Commons that provide: the importance of Bengaluru’s wooded groves for urban resilience

Abstract

Urban commons constitute important social-ecological systems for the resilience of cities of the Global South. However, rapid urbanization has led to large-scale degradation and transformation of several commons, impacting the resilience of traditional and vulnerable users. Gunda thopes (hereafter ‘thopes’) are wooded groves that constitute important yet neglected peri-urban commons of Bengaluru city in southern India. Traditionally used and managed by local communities, these thopes as urban commons provided a range of ecosystem services. Thopes supported traditional livelihoods and subsistence use by local communities, urban poor and migrants and were central to the cultural lives of local residents. Urbanization has resulted in changes to the status, use, management and perceptions of thopes with significant degradation in the last three decades contributing to declining ecosystem services. This paper examines the loss of ecological and social resilience, especially for marginalized residents, when ecosystem services of urban commons decline owing to urbanization.

Keywords:

• urbanization
• urban commons
• ecosystem services
• social–ecological systems
• resilience
• India

1. Introduction

Developing countries in Asia and Africa are witnessing dramatic urbanization characterized by large-scale land-use conversions (Seto et al. 2011). The spatial and demographic expansions resulting from urbanization adversely impact urban ecosystems, compromising quality of life of urban residents (MEA 2005; Elmqvist et al. 2013). Urban ecosystems are of different kinds: from the lone tree on a sidewalk to lakes and wetlands that extend across hundreds of acres (Bolund & Hunhammar 1999; Elmqvist et al. 2013; Nagendra 2016). These ecosystems provide a variety of valuable services categorized as provisioning, supporting, cultural and regulating ecosystem services (MEA 2005), providing food and water, supporting biodiversity, regulating the micro-climate and serving as sites for recreation, amongst other benefits. The health of these ecosystems is thus critical for economic development, environmental sustainability and well-being of urban residents (TEEB-The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity 2011; Elmqvist et al. 2013).

India has experienced one of the highest rates of urban land expansion in recent years (Seto et al. 2011), placing enormous pressure on ecosystems and the services they provide (Nagendra et al. 2013). Urban and peri-urban ecosystems that include rivers, lakes, ponds, tanks, parks and remnant patches of forests and grazing lands also act as de facto common pool resources, or commons. As is well known, commons in India provide important support to the rural poor in a range of agro-climatic landscapes (Menon & Vadivelu 2006). In the context of Indian cities as well, commons support ecosystem services that are critical for livelihoods and subsistence of urban populations: as is being recently shown even in metropolitan cities such as Mumbai (Parthasarathy 2011), Delhi (Baviskar 2011) and Bengaluru (D’Souza & Nagendra 2011; Mundoli et al. 2015). Provisioning services such as food, water, fodder, fuelwood, medicines and other raw materials are accessed from ecosystems such as lakes, wetlands and remnant patches of wooded groves and grazing lands by disadvantaged groups such as slum dwellers and migrant workers, helping their survival in the harsh environment of cities. For long-term residents in local communities, urban commons are also cultural sites. Thus, the interactions of the residents with these natural spaces frequently extend across generations (Baindur 2014) contributing to their sense of place and identity. Though urbanization has had its impacts on biodiversity, commons in Indian cities, including the congested metropolises, also harbor a wide range of native biodiversity (Sudhira & Nagendra et al. 2013). Regulating ecosystem services provided by commons, for example avenue trees, help regulate micro-climate and mitigate the impacts of air pollution (Vailshery et al. 2013).

However, urban commons in Indian cities are facing several pressures that have larger implications for the health and well-being of the city and its residents. The expansion that cities have witnessed, especially infrastructure development in the last three decades, has been a contributing factor to the loss of commons. Enclosure of commons and exclusions by prioritizing recreational use of wealthier urban residents over social, cultural and livelihood uses of urban poor is an increasing phenomenon in rapidly urbanizing Indian cities (Baviskar 2011; D’Souza & Nagendra 2011). Alienation from commons has also been exacerbated by urban sprawl into peri-urban interfaces of cities. Ecosystems in the peri-urban interface, as commons, too have traditionally supported livelihoods and subsistence use of urban residents, in addition to providing cities with critical ecosystem services. However, rapid urbanization has adversely impacted ecosystems in the peri-urban, and in turn the symbiotic relationship between the urban and peri-urban interface that extended into the distant past (Mukherjee 2015, 2016). At the same time, trends in urbanization indicate that economic activities and growth are increasingly shifting to the peripheries of cities. In the peri-urban interface a clear dichotomy of rural and urban areas does not exist posing challenges for traditional planning practices. Additionally the peri-urban is also plagued with problems of environmental degradation, haphazard growth and inequities (UNFPA 2007; World Bank 2013). Peri-urban commons that support ecological functions and livelihoods of communities are especially facing rapid degradation in cities across India (Narain et al. 2014; Narain & Vij 2016). The socioeconomic inequities in the peri-urban, coupled with rapid changes in demography, lack of clarity about ownership and gaps and overlaps in policy and administration poses significant challenges for planning and governance in the case of natural resources (Allen 2003; Allen et al. 2006; Mehta & Karpouzoglou 2015), and especially in the case of contested resources such as urban commons.

The Resilience Alliance defines social–ecological systems as “an integrated system of ecosystems and human society with reciprocal feedback and interdependence. The concept emphasizes the ‘humans-in-nature’ perspective” (Resilience Alliance 2007). Urban commons characterized by the close interactions between society and nature are thus social–ecological systems. In an urbanizing Global South, an understanding of these coupled social and ecological systems, and the ecosystem services they provide, has been recognized as important for building resilient cities that are also equitable and sustainable (Adger 2007). Good governance of urban commons that support ecosystem services on which marginalized groups depend is important to enhance resilience and sustainability, while poor management can degrade the resource base compounding vulnerability (Wilkinson et al. 2013). Resilience is important as it enables social–ecological systems to ‘cope, adapt or reorganize without sacrificing the provision of ecosystem services’ (Adger 2007: 79). Ensuring access of vulnerable communities to these critical ecosystem services in turn builds the community’s resilience (Adger 2007).

However, neither have social–ecological relationships been explored sufficiently nor have urban ecosystems services been adequately studied, especially in South Asian countries like India where high rates of urban growth are predicted (Elmqvist et al. 2013; Hasse et al. 2014). The role of ecosystem services in contributing to resilience has also not been acknowledged in urban planning (McPhearson et al. 2014) nor has the importance of these kinds of land uses been adequately reflected in policy frameworks (Matsumoto and Daudey, 2017). What processes contribute to or in turn weaken resilience of interlinked social–ecological processes (Folke 2006), especially the role of noneconomic values like culture, too requires more research (Gómez-Baggethun & Barton 2013).

