An analysis of factors affecting the rehabilitation and relocation of forest dwellers in Nagarahole and kali tiger reserves

Introduction

India possesses one of the largest and most diverse forest ecosystems in the world, supporting a rich variety of flora and fauna while providing livelihood opportunities to millions of people. Forest-dwelling communities, particularly Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers, have lived in close association with forests for generations and depend on them for food, fuel, fodder, medicinal plants, housing materials, and income. Beyond their economic importance, forests are deeply embedded in the cultural, social, and spiritual lives of these communities, shaping their identity, traditions, and way of life. The relationship between forest dwellers and forests has therefore been characterized by both ecological dependence and cultural attachment. Over the past few decades, increasing emphasis on biodiversity conservation has led to the expansion of protected areas such as national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, and tiger reserves. These protected areas play a crucial role in conserving endangered species and maintaining ecological balance. However, the creation and management of such areas have often imposed restrictions on human activities including cultivation, grazing, and collection of forest products. Consequently, many forest-dwelling www.extensionjournal.com communities residing within protected areas have faced displacement, rehabilitation, or relocation in order to create inviolate habitats for wildlife conservation. While these measures are considered important from a conservation perspective, they have generated significant socio-economic challenges for affected communities. The Government of India has introduced various policies and programmes to address the concerns of displaced forest dwellers. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, recognized the rights of forest-dependent communities over forest resources and established safeguards for relocation from protected areas. Similarly, the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) developed rehabilitation and relocation packages aimed at providing adequate compensation, housing, land, and livelihood support to affected families. Under the revised rehabilitation package, eligible families are provided financial assistance and other support measures intended to facilitate their transition to new settlements while ensuring livelihood security and social welfare. Despite these provisions, the success of rehabilitation and relocation programmes has varied considerably across regions and communities. In Karnataka, Nagarahole Tiger Reserve (NTR) and Kali Tiger Reserve (KTR) are among the most important protected areas where rehabilitation and relocation programmes have been implemented. Nagarahole Tiger Reserve has witnessed rehabilitation of several tribal communities, while Kali Tiger Reserve has undertaken relocation programmes under the NTCA package. Although many families have voluntarily accepted these programmes, a substantial number continue to remain within forest areas or express reluctance towards relocation. Decisions regarding rehabilitation and relocation are influenced by multiple factors, including age, education, family size, livelihood opportunities, compensation packages, access to infrastructure, cultural attachment to ancestral lands, and confidence in government institutions. Human-wildlife conflict has further intensified the need for rehabilitation and relocation in many forest areas. Crop damage, livestock predation, and threats to human life caused by elephants, tigers, leopards, and other wild animals have become increasingly common around protected areas. While relocation is often viewed as a strategy to reduce such conflicts and improve living conditions, its effectiveness depends largely on the adequacy of compensation, availability of infrastructure, livelihood opportunities, and social acceptance among affected communities. Failure to address these issues can result in dissatisfaction, economic hardship, and resistance to rehabilitation programmes. The rehabilitation and relocation process also presents numerous challenges for implementing agencies. Forest officials often encounter difficulties related to inadequate funding, delays in documentation, political interference, community resistance, and coordination among different departments. At the same time, rehabilitated and relocated households may face problems such as inadequate housing, water scarcity, lack of employment opportunities, rising living costs, social disintegration, and difficulties in adapting to new environments. Understanding these challenges is essential for designing policies that balance conservation goals with the welfare of forest-dependent communities.

Against this backdrop, the present study was undertaken to analyze the factors affecting rehabilitation and relocation decisions among forest dwellers in Nagarahole and Kali Tiger Reserves. The study examines the socio-economic, infrastructural, and institutional factors influencing willingness and unwillingness to accept rehabilitation or relocation. It also documents the major constraints faced by beneficiaries and implementing officials and identifies possible measures for improving rehabilitation outcomes. The findings of the study are expected to contribute to the development of more effective, equitable, and sustainable rehabilitation policies that promote both conservation objectives and the livelihood security of forest-dwelling communities.

2. 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 socioeconomic 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 Binomial Logistic Regression Model

The binomial logistic regression model was used to predict the probability of a binary outcome based on one or more predictor variables. The model was specified as follows: a0 is the intercept (constant term).

