000			03478nam a2200157Ia 4500
008			180516s9999||||xx |||||||||||||| ||und||
082			_aP TH-1511 _bBEN
100			_aBenjamin, Mathews John
245		0	_aStudy of contestations of urban commons : the case of lakes of Bangalore (Also available on CD)
260			_c2013
300			_axiv,139p.,CD-ROM
505			_aContents Abbreviations ix Executive Summary x 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Problem identification 1 1.3 Research question 5 1.4 Aim 5 1.5 Objectives 5 1.6 Study framework 6 1.7 Limitations of study 7 1.8 Research methodology 7 1.9 Analytical framework 8 1.10 Justification for site study 9 2. Emerging Theories on Urban Commons 11 2.1 Basic concepts and definitions 11 2.2 Property Rights and Ownership Pattern 13 2.3 Commons' Dilemmas 14 2.4 Institutional Dynamics 16 2.4.1 Olson's Collective Action Theory 17 2.4.2 Buchanan and Tullock's Cost Approach Theory 18 2.4.3 Oakerson Model 18 2.4.4 McClusky's The Theory of Margin 19 2.5 Design Principles Illustrated by Long-Enduring Common-Pool Resource Institutions(E. Ostrom 1990) 20 2.6 Social theories on the Appropriation of Public Space 24 2.7 Lawrence Lessig: A framework for analyzing control and freedom in urban public space 25 2.8 Inferences drawn 26 3. Conceptualizing The Role Of Urban Commons 30 3.1 What are Urban commons? 30 3.2 Characteristics of urban commons 30 3.3 Difference between Traditional commons versus urban commons 32 4. Lakes as urban commons: The case of Bangalore 34 4.1 Introduction 34 4.2 Historic context 37 4.3 Advantages of a well established hydrological system 39 4.4 How did they decay? 40 4.5 Institutional framework 42 4.6 Public Interest Litigation 49 4.7Sample cases selected 49 4.8 Differences between publicly managed commons and privately managed commons 51 5. Publicly Managed Lakes 53 5.1 Sankey Tank 53 5.1.1 Historic context 53 5.1.2 Limnology study 54 5.1.3 Present day 55 5.1.4 Resource characteristics 55 5.1.5 Landuse characteristics 57 5.1.6 Institutional framework/Property rights 58 5.1.7 Resource utility(uses/users) 59 5.2 Kaikondanahalli Lake 62 5.2.1 Historic context 62 5.2.2 Limnology study 63 5.2.3 Present day 63 5.2.4 Resource characteristics 64 5.2.5 Landuse characteristics 66 5.2.6 Institutional framework/Property rights 67 5.2.7 Resource utility(uses/users) 68 5.3 Puttenahalli Lake 71 5.3.1 Historic context 71 5.3.2 Limnology study 71 5.3.3 Present day 72 5.3.4 Resource characteristics 74 5.3.5 Landuse characteristics 75 5.3.6 Institutional framework/Property rights 76 5.3.7 Resource utility(uses/users) 77 6. Privately managed lakes 80 6.1 Hebbal Lake 80 6.1.1 Historic context 80 6.1.2 Limnology study 81 6.1.3 Present day 82 6.1.4 Resource characteristics 83 6.1.5 Landuse Characteristics 84 6.1.7 Resource utility(uses/users) 88 6.2 Nagawara Lake 91 6.2.1 Historic context 91 6.2.2 Limnology study 91 6.2.3 Present day 92 6.2.4 Resource characteristics 92 6.2.5 Landuse Charateristics 94 6.2.6 Institutional framework/Property rights 94 6.2.7 Resource utility(uses/users) 97 7. Analysis 100 7.1 Comparative analysis 100 Findings of study 116 7.3 Collective Action as framework for managing lakes 118 7.4 Conclusion 120 Annexure 123 References 136
700			_aParthasarathy, R. (Guide)
891			_a2010 Batch
891			_aFP-PG
999			_c51602 _d51602