This paper is an attempt to address some of these gaps. We identify a variety of ecosystem services provided by urban commons in Bengaluru, an expanding metropolis in southern India, and examine the social and cultural linkages that local communities have with these commons. The study highlights the consequences of loss of ecological and social resilience especially for marginalized urban residents as urbanization proceeds at a breakneck speed, adversely impacting ecosystem services provided by urban commons.

2. Study area

Bengaluru in the state of Karnataka is one of the fastest growing cities in India. From a small village in the twelfth century, it has witnessed rapid spatial and demographic growth: from an area of 69 sq km in 1951 to 741 sq km in 2007, and in terms of population from 0.7 million in 1951 (Sudhira et al. 2007) to 9.5 million as per the census of 2011. The liberalization in 1990s marked a major transformation of the city with its development as a business and technological hub (Shaw & Satish 2007). With land for development in the city’s core being limited, much of the urban growth was concentrated in the periphery. Bengaluru has sprawled into the surrounding rural landscape and along with it brought about considerable land-use conversion from open to built-up spaces in the peri-urban parts of the city (IIHS 2011; Nagendra et al. 2012). This urbanization has been to the detriment of the green and open spaces and the ecosystem services they support (Sudhira & Nagendra et al. 2013), especially the common pool resources that contributed to traditional livelihoods and subsistence use. Commons that include lakes, ponds, wetlands, wells, groves and grazing lands have all been impacted, and while some have been converted, others exist precariously in an extremely fragmented landscape. One such commons that has come under severe stress are the gunda thopes.

Gunda thopes are wooded groves that have been a part of the historical landscape of Karnataka. Rice (1897) mentions that thopes were numerous and scattered across the countryside and Bengaluru district itself in 1894 had 2118 thopes containing 106,103 trees. The preferred species of trees planted in these thopes included native timber and fruit yielding varieties such as mango (Mangifera indica), jamun (Syzygium cumini), Mowra butter tree (Madhuca longifolia), jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus), tamarind (Tamarindus indica) and different species of Ficus, mainly cluster fig (Ficus racemosa), Mysore fig (Ficus mysorensis), banyan (Ficus benghalensis) and sacred fig (Ficus religiosa). Located close to lakes, they served as watershed catchments and also formed a part of traditional conservation practices where native flora and fauna were protected. Over the years, the thopes have been subject to conversions and changed use by the local community (Gadgil 2004). However, these thopes have received little attention in the city’s planning. While some instances of conversions are recorded in administrative archival documents, not much is known about these thopes in Bengaluru city. In particular, we lack information about their past uses, changing dependencies and the impacts of changing access, quality and use on the resilience of different urban groups especially the marginalized.

The current study on thopes was conducted in the eastern peri-urban part of Bengaluru, in the Mahadevpura Assembly Constituency and falling under the Bengaluru East taluk (administrative unit). Thopes were commons in a rural setting, but with the growth of the city, the thopes have been engulfed within a peri-urban landscape. Their identity has shifted progressively, from being a rural to an urban commons. The thopes constitute local social–ecological systems, from which users extract resource units, at the same time follow a set of norms and rules to maintain the resource (Ostrom 2009). Thopes also support other social–ecological systems at smaller (e.g. trees) and larger (e.g. city landscape) scales. The city is a large social–ecological system and has its own ecologies that link urban and peri-urban ecosystems (Mukherjee 2015). Within the urban and peri-urban spectrum, thopes are nested local social–ecological systems.

We selected a set of 18 villages for the study, drawing on previous research that examined lakes in these locations. Thopes are most often situated adjacent to lakes, and by including thopes, the objective was to extend the understanding of dependencies not just on individual commons but across the landscape of commons in peri-urban Bengaluru (Figure 1). In doing so, we also drew on previous social–cultural and ecological knowledge of these 18 villages, which was important in helping us to get a more informed understanding of the dependencies on these thopes, and the changes in use and consequently in resilience over time. The villages chosen captured a spectrum of the peri-urban interface of Bengaluru moving from predominantly rural to an increasingly urban landscape. Further they represented different administrations with 7 falling within the urban municipality (the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike or BBMP) and 11 within the gram panchayat (GP) that is a local self-government organization at the village level in India.

Figure 1. Location of thopes and adjacent lakes within the study area.

3. Methods

The research was conducted in three phases extending from May 2013 to June 2015. In the first phase in May 2013, thopes in two villages, one falling within the urban municipality and the other in a GP, were visited for land-use observations and a few interviews were conducted as well. In the second phase, during the months of November and December 2013, 22 thopes in 18 villages were identified with the help of local residents. Village maps that had been procured earlier were used to locate the thopes mentioned by locals. Interviews were conducted randomly in several sites but the majority of interviews were focused on two sites one of which fell within the urban municipality and the second in a GP (different from the ones in 2013). Post this, a complete list of thopes in the 18 villages was accessed from government records by filing an application under the Right to Information Act (RTI). It was found from this list that there were an additional 21 sites listed as thopes in government records indicating that there were a total of 43 thopes in the 18 villages. In the final phase extending between February and June 2015, all 43 thopes were visited. Survey numbers from the RTI document were mapped to the village maps to identify the thopes. During the visits, Global Positioning System (GPS) points were used to record the location of each of the thopes. The GPS points were then entered into Google Earth and their location checked against the village survey maps to ensure that the sites visited were accurate. In case the location was erroneous, as in some cases, revisits were done to identify the correct location. Interviews were conducted at random in some sites during this last phase.

For the interviews, an open-ended questionnaire was used to interview users of thopes, local residents, elected representatives and officials, on the past and current use of thopes, their past and current management and current perceptions about the importance of the resource. Conflicts with regard to thopes, if mentioned, were also recorded. In all, we conducted 65 interviews of varying lengths, with individuals and in small groups (interviewing a total of 85 persons). The majority of these interviews were conducted in the second phase of the visit. A snowball method of sampling was used to identify interviewees. We began by conducting walks around the thope, interacting with users we encountered around the thopes, such as grazers. This was followed by a visit to the village center to conduct interviews. We also sought out elderly, long-term local residents who could provide information on changes in the condition, management and use of the thopes over time. Multiple respondents were included in the interviews for triangulation. In each of the visits, land-use observations involved noting the status of thopes for classifying them as converted, degraded or encroached, as well as observing land use in the immediate surroundings of the thopes. Information on the number and species of trees in existing thopes was also collected. Information from archival sources that included a gazetteer (Rice 1897) and administrative documents from state archives (Anonymous 1878) was also accessed to record historical information about thopes and their management.

