research on wildlife conservation in india

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• NEWS FEATURE
• 30 October 2019

India’s tigers seem to be a massive success story — many scientists aren’t sure

• Gayathri Vaidyanathan 0

Gayathri Vaidyanathan is a science journalist in Bengaluru.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

A tiger and her cubs leave India’s Bandhavgarh National Park in search of prey, which is scarce inside the reserve. Credit: Steve Winter/National Geographic

Central India — The Maruti Gypsy 44 sped along a jungle track, jolting us out of our seats. We had signed up for a wolf safari, but the trip leader had another quarry in mind. The vehicle barrelled towards a pungent smell on a hillside — a fresh tiger kill.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 574 , 612-616 (2019)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03267-z

Mondol, S., Karanth, K. U. & Ramakrishnan, U. PLoS Genet. 5 , e1000585 (2009).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Gopalaswamy, A. M., Delampady, D., Karanth, K. U., Kumar, N. S. & Macdonald, D. W. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6 , 1055–1066 (2015).

Article   Google Scholar  

Gopalaswamy, A. M., Karanth, K. U., Delampady, M. & Stenseth, N. Chr. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/708628 (2019).

Qureshi, Q., Gopal, R. & Jhala, Y. PeerJ 7 , e7482 (2019).

Thatte, P., Joshi, A., Vaidyanathan, S., Landguth, E. & Ramakrishnan, U. Biol. Conserv. 218 , 181–191 (2018).

Armstrong, E. et al. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/696146 (2019).

Kerley, L. L. et al. Conserv. Biol. 16 , 97–108 (2002).

Download references

Reprints and permissions

Related Articles

• Conservation biology
• Biodiversity

Drosophila are hosts to the first described parasitoid wasp of adult flies

Article 11 SEP 24

Bumblebees’ sense of smell can’t take the heat

Research Highlight 30 AUG 24

Lonely? Playful? Why are dolphin attacks rising in Japan?

News Q&A 28 AUG 24

How to support Indigenous Peoples on biodiversity: be rigorous with data

Editorial 10 SEP 24

No basis for claim that 80% of biodiversity is found in Indigenous territories

Comment 04 SEP 24

Faculty Position

The Institute of Cellular and Organismic Biology (ICOB), Academia Sinica, Taiwan, is seeking candidates to fill multiple tenure-track faculty position

Taipei (TW)

Institute of Cellular and Organismic Biology, Academia Sinica

Postdoctoral Associate

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Associate or Senior Editor, Nature Energy

Job Title: Associate or Senior Editor, Nature Energy Location: New York, Jersey City, Philadelphia or London — Hybrid Working Application Deadline:...

New York City, New York (US)

Springer Nature Ltd

Open Rank Tenure-track/Tenured Faculty Positions in the Department of Genetic and Genomic Sciences

Seeking expertise in areas including Cancer Genetics; Artificial Intelligence; Drug Development & Clinical Trials; Functional Genomics; & Gene Editing

Mount Sinai Department of Genetics and Genomic Sciences

Assistant Professor (Tenure Track) of Robotics

The Department of Mechanical and Process Engineering (D-MAVT, www.mavt.ethz.ch) at ETH Zurich invites applications for the above-mentioned position.

Zurich city

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Advertisement

Contextualising Landscape Ecology in Wildlife and Forest Conservation in India: a Review

• Published: 11 February 2023
• Volume 8 , pages 90–101, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Vaishali Vasudeva 1 ,
• Meera Makwana 2 ,
• Kamana Pokhariya 2 ,
• Orvill Jude Nazareth 2 , 3 ,
• Shah Nawaz Jelil 2 ,
• Meghna Bandyopadhyay 2 ,
• Deepti Gupta 2 , 4 ,
• Satyam Verma 5 , 6 &
• Ramesh Krishnamurthy 1 , 2  

370 Accesses

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Purpose of Review

Biodiversity values frequently encounter challenges from developmental needs despite having strong forest and wildlife laws in developing countries like India. Landscape ecology offers the relevant scientific backstopping and sophisticated tools to support conservation of several species. To aid the future development of landscape ecology in India within current and emerging contexts, we reviewed the spatio-temporal and thematic trends in the published research involving forest and wildlife conservation.

Recent Findings

Spatial modelling and land use land cover change assessments have been well established conceptually and methodologically, but an increase in studies involving impact of climate change on species habitat suitability is comparatively very recent. Thematic research gaps in this field include impact of scale on ecological processes, and uncertainty and error quantification in modelling. Dedicated studies on characterisation of biodiversity and its dynamics in biogeographic transition zones can scientifically inform management of forest and wildlife.

