Abstract
This paper examines people’s experiences with economic compensation for losses due to human–wildlife conflict (HWC) in Uttarakhand, India. Employing a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches, we used a case study approach to investigate (1) socio-economic characteristics of applicant versus non-applicant households, (2) explanations for why only some households chose to apply, and (3) perceptions of program effectiveness. We found that despite widespread complaints, the participation rate was only 37%. Our results broadly support the findings of other studies which have identified inadequate remuneration, processing delays, and corruption as key problems. However, we also found that non-participation was itself a critical problem. Our study indicates that participation in the scheme was shaped by factors including wealth, gender, social networks, and pre-existing expectations. We highlight the need for improved communication about what “compensation” can and should be, advocate for reconceptualizations of compensation that are more closely based on ground-level realities, and point to the potential for alternative forms of payment to be more sustainable and socially just.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
While it is by now well recognized that the incorporation of “local” perspectives and knowledge is critical for the development of participatory approaches to natural resources management (Warren et al. 1995; Stevens 1997; Berkes 1999; c.f., Rocheleau 1996), operationalization of the “local” can nevertheless be problematic (Agrawal 1995; Agrawal and Gibson 2001). Here, we use the term “local” to refer to perspectives drawn from members of the PA dependent community, as opposed to those originating outside of the village.
Other assets and capabilities related to HWC could also include the strategies, materials, physical abilities, and economic assets that enable people to prevent or cope with conflict, the analyses of which are beyond the scope of this paper.
The definition of household employed in the study was based on that used by the Census of India, i.e., “a group of persons who normally live together and take their meals from a common kitchen” (GOI 2007). It should be noted, however, that not all joint-families delineated and identified their own households in this manner.
Although we are aware of the importance of power hierarchies structured by caste, we intentionally refrained from asking respondents to report their caste identity or amount of household income (though we attempted to collect information about these areas in other less intrusive ways). We felt strongly that it was important to respect the sensitivities of our key informants, whose behaviors and expressed desires on the subject were consistent with our own in terms of seeking to discourage perpetuation of casteism in village society. While this decision may have limited the range of analytical tests to which we could subject our data, we hold that it ultimately strengthened our relationships with study participants and helped to promote reliability in responses.
Voluntary relief given out of compassion or sympathy, but without acceptance of liability. We are grateful to Dr. Raman Sukumar for pointing out that the term “ex-gratia” relief is typical amongst policymakers, though it should be noted that in our experience, the term “compensation” is nevertheless used by foresters, villagers, and researchers alike.
For example, in a number of cases our request to administer the survey was denied because a member had already taken part in an in-depth interview or focus group and did not understand why we wished to speak with someone else in the household. In other cases, the joint-family arrangement made it difficult to establish the number of households within a house; this proved to be especially problematic when multiple members of the extended household were present during survey administration, as was frequently the case.
As compensation is not available for losses/injuries incurred within the PA, respondents were asked to provide this information separately (reported in Ogra 2006).
According to our interview with the Chief Wildlife Warden, the claim is to be filed by the landowner. From the Forest Department’s point of view, there is an expectation that the relevant arrangement between landowners and tenants would have been agreed upon prior to the filing of a compensation claim.
Although we acknowledge that there are limits to the generalizability of the case study data, we follow Robert Yin (2003) in noting that our goal is not to make statistical generalizations, but rather to expand and contribute to theoretical approaches to questions about who participates in compensation schemes and why.
Our experience suggests that that there would not be great differences among villages located around the park, but we are not aware of any studies that have looked specifically at this question.
Furthermore, we would view efforts by the State to absolve itself of (at least partial) responsibility for HWC around protected areas to be unacceptable.
In India “eco-development” efforts seek to integrate Forest Department activities with those of other government agencies; it represents a government-initiated effort to reduce economic dependence on protected areas though the promotion of alternative livelihoods, social welfare activities, and conservation awareness (Badola 1999; cf., Panwar 1992; Badola et al. 2002).
The Pradhan is a political (elected) head of the village, the most “local-level” leader under the multitier Panchayati Raj governance structure (which operates at village, block, and district level).
References
AFESG (African Elephant Specialty Group of the IUCN). (2007). Human–elephant conflict working group technical brief: review of compensation schemes for agricultural and other damage caused by elephants (web document) http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/sgs/afesg/hec/comreview.html.
Agrawal, A. (1995). Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Development and Change 26: 413–439.
Agrawal, A., and Gibson, C. (eds.). (2001). Communities and the environment: ethnicity, gender, and the state in community-based conservation. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick.
Badola, R. (1997). Economic assessment of human–forest interrelationship in the forest corridor linking the Rajaji and Corbett National Parks. Ph.D. thesis, Jiwaji University, Gwalior (India), Department of Economics, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.
