To resettle or not?: Socioeconomic characteristics, livelihoods, and perceptions toward resolving human-tiger conflict in the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, India

Abstract

As pressure from a growing human population increases around the world, greater levels of conflict between people and wildlife over shrinking available land may be inevitable. The conversion of Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary to Mudumalai Tiger Reserve (MTR) in India is a conservation initiative under “Project Tiger” scheme to facilitate greater habitat connectivity across the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve. We interviewed local people in the MTR landscape to determine their interest and attitude towards resettlement and tiger conservation following MTR’s new status designation. We found that non-tribal Mountain Chetties generally had negative attitude towards tiger conservation, Kurumbas were positive toward the idea, and Kattunaickers, and Irula people and other minor ethnic groups were found neutral. We found that literate respondents were less likely to collect firewood and more likely to exhibit positive attitude towards tiger conservation and the establishment of MTR. Households with higher milk production, and people with generally negative attitude towards wildlife conservation, were against the declaration of MTR. People employed in private sectors and those having negative perception towards wildlife conservation were more likely to show negative attitude towards declaration of MTR. Locals desiring resettlement post MTR declaration were literate, and interested in availing better livelihood resources. However, they usually suffered relatively high livestock loss to large carnivores, and high crop damage caused by elephant (Elephas maximus). Most respondents (74.3%) were interested in resettlement provided that basic amenities were available to them. We recommend that conservation authorities facilitate “choice-based resettlement” options, which account for local people’s consent before making decisions on “resettlement”. This approach will avoid possible conflicts between forest managers and local people.