8.0 LAND USE DYNAMICS in BNP

Land use Land cover (LULC) of Bannerghatta National park (BNP) is analysed using temporal remote sensing data to understand the status and land use changes. The land cover analysis reveals loss of vegetation cover from 85.78 to 66.37 % (1973-2015) and non- vegetative areas constitute 33.63% (2015). The land use analysis has been carried out in BNP  and in buffer region (5km). Land use changes within BNP region are minimal as compared to buffer region. The moist deciduous forest covered 50.4% (1973)and now 28.5 % (2015) due to anthropogenic pressure in BNP and its environs. Forests in Ragihalli, Manjunatha, Yelavantha, Bettahalli regions with good protection measures show minimal disturbance. However, implications of unplanned urbanization are evident in the buffer regions. Land use analyses in the buffer region (5 km) analysis highlights of urban sprawl in peri-urban regions has fragmented, dispersed urban patches in periphery accounting to 5462 ha(built-up area). The region has lost moist deciduous cover from 26.1 to 13.8 % with an increase in horticulture 8.5 to 11%(1973-2015). The region had lostthe large tracts of deciduous cover in Kanakapura taluk, Anekal taluk regions due to intensified horticulture activities and deforestation. Urbanization in the vicinity of ecologically sensitive national park in the form of housing layouts, etc. highlights the extent of unplanned senseless urbanization and also mirrors the extent of fragmented governance. This has further impacted agricultural tract in northern portion. Now, new agriculture lands are being created in common lands (gomala, revenue lands, etc.) of Kanakapura taluk, Anekal taluk. The mining of resources is another major threat to BNP  and estimate indicates that about 1538.7 ha is occupied by mining activities.Identification of localities for housing layouts, industrial complexes and commercial education institutions in the close proximity of NP further highlights lack of vision among regional planners and lack of appropriate acumen in the current breed of decision makers.  This analysis suggests that there has is a need to identify and restrict activities in buffer regions to protect ecologically sensitive national park. BNP is vital for Bangaloreans as it helps in moderating climate, sequester carbon, oxygen production and wide array of flora of medicinal importance. The conservation of this region requiresinventorying, mapping and monitoring of biological resources.
Ecologically Sensitive Regions (ESRs’) are the ‘ecological units’ that may be easily affected or harmed. It is a bio-climatic unit (as demarcated by entire landscapes) wherein human impacts would cause irreversible changes in the structure of biological communities (as evident in number/ composition of species and their relative abundances) and their natural habitats’ (Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 (EPA)). This approach of conservation or ecological planning considers spatially both ecological and social dimensions of environmental variables.The eco-sensitive regions (ESR) in the vicinity of BNP (buffer regions) are identified based on forest cover status, faunal distribution, human-elephant conflict regions, elephant migratory paths, etc. This would also help in minimizing human animal conflicts, conservation of biodiversity, etc.Regions were prioritized asESR 1 to ESR 4. Among these, ESR-1 and ESR-2 should be considered as no-go area without any major anthropogenic activities.ESR-1 represents zone of highest conservation and no further degradation be allowed. ESR-2 has potentiality to become as ESR-1 provided with strict regulations and improvement of forests and its environs by more protection. These regions have to be conserved to protect habitat of wild fauna, which helps in minimizing human animal conflicts and instances of wild fauna straying to the city. ESR-3 is a moderate eco-sensitive region, where controlled developmental activities are allowed and ESR-4 can be utilised for sustainable development. The region has 69 villages under ESR-1, 78 villages under ESR-2, 79 villages under ESR-3 and 176 villages under ESR-4.

INTRODUCTION
Land use Land cover (LULC) information provides insight to bio-geophysical processes and spatio-temporal changes due to anthropogenic pressures. The land cover is referred as biophysical attributes of the earth’s surface, while land use refers to the use of land for human purpose or usage of the biophysical attributes (Lambin et al., 2001; Ramachandra et al.; 2012a; 2012b). Land cover categories include forest, mountains, desert, water whereas, land use refers to the human induced changes in the land cover for agricultural, industrial, residential, recreational purposes. Forests support livelihood as grazing land for animals, etc. Land cover changes by anthropogenic activities such as illegal logging, mining and continued unsustainable exploitation of resources, etc. have been posing serious threats to the survival of ecosystems. The land management policies, population, agricultural production and urban expansion are considered as main drivers of LULC change. Deforestation, is the widespread phenomenon of land cover change resulted in the loss of more than a third of all forest cover worldwide over the past half century (Sexton et al., 2013; Ramachandra et al., 2014). Deforestation results with the degradation of forests, or the long term reduction of tree canopy cover below the 10% and thereby lower country’s economy, its capacity to supply products and services(FAO, 2009).Fragmented forests are likely to suffer from being smaller, more isolated with greater edges beyond the direct impacts of forest loss and expanding anthropogenic activities (Rands et al., 2010; Ramachandra et al., 2013a; 2013b).LULC changes alter the homogeneous landscape into heterogeneous mosaic of patches. This leads to the division of habitat into smaller and more isolated patches. The fragmentation results in the division of continuous forest area which alters the structure of the landscape affecting ecosystem functional abilities, evident from the decline of biodiversity, hydrology, etc. (Ramachandra et al, 2013a, 2013c). Uncontrolled LULC changes in a forested landscape will result in destruction and degradation of natural ecosystems, natural resources availability (Vinay et al., 2013), biodiversity (Bharath et al., 2014; Ramachandra et al., 2013b), induces change in local climate (Chase et al., 1999; Bharath et al., 2013; Ramachandra et al., 2015a: 2015 b) as well as to global climate (Yang et al., 1999). Unplanned urbanization leads to urban sprawl in the outer peripheral region gradually affecting the local ecology and environment (Ramachandra et al., 2012a; 2012b; 2012c; 2014).This type of transformation brings changes in the agricultural practices, policies, settlement structures, livelihood and industrial settings. The impact of deforestation in forest landscapes is evident from impaired hydrological processes, biochemical cycles soil erosion and water yield.LULC changes are prime factors for soil degradation (Ross et al., 2006) and reduced ecosystem services by affecting the ability of biological systems to support human needs.
LULC mapping and monitoring provide vital information of landscape and environmental status, distributions, and spatial patterns.LULC information also reflectsthe overall perspective of the landscape characteristics,changing economic and socialconditions in a region. The advancement of technologies in vegetation mapping has been providinga precise evaluation of the spatio-temporal patterns of forestdynamics andenvironmental consequences.For sustainable utilization of the forested ecosystems, it is essential to know thelimitations of various land uses, natural characteristics, quality, productivity, suitability.There is a growing awareness of LCLC change impacts on hydrologic, ecologic, climatic, and biologicprocesses over space and time. LULC change information at temporal scale helps the decision makers, planers to enumeratethe influence of human action on land surface conditions,ecosystem processesrequired for effective management of natural resources. Data acquired through space borne sensors (Remote sensing data)help in monitoring LULC change because of the repetitive coverage at short intervals. Remote Sensing (RS) with improvements in spectral, spatial andtemporal resolutions with Geographical Information System (GIS)techniques have been useful in monitoring land use changes of even inaccessible areas within a short span oftime.RS technique has proven to be a cost effective tool, which provides synoptic coverage of areas of interest and facilitatesto quantify LULCchange,and consequent impacts due to industrialisation, urbanisation and other developmental activities. These specifications of RS can therefore greatly contribute to local, regional as well as global mapping and monitoring of change in LULC.Objective of the current study is to assess the current status and trendsin spatio-temporal patterns of forest cover in and around BNP region during 1989 to 2015.

METHOD
LULC changes in BNP region has been analysed with the help of temporal remote sensing data (RS), ancillary data (collateral data compiled from government agencies) and field investigations. Multi resolution RS data acquired through the sensors of U.S. Geological SurveyEarth Observation Satellites (EOS), Indian remote sensing system (IRS) at temporal scale has been used for spatio-temporal analyses. Figure 1, outlines the method followed in the analysis. RS data used in the study are (i) Landsat MSS (1973), TM (1989, 1999), Landsat ETM+ (2009), downloaded from public domain (http://landsat.org), (ii) IRS p6L4X (2015) (http://nrsc.gov.in)) and online Google Earth portal (http://earth.google.com). The ancillary data is used to assist the interpretation of different land use types from remote sensing data. Topographic maps provided ground control points to rectify remotely sensed data and scanned paper maps (topographic maps). Survey of India (SOI) topo sheets (1:50000 and 1:250000 scales) and vegetation map of South India developed by French Institute (1986) of scale 1:250000 was digitized to identify various forest cover types and temporal analyses to find out the changes in vegetation. Pre-calibrated GPS (Global Positioning System - Garmin GPS unit) for field measurements. Ground control points are used to geometrically correct remote sensing data and verify the classified land use information.
Land cover analysis is done using NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index), given in equation 1. NDVI is the most commonly used vegetation index to distinguish healthy vegetation from others or from non-vegetated areas using red and near infrared reflectance values of RS data. NDVI provides information about the spatial and temporal distribution of vegetation communities, quality, biomass, and the extent of land degradation in various ecosystems (Reed et al., 1994).NDVI also known as a greenness index, value ranges between -1 to +1. NDVI is sensitive to the presence, density and condition of vegetation and is correlated with absorbed photo synthetically active radiation (PAR) and vegetation primary production.Based on grey scale corresponds to a pixel digital number dense green vegetation and non-vegetation features were separated.

