The article discusses two episodes in the nature conservation in Latvia, both related to the Daugava river and the construction projects of two hydropower plants (HPPs) in the 20th century: Pļaviņas (or Aizkraukle) HPP in the 1950s–1960s and Daugavpils HPP in the 1980s. Although nearly 30 years separate these events, they share a common theme of rescue. In the first case, the focus was on saving Staburags, while in the second, it was about saving the Daugava river itself.
The article focuses on one key aspect: how perceptions of nature conservation evolved and developed during critical situations, particularly — in these cases. It examines how decisions were made in the context of each period and how the situations unfolded before and after the events — namely, the construction of Pļaviņas HPP and the halting of Daugavpils HPP.
Based on historical documents, the article explores the dilemma of the roles and opportunities available to public opinion versus the state authorities. This provides insight into the system established under the Soviet rule, where public resistance was fragile. In contrast, during the years of national independence, a culture of resistance emerged — legitimate and regulated, with the potential for preventive actions (such as early public involvement).
Both events are markers of the 20th century, with lingering effects still evident today — observable in nature and documented in historical records. However, the 21st century brings new perspectives, values, and meanings. Among these there is the emergence of a heritagebased approach, which bridges different eras and imparts a human dimension to them.
