2013
DOI: 10.1068/d8310
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Property Ownership, Resource Use, and the ‘Gift of Nature’

Abstract: Through a theoretical and empirical consideration of gift exchange, this paper argues that those with legal interests in land have constructed property relations around a claim of reciprocity with nature. This has been used to legitimate the ways in which they have deployed their property power to exclude others, thus seeking to retain their dominion over both humans and non-humans. In so doing, however, such interests have failed to understand the dynamic of gift relationships, with their inherent inculcation… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This indicates less willingness to pay for forest conservation despite the fact that they live close to the established point of forest reserve and derive more dividends/benefits (as evidenced from income derivable contained in Table 1). This might not be distant from the perceived fact that majority of the forest community members strongly views forest resources as a free gift of nature which ought to be freely utilized with less or no fee attached to it (Ravenscroft et al, 2013). This seems to be in consonance with Adeyoju's (1974) view who worked on forest resources and communities in Nigeria and documented that people see forest as a natural resource whose products and services ought to be freely utilized without any fee or demand from the consumers.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…This indicates less willingness to pay for forest conservation despite the fact that they live close to the established point of forest reserve and derive more dividends/benefits (as evidenced from income derivable contained in Table 1). This might not be distant from the perceived fact that majority of the forest community members strongly views forest resources as a free gift of nature which ought to be freely utilized with less or no fee attached to it (Ravenscroft et al, 2013). This seems to be in consonance with Adeyoju's (1974) view who worked on forest resources and communities in Nigeria and documented that people see forest as a natural resource whose products and services ought to be freely utilized without any fee or demand from the consumers.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Ingold, 1987;Ravenscroft, Church, Gilchrist, & Heys, 2013). What this means in practice is that although neither the land nor the animals belong to particular individuals, certain families are associated with particular locations and are tasked with maintaining their creative forces.…”
Section: The Jbnqa: Constructing People and Propertymentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Consequently many participants in mountain biking develop forms of self-governance of spaces whilst the managers of lifestyle sports spaces and facilities are continually negotiating complex relationships and power relations with the sports participants, landowners of spaces and other users (Brown, 2016;King & Church, 2015;Ravenscroft et al, 2013).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%