Home       About us   Issues     Search     Submission Subscribe   Contact    Login 
Conservation and Society
An interdisciplinary journal exploring linkages between society, environment and development
Conservation and Society
Users Online: 1299 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size

ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 16  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 305-319

Compensation as a Policy for Mitigating Human-wildlife Conflict Around Four Protected Areas in Rajasthan, India


1 Duke University, Nicholas School of the Environment, North Carolina, USA
2 Duke University, Nicholas School of the Environment, North Carolina; Wildlife Conservation Society, New York, USA; Centre for Wildlife Studies, Karnataka, India

Correspondence Address:
McKenzie F Johnson
Duke University, Nicholas School of the Environment, North Carolina
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/cs.cs_17_1

Rights and Permissions

In India, human-wildlife conflict (HWC) around protected areas (PAs) has magnified social conflict over conservation and development priorities. India introduced financial compensation for HWC as a policy solution to simultaneously promote human security while protecting biodiversity. We evaluate compensation as a mitigation policy for HWC around four protected areas in Rajasthan (Jaisamand, Sitamata, Phulwari, and Kumbhalgarh). We argue that compensation is failing to reconcile conservation and development priorities for two reasons. First, a focus on charismatic megafauna obscures the livelihood costs of human-wildlife interactions as reported by households, especially conflict perpetrated by non-priority herbivores like antelope. This highlights disagreements about what constitutes 'acceptable' conservation costs between communities and the state. Second, government bureaucrats control the compensation process, a model incongruent with the highly negotiated and reciprocal nature of environmental governance at local levels. Using interviews with Rajasthan Forest Department officials (n=21) and household surveys (n=2234), we argue that compensation is a policy designed to conserve (internationally) threatened species and not to safeguard local livelihoods. Ultimately, we suggest that policy solutions that are insensitive to local ecological and social dynamics can undermine efforts to reconcile conservation and development goals.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2348    
    Printed35    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded390    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal