Biological Conservation xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Biological Conservation
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon

Conservation and management in human-dominated landscapes:

Case studies from India
Krithi K. Karanth a,b,*, Ruth DeFries a
a
Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Biology, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA
b
Centre for Wildlife Studies, 1669, 31st Cross, 16th Main, Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bengaluru 560 070, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 26 November 2009 Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Received in revised form 2 May 2010
Accepted 8 May 2010
Available online xxxx

Keywords:
India
Landscapes
Protected areas
People
Species
Tropics

1. Introduction
A large and growing body of conservation literature exists for
understanding interactions between people and landscapes (De-
Fries et al., 2005, 2009; Nagendra, 2007; Joppa et al., 2008; Wittm-
yer et al., 2008). Countries in South Asia and India in particular,
face immense challenges posed by poverty, high densities of peo-
ple, rapidly changing landscapes, complicated political and institu-
tional regimes, and recent economic growth and urbanization.
These regions have historically supported and continue to support
high biodiversity, with significant conservation value. The high hu-
man populations and their dependence on landscapes for basic
livelihood needs create the imperative to balance broader conser-
vation objectives and human needs. We devote this issue to these
human-dominated landscapes. We assembled this issue based on
the premise that an evidence-based approach is a necessary step
to further discussion of appropriate approaches to address these
challenges. We focus on India as our main case study however
the issues covered here are widely applicable to other regions of
the world.
India is largely an agrarian country (46% of total land area cul-
tivated), with 57% of labor force dependent on agriculture (UN,
2006). India is home to 1.2 billion people and is projected to in-
* Corresponding author at: Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Biology,
Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA. Tel.: +1 9194919338.
E-mail addresses: krithi.karanth@gmail.com (K.K. Karanth), rd2402@columbia.e-
du (R. DeFries).
crease to 1.4 billion people by 2020 (UN, 2009). During the last
150 years, human population density has quadrupled from 80 to
324 people/km2 although density varies across biomes, ranging
from the deserts of Rajasthan to the fertile Gangetic Plain (Rang-
arajan, 2007). The majority (70%) of Indians live in rural areas in
poverty with 80% of rural people living on less than two dollars a
day (UN, 2009).
Despite high economic growth of approximately eight percent
over the last 15 years, the country ranks 88th out of 135 countries
under the Human Poverty Index (UN, 2009) and 134th out of 182
countries in the human development index (HDI) (although HDI
has risen annually for the last 29 years UN, 2009), and 128th out
of 182 for GDP per capita (UN, 2006).
Recent rapid economic and technological changes have im-
proved the lives of millions of people but there is now tremendous
development and political pressure to improve lives of all people.
Development efforts such as large scale expansion of infrastruc-
ture, basic services such as electricity and water, urbanization,
mining, dams, tourism are resulting in unplanned land use change
and exploitation of natural resources. These rapid changes make
this moment particularly pertinent to examine the conservation
challenges in India’s highly diverse and dynamic landscapes. India
is ranked as a megadiversity country (Briggs, 2003; Mittermeier
and Mittermeier, 2005). Rich biological diversity found in this
country includes >400 mammals (particularly the largest viable
populations of tigers and Asian elephants), and two global hotspots
the Western Ghats and Eastern Himalayas (Karanth et al., 2009).

0006-3207/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.05.002

Please cite this article in press as: Karanth, K.K., DeFries, R. Conservation and management in human-dominated landscapes: Case studies from India. Biol.
