IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v6y2014i2p718-740d32778.html

Communicating Sustainability within Britain’s Hindu Community

Author

Listed:
  • Sita Rama Das

    (Lotus Trust, The Lotus Trust, The Manor, Hilfield Lane, Aldenham, Watford, Herts WD25 8EZ, UK
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Martin Haigh

    (Department of Social Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane Campus, Oxford OX3 0BP, UK
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Sheila Chauhan

    (Lotus Trust, The Lotus Trust, The Manor, Hilfield Lane, Aldenham, Watford, Herts WD25 8EZ, UK
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

Abstract

Focusing on the UK’s Hindu community, this explores some modes for the communication of pro-sustainability messages and their affective strength. These campaigns employ the community-center role of many UK Hindu temples to connect Hindu congregations to the cause of environmental sustainability through the medium of Hindu scripture and tradition. The international Hindu Bhumi Project (and its larger “Many Heavens, One Earth” interfaith initiative) provide an umbrella for such pedagogic initiatives. Two are described. First is the festival-ground-based Karma to Climate Change (K2CC) campaign, which encourages pilgrims to pledge pro-sustainability lifestyle changes as part of their religious practice. The second, the Ahimsa Project, is devoted to the popularization and production of ethically pure, cruelty/slaughter free milk, which encourages people to develop greater empathy for the wellbeing of their fellow creatures and, ultimately, to abhor the casual slaughter of animals for meat. These projects are driven by the enthusiasm and concern of a younger generation of British-born Hindu people and their impacts are felt both through the campaigns themselves and the family structures of the volunteers who participate.

Suggested Citation

  • Sita Rama Das & Martin Haigh & Sheila Chauhan, 2014. "Communicating Sustainability within Britain’s Hindu Community," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-23, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:6:y:2014:i:2:p:718-740:d:32778
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/6/2/718/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/6/2/718/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Subak, Susan, 1999. "Global environmental costs of beef production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 79-91, July.
    2. Aimee N. Hafla & Jennifer W. MacAdam & Kathy J. Soder, 2013. "Sustainability of US Organic Beef and Dairy Production Systems: Soil, Plant and Cattle Interactions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(7), pages 1-26, July.
    3. Sheila Chauhan & Sita Rama das & Martin Haigh & Natalia Rita, 2012. "Awareness vs Intentionality: Exploring Education for Sustainable Development in a British Hindu Community," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(6), pages 361-371, November.
    4. Martin Haigh, 2010. "Education for a Sustainable Future: Strategies of the New Hindu Religious Movements," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(11), pages 1-20, November.
    5. repec:wbk:wbpubs:15083 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fiala, Nathan, 2008. "Meeting the demand: An estimation of potential future greenhouse gas emissions from meat production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 412-419, October.
    2. White, Robin R. & Brady, Michael & Capper, Judith L. & Johnson, Kristen A., 2014. "Optimizing diet and pasture management to improve sustainability of U.S. beef production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 1-12.
    3. Charles Caldwell & Natalie Probstein & Tanhum Yoreh, 2022. "Shades of green: environmental action in places of worship," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 12(3), pages 430-452, September.
    4. Alastair Greig & Ziping Wu, 2021. "The impacts of a reduction in British meat and dairy consumption on Northern Ireland’s agri-food sector," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 36(2), pages 133-148, March.
    5. Blignaut, James & Crookes, Doug & Saki, Ayanda, . "The demand for ecosystem services by different calf-production systems in South Africa," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 12(02).
    6. Jorgenson, Andrew & Birkholz, Ryan, 2010. "Assessing the causes of anthropogenic methane emissions in comparative perspective, 1990-2005," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2634-2643, October.
    7. Piotr Bórawski & Adam Pawlewicz & Andrzej Parzonko & Jayson, K. Harper & Lisa Holden, 2020. "Factors Shaping Cow’s Milk Production in the EU," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, January.
    8. Coley, David & Howard, Mark & Winter, Michael, 2009. "Local food, food miles and carbon emissions: A comparison of farm shop and mass distribution approaches," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 150-155, April.
    9. Rasadhika Sharma & Trung Thanh Nguyen & Ulrike Grote, 2018. "Changing Consumption Patterns—Drivers and the Environmental Impact," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-19, November.
    10. York, Richard & Gossard, Marcia Hill, 2004. "Cross-national meat and fish consumption: exploring the effects of modernization and ecological context," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 293-302, March.
    11. Bussoni, Adriana & Cubbage, Frederick & Alvarez Giambruno, Jorge, 2021. "Silvopastoral systems and multi-criteria optimization for compatible economic and environmental outcomes," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    12. Robin Reid & Philip Thornton & Graeme McCrabb & Russell Kruska & Fred Atieno & Peter Jones, 2004. "Is it possible to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in pastoral ecosystems of the tropics?," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 91-109, March.
    13. Elizabeth Webeck & Kazuyo Matsubae & Tetsuya Nagasaka, 2015. "Phosphorus requirements for the changing diets of China, India and Japan," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 17(3), pages 455-469, July.
    14. Alon Tal, 2018. "Making Conventional Agriculture Environmentally Friendly: Moving beyond the Glorification of Organic Agriculture and the Demonization of Conventional Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, April.
    15. Jason A. Hubbart & Nathan Blake & Ida Holásková & Domingo Mata Padrino & Matthew Walker & Matthew Wilson, 2023. "Challenges in Sustainable Beef Cattle Production: A Subset of Needed Advancements," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-15, February.
    16. Modongo, Oteng & Kulshreshtha, Suren N., 2018. "Economics of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from beef production in western Canada," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 229-238.
    17. Kessler, Anna & Goddard, Ellen & Parkins, John, 2013. "Exploring Factors That Influence Perceptions of Using Genomics for Emission Reductions in Beef Cattle," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150419, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Isabel Cristina Acosta-Balcazar & Jorge Quiroz-Valiente & Lorenzo Granados-Zurita & Emilio Manuel Aranda-Ibáñez & Edith Hernández-Nataren & Joaquín Alberto Rincón-Ramírez & Lorenzo Danilo Granados-Riv, 2022. "Effect of genotype, lactation and climatic factors on fatty acid profile of bovine milk," Czech Journal of Animal Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 67(5), pages 167-175.
    19. Bockermann, Andreas & Meyer, Bernd & Omann, Ines & Spangenberg, Joachim H., 2005. "Modelling sustainability: Comparing an econometric (PANTA RHEI) and a systems dynamics model (SuE)," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 189-210, March.
    20. Filippo Sgroi & Matteo Candela & Anna Maria Di Trapani & Mario Foderà & Riccardo Squatrito & Riccardo Testa & Salvatore Tudisca, 2015. "Economic and Financial Comparison between Organic and Conventional Farming in Sicilian Lemon Orchards," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-15, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:6:y:2014:i:2:p:718-740:d:32778. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.