PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Murthy, Indu K.]On: 23 July 2010Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 924734537]Publisher Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Land Use SciencePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t724921301

Land use dynamics in select village ecosystems of southern India: driversand implicationsRakesh Tiwaria; Indu K. Murthya; Jayaram Killib; Kalyani Kandulab; Prabhakar R. Bhatc; RamjeeNagarajand; Vanitha Kommub; Kameshwar K. Raoe; N. H. Ravindranatha

a Centre for Sustainable Technologies, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India b Centrefor Environment Education, Andhra Pradesh State Cell, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India c Centre forEcological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Sirsi, Karnataka, India d Centre for EnvironmentEducation, Tamil Nadu State Cell, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India e Environmental Sciences Department,Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India

First published on: 23 July 2010

To cite this Article Tiwari, Rakesh , Murthy, Indu K. , Killi, Jayaram , Kandula, Kalyani , Bhat, Prabhakar R. , Nagarajan,Ramjee , Kommu, Vanitha , Rao, Kameshwar K. and Ravindranath, N. H.(2010) 'Land use dynamics in select villageecosystems of southern India: drivers and implications', Journal of Land Use Science,, First published on: 23 July 2010(iFirst)To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/1747423X.2010.500683URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2010.500683

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Land use dynamics in select village ecosystems of southern India:drivers and implications

Rakesh Tiwaria*, Indu K. Murthya, Jayaram Killib, Kalyani Kandulab, Prabhakar R. Bhatc,Ramjee Nagarajand, Vanitha Kommub, Kameshwar K. Raoe and N.H. Ravindranatha

aCentre for Sustainable Technologies, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India; bCentrefor Environment Education, Andhra Pradesh State Cell, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India; cCentrefor Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Sirsi, Karnataka, India; dCentre for EnvironmentEducation, Tamil Nadu State Cell, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India; eEnvironmental Sciences Department,

Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India

(Received 23 March 2009; final version received 24 March 2010)

Knowledge of recent changes in land use, driving forces and implications of changes inthe context of sustainable development is limited. This study analyses the changes inspatial patterns of land use including crop diversity, the drivers and implications ofchanges in 11 village ecosystems of southern India. Data obtained from existing maps,land survey, participatory survey and field measurements were integrated to quantifychanges. Land-use dynamics at the village ecosystems level are highly interlinked to thelivelihoods and anthropogenic forces as well as natural causes leading to major changes.Among the trends observed, urban influence was a major driver causing large areachanges, natural causes being less significant. Other drivers included rainfall deficit,human population increase and management decisions. The impacts of changes wereboth short- and long-term. Implications and trade-offs were linked to the extent of land,type of change and dependence of the communities for livelihood and provisionalservices.

Keywords: land-use change; drivers of change; village ecosystem; implications; trade-off;India

1. Introduction

Land cover is defined by the attributes of the earth’s land surface and immediate subsurface,including biota, soil, topography, surface and groundwater and human structures. Land-usechange is therefore an important factor in global change phenomena. It is directly related toissues such as food security (Wilson 1988), water and soil quality (Dalal and Mayer 1986;Bushchbacher, Uhl, and Serrao 1988; Fu, Ma, Zhou, and Chen 1999) and other importantglobal life support issues. Land-use change can only be studied through a multi-scaleanalysis where at different scales different drivers may play an important role (De Koning,Verburg, Veldkamp, and Fresco 1999). From a research perspective, it is important tocarefully select the temporal and spatial scales to be examined (Crissman et al. 1998).However, we have to realize that probably in most cases we have to work at multiple scales(Bouma and Droogers 1999) and include the interactions between them (e.g. De Koninget al. 1999).

Journal of Land Use ScienceiFirst, 2010, 1–19

*Corresponding author. Email: rakesh@astra.iisc.ernet.in

ISSN 1747-423X print/ISSN 1747-4248 online# 2010 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/1747423X.2010.500683

http://www.informaworld.com

Downloaded By: [Murthy, Indu K.] At: 16:02 23 July 2010

Understanding change in land-use and land cover was identified as a key research themeof the large-scale Biosphere–Atmosphere experiment in Amazonia, because changes in theland surface can affect energy, water, carbon, trace gas and nutrient cycles in the region(Nobre et al. 1997). An improved understanding of land-use change is considered to be arequirement for the global assessment of landscape dynamics with reference to their variousfunctions: production levels biodiversity, aesthetics and cultural heritage, and so on, so as tocontribute to the development of management strategies and policies to ameliorate orprevent further decline in the environment (Mac Donald et al. 2000).

Given the complexity of human/nature systems and the scale dependency of land-usechange drivers, the need for approaches which integrate socio-economic and geo-bio-physicaldrivers is now widely recognised (Riebsame et al. 1994; Lambin et al. 2001; Liu 2001;Taillefumier and Pie�gay 2003). Studies on global environmental change, in particular theInternational Geosphere-Biosphere Programme project on the consequences of land-use/coverchange (LUCC), have encouraged research into its processes and into the causes and effects,but proven methods of general application are not yet available (Lambin, Geist, and Lepers2003). At present, case studies are important for gaining an understanding of the complexrelationships between social and natural systems that drive land resource change (Antrop2000; Naveh 2001; Lambin et al. 2003). Efforts have been made to analyse changes in broadland-use/land-cover types in the Himalayas (Virgo and Subba 1994; Thapa and Weber 1995;Schweik, Adhikari, and Pandit 1997; Jackson, Tamarkar, Hunt, and Shepherd 1998; Rao andPant 2001; Gautam,Webb, and Eiumnoh 2002). Yet, knowledge on changes in spatial patternsof agricultural land use, driving factors and their implications within the context of sustainabledevelopment is limited (Thapa 1996; Hurni 2000; Sankhayan, Gurung, Sitaula, and Hofstad2003).

1.1. Village ecosystems

Villages can be considered as large biomes or ecosystems given the resource components,linkages and interdependence. Village ecosystems are more often subject to changes andvariability with respect to composition, functioning and production. These changes aremainly driven by anthropogenic demands and interventions as well as natural phenomena.The village can be a component of a larger interacting system such as watershed and forest.Hence, to understand a particular village ecosystem, an understanding of the differentcomponents of the ecosystem is essential. Further, the dynamics of the village ecosystemfunctioning and components are reflected by trends in the status of the resource over time,factors or drivers of change, inter- or intra-component linkages of the system andimplications on the interlinked components or in other words the ecosystem as a wholeand the dependent livelihood systems.