Conserv. (2010), doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.05.002
2 K.K. Karanth, R. DeFries / Biological Conservation xxx (2010) xxx–xxx
A British colony for almost 200 years resulted in a mixed conser-
vation legacy. Under the British East India Company’s rule there was
little forest management in India (Ribbentrop, 1900). Following
their victory in the first war of Indian independence (1857–1858),
the British crown seized political control and started an official sys-
tem of plantations to provide timber for military and construction of
an extensive railway network (Stebbing, 1920; Rangarajan, 1996;
Skaria, 1998). Initially, these plantations promoted only economi-
cally valuable tree species such as teak (Tectona grandis), sal (Shorea
robusta) and sandalwood (Santalum album) (Brandis, 1897). Other
species (wattle, rubber, and eucalyptus) were also planted to meet
industrial, structural and fuel wood needs of a growing human pop-
ulation (Ribbentrop, 1900; Stebbing, 1920). Forest working plans
modeled after European forestry systems were adopted extensively
(Ribbentrop, 1900; Rangarajan, 1998). These forest management
and inventorying efforts centralized the production of large and sus-
tainable timber volumes, generation of forest cash revenue, and
environmental conservation (Guha, 1983; Rajan, 1998). Govern-
ment managed forests and hunting reserves provided the land base
for much of India’s current protected area system. Gradually forest
management spread through a network of reserved, protected, and
unclassified forests. Forest laws recognized and assigned ownership
to the state, to individuals, and to communities. These laws estab-
lished India’s forest plantations and game sanctuaries. In 1889–
1990, there were 145,040 km2 of reserved forests, and 51,800 km2
of government protected forests. By 1920, there were
636,912 km2 of government-controlled forests and 332,297 km2 in
the native states and under private ownership (Stebbing, 1920).
Regulations in state controlled forests sometimes extended into
wildlife protection, and some forests were effective at conserving
species (Russell, 1900; Stebbing, 1920).
Forest management was accompanied by colonial policies that
encouraged intensive and widespread trophy and bounty hunting
of large carnivores, and other species during the 1850s–1920s in
India (Simson, 1886; Aflalo, 1904; Wardrop, 1923). This led to large
scale local extinctions of many large mammals across India (Kar-
anth et al., 2010a). The above changes in colonial forest and wild-
life management policies were coterminous with massive changes
in human numbers, activities and attitudes, with major conse-
quences for ecological landscape and wildlife habitats. Large ex-
tents of dry scrub and forested areas were irrigated and
intensively cultivated. Expansion of agricultural frontiers and
establishment of plantations resulted in shrinking habitats in the
Indian plains which forced many species to become restricted to
forests (Russell, 1900; Dunbar-Brander, 1934; Rangarajan, 1998).
Deforestation of any unreserved and unprotected forests occurred
on a large scale (Brandis, 1897; Rangarajan, 2001). In 1880, 32% of
land was cultivated and 32% of land was under forests. By 1980,
44% of land was cultivated and legal forests had shrunk to less than
20% of land area (Flint, 1998). Traditional slash and burn agricul-
ture also severely affected much of the country, particularly hill-
side forests of northeastern India (Ribbentrop, 1900; BNHS, 1934).
Post-independence the Indian government passed many wildlife
laws and formally established many protected areas. India’s current
PA network covers between 3% and 4% of total area (WDPA, 2009).
These protected areas (PAs) face immense pressures such as frag-
mentation, grazing, forest product collection, commercial mining,
tourism, and human-wildlife conflicts (Madhusudan and Karanth,
2000; Barve et al., 2005; Das et al., 2006; Karanth et al., 2006; Bali
et al., 2007; Krishnaswamy et al., 2006; Nagendra, 2007; Gubbi
and MacMillan, 2009; Karanth and DeFries, in preparation). Conser-
vation efforts in India are complex and contentious (Karanth et al.,
2008). Deep divisions exist between practitioners, policy makers,
academics and government officials about efforts to stem species
losses and extinctions, state versus local management of resources,
the rights of people living inside and around PAs, and impact of
Please cite this article in press as: Karanth, K.K., DeFries, R. Conservation and management in human-dominated landscapes: Case studies from India. Biol.
