ARTICLE IN PRESS BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION xxx (2005) xxx– xxx available at www.sciencedirect.com journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon Village size and forest disturbance in Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary, Western Ghats, India Krithi K. Karanth*, Lisa M. Curran, Jonathan D. Reuning-Scherer Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 205 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511, USA ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Article history: Habitat fragmentation, land cover change and biodiversity loss are often associated with Received 10 August 2004 village communities in protected areas, but the extent and intensity of such impacts are Received in revised form 20 often inadequately assessed. We record resource use and depletion by human inhabitants September 2005 by conducting ecological surveys in six villages and social surveys in all 13 villages of vary- Accepted 20 September 2005 ing sizes in IndiaÕs Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary (492 km2). We examined the occurrence of 10 Published on line xx xxx xxxx regionally-specific ecological indicators that encompassed several aspects of human activ- ities. Thirty transects with 180 total sampling locations recorded the occurrence of these Keywords: specific habitat disturbance variables. High correlations between the variables led to the Forest use use of principal component analysis to derive an effective summary index that reflected Households disturbance intensity and determined village ecological impacts spatially. A generalized Land cover linear model was fit to determine the rate at which disturbance decreases as we move away Park management from village centers. Our model indicates that village size class, distance from the village Protected area and proximity to other villages were significant predictors of the disturbance index. The India index distinguished each villageÕs spatially explicit ecological impact. We estimated that an average area of 23.7 km2 of the forest surrounding the six focal villages was altered by human activities. These six villages have directly impacted 8–10% of this protected area. Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction vival, habitat protection and biological diversity (Karanth, 2002; Mu¨ ller and Zeller, 2002; Peh et al., 2005). Yet it is neither Protected areas (PAs) cover about 5% of the total land area in ethically right nor often administratively or politically feasible India and support ca. 4.5 million people (Kothari et al., 1989). to disregard the legitimacy of peopleÕs claims to living in PAs. Small PA size (mean area < 300 km2) and enclosure by densely The current debate within the conservation community cen- populated areas (>300 people/km2) make PAs in India vulner- ters on natural resource use rights of human settlements and able to human and domestic livestock populations, and the village communities found in and around PAs (Agrawal and associated environmental impacts (Karanth, 2002; Rodgers Gibson, 1999; Redford and Sanderson, 2000; Schwartzman et al., 2003). Although threats to Indian parks are much like et al., 2000a,b; Brechin et al., 2002; Terborgh, 2002; Wilshusen those within Africa and the Americas, higher human popula- et al., 2002; Tutin, 2002; Colchester, 2004). tion densities may have more immediate and severe conse- Biodiversity loss, habitat fragmentation and land cover quences in India (Brandon, 1998; Neumann, 1998; Brashares changes are occurring across many Indian PAs (Gadgil and et al., 2001; Ferraro, 2002; Peres, 2002; Oates, 2002). In many Guha, 1992; Kothari et al., 1995). Human livelihood activities of Asian PAs, human pressures continue to threaten wildlife sur- livestock grazing, agriculture, hunting, fishing, and collection * Corresponding author: Present address: Levine Science Research Centre, P.O. Box 90328, Nicholas School of Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, United States. Tel.: +1 2036751834. E-mail address: [email protected] (K.K. Karanth). 0006-3207/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.024 ARTICLE IN PRESS 2 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION xxx (2005) xxx– xxx of timber, fuel wood and non-timber forest products (NTFPs) especially important if we aim to develop buffer zones, man- have altered land cover and introduced new land uses in age human activities while forest communities continue to many Indian PAs (Murali et al., 1996; Somanathan and Borges, live in and around PAs and derive livelihoods dependent on 2000; Rahmani, 2003). Grazing of domestic livestock has forest products, fuel wood and livestock grazing. decreased food resources for wild herbivores (increased crop Our goal was to determine the extent of forest disturbance raiding incidences), shifted nutrient dynamics (increased soil around six villages in