sanjay gandhi national park case study

• Open supplemental data
• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, leopards in the city: the tale of sanjay gandhi national park and tungareshwar wildlife sanctuary, two protected areas in and adjacent to mumbai, india.

• 1 Wildlife Conservation Society - India, Bengaluru, India
• 2 Endangered Species Management, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, India
• 3 Maharashtra Forest Department, Indian Forest Service, Maharashtra, India

Recent studies in the last decade have recorded obligate carnivores adapting to human dominated landscapes. Leopards, amongst other large carnivores, are highly adaptable and survive in a range of environments from the arid regions of Africa and the Middle East to the cold regions of the Russian Far East. They are also highly adaptable in their diet and consequently are present close to and even within high-density human landscapes. These also include the edges of urban areas such as Nairobi and Mumbai. Our study, to better understand the coexistence of leopards and humans, was conducted in 104 km 2 of Sanjay Gandhi National Park (SGNP), which is surrounded on three sides by the urban landscape of Mumbai and Thane cities. The study area also included 85 km 2 of an adjoining protected area, Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary (TWLS), which is surrounded by a combination of forests, rural areas and agricultural lands. Based on spatial capture—recapture framework we observed that leopard densities in SGNP (26.34 ± 4.96 leopards/100 km 2 ) and TWLS (5.40 ± 2.99 leopards/100 km 2 ) were vastly different. We found that density estimates of wild prey and domestic dogs were higher in SGNP in comparison to TWLS. In both the protected areas (PAs), domestic dogs formed a major proportion of leopard diet and were the single highest species contributors. Our study shows that despite extremely high human density around SGNP (~20,000 people/km 2 ), leopard density is also much higher than the adjoining TWLS which has a comparatively lower surrounding density of people (~1,700 people/km 2 ). Leopard density reported from SGNP is amongst the highest ever reported. This interesting result is probably due to much higher biomass of potential food resources in and around SGNP. Studying this relationship between leopards and their prey (both wild and domestic) in a human dominated landscape will give us valuable insights on human—leopard interactions. The two adjacent and connected PAs are similar ecologically, but differ widely in almost all other aspects, including human densities along the periphery, leopard densities, prey densities as well as management regimes.

Introduction

Large predators in many parts of the world are expanding their distribution ranges ( Chapron et al., 2014 ) and colonizing areas that they were extirpated from in the past ( Carter and Linnell, 2016 ). It was a long-held belief that large carnivores need suitable natural habitats devoid of humans for their survival ( Woodroffe, 2000 ; Carter and Linnell, 2016 ). However, there is increasing evidence that human-dominated landscapes with ample food resources (such as domestic prey) could allow for the presence of large carnivores ( Gehrt et al., 2010 ; Yirga et al., 2013 ). In recent decades, carnivores have been widely documented using human-modified spaces. For instance, pumas ( Puma concolor ) using human modified spaces in Vancouver Island, Canada ( Collard, 2012 ), leopards ( Panthera pardus ) in Maharashtra, India ( Athreya et al., 2013 ), red foxes ( Vulpes vulpes ) in London ( Cassidy and Mills, 2012 ), American Black bears ( Ursus americans ) in Colorado, USA ( Lewis et al., 2015 ) and spotted hyena ( Crocuta crocuta ) coexisting at high density with people in Wukro district, northern Ethiopia ( Yirga et al., 2013 ). These carnivores are adaptable and can persist in human-dominated areas ( Carter and Linnell, 2016 ).

India is an interesting anomaly in terms of the high diversity of large wildlife present in the second most populous country in the world. The largest global populations of tigers ( Panthera tigris ) and Asian elephants ( Elaphas maximus ) are in India ( Goodrich et al., 2015 ; Williams et al., 2020 ), which is also home to the only population of Asiatic lions ( Panthera leo persica ; Banerjee et al., 2013 ; Meena et al., 2021 ). Among the other large cats, the snow leopards ( Panthera uncia ) occur in trans-Himalayan region ( Sharma et al., 2015 ). Leopards have a country-wide distribution, ranging from the forests of the Himalayan region ( Naha et al., 2018 ) to the coastal plains ( Daniel, 2009 ) and from the semi-arid landscapes of Rajasthan ( Mondal et al., 2012 ; Kumbhojkar et al., 2019 ), to forests of Western Ghats ( Ramesh et al., 2012 ) as well as from human-dominated landscapes across the country ( Odden et al., 2014 ; Kshettry et al., 2018 ; Naha et al., 2018 ). About 83% of the leopard population exists outside protected areas in India ( Jacobson et al., 2016 ). Leopards in a landscape mosaic of agricultural fields, plantations and human settlements have been observed to feed on domestic prey available in the landscape ( Athreya et al., 2016 ; Kshettry et al., 2018 ; Naha et al., 2018 ). They have also been documented at the edges of Indian cities such as Mumbai ( Edgaonkar and Chellam, 2002 ), Guwahati in Assam, ( Bharali et al., 2021 ), Bangalore in Karnataka ( Athreya et al., 2015 ), and Jaipur in Rajasthan ( Kumbhojkar et al., 2020 ). Even though urban cities present very challenging environments, some carnivores utilize the food and shelter available in these environments ( Bateman and Fleming, 2012 ).

Although we are increasingly recording the occurrence of wildlife in urban areas, we currently understand little of the factors contributing to the co-adaptations by humans and wildlife in shared spaces ( Gehrt et al., 2010 ; Carter and Linnell, 2016 ). Carnivores that thrive in urban and suburban environs are mainly diet generalists ( Gehrt et al., 2010 ; Moss et al., 2016 ). Some carnivores feed on the organic waste ( Lewis et al., 2015 ) or predate on domestic animals such as dogs, cats and pigs which feed on garbage ( Athreya et al., 2016 ; Yirga et al., 2016 ). Mountain lions in West-central Alberta (Canada) ( Knopff et al., 2014 ) and spotted hyenas occur in peri-urban spaces in Ethiopia where they are entirely dependent on domestic prey species and the peri-urban waste ( Yirga et al., 2016 ). Abundant, non-seasonal and energy rich food sources in urban areas have positive effects on survival, growth rate and population densities of carnivorous species ( Gehrt et al., 2010 ; Bateman and Fleming, 2012 ). Medium-sized carnivores have been observed achieving higher population densities in cities compared to their natural habitats due to anthropogenic food sources and shelter ( Bateman and Fleming, 2012 ). However, there has not been a significant ecological assessment of leopard's presence in an urban landscape in India to date. In this study we compare leopard ecology between the urban Sanjay Gandhi National Park situated in the metropolis of Mumbai with the adjoining Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary set in a rural landscape with much lower density of humans. Specifically in this study, we assess leopard density, wild and domestic prey density, and compare the diet of leopards in the two adjacent protected areas (PAs).

Materials and Methods

Our study to assess densities of leopards, their prey and leopard diet was carried out in Sanjay Gandhi National Park (SGNP) and Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary (TWLS). Although adjacent to each other, the two protected areas (PAs) differ in many aspects including the management regime ( Table 6 ).

The SGNP is located within sub-urban Mumbai and Thane districts of Maharashtra state. It is one of the few PAs in the country which falls within the municipal limits of a metropolis, extending over an area of 104 km 2 (19° 8′ N, 72° 53′ E and 19° 21′ N, 72° 58′ E). Elevation ranges from 30 to 500 m above mean sea level and the vegetation is categorized as the southern moist deciduous type ( Champion and Seth, 1968 ). Leopard is the apex carnivore in SGNP. Other carnivores found in this landscape are jungle cat ( Felis chaus ) rusty-spotted cat ( Prionailurus rubiginosus ), common palm civet ( Paradoxurus hermaphroditus ), small Indian civet ( Viverricula indica ), gray mongoose ( Herpestes edwardsii ) and the ruddy mongoose ( Herpestes smithii ). Herbivores that occur here include chital ( Axis axis ), sambar ( Rusa unicolor ), southern plains langur ( Semnopithecus entellus ), wild pig ( Sus scrofa ), bonnet macaque ( Macaca radiata ), rhesus macaque ( Macaca mullata ), barking deer ( Muntiacus muntjak ), Indian chevrotain ( Moschiola indica ), black-naped hare (Lepus nigricollis nigricollis) , and Indian crested porcupine ( Hystrix indica ) ( Edgaonkar and Chellam, 2002 ; Pradhan, 2002 ). Cattle, water buffaloes, goats, pigs, and domestic dogs are abundant in the areas to the south of SGNP in the Aarey milk colony ( Punjabi et al., 2012 ). SGNP is one of the most highly visited PAs in the country ( Pradhan, 2002 ). There are about 43 tribal hamlets inside SGNP's boundary represented by the Warli and Mahadev Koli tribes ( Landy, 2017 ; Nair et al., 2021 ). People from the city use parts of SGNP mainly for recreational activities.

In our study we also included a few forest patches and other wooded areas adjacent to SGNP ( Figure 1 ) where leopard presence was observed. These were the Aarey Milk Colony (12.8 km 2 ) which is a largely human-modified forest. The Aarey Milk Colony consists of more than 30 cattle production units with a total capacity of more than 15,000 head of cattle ( Punjabi et al., 2012 ). Other similar areas adjoining SGNP which we included were Indian Institute of Technology-Powai campus (2.20 km 2 ) and Dadasaheb Phalke Film City (1.77 km 2 ) which are located along the southern boundary of SGNP. The total area surveyed in the SGNP landscape was approximately 120 km 2 .

Figure 1 . A map of Sanjay Gandhi National Park and Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary showing camera trap locations, line transects and dog survey locations.

The TWLS, (19°23′38″N and 72°58′9″E) is located in the Palghar and Thane districts of Maharashstra. It is contiguous with SGNP along its southern boundary ( Figure 1 ). The total area of TWLS is 85.70 km 2 , which was sampled in its entirety in this study. TWLS supports southern moist teak bearing forests, southern moist mixed deciduous forests and western sub-tropical hill forests ( Champion and Seth, 1968 ). The highest point of TWLS is at an altitude of 663 meters above mean sea level. The terrain is mostly hilly and undulating. Some of the mammals that occur in TWLS include leopard, jungle cat, rusty-spotted cat, wild pig, common palm civet, small Indian civet, southern plains langur, bonnet macaques, gray mongoose, black-naped hare, and barking deer.

The local inhabitants of this area belong to the Warli and Mahadev Koli tribes. Minimum human density along the periphery of TWLS is 1,700 persons/km 2 . The major threats faced by TWLS are encroachment and illicit firewood collection.

Estimating Leopard Density

We used camera trap surveys within a spatial capture-recapture framework ( Royle et al., 2017 ) to estimate leopard densities in the two PAs. In SGNP, camera trap surveys were carried out from 22nd February 2015 to 14th April 2015, and in TWLS they were conducted from 26th April 2016 to 6th June 2016. Although these two PAs were sampled in two consecutive years due to logistic constraints and limitations, there was no major change in habitat or management regime in the period that would have affected our findings. Camera trap locations were selected so that each individual leopard within the study area would be exposed to the camera trap array. Camera trap locations were selected to maximize the probability of photographic capture, based on leopard signs and at junctions of forest trails. In both sites, camera trap locations were approximately 2-3 km from each other, to ensure that we obtained spatial recaptures of individuals (multiple individuals each captured in multiple locations), which is critical for spatial capture-recapture modeling. In SGNP, camera traps were placed in three blocks: Block 1 had 9 locations which were active for 15 nights; block 2 had 10 locations which were active for 15 nights and block 3 had 12 locations which were active for 14 nights. TWLS had two blocks: block 1 had 16 locations active for 20 nights and block 2 had 12 locations active for 15 nights. This spatio-temporal schedule of camera trap effort was fully accounted for in the analysis using the trap deployment matrix. To obtain images of both flanks, a pair of self- triggered camera traps (Cuddeback Attack and Cuddeback C1) was placed at each camera trap location, set two-three feet from the ground. Because the study was carried out in a human use area where the risk of camera theft was high, we set the camera traps at 17:00 and removed them at 07:30 each day of the survey.

Each leopard individual was identified based on its unique rosette pattern and assigned a unique individual identification number ( Karanth et al., 2017 ). After careful processing and validation of the camera trap image and associated data, we prepared the following input files for spatial capture-recapture analysis: the trap deployment file (with details of the spatial location of each camera trap location and the temporal schedule of trap deployment at each location); the captures file (with details of which animal was captured at which camera trap location on which occasion); and the state space (mask) file, specifying the area within which activity centers of individual leopards could possibly be located buffered to a distance of eight km from the outermost trap locations, so that animals at the edge of the state space had virtually no probability of being photo-captured in our trap array.

All statistical analyses were carried out using package secr ( Efford, 2021 ) within the R statistical environment ( R Core Team, 2021 ). We fit four plausible models to each data set, where baseline detection probability g0 and the movement parameter σ were each modeled either as constant or as differing between sexes (using the hybrid finite mixtures approach, as sex was unknown for some individuals). As no model received clear support from the data ( Table 1 ), we derived estimates of real parameters ( g0 , σ, density, pmix) and unconditional standard errors using model-averaging ( Burnham and Anderson, 2002 ; Cade, 2015 ).

Table 1 . Model selection results for the spatial capture-recapture modeling of leopard photo-captures in SGNP and TWLS conducted in 2015 and 2016 respectively.

Wild Prey Density

We used line transect sampling ( Buckland et al., 2001 , 2015 ) to estimate densities of wild prey species. Sixteen transects samplers were randomly marked in SGNP and each transect was surveyed five (three morning replicates and two evening replicates) times during January and February 2015. A total walk effort of 120 km was expended during the surveys. The line transect data were analyzed using program DISTANCE ( Thomas et al., 2010 ). The analysis involved data exploration, selection of right truncation distances and fitting of different detection functions (half normal, hazard rate, uniform; see ( Buckland et al., 2001 , 2015 ) to the data in order to estimate average detection probability. The best model was selected based on the lowest Akaike Information Criteria (AIC) values ( Burnham and Anderson, 2002 ).

