







































Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal 6(2): 261-267, July 2023 

INSIGHTS FROM THE FIELD 

Conservation amidst Urbanization: Insights from 
Explorations around Bannerghatta National Park, 
Bengaluru 

Dhanya Bhaskar, Samudyatha Ramananda, and Sarang K T 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Protected areas (PAs) function as cornerstones of biodiversity conservation 
while catering to the livelihoods of nearly 1.1 billion people globally (CBD 
2022). PAs have become increasingly important in urbanizing landscapes, 
where they supply ecosystem services such as local climate, water 
regulation, and pollution mitigation. In addition, they provide access to 
outdoor leisure for city dwellers, thereby enhancing the idea of being “close 
to nature” (Van Oijstaeijen et al 2020). However, current and future urban 
expansion trends indicate localized but cumulatively significant negative 
impacts on PAs, including fragmentation (McKinney 2002; McDonald et al 
2008). 

Bengaluru, the third-largest metropolis in India, harbours a major PA—the 
Bannerghatta National Park (BNP)—on its outskirts (Figure 1). Due to 
unplanned residential and industrial expansion, the BNP area has witnessed 
massive urban sprawl (Ramachandra and Setturu 2019). Our research 
attempts to highlight the urbanization-driven transformations in people–
nature interactions around BNP, with the view of contributing to integrated 
strategies for the management of PAs within wider peri-urban landscapes. 

 
 Associate Professor (Ecosystem and Environment Management), Chair, Centre for Policy 
Studies, Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India. 

dhanyab@iifmbhopal.edu.in  

 Project Assistant, Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India. 
samudyathar@iifmbhopal.edu.in   

 Junior Research Fellow, Indian Institute of  Forest Management, Bhopal, Madhya 
Pradesh, India. ktsarangiifm@gmail.com  

Copyright © Bhaskar, Ramananda and Sarang 2023. Released under Creative Commons 

Attribution © NonCommercial 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC 4.0) by the author.  

Published by Indian Society for Ecological Economics (INSEE), c/o Institute of  Economic 
Growth, University Enclave, North Campus, Delhi 110007.  

ISSN: 2581–6152 (print); 2581–6101 (web).  

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v6i2.1000  

mailto:dhanyab@iifmbhopal.edu.in
mailto:samudyathar@iifmbhopal.edu.in
mailto:ktsarangiifm@gmail.com
https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v6i2.1000


 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [262] 

This article details the early findings from exploratory visits and surveys 
carried out in the first half of 2022 to understand the complexities of 
conservation in the fast-urbanizing landscape of BNP. 

2. STUDY SITE 

BNP, dominated by dry deciduous and scrub forests, spreads over 260 km2 
across four wildlife ranges: Bannerghatta, Harohalli, Anekal, and Kodihalli. 
It is a critical habitat for Asian elephants, leopards, and sloth bears, and it is 
an important ecological corridor closely linked to other PAs like the 
Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary and Bandipur Tiger Reserve (Ramachandra and 
Setturu 2019). Following its designation as a national park in 1972, stable 
vegetation cover has been maintained within BNP, but the surrounding 
areas have suffered large-scale conversions from industrial, residential, and 
tourism development (Adhikari et al 2017). An eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) of 
268.9 km2 was declared vide a MoEFCC notification in 2018 to regulate 
land-use activities around the park. This was later reduced to an area of 
168.8 km2 (Rao 2019). There are 77 villages in the ESZ and 16 enclosure 
(EL) villages within the park (MoEFCC 2020). Local communities have 
traditionally been dependent on the forest for agriculture, livestock grazing, 
and collection of forest produce (Varma et al 2009). With forests coming 
under state control, access to forests has become a challenge (Jayaprakash 
and Hickey 2019). 