A clarification is necessary on the use of the term ‘village’ to describe the study sites that are located in peri-urban Bengaluru. In rapidly urbanizing cities of the Global South, a clear rural-urban dichotomy is difficult to establish. This is especially true of peri-urban areas, and in the instance of Bengaluru even in its city core. Thus, in this study the term ‘village’ has been used to refer to the sites since they have a mix of rural and urban features and processes (Nagendra et al. 2014); or in other words, they are urban villages of the peri-urban interface (Mehta & Karpouzoglou 2015). The government maps used to identify the village and the thopes in the peri-urban areas also use the village boundary for administrative demarcation. The thopes situated in a peri-urban landscape continue to be used and accessed by local communities for traditional uses. In the peri-urban interface of Bengaluru, rural features of the landscape and processes like grazing exist side by side with the urban features such as apartment complexes, high-rise offices and so on. Yet, the scale or degree of human dependence on thopes, and the context within which they function as village commons, has shifted, with other users including migrants depending on these for a variety of uses.

4. Results

4.1. Ecosystem services provided by thopes

The thopes were found to provide a range of ecosystem services for a variety of Bengaluru city’s residents, and while traditional uses have shown some decline, many of the ecosystem services of these commons continue to be of importance (Table 1). Provisioning services of thopes supported traditional livelihoods and subsistence use by local communities, but have become particularly significant for urban poor and migrant workers today. One of the primary purposes of thopes in the past was as a source of wood to meet the needs of the village and individual households. Even here, it was mainly the old and dried trees or branches that were used and rarely were healthy trees cut. The wood was used for renovation work of village property like temples, as well as to construct doors and windows for individual houses. The wood of the mango tree was the most preferred for these purposes. Fuelwood was another important raw material sourced from these commons. Community meals during festivals were cooked using wood from thopes. Individual houses were also allowed access to wood for use in functions like marriages and for cremation of the dead as mentioned in some sites. This was especially so in the case of the poorer households who possessed no land and therefore had no access to trees. Wood was also auctioned for raising money for conducting functions or development works for the village. Fruit from trees like mango and tamarind too were sometimes auctioned to raise funds, but were mostly distributed for consumption at home. Children and adults freely plucked and ate the fruits of trees like mango and jamun. In one site, an elderly interviewee spoke about a special variety of jamun, larger and tastier than others that she said was once collected by the poor and sold for an income. The seeds of the Mowra butter tree were also used to prepare oil for lighting lamps. Thus, meeting the village needs for resources was an important reason for the planting of thopes. While the thope itself was a site for grazing, the trees also provided much needed shade to grazers in the hot afternoons. Leaves were also loped and fed to goats, sheep and cows as fodder. Leaf litter and soil collected from the thopes and applied to increase fertility of agricultural fields was also mentioned as a use. Parts of thopes were given for cultivation to a few families, especially the landless who were allowed to grow vegetables and sometimes finger millet (Eleusine coracana) for household needs. A few of the thopes also had small ponds that were used for swimming by children and for washing and watering cattle.

Table 1. Ecosystem services of Bengaluru’s peri-urban thopes: changing status of use and users.

Service description	Types of services	Status of use and users
Provisioning ecosystem services
Food	Fruits of mango and jamun consumed by adults and children	Past and continued use by local communities
	Fruits in some instances sold by poor	Past use by locals and nonlocals; no mention of the same today
	Fruit (mango) used to make pickles	Past and continued use by local communities
	Cultivation of millet and vegetables	Past by local disadvantaged groups; persists by locals today but seen as an encroachment
Raw materials	Wood for renovation of temples and houses	Past use by local communities that has been discontinued
	Wood for cremation	Past use by local communities that has been discontinued
	Fuelwood for household use	Past and continued use by local communities
		Migrants as new users
	Fuelwood for cooking communal meals	Past use by local communities that has been discontinued
	Fodder for livestock from leaves and undergrowth for grazing	Past and continued use by local communities
	Oil for household use	Past and reduced use by local communities
Cultural ecosystem services
Spiritual experience and sense of place	Site for community feasts held during festivals	Past use by local communities that has been discontinued
	Place for village meetings	Past use by local communities that has been discontinued
	Worship of family deities at tree base	Past and continued use by local communities
	Worship at shrines situated within thopes	Past and continued use by local communities
	Leaves of mango used during festivals	Past and continued use by local communities
	Shelter for nomadic communities	Past use by nomadic groups that has been discontinued
Recreation, and mental and physical health	As parks for children to play and elders to walk and exercise	New use of thopes envisaged by residents
Supporting ecosystem services
Habitat for species	Trees provide shelter and food for birds	Past and continued use
	Habitat for insects such as butterflies, ants and spiders	Past and continued use
Regulating ecosystem services
Local climate and air-quality regulation	Trees help regulate micro-climate	Past and continued use
	Trees absorb noise and air pollution from vehicular traffic	Past and continued use
Erosion prevention and maintenance of soil fertility	Situated near lakes they retain soil moisture and prevent soil erosion	Past and continued use

The past and continued use is in thopes in good condition and to some extent in degraded thopes that have some trees present.

The use of degraded thopes by both local and migrants are mentioned as follows:

• Dumping of construction debris: primarily by nonlocals linked to the construction industry.

• Dumping of garbage: primarily by nonlocals, but to some extent by locals.

• Storage of cow dung and hay: locals from disadvantaged groups.

• Use as cemetery: locals.

• Public toilet: migrants.

Thopes continue to support several of the provisioning ecosystem services mentioned above, though their contribution to livelihood and subsistence use has seen a decline for several reasons (discussed later). The thopes persist as sources of food, raw materials such as fodder and fuelwood, and also as sites that provide shade to grazers. Fruit from thopes are collected and eaten, mostly by children, while grazing persists in some of the thopes. Fallen branches are collected as fuelwood by the locals, and especially for urban poor and migrant workers, this continues to be a critical source of fuel for household use.

The thopes were also of social and cultural significance for local communities, but these too have seen some decline. The thopes were sites where villagers gathered together for meetings and to celebrate festivals. During festivals, community feasts were held where residents of the village and sometimes adjacent settlements came together contributing provisions, cooking food and sharing meals. Thopes also had shrines dedicated to different gods and goddesses. Worship was a regular feature in the past and persists in some of the thopes though not with the same frequency as before. Individual households also worship their family deities consecrating stones at the foot of trees in the thopes. People believe that gods reside in the trees and hence do not climb or cut them. Nomadic groups that moved from village to village were also known to take up temporary residence in these thopes. They would stay for a month or two living in the thope, and entering the village to beg in the name of their deity.

The thopes were not planted for human use alone, but were also meant to provide habitat and food for birds. Thopes that were not degraded or converted had fruit bearing jamun, mango and Ficus species that were especially favored by the birds. In addition, a variety of butterfly species and insects that included ants and spiders can also be found on shrubs and trunks of trees. Along with these supporting ecosystems services, the regulating services of thopes include regulating the micro-climate, and being located close to lakes aiding in retaining soil moisture. Thopes were planted close to lake bunds, and they helped prevent soil and bund erosion.