In India, villages are precisely demarcated by a political boundary and the land holdingswithin a village and its tenure systems properly defined. Hence, the term village refers topolitical boundary of the land demarcated as a unit. The components of a village ecosysteminclude resources, such as land, soil, water, vegetation, fauna and livestock, and activities,such as agriculture, animal husbandry and fisheries. The primary inflow of energy in such anecosystem is from the sun, which is photosynthesized, and primary production is in the formof food (crop in general), fuelwood (vegetation component) and fodder production. Thereare inflows of elements such as fertilizers, pesticides, new crops and introduced livestock(bidirectional as well as unidirectional flows). The outputs or the primary produce is partlyutilized inside the village for the requirements of the human population and livestock andexchanged partly with outside for capital benefits (monetary). Resources such as water and

2 R. Tiwari et al.

Downloaded By: [Murthy, Indu K.] At: 16:02 23 July 2010

soil act as determinants and drivers of ecosystem production. There exists a mutual depen-dence of the production of an ecosystem with components within it as well as the externalsystem.

Land-use dynamics at finer scale such as the village ecosystem are significant as suchsystems are highly dependent on the land resources. In Indian conditions, agriculture isdirectly driven by availability of arable land and water resources. Factors such as quality,physical properties and water holding capacities of the soils and their management arecrucial determinants of agriculture and its productivity. Land-use and land-use change is oneof the determinants and often, a major consequence of perturbations among differentcomponents of village ecosystems. Rural communities and their livelihoods are directlydependent on the land resource, and land-use changes have far-reaching consequences in avillage ecosystem with implications for major services of the ecosystem.

This study adopts the village ecosystem approach and is based on village ecosystemstudies conducted in selected village ecosystems of southern India as part of a larger studythat was aimed at monitoring natural resources within village ecosystems. In this article, wepresent the current land-use status of selected village ecosystem and the change that hasoccurred over a time period, the drivers of change and to a limited extent the implications ofsuch changes on the ecosystem as a whole, adopting the case study approach advocated byAntrop (2000), Naveh (2001) and Lambin et al. (2003). As Lambin et al. (2003) stated, casestudies are still required to understand complex human–nature systems in LUCC research:‘there is an interest in place-based research as a method to reveal a large repertoire ofpathways of land-use change, in a range of human–environment conditions’. In the contextof this article, land-use change or land-use dynamics means any change in use of a landresource, complete or partial, that is evident as result of a causal factor.

2. Study area

This study that was conducted as part of a larger study on natural resource monitoring inselected village ecosystems of southern India falls in different agro-ecological zones.Eleven villages (Table 1) in three states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Naduwere inventoried for all major natural resources. The Andhra Pradesh villages belong tonorthern Telangana plateau and Eastern Ghats, the Karnataka villages fall in the northSahyadris and western Karnataka plateau and the central Karnataka plateau and the TamilNadu villages are located in the agro-ecological zone called Tamil Nadu uplands andplains (Figure 1).

Table 1. Study villages.

State Villages studied AEZ region

Andhra Pradesh Aurpalle and Dokur Northern Telangana plateauLaxmipuram and Rayapurajupeta Eastern Ghats

Karnataka Sirsimakki and Lukkeri North Sahyadris and WesternKarnataka plateau

Ungra Central Karnataka plateau

Tamil Nadu Kempanaickenpalayam,Sellipalayam,Thalakudi and Valadi

Tamil Nadu uplands and plains

Journal of Land Use Science 3

Downloaded By: [Murthy, Indu K.] At: 16:02 23 July 2010

Dokur and Aurpalle villages of Andhra Pradesh represent a dryland ecosystem in theNorthern Telangana plateau region. The other two villages of Andhra Pradesh namelyLaxmipuram and Rayapurajupeta represent Eastern Ghats agricultural villages ofVisakhapatnam district. Among the four villages of Karnataka, Sirsimakki and Lukkerirepresent the Western Ghats. Sirsimakki is a forested village whereas Lukkeri is a coastalvillage situated in close proximity to the Arabian Sea and estuary of river Aghanashini,representing a mangrove ecosystem characterized by estuarine fishing, ghajini lands1 andsaline tolerant paddy cultivation. In contrast, Ungra village, again in Karnataka, represents adryland ecosystem. All the study villages in Tamil Nadu fall in the Tamil Nadu uplands agro-ecological zone.

3. Methodology

The villages were selected in the three states taking into consideration the representativenessof these villages to the agro-ecological zone they belong to and the availability of historicaldata for trend analysis. Representativeness was determined by taking into consideration the

N

EW

S

90 0 90 180

Kilometers

SUB-AEZ REGIONS

7.2

8.2

6.2

3.07.1

6.4

6.1

8.1

19.2

.

18.3

6.3

18.2

18.418.4

18.1.

Visakhapatnam

Mahabubnagar

Tumkur

UttaraKannada

Erode

Tiruchirappalli

DOKUR

LUKKERI

SIRSIMAKKI

KEMPANAICKENPALAYAM

SELLIPALAYAM

THALAKUDI

VALADI

UNGRA

LAXMIPURAM

RAYAPURAJUPETA

VILLAGE LOCATION

18.1

8.3

12.1

12.2

AURPALLE

Tiruchirappalli

7.3

7.3

DISTRICT

Tumkur

Figure 1. Villages studied and AEZ zones.

4 R. Tiwari et al.

Downloaded By: [Murthy, Indu K.] At: 16:02 23 July 2010

broad land-use features, demography, agriculture and rainfall pattern. Availability of pastdata and rapport of groups working in the region with the villages were also determiningfactors as the study involved extensive field studies within the village as well as householdsurveys and participatory rural appraisal. The study locations are therefore placed far andwide. However, within the agro-ecological zones in a state, the study locations are close toone another and with similar land-use features making them comparable within the agro-ecological zone.

To understand the changes or shifts in land-use, the factors driving change and implica-tions thereof, a set of protocols were developed and adopted. Indicators identified for thispurpose reflect the status and trends of land directly such as land-use or cover changes, totalarable land, cultivated land to fallow land ratio, forest or vegetation cover and extent, grazingland and wasteland availability and extent. The protocols used to understand the contem-porary status of land utilization are based on a detailed land survey and mapping of the landuse at the individual plot or land holding level. To understand the trends at spatial, temporal,form and extent, based on past data, various reconstruction methods were employed. Thedriving factors and implications were studied through household surveys, participatory ruralappraisal and/or focus group discussions.