The review of 494 peer-reviewed articles published between 1994 and 2021 showed an increase in published research on landscape ecology over time. We found that the studies were dominated by the ‘Pattern–Process–Scale’ related questions and spatially clustered in the Western Ghats (biodiversity hotspot) and Uttarakhand state. Considerable research efforts are required in riverine and coastal ecosystems. Nevertheless, the increasing trend of research across themes and regions is a positive indicator of the growing role of landscape ecology in forest and wildlife management in India.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

What evidence exists for landbird species-environment relationships in eastern temperate and boreal forests of North America? A systematic map protocol

Evolution and emerging research trends in the ecological impacts of landscape change: perspectives from a Chilean biodiversity hotspot

To what extent does surrounding landscape explain stand-level occurrence of conservation-relevant species in fragmented boreal and hemi-boreal forest?–a systematic review protocol

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • of importance •• of major importance.

Troll C. Luftbildplan und ökologische Bodenforschung. Ihr zweckmäßiger Einsatz für die wissenschaftliche Erforschung und praktische Erschließung wenig bekannter Länder. Zeitschrift der gesellschaft für erdkunde zu Berlin. 1939;(7, 8):241–98.

Milovanović A, Milovanović Rodić D, Maruna M. Eighty-year review of the evolution of landscape ecology: from a spatial planning perspective. Landscape Ecol. 2020;35(10):2141–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-01102-9 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Turner MG. Landscape ecology: what is the state of the science? Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2005;15(36):319–44. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.36.102003.152614 .

Noss RF. A regional landscape approach to maintain diversity. Bioscience. 1983;33(11):700–6. https://doi.org/10.2307/1309350 .

Wu J. Toward a landscape ecology of cities: beyond buildings, trees, and urban forests. In Ecology, planning, and management of urban forests 2008:10–28. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-71425-7_2 .

Hobbs RJ, Saunders DA, Arnold GW. Integrated landscape ecology: a Western Australian perspective. Biol Cons. 1993;64(3):231–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(93)90324-T .

Hobbs RJ. Landscape ecology and conservation: moving from description to application. Pac Conserv Biol. 1994;1(3):170–6. https://doi.org/10.1071/PC940170 .

Daniels RJ. A landscape approach to conservation of birds. J Biosci. 1994;19(4):503–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02703186 .

Mathur PK, Sinha PR. Looking beyond protected area networks: a paradigm shift in approach for biodiversity conservation. Int For Rev. 2008;10(2):305–14. https://doi.org/10.1505/ifor.10.2.305 .

Menon S, Bawa KS. Applications of geographic information systems, remote-sensing, and a landscape ecology approach to biodiversity conservation in the Western Ghats. Curr sci. 1997;134–45. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24098267 .

Roy PS, Ravan SA, Rajadnya N, Das KK, Jain A, Singh S. Habitat suitability analysis of Nemorhaedus goral–a remote sensing and geographic information system approach. Curr sci. 1995;685–91. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24097262 .

Roy PS, Singh S, Hegde VS. Biodiversity characterization at landscape level using satellite. In: Proceedings of ISRS National Symposium on Remote Sensing Applications for Natural Resources, Retrospective and Perspective. Bangalore: ISRS; 2000. 206.

Nagendra H, Gadgil M. Linking regional and landscape scales for assessing biodiversity: a case study from Western Ghats. Curr Sci. 1998;10:264–71.  https://www.jstor.org/stable/24100960 .

Ramakrishnan PS. Sustainable development, climate change and tropical rain forest landscape. Clim Change. 1998;39(2):583–600. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005398606125 .

Das P, Behera MD, Murthy MS. Forest fragmentation and human population varies logarithmically along elevation gradient in Hindu Kush Himalaya–utility of geospatial tools and free data set. J Mt Sci. 2017;14(12):2432–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-016-4159-0 .

Vasudev D, Goswami VR, Srinivas N, Syiem BL, Sarma A. Identifying important connectivity areas for the wide-ranging Asian elephant across conservation landscapes of Northeast India. Divers Distrib. 2021;27(12):2510–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13419 .

Erinjery JJ, Singh M, Kent R. Mapping and assessment of vegetation types in the tropical rainforests of the Western Ghats using multispectral Sentinel-2 and SAR Sentinel-1 satellite imagery. Remote Sens Environ. 2018;1(216):345–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.07.006 .

Wu J. Key concepts and research topics in landscape ecology revisited: 30 years after the Allerton Park workshop. Landsc Ecol. 2013;28(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9836-y .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Rawal P, Kittur S, Chatakonda MK, Sundar KG. Capital ponds: Site-level habitat heterogeneity and management interventions at ponds regulate high landscape-scale bird diversity across a mega-city. Biol Conser. 2021;260:109215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109215 .