Figure 1: Location Map of BNP Indicating the Study Villages 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Map created using QGIS (version 3.14.16)  



[263] Bhaskar, Ramananda, and Sarang 

3. METHODOLOGY  

In order to examine trends in forest dependence and livelihoods around 
BNP, we explored villages from its four wildlife ranges and purposively 
selected 12 villages—6 EL villages and 6 from the ESZ where urbanization-
induced changes (land conversions, change in occupation, etc)—were 
observed (Figure 1). Semi-structured questionnaire-based surveys were 
conducted by randomly sampling 8–10 households from each village using 
the list obtained from the local anganwadis (child care centre/school). Here, 
we present our initial analysis based on the data collected from a total of 
102 respondents. 

4. RESULTS: OBSERVATIONS AND REFLECTIONS 

4.1. Status and Use of Forests 

When probed about trends in the status of the forests, 37% and 29% of the 
respondents from EL and ESZ villages, respectively, indicated that human–
wildlife conflict (HWC) and incidences of crop damage, livestock loss, and 
loss of human life have increased (Figure 2). This was subsequently linked 
to an increase in forest area and quality (29% responses in ESZ and 31% in 
EL) as the Karnataka Forest Department (KFD) is actively undertaking 
plantations and reclaiming encroached lands. People also relate increased 
forest protection to reduced forest dependence, especially in ESZ villages 
(17% responses), while EL villages within the park continue to have some 
extent of forest dependence. 

4.2 Changes in Agriculture 

Despite the proximity to a megacity, the majority of the population around 
BNP continues to practise agriculture. A major trend perceived by 
respondents is a change in cropping patterns, especially from ragi (Finger 
millet), the staple crop, to mulberry for sericulture over the last two 
decades. About 76% of the ESZ and 62% of EL respondents (Figure 2) 
cited crop damage from wildlife as the most significant reason for the shift. 
The fragmented nature of the BNP, combined with the relatively high 
density of elephants, has fuelled HWC. Finger millet (57%), red gram and 
maize (12% each), and coconut (7%) were the main crops that were harmed 
(Venkataramana et al. 2017), making them unpopular. Meanwhile, 
commercial viability, better water supply and road transport, and 
accessibility to Asia’s largest cocoon market in Ramanagara and other urban 
markets in Bengaluru have nudged farmers to grow either mulberry or fruits 
and vegetables. 

 



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [264] 

Figure 2: Trends in Forest Dependence, Agriculture, and Livestock Ownership 
around BNP 

Source: Primary data from household surveys  

Land-related conflicts and diversion are prevalent both in EL (18%) and 
ESZ (17%) villages. All the respondents sampled from two of the EL 
villages do not have legal land documents, which affects their rights for 
agriculture and water supply. They either lease out land or continue to 
practise agriculture in “problematic areas”, which people claim to be 
agricultural land or diverted gomala (grazing commons), while KFD calls it 
encroachment. We could see a live example of this in one of the EL villages 
where there is no demarcation between the gomala and the forest boundary. 
The village also faces the possibility of resettlement due to increasing HWC, 
but people are unwilling and unsure of the life that they will have elsewhere. 

4.3 Changes in Livestock Ownership 

Total livestock ownership has reduced in both EL (30% responses) and 
ESZ (38%) villages. Specifically, goat and sheep (11%) and local cattle 
breeds (11%) have reduced over time in ESZ villages. The major reason for 
this shift in ESZ was the lack of gomalas (52% responses) (Figure 2), which 
have reduced in both area and access, owing to diversion for agriculture, 
housing, etc, or even inclusion in forest areas. Restricted access to forest 
fringes for livestock grazing was recorded in both ESZ (18% responses) 
and EL (16% responses) villages. KFD has declared livestock grazing along 
with forest encroachment, smuggling, fires, etc, as restricted activities in 
order to promote natural regeneration in forests (Manjunath 2016). 



