种族空间保护问题:南非公有保护区内归还与圈地之间相互矛盾的紧张关系

IF 4.7 1区 社会学 Q1 GEOGRAPHY
Oscar Mthimkhulu, Adrian Nel
{"title":"种族空间保护问题:南非公有保护区内归还与圈地之间相互矛盾的紧张关系","authors":"Oscar Mthimkhulu,&nbsp;Adrian Nel","doi":"10.1016/j.polgeo.2024.103151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The history of protected areas in South Africa is inextricably linked to the forced removals of rural Black South Africans by the colonial and apartheid governments based on racially discriminatory laws. To redress historical injustices, the South African National Land Reform Programme enabled land claimants to reclaim land rights to their ancestral lands, which may include modern-day protected areas. The collective ownership of communal land has led to the formation of Communal Property Institutions as legal landholding entities for land reform beneficiaries – and the emergence of Communally-Owned Protected Areas (COPAs). This article explores the management and governance intricacies of 12 legally declared COPAs from KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Engaging theorisation of ethnic territories, we argue that they represent arguably the strongest example of the extreme flexibility of, and contradictory tensions within, resurgent collectivisation. This is because COPAs accommodate both processes of enclosure and dispossession of access rights and restitution of collective ownership rights and associated benefits through the territorialisation of conservation space. Furthermore, we will argue they are governmentalised in such a way as to represent an ‘ethnic-spatial fix’, not in the sense that it applied to anchor ethnicity in various territories through colonial indirect rule, but in the postcolonial period to fix and (re)territorialise conservation and ecotourism land use through ethnicity.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48262,"journal":{"name":"Political Geography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0962629824001008/pdfft?md5=280f855f7a636c2b0c7342c5155ed4a0&pid=1-s2.0-S0962629824001008-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The ethnic-spatial conservation fix: Contradictory tensions between restitution and enclosure within communally owned protected areas in South Africa\",\"authors\":\"Oscar Mthimkhulu,&nbsp;Adrian Nel\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.polgeo.2024.103151\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The history of protected areas in South Africa is inextricably linked to the forced removals of rural Black South Africans by the colonial and apartheid governments based on racially discriminatory laws. To redress historical injustices, the South African National Land Reform Programme enabled land claimants to reclaim land rights to their ancestral lands, which may include modern-day protected areas. The collective ownership of communal land has led to the formation of Communal Property Institutions as legal landholding entities for land reform beneficiaries – and the emergence of Communally-Owned Protected Areas (COPAs). This article explores the management and governance intricacies of 12 legally declared COPAs from KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Engaging theorisation of ethnic territories, we argue that they represent arguably the strongest example of the extreme flexibility of, and contradictory tensions within, resurgent collectivisation. This is because COPAs accommodate both processes of enclosure and dispossession of access rights and restitution of collective ownership rights and associated benefits through the territorialisation of conservation space. Furthermore, we will argue they are governmentalised in such a way as to represent an ‘ethnic-spatial fix’, not in the sense that it applied to anchor ethnicity in various territories through colonial indirect rule, but in the postcolonial period to fix and (re)territorialise conservation and ecotourism land use through ethnicity.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48262,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Geography\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0962629824001008/pdfft?md5=280f855f7a636c2b0c7342c5155ed4a0&pid=1-s2.0-S0962629824001008-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Geography\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0962629824001008\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Geography","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0962629824001008","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

南非保护区的历史与殖民政府和种族隔离政府根据种族歧视法律对南非农村黑人的强制迁移密不可分。为了纠正历史上的不公正,南非国家土地改革计划使土地权利要求者能够收回其祖传土地的土地权,其中可能包括现代保护区。公有土地的集体所有权促使成立了公有财产机构,作为土地改革受益者的合法土地持有实体,同时还出现了公有保护区(COPAs)。本文探讨了南非夸祖鲁-纳塔尔省 12 个合法宣布的公有保护区在管理和治理方面的复杂性。通过对民族领地的理论分析,我们认为,这些领地可以说是集体化复苏的极端灵活性和矛盾张力的最有力例证。这是因为 COPAs 既包含了封闭和剥夺使用权的过程,也包含了通过保护空间的领土化来恢复集体所有权和相关利益的过程。此外,我们将论证它们的政府化方式代表了一种 "种族空间固定",这不是指通过殖民间接统治将种族固定在不同领土上,而是在后殖民时期通过种族固定和(重新)领土化保护和生态旅游土地的使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The ethnic-spatial conservation fix: Contradictory tensions between restitution and enclosure within communally owned protected areas in South Africa

The history of protected areas in South Africa is inextricably linked to the forced removals of rural Black South Africans by the colonial and apartheid governments based on racially discriminatory laws. To redress historical injustices, the South African National Land Reform Programme enabled land claimants to reclaim land rights to their ancestral lands, which may include modern-day protected areas. The collective ownership of communal land has led to the formation of Communal Property Institutions as legal landholding entities for land reform beneficiaries – and the emergence of Communally-Owned Protected Areas (COPAs). This article explores the management and governance intricacies of 12 legally declared COPAs from KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Engaging theorisation of ethnic territories, we argue that they represent arguably the strongest example of the extreme flexibility of, and contradictory tensions within, resurgent collectivisation. This is because COPAs accommodate both processes of enclosure and dispossession of access rights and restitution of collective ownership rights and associated benefits through the territorialisation of conservation space. Furthermore, we will argue they are governmentalised in such a way as to represent an ‘ethnic-spatial fix’, not in the sense that it applied to anchor ethnicity in various territories through colonial indirect rule, but in the postcolonial period to fix and (re)territorialise conservation and ecotourism land use through ethnicity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
14.60%
发文量
210
期刊介绍: Political Geography is the flagship journal of political geography and research on the spatial dimensions of politics. The journal brings together leading contributions in its field, promoting international and interdisciplinary communication. Research emphases cover all scales of inquiry and diverse theories, methods, and methodologies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信