                  … (1)

Figure 1: Method followed for LULC analysis

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The LULC analysis is carried out by using temporal remote sensing data. Temporal variations in NDVI values derived from satellite data helped to quantify spectrally distinct vegetation, non-vegetation features in land cover. The vegetation indices based analysis reveals the loss of vegetation cover from 85.78 to 66.37 % by 2015in BNP with 5km buffer (Table 1, Figure 2). The study area has witnessed large scale land cover transformation due to anthropogenic developmental activities from 1973 to 2015. The land cover analysis has shown considerable changes in vegetation cover and increase in non-vegetation features covering an area of 39559.26 ha by 2015 as compared with 1973 (16725.85 ha). The fast economic and social transformation in Bangalore metropolitan region has large scale impact on BNP and its environs. In the last few decades, the accelerated process of industrialisation and population growth had resulted greater impact on vegetation cover.
The land use analysis has carried out from 1973 to 2015  for (i) BNP region and (ii)  BNP region with 5km buffer. Figures3 and table 2  details land use changes in BNP region during 1973 to 2015.

BNP region had 50.4% of moist deciduous forest cover in 1973 and now left with 30.3 % by 2015 due to anthropogenic pressure. Though there is strict vigilance in forests of BNP grazing is the most disturbing factor of vegetation change and regeneration. The moist deciduous vegetation has transformed to dry deciduous forest in pockets such as Anekal, Harohalli, Marlawadi due to anthropogenic pressure. The dry deciduous forest covers 39.4 % of BNP region and scrub vegetation covers 7.7 %. The BNP region has increase in agriculture area from 7.62 to 13.6 % by 2015. The rural settlement, peri urban settlement and industrial areas are major driving forces acting in land use change of BNP. Disrupting forest cover of BNP can be witnessed in many villagesdue to intense deforestation, agriculture and population pressure. The new water bodies have been created in BNP for wild life covers an area of 195.36 ha. The forest cover with minimal changes is observed in Ragihalli, Manjunatha, Yelavantha, Bettahalli regions due to higher protection. The strict protection measures resulted in good regeneration of forests in Bannerghatta Wildlife Division (Ragihalli state forest) Harohalli, Kodihalli ranges, which is noticed during the field work.  The land use changes from 1989 to 2009 in southern part of BNP(which is not a part of BNP till 2011) were most prominent due to less protection, intense grazing and agriculture activities. The northern part of the park boundarysets a suburban landscape that is mainly an expansion of Bangalore city area (under BDA) with increasing built-up area, a dense roadnetwork and residential plots.
The BNP with 5km buffer region land use analysis reflects the impact of urban expansion and status of forest in the periphery of BNP. The buffer region is very important for maintaining wild life migration, refugee and grazing grounds for livestock. The western and eastern part of the BNP andbuffer region are composed of agricultural village communities. There is a predominance of sugar cane, ragi, eucalyptus in the eastern part; paddy, coconut and mango plantations in the western part. Figure 4 and table 3 reflects change in forest cover of BNP buffer region from 1973-2015. The large tracts of deciduous cover in Kanakapura taluk, Anekal taluk region are lost due to intensification of horticulture area in recent years and consequent land use changes. The region has lost moist deciduous cover from 26.1 to 13.8 % (1973-2015) and increase in horticulture 8.5 to 11 %. Large scale land use changes in the region are due to stone quarries, mining of sand and medium scale industries in the periphery of BNP, which hasalso led to increase in built-up area from 0.4 to 4.5 %. The analyses also highlights the implications of urban sprawl as peri-urban growth with fragmented new urban patches in periphery. Bangalore’s metropolitan growth has intrinsic relation with vegetation loss in peri urban landscape such as BNP buffer region (Bharath et al., 2012). The increase in population of Kanakapura taluk and Maralwadi town region resulted in more transition of forests to other land use. The encroachment in Kanakpura forests, revenue lands, gomala region has resulted in deforestation in buffer region, evident from Figures 5 and 6 by 2015. The changes in the form of suburban residential development, encroachment and illegal logging by communities,grazing animal population and illegal stone quarries, mining triggered a declining trend in forest cover. This change has aggravated human-animal conflict and many wild animals were killed in road accidents. When compared with 1999, therewas further loss in forest area (by 2015) with an increase in built-up area up to 4.5 % due to many residential layouts, educational institutions, industries. This has further impacted agricultural tract in northern portion and few new agriculture lands were created in gomala, revenue lands of Kanakapura taluk and Anekal taluk. The region has 9254.21 ha of scrub forests and which can be reforested for better protection of ecosystem in BNP.About 1538.7 ha land released for mining of resources is another major threat in BNP and its environs.

Figure 2: Land cover during 1973 to 2015 in BNP with 5km buffer.

---

Figure 3: Land use in BNP during 1973-2009.

Figure 4: Land use in BNP with 5km buffer during 1973-2009.

---

Figure5: Land use in BNP (2015).

Figure 6: Land use in BNP with 5km buffer (2015).

9. Eco-Sensitive Regions / Zones of BNP

Ecologically Sensitive Regions /Zones (ESRs’/ Zones) are the ‘ecological units’ that are susceptible to even small changes in the structure / integrity of the landscape (Ramachandra et al., 2013a; 2013b). It is a bio-climatic unit (as demarcated by entire landscapes) wherein human impacts have locally caused irreversible changes in the structure of biological communities (as evident in number/ composition of species and their relative abundances) and their natural habitats’ (Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 (EPA)). This approach of conservation or ecological planning considers spatially both ecological and social dimensions of environmental variables. Ecological sensitive regions with exceptional biotic and abiotic elements are being degraded or lost as a result of unplanned developmental activities. Landscapes sustainability as a basic goal for development requires comprehensive picture of the biophysical and socio-cultural information of a region and this approach provides an opportunities and constraints for decision-making and sustainable management of natural resources. Conservation by prioritisation of sensitive regions has been widely used to improve ecosystem by conservations practices(Ramachandra et al., 2013a; 2013b; 2013c). This study prioritizes the regions in the BNP buffer regions of 5 km, considering attributes (biological, Geo climatic, Social, etc.) as ESR1(Regions of highest sensitivity or Ecologically Sensitive Region 1), ESR2 (Regions of higher sensitivity), ESR3 (Regions of high sensitivity) and ESR4 (Regions of moderate sensitivity).
Unplanned rapid urbanisation in Bangalore during the last two decades has transformed the Bangalore landscape into concrete jungle (77% landscape covered with paved surfaces as on 2016), evident from 1005% urban growth with the loss of 88% vegetation cover and 79% water bodies during the last four decades (Ramachandra et al., 2012b; 2012c; 2014; 2015b). This has contributed to dispersed growth / urban sprawl in peri-urban regions of the city, apparent from senseless approvals for formation of housing layouts (in the immediate vicinity of BNP). This mirrors the extent of poor planning and lack of understanding in urban planning apart from complete disregard to human miseries due to frequent human-animal conflicts (Ramachandra et al., 2015a). Mushrooming housing layouts (authorized and unauthorized), information technologycorridors, express ways,peripheral ring road, satellite townships, etc. have made inroads into the green belt of BNP threatening the existence of BNP. The residential and commercial regions such as Jayanagar, Dorasani Palya, J.P. Nagar, Kalena Agrahara, Hulimavu, Gottigere are in close proximity within 10 km radius of park boundary. The BNP boundary has complex shape pattern with narrow width and surrounded by human settlements, agriculture fields restricting animal moment. BNP is one of the oldest habitat for many endemic faunal species such as elephants. BNP forms part of “Mysore Elephant Reserve”  constitute an important corridor for adjoining habitats like Cauvery wildlife sanctuary, Tali reserve forest, Kanakapura state forest, etc. The region is repository of exceptional plant and animal diversity. However, due to irresponsible regional planning involving the large scale land use changes in the immediate vicinity,  the region is prone to large-scale human-animal conflicts. The wildlife movement is hindered by traffic, people, mining and industries in and around BNP. This necessitates inventorying, mapping and sustainable management of eco-sensitive regions/ zones. Enrichment of the region with native vegetation and creation of water ponds  would provide better protection of wildlife and threatened flora.
The conservation of eco-sensitive regions would be an effective, ecological and economical method that is widely used to conserve wild taxa.The effective conservation and management of eco-sensitive regions will result in reduction of crop damage instances, human-animal conflict, illegal poaching, etc. Enrichment of region with native vegetation also act as carbon sink, while  improving regional hydrology and environment. The Union Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) had set up Pronab Sen Committee in the year 2000 to identify parameters for designating Ecologically Sensitive Areas in the country to counter the rapid deterioration of the environment in India (MoEF, 2000). The committee has defined ecological sensitivity or fragility as permanent and irreparable loss of extant life forms from the world.
The inventorying and mapping of eco-sensitive zones / regions was carried out by examiningland cover status, wildlife habitats, elephant migratory path, elephant infested areas (crop damage)and native forest cover.Figures5 and 6 depict forest cover in 2015. Elephant infested or villages consistently affected due to elephant raids in and around BNP have been considered for identifying eco-sensitive zones, as elephant constitutes an indicator species of the park. The eco-sensitive regions have marked by zone of influence of elephant infested villages in and around BNP (details of these villages are included in Annexure 1).Forest regeneration initiatives through native vegetation and provision of water ponds would help in minimizing the instances of wild animals straying to the nearby villages. The eco-sensitive regionsalso aids as a national heritage of biological importance for the benefit of education. Eco-sensitive regions are treasuring more significant natural elements that could be degraded or lost as a result of uncontrolled or incompatible development. These regions are identified as being necessary to maintain the essential character and integrity of the existing environment, based on the quality, the scarcity and their role in the ecosystem and culture.The forest cover map has been created to mark the rich biodiversity regions (Figure 7). The BNP region hasvillages with major forest covers greater than 60 % and within buffer there are villages having forest cover > 45% in state forest areas, gomala lands, revenue lands. Human population is another important indicator in zonation, because land degradation results due to population pressure. Figure 8 shows villages near to Bangalore and highways have population density (PD) greater than 600 persons per sq.km. The villages in core area of BNP have PD less than 150 persons per sq.km and periphery of park has PD greater than 300. The faunal distribution in and around BNP maps were generated to categorize effective region for conservation. The faunal details were collected from earlier literature, field analysis, local stakeholders, interviewing forest watchers of all ranges of BNP. The region has rich faunal species such as elephant (Elephas maximus), Indian Sloth Bear (Melursus Ursinus), leopard (Panthera pardus fusca), tiger (Panthera tigris), spotted deer / chital (Axis axis), bison (Bos gaurus) etc. The villages in and around these regions are facing higher crop raid by wild fauna. Figures 9 and10 depict of elephant corridor and illustrates that BNP is located vitally at a terminal point on the northern side of Mysore Elephant Reserve. Figure 11 lists the villages wherein crops affected by elephants in BNP and Figure 12 lists the villages in BNP with 5kms buffer. Figures 13 to 17 shows various faunal species distribution, these maps imply the need for conservation, effective management to reduce human-animal conflict.
The eco-sensitive regions have been mapped based on forest cover, faunal details, elephant migratory path and elephant infested villages (human animal conflict areas). Each criterion is described by an indicator mapped to a value normalised between 10 to 1. The value 10 corresponds to very higher priority for conservation whereas 1 is converse to above. The value 7, 5 and 3 corresponds to high, moderate, low levels of conservation. The villages having forest cover greater than 50% is assigned weight as 10, less than 10% assigned as 1and 7, 5 and 3 corresponds intermediate ranges. The endangered species such as tiger, elephant distributed areas assigned weight as 10 and least concern has assigned as 3, other as 0. The villages with greater population density are assigned 0, intermediate values (3, 5, 7) for moderate and least PD were assigned as 10. The weightage metric score associated with each theme is generated. Interdisciplinary frameworks that incorporating individual as well as nonlinear feedback of various driving forces are critical to research that explicitly incorporates humans in ecosystems (Palmer et al. 2004).Developing a weightage metric score analysis requires combining knowledge from a wide array of disciplines (Termorshuizen & Opdam, 2009; Tooth et al., 2011), planning should acknowledge and actively integrate present and future needs for landscape. The approach has chosen a framework proposed by Beinat, 1997 for weightaging eco-sensitive regions because it provides an objective and transparent system for combining multiple data sets together to infer the significances. The weightage is defined as,