Garret ranking technique

Forest dwellers and officers were asked to rank the constraints faced in rehabilitation. Based on these ranks using the formula given below, ranks were converted into percentages. The order of the merit given in ascending order was converted into ranks by using the formula. Accordingly, these ranks were converted into scores by referring to Garret table. Garrett's formula for converting ranks into per cent was given by.

Where,

Rij = Rank given for item in constraint Nj = Number of items ranked in constraint

The per cent position of each position of each rank was converted to scores by referring to tables given by Garret and Woodworth (1969). Then for each factor, the scores of individual respondents were summed up and divided by the total number of respondents for who scores were gathered.

The mean scores for all the factors were ranked, following the decision criterion that higher the value the more is the constraint in rehabilitation.

Definitions of terms and concepts used

 Tiger reserve: A tiger reserve is a protected area designated for the conservation of tigers and their natural habitat. These reserves provide a safe environment for tigers to thrive, focusing on their protection from poaching and habitat destruction. They are often part of broader wildlife protection efforts aimed at preserving biodiversity.  Protected areas: A protected area is a designated region where natural resources, flora and fauna are safeguarded from exploitation or destruction. These areas are managed to preserve biodiversity, protect ecosystems and maintain ecological balance. Human activities such as logging or hunting are restricted or controlled to ensure long-term conservation.  Buffer area: A buffer area is a designated zone around a protected area, such as a wildlife sanctuary or reserve, designed to minimize human impact. It acts as a protective barrier, reducing encroachment and protecting the core area from external threats like poaching or deforestation.  Core area: A core area is the central part of a protected region, such as a wildlife reserve, where human activity is strictly limited. It serves as the primary habitat for wildlife, ensuring minimal disturbance to preserve biodiversity and ecological balance.  Forest dwellers: Forest dwellers are communities or groups of people who live in and around forests, often relying on the forest's resources for their livelihood. They typically have a deep cultural connection to the forest and engage in activities like hunting, gathering and traditional farming.  Restricted area: A restricted area is a designated zone where access is limited or controlled due to safety, security, or environmental reasons. Entry is typically prohibited or allowed only under specific conditions, often to protect sensitive resources or maintain public safety.

 Rehabilitation:

Rehabilitation refers to the comprehensive support provided to relocated families to help them re-establish their lives at the new location. It includes the provision of land (agricultural and homestead), compensation for assets, housing, basic amenities (like roads, water, electricity, sanitation), and access to livelihood opportunities.

Relocation: Relocation refers to the voluntary shifting of individuals or entire villages from core/critical tiger habitats (the areas reserved strictly for tiger conservation) to safer locations outside these zones. The relocation process is based on the principle of mutual agreement and informed consent of the affected families and the Gram Sabha. It is carried out only after recognizing and settling the forest rights of the people under the Forest Rights Act, 2006. The aim is to create inviolate spaces for tigers while ensuring that the rights, dignity and livelihoods of forest dwellers are protected. To support this, the government provides a compensation package, which has been enhanced to ₹15 lakh per family since 2021.

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

 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).  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:

Compensating the beneficiaries in proportion to the assets as per valuation done by the Collector

Distributing the balance amount equally to all eligible families / beneficiaries. The shortfall, if any, of compensation amount in proportion to the assets will be met by the State Government. Age had a significant effect in both reserves: Compared to respondents above 50 years, younger respondents, particularly those below 30 years, were more likely to accept rehabilitation and relocation. This suggests that younger individuals were more willing to adapt to new environments and explore alternative livelihood opportunities, while older respondents tended to remain attached to their traditional habitats and livelihoods.

Option II (Rehabilitation

Education positively influenced rehabilitation decisions:

The likelihood of accepting rehabilitation increased with educational attainment in both reserves, with degreeeducated respondents showing the highest probability of relocation. Higher education appeared to enhance awareness of the benefits associated with rehabilitation and improved access to government services and employment opportunities. Family size also played a role, particularly in NTR, where medium and large households were more likely to opt for rehabilitation than smaller families. Larger households may have been motivated by the prospect of improved housing, land allocation, and livelihood support. In KTR, however, the effect of family size was relatively weak. Access to basic infrastructure emerged as a major determinant of rehabilitation and relocation decisions. Availability of electricity, educational institutions, and transportation facilities significantly increased the likelihood of accepting rehabilitation in both reserves. Among these factors, access to schools and colleges exerted the strongest influence, indicating that educational opportunities for children were a key motivation for relocation. In contrast, market access did not significantly affect rehabilitation decisions. The negative and significant constant term in both models indicated that the probability of accepting rehabilitation and relocation was low in the absence of favourable socioeconomic and infrastructural conditions. The Pseudo R² values of 0.64 for NTR and 0.59 for KTR suggested a good model fit.