[265] Bhaskar, Ramananda, and Sarang 

Risk from wild animals is the most pertinent challenge (43% responses) for 
livestock ownership in EL. Increasing incidences of leopard attacks have 
reduced the attractiveness of rearing sheep that need to be grazed. Local 
cattle breeds have become rare, as high-yielding hybrid cows are preferred 
to cater to the ever-increasing milk demands of Bengaluru. Exotic breeds 
reduce the “burden” of grazing as they can be comfortably stall-fed but are 
quite expensive to maintain and often face high disease risk. Losing hybrid 
cattle to wildlife depredation proves expensive, turning people hostile 
towards conservation efforts (Margulies and Karanth 2018), which is an 
instance of conflict between urbanization and conservation. 

An old couple, Gurappa and Bairamma, whom we interacted with in 
Chudahalli, an EL village, report witnessing frequent HWC. They lost their 
26-year-old son to elephant trampling when he had gone out to graze sheep 
in the forest. They sold all their livestock and are now dependent on their 
0.5-acre land. Sadly, Gurappa himself was subject to an elephant attack a 
couple of years later when he was keeping watch on his ragi crop at night. 
Recent reports show increasing cases of HWC involving elephants, 
leopards, and wild boars (Venkataramana et al 2017), despite installing 
electric and railway fencing (Saklani et al 2018). Fragmentation caused by 
mining and construction affects elephant migration routes, drawing them to 
farmlands. About 27% of ESZ respondents reported that mining activities 
in their villages lead to dust, noise pollution, and crop damage. 

The attraction of urban centres like Bengaluru, Kanakpura, Jigani, Anekal, 
etc, and the need for an improved lifestyle, have also prompted shifts from 
agriculture and dairying to factory-based and private jobs and daily-wage 
work. 

5. CONCLUSION 

The proximal stressors on this landscape—loss of commons and ecological 
corridors and the resultant HWC, tightening forest protection, mining, 
etc—could be broadly linked to two major drivers: urbanization and 
conservation. The pull factors of urbanization, including high demand for 
commodities like vegetables, milk, and construction material, along with 
changing aspirations, have incentivized the shift to alternative livelihoods. 
Meanwhile, the push factors of conservation—leading to increasing HWC 
and restricted access to forests—have pushed people out of forest-
dependent livelihoods, exacerbating the urbanization pull.  

Our field observations indicate that the impacts of these shifts are not felt 
equally across the spatial and social gradient; for instance, marginalized 
caste groups and people located closer to the forest are affected more by 
the lack of access to grazing lands, impacts of HWC, etc. Thus, it is crucial 



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [266] 

to further explore social and spatial differentiations in the impacts of 
urbanization on BNP for the effective integration and management of the 
PA in the rapidly urbanizing landscape.  

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

This research is funded by the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), 
Government of India, vide Grant No 
BT/IN/German/DFG/14/BVCR/2019. We would like to thank all our 
survey respondents for their valuable time. We are also grateful to our field 
enumerators for their support in conducting surveys around BNP. 

Ethics Statement: I hereby confirm that this study complies with 
requirements of ethical approvals from the institutional ethics committee 
for the conduct of this research. 

Data Availability Statement: The data used in this paper is not provided 
in a repository as the data collection and analysis is ongoing.  

Conflict of Interest Statement: No potential conflict of interest was 
reported by the author. 

REFERENCES 

CBD. 2022. “Protected Areas – An Overview.” Secretariat of the Convention on 
Biological Diversity (SCBD). https://www.cbd.int/protected/overview/.  

MoEFCC. 2020. “No. 25/12/16-ESZ-RE.” Ministry of Environment, Forests and 
Climate Change. Gazette of India: Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3 (ii), Annexure 
IV: 1–42. https://kspcb.karnataka.gov.in.  

Adhikari, Sanchayeeta, Timothy Fik, and Puneet Dwivedi. 2017. “Proximate Causes 
of Land-use and Land-cover Change in Bannerghatta National Park: A Spatial 
Statistical Model.” Forests, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8090342.  

Jayaprakash, Lingaraj G and Gordon M Hickey. 2019. “Mistaking the Map for the 
Territory: What Does the History of Bannerghatta National Park, India, Tell Us 
About the Study of Institutions?” Society and Natural Resources 32(12): 1433–1450. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2019.1643431.  