Although we initiated line transect surveys in TWLS in 2016, these had to be abandoned due to extremely low encounter rates of wild prey. We instead assessed the relative abundance (encounters/km) of wild prey based on direct sightings and sign encounters during foot surveys conducted within 4 km 2 grid cells superimposed across TWLS. A total walk effort of 87.3 kms was expended during these foot surveys.

Estimating Densities of Domestic Dogs

Domestic dogs are important prey for leopards in rural and semi-urban regions in India ( Athreya et al., 2016 ; Kumbhojkar et al., 2020 ). To obtain estimates of dog densities we carried out dog density estimation using photographic surveys within a capture-recapture framework, at three different locations at the periphery of both SGNP as well as TWLS. These locations were selected taking into consideration logistical constraints and to represent the area on the periphery of both PAs. Survey locations were selected based on an initial reconnaissance survey, and were near garbage dumping sites, water bodies, feeding sites and human settlements. To avoid violation of the assumption of geographic and demographic closure ( Amstrup et al., 2010 ), the sampling interval for the surveys was kept short. We covered a relatively large area to ensure that the perimeter to area ratio was small ( Punjabi et al., 2012 ). Surveys were carried out by teams of two persons on a motorbike with a hand-held camera with a telephoto lens, who would traverse a predetermined route on a motorcycle, visiting each pre-identified survey location, scan for dogs within a 30–50 m radius, and carefully photograph both flanks of individual dogs found. The surveys were conducted over four sampling occasions except for Aarey Milk Colony where only three surveys were conducted. We used natural markings, scars, tail shapes, among other attributes, to individually identify photo-captured dogs. Data were analyzed using the Huggins (1989) conditional likelihood models using program MARK ( White and Burnham, 1999 ), to estimate dog abundance. To estimate density, the surveyed areas were buffered by a width based on Vanak and Gompper (2010) study, yielding estimated densities for six locations across the two PAs.

Leopard Diet

Leopard scats were collected along roads and trails in both the PAs. A total of about 180 km each were walked in each of the two PAs. The scats were sun-dried and then washed under running water through a sieve. Hair, nails, and claws were collected from each scat sample and were sun-dried. Twenty-five hair samples were selected randomly from each scat and used for identification of prey. Individual prey species were identified under a microscope based on the medullary patterns of the hair ( Athreya et al., 2016 ; Kshettry et al., 2018 ) using available reference slides. To determine the adequacy of sample size, we plotted a species accumulation curve based on the scat samples. The data obtained were analyzed to calculate relative frequencies of occurrence of individual prey species in leopard diet and prey selectivity of leopards was assessed based on the equation given by Chakrabarti et al. (2016) .

Management Regimes of the Two Protected Areas

To understand the two protected areas at their management level. Information was collected on various aspects such as staff strength, revenue and tourist visitation rates etc. from the Forest Department staff at SGNP and TWLS.

Leopard Density

In SGNP, a camera trap effort of 422 trap nights yielded a total of 92 photographs of leopards from which 31 individuals (10 males, 17 females, and 4 individuals whose sex could not be determined) were identified. The leopard density in SGNP during 2015 was estimated to be 26.34 ± 4.96 (SE) leopards/100 km 2 . Humans had the highest camera trap encounter rate of 29.15/100 trap nights, despite our traps being active only at night and the figure excluding captures of the research team and forest department staff.

In TWLS nine images of leopards were obtained from the trap effort of 429 trap nights. Five leopard individuals (two males, two females, and one individual whose sex could not be determined) were identified. Leopard density was estimated to be 5.40 ± 2.99 (SE) leopards/100 km 2 . The camera trap encounter rate of humans was 7.92 humans/100 trap nights, which was highest amongst all the species photographed in TWLS ( Table 2 ).

Table 2 . Photo-capture rates of species photo-captured in Sanjay Gandhi National Park and Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary in 2015 and 2016, respectively.

In SGNP a total of eight potential leopard prey species (chital, sambar, barking deer, wild pig, common langur, bonnet macaque, gray jungle fowl, and red spur fowl) were encountered on line transects. Densities were estimated only for chital, sambar, bonnet macaque, and common langur as the other species lacked adequate sample sizes to fit the detection function. The half normal function with cosine adjustment terms was found to be the best fit model for chital, sambar, and bonnet macaque and uniform function with cosine adjustments was the best model for common langur ( Table 3 ).

Table 3 . Individual and group densities of major wild prey species of leopards estimated in Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Mumbai, Maharashtra in 2015.

Common langur occurred at the highest density followed by bonnet macaque, chital, and sambar ( Table 3 ). Rhesus macaque and Indian chevrotain were not encountered on the line transects although they occur in the study area (based on personal sightings and camera trap photo captures).

In TWLS a total effort of 87.3 km was expended during the foot surveys during which we obtained only one direct sighting each of wild pigs and black-naped hare, eight sightings of bonnet macaques and three of northern plains langur. Barking deer pellet groups were seen on two occasions. The sign encounter rate of wild pigs, primates (including bonnet macaques and northern plains langur) and black-naped hares were 0.3, 0.5, and 0.09/km, respectively.

Domestic Dog Density

Domestic dogs occurred at an average density of 17.26 ± 0.69 (SE) /km 2 in the areas sampled around SGNP and 7.7 ± 3.4 dogs/km 2 around TWLS ( Table 4 ).

Table 4 . Summary of photo-captures of domestic dogs in three locations in Sanjay Gandhi National Park and Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary in 2015 and 2016, respectively.

Thirteen prey species were found in 97 leopard scats obtained in SGNP and seven prey species were identified from the 23 leopard scats collected from TWLS. The species accumulation curve flattened out at 13 species at 55 scat samples for SGNP ( Figure 2 ), but the sample size for TWLS was too small to plot the species accumulation curve. Biomass consumed per scat was calculated using generalized model given by Chakrabarti et al. (2016) as shown in Table 5 .

Figure 2 . Accumulation curve for prey species found in leopard scats collected from Sanjay Gandhi National Park in 2015.

Table 5 . Frequency of prey species found in leopard's scats, biomass consumed and relative contribution of each prey consumed in the study area of Sanjay Gandhi National Park ( n = 97) in 2015 and Tungareshwar Wildlfie Sanctuary ( n = 23) in 2016.

Domestic dogs were found to be the highest contributors to leopard's diet. The biomass contributed by domestic dogs was at 32.01 and 66.76% in SGNP and TWLS, respectively. Wild prey formed 53.97% of the leopard's diet in SGNP and 13.5% in TWLS.

SGNP is surrounded by an extremely high density of humans (20,000 persons/km 2 ) while TWLS, even though connected to SGNP, is set in a lower human density, rural landscape (1,700 persons/km 2 ). The three senior-most managers are the same for the two PAs but SGNP has 109 staff spread over three forest ranges (administrative units) whereas TWLS, with a similar area to SGNP, has 30 staff and one forest range. The tourist footfall in 2016 was approximately 1.6 million in SGNP and approximately 90,000 in TWLS. The revenue generated from this and other allied activities therefore was also very different ( Table 6 ).

Table 6 . Comparison of management structure and revenue between Sanjay Gandhi National Park and Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary.

Our study revealed unprecedented leopard density (26.34 ± 4.96 leopards/100 km 2 ) despite extremely high human density (over 20,000 people/km 2 ) along the periphery of an urban PA–SGNP. In contrast, the rural landscape surrounding TWLS having much lower human density (1,700 people /km 2 ) along its periphery had a lower leopard density (5.40 ± 2.99 leopards/100 km 2 ). Such high densities were not reported even in PAs of India where the numbers ranged from 12.04 ± 2.98/100 km 2 (Achanakmar Tiger Reserve, Mandal et al., 2017 ) to 14.99 ± 6.9/100 km 2 (Rajaji Tiger Reserve, Harihar et al., 2009 ). Even in human dominated landscapes of western Maharashtra and Rajasthan, reported leopard densities were 6.4 ± 0.78/100 km 2 ( Athreya et al., 2013 ) and 6.38 ± 2.4/100 km 2 ( Sharma, 2017 ), respectively. The estimate of leopard density from our study area is amongst the highest recorded leopard densities from India.

It is often thought that wild carnivores do not occur at high densities near dense human habitations, however recent studies have shown that there are highly adaptable large carnivores that can share space with high density of humans ( Yirga et al., 2013 ; Odden et al., 2014 ). Interestingly, in both the PAs, humans had the highest photo encounter rate. Our camera traps deployed between dusk and dawn, found human encounter rates to be the highest among all the species in the PAs. The tourist footfall in SGNP was 1–1.6 million per year (2015–2016) whereas TWLS had ~90,000 tourists (2015–2016). There have been no attacks on people due to leopards reported (based on Maharashtra Forest Department records) from October 2013 to June 2016. This is unique in the world where a large carnivore, is occurring at high density in a PA situated in a metropolis.

The high density of leopards in SGNP, as compared to other PAs, can be attributed to lack of larger predators, few threats, intensive management ( Table 6 ) and, most importantly, high food availability ( Fuller et al., 2010 ; Singh et al., 2016 ) consisting both of wild and domestic prey. Leopards are the apex predators of this landscape with the last tiger having been killed at the southern boundary of SGNP in 1929 ( Prater, 1929 ). A study conducted in Sariska Tiger Reserve in Rajasthan showed that leopard density reduced from 7.6 ± 0.6 leopards/100 km 2 to 3.1 ± 0.4 leopards/100 km 2 following reintroduction of tigers ( Mondal et al., 2012 ). The other possible reasons for high densities such as reduction of threats due to effectiveness of management regimes could not be assessed during our study. Further studies should be carried out to assess the stark difference in management regimes between both these PAs. Results from our leopard prey estimation study indicate that food availability could be an important factor contributing to the high leopard densities in this landscape. Densities of obligate carnivores like leopards are strongly linked to the availability of food resources and habitat ( Karanth et al., 2004 ; Knopff et al., 2014 ; Filla et al., 2017 ). The results from leopard scat analyses highlight the importance of dogs in leopard's diet. In TWLS, despite lower domestic dog density than SGNP, domestic dogs constituted 66.76% to the leopard's diet. This was higher than SGNP which had 32.01% of domestic dogs in the leopard's diet. The differences in leopard densities, dog densities, wild prey densities, as well as the contribution of domestic dogs to leopard diet in the two PAs present a discrepancy that we have not been able to fully resolve. While densities of dogs are lower in TWLS, so are the densities of leopards as well as wild prey (so low, in fact, that we were unable to derive estimates). It is certainly plausible that in SGNP, the availability of domestic dogs over and above wild prey leads to high leopard densities, while in TWLS, extremely low densities of wild prey lead to a very high representation of dogs in leopard diet, without accompanying numerical responses ( Holling, 1959 ) by leopards. To corroborate our speculation on the effects of wild and domestic prey density on leopard diet, and therefore on leopard density, further studies are required.

In our study sites, extremely high biomass of potential domestic prey species for the leopard is mainly associated with humans. Globally, carnivore species in peri-urban and urban landscapes show similar patterns of feeding on domestic prey ( Yirga et al., 2016 ; Kumbhojkar et al., 2020 ). Domestic dogs and other domestic species subsist on anthropogenic waste ( Bhalla et al., 2021 ). Abundance of such domestic prey in human dominated landscape causes higher densities of predators ( Yirga et al., 2013 ; Athreya et al., 2016 ). The present study highlighted the importance of domestic dogs (both feral and domestic in this landscape) from leopard's diet. Other studies in India ( Edgaonkar and Chellam, 2002 ; Athreya et al., 2016 ; Kumbhojkar et al., 2020 ) also document this relationship between leopards and domestic dogs. Edgaonkar and Chellam's (2002) study in SGNP showed domestic dogs to be the principal prey for leopards. Although leopards thrive at higher densities in this modified landscape, it remains to be seen if the prey-predator dynamics are affected long term by human-associated domestic prey.

Studies documenting carnivores utilizing human modified landscapes present novel conservation challenges ( Bateman and Fleming, 2012 ; Loock et al., 2018 ; Riley et al., 2021 ). Our study highlights leopard persistence at extremely high densities in an urban PA. Human dominated areas provide carnivores with cost-effective and energy-rich food resources which increases their survival and densities. But along with rewards these human dominated habitats also present the carnivores with risks and threats ( Bateman and Fleming, 2012 ). The rapid development and urbanization of Mumbai and Thane could prove a potential threat to future leopard populations. Linear intrusions like national and state highways, already present along the periphery of the two PAs can serve as a barrier for dispersal of carnivores ( Poessel et al., 2014 ; Riley et al., 2014 ). There is a need for further research to understand threats to leopards associated with this habitat.

We observed that leopards occur at greater densities in SGNP landscape as compared to other studies from India. This high density is likely to be a result of high abundance of wild as well as domestic prey and absence of competition from similar sized predators. In TWLS, where we observed a low density of leopards and wild prey as compared to SGNP, domestic dogs contributed maximum to the leopard's diet. Further studies should be carried out in this landscape to understand the prey-predator dynamics and human influence on the same. This will help us understand the complex relationship between humans and leopards in this landscape.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation on request.

Author Contributions

NS, VA, SS, and KS conceived the study. VG provided support to carry out the work. NS collected the data along with staff provided by VG. NS and DJ analyzed the data. SS, VA, and KS gave necessary inputs during data analysis. NS and VA led the writing of the manuscript. DJ, SS, and KS provided guidance and critical reviews during the writing process. All authors have contributed significantly to the draft of the manuscript and given their approval for publication.