Where n is the number of data sets, Vi is the value associated with criterion i, and Wi is the weight associated to that criterion. The table expresses the theme wise decision variable considered and their significance. Each criterion is described by an indicator mapped to a value normalised between 10 to 1. The value 10 corresponds to very higher priority for conservation whereas 1 is converse to above. Based on the metric score the prioritisation map is prepared as ecologically sensitive regions (ESR) of 1, 2, 3 and 4 by combining all weights associated with different theme. Ecologically sensitive regions (ESRs) as proposed here intended at comprehensively attaining the biodiversity richness, more public participation in conservation and enrichment of their lively hood options.
Figure 18 shows69 villages(Table 5) represent ESR 1, 78villages(Table 6) represent ESR 2, 79villages (Table 7)represent ESR 3 and the rest 176villages(Table 8) represents ESR 4. The ESR 1 represents zone of highest conservation, no further degradation allowed. The ESR-1 reflects all villages within 1km of BNPwhich are to be treated as high sensitive region of conservation. ESR 2 represents a zone of transition for highest conservation and moderate conservation regions. ESR 3 represents moderate conservation region and only regulated development is allowed in these areas. ESR 4 represents least diversity areas and the developments are allowed as per the requirement by strict vigilance from regulatory authorities.
Table 9 lists the number of villages in the respective eco-sensitive zones.  All these regions are under various levels of degradation due to anthropogenic pressures and also due to senseless bureaucratic decisions (such as setting up housing layouts, sand and granite mining, etc.). These regions have scope for rejuvenation and sustainable management by involving all local stakeholders. Further developments should be refrained in ESR 2 and actions are to be taken to improve the native vegetation cover. The Community based Conservation (CBC) of ESR 2 & 3 is essential as conservation of biological diversity (or wildlife) depends on the extent of involvement of local communitiesin decision-making, monitoring and regular management. Local communitiesknowledge and experience of wildlife and their habitats, would be invaluable in conservation endeavors. This would also help the BNP administration in delineating the region for further usage by local communities on sustainable basis. The uncontrolled development should be discouraged in and around of pristine lakes, primeval forest patches, perennial water bodies. The village forest committees’ (VFCs) should be formed on priority for promoting conservation initiatives. The members should be involved for afforestation, wild life protection and controlling deforestation activities. Monitoring committee should be formed under the guidance of district forest officer (DFO) with powers conferred by subsection-3 of Environment Protection Act, 1986. The committee should include a representative from forest department, a representative from urban development (BDA), a representative of non-government organization, who are active in the field of conservation, an expert in forest ecology and environment, one of the village forest committee members (VFC), a representative from local stake holders.

Figure 7: Forest cover -BNP and 5 km buffer	Figure 8: Population density - BNP with buffer
Figure 9: Elephant migratory path across various forest divisions from Madikeri to BNP
Figure 10: BNP and Elephant migratory path	Figure 11: Crop infested regions due to elephants in BNP
Figure 12: Elephant crop infested villages of BNP and buffer region	Figure 13: Leopard siting distribution in BNP
Figure 14: Tiger distribution in BNP	Figure 15: Sloth bear distribution in BNP
Figure 16: Wild bison distribution in BNP	Figure 17: Spotted deer distribution in BNP.
Figure 18: Ecological sensitive regions of BNP (10 km buffer)
Figure 19: proposed layouts within 0.5 km of BNP

 

Table 4: Restricted and regulated activities in ESR -1, 2 3 & 4.

SNO	ACTIVITIES	ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE REGIONS
		ESR-1	ESR-2	ESR-3	ESR-4
1	FORESTS
	Land use change (Forest to non-forest usages)
	Monoculture plantations				(for fuel wood requirement)
	Extraction of medicinal plants (with strictregulations)
	Forest improvement through VFCs and reforestation
	NTFP collection
	Encroachment of forests
	Protection of hill slopes
	Erection of new high tension power lines in forest area
	Alteration of natural springs, lakes and wetlands
3	AGRICULTURE&HORTICULTURE
	Agro forestry
	Organic farming
	Agro land use change / Encroachments
	Genetically modified crops
	Animal Husbandry
	Establishment of large green houses and commercial ventures
	Nitrogen and Phosphorus (N&P) fertilizers				(Dosage as prescribed by Agriculture department)
	Endosulfan
5	INDUSTRIES (Larger scale)
	Agro processing industries
	Information Technology industries (IT)
	Red category (Polluting) industries
	Garment industries
	New establishment of Industries				(Allowed only after critical review by local stake holders and experts)
	Nonpolluting (Green) Industries
	Petro chemical processing and gasoline pipes in forest land
6	INDUSTRIES (Small scale)
	Garment industries
	Domestic (Home based) industries Papad
	Fruit processing (Mango processing)
	Milk products and processing
	Bee keeping and bee nurseries
	Pongamia plantations for biofuel (in private lands)
	Bio pesticides manufacturing
	Poultry farms and powdered eggs
	Vegetable dyes; fruits and vegetables preservation
	Aromatic plants and essential oil distillation; orchids and cut flowers harvesting industries
	Nonpolluting (Green) Industries
7	TOURISM INDUSTRY
	Ecotourism
	Organic village and home stay
	VFC managed tourism
	Arts and handicrafts museum and trade center
8	MINING AND MINERAL EXTRACTION				(on sustainable basis)
	Filter sand
	Minerals
	Stone quarries			(on sustainable basis)
9	WASTE DISPOSAL
	Hazardous waste processing units
	Solid waste disposal				(For composting and manure preparation)
	Liquid waste discharge				(Treatment plants (STP) for processing)
	Recycling and waste processing and units				(compliant with PCB)
	Use of plastics				(compliant with PCB)
	Medical and e-waste				(compliant with PCB)
10	TRANSPORTATION				(Allowed only after strict EIA)
	Roads and express ways
	Rail and freight corridors	Subject to EIA; Strict regulation and social audit
	Up gradation of existing infrastructure			(Subject to EIAs, strict regulation )
	Vehicular moment at night
11	ENERGY
	Solar (Roof top)
	Wind power
	Bio energy
	Coal based (Thermal power)
	Gas or liquid fuel based
	Hydro power (No scope)
	Nuclear power
Remarks
ESR1 represents zone of highest conservation, no further degradation allowed. ESR-2 has potentiality to become as ESR1 provided with strict regulations and improvement of forests and its environs by more protection. Small change in ESR-2 by unplanned activities will have more adverse impacts on  ESR1 (Ramachandra et al., 2013a; 2013b). Senseless unplanned activities such as approving and formation of new residential layouts, large apartments and construction of shopping malls should not be allowed in ESR 1 & 2.  Figure 19 lists the housing layout approved by BDA. Creation of these housing layout will only enhance the human animal conflicts and also threatens the survival of BNP. There are several residential projects, layouts are farmed within 100-500 m of BNP boundary area (Figure 19), and also in gomala lands. Large scale residential layouts are in proposal state at Indlavadi, Bagganadoddi, Konasandra villages. Strict protection measures entails strict ban on any construction activity in ESR-1 & 2. Forest Rights and wild life protection acts to be implemented in its true spirit by reaching out to local stake holders. There are is a need for special protection in areas such as Keliginanath Gollahalli, Terubeedi,Gattigonda etc., villages suffering from rampant grazing. These promising forest patches should be protected (enclosures using barbed wire solar fencing and closed for any kind of exploitation). The natural regeneration should be promoted for at least five-year period. Thereafter these forests can provide more protection for free movement of wildlife and more such selected blocks are to be protected, similar to the actions taken under forest working plans.  Monoculture plantations are not allowed in ESR1, 2, 3; existing exotics should be replaced by planting native species at the earliest. Promote decentralized electricity, use of renewable energy sources such as (solar, wind power). Implement eco-development programmes to meet the energy demand in decentralized way.  Local bio resource based industry should be promoted. All should be strictly regulated and be subject to social audit  (Ramachandra, et al., 2015a). Quarrying, mining shall be banned in ESR 1, 2 immediately and no new licenses to be given for quarry and sand mining to minimize environmental and social impacts immediately. The terrain is ideal for promoting eco-tourism based economy and scientific studies. Tourism Master Plan should be based on MOEF regulations (after taking into account social and environmental costs). It is recommended that the state government should hand over all the revenue lands, gomala lands in BNP and within 1km buffer to the forest department for effective management. The fodder farms should be created via VFCs/ women self-help groups in waste lands, gomala lands for controlling grazing in forest lands. Environmental education and wild life awareness programs can be taken to involve local stakeholders for sensitising. Local educational and research institutions should be encouraged to take up these activities with the help forest department.