Badola, R. (1998). Attitudes of local people towards conservation and alternatives to forest resources: a case study from the lower Himalayas. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 1245–1259.
Badola, R. (1999). People and protected areas in India: challenges of joint forest management and ecodevelopment. Unasylva 50(199). http://www.fao.org/docrep/x3030e/x3030e00.htm.
Badola, R., Bhardwaj, A. K., Mishra, B. K., and Rathore, B. M. S. (2002). Ecodevelopment planning for biodiversity conservation. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.
Bagchi, S., and Mishra, C. (2006). Living with large carnivores: predation on livestock by the snow leopard (Uncia uncia). Journal of Zoology 268(3): 217–224.
Bebbington, A. (1999). Capitals and capabilities: a framework for analyzing peasant viability, rural livelihoods, and poverty. World Development 27(12): 2021–2044.
Berkes, F. (1999). Sacred ecology: traditional ecological knowledge and resource management. Taylor and Francis, New York.
Bernard, H. R. (1995). Research methods in anthropology: quantitative and qualitative approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Brandon, K., Redford, K., and Sanderson, S. (eds.). (1998). Parks in peril: people, politics, and protected areas. Island, Washington, DC.
Bruner, A., Gullison, R., Rice, R., and da Fonesca, G. (2001). Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science 291(5501): 125–128.
Corbett Foundation (2007). Overview of “Wildlife Conservation Programme” (web document) http://www.corbettfoundation.org/wildlife.htm.
Denizen, N., and Lincoln, Y. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Distefano, E. (2005). Human–wildlife conflict worldwide: a collection of case studies, analysis of management strategies and good practices. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development (SARD) paper (web document) http://www.fao.org/sard/common/ecg/1357/en/hwc_final.pdf.
Dixon, J., and Sherman, P. (1990). Economics of protected areas: a new look at benefits and costs. Earthscan, London.
GOI (Government of India) (2002). Indian wildlife protection act, amended 2002. Natraj, Dehradun.
GOI (Government of India). (2007). On-line metadata file associated with the results of the 2001 Census of India: definition of household. Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India, Census of India. (web document) http://www.censusindia.gov.in/Metadata/Metada.htm#2d.
GOU (Govt of Uttarakhand). (2007). Letter No 4873/X-2-2006-19[37]/2003. Office of the Chief Wild Life Warden, Dehradun.
Gureja, N., Menon,V., Sarkar, P., and Kyarong, S. S. (2002). Ganesh to Bin Laden: human–elephant conflict in Sonitpur District of Assam. Wildlife Trust of India (New Delhi). Occasional report No. 6.
Hoare, R. (2000). African elephants and humans in conflict: the outlook for co-existence. Oryx 34: 134–38.
Hussain S. (2000). Protecting the Snow Leopard and enhancing farmer’s livelihoods: a pilot insurance scheme in Baltistan. Mountain Research and Development 2(3): 226–231.
Hussain, S. (2003). The status of the snow leopard in Pakistan and its conflict with local farmers. Oryx 37: 26–33.
Johnsingh, A. J. T., and Negi, A. S. (2003). Status of tiger and leopard in Rajaji-Corbett Conservation Unit, northern India. Biological Conservation 111: 385–393.
Karanth, U. (2002). Nagarhole: limits and opportunities in wildlife conservation. In: Terborgh, J., van Schaik, C., Davenport, L., and Rao, M. (eds.), Making parks work: strategies for preserving tropical nature, Island, Washington, DC, pp. 189–202.
Kothari, A., Pandey, P., Singh, S., and Variava, D. (1989). Management of national parks and sanctuaries in India. Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi.
Leach, M., Mearns, R., and Scoones, I. (1999). Environmental entitlements: dynamics and institutions in community-based natural resource management. World Development 27(2): 2225–247.
LeCompte, M., and Schensul, J. (1999). Analyzing and interpreting ethnographic data. Walnut Creek, Altamira.
Mishra, C. (1997). Livestock depredation by large carnivores in the Indian trans-Himalaya: conflict perceptions and conservation prospects. Environmental Conservation 24: 4338–343.
Naughton, L., Rose, R., and Treves, A. (1999). The social dimensions of human–elephant conflict in Africa: a literature review and two case studies from Uganda and Cameroon. IUCN, Gland.
Naughton-Treves, L. (1997). Farming the forest edge: vulnerable people and places around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Geographical Review 87(1): 27–46.
Naughton-Treves, L., Grossberg, R., and Treves, A. (2003). Paying for tolerance: rural citizens’ attitudes toward wolf depredation and compensation. Conservation Biology 17(6): 1500–1511.
