Urbanisation poses the greatest threat to biodiversity in India. Critically examine this statement with reference to the challenges of protecting urban protected areas.
GS3
Environment & Bio-diversity
Urbanisation poses the greatest threat to biodiversity in India. Critically examine this statement with reference to the challenges of protecting urban protected areas.
Examine
Claim: Urbanisation as the Primary Threat
- Rapid urbanisation leads to habitat fragmentation, loss of green cover, heat island effects (↑3–5°C) and pollution, posing visible risks to urban biodiversity and in-situ conservation.
What Holds
- Ecological Degradation Urban sprawl reduces tree cover, wetlands, and introduces invasive species, affecting Schedule I fauna (WPA, 1972).
- Pollution Stress Rising BOD levels in urban water bodies (e.g., KBR region) indicate declining ecosystem health.
- Human–Wildlife Conflict Encroachment increases interface zones, stressing biodiversity survival.
Where It Fails
- Institutional Failure > Urbanisation The greater threat is weak enforcement and regulatory capture, not urbanisation per se.
- Operator–Regulator Conflict Local authorities often act as both developers and regulators, diluting conservation priorities.
- Monitoring & Compliance Deficit Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) and compliance mechanisms are poorly enforced (CAG reports on environmental governance).
Contradictions & Gaps
- Strong Laws, Weak Implementation The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) guidelines are robust, yet violations persist (e.g., ESZs far below the 1 km norm in T.N. Godavarman case).
- Policy–Practice Gap Urban planning often ignores ecological buffers, prioritising real estate over resilience.
- Fragmented Governance Multiple agencies with overlapping mandates create accountability gaps.
Verdict
- The statement is partially valid: urbanisation is a significant but not the sole or dominant threat.
- The core issue lies in institutional neglect, weak enforcement, and regulatory dilution.
- Protecting urban biodiversity requires integrated urban planning, strict ESZ enforcement, and independent ecological oversight, not merely limiting urban growth.
Directive Word: CRITICALLY EXAMINE (Claim stated → What holds brief → Where it fails dominant → Contradictions/gaps → Verdict)
- Claim context: urbanisation → habitat fragmentation + impervious surfaces + heat corridors → direct biodiversity threat → in-situ conservation compromised
- What holds: urban sprawl → green cover ↓ + water body pollution + invasive species → Schedule I fauna threatened → e.g. KBR: BOD 5.5→15.4 mg/L + heat 3–5°C ↑
- Where it fails: urbanisation ≠ sole threat → institutional failure dominant → operator-regulator conflict + ESZ violations + monitoring abandonment
- Contradiction: Wildlife Protection Act 1972 + ESZ framework legally robust → implementation gap = real threat → e.g. KBR ESZ 3–29.8m vs Godavarman 1km default
- Verdict: urbanisation = necessary but insufficient explanation → institutional neglect + regulatory capture = dominant threat to urban protected areas
Write. Evaluate. Improve. Repeat.
Don’t just write—know where you stand and how to improve.
👉 Unlock EvaluationInstant AI Evaluation
Paid users get detailed feedback. Free users can evaluate today free questions.
Score
--