Sacred Natural Sites Conservation in India: Examining Supernatural Institutions Through Ostrom’s Design Principles and Gender
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sacred Natural Sites (SNS), a type of sacred commons managed through supernatural institutions (SIs), may serve as conservation models due to their historical longevity and ecological benefits. Given the persistence of SNS, it is likely that Ostrom’s design principles (DPs) may be represented in SIs for managing SNS, but research on whether SIs promote gender equity is limited. This research examines whether SIs correspond to Ostrom’s DPs and the gender implications of SIs. Through eighty-six semi-structured interviews conducted in villages with SNS in Bhimashankar Wildlife Sanctuary region, India, we find that SIs are aligned with DPs and present a low-cost option for conservation. However, SIs continue upholding patriarchal norms that exclude and disadvantage women from accessing SNS, temples, and decision-making venues. Equity in SNS management must be critically examined in enduring SIs to enhance conservation and policy integration if SNS are to serve as a conservation model.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".