Toward an Ecological Citizenship to Defense the Green Areas on Hillsides in the San Juan de Lurigancho district (Lima, Peru)

• In Event: Race, Indigeneity and Resistance

Proposal

This case study is located in an urban-peripherical district named San Juan de Lurigancho (SJL), which is one of the 43 districts of Lima, the capital of Peru. Its primary characteristic is that there have more than one million inhabitants, being the most populated local place in Lima, Peru, and South America. In the early morning of October 3rd, 2019, a group of people (perpetrators) settled in the hillside territories destined for green areas in Simón Bolívar (a peripheral urban neighborhood located in SJL, Lima, Peru), presumed illegal sale of land. Those perpetrators settled by force with prefabricated houses and threatened to attack and intimidate any complaint, claim, or eviction by the neighbors. This topic has two faces. One side is the state's local level (municipal government) deficiency to face the socio/ecological problem and its role in accompanying neighborhood groups. Second, it shows an initial incipient civic organization in the context of insecurity and land trafficking, awakening an active and ecological awareness to defend green areas.
The present case study concerns the formation of ecological citizenship to defend the green areas on hillsides in the San Juan de Lurigancho (Lima, Peru) in a specific neighborhood named Simon Bolivar I. As a novice research activist, I am interested in learning how specific real-life experiences from these people shape/inflence the way of becoming (ecologically) active citizens in their community. The central research question is the following: "How do community members enact ecological/environmental citizenship to protect green areas on Simon Bolivar's hillsides in San Juan de Lurigancho (SJL) district (Lima, Peru)?". And a secondary question is: “What type of experiencesWhat experiences do neighbors draw on when describing their engagement in ecological citizenship and connection to nature/territory?”

Three essential concepts frame this case study. First, the microsystem influence of Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory. Bronfenbrenner (1979) defines a microsystem as "a pattern of activities, roles, and interpersonal relations experienced by the developing person in a given setting with particular physical and material characteristics" (p.22). So, the setting could be "home, daycare, center, playground" (p.22), where people display their experiences, interactions, activities, and interpersonal relations. Second, is the idea of community capacity. Chaskin (2001) develops a definition of community capacity to address a community initiative better, so community capacity is "the interaction of human capital, organizational resources, and social capital existing within a given community that can be leveraged to solve collective problems and improve or maintain the well-being of a given community. It may operate through informal social processes and/or organized effort (p. 295). In my case study, community capacity is observed while protecting their green areas is a common goal. Third, the emergence of ecological citizenship. Andrew Dobson (1995) understands ecological citizenship based on the idea of an ecological awareness that "extends beyond the individual (...) To this is added the notion that the enrichment of the self depends on the identification more as wide as possible with the non-human world" (p.38). This type of citizenship is ecocentric due to this sense of being eco-dependent (Novo & Murga, 2010). Melo-Escrihuela (2008) affirms that talking about ecological citizenship has been present since the nineties, which refers to the relationship between citizenship and the environmental problem. Hence, ecological citizenship aims to " not only inspire efforts to introduce sustainability ideals in citizenship but also imply a critical application of citizen practices and democratic ethics in sustainability" (Latta & Garside, 2005, p.3).
Most importantly, Valencia (2003) argues that ecological citizenship is a model to build that constitutes two stages "of a notion that seeks to define its own space within both the green democratic model and within the conceptual architecture of citizenship" (p. 282). For this reason, Valdivielso (2013) insists that ecological citizenship must be understood together with the reflection of the actors in "public action and its relationship with democracy" (p. 513).
In my case study, this point is crucial because it is about understanding the relationship between the defense of green areas and citizen action against the state response in a democratic system. However, Cruz (2015) goes beyond the european tradition and prioritizes indigenous worldviews. He argues that it is necessary to go beyond environmental citizenship and move on to ecological citizenship, which means "ceasing to see it as a means and an object, to conceive it as an end in itself and as a subject of rights (...) it does not end in recognition of rights to nature. It supposes basic equality between all species" (Cruz, 2015, p. 91).
SJL is the territory that has the most significant number of Quechua speakers, and its demographic explosion has been the result of migration. In this sense, talking about ecological citizenship also implies having at hand the framework involving indigenous heritage or indigenous practices in the city since the defense of green areas is not only nourished by external sources or the influence of globalization but, above all, of internal components, even unaware of the indigenous heritage in their public and ecological actions in the territory. In terms of participants, they are composed of people between 54 years and 62 years old. Even though all of them have lived more than forty years in the city, their formative first years have been shaped by living in rural areas and speaking Quechua, an indigenous language in their family and communities. In this study case, I developed a codebook that has general themes, specific codes, and descriptions. In the coding process, I focused on three elements of research question looking for how the participants were enacting ecological/environmental citizenship in three moments: childhood experiences, neighborhood leadership, and the process of defending green areas. In terms of my preliminary findings, I will expand those:
Participants’ microsystems have influenced their later decisions to defend their green areas.
Process of awareness toward ecological citizenship in four phases when defending their green areas: The initial phase, the Knocking phase
New reconnection and relationship with their neighborhood (place-based) and community capacity

Author

• Jennifer Karen Ponce Cori, Grad Student, University of Pittsburgh