Authors

Discussion

The intention to make "accessible" (connectivity) those micro-regions that are currently hard to reach and remote comes into conflict with the idea of untouched "pure" nature, which is presented as unspoilt, but is in fact Third Nature in the Tsing's perspective, which "sprouted" through the remnants of socialist constructions and Soviet-era development in Western Siberia.

Usually tourism is seen as a resource and a prospect for local community development. But in this case their interests are incompatible: those tourism operators who take foreigners "through" the region on a comfortable ship, showing them the "wild Ob' river banks" are not interested in the development of bridges, river civil transport, revival of small airports and building of roads around them. So here we deal with inverted logic and a case where tourism slows down and almost kills development initiatives. In fact, we are talking about a growing 'demand' for the wildness of the natural environment and living conditions, which is a 'revived wildness' and appears wherever the remnants of Soviet infrastructures decay.

I would like to look at destruction and the results of decay as a particular kind of resource, which is perceived both as an opportunity for those looking at the region from outside and as a cause of decline for local communities