Reasons for willingness or reluctance to rehabilitation and relocation

Table 3.2 presents the factors influencing the willingness of respondents in Nagarahole Tiger Reserve (NTR) and Kali Tiger Reserve (KTR) to accept rehabilitation and relocation. Among the social and cultural factors, the desire for improved living conditions emerged as the most important www.extensionjournal.com motivation, reported by 78.33 per cent of respondents in NTR and 80.00 per cent in KTR. Better educational opportunities also played a significant role, motivating 58.33 per cent of respondents in NTR and 63.33 per cent in KTR. Access to healthcare facilities influenced 33.33 per cent of respondents in NTR and 40.00 per cent in KTR. Protection from wild animals was reported by 46.67 per cent of respondents in NTR compared to 23.33 per cent in KTR, whereas the influence of relocated peers was much stronger in KTR (60.00%) than in NTR (21.67%). Similarly, social integration prospects motivated 45.00 per cent of respondents in KTR compared to 30.00 per cent in NTR.

Economic motivations showed clear differences between the two reserves. In KTR, better job opportunities were cited by 86.67 per cent of respondents and better package amounts by 46.67 per cent, indicating the importance of employment opportunities and compensation benefits. In NTR, land grants by the government motivated 48.33 per cent of respondents, while diversified income sources influenced 58.33 per cent. Access to financial services played a supportive role in both reserves. The motivation of minimized exposure to natural hazards was reported by 13.33 per cent of respondents in NTR and 30.00 per cent in KTR. The most important recommendation was to build or repair larger houses with terracotta roofs (87.53, rank I), as they were considered more suitable than concrete roofs. Respondents also emphasized the need to resurvey land and issue titles (87.13, rank II) to ensure legal security and facilitate access to credit. Other major suggestions included providing job skills, microfinance and business support (85.26, rank III), developing sustainable water infrastructure (81.46, rank IV), and ensuring timely agricultural credit (78.33, rank V). Additional recommendations included extensive farming training (76.20), construction of elephant-proof barriers (75.83), and, for some respondents, a preference to return to the forest (73.13). Table 3.6 summarizes the constraints perceived by officers during the rehabilitation process. The most significant challenge was the inconsistent stance of forest dwellers towards rehabilitation (86.53, rank I), which frequently disrupted planning and implementation. Lack of government funds (84.96, rank II) was another major obstacle. Officers also reported challenges related to insufficient documentation (82.13), political interventions (81.63), distrust of authorities (80.33), and illiteracy among applicants (77.66). Additional constraints included opposition from NGOs and activists (76.23), improved inforest facilities following FRA 2006 (75.33), interdepartmental coordination issues (74.23), and negative media narratives (71.00). Table 3.7 presents officers' recommendations for improving rehabilitation programmes. The highest-ranked suggestion was ensuring consistent government funding (88.63, rank I), followed by increasing compensation amounts (87.23, rank II). Officers also recommended showcasing successful rehabilitation models (86.66) to encourage participation, reducing documentation requirements (86.13), managing political interventions effectively (84.56), and providing employment opportunities for rehabilitated forest dwellers (83.33). They further emphasized transparent engagement with NGOs and activists (80.10) and stronger interdepartmental coordination (76.23). Implement a 3-year monitoring and follow-up mechanism for relocated families.

Problems and suggestions by stakeholders in NTR

IX

Conclusion

The study examined the factors influencing rehabilitation and relocation decisions among forest dwellers in Nagarahole Tiger Reserve (NTR) and Kali Tiger Reserve (KTR). The results revealed that socio-economic and infrastructural factors played a significant role in shaping respondents' willingness to accept rehabilitation and relocation. Younger and better-educated respondents were more likely to opt for rehabilitation or relocation, while access to basic facilities such as electricity, educational institutions, and transportation significantly increased acceptance. In contrast, attachment to ancestral lands, concerns regarding livelihood security, inadequate compensation, and fear of economic instability emerged as major reasons for reluctance. The findings further indicated notable differences between the two reserves. In NTR, respondents were primarily motivated by land grants, diversified income opportunities, and protection from wildlife, whereas in KTR, better employment prospects, attractive compensation packages, and proactive administrative support were the major drivers of relocation. Administrative support from officials and effective implementation mechanisms were found to be considerably stronger in KTR than in NTR.

