Framed as part of the country's green energy transition, the Indonesian government declared Flores a “Geothermal Island” in 2017. However, geothermal projects have provoked strong opposition due to concerns about risks of water and air pollution, lethal accidents, and loss of livelihoods. This article examines how two Manggarai communities on Flores have struggled against geothermal development by mobilizing around the defense of ruang hidup or “living space,” a term that expresses the inseparable unity of homes, fields, water sources, and ritual sites - that is, of land, community, and ancestors. Although indigeneity is a contested category in Indonesia, these communities have strategically positioned themselves as indigenous through their articulation of ruang hidup in relation to the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). These articulations, rooted in local practices of dwelling and place-making, and expressed through acts of translation that enable the scaling up of their claims, have led to temporary halts in projects funded by the World Bank and German Development Bank. The article contributes to geographies of indigeneity and decarbonization by showing how the contingent articulation and translations of living space have reshaped the meaning and implementation of geothermal energy projects.
AllertonC (2013) Potent Landscapes: Place and Mobility in Eastern Indonesia. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
2.
BakaJ (2017) Making space for energy: Wasteland development, enclosures and energy dispossessions. Antipode49(4): 977–996.
3.
BoyerD (2019) Energopolitics: Wind and Power in the Anthropocene. Durham: Duke University Press.
4.
BrockASovacoolBKHookA (2021) Volatile photovoltaics: Green industrialization, sacrifice zones and the political ecology of solar energy in Germany. Annals of the American Association of Geographers111(6): 1756–1778.
5.
ClendenningJ (2022) Between the village and the city: The in-betweenness of rural young people in East Indonesia. International Development Planning Reviewer45(1): 19–40.
6.
ClendenningJ (2023) Mobile immobility in Flores, Indonesia: The meaning of being left behind. Journal of Rural Studies104: 103165.
7.
CliffordJ (2001) Indigenous articulations. The Contemporary Pacific13(2): 467–490.
8.
CliffordJ (2013) Returns: Becoming Indigenous in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9.
DaleCJP (2013) Kuasa, Pembangunan, Dan Pemiskinan Sistemik: Analisis Kontra-Hegemoni Dengan Fokus Studi Kasus Di Manggarai Raya, NTT, Indonesia. Labuan Bajo: Sunspirit for Justice and Peace.
10.
DaleCJP (2025) Dragon not for sale: Commodification of nature, indigenous multispecies politics and ecotourism from below in Komodo National Park, Indonesia. Critical Asian Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/14672715.2025.2566488.
11.
DunlapA (1998) ‘A bureaucratic trap:' Free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) and wind energy development in Juchitan, Mexico. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism29(4): 88–109.
12.
DunlapAAcreM (2021) ‘Murderous energy’ in Oaxaca, Mexico: Wind factories, territorial struggle and social warfare. Journal of Peasant Studies49(2): 455–480.
13.
ErbM (1999) The Manggaraians: A Guide to Traditional Lifestyles. Singapore: Times Editions.
14.
ErbM (2007) Adat revivalism in western flores: Culture, religion and land. In: DavidsonJHenleyD (eds) The Revival of Tradition in Indonesian Politics: The Deployment of Adat from Colonialism to Indigenism. New York: Routledge, pp.247–274.
15.
ErbM (2016) Mining and the conflict over values in Nusa Tenggara Timur province, eastern Indonesia. The Extractive Industries and Society3(2): 370–382.
16.
ErbMWidyawatiF (2018) Missionaries and mining: Conflicts over development in eastern Indonesia. In: ScheerCFountainPFeenerRM (eds) The Mission of Development: Religion and Techno-Politics in Asia. Leiden: Brill, pp.82–106.
17.
GreinerCKlaggeBOwinoEA (2023) The political ecology of geothermal development: Green sacrifice zones or energy landscapes of value?Energy Research & Social Science99: 103063.
18.
HallS (1996) On postmodernism and articulation: An interview with Stuart Hall. In: GrossbergLMorleyDChenK-H (eds) Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies. London: Routledge, 131–150.
19.
HarawayD (1988) Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies14(3): 575–599.
JerezBGarcesITorresR (2021) Lithium extractivism and water injustices in the Salar de Atacama, Chile: The colonial shadow of green electromobility. Political Geography87: 102382.
22.
JohnsonOWYi-Chen HanJKnightA-L, et al. (2020) Intersectionality and energy transitions: A review of gender, social equity and low-carbon energy. Energy Research & Social Science70: 101774.
23.
KellyG (2011) History and potential of renewable energy development in New Zealand. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews15: 2501–2509.
24.
KirschS (2018) Engaged Anthropology: Politics Beyond the Text. Oakland CA: University of California Press.
25.
KnoblauchTTrutnevyteEStauffacherM (2019) Siting deep geothermal energy: Acceptance of various risk and benefit scenarios in a Swiss-German cross-national study. Energy Policy128: 807–816.
