera. 2017. The Camp and The City: Territories of Extraction. Trento: LISt Lab.

Swyngedouw, Erik, and Henrik Ernstson. 2018. “Interrupting the Anthropo-obScene: Immuno-biopolitics and Depoliticizing Ontologies in the Anthropocene.” Theory, Culture & Society 35 (6): 3–30.

Tidholm, Po. 2014. Norrland [Northern Sweden]. Luleå: Teg Publishing.

Tzaninis, Yannis, Tait Mandler, Maria Kaika, and Roger Keil. 2020. “Moving Urban Political Ecology beyond the ‘Urbanization of Nature.’” Progress in Human Geography 45(2), 229-252.

Viklund, Roine, Lasse Brunnström, and Jennie Sjöholm. 2015. The book of LKAB: 1890–2015. Luleå: LKAB.
–

Territories of Extraction: Mapping Palimpsests of Appropriation’ is part of a PhD thesis ‘Urbanisation as Socionatures’ Reproduction: from Territories of Extraction’: https://ltu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1810992&dswid=9426

For further discussions please use the comments below.