3.1. Land survey

Land surveys were conducted using a base map, which was generated referring to the recentavailable cadastral map2 of the village. Each patch of land in a village with a unique surveynumber represents a particular area, use and ownership. Survey numbers are therefore the unitsof land survey records. Reconnaissance survey was conducted to demarcate non-croplandland-use systems such as grazing land, wasteland, water body, settlement and others.Parameters such as extent, ownership and history of the land were recorded. Croplandswere surveyed in detail which involved recording whether the land parcel was dryland orirrigated land, the crops cultivated including mixed crop and inter-crops of that particularseason, major irrigation source such as presence of bore wells and open wells and if irrigated,its status (such as whether in use or abandoned or left fallow). Latitude and longitudecoordinates were recorded in all corners and at strategic points of each survey number or plots.

Based on the land survey, land-use maps were generated to represent the land use at thetime of survey. Detailed land-use maps were generated for the Kharif (monsoon) season forthe villages studied, which represents the main cropping season. The Kharif season can beroughly demarcated from June to November for the villages studied based on the rainfalldistribution.

The generated maps and the data were analysed to understand the current land-use statusand the past land-use pattern both at temporal and spatial scales. The two time periodscompared for all the study villages were representative in that both the time periods consideredwere within the threshold of extreme events with rainfall being more or less the same. Invillages such as Dokur and Aurpalle which are drought prone, the previous time period thatwas compared was also a drought year, when the mean of the region is considered.

Land-use maps for previous periods were reconstructed subject to availability of pastland records, broad land-use maps and people’s knowledge of the changes in land-usepattern. The past time points considered for a particular village ranged from couple ofyears to decades and was largely based on data availability. Hence the land-use trendsdiscussed vary with the village with respect to temporal aspects. Only in case studies such asUngra spatial comparison was possible with the availability of historical map for a previousperiod (Figure 2).

Journal of Land Use Science 5

Downloaded By: [Murthy, Indu K.] At: 16:02 23 July 2010

Figure 2. Area under paddy varieties in Ungra village, Karnataka, during 1981 and 2006.Note: The maps show the changes in area under traditional and hybrid paddy varieties; there is a slight dispersalexpansion in the area being cultivated with paddy unlike in 1981 where paddy fields were concentrated along thecanal and the river bank.

6 R. Tiwari et al.

Downloaded By: [Murthy, Indu K.] At: 16:02 23 July 2010

3.2. Household survey

Survey of individual households was conducted to obtain information related to an indivi-dual household such as population, gender distribution, land holding, cropping pattern,livestock holding, energy and sanitation status and use of the various resources within thevillage ecosystem. The household surveys also provided information on cropping patternand changes in cropping pattern including drivers of change. Such information pertaining toother land use was also obtained during the course of household survey. The key respondentsincluded men, women as well as elders and children.

3.3. Participatory rural appraisal

This exercise was conducted to obtain general information on village resources, use patterns,trends and status of resources over the years.

The drivers of change were particularly identified through household surveys andparticipatory rural appraisals in the study villages. Although it is difficult to quantify therelative importance of these determinant parameters, nevertheless the relative importance ofthe various drivers was highlighted by these exercises. The perception of drivers of changeand their relative importance presented in this article is therefore the perspective of thevillage communities that reside in the study village ecosystems.

4. Land-use features of the villages

All the 11 villages studied across the three states of southern India are agricultural villages interms of primary livelihood and land-use. The villages ranged from intensively cultivatedwater-dependent or irrigated ecosystems to largely dryland or rain-fed ecosystems. Components suchas forest andmangrove ecosystems were also studied in particular cases. Dokur and Aurpalle ofAndhra Pradesh and Ungra of Karnataka represent dryland ecosystems; Sirsimakki andLukkeri, both Karnataka villages, have forest as the major component of the village ecosystem;and the four Tamil Nadu villages –Kempanaickenpalayam, Sellipalayam, Thalakudi andValadirepresent intensively cultivated irrigated agricultural ecosystems. The broad land-use pattern forthe year of survey (2006) is presented in Table 2.

The size of the villages varies from large such as Dokur and Kempanaickenpalayamwithtotal geographical area of 1137 and 923 ha, respectively, to small villages such asRayapurajupeta (174 ha) and Lukkeri (132 ha). The villages also vary with respect to totalcultivated area during the year of survey. Sellipalayam of Andhra Pradesh is the only villagewith greater than 75% of the geographic area under cultivation (79%). Ungra in Karnataka(73%), Valadi (68%) and Kempanaickenpalayam (54%) of Tamil Nadu, Rayapurajupeta andLaxmipuram of Andhra Pradesh have about 50–75% area under crops. The percent areacropped was between 25 and 50% in Aurpalle (49%) and Dokur (30%) of Andhra Pradesh,Lukkeri (44%) of Karnataka and Thalakudi (30%) of Tamil Nadu. The percent cropped areais lowest in forest-dominated Sirsimakki (19%) of Karnataka. Sirsimakki (0.55), Ungra(0.48) and Dokur (0.41) recorded higher population per hectare, whereas Lukkeri (0.06),Thalakudi (0.06) and Valadi (0.07) recorded least population per hectare. Cultivated area percapita ranged from 0.35 ha in Ungra to 0.02 ha in Thalakudi (Figure 3).

The villages hence represent a broad diversity with respect to size, population per hectareand percent area cropped. The pressure on the different resources within these villageecosystems is also varied and therefore an inter-comparison of these villages involves certainassumptions.

Journal of Land Use Science 7

Downloaded By: [Murthy, Indu K.] At: 16:02 23 July 2010

Table2.

Land-usepatternin

stud

yvillages—

2006

.a

Village

bTotalgeog

raph

icarea

Forest/

plantation

Cropland

Irrigated

Dry

land

Fallow

Wasteland

Water

bodies

Othersinclud

ingsettlement

Sirsimakki

(699

)38

428

5c72

––

––

–27

Luk

keri(204

0)13

233

c58

––

––

–30

Aurpalle(194

5)67

6–

333

––

289

–13

41

Dok

ur(279

8)1137

–34

517

0–

612

––

80Ung

ra(751

)36

04d

264

162

–27

1–

64

Kem

panaickenp

alayam

(327

9)92

3–

501

150

–16

5–

224

33

Sellipalayam

(255

2)49

2–

389

233

156

34–

3930

Thalaku

di(406

8)25

715

d77

77–

33–

9141

Valadi(362

2)26

8–

183

183

–10

–9

66

Laxmipuram

(350

0)65

135

d34

023

7–

52–

248

36

Rayapurajup

eta(125

0)17

438

d10

577

–9

211

9

a Areain

hectares;areado

notadd

upas

theclassification

ordefinition

may

vary

across

villages

andareasmay

berepresentedin

morethan

onecategory.bTotalhu

man

population

during

2006

inparenthesis.

c Naturalforest.dPlantation.

