Journal of Global Resources
Volume 5 (02)
July 2019
ISSN: 2395-3160 (Print), 2455-2445 (Online)

Page 61-69

09
A STUDY OF SPATIO-TEMPORAL LANDUSE/ LAND COVER CHANGE DYNAMICS IN
RUDRAPRAYAG DISTRICT, (GARHWAL HIMALAYA) USING REMOTE SENSING AND
GISAtul Kumar 1, Shairy Chaudhary1 and M. S. Negi2
1
Research Scholar, 2Associate Professor,
Department of Geography, H.N.B. Garhwal University, Srinagar, Garhwal, Uttarakhand
Email: atulram1990@gmail.com, Shairychaudhary25@gmail.com, msnegi50@gmail.com
Abstract: Land Resources plays a key role in the determination of man's economic, social,and cultural process. Land provides a platform for every living organism to develop a niche tolive on the earth’s surface. It is necessary for human survival and man has a definite role inmanaging and transforming his physical environment. In the Himalayan region, the land is
the backbone of the economy because here primary economic activities especially
agriculture is the main livelihood resource of the people. Hence the land use/ land cover
pattern is the good index of the level of development in the District. The study is carried out
through the satellite image interpretation, digital elevation model and personal fieldobservations. The general land use/ land cover pattern of the District and its utilization iscontrolled and conditioned by the number of Physical factors including site, topography,
altitude, slope, aspects, geology, soils, drainage, and climate and cultural factors- population
concentration and migration, etc. Rudraprayag District is located among the boundaries of
the Chamoli, Tehri Garhwal, Pauri Garhwal, and Uttarkashi district. Mandakini is the major
stream of the study area, and its N-S oriented basin is spread between Higher and Lesser
Himalaya. In the district, elevation ranges from 537m to 6916m above MSL. Landsat satellite
images were subjected to taken to classify the LULC in ten major LULC classes namely
forest evergreen /semi-evergreen, forest deciduous, forest scrub agriculture cropland,
agriculture fallow, pasture, barren rocky land, snow cover land, built-up and waterbodies of1995 & 2015 years on the basis of visual interpretation. The area undergoes various glaciofluvial morphogenic processes that affect largely landcover scenario of the district. Besides
this district highly covered with reserved forest (64.4 percent) and snow. Uneven population
distribution also affects the land use pattern of the district. The results reveal the impact ofvarious physical and cultural factors on LULC change in the district.
Key words: Land use/Land cover, Remote Sensing & GIS, Garhwal Himalayan Region
Introduction
Landcover is the observed bio-physical cover on the earth's surface (FAO, 1995, 2000).
Land provides a platform to every living organism to develop a niche to live on earth surface.
It is necessary for human survival and man has a definite role in managing and transforming
his physical environment. The term Landuse/ landcover have often been confused and usedinterchangeably in practice; it is necessary to define and understand the meaning of theseterms so that they can be used correctly, meaningfully. Land cover refers to the observed
biotic and abiotic assemblage of the earth’s surface and immediate subsurface (Meyer &Turner, 1992) and classified into forests cover, grasslands, pastureland, scrub forest, snow,
croplands, barren lands, settlement areas, and water bodies. According to (Giri, 2012) theterm includes not only vegetation that covers land but also human-made structures, e.g.,transport networks, inhabited built-up areas, and other subsurface features. (Baulies et al.
1997) also supported the term and it denotes the apparent earth surface expression, such as
soil, water, vegetation, and anthropogenic features and therefore describes the earth’s
physical features in terms of a natural and manmade structure
Land resources play a key role in the determination of man's economic, social, andcultural process. The concept of land utilization is related to the man's cultural landscapewhereas. In the Himalayan region, the land is the backbone of the economy because here61primary economic activities especially agriculture is the main livelihood resource of thepeople. Hence the land-use landcover pattern is the good index of the level of developmentin the District. Land cover denotes the apparent earth surface expression, such as soil,
water, vegetation, and anthropogenic features and therefore describes the earth’s physicalfeatures in terms of natural and manmade structure (Baulies et al. 1997) which can bemapped using suitable remote sensing data or imageries. On the other hand, land use
classification is an outcome of human use of the landscape which has no spectral bias for its
unique identification. Thus, it is clear; land cover is directly derived from remote sensing
imageries while land uses are a visual interpretation of the remote sensing imageries with
context or association.
Satellite images contain detailed information about land surface features at the timeof data acquisition. The satellite image is systematically examined with frequently field
verifications and supporting material and tools such earlier LULC maps, report, and Google
Earth images. Interpretation is made based on onscreen visual interpretation of the physicalnature of objects and phenomena appearing in the satellite image. Interpretation may takeplace at the various level of complexity, from simple recognition of features of on the earth's
surface to the complex recognition of detailed information about the objects of surface andsubsurface features (Lillesand et al. 2004). A systematic study of satellite image based on
visual interpretation usually involves several basic characteristics of land features show onearth’s surface. The features can be distinguished and separated through the visualinterpretation of the features useful for a specific task and how they are considered todepend on the field of application. However, most applications consider the following basic
interpretational key or variations of them to identify the objects on earth’s surface in satellite
images: shape, size, pattern, tone, texture, shadows, site, association, and resolution (Olson,
1960; Dwivedi, 2017).
Land-cover change can be characterized as land-cover conversion and modification.
Land- cover conversion is a change from one land-cover category to another, andmodification is a change in condition within a land-cover category (Meyer & Turner, 1992).
LULC change is critically linked to the interaction of nature and human and its influences on
the environment (Prakasam, 2012). An example of the former is changed from cropland tourban land, and an example of the latter is the degradation of forests. Forest degradation
may be due to change in phenology, biomass, forest density, canopy closure, insect
infestation, flooding, and storm damage. Conversion is generally easier to identify andmonitor than modification using satellite images. Modification in any land surface feature isusually a long-term process and may require temporal and multi-seasonal data for accuratequantification. Land-use change is a change in the use or management of land by humans.
Land-use change may change without land-cover conversion or modification. For example,
a forest area can be declared a protected area and the number of visitors in a recreational
forest may change without land-cover modification. On the contrary, the land cover may
change even if the land use remains unchanged; however, land-use change is likely to cause
land-cover change (Giri, 2012).
Remote Sensing and Geographic Information System (GIS) is found to be a very
effective and suitable tool for LULC mapping and monitoring. It allows us to gather
information and evidence to analyze in data is cost-effective and reliable than the study
carried out on the bases of the survey and through the conventional methods (Giri, 2012).
Satellite imagery has been widely utilized for measuring land-cover changes qualitative andquantitatively (Seto et al., 2002; Tamilenthi et al., 2011; Sudhira et al., 2004). The main
advantage of the study carried out on the bases of satellite data for temporal change
detection is its varying spatial and spectral characteristics by which features can be easily
mapped and the rate of change can be measured (Anderson, 1977). Study of land use land
cover (LULC) change is very important for environmental management purposes as it helps
the decision maker in planning for future changes that may occur in that area which also
helps the decision maker to realize the effects of these changes on humans andenvironment. Decision makers also enquire the causes and factors that affect the LULC
such as urbanization, population growth, industrialization, agriculture growth, hazards, andclimatic changes and any anthropogenic activities of development. Therefore, the LULC

