Early and Modern Paradigms in Natural Resource Management: Global and Indian Experiences

Abstract

In this chapter, the authors present: (1) India’s resource management problems, (2) review paradigm concept, (3) analyze evolution and application of identified paradigms and sub-paradigms, and (4) compare global and Indian experiences. This chapter reviews 12 stratified purposive sample of books and major journal articles in natural resources management between 1935 and 2005. They are focused on the United States, Canada, the UK, and India. The study is divided into Early (1935–1975) and Modern period (1976–2005). Identification of four paradigms and eight sub-paradigms was accomplished by stratification. The methodology of this chapter is qualitative because the analysis is based on purposive selection of one book/journal article from each paradigm and sub-paradigm. The Early Period was divided into ecological, integrated, economic and technological-I, and Modern Period into decision-making and technological-II. Both technological-I and II were further divided into four sub-paradigms each. In addition, the study adopted any four of seven criteria for the selection of paradigm developer and exemplar book/journal article. Our study demonstrates that: (1) technological-I and II have been the prominent uninterrupted sub-paradigms during the past 45 years, (2) dominance of nontechnological paradigms in the Early Period and technological sub-paradigms in the Modern Period. (3) Sir A. Tansley, Gilbert White, Piers Blaikie in the Early Period and Bruce Mitchell in the Modern Period as the nontechnological paradigm developer. On the other hand, the technological paradigm developers in the Early Period are R.P. Misra, David Ebdon, D.W. Rhind, T.M. Lillesand, and R.W. Kiefer; and P. J. Taylor, John Campbell, J.R. Jensen, C.P. Lo, and A.K. W. Yeung in the Modern Period.