Politics of Biodiversity Conservation and Socio Ecological Conflicts in a City: The Case of Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Mumbai
详细信息 查看全文
- 作者：Amrita Sen ; Sarmistha Pattanaik
- 关键词：Conservation politics ; Conflict ; Political ecology ; Communities ; PAs ; SGNP
- 刊名：Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics
- 出版年：2016
- 出版时间：April 2016
- 年：2016
- 卷：29
- 期：2
- 页码：305-326
- 全文大小：428 KB
- 参考文献：Appadurai, A. (2001). Deep democracy: Urban governmentality and the horizon of politics. Environment and Urbanization., 13(2), 23–44.CrossRef
Baviskar, A. (1994). Fate of the forest: Conservation and tribal rights. Economic and Political Weekly, 29(38), 2493–2501.
Baviskar, A. (2001). Forest management as political practice: Indian experience with the accommodation of multiple interests. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Government and Ecology, 1(4), 243–263.CrossRef
Baviskar, A. (2003). State communities and conservation: The practice of eco development in Great Himalayan National Park. In: B. Saberwal & M. Rangarajan (Eds.), Battles of Nature: Science and Politics of Conservation (pp. 267–299). New Delhi: Sangam Books.
Baviskar, A. (2011). Cows, cars and cycle-rickshaws: Bourgeois environmentalism and the battle for Delhi’s streets. In A. Baviskar & R. Ray (Eds.), Elite and everyman: The cultural politics of the indian middle classes (pp. 391–418). New Delhi: Routledge.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. New York: Penguin Group.
Beteille, A. (1995). Construction of tribes, The Times of India, (June 19).–(1960): The definition of tribe, Seminar (14).
Brand, P., & Thomas, M. (2005). Urban environmentalism: Global change and the mediation of local conflict. New York: Routledge.
Brara, R. (1992). Are grazing lands ‘wastelands’? Some evidences from Rajasthan. Economic and Political Weekly, 27(8), 411–418.
Elison, W. (2010). ‘Bonafide tribals’: Religion and recognition among denizens of Mumbai’s forest frontier. Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture, 4(2), 191–212.CrossRef
Formo, R. K. (2010). Power and subjectivation: the political ecology of Tanzania’s wildlife management areas. Master’s thesis, Institute of International Environment and Development, Norwegian University of Life Sciences.
Foucault, M. (1978). Governmentality. Lecture given at the College de France. September–December 1978.
Guha, R. (1989). The unquiet woods: Ecological change and peasant resistance in the Himalayas. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Guha, R. (1997). Social ecological research in India: A status report. Economic and Political Weekly, 32(7), 345–352.
Harihar, A., Pandav, B., & Goyal, S. P. (2009). Density of leopards (Panthera pardus) in Chilla range of Rajaji National Park, Uttaranchal, India. Mammalia, 73, 68–71.CrossRef
Jalais, A. (2009). Forest of tigers: People, politics and environment in the Sundarbans. New Delhi: Routledge.
Johari, R. (2007). Of paper tigers and invisible people: The cultural politics of nature in Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan. In G. Shahabuddin & M. Rangarajan (Eds.), Making conservation work (pp. 48–77). Uttaranchal: Permanent Black.
Kabra, A. (2003). Displacement and rehabilitation of an adivasi settlement: Case of Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh. Economic and Political Weekly, XXXVIII(29), 3073–3078.
Karlsson, B. G. (2011). Unruly hills: A political ecology of India’s North East. New York: Berghann Books.
Kothari, A., & Pathak, N. (2009). Conservation and rights in India: are we moving towards any kind of harmony? In Deeper roots of historical injustice: Trends and challenges in the forests of india (pp. 47–78). Washington, DC: Rights and Resources Initiative.
Lasgorceix, A., & Kothari, A. (2009). Displacement and relocation from protected areas: A synthesis and analysis of case studies. Economic and Political Weekly, XLIV(49), 37–47.
Mackelworth, P. C. (2007). Convergence of marine protected area policy with common pool research theory, a case study: The Losinj Dolphin Reserve. Croatia. PhD Thesis, University College, London.
Mahapatra, C. (2007). People, park and wildlife in an urban environment: a case study of Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Mumbai. M. Phil Dissertation, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay.
Mathur, H. M. (2013). Displacement and resettlement in India: The human cost of development. New York: Routledge.