62

change map of any region enables the decision makers in making more accurate andprompt decisions. The study is carried out through the satellite image interpretation, digital
elevation model and personal field observations. The general LULC pattern of the District
and its utilization is controlled and conditioned by the number of factors. - (i) Physical factors-including site, topography, altitude, slope, aspects, geology, soils, drainage and climate (ii)
Cultural including - land tenure, size of holdings, field pattern, technological inputs, andtraditions.
River terraces, spurs and ridges are used differently. In the Himalayan terrain, northernand southern aspects are more effective influencing the land use pattern, because both the
aspects have differential character due to greater contrast in climate and weather associated factors. Customs, traditions, and attitudes of the people determine operational
practices. The level of efficiency in the use of agricultural land depends upon the size ofholding, field pattern, cropping pattern, and land tenure.
Study Area
Rudraprayag district of Uttarakhand State is located between 30° 19'N to 30°49'N latitude
and 78°49'E to 79°21'13"E longitude and bounded by Uttatkashi district towards the north;Pauri Garhwal towards the south; Chamoli in the east and Tehri Garhwal towards the west
(Fig.1). Its total geographical area is 1984 Km2. Due to the unverified boundary, only 1983.05
Km2 area was selected for this study. The elevation ranges from 537 m from MSL in thesouthern part to 6916m in the extreme north. It is one of the greenest and forested districts of
Garhwal Himalayan Region in Uttarakhand. 90.91 percent area of the district is covered by
the green forests, out of which 64.4 percent area is under reserved forest (FSI, 2015). This
district has the lowest population in the state, where only 581.45 km.2 is inhabited out of 1984
Km.2 (Census of India, 2011) area. Besides, this district dominantly covered with reserved
forest and snow. There are 688 villages with 2,42,285 population in the district. Out of totalvillages 35 villages area un-inhabited (Census of India, 2011). There are three administrative
blocks namely Ukhimath, Agastyamuni and Jakholi and three administrative Tehsils namely
Ukhimath, Jakholi, and Rudraprayag in the district. There are 29 administrative
Nyaypanchayats and two towns in the district which have 28.66 percent and 0.64 percent
area of the district respectively. This 29.31 percent area of the district has 426 persons per
km2 population density. The average population density of the District 122.1 person per km2(Census of India, 2011).
Rudraprayag district (Mandakini river basin) N-S oriented basin is spread between
Higher and Lesser Himalayas, hilly and mountainous with narrow intermittent valleys. These
represent area is highly rugged and immature topography characterized by moderate to very
steep sloping with occasionally gently to moderate sloping flatter tops and strongly footslope. The topography of the area appears to be controlled by structural and lithologicalfactors. Few intermittent valleys are characterized by very gently sloping river terraces. MCT
divides Rudraprayag (Mandakini Basin) district into two major physiographic zones - north of
MCT Greater Himalaya and in the south to MCT Lesser Himalaya.
The climate is a very important factor and it becomes focal in evaluating the land-use
types. The climate of Rudraprayag district (Mandakini basin) is influenced to a large extent,
by the cycle of India’s tropical climate. The climatic conditions accordingly vary from the subtropical to sub-arctic. The district falls in Indian Himalayan monsoonal subcontinent, where
three main seasons in a year e.g. (1) Dry warm summer (March to June), (2) humid warm
summer season (July to June), and (3) dry winter season (November to February). On thebases of temperature, precipitation and altitude the basin can be divided in to seven climatic
zones e.g. (< 800M) Sub-tropical zone, (801 – 1600M) Warm Temperate, (1601 – 3200M)
Cool Temperate, (3200 – 4000M) Cold Temperate, (4001- 4800M) Glacial and (Above to480M) Perpetually Frozen; their direct impact can be seen in the form of changing vegetationconsequently there are various type of vegetation found in the area i.e. tropical dry
deciduous, warm temperate, cool temperate, Himalayan dry temperate, subalpine, alpine
scrub etc.

63Figure 01: Location Map of Rudraprayag District, (Uttarakhand)

The cropping pattern of this district is systematically characterized by mixed cropping,which is locally known as 'Sar system', a systematic method for preserving the soil fertility.
Under this cropping pattern, the total agricultural land is divided into two parts; Tally Sar and
Mally Sar. From March-April till September-October, kharif crops are grown in the Tally Sar.
The main crops are paddy, Koni, and Jhangora. The millets are grown in the Mally Sar in thesame period under the kharif season. The millets are maoduwa (kodo), Jwar-Bajara,
soyabean, Bhatt, Urd, Kulthi, Ramdana (Chuwa) and Tor. After harvesting the kharif crops(Paddy, Koni, and Jhangora) in the Tally Sar, Rabi crops (wheat, barley, and oil seeds) aresown during September-October. Since November till March after harvesting of millets, theland is given up fallow in the Mally Sar. Besides the Tally and Mally Sar, Vegetables i.e.
Cucumber, Pumpkin, Potato, Brinzal, Ladyfinger, Garlic and Maize to be sown during the rainin the land nearer and surroundings of the settlements of the area.
Methodology
Remote sensing and GIS data, as well as geospatial tools, provide us the information about
earth surface over time (Huang et al., 2009). Selection of approaches, satellite images, andmethodology pose a major issue for monitoring LULC changes (Xin et al., 2013).
Multispectral and multi-temporal remote sensing data can be used for quantifying the land
use changes, and Geographical Information System (GIS) used in, displaying, storing andanalyzing digital geo-environmental digital data for necessary change detection information.
Roy and Tomar, (2000) used RS and GIS to investigate the changing spatial pattern forbiodiversity using landscape ecological tools.
The major aim of the study is to analyze the current LULC pattern along the with
topographic relief, Block-wise spatial pattern and to detect the LULC changes over a periodof
25 years (1990-2015)
inthe District. These
were obtained fromhttp://earthexplorer.usgs.gov of path 145 and row 39. Spatial and temporal LULC changes ofthe present study are carried out using two points of time satellite data, i.e., Landsat 5 TM
(dated 15th November 1990) and Landsat 8 OLI/TIR ETM+ (November 2015) respectively
with the medium spatial resolution of 30m. To analyze the LULC pattern along with various
altitudes was extracted through the altitude zone delineated with the help of ASTER DEM
with a spatial resolution of 30. Survey of India (SOI) topographic sheets on (1:50,000 Scale)were used as the base layer of the satellite images. The whole images were geometricallyrectified by 90 uniformly distributed GCP (Ground Control Points) and projected to UTM

