Introduction

Sustainable development of a region requires a synoptic ecosystem approach that relates to the dynamics of natural variability and the ef-fects of human interventions on key indicators of biodiversity and productivity (Ramachandra et al. 2007). Ecosystems are the distinct biological entities that sustain the biosphere and are characterised by a range of functions: nutrient cycling, bio-geochemical cycle, hydro-logic cycling, etc. They are interrelated in space and time in complex dynamic patterns depending on the health of landscape (Lin et al. 2018). Ecological sustainability refers to the ecosystems ability to cope with various kinds of environmental dis-turbances that have the potential of adversely changing the character of the natural landscapes while maintaining the sustenance of natural re-sources (water, soil, etc.). The landscape is a mosaic of interconnected forest and non-forest patches, constituting a complex ecological, eco-nomic and socio-cultural systems. Forest eco-systems have been playing a crucial role in sus-taining life on the earth through the sustenance of ecological goods and services, biological di-versity, regulation of climate, carbon sequestra-tion, protection of soil and water bodies, etc. They provide abundant resources and sustain the livelihood of the global population (Gibson et al. 2011; Hansen et al. 2013), They act as prime biodiversity repositories (Kindstrand et al. 2008; Li et al. 2009) and mitigate global warming (Ca-bral et al. 2010) by absorbing 30 percent of fos-sil fuel CO2 emissions (Pan et al. 2011) . The goods and services provided by forested land-scapes are vital to the socioeconomic develop-ment of human populations (DeFries et al. 2004) and their survival (Ramachandra et al. 2017). However, the forests are being altered due to the uncontrolled and unplanned anthropogen-ic activities such as agriculture, deforestation, etc. affecting the ecosystem structure and health. Forests cover about 30 percent today at global-ly as opposed to 50 percent of the earth’s land area 8000 years ago depleted with the expanded extents of croplands, pastures, plantations, and urban areas (FAO 2011). The Earth’s land sur-face has lost 40 percent of natural forest by 1990 due to the expansion of cropland and perma-nent pasture (Ramachandra and Shruthi 2007). The rapid conversion of forests for agriculture, timber production, infrastructure activities and other anthropogenic uses has generated vast, human-dominated landscapes with potentially calamitous consequences for biodiversity to sustain (Gould et al. 2017). Despite significant services of these ecosystems, global deforestation rates have remained alarmingly high over the past decades (DeFries et al. 2010). This ne-cessitates synthesis of causal factors which would aid in formulating location specific man-agement plans to mitigate impacts. The struc-ture of a landscape depends on land cover (LC), which decides the functioning of respective ec-osystems. LC refers the physical cover of a land-scape such as vegetation, non-vegetation (soil, water), etc., whereas land use (LU) describes management and modification of natural environment to a human with socioeconomic functions and services.
Land use land cover (LULC) analysis helps in understanding bio-geophysical processes and anthropogenic pressures on the ecosystem. LULC change resulting in deforestation has been recognized as an important driver of environ-mental changes due to alterations in temperature humidity response pattern affecting plant physiology and diverse ecosystem functions (Findell et al. 2017). The uncontrolled LU changes in forested landscapes induce imbalances by subdividing the contiguous native forests in to smaller fragments with isolated patches, which is known as forest fragmentation (Laurance et al. 2002; Bharath et al. 2012). Fragmentation refers to breaking up of contiguous natural forest patches into smaller tracts of forest surrounded by other land uses, causing a disruption in continuity of the natural landscape (Ramachandra et al. 2016a). Forest fragmentation with subsequent edge effects due to infrastructure developments (linear projects, etc.) has impaired eco-system goods and services including carbon sequestration ability, hydrologic regime, biodi-versity (Harper et al. 2005; Vinay et al. 2013; Bhar-ath et al. 2014), aggravate predation (Cagnolo et al. 2006), fire susceptibility, alters micro-climate and enhance carbon emissions (Houghton and Nassikas 2017). The unrestrained deforestation will alter micro-climate of the region, leading to increasing in land surface temperature and proliferation of exotic species (Ramachandra et al 2018) and disease vectors. This necessitates quantification of LULC changes to evolve sus-tainable natural resource management strategies. Conservation of forest ecosystem has become a critical task due to increased high intensities of anthropogenic disturbances in the form of LULC changes as compared to natural disturbance processes (Kivinen and Kumpula 2013) . This has led to the development of systematic conservation planning approaches as an increasingly vital tool for protecting the nature around the world.