Conserv. (2010), doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.05.002
development initiatives and commercial activities (Bagchi et al.,
2003; Saberwal and Rangarajan, 2003; Karanth et al., 2004, 2009;
TTF, 2005; Ravan et al., 2005; Kumar and Shahabuddin, 2006; Kar-
anth, 2007; Namgail et al., 2007; Shahabuddin and Rangarajan,
2007; Datta et al., 2008; Varma, 2009). There is consensus that
PAs in India are effective in conservation, but opinions are far more
divided about whether people can live inside PAs sustainably (Kar-
anth et al., 2008). There is growing concern that much of biodiver-
sity in this human-dominated landscape will be lost by the end of
this century unless alternative approaches are developed.
India has its unique ecological history and conservation chal-
lenges. However, the topics we examine in this special issue extend
beyond India. Conservation research efforts (particularly in hu-
man-dominated landscapes) that look beyond administrative
boundaries of protected areas to incorporate people and land uses
in PA’s surroundings will be valuable to other regions. The nine pa-
pers in this special issue cover three broad themes: (1) role of pro-
tected areas in human-dominated landscapes, (2) livelihood–
conservation conflicts, (3) conservation challenges and alternative
approaches to mitigate conflicts.
2. Role of protected areas in human-dominated landscapes
Protected areas are essential to conservation efforts globally.
They cover between 13% and 17% of land globally, but only 5.8%
are strictly protected (Chape et al., 2008; Jenkins and Joppa,
2009). The extent of global PA coverage varies from 10% in South
America, 12% in South-east Asia, and 9% in Sub-Saharan Africa
(Zimmerer et al., 2004). We present a series of papers that examine
the role of protected areas and their importance to conservation,
surrounding landscapes, wildlife and people (Davidar et al., 2010;
DeFries et al., 2010; Karanth et al., 2010b; Nagendra et al., 2010;
Ranganathan et al., 2010; Vaidyanathan et al., 2010). Three papers
examine forest use, degradation and recovery using remote sensing,
field based measurements and household interviews (Davidar et al.,
2010; Nagendra et al., 2010; Vaidyanathan et al., 2010). These pa-
pers illustrate that local people widely use natural resources but
extraction may not be sustainable (Davidar et al., 2010). Manage-
ment of protected areas requires understanding of social and eco-
logical interactions between park resources and people living
inside and outside of them. Nagendra et al. (2010) and Vaidyana-
than et al. (2010) address how people are impacted by park
management actions, and how processes such as protection effec-
tiveness and climate influence recovery. Nagendra et al. (2010) find
interior villages have a negative impact on regeneration, but forest
cover change and fragmentation are much greater at the park
periphery. They suggest that park authorities focus on protecting
the peripheral areas of the park from severe degradation by sur-
rounding villages. Vaidyanathan et al. (2010) find that human set-
tlements differentially impact flora and fauna. They find declines
and recovery of forest cover, and positive feedbacks from human
uses, management practices and protection effectiveness. Vaidya-
nathan et al. (2010) suggest that management actions require
knowledge of long term bioclimatic processes and their interactions
with human activities on the ground as remotely sensed data can-
not effectively detect these processes under the canopy.
Other papers address the role of lands outside protected areas
in maintaining biodiversity. Adjacent to many PAs, particularly in
the hotspot of the Western Ghats are large agro-landscapes. Ranga-
nathan et al. (2010) examine how agro-ecosystems such as coffee
and areca landscapes influence avian community composition.
They find that retention of tropical forest avian communities with-
in human-dominated landscapes critically depends on the mainte-
nance of nearby intact forest. However, they find that remotely-
sensed surrogates were effective in characterizing species richness
 K.K. Karanth, R. DeFries / Biological Conservation xxx (2010) xxx–xxx
and compositional variability only for the areca and not for the cof-
fee landscape. Remnant forests, particularly forest fragments
embedded within a human use matrix present an important
opportunity to conserve avian diversity and extend conservation
efforts outside protected areas by incorporating these large areas
into land management policies.
