Abstract
Beneficiary participation is a special form of decentralized development management where all stakeholders would play an active role and enjoy equal status in the process of decision making and execution. The programs are mostly motivated by the livelihood approach with high values attached to an enhanced access to social capital. However, it has been shown by many social scientists that though the participatory approach is conceptually more democratic, its success potential is highly dependent on the local conditions. This chapter draws on a number of studies conducted between 2007 and 2014 on different rural, peri-urban and urban pockets of the state of West Bengal, India, focusing on ecologically sustainable management of natural resource and the environment like social forestry, wetland fisheries and municipal solid waste disposal in a co-management framework with active beneficiary participation. Since the contexts are distinct, there was variation in the notion of sustainable management itself and so was the composition of the stakeholder groups. All these studies were conducted to explore the context-specificity of the success probability of co-management practices in different situations. We documented particularly two different situations where otherwise suitable projects for participatory resource management failed to attain the intended result due to some peculiarities of the cases related to the presence of some built-in contradictions either in the composition of the stakeholder group leading to a deviation in the equal participation norms or in the regulatory setup comprising multiple authorities with inherent jurisdictional conflicts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The study on social forestry was undertaken jointly with Jayita Bit, St. Xavier’s College, Kolkata; the study on wetland fisheries was taken up with Debanjana Dey of Adamas University, Kolkata, and the collaborators for the study on municipal solid waste management were Prasenjit Sarkhel of Kalyani University, Nadia, and Somdutta Banerjee of the Institute of Economic Growth, New Delhi.
- 2.
In order to allow a synthesis of the individual group priorities with the analytical hierarchy process at the subsequent stages, the judgments have to be combined in a manner so that the reciprocal of the synthesized judgments is equal to the synthesis of the reciprocals of these judgments (Saaty 2008). Among the commonly available measures of average, geometric mean satisfies this requirement (Forman and Peniwati 1998).
- 3.
19 mouzas in all;
- 4.
Later merged with Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (KMDA);
- 5.
Later it was renamed and extended as Institute of Environmental Studies and Wetland Management (IESWM) in 2005;
References
Banerjee, S. (2012). Overseeing the disappearance of an ecosystem: Governance in West Bengal and Wetlands to the East of Kolkata. In J. Bandyopadhyay, K. Chopra & N. Ghosh (Eds.), Environmental governance: approaches, imperatives and methods, INSEE (pp. 190–222). New Delhi: Bloomsbury.
Banerjee, S., & Dey D. (2017). Eco-system complementarities and urban encroachment: A SWOT analysis of the East Kolkata Wetlands, India. In Cities and The Environment, Supported by Loyola Marymount University, Bepress (Vol. 10(1)). USA: Berkeley Electronic Press, July 2017 (ISSN: 1932-7048).
Beck, T., & Nesmith, C. (2001). Building on poor people’s capacities: The case of common property resources in India and West Africa. World Development, 29(1), 119–133.
Berkes, F. (2003). Alternatives to conventional management: Lessons from small-scale fisheries. Environments, 31(1), 5–19.
Bit, J., & Banerjee, S. (2015). Joint forest management in Birbhum forest division, West Bengal: An assessment with multi-criteria decision analysis. In The survey, IISWBM (Vol. 55, Nos. 3&4).
Brett, E. A. (2003). Participation and accountability in development management. The Journal of Development Studies, 40(2), 1–29.
Castro, P. C., & Nielsen, E. (2001). Indigenous people and co-management: Implications for conflict management. Environmental Science & Policy, 4, 229–239.
Chopra, K., & Kadekodi, G. K. (1991). Participatory institutions: The context of common and private property resources. Environmental & Resource Economics, 1, 353–372.
Cleaver, F. (1999). Paradoxes of participation: Questioning participatory approaches to development. Journal of International Development, 11, 597–612.
Dembowski, H. (1999). Courts, civil society and public sphere environmental Litigation in Calcutta. Economic and Political Weekly, 34(2), 49–56.
Dey, D., & Banerjee, S. (2013a). Change in land-use pattern of East Kolkata Wetlands: Concern and consequences. In Urban India, National Institute of Urban Affairs (NIUA), January–June 2013, (Vol. 33(1), pp. 154–174). (ISSN: 0970-9045).
