Forest Cover Assessment for Project Villages in Tripura, India

Analysis of Forest Cover Loss Dynamics (2001-2024)

India
Tripura
Villages
Forest Loss
Conservation
Land-Use Zoning
Author
Affiliation

Johannes Schielein

MAPME Initiative

Published

March 7, 2026

Modified

March 7, 2026

Abstract

This report assesses forest cover loss dynamics in 83 project villages and 838 control villages across Tripura state, India, using Global Forest Watch data (2001-2024). The analysis examines whether sufficient forest remains in project villages for planned conservation zoning and land-use planning activities, and compares loss trends across three distinct periods.

Introduction

This report examines forest cover loss dynamics in villages across Tripura, a small state in northeast India. The analysis serves a specific conservation question: a rural development project with conservation components supports 83 villages in the Dhalai and North Tripura districts. The project includes agricultural support, land-use zoning, and the designation of conservation set-aside areas.

Given the substantial forest cover loss observed across Tripura in recent years, this analysis assesses:

  1. How much forest remains in the project villages for conservation zoning
  2. How loss has accelerated or decelerated across three periods (2001–2010, 2011–2020, 2021–2024)
  3. How project villages compare to the broader trend across all Tripura villages
NoteKey Finding

Project villages lost approximately 23% of their 2001 forest cover by 2024, with loss rates accelerating sharply after 2010. The most recent period (2021–2024) shows the highest annual loss rate, raising urgent questions about the feasibility of conservation zoning in heavily affected villages.

Data and Methods

Village Boundary Data

The analysis covers 917 village polygons from the ESRI India Living Atlas (Census 2021 boundaries) across all 8 districts of Tripura, plus 4 additional villages matched via geoBoundaries (Census 2011 boundaries). Of these, 83 villages were identified as project villages through a multi-step name-matching process.

The matching linked field programme records (VDPIC village names) to official Census boundary polygons. Because village names in northeast India often have multiple spellings — reflecting Bengali, tribal, and English transliterations — the matching used a combination of:

  • Exact name matching after normalizing spelling (removing punctuation, standardizing whitespace)
  • Fuzzy matching using string similarity algorithms, with manual review of ambiguous cases
  • Phonetic normalization specific to Tripura (e.g., the suffix “-cherra”/“-chhara” refers to the same geographic feature — a stream)
  • Manual overrides for seven villages where automated matching failed due to significant name divergence (e.g., “Narikel Kunja” = “Kunjaban”, both meaning “coconut grove” in Bengali)

Each match was assigned a confidence level: confirmed (exact match or high-similarity score), likely (moderate similarity), or uncertain (lower similarity or parent-village assignment). Nine villages from the field programme could not be matched to any Census polygon — these are sub-hamlets, reserve forest sections, or settlements not recorded as separate Census units.

Overview of Project Villages

Column descriptions:

  • District / Block: Administrative location from the field programme records
  • Village Name: Name used in the field programme (VDPIC records)
  • Match Method: How the match was established (exact, fuzzy_high, fuzzy_synonym, manual_override, or tripura_phonetic_fuzzy)
  • Match Score: String similarity score (0–100); blank for exact matches and manual overrides
  • Confidence: Overall match quality — confirmed (green on map), likely (blue), or uncertain (orange)
  • Matched Name / Census Name: Official names from the matched boundary dataset

Interactive Map of Study Area

Forest Cover Data

Forest cover statistics were computed using the mapme.biodiversity R package with data from the Global Forest Watch dataset (Hansen et al., 2013), version GFC-2024-v1.12. The analysis covers the period 2001–2024.

Forest definition used:

  • Canopy cover threshold: 10% (pixels with at least 10% tree canopy density in the year 2000 are classified as forest)
  • Minimum patch size: 1 hectare
  • Resolution: 30 meters (Landsat-derived)

Forest cover loss is defined as a stand-replacement disturbance — a complete removal of tree cover canopy at the 30m pixel level. The GFW dataset detects loss events but does not capture forest degradation (partial canopy reduction) or regrowth.

Tripura’s Forest Ecosystem

Tripura’s forests are classified primarily as tropical semi-evergreen and moist deciduous types, with significant areas of bamboo brakes — a sub-climax formation resulting from historic shifting cultivation (jhum). The dominant tree species include Dipterocarpus turbinatus, Artocarpus chama, and Castanopsis indica. According to the India State of Forest Report 2023, Tripura maintains approximately 74.7% forest cover relative to its geographic area, though this has been declining — the state lost roughly 95 km2 of forest cover between the 2021 and 2023 assessment periods.