8 R. Tiwari et al.

Downloaded By: [Murthy, Indu K.] At: 16:02 23 July 2010

A cluster analysis of the villages for parameters pertaining to population, agriculture andgrazing further elaborates the diversity and comparability of the villages. The parametersconsidered included population density, which is a ratio of total human population to thetotal geographical area of the village; cultivation intensity, which is a ratio of total cultivatedland during kharif to the total potential land available; grazing land per cattle, which is thetotal potential grazing land which includes dedicated grazing land and fallow lands percattle. These variables are proxies for the demographic pressures, cultivation intensity andfodder availability in the villages at the time of study. Normalized values (Table 3) were usedto conduct cluster analysis. Normalization was done by taking the difference between thescore and the average across the villages and dividing it by the standard deviation ofthe same. The results are shown in Figure 4.

Sirsimakki village stood distinct from other villages as it represents village withdedicated grazing land and stabilized agriculture with maximum agricultural intensity.Aurpalle and Dokur form another cluster with similar population density. Thalakudi andValadi cluster up with Lukkeri owing to population density. Sellipalayam, Rayapurajupeta andLaxmipuram cluster together due to similarity in agricultural intensity. Kempanaickenpalayamand Ungra cluster with the previous set at second and third levels, respectively.

0.06

0.06

0.07

0.14

0.19

0.19

0.28

0.35

0.41

0.48

0.55

0 0.2 0.4 0.6

Lukkeri

Thalakudi

Valadi

Rayapurajupeta

Sellipalayam

Laxmipuram

Kempanaickenpalayam

Aurpalle

Dokur

Ungra

Sirsimakki

Population density (per ha)

0.02

0.03

0.05

0.08

0.10

0.10

0.12

0.15

0.15

0.17

- 0.10 0.20

Thalakudi

Lukkeri

Valadi

Rayapurajupeta

Sirsimakki

Laxmipuram

Dokur

Kempanaickenpalayam

Sellipalayam

Aurpalle

Ungra

Per capita cropland area in ha

0.35

0.30 0.40

Figure 3. Population density and per capita cultivable area in villages studied.

Journal of Land Use Science 9

Downloaded By: [Murthy, Indu K.] At: 16:02 23 July 2010

The analysis represents the distance between villages with respect to parametersconsidered. The comparability can hence be inferred from the above clustering. Otherparameters which were considered for the analysis but omitted due to lower Jolliffe cut-off included soil organic carbon in croplands and forest area. Additionally, the villages wererepresentative of the precipitation to the respective agro-ecological zone they belong to. Thevillages compared in the discussion are hence clusters with similarity in the componentssuch as those presented above or the causal factors of the change.

0

1.6

3.2

4.8

6.4

8

9.6

11.2

Clu

ste

rs

–4 –3.6 –3.2 –2.8 –2.4 –2 –1.6 –1.2 –0.8 –0.4 0

Similarity

Ungra

Kempanaickenpalayam

Sellipalayam

Rayapurajupeta

Laxmipuram

Thalakudi

Valadi

Lukkeri

Aurpalle

Dokur

Sirsimakki

Figure 4. Similarity and clustering of the study villages based on population density, cultivationintensity and grazing land per cattle.

Table 3. Variables considered for cluster analysis.

Population densityindividuals/hectare

Cultivationintensity

Grazing land (fallow anddedicated) per cattle in

hectares of grazing land percattle

Villages Score Normalized Score Normalized Score Normalized

Lukkeri 15.45 1.53 1.00 0.93 0.00 -0.69Sirsimakki 1.82 -0.94 1.00 0.93 0.51 2.83Ungra 0.48 -1.19 0.89 0.40 0.08 -0.14Thalakudi 15.83 1.60 0.70 -0.53 0.06 -0.28Valadi 13.51 1.17 0.95 0.69 0.02 -0.55Kempanaickenpalayam 7.10 0.01 0.75 -0.28 0.03 -0.48Sellipalayam 5.19 -0.33 0.92 0.54 0.03 -0.48Aurpalle 2.88 -0.75 0.53 -1.35 0.08 -0.14Dokur 2.46 -0.83 0.36 -2.18 0.19 0.62Laxmipuram 5.38 -0.30 0.87 0.30 0.07 -0.21Rayapurajupeta 7.18 0.03 0.92 0.54 0.03 -0.48

Note: All three parameters were selected as they were significant and above the Jolliffe cut-off of 0.7 amongst theparameters considered.

10 R. Tiwari et al.

Downloaded By: [Murthy, Indu K.] At: 16:02 23 July 2010

5. Trends and trade-offs

The changes in land use and the factors driving change in different villages are intricatelylinked at various levels and form. This is evident from the fact that a change in one resourceor land use has led to change in another resource or land use in a few villages. Thus, a changethat manifests as a result of one factor or driver is a cause of another change. This articleattempts to look at trends at the village ecosystem level. The changes in land area have beenbroadly classified as large area changes and small area changes for discussion in thesubsequent sections. Population density is a common driver across all the villages (Figure 5).

5.1. Large-scale changes

Among the shifts observed, fallowing of cultivable land was a major trend in drylandecosystems of Dokur and Aurpalle in Andhra Pradesh. The extent of shift from croplandto fallow was large in these villages, accounting for 54 and 26% of the total geographic areaof the respective villages. In both Dokur and Aurpalle, cropland has been left fallow over aperiod of three decades. The presence of on urban centre in the vicinity and urban demand forlabour in general was found to be a major determinant of land-use change in Dokur andAurpalle as perceived by the people during household survey and participatory ruralappraisal. Both the villages typically represent extreme cases where urban demand forresources and services has led to major shifts. Livelihood diversification such as out-migration for labour has reduced the dependence on local land resources for livelihoods inthese villages. On the contrary, the in-migration mainly for residential purposes into thesevillages has created increased dependence of an increased population on natural resourcessuch as water.

0.00 0.20 0.40

Thalakudi

Lukkeri

Valladi

Rayapurajupeta

Lakshmipuram

Sellipalayam

Kempanaickenapalayam

Aurapalle

Dokur

Ungra

Sirsimakki

Individuals per hectare0.60 0.80

Past

Current

Figure 5. Trends in population density.Note: The past time point varies with village.