This research study was funded by Wildlife Institute of India, Maharashtra Forest Department, and Wildlife Conservation Society-India.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The handling editor declared a shared committee with one of the authors, VA, at time of review.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the staff at SGNP and TWLS for their immense support and enthusiasm during field work. We would like to thank the three reviewers for their valuable inputs. We thank our funders for supporting this work. We would like to thank our field assistants Shubhash, Parshu Mama, and Kamal. We also acknowledge the help offered by a long list of volunteers from Mumbai and Thane who have contributed to this project.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2022.787031/full#supplementary-material

Amstrup, S. C., McDonald, T. L., and Manly, B. F., (eds.). (2010). Handbook of Capture-Recapture Analysis . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. doi: 10.1515/9781400837717

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Athreya, V., Odden, M., Linnell, J. D., Krishnaswamy, J., and Karanth, K. U. (2016). A cat among the dogs: leopard Panthera pardus diet in a human-dominated landscape in western Maharashtra, India. Oryx 50, 156–162. doi: 10.1017/S0030605314000106

Athreya, V., Odden, M., Linnell, J. D., Krishnaswamy, J., and Karanth, U. (2013). Big cats in our backyards: persistence of large carnivores in a human dominated landscape in India. PLoS ONE 8, e57872. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057872

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Athreya, V., Srivathsa, A., Puri, M., Karanth, K. K., Kumar, N. S., and Karanth, K. U. (2015). Spotted in the news: using media reports to examine leopard distribution, depredation, and management practices outside protected areas in Southern India. PLoS ONE 10, e0142647. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142647

Banerjee, K., Jhala, Y. V., Chauhan, K. S., and Dave, C. V. (2013). Living with lions: the economics of coexistence in the Gir forests, India. PLoS ONE 8, e49457. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049457

Bateman, P. W., and Fleming, P. A. (2012). Big city life: carnivores in urban environments. J. Zool. 287, 1–23. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2011.00887.x

Bhalla, S. J., Kemmers, R., Vasques, A., and Vanak, A. T. (2021). ‘Stray appetites’: a socio-ecological analysis of free-ranging dogs living alongside human communities in Bangalore, India. Urban Ecosyst. 24, 1245–1258. doi: 10.1007/s11252-021-01097-4

Bharali, K. K., Sharma, D. K., Sahariah, D., Singh, Y. L., and Bhobora, C. (2021). Nowhere to live: squeezing habitat and human-leopard conflicts in Maligaon, Guwahati, Assam. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Sci . 9, 138–143 doi: 10.12691/aees-9-2-3

Buckland, S. T., Anderson, D. R., Burnham, K. P., Laake, J. L., Borchers, D. L., and Thomas, L. (2001). Introduction to Distance Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar

Buckland, S. T., Rexstad, E. A., Marques, T. A., and Oedekoven, C. S. (2015). Distance Sampling: Methods and Applications , Vol. 431. New York, NY: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19219-2

Burnham, K. P., and Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach . New York, NY: Springer.

Cade, B. S. (2015). Model averaging and muddled multimodel inferences. Ecology 96, 2370–2382. doi: 10.1890/14-1639.1

Carter, N. H., and Linnell, J. D. (2016). Co-adaptation is key to coexisting with large carnivores. Trends Ecol. Evol . 31, 575–578. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2016.05.006

Cassidy, A., and Mills, B. (2012). “Fox Tots Attack Shock”: urban foxes, mass media and boundary-breaching. Environ. Commun. J. Nat. Cult. 6, 494–511. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2012.716370

Chakrabarti, S., Jhala, Y. V., Dutta, S., Qureshi, Q., Kadivar, R. F., and Rana, V. J. (2016). Adding constraints to predation through allometric relation of scats to consumption. J. Anim. Ecol. 85, 660–670. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.12508

Champion, S. H., and Seth, S. K. (1968). A Revised Survey of the Forests of India . New Delhi: Manager of Publications.

Chapron, G., Kaczensky, P., Linnell, J. D., Von Arx, M., Huber, D., Andrén Lopez-Bao, J. V., et al. (2014). Recovery of large carnivores in Europe's modern human-dominated landscapes. Science 346, 1517–1519. doi: 10.1126/science.1257553

Collard, R. C. (2012). Cougar-human entanglements and the biopolitical un/making of safe space. Environ. Plan. D Soc. Space 30, 23–42. doi: 10.1068/d19110

Daniel, J. C. (2009). Leopard in India . Dehra Dun: Natraj Publishers.

Edgaonkar, A., and Chellam, R. (2002). Food habit of the leopard, Panthera pardus , in the Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Maharashtra, India. Mammalia 2002, 353–360. doi: 10.1515/mamm.2002.66.3.353

Efford, M. (2021). secr: Spatially Explicit Capture-Recapture Models. R package version 4.4.5 . Available online at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=secr . (accessed July 20, 2021).

Filla, M., Premier, J., Magg, N., Dupke, C., Khorozyan, I., Waltert, M., et al. (2017). Habitat selection by Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) is primarily driven by avoidance of human activity during day and prey availability during night. Ecol. Evol. 7, 6367–6381. doi: 10.1002/ece3.3204

Fuller, T., Destefano, S., and Warren, P. S. (2010). “Carnivore behaviour and ecology, and relationship to urbanization,” in Urban Carnivores: Ecology, Conflict, and Conservation , eds S. D. Gehrt, S. P. D. Riley, and B. L. Cypher (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press), 13–20.

Gehrt, S. D., Riley, S. P., and Cypher, B. L. (2010). Urban Carnivores: Ecology, Conflict, and Conservation . Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Goodrich, J., Lynam, A., Miquelle, D., Wibisono, H., Kawanishi, K., Pattanavibool, A., et al. (2015). Panthera tigris. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015 .

Harihar, A., Pandav, B., and Goyal, S. P. (2009). Density of leopards ( Panthera pardus ) in the Chilla Range of Rajaji National Park, Uttarakhand. India. Mammalia 73, 68–71. doi: 10.1515/MAMM.2009.007

Holling, C. S. (1959). Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can. Entomol. 91, 385–398. doi: 10.4039/Ent91385-7

Huggins, R. M. (1989). On the statistical analysis of capture experiments. Biometrika 76, 133–140. doi: 10.1093/biomet/76.1.133

Jacobson, A. P., Gerngross, P., Lemeris, J. R. Jr, Schoonover, R. F., Anco, C., Breitenmoser-Würsten, C., et al. (2016). Leopard ( Panthera pardus ) status, distribution, and the research efforts across its range. PeerJ 4, e1974. doi: 10.7717/peerj.1974

Karanth, K. U., Nichols, J. D., Harihar, A., Miquelle, D. G., Kumar, N. S., and Dorazio, R. M. (2017). “Field practices: assessing tiger population dynamics using photographic captures,” in Methods For Monitoring Tiger and Prey Populations , eds K. U. Karanth and J. D. Nichols (Singapore: Springer), 191–224. doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-5436-5_10

Karanth, K. U., Nichols, J. D., Kumar, N. S., Link, W. A., and Hines, J. E. (2004). Tigers and their prey: predicting carnivore densities from prey abundance. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101, 4854–4858. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0306210101

Knopff, A. A., Knopff, K. H., Boyce, M. S., and Clair, C. C. S. (2014). Flexible habitat selection by cougars in response to anthropogenic development. Biol. Conserv. 178, 136–145. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2014.07.017

Kshettry, A., Vaidyanathan, S., and Athreya, V. (2018). Diet selection of leopards ( Panthera pardus ) in a human-use landscape in North-Eastern India. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 11, 1940082918764635. doi: 10.1177/1940082918764635

Kumbhojkar, S., Yosef, R., Benedetti, Y., and Morelli, F. (2019). Human-leopard ( Panthera pardus fusca) co-existence in Jhalana forest reserve, India. Sustainability 11, 3912. doi: 10.3390/su11143912

Kumbhojkar, S., Yosef, R., Kosicki, J. Z., Kwiatkowska, P. K., and Tryjanowski, P. (2020). Dependence of the leopard Panthera pardus fusca in Jaipur, India, on domestic animals. Oryx 55, 1–7. doi: 10.1017/S0030605319001145

Landy, F. (2017). “Urban leopards are good cartographers: human-non human and spatial conflicts at Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Mumbai,” in Places of Nature in Ecologies of Urbanism , eds A. Rademacher and K. Sivaramakrishnan (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press), 67–85. doi: 10.5790/hongkong/9789888390595.003.0004

Lewis, D. L., Baruch-Mordo, S., Wilson, K. R., Breck, S. W., Mao, J. S., and Broderick, J. (2015). Foraging ecology of black bears in urban environments: guidance for human-bear conflict mitigation. Ecosphere 6, 1–18. doi: 10.1890/ES15-00137.1

Loock, D. J., Williams, S. T., Emslie, K. W., Matthews, W. S., and Swanepoel, L. H. (2018). High carnivore population density highlights the conservation value of industrialised sites. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–9. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-34936-0

Mandal, D., Basak, K., Mishra, R. P., Kaul, R., and Mondal, K. (2017). Status of leopard panthera pardus and striped hyena Hyaena hyaena and their prey in achanakmar tiger reserve, Central India. J. Zool. Stud. 4, 34–41.

Meena, V., Johnson, P. J., Zimmermann, A., Montgomery, R. A., and Macdonald, D. W. (2021). Evaluation of human attitudes and factors conducive to promoting human-lion coexistence in the Greater Gir landscape, India. Oryx 55, 589–598. doi: 10.1017/S0030605319000760

Mondal, K., Gupta, S., Bhattacharjee, S., Qureshi, Q., and Sankar, K. (2012). Response of leopards to re-introduced tigers in Sariska Tiger Reserve, Western India. Int. J. Biodivers. Conserv. 4, 228–236. doi: 10.5897/IJBC12.014

Moss, W. E., Alldredge, M. W., Logan, K. A., and Pauli, J. N. (2016). Human expansion precipitates niche expansion for an opportunistic apex predator ( Puma concolor ). Sci. Rep . 6, 39639. doi: 10.1038/srep39639

Naha, D., Sathyakumar, S., and Rawat, G. S. (2018). Understanding drivers of human-leopard conflicts in the Indian Himalayan region: Spatio-temporal patterns of conflicts and perception of local communities towards conserving large carnivores. PLoS ONE 13, e0204528. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204528

Nair, R., Dhee P.atil, O., Surve, N., Andheria, A., Linnell, J. D., and Athreya, V. (2021). Sharing spaces and entanglements with big cats: the Warli and their Waghoba in Maharashtra, India. Front. Conserv. Sci. 2, 683356. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2021.683356

Odden, M., Athreya, V., Rattan, S., and Linnell, J. D. (2014). Adaptable neighbours: movement patterns of GPS-collared leopards in human dominated landscapes in India. PLoS ONE 9, e112044. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112044

Poessel, S. A., Burdett, C. L., Boydston, E. E., Lyren, L. M., Alonso, R. S., Fisher, R. N., et al. (2014). Roads influence movement and home ranges of a fragmentation-sensitive carnivore, the bobcat, in an urban landscape. Biol. Conserv. 180, 224–232. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2014.10.010

Pradhan, M. S. (2002). Common Vertebrate Species of Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Borivali, Mumbai . Zoological Survey of India.

Prater, S. H. (1929). On the Occurrence of Tigers on the Island of Bombay and Salsette. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 33, 973–974.

Punjabi, G. A., Athreya, V., and Linnell, J. D. (2012). Using natural marks to estimate free-ranging dog Canis familiaris abundance in a MARK-RESIGHT framework in suburban Mumbai, India. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 5, 510–520. doi: 10.1177/194008291200500408

R Core Team (2021). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing , Vienna, Austria. Availalble online at: https://www.R-project.org/ .

Ramesh, T., Kalle, R., Sankar, K., and Qureshi, Q. (2012). Dietary partitioning in sympatric large carnivores in a tropical forest of Western Ghats, India. Mammal Study 37, 313–321. doi: 10.3106/041.037.0405

Riley, S. P., Serieys, L. E., Pollinger, J. P., Sikich, J. A., Dalbeck, L., Wayne, R. K., et al. (2014). Individual behaviors dominate the dynamics of an urban mountain lion population isolated by roads. Curr. Biol. 24, 1989–1994. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2014.07.029

Riley, S. P., Sikich, J. A., and Benson, J. F. (2021). Big cats in the big city: Spatial ecology of mountain lions in greater Los Angeles. J. Wildl. Manag . 85, 1527–1542. doi: 10.1002/jwmg.22127

Royle, J. A., Gopalaswamy, A. M., Dorazio, R. M., Nichols, J. D., Jathanna, D., Parameshwaran, R., et al. (2017). “Concepts: assessing tiger population dynamics using capture-recapture sampling,” in Methods for Monitoring Tiger and Prey Populations , eds K. U. Karanth and J. D. Nichols (Singapore: Springer), 163–189. doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-5436-5_9

Sharma, R. K. (2017). A Country side carnivore- Aspect of leopard ecology at Jawai, Rajasthan (Master's thesis). Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, India.

Sharma, R. K., Bhatnagar, Y. V., and Mishra, C. (2015). Does livestock benefit or harm snow leopards? Biol. Conserv. 190, 8–13. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.04.026

Singh, A., Mukherjee, A., Dookia, S., and Kumara, H. N. (2016). High resource availability and lack of competition have increased population of a meso-carnivore-a case study of golden jackal in Keoladeo National Park, India. Mammal Res. 61, 209–219. doi: 10.1007/s13364-016-0267-z

Thomas, L., Buckland, S. T., Rexstad, E. A., Laake, J. L., Strindberg, S., Hedley, S. L., et al. (2010). Distance software: design and analysis of distance sampling surveys for estimating population size. J. Appl. Ecol. 47, 5–14. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01737.x

Vanak, A. T., and Gompper, M. E. (2010). Interference competition at the landscape level: the effect of free-ranging dogs on a native mesocarnivore. J. Appl. Ecol. 47, 1225–1232. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01870.x

White, G. C., and Burnham, K. P. (1999). Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46, S120–S139. doi: 10.1080/00063659909477239

Williams, C., Tiwari, S. K., Goswami, V. R., de Silva, S., Kumar, A., Baskaran, N., et al. (2020). Elephas Maximus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020.

