Why Livelihoods Matter for Conservation: Socio-Ecological
Dynamics in The Male Mahadeshwara Betta (MM Hills) Landscape,
Karnataka
Pruthvi M S and Sunil Nautiyal
Abstract
The creation of Protected Areas (PAs) has been acknowledged as essential for safeguarding biodiversity and maintaining ecological systems. However, exclusionary conservation models have often marginalised forest-fringe communities, leading to conflicts between ecological goals and local livelihoods.
Although conflicts between biodiversity conservation and local livelihoods are widely documented in global scholarship, a critical research gap persists in understanding the specific socio-ecological feedback mechanisms operating in the Male Mahadeshwara Betta (MM Hills), particularly the gradual erosion of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) among indigenous forest-dependent communities. The MM Hills landscape in Karnataka represents a strategically significant ecological cluster, functioning as both a key elephant corridor and a biodiversity hotspot, contiguous with the Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary and the Biligiri Ranganathaswamy Tiger Reserve. This study investigates the MM Hills region using an integrated mixed-methods approach that combines GIS-based ecological assessments, household surveys, and qualitative interviews with indigenous communities. The analytical framework draws upon the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) to evaluate livelihood assets and vulnerabilities, and the DPSIR (Drivers–Pressures–State–Impact–Response) model to systematically examine socio-ecological interactions within the landscape. The findings suggest that while conservation initiatives have enhanced forest regeneration and strengthened wildlife connectivity, they have simultaneously restricted customary resource access and weakened traditional governance systems, thereby contributing to the marginalisation of local communities and increasing livelihood insecurity. About 72.5% of forest-fringe households still rely on fuelwood for cooking, and seasonal grazing and NTFP collection (bamboo, honey, medicinal plants) remain important, accounting for 18–22% of annual income. However, permit restrictions on NTFP extraction have reduced both access and income reliability for these communities. Consequently, households increasingly adopt livelihood diversification – wage labour, migration to Bengaluru, and informal work – reflecting reduced forest dependence but rising livelihood vulnerability. LULC analysis (2005–2025) for MM Hills indicates increases in dense forest cover (38.2% from 45.9%) and agricultural land (24.1% from 26.8%), suggesting gradual forest regeneration alongside expanding cultivation. At the same time, open forest declined (from 29.4% to 24.1%) and settlement areas slightly expanded, reflecting ongoing landscape transition and human land- use pressures. The paper calls for a holistic approach to conservation that combines Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), fair benefit-sharing, and policies that support alternative livelihoods.