Landscapes are composed predominantly of natural vegetation, which aid in maintain the ecosystem goods and services (Ramachandra et al., 2018). The human welfare is integrally twined with the integrity of an ecosystem which sustains the availability of natural resources. However mismanagement of ecological systems with the unplanned developmental activities has impaired ecosystem services evident from the barren hill tops, conversion of perennial streams to seasonal streams, reduced biological productivities, etc. The anthropogenic activities have altered natural landscapes affecting their capacity of (1) bioremediation - filter nutrients and contaminants from water, (2) flood mitigation - abate flood waters associated with extreme climate events, (3) retain water, soils, and nutrients, (4) resist invasive species establishment, and (5) provide for natural predators of pests (Turner et al., 2007). The ecosystem is experiencing pressures from drivers such as land use land cover [LULC] change, changes in the climate due to enhanced GHG (Greenhouse gas) levels in the atmosphere, pollutants (air, water and land) and propagation of invasive species. This necessitates appropriate policy measures to mitigate the disturbances so as to ensure not to exceed the threshold state from which it may not recover or may take many years to return to its previous state through natural processes (Kinzig et al., 2006). This entails attaining comprehensive knowledge of the ecosystem integrity and the goods and services provided by ecosystems, and the importance of conservation for maintaining the quality of life. Systematic conservation planning is quintessential for prudent resource management and sustainable development. This has been evaluated as the theoretical foundation of sustainable development that adds another dimension to the need for judicious planning by integrating economic development with the ecological, environmental and social equity (Reid et al., 2016). Conservation planning has evolved to minimize the loss of biodiversity and vigil on the exploitation of resources through prioritization of regions rich in biodiversity for conservation (Pressey and Cowling, 2001; Egoh et al., 2007) and the challenge of quantifying ecosystem services in tangible and quantifiable factors (Grant et al., 2008).

Systematic conservation planning has been increasingly encompassed of identifying or expanding conservation hotspots, protected areas or to set a threshold for resource usage and to influence land use decision making. It requires an assessment of  carrying capacity of a region taking into account resource base, ecological sensitiveness, supportive and assimilative capacity of the respective ecosystems, conservation initiatives, etc. Planning also requires assessment of bio-geological systems, spatial priorities (i.e. area selection) for conservation action complemented with the sustainable development strategy in the context of stakeholder collaboration (Knight et al., 2006; Grant et al., 2008). Conservation planning involves assessing the interaction of biotic and abiotic factors, species distribution, datasets of the spatial arrangement of various factors, socioeconomic setup and finally disturbance regimes (Brooks et al., 2004). Sustainable planning integrates interactions between drivers, pressures and responses of more complex social and ecological dynamics as a result of positive and negative feedback responses existing between different activities and policy responses (Fusco, 2002; Ramachandra et al., 2016). The assessment of broad ranges of various factors helps in evolving ecologically significant areas or regions for conservation in a holistic approach. Ecological Sensitive Regions (ESR/ESA) include not only distinctive ecological factors such as mountain, reservoir, natural conservation area, but also includes human settlements surrounding ecological sensitive areas by forming a complete spatial and social entity (Peng et al., 2013). ESR are defined under conservation planning approach as “large units of land or water containing a geographically distinct assemblage of species, natural communities, and environmental conditions” (Olson et al., 2001). Adoption of a landscape perspective (spatial composition, pattern, and position) plays a vital role in demarcating ESRs as it provides a common framework to evaluate social, economic, and cultural dynamics and their relationship to ecological services (Naidoo and Ricketts 2006; Ramachandra et al., 2017).

ESRs are playing a significant role in ensuring ecological and environmental integrity and maintaining the health of the region through their ecological values and management regimes. ESRs are the interconnected fragile regions of interactive landscape elements, vital to the long-term maintenance of biological diversity, soil, water or other natural resources which could be threatened by unplanned development (Leman et al., 2016). ESR should be stratified as environmental sensitivity evaluation through assimilating various trade-off between land development, environmental protection, social well-being, and effective planning for impending development (Dai et al., 2012). ESRs delineation through the integration of geology, topography, hydrology and environment is the rigorous framework of sustainable land use planning. This would include ecologically critical areas, perceptual and cultural critical areas, natural resource critical areas and natural hazard critical areas and necessitates coordination from local, state, and federal efforts to achieve protection objectives. ESRs prioritization comprehensively captured social and ecological dynamics of a region their mutual interaction and ecosyem’s tolerance to transient and endogenous disruption. ESR framework considers aspects of ecosyem’s stability to tolerate disturbances, durability to recover or maintain its social-ecological functions and robust to be able to cope with an external pressure (Stirling, 2007). These properties are individually necessary and collectively sufficient for achieving sustainability. Development and implantation ESR framework requires harmonization between demarcation of priority biodiversity features with the active involvement of different stakeholders and agencies (conservation agencies & resource managers) in effective implementation. Stakeholder participation in decision making of ESR regions aid in understanding the complex and dynamic nature of environmental problems and lends a flexible and transparent decision making through a diversity of knowledge and values (Reed, 2008).

The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate change (MoEFCC), Government of India has taken an initiative to protect forests and maintenance under section 3 of Environment (Protection) Act 1986 (EPA). Central Government can prohibit or restrict the location of industries and carry out certain operations on the basis of considerations like the ecological sensitivity under section 5 of EPA 1986. The MoEFCC had set up Pronab Sen Committee in the year 2000 to identify parameters for designating ESRs in the country to counter the rapid deterioration of the environment, both nationally and internationally (MoEF, 2000). The committee has defined ecological sensitivity or fragility as permanent and irreparable loss of extant life forms from the world; or significant damage to the natural processes of evolution and speciation. The comprehensive knowledge of a region has become increasingly important for conservation planning and visualization of future growth to overcome the problems of haphazard, uncontrolled development in ecologically sensitive regions (Kennedy et al., 2009). Temporal remote sensing (RS) data, geographic information systems (GIS) techniques, free and open source software (FOSS) technologies are providing efficient methods for the analysis of LULC dynamics required for planning and protection (Ramachandra et al., 2014).
Unplanned developmental path adopted by unscrupulous decision makers is threatening the ecologically sensitive regions in the Netravathi River basin. River diversions, hydro electric projects, coastal reservoirs, commercial plantations, unscientific tourism, etc.  would cause irreplaceable loss of rich biodiversity. In this regard, the current research tries to understand land use dynamics, biodiversity, hydrology, ecology and social aspects in the Netravathi River Basin (includes Gurupura river also) and delineate ecological sensitive regions considering bio-geo climatic variables for prudent management of natural resources.