Woodroffe, R. (2000). Predators and people: using human densities to interpret declines of large carnivores. Anim. Conserv . 3, 165–173.

Yirga, G., Ersino, W., De Iongh, H. H., Leirs, H., Gebrehiwot, K., Deckers, J., et al. (2013). Spotted hyena ( Crocuta crocuta ) coexisting at high density with people in Wukro district, northern Ethiopia. Mammal. Biol. 78, 193–197. doi: 10.1016/j.mambio.2012.09.001

Yirga, G., Leirs, H., De Iongh, H. H., Asmelash, T., Gebrehiwot, K., Deckers, J., et al. (2016). Spotted hyena ( Crocuta crocuta ) concentrate around urban waste dumps across Tigray, northern Ethiopia. Wildlife Res. 42, 563–569. doi: 10.1071/WR14228

Keywords: leopard, human-carnivore interactions, Mumbai, domestic dogs, carnivore, density, city

Citation: Surve NS, Sathyakumar S, Sankar K, Jathanna D, Gupta V and Athreya V (2022) Leopards in the City: The Tale of Sanjay Gandhi National Park and Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary, Two Protected Areas in and Adjacent to Mumbai, India. Front. Conserv. Sci. 3:787031. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2022.787031

Received: 30 September 2021; Accepted: 20 January 2022; Published: 10 March 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Surve, Sathyakumar, Sankar, Jathanna, Gupta and Athreya. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Nikit Sanjay Surve, nikit.surve@gmail.com

This article is part of the Research Topic

Predators in the City: Large Carnivores in Urban Landscapes of the Anthropocene

Communities in a ‘Protected’ Urban Space and Conservation Politics in Mumbai’s Sanjay Gandhi National Park

• First Online: 08 October 2017

Cite this chapter

• Amrita Sen 3 &
• Sarmistha Pattanaik 3  

Part of the book series: Exploring Urban Change in South Asia ((EUCS))

565 Accesses

Rapid but uncontrolled economic growth, unstructured working class neighbourhood, unplanned policies of the government, etc., have changed the contours of the emergent city life and its inhabitants in the recent decades. The urban elite interest of a pristine neighbourhood, which is fused with that of the state, has often tried to ‘conserve’ environment with the help of ‘legitimate’ tools like Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Through an ethnographic study, the paper manifests conditions under which the politics of conserving Protected Areas (PAs) operates not only in the village forests but also in cities, in highly inequitable and fabricated ways. It also examines how, in the absence of any established land rights in the cities, due to lack of any particular generational roots of cultural identity, the marginalized population structure within the PAs in Mumbai constitute and establish themselves as a ‘community’ in itself to prevent themselves from getting confined or trapped within discourses of indigenous novelty and cultural belongingness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

See “Conserving Asia’s Natural Heritage: The Planning and Management of Protected Areas in the Indomalayam Realm”. Proceedings of the 25th Working Session of IUCN’s Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas.

Shri Mahila Griha Udyog Lijjat Papad is a unique organization for the women, recognized by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission. They make a wide range of papad, masala, atta, chapatti, appalam and detergent.

For details see, Mahapatra ( 2007 ). People, park and wildlife in an urban environment: a case study of Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Mumbai. M. Phil Dissertation, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay.

Collected from the “Present Status Report as per directions of the Honourable High Court, dated 6th June, 2011”, during the course of the field work.

Retrieved January 5, 2015 from http://www.bannedthought.net/India/PeoplesMarch/PM1999-2006/archives/2001/jan2k1/environmental.htm .

Adhikary, S. (2009). Urban planning and politics of slum demolition in metropolitan Mumbai. Retrieved from http://www.archidev.org/spip.php?article380 .

Alier, J. M. (2002). The environmentalism of the poor. In Conference on Political Economy and Sustainable Development: Environmental Conflicts, Participation and Movements , University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. 30th August 2002. Switzerland: United Nations Research Institute of Social Development.

Google Scholar  

Baviskar, A. (2002). Politics of the city. Seminar , 516. Retrieved April 10, 2016, from http://www.india-seminar.com/2002/516/516%20amita%20baviskar.html .

Baviskar, A. (2004). In the belly of the river: Tribal conflicts over development in the Narmada Valley . New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Baviskar, A. (2011). Cows, cars and cycle-rickshaws: Bourgeois environmentalism and the battle for Delhi’s streets. In A. Baviskar & R. Ray (Eds.), Elite and everyman: The cultural politics of the Indian middle classes . New Delhi: Routledge.

Brand, P., & Thomas, M. (2005). Urban environmentalism: Global change and the mediation of local conflict . USA: Routledge.

Chatterjee, P. (1998). Community in the east. Economic and Political Weekly, 33 (6), 277–282.

Chatterjee, P. (2004). The politics of the governed: Reflections on popular politics in most of the world . New York: Columbia University Press.

de Roo, G. (2000). Environmental conflicts in compact cities: Complexity, decision making and policy approaches. Environment and Planning B, 27 (1), 151–162.

Article   Google Scholar  

Gadgil, M. (1991). Conserving India’s biodiversity: The societal context. Environment Update ( Evolutionary Trends in Plants ) (Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 3–8). Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore.

Gadgil, M., & Guha, R. (1995). Ecology and equity: The use and abuse of nature in contemporary India . London and New York: Routledge.

Guha, R. (1997). The authoritarian biologist and the arrogance of anti humanism: Wildlife conservation in the third world. The Ecologist, 27 (1), 14–20.

Johari, R. (2007). Of paper Tigers and invisible people: The cultural politics of natural resource in Sariska. In G. Shahabuddin & M. Rangarajan (Eds.), Making conservation work: Securing biodiversity in this new century . Permanent Black: Uttaranchal.

Kothari, S. (1996). Whose nation? The displaced as victims of development. Economic and Political Weekly, 31 (24), 1476–1485.

Kothari, J. (2002). A right to housing? India together, April 2002 . Retrieved April 10, 2016 from http://indiatogether.org/opinions/rhousing02.htm .

Lausche, B. (2011). Guidelines for Protected Areas Legislation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. xxvi 370.

Madhusudan, M. D., & Mishra, C. (2003). Why big fierce animals are threatened: Conserving large mammals in densely populated landscapes. In V. Saberwal & M. Rangarajan (Eds.), Battles over nature: Science and the politics of wildlife conservation . Permanent Black: New Delhi.

Mahapatra, C. (2007). People, park and wildlife in an urban environment: a case study of Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Mumbai.

Parthasarathy, D. (2011). Hunters, gatherers and foragers in a metropolis: Commonising the private and public in Mumbai. Economic and Political Weekly, XLVI (50), 54–63.

Pathak, N., & Kothari, A. Kothari. (1998). Sharing benefits of wildlife conservation with local communties legal implications. Economic and Political Weekly, 33 (4), 2603–2610.

Randeria, S. (2003). Between cunning states and unaccountable international institutions: Dilemmas of social movements and rights of local communities to common property resources. Eurpean Journal of Sociology, 43 (1), 27–60.

Randeria, S. (2007). Global designs and local lifeworld. Interventions: International Journal of Post Colonial Studies 9 (1): 12–30.

Risbud, N. (2003). The case of Mumbai, India. Understanding slums : Case studies for the global report on human settlements . Retrieved April 10, 2016, from www.ucl.ac.uk/dpu-projects/Global_Report/pdfs/Mumbai.pdf . Accessed on June 11, 2013.

Robbins, P. (2012). Political ecology: A critical introduction . Oxford: Wiley.

Saberwal, V., & Rangarajan, M. (2003). Battles over nature: Science and the politics of conservation . New Delhi: Sangam Books.

Sahu, G. (2008). Implications of Indian supreme court’s innovations for environmental jurisprudence. Law, Environment and Development Journal, 4 (1), 3–19.

Sen, A. (1992). Life and labour in a squatters’ colony. CSSSC occasional paper 138, Calcutta: Centre for Studies in Social Sciences.

Sen, A., & Pattanaik, S. (2015). Alienation, conflict and conservation in the protected areas of urban metropolis: A case study of Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Mumbai.  Sociological Bulletin, 64 (3), 375–395.

Sen, A., & Pattanaik, S. (2016). Politics of biodiversity conservation and socio ecological conflicts in a city: The case of Sanjay Gandhi national park, Mumbai. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 29 (2), 305–326.

Shahabuddin, G., & Prasad, S. (2004). Assessing ecological sustainability of non timber forest produce extraction: The Indian scenario. Conservation and Society, 2 (2), 235–250.

Shahabuddin, G., Kumar, R., & Srivastava, M. (2007). Creation of inviolate space: Lives, livelihood and conflict in the Sariska Tiger Reserve. Economic and Political Weekly, 42 (20), 1855–1862.

Vaquier, D. (2010). The impact of slum resettlement on urban integration in Mumbai: The case of the Chandivali project . New Delhi: Centre De Sciences Humaines.

Zerah, M. H. (2007). Conflict between green space preservation and housing needs: The case of Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Mumbai. Cities, 24 (7), 122–132.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India

Amrita Sen & Sarmistha Pattanaik

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amrita Sen .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, West Bengal, India

Jenia Mukherjee

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Sen, A., Pattanaik, S. (2018). Communities in a ‘Protected’ Urban Space and Conservation Politics in Mumbai’s Sanjay Gandhi National Park. In: Mukherjee, J. (eds) Sustainable Urbanization in India. Exploring Urban Change in South Asia. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4932-3_14

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4932-3_14

Published : 08 October 2017

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-10-4931-6

Online ISBN : 978-981-10-4932-3

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Education for the Marginalized
• Syllabus and Pedagogy
• Climate Change
• Conservation and Development
• Renewable Energy
• Resource Management
• Urban Ecology
• Grassroots Development
• Law and Policy
• Collaborate
• Editorial Fellowship 2022
• Introducing The Bastion Academy

• Environment
• Politics &

Projects in Protected Area: How Development Politics Fragments Conservation in the Sanjay Gandhi National Park

The Sanjay Gandhi National Park sits nestled in the heart of the city of dreams, Mumbai. Despite being a unique biosphere, the protected area is constantly being threatened by developmental projects like highways, link roads, and corridors. Has the government failed to preserve this protected area and the human and animal lives inside of it?

This article is based on a detailed case study compiled by the author for the Centre for Financial Accountability.

Common imagination of a national park takes us all to rural countryside landscapes, but the Sanjay Gandhi National Park presents a different picture. Located inside the city of dreams, the financial and urban capital of India, Bombay, sits nestled in the Sanjay Gandhi National Park. Spread over 103 sq km, SGNP forms 20 per cent of Mumbai’s geographical area and is known worldwide for being the only protected area within the limits of a metropolitan region.

It houses within itself a public recreational area of  5.75 sq. km, a  buffer zone of 10.38 sq km and a core zone of 86.96 sq. km, along with two of Mumbai’s largest lakes- Vihar and Tulsi lakes. This ecological landscape was notified as a “protected area” due to the construction of these lakes in the nineteenth century. The history of SGNP is interwoven with the legal history of Aarey Forest , the thick dense landscape of forests adjacent to SGNP that also faces the threat from the politics of development. 

SGNP is the only national park in the Malabar Coast of the Western Ghats, one of the least represented biogeographic zones . In recent years, SGNP has gained the spotlight for being the only urban protected area housing 47 leopards at present. T he park is also known for flamboyant flowering blooms of  Karvi or Strobilanthes callosus. The north side of SGNP is connected to Tungareshwar WLS  and along with Aarey form an extended green corridor for the leopards to move around.  T he changes brought about by human intervention over the years have shaped and influenced the biodiversity of SGNP making it both a unique and fragile ecosystem. SGNP and Aarey forests are also home to the Warli community who have lived here for generations and who worship Waghoba/Waghdevi, the tiger god, which they believe is the elder brother of the leopard. About three thousand people living in twelve padas (villages) reside within the SGNP boundaries. 

Acknowledged by the Warli people as their home, by the State and by city residents as the lungs of Mumbai and declared by law as a protected area, the ecology of SGNP is suffocating from the developmental air that the State is pumping into it. CFA, in their report Rise In Infrastructure Projects In Protected Areas: A Self-Defeating Goal For Developmen t , highlights that SGNP has the highest number of projects for a protected area landscape. A total of 43 projects, which includes some of the most aspirational and expensive infrastructure projects that India is inaugurating for the first time, intruded upon SGNP.

A Look Into the Developmental Within SGNP Banked by technical and economic support from Japan through Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) , India is coming with its two mega railway projects, both passing through SGNP. The Western Dedicated Freight Corridor (WDFC), a 1500 km long stretching railway project, is planned to run from Dadri near Delhi to JNPT in Mumbai.   With funding of Rs 8,553 crores, it is being executed by the Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India (DFCCIL). Aspiring to raise and invite foreign export and direct investment, the project aims at linking industrial parks and harbours of the states between Delhi and Mumbai. It passes through SGNP and its ESZ, diverting 71.0119 ha of forest land in total with 8.050 ha of forest land inside SGNP . 

Adding to that is the High-Speed Railway Project for which the Experts Committee in 2015 prioritized the Mumbai-Ahmedabad route. Being executed by the National High-Speed Rail Corporation Ltd, the project will mark the introduction of the Shinkansen High-Speed Railway System in India and is budgeted at Rs. 1.08 lakh crore . 

Interestingly, both projects have been exempted from Environmental Clearance (EC) and Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) study by the MoEFCC. The WDFC project was given Wildlife Clearance (WC) in 2015 with conditions of fencing, building underpasses and Rs. 15 crores deposition to SGNP authorities for conservation. 

Understanding the global push for these projects, JICA has inked agreements totalling ₹ 15,295 crores with the central government for three mega-rail infrastructure projects. Other than the WDFCC, JICA has granted ₹ 4,262 crores for the Mumbai Trans Harbor Link Project and ₹ 2,480 crores for the Mumbai Metro Line-3 Project.  The most controversial is the Metro Car shed-3 project by the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited in Aarey, which the current state govt is pushing with all its might, in spite of the wide-scale resistance from the people.

