Creighton Connolly (2017) Landscape political ecologies of urban ‘swiftlet farming’ in George Town, Malaysia. cultural geographies 24(3): 421–439. DOI: 10.1177/1474474016684128. The journal would like to make the following correction: Endnotes 45-69 should be revised as follows: 45. Geografia, George Town Land Use and Population Survey. 46. Following Malaysian independence in 1957, the new Malay government renamed all streets in Malaysia’s colonial enclaves such as George Town. However, many of the old names are still commonly used by residents, hence my reference to both. 47. This attitude on behalf of government officials in Malaysia has also been documented by other scholars, see K.Mulligan, S.J.Elliott and C.Shuster-Wallace, ‘The Place of Health and the Health of Place: Dengue Fever and Urban Governance in Putrajaya, Malaysia’, Health & Place, 18, 2012, pp. 613–20. 48. On a more recent visit to George Town in August, 2016, EYS still had hundreds of swiftlets flying in and out, nearly 3 years after the deadline for closure of swiftlet farms inside the WHS. Given the political and economic influence of the EYS company, it is conceivable that they will be able to continue operating the swiftlet farm for the foreseeable future. 49. According to George Town’s Special Area Plan (2011), category II buildings are those ‘of special interest that warrants every effort being made to preserve them’. See State Government of Penang (SGP), Draft Special Area Plan, George Town: Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca (Penang: SGP, 2010). 50. This incident was (allegedly) triggered by the export of fake birds’ nests with dangerous nitrite levels to China from Malaysia, and resulted in the near collapse of the swiftlet farming industry, given that China has always been the primary market for EBNs. This episode demonstrated how the physical landscape in one place can be dramatically influenced by political-economic changes elsewhere. See Connolly, ‘A Landscape Political Ecology of ‘Swiftlet Farming’ in Malaysian Cities’, chapter 4; C.Thorburn, ‘The Edible Birds’ Nest Boom in Indonesia and South-East Asia’, Food, Culture and Society, 17, 2014, 535–53. 51. MBPP (Majlis Bandaraya Pulau Pinang), ‘Laporan Industri Dan Premis Burung Walit Di Dalam Tapak Warisan Dunia George Town’ (George Town, Penang, Jabatan Warisan, 2013), np. 52. George Town World Heritage Incorporated (GTWHI), Draft Guidelines for Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) World Heritage Cities of Melaka and George Town (Penang, 2010), pp. 76–7, < www.gtwhi.com.my/index.php/regulate/2015-01-21-04-01-01/2015-01-21-04-18-59 > 53. Note, this excludes Penang and Malacca, where heritage was the largest concern, due to the UNESCO World Heritage listing in both cities. 54. On an earlier visit to Taiping, I came across a hotel which operated a swiftlet house on the top story, while the bottom three stories were rented out to human occupants (!) 55. J.Lepawsky and R.C.Jubilado, ‘Globalizing Kuala Lumpur and Rationalizing the Street’, In S.G.Yeoh (ed.), The Other Kuala Lumpur (London: Routledge, 2014), pp. 22–37. 56. T.K.Ho, ‘Swiftlet Rearing in Town a Health Threat’, The Star, 6 February 2009, p. N49. 57. Quoted in anonymous, ‘Chow: Swiftlet farms being phased out’, The Star, 14 April 2013, n.p. 58. Mulligan et al., ‘The Place of Health and the Health of Place’. 59. Duckett-Wilkinson, correspondence, 15 December 2010. 60. Duckett-Wilkinson, correspondence, 5 May 2011. 61. Indeed, Duckett-Wilkinson has spoken to several local doctors in George Town about this issue, who have verbally confirmed that cases of lung disease are ‘disproportionate’ in Georgetown (Duckett-Wilkinson, interview, 22 October 2013). 62. Duckett-Wilkinson, Open Letter, 20 June 2010; citing M.L.DeWitt, ‘cryptococcus’, < http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/215354-overview > 63. Anonymous, ‘A health hazard not many are aware of’, New Straits Times, 9 September 2009, n.p., print. 64. In: R.Nathan, ‘“More Seminars” Plan for Bird’s Nest Farmers’ The Star, 6 June 2003, p. 13. 65. See Mulligan et al., ‘The Place of Health and the Health of Place’; T.Bunnell, ‘Re-Viewing the Entrapment Controversy: Megaprojection, (Mis)Representation and Postcolonial Performance’, GeoJournal, 59, 2004, pp. 297–305. 66. Carpiano, ‘Come Take a Walk with Me’. 67. M.Gandy, ‘Marginalia: Aesthetics, Ecology and Urban Wastelands’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 103(6), 2013, pp. 1301–16; A.Loftus, ‘Working the Socio-Natural Relations of the Urban Waterscape in South Africa’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31(1), 2007, pp. 41–59; E.Swyngedouw, ‘The City as a Hybrid – On Nature, Society and Cyborg Urbanization’, Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, 7(2), 1996, pp. 65–80. 68. See, for example, Mitchell, The Lie of the Land; D.Matless, Landscape and Englishness (London: Reaktion Books, 1998). 69. See, for example, P.Y.Hung, Tea Production, Land Use Politics, and Ethnic Minorities: Struggling over Dilemmas on China’s Southwest Frontier (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015); Neumann, ‘Political Ecology III’; Walker and Fortmann, ‘Whose Landscape?’.
Multiple-land use practices in transfrontier conservation areas: the case of Greater Mapungubwe straddling parts of Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe
