




































Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal 4 (1): 59–69, January 2021 

 
SPECIAL SECTION: The Commons: A Revisit  
 

Celebrating Jodha: And Revisiting the Commons 
 

Harini Nagendra,  Pranab Mukhopadhyay,  Rucha Ghate  
 
Abstract: Narpat S. Jodha (1937–2020) passed away at the age of 83 years. 
He is best remembered for his contribution to research on the commons 
and livelihoods in semi-arid regions in India. His work has transcended 
geographical boundaries and has won him worldwide recognition. His 
passing away provides an occasion to revisit the commons issue for 
multiple reasons, mainly that the livelihood issues that triggered the study of 
the commons still remain. Despite all the livelihood benefits that the 
commons provide, it is widely acknowledged that the commons in India are 
under threat, which throws open multiple questions: Is it due to the absence 
of secure property rights among local communities or the result of weak 
governance mechanisms? We also recognize that research on the commons 
has moved beyond livelihood issues to gender perspectives, digital 
commons, urban issues, and health. 

Keywords: Commons; Narpat S. Jodha. 

 

1. LIFE AND WORKS OF N.S. JODHA 

Narpat S. Jodha (1937–2020), born in Rajasthan, India, has left behind a 
rich legacy of work on common pool resources (CPRs), having pioneered 
work in an area that was an unfashionable research domain at the time. His 

                                                           
 School of Development, Azim Premji University, Burugunte Village, Sarjapur Hobli, 
Anekal Taluk, Bangalore 562125, India; harini.nagendra@apu.edu.in.  

 Goa Business School, Goa University, Taleigao Plateau, Goa 403206, India; 

pm@unigoa.ac.in.  

 Foundation for Ecological Security, Anand; C-616, Athashri, Off Pan Card Club, Road, 
Baner, Pune 411 045, Maharashtra, India; rucha@ncf-india.org. 

Copyright © Nagendra, Mukhopadhyay and Ghate 2021. Released under Creative Commons 
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC 4.0) by the author.  

Published by Indian Society for Ecological Economics (INSEE), c/o Institute of Economic 
Growth, University Enclave, North Campus, Delhi 110007.  

ISSN: 2581-6152 (print); 2581-6101 (web). 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v4i1.396  

https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v4i1.396


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [60] 

long journey in academic writing began in 1966 (Jodha 1966) and ended in 
2019 (Bhatta et al. 2019). He completed his masters in Economics at the 
Delhi School of Economics (Mukhopadhyay and Ghate 2020) and his PhD 
in Economics at the University of Jodhpur in the late 60s (Jodha 1967). He 
was honoured as a Fellow of the World Academy for Art and Science in 
2001. He also served as the President of the Indian Society of Ecological 
Economics (INSEE) and the President of the International Society for the 
Study of the Commons (IASC), both during the period 2004–06. He was 
also the Conference President of the Indian Society for Agricultural 
Economics in 2008. 

He began his work life at Indian Council for Agricultural Research-Central 
Arid Zone Research Institute (CAZRI), Jodhpur, in 1963 and went on to 
join the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi. He later moved 
to different Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 
(CGRIA) organizations, most significantly International Crops Research 
Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Hyderabad.  

His work is widely cited. Although the most cited of his papers was 
published in the journal Science (Kates 2001), the article that he is best 
remembered for is from the 1980s (Jodha 1986), which he authored when 
he was working at ICRISAT. His study, based on 80 villages in 21 districts 
in 7 states, highlighted the significance of CPRs for employment and 
income generation among the rural poor. It claimed that the income that 
poor households derived from CPRs ranged between 15% and 23% of their 
total income. The finding that drew the attention of many in the field was 
that CPRs contributed more to rural livelihoods than many anti-poverty 
programmes. Jodha also flagged the fact that the area under CPRs was 
declining, which would negatively impact the livelihoods of the rural poor. 

While trying to understand his academic journey, we turned to the most 
popular web search engine that captures the academic footprint of all 
researchers these days—Google Scholar. As anyone in this field would 
know, the multiplicity of author names is a nightmare for bibliometric 
analysis. Jodha‘s articles can be found under four different names—N.S. 
Jodha (over 6,000 search results), Narpat Jodha, Narpat S. Jodha, and 
Narpat Singh Jodha—making collating his legacy difficult. 

His early work was on agriculture in semi-arid regions. Starting from the 
1960s he regularly published in the Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics and 
Economic & Political Weekly. He worked simultaneously on agriculture, 
poverty, and natural resources in the early part of his career. By the early 
1990s, he had expanded his spatial domain to the mountains and how 
communities were dealing with issues concerning livelihoods and resources. 



