Journal of Cleaner Production 356 (2022) 131763

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Assessment of forest cover loss and impacts on ecosystem services: Coupling

of remote sensing data and people’s perception in the dry deciduous forest
of West Bengal, India
Dipankar Bera *, Nilanjana Das Chatterjee , Subrata Ghosh , Santanu Dinda , Sudip Bera ,
Mrinmay Mandal
Department of Geography, Vidyasagar University, Midnapore, 721102, West Bengal, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Bin Chen Forest loss is one of the major environmental issues and is threatening livelihoods across the world. Under­
standing the drivers of forest cover loss in the different forest cover densities and its impacts on ecosystem
Keywords: services are relevant for sustainable management of the forest ecosystem. Extensive studies exploring topics
Forest loss related to spatial-temporal deforestation, little is known regarding quantitative forest loss by individual distur­
Forest disturbance drivers
bance driver and people’s perceptions of forest loss’s impacts on provisioning ecosystem services. The present
Ecosystem services
study focused on trends and patterns of forest loss by forest disturbance drivers in the different forest cover
Google Earth Engine
Landsat densities and its impacts on provisioning ecosystem services integrated with remote sensing data and local
Dry deciduous forest people’s perceptions in the dry deciduous forest of West Bengal. This study employs stratified probability
Collect Earth Online sampling approach using time series Landsat data on Google Earth Engine platform to quantify forest loss be­
tween 2006 and 2020 in the different pre-disturbance forest cover densities by forest disturbance drivers.
Structured household interviews were used to examine local people’s perceptions about forest cover loss and its
impacts on ecosystem services. We found that 68.463% of forest area is cleared by disturbance drivers between
2006 and 2020. Annual rate of forest clearing is increasing trend and dominating in dense forests, followed by
medium forests and open forests. Logging and agricultural clearing was the most dominant drivers over space
and time. Overall 73.92% of households perceived decline in the availability of provisioning ecosystem services.
Wild foods and medicinal plants were the most affected ecosystem services followed by livestock feed, con­
struction materials and fuel wood. This study may help to the regional assessment of gross forest loss by indi­
vidual disturbance driver, and its impacts on provisioning ecosystem services for supporting decision making to
sustainable forest management.

1. Introduction
The loss of forest cover is one of the major anthropogenic factors
responsible for the deterioration in ecosystem services (Balthazar et al.,
2015; Fang et al., 2021) and carbon sequestration capacity (Le Quéré
et al., 2009; Pan et al., 2011). Though deforestation rates at the global
level have decreased in the past decade, there are numerous localities
and nations where deforestation rates continue to increase. (FAO, 2015).
Reduction of forest cover is larger mainly in tropical developing coun­
tries due to heavy dependence on the forest recourses for livelihoods
(Hosonuma et al., 2012). In developing countries, tropical forests are
exploited for different purposes such as shifting cultivation, expansion of
pasture land, the harvest of industrial wood, the harvest of fuel wood,
expansion of agriculture, draining and burning of peatland, tree plan­
tation and fires (Houghton, 2012). Agricultural expansion is the main
cause of forest cover loss in tropical countries (Kanninen et al., 2007)
followed by infrastructure development and wood extraction (Geist and
Lambin, 2002). But drivers of forest cover loss vary from global to local
scale and all drivers do not have equal impacts (Curtis et al., 2018).
Associated drivers interact in critical and complex ways and making our
understanding incomplete at the local level (Brown and Schreckenberg,
1998). Therefore, understanding the drivers requires not only broader
scale (Lambin et al., 2003), also local scale quantitative assessment of
forest cover loss by disturbance drivers provide complete things within a

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: rsge_dipberageo@mail.vidyasagar.ac.in (D. Bera), nilanjana_vu@mail.vidyasagar.ac.in (N.D. Chatterjee).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131763
Received 14 August 2021; Received in revised form 4 January 2022; Accepted 12 April 2022
Available online 20 April 2022
0959-6526/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Bera et al.
landscape which help to take a decision for sustainable management
(Shriar, 2014).
Forest cover loss impacts on the ecosystem services, namely provi­
sioning, cultural, regulating and supporting services (Gouwakinnou
et al., 2019). Among these services, provisioning ecosystem services
have direct impacts on the local scale in the livelihoods of rural people
who directly depend on the forest for various services including, food,
fodder, fuelwood, and non-timber forest products (Ellison et al., 2017;
Gray et al., 2015). The availability of provisioning ecosystem services
depends on the location, utility and exert capability of the societies in a
given biogeographical and socio-economic context (Ngom et al., 2014).
Change in the availability of provisioning ecosystem services may create
vulnerable condition for the well-being (Millennium Ecosystem Assess­
ment, 2005). Information about ecosystem services are very significant
in term of cleaner production and maintain the services in future for
livelihoods (Liu et al., 2018). So, it is important to know how local
people perceived the availability of provisioning ecosystem services
with forest cover loss who are the main actors in forest cover loss and
direct beneficiaries of these services (Gouwakinnou et al., 2019).
Until recent studies, researchers have applied many different algo­
rithms to assess the forest cover change, such as Bayesian Updating of
Land Cover (BULC) algorithm (Fortin et al., 2020), Classification And
Regression Trees (CART) algorithm (Potapov et al., 2012), Least Square
Moving Average (LSMA) analysis (Mayes et al., 2015), Support Vector
Machine (SVM) algorithm, and Random forest (RF) algorithm (Senf
et al., 2020) of time series satellite data. Limited studies are based on
probability sampling of reference data, which provide better accuracy
rather than counting map pixels (Olofsson et al., 2014). Also, limited
studies based on quantitative assessment of forest cover loss by associ­
ated drivers (Tyukavina et al., 2017, 2018) at the national level, but
have not assessment at the local level in different forest cover densities
with impacts of forest cover loss on the ecosystem services. Most of the
previous studies differentiate forests as primary forests, secondary for­
ests, primary woodland and dry forests, and plantation, then measure
the forest loss in each forest type at the national level (Potapov et al.,
2012; Tyukavina et al., 2018). But, distinguished forest loss by forest
cover density (dense, medium, and open forests) is very important
because carbon storage, biodiversity value and driving factors differ
significantly from low canopy cover density to high canopy cover den­
sity. Although, few studies have shown impacts of forest cover change
on livelihoods based on local people experience (Ehara et al., 2016;
Thanichanon et al., 2013). However, these studies lack explaining forest
cover loss by disturbance drivers and impacts of forest loss on provi­
sioning ecosystem services over the landscape with the integration of
remote sensing and people’s perceptions. People’s perceptions can
minimize the gaps between satellite data and ground truth as well as
reflect community view toward the past forest cover and benefits of
availability of ecosystem services (Ahammad et al., 2019).
In India, National Forest Inventory (NFI) provides essential data
about forest cover for formulating national forest policy, monitoring and
forecasting (Tewari, 2016). In 2008, Forest Survey of India (FSI)
launched a new study to measure the components of forest biomass that
are not measured by NFI, as required under REDD+. These studies
provide spatial-temporal information of forest cover and biomass stock,
but have not addressed the forest cover loss by individual disturbance
drivers and impacts on provisioning ecosystem services. Recently, the
Joint Forest Management (JFM) policy has been promoting forest pro­
tection and small-scale afforestation. But, JFM has achieved limited
success in identifying the proper cause of forest cover loss, and its direct
impacts on human beings. The global forest loss data are now available
(Hansen et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2014), but lack of explaining local level
forest cover loss and also lack of integrated assessment of forest cover
loss by associated drivers and impacts of forest cover loss. Also, global
level all datasets may overestimate or underestimate the area of forest
cover change at the local level (Tyukavina et al., 2018).
Within this context, there is no study available for understanding the
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 356 (2022) 131763
forest loss by forest disturbance drivers in different forest cover densities
and its impacts on provisioning ecosystem services integrated with
remote sensing data and local people’s perceptions in the dry deciduous
forests. Historically forest has an important role in the livelihoods in this
region (Dinda et al., 2020), but enormous population pressure and un­
informed management increase deforestation in the recent period.
Limited availability of data on forest cover loss by associated drivers and
its impacts on ecosystem services in this region poses further challenges
to sustainable management. There have been no evidence-based studies
undertaken to understand forest loss by associated drivers in the
different forest cover densities, and how forest cover loss affects
ecosystem services at the local level. Therefore, in this study we focused
on some specific questions: a) What are the major drivers of forest loss
across the southwestern region of West Bengal; b) How does the relative
magnitude of these drivers vary between forest densities (dense, mod­
erate, and open forests)?; c) what is the temporal trend of forest cover
loss in each pre-disturbance forest cover density and forest disturbance
driver; d) what are the local people’s perceptions about forest cover and
availability of provisioning ecosystem services? To achieve these ques­
tions this study was designed to analyse forest cover loss using proba­
bility sampling approach, identify associated driving factors from
reference data and impacts on provisional ecosystem services using
people’s perception in the dry deciduous forest of West Bengal. The
present research emphasized on the integrated implication of remote
sensing data to analyse forest cover loss using Google Earth Engine and
local people’s perception to analyse impacts on ecosystem service of
forest cover loss for sustainable management.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Description of the study area
The study area is located south-western part of West Bengal.
Geographically, the locational extent of this area is 22◦ 10′ 15′′ N to 24◦
09′ 54′′ N and 85◦ 49′ 35′′ E to 88◦ 14′ 07′′ E. This area covers the full part
of Purulia, Bankura, and the maximum part of Birbhum, Bardhaman,
Jhargram, Paschim Medinipur and the few parts of Murshidabad, Nadia,
Hugli, Purba Medinipur and Haora district of West Bengal (Fig. 1). The
study area covers approximately 3,201,000 ha and 36% of total
geographical area of the state of West Bengal.
The forest type is typical dry deciduous forest, and principal species
of this area are Shorea robusta, Anogeissus latifolia, Terminalia tomentosa,
Pterocarpus marsupium, Madhuka latifolia, Schleichera trijuga, Boswellia
serrata, Terminalia belerica (WBFD, 2018). Topographically, this tropical
dry deciduous forest is a plateau fringe zone also the dominance of
scrubs and thorny bushes. The climate is tropical wet and dry (AW)
according to the Köppen-Geiger climate classification (Beck et al.,
2018). The middle and western parts are received less rainfall (annual
1236–1288 mm) than north eastern part (annual 1287–1353 mm) and
south eastern part (annual 1436–1749 mm) (Climate and Weather Av­
erages in West Bengal, India, 1998). Dominated soil is lateritic soil with
humus content in the surface layer but, somewhere old alluvial soil
dominating in the eastern part of the study area especially the track
bounded by the river.
2.2. Field observation
Field observation is a pre-required thing to determine the direct
drivers of forest loss, and nature of forest cover as well as to understand
how people are interrelated with forests. A ground survey was con­
ducted in the month of February 2021 in the different parts (most
affected forest loss areas from global forest loss map of Hansen et al.
(2013) between 2006 and 2020) of the study region to identify the forest
disturbance drivers. We visited different forest loss patches, and also
interviews were conducted with neighbouring households, villagers,
(who are knowledgeable about forest) and forest rangers in the study
D. Bera et al.
Fig. 1. Location of the study area.
region. We asked to the respondents two question: 1) what is the cause of
forest loss to your neighbourhood patches?; and 2) what are the major
drivers of forest loss around your village and surroundings over the time
period? After that, disturbance drivers are categories into six types such
as, logging, agriculture, roads, settlements, fires, and other (flooding,
windfalls, droughts, and river meandering) which are distinguishable
and measurable using remote sensing. Livestock grazing, artisanal wood
marketing, timber and fuel collection are also present in the study re­
gion. But it is almost impossible to quantify the area affected by these
drivers, and these drivers not resulting in significant canopy loss in an
area.
2.3. Sampling design
The current study uses stratified probability sampling approach to
estimate gross forest loss by associated drivers, with Hansen et al. (2013)
global forest loss map use to stratify the region to improve the accuracy
of the estimation. A stratified random sampling method provides better
accuracy compared to other sampling designs for forest loss estimation
Fig. 2. Sampling strata of the study area. “Loss” stratum: pixel within the study area where forest loss was determined from the global forest loss map (Hansen et al.,
2013) between 2005 and 2020, “Loss buffer” stratum: 60 m buffer around the loss pixel: “No loss” stratum: remaining pixel within the study area without out “Loss”
stratum and “Loss buffer” stratum.
3
Journal of Cleaner Production 356 (2022) 131763
(Broich et al., 2009). Study area was stratified into three strata using
GEE platform (Fig. 2): (i) “Loss” stratum, any pixel within the study area
where forest loss was determined from global forest loss map (Hansen
et al., 2013) between 2006 and 2020; (ii) “Loss buffer” stratum, 60 m
buffer around the loss pixel; (iii) “No loss” stratum, all other remaining
pixels within the study area without out “Loss” stratum and “Loss buffer”
stratum. The total 2000 pixel were selected using “randomPoints”
function in GEE, with 20% (400) of the sample randomly allocated to the
“Loss” stratum, 30% (600) to the “Loss buffer” stratum, and 50% (1000)
to the “No loss” stratum. The sampled pixel size was one Landsat pixel
(30 m by 30 m), and the mean pixel area was 823.668 sq. m. Distribution
of sampled pixels among the pre-disturbance forest cover densities is
shown in Table S1 and Fig. 3A. Total number of pixels by
pre-disturbance forest cover density reported in Table S1, was estimated
using following equation
∑
K
Nh =
Ni
nhi (1)
i=1
ni
D. Bera et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 356 (2022) 131763

