Assessing the impact of rehabilitation and relocation initiatives on the socio-economic livelihoods of forest dwellers

Introduction

Protected areas play a crucial role in conserving biodiversity and maintaining ecological balance. In India, tiger reserves have been established to protect endangered wildlife species and their habitats. However, many forest-dwelling communities have traditionally lived within these protected landscapes and depend heavily on forest resources for their livelihood. To create inviolate habitats for wildlife conservation and reduce human-wildlife conflicts, rehabilitation and relocation programmes have been implemented in several tiger reserves across the country. Rehabilitation and relocation are important conservation strategies that aim to balance ecological objectives with the welfare of local communities. Under these programmes, forest-dwelling households are voluntarily relocated from core or critical wildlife habitats to safer locations outside protected areas and are provided with compensation, housing, agricultural land, infrastructure facilities and livelihood support. The success of these programmes depends not only on effective conservation outcomes but also on their ability to improve the socio-economic conditions of the affected households. Livelihoods of forest dwellers are closely linked to agriculture, wage labour, livestock rearing, collection of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) and other forest-based activities. Relocation often brings significant changes in access to land, employment opportunities, income sources and institutional support services. While rehabilitation can create opportunities for improved living standards and diversified livelihoods, it may also result in challenges such as loss of traditional occupations, reduced access to natural resources and difficulties in adapting to new socioeconomic environments. Therefore, assessing the impact of rehabilitation initiatives on the livelihoods of relocated households is essential for understanding the effectiveness of these programmes. Karnataka is home to several important tiger reserves, including Nagarahole Tiger Reserve (NTR) and Kali Tiger Reserve (KTR), where rehabilitation and relocation programmes have been undertaken to strengthen wildlife conservation efforts. The rehabilitation models followed in these reserves differ in terms of land allocation, compensation mechanisms and livelihood support, which may influence the post-relocation outcomes experienced by forest dwellers. Evaluating these outcomes can provide valuable insights into the strengths and limitations of existing rehabilitation strategies. In this context, the present study was undertaken to assess the impact of rehabilitation and relocation initiatives on the income, employment and livelihood activities of forest dwellers in Nagarahole and Kali Tiger Reserves of Karnataka. The study compares the socio-economic conditions of households before and after rehabilitation and examines how changes in livelihood assets, employment opportunities and income sources have influenced their overall well-being. The findings are expected to contribute to the development of more effective and sustainable rehabilitation policies that simultaneously support wildlife conservation and improve the livelihoods of forest-dependent communities.

Methodology 2.1. Data

Primary data were collected through personal interviews using a well-structured and pre-tested interview schedule to ensure the reliability and consistency of responses. The information gathered covered socio-economic characteristics of forest dwellers, including income levels, employment status, and livelihood conditions. Data were also collected on factors influencing the willingness or unwillingness of forest dwellers to accept rehabilitation and relocation, as well as the challenges faced by both rehabilitated and non-rehabilitated households. In addition, information on constraints encountered during the rehabilitation process and stakeholders' suggestions for improving the effectiveness and implementation of rehabilitation programmes was obtained. The study aimed to identify and analyze the key socio-economic, institutional, and infrastructural factors influencing rehabilitation and relocation decisions among forest dwellers in Nagarahole and Kali Tiger Reserves.

Analytical tools used Paired t test

Paired t-test was carried out to compare the status of rehabilitated and non-rehabilitated families. It is a statistical procedure used to determine whether the mean difference between two sets of observation is zero. The formula for the paired t-test is given by Where, ; \ = difference between paired observations and Where, Σd is the sum of the differences. There are two options in relocation / rehabilitation package Option I (Relocation): Direct Cash Compensation Under this option, families relocate independently and receive a lump sum payment of ₹15 lakh in a joint bank account. The amount can be used to purchase land, construct a house, or establish a livelihood at a location of their choice. Families are required to provide proof of land or asset purchase to access the full amount. This option offers greater flexibility and autonomy and is suitable for families capable of managing their own relocation process.

Option I has 2 components 1. Option IA: In case, the villagers through the Gram Sabha agree for receiving a payment of Rs. 15 lakhs per family (inclusive of the valuation for their assets), then the said amount would be deposited in the name of the beneficiary (a joint account with spouse in case of a married individual). 2. Option IB: In case, the villagers through the Gram Sabha do not agree for the above (option A) and demand due compensation for their assets then the following may be adopted: In KTR, 46 households were engaged in agriculture before relocation, working an average of 60 days annually. After relocation, only 8 households continued farming, representing a decline of 82.61 per cent, mainly due to the absence of agricultural land allocation. In contrast, wage labour participation increased from 47 to 52 households, while average employment days rose sharply from 73 to 179 days, an increase of 145.21 per cent. Forest labour ceased entirely, declining from 24 households to none after relocation. Employment under MGNREGA decreased from 18 to 8 households (55.56%), whereas private sector employment increased moderately from 23 to 27 households, indicating stable expansion of non-farm employment opportunities. Overall, rehabilitation in NTR promoted a complete shift towards agriculture along with continued wage labour and emerging private sector jobs. In KTR, relocation resulted in reduced agricultural employment but substantially increased dependence on wage labour. In both reserves, forest-based employment was completely eliminated, highlighting the transition from forestdependent livelihoods to alternative income-generating activities.