Post-rehabilitation challenges in Nagarahole were largely related to poor housing quality, land measurement discrepancies, lack of employment opportunities, water scarcity, and limited access to credit. In Kali, the major concerns included inadequate compensation, rising land prices, water scarcity, increased cost of living, and social disintegration.

From the perspective of implementing agencies, inconsistent willingness among forest dwellers, inadequate funding, documentation delays, political interference, and communication barriers emerged as major constraints. Both respondents and officials emphasized the need for improved compensation, livelihood support, housing facilities, employment opportunities, transparent implementation, and continuous post-relocation monitoring.

Overall, the study concludes that successful rehabilitation and relocation cannot be achieved through financial compensation alone. Sustainable outcomes require a comprehensive approach that integrates livelihood security, quality infrastructure, social and cultural well-being, effective institutional support, and active participation of forest-dwelling communities in the decision-making process. Strengthening these aspects will not only improve the welfare of displaced households but also contribute to achieving long-term conservation objectives in protected areas.

References

1. Acharya KP, Paudel PK, Neupane PR, Köhl M. Human-wildlife conflicts in Nepal: Patterns of human www.extensionjournal.com fatalities and injuries caused by large mammals. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):16-21.
2. Agrawal A, Redford KH. Conservation and displacement: The role of community participation in the relocation process. Conserv Biol. 2006;20(2):300303.
3. Anonymous. Additional guidelines for the ongoing centrally sponsored scheme of Project Tiger relating to new components: Protocol/guidelines for voluntary village relocation in notified core/critical tiger habitats of tiger reserves. New Delhi; 2011. p. 15.
4. Anonymous. Preparation of management plan and tiger conservation plan of Karnataka. Karnataka; 2017. p. 6.
5. Anonymous. Annual report of the National Tiger Conservation Authority, 2019-20. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India. New Delhi; 2020.
6. Anonymous. Kali river basin hydropower and rehabilitation status report. Forest, Ecology and Environment Department, Government of Karnataka. Bengaluru; 2020. p. 45-58.
7. Anonymous. Status of displacement and rehabilitation under major irrigation projects in Karnataka. Department of Water Resources, Government of Karnataka. Bengaluru; 2022. p. 1-74.
8. Aweto DO, Fawole OP, Saayman M. Constraints to conservation at Okomu National Park: A ranger's perspective. Int J Comp Appl Crim Justice. 2019;43(2):173-187.
9. Blay D, Appiah M, Damnyag L, Dwomoh FK, Luukkanen O, Pappinen A. Involving local farmers in rehabilitation of degraded tropical forests: Some lessons from Ghana. Environ Dev Sustain. 2008;10:503-518.
10. Cernea MM, Mathur HM, editors. Can Compensation Prevent Impoverishment? Reforming Resettlement through Investment and Benefit-Sharing. Bangalore (Karnataka): Oxford University Press; 2008.
11. Chandran R. Relocation and its impacts: The case of the Sunderbans. Indian J Environ Prot. 2009;29(8):712718.
12. Das U, Behera B. Forest dwellers' livelihoods and attitudes towards relocation: Insights from Buxa Tiger Reserve, India. For Trees Livelihoods. 2023;32(3):144166.
13. Desai A, Bhargav P. Report on the Progress of Village Relocation: Nagarahole and Mudumalai Tiger Reserves. Technical report prepared for the National Tiger Conservation Authority. New Delhi; 2010.
14. Fisher M. Household welfare and forest dependence in southern Malawi. Environ Dev Econ. 2004;9(2):135154.
15. Kansky R, Kidd M, Knight AT. Meta-analysis of attitudes toward damage-causing mammalian wildlife. Conserv Biol. 2014;28(4):924-938.
16. 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.
17. Khan MS, Bhagwat SA. Protected areas: A resource or constraint for local people? Mt Res Dev. 2010;30(1):14-24.
18. Sahu NC, Rath B. Impact of Joint Forest Management (JFM) on environmental stress migration: Evidence from Orissa. Int J Rural Manag. 2010;6:63-78.
19. Sarkar S, Sinha P. Infrastructure development and tribal displacement: A study of dam projects in India. Econ Polit Wkly. 2014;49(22):61-68.