Fig. 3. Pre-disturbance forest cover densities and sampled pixels. (A) Distribution of pre-disturbance forest cover densities for each sampled pixel, (B) percentage of
pixels in pre-disturbance forest cover densities by the year 2005, (C) percentage of sampled pixel identified as forest loss of pre-disturbance forest cover densities
between 2006 and 2020.

Fig. 4. Conceptual diagram of forest pixels and pre-disturbance forest cover densities. If >75% pixel area lies within the forest lands and having canopy cover >25%
defined as a complete forest pixel, but if 25%–75% pixel area lies within forest lands and canopy cover having >25% defined as an edge forest pixel. The canopy
cover of each grid cell was determined using the count of small squares coincided with tree crowns divided by the total number of squares within the forest lands. (A)
Approximate 100% of pixel area occupy forest lands, (B) approximate 67% of pixel area occupy forest lands, (C) approximate 33% of pixel area occupy forest lands.

4
D. Bera et al.
Where Nh is total number of pixels in pre-disturbance forest cover
density h, K is the number of sampling strata, Ni is the total number of
pixels in stratum i, ni is the total number of sampled pixels in stratum i,
nhi is the number of sampled pixels in pre-disturbance forest cover
density h under stratum i. Only 7.369%, 7.047% and 6.749% of pixels
were dense forests, medium forests and open forests, remaining
78.835% pixels were non-forests or 21.161% of pixels were forest pixels
within the study area (Fig. 3B).
2.4. Definitions and measurement principles: forest land, forest loss, forest
loss year, canopy cover, forest disturbance drivers and ecosystem services
We defined as forest pixels in the current study if >25% area of a 30
m by 30 m sampled pixels lies within the forest lands by the year 2005
and > 25% canopy cover, within the sampled pixel (Fig. 4). If >75%
pixel area lies within the forest lands and having canopy cover >25%
defined as a complete forest pixel. But if 25%–75% pixel area lies within
forest lands and canopy cover having >25% defined as an edge forest
pixel.
Collect Earth Online (CEO) tool was used to determine the percent­
age of forest land and canopy cover of sampled pixels from Google Earth
image by the year 2005, and recorded confidence as high/low. CEO is a
web-based free and open-source tool for land monitoring, a product of
collaborative effort between NASA and FAO. Recently, CEO tools have
increased attention in various purposes as data collection for land use
land cover (Bey et al., 2016; Saah et al., 2019) and canopy cover
(Anchang et al., 2020; Bera et al., 2021). To determine the forest land
and canopy cover, each sampled pixel was extracted from GEE platform
and arranged consisting of 36 squares of 2 m × 2 m in size using CEO
tools (Fig. S1). Then arranged pixels were overlapped on Google earth
images using CEO tools. The arranged pixels were used in the visual
interpretation to the observe presence/absence of tree crowns. Forest
land is simply defined as the approximate percentage of pixel area
occupied by tree crowns and then imaginary boundary was demarcated
between forest and non-forest land (Fig. 4). The canopy cover of each
grid cell was determined using the count of 2 m × 2 m small squares
coincided with crowns of tree divided by total number of squares within
the forest lands (Fig. 4). From all sampled pixels, 65% had very high
resolution (<1 m) image on Google Earth, and 18% had image from
SPOT satellite (2.5 m resolution), and 17% had only Landsat image by
the year 2005. To get an accurate percentage of forest land and canopy
cover of sampled pixels we only assessed the Google Earth images,
which reached a ≤2.5 m resolution within the sampled pixel. Therefore,
to get high resolution images of these 17% sampled pixels, we used
images of the previous year (2004) and after year (2006) of 2005 from
Google Earth image (image having ≤2.5 m resolution). If the percentage
of forest land and canopy cover of the previous and after year is the same
or increase, then the average percentage of forest land and canopy cover
of this two year considers as a percentage of forest land and canopy
cover of 2005. If percentage of forest land and canopy cover is decreased
(forest loss) from 2004 to 2006, then looking at 16 days cloud-free
compositions of 2005 Landsat images with spectral signature (NDVI
and SWIR1) to identify the forest loss. Also, looking at 2005 Google
Earth low resolution (Landsat) images to identify forest loss. If the loss
events not happened throughout the year 2005, the percentage of forest
land and canopy cover of 2004 is considered as a percentage of forest
land and canopy cover of 2005 because within one year the percentage
of forest land and canopy cover would not be changed very much. If the
forest loss events happened within the year 2005, then sampled pixels
consider as non-forests. Only for 9 sampled pixels, high resolution
Google Earth images (≤2.5 m resolution) was not available for the years
2004, 2005 and 2006. Then looking at 16 days cloud free Landsat
compositions with spectral signature (NDVI and SWIR1) and Google
Earth images of 2004 and 2005 to identify forest loss. If the loss events
not happened throughout 2004 and 2005, the percentage of forest land
5
Journal of Cleaner Production 356 (2022) 131763
and canopy cover of 2003 is considered as a percentage of forest land
and canopy cover of 2005 and recorded as a low confidence. Sampled
pixels 761 and 1012 identify as forest loss by the year 2004. The loss
happened by the year 2005 consider as non-forests, and pixels loss by the
year 2004 also consider as non-forests because within one year loss pixel
would not be converted to the forest pixel. After that, categories into
following pre-disturbance forest cover densities (Fig. S2 and Fig. 4): (i)
dense forests (>75% canopy cover), (ii) medium forests (>50% canopy
cover), (iii) open forests (>25% canopy cover), and (iv) remaining as
non-forests for analysis forest loss in different forest densities.
Forest loss is considered as complete or partial removal of tree
crowns within a sampled 30 m by 30 m pixel (Fig. S3). Complete
removal includes stand-replacement disturbance or complete loss >75%
of pixel area of complete forest pixel and partial loss associated with
edge pixels. Stand-replacement disturbance or complete loss of 25–75%
of pixel area of complete forest pixel also considers as a partial loss
(Figs. S3C and S3D), this category includes pixels located on the edges of
2006–2020 forest loss patches. Edge pixel considers as a loss that has
completely cleared between 2006 and 2020 (Figs. S3E and S3F), this
category includes pixel located on the boundaries of forest patches in the
year 2005. Thereafter, forest loss was measured in three gradations:
75–100% loss (counted as 100% of pixel area lost), 25–75% loss (50% of
pixel area lost), and <25% loss (0% of pixel area lost). All partial loss
pixels are treated as 50% of pixel area loss (Figs. S3C–S3F).
Year of the maximum percentage canopy cover loss of the sampled
pixel (between 2006 and 2020) is defined as forest loss year. For
example, if multiple partial loss occurred within the study period, the
maximum percent canopy cover loss year was recorded as a forest loss
year. If multiple loss occurred within the study period and was later
completely cleared, the complete clear year was recorded as a forest loss
year. But if multiple complete loss and regrowth occurred within the
2005 to 2020, we only recorded the first complete loss event.
Forest disturbances drivers are distinguished using remote sensing
include clearing for logging, agriculture, roads, settlements, fires, and
other (Fig. 5 and Fig. S4). Among drivers, some drivers are easily
distinguishable using remote sensing (e.g., roads and settlement), but
few drivers are difficult to separate from others drivers (e.g., logging vs
agriculture, and small scale agriculture vs large scale agriculture). In
these cases, we use set of criteria to distinguish the drivers from each
other using satellite imagery (Table S2). Clearing for logging and agri­
culture includes large and small scale clearing categories. Logging is
industrial mechanized (large scale) and smallholder non-mechanized
(small scale) clearing of an area for plantation and wood marketing.
Agriculture clearing is characterized by mechanized (large scale) and
smallholder non-mechanized (small scale) clearing for non woody crops.
Large and small scale clearing is distinguished based on the size of a
clearing. Annual clearing exceeding 10 ha was marked as large scale and
below 10 ha was marked as small-scale clearing. Area of the annual
clearing patches were estimated on the basis of manually digitized
annual clearing patches from Landsat composites. Average size of the
small-scale clearing for logging and agriculture was 2.952 ha and 2.381
ha. Large and small scale clearing is further subdivided into clearing for
rotational and semipermanent. Rotational clearing was identified by
forest regrowth starting 4 years after the clearing. If clearing occurs
towards the end of the study period (after 2016), clearing was identified
on the basis of the regrowth dynamics of the neighbouring clearing.
Clearing for agriculture separated from logging by the post clearing land
use: if clearing land converted into cropland within 4 years after clearing
marked as clearing for agriculture. Forest clearing for roads includes
construction of roads through the forests (Fig. S4G). Forest clearing for
roads is distinguished from all other drivers based on the shape and
spatial pattern of the clearing. Clearing for settlement includes resi­
dential (rural to urban settlers) as well as commercial (governmental to
non-governmental) construction. We mostly depended on high resolu­
tion Google Earth imagery to identify residential clearing, because using
Landsat data it was a very difficult task. Forest loss from fire includes
D. Bera et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 356 (2022) 131763

Fig. 5. Example of forest disturbance drivers. Images are subset of pre and post disturbance from Landsat annual cloud-free composite. (A) and (B) represent pre and
post disturbance by roads, (C) and (D) represent pre and post disturbance by settlements, (E) and (F) represent pre and post disturbance by large scale logging, (G)
and (H) represent pre and post disturbance by large scale agriculture, (I) and (J) represent pre and post disturbance by small scale logging, (K) and (L) represent pre
and post disturbance by small scale agriculture, (M) and (N) represent pre and post disturbance by fires, (O) and (P) represent pre and post disturbance by other
(drought). Small red rectangles represent sampled pixels (30 m by 30 m).