What Are the Other Projects in SGNP?

The Virar- Alibaug MultiModal Corridor project which consists of a road, bus transit system, and metro line passes will take 14.8 hectares of SGNP land and is budgeted at ₹ 2,250 crores. It will also pass through the buffer zone of Tungareshwar Sanctuary, Karnala Bird Sanctuary and  Matheran Eco-Sensitive Zone.  The submitted proposal documents show a lot of information and bureaucratic discrepancies and were flagged in 2018 and remain incomplete to date. In July 2019, the screening committee formed under the Department of Economic Affairs (DEA) recommended that for securing the movement of wildlife between the forests, “multiple crossing points for wildlife be constructed”. But on July 4, in a meeting of the board of directors, the project’s authority was suddenly transferred from Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) to Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited (MSRDC) .  Interestingly, while the state govt has already exempted the project from environmental clearance (EC), the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA)  has mandated the need for Forest Clearance (FC) and recommended the matter to High Court (HC). 

Sadly, adding to projects on the surface, SGNP is seeing the very first-of-its-kind work wherein tunnels have been proposed to pass underneath a protected area. The Borivali- Thane Twin Tunnel Project  costs ₹ 300000 lakhs and will connect the Western Express Highway (WEH) near Borivali and Ghodbunder road near Tikujiniwadi and have a 10 km stretch running underneath SGNP. 

The Goregaon- Mulund Tunnel Link Road costing ₹ 200000 lacs is the other project starting from Goregaon Film City and ending at Mulund near Amar Nagar with a 4.7 km tunnel that will occupy about 21.5 hectares of subterranean area under the national park. Both projects now are being executed by MMRDA.

In both cases, the executing agencies had submitted applications seeking environmental clearance in 2017 . The MoEFCC declined the EC requirement and never granted the Terms of Reference by saying that the proposed project is not a national highway or state highway and thus non-admissible under EIA Notification, 2006. It is interesting to note that in the case of GMLR, the ToR was initially granted in 2018, but the MoEFCC in its 187th meeting delisted the project and exempted it from both EC and EIA citing the above reason. Aaditya Thackery gave a green flag to GMLR through its inauguration on 14th April 2022.

Additionally, SGNP will also see the construction of a 4.5 km elevated flyover road , a four-lane elevated road being built over the existing four lanes in name of decongesting traffic. It is critical to note that Mangrove forests are present on either side of the existing road which will be felled for this project. Costing ₹ 667 crores and executed by the MSRDC, the project has already received approval from the state government in 2018 and is awaiting to acquire wildlife clearance from the Standing Committee-National Board of WildLife (SC-NBWL) and Supreme Court (SC). 

A study done by the Wildlife Institute of India, Wildlife Conservation Trust and then Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (APCCF) Mangrove Cell reported major leopard deaths from this road which is the link between the southern block of Sanjay Gandhi National Park with its Nagla Block on the Northern side further connecting it with the Tungareshwar wildlife sanctuary (TWLS). In this light, the committee’s suggestions on regulating traffic through speed restrictions and constructing underpasses show the irony and demand critical questions on the effectiveness of mitigation when the reasons that endanger wildlife are allowed to continue.

In response to concerns about animal safety due to the multiple developmental projects, the state greenlighted the creation of an Animal Passage corridor to be constructed between Sanjay Gandhi National Park and Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary . Reported to resemble the Singapore Animal Overpass , the corridor will have both an overpass and an underpass built by the Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India ( DFCCIL). T he approval for the corridor was granted on 3rd February 2021 by the order of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) detailing,                                                               

The design of the corridor will resonate with the natural vegetation of the surrounding areas and elements like rocks, logs and water bodies will be added to make the animals feel at home.

Seeing the design of the passage, however, gives the first impression of an aspirational and expensive infrastructure project in the name of mitigation that objectifies wildlife as a disciplined, monitored and obedient machine. 

Contesting the “Development at all Cost” Claim In June 2022, the Supreme Court issued an order mandating all protected forests to have an eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) of a minimum of one km from the demarcated boundary. The Maharashtra government in this regard has strongly opposed this and moved the High Court citing it will “ hamper development ” in the SGNP. Over the years, the state has cleared the land falling under ESZ for major development activities, including major projects elaborated above and even opening up the areas to builders, real estate and private players. The opposition to these developmental sprees has been minimal, in fact, the developers association especially from Maharashtra have approached the court for relief from the ESZ order, citing how private builders have crores of investment underway in SGNP . Ironically, the elite conservationists and even the government have been forcing evictions of the marginalized communities that have settled on marginal land sizes around SGNP framing them as potential degraders of SGNP.  

Sunita Keni who is 27 years old and lives inside SGNP elaborated upon this in conversation.

My grandparents were born on this land, we have always lived here with wagh (leopard). But Park authorities want us to move out, they deny us electricity meters, restrict us from grazing cattle and monitor if any support comes to us but nobody puts restrictions on these projects. Who will the projects benefit? Who are they for? Neither the pada people nor the forest and definitely not the leopards.

“Any development project carried out within or around the SGNP is definitely bound to result in harm to the landscape and its ecology. Linear intrusions crossing through the park will lead to fragmentation of habitat and hamper wildlife movement. In planning and pushing development projects we have to take into account the ecology, we have to think of the leopards and the wildlife”, elaborates Nikit Surve from the Wildlife Conservation Society. 

It’s not just the forest ecosystem of SGNP but also the connectivity of SGNP with other adjacent ecosystems such as Aarey Forest, Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary, that is being broken. Anwar Ahmed, SGNP Director and Chief Conservator in an interview with the HT times commented, “Despite just a 90-meter gap between SGNP and TWLS, leopards are unable to cross. We are developing a mitigation plan for the corridor. Each leopard should have at least 6 sq km area as its natural habitat. With several infrastructure projects such as the bullet train, multi-modal corridor and Panvel-Virar railway line, intersecting with sections of SGNP, the habitat is likely to get squeezed further”.  

Ten leopard deaths directly related to road accidents have been reported since 2016. Data from SGNP, Wildlife Protection Society of India (WPSI) and Mumbaikars for SGNP revealed that nineteen leopards have been killed around SGNP , most of them on the Western Express Highway (WEH) from 2008 to 2018. Not just leopards, but monkeys, wild boars, civet cats, mongoose, snakes and deer have also faced accidents as reported by forest officers. Leopards living in SGNP have been branded globally but the concerns remain – how much pressure can they take in this urbanizing fragmenting shrinking green space? How long can development define and drive conservation?

False Promises and Fragmented Concerns: Who Cares for the Ecology?

“All this government push for big projects into SGNP and Aarey is causing shrinking of existing forest and coastal ecosystems, destruction of catchment areas of lakes, loss of habitat for wildlife. This is an alarming situation when Mumbai is already seeing a rise in flooding issues, increased temperatures and alarming heat waves” says Amrita Bhattacharjee, an environmental activist from Mumbai who has also challenged the project Green Wheels along Blue Lines in the High Court. 

Mumbai is part of C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group and the Thackeray govt in mid march this year launched a Mumbai Climate Action Plan , aiming at reducing emissions to meet the climate goals outlined in the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5 °C. Drafted by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) with support from World Resources Institute (WRI) India, this plan declares key actions including urban greening and biodiversity along with working on energy, sustainable mobility, and air quality.  In light of the big infrastructure, developmental and transport projects coming, and the constant shrinking of green spaces,  these action plans seem to be all lies and deceit.  This also becomes crucial because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC)  recently released the second part of the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), highlighting the impact of climate change on megacities .

T he Report predicts a rise in cyclones, floods, surface temperatures, and heatwaves in the case of Mumbai.  As reported by Deutsche Welle ( DW), “According to a 2017 report, the per capita tree density of Mumbai was just 0.28 , compared to an ideal tree-human ratio of seven trees for every person.” These alarming figures suggest the critical role that SGNP and Aarey play as green ecosystems in a concretizing landscape. But the state’s decisions to revive war rooms to facilitate quick advancement in development projects suggest otherwise. 

When asked if Sunita dreams of living outside in the city, she immediately responded, “No- we see and worship wagh on an everyday basis, not like tourists who come for a single day. We do not want to go into any buildings or city, we feel happy in our land. We exist because of the forests, forest is our community, it is our home” The forest, wildlife, and tribal people struggle to claim their home in the city of dreams that dreams only of development and infrastructure.

Featured image of a leopard in a Warli settlement near SGNP, courtesy of Nayan Khanolkar via Twitter . 

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Reviving tolerance towards street dogs in urban india, revival of endangered species habitats reflects nagaland’s commitment to biodiversity conservation, population growth, rapid development and social inequalities: how noida’s urban planning benefits some, leaves the rest behind, leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Grievance Redressal

Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.

We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.

Brief introduction to this section that descibes Open Access especially from an IntechOpen perspective

Want to get in touch? Contact our London head office or media team here

Our team is growing all the time, so we’re always on the lookout for smart people who want to help us reshape the world of scientific publishing.

Home > Books > Advances in Forest Management under Global Change

Sustainable Management of National Parks and Protected Areas for Conserving Biodiversity in India

Submitted: 26 November 2019 Reviewed: 09 April 2020 Published: 16 May 2020

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.92435

Cite this chapter

There are two ways to cite this chapter:

From the Edited Volume

Advances in Forest Management under Global Change

Edited by Ling Zhang

To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India: CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd. www.cbspd.com | [email protected]

Chapter metrics overview

1,561 Chapter Downloads

Impact of this chapter

Total Chapter Downloads on intechopen.com

Total Chapter Views on intechopen.com

Habitat loss due to human activities and climate change is synergistically posing serious threats to the global biodiversity leading to irreversible extinction of several species. In wake of recent extinction, several forests are declared as protected areas where no more human activities are allowed. However, the scope of these protected areas got broadened from mere conservation to poverty alleviation and sustainable development during the past decades. Though these protected areas seem to be supportive of the biodiversity conservation, several challenges and gaps have emerged that need to be addressed for effective conservation and sustainable management in these protected areas. Therefore, the present chapter aims to address the roles, challenges, and approaches for conservation, and sustainable management in protected areas of India. Based on the published literature, we have found that protected areas proved to be a successful strategy for the conservation of wild animals and plants. However, management of poaching, man-wildlife conflicts, funding, extensive resource use, and tourism is still a challenge for some national parks of the country. Although governmental policies have addressed some of these challenges, only limited success has been achieved so far. Therefore, further studies need to assess the efficiency of protected areas for biodiversity conservation and devise the mechanisms for effective sustainable management of these protected areas.

• biodiversity conservation
• national parks
• protected areas
• sustainable management

Author Information

Abhishek kumar.

• Soil Ecosystem and Restoration Ecology Lab, Department of Botany, Panjab University, India

Rajni Yadav

Meenu patil, pardeep kumar.

• Key Laboratory of Silviculture, College of Forestry, Jiangxi Agricultural University, China

Amandeep Kaur

Sheenu sharma, sabir hussain, diksha tokas, anand narain singh *.

*Address all correspondence to: [email protected]

1. Introduction

The variability in all life forms at different scales on the earth is collectively termed as biodiversity. Further, biodiversity is not evenly distributed on the globe as tropical regions are relatively more diverse than other geographical regions. It is an integral component that ensures and sustains our own life by providing necessary services from oxygen to clean water and from food to clothing. Despite their central role in sustaining life, species are disappearing at alarming rates, and it has been estimated that about 27% of the total species are facing threats to extinction [ 1 ]. Much of today’s large-sized vertebrate animals represent less than 5% of their historical ranges. Many species such as the greater one-horned rhino ( Rhinoceros unicornis ), Asiatic lion ( Panthera leo persica ), and the hard-ground barasingha ( Rucervus duvaucelii branderi ) are restricted to microscopic remnants of their historical range. The biggest threats are posed by habitat destruction by human activities together with changing climatic conditions. Therefore, there is an urgent need to take measures to protect biodiversity in order to sustain life on earth.

Several strategies and measures have been proposed for biodiversity conservation that varies with the type of habitat and their requirement. Protected areas are one of the prominent strategies for the in situ conservation of species and their habitats. However, this concept is not recent to India, and provisions for the establishment of reserved forests and laws such as the death penalty for killing elephants date back to the third century B.C. as mentioned in Kautilya’s Arthashastra [ 2 ]. Many of today’s existing national parks once served as a hunting preserve for the local Maharajas and Emperors during the colonial and precolonial era [ 3 ]. It was in 1936 when the Hailey (now Jim Corbett) National Park was formally notified as to the first national park of the country, and there were only four national parks till the 1970s ( Figure 1 ). However, the continued hunting and habitat destruction resulted in a dramatic decrease in the population of tigers in the country. In the wake of this alarming decline of tigers, the then prime minister of India, Late Smt. Indira Gandhi, launched the “Project Tiger” in 1973, which still stands as the world’s most comprehensive tiger conservation initiative. She established nine tiger reserves, hired guards to patrol them, and forcibly moved whole villages outside their perimeters. These efforts proved to be fruitful as the tiger numbers topped to 4,000 along with an increase in their prey, and thus, India had put forward a global model for wildlife conservation. Since then, the protected area network of the country increased exponentially after the 1980s, and presently there are about 104 IUCN Category II national parks covering an area of 40,501 km 2 , which is 1.23% of the geographical area of the country [ 4 ]. Currently, there are about 870 protected areas in 2019 including 104 national parks, 551 wildlife sanctuaries, 88 conservation reserves, and 127 community reserves.

An exponential increase in the total number of national parks in the country India after the 1970s [ 4 ].

