| 000 | 05659nam a2200229Ia 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 003 | OSt | ||
| 005 | 20251218141544.0 | ||
| 008 | 191214s9999 xx 000 0 und d | ||
| 040 | _cNLS | ||
| 100 | _aSowmini G Prasad | ||
| 245 | 0 | _aEffectiveness of Decentralised Governance of Grazing Commons | |
| 260 | _aBangalore | ||
| 260 | _bNLSIU, Bangalore | ||
| 260 | _c2019 | ||
| 300 | _a97p. | ||
| 505 | _aContents Abbreviations ix; Illustrations (Figures, Charts, Maps, Diagrams) x; Tables xi; Acknowledgments xii; 1. Introduction 1; 1.1. Introduction 1; 1.2. Review of Literature 2; 1.2.1. Services Provided by Grassland Ecosystem and the Arguments for their Protection 3; 1.2.2. Indigenous Knowledge and Traditional Grassland Management Practices 5; 1.2.3.Current Legal and Policy Landscape Governing Grasslands 8; 1.2.4. Decentralised Governance of Grazing Commons 10; 1.3. Research Problem 11; 1.4. Research Questions 12; 1.5. Research Objectives 12; 2. Research Methodology 13; 2.1. Analytical Framework 13; 2.1.1. Situational Variables 14; 2.1.1.1. Physical and technological characteristics 14; 2.1.1.2. Decision-making arrangements 14; 2.1.1.3. Social characteristics of the community 15; 2.1.2. Relationship between Situational Variables 15; 2.1.2.1. Patterns of interaction. 15; 2.1.2.2. Action-strategies of individuals 15; 2.1.2.3. Context-bound factors 15; 2.1.2.4. Outcomes 15; 2.2. Operationalising the Multiple-Use Analytical Framework 16; 2.2.1. Mapping of Research Questions to Components of the Analytical Framework 16; 2.2.1.1. Research Question 1 16; 2.2.1.2. Analytical Framework Component 16; 2.2.1.3. Research Question 2 16; 2.2.1.4. Analytical Framework Component. 16; 2.2.2. Contextualizing the Components of the Analytical Framework 16; 2.2.2.1. Physical and technological characteristics 16; 2.2.2.2. Decision-making arrangements 17; 2.2.2.3. Social characteristics of the community 17; 2.2.2.4. Context-bound factors 18; 2.2.2.5. Patterns of interaction and action-strategies of individuals. 18; 2.2.2.6.Outcomes 18; 2.3. Research Design 19; 2.3.1. Area of Study 19; 2.3.1.1. Karnataka 20; 2.3.1.2. Kolar and Chikkaballapur districts. 21; 2.3.2. Sampling 22; 2.3.3. Research Tools 24; 2.3.4. Data Collected. 25; 2.3.5. Methods of Data Analysis 28; 2.3.6. Scope and Limitations of the Study 29; 3. Understanding the Institutional Landscape 31; 3.1. Sub-Committee Formation - Bringing Natural Resource Management into Local Governance 31; 3.1.1. Non-Governmental Organisation - Foundation for Ecological Security 33; 3.1.2. Village/ Habitation/ Ward 34; 3.1.3. Gram Panchayat 35; 3.2. Nature and the Scale of NRM Sub-Committees 36; 3.3. Nesting of the NRM Sub-Committees within the Institution of the State. 37; 3.3.1. Gram Panchayat 38; 3.3.2. Habitation/ Ward Level Sub-Committee - Grama Parisara Abhivriddi Samithi 39; 3.3.3. Village/ Habitation/ Ward 40; 3.3.4. Non-Governmental Organisation - Foundation for Ecological Security 41; 3.4. Financing the Sub-Committee 41; 3.4.1. Convergence with Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 41; 3.5. Functioning of the Sub-Committee 42; 3.5.1. Committee Meetings 42; 3.5.2. Participation of Women 43; 3.5.3. General Participatory and Democratic Nature of the Committee. 44; 3.6. Nature of Work and the Extent of Community Participation 46; 3.7. Internal Rules of the Village Institution 49; 3.7.1. Access 49; 3.7.2. Usage 49; 3.7.3. Distribution of Benefits. 50; 3.7.4. Enforcement of Rules 51; 3.8. Security and Clarity of Tenure of Grazing Commons 51; 3.8.1. Forest Department and the Village Community 52; 3.8.2. Revenue Department and the Village Community 53; 3.8.3. Developmental Needs and Ecological Needs 54; 4. Patterns of Interaction 57; 4.1. The Changing Relationship between Communities and Commons 57; 4.1.1. Land Ownership 57; 4.1.2. The Urban-Rural Difference 60; 4.1.2.1. Pokmakalapalli 61; 4.1.2.2. Channigarayapura 63; 4.2. Extent of Development or Penetration of Schemes of the Government 64; 4.3. Presence of Visible Short-term Benefits 65; 4.4. Awareness among Government Officials and the Support they are Willing to Extend 66; 4.5. Local Leadership 68; 5. Benefits Derived by Communities 69; 5.1. Ecological Benefits 69; 5.1.1. Overall Tree/ Green Cover 69; 5.1.2. Increase in Ground Water Levels 72; 5.1.3. Visible Change in Bio-diversity 73; 5.1.4. Reduced Instances of Forest Fire 74; 5.1.5. Increased Awareness 74; 5.2. Economic Benefits 75; 5.2.1. Employment Generation 75; 5.2.2. Alternative Sources of Income 75; 5.2.3. Reversed Migration 76; 5.2.4. Increase in Agricultural Productivity 76; 5.3. Social and Political Benefits 77; 5.3.1. Towards Creating a Sense of Ownership 77; 5.3.2. Equitable Access to Resources 77; 5.3.3. Bringing Governance Closer to Communities 78; 5.3.4. Space for Women and Other Marginalised Communities 78; 5.4. Enabling a Coping Mechanism to Climate Hazards 79; 6. Summary of Findings 80; 6.1. Institutional Landscape 80; 6.2. Patterns of Interaction 82; 6.3. Benefits Derived by the Communities 84; 7. Recommendations 86; 7.1. Strengthening of PRIs and Continued Engagement with Civil Society Organisations 86; 7.2. Security and Clarity of Tenure of Grazing Commons 86; 7.3.Mainstreaming Sustainable Management of Grazing Commons 87; Appendix; i. Interview Schedule 89; References 96. | ||
| 650 | _aClimate hazards | ||
| 650 | _aIndigenous Knowledge | ||
| 700 | _aProf. Pradeep Ramavath J – Guide | ||
| 856 | _uhttps://dans.nls.ac.in/handle/123456789/283 | ||
| 942 |
_cDIS _2ddc |
||
| 999 |
_c115800 _d115800 |
||