areas affected by burning (Fig. S4D) that was not followed by agricul­ indicator functions (Stehman, 2014), this method was also used by
tural activities (clearing for slash and burn agriculture practice). Other Tyukavina et al. (2018) for forest loss estimation. Pixels counted as
forests loss disturbance includes flooding, windfalls, droughts, and river 100%, 50% and 0% of pixel area lost recorded as 1, 0.5 and 0. Forest loss
meandering. area by pre-disturbance forest cover density, by disturbance driver, and
Ecosystem services simply defined as benefits people obtain from by year was calculated using the following equation
ecosystems (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). There are vari­
∑
H
ety of benefits mainly, provisioning, cultural, regulating and supporting ̂ = A*
A
Nh
yh (2)
services (Gouwakinnou et al., 2019). We have selected five important h=1
N
provisioning ecosystem services for this study (wild foods, fuel wood,
livestock feed, construction materials, and medicinal plants) by studying Where A is the total study area, H is the number of pre-disturbance forest
various research articles and reports, which are highly affected by forest cover density, N is the total number of pixels in the study region, Nh is
cover loss and also highly impacted to well-being (Gouwakinnou et al., the total number of pixels in pre-disturbance forest cover density h, yh =
2019; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Definition of each ∑
y
selected ecosystem services and their assessment criteria are shown in
uεh u
nh is the mean of the yu values in pre-disturbance forest cover density
Table S3. h, yu is the recorded values of pixels area loss (1, 0.5, and 0) of sampled
pixels u, nh is the sampled pixels in pre-disturbance forest cover density
h. The standard error (SE) of the forest cover loss area is estimated using
2.5. Forest loss area estimation equation

Area estimating for stratified random sampling was performed using

6
D. Bera et al.
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√ H ( )
√∑ nh s2yh
̂ = A*√
SE( A) N 2h 1 −
h=1
Nh nh
∑ year, and forest disturbance drivers. Some major procedures were fol­
Where s2yh =
(yu − yn )2
uεh
is the sample variance for pre-disturbance forest
nh − 1
cover density h.
2.6. Reference data and their availability
The main source of reference data for visual interpretation of
sampled pixels was Landsat surface reflectance product (Landsat 7
ETM+ and Landsat 8 OLI) that obtained from USGS available on Google
Earth Engine (GEE) (Gorelick et al., 2017). Available datasets are
atmospherically corrected using Land Surface Reflectance Code (LaRSC)
for Landsat 8 and the Landsat Ecosystem Disturbance Adaptive Pro­
cessing System (LEDAPS) for Landsat 7, includes cloud, shadow, water,
and snow mask produced using CFMASK (Vermote et al., 2016). Cloud
and shadow masking was applied based on the pixel quality band of
Landsat data, and marked as cloud-free Landsat data. 16 days and
annual compositions were applied to each band of cloud-free Landsat
data. These cloud-free data was used for the graphs of NDVI (Rouse
et al., 1974), and sort wave infrared reflectance of each sampled pixel
independently (Fig. S5) and identify the exact date of forest loss. To
provide the landscape context to the visual interpretation of sampled
pixels annual composites of cloud-free images include subset of 40 by 40
Landsat pixels (144 ha) around the sampled pixels (Fig. 5).
Availability of the average number of cloud-free observations per
year of each sampled pixel is shown in Fig. S6A. Number of sampled
pixels by the average number of cloud-free observations per year are
shown in Fig. S6C. The mean average number of observations was
10.906, with a minimum of 7.764 and a maximum of 14.647. But the
mean average number of observations was highest in non-forests forests
(12.527), followed by dense forests (11.125), medium forests (10.759),
and open forests (9.213). Minimum number of cloud-free observations
per year of each sampled pixel is shown in Fig. S6B. Only 4% (86) of
2000 sampled pixels had ≤3 cloud-free observations per year Fig. S6D,
but among 4% highest was in medium forests (29 pixels), followed by
open forests (22), dense forests (18), and non-forests (17). This bias of
availability of cloud-free observations among the pre-disturbance forest
cover density could affect the visual interpretation results.
Google Earth images were used to determine the forest land and
canopy cover as well as to identify the forest cover density (Fig. S2).
Forest land and canopy cover was measured by the year 2005 from
Google earth imagery using the CEO tools (see Materials and methods:
“Definitions and measurement principles” section). High resolution
Google Earth images also help to detect the presence/absence of forest
loss and forest disturbance drivers (Fig. S4). Sampled pixels with
detected forest disturbance drivers in the disturbance years had higher
availability of Google Earth images (82% VHR, 11% SPOT, and 7%
Landsat only). These availabilities of very high resolution imagery on
Google Earth (<1 m resolution) facilitated the visual interpretation of
sampled pixels.
2.7. Sampled pixels analysis and accuracy estimation
At first, canopy covers were measured of all 2000 sampled pixels by
two experts together and grouped as dense forests, medium forests, open
forests, and non-forests with high/low confidence. From sampled pixels,
52.4% (1048) of pixels were determined as forests pixels and the
remaining 48.6% (952) of pixels were non-forests pixels (Table S1).
Among 1048 forest pixels 451, 342, and 255 pixels were dense forests
pixel, medium forests pixel, and open forests pixel.
Visual interpretation of forests sample pixels was performed by two
experts independently, who determined forest loss (0%, 50% or 100%)
of each forest pixel. Pixels counted as 50% and 100% of pixel area lost
Journal of Cleaner Production 356 (2022) 131763
consider as forest loss. Loss pixels were recorded with forest loss year,
(3) and forest disturbance drivers. Experts also recorded their confidence as
high/low independently for presence/absence of forest loss, forest loss
lowed to overcome the uncertainty during sampled interpretation are
shown in Table S2. After initial interpretation, 79% (828) of pixels
screening results were matched between two experts. Another 21%
(220) of pixel results were not matched between two experts in terms of
forest loss, forest loss year, and forest disturbance drivers. Among 21%
disagreement pixels, only 4% (9) had disagreement for all three cate­
gories: forest loss, forest disturbance drivers, and forest loss year. After
that, disagreement pixels were iteratively rechecked by two experts
together using Table S2 until the consensus was reached.
During the study period 85.587%, 81.286%, and 73.725% of
sampled pixels were identified as loss of dense forests, medium forests,
and open forests (Fig. 3C). Distributions of forest loss pixels by the forest
disturbance drivers are shown in Fig. 6A. Highest percentage of loss
pixels coming from rotational large scale logging (43.684%), followed
by rotational small scale logging (21.959%), settlements (7.319%),
semipermanent small scale agriculture (5.078%), rotational small scale
agriculture (4.723%), rotational large scale agriculture (4.251%),
semipermanent large scale agriculture (3.423%), semipermanent large
scale logging (3.306%), semipermanent small scale logging (2.361%),
fires (2.007%), other (1.417%), and roads (0.472%) (Fig. 6B). Among
loss pixels (852), highest percentage of loss pixels coming from dense
forests (45.305%), followed by medium forests (32.629%), and open
forests (22.066%) (Fig. 6C).
As we have used Landsat time series data and high resolution Google
Earth image to get the best information of each sampled pixel, and also
the absence of historical (2005–2020) ground surveys, it is practically
impossible to directly assess the accuracy of our results. Therefore, we
have indirectly assessed the potential errors of our results by analysing
confidence level as high/low of each sampled pixel. A total of 91
sampled pixels (approximate 5% of the total sampled pixels of 2000)
were identified as low confidence during canopy cover measurement
and categorization as pre-disturbance forest cover density (Table S4A).
Highest percentage of low confidence (potential commission error)
coming from medium forests (11%), followed by open forests (9%),
dense forests (4%), and non-forests (1%). Medium forests and open
forests had the highest potential commission error due to their likely
confusion (medium forests: confusion with dense forests and open for­
ests, open forests: confusion with medium forests and non-forests) with
other categories of pre-disturbance forest cover density because of the
unavailability of high resolution Google Earth image. Regarding, pres­
ence/absence of forest loss, total of 37 sampled pixels (approximate 4%
of the total forest pixels of 1048) were classified as low confidence
(potential commission error) during sample interpretation (Table S4B).
Highest percentage of potential commission error coming from open
forests (6%; loss 11, no loss 4), followed by medium forests (4%; loss 8,
no loss 4), and dense forests (2%; loss 7, no loss 3). Years with highest
percentage of forest loss area coming from low confidence sampled
pixels were 2006 (29%), 2010 (28%), 2007 (22%), and 2012 (17%);
years with lowest percentage were 2019 (1%), 2014 (2%), 2009 (3%),
and 2015 (4%). An average, lowest potential commission error was
between 2014 and 2020 (6%) compared with 2006–2013 (16%). These
results might be explained by the increased availability of cloud-free
Landsat data (Fig. S7) and the very high resolution Google Earth im­
agery in the later year.
Regarding forest disturbance drivers, total of 22 (3% of total loss
pixels of 852) loss pixels were classified as low confidence level
(Table S4C). Highest contributed by open forests (10 pixels), followed by
dense forests (7 pixels), and medium forests (5 pixels). Highest per­
centage of area with low confidence sampled pixels was coming from
fires (11%), followed by semipermanent small scale logging (10%),
semipermanent large scale agriculture (7%), semipermanent large scale
logging (7%), other (7%), rotational large scale agriculture (3%),
7
D. Bera et al.
Fig. 6. Forest disturbance drivers and sampled pixels. (A) Distribution of forest disturbance drivers for each sampled pixel, (B) percentage of loss sampled pixels by
forest disturbance drivers between 2006 and 2020, (C) percentage of loss sampled pixels shared by pre-disturbance forest cover densities between 2006 and 2020.
rota-rotational, semi-semipermanent.
rotational small scale agriculture (3%), semipermanent small scale
agriculture (2%), rotational small scale logging (2%), rotational large
scale logging (2%), settlement (2%), and roads (0%). These differences
are due to their likely confusion among the few disturbance drivers. For
example, roads are totally distinct drivers, but consequently, fires have
vicinity with other disturbances like rotation small scale agriculture
(slash and burn agriculture practice). Semipermanent small scale log­
ging is likely to be confused with semipermanent small scale agriculture
and rotational small scale logging with rotational small scale agricul­
ture. Most importantly years of unavailability of high resolution Google
Earth imagery of sampled pixels was created difficulty to identify proper
forest disturbance drivers.
2.8. Household survey using structured questionnaires
A household survey with questionnaires was conducted at 50 villages
(forest loss affected villages during 2006–2020) in the study region. For
the selection of villages, we quantified forest loss of each village of the
study region from global forest loss map (Hansen et al., 2013) over the
last 15 years (2006–2020). After that, 50 villages were selected
randomly which are affected by forest loss. In each village, 10 house­
holds were selected which are totally dependent on agriculture and
forest over the 15 years by the consulted local government respondents
and villagers. The survey was conducted at each selected household with
most senior and knowledgeable persons. The household survey was
conducted on the people’s perception about forest cover change and
availability of ecosystem services, around village and surrounding over
the last 15 years. In recent years, many researchers have used people’s
perceptions to evaluate forest cover changes and availability of
ecosystem services over the years (Ahammad et al., 2019; Gouwakinnou
et al., 2019). Local people’s experience provided historical trend of
availability of ecosystem services (Alfonso et al., 2016), which is useful
for forest management and improvement of rural livelihoods (Fisher and
Hirsch, 2008; Yang et al., 2015). Hence, this present study has used
people’s perceptions to understand the trend of natural forest cover and
the impact of forest cover loss on provisioning ecosystem services. We
8
Journal of Cleaner Production 356 (2022) 131763
asked the respondents two questions: 1) what have you observed on
forest cover around your village and surroundings over the last 15 year?;
2) and what have you observed the availability of provisioning
ecosystem services over time? During the interviews, we explained the
each ecosystem services to the respondents using local language, and
asked how the availability of these ecosystem services are affected by
forest cover change. The perceptions of households about forest cover
and the availability of ecosystem services were noted as “increased”,
“decreased”, or “stayed the same” toward the forest cover area.
Chi-square goodness of fit test was performed to reveal significant uni­
formity or difference of people’s perception for forest cover decreased,
increased and stable among the villages.
3. Results and analysis
3.1. Temporal analysis of forest cover loss
Temporal forest cover loss by pre-disturbance forest cover densities
are shown in Fig. 7 and Table 1. Total forest cover loss was increasing
trend from 2006 to 2020 with the rate of 1.30 thousand ha per year. The
increasing rate of forest loss was higher in dense forests (0.64 thousand
ha per year), followed by medium forests (0.50 thousand ha per year)
and open forests (0.20 thousand ha per year) (Fig. 7). Although forest
cover loss was accelerated, but not all pre-disturbance forest cover
densities display the same increasing trend during the study period
(Table 1). In open forests, forest cover loss first accelerated (2006–2010:
34.764 ± 3.338 thousand ha to 2011–2015: 60.514 ± 3.137 thousand
ha), then slowed down again (2016–2020: 42.059 ± 4.058 thousand
ha), but consequently, the loss was accelerated in dense forests
(Table 1).
Temporal forest cover loss by forest disturbance drivers is shown in
Table 2 and Table S5. In pre-disturbance forest cover densities, forest
cover loss by forest disturbance drivers also varied over the time period.
Among forest disturbance drivers, only rotational large-scale logging is
increasing over the period in dense forests, and the remaining drivers do
not have the clear pattern of increasing or decreasing over time in any
D. Bera et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 356 (2022) 131763

Fig. 7. Temporal trends of forest loss. (A) Total forest loss, (B) forest loss in dense forests, (C) forest loss in medium forests, (D) forest loss in open forests. Error bands
represent ± SE.

