ecological and socioeconomic impacts of conservation policies in biodiversity hotspots: a case study...

Ecological and socioeconomic impacts of conservationpolicies in biodiversity hotspots: a case studyfrom Rajiv Gandhi National Park, India

Sunil Nautiyal & Rama Rao Nidamanuri

Published online: 10 January 2012# AESS 2012

Abstract A study was carried out examining the effects ofconservation policy on the ecosystem and livelihoods of localpeople on the Rajiv Gandhi National Park, located in one ofthe global biodiversity hotspots, the Western Ghats, India.Results show that less than 5% of the people are in favor of thepolicies while a staggering 94% of the people are stronglyagainst the policies. The remaining 1% of the total respond-ents are found neutral with regard to conservation policies.Several reasons viz., ban on agriculture, restriction onlivestock rearing and grazing, ban on non-timber forestcollection, exclusion of local and indigenous communities inconservation programs and tourism activities are found to beresponsible for negative attitude towards the national park.Apart from limiting the local livelihood options, the antici-pated ecological consequences are not encouraging as exoticspecies are dominating the vegetation dynamics of the area—replacing many native plant species. The fact is that theinextricable link between nature and society needs anintegrated science-policy research approach for biodiversityconservation in the hotspots, particularly in the developingcountries where human and ecosystem interactions are muchmore complex and closely interwoven with each other.

Keywords Conservation policy . Sustainable livelihood .

Science-policy interface . Remote sensing . Vegetationdynamics . Natural resource management

Introduction

In recent times, most of the policy interventions related toconservation and development of local economies havefocused mainly on biodiversity conservation, ignoring theimportance of the human–ecosystems interface in thesustainable landscape development. Although conservationof biodiversity is often justified on the ground that itcontributes to providing opportunities for human well-being, security, social relations, resiliency, and protectingthe life-support systems (MEA 2005), the issue of sustain-able development particularly in the context of increasingsegregation and poor integration of socioeconomic envi-ronment has remained susceptible (Caro and Scholte 2007;Andam et al. 2008). Often, the approaches to biodiversityconservation face strong resistance from the people partic-ularly in the developing economies. In the protected areas,conservation models and the associated relocations arealways justified on the ground that they reduce variedpressures on natural resources and secure wildlife habitats(Lasgorceix and Kothari 2009). However, in the developingcountries, the human–ecosystem interactions are complex,extensive, and closely interwoven, in that they supportconservation efforts and livelihoods of the local people(Ramphal 1993; Colchester 1997; Hjortso et al. 2006;Ramakrishnan 2008). Issues, for example, what should bethe optimal spatial spread of a protected area to achieve thedesired goal, are gradually emerging in various ways indeveloping and developed countries (Noss 1996; Scott et al.2001; Ostrom 2009; Persha et al. 2011).

Various studies support conservation-oriented policies onbiologically rich forest areas as they constitute cornerstonesin conserving biodiversity (Brooks et al. 2001; Baron 2004;Zeng et al. 2005; Ninan et al. 2007; Kala 2009; Baron et al.2009). However, some significant research studies point out

S. Nautiyal (*)Centre for Ecological Economics and Natural Resources,Institute for Social and Economic Change,Dr. VKRV Rao Road, Nagarabhavi,560 072, Bangalore, Indiae-mail: [email protected]

R. R. NidamanuriIndian Institute of Space Science and Technology,Thiruvananthapuram 695 022, India

J Environ Stud Sci (2012) 2:165–177DOI 10.1007/s13412-011-0052-x

that further debate is required concerning the process andrelevance of establishing protected areas which tend todemean human existence (Bruner et al. 2001; Hannam2005; Nautiyal and Kaechele 2007a). A variety of externaldriving factors including climate change have broughtabout a shift in social and ecological processes acrossnatural landscapes and protected areas (Klabbers et al.1996; Baron et al. 2009). Because of the fact that thesechanging socioeconomic and ecological processes are morevisible in the protected areas, it is necessary that agencies,managers, policy makers, scientists, and the public do arethink on devising innovative policy response for biodi-versity conservation and sustainable socioeconomic devel-opment (Ostrom 2009). This is especially important in theprotected areas where people have been living in harmonywith nature for centuries.

In spite of the fact that conservation models have beenextensively used by policy makers for managing theecosystems/landscapes, the important issue is to understandhow ecosystems respond when people are not allowed tointeract with them. Therefore, we have carried out adetailed study of the Rajiv Gandhi National Park (hereafterabbreviated as RGNP) to examine the interaction betweenhumans and ecosystems particularly with respect topeoples' livelihoods in a natural environment where anykind of human interaction is prohibited.

To understand the economic and ecological developmentprocesses of the ecosystem, flow of services, and theconsequences of the top–down conservation approachbeing implemented for biodiversity conservation on theRGNP, earlier known as Nagarhole National Park, India,we undertook an empirical field study. Based on theexisting data sets and on the local peoples' behavior interms of decision making under changing socioeconomic,environmental, and policy conditions, we explored thehuman–ecosystem interactions. The basic idea underlyingthe present work was based on the following queries:

& How do people change their livelihood options under achanging environment?

& How effective is a new idea adopted by people tosustain their livelihoods under changing environmentaland economic conditions? Will the new technologicaloptions available in the protected areas be adopted bythe local people to secure their livelihoods in the longrun?

& How will the landscape undergo changes as a result ofadaptations?

Data pertaining to socio-economy, landholding, andecological aspects of the RGNP from field studies andtime-series satellite data have been analyzed assessing theimpact of the top–down conservation approach on thesocio-ecological dynamics in meeting the policy goals. This

study intends to open up new vistas and further fuel thedebate on “top–down” approach towards conservation andlivelihoods of the local communities.