 

Table 9: Number of villages in ESR 1 to 4

Ecologically sensitive regions	AREA (Ha)	AREA (Sq. Km)	NO OF VILLAGES
ESR-1	63590.38	635.90	69
ESR-2	26436.21	264.36	78
ESR-3	30343.21	303.43	79
ESR-4	56477.6	564.78	176
Total	176847.4	1768.47	402

SNO	LOCATION	TALUK	HOUSE HOLDS	POPULATION_2011	FOREST %	ESR_STATUS
1	Ragihalli State Forest	Anekal	0	0	76.17	1
2	Thattekere	Anekal	303	1479	58.49	1
3	Kannaikana Agrahara	Anekal	528	2030	38.75	1
4	Bilwaradahalli	Anekal	324	1342	46.99	1
5	Bannerughatta	Anekal	930	3958	59.10	1
6	Bhoothanahalli	Anekal	393	1773	45.95	1
7	Mantapa	Anekal	270	1213	46.82	1
8	Begihalli	Anekal	221	911	24.99	1
9	Bukkasagara	Anekal	271	1258	19.57	1
10	Mahanth Lingapur	Anekal	500	2317	17.50	1
11	Ragihalli	Anekal	357	1590	34.69	1
12	Bagganadoddi	Anekal	95	474	37.53	1
13	Shivanahalli-Ragihalli	Anekal	359	1529	42.79	1
14	Indlavadiura	Anekal	113	569	39.69	1
15	Thammanayakanahalli	Anekal	432	2271	51.70	1
16	Gottikere	Bangalore South	2651	11201	25.39	1
17	Basavanapura	Bangalore South	495	1968	46.71	1
18	Thattaguppe	Bangalore South	453	2028	13.48	1
19	Vaddarapalya	Bangalore South	333	1537	20.27	1
20	Mallapur	Kanakapura	126	536	52.05	1
21	Muggur Forest	Kanakapura	2	9	92.28	1
22	Chikkamukodlu	Kanakapura	134	568	77.50	1
23	Honniganahalli	Kanakapura	116	528	82.46	1
24	Gullahalli Kaval	Kanakapura	163	815	65.38	1
25	Gottigehalli	Kanakapura	213	1091	28.56	1
26	Bilakanakuppe	Kanakapura	138	619	63.80	1
27	Attikuppe	Kanakapura	210	1050	43.61	1
28	Godur2	Kanakapura	337	1535	40.09	1
29	Kolalgundi	Kanakapura	124	575	59.13	1
30	Katrinatha	Kanakapura	36	182	60.47	1
31	Kallanakuppe	Kanakapura	512	2362	39.89	1
32	Elachavadi	Kanakapura	243	1216	53.29	1
33	Devarahalli	Kanakapura	286	1291	39.68	1
34	Bhimasandra	Kanakapura	29	120	68.94	1
35	Linganapura	Kanakapura	137	662	62.21	1
36	Therubeedi	Kanakapura	335	1518	78.48	1
37	Bantanalu	Kanakapura	4	17	83.32	1
38	Bachahalli	Kanakapura	59	228	66.16	1
39	Chlakanahalli	Kanakapura	425	1818	35.94	1
40	Bilikal Forest	Kanakapura	0	0	87.18	1
41	Kengalnath Gollahalli	Kanakapura	51	233	89.14	1
42	Kerelallusandra	Kanakapura	347	1424	41.85	1
43	Narayanapura	Kanakapura	201	819	46.50	1
44	Kebbre	Kanakapura	147	649	61.17	1
45	Gattigonda	Kanakapura	719	3631	52.48	1
46	Hanchiguli	Kanakapura	189	788	54.89	1
47	Chikkabettahalli	Kanakapura	182	770	59.27	1
48	Na1	Kanakapura	0	0	84.22	1
49	Kolagondanahalli	Kanakapura	706	3502	64.52	1
50	Halasuru	Kanakapura	127	503	44.95	1
51	Doddaguli	Kanakapura	340	1522	40.58	1
52	Arkere	Kanakapura	202	861	46.28	1
53	Tippuru	Kanakapura	237	1066	46.58	1
54	Bijhalli	Kanakapura	140	654	53.28	1
55	Manjilnatha	Kanakapura	0	0	97.66	1
56	Bommasandra1	Kanakapura	124	474	59.45	1
57	Bijjahalli	Kanakapura	276	1124	77.67	1
58	Hosadurga	Kanakapura	822	3653	59.02	1
59	Hunasanahalli	Kanakapura	648	2888	56.44	1
60	Ganganahalli	Kanakapura	189	799	70.85	1
61	Salbanni	Kanakapura	130	578	60.81	1
62	Tattikere	Kanakapura	211	851	56.48	1
63	Guddeveeranahosahalli	Kanakapura	166	785	59.37	1
64	Banimkodu	Kanakapura	481	2016	61.41	1
65	Kallakere	Kanakapura	150	659	42.43	1
66	Gollahalli4	Kanakapura	39	195	30.86	1
67	Jangalapalya	Kanakapura	109	420	27.95	1
68	Bannerughatta Kaval	Kanakapura	0	0	71.42	1
69	Byrappanahalli	Kanakapura	107	472	78.53	1