9
D. Bera et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 356 (2022) 131763

Table 1 pre-disturbance forest cover density (Table S5). But the gross forest
Temporal forest loss (5 year epochs) by pre-disturbance forest cover densities cover loss by small scale agriculture (rotational and semipermanent) is
(thousand hectares ± SE). decreasing, consequently rotational large-scale logging, fires, and other
2006–2010 2011–2015 2016–2020 Total drivers is increasing over the time period (Table 2). Rotational large-
Dense 46.369 ± 53.523 ± 80.020 ± 179.913 ±
scale logging and rotational small scale logging was the top two
forests 3.631 3.799 3.570 4.435 drivers, which also was the most dominant drivers over the time period
Medium 45.774 ± 41.096 ± 65.821 ± 152.691 ± in the pre-disturbance forest cover densities (Table S5), except for
forests 3.106 2.828 3.855 4.983 2011–2015 in medium forests, where rotational large scale agriculture
Open forests 34.764 ± 60.514 ± 42.059 ± 137.338 ±
prevails over rotational small scale logging.
3.338 3.137 4.058 5.008
Total 126.907 ± 155.134 ± 187.901 ± 469.942 ±
5.264 4.591 4.358 7.886 3.2. Comparison of forest loss among pre-disturbance forest cover
densities

Table 2 Comparative results of forest cover loss among pre-disturbance forest

Temporal forest loss (5 year epochs) by forest disturbance drivers (thousand cover densities from 2006 to 2020 are shown in Fig. 8 and Table 1. The
hectares ± SE). rota-rotational, semi-semipermanent. estimated total forest cover loss from 2006 to 2020 in the study region
2006–2010 2011–2015 2016–2020 Total loss was 469.942 ± 7.886 thousand ha (thousand hectares ± SE). Most of the
Small scale 8.652 ± 5.916 ± 4.969 ± 19.537 ±
year dense forests shared the highest forest loss area than the other pre-
agriculture 3.210 3.001 3.979 4.152 disturbance forest densities. Also, among total forest cover loss, forest
rota. loss in dense forests during 2006–2020 was highest (179.913 ± 4.435
Small scale 13.339 ± 5.680 ± 2.661 ± 21.679 ± thousand ha), followed by medium forests (152.691 ± 4.983 thousand
agriculture 4.690 2.226 2.661 5.515
ha), and open forests (137.338 ± 5.008) (Table 1). During 2006–2010
semi.
Large scale 4.678 ± 10.248 ± 9.384 ± 24.309 ± and 2016–2020, the forest cover loss was largest in the dense forests,
agriculture 2.335 3.266 2.069 3.593 followed by medium forests, and open forests, but during 2011–2015
rota. largest was in the open forests, compared to dense forests, and medium
Large scale – 10.000 ± 10.000 ± 20.001 ± forests (Table 1).
agriculture 3.331 3.332 4.329
semi.
Almost 75.279% area of dense forests marked a loss by disturbance
Small scale 32.556 ± 26.300 ± 28.909 ± 87.765 ± drivers during 2006–2020, followed by medium forests (66.813%), and
logging rota. 4.364 3.100 3.803 5.356 open forests (62.745%). The increasing trend of forest loss is also higher
Small scale – – 4.239 ± 4.239 ± in dense forest than other forests cover densities, thereafter, dense for­
logging semi. 2.297 2.938
ests are mostly under threat in near future.
Large scale 52.284 ± 75.597 ± 99.359 ± 227.241 ±
logging rota. 4.739 3.946 3.386 5.139
Large scale 5.150 ± 12.869 ± 5.184 ± 23.204 ± 3.3. Associated drivers of forest cover loss
logging semi. 2.797 3.259 2.242 3.889
Fires – 3.445 ± 6.757 ± 10.202 ±
2.126 3.112 4.938 Forest disturbance drivers and their relative contributions to forest
Roads 0.265 ± – 0.795 ± 1.060 ± cover loss from 2006 to 2020 are shown in Fig. 9. Among all drivers,
0.265 0.795 0.892 rotational large scale logging was the largest driver from 2006 to 2020
Settlements 8.626 ± 2.730 ± 12.080 ± 23.437 ± (48.355%), followed by rotational small scale logging (18.676%),
3.118 2.730 3.311 4.782
Other 1.356841 2.3479921 3.5633945 7.268 ±
rotational large scale agriculture (5.173%), settlements (4.987%),
3.562 semipermanent large scale logging (4.983%), semipermanent small
Total loss 126.907 ± 155.134 ± 187.901 ± 469.942 ± scale agriculture (4.613%), semipermanent large scale agriculture
5.264 4.591 4.358 7.886 (4.256%), rotational small scale agriculture (4.156%), fires (2.171%),
other (1.547%), semipermanent small scale logging (0.902%), and roads
(0.226%) (Fig. 9A).
Rotational large and small scale logging was the top two direct

Fig. 8. Comparison of forest loss among pre-disturbance forest cover densities from 2006 to 2020. See Fig. 7 for SE of estimates of each year.

10
D. Bera et al.
Fig. 9. Forest loss estimates of 2006–2020 by forest disturbance drivers. (A) Total forest loss, (B) forest loss in dense forests, (C) forest loss in medium forests, (D)
forest loss in open forests. Error bands represent ± SE. rota-rotational, semi-semipermanent.
drivers in the pre-disturbance cover densities (Fig. 9 and Table 3), and
both rotational logging constituted 67.031% of the total forest loss area
from 2006 to 2020. Consequently, forest cover loss by semipermanent
logging (large and small) is much less common than rotational logging
(5.885% vs 67.031%). Logging activity (72.916% of total loss area)
basically rotational logging (67.031% of total loss area) is the domi­
nating driver in the study region for plantation and wood marketing.
Among rotational logging (325.006 ± 6.324), large scale logging
constituted 69.912% (227.241 ± 5.139 thousand ha) of forest loss area.
The largest contributor for rotational large scale logging was dense
forests (46.423%), followed by open forests (28.434%), and medium
forests (25.143%) (Table 3). Semipermanent large-scale logging
constituted 4.983% (23.204 ± 3.889: 84.553% of semipermanent log­
ging) of the total loss area, and the highest loss area is coming from open
forests (44.389%), followed by dense forests (29.689%), and medium
forests (25.922%) (Table 3). The rotational small scale is the highly
contributed to the forest cover loss in open forests (36.596%) and me­
dium forests (35.024%) and followed by dense forests (28.380%)
(Table 3).
Forest clearing for agriculture constituted 18.199% (85.526 ± 6.229
11
Journal of Cleaner Production 356 (2022) 131763
thousand ha) of total forest loss area, which is characterized by clearing
for the planting of non-woody raw crops (Fig. 9A and Table 3). Among
agricultural clearing, rotational agriculture and semipermanent agri­
culture is shared 51.266% and 48.734% of forest cover loss area. Small
scale agriculture contributed 48.191% (41.216 ± 5.875) of agricultural
clearing, and among small scale agriculture, 52.598% was semi­
permanent clearing. Because of less size of clearing (average size 2.986
ha) and lack of access roads visible in very high-resolution imagery,
most of the small scale clearing for agriculture is likely non-mechanized
and clearing by local farmers (Fig. S4F). Although all four types of
clearing for agriculture is dominating in medium forests (Table 3), but
semipermanent large-scale agriculture was most dominant (32.5928%)
than other types of disturbance. Also, medium forests contributing
73.501% loss area of semipermanent large-scale agriculture, followed
by dense forests (26.499%), and open forests (0%). From the total
agricultural clearing, medium forests were contributed 50.399% of
agricultural clearing, followed by dense forests (28.199%), and open
forests (21.402%).
Forest clearing for settlement is the fourth largest contributor to total
forest area loss, which is shared 4.987% (23.437 ± 4.782 thousand ha)
D. Bera et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 356 (2022) 131763