Nyhus, P., Fischer, H., Madden, F., and Osofsky, S. (2003). Taking the bite out of wildlife damage. Conservation in Practice 4: 237–40.
Nyhus, P., Osofsky, S., Ferraro, P., Madden, F., and Fischer, H. (2005). Bearing the costs of human–wildlife conflict: the challenges of compensation schemes. In: Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S., and Rabinowitz, A. (eds.), People and wildlife: conflict or coexistence?. Cambridge University Press, London, pp. 107–121.
Ogra, M. V. (2006). Rural livelihoods and contested spaces: gender, vulnerability, and human–wildlife conflict in a national park of India. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder, Department of Geography.
Ogra, M. V. (2008). Human–wildlife conflict and gender in protected area borderlands: a case study of costs, perceptions, and vulnerabilities from Uttarakhand (Uttaranchal), India. Geoforum 39(3): 1408–1422.
Panwar, H. S. (1992). Ecodevelopment: an integrated approach to sustainable development for people and protected areas in India. In Proceedings of the IV World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, Feb 10–21, 1992, Caracas Venezuela.
Phillips, A. (2004). History of the International System of Protected Area Management Categories. Parks 14(3): 4–14.
Putnam, R. (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Rocheleau, D., Thomas-Slayter, B., and Wangari, E. (eds). (1996). Feminist political ecology: local issues and global experiences. Routledge, London.
Sekhar, N. (1998). Crop and livestock depredation caused by wild animals in protected areas: the case of Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India. Environmental Conservation 25(2): 160–171.
Sen, A. (1981). Poverty and famine: an essay on entitlement and deprivation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Sen, A. (1997). Editorial: human capital and human capability. World Development 25(12): 1959–1961.
Serageldin, I., and Steer A. (eds.) (1994). Making development sustainable: from concepts to action. Environmentally Sustainable Development Occasional Paper Series No. 2. World Bank, Washington, DC.
Sethi, N. (2003). Battle Zones: Afterwards, an eerie silence. Down To Earth, March issue (web document) http://www.downtoearth.org.in/default20030331.htm.
Sheppard, D. (2004). Editorial. Parks 14(2): 1–5.
Stevens, S. (1997). Conservation through cultural survival. Island, Washington, DC.
Studsrod, J., and Wegge, P. (1995). Park–people relationships: the case of damage caused by park animals around the Royal Bardia National Park, Nepal. Environmental Conservation 22: 133–142.
Terborgh, J., Van Schaik, C., Davenport, L., and Rao, M. (eds.). (2002). Making parks work: strategies for preserving tropical nature, Island, Washington, DC.
Warren, D. M., Slikkerveer, L. J., and Brokensha, D. (1995). The cultural dimension of development: indigenous knowledge systems. Intermediate Technology, London.
West, P., Igoe, J., and Brockington, D. (2006) Parks and Peoples: The Social Impact of Protected Areas. Annual Review of Anthropology 35:251–277.
WII (Wildlife Institute of India) (2005). The relationships among large herbivores, habitats, and peoples in Rajaji-Corbett national parks: a study in Uttaranchal, India. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.
Williams, A. C. (2002). Elephants (Elephas maximus), their habitats in Rajaji-Corbett National Parks, Northwest India. Doctoral thesis in Wildlife Science, Saurashtra University. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.
Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S., and Rabinowitz, A. (eds.). (2005). People and wildlife: conflict or coexistence? Cambridge University Press, London.
World Parks Congress (2003a). Recommendation 24: indigenous peoples and protected areas. (web document) http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/pdfs/outputs/recommendations/approved/english/html/r24.htm.
World Parks Congress (2003b). Recommendation 29: poverty and protected areas (web document) http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/pdfs/outputs/recommendations/approved/english/html/r29.htm.
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: design and methods, 3rd edn., Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Zimmerer, K. (2006). Cultural ecology: at the interface with political ecology—the new geographies of environmental conservation and globalization. Progress in Human Geography 30(1): 63–78.
Acknowledgements
Support for this research was generously provided by the National Science Foundation (DDRI No 0233402), Fulbright Fellowship Program, Boren Graduate Fellowship Program, Department of Geography and Developing Areas Research and Teaching (DART) Program of the University of Colorado, the Wildlife Institute of India (WII), and Gettsyburg College. We also wish to thank Rachel Silvey, J. Terrence McCabe, Lisa Naughton, S.A. Hussain, Shivani Chandola, Rutherford V. Platt, and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable insights and assistance. Our deepest thanks go to the residents of Bhalalogpur for accepting us into their community and supporting our research efforts.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ogra, M., Badola, R. Compensating Human–Wildlife Conflict in Protected Area Communities: Ground-Level Perspectives from Uttarakhand, India. Hum Ecol 36, 717–729 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-008-9189-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-008-9189-y