Table 5: Villages in  ESR – 1

SNO	LOCATION	TALUK	HOUSE HOLDS	POPULATION_2011	FOREST %	ESR_STATUS
1	Hullavalli	Anekal	468	2228	25	2
2	Sakalavara	Anekal	165	725	43	2
3	Bhujangadasana A. Kere	Anekal	92	325	56	2
4	Ramasandra	Anekal	55	260	43	2
5	Amani Bidarakere	Anekal	8	25	44	2
6	Harapanahalli	Anekal	233	929	10	2
7	Kallubalu	Anekal	194	815	16	2
8	Giddenahalli	Anekal	76	318	11	2
9	Kadujakkanahalli	Anekal	132	669	16	2
10	Indlavadi	Anekal	351	1730	16	2
11	Thimmasandra	Anekal	32	158	7	2
12	Chikkanahalli1	Anekal	56	285	10	2
13	Chikkahosahalli	Anekal	232	1187	13	2
14	Lakshmipura	Anekal	303	1456	33	2
15	Yalenahalli	Bangalore South	99	441	24	2
16	Kalenagrahara	Bangalore South	287	1482	21	2
17	Kammanahalli	Bangalore South	0	0	25	2
18	Gollahalli3	Bangalore South	623	2653	24	2
19	Pillaganahalli	Bangalore South	679	2772	0	2
20	Mylasandra	Bangalore South	488	2129	16	2
21	Badamanavarthekaval (P)	Bangalore South	0	0	65	2
22	Gulakamale	Bangalore South	394	1835	35	2
23	Alakabelalur	Bangalore South	4	17	8	2
24	Sunkadakatte	Bangalore South	29	125	19	2
25	Nettigere	Bangalore South	268	1340	10	2
26	Rayagodlu	Bangalore South	217	983	11	2
27	Kembathahalli	Bangalore South	245	1123	31	2
28	Pillaganahalli1	Bangalore South	679	2772	16	2
29	Hommadevanahalli	Bangalore South	290	1259	31	2
30	Tharalu	Bangalore South	303	1259	26	2
31	Yadamadu	Kanakapura	189	750	9.52	2
32	Kaggalahalli	Kanakapura	248	1130	8	2
33	Gabbadi	Kanakapura	352	1520	34	2
34	Kebbedoddi	Kanakapura	0	0	34	2
35	Godur1	Kanakapura	337	1535	0	2
36	Dyavsandra	Kanakapura	93	517	35	2
37	Konasandra	Kanakapura	170	832	41	2
38	T.Maniyambal	Kanakapura	67	296	36	2
39	Banavasi	Kanakapura	404	1844	37	2
40	Chikkamralavadi	Kanakapura	358	1636	33	2
41	Marasahalli	Kanakapura	149	646	35	2
42	Hosahalli2	Kanakapura	77	369	34	2
43	Thokasandra	Kanakapura	279	1223	30	2
44	Ajjegowdanavalse	Kanakapura	127	577	30	2
45	Virupasandra	Kanakapura	376	1754	17	2
46	Aralalu	Kanakapura	368	1657	19	2
47	Bekuppe	Kanakapura	466	2192	26	2
48	Tigalarahosahalli	Kanakapura	393	1780	25	2
49	Nidagallu Aralalusandra	Kanakapura	39	158	22	2
50	Nidagallu	Kanakapura	190	812	43	2
51	Kebbehalli	Kanakapura	372	1670	50	2
52	Yakkuli	Kanakapura	100	400	33	2
53	Galapur	Kanakapura	261	1222	0	2
54	Dodkaballi	Kanakapura	463	2057	27	2
55	Tattiguppe	Kanakapura	143	614	38	2
56	Ajjabasavanahatti	Kanakapura	53	251	33	2
57	Yeramgere	Kanakapura	262	1183	37	2
58	Balepura	Kanakapura	29	117	47	2
59	Kempalanatta	Kanakapura	102	449	59	2
60	Anekadaburu	Kanakapura	140	615	45	2
61	Balagondanahalli	Kanakapura	20	101	40	2
62	Muggur	Kanakapura	140	621	44	2
63	Kotnur	Kanakapura	0	0	16	2
64	Raghavanapalya	Kanakapura	44	171	29	2
65	Hullukasavanahalli	Kanakapura	33	159	33	2
66	Nallasandra	Kanakapura	128	614	31	2
67	Jakkasandra	Kanakapura	192	940	26	2
68	Huyalappanahalli	Kanakapura	169	839	28	2
69	Doddamaralavadi	Kanakapura	677	3191	40	2
70	Maniyambal	Kanakapura	373	1697	49	2
71	Mavathoor	Kanakapura	166	728	36	2
72	Herandyapanahalli	Kanakapura	664	3136	54	2
73	Galapur1	Kanakapura	261	1222	51	2
74	Halanatha	Kanakapura	371	1808	52	2
75	Na	Kanakapura	0	0	35	2
76	Kudigalani	Kanakapura	32	136	25	2
77	Vaderahalli1	Kanakapura	21	75	39	2
78	Yerahalli	Kanakapura	0	0	61	2

Table 6: Villages in ESR – 2.

SNO	LOCATION	TALUK	HOUSE HOLDS	POPULATION_2011	FOREST %	ESR_STATUS
1	Hullimangala	Anekal	450	2092	38.72	3
2	Bhingipura	Anekal	276	1246	32.71	3
3	Nanjapur	Anekal	88	442	47.65	3
4	Jigani	Anekal	1918	7871	13.36	3
5	Vaderamanchanahalli	Anekal	189	717	7.68	3
6	Konasandra1	Anekal	122	581	11.71	3
7	Bhingipura	Anekal	10	19	10.23	3
8	Dyavasandra	Anekal	65	295	9.38	3
9	Bommandahalli	Anekal	129	662	12.04	3
10	Nosenooru	Anekal	226	1037	10.65	3
11	Kadujakkanahalli1	Anekal	132	669	0.00	3
12	Nosenoorugollahalli	Anekal	82	400	20.00	3
13	Suragajakkanahalli	Anekal	187	912	10.33	3
14	Aduru	Anekal	115	636	11.13	3
15	Sonnayakanapura	Anekal	219	1046	15.91	3
16	Gowranahalli	Anekal	297	1635	11.55	3
17	Anekal	Anekal	7212	33506	9.93	3
18	Medihalli	Anekal	108	498	10.03	3
19	Agasathimmanahalli	Anekal	7	17	18.05	3
20	Sunnavara	Anekal	183	846	21.51	3
21	Pattangere Gollahalli	Anekal	43	201	47.32	3
22	Kalanaikanahalli	Anekal	47	239	38.10	3
23	Bidarakadahalli	Anekal	0	0	54.28	3
24	Koodlu	Bangalore South	1292	5201	14.41	3
25	Devar Chikkanahalli	Bangalore South	0	0	10.47	3
26	Dodda Kalsandra	Bangalore South	672	2700	15.81	3
27	Arkeri	Bangalore South	0	0	11.04	3
28	Uttarahalli Manavartha Kaval	Bangalore South	87	355	52.78	3
29	Chandrashekarapura	Bangalore South	40	178	15.04	3
30	Anjanapura	Bangalore South	529	2217	42.25	3
31	Vitasandra	Bangalore South	209	960	27.76	3
32	Bettadasanapura	Bangalore South	292	1391	12.64	3
33	Somanahalli	Bangalore South	747	3455	10.54	3
34	Nelaguli	Bangalore South	187	956	12.72	3
35	Shivanahalli	Kanakapura	629	2970	35.67	3
36	Vaderahalli	Kanakapura	236	1103	11.29	3
37	Gabbadi Kaval	Kanakapura	7	25	41.57	3
38	Hosakote	Kanakapura	126	651	34.39	3
39	Godur	Kanakapura	337	1535	0.00	3
40	Marasandra	Kanakapura	151	671	21.04	3
41	Chulakanakere Kaval	Kanakapura	31	145	53.58	3
42	Bheemasandra	Kanakapura	59	257	30.99	3
43	Gadaranahalli	Kanakapura	69	327	43.66	3
44	Rampura	Kanakapura	0	0	44.59	3
45	Anehosahalli	Kanakapura	153	708	33.98	3
46	Malligemetlu	Kanakapura	339	1532	31.06	3
47	Paduvanagere	Kanakapura	362	1557	43.96	3
48	Ballagere	Kanakapura	262	1105	35.77	3
49	Guthalahunase	Kanakapura	172	730	30.51	3
50	Anamanhalli	Kanakapura	227	1059	11.04	3
51	Aranakuppe	Kanakapura	190	852	10.40	3
52	Bardanahalli	Kanakapura	269	1058	21.43	3
53	Chakasandra	Kanakapura	228	1119	19.66	3
54	Kunur	Kanakapura	393	1931	43.82	3
55	Kodihalli	Kanakapura	1243	5895	31.79	3
56	Hosahalli	Kanakapura	220	1125	34.29	3
57	Nallahalli	Kanakapura	947	4493	46.01	3
58	Mahimanahalli	Kanakapura	321	1502	40.10	3
59	Channasandra	Kanakapura	160	817	55.96	3
60	Hukkunda	Kanakapura	530	2759	30.95	3
61	Chikkakoppa	Kanakapura	112	511	49.07	3
62	Mullahalli	Kanakapura	477	2134	45.86	3
63	Madarahalli	Kanakapura	123	607	39.70	3
64	Doddakoppa	Kanakapura	234	1228	40.85	3
65	Gollahalli2	Kanakapura	239	1081	41.92	3
66	Purasagondanahalli	Kanakapura	72	325	38.03	3
67	Kottekoppa	Kanakapura	417	1832	48.84	3
68	Arekoppa	Kanakapura	411	1970	45.75	3
69	Bennagodu	Kanakapura	92	416	52.26	3
70	Begur	Kanakapura	2069	9237	18.70	3
71	Nyanappanahalli	Kanakapura	0	0	9.86	3
72	Hulimavu	Kanakapura	0	0	16.76	3
73	Vajarahalli	Kanakapura	516	2200	26.88	3
74	Alahalli	Kanakapura	1364	7137	23.28	3
75	Thippasandra	Kanakapura	111	487	25.13	3
76	Mallasandra	Kanakapura	8	38	44.73	3
77	Kaggalipura	Kanakapura	1532	6907	17.84	3
78	Obichudahalli	Kanakapura	196	906	26.36	3
79	Soluru	Kanakapura	92	493	37.41	3