Materials and methods

Study area

The RGNP is located between the Kodagu and Mysoredistricts of Karnataka, India, and the periphery of the NilgiriBiosphere Reserve of the Western Ghats (11°55′ to 12°12′ Nlatitude and 76° to 76°17′ E longitude, Fig. 1) covering a totalarea of 643 km2 (Karnataka Forest Department online). Thestudy region comes under the “West coast plains and Ghatregions” agro-ecological zone of the ecological zonation ofIndia. Initially set up as a game sanctuary in 1955, the RGNPhas got its present status of being a protected national parkafter combining adjacent Mysore forests with it in 1974. Thegeneral structure of the area is given in Table 1. The climatepattern of the study area can be divided into three seasons ina year: hot and dry summers (March–June) with meanaverage temperatures rising up to 33°C, mild winters(December–February) with comparatively shorter sunshineand temperatures dipping to 12–15°C, and rainy season(June–September) with a seasonal rainfall of 1,000 mmaccounting for 50–55% of the annual rainfall. Fourtribal communities namely, Jenu kuruba, Yerava, Bettakuruba, and Soliga (Jenu kuruba—jenu, honey; kurubameans community—a honey-collecting community;Yerava—to borrow, a community which works for others;Betta kuruba—a community which depends on forestproducts; and Soliga—people of the bamboo, a commu-nity which makes bamboo products for sustenance) live inthe region. Out of the total 43 hadis (hamlets) with 1,667families spread across the RGNP, 17 are located inside thecore zone and 26 outside the core zone (based ondiscussions held with the headmen of different hadis).The total population of hadis stands at 6,484 (Ramanaiah2000). Consequent to its declaration as a protected forestwith a top–down conservation policy, agricultural practi-ces and domestic livestock rearing and grazing have beenabandoned in the region in accordance with the IndianWildlife (Protection) Act 1972.

General profile of the RGNP ecosystem

The ecosystems found in the study area are similar to thosefound in the tropical regions of the country whereagriculture, animal husbandry, forests, and domestic sub-systems are interlinked with the flow of environmentalservices between them. However, with the implementationof conservation policies in 1974, the multifunctional values

166 J Environ Stud Sci (2012) 2:165–177

of the ecosystems have gotten altered in view of humaninteractions with the surrounding ecosystems. As men-tioned above, the options for sustainable livelihood (e.g.,agriculture and animal husbandry) of the local tribal peopleare curtailed on account of the top–down conservationpolicy adopted. In this context, it is interesting to knowhow natural landscapes around human settlements deve-lop given the displacement of resident local communi-ties. To analyze and understand the land use, land coverchange, and developmental scenario that prevailed in theregion, data pertaining to agriculture, animal husbandry,natural resource utilization patterns, forest and domesticsectors, and socioeconomic profiles of local people hadbeen examined at two points in time (before implemen-tation of conservation policies and during the studyperiod) following the methods given in Nautiyal andKaechele (2009).

Methodology

Empirical field study

Across the study region, records related to land resourcerights and management practices were explored and house-holds surveyed for collecting information on land andlivestock holdings, proportion of area under different cropsbefore implementation of conservation policies, and

Table 1 General structure and socioeconomic features of the villageslocated inside/outside Nagarahole National Park

Total area of the Nagarahole National Park 643.39 km2

Core zone 192 km2

Tourism zone 110 km2

Buffer zone 343.39 km2

Elevational range of the national park 701–959 m asl

Demography of the villages located inside the NHNP

Number of villages/hadis 43

Number of householdsa 1,667

Total populationa 6,484

Total literacy (%) 26.7

Household size (average numberof family members)

3.9

Land–kitchen garden (ha)b 17

Per family average landholding (ha) 0.01

Total livestock (poultry) 10,220

Two hundred seventy households (total population 1,053) arerehabilitated to Nagapura so far. During the year 2000, rehabilitationprogram was started)a Ramanaiah (2000)b Land use data are not available

Fig. 1 Location of the RajivGandhi (Nagarhole) NationalPark, in Karnataka, India

J Environ Stud Sci (2012) 2:165–177 167

people's perceptions about development. For this purpose,we studied four villages in detail (Table 2). Participatorydiscussions were held with the people to understand theirperceptions about the policy responses. All householdswere surveyed to get information on land and livestockholdings, proportion of area under different crops duringthree decades ago, collection of wild products, traditionalmanagement practices and changes therein, economic loss/gain due to policy implementation, perception towards thenational park, and people's perceptions of developmentproblems and possible solutions.

Satellite data processing and analysis

Assessing the effectiveness of policy responses for conser-vation requires understanding of the patterns and processesthat exist within the natural system itself and the humaninstitutions associated with the use of resources (Deadman1999). In this endeavor, satellite data coupled with fieldstudy is an effective tool for mapping and characterizing thenatural landscape and provides opportunities to measure thebiophysical parameters in multi-temporal dimensions(Wang and Moskovits 2001). Understanding the complexnature of the system and its functioning under differentsocioeconomic conditions requires mapping and modelingthe ecosystem development. Multispectral satellite imageryhas been successfully used for the mapping and monitoringof biodiversity hotspots at local (Lymburner et al. 2000) toglobal scales (Sandstrom et al. 2003). Integrated analysis ofthe time-series satellite data juxtaposed with ancillarygeospatial data in GIS environment enables quantitativemapping of the evolution of current landscapes in the

context of changing socioeconomic and ecological factors.The combination of satellite data and the data gatheredfrom field studies helps researchers pinpoint the missinghistorical ground-based data (Nautiyal and Kaechele 2007b;Gross et al. 2009).

