Abstract
This chapter outlines the complex and disputed links between poverty and environmental protection/destruction. It then goes on to show how park management policies, though claiming (at least in Rio and Cape Town) affiliation with the integrative paradigm pursued in the great international directives, continue to maintain processes of exclusion and environmental injustice that are reflected in the marginalisation of poor populations. The case of informal housing is also examined, in order to show how the populations of the four cities considered continue to use natural resources despite the fencing of protected spaces, and yet do not constitute a real factor of environmental deterioration, except in Mumbai. In its final part, the chapter discusses the management choices in the four national parks, on the spectrum between entrepreneurial management and nationalisation, assessing the extent to which poor populations are allowed access to nature and the management structures.
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.
Nadia Belaidi and Sophie Didier, papers at the UNPEC workshop, lab Mosaiques-Lavue, University of Paris-Nanterre, 27.9.2013.
- 2.
Likewise, it is known that very few Latinos visit Los Angeles’ Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area (Byrne et al. 2009).
- 3.
Interviews, July 19, 2014.
- 4.
It should be recalled that not all of India’s slum dwellers are poor, and that many poor city dwellers in India do not live in neighbourhoods considered to be slums (Saglio-Yatzimirsky and Landy 2013).
References
Agrawal, A. (2005). Environmentality: Technologies of government and the making of subjects. Durham; London: Duke University Press.
Antheaume, B., Blanc-Pamard, C., Chaleard, J.-L., et al. (1989). Tropiques, lieux et liens. Paris: ORSTOM.
Baviskar, A. (2008). Introduction. In A. Baviskar (ed.), Contested grounds. Essays on nature, culture and power (pp. 1–12). Oxford University Press.
Belaidi, N. (2015). Théorie du droit et front écologique: apport à la (re)définition de la justice environnementale. Développement durable et territoires, 6, 1. https://developpementdurable.revues.org/10806.
Benson, C., & Twigg, J. (2007). Tools for mainstreaming disaster risk reduction: Guidance notes for development organizations. Genève: Provention Consortium.
Butler, G., & Richardson, S. (2013). Observing the social and economic barriers to visiting South African national parks: A study of residents from Soweto. University of Johannesburg-STH-SANParks.
Byrne, J. A., Wolch, J., & Zhang, J. (2009). Planning for environmental justice in an urban national park. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 38 52(3): 365–392.
Chambers, R., & Conway, G. R. (1991). Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century. IDS Discussion paper, p. 296.
Dardot, P., & Laval, C. (2014). Commun. Essai sur la révolution au XXIe siècle. Paris: La Découverte.
Davies, S. (1996). Adaptable livelihoods: Coping with food insecurity in the Malian Sahel. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.
Desgroppes, A., & Taupin, S. (2011). Kibera, the biggest slum in Africa? Les cahiers de l’Afrique de l’Est, 44, 23–34.
Depraz, S. (2008). Géographie des espaces protégés. Paris: Armand Colin.
Donaldson, R., Ferreira, S., Didier, S., Rodary, E., & Swanepoel, J. (2016). Access to the urban national park in Cape Town: Where urban and natural environment meet. Habitat International, 57, 132–142.
Guha, R. (1989). Radical environmentalism and wilderness preservation: A Third World critique. Environmental Ethics, 11(1), 71–83.
Guyot, S. (2006). Rivages Zoulous: l’environnement au service du politique en Afrique du Sud. Karthala–IRD: Paris.
Guyot, S., & Dellier, J. (2009). Rethinking the Wild Coast (South Africa): eco-frontiers versus livelihoods in Pondoland, VDM Verlag: Saarbrücken.
Guyot, S., Dellier, J., & Caillot, A. (2015). ‘Our rural sense of place’. Rurality and strategies of self-segregation in the Cape Peninsula (South Africa). Justice Spatiale/Spatial Justice, 7. https://www.jssj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/guyot-JSSJ7-ENG.pdf.
Guyot, S., Dellier, J., & Cerbelaud, F. (2014). L’environnement au profit des plus riches? Construction et hybridation d’un front écologique métropolitain dans la Péninsule du Cap. Vertigo, 14, 1. http://vertigo.revues.org/14660.
Heijmans, A. (2001). Vulnerability: A matter of perception. International conference “Vulnerability in Disaster theory and practice”
Landy, F., Belaidi, N., & Gaudry, K. H. (2017). Urban protected areas: Forces of justice or injustice for indigenous populations? The cases of Xochimilco and the national parks of Mumbai and Cape Town. Justice Spatiale/Spatial Justice, 11. http://www.jssj.org.
Laslaz, L. (2016). Avide d’espaces. HDR dissertation, Chambéry: University of Savoie.
Mawdsley, E. (2009). ‘Environmentality’ in the neoliberal city: Attitudes, governance and social justice. In H. Lange & L. Meier (Eds.), The new middle classes: Globalizing lifestyles, consumerism and environmental concern (pp. 237–251). Springer.
Oliver-Smith, A. (2001). Displacement, resistance and the critique of development: From the grass roots to the global. Final report prepared for ESCOR R7644 and the research program on development induced displacement and resettlement, p. 123.
Pélissier, P. (1966). Les paysans du Sénégal. Fabrègue: Saint-Yrieix.
Rodary, E., Castellanet, C., & Rossi, G. (2003). Conservation de la nature et développement, l’intégration impossible? Paris: GRET-Karthala.
Rossi, G. (2001). L’ingérence écologique. Paris: CNRS Editions.
Saglio-Yatzimirsky, M. C., & Landy, F. (Eds.). (2013). Megacity slums. Social exclusion, space and urban policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press.
Scoones, I. (2009). Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(1), 171–196.
Texier, P. (2009). Vulnérabilité et réduction des risques liés à l’eau dans les quartiers informels de Jakarta, Indonésie. Réponses sociales, institutionnelles et non institutionnelles. PhD dissertation, University Paris Diderot—Paris 7.
Zérah, M. H., Dupont, V., & Tawa, Lama-Rewal S. (2011). Urban policies and the right to the city in India. Rights, responsibilities and citizenship. New Delhi: UNESCO-CSH.
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
Landy, F., Texier, P., Guyot, S. (2018). The “Poor”, the Park and the City: Policies of Social Stigmatisation Rather Than Inclusion. In: Landy, F. (eds) From Urban National Parks to Natured Cities in the Global South. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8462-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8462-1_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-8461-4
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-8462-1
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)