Karanth et al. (2010b) examine species occurrence in relation to
ecological and social covariates (protected areas, landscape charac-
teristics, and human influences) using primates as a focus group.
They find protected areas positively influence occurrence of seven
primate species, while lower human population density was posi-
tively associated with occurrence of five species, and higher cul-
tural tolerance was associated with occurrence of three species.
Many wildlife species in India depend critically on protected areas,
however supporting people’s tolerance and alternative land uses
will enhance conservation efforts in India.
The need for regional-scale land use planning around protected
areas is acute in human-dominated landscapes to balance conser-
vation goals with livelihood needs for fuelwood, fodder, and other
ecosystem services. DeFries et al. (2010) examine a ‘‘zone of inter-
action” (ZOI) around protected areas that encompasses hydrologic,
ecological, and socioeconomic interactions between a protected
area and the surrounding landscape. They illustrate how a ZOI
can be delineated in three well-known Indian parks (Kanha, Ran-
thambore, and Nagarahole) using remote sensing, population cen-
sus, and field data. The three examples highlight the differing
extents of ZOIs when applying equivalent criteria, even though
all are located in densely-populated landscapes. Quantitative
understanding of which activities (e.g. collection of forest products,
grazing, road construction, tourism development) and which loca-
tions within the ZOI are most crucial to conservation goals will al-
low improved scientific input into land use planning around
protected areas in human-dominated landscapes.
3. Livelihood–conservation linkages
A second theme involves livelihood-conservation challenges
(Agarwala et al., 2010; Davidar et al., 2010; Nagendra et al.,
2010; Vaidyanathan et al., 2010). The issue of human-wildlife con-
flicts and role of compensation is examined using wolves as a focal
species by Agrawala et al. (2010) using sites in India and USA. Neg-
ative attitudes towards wolves are common in both sites, but more
extreme in the US. They find compensation programs have little ef-
fect on changing attitudes. Agrawala et al. (2010) suggest that
management goals, definitions of success and practices will require
clearer guidelines to be effective for conserving species.
The role and importance of forest products to people’s liveli-
hoods and impacts on forest degradation is examined by Davidar
et al. (2010) in four sites in India. They find that forest resources
such as fuelwood, fodder, non-timber forest products, and dung
are collected for household consumption and commercial markets.
Protection measures affect income-generating extraction rather
than subsistence needs. They question the sustainability of unreg-
ulated extraction of forest products and suggest viable alternatives.
Nagendra et al. (2010) and Vaidyanathan et al. (2010) examine
land use change, fragmentation and impacts on local communities
using remote sensing, field based mapping and interviews. They
find that people inside and outside the park depend on forest re-
sources and differentially impact habitat inside.
4. Conservation challenges and alternative approaches to
mitigate conflict
The third emerging theme presents approaches to improve con-
servation by incorporating factors such as human attitudes and
Please cite this article in press as: Karanth, K.K., DeFries, R. Conservation and management in human-dominated landscapes: Case studies from India. Biol.
Conserv. (2010), doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.05.002
3
cultural tolerance (Agarwala et al., 2010; Persha et al., 2010; Kar-
anth et al., 2010b; Ranganathan et al,. 2010; Rastogi et al., 2010;
Shahabuddin and Rao, 2010; Vaidyanathan et al., 2010). Conserva-
tion policies often overlook the contribution of alternative gover-
nance regimes and landscapes towards biodiversity conservation.
Persha et al. (2010) examine if forest commons can enhance con-
servation outcomes and minimize tradeoffs between local liveli-
hoods and conservation. They find forest commons in South Asia
are able to provide higher levels of livelihoods while maintaining
higher plant species richness. Persha et al. (2010) and Ranganathan
et al. (2010) show that forest commons and remnant forests found
in the larger landscapes present an important extension to main-
taining landscape and ecological connectivity. Shahabuddin and
Rao (2010) examine the effectiveness of community-conserved
areas (CCAs) in biodiversity conservation. They find that CCAs rep-
resent a significant improvement relative to open access areas, yet
fall short of the needs of comprehensive biological conservation.