The comprehensive knowledge about LULC has become increasingly important for planning and visualization of future growth to overcome the problems of haphazard, uncontrolled devel-opment in ecologically sensitive regions (Kennedy et al. 2009). Temporal remote sensing data, geographic information systems (GIS) tech-niques, free and open source software technolo-gies are providing efficient methods for the anal-ysis of LULC dynamics required for planning and protection (Ramachandra et al. 2014). The forests of Western Ghats are undergoing deforestation, while the forest under protected areas is also ex-periencing the risk of land use changes.
The conservation and sustainable manage-ment of ecosystems are the vital requisites for sustenance of natural resources. The impact of unplanned developmental activities during the post-independence period is evident from the barren hilltops, conversion of perennial streams to seasonal ones, loss of livelihood, etc. This necessitates an understanding of the complex functioning of ecosystems, diversity of resourc-es, ecosystem goods and services and their quintessential role in supporting people’s liveli-hood. Ecological units with the exceptional bi-otic and abiotic elements are designated as Eco-logically Sensitive Regions (ESRs). Identifica-tion of ESRs has to be done considering ecolog-ical, bio-geo climatic, social dimensions of envi-ronmental variables. Ecologically Sensitive Re-gions (ESR) are defined under conservation planning approach as ‘‘large units of land or water containing a geographically distinct as-semblage of species, natural communities, and environmental conditions” (Olson et al. 2001). ESR has the capacity to support and maintain the balanced and integrated ecosystem in a par-ticular region under protective measures. Sys-tematic conservation by prioritization of sensi-tive regions has become an effective and eco- nomical method (Myers et al. 2000) and is wide-ly used to improve ecosystem by conservation practices. With respect to Indian scenario, Union Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate change (MoEFCC) has taken an initiative to pro-tect forests and maintenance under section 3 of Environment (Protection) Act 1986 (EPA). Cen-tral Government can prohibit or restrict the loca-tion of industries and carry out certain opera-tions on the basis of considerations like the eco-logical sensitivity under section 5 of EPA 1986. The MoEFCC had set up Pronab Sen Committee in the year 2000 to identify parameters for desig-nating ESRs in the country to counter the rapid deterioration of the environment, both national-ly and internationally (MoEF 2000). The com-mittee has defined ecological sensitivity or fra-gility as permanent and irreparable loss of ex-tant life forms from the world; or significant dam-age to the natural processes of evolution and speciation. Based on this, Western Ghats Ecol-ogy Expert Panel (WGEEP) demarcated ecologi-cal sensitive regions and suggested prohibited and regulated activities in the respective zones of the Western Ghats (Gadgil et al. 2011) con-sidering multi-disciplinary inputs from the stake-holders. Subsequently, a high- level working group (HLWG), designated about 37 percent (that is, 60,000 sq. km.) of Western Ghats as ESA. However, both these reports were unsuccessful in generating confidence on the good intent of sustainable development and is not implement-ed till date. Unplanned developmental activities including tourism activities (under the guise of eco-tourism) have been causing irreplaceable losses even in protected areas (PAs). Now there is a move by the federal government to de-noti-fy 75 percent of Kali tiger reserve (KTR) an eco-sensitive zone area (ESZ) (a major portion of Kali River Basin) to implement developmental activities (many projects are pushed under drink-ing water scheme) in the eco-sensitive regions (KFD 2017). As the drinking water projects gets both executive and judiciary nod (without envi-ronment clearance), most of the environmental-ly unsound projects are pushed under the guise of drinking water requirement leading to large scale destruction of prime forest ecosystems in the Western Ghats.