64

(Universal Transverse Mercator), Zone 44 and datum WGS 84. The images were re-sampledusing nearest neighbor algorithm method with the second order of polynomial transformation.
The radiometric correction was employed, which is very necessary for change detection
analysis (Jensen, 1996). Initial LULC maps were prepared by onscreen visual interpretation
classification with the help of visual interpretation keys (Table 1). Ground truthing was donewith the help GPS (Global positioning system) device (Garmin Etrex 20). These groundcontrol points (GCP’s) were collected randomly from the different heterogeneous andhomogeneous landscapes of the various parts of the district. Google Earth Images of 2015
was also taken in to account to verify the landscapes. Finally, LULC maps were preparedafter cross-checking with the field verification data using GPS. LULC changes wereanalyzed, and maps were prepared in Arc GIS 9.3 and ERDAS 9.1 software. To assess thetransformation of LULC class, transition matrix was generated through the overlay analysis.
To arrive at the findings of the spatial changes in the area were achieved following various
steps shown in the methodological chart .
Based on Satellite Image interpretation and field observation, ten major LULC classes
namely Forest Evergreen /Semi-Evergreen, Forest Deciduous, Forest Scrub Agriculture
Cropland, Agriculture Fallow, Pasture, Barren Rocky Land, Snow Cover Land, Built-up andWater Bodies were considered for LULC classification. Forest Evergreen/Semi-Evergreen,
Forest Deciduous Forest land has been considered as an area with not less than 0.5
hectares of trees and canopy cover of trees more than 10 percent (Forest Resources
Assessment, 2015). Agriculture and rural settlement area was considered as an area undercurrent crop, prepared for crops and lands under rural built up, fallow land is permanently left
exposed and without forest. Barren and rocky land area are without trees as well as underbare rocks and landslide zones, the area covered with shrubs and small patches in the forest
include pasture lands considered for grazing. The District owing to rugged topography has
given rise to an almost uneven distributional pattern of land use land cover. LULC pattern ofthe district is dominantly controlled by the underlying topography and hydrological processes.
Ongoing LULC assessment was carried at the block level and altitude zone-wise (Fig.3).
Rural settlements are mainly following the shallow water zones or around springs.
Agricultural practices are avoided and confined to areas of low relief which are underlain by
weak rock formations, i.e., schists, phyllite, weathered gneisses and crushed quartzites(Gupta & Goyal, 2014). Forest is more frequently spread on precipitous and moderateslopes. The Mandakini Valley of Rudraprayag district has a thick forest cover, and there arefew places with very less area lies in scrubbed and degraded forests. In the northern parts of
the Mandakini and its sub-tributary Laster Gad, where many patches of pasture land were
found.
Results and Discussion
Land use/Land cover pattern in Rudraprayag District in 1990
Landsat 5 TM remote sensing satellite image was used for the LULC for the year 1990 basedon presented in and area under ten classes is shown in figure. Out of the total geographicalarea 49.80 percent (987.52 km2), is under Evergreen /semi-evergreen forest and (71.45 km2)
3.60 percent Deciduous forest, which covers a large proportion of the District; Snow-coverland (375.16 km2) 18.66 percent; agriculture cropland and rural settlements which is
generally confined to the valley bottoms and gently sloppy spurs covers about (311.08 km2)
15.69 percent of the district. (16.74 km2) 0.84 percent Agriculture fallow, which remains in thevicinity of agriculture cropland due to the emigration activities in these areas of the District.
found Scrub forest and barren rocky land (51.48 km2) 2.85 percent. Some sites are sufferingfrom climatic disturbances and natural hazards viz. landslides, cloudbursts, and slope
failures, etc., resulting in degradation of forest therefore about (101.60 km2) 5.12 percent
area. In the northern parts of the Mandakini and its sub-tributary Laster Gad, where many
patches of pasture land with (50.74 km2) 2.50 percent area found. Major built-up areas
identified with the help of Google earth occupying about (2.50 km2) 0.13 percent area of thetotal land of the District. Water bodies of the major tributaries that are identified in the satellite
image interpretation covering about 14.78 km2) 0.75 percent area of the District. Alaknanda,
Mandakini, Laster Gad and their sub-tributaries have widened river courses (Joshi et al.,2018).