They recommend that CCAs provide support to existing protected
areas. CCAs are found to conserve an altered species complement
compared to the native fauna and tend to lose some elements of
biodiversity, often high conservation value species that may be
habitat-restricted, specialized or endemic. They suggest that
restrictions on use and the enforcement of regulations appear to
be vitally important for community-managed and/or owned areas
to successfully conserve the full range of biodiversity.
Other papers illustrate the role of factors that park managers of-
ten do not consider. Vaidyanathan et al. (2010) find that biocli-
matic processes measured in time play an important role in
regulating recovery and regeneration of forested areas. Cultural
tolerance in India for wildlife species from local to regional scales
(Agarwala et al., 2010; Karanth et al., 2010b) has an important role
to play in conserving wildlife amidst human-dominated land-
scapes. Rastogi et al. (2010) apply stake holder analysis to identify
important stake holder groups and to assist the managers of a PA
with future policy formulation and implementation. Their analysis
reveals divergent opinions and alliances that may need strengthen-
ing to guarantee the welfare of an Indian PA. They suggest that
addressing low levels of knowledge and misplaced information
among local people may be of strategic importance in reducing
conflict against a PA.
The papers presented in this issue represent collaborations be-
tween practitioners and academics in India and abroad. Human-
dominated landscapes present one of the most challenging land-
scapes for conservation today. We believe that biodiversity conser-
vation and human welfare efforts can be strengthened by
deploying multiple strategies that integrate protected areas, com-
munity-conserved areas, forest commons and large agro-ecosys-
tems common to many tropical landscapes. The livelihood
requirements of people living in proximity to PAs are many, and re-
quire innovative strategies that promote sustainability. Managing
the PAs and the matrix of alternative land uses surrounding them
requires better understanding of local human needs, improved
protection efforts, adaptability to changing climate and harnessing
people’s tolerance for wild places and species. We use India as an
example but the approaches are applicable to many human-natu-
ral coupled systems. Human-dominated landscapes are extensive,
particularly across Asia. We hope the issue provides valuable in-
sights into the challenges and approaches to balance conservation
goals and livelihood needs in human-dominated landscapes.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank R. Primack and R. Corlett for all encour-
agement and support in producing this special issue. We would
like thank P. Robbins, A. Chhangani, K.U. Karanth, M. Vale, M. Ade-
ney, S.R. Loarie, J. Sexton, C.N. Jenkins, A. Chhatre, P. Trivedi, P.J.
4 K.K. Karanth, R. DeFries / Biological Conservation xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

Nyhus, B. Pandav, N. Sodhi, R. Badola, A. Datta, S. Gubbi, A. Das, M. Kudremukh, Western Ghats, India. Forest Ecology and Management 224, 187–
198.
Holland, H. Nagendra, J. Krishnaswamy, R. Marrs, G. Sundar, K.S.
Kumar, R., Shahabuddin, G., 2006. Effects of biomass extraction on vegetation
Martin and others for their help. structure, diversity and composition of forests in Sariska Tiger Reserve, India.
Environmental Conservation 32, 1–12.
Madhusudan, M.D., Karanth, K.U., 2000. Hunting for an answer: is local hunting
References compatible with wildlife conservation in India? In: Robinson, J.G., Bennet, E.L.
(Eds.), Hunting for Sustainability in Tropical Forests. Columbia University Press,
New York, USA.
Agarwala, M., Kumar, S., Treves, A., Naughton-Treves, L., 2010. Paying for wolves in
Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., 2005. Megadiversity: Earth’s Biologically
Solapur, India and Wisconsin, USA: comparing compensation rules and practice
Wealthiest Nations, Cemex.
to understand the goals and politics of wolf conservation. Biological
Nagendra, H., 2007. Drivers of reforestation in human-dominated forests.