Spatial datasets such as topographical maps, digitalelevation data, and satellite imagery pertaining to differenttime periods (before and after the implementation of conver-sion policies) were analyzed for preparing various land covermaps depicting the impact of various factors which haveshaped the present landscape. Precisely geo-referenced andradiometrically calibrated Landsat TM/ETM+ satellite imageswere procured for the same season for the years 1973 (10 Feb.1973), 1990 (15 Jan. 1990), 2000 (17 Dec. 2000), and 2009(16 Feb. 2009). All the satellite data were atmosphericallycorrected using the 6S radiative transfer code (Zhao et al.2001). Further, the spatial resolution of the satellite imageswas maintained at the native resolution of 30 m for theLandsat-TM and ETM+ by resampling the Landsat-MSS(75 m) image to 30 m spatial resolution. We employedhybrid image classification method using the Mahalanobisdistance classifier (Tommervik et al. 2003) in determiningthe extent of various land covers. Ground-based referencedata used for selecting training pixels for the satelliteimagery were identified by using a combination of automaticendmember (spectrally pure pixels) extraction method andISODATA automatic clustering algorithm. The accuracy ofthe classified land cover classes was validated based on theground truth data and in-depth field knowledge of geograph-ical and botanical aspects of the study area. To assure that aminimum of 85% overall classification accuracy is achievedby using the remote sensing images, site-specific accuracy

Table 2 Demographic data of the studied villages

Name of the hadi (village) Gadde hadi Gonigadde Chandankere Bommadu

Name of the tribal communities Jenu kuruba, Yerava,Betta kuruba

Jenu kuruba Yerava Jenu kuruba

Number of households 65 70 32 140

Total population 250 350 158 644

Male 105 140 63 256

Female 95 134 60 261

Children below 15 years of age 50 76 35 127

Total literacy (%) 29 26 28 34

Household size (average number of family members) 3.8 5.0 5.0 4.6

Land (ha) 0.01 0.01 0.1a 0.19

Per family average landholding (ha)

Total livestock (poultry) 225 250 175 420

Number of households (rehabilitated outside the national park) 24 18 – –

a Cultivating coffee in forest land and per family landholding


assessment was carried out (Anderson et al. 1976). Further,in order to verify if the classification results are statisticallysignificant and are not by change, Kappa Coefficient ofAgreement and Z score at 95% confidence level werecalculated (Congalton and Green 2009).

To understand, compare, and contrast the relevance ofour field observations across the study area, a holisticapproach covering of socioeconomic, ecological, and landuse/cover in the context of a chosen conservation approachwas developed (Fig. 2). The work done for the last 11 yearsin protected areas of India facilitates the start of efforts inthis direction, and thus the work plan for the data analysiswas developed. Changes in the land use land coverobtained from the satellite data have been used forquantifying the vegetation dynamics.

The relevance of social and ecological factors observedfrom our field studies was linked to the sustainablelandscape management including the interactions betweenanthropogenic and natural resource systems over threedecades.

Results and analysis

Socioeconomic impact of the “top–down” conservationmodel and peoples' perceptions about RGNP

People in the RGNP are found to have developed anegative attitude towards the park establishment. We havefound that less than 5% of the people are in favor of thepolicies while a staggering 94% of the people are stronglyagainst the policies. About 1% of the total respondents are

found neutral with regard to conservation policies.However, the people who had migrated to the areas locatedoutside the national park are found to have slightly differentviews as compared to the people living inside the nationalpark. Among the respondents, 25% show a positiveresponse towards the park establishment, while 10% arefound to be neutral and 65% still have a negative attitudetowards the conservation policies in relation to theirsocioeconomic and ecological surroundings post establish-ment of the park (Fig. 3).

Issues related to park–people conflicts are observed to bevery complex. A sizable number of people who have leftthe park still depend, for their livelihood, on the adjacentareas of the RGNP working on coffee estates as daily wagelaborers. More than 96% of the population are found tohave expressed the view that ban on agricultural activitieswithin the park is the major reason, among others, for thenegative attitude towards the park followed by damagescaused due to wildlife attacks, restrictions on rearingdomestic animals and grazing, ban on the collection ofNon-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs), exclusion of localand indigenous communities in conservation program andtourism activities (Fig. 4). With regard to various restric-tions, which people think as mainly responsible for theconflicts between livelihood options and conservationprograms, the maximum number of responses is found tohave come from the people who are still residing inside theRGNP. However, the maximum number of respondentswho have moved out from the park and settled outside feelthat there should be an active participation by the locals inconservation programs and tourism activities and thatpeoples' involvement in such programs should be encour-

Existing data analysis from secondary sources

Socioeconomic survey and empirical field study

Process of change and Implications based on visual observation

Research results from empirical field study

Identify the Drivers of change

Analysis of satellite data

Development of land use land cover map

Landscape analysis

Understanding the spatio-temporal landscape development in nature

protection areas

Linking empirical data with satellite data

Fig. 2 Methodological frame-work for the research study


aged (Table 3). People who have moved out of the park arebecoming increasingly aware of such programs fromdifferent sources, influencing others to think beyond theirroutine activities (Fig. 4).

All respondents are found to have opined that wildlifepopulation has significantly increased as a result of the non-human activities in the core zone, though unable to quantifythe degree of increase. This perception is based on theobserved increase in frequency as well as intensity ofwildlife attacks on humans. Most of the attacks on peopletake place during mornings and evenings. Compensationmeasures are there for the affected families if incidentsoccur within 1 km of the settlements, because people areallowed to go up to 1 km from their houses. However,sometimes, people go out deep into the woods to collectdry, fallen wood for cooking, etc. Therefore, many cases arenot considered for compensation. This suggests that themain reason for the growing people–policy conflicts is thelack of proper attention given to genuine cases such asproviding alternative means of livelihood following the

curtailment of peoples' rights in the area. So it is necessaryto think of both short- and long-term solutions for resolvingconflicts and promoting the local economy so as to ensurebetter management of the national park with peoples'participation. Deterioration of farm economy, loss ofincome from wild medicinal plants, and animal husbandryare found to be the key negative impacts identified in morethan 90% of the responses. However, most respondents arefound to have no problem whatsoever in meeting their needfor fuel wood, domestic timber, and wild edibles (Table 3).