Although these protected areas were initially established for biodiversity conservation, their objectives have now expanded to also include human-centered socioeconomic development. Besides being critical to preserving global biodiversity and stemming from the extinction crisis, these protected areas bring tremendous cultural, ecological, spiritual, and scientific benefits to society. Now, a new paradigm of conservation incorporates the socioeconomic development of local people and encourages the sustainable use of resources within the protected areas. This approach promotes the utilizing of various benefits from protected areas for the socioeconomic development of the local residents. Thus, the scope of national parks has been broadened to poverty alleviation and the development of the nation. Although this paradigm shift has been widely accepted and appreciated, there are some challenges to the effective management of these protected areas.

Therefore, the present chapter aims to assess the roles and challenges of national parks for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development in India using published case studies. To accomplish this, we have searched the available literature databases, viz., Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and NCBI, using keyword combinations such as “National parks AND India,” “Sustainable development AND India,” “Wildlife sanctuary AND India,” and “protected areas AND India” from the year 1985 to recent. Additionally, gray literature from other additional sources including books, unpublished theses, governmental reports, and newsletters was also consulted. After removing the duplicate, insignificant, and inappropriate studies, in total, 50 more relevant studies were included for the preparation of this chapter. Here, we have first discussed the major roles of national parks in conservation, tourism, and ecosystem services. Then various challenges faced by national parks such as conservation, tourism, resource use, human relocation, and conflicts have been discussed. In the next section, two major conservation paradigms, i.e., preservationism and sustainable use, their merits, and demerits are discussed. Furthermore, major challenges to conservation and management of national parks are highlighted with suitable examples from Indian case studies ( Figure 2 ).

Major roles, challenges, and approaches for sustainable development of protected areas in India.

2. Role of national parks

National parks including tiger reserves not only conserve biodiversity but also play an important role in local people’s livelihoods by providing several direct and indirect benefits and services [ 5 ]. These areas are important components of tourism, agro-biodiversity, spirituality, capacity building, poverty reduction, and sustainable development. The ecological, economic, social, and cultural benefits provided by protected areas both conserve biodiversity and support human well-being. Apart from providing economic benefits through sustainable use of bioresources, these areas also serve as important sites for documenting and quantifying biodiversity and various services provided by them. In addition, protected areas act as a buffer to mitigate the impacts of environmental disturbances and climate change.

2.1 Biodiversity conservation

National parks are the critical tool to conserve biodiversity in the face of the global crisis of species extinction and the loss of the world’s natural capacity to support all life and human existence. This can be evidenced by the fact that a large proportion of biological diversity exists only in protected areas. Many national parks of the country harbor important wild relative of cultivated crops and thus serving as a reservoir of agro-biodiversity. Furthermore, some species like brow-antlered deer ( Rucervus eldii eldii ), the Indian rhinoceros ( Rhinoceros unicornis ), the Asiatic lion ( Panthera leo persica ), and other large vertebrates can be found only in some national parks, and their populations outside are almost diminished. According to the report of the country-wide assessment of the status of tigers, co-predators, and their prey in India, there are about 1,706 tigers occupying 81,881 km 2 of the area in 2010. This 20% increase in tiger numbers is due to the good management of tiger reserves and protected areas. Thus, national parks in India proved to be an effective strategy for species conservation. While conserving species, these areas also protect habitat, and therefore these are effective for checking land use pressures throughout the world as most of the national parks have maintained their borders against human-based encroachment [ 6 ]. Furthermore, healthier ecosystems with high biodiversity tend to resist erosion, soil loss, or water quality loss. According to a study conducted by the Indian Institute of Forest Management (IIFM) Bhopal, it has been estimated that the stock value of tiger reserves to protect and conserve tigers vary from INR 22 to 656 billion [ 7 ].

2.2 Ecosystem services

Protected areas provide a range of associated economic, social, cultural, and spiritual benefits, which are together called ecosystem services. Clean water, clean air, access to food sources, buffers of weather events, cultural and spiritual values, and raw materials for consumers are some of the ecosystem services that ensure the well-being of humanity. Many cities and villages directly rely on these natural reserves for essential resources such as clean drinking and irrigation water. For example, the metropolitan city of Mumbai receives its drinking water from the Sanjay Gandhi National Park [ 8 ]. About 70% of protected areas of the country are inhabited by local communities and also partly grazed by local livestock. Almost 60% of protected areas are subjected to the collection of non-timber forest products [ 9 ]. For example, forest products like fuelwood, fodder, and green leaves are consumed and sold by the local people living close to Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve [ 10 ] and Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary [ 3 ]. Furthermore, natural and cultural resources in tiger reserves are important drivers of tourism, supporting local earnings, and employment [ 7 ]. A study conducted by the Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal, provided quantitative and qualitative estimates for as many as 25 ecosystem services from selected tiger reserves of the country. It revealed that the benefits originating from selected tiger reserves had a monetary value ranging from INR 8.3 to 17.6 billion annually. In terms of unit area, this translates into INR 50,000–190,000 per hectare per year. While creating a new tiger reserve in the Pilibhit-Dudhwa landscape, covering an area of approximately 1000 km 2 would cost approximately INR 500 billion [ 7 ].

2.3 Wildlife tourism

Although tourism in India is dominated by its cultural heritage, wildlife also acts as a significant component of tourism in the country. Since India is now hosting more than 50% of world tigers, therefore it is a center of attraction for a large number of domestic and foreign tourists every year. Further, national parks represent the beauty of undisturbed nature, and thus, it significantly attracts tourists, enthusiasts, and nature lovers, though the number of tourists has fallen in some national parks such as Keoladeo of Rajasthan [ 11 ]. Therefore, wildlife and nature tourism can potentially benefit local communities economically by creating opportunities for jobs and businesses. For example, some of the local Adivasis of Sanjay Gandhi National Park are employed within the park as caretakers of the animals, security guards, cleaners, casual labor, and workers in the lion and tiger safari [ 12 ]. Similarly, local people associated with ecotourism in Kaziranga National Park of Assam not only became economically well-equipped and enjoys better living conditions, but they also feel more politically empowered [ 13 ]. Furthermore, the Gonda people of Pench National Park earn livelihoods for their unique traditional arts and dance activities, which can alleviate poverty and improve the quality of life among these people. Thus, national parks are an important source of earning money for both local people and the government. For example, the park authorities of Sariska National Park collect and deposit to the state government about INR 28–53 lakh per year, while the Pench National Park has collected a revenue of about INR 28,808,123 during 2016–2017 [ 14 ]. Furthermore, it can also potentially promote the participation of local stakeholders for the effective conservation of biodiversity. Though the number of visitors in national parks and wildlife sanctuaries are increasing in the country, it still contributes less than 10% of all tourism in India. The park offers unusually large numbers of local employment opportunities for non-park staff [ 11 ].

3. Challenges to national parks

Although protected areas provide opportunities for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development, numerous challenges related to the effective management of national parks also emerge which need to be addressed. It has been acknowledged that many of the national parks in the country are under pressure from the clearing, hunting, logging and, to a lesser extent, fire and grazing. Also, the majority of eco-development projects have not effectively addressed the importance of local concerns [ 15 , 16 ]. These issues and conflicts have developed a confidence crisis and negative attitude in local people’s perceptions. Furthermore, linking economic benefits to conservation is difficult where wildlife is highly endangered, pressure on biomass resources is high, and stakeholders are many. This could be more serious if the economic benefits from the parks are few and the number of beneficiaries is large.

3.1 Conservation

India takes pride in tiger conservation worldwide through the establishment of tiger reserves under its Project Tiger. However, it turned a matter of shame, when the news of the disappearance of all the tigers from the Sariska National Park haunted all the conservationists, nature lovers, and the whole country in December 2004. Investigations revealed that poachers along with local villagers and trading middlemen had been killing the tigers since July 2002 [ 14 ]. This local extinction of tigers from the Sariska was the first confirmed tiger extinction in a Tiger Reserve, though Kailadevi Wildlife Sanctuary was also speculated for the local extinction of tigers. Not only in Sariska but more recently in 2010, the Panna Tiger Reserve has also become “tigerless,” and even Sanjay Gandhi National Park may face the same in upcoming years [ 17 ]. Thus, wildlife conservation is not ensured against human pressures even under the well-controlled mechanisms of protection [ 18 ].

Apart from poaching, habitat degradation and destruction by various human-mediated activities possess serious threats to the wildlife even in the protected areas. For example, developmental works cause habitat degradation and fragmentation as happened in the Raja Ji National Park and Corbett National Park [ 19 ]. Also, the expansion of pastoralists creates pressure on wildlife, which results in increased human-wildlife conflicts [ 19 ].

Wild animals including tigers and elephants are frequently killed by surrounding villagers citing various reasons such as damage to crops, preying of livestock, and killing of local people. A series of such incidents can be cited in different protected areas such as poisoning and killing of elephants in Bandipur National Park and Palamau Tiger Reserve, poisoning of wild dogs in Kanha Tiger Reserve, and killing of tigers in Dudhwa Tiger Reserve, Kanha Tiger Reserve, Nagarjunasagar-Srisailam Tiger Reserve, and Pench National Park. Thus, human-wildlife conflicts pose a major constraint for the conservation and sustainable development of protected areas. The nature and intensity of these conflicts vary with bio-geographical distribution and social characteristics [ 20 ].

Many protected areas in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand are under the control of Naxalites (a group of people following the legacy of Marxism-Leninism), and these people often poison wild animals citing that they kill people. For example, as many as 20 cases of tiger poisoning were reported from the Nagarjunasagar-Srisailam reserve of Andhra Pradesh. The control of Naxalites is so prominent in some areas that no forest guard had even courage to enter in the Indravati reserve of Chhattisgarh since 2002.

3.2 Resource use

Regulating and managing resource use and extraction has always been a major challenge for protected area management. However, increased intensity of conservation efforts has introduced a complex bribery system, which opened another window to local people for accessing forest resources [ 3 ]. Further, activities of smugglers and poachers such as Veerappan continue to extract a substantial amount of forest resources, kill wildlife, and even murder government officials in some protected areas. This access eventually increased extensive pressure from the local communities in the form of illicit tree felling, grazing, and extraction of various forest products leading to the degradation of the forest [ 21 ]. Such reports of forest degradation also echoed from the Bhadra Tiger Reserve, Biligiri Rangan Hills Temple Sanctuary, and Sariska National Park. These activities lead to poaching, jhum cultivation, construction, and developmental activities, which resulted in the extinction of some primates and other wildlife animals [ 22 ]. All these activities and resource use intensity lead to altered vegetation through time [ 23 ] resulting from reduced richness, regeneration, and density of forest trees [ 24 ]. Thus, man-made activities become more serious threats than natural fire and grazing in protected areas [ 6 ]. This is why the rate of forest loss is still high in some protected areas, not only in India but across the world [ 25 ]. Therefore, it becomes essential to protect natural areas from human impacts in such severe cases.

Local people are severely restricted or relocated from protected areas such as Sariska Wildlife Sanctuary, the Gir Forests, and Dachigam National Park for the sake of conservation during the 1970s, and thus, another important challenge has emerged for the sustainability of protected areas. The Baigas were displaced from the Banjar Valley Reserved Forest (now the Kanha National Park) because their slash and burn agriculture was interfering with the regeneration of the Sal ( Shorea robusta C. F. Gaertn.). After the launch of Project Tiger in 1973, several relocations including Bandipur, Kanha, Nagarhole, and Ranthambhore National Park were carried and funded by the government [ 26 ], and recently the Adivasis and slum dwellers have been isolated from the Sanjay Gandhi National Park in Mumbai [ 12 ]. Whenever such a relocation takes place, there are great chances of compromise of livelihoods and rights of the local communities and forest dwellers. For example, the livelihoods of local communities were severely affected after displacement from Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary and Tadoba Andhari Tiger Reserve. The Sariska rehabilitation was ineffective because many spaces to which villagers were relocated lacked basic facilities and many residents returned to their original village in the sanctuary [ 14 ]. Such memories develop a negative attitude of local communities toward subsequent relocation programs. This eventually leads to the conflicts which again hinder the conservation and sustainable management of protected areas. The Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi, in 1989 reported that most of the forest managers have communicated about the cases of illegal grazing, hunting, and poaching in wildlife reserves. Furthermore, the forest guards have faced offenses such as setting reserves on fire, and while opposing such offenses, they often get attacked and assaulted by local communities [ 9 ]. Thus, the growing conflict between forest staff and local people perceived as an emerging threat to conservation.

3.3 Wildlife tourism

Wildlife tourism works both ways; if it provides economic benefits on the one hand, it can also prove to be detrimental for biodiversity on the other hand. Tourism often causes environmental degradation and threat for biodiversity leading to a compromise in ecological services. For instance, in Kashmir, tourism has caused increased extraction of forest resources such as firewood and other raw materials. The construction of hotels and guesthouses in forests causes forest degradation and deforestation, and after construction, they pollute the environment due to unscientific disposal of solid and liquid waste. This results in ecological disturbance by soil erosion and forest destruction [ 27 ]. The increasing number of tourists and their management has appeared as another challenge for the sustainability of protected areas. The number of visitors in protected areas of India has increased several folds only during the past few years. However, the levels of sustainability and carrying capacity are not estimated for many protected areas. Although the increased number of tourist visitors is often blamed for the negative impacts and environmental degradation, the lack of resources for effective visitor management technologies is also the real gap that one should blame for. This is because all the money collected locally needs to be submitted to the central government in most national parks in the country [ 8 ]. Nevertheless, tourism is not considered a major problem in some national parks such as Keoladeo National Park of Rajasthan [ 11 ]. Similarly, increased pilgrimage tended to degrade the biodiversity and habitat in some protected areas such as Periyar Tiger Reserve and Sariska National Park. Further, the economic benefits generated from tourism are not shared with local inhabitants, which causes a conflict between local communities and park authorities [ 5 ]. A recent study found that lack of coordination among various stakeholders and lack of government incentives are the most significant barriers to sustainable development in protected areas of the country [ 28 ].