[61] Harini Nagendra, Pranab Mukhopadhyay, Rucha Ghate 

His shift in research focus from semi-arid to mountainous regions was 
probably driven by his shift from ICRISAT to the International Centre for 
Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD). 

One of his lasting contributions was a synthesis of observations and 
inferences from different studies by ICIMOD and others in mountainous 
regions across Nepal, India, Bhutan, Bangladesh, China, and Pakistan. His 
work on mountain specificities in the context of CPRs was considered 
seminal; in it, he discusses  

[…] limited accessibility, high degree of fragility, marginality, diversity, and 
nature endowed niche resources….. to elaborate, limited accessibility, relative 
isolation and distance-based closedness, force a community‘s crucial 
dependence on local resources and hence their protection while using, including 
through group action. Fragility favoured (conservation focused) diversified land 
use with emphasis on extensive type of usage promoting collective stake in 
fragile (degradable) resources. Marginality, both physical and socio-political, 
promoted social cohesion for collective self help and risk sharing. (Jodha 2007, 
125) 

thus bringing out the important component of a community‘s natural 
resource base.  

His work on community management of natural resources in fragile 
mountain regions is also widely regarded as seminal (Jodha 2002). He 
recorded the use of indigenous technologies to adapt to high-risk, low-
productivity environments; the gradual decline in traditional resource 
management systems; and the need for an integrated approach to deal with 
these specificities while designing policies for such fragile areas. 

While Jodha attributed a central role to communities in CPR management, 
he also emphasized the importance of regulatory institutions. He accepted 
that the absence of regulatory institutions, combined with rapid population 
growth (Jodha 1985), might lead to a ―tragedy of the commons‖, as 
predicted by Hardin (1968). The paper by Jodha, like several other studies, 
suggests that the effects of rapid population growth are mediated by 
institutional factors and could be overshadowed by pressures arising from 
changing market conditions.  

One of Jodha‘s concerns was that socioeconomic change is inadequately 
captured by social science research, partly due to the researchers' 
perceptions and partly because of inadequate research approaches and tools 
(Jodha 1988). CPR research has exploded over the last three decades or so. 
Many researchers have contributed to this domain, including Ostrom 
(1990). Interestingly, her research interests and region of interest (Nepal) 
overlapped with Jodha‘s significantly. However, CPR research today 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [62] 

explores newer areas and themes that build on the shoulders of these 
pioneers.  

In this short collection for the special section of Ecology, Economy and 
Society—the INSEE journal, we have three contributions examining three 
different aspects of CPRs. Adhikari (2021, this volume) provides an 
overview of CPRs, the theory, and the concepts. He also examines the 
international debate on the commons, its limitations, and the management 
challenges it poses. Chorran et al. (2021, this volume) focus on Rajasthan‘s 
CPRs—a research area that was central to Jodha‘s work—using Ostroms‘s 
socio-ecological systems (SES) framework (Ostrom 2009). They 
conceptualize the problem of livelihoods and CPRs in the context of 
climate change and provide evidence of how communities adapt through 
ecological restoration. Murali et al. (2021, this volume) focus on Spiti 
valley—a mountain region that was also an area of research interest to 
Jodha later in his life. They bring a gender perspective to natural resource 
management, specifically of water, in this resource-scarce region. Murali et 
al.‘s work represents the newer areas being explored by researchers in CPR 
research. 

 

2. GENDER AND CPRs 

Unfortunately, despite the vital role played by women in CPR management 
across India, which early seminal work on gender in India has shown, post-
independence CPR policies have rarely been gender-responsive (Tyagi and 
Das 2018). These policies fail to recognize both the importance of women 
in CPR management and the need to design supportive institutions that 
facilitate the continued participation of women. They seem unresponsive to 
the existence of deeper structural issues that need to be addressed to enable 
women‘s groups to have sufficient voice and agency in the capital-
dominated market economy of the twenty-first century. CPR research on 
gender must necessarily expand into other arenas, seeking to connect to 
larger pan-Indian societal challenges such as rural land grabbing and the 
gradual erosion of potential commons-related livelihoods and subsistence in 
many parts of the country (Doss, Summerfield, and Tsikata 2014). These 
structural changes have shaped the broader challenges of food insecurity 
and forced rural–urban migration, as was witnessed across India during the 
migrant crisis at the time of the nation-wide lockdown in early 2020. CPR 
studies on gender have begun to cross-connect with this broader nation-
wide reshaping of land, economy, and natural resources. For instance, a 
recent nation-wide study showed that the loss of commons land is largely 
driven by two processes—private capture by influential households within 



