Who's Participation? Who's Sustainability? A Critical Analysis of Initiatives for Urban Sustainability in India

Abstract

This paper considers urban environmental sustainability in cities of the global South. Drawing on the insights of urban political ecology and a critique of participatory development, the author argues that environmental sustainability initiatives mask the political economy of environmental injustice and uneven urban development. This argument is fleshed out through a case study of the Adyar Poonga river restoration project in Chennai, India. The case study highlights two key dimensions of what is termed the 'depoliticisation' of the production of urban nature. First, the political conflicts that surround urban environmental projects are neutralized through a definition of sustainability that is primarily concerned with making environmentalism and economic development compatible. Second, conflicts surrounding urban environments are ostensibly 'depoliticized' through highly selective practices of 'participation'. Generalized in this way, the discourse and practice of participation gloss over the power asymmetries that characterize the civic sphere in urban India. As environmental best practice is being actively formulated and replicated through projects like the Adyar Poonga, it becomes ever more urgent, to interrogate the mechanisms of political inclusions/exclusion and to question who benefits from urban environmental change.

Contrasting visions of science in ecological restoration: Expert-lay dynamics between professional practitioners and volunteers

“…Political ecology has long examined the politics of participation in the context of natural resource management, focusing on questions such as how participation is defined, what constitutes ''the community,'' and heterogeneity within social groups (Agrawal and Gibson, 1999;Turner, 1999;Berkes, 2004;Ellis, 2011). Moreover, an increasing number of political ecologists now integrate STS concepts to examine the knowledge politics involved in environmental programs (Forsyth, 2003;Goldman et al, 2011;Fagerholm et al, 2013;Sultana, 2013;Zimmerer, 2014).…”

Applying the social-ecological system framework to the diagnosis of urban lake commons in Bangalore, India

“…Thus, inputs from a diverse array of actors, including government agencies, citizen groups, researchers, naturalists, civic action groups, legislative groups, and the court, have been important in various ways such as for lake protection, rejuvenation, and maintenance. Concerns of equity and representation are important, and previous research shows that urban collective action can sometimes lead to the exclusion of certain groups (D'Souza and Nagendra 2011, Ellis 2011, Sundaresan 2011). …”

Pairing a Q Study with Participatory Decision-making around Farmworker Safety: A Case in Washington's Tree Fruit Industry

“…Though Pimbert and Pretty (1996) note that participation can legitimately range from being informed of decisions or being allowed to comment to taking part in joint analysis and decision making, Cooke and Kothari (2001) argue that participation can easily become a form of tyranny where external facilitators maintain control, powerful members of a community dominate, and efforts focus on using specific tools recommended for participatory processes rather than ensuring that those tools actually facilitate a participatory and inclusive process. As such, some argue that participatory processes themselves can be quite dangerous, as they can neutralize political opposition through a superficial nod to inclusion (Ellis, 2011;Janes, 2016;Kapoor, 2005). And yet, proponents and critics of participatory processes alike continue to seek out broad participation in research, decision-making, and project design.…”