Table 7: Villages in ESR – 3

SNO	LOCATION	TALUK	HOUSE HOLDS	POPULATION_2011	FOREST %	ESR_STATUS
1	Bangalore	Bangalore South	0	4301326	13.4	4
2	Hoskerehalli	Bangalore South	0	0	14.21	4
3	Halge Vaderahalli	Bangalore South	0	0	19.46	4
4	Kathreguppe	Bangalore South	0	0	5.43	4
5	Ittamadu	Bangalore South	0	0	4.13	4
6	Venkatapura	Bangalore South	0	0	14.5	4
7	Agara	Bangalore South	0	0	41.33	4
8	Jaksandra	Bangalore South	0	0	12.79	4
9	Karisandra	Bangalore South	0	0	8.97	4
10	Rupena Agrahara	Bangalore South	0	0	9.99	4
11	Kadarenahalli	Bangalore South	0	0	7.76	4
12	Chikka Kalsandra	Bangalore South	0	0	5.04	4
13	Arehalli	Bangalore South	698	2858	11.44	4
14	Haralakunte	Bangalore South	0	0	21.22	4
15	Sarakki	Bangalore South	0	0	12.35	4
16	Jarganahalli	Bangalore South	0	0	12.78	4
17	Bommanahalli	Bangalore South	0	0	4.22	4
18	Madivala	Bangalore South	0	0	8.68	4
19	Vaddara Palya1	Bangalore South	175	718	20.47	4
20	Marenahalli	Bangalore South	0	0	9.37	4
21	Gopanayakanahalli	Bangalore South	0	0	7.95	4
22	Uttarahalli	Bangalore South	0	0	13.9	4
23	Yellukunte	Bangalore South	0	0	8.23	4
24	Haralur	Bangalore South	296	1186	25.99	4
25	Nainappasettipalya	Bangalore South	0	0	6.35	4
26	Sarakki Agrahara	Bangalore South	0	0	10.12	4
27	Bilekhalli	Bangalore South	0	0	17.16	4
28	Channasandra	Bangalore South	0	0	24.27	4
29	Ganakallu	Bangalore South	556	2490	27.82	4
30	Kodichikkanahalli	Bangalore South	0	0	9.73	4
31	Bikaspur	Bangalore South	0	0	13.7	4
32	Yalachenahalli	Bangalore South	0	0	4.28	4
33	Sarakki Kere	Bangalore South	0	0	5.21	4
34	Subramanyapur	Bangalore South	1190	4817	14.57	4
35	Hongasandra	Bangalore South	0	0	6.66	4
36	Thurahalli	Bangalore South	187	838	37.4	4
37	Vasantpur	Bangalore South	565	2516	11.04	4
38	Puttenahalli	Bangalore South	0	0	20.47	4
39	Badamanavarthekaval1 (P)	Bangalore South	0	0	75.43	4
40	Konankunte	Bangalore South	3291	13316	8.43	4
41	Gabbalalu	Bangalore South	523	2147	22.86	4
42	Koodlu1	Bangalore South	1292	5201	13.4	4
43	Hemmigepura	Bangalore South	312	1658	39.42	4
44	Hemmigepura	Bangalore South	0	0	26.25	4
45	Choodasandra	Bangalore South	145	672	28.51	4
46	Badamanavarthe Kaval	Bangalore South	430	2060	55.31	4
47	Basapur	Bangalore South	133	604	22.94	4
48	Rajanamaduvu	Bangalore South	80	415	32.65	4
49	Devagere	Bangalore South	210	1179	34.07	4
50	Chikkathogaru	Bangalore South	127	575	27.42	4
51	Doddathogaru	Bangalore South	995	4087	18.54	4
52	Agara2	Bangalore South	781	3612	42.09	4
53	Gangasandra	Bangalore South	111	619	43.57	4
54	Vasanthanahalli	Bangalore South	284	1079	46.76	4
55	Chinnakurchi	Bangalore South	154	796	55.97	4
56	Saludoddi	Bangalore South	0	0	42.54	4
57	Uttari	Bangalore South	214	1038	31.11	4
58	Chudahalli	Bangalore South	184	998	12.63	4
59	Naganayakanahalli	Bangalore South	101	576	24.15	4
60	Hulugondanahalli	Kanakapura	365	1847	7.14	4
61	Harohalli	Kanakapura	2316	11338	26.38	4
62	Bannikuppe	Kanakapura	350	1651	7.67	4
63	Maralagere	Kanakapura	55	218	36.18	4
64	Devarakaggalahalli	Kanakapura	105	515	7.04	4
65	Jakkasandra1	Kanakapura	310	1938	23.88	4
66	Keeranagere	Kanakapura	126	629	34.35	4
67	Doddasadenhalli	Kanakapura	293	1488	32.14	4
68	Cheelur	Kanakapura	581	2739	19.5	4
69	Avaremala	Kanakapura	461	2247	42.93	4
70	Chikkasadenahalli	Kanakapura	136	632	29.84	4
71	Chikkadevarahalli	Kanakapura	59	299	36.17	4
72	T. Hosahalli	Kanakapura	293	1338	27.63	4
73	Mrasandra	Kanakapura	0	0	31.74	4
74	Agara1	Kanakapura	211	944	28.73	4
75	Ramapura	Kanakapura	232	1166	8.97	4
76	Rayasandra	Kanakapura	366	1645	28.96	4
77	Tungani	Kanakapura	393	1798	7.57	4
78	Ganalu	Kanakapura	423	1936	7.42	4
79	Aralalusandra	Kanakapura	290	1331	13.84	4
80	Banantimari State Forest	Kanakapura	0	0	53.55	4
81	Agrahara	Kanakapura	95	411	3.97	4
82	Kallahalli	Kanakapura	354	1627	8.36	4
83	Thammasandra	Kanakapura	454	2061	25.87	4
84	Kanakapura	Kanakapura	0	0	13.42	4
85	Hanumanahalli	Kanakapura	47	238	32.75	4
86	Virupasandra1	Kanakapura	376	1754	0	4
87	Seegekote	Kanakapura	290	1349	33.66	4
88	Acchalu	Kanakapura	496	2411	42.43	4
89	Horalagallu	Kanakapura	547	2557	45.17	4
90	Maralabekuppe	Kanakapura	964	4987	45.98	4
91	Sompura	Kanakapura	82	454	32.59	4
92	Singasandra1	Kanakapura	0	0	13.03	4
93	Raghuvanahalli	Kanakapura	126	627	28.72	4
94	Purappana Agrahara	Kanakapura	385	1584	16.46	4
95	Varahasandra	Kanakapura	89	479	31.09	4
96	Hosahalli1	Kanakapura	285	1242	14.98	4
97	Rayasandra1	Kanakapura	179	1019	36.67	4
98	Naganathapura	Kanakapura	279	1081	17.43	4
99	Lingadeeranahalli	Kanakapura	131	626	25.7	4
100	Gollahalli	Kanakapura	0	0	30.75	4
101	Thalaghattapura	Kanakapura	833	3607	20.8	4
102	Sreeramapura	Kanakapura	146	755	54.31	4
103	Doddanagamangala	Kanakapura	286	1360	16.83	4
104	Beratena Agrahara	Kanakapura	84	340	18.04	4
105	Dodda Tegur (P)	Kanakapura	0	0	4.15	4
106	Chikkanagamangala	Kanakapura	128	653	24.22	4
107	Konappana Agrahara	Kanakapura	2918	11038	14.81	4
108	Veerasandra	Kanakapura	620	2235	29.02	4
109	Hebbagodi	Kanakapura	114	557	18.32	4
110	Kammasandra	Kanakapura	620	2549	21.26	4
111	Maragondahalli	Kanakapura	799	4046	19.46	4
112	Gollahalli1	Kanakapura	427	1638	20.6	4
113	Andapura	Kanakapura	34	155	31.69	4
114	Bommasandra	Kanakapura	551	2194	22.89	4
115	Thirupalya	Kanakapura	802	2817	14.29	4
116	Seegehalli	Kanakapura	32	174	29.93	4
117	Yarandahalli	Kanakapura	588	2025	18.36	4
118	Vabasandra	Kanakapura	115	565	27.94	4
119	Kachanaikanahalli	Kanakapura	585	2231	24.41	4
120	Kithiganahalli	Kanakapura	578	2220	25.32	4
121	Kylasanahalli	Kanakapura	249	1151	14.43	4
122	Banahalli	Kanakapura	519	2071	11.81	4
123	Hosahalli3	Kanakapura	130	638	27.46	4
124	Bandenallasandra	Kanakapura	129	645	9.26	4
125	Hennagara	Kanakapura	373	1761	9.93	4
126	Rajapura	Kanakapura	143	730	8.14	4
127	Iggaluru	Kanakapura	327	1524	23.6	4
128	Hinnakki	Kanakapura	221	1078	9.46	4
129	Ramakrishnapura	Kanakapura	33	170	34.02	4
130	Marasuru	Kanakapura	395	1709	25.46	4
131	Haragadde	Kanakapura	842	3493	10.42	4
132	Seethanaikanahalli	Kanakapura	85	520	19.4	4
133	Lingapura	Kanakapura	130	746	8.22	4
134	Byagadadenahalli	Kanakapura	108	511	20.83	4
135	Doddaheggadde	Kanakapura	165	770	10.4	4
136	Koonmadivala	Kanakapura	64	326	12.38	4
137	Avadadenahalli	Kanakapura	90	513	16.26	4
138	Soppahalli	Kanakapura	91	450	9.89	4
139	Kumbaranahalli	Kanakapura	126	602	15.97	4
140	Channena Agrahara	Kanakapura	175	925	11.41	4
141	Kempavaderahalli	Kanakapura	47	201	12.87	4
142	Aravattigepura	Kanakapura	60	281	10.54	4
143	Chikkaheggadde	Kanakapura	117	650	8.94	4
144	Karapura	Kanakapura	252	1172	7.59	4
145	Hasarubani	Kanakapura	5	35	14.14	4
146	Honnakalasapura	Kanakapura	78	364	11.37	4
147	Kavala Hosahalli	Kanakapura	293	1238	13.35	4
148	Haladenahalli	Kanakapura	233	1031	11.63	4
149	Bidaragere	Kanakapura	174	900	2.92	4
150	Kurubarahalli	Kanakapura	1	4	7.07	4
151	Muthugatti	Kanakapura	427	1970	2.75	4
152	Sabmangala	Kanakapura	128	676	2.81	4
153	Choodenahalli	Kanakapura	116	558	13.75	4
154	Hompalaghatta	Kanakapura	99	536	7.37	4
155	Thelagarahalli	Kanakapura	119	626	10.81	4
156	Gudnahalli	Kanakapura	137	657	2.13	4
157	Geritiganabelu	Kanakapura	203	1049	2.69	4
158	Singasandra	Kanakapura	72	392	13.06	4
159	Menasiganahalli	Kanakapura	157	810	18.6	4
160	Vanakanahalli	Kanakapura	284	1283	20.62	4
161	Chikkanahatti	Kanakapura	3	11	3.45	4
162	Doddakuntanahalli	Ramnagara	56	283	53.67	4
163	Kodiyalkarenahalli	Ramnagara	523	2602	35.26	4
164	Chik Kuntanahalli	Ramnagara	112	566	41.21	4
165	Yerepalya	Ramnagara	6	37	15.77	4
166	Mandalahalli	Ramnagara	4	22	64.05	4
167	Bannigere	Ramnagara	349	1663	13.73	4
168	Hosur	Ramnagara	468	2107	13.82	4
169	Gollarapalya	Ramnagara	98	455	21.88	4
170	Byramangala	Ramnagara	624	2828	8.64	4
171	Allalasandra	Ramnagara	309	1509	9.39	4
172	Kanchugaranahalli	Ramnagara	240	1038	7.6	4
173	Kanchugaranahalli Kaval	Ramnagara	0	0	18.23	4
174	Kempalahnapalya	Ramnagara	487	2114	12.39	4
175	Muddenahalli	Ramnagara	231	1183	30.58	4
176	Medamaranahalli	Ramnagara	274	1283	19.21	4