[63] Harini Nagendra, Pranab Mukhopadhyay, Rucha Ghate 

villages and state-driven consolidation and transfer of commons land to 
private interests, fueled by a development agenda (Thapliyal, Mukherji, and 
Malghan 2019). Inequality, including gender inequality, is closely associated 
with the loss of CPRs, though causal relationships are hard to establish. 
Across India, the collapse of CPRs has transferred the burden of stall-
feeding cattle and collecting firewood and water from increasingly distant 
sources onto women and girls (Vij and Narain 2016). This has important 
repercussions for India‘s economy as well, making it increasingly difficult 
for rural Indian women to participate in the formal or informal workforce 
(Rao 2018). 

Such an expansion of scope and focus will be essential for gender studies of 
the commons to provide fundamental explanations of the underlying 
dynamics that shape many of the current, deeply unjust, large-scale changes 
that we witness today, leading to wide-ranging insights that have policy 
impact. 

 

3. URBAN ISSUES 

The other area that has seen significant contributions in recent years is 
urban CPR issues. Despite the fact that developing countries in the global 
South are still largely rural, they have been urbanising at a faster rate than 
developed countries of the global North over the past several decades 
(Nagendra et al. 2018). As the population in South Asia becomes 
increasingly urban and the poor migrate to urban spaces for their livelihood, 
the role of urban commons needs to be looked at from multiple 
dimensions. With some estimates indicating that India will become more 
than 50% urban in a couple of decades (Nagendra et al. 2018), CPR research 
in India must significantly expand its focus to consider urban commons in 
detail. 

Across the urban gradient, from large cities to small towns, urban ecological 
commons have been taken over by the state and local municipalities 
(Mundoli, Manjunatha, and Nagendra 2017) as ‗waste‘ government property 
to be converted into schools, bus stations, and housing colonies, and by 
private real estate interests (Parikh 2020) for high-end apartments, malls, 
and corporate campuses. The accelerating land grabbing, fueled by public 
and private interests, has sharply eroded spaces for the commons in cities. 
Given the scarcity of land in India‘s cities and the multitude of interests and 
actors staking a claim on scarce resources, urban commons have become 
sites of intense contestation, exclusion, and even violence. CPR research in 
cities increasingly views the commons through a lens of eco-Marxism, 
political ecology, and feminist studies (Rao 2020). In Mumbai, for instance, 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [64] 

cattle grazers, salt pan workers, Koliwadi fishers, and migrant workers 
foraging for fuelwood are excluded from access to mangroves, protected 
forests, lakes, parks, streets, and footpaths by urban visions of ‗modern‘ city 
restorations that have no space for traditional commons users, considering 
them both unsightly and unhygienic (Parthasarathy 2011). Similar patterns 
of exclusion have been documented in cities across India, including Delhi, 
Chennai, and Bangalore. Yet, there is still hope. Polycentric governance 
systems, drawing on collaborations between local governments and 
community groups, have a role to play in lake restoration movements in 
Bangalore and many other cities (Nagendra and Ostrom 2014). Peri-urban 
farming communities in areas like Gurgaon have been able to self-organize 
the use of waste water flows from the city as a resource, mediating water 
insecurity and forging new norms and practices of cooperation for waste 
water sharing (Narain and Singh 2017). Environmental placemaking around 
restored urban ecological commons appears to be a route by which diverse 
migrants from different socioeconomic backgrounds forge an emotional 
connect to the city, deriving a strong sense of place and investing in 
commons action (Sen and Nagendra 2020). Further research is needed to 
understand the factors shaping the processes and outcomes of commons 
transformation, both as the loss of CPRs and the forging of new forms of 
urban collective action. In particular, we lack an understanding of 
transformations in Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities and towns as most urban 
commons research in India has so far been in larger metropolitan cities, 
with rare exceptions (Zimmer, Véron, and Cornea 2020). 