•• Ghosh D, Basu P. Factors influencing herpetofauna abundance and diversity in a tropical agricultural landscape mosaic. Biotropica. 2020;52(5):927–937.  https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12799 . This article highlights the influence of spatial scale on herpetofauna assemblages.

Basu P, Parui AK, Chatterjee S, Dutta A, Chakraborty P, Roberts S, Smith B. Scale dependent drivers of wild bee diversity in tropical heterogeneous agricultural landscapes. Ecol Evol. 2016;6(19):6983–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2360 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

• Bajaru SB, Kulavmode AR, Manakadan R. Influence of microhabitat and landscape-scale factors on the richness and occupancy of small mammals in the northern Western Ghats: a multi-species occupancy modeling approach. Mamm Biol. 2019;99:88–96 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2019.10.003 . This article studied the relationship between species richness and landscape .

Tripathi P, Behera MD, Roy PS. Spatial heterogeneity of climate explains plant richness distribution at the regional scale in India. PloS one. 2019;14(6):e0218322. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218322 .

Pandey A, Badola HK, Rai S, Singh SP. Timberline structure and woody taxa regeneration towards treeline along latitudinal gradients in Khangchendzonga National Park, Eastern Himalaya. PloS one. 2018;13(11):e0207762. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207762 .

Page NV, Shanker K. Environment and dispersal influence changes in species composition at different scales in woody plants of the Western Ghats. India Journal of Vegetation Science. 2018;29(1):74–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12586 .

• Viswanathan A, Ghazoul J, Lewis OT, Honwad G, Bagchi R. Effects of forest fragment area on interactions between plants and their natural enemies: consequences for plant diversity at multiple spatial scales. Front for glob. 2020:88. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2019.00088 . This article studied the interactions between plants and their natural enemies in relation to forest fragment size.

• Menon T, Sridhar H, Shahabuddin G. Effects of extractive use on forest birds in Western Himalayas: role of local and landscape factors. For Ecol Manag. 2019;448:457–465 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2019.06.033 . This article studied the response of different forest birds guilds to local and landscape scale vegetation transformation factors.

Chatterjee P, Tripathy B, Chandra K, Saha GK, Mondal K. Climate change alarms the survival of near threatened species Malayan giant squirrel (Ratufa bicolor Sparrman, 1778) in India. Mammal Study. 2020;45(4):1–4. https://doi.org/10.3106/ms2020-0011 .

Dar SA, Singh SK, Wan HY, Kumar V, Cushman SA, Sathyakumar S. Projected climate change threatens Himalayan brown bear habitat more than human land use. Anim Conserv. 2021;24(4):659–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12671 .

Jhariya MK, Bargali SS, Swamy SL, Kittur B. Vegetational structure, diversity and fuel load in fire affected areas of tropical dry deciduous forests in Chhattisgarh. Vegetos. 2012;25(1):210–24.

Google Scholar  

Banerjee S, Das D, John R. Grassland vegetation and roads have dominant influence on decadal-scale spatial-temporal patterns of fires in a species-rich protected Terai habitat in northeastern India. Agric For Meteorol. 2021;304:108411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2021.108411 .

Kodandapani N. Contrasting fire regimes in a seasonally dry tropical forest and a savanna ecosystem in the Western Ghats. India Fire Ecology. 2013;9(2):102–15. https://doi.org/10.4996/fireecology.0902102 .

Sundaram B, Hiremath AJ. Lantana camara invasion in a heterogeneous landscape: patterns of spread and correlation with changes in native vegetation. Biol Invasions. 2012;14(6):1127–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-011-0144-2 .

Niphadkar M, Ficetola GF, Bonardi A, Nagendra H, Padoa-Schioppa E. Effects of landscape context on the invasive species Lantana camara in Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Tiger Reserve, India. Trop Ecol. 2016;57(1).

• Kumar M, Padalia H, Nandy S, Singh H, Khaiter P, Kalra N. Does spatial heterogeneity of landscape explain the process of plant invasion? A case study of Hyptis suaveolens from Indian Western Himalaya. Environ Monit Assess. 2019;191(3):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7682-y . The article highlights varying susceptibility of invasion over a spatially heterogeneous landscape.

• Ahmad R, Khuroo AA, Hamid M, Malik AH, Rashid I. Scale and season determine the magnitude of invasion impacts on plant communities. Flora. 2019;260:151481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2019.151481 . The article highlights the influence of spatial scale on invasion process .