Agriculture in this region is sedentary in nature.Inaccessibility, environmental heterogeneity, and ecologicalfragility have led to the evolution of subsistence productionsystems sustained mainly on organic manure and nutrientsextracted from the forests. A major decline in agricultureand its related activities has severely affected the subsis-tence economy of the local people after the park establish-ment. Indigenous tribes of the region had been forced togive up their agricultural lands (leaving them fallow) for thesake of conserving surrounding biodiversity. Interestingly,business corporations from outside are found owning coffeeestates in the periphery and the core zone of RGNP. Beforeimplementation of conservation policies, crops such asfinger millet, paddy and vegetables viz., chili, brinjal,pumpkin, bottle gourd, potato, onion, etc. were undercultivation in the lands held by the local tribal communities.Per family average landholding varied from 1.2 to 1.5 ha,and average livestock number per family was 22 compris-ing cattle, goats, buffalos, pigs, and chicken. Thus, beforethe implementation of conservation policies, the localeconomy was centered on their traditional livestock-basedfarming systems which were similar to that found elsewherein the rural ecosystems. For about 3 months in a year(January–March), people used to go outside for work, andfor the rest of the 9 months (April–December), they used toinvolve themselves in agricultural activities and livestock

Fig. 3 Perceptions of local tribal people towards conservation policyand associated management interventions in RGNP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ban on agriculture

Damage due to wildlife

Restriction on rearing

livestock

Ban on NTFPs Restriction on grazing

Locals' involvement in conservation programme

Locals' involvement in

tourism activities

Per

cent

age

of p

eopl

e

Inside RGNP Outside (migrated from RGNP)

Fig. 4 Reasons for the negativeattitude of the people (insideRGNP and outside, migratedfrom RGNP) towards conserva-tion policies in RGNP


husbandry. So, the maximum share in the household grossincome used to come from agriculture, followed by animalhusbandry. Involvement of the people and share fromdifferent sectors in the gross income of the people arepresented in Figs. 5 and 6. Before 1974, a major proportionof the household income came from agriculture (48%),followed by animal husbandry (30%), non-timber forestproducts collection (12%), and outside employment (10%).However, at present, there is a dramatic change in the labormarket structures and resource and income distribution. Thecontribution of daily wage labor to the family income ishigh (95%) followed by animal husbandry (3%) and non-timber forest product collection (2%) (see Fig. 6). Hence,people in the RGNP always feel insecure as there is

uncertainty in getting regular income. Recognition of thelocal community rights to derive income from the cultivat-ed area, giving protection, permission to rear livestock andprotection from wild animals, and improvement in livestockproductivity are some of the development options identifiedby more than 65% of respondents. Providing electricity isfound to be essential, as well as improvement in livingconditions and security (Table 3).

The data analyzed from the socioeconomic developmentperspective make it clear that the present conservationpolicy approach has not yielded positive results. Therefore,it is required to understand the ecological consequences ofthe conservation model from the perspective of sustainableecosystem development and conservation of biodiversity.

Forest resource collection for leaf litter, house construc-tion, fencing for agricultural crops, agricultural tools, andso on have been quantified for assessing and monitoring thepattern of pressure on forests in temporal dimension within

Table 3 People perceptions on developmental options in the RajivGandhi National Park

% of totalresponses

Improvement in livelihood options

(a) By returning back our cultivated area withoutany other support

32

(b) By returning back our cultivated areaprovided solutions are offered to protectour crops from wild animals

98

(c) By adopting new innovations in the agricultural field 50

Improvement in margin of profits while giving back our land to us

(a) Through our own 15

(b) Through cooperative marketing 25

(c) Through governmental mechanism 60

Allowing us to rear livestock 40

Allowing us to rear livestock and giving protectionto them from wild animals

60

Improvement in livestock productivity 96

Income from timber resources 10

Improvement in income from NTFPs 80

Improvement in profits by adding value locally 45

Afforestation/reforestation 90

Tourism 35

Management through village/hadi panchayat 2

Management through forest department/government 78

Improvement in life conditions

20

Providing facilities for biogas 2

Solar power distribution 10

Distribution of liquefied petroleum gas 8

Wood distribution/permission to collect wood fuel 100

Providing electrical connection 100

Distributing machines for spinning andweaving

20

Execution village/hadi development groups 98

Migration from the area for a better future 0

Fig. 5 Involvement of the people in different activities to sustain theirlivelihood before and after implementation of conservation policies (attwo points in time) in RGNP

Fig. 6 Contribution of different branches (sectors) of ecosystem inhousehold income, before and after implementation of conservationpolicies (at two points in time) in RGNP


a logical framework of our research study. Increasingwildlife population after policy implementation has in-creased the per capita per year resource collection requiredfor fencing the settlement from 20 (during early seventies)to 58 kg (during the study period 2009-2010). However,forest resources in the form of leaf litter and agriculturaltools are not required in changing policy condition. Fuelwood collection has gone down since most of the people donot stay in the villages during the daytime as they are offfor outside daily wage labor. A similar trend has beenrecorded for other forest resources such as house construc-tion material, wooden utensils, NTFPs, and so on.

A comparison of RGNP villages with the villages wheremigration has taken place was made to understand thefuture scenario with regard to the sustainable livelihoodoptions of the people (Table 4). We have noticed that manypeople who moved out of the national park seeking betterlivelihood opportunities are also not happy as they have togo back to the forested landscape to earn their livelihood byworking in the coffee estates (located inside and outside thecore zone of the park) and removing invasive weed speciessuch as Lantana etc.

