Master´s Thesis, 60 credits Ecosystems, Governance and Globalization Master´s programme 2009/11, 120 credits Trees, Temples and Technology Social values and ecosystem services in a changing urban context, the case of Bangalore Maria Schewenius Trees, Temples and Technology − Social values and ecosystem services in a changing urban context, the case of Bangalore Maria Schewenius Master’s thesis Stockholm Resilience Centre/ Stockholm University June 2011 2 3 Acknowledgements This study would not have been possible without the support of my supervisor, Maria Tengö, who not only enabled the field study but through encouragement, support and constructive criticism throughout the project managed to make every step of the process an inspiring learning opportunity. A hu ge thank you to Derick, who proved to be just the person one wants to work with in the field. This study would not have been the same without you. Thank you also to Nirmala for always being there and for opening your home to me. Sinchana and Inchara, thank you for patient field work assistance. Maybe one day I get to do the same for you. Also thank you to the people at ATREE, some of whom have been involved in this project from the very beginning. Lastly I want to thank all the participants, who took precious time off other duties to guide me around, or to answer questions about a topic that for some probably were low on their personal interest agenda. The majority of the respondents will most likely not be reached by this paper, the final result of their participation. I can only say that I hope that the study will somehow contribute to a positive outcome and that, in the best of worlds, they themselves will take part of it. “Du är bjuden på maskerad hos dig själv. Du är den enda som är bjuden och kommer att delta. Maskeraden är obligatorisk. Vägrar du delta så innebär det att du ställer dig utanför gruppen.” - Ellen Lamm 4 Abstract The pressure on natural resources in urban areas increases as cities grow in size and populations; however, informal institutions as norms and values by ‘common people’ can play a major role for protection of urban greens. As the city of Bangalore, India, rapidly grows in size and population, its green areas are disappearing. In rural parts of India, local people’s notion of certain ecosystems as sacred has rendered the ecosystems protection and contributed to sustenance of ecosystem services’ generation. The aim of this paper is to explore the potential of stewardship of urban greens in a changing social context, focusing on religious beliefs and practices surrounding trees in Bangalore. It focuses on the cultural dimension of ecosystem services and connects previous research on sacred groves in rural areas with research on stewardship of urban greens. Methods include interview surveys with visitors to five focus sites of religious significance representing the city's four major religions; semi-structured interviews with key informants; and observations. Results show that on the Hindu sites -the study’s main focus- in the city, a range of trees were sacred themselves and revered through a set of practices. On the other sites, trees were rather an incorporated part of the land areas with religious significance. On all sites a set of cultural services was appreciated as generated by trees. Furthermore, visitors had a strong stake in the trees but the experienced levels of capacity to secure the trees’ protection differed between the sites. The study concludes that ‘common people’ are crucial stakeholders for ecosystem stewardship that ensures protection of the urban greens in Bangalore. The different religions in the city provide a multi-faceted protection of different types of urban greens. The level of protection is the outcome of a complex web of community values and norms, where sacredness is one included element. Key words: Sacred trees, cultural ecosystem services, Bangalore, social-ecological memory, ecosystem stewardship 5 Table of contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 8 2. Background ............................................................................................................................... 10 2.1. Urban greens and social-ecological memory ............................................................. 11 2.2. Urban trees and ecosystem services in human-dominated ecosystems ..................... 13 2.3. Sacred trees ................................................................................................................ 15 2.3.1. The mythology .................................................................................................. 15 2.3.2. The wishing tree ................................................................................................ 17 2.3.3. Navagraha gardens ............................................................................................ 18 3. Case study description .............................................................................................................. 19 4. Methods .................................................................................................................................... 22 4.1. Qualitative and quantitative methods ......................................................................... 22 4.1.1. Triangulation ..................................................................................................... 24 4.2. The fieldwork ............................................................................................................. 25 4.2.1. Research sites .................................................................................................... 26 4.2.2. Interview types and respondents ....................................................................... 29 4.2.3. Structured interviews ......................................................................................... 30 4.2.4. Semi-structured interviews ................................................................................ 31 4.2.5. Own observations and data gathering ............................................................... 32 5. Results ...................................................................................................................................... 33 5.1. Sacred trees in a changing social context ................................................................... 33 5.1.1. Tree worshipping at the Hindu sites .................................................................. 36 5.1.2. Other culturally significant trees for Hindus: Gundu topos and heritage trees . 37 5.1.3. Meanings and values of trees on the Buddhist, Muslim and Christian sites ..... 39 5.1.4. Specific reasons for visitors to come to the focus sites ..................................... 40 5.2. Generated and appreciated ecosystem services .......................................................... 41 5.2.1. Activities and the trees’ role during the visits ................................................... 42 5.3. The social and religious context for stewardship of sacred trees ............................... 47 5.3.1. Religious governance structures ........................................................................ 48 5.3.2. The perceived importance of trees and respondents’ preparedness to act ......... 50 5.3.3. The dynamics of the Hindu sacred sites and related conservation potential ..... 51 6. Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 53 6.1. Beliefs and practices as tree stewardship in Bangalore ............................................. 54 6.1.1. The social-ecological memory as a dynamic system ........................................ 54 6.1.2. The social structures and the design of ecosystem stewardship ........................ 56 6.2. Challenges and potentials for supporting ecosystem services in an urban context .... 58 7. Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 61 8. References ................................................................................................................................ 62 9. Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 67 Appendix 1. Appreciated ecosystem services as generated by trees ........................................ 67 Table 1: Ecosystem services appreciated by visitors to the Hindu focus sites ................ 67 Table 2: Ecosystem services appreciated by visitors to the Buddhist focus site ............. 68 Table 3: Ecosystem services appreciated by visitors to the Muslim focus site ............... 69 Table 4: Ecosystem services appreciated by visitors to the Christian focus site ............. 70 6 Appendix 2. Transect result: religious sites, location and trees ............................................... 71 Appendix 3. Respondents other than survey participants ........................................................ 73 Table 1: Key informants .................................................................................................. 73 Table 2: Informants (other) .............................................................................................. 75 Table 3: Observation sites other than the focus- and transect sites ................................