65

50

49.80
49.88

Land use/Land cover Pattern in Rudraprayag District in 2015
The LULC for 2015 based on Landsat 8 OLI/TRIS remote sensing satellite data, ten classes,
were classified in the study area. Out of the total geographical area, Evergreen /semievergreen forest and deciduous forest area occupied large coverage which is (989.17 km2)
49.89 percent and (72.76 km2) 4.03 percent, of the total study area. It is followed by snow
cover land (371.37 km2)18.73 percent, agriculture cropland and rural settlement(322.90km2)16.28 percent. Besides the major LULC categories some portion of land is
occupied by Scrub forest (87.17 km2) 4.39 percent, barren rocky land (48.0 km2) 2.42
percent, pasture land (47.10 km2) 2.37 percent and built-up (2.54 km2) 0.13 percent.
Agriculture croplands with rural settlements which generally confined to the valley bottoms
and gently sloppy spurs throughout the district. In Himalayas rural settlements are generally
inhabited in the vicinity.

LAND USE LANCOVER COVER CHANGE
LULC1990

LULC 2015

0.13
0.13

0.75
0.75

Water Bodies

2.85
2.78

2.56
2.38

5.12
4.40

0.84
1.01

10

3.60
3.67

20

Pasture

18.66
18.72

30

15.69
16.28

Area in %40

Builtup

BarrenRockey Land

LULC Type

Snow CoverLand

Forest Scrub

ForestDesiduous

Agriculture
Fellow

Agriculture
Cropland

ForestEvergreen /Semi-…

0

Figure 03: Land use Land cover Change maps of 1990 & 2015of agricultural land, therefore is hard to distinguish them separately in law resolution satellite
images. Rocky and barren Land which is prominently observed in north-eastern parts of the
Mandakini valley, where rock outcrops and bare rocky land with precipitous surface spread66

over in this area. Besides this, it is generally found in the fringe areas of agricultural land andforest land. Pasture land which is observed mainly in the periglacial areas of the Mandakini
River and Laster Gad.
Table 01: Land use/Land cover change Matrix 1990-2015
ForestDeciduous

Forest Scrub

Snow CoverLand

Pasture Land

Water Bodies

Barren RockyLand

Built-up

Grand Total(in Km2)

Forest Evergreen /Semi Evergreen
Agriculture Cropland &rural settlement
Agriculture Fallow
Forest Deciduous
Forest Scrub
Snow Cover Land
PastureWater Bodies
Barren Rocky Land
Built-up
Grand Total (in Km2)