Ecological aspect of the implementation of conservationpolicy in the region

Our field observations assessing the vegetation dynamics ofthe study region found that most of the shrubs andherbaceous vegetation have been replaced by exotic weedslike Lantana camara. Following these observations, theobjectives of the study were reviewed in view of theexisting conservation and management model approach inthe region. However, it is also important to analyze landcover dynamics of the ecosystems and the fact that fieldobservations per se cannot help generate precise informa-tion on this aspect as the core and buffer zones have beenstrictly closed for grazing since 1974.

Before using a remote sensing-derived land cover map inmanagement decisions, however, an accuracy assessmentmust be performed. We calculated the kappa coefficient ofagreement and Z score at 95% confidence level based onthe error matrix approach. Overall accuracies of 85.3%,87.6%, 91%, and 89.3% with kappa coefficients of 0.832,0.857, 0.878, and 0.866 are obtained for the remote sensingsatellite images collected on 10 Feb. 1973, 15 Jan. 1990, 28

Table 4 Comparison between inside and outside RGNP villages in the viewpoint of basic development

Development options Inside RGNP Outside RGNP (Nagapura)

1.Education Education for children is not good Good opportunities for children's education

Practical education is not available Good opportunities for education and for many otherextracurricular activities such as sports, clubs, studentgovernment, recreational and social organizations

Few chances for improvement in children'spersonalities

Better options for the improvement through goodschooling

Education for children is possible up tojunior level only

At present, education is up to the 8th class (junior level),and people would like to have education up to a highersecondary level. So far, students did not go for highereducation. But fair possibilities exist there for thestudents towards better education

2. Health care Health care facilities are poor Comparatively good and have accessibility to go to thehealth care centers

Most of the time depend on indigenous system ofmedicine to cure various ailments

Depend on modern medicines to cure variousailments/diseases

3. Interactions and awarenessabout development

In the forested landscape, due to lack of awareness,people are a bit hesitant to talk to the outside people.Interactions with outsiders are very poor

People are aware and open to talk to officers. Goodinteractions and getting benefits from the variousdevelopmental programs initiated by state andnational governments

Less conscious about various awareness program Most of the time, people are aware about thedevelopmental programs

4. Livelihood options Outside labor work is only source for their livelihood More options to sustain the livelihood—such asagriculture, labor, transport, etc.)

5. Livestock rearing Livestock rearing is not possible People can rear livestock

6. Damage due towild animals

Damage due to wildlife is high Damage due to wild animals is comparatively low

7. Agriculture development Agriculture cannot be practised (by law) Agriculture is under practice

Possibilities of medicinal and aromatic plantcultivation are high near village settlements

Less possibilities of medicinal and aromatic plantcultivation due to scarce water condition


Dec. 2000, and 16 Feb. 2009, respectively. The calculatedZ scores (2.84, 3.5, 4.2, and 3.5) exceed the tabulatedvalues, thus indicating that the remote sensing-derived landcover maps conform to the minimum classification accuracylevel requirements (Congalton and Green 2009).

An analysis of the land use cover maps developed forfour points of time presented important but contradictoryresults in relation to those expected from the conservationmodel approach being implemented in the RGNP (Fig. 7a–d). The extent of the land use land cover maps was limited

Fig. 7 Land use land cover mapof the RGNP on a 10 Feb. 1973,b 15 Jan. 1990, c 28 Dec. 2000,and d 16 Feb. 2009 (land useland cover maps cover the areawhere we have collected empir-ical ground data and recordedcoordinates for the broad classi-fication in RGNP)


to the area where we have collected ground data andrecorded coordinates for the satellite image classification.To a certain extent, some of the objectives of the current“conservation model” (top–down approach) have beenpartly met. Over a period of time, the spatial expansion ofthe land cover classes, viz., disturbed and degraded forestareas, have shown positive results as the area under theseclasses has decreased. However, another aspect is that thehabitats of exotic weeds, such as L. camara, have expandedin the RGNP. This is clearly evident in the temporal landcover maps of the area (Fig. 7a–b) where significant changesin vegetation types are noticed. There is also a debate goingon regarding weeds (Lantana camara and others such asEupatorium species) increasingly choking the entire RGNP,thus threatening the biodiversity structure of the area.

An analysis of the temporal land cover maps shows thatthe area covering bushes/thorny bushes had been expandingin RGNP. Between 1973 and 2009, L. camara hadexpanded from 344 to 8,000 ha. Adding to this, severeforest fires have become a recurring event damaging largetracts of forest. For example, in 2009 alone, the burnt areawas reported to be 3,233 ha, while it was about 1,041 ha in1990. This means that apart from a threat to biodiversity,the presence of Lantana has been posing a danger in theform of green fire destroying the biodiversity structure ofthe region. This may be one of the important negativeconsequences of having poor involvement of the localpeople in the conservation policy implementation. The rateof change in vegetation dynamics is very rapid indicating athreat to the biodiversity and disturbing the vegetationdynamics of the landscape at local/regional levels in thecontext of national and global programs.