 

4. DIGITAL COMMONS 

Digital and information commons are another domain where issues of 
property rights are discussed intensely. As information and communications 
technology (ICT) began to gain ground across the world, for example, with 
the development of the internet and collaborative approaches towards 
open-source software development, new digital commons began to emerge. 
These were maintained by communities of software developers and creative 
minds in line with principles of collective creation, sharing, and free 
availability for third-party users. These ideas, and the underlying spirit of 
the commons, clash with another growing tendency—to create proprietary 
software that requires a paid (often substantially expensive) licence to use 
and operate. As seminal work on the information commons—an area of 
work that emerged after around 1995— has shown, multiple users of the 
digital commons began to notice discussions around issues such as the 
norms of sharing, free riding, conflict, and overuse, which had been 
discussed extensively in CPR literature (Hess and Ostrom 2011).  



[65] Harini Nagendra, Pranab Mukhopadhyay, Rucha Ghate 

Although there has been very little work on the digital commons in India, 
recent work from other countries has important implications for the 
increasing tendency to equate online communications with efficient 
progress in many corporate and government circles without an adequate 
understanding of the potential challenges. At a time when e-governance is 
gaining momentum across India and is being pushed as a model of 
efficiency, transparency, and anti-corruption, studies such as these have 
important implications for urban and rural India.  

Other global research analyses the increasing challenge of consolidating the 
influence of the world‘s largest technology companies—Facebook, 
Amazon, Google, Apple, and others—who are being investigated by 
governments in North America and Europe for how they capture, store, 
analyse, and disseminate the massive volumes of digital data that they access 
on a daily basis and to what use they put them. Given their increasing 
monopoly over many forms of public data, currently, they seem to have the 
power to set many of the de facto rules for data use, a situation that rightly 
alarms many scholars of the digital commons (Prainsack 2019). Concerns 
have also been expressed about the increasing consolidation of big data, 
which includes the personal data of citizens, opening up new possibilities 
for surveillance by public authorities (Lyon 2014). New property rights on 
data are needed to help protect users against the exploitation of their 
privacy and individual rights by private and public agencies, and theories of 
the commons can have an influential role to play in devising such new legal 
systems of rights (Fia 2020). While some work has been done in this regard 
in India, there is potential to vastly expand the scope, focus, and relevance 
of commons research to digital and information commons issues, which are 
of vital importance in contemporary times. Unfettered use of public data 
will otherwise result in data grabbing and the enclosure of data commons 
by a few powerful interests, rather than ensuring that big data remains 
available for public use as data commons, as the initial rhetoric and promise 
suggested (Purtova 2017). 

 

5. HEALTH AS A COMMON CONCERN 

Finally, another emerging area of work on the commons is the health 
commons. Although the need for robust, inexpensive, accessible 
community-based health services across India, and indeed across the world, 
is self-evident, commons research has played a relatively small role in 
shaping debates on public health so far. Yet, research on the health 
commons is steadily gaining ground in recent years, though to a limited 
extent in India. Despite the increasing privatization of healthcare across the 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [66] 

world, health commons research argues that a market-driven system will 
not maximize public health. Healthcare driven by private markets (as so 
much of healthcare is increasingly becoming in India, for example) limits 
patient choice, makes the medical system intentionally opaque, and results 
in classic commons-type enclosures, excluding marginalized communities 
from access (Nonini 2007). A second challenge where commons research 
can play a role is in understanding how to move from micro-commons or 
small-scale community health programmes towards the provision of larger-
scale regional healthcare. Ideas of polycentricity can play an influential role 
here, with multi-level horizontal and vertical stakeholder collaborations that 
keep in mind design principles identified by Ostrom (Smith-Nonini, 2006). 
In addition, research on the health commons stresses the need to go 
beyond a focus on good strategic practices such as polycentricity towards 
normative commons approaches, for instance, where participation becomes 
an inherent value, and, finally, towards political approaches of campaigning 
and advocacy building for the transformation of public health towards 
greater civil society engagement and commons action. These insights have 
tremendous value for India.  

In conclusion, this special section pays tribute to the tremendously 
influential role played by Narpat S. Jodha in shaping commons and CPR 
work in India. He conducted path-breaking work to document and bring to 
light the need to ensure a central role communities in the management of 
ecological CPRs across India while highlighting for policymakers the vital 
role played by CPRs in the daily lives and livelihoods of rural communities. 
The three research papers in this section demonstrate why issues 
concerning the commons, as studied by Jodha and so many others, 
continue to play an influential role in India today. In addition, in this 
introductory note, we examine other emerging issues of the commons, 
which were not as prominent in the times when Jodha conducted his 
research. These include the need for an expanded focus on gender 
marginalization and new issues such as urban and peri-urban CPR 
management, digital and information commons, and health commons. 
While some work has been done on urban and peri-urban commons in 
India, the volume of work is relatively small compared to the larger focus 
on the rural commons. With India on a steady path towards urbanization, 
we cannot ignore the central importance of urban CPRs in shaping just, 
equitable, and sustainable cities. This demands more research. Further, 
there has been minimal research on digital and information technologies 
from a commons perspective. These are assuming an increasing significance 
in contemporary India, with the growing influence of large players like 
Google, Facebook, and Amazon in shaping public behaviour and the 