It was evident from the interactions, especially with the older interviewees, that the thopes were an important common pool resource, and the tree species traditionally planted were carefully chosen for the multiple uses they served (Table 2). The majority of trees, both in degraded thopes and thopes in a good condition were of mango and jamun. The other species, in the sites visited, included tamarind, Mowra butter tree, jackfruit and species of Ficus such as banyan and sacred, cluster and Mysore fig (Figure 2). The thopes in good condition, numbering five, were relatively well maintained with a number of trees; the largest number being 56 in a single thope. These thopes though relatively well maintained were also showing signs of degradation such as being used to dump waste, as graveyards or having small portions marked for conversion. Among the degraded thopes numbering 18, some did have trees while those extremely degraded were mostly devoid of any trees (Table 3).

Table 2. Multiple resources and services provided by trees in thopes.

Common name	Scientific name	Fuelwood source	Fodder source	Food	Agricultural use	Medicinal use	Other uses	Nitrogen fixing	Wind breaks	Nectar source	Cultural services
Mango	Mangifera indica	–	–	Y	–	Y (B, L, R, F, S)	Y (T, I)	–	–	Y	Y
Jamun	Syzygium cumini	Y	Y (G, C)	Y	Y (Gm, Bp)	Y (B, F, S)	Y (T, I, T/D)	–	Y	Y	Y
Banyan	Ficus benghalensis	Y	Y (G, C, Sh)	–	–	Y (B, R)	Y (T, I)	–	–	–	Y
Mowra butter	Madhuca longifolia	Y	Y (G, Sh)	–	Y (Bp)	Y (B, S, L)	Y (T, O)	–	Y	–	Y
Sacred fig	Ficus religiosa	–	Y (G, C)	Y	–	Y (B, L, R, F)	Y (T/D)	–	–	–	Y
Cluster fig	Ficus racemosa	Y	Y (G, C, Sh)	Y	Y (Bp)	Y (B, R, L)	Y (T)	–	–	–	Y
Jackfruit	Artocarpus heterophyllus	Y	Y (G, C, Sh)	Y	Y (Gm, Bp)	Y (S, L)	Y (T, I)	–	Y	–	Y
Mysore fig	Ficus mysorensis	Y	Y (G)	–	–	–	Y (T, I)	–	–	–	Y
Tamarind	Tamarindus indica	Y	Y (G)	Y	Y (Bp)	Y (B, L, F)	Y (T/D)	Y	Y	Y	Y
Y: Yes; G: goat; C: cattle; Sh: sheep; Gm: green manure; Bp: biopesticide; B: bark; L: leaf; S: seed; F: fruit; R: root; T: timber; I: implements; O: oil; T/D: tanning and dyeing
Fuelwood source		A major energy source for households especially the poor and migrants
Fodder source		Leaves are rich sources of calcium and phosphorous and can be fed to cattle, sheep and goat
Food		Certain parts of the tree species are edible and can contribute to diet of local residents and migrant poor
Agricultural		Leaves, specifically those of nitrogen fixing trees, provide good green manure. They add valuable nutrients, increase water-holding capacity and microbial activity of the soil. Leaves and seeds of trees can be used as bio-pesticide. These can be used by local farmers to fertilize their fields and also in home gardens
Medicinal use		Barks, leaves, fruits, roots and seeds are used as medicine and can be a source of home remedies for local residents and migrant poor
Other uses		Wood can be harvested for making furniture, farm implements and some village development works. Oil extracted from seeds can be used for lighting lamps. Parts of trees can also produce tannin and dyes. With careful harvesting and replanting these can serve local needs to some extent
Nitrogen fixing		Planting nitrogen fixing trees increases soil fertility in thopes and enables regeneration. Soil can also be applied in agricultural fields and reduce the need for applying nitrogen fertilizers
Wind break		Trees that serve as wind breaks reduce desiccating impact of high winds on crops in adjoining fields and also prevent soil erosion
Nectar source		Nectar-yielding flowers attract bees, butterflies and other nectar sucking insects, and this in turn attracts insectivorous birds. This activity aids pollination and increases biodiversity in surrounding farmlands
Cultural		Tree species are associated with cultural traditions and worshipped by local residents

This table mentions both the current uses of thopes and also highlights the potential they have to meet multiple needs of both local communities and migrants.

Source: Kavitha et al. (2012) for all except for mango which is R Ganesan Pers. comm.

Table 3. Status of 23 thopes in a good and degraded condition.

Sl. No.	Status	Note on status
1	Good condition	Relatively well maintained with 19 jamuns, 5 mangoes, 1 Mowra butter and 1 cluster fig tree, though the thope is also increasingly being used as a graveyard
2	Good condition	A well-maintained thope with 43 mangoes, 13 jamun trees and saplings of Indian beech (Pongamia pinnata), but a small part has been converted to a veterinary hospital
3	Good condition	A well-maintained thope with 7 mangoes and 3 jamun trees, and also young trees of jackfruit, sacred fig, neem (Azadirachta indica), Mysore fig, cluster fig and Indian beech
4	Good condition	Relatively good condition with 5 mangoes, 3 jackfruits, 1 tamarind, 1 jamun, and newly planted Indian beech trees, but it was also dumped with heaps of cow dung
5	Good condition	Well maintained with around 9 mango trees and 2 Mowra butter trees, though there are a couple of graves
6	Degraded	Extremely degraded with no trees, overgrown with weeds, dumped with garbage and being used as a public toilet. Pond is covered with algal growth and also dumped with garbage
7	Degraded	Extremely degraded with no trees, overgrown with weeds, dumped with garbage and being used as a public toilet. Pond is covered with algal growth and also dumped with garbage
8	Degraded	Degraded with 1 banyan tree, and a temple with a narrow-paved path around it
9	Degraded	Degraded and though the thope has around 5 jamuns, 4 banyans and 2 cluster fig trees it has been converted mainly into a graveyard and being used as a public toilet and to dump garbage.
10	Degraded	Degraded with 2 mango trees, a small shrine and encroached for cultivation
11	Degraded	Extremely degraded with 1 jamun tree, a small shrine, water tank, and overgrown with weeds
12	Degraded	Degraded with 1 mango tree, a well and a temple
13	Degraded	Extremely degraded with no trees and encroached for cultivation
14	Degraded	Extremely degraded with no trees, but a few Acacia
15	Degraded	Extremely degraded with no trees and is an illegal Acacia plantation
16	Degraded	Though the thope has 7 jamuns, 2 Mysore figs and 1 mango, it is being used mainly as a graveyard
17	Degraded	Extremely degraded with 2 old mango trees, overgrown with weeds and the pond has some garbage dumped
18	Degraded	Degraded having 3 jamun trees and 1 banyan
19	Degraded	Degraded thope with 3 mangoes and 1 banyan tree. Also has a shrine with 2 sacred fig trees on a raised platform and young neem tree
20	Degraded	Though the thope has 6 mangoes, 2 sacred figs, 1 Mowra butter tree and 1 cluster fig, it has been partially fenced in the center and is being used to store cow dung and straw. It also has two small shrines
21	Degraded	Extremely degraded with 1 banyan tree, the thope is overgrown with weeds and dumped with cow dung and straw
22	Degraded	Extremely degraded with no trees and is today a graveyard
23	Degraded	Degraded as it has one 1 Mowra butter tree and a platform with 2 sacred figs and one neem tree

The number of trees and species are a close approximation since exact boundaries of thopes were difficult to ascertain or they were difficult to access being overgrown or were being used as a dumping site and a public toilet.

