Dipak Gyawali - Re-imagining Desakota through a "toad’s eye science" approach
•Download as PPT, PDF•
0 likes•623 views
Presentation at the STEPS Conference 2010 - Pathways to Sustainability: Agendas for a new politics of environment, development and social justice http://www.steps-centre.org/events/stepsconference2010.html
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (18)
Similar to Dipak Gyawali - Re-imagining Desakota through a "toad’s eye science" approach
Similar to Dipak Gyawali - Re-imagining Desakota through a "toad’s eye science" approach (20)
More from STEPS Centre
More from STEPS Centre (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Dipak Gyawali - Re-imagining Desakota through a "toad’s eye science" approach
- 1. Re-Imagining Desakota through a “Toad’s Eye Science” Appr oach Dipak Gyawali STEPS Center Pathways to Sustainability Conference Contesting Sustainabilities in the Peri-Urban Interface
- 2. Desakota: the co-penetration of rural and urban systems
- 9. Adapted from: Thompson 2008. Organizing and Disorganizing, Triarchy Press UK. Cultural Theory of Change: Ecology, Economics, Habitat and the Dynamics of Plural Rationalities Upward Slums
- 11. Desakota, ES and Poverty
Editor's Notes
- 1) Background to project (cover pic of women on strawberry cart) a. Relationship between ecosystems and livelihoods changing in 2 fundamental ways: i. Technological and economic globalization ii. Environmental change Reshaping livelihoods, pressures on ecosystems, nature and effectiveness of institutions for their management b. Limitations of current approaches to “rural” and “urban” development, neglect complexities, more fuzzy area in between, neglect increasingly global (or regional) interlinkages
- Desakota presents an institutional challenge due to its rapid, informal development. Highly mobile populations, changing liveilhoods leading to less dependency on forests, water, ecosystems for provisioning services Existing rural and urban institutions have less reach, are less applicable in ‘fuzzy’ desakota environments -- institutional ‘clumsiness” High growht of informal economy not captured by existing institutions, policies .
- Changing perceptions of who is poor ; importance of understanding how people perceive poverty (e.g. differences in Nepal, where someone is poor if they do not have a family member migrating, or have good transport mechanisms, or may have agricultural land, but it is lying fallow as they do not have labour - or cannot afford labour -- to manage land). Ag land, conventionally considered an asset are of less importance in context of labour shortage limiting productiveity and therefore economic value, while capital or servies that facilitate access to cash income (migration for labour, transport) may be key elements to successful livelihood strategy. Although organizations use a more borad definition of poverty as deprivation of well-being due to lack of material assets or income, low levels of health provision, poor or no education, food insecurity -- in practice this definition is reduced to simple economic measure of $1/day per threshold. -- minimum levels of food energy, shelter for survivial While useful for quantifying one aspect of poverty, do not ungrasp these wider social, human, environmental issues contributing to poverty. Why important to consider these changing notions - is that this helps reorient perceptions to understand what choices people make as efforts to move out of poverty, or also conditions that may cause them to fall into poverty.
- Sum up: existing research not yet adequately tackled these challenges In part focus on “rural” or “urban”, and lack of recognition for more mixed economy, desakota areas Absence of tools to evaluate development problems in such areas Challenge of investigating complex interactions across scales Rapidly intensifying interactions within interlinked local to glboal systems need for interdisciplinary approaches that cross research issues to address these challenges of ecosystem services and poverty