Table 8: Villages in ESR –4.

Elephant infested villages in BNP area

Sno	Village Name	Taluk
1	Bagganadoddi	Anekal
2	Bannerughatta	Anekal
3	Begihalli	Anekal
4	Bhoothanahalli	Anekal
5	Bilwaradahalli	Anekal
6	Bukkasagara	Anekal
7	Chikkahosahalli	Anekal
8	Indlavadiura	Anekal
9	Kadujakkanahalli	Anekal
10	Kadujakkanahalli1	Anekal
11	Mahanth Lingapur	Anekal
12	Mantapa	Anekal
13	Medihalli	Anekal
14	Ragihalli	Anekal
15	Ragihalli State Forest	Anekal
16	Shivanahalli-Ragihalli	Anekal
17	Thammanayakanahalli	Anekal
18	Thattekere	Anekal
19	Chudahalli	Bangalore South
20	Gulakamale	Bangalore South
21	Thattaguppe	Bangalore South
22	Vaddarapalya	Bangalore South
23	Acchalu	Kanakapura
24	Arekoppa	Kanakapura
25	Arkere	Kanakapura
26	Attikuppe	Kanakapura
27	Bachahalli	Kanakapura
28	Banimkodu	Kanakapura
29	Bannerughatta Kaval	Kanakapura
30	Bantanalu	Kanakapura
31	Bekuppe	Kanakapura
32	Bhimasandra	Kanakapura
33	Bijhalli	Kanakapura
34	Bijjahalli	Kanakapura
35	Bilakanakuppe	Kanakapura
36	Bilikal Forest	Kanakapura
37	Bommasandra1	Kanakapura
38	Byrappanahalli	Kanakapura
39	Chakasandra	Kanakapura
40	Chikkabettahalli	Kanakapura
41	Chlakanahalli	Kanakapura
42	Devarahalli	Kanakapura
43	Doddaguli	Kanakapura
44	Elachavadi	Kanakapura
45	Galapur	Kanakapura
46	Galapur1	Kanakapura
47	Ganganahalli	Kanakapura
48	Gattigonda	Kanakapura
49	Geritiganabelu	Kanakapura
50	Godur	Kanakapura
51	Godur1	Kanakapura
52	Godur2	Kanakapura
53	Gollahalli4	Kanakapura
54	Gottigehalli	Kanakapura
55	Guddeveeranahosahalli	Kanakapura
56	Gullahalli Kaval	Kanakapura
57	Halanatha	Kanakapura
58	Halasuru	Kanakapura
59	Hanchiguli	Kanakapura
60	Hosadurga	Kanakapura
61	Hosahalli2	Kanakapura
62	Hunasanahalli	Kanakapura
63	Kallanakuppe	Kanakapura
64	Katrinatha	Kanakapura
65	Kebbehalli	Kanakapura
66	Kebbre	Kanakapura
67	Kengalnath Gollahalli	Kanakapura
68	Kerelallusandra	Kanakapura
69	Kolagondanahalli	Kanakapura
70	Kolalgundi	Kanakapura
71	Kunur	Kanakapura
72	Linganapura	Kanakapura
73	Mahimanahalli	Kanakapura
74	Mallapur	Kanakapura
75	Mallasandra	Kanakapura
76	Manjilnatha	Kanakapura
77	Menasiganahalli	Kanakapura
78	Muggur Forest	Kanakapura
79	Nallahalli	Kanakapura
80	Narayanapura	Kanakapura
81	Salbanni	Kanakapura
82	Seegekote	Kanakapura
83	Shivanahalli	Kanakapura
84	Singasandra	Kanakapura
85	Soluru	Kanakapura
86	T.Maniyambal	Kanakapura
87	Tattikere	Kanakapura
88	Thelagarahalli	Kanakapura
89	Therubeedi	Kanakapura
90	Tippuru	Kanakapura
91	Vaderahalli	Kanakapura
92	Vaderahalli1	Kanakapura
93	Yadamadu	Kanakapura

 

9.1. SAFE PASSAGE FOR ELEPHANTS
India has approximately more than 50% of wild elephants of the world and acting as a last remaining stronghold of the Asian elephants. India has 26,000 elephants in the wild and 3500 elephants in captive distributed across 18 states /union territories. South India supports around 10,000 elephants in the wild and it is estimated that their geographic range has shrunk by 70% since 1960s (GAJAH, 2011). Bannerghatta National Park (BNP) is the confluence point of the Western and Eastern Ghats for Asiatic elephants. BNP connects to the forest tracks of the Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary eventually joining the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve of Western Ghats forest at Nilgiris, stretching through Malaimahadeshwara hills, Biligiri Ranga Temple Sanctuary, Kollegal Forest Division and Sathyamangala Forests. The elephants are distributed in the entire park area. Within the habitat, the elephants seem to have preferences to some locations such as Ragihalli, Harohalli range, which are characterized by thick vegetation cover, shade and proximity to water sources with least human pressure. BNP is one of the oldest habitats of Asian elephants, supporting 100-150 population and large number of 200-300 migratory population also noticed from adjoining Tali reserve forest and Kaveri wild life sanctuary. Asper census population the stable population of BNP elephants are 148 (Bhaskaran et al. 2007) and as per forest department records the number exceeds 200. This number gets doubled with the migratory elephants moving in during the cropping season.
The disturbance in the park appears to be prominent and more crucial. The forest department records reveal that encroachment of forest land in the park is one of the major disturbances to the elephant’s in the park with as many as 300 cases being registered as on 2008. Some local residents are involved in the illegal mining of sand along the watercourses inside the park. Sandalwood poaching (about 35 cases were registered as on April 2008 in the forest department offence register) and incidences of illicit fuel wood collection and timber smuggling are common in the park (Singh 2008), resulting in the formation of more open patches and degradation of the forest whilst reducing the effective area available for elephants use (Gopalakarishna et al., 2008). Despite best efforts of the forest department, state and central governments the elephant conservation still remains a difficult task. There are numerous challenges such as habitat loss, fragmentation, human-elephant conflict, legal and illegal capturing of elephants and poaching etc. The coordinated and determined effort is needed from public and regulatory bodies to effectively address the challenges. The bottle necks for safe movements are identified based on field investigation and it is recommended the forest department to acquire the lands for better connectivity, based on existing width of forest boundary, available forest area and  gomala lands. The boundary of BNP is having highly irregular shape and it measures about 59 km in length and the width varies from 0.2 km to 13.8 km. These regions should be fenced and enriched with native species. Table 10 lists the areas (with spatial extent) to be acquired for better connectivity of BNP. Figure 20 lists identified regions for effective elephant moment with in BNP area. Figure 21 (a, b, c, d, e, f, g) shows the polygon current land form as shown in Google earth. The Forest department should undertake flowing on priority to minimize human animal conflicts.

• Creation of fodder reserves: It is very necessary to enrich the forests impoverished of wild animal fodder plants, using the land resources of poor-grade monoculture plantations, degraded forests, abandoned mine areas, underneath high tension power lines and such identified stretches.
• Creation/maintenance of water bodies: Water bodies are to be created intermittently in the forest areas so that the movement of animals in dry months could be minimized. Several old village ponds and tanks need desilting and maintenance. Watershed based forest management is critical for creating healthy habitats for elephants and other wildlife.