4. Conservation models

“Preservationism” and “sustainable use” are perhaps the two conservation models among the conservationists of India. Although both conservation models aim to conserve bioresources and landscapes, “preservationism” restricts any human-mediated activities, whereas the “sustainable use” approach advocates the involvement of local people [ 29 ]. The sustainable use approach involves local communities for conservation of biodiversity with extractive human use, while preservationists argue that some species especially large vertebrates, habitat specialists, and other sensitive species cannot be conserved with high human densities and extractive use of forests. Both the paradigms have their own strengths and weaknesses, and therefore, none of the models can be explicitly applied to all the cases.

4.1 Preservationism

The preservationist paradigm of conservation is based on its biological, ecological, and ethical values of each species. It considers that mere maintaining ecosystem services and sustainable use do not go to preserve all the forms of biodiversity. Thus, it advocates strictly protecting natural ecosystems from human activity and ensuring that they are minimally altered [ 29 ]. Successful implementation of this approach has resulted in fruitful results, which are evident from the fact that most of the threatened wildlife is now only restricted to protected areas. For example, the Asiatic lions and the wild Ass can only be spotted in Wildlife Sanctuaries of Gujarat. Similarly, Kaziranga National Park of Assam has now become home to the single highest population (more than 60% individuals) of one-horned rhino and the Asian water buffaloes in the world. Further, the number of tigers has increased significantly from 268 in 1972 to more than 2900 in 2018 through the establishment of tiger reserves.

Although this approach is most common and successful for the conservation of large vertebrate animals and another organism including plants, it too has some demerits. The restriction of human activities and resource use usually gives rise to conflicts with local communities and administration. It emphasizes more on law and order problems, protection, poaching, and illicit resource use. Resettlements carried out in this approach often considered overly bureaucratic, authoritarian, and expensive. Furthermore, civil engineering works such as the construction of roads, waterholes, and watchtowers are taken more into consideration rather than conservation aspects such as implementation and effective management of wildlife. Therefore, preservationists must prove with examples that they can compensate the costs of local communities for their extractive use and livelihoods along with conservation of endangered species and ecosystems.

4.2 Sustainable use

It has been observed that several local communities use resources in a much judicious way rather than exploiting the resources. These traditional resource use practices involve temporal shifts in resource use such as food preference, hunting, spatial limitations for some forest areas (such as sacred groves), and shifting agriculture. Such resource use patterns of indigenous communities are considered sustainable which forms the basis of “sustainable use” paradigm of conservation in India [ 29 ]. This paradigm assumes that the upkeep and survival of biodiversity can be enhanced by providing control to local communities for traditional management as their livelihoods depend on biological resources. For example, nomadic Changpas of Ladakh have sustained their pastoralist lifestyles for centuries and coexisted with endangered wild species like the Snow leopard [ 8 ]. Similarly, the Indian state Kerala has attained social sustainability through their mutualistic equitable resource use rather than unequal competitive resource consumption [ 30 ]. Thus, when local communities are provided with the complete access and management of land use like shifting cultivation and pastoralism, local sustainability is maintained, and biodiversity is conserved in a more effective way [ 29 ]. However, this is not the case in every protected area and these traditional practices are not being followed in some reserved areas. For example, Kailadevi Wildlife Sanctuary, which was considered as a successful model of participatory conservation, has too suffered from the local extinction of tigers. Similarly, intensive jhum cultivation in a locally managed forest has not only reduced forest cover but also caused a decline in biological diversity [ 31 ]. Further, many local people such as Tibetan refugees, Gujjar, and other pastoralists do not follow the traditional practices of pastoralism that were maintained for centuries [ 8 , 19 ]. Similarly, selling of community-owned reserves and growing of cash crops in northeast India have increased during the past decades [ 32 ]. Thus, traditional sustainable practices no longer seem to exist in reality, and they are being faded away even in sacred groves [ 33 ]. Therefore, this approach needs to put forward as examples for the successful conservation of large vertebrate species such as the tiger and elephant compatible with extractive use and high-density human populations. Before adopting any sustainable use models, the impact of uncontrolled human pressures on wildlife should be evaluated carefully [ 18 ].

5. Approaches for sustainable management

India followed the “preservationism” model for biodiversity conservation during the initial establishment of protected areas, but it resulted in increased conflicts with local people. In order to buffer conflicts of the local people, India was the first country to introduce the concept of “Joint Forest Management” in its National Forest Policy, 1988, which has the provision of involving the local communities for sustainable conservation and management of forests. Thus, there is a shifting paradigm from “preservationism” to “sustainable use” approach during the recent times. This approach is managing forest resources with varying degrees of success by taking care of community needs and aspirations for the past 30 years. Although rural communities and forest officers are developing a positive attitude toward forest conservation, there are still some concerns like the functioning of forest committee, the role of women, freedom of working, and participatory approach in forest conservation and management [ 34 ].

5.1 Conservation

The human-wildlife conflict was one of the major challenges for the conservation of species within protected areas. The government of India launched the eco-development project in the 1990s, to minimize such conflicts and effective conservation. In order to promote human security and protecting biodiversity simultaneously, the government of India introduced financial compensation as a policy against human-wildlife conflicts around the protected areas of the country. Similarly, some compensation incentives are instituted in Wildlife Trust of India (WTI) in response to crop damage, livestock, or human injuries caused by wildlife in protected areas. For example, crop loss due to wildlife is compensated by providing equivalent incentives under the “grain-for-grain” scheme in Pakke Tiger Reserve and northeast states of India [ 35 ]. Similarly, active bio-fences consisting of beehives or defensive crops (with pungent smell and thorns) were used to keep away elephants and other wild animals in Kaziranga National Park of Assam. Several services are implemented by WTI to help the cases of human-wildlife conflicts such as Mobile Veterinary Service, Guardians of the Wild, Primary Response Teams (PRTs), Rapid Response Teams (RRTs), and Sociologist-Biologist-Veterinarian expert teams that have been constituted to respond and handle human-wildlife conflict cases in Dudhwa National Park of Uttar Pradesh. Further, the safety of wildlife was ensured by developing canopy bridges in Chakrashila Wildlife Sanctuary of Assam, regular removal of snares from Bandipur Tiger Reserve of Karnataka, and installation of low voltage solar-powered fences in parts of Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary, Aralam Wildlife Sanctuary, and Kaziranga National Park.

5.2 Resource use

Often resource use in many protected areas of the country is banned or restricted. According to the Supreme Court orders (dated 14.02.2000 and 21.02.2000 in I.A. No. 548 in WP No. 202/1995), the removal of dead, diseased, dying, or wind-fallen trees, driftwood, and grasses, etc. is restrained from any national park or game sanctuary [ 36 ]. This develops conflicts among the local people and forest officials, which is one of the major challenges for sustainability in protected areas. Later, the Government of India enacted the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, with provisions to acknowledge rights within forests including within protected areas. Until recently, bamboo has been considered as a “tree” in the country under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and its felling and transit required prior permission from the forest department. However, a recent amendment has taken out bamboo from the category of “trees,” and now local farmers can freely cultivate and harvest bamboo. This major step by the Indian government has economically empowered almost 20 million people including farmers, forest dwellers, and poor sections of society. Moreover, it has not only enhanced the income of farmers but also created job opportunities through boosting bamboo-dependent industries like handicraft industries in the country. Furthermore, the local people especially poorer sections, support conserving wildlife as it did not affect their livelihood as far as their primary needs are met [ 16 ].

5.3 Eco-development

Several eco-development projects have been launched in the country to reduce the dependency of local people from forest products, enhancing their livelihoods. Currently, such eco-development projects are running in more than 80 protected areas of the country, most of them are centrally funded, while few heritage sites have received grants from international organizations such as Global Environment Facility and the World Bank.

In order to conserve large mammals and sensitive species that are threatened by human-wildlife conflicts, village relocations are often carried out. Many villagers are happy after relocation outside the protected areas, as they were provided with better facilities such as land for cultivation, drinking water, electricity, jobs, etc. Such happy relocations have been carried out satisfactorily in Nagarhole National Park of Karnataka and Sariska National Park of Rajasthan. In Bhadra wildlife sanctuary of India, the resettled families are satisfied with the relocated sites as they are now living a better life with all necessary facilities such as electricity, drinking water, transport, market, etc. [ 37 ].

Under these projects, the cooperation of local communities has been awarded in terms of economic incentives and legal support as evidenced by the Periyar National Park. Further, the money collected by tourism is used to pay for salaries of members and park management and to build up a community development fund. However, these developmental activities are only promoted as long as the biodiversity and wildlife are not exploited. Despite enormous funding from India Eco-Development Project, the people-initiated natural management could no longer be managed to sustain the tigers and their prey [ 18 ].

6. Recommendations for sustaining national parks

Government policies for conservation and sustainable development of protected areas must respect the social and cultural traditions of the community while preparing rules and regulations. The management and action plans of the government should consider the improved development of both local people and protected area. Also, the state rules must consider the local adaptation and cultural traditions of a specific community. Thus, the selection of a conservation approach must be chosen wisely based upon the needs and requirements of the protected area. For example, the “sustainable use” approach may not be effective for species that are highly sensitive to human interference. Similarly, “preservationism” will not be effective in protected areas with a high density of local people that are highly dependent on forests for their livelihoods. Further, the governmental policies like compensation policy are governed by the bureaucratic style that is quite different from the environmental governance at local levels. Therefore, such policies are needed to be designed in such a manner that it considers the ecological and social dimension of human-wildlife conflicts so as to achieve better conservation and development priorities [ 38 ].

The governmental action plans must be clear enough and transparent in order to avoid conflicts and disputes. For example, the agreements for resource use and conservation between park officials and local communities must be very clear and transparent. Similarly, the rights and duties of local communities and forest should be undoubtedly defined, so as to avoid any disputes later on. Also, there should not be any incompatibility or inconsistency between state rules and local institutions. Further, the boundaries and zones of any protected area should be clearly demarcated for the effective implementation of action plans. The governance and legislation must be conveyed effectively to the forest officials and local people in order to develop confidence and local participation. Thus, increasing awareness about their rights will be effective for sustainable forest management in India [ 23 ].

Enforcement and implementation of governmental policies have remained a great challenge for the effective management and sustainability of protected areas in the country. This can be overcome by employing a sufficient number of local people as forest staff and forest guards. This forest staff should be trained well and equipped with modern facilities and good communication skills. In cases where human resettlements are necessary for conservation, newer sites must provide a better quality of life for the local population in order to achieve effective and voluntary human relocations. The government must put forward examples of providing improved necessary facilities (such as education, medical, household, etc.), good infrastructure (such as water supply, sewerage, transportation, and electricity, etc.), income sources, and other cultural-, religious- and ritual-oriented requirements with the relocated sites. This will develop a positive attitude and respect for rules associated with conservation.

India has scope for both collaboratively managed and community conserved protected areas because many of the protected areas in the country are distinguished by human settlements and resource use [ 8 , 39 ]. Thus, the participation of local people becomes necessary for achieving sustainability in such areas because these people will be directly involved in any intervention to be implemented. These people including women should be encouraged to get involved in management plans by providing incentives in the form of social and economic benefits. The economic benefits generated from the developmental activities like tourism should be shared and rewarded for effective conservation activities of the local people. However, in many cases, wildlife conservation became a second priority for villagers. Therefore, national parks should not be always projected for economic benefits; rather we must highlight the roles of wildlife and forests for essential services and ecological balance. Local communities should be encouraged to protect the environment and bioresources for future use.

If any conflicts or disputes arise during implementation, they must be minimized through communication and respecting the local cultural rules in order to develop confidence in governmental policies and good relations with forest officials. Therefore, the formation of some local conservation councils that chiefly include local people and associated NGOs will be effective for moderating disputes and management of the protected area. Further, the efficiency of any protected area depends on basic management practices such as enforcement, local participation, boundary demarcation, and direct compensation to local communities. Therefore, effective management of national parks demands increase and moderation in funding [ 6 ]. Thus, businessmen, industrialists, private organizations, and international bodies should provide financial assistance to the protected area development.

Tourism activities that operate within ecological capacities and also contribute to the economic prosperity of local communities can be referred to as sustainable tourism. This approach can generate economic benefits to local communities, which might be more supportive of conservation as well as development. Further, tourism also makes people aware from corporate and other external agencies about the beauty of charismatic animals and undisturbed forest landscapes. Thus, tourism helps to raise funding for biodiversity conservation which would be more effective for keeping conservation programs longer. However, the sustainability of each protected area must be ensured before promoting any tourism-related activities. To accomplish this, the number of tourists needs to be regulated depending upon the carrying capacity of each protected area. Further, impacts of tourism need to be evaluated periodically, and infrastructural facilities should be developed by promoting low-impact activities such as walking trails and other nonconsumptive wildlife utilization. Local communities participate actively and support conservation when they see direct economic benefits from activities such as tourism. Tourism that involves local communities can further result in fruitful development of these protected areas.

7. Conclusions

Protected areas were initially established to conserve biodiversity in the face of inevitable human-centered development. However, they have emerged as a critical tool for not only safeguarding species but also for poverty alleviation, improving human livelihoods, and overall development of a nation. This broadened scope of protected areas has posed several challenges for effective conservation and sustainable management. Among major challenges, human activities such as extractive resource use, grazing, development, and tourism are disproportionately degrading and compromising the sustainability of the forests in such protected areas. The lack of baseline data and research is exaggerating the issue, and therefore, further studies need to carefully assess these impacts in order to develop effective management strategies.