Agriculture
Fallow

1990

Landuse/Landcover
Types

ForestEvergreen /SemiEvergreen
Agriculture
Cropland &Rural
settlement2015958.26

0.87

4.54

7.65

4.03

4.12

0.06

1.58

0.03

987.52303.76

1.33

0.27

0.40

-

-

-

-

0.02

311.08

0.60
0.38
11.74
0.05
0.00
322.90

16.11

65.79
0.79
0.25
0.03
1.09
72.76

3.99
74.37
0.76
-

0.00

-

0.13
14.65
14.84

0.13
0.03
0.66
45.60
48.00

2.50
2.54

16.74
71.45
101.60375.16
50.74
14.78
51.48
2.50
1983.05

6.38

5.31
0.04
1.05
12.85
0.83
7.14
0.01
3.71
989.19

1.77
0.03
20.10

87.17

371.452.03
0.91
378.43

0.05
2.22
40.56
0.16
47.10

LULC Change detection of the Rudraprayag District (From 1990 to 2015)
Forest cover (Evergreen/semi-evergreen and deciduous forest) of Rudraprayag district
increased by 0.15 percent (2.98 km2) and agriculture (cropland, rural settlement and fallow
land) significantly increased by 0.77 percent (15.18 km2) while Scrub forest, pasture land,and barren rocky land decreased by 14.39 km2 (0.73 percent), 3.64 km2 (0.18 percent) and1.45 km2 (0.07 percent) during the 25 years. Forest scrubland shows significant changes
followed by pasture land due to climatic impact. Agriculture-settlement and fallow land seem
real significant changes during this period are due to anthropogenic movement.
LULC transition matrix shows the conversion of the LULC in the form of a change
matrix over the period of (1990-2015). During this period, there was a major conversion fromforest cover (Evergreen/ semi-evergreen and deciduous forest) to agriculture and rural
settlement (10.85) from forest to scrub forest land (13.64 km2), forest to pasture land (7.39
Km2) and from forest to barren rocky land (3.71 km2). During the same period, another somechanges from forest to snow cover were observed. During this period, there were somemajor changes observed from agriculture and rural settlement to forest cover (6.76 km2) andto scrub forest (13.51 km2) that significantly contribute sustaining forest cover in the district.
Few areas of the agriculture land permanently converted into fallow land that due to leaving
the agriculture practice due to low productivity as well as outmigration of locals for
employment.
During this time significant loss in the scrub forest land has been observed. About -0.73
percent (14.39 km2) area has decreased and lost its geographical area and mostly converted
to forest cover area (11.64 km2). Direct conversion of scrub forest land to forest land which isshown in area release on forest pressure and it may be caused by to good forest
management. Besides this about 0.76 Km2 to pasture and 0.40 Km2 to agriculture land area
was converted from the scrub forest area. Besides all major conversion of land, there were
few conversions of land from pasture land to forest cover land (4.12 km2) and snow coverland (2.22 km2) has been noticed. Further, there were some changes observed from snow
cover (4.03 km2) and barren rocky (1.5 km2) to forest cover. These conversions may occur
due to climatic changes taken place every year. The major part of the district remains coverunder snow during the winter season (Dec-March).
Factor Affecting Land use/Land cover
The rate of District population decadal growth rate was 13.44 percent in 2001 which isremains only 6.77 percent in the 2011 census. In the District 7 Nyaypanchayats viz.
Sumerpur, Saterakhal, Paurikhal, Pipli, Chopra, Maikoti and Saurakhal out of 29, where
population growth rate is found negative growth; 11 Nyaypanchayats viz. Ucchadungi, Dangi

67

Bhardar, Sari, Chopta, Kandali, Parkandi, Basta, Ukhimath, Chandrapuri, Jawari, Bhiri where
growth rate is (0 - 6.26) lower than District growth rate. Remaining 11 Nyaypanchayats viz.
Marora, Panjana, Bajira, Tilwara, Lwara, Mannsuna, Phata, Syur, Kot and Guptkashi, where
the growth rate is higher (7.28 - 19.58) than District growth rate. The urban growth rate in the
Kedarnath and Rudraprayag towns are 26.97 and 313.91 respectively which show thepeople from remote areas of the District emigrated largely towards towns and major, service