Discussion

The experience of “top–down” conservation programs inthe last three to four decades has revealed the breakdown ofthe local community–nature relationship particularly indeveloping countries, leading to increased hostilities onthe part of the indigenous people towards conservation/management programs (Ramakrishnan 2000; Khadka andNepal 2010). Indigenous rights include fundamental,cultural, and indigenous knowledge and intellectual prop-erty; land; protected areas; economic; labor; local commu-nities; and a right to sustainable development of ancestrallands (Zeppel 2007, p.317). The new UN Human RightsCouncil approved a declaration on the rights of indigenouspeoples, in June 2006, on the collective rights of indigenousgroups (Macdonald 2006 cited by Zeppel 2007 p. 317). Inthe case of RGNP, the land use change policies/implemen-tation of conservation models have affected the livelihoodoptions of the local people while depriving the tribals of

their rights on their land use and surrounding resources.Consequent to the creation of RGNP in 1974, there hasbeen a reduction in the area available for agriculture,livestock grazing, and so on. The economics of agriculturepractices and livestock rearing shows that these branches ofthe ecosystem were strong before 1974, contributing 48%and 30% of the local peoples' annual income. Now both thebranches of the rural ecosystem in this area have suffered,severely affecting the economic conditions of the localpeople. Research in natural resource management may becharacterized as a search for an understanding of patterns andprocesses relating to a particular resource in terms of use,management, and a production system of the landscapewhich, in most of the cases, is available in many non-comparable scales (Mallawaarachchi et al. 1996). A casestudy of such issues would provide insights into theunderstanding of human interactions with the surroundingecosystems. In such an endeavor, the challenge concernslandscape management that reveals a better understanding ofecosystem services, dynamics of ecosystems in deliveringthese services, and human outcomes and behavior (Benjaminet al. 2005; Mahdi et al. 2009; Persha et al. 2011). We havebeen assessing the approaches of conservation policy inIndian national parks and biosphere reserves, and ourresearch results are identical with reference to our researchin different agro-ecological regions of India. Thus, there is anurgent need to look again into the perspectives of theexisting policies which have been running for the last severaldecades, notwithstanding the fact that the socio-ecologicalsystem is changing due to a variety of factors.

The vegetation maps developed during this study forRGNP before and after the implementation of the conser-vation model show that the objectives of this conservationmodel have been partly met, as there is a positive impact onthe vegetation cover of the area in some forest patches (thespatial extension of disturbed and degraded forest cover hasreduced). But when compared with the invasion of exoticweeds and replacement of native vegetation, large-scaleforest fires in the area, and livelihood loss of the localpeople, this positive impact is found less than the negativeimpacts. This is because conservation models with associ-ated relocations are always justified on the ground that theyreduce pressures on resources and secure wildlife habitatsin the given protected areas (Lasgorceix and Kothari 2009).Societal justification is given low importance in most of theconservation models of developing countries. Furthermore,in RGNP, the implementation of land use policies hashindered the livestock-based farming system on the onehand, while contributing to overstocking in pastures on theother, along with changes in the vegetation dynamicsbecause of the invasion of bushes/thorny bushes and shrubsand unwanted weeds across ecosystems. In addition to that,inappropriate methods that have been in use, for example,


deploying elephants and man power to eradicate invasivespecies, the luxurious growth of exotic weeds, have resultedin forest fire disasters, causing heavy loss of large tracts ofdense forest vegetation. For example, in 1990 and thereaf-ter, a large area was exposed to forest fires in the region dueto high density of fire-prone weeds like Lantana (relateddata not presented here). Similar findings related toincidence of active fires have been reported by Takahataet al. (2010) from Manas National Park, India. They reportthat the annual number of fires rose significantly duringtheir long-term research in the Manas National Park. This isone big challenge which researchers and protected areamanagers have been facing towards protecting the biodi-versity in the protected areas. A study carried out byBenjamin et al. (2005) proved that the bushes/weeds/shrubsincrease their spread in the protected abandoned pastures/farmlands. We have found a similar situation in RGNPwhere the area coverage of Lantana (green fire in theforests) increased to 8,000 ha (2009) from about 344 ha in1973. An efficient dispersal strategy, greater germinationability, and better seeding survival are identified as themajor traits favoring the large-scale invasion of exoticplants (Mouillot et al. 2005) rather than native herbs andshrubs in a protected ecosystem. Many studies haveindicated that limited livestock grazing practices maintainthe diversity of ecosystems/landscapes. Therefore, for thesustainable development of protected areas, it is necessaryto take into consideration the cultural and socioeconomicconditions of the local people rather than mere applicationof general models or very general recommendations(Flamant et al. 1999). Thus, the “top–down” approachesof conservation being implemented on various biodiversityrich protected landscapes of India, have failed to achieve,the desired goals as they are blindly copied from the North-American development models, overlooking the complexhuman–ecosystem interactions in the developing countries(Nautiyal et al. 2003; Nautiyal and Kaechele 2007a). Theobservations of the present study also exemplify some ofthe facts mentioned above. Thus, an integrated site-specificapproach—keeping ecosystem complexity in view—is amore feasible and practicable approach for conserving thebiodiversity while maintaining natural capital and continu-ing to provide ecosystem services instead of the unidirec-tional “top–down” approach for biodiversity conservation.

In the current study, we have compared the data sets atdifferent spatial and temporal points. While analyzing fromthe economic and ecological perspectives, following theimplementation of conservation models in the region, wehave observed that the existing model does not appear to besuitable for the region. In addition to setbacks in the ruraleconomy, the ecological consequences of such models maypossibly threaten the very biodiversity structure of theecosystems (Ostrom 2009). Conservation and management

would be more effective and feasible if the system,functions, and structure related to the core national parkand the buffer zone are perceived in a holistic way,integrating social, biological, and cultural relations anddependencies (Hjortso et al. 2006 as cited in Nautiyal andKaechele 2009 p. 268). There is a critical need tostrengthen local institutions for sustainable forest manage-ment in the protected areas besides providing local peoplewith alternative sources of income generation. The practiceshave to be changed in such a manner that they suit thepresent situation. The inhabitants of the area need to betrained in new economic activities such as medicinal andaromatic plant cultivation (MAPs). This could be a win–win solution for both the policy makers and the localinhabitants as MAP cultivation requires comparatively lessarea than other food crops, and also, land conflicts could besolved through proper planning. It is also necessary toundertake land rehabilitation programs by planting multi-purpose trees/plants with people's participation for meetingtheir demands. Issues relating to land use, commonproperty, legislation, and research capacity building needto be properly addressed. Further, studies on rural ecosys-tem structure and functioning and land use development arerequired to be undertaken so that authentic information canbe generated for better understanding of various stake-holders and for developing appropriate policy responses forsustainable development (Farrow and Winograd 2001).