IndiaÕs Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary erosion and compaction) and changed overall plant composi- (BWS). We examined resource use by human inhabitants of tion (Sekhar, 1998; Middleton, 2003). Grazing has led to local six villages with varying household sizes in the park. When extinctions or emigration of animals dependent on specific this study was conducted (July–September 2002), 11 of the vegetation cover (Madhusudan and Mishra, 2003), and 13 villages were participating in a voluntary relocation project increased transmission of diseases and parasites to wild her- (Karanth, in review). This voluntary relocation of 419 of the bivores (Rahmani, 2003). Fuel wood and NTFP collection of 457 households (and their livestock) from the reserve with full assorted plant parts has directly affected food availability compensation, housing and infrastructure provided addi- for several species dependent on these resources and indi- tional impetus to determine the spatial extent of forest distur- rectly affected plant survival, regeneration and recruitment bance around the villages. This study provides information patterns (Murali et al., 1996; Somanathan and Borges, 2000). for park managers about areas of the reserve affected by Importantly, rapid and extensive market expansion or change human activities and where subsequent recovery and rege- in access typically has led to over-harvesting of these neration efforts should be directed. products. These human activities have had concomitant effects on ecological interactions and ecosystem functioning 1.1. Study Site (Robinson, 1993). Discerning impacts of resident human populations is crit- Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary (75°150 to 75°500E and 13°250 to ical for park management and rural livelihoods (Salafsky and 13°500N) is a protected area covering 492 km2 in IndiaÕs Wes- Wollenberg, 2000; Sanderson et al., 2002; Nepstad et al., 2002; tern Ghats, a region delineated as a biodiversity hotspot Liu et al., 2003). This involves determining how human-dom- (Fig. 1, Myers et al., 2000). Vegetation comprises of wet ever- inated ecosystems function and ecological implications of green forests and moist deciduous forests that are dominated human activities (specifically about the type, intensity and by bamboo. The forest canopy is comprised of many valuable spatial extent of disturbance). Therefore, methods and tools timber species such as Tectona grandis, Terminalia tomentosa, that can quantify human induced forest disturbance are Terminalia paniculata, and Lagerstromia lancelota (Karanth, Fig. 1 – Study region location. Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary is a protected area in Western Ghats, India (area is 492 km2,75°150 to 75°500E and 13°250 to 13°500N). ARTICLE IN PRESS BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION xxx (2005) xxx– xxx 3 1982). The mid-canopy is comprised of species such as Kydia 2. Methods calycina, Dillenia pentagyna, Gmelina arborea and Randia spp. (Karanth, 1982). The understory is dominated by bamboo, 2.1. Village society composition and demographics especially Bambusa arundineacea and Dendrocalamus strictus (Karanth, 2003). Low-lying valleys contain swampy grasslands A household level semi-structured social survey was con- occupied by village settlements and rice-agriculture (Karanth, ducted by Karanth in the local languages Kannada and Tulu 1982; Karanth, 2003). The total number of individuals inhabit- in all 13 villages in Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary as well as the ing the park across 13 villages till recently was ca. 4000 (8.1 two relocation sites (M.C Halli and Kelaguru). This paper people/km2, includes adults and children, Karanth, 2003). examines 6 of 13 villages that were selected for both social Households across all villages harvested wildlife, grazed and ecological surveys. The small villages of Karvani, Kesave livestock, and collected firewood, timber and forest products. and Muthodi had 630 households, while the mid-sized vil- Severe human wildlife conflicts (crop raiding, property loss, lages of Hebbe and Hipla had a total of ca. 60 households. Ma- livestock predation) also occurred frequently within this park dla had 127 households and represents the largest village in (Karanth, 1982; Karanth, 2003). Although some households in the socio-ecological sample. The survey compiled demo- these villages had legal status, the majority did not have legal graphic data and questioned households through semi-struc- status. Construction of a major irrigation reservoir in the tured interviews on livelihood activities such as collection of 1970s isolated these villages, and park protection provisions firewood and NTFPÕs, livestock grazing, fishing and hunting, have limited infrastructure development within the reserve. along with wildlife crop raiding and livestock predation that The villages in BWS did not have