[67] Harini Nagendra, Pranab Mukhopadhyay, Rucha Ghate 

potential for increasing citizen surveillance with the consolidation of public 
datasets. We need greater societal conversations and scholarly examinations 
of the norms of the common use of big data, and commons theory can play 
an influential role in these conversations. Finally, another emerging area of 
new research on the commons is public health. With the increasing 
privatization of healthcare in India, concerns about exclusion and 
marginalization are emerging strongly. Commons theory, and its normative 
and philosophical underpinnings, are beginning to play an influential role in 
public health debates in many parts of the world, but research on CPRs and 
public health has largely been siloed in India. This is another emerging area 
that deserves new focus, as the chasms in availability of healthcare during 
the annus horribilis of 2020—the year of COVID-19—have demonstrated so 
sharply. 

 

REFERENCES  

Bhatta, L. D., A. Shrestha, N. Neupane, N. S. Jodha, and N. Wu. 2019. ―Shifting 
Dynamics of Nature, Society and Agriculture in the Hindu Kush Himalayas: 
Perspectives for Future Mountain Development.‖ Journal of Mountain Science 16 (5): 
1133–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-018-5146-4. 

Doss, C., G. Summerfield, and D. Tsikata. 2014. ―Land, Gender, and Food 
Security.‖ Feminist Economics 20 (1): 1–23. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2014.895021. 

Fia, T.. 2020. ―An Alternative to Data Ownership: Managing Access to Non-
Personal Data through the Commons.‖ Global Jurist (published online ahead of 
print 2020), 20200034. https://doi.org/10.1515/gj-2020-0034. 

Hardin, G. 1968. ―The Tragedy of the Commons.‖ Science 162 (3859):     1243–48. 
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243. 

Hess, C., and E. Ostrom. 2011. Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to 
Practice. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. 

Jodha, N. S. 1966. ―The Scarcity Oriented Growth Pattern of Arid Agriculture.‖ 
Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics XXI (4): 1-10.  

———. 1967. ―Capital Formation in Arid Agriculture-- A Study of Resource 
Conservation and Reclamation Measures Applied to Arid Agriculture.‖ PhD thesis. 
Jodhpur: University of Jodhpur. 

———. 1985. ―Population Growth and the Decline of Common Property 
Resources in Rajasthan, India.‖ Population and Development Review 11 (2): 247. 
https://doi.org/10.2307/1973488. 

———. 1986. ―Common Property Resources and the Rural Poor.‖ Economic and 
Political Weekly 21 (26): 1169–81. 

———. 1988. ―Poverty Debate in India: A Minority View.‖ Economic and Political 
Weekly 23 (45/47): 2421–28. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-018-5146-4
https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2014.895021
https://doi.org/10.1515/gj-2020-0034
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243
https://doi.org/10.2307/1973488


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [68] 

———. 2002. Life on the Edge: Sustaining Agriculture and Community Resources in Fragile 
Environments. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. 

———. 2007. ―Mountain Commons: Changing Space and Status at Community 
Levels in the Himalayas.‖ Journal of Mountain Science 4 (2): 124–35. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-007-0124-2. 

Kates, R. W. 2001. ―Environment and Development: Sustainability Science.‖ Science 
292 (5517): 641–42. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1059386. 

Lyon, D. 2014. ―Surveillance, Snowden, and Big Data: Capacities, Consequences, 
Critique.‖ Big Data & Society 1 (2): 205395171454186. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951714541861. 

Mukhopadhyay, P. and R. Ghate. 2020. ―Narpat S. Jodha: Forever Restless.‖ 
Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal 3 (2): 219–222. 
https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v3i2.90. 

Mundoli, S., B. Manjunatha, and H. Nagendra. 2017. ―Commons That Provide: 
The Importance of Bengaluru‘s Wooded Groves for Urban Resilience.‖ International 
Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 9 (2): 184–206. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2016.1264404. 

Nagendra, H., X. Bai, E. S. Brondizio, and S. Lwasa. 2018. ―The Urban South and 
the Predicament of Global Sustainability. ‖ Nature Sustainability 1 (7): 341–49. 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0101-5. 