Mudappa, D., & Raman, T. R. S. (2007). Rainforest restoration and wildlife conservation on private lands in the Western Ghats. In G. Shahabuddin & M. Rangarajan (Eds.), Making conservation work: Securing biodiversity in this new century (pp. 210–240). Uttaranchal: Permanent Black.
Pattanaik, S., & Sen, A. (2013). Current rehabilitation status over the issues of displacement at Sanjay Gandhi National Park: Some observations. Journal of Political Studies, 8, 1–8.
Randeria, S. (2007). Global designs and local lifeworlds. Interventions: International Journal of Post Colonial Studies, 9(1), 12–30.CrossRef
Rangarajan, M. (1996). The politics of ecology: The debates on wildlife and people in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 31(35/37), 2391–2408.
Rangarajan, M. (2001). India’s wildlife history: An introduction. New Delhi: Permanent Black.
Risbud, N. (2003). Urban slum reports: The case of Mumbai. In UN-Habitat (Ed.), Understanding Slums: Case studies for the global report on human settlements 2003 (pp. 195–228). Nairobi: UN.
Saberwal, V. K., & Rangarajan, M. (Eds.). (2003). Battles over nature: Science and the politics of conservation. New Delhi: Permanent Black.
Sen, A. (2013) The politics of conservation and conflict: A case study of the Sanjay Gandhi National Park in Mumbai, M.Phil. Dissertation, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay.
Sen, A., & Pattanaik, S. (2015). Alienation, conflict and conservation in the protected areas of urban metropolis: A case study of Sanjay Gandhi National Park in Mumbai. Sociological Bulletin, 64(3), 375–395.
Shahabuddin, G., & Rangarajan, M. (Eds.). (2007). Making conservation work: Securing biodiversity in this new century. Uttaranchal: Permanent Black.
Singh, K S. (1993), The problem in marginalised tribals. Seminar, (412); (2002): Birsa Munda and his movement (1872–1901), Calcutta: Seagull.
Vaquier, D. (2010). The impact of slum resettlement on urban integration in Mumbai: The case of the Chandivali Project. New Delhi: Centre De Sciences Humaines.
Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what state makes of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425.CrossRef
Western, D., & Michel Wright, R. (1994). The background to community-based conservation. In D. Western, R. M. Wright, & S. C. Strum (Eds.), Natural connections: Perspectives in community-based conservation (pp. 1–12). California: Island Press.
Winkel, G. (2012). Foucault in the forests: A review of the use of Foucauldian concepts in forest policy analysis. Forest Policy and Economics, 16, 81–92.CrossRef
Xaxa, V. (2005). Politics of language, religion and identity: tribes in India. Economic and Political Weekly, XL(43), 1363–1370. - 作者单位：Amrita Sen (1)
Sarmistha Pattanaik (1)
1. Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, 400076, India - 刊物类别：Humanities, Social Sciences and Law
- 刊物主题：Philosophy
Ethics
Evolutionary Biology
Agricultural Economics
Theory of Medicine and Bioethics
Plant Sciences - 出版者：Springer Netherlands
- ISSN：1573-322X
文摘
Loss of the green belts in the cities as an antecedent outcome of haphazard and irregular urbanization as one of the principle factors has a negative bearing on the socio ecological services that nature entails. Our paper represents the conditions under which the contemporary statist conservationist efforts to preserve the urban protected areas (PAs) in India induces a marginal existence and livelihood vulnerability upon the survival of the population residing within these PAs. A recent survey to Sanjay Gandhi National Park in Mumbai reflects the ways in which a politics of conservation operates not only in the rural regions but also in cities, in highly inequitable and fabricated ways. This has consequently affected the impoverished, disempowered and impecunious inhabitants who comprise a considerable segment of population in cosmopolitan Mumbai, residing within the PAs. The present article assesses the ways in which in metropolises, PAs by definition determine jurisdictions and exercise rights to exclude the social groups who are marginal and less powerful. This is to preserve a pristine people free aesthetic environment in cities, for which there is an increasing demand from the local elite. The results of the study indicate the socio ecological aspects of the conservation politics in the city of Mumbai. The emergent consequences are in terms of the questions of universal rights to the PAs or reflecting an elitist provision of environmental integrity to the privileged visitors in the city.