centers, market centers, other Districts and nearly plains of northern India due to the lack ofbasic facilities such as education employment, health, market, etc. Therefore, the population
growth rate resulted in these issues affects LULC pattern of the District.
Limited employment opportunities apart from agriculture and animal husbandry arelargely responsible for migration in this Himalayan region. Uncertainties associated withclimate, lack of irrigation other than rain and natural sources and scattered parcels of
farmlands are the major causes of the level of agriculture productivity. The rapid spread ofwild grass and weeds destroying farmland, growing menace of wild animals (monkey, wild
pig, ape) destroying crops at very large scale. Landslides and slope failures due to heavy
rainfall many field terraces washed out in the recent past. Failures of the hydraulic irrigation
system, canal system and pathetic behaviour of the government towards development
irrigation infrastructure. Lack of basic infrastructural amenities for living in the villages(housing, sanitation, education, health, road, and communication). The wrong technicaleducation system of the state that does not compatible with local resource availability.
Conclusion
The pattern of land use/ land cover reflects the social and economic structure whereas
natural environment indicates about natural resource wealth. The cumulative impact ofvarious natural and biotic factors that lead changes in landscapes in the pattern of LULC
everywhere on the earth surface. Landcover reflects numerous natural landscapephenomenon occurs due to physiographic and climatic variations. As far as the land use
pattern is concerned, a large number of people inhabited in the upper areas of the district
have to face many disturbances during the winter and rainy summer season, as well as poor
accessibility and basic infrastructural amenities in the remote villages of the district, leadhuge migration from remote areas to well accessible and urban centres areas of the district.
Population pressure is uninterruptedly increasing day by day on hill cities in the district that isrevealed from census 2001-11. Decreasing pressure on the natural resource especially on
forest and agriculture is the main reason for forest growth and agriculture land degradation in
the region. The lack of various opportunities to develop better human resource force people
to leave their villages that reduce pressure from local resources such as forests andvegetation. Besides this, it was also observed during the few years the increasing
involvement of LPG and decreasing cattle rearing in the households of villages the major
reason in the improvement of forest resource in the district that is also revealed in the FSI
report. The results of the paper enlighten various factors and cause responsible for LULC
changes and raise out various natural and socio-cultural issues relevant to the sustainablehuman and natural resource development in the district.
References
1. Bansal, S. & Srivastav, S. K, et al., (2016). An analysis of land use and land cover
dynamics and causative drivers in a thickly populated Yamuna River basin of India.
Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 14(3), 773–792. http://doi.org /10.15666/
aeer /1403_773792
2. Batar, A. K., Watanabe, T., & Kumar, A. (2017). Assessment of Land-Use / Land-CoverChange and Forest Fragmentation in the Garhwal Himalayan Region of India, 1–16.
http://doi.org/10.3390/environments4020034
3. Baulies, X. & G. S. (1997). Survey of needs, gaps and priorities on data for landuse/land-cover change research. LUCC Data Requirements Workshop.
4. Chandra P. Giri (Ed.). (2012). Remote Sensing of Land Use and Land Cover: Principles
and Applications. Taylor & Francis Group.
5. District census Handbook, Rudraprayag District. (2011). Census of India, Government ofIndia.