Nagendra, H. and E. Ostrom. 2014. ―Applying the Social-Ecological System 
Framework to the Diagnosis of Urban Lake Commons in Bangalore, India.‖ Ecology 
and Society 19 (2): 67. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06582-190267. 

Narain, V., and A. K. Singh. 2017. ―Flowing against the Current: The Socio-
Technical Mediation of Water (in)Security in Periurban Gurgaon, India.‖ Geoforum 
81 (May): 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.02.010. 

Nonini, D. M., ed. 2007. The Global Idea of ‘the Commons’. New York: Berghahn 
Books. 

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective 
Action. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. 

———. 2009. ―A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-
Ecological Systems.‖ Science 325 (5939): 419–22. 
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133. 

Parikh, A. 2020. ―Urban Commons to Private Property: Gendered Environments 
in Mumbai‘s Fisher Communities.‖ Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 
(October). https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775820961401. 

Parthasarathy, D. 2011. ―Hunters, Gatherers and Foragers in a Metropolis: 
Commonising the Private and Public in Mumbai.‖ Economic and Political Weekly      
46 (50): 54–63. 

Prainsack, B. 2019. ―Logged out: Ownership, Exclusion and Public Value in the 
Digital Data and Information Commons.‖ Big Data & Society 6 (1): 
205395171982977. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719829773. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-007-0124-2
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1059386
https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951714541861
https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v3i2.90
https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2016.1264404
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0101-5
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06582-190267
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.02.010
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133
).%20https:/doi.org/10.1177/0263775820961401
https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719829773


[69] Harini Nagendra, Pranab Mukhopadhyay, Rucha Ghate 

Purtova, N. 2017. ―Health Data for Common Good: Defining the Boundaries and 
Social Dilemmas of Data Commons.‖ In Under Observation: The Interplay Between 
EHealth and Surveillance, edited by Samantha Adams, Nadezhda Purtova, and Ronald 
Leenes, 177–210. Law, Governance and Technology Series. Cham: Springer 
International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48342-9_10. 

Rao, M. 2020. ―Gender and the Urban Commons in India: An Overview of 
Scientific Literature and the Relevance of a Feminist Political Ecology Perspective.‖ 
International Quarterly for Asian Studies 51 (1–2): 261–276. 
https://doi.org/10.11588/IQAS.2020.1-2.11028. 

Rao, S. 2018. ―Gender and Class Relations in Rural India. ‖ The Journal of Peasant 
Studies 45 (5–6): 950–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2018.1499094. 

Sen, A., and Harini Nagendra. 2020. ―Local Community Engagement, 
Environmental Placemaking and Stewardship by Migrants: A Case Study of Lake 
Conservation in Bengaluru, India. ‖ Landscape and Urban Planning 204 (December): 
103933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103933. 

Smith-Nonini, S. (2006). ―Conceiving the Health Commons: Operationalizing a 
―Right‖ to Health‖. Social Analysis: The International Journal of Social and Cultural 
Practice 50 (3): 233–245. https://doi.org/10.3167/015597706780459331. 

Thapliyal, S., A. Mukherji, and Deepak Malghan. 2019. ―Economic Inequality and 
Loss of Commons: Evidence from India. ‖ World Development 122 (October): 693–
712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.06.012. 

Tyagi, N. and S. Das. 2018. ―Assessing Gender Responsiveness of Forest Policies 
in India. ‖ Forest Policy and Economics 92 (July): 160–68. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.05.004. 

Vij, S. and V. Narain. 2016. ―Land, Water & Power: The Demise of Common 
Property Resources in Periurban Gurgaon, India. ‖ Land Use Policy 50 (January): 59–
66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.08.030. 

Zimmer, A., R. Véron, and N. L. Cornea. 2020. ―Urban Ponds, Environmental 
Imaginaries and (Un)Commoning: An Urban Political Ecology of the Pondscape in 
a Small City in Gujarat, India.‖ Water Alternatives 13 (2): 225–47. http://www.water-
alternatives.org/index.php/alldoc/articles/vol13/v13issue2/572-a13-2-2/file. 

 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48342-9_10
https://doi.org/10.11588/IQAS.2020.1-2.11028
https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2018.1499094
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103933
https://doi.org/10.3167/015597706780459331
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.06.012
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.05.004
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.08.030
http://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/alldoc/articles/vol13/v13issue2/572-a13-2-2/file
http://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/alldoc/articles/vol13/v13issue2/572-a13-2-2/file