Conclusion

The hotspots are the world's most biologically rich areas andhence recognized as important ecosystems not only for therich biodiversity they possess but also for human survival.The survival of a majority of the people living in hotspots isdependent on the availability of the resources in theseecosystems, and human and ecosystem interactions inhotspots largely influence the amount and flow of servicesin the system.

The top–down conservation policy being implemented inRGNP has been tested from the viewpoint of ecology andsocio-economy. In the rural ecosystem particularly in thedeveloping countries, several branches of the ecosystems, i.e., agriculture, animal husbandry, collection of NTFPs, andforest resources, contribute significantly to the sustenanceof the local people. Unfortunately, all the branches of theecosystems have received setbacks due to the implementa-tion of the conservation policies. The agriculture andanimal husbandry systems which were strong about three–four decades ago contributing significantly towards thesustenance of the local people now have lost theirsignificance in contributing to the local peoples' livelihoodafter implementation of the RGNP and shown a negative


economic trend in the livelihood options of the localpeople. Based on the comparison of RGNP villages withthe villages where migration has taken place, we havefound that there are better opportunities existing for thepeople settled outside the national park. However, compre-hensive rehabilitation programs are required for propersettlement and mitigation of conflicts between government-initiated conservation programs and the local people. In theviewpoint of biodiversity, the conservation policy did notshow the expected positive impact on the ecosystem thatcould be a support of the approach and framework of thecurrent policies in the region. The invasion of exotic weedsis an example of alarming changes in the vegetationdynamics of the ecosystems. This is a threat to the diversityas the invasion of other species replaces the habitats ofmany important herbs native to this ecosystem. Thus, thereis an urgent need for policy improvements, and based onthe current study, we recommend an integrated approachlinking science-policy interface for ecosystem conservationand ensuring sustainable livelihoods of the local peopleunder the mandate of protected area management inbiodiversity hotspots.

Acknowledgments We are thankful to the editor in chief andanonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestionson the earlier drafts of the paper that helped us to improve themanuscript. We thank Mr. Ram Singh, Mr. Sharif, and Mr. Sommaiya(Headman, Bommadu village) for the translation (Hindi-Kannada) andtheir support during the entire field work. We thank J.K. Thimma(Taluk Sanchalak and Head, Gadehadi), Mr. Nanjaiah, and Mr. JKMani (Head, Nagapura) for the support during the course of study. Weextend our sincere thanks to the Karnataka Forest Department for thehelp and support. Views expressed here are of the authors only and notof the organizations with which they are affiliated.

References

Andam KS, Ferraro PJ, Pfaff A, Sanchez-Azofeifa G, Robalino JA(2008) Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks inreducing deforestation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(42):16089–16094

Anderson JR, Hardy EE, Roach JT, Witner RE (1976) A land use andland cover classification system for use with remote sensor data.USGS Professional Paper 964:28

Baron JS (2004) Research in national parks. Ecol Appli 14:3–4Baron JS, Gunderson L, Allen CD, Fleishman E, McKenzie D,

Meyerson LA, Oropeza J, Stephenson N (2009) Option fornational parks and reserves for adapting to climate change.Environ Mana 44:1033–1042

Benjamin K, Domon G, Bouchard A (2005) Vegetation compositionand succession of abandoned farmland: effects of ecological,historical and spatial factors. Lands Ecol 20:627–647

Brooks T, Balmford A, Burgess N, Fjeldsa J, Hansen LA, Moore J,Rahbek C, Williams P (2001) Toward a blueprint for conserva-tion in Africa. BioSci 51:613–624

Bruner AG, Gullison RE, Rice RE, da Fonseca Gustavo AB (2001)Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Sci291:125–128

Caro T, Scholte P (2007) When protection falters. Afr J Ecol 45:233–235Colchester M (1997) Salvaging nature: indigenous people and

protected areas. In: Chimire KB, Pimbert MP (eds) Social changeand conservation. Earthscan, London, pp 97–130

Congalton RG, Green K (2009) Assessing the accuracy of remotelysensed data: principles and practices, 2nd edn. CRC Press, BocaRaton

Deadman PJ (1999) Modeling individual behaviour and groupperformance in an intelligent agent-based simulation of thetragedy of the commons. J Enviro Manag 56:159–172

Farrow A, Winograd M (2001) Land use modelling at the regionalscale: an input to rural sustainability indicators for CentralAmerica. Agric Ecosyst Environ 85:249–268

Flamant JC, Beranger C, Gibon A (1999) Animal production and landuse sustainability. An approach from the farm diversity atterritory level. Lives Prod Sci 61:275–286

Gross JE, Goetz SJ, Cihlar J (2009) Application of remote sensing toparks and protected area monitoring: introduction to the specialissue. Rem Sen Environ 113:1343–1345

Hannam K (2005) Tourism management issues in India's nationalparks: an analysis of the Rajiv Gandhi (Nagarhole) NationalPark. Curr Issues Tourism 8:165–180

Hjortso CN, Steffen S, Finn H (2006) Applying multi-criteria decision-making to protected areas and buffer zone management: a case studyin the Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. J Fore Econ 12:91–108

Kala CP (2009) Grassland ecosystem and grazing policy. Curr Sci 96:326Karnataka Forest Department, Government of Karnataka. http://www.

karnatakaforest.gov.in/. Accessed April 2009Khadka D, Nepal SK (2010) Local responses to participatory

conservation in Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. EnvironMana 45:351–362