Conservation, this issue, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.05.003.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, 15218–15223.
Aflalo, A.F., 1904. The Sportsman’s Book for India. Horace Marshall and Sons, UK.
Nagendra, H., Rocchini, D., Ghate, R., 2010. Beyond parks as monoliths: spatially
Bagchi, S., Goyal, S.P., Sankar, K., 2003. Prey abundance and prey selection by tigers
differentiating park-people relationships in the Tadoba Andhari Tiger Reserve in
(Panthera tigris) in a semi-arid, dry deciduous forest in western India. Journal of
India. Biological Conservation, this issue, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.050.
Zoology 260, 285–290.
Namgail, T., Fox, J.L., Bhatnagar, Y.V., 2007. Carnivore-caused livestock mortality in
Bali, A., Kumar, A., Krishnaswamy, J., 2007. The mammalian communities in coffee
trans-himalaya. Environmental Management 39, 490–496.
plantations around a protected area in the Western Ghats, India. Biological
Persha, L., Fischer, H., Chhatre, A., Agrawal, A., Benson, C., 2010. Biodiversity
Conservation 139, 93–102.
conservation and livelihoods in human-dominated landscapes: forest commons
Barve, N., Kiran, M.C., Vanaraj, G., Aravind, N.A., Rao, D., Shaanker, R.U., Ganeshaiah,
in South Asia. Biological Conservation, this issue, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.
K.N., Poulsen, J.G., 2005. Measuring and mapping threats to a wildlife sanctuary
03.003.
in southern India. Conservation Biology 19, 122–130.
Rajan, R., 1998. Imperial environmentalism or environmental imperialism?
BNHS, 1934. The Wild Animals of India. Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay,
European forestry, colonial foresters and the agendas of forest management
India.
in British India 1800–1900. In: Groves, R.H., Damodaran, V., Sangwan, S. (Eds.),
Brandis, D., 1897. Forestry in India Origins and Early Developments. Oriental
Nature and the Orient: The Environmental History of South and Southeast Asia.
Institute, Poona, India.
Oxford University Press, New Delhi, India.
Briggs, J., 2003. The biogeographic and tectonic history of India. Journal of
Ranganathan, J , Krishnaswamy, J., Anand, M.O., 2010. Landscape-level effects on
Biogeography 30, 381–388.
avifauna within tropical agriculture in the Western Ghats: insights for
Chape, S., Spalding, M.D., Jenkins, M.D. (Eds.), 2008. The World’s Protected Areas:
management and conservation. Biological Conservation, this issue,
Status, Values, and Prospects in the Twenty-first Century. University of
doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.018.
California Press, Berkeley.
Rangarajan, M., 1996. Fencing the Forest. Conservation and Ecological Change in
Das, A., Krishnaswamy, J., Bawa, K.S., Kiran, M.C., Srinivas, V., Kumar, N.S., Karanth,
India’s Central Provinces 1860–1914. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, India.
K.U., 2006. Prioritization of conservation areas in the Western Ghats, India.
Rangarajan, M., 1998. Production, desiccation and forest management in the central
Biological Conservation 133, 16–31.
provinces 1850–1930. In: Groves, R.H., Damodaran, V., Sangwan, S. (Eds.),
Datta, A., Anand, M.O., Naniwadekar, R., 2008. Empty forests: large carnivore and
Nature and the Orient: The Environmental History of South and Southeast Asia.
prey abundance in Namdapha National Park, north-east India. Biological
Oxford University Press, New Delhi, India.
Conservation 141, 1429–1435.
Rangarajan, M., 2001. Indias Wildlife History. Permanent Black, New Delhi, India.