Figure 2. Tree species in thopes.

4.2. Degradation of ecosystem services of thopes: changed status, administration and perceptions

The ecosystem services provided by the thopes have been compromised owing to their conversion, encroachment and degradation. The changes to their administration and the perception about these thopes among its users have also been a contributing factor to the reduced dependence on thopes for their ecosystem services.

4.2.1. Changed status and use of thopes

The thopes visited were situated in the rapidly changing periphery of Bengaluru city that has been subjected to the pressures of urbanization over the last few decades. The traditional land uses are disappearing to make way for more urban forms of land uses fueled by skyrocketing land prices and illegal land dealings. Many thopes have been converted to other forms of land use, while several others were in a degraded state or were encroached preventing access and compromising the ecosystem services provided by the thopes. The conversions mentioned by local interviewees extended back to the 1950s, while the degradations recounted were especially in the last three decades when the city witnessed rapid urbanization.

While conversion of thopes extends back several decades, this has accelerated with the increasing demand for land for urban use. The decisions on conversion in the past were taken by the local community mainly keeping in mind the development requirements of the village. Thus, a village with only a primary school would see the thope as a potential site for setting up a locally accessible high school. However, the conversions have also been to accommodate the spatial and demographic expansion resulting from the city’s urbanization. Thus, in addition to schools, thopes have been converted for a variety of purposes such as community centers, housing for disadvantaged groups, roads, dairy units, veterinary hospitals, government offices, industrial units, temples, bus stops and in one instance, a fire station. Traditionally cemeteries of different castes where located on separate sites, but owing to the paucity of land and the increase in population thopes have either been partially or completely converted to cemeteries by all groups. Further proposed development projects, like ring roads, are expected to accelerate conversions. For one, common lands, like thopes, are the first to be acquired for these purposes and at the same time, thopes are seen as sites for rehabilitation for those losing lands as a result of the development plans. Of the 43 sites, 20 or nearly 50% had been converted to other kinds of land use (Table 4).

Table 4. Changed land use of 20 converted thopes.

Thope	Road	Cemetery	Housing	Industry	Bus stop	Government offices^a	School^b	Market	Temple	Community center
1	✓	✓
2			✓
3				✓
4			✓
5						✓
6						✓	✓	✓	✓
7			✓				✓		✓
8						✓
9	✓									✓
10							✓
11					✓
12						✓	✓
13			✓				✓
14			✓
15							✓
16										✓
17			✓
18									✓	✓
19			✓
20			✓

^aGovernment offices include offices related to dairy, revenue, agriculture and a fire station.

^bSchool includes hostels.

There are also 18 thopes that while not being converted exist in a degraded state. Trees, once they become old and die are removed, but with no replanting done hardly any trees are left in several of the thopes. As one of the interviewees mentioned, this was often the first step toward marking the thope as wasteland and initiating its conversion to other forms of land use. Some thopes have been encroached for millet and flower cultivation, and in one instance, a thope was converted illegally into an acacia (Acacia auriculiformis) grove. Thopes are no longer tended and were found to be overgrown with weeds. They were being used for illegal dumping of construction debris and garbage. Some of the thopes were also used to store hay and cow dung especially by the disadvantaged groups who had no land they could use for this purpose. The straw and dung were sold to locals and farmers from villages around as fodder and to be used as compost for fields. In a couple of instances, while some thopes still had trees, the land was slowly being used up for cemeteries. Migrant labor who come to work in the booming construction industry and small business units in the periphery of the city are forced to use the thopes as public toilets in the absence of such facilities (see Table 3).

While conversions and degradations adversely affected access to thopes, the impact of urbanization was being felt in other ways. For example, in one site, an arterial road connecting Bengaluru to the city’s airport has seen increased vehicular traffic, and several sheep had died when they had been hit by a truck while crossing this road to access the thope. An old grazer interviewed said that he had sold his herd of goat and sheep after the accident, while other grazers too had been dissuaded from using the thope.

These conversions, degradations and encroachments have together compromised the ecosystem services provided by thopes. With no trees, there are no longer fruits, fodder and wood, including fuelwood. Grazing is also no longer possible in the thopes to the extent as before. The regulating and supporting services of thopes are also lost as its green cover is denuded and land use is converted. At the same time, even where shrines are situated they are not well maintained and the frequency of worship has reduced. Communal gatherings and feasts during festivals have been completely discontinued. Thopes, once described as resembling forests and frequented by wild boar and deer, are today devoid of trees or presence of locals who once shared a close relationship with the groves. The traditional relationships are today being redefined, moving from spiritual to prioritizing of recreational uses. The uses of thopes foreseen for the future included public parks for children to play and elders for walking and exercising.

Thopes also appear to be very dynamic constantly subject to changes in status and land use. For example, in the case of one thope, in an initial visit a few trees had been illegally cut. In the next phase the thope was partially encroached but in the final visit, the same thope had been fenced and new saplings were planted. Similarly, a part of one of the thopes with the largest number of trees among the sites in the study had been handed over for building of a veterinary hospital. Future plans for this include conversion to a park.

4.2.2. Impact of changed governance and ownership on access to ecosystem services

Thopes were once planted to meet the village needs for wood and fruit as was mentioned by several interviewees. Historical documents accessed from government archives (Anonymous 1878) also indicate the importance given by the administration to thopes expressing the need to encourage planting of thopes by individuals and a concern that individuals were not coming forward for this purpose as would have expected. There were different kinds of thopes mentioned in records with variations in access and management. These were classified broadly as (1) government thopes that were planted by order of the government or have for times immemorial had no claimants, the produce of which was sold by auction, (2) charitable or public thopes planted by individuals in private land and thopes on government land both of which were accessible to all and (3) private thopes planted on government land by private individuals from which the government may or may not receive revenue or share of produce (Anonymous 1878).