Journal of Land Use Science 11

Downloaded By: [Murthy, Indu K.] At: 16:02 23 July 2010

Mahabubnagar, a district headquarter, is the nearby urban centre to both the villages. Ithas not only caused diversification of livelihoods but also led to large-scale abandonment ofcultivable croplands, leaving them fallow for periods that would make them eligible forconversion to residential plots. As a result, the area under settlement has increased by about45 ha in Dokur. These changes in land-use have also led to shifts in major occupation. Dokurrecorded a decline in the proportion of people depending on agriculture and at the same timean increase in people out-migrating for labour over the decades. This has caused a decline inagriculture in the form of reduced availability of agricultural labour at a local level, therebyincreasing the cost of hiring agricultural labour locally.

Similar trends of decline in cropland and fallowing of cropland are observed inLaxmipuram of Andhra Pradesh and Kempanaickenpalayam of Tamil Nadu. But, the driversof change in these two villages were quite different from the dryland villages of Dokur andAurpalle. In Laxmipuram, about 52 ha of cultivable land has been left fallow over a period ofthree decades for the purpose of converting the land to settlements. A doubling of the humanpopulation has acted as an additional driver of this change. In Kempanaickenpalayam thedecline in area under cultivation has been gradual and currently about 74 ha has been leftfallow, about 8% change over the past decade. The factors driving this change inKempanaickenpalayam include water scarcity created due to shifts in the cropping patternto more water-intensive crops and practices. In this village, short-term crops growntraditionally (such as paddy and maize) have gradually been replaced by annual crops(such as sugarcane, turmeric and banana) for increased economic returns, causing anincreased demand for water the source of which has remained constant. This is becausereplacement of traditional crops by altogether new cash crops is seen as a means of economicdevelopment (Midmore, Jansen, and Dumsday 1996; Semwal et al. 2004). The increase incultivation of cash crop has led to a decline in area under food crops.

In Laxmipuram, there has been a reduction in the area under water bodies. A reductionby about 79 ha was observed over three decades in Laxmipuram. The dried water bodieshave partly been utilized for cultivation purposes whereas the remaining portion is beingused for grazing purposes. This change could be attributed mainly to reduced rainfall overthe years as Laxmipuram has received rainfall below the mean over a 6-year period of2000–2006. If normal rainfall occurs, the dried water bodies that have been cultivated arelikely to become submerged and revert to their original state.

5.2. Small-scale changes

Area changes of less than 50 ha or about 15% of the total area are considered as small scaleand discussed in this section.

In Rayapurajupeta of Andhra Pradesh, about 37 ha of cropland (21% of total area) hasbeen converted to tree plantation over the past three decades (Table 4). This shift accordingto community perception has been a strategy to cope with water shortage that has occurred asa result of a deficit in rainfall over the years. The area converted to tree plantations wasinitially under paddy cultivation, which is a water-intensive crop.

Valadi in Tamil Nadu recorded an expansion in area under settlement (34 ha) over thepast three decades. This is mainly due to in-migration of people from nearby towns andcities, mainly urban, resulting in an increase in area, accounting for about 13% of the totalgeographic area. Although this change is not as large as in the case of Dokur and Aurpalle ofAndhra Pradesh, the trends are similar. Thalakudi of Tamil Nadu similarly recordedconversion of cropland to settlement over a period of 5 years to an extent of 18 ha, thereason again being urban demand for land for residential purposes.

12 R. Tiwari et al.

Downloaded By: [Murthy, Indu K.] At: 16:02 23 July 2010

Table4.

Major

land

-use

trends

recorded

instud

yvillages.

Village

ecosystem

Initialland

use

Chang

edland

use

Extentof

change

(ha)

Tim

eperiodof

change

Major

factorsdrivingchange

Dok

urCropland

Fallow

612

1975

–200

6Dem

andforland

forurban

settlements,deficitrainfall

Aurpalle

Cropland

Fallow

179

1975

–200

6Out-m

igration

offarm

ersand

declinein

agriculturalactivities

Kem

panaickenp

alayam

Cropland

Fallow

7419

97–2

006

Water

scarcity

Laxmipuram

Cropland

Fallow

5219

75–2

006

Dem

andforland

for

settlements

Dok

urCropland

Settlem

ent

4519

75–2

006

Increaseddemand

forsettlement

Rayapurajup

eta

Cropland

Treeplantation

3719

75–2

006

Water

scarcity

Valadi

Cropland

Settlem

ent

3419

90–2

006

Urbanizationandincrease

inarea

undersettlement

Luk

keri

Minor

forest

Forestplantation

2820

03–2

006

Afforestation

prog

rammeby

forestdepartment

Thalaku

diCropland

Infrastructure

andsettlement

1820

01–2

006

Increasein

popu

lation

andurbansprawl

Ung

raGrazing

land

Plantation

1619

79–2

006

Policydecision

s

Journal of Land Use Science 13

Downloaded By: [Murthy, Indu K.] At: 16:02 23 July 2010

In Lukkeri of Karnataka, forest restoration activities have been taken up in about 28 haover the past couple of years (Table 4). Mangrove forest was restored or planted in about10 ha area. Similar forestation activity was observed in Sirsimakki of Karnataka, whereabout 36 ha was afforested during 1990. Afforestation activities in both the villages weremainly due to a policy decision by the forest department along with community initiative andparticipation.

Ungra in Karnataka represents a unique case where plantations were raised on grazingland (village commons or gomal). About 16 ha of dedicated grazing land was converted toplantations during the 1980s (Table 4). Further, a change in the composition of livestock,with a shift from traditional to improved breeds, stall-feeding practice has increased resultingin farmers raising dedicated fodder crops on croplands during the same period.

Shifts from paddy to sugarcane in most of the irrigated ecosystems especially Ungra wasmainly driven by the need for better economic returns and market availability. The establish-ment of a sugar factory in the nearby district centre during the 1990s opened the market to thecommunity of Ungra and other villages in the vicinity. As a result, almost 50% (80 ha) of thecropland under paddy during 1989 was shifted to sugarcane by 2006 in Ungra. Similar trendsare observed in Laxmipuram and Rayapurajupeta of Andhra Pradesh where the conversionrecorded over the past three decades is 123 and 28 ha, respectively. Similarly in Valadi(13 ha) and Thalakudi (2 ha) of Tamil Nadu also a gradual change was observed.

In Sirsimakki village of Western Ghats, there is significant increase of about 36 ha underforest plantation during 1990 due to afforestation and management. This plantation raisedwas, however, managed by the forest department and there was no opportunity for the localcommunities to gain any employment.