68

6. Dwivedi, R. S. (2017). Remote Sensing of Soils. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53740-4
7. FAO. (1995). Planning for sustainable use of land resources: towards a new approach.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved fromhttp://www.fao.org/docrep/v8047e/v8047e00.htm#Contents
8. FAO. (2000). Land cover classification system: LCCS: classification concepts and user
manual. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved fromhttp://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x0596e/X0596e00.htm#P-1_0
9. Gupta, P., & Goyal, S. (2014). Space Based Disaster Management and Slope Profile
Generation Using Hec-Ras Model of Himalayan Terrain, (359).
10. Ives, J. D., & Messerli, B. (1989). The Himalayan Dilemma Reconciling Development andConservation. United Nations University Press, New York.
11. Joshi, L. M., Singh, A. K., & Kotlia, B. S. (2018). Rivers of Uttarakhand Himalaya: Impact
of Floods in the Pindar and Saryu Valleys. In D. Singh (Ed.), The Indian Rivers (pp. 413–
427). Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2984-4_31
12. Lillesand, T. M., Kiefer, R. W., & Chipman, J. W. (2004). Remote Sensing and Image
Interpretation (Fifth Esit). John Wiley & Sons, Inc., United States of America.
13. Meiyappan, P. & P.S. Roy et.al., (2016). Dynamics and determinants of land change inIndia: Integrating satellite data with village socioeconomics, In review.
14. Meyer, B., & Turner II. (1992). Human Population Growth and Global Land-Use / CoverChange. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 23(1992), 39–61.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2097281
15. Prakasam, C. (2012). Geomorphic resource characterisation using RS_GIS for
evaluation of land use land cover in water stressed areas of Ausgram block i and ii
Burdwandistrict West
Bengal.
University.
Bardhaman.
Retrievedfrom
http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/handle/10603/122716
16. Raman, R., & Punia, M. (2012). Land Use Dynamics and Landscape Fragmentation inHigher. Asian Journal of Geoinformatics, 12(1).
17. Roy, P. S. et. al., (2010) ‘Land Use and Land Cover Change: A Remote Sensing & GIS
Perspective,’ Journal of the Indian Institute of Science, 90:4(January), pp. 489–502.
Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235987981.
18. Roy, P.S. & P. Meiyappan et. al., (2016). Decadal Land Use and Land CoverClassifications across India, 1985, 1995, 2005. ORNL DAAC, Oak Ridge, Tennessee,
USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1336.
19. Roy, P.S.& Kushwaha et. al., (2012) Biodiversity Characterization at Landscape Level:
National Assessment; Indian Institute of Remote Sensing: Dehradun, India, 2012; p. 140.
20. Sati, V. P. (2016). Dynamics of Land Use / Cover Changes in the Uttarakhand Himalaya,(December). http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.20618.06085

69