Table 3 has been decreasing over time around the village and surroundings
Forest loss in pre-disturbance forest cover densities by forest disturbance drivers (Table S6). Only 4.4% of respondents perceived a slight increase in
between 2006 and 2020 (thousand hectares ± SE). rota-rotational, semi- forest cover due to the plantation across the region and 11.6% perceived
semipermanent. forest is stable over the time period. Chi-square goodness of fit test
Drivers Dense Medium Open forests Total loss showed no significant difference of people’s perception about forest
forests forests cover loss (X2 = 42.857, p < 0.05) among the villages, but significant
Small scale 4.504 ± 12.028 ± 3.004 ± 19.537 ± difference in people’s perception about stable or dynamic (X2 =
agriculture rota. 2.989 2.563 2.390 4.152 195.862, p < 0.05) and increase of forest cover among the villages (X2 =
Small scale 6.889 ± 8.353 ± 6.438 ± 21.679 ± 370.909, p < 0.05). That means people perceived natural forest cover
agriculture semi. 2.938 3.169 2.426 5.515
Large scale 7.419 ± 10.023 ± 6.867 ± 24.309 ±
has decreased in similar trend or uniformly across the villages, and
agriculture rota. 2.504 2.595 2.690 3.593 stable and increase of forest cover followed the diverse pattern across
Large scale 5.299 ± 14.701 ± – 20.001 ± the villages.
agriculture semi. 2.875 2.381 4.329 Availability of ecosystem services also decreased due to forest cover
Small scale logging 24.907 ± 30.739 ± 32.119 ± 87.765 ±
loss. Perceptions of households about the availability of specific
rota. 3.296 3.077 3.372 5.356
Small scale logging 4.239 ± – – 4.239 ± ecosystem services in the study region are shown in Fig. 10. It was
semi. 2.938 2.938 evident that overall, 73.92% of households perceived the decrease in the
Large scale logging 105.493 ± 57.134 ± 64.613 ± 227.241 ± availability of provisioning ecosystem services over time.
rota. 3.515 3.893 4.1995 5.139 Our result also showed wild foods were the most affected ecosystem
Large scale logging 6.889 ± 6.014 ± 10.300 ± 23.204 ±
services due to forest cover loss. Gross 81.6% of households perceived
semi. 2.561 2.582 2.797 3.889
Fires 4.239 ± 1.671 ± 4.292 ± 10.202 ± that the availability of wild foods decreased, while 18.4% perceived
2.905 1.671 2.754 4.938 stability in the availability of wild foods. Medicinal plants were the
Roads 1.060 ± – – 1.060 ± second most affected provisioning ecosystem. Total 81% of households
0.892 0.892
perceived decreases in the availability of medicinal plants. But 17.8%
Settlements 5.829 ± 12.028 ± 5.579 ± 23.437 ±
2.732 2.984 3.310 4.782 reported availability of medicinal plants remained stable and only 1.2%
Other 3.143 ± – 4.125 ± 7.268 ± of household’s perceived increases in their villages and surroundings.
2.356 2.551 3.562 Total 75.4% of household’s perceived decreases in the availability of
Total loss 179.913 ± 152.691 ± 137.338 ± 469.942 ± livestock feed. But only 19.4% perceived stable and 5.2% perceived
4.435 4.983 5.008 7.886
increased availability of livestock. Availability of construction materials
and fuel wood also decrease, gross 67.2% and 64.4% of households
of total forest area loss (Fig. 9A). The largest contributor of settlements perceived decreases the availability of construction materials and fuel
to forest loss is observed in medium forests (51.322%), followed by wood. But more households (33.2%) reported availability of fuel wood
dense forests (24.872%), and open forests (23.805%). Clearing for set­ remained stable compared to other ecosystem services (Fig. 10). Only
tlements is likely the semipermanent type of clearing, which is 2.4% and 3.2% of households perceived increases in fuel wood and
contributing to forest loss in the edge of the forests (Fig. S4C). construction materials.
Clearing for roads is a very rare phenomena, contributing only
0.226% (1.060 ± 0.892 thousand ha) of total forest loss area during 4. Discussion
2006–2020 in the study region (Fig. 9A and Table 3), which is only
observed in the dense forests. The estimated forest loss due to road has 4.1. The loss of forest cover varies with forest cover densities
high standard error because it is only based on 3 sampled pixels (1.060
± 0.892: SE expressed 84.151% of driver area). Based on the result, it was evident that forest cover loss varied among
Fire constitutes only 2.171% (10.202 ± 4.938 thousand ha) of the forest cover densities over time. The diverse pattern of forest cover loss
total forest loss area in the study region (Fig. 9A and Table 3). The over spatial context due to the variation of human activity and its in­
largest contributors are open forests (42.070%), followed by dense tensity over time and space (Sulieman, 2018). Gross forest cover loss was
forests (41.551%), and medium forests (16.379%). Almost 83.333% of 469.942 ± 7.886 thousand hectares with an increasing trend (average
fire sampled pixels were identified as fire during the dry period (De­ 1.30 thousand ha per year) from 2006 to 2020. But the loss was higher
cembers – April). Also, 66.667% of fire sampled pixels are found in the spatial-temporally in dense forests (179.913 ± 4.435 thousand ha with
edge of the forests, but all fire sampled pixels were adjacent to roads, an average increasing rate of 0.64 thousand ha per year) compared to
settlements or agricultural fields. We can expect most of the fire is likely medium forests (152.691 ± 4.983 thousand ha with an average
related to the human induced activities. increasing rate of 0.50 thousand ha per year), and open forests (137.338
Other forest disturbance drivers including windfalls, river ± 5.008 thousand ha with an average increasing rate of 0.20 thousand
meandering, drought and inundation, contributed only 1.547% (7.268 ha per year). This result might be explained by the dominance and
± 3.562) of the total forest loss area (Fig. 9A and Table 3). Dense forests increasing trend of rotational large scale logging for wood marketing
contributed 43.244% as inundation and the remaining 56.756% of the and plantation in the study region. Rotational large scale logging
loss area coming from open forests as windfalls and drought. contributed 58.636% of dense forest loss area between 2006 and 2020
(Fig. 9B) and is continuously increasing over the time period (Table 2).
In open forests, forest cover loss first accelerated (2006–2010:
3.4. Households perceptions of forest cover loss and availability of 34.764 ± 3.338 thousand ha to 2011–2015: 60.514 ± 3.137 thousand
ecosystem services ha), after that loss was declined 30.497% during 2016–2020 compared
to the previous period 2011 to 2015 (Table 1). The declining trend of
Compared to the findings of remote sensing imagery, the household clearing in open forests is related to the way the open forests are defined
survey about natural forest cover loss revealed the similar type of re­ and the limited pool of open forests later the year of the study period.
sults. Sampled pixels analysis result shows that 68.463% of forest area is Consider as open forests pixel if it had canopy cover >25–50% in the
marked as a loss by disturbance drivers, and loss is increasing over time year of 2005. Non-forests that reached canopy cover >25% after 2005
(Fig. 7). Respondents in the household survey perceived loss of forest was not considered as forest pixels and if this were later cleared were not
cover over the time period across the study region. It was evident that an considered as forest loss. And 43.529% area of defined open forests were
average 84% of household respondents perceived natural forest cover cleared by the end of 2015 (Table 1), which was the highest percentage

