DURHAM, N.C. – When people and wildlife don’t mix – as in tiger reserves in India – moving the humans out is often unavoidable if the tigers are to survive. Critics have charged that this causes undue social disruption and economic hardships for the humans, undermining their welfare for that of the tigers.

But a new study by a 91 researcher finds there is reason for optimism.

Relocating people who live in tiger reserves in India to settlements outside the protected areas is a “workable conservation solution” that can benefit both the endangered cats and the resettled humans, provided that key conditions are met, says Krithi Karanth. 

“Relocation is a viable conservation tool – if it is done with the active consultation of the people being resettled,” says Karanth, a doctoral student at Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences. “They must be given a voice in the decision-making process. They can’t be forced out or denied fair compensation.”

Substantial financial support needs to be available to them for up to a year after the move, she says. And there needs to be long-term involvement by governmental and nongovernmental organizations that are committed to the relocated people’s success. 

“Resettlement is not a quick fix that you can throw a little money at and then forget,” Karanth says. “It is an investment in the future – a long-term solution that requires conscientious follow-up and commitment.”

Village resettlements to promote tiger conservation date back to the 1960s in India, but few studies before this have documented the impacts the practice has on the resettled people. Critics note that, in addition to suffering a loss of economic security, relocated people appear to lose touch with their cultural identify and are sometimes ostracized or dominated by existing populations in the villages to which they are relocated.

Karanth has published one of the first detailed case studies on the controversial practice in the October issue of the journal Biological Conservation.

Her study, “,” provides an in-depth analysis of the factors affecting the fate of a tiger-reserve resettlement at the Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary in India’s Western Ghats. The region is a global biodiversity hotspot.

Karanth examines the experiences of 419 households who voluntarily moved to two villages located outside the Bhadra reserve.  She interviewed 61 percent of the households during the relocation in 2002, and interviewed 55 percent of them again in 2006.  She also interviewed individuals from governmental and nongovernmental agencies involved in the resettlement effort.

The resettlement package offered to the Bhadra households was, on average, worth three to four times the packages offered to people relocated from other reserves. All households reported having access to amenities including electricity, drinking water, school and health care that were unavailable to them inside the reserve, and they all felt their overall assets had increased.

Karanth found that the majority of the households are satisfied with their relocation and quality of life, although satisfaction has dropped from 71 percent of households in 2002 to 52 percent in 2006. The decline may be linked to the poorer facilities, slow distribution of housing and land compensation, and other delays of provisions to households in one of the villages.

“This is a lesson for future resettlements to ensure equitable distribution of land titles and other development aid,” Karanth says.

“When resettlement is not properly handled, the people can and often do face great hardships. The goal of my research is to provide insights for conservation practice relevant to implementing these resettlement efforts, and addressing the short-term and mid-term successes and challenges relocated people face,” she says.

In India, five million people live inside nature reserves and 147 million people are dependent on resources the reserves provide. Human populations around the reserves often exceed 300 people per kilometer. India’s laws prohibit hunting, fishing, collecting of forest resources, agriculture and livestock grazing within the protected areas, but these practices are widespread in many reserves. Conflicts with wildlife resulting in livestock loss, crop damage and injuries to people are common.

Karanth’s faculty advisors are Norman L. Christensen, professor of ecology and founding dean of the Nicholas School, and Stuart L. Pimm, Doris Duke Professor of Conservation Ecology.

“Krithi’s study helps fill in some very critical gaps in our understanding of why resettlement efforts succeed or fail,” Pimm says. “It will help reduce conflicts and lead to better outcomes for humans and tigers alike.”