Figure 20: Bottleneck regions – to be acquired and enriched with fodder crops

Figure 21 (a, b, c, d, e, f, g):  Regions (areas) to be acquired (Violet color represents BNP boundary)

Table 10: Proposed connectivity for elephants

S.NO	Polygon name	Villages covered	Area (Ha)	Current land form	Reason
1	E1	Bhoothanahalli, Gulakamale, Uttarahalli Manavartha Kaval, Bilwaradahalli, Badamanavarthekaval (P), Kannaikana Agrahara, Agrahara-2	2196.97	Forest (degraded) & Gomala land, Agriculture	Earmarked based on existing forest cover that support diverse fauna (Ex. Leopard etc.) and Elephant crop ride information. Thottikallu falls also present in this region.
2	E2	Katrinatha	31.03	Agriculture	To increase the width (to 1 km) of BNP for effective and safe passage of elephants. Existing width is only 313 m.
3	E3	Elachavadi-1	12.60	Forest; Agriculture	To increase the width (to 0.45 km) of BNP for effective and safe passage of elephants. Earlier width existing only 173 m.
4	E4	Elachavadi-2	22.68	Forest	Connecting disconnected BNP boundary with in between agriculture area.
5	E5	Bhimasandra Lingapura	28.93	Forest; Agriculture	Connecting existing disconnected BNP boundary with acquiring agriculture land.
6	E6	Maniyambal, Bachahalli	343.79	Forest	Connecting with existing
7	E7	Gattigonda	113.62	Agriculture	Connecting existing BNP boundary between Kolagondanahalli, Kengalnath Gollahalli villages

 

References:

1. Beinat, E., 1997. Value functions for environmental management. Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA, 241.
2. Bharath S., Rajan K.S, Ramachandra T.V., 2014. Visualization of forest transition in Uttara Kannada, LAKE 2014, Conference on Conservation and Sustainable Management of Wetland Ecosystems in Western Ghats, 13-15 November, Karnataka, India.
3. Bharath Setturu, Bharath H. Aithal, Sanna Durgappa, D., Ramachandra, T.V., 2012. Landscape Dynamics through Spatial Metrics., Proceedings of 14th Annual international conference and exhibition on Geospatial Information Technology and Applications, India Geospatial Forum, 7-9 February 2012, Gurgaon, India.
4. Bharath, S., Rajan, K.S, Ramachandra, T.V., 2013. Land Surface Temperature Responses to Land Use Land Cover Dynamics. Geoinfor. Geostat: An Overview 1:4. doi:10.4172/2327-4581.1000112.
5. Bhaskaran, N., Kannan, G., Sukumar, R., 2007. Southern India Elephant Census 2007. Final report to Karnataka Forest Department. Asian Elephant Research and Conservation Centre, Bangalore.
6. Chase, T.N., Pielke, R.A., Kittel, T.G.F., Nemani, R.R., Running, S.W., 1999. Simulated impacts of historical land cover changes on global climate in northern winter. Climate Dynamics 16, 93–105.
7. FAO, 2009. State of the World’s Forests 2009. Food and Agriculture Organization. Electronic Publishing Policy and Support Branch Communication Division.
8. GAJAH-Securing the Future for the Elephant in India, 2011. Ministry of Environment and Forests, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
9. Gopalakrishna S.P., Somashekar R.K., Vijay Anand D., Surendra Varma, 2010. Asian Elephant and Bannerghatta National Park in Eastern Ghats, Southern India, Gajah, 33: 47-52.
10. Houghton, R.A., Hackler, J.L., Lawrence, K.T., 1999. The U.S. carbon budget: contribution from land-use change. Science, 285, 574–578.
11. MoEF, 2000. Report of the Committee on identifying parameters for designating Ecologically Sensitive Areas in India (Pronab Sen Committee Report).
12. Palmer, M., Bernhardt, E., Chornesky, E.A., Collins, S.L., Dobson, A.P., Duke, C.S., Gold, B.D., Jacobson, R.B., Kingsland, S.E., Kranz, R.H., Mappin, M.J., Martinez, M.L., Micheli, F., Morse, J.L., Pace, M.L., Pascual, M., Palumbi, S.S,, Reichman, O.J., Simons, A., Townsend, A.R., Turner, M.G., 2004. Ecology for a crowded planet. Science 304:1251–1252. doi:10.1126 science.1095780
13. Pielke, R.A.Sr., Pitman, A., Niyogi, D., Mahmood, R., McAlpine, C., Hossain, F., Klein Goldewijk, K., Nair, U., Betts, R., Fall, S., Reichstein, M., Kabat, P., de Noblet, N., 2011. Land use/land cover changes and climate: modeling analysis and observational evidence. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Clim Change, 2(6), 828–850.
14. Ramachandra T V, Bharath H. Aithal and Uttam Kumar, 2012c. Conservation of wetlands to mitigate urban floods, Resources, Energy, and Development  9(1): 1–22
15. Ramachandra T V, Ganesh Hegde, Subash Chandran M D, Tejaswini Ananth Kumar and Vishnumayananda Swamiji,  2015a. SMART Ragihalli: Effort towards Self-reliant & Self-sufficient system empowering Man power (rural youth) with Appropriate Rural Technologies, ETR 90, Energy & Wetlands Research Group, CES, Indian Institute of Science , Bangalore, Pp 82
16. Ramachandra T.V.,  Bharath H. Aithal and K. Sreejith, 2015b. GHG footprint of major cities in India, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 44 (2015) 473–495, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.12.036
17. Ramachandra T.V., Bharath H. Aithal, Vinay S., Rao G.R., Gouri Kulkarni, Tara N M and Nupur Nagar, 2014. Trees of Bengaluru, ENVIS Technical Report 75, ENVIS, Centre for Ecological Sciences, IISc, Bangalore 560012, Pp75
18. Ramachandra T.V., Subash Chandran  M.D., Joshi  N.V., Sreekantha, Saira V.K and Vishnu D.M., 2013c. Influence of Landscape Dynamics on Hydrological Regime in Central Western Ghats Sahyadri Conservation Series 35, ENVIS Technical Report 65, CES, Indian Institute of  Science, Bangalore 560012, India
19. Ramachandra T.V., Subash Chandran M.D., Joshi N.V., Bharath  Setturu,  Rao G R., Prakash Mesta, 2013a. Ecologically sensitive regions in Uttara Kannada,  Sahyadri Conservation Series 37, ENVIS Technical Report 67, ENVIS, Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of science,  Bangalore 560012
20. Ramachandra T.V., Subash Chandran M.D., Joshi N.V., Vinay S., Bharath H A and Bharath Setturu, 2013a, Carrying Capacity of River Basins considering Ecological and Social Demands,  Sahyadri Conservation Series 36, ENVIS Technical Report 66, CES, Indian Institute of  Science, Bangalore 560012, India
21. Ramachandra, T.V., Bharath H. Aithal and Durgappa D. S. 2012b. Insights to urban dynamics through landscape spatial pattern analysis, Int. J Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 18; 329-343, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2012.03.005.
22. Ramachandra, T.V., Bharath Setturu, Bharath, H. Aithal., 2012a. Peri-Urban to Urban Landscape Patterns Elucidation through Spatial Metrics, International Journal of Engineering Research and Development, 2(12), 58-81.
23. Rands, M.R.W., Adams, W.M., Bennun, L., Butchart, S.H.M., Clements, A., Coomes, D., Entwistle, A., Hodge, I., Kapos, V., Scharlemann, J.P.W., Sutherland, W.J., Vira, B., 2010. Biodiversity conservation: Challenges beyond 2010. Science 329, 1298–1303.
24. Reed, B.C., Brown, J.F., VanderZee, D., Loveland, T.R., Merchant, J.W., Ohlen, D.O., 1994. Measuring phenological variability from satellite data, Journal of Vegetation Science, 5, 703–714.
25. Ross, C.W., Grunwald, S., Myers, D. B.,  Xiong, X. (2016). Land use, land use change and soil carbon sequestration in the St. Johns River Basin, Florida, USA. Geoderma Regional, 7(1), 19-28.
26. Sexton, J.O., Song, X.P., Feng, M., Noojipady, P., Anand, A., Huang, C.Q., Kim, D. H., Collins, K.M., Channan, S., DiMiceli, C., Townshend, J.R., 2013. Global, 30-m resolution continuous fields of tree cover: Landsat-based rescaling of MODIS vegetation continuous fields with lidar-based estimates of error. Int. J. Digital Earth 6, 427–448.
27. Singh, V.V., 2008. Wildlife Management Plan for Bannerghatta National Park, 2008-09 to 2012-13. Government of Karnataka.
28. Termorshuizen, J.W., Opdam, P., 2009. Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development, Landscape Ecology, 24, 1037–1052.
29. Toth, S., Haight, R.G., Rogers, L., 2011. Dynamic reserve selection, optimal land retention with land price feedbacks. Operation Research, 59 (5), 1059-1078.
30. Vinay, S., Bharath, S., Bharath, H.A., Ramachandra T.V., 2013. Hydrologic Model with Landscape Dynamics for Drought Monitoring, In proceeding of: Joint International Workshop of ISPRS WG VIII/1 and WG IV/4 on Geospatial Data for Disaster and Risk Reduction, Hyderabad, November 21–22.
31. Yang, Z., Wang, T., Voisin, N., Copping, A., 2015. Estuarine response to river flow and sea-level rise under future climate change and human development. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 156, 19-30.