12
D. Bera et al.
Fig. 10. Proportions of households (%) perceived changes in the most important provisioning ecosystem services.
of forest area loss compared to other forest cover densities within this
period (2006–2015). Therefore toward the end of the study period, most
of the open forest has been cleared, resulting in decreasing of clearing in
open forests. That indicates the dependency on open forests has been
decreased which might be explained by the decreasing trend of forest
loss area by most of the drivers during 2016–2020 compared to the
previous period 2011–2015 (Table S5). And consequently is increasing
dependency on medium and dense forests towards the end of the study
period, which is explained by the increase of forest loss 60.164% and
49.506% during 2016–2020 compared to previous period 2011–2015 in
medium forests and dense forests. Therefore, the intensity of forest loss
by most of the drivers was increased during 2016–2020 compared to the
previous period 2011–2015 in medium forests and dense forests
(Table S5).The dominance and increasing trend of rotational logging in
medium and dense forests for wood marketing due to the large amount
of availability of big and mature trees, which is replaced by the plan­
tation of single tree species.
There is no previous study on forest cover loss at different forest
cover densities to compare with this study. Only few previous studies are
available (Dutta et al., 2020; Sudhakar Reddy et al., 2016) on overall
forest cover change in this areas, but these results are not directly
comparable with current results due to different definitions, study
period, and study boundaries. But local people perceived continuous
forest cover loss and natural forest cover has been decreasing trend
which was similar to remote sensing data analysis. These findings were
Fig. 11. Comparison of annual forest loss estimates between 2006 and 2020. Current study estimates are compared with the global forest loss map (Hansen
et al., 2013).
13
Journal of Cleaner Production 356 (2022) 131763
quietly consistent with study local perspectives in interpreting the
decline of forest area in Indonesia (Fisher et al., 2013). These strong
agreement between remote sensing and local people also indicated
forest cover loss highly concentrated and widespread in the village
surroundings and neighbouring areas (Ahammad et al., 2019). Hansen
et al. (2013) global forest loss map indicates the increasing trend of
forest loss, but very much underestimates the forest loss area over the
study period (Fig. 11). The large difference in the results might be
explained by the fact that global-level studies are causes of over­
estimation or underestimation at the local level (Tyukavina et al., 2018).
The national forest report (FSI, 2019) and state report (WBFD, 2018)
showed that overall area of forests has increased in the recent decade’s
national and state level. But our study on gross forest cover loss is
evident that forest cover loss was significantly increasing trend from
2006 to 2020 in this area. And trends of forest cover loss were higher in
dense forests compared to the other forest cover densities, which in­
dicates dense forests are under threat in near future. This bias is due to
Forest Survey estimates forest cover using automated algorithms by
analysing satellite imagery that fails to separate native natural forests
from plantations, which are often monocultures of exotic species that
have limited value for endangered biodiversity (Puyravaud et al., 2010).
This finding evident that forest loss is increasing as a result of clearing
native natural forests and also increasing plantation of exotic species at
the same time. In this context, a forest preservation and management
strategy is critical to halting forest loss and ensuring the existence of
D. Bera et al.
natural forests in the future.
4.2. Role of drivers of forest cover loss
The current study emphasis on the quantitative assessment of forest
disturbance drivers of forest cover loss in different pre-disturbance for­
est cover densities. Details information on forest cover loss by distur­
bance drives does not exist in this region. Our analysis fills the existing
knowledge gap in this research by quantifying forest loss of each
disturbance driver (Fig. 9). Intensity and contribution of each driver
varied over pre-disturbance forest cover densities over time (Table S5).
The variation of driving factors in a spatial context is primarily deter­
mined by the variety of activities over space. (Hosonuma et al., 2012).
Rotational large and small scale logging which was the dominant
driver in all forest cover densities (Fig. 9), responsible for gross 67.031%
of total forest loss between 2006 and 2020. Large scale logging which is
likely mechanized was the most dominant and is increasing native
natural forest clearing by large scale logging in medium and dense for­
ests over time due to the availability of large amount of big and mature
trees, and replaced by the plantation of single tree species. This result
might be explained by the demand for industrial wood increased in the
tropical poorer countries since 1990, and demand will accelerate into
the future (Sloan and Sayer, 2015). Demographic and economic growths
are the main accelerator of deforestation and forest exploration in lower
income countries (Nikolakis and Innes, 2014) and increased industrial
removal rapidly between 1990 and 2015 (Köhl et al., 2015). Increasing
demand for agricultural products threatens to forest loss (Laurance
et al., 2014) and will continue rapidly in the developing tropical coun­
tries. Sample based estimates Curtis et al. (2018) also found that global
forest loss is mainly driven by forestry for plantation and agriculture.
Due to demographic growth, increase demand for forest products and
services as well as agricultural land for economic growth (Sloan and
Sayer, 2015). Almost 18.199% of total forest loss area is cleared by
agriculture. Rotational agricultural clearing was responsible for
51.288% of the agricultural clearing. This indicates shifting type culti­
vation is still dominating driver to forest loss in this region, which re­
flects the lack of agricultural strengthening.
Although the government implemented few forest related acts (In­
dian Forest Act 1927, Wildlife Protection Act 1972, Forest Conservation
Act 1980, Biological Diversity Act 2002, Scheduled Tribes and Other
Traditional Forest Dwellers Act 2006) to protect the forest resource and
plantations, but small scale agriculture (responsible for 19.578% of total
forest loss area) and logging (responsible for 19.578% of total forest loss
area) which is likely non-mechanized clearing by local people, is also
dominating over the time period in this region. This indicates that the
lack of intensification of the forest related policy at the regional level
and failure to fulfil the essential needs of local people by the government
over time.
Clearing for constructions or infrastructures development such as
settlements (responsible for 4.987% of total forest loss) and roads
(responsible for 0.226% of total forest loss) is the sign of development to
fulfil the demand of demographic growth. Settlements and roads are
important forces influencing others drivers to forest loss. Roads stimu­
late deforestation by facilitating the construction of smaller side roads
and human settlements in remote areas and play many important roles
in facilitating deforestation (Fearnside, 2015). For infrastructure
development needs better decisions by the government rather than po­
litical considerations to avoid deforestation over time and space. Envi­
ronmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system must be practised prior to
decision making for implementing the new development project in the
developing countries for future sustainable development (Shah et al.,
2010).
Any generalization about some specific drivers of forest loss may not
be valid compare to other national or global level studies. But demog­
raphy and management practices are always related to forest clearing,
lead to environmental degradation (Dasgupta, 1995). However, these
14
Journal of Cleaner Production 356 (2022) 131763
findings quietly agree with the several studies of forest cover loss at
national and global levels in poor countries (Curtis et al., 2018; Sloan
and Sayer, 2015). Under the assumption, the forest cover loss is related
to the demographic growth and uninformed management in this region.
Because higher population density and increasing rate over time with
low level development are the main criteria of this region (State statis­
tical handbook, 2015). Overall indicates that under developing stage
annual forest loss area is increasing, when industrial development will
be implemented, might bring new challenge to forest resource man­
agement. Decrease in wood production is the most important mitigation
strategy to prevent logging (Liu et al., 2020) in the forest ecosystem.
Need to focus on reducing deforestation for industrial-scale, residential
urban growth and agricultural activity to address the deforestation in
the future (DeFries et al., 2010). This quantitative assessment of forest
loss by each disturbance drivers provide complete information about
forest cover loss over space and time. This information can be used to
take mitigation strategy to tackle individual disturbance drivers for
forest management via control over forest loss.
But it is not easy to control the drivers of forest cover loss without
secure tenure rights, management practice, and consideration of appli­
cable laws and policies. Various previous studies showed the secure
tenure rights encourage people to plantations (Dolisca et al., 2007;
Walters, 2012), and laws and policies with suitable strategies contribute
to protecting the forests (Ongugo et al., 2014; Saraiva et al., 2020;
Tacconi et al., 2019).
4.3. Impacts of forest cover loss on provisioning ecosystem services
Our results highlight the overall availability of provisioning
ecosystem services decreased by the forest cover loss. This result is
quietly similar to the findings of Ehara et al. (2016) which reported the
forest cover loss has negative impacts on provisioning ecosystem ser­
vices. Over 80% of households perceived that declined availability of
wild foods and medicinal plants, which pose the greatest threat to their
livelihoods due to health risks associated with loss of availability of
nutrient rich foods and medicinal plants. The reduced availability of
construction materials, livestock feed, and fuel wood always increased
threat to the livelihoods of local people due to increased time spent
collecting woods and livestock feed (Ahammad et al., 2019). If there is
adequate access to provisioning ecosystem services also means that the
considerable amount of time people spends collecting services can be
spent on other productive tasks that improve livelihoods by economic
productivity, which is a key component of poverty alleviation (Van
Jaarsveld et al., 2005). This declined trend of provisioning ecosystem
services in their village and surroundings further forces to decline of
natural forests in dense and core areas to meet their essential needs. This
persistent decline of ecosystem services suggests more and more decline
of natural forests.
Decline in ecosystem services is associated with loss of forest cover,
but the perceptions about the availability of ecosystem services also
varied (Fig. 10). Variation in perceived availability of ecosystem ser­
vices is directly dependent on variation in education level, poverty
index, household size, proximity to the forest and nature of the forest
(Gouwakinnou et al., 2019). But we selected villages for household
survey based on the dominance of forest cover loss over time, and most
of the respondents perceived highly declining trend of forest cover and
availability of ecosystem services over time. These integrated findings
with combinations of remote sensing data and people’s perceptions
indicate that the decline of ecosystem services is closely related to forest
cover loss in the study region. This declining trend of provisioning
ecosystem services may be the greatest threat to their well-being in the
future. Although in this study region most of the forests are cleared by
rotational drivers (Table 2) and has been replaced by plantation of single
tree species. But Gamfeldt et al. (2013) found that mature and higher
biodiversity provides multiple services, and no single tree species are
able to promote all services. Clearing native natural forests and replaced
D. Bera et al.
by plantation of single tree species would not provide all essential
products and services for human beings in the study region. This is the
main issue of this region, which is lead oppose to sustainable
management.
Various studies have reported effective ecological projects and pol­
icies have achieved some success in promoting environmental condi­
tions by producing ecosystem services by the transformation of arable
land to revegetated land (Deng et al., 2019; Lu et al., 2020). But some
management efforts also have failed to promote environmental condi­
tions with maintain ecosystem services due to lack of national policies
(Dou et al., 2020), inappropriate vegetation species (Feng et al., 2017),
and mismatches of production and consumption pattern of ecosystem
services in an area (Raudsepp-Hearne and Peterson, 2016). Our study
found that decline of provisioning ecosystem implying that production is
falling short of local demand. In such circumstances, governments must
implement a better match of vegetation species with proper planting
density to the natural environments for ecological restoration with the
management of ecosystem services. But for cleaner production and
maintain the services in future cross-scale and long term monitoring
policy is constantly needed (Dou et al., 2020).
5. Limitations and future research advance
Direct assessment of forest loss by forest disturbance drivers from
remote sensing data on Google Earth Engine is providing detailed in­
formation with measurement feasibility. This is easily adaptable to
determine region-specific drivers in the different geographical domains.
But we have faced difficulty to distinguished a few drivers from others
drivers. For example, logging versus agriculture, clearing for residential
was difficult to identify from the 30 m by 30 m Landsat images, fire have
vicinity with rotational slash and burn agricultural practice. High res­
olution and high frequency reference data would be more effective to
improve the estimation in the different environmental situations. Future
research should have more focused on the distinguished process of each
forest disturbance driver, which will provide global certainty to forest
loss estimation. Indirect forest disturbance drivers such as livestock
grazing, artisanal wood marketing, timber and fuel collection are also
impacts on forest loss in the tropical developing countries (FAO, 2015).
But it is nearly impossible to quantify the area affected by these drivers
using remote sensing data. Incorporation of these drivers may provide
further details information about forest loss in an area. Regarding forest
pixel classification we only used canopy cover, but forest cover defini­
tion is always matter of debate, which creates uncertainty in forest loss
area measurement. In future, improvement of LIDAR data shall help to
direct mapping of canopy height at the local level and other structural
metrics such as tree density, biomass may reduce such uncertainty.
Although sample based area estimation using probability sampling
approach reporting higher accuracy, but for few drivers such as road has
less accuracy (Table 3) due to less availability in the sample population.