Dey, D., & Banerjee, S. (2013b). Ecosystem & Livelihood Support: The Story of East Kolkata Wetlands. In Environment and urbanization Asia SAGE on behalf of National Institute of Urban Affairs (NIUA), October 2013, (Vol. 4 (2), pp. 325–337). (ISSN: 0975-4253).
Dey, D., & Banerjee, S. (2015). Role of legal institutions in managing urban ecosystem: A case study of East Kolkata Wetlands. CBS Journal of Management Practices, 2(1), 41–58. (ISSN 2349-5073).
Dey, D., & Banerjee, S. (2016a). Disposal of wastewater and the east-bound growth of the City of Kolkata: A compatibility analysis. In Environment, development and sustainability. Springer, July 11th, 2016. (ISSN 1387-585X, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9835-2).
Dey, D., & Banerjee, S. (2016b). Land-use change and vocational transition in east Kolkata wetlands: evidence from time-diary. In Environment and urbanization Asia, SAGE on behalf of National Institute of Urban Affairs (NIUA) (Vol. 7(2), pp. 243–266). (ISSN: 0975-4253).
Dey, D., & Banerjee, S. (2017). How expensive is the decay of East Kolkata Wetlands? An estimation of opportunity cost for Kolkata. In J. Mukherjee (Ed.). Sustainable urbanization in India: Challenges and opportunities. Springer. ISBN978-981-10-4932-3.
Diaz-Balterio, L., & Romero, C. (2008). Making forestry decisions with multiple criteria: A review and an assessment. Forest Ecology and Management, 255, 3222–3241.
Forman, E., & Peniwati, K. (1998). Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the Analytical Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research, 108, 165–169.
Ghosh, D. (2005). In Ecology and traditional wetland practice: lessons from wastewater utilization in the East Calcutta Wetlands, Worldview, India.
Gilbert, A. (2006). Good urban governance: evidence from a model city? Bulletin of Latin American Research, 25(3), 392–419.
Kangas, J., & Kangas, A. (2005). Multiple criteria decision support in forest management—the approach, methods applied, and experiences gained. Forest Ecology and Management, 207, 133–143.
Khadka, C., &Vacik, H. (2012). Use of multi-criteria analysis (MCA) for supporting community forest management. In iFores—Biogeosciences and Forestry, 5, 60–71.
Kumar, S. (2002). Does “Participation” in common pool resource management help the poor? A Social Cost-Benefit Analysis of Joint Forest Management in Jharkhand, India., 30(5), 763–782.
Mendoza, G. A., & Martins, H. (2006). Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: A critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms. Forest Ecology and Management, 230, 1–22.
Mendoza, G. A., & Prabhu, R. (2005). Combining participatory modelling and multi-criteria analysis for community-based forest management. Forest Ecology and Management, 207, 145–156.
Mohan, G., & Stokke, K. (2000). Participatory development and empowerment: The dangers of localism. Third World Quarterly, 21(2), 247–268.
Paul, S. (1989). Poverty alleviation and participation: The case of government-grassroots agency collaboration. Economic and Political Weekly, 24(2), 100–106.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytical hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83–98.
Sarkar, R., & Sinha, A. (2015). Another development, Routledge.
Sarkhel, P., & Banerjee, S. (2010). Municipal solid waste management, source-separated waste and stakeholder’s attitude: A contingent valuation study. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 12(5), 611–630.
Sarkhel, P., Banerjee, S., & Banerjee, S. (2015). Willingness to pay before and after program implementation: The case of municipal solid waste management in bally municipality, India. Environment, Development and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-015-9659-5, ISSN: 1387-585X.
Yan, J., Wang, R., & Wang, M. (1998). The fundamental principles and ecotechniques of wastewater aquaculture. Ecological Engineering, 10, 191–208.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Banerjee, S. (2018). Sustainable Eco-Management: Participatory Mechanisms and Institutions. In: Ray, P., Sarkar, R., Sen, A. (eds) Economics, Management and Sustainability. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1894-8_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1894-8_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-1893-1
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-1894-8
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)