Davidar, P., Sahoo, S., Mammen, P.C., Acharya, P., Puyravaud, J.-P., Arjunan, M.,
Rangarajan, M., 2007. Retreating elephant, vanishing tiger, the environmental
Garrigues, J.P., Roessingh, K., 2010. Assessing the extent and causes of forest
legacies of India and China. In: Pande, I. (Ed.), India at Sixty. Harper Collins,
degradation in India: where do we stand? Biological Conservation, this issue,
Delhi, India.
doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.032.
Rastogi, A., Badola, R., Hussain, S.A., Hickey, G.M., 2010. Assessing the utility of
DeFries, R., Hansen, A.J., Turner II, B.L., Reid, R., Liu, J., 2005. Increasing isolation of
stakeholder analysis to Protected Areas management: the case of Corbett
protected areas in tropical forests over the past twenty years. Ecological
National Park, India. Biological Conservation, this issue, doi:10.1016/
Applications 15, 19–26.
j.biocon.2010.04.039.
DeFries, R., Rovero, F., Wright, P.C., Ahumada, J., Andelman, S.J., Brandon, K.,
Ravan, S.A., Dixit, A.M., Mathur, V.B., 2005. Spatial analysis for identification and
Dempewolf, J., Hansen, A., Hewson, J., Liu, J., 2009. From plot to landscape scale:
evaluation of forested corridors between protected areas in Central India.
linking tropical biodiversity measurements across spatial scales. Frontiers in
Current Science 88, 1441–1448.
Ecology and the Environment. doi:10.1890/080104.
Ribbentrop, B., 1900. Forestry in British India. Calcutta Government Press, Calcutta,
DeFries, R., Karanth, K.K., Pareeth, S., 2010. Interactions between protected areas
India.
and their surroundings in human-dominated tropical landscapes. Biological
Russell, C.E.M., 1900. Bullet and Shot in Indian Forest, Plain and Hill. Thacker and Co.
Conservation, this issue, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.02.010.
Ltd., Bombay, India.
Dunbar-Brander, A.A., 1934. The Central Provinces. The Preservation of Wildlife in
Saberwal, V., Rangarajan, M., 2003. Introduction. In: Saberwal, V., Rangarajan, M.
India. BNHS, Diocesan Press, Madras, India.
(Eds.), Battles Over Nature: Science and Politics of Conservation. Permanent
Flint, E.P., 1998. Deforestation and land use in Northern India with a focus on Sal
Black, New Delhi, India.
(Shorea robusta) forests 1880–1980. In: Groves, R.H., Damodaran, V., Sangwan,
Shahabuddin, G., Rangarajan, M., 2007. Introduction. In: Shahabuddin, G.,
S. (Eds.), Nature and the Orient: The Environmental History of South and
Rangarajan, M. (Eds.), Making Conservation Work. Permanent Black, New
Southeast Asia. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, India.
Delhi, India.
Gubbi, S., MacMillan, D.C., 2009. Can non-timber forest products solve livelihood
Shahabuddin, G., Rao, M., 2010. Do community-conserved areas effectively
problems? A case study from Periyar Tiger Reserve, India. Oryx 42, 222–228.
conserve biological diversity? Global insights and the Indian context.
Guha, R., 1983. Forestry in British and Post-British India: an historical analysis.
Biological Conservation, this issue, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.040.
Economic and Political Weekly 17, 1882–1896.
Simson, F.B., 1886. Letters on Sport in East Bengal. Taylor and Francis, London,
Jenkins, C.N., Joppa, L.N., 2009. Expansion of the global protected area system.
UK.
Biological Conservation 142, 2166–2174.
Skaria, A., 1998. Timber conservancy, desiccation and scientific forestry: the dangs
Joppa, L.N., Loarie, S.R., Pimm, S.L., 2008. On the protection of protected areas.
1840s–1920s. In: Groves, R.H., Damodaran, V., Sangwan, S. (Eds.), Nature and
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, 6673–6678.
the Orient: The Environmental History of South and Southeast Asia. Oxford
Karanth, K.K., 2007. Making resettlement work: the case of India’s Bhadra wildlife
University Press, New Delhi, India.
sanctuary. Biological Conservation 139, 315–324.