Klabbers JHG, Swart RJ, Janssen R, Vellinga P, Van Ulden AP (1996)Climate science and climate policy: improving the science/policyinterface. Mitig Adapt Strat Global Chang 1:73–93

Lasgorceix A, Kothari A (2009) Displacement and relocation ofprotected areas: a synthesis and analysis of case studies. Econ PolWeek 49:37–47

Lymburner L, Beggs PJ, Jacobson CR (2000) Estimation of canopy-average surface-specific leaf area using Landsat TM data. PhotoEngineer and Rem Sen 66:183–191

Macdonald T (2006) New UN human rights council approvesdeclaration of the rights of indigenous peoples. Cul Surviv Q30(3), http://www.cs.org/. Accessed March 2010

Mahdi, Shivakoti GP, Schmidt-Vogt D (2009) Livelihood change andlivelihood sustainability in the uplands of Lemberg subwa-tershed, West Sumatra, Indonesia, in a changing natural resourcemanagement context. Environ Mana 43:84–99

Mallawaarachchi T, Walker PA, Young MD, Smyth RE, Lynch HS,Dudgeon G (1996) GIS-based integrated modelling systems fornatural resource management. Agri Sys 50:169–189

MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystems andhuman well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World ResourcesInstitute, Washington

Mouillot F, Ratte JM, Joffre R, Mouillot D, Rambal S (2005) Long-term forest dynamic after land abandonment in a fire proneMediterranean landscape (central Corsica, France). Lands Ecol20:101–112

Nautiyal S, Kaechele H (2007a) Adverse impact of pasture abandon-ment in Himalayas of India: testing efficiency of a naturalresource management plan (NRMP). Environ Imp Assess Rev27:109–125

Nautiyal S, Kaechele H (2007b) Conserving the Himalayan forests:approaches and implications of different conservation regimes.Biodiversity Conserv 16:3737–3754

Nautiyal S, Kaechele H (2009) Natural resource management in aprotected area of Indian Himalaya: a modeling approach for


http://www.karnatakaforest.gov.in/

http://www.karnatakaforest.gov.in/

http://www.cs.org/

anthropogenic interactions on ecosystems. Environ Moni &Assess 153:253–271

Nautiyal S, Rao KS, Maikhuri RK, Saxena KG (2003) Transhumantpastoralism and sustainable development: a case study in thebuffer zone of the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, India. MounRes Devel 23:255–262

Ninan KN, Jyothis S, Babu P, Ramakrishnappa V (2007) Theeconomics of biodiversity conservation-valuation in tropicalforest ecosystems. Earthscan Publications, London

Noss RF (1996) Protected areas: how much is enough? In: Wright RG(ed) National parks and protected areas: their role in environ-mental protection. Blackwell Science, Cambridge, pp 91–120

Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability ofsocial-ecological systems. Science 325:419

Persha L, Agrawal A, Chhatre A (2011) Social and ecologicalsynergy: local rulemaking, forest livelihoods, and biodiversityconservation. Science 331:1606

Ramakrishnan PS (2000) Biodiversity, land use and traditionalecological knowledge: the context. In: Ramakrishnan PS,Chandrashekara UM, Elouard C, Guilmoto CZ, Maikhuri RK,Rao KS, Sankar S, Saxena KG (eds) Mountain biodiversity, landuse dynamics, and traditional ecological knowledge. Oxford &IBH Publication (P) Ltd, India, pp 3–13

Ramakrishnan PS (2008) The cultural cradle of biodiversity. NationalBook Trust, India

Ramanaiah TBBSV (2000) Comprehensive survey of tribal commu-nities inhabiting Nagarhole National Park. World Bank andKarnataka Forest Department, Karnataka

Ramphal S (1993) How protected area can meet society's needs: thesocial economic and political issues. In: Barzetti V (ed) Parks andprogress. IUCN, Cambridge, pp 1–33

Sandstrom P, Pahlen TG, Edenius L, Tommervik H, Hagner O,Hemberg L, Olsson H, Baer K, Stenlund T, Brandt LG, EgberthM (2003) Conflicts resolution by participatory management:remote sensing and GIS as tool for communicating land-useneeds for reindeer herding in Nothern Sweden. Ambio 23:557–567

Scott JM, Murray M, Wright RG, Csuti B, Morgan P, Pressy RL (2001)Representation of natural vegetation in protected areas: capturingthe geographic range. Biodivers Conserv 10:1297–1301

Takahata C, Amin R, Sarma P, Banerjee G, Oliver W, Fa JE (2010)Remotely-sensed active fire data for protected area management:eight-year pattern in the Manas National Park, India. EnvironManag 45:414–423

Tommervik H, Hogda KA, Solheim I (2003) Monitoring vegetationchanges in Pasvik (Norway) and Pechenga in Kola Peninsula(Russia) using multi-temporal Landsat MSS/TM data. Rem SenEnviron 85:370–388

Wang Y, Moskovits DK (2001) Tracking fragmentation of naturalcommunities and changes in land cover: applications of Landsatdata for conservation in an urban landscape (ChicagoWilderness). Conser Biol 15:835–843

Zeng H, Daniel ZS, Wu XB (2005) Human disturbance on landscapesin protected areas: a case study of Wolong Nature Reserve. EcolRes 20:487–496

Zeppel H (2007) Indigenous ecotourism: conservation and resourcerights. In: Higham J (ed) Critical issues in ecotourism: under-standing a complex tourism phenomenon. Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington, pp 308–348

Zhao J, Kosovichev AG, Duvall TL (2001) Investigation of massflows beneath a sunspot by time-distance Helioseismology.Astrophy J 557:384–388


ecological and socioeconomic impacts of conservation policies in biodiversity hotspots: a case study...

Documents