Thopes in the study sites seemed to be charitable or public thopes in the past being accessible to all and cared for collectively. At the village level, traditionally the use of thopes was regulated by the gauda (headman, judge and magistrate) and shánbógh (village accountant) who were the primary decision-makers in the context of villages in the past. Cutting of trees required their permission and people too did not cut trees without asking fearing fines and reprimands. Individual requests for wood were placed to the shánbógh and gauda who more often than not granted these requests and indicated which branches could be cut, cutting trees being mainly restricted to old or dying ones. Picking fruit was also allowed freely, or based on arrangements agreed upon by villagers. For example, interviewees in one site said that fruits like mango in the thope were guarded by a watchman appointed for the purpose, collected when ripened and shared amongst village residents. The thopes were cared for by the villagers as per the instructions of the gauda and shánbógh. An interviewee in one village said that cleaning and maintenance of thopes, similar to other commons such as lakes, was done by the village with individual households contributing their labor.

There are no restrictions placed on access even today, but access has been affected owing to changes in management and changes in rules for administration of thopes. The passing of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act of 1961 resulted in the abolition of the caste-based traditional posts of gauda and shánbógh. With the introduction of formal state institutions, governance and management of commons like thopes were transferred to different government departments. Today, there are multiple departments involved in the management that include the GP or the BBMP Ward Office that form part of the local self-government structure, the Revenue Department who are the owners of the land and the Forest Department designated with the task of tree protection. Management of thopes is also sometimes transferred temporarily from one department to another. Thus, in one instance, the management of a thope in a GP seemed to have been handed over to the Forest Department, the latter having planted saplings as part of its afforestation program. But while there is an array of departments, there is little role for the local community in maintaining the thope; and this has distanced them from the resource. In the past, it was enough to approach the gauda or the shánbógh on matters of use or conflict. However, according to the interviewees, today while they were aware that the thopes belonged to the state they were unclear which department or official to approach for any issues with regard to the thope.

The interest of the local administration in the management of the thopes also varied. Traditionally, the gauda and the shánbógh retained close links to the villagers and seemed to have taken a greater interest in commons like the thopes. Today in the case of GPs, the officials interviewed saw their role as being only supervisory in nature. They stepped in only when there was some conflict with regard to the thope and saw themselves merely as intermediaries between the people and the higher administration or with other departments. In the sites where the thopes were in good condition, there seemed to be slightly greater awareness among the GP members. Thus, in one of the thopes, a GP member interviewed said that the fencing had been done by his office for the thopes protection. There were no mention of discussions held in the gram sabha (village level meetings) with regard to the thope, nor were there any specific responsibilities, budget allocations or action plans drawn up where thopes were concerned. In the case of sites within the BBMP the protection and management of thopes lies with the Ward Office. Local officers said that budget and action plans might mention the maintenance and protection of government lands like thopes but as one of the officials said they are not properly implemented. Here, too, there was no awareness about thopes and little interaction with local residents when it came to a collective management of common lands as in the past. Many of the GP and BBMP members we spoke to did not know about the existence of thopes both current and past.

Changes in rules have also impacted use. Thopes were once a major source of wood for individuals and for village works. Access to it only required the permission of the gauda and shánbógh, and these individuals resided in the village and could be easily contacted. Today cutting of trees and branches is prohibited, and even in the case of old trees requires permission from specific government departments, that usually involves a lengthy procedure. Even here the proceeds of the sales did not necessarily accrue to the village where the thope was situated. As several interviewees mentioned, the villagers no longer draw any monetary or functional benefit from the thope as they did in the past and this had reduced the value of thopes in the eyes of the community. The ban on cutting of wood has impacted the landless poor for whom wood is no longer available to meet their requirements for house renovation, marriages and cremations. A few of the thopes were fenced, but while this did prevent to some extent illegal dumping of construction debris (though not cultivation as seen in one site), it has also dissuaded grazers from taking their livestock to graze in thopes. For example, while grazing is not explicitly prohibited, the GP officials in one village that had a thope in a good condition had told grazers to ensure that their livestock did not destroy saplings that had been planted. This had dissuaded grazers from using thopes as grazing sites. Fencing itself is taken as an indication by grazers that this is no longer an accessible site for grazing.

4.2.3. Changing perception of thopes

Interesting perspectives on the thopes and their management were also provided by members of the local communities and some of the officials interviewed. These point to a changed relationship with the thopes and are one of the reasons for reduced use and dependence. Thopes were once important since they contributed wood for village needs. Today the restrictions placed on cutting of wood has reduced the thopes contribution to village development works. On the other hand, as a result of the urbanization and the increased land prices many of the local residents have become rich by selling their lands. Any money for village development or functions is collected in the form of generous cash donations. As interviewees mentioned, with the thopes no longer able to bring in money for village development, protecting the thopes is of little interest to locals.

It was also evident for the interviews that urbanization has contributed to the distancing of the local residents from thopes. The ethic behind planting of thopes was that they had to provide for the community and future generations. However, the thinking of the new generation influenced by the development around has changed in this regard, and they seem to have little interest in protecting commons like thopes. Moreover, the changed demography as a result of urbanization that has brought in a migrant population has meant that the newer residents have no social or cultural connections to the resource. As an interviewee in a village that had witnessed rapid urbanization in recent years said, both the old and newer residents consider the thope to be government property with the government responsible for the thopes care. This has also meant a reduced attachment to the resource when compared to the past where it was seen as a village common.

Moreover, the urbanization of Bengaluru has meant skyrocketing land prices. Land according to the interviewees had become so expensive that people have stopped giving importance to common lands like thopes, eyeing them more for encroachment. This was reflected in the increased suspicion about any queries related to land, and people were often reluctant to speak or take us to the thope sites fearing the land mafia.

It was clear during the field visits and interactions that the thopes are slowly fading from the memory of the older residents. In one site, a local said that while he was aware that the village had a thope, it had been 10 years since he had visited the site. He remembered the thope from his childhood and the trees of banyan, mango and jamun, but was surprised to know that there was only one banyan tree left standing today. Often people from the younger generation were not aware of what the term meant or where any of the thopes in the past had existed. The thopes being forgotten was evident from the considerable difficulty we faced during the field visits in even locating the thopes and was especially true in sites that had lost its thopes. Where the thopes existed, there was considerable confusion among the residents about proposed plans for the same. The same site was said to have been proposed for different purposes by different interviewees. Even among the local officials, the thopes did not seem to hold much importance, with many not aware of the existence of thopes even.

With regard to administration, several of the interviewees said that the traditional administration under the gauda and shánbógh had been a better system, even though this was on caste-based lines. The traditional management had ensured better protection of the resource, with people afraid to cut trees without permission but not denied the right to do so in times of need. The politicization of local bodies was lamented by several interviewees where it was no longer the needs of the locals or their dependence on commons, but political considerations that dominated decision-making. There were alternating views as well. In one site, an ex-elected member in the GP said that the current administrative structure was better. According to him, while the decision-making powers of the GP with regard to common lands might have become limited, there were more funds available to the GP today for general village development works including developing commons into parks as was being considered in his village.

5. Discussion and conclusion

Health of urban commons is important as the multiple ecosystem services they provide can improve quality of life and be critical for enhancing resilience in cities. Loss of these ecosystem services on the other hand, owing to ecological degradation or as a result of social, political and economic processes, has multiple costs and can adversely impact social–ecological resilience for cities and especially for resource-dependent city residents (Adger 2000; Gómez-Baggethun & Barton 2013). As urbanization of cities like Bengaluru continues, commons such as thopes need to be managed in ways that enhance their capacity to contribute to the social, cultural and physical needs of urban residents especially the most vulnerable.

Most studies on ecosystem services have focused on countries in the Global North, and in these contexts, provisioning services have received attention to a lesser degree (Hasse et al. 2014) as it is difficult to imagine cities as sources of food and raw materials. Studies from India (Baviskar 2011; D’Souza & Nagendra 2011; Parthasarathy 2011; Mundoli et al. 2015) and countries in Africa, however, have shown that urban and peri-urban natural spaces are highly valued as they support provisioning services that serve as safety nets for unemployed migrants and contribute considerably to income of urban poor (Lannas & Turpie 2009; Schlesinger et al. 2015). The peri-urban interface of cities in India, including Bengaluru, are expected to expand and are also expected to be sites of increasing poverty due to the concentration of an informalized migrant workforce (Mallik 2009). Gunda thopes, many of which persist in peri-urban Bengaluru, attain significance as sites for foraging for food, fuelwood and fodder for this migrant population, as well as a range of other ecosystem services. Social–ecological systems such as the thopes can therefore be understood as critical nodes in the supply of urban services, and maintaining and enhancing these commons can contribute to quality of life and resilience in cities (Asprone et al. 2017).

However, the impacts of urbanization on thopes marked by their conversion, degradation and encroachment have adversely affected these ecosystems services with consequences for social and ecological resilience. Almost 50% of the thopes in the study sites had been converted to other forms of land use while over 40% were degraded. In classifying the threats, the chief threat to the thopes is the increasing demand for land to meet the needs of a demographically and spatially growing city. Another major threat to the thopes, resulting in their degradation and conversion, is the reduced multifunctional use as commons that has distanced the traditional users. The demography in the peri-urban sites where the thopes are situated is changing rapidly. In the coming years, in all possibility, the migrant population will exceed that of locals. This would mean a change in the users of the thopes itself. These new users have no social or cultural links to thopes and this could be a significant factor contributing to the degradation of thopes in future.

The conversions and degradations have resulted in loss of provisioning services of thopes that were once a source of food and raw materials, and contributed to livelihoods and subsistence use. Thopes are no longer available for grazing, and while households have moved to using liquefied petroleum gas as a fuel source, many can ill-afford the expense continuing to depend on fuelwood collected from common lands for cooking. Thus, the loss of provisioning services provided by thopes can have serious implications for the lives and livelihoods especially for resource-dependent urban marginalized groups.

Bengaluru once known for its salubrious weather has been experiencing increased pollution levels and temperature variations owing to the urban heat island effect (Sudhira et al. 2007). Trees can play an important role in mitigating pollution and regulating climate (Vailshery et al. 2013), but with conversion and degradation of thopes, these regulating ecosystem services are lost. Further, with loss in tree cover, the thopes can no longer serve as habitats for different species. Urbanization is seen as a process resulting in reduction of biodiversity, and with the loss of tree cover in thopes, habitats for urban species are destroyed. However, urban and especially peri-urban fringes of cities, even of highly urbanized regions, retain the ability to support a variety of biota if well managed (McKinney 2002; Elmqvist et al. 2013). Thopes still persist in the periphery of Bengaluru, and not only have the potential to serve as habitats for urban biodiversity but also provide the crucial connect between people and nature: a connect that enhances human well-being and fosters support for protection of the urban environment (Miller 2005).

Resilience extends to ecological aspects of an urban ecosystem but being subject to human use concerns of equity, access and distribution become equally significant (Adger 2007). In the context of developing countries, alienation from urban commons that support livelihood and subsistence use is a cause for concern. Alienation results from being denied physical access (Unnikrishnan & Nagendra 2015; Unnikrishnan et al. 2016), but can also result in a sense of displacement as the landscape of the commons is altered (Baindur 2014). Thus while fencing of thopes dissuades traditional uses such as grazing, eroding of social and cultural links leads to disconnect with the commons. This was evident from the interviews where thopes were no longer sites for community gatherings and were fading from the memory of residents, both old and young alike. Disconnect is exacerbated by the changed institutional structure, with elected members and officials being unaware of the uses of thopes and disinterested in their ecological or social role. Resilience of the resource-dependent marginalized groups is closely linked to access, and converted, degraded or encroached thopes all contribute to alienation and increased vulnerability.

5.1. Importance of urban commons for resilience

With increasing urbanization, cities will have to look to ecosystems services generated within their boundaries in order to enhance their resilience (McPhearson et al. 2014). The protection of urban commons that provide these services is undoubtedly a challenging task, especially as commons are transforming from rural commons to urban and peri-urban no-man’s lands. But these concerns and challenges also present an opportunity for redefining urban social–ecological relations. In the context of urbanization, the thinking about the urban resident’s relationship with social–ecological systems has to undergo a change. It is imperative to move away from the perception of negative dependency that characterizes social and ecological relationships that adversely impacts ecosystem services to one of positive resource dependency. One of the sources of positive dependency could be restorative topophilia or “love of a place” that facilitates individual and collective attachment to it (Tidball & Stedman 2013, 297). This enables groups to come together to protect the environment and has been evident in Bengaluru city as well (Enqvist et al. 2014, 2016). Collective action presents several challenges and inclusiveness is especially a cause for concern. But commons such as thopes provide an opportunity for promoting interactions among a diverse milieu of urban residents owing to their social, ecological and cultural relevance. The social and cultural memories that people share with commons that they depend on is a key principle in resilience that can be leveraged to prevent decline of urban ecosystem services (Barthel et al. 2010; Andersson et al. 2015). Different urban groups based on their socioeconomic conditions attach different values to urban commons – ranging from consumptive use to recreational of the same resource – and these could be a challenge when determining use of resource. Cultural ecosystem services can influence landscape planning in cities and serve as a bridge between competing uses (Andersson et al. 2015; Plieninger et al. 2015). Thopes are today owned by the state, but the right to manage urban commons irrespective of ownership rights can contribute significantly to resilience building of cities (Colding & Barthel 2013). It allows fostering of adaptive and participative management by linking local knowledge and resources with formal institutions. In the Indian context, one of the greatest challenges to adaptive management is that local knowledge is not integrated into planning and policy. This is in spite of evidence that urban commons across cities in India are accessed by local communities and migrants for a variety of uses (Baviskar 2011; D’Souza & Nagendra 2011; Parthasarathy 2011; Mundoli et al. 2015). But, building adaptive management that is able to deal with uncertainties can contribute to resilience-building of social–ecological systems that are complex, unpredictable and dynamic (Folke et al. 2002; Andersson et al. 2014). City planners and officials, sharing knowledge and working collaboratively with local citizens, can play an important role in managing urban commons as is seen in the case of other cities in the Global South such as Bogota (Berney 2010) and Cape Town (Colding et al. 2013). In the Indian context, the decentralized local self-government, working with the citizens and civic action groups in Bengaluru (Enqvist et al. 2014, 2016) has demonstrated the potential to encourage collective and adaptive management of urban commons. Ecosystem services as boundary objects can also foster exchanges between different actors promoting transdisciplinary not just in research but also in governance by connecting the environment to political decision-making (Schröter et al. 2014).

