Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Assessment of inherent vulnerability of forests at landscape level: a case study from Western Ghats in India

  • 326 Accesses

  • 2 Citations

Abstract

Assessment of vulnerability is an important step in building long-term resilience in the forestry sector. The objective of this paper is to present a methodological approach to assess inherent vulnerability of forests at landscape level. The approach involves use of vulnerability indicators, the pairwise comparison method, and geographic information system (GIS) tools. We apply this approach to assess the inherent vulnerability of forests of the Western Ghats Karnataka (WGK) landscape, which is a part of the Western Ghats biodiversity hotspot in India. Four vulnerability indicators, namely biological richness, disturbance index, canopy cover, and slope, are selected. We find that forests in 30, 36, 19, and 15 % grid points in this region show low, medium, high, and very high inherent vulnerability, respectively. The forest showing high and very high inherent vulnerability are mostly dry deciduous forests and plantations located largely on the eastern side of the landscape. We also find that canopy cover is one of the key indicators that determine the inherent vulnerability of forests, and natural forests are inherently less vulnerable than man-made plantations. Spatial assessment of inherent vulnerability of forests at landscape level is particularly useful for developing strategies to build resilience to current stressors and climate change in future.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Brooks N (2003) Vulnerability, risk and adaptation: a conceptual framework. Tyndall Centre Working Paper 38

  2. Chaturvedi RK, Ranjith G, Jayaraman M et al (2011) Impact of climate change on Indian forests: a dynamic vegetation modeling approach. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 16:119–142

  3. Ellison D, Futter MN, Bishop K (2012) On the forest-cover water yield debate: from demand- to supply-side thinking. Glob Chang Biol 18:806–820

  4. FSI (2002) The manual of instructions for field inventory 2002. Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, Dehradun. http://www.fsi.nic.in/documents/manualforest_inventory_2.pdf. Cited 13 June 2014

  5. FSI (2011) State of forest report 2011. Forest survey of India, Ministry of environment and forests, government of India, Dehradun. http://www.fsi.nic.in/cover_2011/chapter2.pdf. Cited 13 June 2014

  6. Füssel H, Klein RJ (2006) Climate change vulnerability Assessments: an evolution of conceptual thinking. Clim Change 75:301–329

  7. GOI (2011) Report of the Western Ghats ecology expert panel, ministry of environment and forests, government of India, New Delhi. www.moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/wg-23052012.pdf. Cited 13 June 2014

  8. Haila Y, Kouki J (1994) The phenomenon of biodiversity in conservation biology. Ann Zool Fenn 31:5–18

  9. IPCC (2012) In: Field CB, Barros V, Stocker TF, Qin D, Dokken DJ, Ebi KL, Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Plattner G-K, Allen SK, Tignor M, Midgley PM (eds) Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. A special report of working groups I and II of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 582 pp

  10. IPCC (2014) Summary for policymakers. In: Field CB, Barros VR, Dokken DJ, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD, Bilir TE, Chatterjee M, Ebi KL, Estrada YO, Genova RC, Girma B, Kissel ES, Levy AN, MacCracken S, Mastrandrea PR, White LL (eds) Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–32

  11. Kauffman JB, Uhl C (1990) Interactions and consequences of deforestation and fire in the rainforests of the Amazon Basin. In: Goldhammer JG (ed) Fire in the tropical and sub-tropical biota. Springer, Berlin, pp 117–134

  12. Lindner M, Maroschek M, Netherer S et al (2010) Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of European forest ecosystems. Forest Ecol Manag 259:698–709

  13. Metzger MJ, Rounsevell MDA, Acosts-Michlik L et al (2006) The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land use change. Agric Ecosyst Environ 114:69–85

  14. Murthy IK, Tiwari R, Ravindranath NH (2011) Climate change and forests in India: adaptation opportunities and challenges. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 16:161–175

  15. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG et al (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858

  16. Niemelä J (1999) Management in relation to disturbance in boreal forest. Forest Ecol Manag 115:127–134

  17. Price DL (ed) (2008) Draft Michigan state forest management plan. Michigan department of natural resources, forest, mineral, and fire management division and wildlife division, Lansing. http://www.michigandnr.com/publications/pdfs/ForestsLandWater/ForestMgt/SFMPdraftApr2008.pdf. Cited 18 June 2013

  18. Ribot J (2011) Vulnerability before adaption: towards transformative climate action. Glob Environ Chang 21:1160–1162

  19. Roy PS, Kushwaha SPS, Murthy MSR et al (2012) Biodiversity Characterisation at landscape level: National Assessment. Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, Dehradun, p 140. ISBN 81-901418-8-0

  20. Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 1(1):83–98

  21. Sharma J, Chaturvedi RK, Bala G et al (2013) Challenges in vulnerability assessment of forests under climate change. Carbon Manage 4(4):403–411

  22. Sharma J, Chaturvedi RK, Bala G et al (2015) Assessing ‘inherent vulnerability’ of forests: a methodological approach and a case study from Western Ghats, India. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 20:573–590. doi:10.1007/s11027-013-9508-5

  23. Subramanyam K, Nayar MP (1974) Vegetation and phytogeography of the Western Ghats. In: Mani MS (ed) Ecology and biogeography in India. Monographiae Biologicae, vol 23. Springer, Netherlands, pp 178–196

  24. Thompson I, Mackey B, McNulty S et al (2009) Forest Resilience, Biodiversity, and Climate Change. A synthesis of the biodiversity/resilience/stability relationship in forest ecosystems. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Technical Series no. 43, pp67

  25. Wang XD, Zhong XH, Liu SZ et al (2008) Regional assessment of environmental vulnerability in Tibetan Plateau: development and application of a new method. J Arid Environ 72:1929–1939

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the Norwegian Research Council and Center for International Climate and Environmental Research (CICERO) Oslo, Norway for supporting the research project on “Climate change and forests”. We thank Karnataka Forest Department (KFD, Bangalore), Forest Survey of India (FSI, Dehradun) and Indian Institute of Remote Sensing (IIRS, Dehradun) for providing spatial data on indicators. RKC would like to thank the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India for supporting this study in the form of National Environmental Sciences Fellowship.

Author information

Correspondence to Jagmohan Sharma.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sharma, J., Upgupta, S., Kumar, R. et al. Assessment of inherent vulnerability of forests at landscape level: a case study from Western Ghats in India. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 22, 29–44 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-015-9659-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Forest
  • Indicators
  • Inherent vulnerability
  • Plantation
  • Resilience
  • Vulnerability assessment