26.
LawrenceR (2014) Internal colonization and Indigenous resource sovereignty: Wind power developments on traditional Saami lands. Environment and Planning D32: 1036–1053.
27.
LiT (2000) Articulating indigenous identity in Indonesia: Resource politics and the Tribal Slot. Comparative Studies in Society and History42(1): 149–179.
28.
LiT (2001) Masyarakat adat, difference and the limits of recognition in Indonesia’s forest zone. Modern Asian Studies35(3): 645–676.
29.
LiT (2007) Adat in central sulawesi: Contemporary deployments. In: DavidsonJHenleyD (eds) The Revival of Tradition in Indonesian Politics: The Deployment of Adat from Colonialism to Indigenism. New York: Routledge, 337–370.
30.
LiT (2020) Epilogue: Customary land rights and politics, 25 years on. Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology21(1): pp.77–84.
31.
McCarthyJ (2015) A socioecological fix to capitalist crisis and climate change?: The possibilities and limits of renewable energy. Environment and Planning A47: 1–18.
32.
NyimaYYehET (2023) The construction of consent for high-altitude resettlement in Tibet. The China Quarterly254: 429–447.
33.
ÖzenH (2024) Why is ‘clean’ energy opposed? The resistances to geothermal energy projects in Turkey. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space7(4): 1580–1600.
34.
ÖzenH (2025) Smallholder women rising: Intersectional dynamics of resistance to geothermal energy in West Turkey. Energy Research & Social Science120: 103884.
35.
PaprockiKMcCarthyJ (2024) The agrarian question of climate change. Progress in Human Geography48(6): 691–715.
RamirezJBohmS (2021) Transactional colonialism in wind energy investments: Energy injustices against vulnerable people in the Isthus of Tehunatepec. Energy Research & Social Science78: 102135.
38.
SchutT (2019) The promise of education and its paradox in rural Flores, East Indonesia. Focaal—Journal of Global and Historical Anthropology83: 85–97.
39.
SovacoolB (2021) Who are the victims of low-carbon transitions? Towards a political ecology of climate change mitigation. Energy Research & Social Science73: 101916.
40.
SovacoolBKDunlapAANovackovicB (2025) When decarbonization reinforces colonization: Complex energy injustice and solar energy development in the California desert. Annals of the American Association of Geographers115(3): 640–670.
41.
SpijkerboerRCTurhanERoosA, et al. (2022) Out of steam? A social science and humanities research agenda for geothermal energy. Energy Research & Social Science92: 102801.
42.
StockR (2022) Triggering resistance: Contesting the injustices of solar park development. Energy Research & Social Science86: 102465.
43.
StockR (2023) Power for the plantationcene: Solar parks as the colonial form of an energy plantation. Journal of Peasant Studies50(1): 162–184.
44.
StockRBirkenholtzT (2019) The sun and the scythe: Energy dispossessions and the agrarian question of labor in solar parks. Journal of Peasant Studies48(5): 984–1007.
45.
SutamI (2017) The meaning, the function and the change of traditional village in Manggarai, West Flores, Indonesia. In: International conference on education, culture and humanities, 18–20 November. Stkip Santu Paulus Ruteng, pp.352–359.
46.
TsingAL (1997) Transitions as translations. In: ScottJWKaplanCKeatesD (eds) Transitions, Environments, Translations: Feminisms in International Politics. New York: Routledge, pp.253–272.
47.
TsingAL (2007) Indigenous voice. In: de la CadenaMStarnO (eds) Indigenous Experience Today. Oxford: Berg Publishers, 33–68.
48.
TsingAL (2009) Adat/Indigenous: Indigeneity in Motion. In: GluckCTsingA (eds) Words in Motion: Toward a Global Lexicon. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
49.
van der MuurWVelJFisherM, et al. (2019) Changing indigeneity politics in Indonesia: From revival to projects. The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology20(5): 379–396.
50.
WidyawatiFLonYSUngkangM, et al. (2022) Home inside- garden outside: Five sacred living spaces in the Manggaraian, Eastern Indonesia. Gap Bodhi Taru: A Global Journal of Humanities5(4): 125–132.
51.
YehETBryanJ (2015) Indigeneity. In: PerreaultTBridgeGMcCarthyJ (eds) Routledge Handbook of Political Ecology. London: Routledge, pp.531–541.
52.
YennetiKDayR (2016) Distributional justice in solar energy implementation in India: The case of Charanka solar park. Journal of Rural Studies46: 35–46.
53.
Zárate-ToledoEPatiñoRFragaJ (2019) Justice, social exclusion and indigenous opposition: A case study of wind energy development on the isthmus of tehuantepec, Mexico. Energy Research & Social Science54: 1–11.