Urban commons are extremely contested resources, when compared to rural commons. The use and management of the latter are more defined, while the heterogeneity of population and high levels of inequity pose numerous challenges in the context of cities. On the one hand, urban commons are coveted by wealthier urban residents for meeting their esthetic and recreational needs. On the other hand, the same common pool resource is critical to support livelihood and subsistence needs of urban poor. The challenge lies in reconciling these very different perceptions about urban commons. This will require sustained involvement of citizens from all socioeconomic groups, especially in creating awareness among citizens about the variety of needs from commons for each of them. It is often the lack of awareness about the multiuse nature of commons that makes even well-meaning citizens take steps for the protection of commons that result in exclusions. There has to be an engagement with the state, who owns the resource and are key stakeholders in planning and implementation of plans. Trade-offs may be inevitable, but these should be arrived at by agreement, with the involvement of state, civil society and resident groups from diverse backgrounds to ensure that powerfully vested interests do not determine outcomes of protection. Local collaborative efforts in community protection and management of urban commons are difficult, and take time, but can serve as important learnings for city or country wide efforts.

Social and ecological resilience in cities depends on multiple factors: fostering ecological and social diversity, enhancing services provided by urban ecosystems for diverse urban residents, fostering social integration and encouraging collaborative management. Urban commons provide an opportunity to incorporate all of the above (Colding & Barthel 2013; Andersson et al. 2014). In the context of countries in the Global South such as India, provisioning ecosystem services of urban commons are especially significant. Continued access to urban commons is critical for urban marginalized groups who depend on these resources and services for their livelihoods and subsistence. Resilience is not just adaptability or persistence of social–ecological systems but also involves transformability especially during crisis (Folke et al. 2002; 2010; Dodman et al. 2017).

Urban resilience needs to focus on both multi-scale and temporal aspects, as well as the increasing social inequalities in cities (Chelleri et al. 2015). This is especially so in the context of countries such as India with its widening socioeconomic gap amongst urban residents, and migration of rural poor into cities (MHUPA 2011). There exists a wide socioeconomic gulf between the rich and poor in cities today, and even within the poor, there can be considerable heterogeneity. Knowledge of this diversity is important in ‘understanding the resilience landscape of poor urban areas within a city’ (Chelleri et al. 2015: 13). For example, in the case of thopes, this would mean addressing the challenges of maintaining social cohesion and equitable access in the peri-urban where migrants as a population and users of thopes could increase, thereby competing with traditional users; both however constituting the urban poor.

Urbanization presents a crisis of sorts today. But at the same time, it also presents an opportunity to re-envision cities as being built around commons: commons that provide equitable access to a range of ecosystem services making cities resilient and sustainable. Urban plans and policies need to recognize the multiuse nature of urban commons, rather than perceiving their use for purely recreational purposes or for providing regulating services. This will require ensuring continued use by traditional communities and acknowledging uses that go beyond recreational. Particularly, to begin with, policies need to acknowledge the legitimacy of provisioning services that can support livelihood and subsistence use of local residents and migrants. City authorities should incorporate frameworks on the economic valuation of ecosystem services which indicate how these can be effectively used in planning, budgeting and service delivery (TEEB-The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity 2011). Planning in its present form fails to address the complexities of the peri-urban characterized by social inequities, environmental degradation, multiplicity of institutions and a heterogeneous population that makes collective action a challenge. There is a need therefore for planning approaches that take into consideration the specific ecological, social and institutional context of the peri-urban (Allen 2003). Some lessons can be learnt from participatory planning experiences as in the case of Hubli-Dharwad in India (Halkatti et al. 2003) and Kumasi in Ghana (Simon et al. 2004).

The study is of relevance in the context of India’s rapid urbanization and its impact on natural resource base and poverty of cities. Adding to this is the concern of models being proposed for cities. While cities in India are recognized as critical for employment generation and economic development, the country is also witnessing a shift in poverty from the rural to the urban (MHUPI 2011). The peripheries of major metropolitan cites including Bengaluru, the site for this research, have shown a trend toward marginalization of the work force as urbanization has resulted in degradation of commons and impacted traditional livelihoods linked to the natural resource base (Mallik 2009). Urban commons by contributing to livelihoods and quality of life have an important role to play in building resilience of urban citizens. At present, planning for resilient Indian cities receives a passing mention in urban planning documents of AMRUT (MoUD 2015a) and Smart City Missions (MoUD 2015b). This is however in the context of disaster management such as mitigating impacts of urban flooding. Planning for resilience needs to extend beyond disaster preparedness to helping urban residents, especially the marginalized, in withstanding the stress of daily urban living. For this. resilience needs to be mainstreamed into policies and plans at different levels: national, state and city. The specific needs of cities in the Global South where a large population live in considerable poverty requires moving away from conventional models of city planning that have focused disproportionality on providing physical infrastructure and services. We recommend that natural spaces in cities in the first place be recognized as multiuse urban commons. Urban planning in India needs to then incorporate these multifunctional social and ecological commons for resilience and sustainability of its ever increasing cities.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge funding from a USAID PEER grant to Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE) and a grant from the Azim Premji University. The authors also wish to thank the interviewees who generously gave their time and contributed to this study. Hita Unnikrishnan is acknowledged for assistance with spatial analysis and Lionel Sujay Vailshery is thanked for his help in field visits.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Environment Azim Premji University grant id RC00035 United States Agency for International Development-Partnership for Enhanced Engagement in Research (USAID PEER) grant no. 2000001966 .

Notes on contributors

Seema Mundoli

Seema Mundoli is a Research Associate at the Azim Premji University, Bengaluru. Her research interests include conservation of urban ecological spaces, concerns of equitable access to these commons and the role of governance institutions in these processes.

B. Manjunatha

B Manjunatha as a Research Assistant has considerable knowledge about urban commons in Bengaluru and shares concerns for their protection.

Harini Nagendra

Harini Nagendra is a Professor in the School of Development at Azim Premji University, Bengaluru and the author of “Nature in the City: Bengaluru in the Past, Present, and Future (2016), Oxford University Press, India. Her research focuses on questions of social-ecological sustainability in Indian forests and cities, with a long term program of research on biodiversity, green spaces and lakes in Indian cities.