Accuracy Considerations

The GFW dataset provides globally consistent forest monitoring but has known limitations relevant to this context:

  • Shifting cultivation: The dataset cannot distinguish between permanent deforestation and temporary clearing for jhum cultivation followed by regrowth. In areas with active shifting cultivation, GFW may record “loss” events that are part of a rotational cycle rather than permanent conversion.
  • Bamboo and plantation forests: GFW treats all tree cover uniformly and cannot distinguish natural forests from bamboo stands or plantations. Bamboo regeneration after clearing may not be captured as “regrowth” if canopy height remains below the detection threshold.
  • Small-scale disturbances: At 30m resolution, selective logging and small clearings below the pixel size may go undetected, potentially underestimating degradation in smallholder landscapes.
  • Cloud cover: Northeast India’s monsoon climate means persistent cloud cover during parts of the year, which can affect satellite image availability and detection accuracy.

These limitations should be considered when interpreting the results. The GFW data is best suited for detecting broad-scale loss trends rather than precise village-level accounting.

Forest Cover Loss in Project Villages

Cumulative Forest Cover Trajectory

The figure below shows how forest cover in project villages has evolved since 2001. Each village’s forest area is expressed as a percentage of its 2001 baseline. The shaded ribbon represents the interquartile range (25th–75th percentile) across all 83 project villages, capturing the spread of outcomes.

Figure 1

Period Comparison: Loss Acceleration

To assess whether forest loss is accelerating, we compare three periods using annualized relative loss — the percentage of each village’s 2001 forest baseline lost per year within each period. This metric normalizes for the different period lengths (9, 9, and 3 years) and makes trends directly comparable.

Figure 2

Interpretation: The data reveals a clear acceleration of forest loss across the three periods. During 2001–2010, the median project village lost approximately 0.53% of its 2001 forest per year. This rate increased substantially in 2011–2020 to 0.61%/year, and accelerated further in 2021–2024 to 1.48%/year. The spread of outcomes (visible in the boxplot) also widens over time, indicating that some villages are experiencing dramatically faster loss than others. The most affected village lost 14.6% of its 2001 baseline in just the 2021–2024 period alone.

Distribution of Total Forest Loss (2001–2024)

The histogram below shows how total relative forest loss (2001–2024) is distributed across project villages.

Figure 3

The median project village lost 19.8% of its 2001 forest cover by 2024. 10% of villages lost more than 30% of their forest, while 18% of villages lost less than 10%. This wide spread suggests that forest loss pressures vary considerably across the project area, and that conservation zoning may need to be prioritized differently depending on local conditions.

Comparison: Project Villages vs. All Tripura Villages

Figure 4

Interpretation: The comparison shows that project villages and non-project villages across Tripura follow broadly similar loss trends — both groups show accelerating loss over time. In the most recent period (2021–2024), project villages show a median annual loss of 1.48%/year compared to 0.65%/year for non-project villages. This suggests that the forest loss pressures are driven by regional factors (road expansion, population growth, agricultural conversion) rather than village-specific dynamics.

Top 15 Most Affected Project Villages

Forest Cover Loss Map

The map below shows forest cover loss across all villages. Point symbology encodes both absolute loss (circle size) and relative loss (circle color). Project villages are shown at full opacity; non-project villages are semi-transparent to allow the project villages to stand out. Toggle the GFW tile layers to see the spatial pattern of loss across three periods.

Summary and Implications

Key Figures

Metric Project Villages (83) All Villages (921)
Forest cover 2001 81,260 ha 736,089 ha
Forest cover 2024 62,399 ha 581,114 ha
Total loss 18,861 ha 154,975 ha
Relative loss 23.2% 21.1%

Implications for Conservation Zoning

The accelerating loss trend raises important questions for the project’s conservation components:

  • 8 villages have lost more than 30% of their 2001 forest cover. In these villages, the remaining forest may be too fragmented or reduced for effective conservation zoning without complementary restoration measures.
  • 33 villages show moderate loss (20–30%). Conservation zoning remains viable but urgent — continued loss at current rates would further reduce the forest base within a few years.
  • 15 villages retain more than 90% of their 2001 forest and may offer the best prospects for effective conservation set-asides.

The fact that loss has accelerated in the most recent period (2021–2024) underscores the urgency of implementing land-use zoning measures. Without intervention, the forest base available for conservation in many project villages will continue to shrink rapidly.

Data Sources

Dataset Description Source
GFW Treecover / Lossyear Annual forest cover, version GFC-2024-v1.12 Global Forest Watch
ESRI India Living Atlas Village boundaries (Census 2021), IAB Village 2024 ESRI Living Atlas India
geoBoundaries ADM5 Village boundaries (Census 2011) geoBoundaries
India State of Forest Report 2023 National forest statistics Forest Survey of India

References

Hansen, M. C., P. V. Potapov, R. Moore, M. Hancher, S. A. Turubanova, A. Tyukavina, D. Thau, S. V. Stehman, S. J. Goetz, T. R. Loveland, A. Kommareddy, A. Egorov, L. Chini, C. O. Justice, and J. R. G. Townshend. 2013. “High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change.” Science 342 (6160): 850–53.