Stebbing, E.P., 1920. The Diary of a Sportsman Naturalist in India. John Lane, the
Karanth, K.U., Nichols, J.D., Kumar, S.N., Link, W.A., Hines, J.E., 2004. Tigers and their
Bodely Head, London, UK.
prey: predicting carnivore densities from prey abundance. Proceedings of the
Tiger Task Force, 2005. The Report of Tiger Task Force: Joining the Dots, Project
National Academy of Sciences 101, 4854–4858.
Tiger. Union Ministry of Forests, Government of India, New Delhi.
Karanth, K.K., Curran, L.M., Reuning-Scherer, J.D., 2006. Village size and forest
UN, 2006. Human Development Report. Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty, and the
disturbance in Bhadra wildlife sanctuary, Western Ghats, India. Biological
Global Water Crisis. United Nations Development Programme. Palgrave
Conservation 128, 147–157.
Macmillan, New York, USA.
Karanth, K.K., Kramer, R., Qian, S., Christensen, N.L., 2008. Conservation attitudes,
UN, 2009. Human Development Report. Overcoming Barriers: Human Mobility and
perspectives and challenges in India, 2008. Biological Conservation 141, 2357–
Development. United Nations Development Programme. Palgrave Macmillan,
2367.
New York, USA.
Karanth, K.K., Nichols, J.D., Hines, J.E., Karanth, K.U., Christensen, N.L., 2009. Patterns
Vaidyanathan, S., Krishnaswamy, J., Samba Kumar, N., Dhanwatey, H., Dhanwatey,
and determinants of species occurrence. Journal of Applied Ecology 46, 1189–
P., Karanth, K.U., 2010. Patterns of tropical forest dynamics and human impacts:
1200.
views from above and below the canopy. Biological Conservation, this issue,
Karanth, K.K., Nichols, J.D., Karanth, K.U., Hines, J.E., Christensen, N.L., 2010a. The
doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.027.
shrinking ark: patterns of large mammal extinctions in India. Proceedings of the
Varma, K., 2009. The Asiatic lion and Maldharis of Gir Forest: an assessment of
Royal Society London – B 277, 1971–1979.
Indian eco-development. The Journal of Environment and Development 18,
Karanth, K.K., Nichols, J.D., Hines, J.E., 2010b. Occurrence and distribution of Indian
154–176.
primates. Biological Conservation, this issue, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.02.011.
Wardrop, A.E., 1923. Days and Nights with Indian Big Game. MacMillan and Co.,
Krishnaswamy, J., Bunyan, M., Mehta, V.K., Jain, N., Karanth, K.U., 2006. Impact of
London, UK.
iron ore mining on suspended sediment response in a tropical catchment in

Please cite this article in press as: Karanth, K.K., DeFries, R. Conservation and management in human-dominated landscapes: Case studies from India. Biol.
Conserv. (2010), doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.05.002
 K.K. Karanth, R. DeFries / Biological Conservation xxx (2010) xxx–xxx 5

WDPA, 2009. World Database on Protected Areas. World Conservation Union (IUCN) Zimmerer, K.S., Galt, R.E., Buck, M.V., 2004. Globalization and multi-spatial trends in
and UNEP World Monitoring Center (UNEP-WCMC). the coverage of protected-area conservation (1980–2000). AMBIO 33, 520–
Wittmyer, G., Elsen, P., Bean, W.T., Burton, A.C.O., Brashares, J.S., 2008. Accelerated 529.
human population growth at protected area edges. Science 321, 123–126.

Please cite this article in press as: Karanth, K.K., DeFries, R. Conservation and management in human-dominated landscapes: Case studies from India. Biol.
Conserv. (2010), doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.05.002
View publication stats