Sampling for each individual driver may help to quantify accurately
which drivers are very rare in the study region. Also, future research is
required on the spatial quantification and mapping of forest loss by
disturbance drivers and spatial quantification of ecosystem services
including regulating, cultural and supporting services to raising
awareness among local people. Spatial information help policy maker
and governments to make efficient decision immediately to protection
and reforestation and afforestation use of limited funds (Babbar et al.,
2021) for sustainable development (Peng et al., 2021).
Online tools such as Google Earth Engine recently increase attention
for land use and land cover mapping, change detection analysis, and
natural resource management (Gorelick et al., 2017; Sidhu et al., 2018;
Tsai et al., 2018). This API also provides faster and efficient cloud
computing environment using open sources satellite imagery (Gorelick
et al., 2017; Kumar and Mutanga, 2018) and provide an opportunity to
use geometrically and radiometrically corrected large volume satellite
images (Praveen et al., 2019). Further improvement of GEE platform
15
Journal of Cleaner Production 356 (2022) 131763
and increase availability of high resolution imagery on GEE platform in
future satellite image oriented research would be more feasible.
6. Conclusions
Our study examined the forest cover loss by forest disturbance
drivers in the different forest cover densities and the impacts on provi­
sioning ecosystem services by using remote sensing data and local
people’s perception in the dry deciduous forest of West Bengal from
2006 to 2020. After the study, it was observed that forest cover loss
varied over pre-disturbance forest cover densities with dominating in
dense forests, and has been increasing trends over time. Local people
also perceived continuous forest cover loss to their villages and sur­
roundings over the time period. Intensity of associated driving factors
was varied over pre-disturbance forest cover densities through time, but
logging and agricultural clearing were dominant over the time. Local
people perceived that ecosystem services are negatively affected by the
forest cover loss over time. Wild foods and medicinal plants were most
effected services to well-being due to forest cover loss. There is scare
information on provisioning ecosystem services which is warning to
local livelihoods in future. To avoid an ever-increasing rate of forest loss
in dense forests, forest protection should be prioritised in order to ach­
ieve long-term sustainability. Need urgent control over logging and
agricultural clearing to control forest loss from open to dense forests.
Rotational agriculture by clearing of forest is still dominating in this
region, it is time to strengthening the agriculture activity over the re­
gions. We also suggest rather than planting single tree species planting
multiple tree species would be more beneficial to attained sustainability,
because no single tree species are able to promote optimum biodiversity
and all ecosystem services (Gamfeldt et al., 2013). The present study
also revealed that ineffectiveness of the present management strategies
in the forest as well as maintaining ecosystem services due to lack of data
and lapse in government law and policies. Due to variation in forest
cover loss and intensity of driving factors over pre-disturbance forest
cover densities, and the difference in the perceptions of ecosystem ser­
vices across the region, community based local adaptive management
(Williams, 2011) strategy requires for increase forest cover, and benefits
to local communities in term of access to forest, land ownership and
economic opportunities (Lu et al., 2020). In these areas, Joint Forest
Management (JFM) policy contribute to the protection, plantation and
provide economic benefits to rural people in some areas (Pattnaik and
Dutta, 1997; Guha et al., 2000). Strong implementation of JFM policy
can result in positive social interaction, plantation, protection and share
economic benefits among the local people.
Implications of these results in the broadest context can be very
effective to take management incentives in forest ecosystem for main­
taining biodiversity and ecosystem services. Forest cover changes from
satellite images widely explored by many researchers, but this is first
study in the dry deciduous forests using stratified probability sampling
approach to estimate gross forest loss by forest disturbance drivers,
which is provide critical information to produce unbiased area estima­
tion. It is evident that different methods can provide contrasting results,
but integrating local people’s experiences can minimize the gaps be­
tween satellite data and ground truth, and provide truthful impacts of
forest cover loss on provisioning ecosystem services. So, this integrated
method can be effective in a particular data poor region, where limited
historical information on forest management exists. It is very important
to study forest loss by disturbance drivers in the different forest cover
densities to forest management via understanding the trend and pattern
of forest loss. One can take action to tackle factors that drive forest loss
over time and space. Local people’s perceptions about impacts on pro­
visioning ecosystem services can be beneficial to manage biodiversity
and ecosystem services by knowing demand side behaviour about
ecosystem services. Because understanding the scale of demand is key to
managing ecosystem services effectively, for example by developing
scale-appropriate management incentives (Raudsepp-Hearne and
D. Bera et al.
Peterson, 2016). The management of any forest ecosystem in terms of
forest cover with maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem services, re­
quires some general information such as (i) what is the trend and pattern
of forest cover loss (ii) what are the main drivers of forest loss and their
relative contribution in different forest cover densities over time (iii)
how forest loss and provisioning ecosystem services are related. This
study depicts the trend and pattern of forest loss in different
pre-disturbance forest densities by forest disturbance drivers from 2006
to 2020. This study provides details quantitative information about large
and small scale clearing with the description of clearing type (rotational
or semipermanent) and clearing process (mechanized or
non-mechanized). It also depicts the impacts of forest loss on provi­
sioning ecosystem services vice versa. Therefore, the above results are
very meaningful and convincing and this will helps us to take protection
measure for forest ecosystem via providing guidance to governments,
NGOs, stakeholders. Such information is useful in supporting their de­
cision for sustainable forest management. Various studies show that
spatial-temporal forest cover change, no study shows the contribution of
each driver to forest loss and what is the trend of disturbance drivers
over time in different forest cover densities and how forest loss impacts
on provisioning ecosystem services. Our study fills this gap of studies in
dry deciduous forests. Although a few limitations are there, but these
results will help to decision makers to make decisions for long term
protection and management of forest ecosystem in this area.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Dipankar Bera: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original
draft, Formal analysis, Software, Visualization. Nilanjana Das Chat­
terjee: Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Investigation, Valida­
tion. Subrata Ghosh: Interpretation, Manuscript organization,
Investigation, Writing – review & editing. Santanu Dinda: Resources,
Investigation, Writing – review & editing. Sudip Bera: Data curation,
Resources, Writing – review & editing. Mrinmay Mandal: Writing –
review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
Dipankar Bera sincere gratitude to the Council of Scientific and In­
dustrial Research (CSIR), Government of India, for financial support in
the form of Senior Research Fellowship (Sanctioned file no. is 09/599/
(0083)/2019-EMR-I). Sudip Bera, Santanu Dinda and Subrata Ghosh
thankfully acknowledges University Grant Commission (UGC), Gov­
ernment of India, for providing Senior Research Fellowship (SRF). We
also thank to villagers and local government for incorporate with us
during the field survey. The authors would like to thanks Mantu Paira,
Jayati Karmakar, Tuhina Maity and Swapan sau for valuable guidance
and support in the field survey. We deeply thank and appreciate all my
colleagues in our lab for their continuous help, support and encour­
agement from day one of the start of this research work. We would also
like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and
suggestions.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131763.
16
Journal of Cleaner Production 356 (2022) 131763
References
Ahammad, R., Stacey, N., Eddy, I.M.S., Tomscha, S.A., Sunderland, T.C.H., 2019. Recent
trends of forest cover change and ecosystem services in eastern upland region of
Bangladesh. Sci. Total Environ. 647, 379–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2018.07.406.
Alfonso, A., Zorondo-Rodríguez, F., Simonetti, J.A., 2016. Perceived changes in
environmental degradation and loss of ecosystem services, and their implications in
human well-being. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 24 (6), 561–574. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13504509.2016.1255674.
Anchang, J.Y., Prihodko, L., Ji, W., Kumar, S.S., Ross, C.W., Yu, Q., Lind, B., Sarr, M.A.,
Diouf, A.A., Hanan, N.P., 2020. Toward operational mapping of woody canopy cover
in tropical savannas using Google earth engine. Front. Environ. Sci. 8, 4. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fenvs.2020.00004.
Babbar, D., Areendran, G., Sahana, M., Sarma, K., Raj, K., Sivadas, A., 2021. Assessment
and prediction of carbon sequestration using Markov chain and InVEST model in
Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. J. Clean. Prod. 278, 123333 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.123333.
Balthazar, V., Vanacker, V., Molina, A., Lambin, E.F., 2015. Impacts of forest cover
change on ecosystem services in high Andean mountains. Ecol. Indicat. 48, 63–75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.07.043.
Beck, H.E., Zimmermann, N.E., McVicar, T.R., Vergopolan, N., Berg, A., Wood, E.F.,
2018. Present and future Köppen-Geiger climate classification maps at 1-km
resolution. Sci. Data 5 (1), 180214. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.214.
Bera, D., Chatterjee, N.D., Bera, S., 2021. Comparative performance of linear regression,
polynomial regression and generalized additive model for canopy cover estimation
in the dry deciduous forest of West Bengal. Remote Sens. Appl.: Soc. Environ. 22,
100502 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2021.100502.
Bey, A., Sánchez-Paus Díaz, A., Maniatis, D., Marchi, G., Mollicone, D., Ricci, S.,
Bastin, J.-F., Moore, R., Federici, S., Rezende, M., Patriarca, C., Turia, R.,
Gamoga, G., Abe, H., Kaidong, E., Miceli, G., 2016. Collect earth: land use and land
cover assessment through augmented visual interpretation. Rem. Sens. 8 (10), 807.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8100807.
Broich, M., Stehman, S.V., Hansen, M.C., Potapov, P., Shimabukuro, Y.E., 2009.
A comparison of sampling designs for estimating deforestation from Landsat
imagery: a case study of the Brazilian Legal Amazon. Remote. Sense. Environ. 113
(11), 2448–2454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2009.07.011.
Brown, D., Schreckenberg, K., 1998. Shifting Cultivators as Agents of Deforestation:
Assessing the Evidence. Overseas Development Institute, London.
Climate and Weather Averages in West Bengal, India, 1998. District wise annual weather
average for West Bengal, India. https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/?
query=west+bengal. (Accessed 16 June 2020).
Curtis, P.G., Slay, C.M., Harris, N.L., Tyukavina, A., Hansen, M.C., 2018. Classifying
drivers of global forest loss. Science 361 (6407), 1108–1111. https://doi.org/
10.1126/science.aau3445.
Dasgupta, P.S., 1995. Population, poverty and the local environment. Sci. Am. 272 (2),
40–45.
DeFries, R.S., Rudel, T., Uriarte, M., Hansen, M., 2010. Deforestation driven by urban
population growth and agricultural trade in the twenty-first century. Nat. Geosci. 3
(3), 178–181. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo756.
Deng, L., Kim, D.-G., Li, M., Huang, C., Liu, Q., Cheng, M., Shangguan, Z., Peng, C., 2019.
Land-use changes driven by ‘Grain for Green’ program reduced carbon loss induced
by soil erosion on the Loess Plateau of China. Global Planet. Change 177, 101–115.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2019.03.017.
Dinda, S., Ghosh, S., Chatterjee, N.D., 2020. Understanding the commercialization
patterns of non-timber forest products and their contribution to the enhancement of
tribal livelihoods: an empirical study from Paschim Medinipur district, India. Small-
scale Forestry 19 (3), 371–397.
Dolisca, F., McDaniel, J.M., Teeter, L.D., Jolly, C.M., 2007. Land tenure, population
pressure, and deforestation in Haiti: the case of Forêt des Pins Reserve. J. For. Econ.
13 (4), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2007.02.006.
Dou, H., Li, X., Li, S., Dang, D., Li, X., Lyu, X., Li, M., Liu, S., 2020. Mapping ecosystem
services bundles for analyzing spatial trade-offs in inner Mongolia, China. J. Clean.
Prod. 256, 120444 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120444.
Dutta, S., Dutta, I., Das, A., Guchhait, S.K., 2020. Quantification and mapping of
fragmented forest landscape in dry deciduous forest of Burdwan Forest Division,
West Bengal, India. Trees, Forests and People 2, 100012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tfp.2020.100012.
Ehara, M., Hyakumura, K., Nomura, H., Matsuura, T., Sokh, H., Leng, C., 2016.
Identifying characteristics of households affected by deforestation in their fuelwood
and non-timber forest product collections: case study in Kampong Thom Province,
Cambodia. Land Use Pol. 52, 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2015.12.006.
Ellison, D., Morris, C.E., Locatelli, B., Sheil, D., Cohen, J., Murdiyarso, D., Gutierrez, V.,
Noordwijk, M. van, Creed, I.F., Pokorny, J., Gaveau, D., Spracklen, D.V., Tobella, A.
B., Ilstedt, U., Teuling, A.J., Gebrehiwot, S.G., Sands, D.C., Muys, B., Verbist, B.,
Sullivan, C.A., 2017. Trees, forests and water: cool insights for a hot world. Global
Environ. Change 43, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.01.002.
Fang, L., Wang, L., Chen, W., Sun, J., Cao, Q., Wang, S., Wang, L., 2021. Identifying the
impacts of natural and human factors on ecosystem service in the Yangtze and
Yellow River Basins. J. Clean. Prod. 314, 127995 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2021.127995.
FAO, 2015. Global Forest Resources Assessment (2015): How Are the World’s Forests
Changing? Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
D. Bera et al.
Fearnside, P.M., 2015. Highway construction as a force in the destruction of the amazon
forest. In: Handbook of Road Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. 414–424. https://
doi.org/10.1002/9781118568170.ch51.
Feng, Q., Zhao, W., Fu, B., Ding, J., Wang, S., 2017. Ecosystem service trade-offs and
their influencing factors: a case study in the Loess Plateau of China. Sci. Total
Environ. 607–608, 1250–1263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.079.
Fisher, J.A., Patenaude, G., Meir, P., Nightingale, A.J., Rounsevell, M.D.A., Williams, M.,