It was observed that there is decline in agricultural activities and area under cultivationwith increase in fallow land being common trend in most of the villages. There were novillages where cultivated area has increased. The area under settlement is generallyincreasing due to demand for land for settlement.

6. Extent and temporal considerations

The rates and spatio-temporal patterns of changes in land-use vary partly because of avariation in biophysical, socio-economic and policy factors driving land-use dynamics(Veldkamp and Lambin 2001) and partly because of a variation in the techniques adoptedfor change analysis.

Land-use shifts in the village ecosystems varied with respect to extent and form.The shifts were mainly dependent on the tenure and ownership of the land. In most ofthe cases, large-scale shifts ranging from a couple to tens of hectares were due tomanagement decisions or the cascading effects thereof. Small-scale shifts involving afew hectares of land or less were driven by the provisional returns from the land suchas fuelwood, fodder and crop. The extent of shifts in the land use and area directlyreflects the returns from the land holding to the farmer. Often irreversibility results,and restoration is dependent on the kind of services the land provided prior to land-usechange and also tenurial status.

A shift from paddy to sugarcane cultivation has been observed in six villages includingUngra, Laxmipuram, Rayapurajupeta, Valadi, Thalakudi, Kempanaickenpalayam andSellipalayam, the major drivers being higher economic returns from sugarcane and marketdynamics. In some cases, high labour requirement for paddy have affected the change. Thechanges range from almost complete replacement of paddy in case of Rayapurajupeta, topartial such as Ungra and other villages.

14 R. Tiwari et al.

Downloaded By: [Murthy, Indu K.] At: 16:02 23 July 2010

Consequences of land-use shifts can be stratified into short- term and long-term. Short-term consequences or implications are largely observable in terms of services immediatelyprovided or lost from the land and subject to form or type of change and extent of changes.Long-term implications include the effect on the land resource and health factors such as soilnutrient status, cultivability and reversibility of the change.

Effects of land-use changes are largely long-term and only in few cases, the changesmanifest to observable or measurable levels in a short period of time. In most cases, there arebalancing factors for the components of the ecosystem which depend on the land use such asalternative livelihood options, shift to alternative sources of fodder, fuelwood and othersservices and goods which were directly dependent on the patch of land which underwentchange.

7. Factors driving land-use changes

Gaining an understanding of the causes of land-use change requires an understanding of howpeople make land-use decisions and how various factors interact in specific contexts toinfluence decision making on land-use. Decision making could be influenced by factors at alocal, regional or global scale. However, in the context of this study, the causes are primarilylocal and to some limited extent regional given that the scope of our study is restricted tovillage ecosystems.

Lambin et al. (2003) classify the factors influencing land-use decision making intoproximate and underlying causes:

‘‘Proximate causes of land-use change constitute human activities or immediate actions atthe local level (individual farms, households, or communities), while underlying causes mayoriginate from the regional (districts, provinces, or country) or even global levels, withcomplex interplays between levels of organization.’’ Ojima, Galvin, and Turner (1994)define proximate (or direct) causes of land-use change to be constituted by human activitiesor immediate actions that originate from intended land use and directly affect land cover.Studying farming systems or in this case the village ecosystem allows one to addressproximate causes and to interpret them in reference to underlying causes. Underlying causescan be interpreted as ‘individual and social responses to changing economic [and technolo-gical] conditions, which are mediated by institutional factors’ and are ‘formed by a complexof social, political, economic, demographic, technological, cultural, and biophysical vari-ables’ (Lambin et al. 2003).

This study adopted the participatory survey method and shows that a participatory surveycan provide data sets complementing the information available from existing land-usemaps andland survey information as also shown elsewhere (Midmore et al. 1996; Zurayk et al. 2001).However, reconstruction of the past based on farmers’ perceptions will always be limited tovariables, which are traditionally quantified, and to a time scale, which is within the range ofhuman memory (Showers 1996; Fujisaka et al. 1998). The possibility of farmers hiding orproviding inaccurate information does however exist (Omiti, Parton, Sinden, and Ehui 1999).

In this study direct drivers or proximate causes as classified by Lambin et al. (2003)include individual farmers’ interests and livelihoods, community interests, urban demand andwater scarcity (Figure 6). Factors such as an increase in the demand for the resourcesand resultant trade-offs, population pressure, degradation of resource status and extentand long-term social and economic interests of the communities are considered the secondaryor regulatory drivers. These factors do not directly cause shifts in land-use but have an effecton the primary drivers of change. In other words, factors affecting the services provided by the

Journal of Land Use Science 15

Downloaded By: [Murthy, Indu K.] At: 16:02 23 July 2010

resources and processes associated with the land resource are affected by certain majorchanges and the change and the cascading impacts in turn affect them.

Livelihoods of the communities and economic returns have played a major role in drivingland-use changes in the village ecosystems studied. In most cases, the shifts were driven by agroup of factors and their interaction with each other rather than individual factors. Croplandshifts were mainly driven by increased returns from agricultural activity. Limiting factors suchas water availability played a crucial role in determining the cultivability of the land andeconomic viability of agriculture. Other factors include the capacity of the farmer, theinvestment cost and market dynamics. Labour scarcity in a few cases limited the totalagricultural activity that resulted in a shift from labour-intensive agricultural cropping toless labour-intensive crops or abandonment of cultivation. In some cases, urban influenceresulted in increase in the demand for residential land in the villages driving the land owners toleave their cultivable croplands fallow, in the need for increased economic returns.

In summary, the factors driving land-use shifts and changes are mainly anthropogenic.Only in villages like Laxmipuram, a lowering of the water table and/or drying up of thepond has led to changes in land-use. The livelihood needs of communities and competitionfor land resource from external sources such as nearby towns and cities are other drivers ofchange.

Outmigration ofthe communities

Water scarcity andurban labour demand

Underlyingcause

Proximatecause

Water scarcity(deficit rainfall)

Increased demandfor settlement land

Population increase

Cro

pla

nd to fallo

w

Dokur

Aurpalle

Kempanaickenpalayam

Laxmipuram

Demand for urbansettlements

Population increasein urban area

Increased demandfor settlement land

Urbanization

Laxmipuram

Valadi

Increased demandfor settlement land

Population increase

Increased demandfor settlement land

Urbanization ThalakudiC

ropla

nd to s

ettle

ment

Increased demandfor settlement land

Urbanization Dokur

Figure 6. Schematic representation of the factors driving land-use shifts.

