- University: Technische Universität Dresden
- Place of defence: Dresden
- Keywords: Human-Wildlife Conflict (HWC), Tiger-human conflict, Institutional effectiveness, Formal and Informal Institutions, Actor adaptation strategies, Adaptive comanagement, Coexistence
Abstract
Human-wildlife conflict is a growing challenge for conservation and rural livelihoods, especially in biodiverse landscapes where settlements overlap with wildlife habitats. In India, Tiger-human conflict has intensified in forest-fringe regions such as Wayanad, Kerala, raising concerns about both ecological drivers and the effectiveness of local governance and adaptation. This study examines the governance of human-tiger conflict in Wayanad District, Kerala, focusing on institutional effectiveness and actor-level adaptations by the Forest Department, NGOs, political bodies, local and tribal communities, in line with three objectives: (SO1) conflict evolution, nature, severity, and drivers; (SO2) awareness and perceived effectiveness of formal and informal rules; and (SO3) actor adaptation strategies and how they shape coexistence perceptions. Drawing on the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework and a Socio-ecological Co-evolution perspective, the research explores how ecological pressures, institutional arrangements, and everyday responses interact over time. A mixed-method approach was employed in two conflict-prone wards, combining semi-structured household interviews (n = 274) with key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and field observations. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests, while qualitative insights were used to contextualise and interpret survey patterns. For SO1, findings indicate that conflict is perceived as increasingly severe, shaped by frequent tiger incursions, livestock depredation, and disrupted daily routines. Participants attributed conflict escalation to interacting ecological and land-use pressures (habitat degradation, invasive species, abandoned farmland, and edge permeability) alongside political-institutional constraints such as delayed compensation, limited preventive planning, and low transparency in decisionmaking. For SO2, the study shows a gap between rule awareness and rule usability; while formal measures are recognised, they are widely viewed as reactive and insufficient, and communities rely more on practical, informal “rules-in-use” for everyday safety. For SO3, the findings show that informal adaptation strategies (collective vigilance, avoidance of high-risk times and spaces, group travel, and neighbourhood alert systems )are the most trusted day-to-day responses, while formal responses (monitoring, capture/relocation, and compensation) remain central but are seen mainly as crisis management. Perceptions of coexistence were overwhelmingly negative, reflecting cumulative fear, livelihood vulnerability, psychological stress, and limited institutional trust. Overall, the study highlights the need to bridge institutional and community-led responses through proactive, participatory, and locally grounded coexistence strategies supported by transparent governance, timely compensation, and early-warning systems with equal importance in habitat restoration.