The conservation paradigm in the country has been shifted from “preservationism” to “sustainable use” approach during the past decades. Now, local resource use and socioeconomic development are advocated, which often compromise the long-term ecological balance and biodiversity conservation. Therefore, a sustainable future demands a balanced approach including both preservationism and sustainable use depending on the needs of target species to be conserved and local inhabitants. The diverse ecosystems and ethnic groups of India do not allow a single conservation approach to be implemented successfully across the country. Therefore, a feasible approach based on primary field data should be promoted for the successful conservation of the species and ecosystems. Further, the success and failure of any protected areas should be judged on the basis of conservation of species and ecosystems rather than planning whether to restrict or allow local communities and other such factors.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the Chairperson, Department of Botany, Panjab University, Chandigarh, for providing all necessary facilities required for work. Abhishek Kumar and Meenu Patil are thankful to the University Grants Commission, Government of India, New Delhi, for the financial support in the form of Junior Research Fellowship [UGC Ref. No.: 507-(OBC) (CSIR-UGC NET DEC. 2016)]. The corresponding author also acknowledges the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, for the support in the form of PURSE Grant.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

• 1. IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020. Available from: https://www.iucnredlist.org/ [Accessed: 11 February 2020]
• 2. Gadgil M, Guha R. This Fissured Land: An Ecological History of India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press; 2013. p. 274. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198077442.001.0001
• 3. Robbins P, McSweeney K, Chhangani AK, Rice JL. Conservation as it is: Illicit resource use in a wildlife reserve in India. Human Ecology. 2009; 37 :559-575. DOI: 10.1007/s10745-009-9233-6
• 4. Wildlife Institute of India. National Wildlife Database 2019. Available from: http://wiienvis.nic.in/Database/Protected_Area_854.aspx [Accessed: 11 February 2020]
• 5. Sekhar NU. Local people’s attitudes towards conservation and wildlife tourism around Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of Environmental Management. 2003; 69 :339-347. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2003.09.002
• 6. Bruner AG, Gullison RE, Rice RE, Da Fonseca GAB. Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science. 2001; 291 :125-128. DOI: 10.1126/science.291.5501.125
• 7. Verma M, Negandhi D, Khanna C, Edgaonkar A, David A, Kadekodi G, et al. Economic Valuation of Tiger Reserves in India: A Value + Approach. Indian Institute of Forest Management: Bhopal, India; 2015. p. 284
• 8. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Protected Areas in Today’s World: Their Values and Benefits for the Welfare of the Planet. Technical Series No. 36. Montreal: 2008. p. 96
• 9. Kothari A, Pande P, Singh S, Dilnavaz R. Management of National Parks and Sanctuaries in India: A Status Report. New Delhi: Indian Institute of Public Administration; 1989. p. 298
• 10. Davidar P, Arjunan M, Puyravaud JP. Why do local households harvest forest products? A case study from the southern Western Ghats, India. Biological Conservation. 2008; 141 :1876-1884. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.05.004
• 11. Goodwin H, Kent I, Parker K, Walpole M. Tourism, Conservation & Sustainable Development: Case Studies from Asia and Africa. Wildlife and Development Series No. 11. London: International Institute for Environment and Development; 1998. p. 98
• 12. Sen A, Pattanaik S. Alienation, conflict, and conservation in the protected areas of urban metropolis: A case study of Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Mumbai. Sociological Bulletin. 2015; 64 :375-395. DOI: 10.1177/0038022920150306
• 13. Das D, Hussain I. Does ecotourism affect economic welfare? Evidence from Kaziranga National Park, India. Journal of Ecotourism. 2016; 15 :241-260. DOI: 10.1080/14724049.2016.1192180
• 14. Tiger Task Force. The Report of the Tiger Task Force: Joining the Dots. New Delhi: Project Tiger, Union Ministry of Environment and Forests; 2005. p. 206
• 15. Singh B, Borthakur SKS. Forest issues and challenges in protected area management: A case study from Himalayan Nokrek national park and biosphere reserve, India. International Journal of Conservation Science. 2015; 6 :233-252
• 16. Arjunan M, Holmes C, Puyravaud JP, Davidar P. Do developmental initiatives influence local attitudes toward conservation? A case study from the Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of Environmental Management. 2006; 79 :188-197. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.06.007
• 17. Wuerthner G, Crist E, Butler T. Protecting the Wild: Parks and Wilderness the Foundation for Conservation. Washington, DC: Island Press/Center for Resource Economics; 2015. p. 362. DOI: 10.5822/978-1-61091-551-9
• 18. Reddy GV. Lessons from two local extinctions: Sariska and Kailadevi (Ranthambhore) in Rajasthan, India. Conservation and Society. 2008; 6 :256-262. DOI: 10.4103/0972-4923.49218
• 19. Johnsingh AJT, Joshua J. Conserving Rajaji and Corbett National Parks—The elephant as a flagship species. Oryx. 1994; 28 :135-140. DOI: 10.1017/s0030605300028453
• 20. Anand S, Radhakrishna S. Investigating trends in human-wildlife conflict: Is conflict escalation real or imagined? Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity. 2017; 10 :154-161. DOI: 10.1016/j.japb.2017.02.003
• 21. De UK, Chauhan K. Degradation of forest and biodiversity in Sariska National Park, India and the responsible factors. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development. 2015; 14 :398-426. DOI: 10.1504/ijesd.2015.072104
• 22. Mazumder MK. Diversity, habitat preferences, and conservation of the primates of Southern Assam, India: The story of a primate paradise. Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity. 2014; 7 :347-354. DOI: 10.1016/j.japb.2014.10.001
• 23. Macura B, Zorondo-Rodríguez F, Grau-Satorras M, Demps K, Laval M, Garcia CA, et al. Local community attitudes toward forests outside protected areas in India. Impact of legal awareness, trust, and participation. Ecology and Society. 2011; 16 :10. DOI: 10.5751/es-04242-160310
• 24. Sapkota RP, Stahl PD, Norton U. Anthropogenic disturbances shift diameter distribution of woody plant species in Shorea robusta Gaertn. (Sal) mixed forests of Nepal. Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity. 2019; 12 :115-128. DOI: 10.1016/j.japb.2018.08.004
• 25. Heino M, Kummu M, Makkonen M, Mulligan M, Verburg PH, Jalava M, et al. Forest loss in protected areas and intact forest landscapes: A global analysis. PLoS One. 2015; 10 :e0138918. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138918
• 26. Rangarajan M, Vihar M, Shahabuddin G, Programme WCS, Group S, Estate L. Displacement and relocation from protected areas: Towards a biological and historical synthesis. Conservation and Society. 2009; 4 :359-378. DOI: 10.1117/12.601161
• 27. Malik MI, Bhat MS. Sustainability of tourism development in Kashmir—Is paradise lost? Tourism Management Perspectives. 2015; 16 :11-21. DOI: 10.1016/j.tmp.2015.05.006
• 28. Yadav N, Sahu NC, Sahoo D, Yadav DK. Analysis of barriers to sustainable tourism management in a protected area: A case from India. Benchmarking: An International Journal. 2018; 25 :1956-1976. DOI: 10.1108/bij-09-2016-0149
• 29. Madhusudan MD, Shankar Raman TR. Conservation as if biological diversity matters: Preservation versus sustainable use in India. Conservation and Society. 2003; 1 :49-59
• 30. Basiago AD. Economic, social, and environmental sustainability in development theory and urban planning practice. Environmentalist. 1999; 19 :145-161. DOI: 10.1023/a:1006697118620
• 31. Shankar Raman TR. Effect of slash-and-burn shifting cultivation on rainforest birds in Mizoram, Northeast India. Conservation Biology. 2001; 15 :685-698. DOI: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.015003685.x
• 32. Kothari A, Suri S, Singh N. Conservation in India: A new direction. Economic and Political Weekly. 1995; 30 :2755-2766
• 33. Tiwari BK, Barik SK, Tripathi RS. Biodiversity value, status, and strategies for conservation of sacred groves of Meghalaya, India. Ecosystem Health. 1998; 4 :20-32. DOI: 10.1046/j.1526-0992.1998.00068.x
• 34. Rishi P. Joint forest management in India: An attitudinal analysis of stakeholders. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2007; 51 :345-354. DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2006.10.009
• 35. Menon V, Chaudhary RG. Conflict to Co-Existence: A Dozen Cost Effective Human Interventions for Co-Existence with Wildlife. Wildlife Trust of India: Noida, India; 2017. p. 23
• 36. MoEFCC. Handbook of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (With Amendments Made in 1988); Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2003 (With Amendments Made in 2004); Guidelines & Amp; Clarifications (Up to June, 2004). New Delhi: Government of India, Ministry of Environment & Forest; 2004. p. 131
• 37. Karanth KK. Making resettlement work: The case of India’s Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary. Biological Conservation. 2007; 139 :315-324. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.07.004
• 38. Johnson M, Karanth K, Weinthal E. Compensation as a Policy for Mitigating Human-wildlife Conflict Around Four Protected Areas in Rajasthan, India. Conservation and Society. 2018; 16 :305. DOI: 10.4103/cs.cs_17_1
• 39. Kanagavel A, Pandya R, Sinclair C, Prithvi A, Raghavan R. Community and conservation reserves in southern India: status, challenges and opportunities. Journal of Threatened Taxa. 2013; 5 :5256-5265. DOI: 10.11609/jott.o3541.5256-65

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Continue reading from the same book

Published: 09 September 2020

By Yıldırım Ismail Tosun

670 downloads

By Daniel Constantin Diaconu, Răzvan Mihail Papuc, Da...

873 downloads

By Jing Chen and Junying Jia

1233 downloads

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Case Study of Urban Parks : Central Park of New York and Sanjay Gandhi National Park of Mumbai

2020, CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo

Related Papers

Prof. Sunayana Kadle

Nudrat Sayed

Sanjay Gandhi National Park (SGNP), surrounded by the megacity of Mumbai, India, is subject to high anthropogenic pressures. However, it constitutes an important ‘green lung’ and water source, supporting biodiversity, tourism, recreation and additional benefits both locally and remotely. To safeguard and enhance the Park ecosystem, there is a need to recognise and demonstrate the diversity of values associated with these multiple benefits, potential conflicts, and management measures necessary to protect them. This study explores outcomes from SGNP across a systemically connected range of ecosystem services, and the geographical scales over which service benefits accrue. This informs potential novel ‘payment for ecosystem services’ (PES) opportunities. The protected status of the landscape is reflected in low values from provisioning services (material or energy exploitation), but substantial values from supporting (such as habitat for wildlife), regulating (including global climate...

Journal of Threatened Taxa

Pankaj Sekhsaria

Veena U Joshi

The first case study presented in this chapter is Sanjay Gandhi National Park (SGNP), which is the largest national Park within the urban sprawl of Mumbai. Illegal quarrying and heavy encroachment are threatening the Park. Mumbai High Court ordered the removal of all the encroachments but failed to achieve the desired results. The second case study; Pallikaranai Marshland (PML) is partly saline and largely freshwater marshland in Chennai. The marshland is facing massive environmental problems, such as, fragmentation and reclamation of marshland for urban development, garbage dump, disposal of partially treated sewage and loss of habitat due to reclamation and garbage dump. The Madras (Chennai) High Court directed the Chennai Corporation to establish an integrated waste management facility, remove all encroachments for the marshland and stop the municipalities from dumping garbage in the marshland area but the legal verdicts have not been able to put a complete halt to the abuse and ...

Frédéric Landy

Sumedh Lokhande

India and China have been engaged in the border trade for thousands of years through the old silk route used topass through northern India. The importance of border trade lies at various levels; at first, it can be used as animage-building exercise to promote mutual benefits and regional peace. Border trade also plays a pivotal rolein developing friendly neighbourly relations as it helps in reducing trust deficits, encourages constructivism,gives legal backing to the formerly disputed international borders. Border trade also helps in bordermanagement, along with providing economic prosperity to the people residing on the border areas. India's Northeast and China's southwest region fits the rational of border trade, people living in border areas in theseregions have less access to the big marketplaces in their own countries as they are situated in farthest andremotest places. Border trade also helps to develop socio-economic bonds among the people residing at theborders of di...

nandkishor patil

Aarhat Multidisciplinary International Education Research Journal (AMIERJ)

Rajendra Chavan , Dr VIDYANAND KHANDAGALE

Science is the systematic study of the nature. The systematic refers to rational & logical sequences. Science as a discipline consists of terms, concepts principles etc. The theory building is based on terms, concepts and postulates. Knowledge is conducted by an individual through various experiences, interactions. The mode of information which is assimilated and accommodated creates conceptions, misconceptions and alternative conceptions in students. Teacher as a facilitator and leader of the classroom need to identify the sources of misconceptions along with should have a strong theoretical base and knowledge of misconceptions identification tools, techniques, strategies, skills etc. In the present paper researcher had made an attempt to provide a overarching view of misconceptions in science and its sources, tools and techniques. The present paper is heavily rely on secondary source of data.

From Urban National Parks to Natured Cities in the Global South

RELATED PAPERS

Dr. Mohinder Slariya

Eric Corijn

Frontiers in conservation science

Nikit Surve

Protected Area Update 147

Rajendra Shinde

Protected Area Update - 139

Conservation Biology

Vidya Athreya

Nadia Belaidi

International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology (IJERT)

IJERT Journal

Meena Suryavanshi

Goldin Quadros

Raquel Moreno-Peñaranda

Protected Area Update

Journal of Urban Ecology

Megan Draheim

Nishith A Dharaiya

Christopher Doll

KRVIA Research & Design Cell

shweta wagh , Hussain Indorewala , Minal Yerramshetty , Reshma Susan Mathew , MIhir Desai

Aarhat Multidisciplinary International Educational Research Journal (AMEIRJ)

Dr. Rabiya Saboowala

A. Pendharkar

Dr VIDYANAND KHANDAGALE

Tasneem Balasinorwala

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Introduction

• Wilderness as Discursive Infrastructure
• Displacement as Strategy
• Interspecies Futures

I. Wilderness as Discursive Infrastructure

Ii. displacement: a strategy of middle class environmentalism, iii. interspecies futures: models of resistance in sgnp.

• Appadurai, A. (2000). Spectral Housing and Urban Cleansing: Notes on Millennial Mumbai. Public Culture, 12(3), 627–651.
• Edelblutte, É., & Gunnell, Y. (2014). The Tribal Populations of Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Mumbai (India): A Brief Political Ecology. L’Espace Géographique, Volume 43(1), 1–17.