 Manjunath. K B. 2016. Working Plan for the Forests of Bengaluru Rural Division (2011–
12 to 2020–21). Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bengaluru Rural Division, 
Karnataka Forest Department. 
https://aranya.gov.in/new/newdownloads/WP/Bangalore%20Rural%20WP.pdf.  

Margulies, Jared D and Krithi K Karanth. 2018. “The Production of Human–
Wildlife Conflict: A Political Animal Geography of Encounter.” Geoforum 95: 153–
164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.06.011.   

McDonald, Robert I, Peter Kareiva, and Richard T T Forman. 2008. “The 
Implications of Current and Future Urbanization for Global Protected Areas and 

https://www.cbd.int/protected/overview/
https://kspcb.karnataka.gov.in/
https://doi.org/10.3390/f8090342
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2019.1643431
https://aranya.gov.in/new/newdownloads/WP/Bangalore%20Rural%20WP.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.06.011


[267] Bhaskar, Ramananda, and Sarang 

Biodiversity Conservation. Biological Conservation 141 (6): 1695–1703. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.04.025.  

McKinney, Michael L. 2002. “Urbanization, Biodiversity, and Conservation: The 
Impacts of Urbanization on Native Species are Poorly Studied, but Educating a 
Highly Urbanized Human Population About These Impacts can Greatly Improve 
Species Conservation in All Ecosystems.” Bioscience 52 (10): 883–890. 
https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0883:UBAC]2.0.CO;2.  

Ramachandra, T V, and Bharath Setturu. 2019. “Sustainable Management of 
Bannerghatta National Park, India, with the Insights in Land Cover Dynamics.” 
FIIB Business Review 8 (2): 118–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/2319714519828462.  

Rao, Mohit M. 2019. “Despite Objections, Bannerghatta National Park’s Eco-
sensitive Zone Curtailed.” The Hindu, March 15. 
https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/despite-objections-
bannerghatta-national-parks-eco-sensitive-zone-curtailed/article26537428.ece.  

Saklani, Arjun, Dilip Kumar, Aaranya Gayathri, and Avinash Krishnan. 2018. “The 
Railway-line Fence: A New Passive Elephant Barrier at Bannerghatta National 
Park, Southern India.” Gajah 48: 20–23. https://www.arocha.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/09/Saklani-et-al-2018-GAJAH-Railway-line-fence.pdf.  

Van Oijstaeijen, Wito, Steven Van Passel, and Jan Cools. 2020. “Urban Green 
Infrastructure: A Review on Valuation Toolkits from an Urban Planning 
Perspective.” Journal of Environmental Management 267. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110603.  

Varma, Surendra, Vijay D Anand, Gopalakrishna SP, KG Avinash, and Nishant 
MS. 2009. “Ecology, Conservation and Management of the Asian Elephant in 
Bannerghatta National Park, Southern India.” A Rocha India/Asian Elephant 
Ecology and Conservation Reference Series 1: 13–52.   

Venkataramana, Sreenivasa GV and HG Lingaraju. 2017. “An Assessment of Crop 

Damage and Economic Loss Caused by Elephants in Harohalli and Kodihalli 

Ranges of Bannerghatta National Park, Karnataka, India.” Current Science 161–167. 

https://doi.org/10.18520/cs/v113/i01/161-167  

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.04.025
https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052%5b0883:UBAC%5d2.0.CO;2
https://doi.org/10.1177/2319714519828462
https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/despite-objections-bannerghatta-national-parks-eco-sensitive-zone-curtailed/article26537428.ece
https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/despite-objections-bannerghatta-national-parks-eco-sensitive-zone-curtailed/article26537428.ece
https://www.arocha.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Saklani-et-al-2018-GAJAH-Railway-line-fence.pdf
https://www.arocha.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Saklani-et-al-2018-GAJAH-Railway-line-fence.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110603
https://doi.org/10.18520/cs/v113/i01/161-167