Impact of rehabilitation and relocation on employment

Impact of rehabilitation and relocation on livelihood

Conclusion

The study assessed the impact of rehabilitation and relocation initiatives on the income, employment and livelihood activities of forest dwellers in Nagarahole Tiger Reserve (NTR) and Kali Tiger Reserve (KTR). The findings revealed that rehabilitation and relocation significantly influenced the socio-economic conditions of households, although the nature and extent of impacts varied across the two reserves.

In NTR, rehabilitation resulted in substantial improvements in household income, employment and livelihood assets. The allocation of agricultural land enabled households to shift from forest-dependent activities to agriculture-based livelihoods, leading to a 95.94 per cent increase in average annual household income. Livestock ownership, access to credit facilities and agricultural extension services also improved considerably, indicating strengthened livelihood security and enhanced economic opportunities.

In KTR, relocation led to a moderate increase in average household income (21.80%), primarily driven by increased wage labour opportunities. However, the absence of agricultural land allocation resulted in a significant decline in agricultural income, land ownership and livestock assets. Although access to credit and extension services improved, the reduction in productive assets made livelihood outcomes comparatively less favourable than those observed in NTR.

The study concludes that rehabilitation programmes that incorporate land-based support and livelihood development measures are more effective in ensuring sustainable socioeconomic improvement among relocated households. The contrasting experiences of NTR and KTR highlight the importance of designing rehabilitation strategies that restore productive assets, enhance livelihood opportunities and strengthen institutional support systems. Such measures are essential for achieving both wildlife conservation goals and the long-term well-being of forest-dwelling communities.

References

1. Baviskar A. In the Belly of the River: Tribal Conflicts over Development in the Narmada Valley. Bangalore (Karnataka): Oxford University Press; 2007. p. 259-265.
2. Bhattacharya S, Kumar P, Singh R. Human-wildlife conflict in the Sundarbans: A study of tiger-human interactions. Journal of Environmental Management. 2019;45(2):134145.
3. Chakrabarti A, Dhar A. Dislocation and Rehabilitation: Indian State and Indigenous People. Social Scientist. 2012;40(5-6):65-80.
4. Desai A, Bhargav P. Report on the Progress of Village Relocation: Nagarahole and Mudumalai Tiger Reserves. Technical Report. New Delhi: National Tiger Conservation Authority; 2010.
5. Fanari E. Relocation from protected areas as a violent process in the recent history of biodiversity conservation in India. Ecology, Economy and Society-the INSEE Journal. 2019;2(1):43-76.
6. Fernandes W. Relocation and rehabilitation of forest dwellers: The Rajaji National Park experience. Economic and Political Weekly. 2008;43(27):27-34.
7. Jain P, Sajjad H. Household dependency on forest resources in the Sariska Tiger Reserve (STR), India: Implications for management. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 2015;35(1):60-74.
8. Karanth KK, Kumar NS. Voluntary resettlement and wildlife conservation: A case study of Bhadra Tiger Reserve. Economic and Political Weekly. 2005;40(8):497-502.
9. Kavitha I. India: Adivasi tribal community reoccupy Nagarhole tiger reserve forest reclaiming ancestral land after forced displacement nearly 40 years ago. Business and Human Rights Resource Centre. 2025;14(1):1-4.
10. Kiplimo TJ. Impact of Relocation on the Ogiek Community in Mau Forest: A Case Study. African Journal of Environmental Studies. 2018;10(4):68-85.
11. Kothari A. Protected Areas and People: The Future of the Past. Economic and Political Weekly. 2009;44(52):14-16.
12. Lasgorceix A, Kothari A. Displacement and relocation of protected areas: A synthesis and analysis of case studies. Economic and Political Weekly. 2009;44(49):37-47.
13. Metcalf EC, Burns RC, Graefe AR. Understanding nontraditional forest recreation: The role of constraints and negotiation strategies among racial and ethnic minorities. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism. 2013;1:29-39.
14. National Tiger Conservation Authority. Guidelines for Voluntary Village Relocation from Core Areas of Tiger Reserves. New Delhi: Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India; 2019.
15. Ota AB. Land Rights and Forest Dwellers in Odisha: A Study of Policy Implementation. Social Change and Development. 2012;9(2):30-45.
16. Patel V, Desai N. Industrialization and Tribal Displacement in Gujarat: An Analysis. Journal of Tribal Studies. 2017;52(3):145-158.
17. Rai P, Bhattacharya D. Gender and Tribal Displacement: The Case of Women in Rural Bihar. Journal of Rural Development. 2019;38(1):77-89.
18. Sahu NC, Rath B. Impact of Joint Forest Management (JFM) on environmental stress migration: Evidence from Orissa. International Journal of Rural Management. 2010;6:63-78.
19. Tripathy SN. Development-Induced Displacement: Balancing Progress and Human Rights. Journal of Social and Applied Research. 2024;1(1):1-10.