16 R. Tiwari et al.

Downloaded By: [Murthy, Indu K.] At: 16:02 23 July 2010

8. Conclusion

In most villages including all four villages studied in Andhra Pradesh, namely Dokur,Aurpalle, Laxmipuram and Rayapurajupeta, and Tamil Nadu villages, Kempanaickenpalayam,Valadi and Thalakudi, the area under crops has decreased. The fallow land or abandonedland has increased in Aurpalle, Dokur, Laxmipuram and Kempanaickenpalayam villagessignificantly. This is a surprising observation as despite the growth in human population, thearea under crops has declined. There is also a shift away from labour-intensive crops due to alabour shortage and the migration of labour to towns and cities. The area under settlementhas increased in all villages, often encroaching on cropland, to meet the growing demands.The major drivers of the land-use change include migration, labour shortage, urban demandand water scarcity. The observed land-use changes could have long-term implications forfood and livestock production. In a few villages such as Sirsimakki and Sellipalayam thecropland area has remained constant over the period of analysis. In some cases such asLaxmipuram and Lukkeri, the cropland area has increased marginally.

Land-use changes and dynamics were found to be of prime significance in a villageecosystem as livelihoods of communities in most of the cases are based on the land resourceand crucially linked to the type and extent of land holding and activities undertaken on thatland that included agriculture, grazing and others. Village ecosystems provide a clearadvantage in understanding the land-use changes and dynamics as in the observed cases,the boundaries are clearly demarcated, and the associated linkages such as crops, the fuel andfodder, both in the form of biomass and energy, are clearly traceable.

The extent of change and the existing linkages for the land undergoing changedetermined the level of implications, both short- and long-term to a large extent. Amongthe changes observed, an interacting set of drivers, mainly anthropogenic, and in a few cases,natural, had significant impacts. Although policy barriers exist for specific conversions suchas a restriction on forest land conversion, it was observed that the community initiatives andnatural causes affected to a large extent. The observable changes and magnitude of change atthe ecosystem also varied highly and were subject to the uniqueness of a particularecosystem and the existing linkages.

A top-down approach of downscaling the coarser understanding to policy making atfiner levels could be erroneous and vague. On the contrary, a bottom-up approach orconsidering the micro-level details and upscaling to larger levels would be more reliable.Although land-use changes are clearly traceable and understood to significant levels, furtherlinkages pertaining to the process involving the change need to be probed in finer detail.There is therefore a need for extensive studies on the aspects of land use and changeincluding trade-offs, synergies among the resource status and the drivers of change forimproving the understanding of the dynamics. The implications of the changes on largertime scales are again a challenge and need to be understood.

Notes

1. Low-lying estuarine brackish water area.2. Maps showing the boundaries and ownership of land parcel.

ReferencesAntrop, M. (2000), ‘‘Background Concepts for Integrated Landscape Analysis,’’ Agriculture,

Ecosystems and Environment, 77, 17–28.

Journal of Land Use Science 17

Downloaded By: [Murthy, Indu K.] At: 16:02 23 July 2010

Aurpalle Village Ecosystem; State of Environment and Natural Resources 2006, Bengaluru: Centre forSustainable Technologies, Indian Institute of Science.

Bouma, J. andDroogers, P. (1999), ‘‘Comparing different methods for estimating the soil moisture supplycapacity of a soil series subjected to different types of management’’,Geoderma, 92(3–4), 185–197.

Bushchbacher, R., Uhl, C., and Serrao, E.A.S. (1988), ‘‘Abandoned Pastures in Eastern Amazonia. II.Nutrient Stocks in the Soil and Vegetation,’’ Journal of Ecology, 76, 682–699.

Crissman, C. C., Antle, J. M. and Capalbo, S. M. (1998), ‘‘Economic, environmental and health trade-offs in agriculture: pesticides and the sustainability of Andean potato production’’. InternationalPotato Center. http://www.cipotato.org.

Dalal, R.C. , and Mayer, R.J. (1986), ‘‘Long-Term Trends in Fertility of Soils Under ContinuousCultivation and Cereal Cropping in Southern Queensland,’’ Soil and Tillage Research, 24, 281–292.

DeKoning, G.H.J. , Verburg, P.H. , Veldkamp, A. , and Fresco, L.O. (1999), ‘‘Multi-scaleModelling ofLand Use Change Dynamics in Ecuador,’’ Agricultural Systems, 61, 77–93.

Dokur Village Ecosystem; State of Environment and Natural Resources 2006, Bengaluru: Centre forSustainable Technologies, Indian Institute of Science.

Fu, B.J. , Ma, K.M. , Zhou, H.F. , and Chen, L.D. (1999), ‘‘The Effect of Land Use Structure on theDistribution of Soil Nutrients in the Hilly Area of the Loess Plateau,’’Chinese Science Bulletin, 44,732–736.

Fujisaka, S. , Castilla, C. , Escobar, G. , Rodrgues, V. , Veneklaas, E.J. , Thomas, R. , and Fisher, M.(1998), ‘‘The Effects of Forest Conversion on Annual Crops and Pastures: Estimates of CarbonEmissions and Plant Species Loss in a Brazilian Amazon Colony,’’ Agriculture, Ecosystems andEnvironment, 69, 17–26.

Gautam, A.P. , Webb, E.L. , and Eiumnoh, A. (2002), ‘‘GIS Assessment of Land Use/Land CoverChanges Associated with Community Forestry Implementation in the Middle Hills of Nepal,’’Mountain Research and Development, 22, 63–69.

Hurni, H. (2000), ‘‘Assessing Sustainable Land Management (SLM),’’ Agriculture, Ecosystems andEnvironment, 81, 83–92.

Jackson, W.J. , Tamarkar, R.M. , Hunt, S. , and Shepherd, K.R. (1998), ‘‘Land Use Changes in TwoMiddle Hill Districts of Nepal,’’ Mountain Research and Development, 18, 193–212.

Kempanaickenpalayam Village Ecosystem; State of Environment and Natural Resources 2006,Bengaluru: Centre for Sustainable Technologies, Indian Institute of Science.

Lambin, E.F. , Geist, H.J. , and Lepers, E. (2003), ‘‘Dynamics of Land-Use and Land Cover Change inTropical Regions,’’ Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 28, 205–241.

Lambin, E.F. , Turner, B.L. , Geist, H.J. , Agbola, S.B. , Angelsen, A. , Bruce, J.W. , Coomes, O.T. ,Dirzo, R. , Fischer, G. , and Folke, C. (2001), ‘‘The Causes of Land-Use and Land-Cover Change:Moving Beyond the Myths,’’ Global Environmental Change, 11, 261–269.

Land and Water Digital Media Series. (1999) http://www.fao.org/Ag/AGL/agll/aez.stmLiu, J. (2001), ‘‘Integrating Ecology with Human Demography, Behaviour and Socioeconomics:

Needs and Approaches,’’ Ecological Modelling, 140, 1–8.Lukkeri Village Ecosystem; State of Environment and Natural Resources 2006, Bengaluru: Centre for

Sustainable Technologies, Indian Institute of Science.Mac Donald, D. , Crabtree, J.R. , Wiegsinger, G. , Dax, T. , Stamou, T. , Fleury, P., Gutierrez Lazpita, J.

and Gibon, A. (2000), ‘‘Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: environmentalconsequences and policy response’’, Journal of Environment Management, 59, 47–69.

Midmore, D.J. , Jansen, H.G.P. , and Dumsday, R.G. (1996), ‘‘Soil Erosion and Environmental Impactof Vegetable Production in Cameron Highlands, Malaysia,’’ Agriculture, Ecosystems andEnvironment, 60, 29–46.

Naveh, Z. (2001), ‘‘Ten Major Premises for a Holistic Conception of Multifunctional Landscapes,’’Landscape and Urban Planning, 57, 269–284.

Nobre, C.A. , Artaxo, P. , Becker, A. , Brown, I.F. , Dolman, H. , Dunne, T. , Gash, J.H.C. , Grace, J. ,Janetos, A.C. , Kabat, P. , Keller, M. , Krug, T. , Marengo, J.A. , McNeal, R.J. , Prince, S.D. , SilvaDias, P.L. , Tomasella, J. , Victoria, R.L. , Vorosmarty, C.J. , and Wickland, D.E. (1997), LargeScale Biosphere–Atmosphere Experiment in Amazonia (LBA) Extended Science Plan, CachoeiraPaulista, SP-Brazil: LBA Project Office.

Ojima, D.S. , Galvin, K.A. , and Turner, B.L. , II. (1994), ‘‘The Global Impact of Land-Use Change,’’BioScience, 44, 300–304.

18 R. Tiwari et al.

Downloaded By: [Murthy, Indu K.] At: 16:02 23 July 2010

Omiti, J.M. , Parton, K.A. , Sinden, J.A. , and Ehui, S.K. (1999), ‘‘Monitoring Changes in Land-UsePractices Following Agrarian Decollectivisation in Ethiopia,’’ Agriculture, Ecosystems andEnvironment, 72, 111–118.

Rao, K.S. , and Pant, R. (2001), ‘‘Land Use Dynamics and Landscape Change Pattern in a TypicalMicroWatershed in the Mid Elevation Zone of Central Himalaya, India,’’ Agriculture, Ecosystemsand Environment, 86, 113–123.

Rayapurajupeta Village Ecosystem; State of Environment and Natural Resources 2006, Bengaluru:Centre for Sustainable Technologies, Indian Institute of Science.

Riebsame, W.E. , Parton, W.J. , Galvin, K.A. , Burke, I.C. , Bohren, L. , Young, R. , and Knop, E.(1994), ‘‘Integrated Modelling of Land-Use and Cover Change,’’ BioScience, 44, 350–356.

Sankhayan, P.L. , Gurung, N. , Sitaula, B.K. , and Hofstad, O. (2003), ‘‘Bio-Economic Modeling ofLand Use and Forest Degradation at Watershed Level in Nepal,’’ Agriculture, Ecosystems andEnvironment, 94, 105–116.

Schweik, C.M. , Adhikari, K. , and Pandit, K.N. (1997), ‘‘Land-Cover Change and ForestInstitutions: A Comparison of Two Sub-Basins in the Southern Siwalik Hills of Nepal,’’Mountain Research and Development, 17, 99–116.

Sellipalayam Village Ecosystem; State of Environment and Natural Resources 2006, Bengaluru:Centre for Sustainable Technologies, Indian Institute of Science.

Semwal, R.L. , Nautiyal, S. , Sen, K.K. , Ranaa, U. , Maikhuri, R.K. , Raoc, K.S. , and Saxena, K.G.(2004), ‘‘Patterns and Ecological Implications of Agricultural Land-Use Changes: A Case Studyfrom Central Himalaya, India,’’ Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 102, 81–92.

Showers, K.B. (1996), ‘‘Soil Erosion in the Kingdom of Lesotho and Development of HistoricalEnvironmental Impact Assessment,’’ Ecological Applications, 6, 653–664.

Sirsimakki Village Ecosystem; State of Environment and Natural Resources 2006, Bengaluru: Centrefor Sustainable Technologies, Indian Institute of Science.

Taillefumier, F. , and Pie�gay, H. (2003), ‘‘Contemporary Land Use Changes in PrealpineMediterranean Mountains: A Multivariate GIS-Based Approach Applied to Two Municipalitiesin the Southern French Alps,’’ Catena, 51, 267–296.

Thalakudi Village Ecosystem; State of Environment and Natural Resources 2006, Bengaluru: Centrefor Sustainable Technologies, Indian Institute of Science.

Thapa, G.B. (1996), ‘‘Land Use, Land Management and Environment in a Subsistence MountainEconomy in Nepal,’’ Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 57, 57–71.

Thapa, G.B. , and Weber, K.E. (1995), ‘‘Status and Management of Watersheds in the Upper PokharaValley, Nepal,’’ Environmental Management, 19, 497–513.

Ungra Village Ecosystem; State of Environment and Natural Resources 2006, Bengaluru: Centre forSustainable Technologies, Indian Institute of Science.

Valadi Village Ecosystem; State of Environment and Natural Resources 2006, Bengaluru: Centre forSustainable Technologies, Indian Institute of Science.

Veldkamp, A. , and Lambin, E.F. (2001), ‘‘Predicting Land Use Change,’’ Agriculture, Ecosystems andEnvironment, 85, 1–6.

Virgo, K.J. , and Subba, K.J. (1994), ‘‘Land-Use Change Between 1978 and 1990 in Dhankuta District,Koshi Hills, Eastern Nepal,’’ Mountain Research and Development, 14, 159–170.

Wilson, E.O. (ed.) (1988), Biodiversity, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Zurayk, R. , Hamadeh, S. , Salma, T. , Sayegh, C. , Chehab, A. , and Shab, K. (2001), ‘‘Using

Indigenous Knowledge in Land Use Investigations: A Participatory Study in a Semi-AridMountainous Region of Lebanon,’’ Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 86, 247–262.

Journal of Land Use Science 19

Downloaded By: [Murthy, Indu K.] At: 16:02 23 July 2010