Woodhouse, I.H., 2013. Strengthening conceptual foundations: analysing
frameworks for ecosystem services and poverty alleviation research. Global Environ.
Change 23 (5), 1098–1111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.04.002.
Fisher, R., Hirsch, P., 2008. Poverty and agrarian-forest interactions in Thailand. Geogr.
Res. 46 (1), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-5871.2007.00493.x.
Fortin, J.A., Cardille, J.A., Perez, E., 2020. Multi-sensor detection of forest-cover change
across 45 years in Mato Grosso, Brazil. Remote. Sense. Environ. 238, 111266 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111266.
FSI, 2019. India State of Forest Report (2019): Forest Survey of India (Ministry of
Environment Forest and Climate Change), Dehradun, India.
Gamfeldt, L., Snäll, T., Bagchi, R., Jonsson, M., Gustafsson, L., Kjellander, P., Ruiz-
Jaen, M.C., Fröberg, M., Stendahl, J., Philipson, C.D., Mikusiński, G., Andersson, E.,
Westerlund, B., Andrén, H., Moberg, F., Moen, J., Bengtsson, J., 2013. Higher levels
of multiple ecosystem services are found in forests with more tree species. Nat.
Commun. 4 (1), 1340. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2328.
Geist, H.J., Lambin, E.F., 2002. Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of
tropical deforestation. Bioscience 52 (2), 143. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568
(2002)052[0143: PCAUDF] 2.0.CO; 2.
Gorelick, N., Hancher, M., Dixon, M., Ilyushchenko, S., Thau, D., Moore, R., 2017.
Google earth engine: planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote.
Sense. Environ. 202, 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.031.
Gouwakinnou, G.N., Biaou, S., Vodouhe, F.G., Tovihessi, M.S., Awessou, B.K., Biaou, H.S.
S., 2019. Local perceptions and factors determining ecosystem services identification
around two forest reserves in Northern Benin. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 15 (1), 61.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-019-0343-y.
Gray, C.L., Bozigar, M., Bilsborrow, R.E., 2015. Declining use of wild resources by
indigenous peoples of the Ecuadorian Amazon. Biol. Conserv. 182, 270–277. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.12.022.
Guha, A., Pradhan, A., Mondal, K., 2000. Joint forest management in West Bengal: a long
way to go. J. Hum. Ecol. 11 (6), 471–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09709274.2000.11910423.
Hansen, M.C., Potapov, P.V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S.A., Tyukavina, A.,
Thau, D., Stehman, S.V., Goetz, S.J., Loveland, T.R., Kommareddy, A., Egorov, A.,
Chini, L., Justice, C.O., Townshend, J.R.G., 2013. High-resolution global maps of
21st-century forest cover change. Science 342 (6160), 850–853. https://doi.org/
10.1126/science.1244693.
Hosonuma, N., Herold, M., De Sy, V., De Fries, R.S., Brockhaus, M., Verchot, L.,
Angelsen, A., Romijn, E., 2012. An assessment of deforestation and forest
degradation drivers in developing countries. Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (4), 044009
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044009.
Houghton, R.A., 2012. Carbon emissions and the drivers of deforestation and forest
degradation in the tropics. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 4 (6), 597–603. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.06.006.
Kanninen, M., Murdiyarso, D., Seymour, F., Angelsen, A., Wunder, S., 2007. Do Trees
Grow on Money? the Implications of Deforestation Research for Policies to Promote.
Center for International Forestry Research, Cifor, Bogor.
Kim, D.-H., Sexton, J.O., Noojipady, P., Huang, C., Anand, A., Channan, S., Feng, M.,
Townshend, J.R., 2014. Global, Landsat-based forest-cover change from 1990 to
2000. Remote. Sense. Environ. 155, 178–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rse.2014.08.017.
Köhl, M., Lasco, R., Cifuentes, M., Jonsson, Ö., Korhonen, K.T., Mundhenk, P., de Jesus
Navar, J., Stinson, G., 2015. Changes in forest production, biomass and carbon:
results from the 2015 UN FAO global forest resource assessment. For. Ecol. Manag.
352, 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.05.036.
Kumar, L., Mutanga, O., 2018. Google earth engine applications since inception: usage,
trends, and potential. Rem. Sens. 10 (10), 1509. https://doi.org/10.3390/
rs10101509.
Lambin, E.F., Geist, H.J., Lepers, E., 2003. Dynamics of land-use and land-cover change
in tropical regions. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 28 (1), 205–241. https://doi.org/
10.1146/annurev.energy.28.050302.105459.
Laurance, W.F., Sayer, J., Cassman, K.G., 2014. Agricultural expansion and its impacts on
tropical nature. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29 (2), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tree.2013.12.001.
Le Quéré, C., Raupach, M.R., Canadell, J.G., Marland, G., Bopp, L., Ciais, P., Conway, T.
J., Doney, S.C., Feely, R.A., Foster, P., Friedlingstein, P., Gurney, K., Houghton, R.A.,
House, J.I., Huntingford, C., Levy, P.E., Lomas, M.R., Majkut, J., Metzl, N.,
Woodward, F.I., 2009. Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide. Nat.
Geosci. 2 (12), 831–836. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo689.
Liu, X., Ziv, G., Bakshi, B.R., 2018. Ecosystem services in life cycle assessment - Part 1: a
computational framework. J. Clean. Prod. 197, 314–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.06.164.
Liu, W., Guo, Z., Lu, F., Wang, X., Zhang, M., Liu, B., Wei, Y., Cui, L., Luo, Y., Zhang, L.,
Ouyang, Z., Yuan, Y., 2020. The influence of disturbance and conservation
management on the greenhouse gas budgets of China’s forests. J. Clean. Prod. 261,
121000 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121000.
Lu, S., Sun, H., Zhou, Y., Qin, F., Guan, X., 2020. Examining the impact of forestry policy
on poor and non-poor farmers’ income and production input in collective forest
areas in China. J. Clean. Prod. 276, 123784 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.123784.
17
Journal of Cleaner Production 356 (2022) 131763
Mayes, M.T., Mustard, J.F., Melillo, J.M., 2015. Forest cover change in Miombo
Woodlands: modeling land cover of African dry tropical forests with linear spectral
mixture analysis. Remote. Sense. Environ. 165, 203–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rse.2015.05.006.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis.
Island Press, Washington, DC.
Ngom, D., Charahabil, M.M., Sarr, O., Bakhoum, A., Akpo, L.E., 2014. Perceptions
communautaires sur les services écosystémiques d’approvisionnement fournis par le
peuplement ligneux de la Réserve de Biosphère du Ferlo (Sénégal). VertigO - la revue
électronique en sciences de l’environnement ume 14 (2), 14. https://doi.org/
10.4000/vertigo.15188. Numéro 2.
Nikolakis, William, Innes, J., 2014. Forests and Globalization: Challenges and
Opportunities for Sustainable Development. Routledge, London.
Olofsson, P., Foody, G.M., Herold, M., Stehman, S.V., Woodcock, C.E., Wulder, M.A.,
2014. Good practices for estimating area and assessing accuracy of land change.
Remote. Sense. Environ. 148, 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.02.015.
Ongugo, P.O., Langat, D., Oeba, V.O., Kimondo, J.M., Owuor, B., Njuguna, J., Russell, A.
J., 2014. A Review of Kenya’s National Policies Relevant to Climate Change
Adaptation and Mitigation: Insights from Mount Elgon. Center for International
Forestry Research (CIFOR). https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/005332.
Pan, Y., Birdsey, R.A., Fang, J., Houghton, R., Kauppi, P.E., Kurz, W.A., Phillips, O.L.,
Shvidenko, A., Lewis, S.L., Canadell, J.G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R.B., Pacala, S.W.,
McGuire, A.D., Piao, S., Rautiainen, A., Sitch, S., Hayes, D., 2011. A large and
persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333 (6045), 988–993. https://
doi.org/10.1126/science.1201609.
Pattnaik, B.K., Dutta, S., 1997. JFM in south-West Bengal: a study in participatory
development. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 32 (50), 3225–3232.
Peng, K., Jiang, W., Ling, Z., Hou, P., Deng, Y., 2021. Evaluating the potential impacts of
land use changes on ecosystem service value under multiple scenarios in support of
SDG reporting: a case study of the Wuhan urban agglomeration. J. Clean. Prod. 307,
127321 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127321.
Potapov, P.V., Turubanova, S.A., Hansen, M.C., Adusei, B., Broich, M., Altstatt, A.,
Mane, L., Justice, C.O., 2012. Quantifying forest cover loss in Democratic Republic of
the Congo, 2000–2010, with Landsat ETM+ data. Remote. Sense. Environ. 122,
106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.08.027.
Praveen, B., Mustak, S., Sharma, P., 2019. Assessing the transferability OF machine
learning algorithms using cloud computing and earth observation datasets for
agricultural land use/cover mapping. ISPRS Int. Archieve. Photogrammet. Remote.
Sense. Spatial. Info. Sci. XLII-3/W6, 585–592. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-
archives-XLII-3-W6-585-2019.
Puyravaud, J.-P., Davidar, P., Laurance, W.F., 2010. Cryptic destruction of India’s native
forests. Conserv. Lett. 3 (6), 390–394. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-
263X.2010.00141.x.
Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G., 2016. Scale and ecosystem services: how do
observation, management, and analysis shift with scale—lessons from Québec. Ecol.
Soc. 21 (3) https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08605-210316.
Rouse, J.W., Haas, J., R, Deering, D., Schell, J., Harlan, J., 1974. Monitoring the Vernal
Advancement and Retrogradation (Green Wave Effect) of Natural Vegetation.
Technical Report. NASA/GSFC Type III Final Report, Greenbelt, MD, USA.
Saah, D., Johnson, G., Ashmall, B., Tondapu, G., Tenneson, K., Patterson, M.,
Poortinga, A., Markert, K., Quyen, N.H., San Aung, K., Schlichting, L., Matin, M.,
Uddin, K., Aryal, R.R., Dilger, J., Lee Ellenburg, W., Flores-Anderson, A.I., Wiell, D.,
Lindquist, E., Chishtie, F., 2019. Collect Earth: an online tool for systematic reference
data collection in land cover and use applications. Environ. Model. Software 118,
166–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.05.004.
Saraiva, M.B., Ferreira, M.D.P., da Cunha, D.A., Daniel, L.P., Homma, A.K.O., Pires, G.F.,
2020. Forest regeneration in the Brazilian Amazon: public policies and economic
conditions. J. Clean. Prod. 269, 122424 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.122424.
Senf, C., Laštovička, J., Okujeni, A., Heurich, M., van der Linden, S., 2020. A generalized
regression-based unmixing model for mapping forest cover fractions throughout
three decades of Landsat data. Remote. Sense. Environ. 240, 111691 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rse.2020.111691.
Shah, A., Khan, S., Shah, M.H., Khan, R., Jan, I., 2010. Environmental impact assessment
(EIA) of infrastructure development projects in developing countries (SSRN scholarly
paper ID 1666339). Soc. Sci. Res. Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract
=1666339.
Shriar, A.J., 2014. Theory and context in analyzing livelihoods, land use, and land cover:
lessons from Petén, Guatemala. Geoforum 55, 152–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geoforum.2014.06.002.
Sidhu, N., Pebesma, E., Câmara, G., 2018. Using Google Earth Engine to detect land
cover change: Singapore as a use case. Euro J. Remote. Sense 51 (1), 486–500.
https://doi.org/10.1080/22797254.2018.1451782.
Sloan, S., Sayer, J.A., 2015. Forest Resources Assessment of 2015 shows positive global
trends but forest loss and degradation persist in poor tropical countries. For. Ecol.
Manag. 352, 134–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.06.013.
State statistical handbook, 2015. Department of Planning & Statistics of West Bengal,
India.
Stehman, S.V., 2014. Estimating area and map accuracy for stratified random sampling
when the strata are different from the map classes. Int. J. Rem. Sens. 35 (13),
4923–4939. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2014.930207.
Sudhakar Reddy, C., Jha, C.S., Dadhwal, V.K., Hari Krishna, P., Vazeed Pasha, S.,
Satish, K.V., Dutta, K., Saranya, K.R.L., Rakesh, F., Rajashekar, G., Diwakar, P.G.,
2016. Quantification and monitoring of deforestation in India over eight decades
(1930–2013). Biodivers. Conserv. 25 (1), 93–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-
015-1033-2.
D. Bera et al.
Sulieman, H.M., 2018. Exploring drivers of forest degradation and fragmentation in
Sudan: the case of erawashda forest and its surrounding community. Sci. Total
Environ. 621, 895–904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.210.
Tacconi, L., Rodrigues, R.J., Maryudi, A., 2019. Law enforcement and deforestation:
lessons for Indonesia from Brazil. For. Pol. Econ. 108, 101943 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.forpol.2019.05.029.
Tewari, V.P., 2016. Forest inventory, assessment, and monitoring, and long-term forest
observational studies, with special reference to India. For. Sci. Technol. 12 (1),
24–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/21580103.2015.1018962.
Thanichanon, P., Schmidt-Vogt, D., Messerli, P., Heinimann, A., Epprecht, M., 2013.
Secondary forests and local livelihoods along a gradient of accessibility: a case study
in northern Laos. Soc. Nat. Resour. 26 (11), 1283–1299. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08941920.2013.788429.
Tsai, Y., Stow, D., Chen, H., Lewison, R., An, L., Shi, L., 2018. Mapping vegetation and
land use types in fanjingshan national nature reserve using Google earth engine.
Rem. Sens. 10 (6), 927. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10060927.
Tyukavina, A., Hansen, M.C., Potapov, P.V., Stehman, S.V., Smith-Rodriguez, K.,
Okpa, C., Aguilar, R., 2017. Types and rates of forest disturbance in Brazilian Legal
Amazon, 2000–2013. Sci. Adv. 3 (4), e1601047 https://doi.org/10.1126/
sciadv.1601047.
Tyukavina, A., Hansen, M.C., Potapov, P., Parker, D., Okpa, C., Stehman, S.V.,
Kommareddy, I., Turubanova, S., 2018. Congo Basin forest loss dominated by
18
Journal of Cleaner Production 356 (2022) 131763
increasing smallholder clearing. Sci. Adv. 4 (11), eaat2993 https://doi.org/10.1126/
sciadv.aat2993.
Van Jaarsveld, A. s, Biggs, R., Scholes, R. j, Bohensky, E., Reyers, B., Lynam, T.,
Musvoto, C., Fabricius, C., 2005. Measuring conditions and trends in ecosystem
services at multiple scales: the Southern African Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
(SAfMA) experience. Phil. Trans. Biol. Sci. 360 (1454), 425–441. https://doi.org/
10.1098/rstb.2004.1594.
Vermote, E., Justice, C., Claverie, M., Franch, B., 2016. Preliminary analysis of the
performance of the Landsat 8/OLI land surface reflectance product. Remote. Sense.
Environ. 185, 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2016.04.008.
Walters, B.B., 2012. Do property rights matter for conservation? Family land, forests and
trees in Saint Lucia, west indies. Hum. Ecol. 40 (6), 863–878. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10745-012-9541-0.
WBFD, 2018. Annual Administrative Report 2016-2017-West Bengal. Forest Department
of the Government of West Bengal, India.
Williams, B.K., 2011. Adaptive management of natural resources—framework and issues.
J. Environ. Manag. 92 (5), 1346–1353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2010.10.041.
Yang, H., Harrison, R., Yi, Z.-F., Goodale, E., Zhao, M.-X., Xu, J.-C., 2015. Changing
perceptions of forest value and attitudes toward management of a recently
established nature reserve: a case study in southwest China. Forests 6 (12),
3136–3164. https://doi.org/10.3390/f6093136.