Karanth KU, Gopalaswamy AM, Kumar NS, Vaidyanathan S, Nichols JD, MacKenzie DI. Monitoring carnivore populations at the landscape scale: occupancy modelling of tigers from sign surveys. J Appl Ecol. 2011;48(4):1048–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02002.x .

Kumar A, Pandey AC, Jeyaseelan AT. Built-up and vegetation extraction and density mapping using WorldView–II. Geocarto Int. 2012;27(7):557–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2012.657695 .

Mohapatra J, Singh CP, Hamid M, Khuroo AA, Malik AH, Pandya HA. Assessment of the alpine plant species biodiversity in the western Himalaya using Resourcesat-2 imagery and field survey. J Earth Syst Sci. 2019;128(7):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-019-1219-1 .

Nandi G, Neogy S, Roy AK, Datta D. Immediate disturbances induced by tropical cyclone Fani on the coastal forest landscape of eastern India: a geospatial analysis. RSASE. 2020;20:100407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2020.100407 .

Goparaju L, Ahmad F. Tree cover percent investigation with respect to geographical area, vegetation types, agro ecological regions and in agriculture landscape of India: a geospatial approach. Spat Inf Res. 2020;28(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41324-019-00261-5 .

Allen TFH, Starr TB. Hierarchy: perspectives for ecological complexity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1982; xvi + 310 pp.

Wiens J. Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol. 1989;1(3):385–97.

Singh S, Reddy CS, Pasha SV, Dutta K, Saranya KR, Satish KV. Modeling the spatial dynamics of deforestation and fragmentation using multi-layer perceptron neural network and landscape fragmentation tool. Ecol Eng. 2017;1(99):543–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.11.047 .

Goparaju L, Ahmad F, Sinha D. Quantification and conservation status of forests fragments of tropical dry deciduous forests—a geospatial analysis running head: tropical dry deciduous forests. Contemp Probl Ecol. 2019;12(6):629–41. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1995425519060131 .

Gupta SK, Pandey AC. Change detection of landscape connectivity arisen by forest transformation in Hazaribagh wildlife sanctuary, Jharkhand (India). Spat Inf Res. 2020;28(4):391–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41324-019-00301-0 .

Padalia H, Ghosh S, Reddy CS, Nandy S, Singh S, Kumar AS. Assessment of historical forest cover loss and fragmentation in Asian elephant ranges in India. Environ Monit Assess. 2019;191(3):1–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7696-5 .

Roy PS, Murthy MS, Roy A, Kushwaha SP, Singh S, Jha CS, Behera MD, Joshi PK, Jagannathan C, Karnatak HC, Saran S. Forest fragmentation in India. Curr sci. 2013;774–80. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24097514 .

Ravan S, Dixit AM, Mathur VB. Spatial analysis for identification and evaluation of forested corridors between two protected areas in Central India. Curr sci. 2005;1441–8. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24110711 .

Devi BS, Murthy MS, Debnath B, Jha CS. Forest patch connectivity diagnostics and prioritization using graph theory. Ecol Model. 2013;24(251):279–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.12.022 .

Roy A, Bhattacharya S, Ramprakash M, Kumar AS. Modelling critical patches of connectivity for invasive Maling bamboo (Yushania maling) in Darjeeling Himalayas using graph theoretic approach. Ecol Model. 2016;10(329):77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2016.02.016 .

Upadhyay S, Roy A, Ramprakash M, Idiculla J, Kumar AS, Bhattacharya S. A network theoretic study of ecological connectivity in Western Himalayas. Ecol Model. 2017;10(359):246–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2017.05.027 .

Rathore CS, Dubey Y, Shrivastava A, Pathak P, Patil V. Opportunities of habitat connectivity for tiger (Panthera tigris) between Kanha and Pench National Parks in Madhya Pradesh, India. PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e39996. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0039996 .

Joshi A, Vaidyanathan S, Mondol S, Edgaonkar A, Ramakrishnan U. Connectivity of tiger (Panthera tigris) populations in the human-influenced forest mosaic of central India. PloS one. 2013;8(11):e77980. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077980 .

Yumnam B, Jhala YV, Qureshi Q, Maldonado JE, Gopal R, Saini S, Srinivas Y, Fleischer RC. Prioritizing tiger conservation through landscape genetics and habitat linkages. PloS one. 2014;9(11):e111207. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111207 .

Dutta T, Sharma S, Maldonado JE, Panwar HS, Seidensticker J. Genetic variation, structure, and gene flow in a sloth bear (Melursus ursinus) meta-population in the Satpura-Maikal landscape of central India. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0123384. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123384 .

Chanchani P, Noon BR, Bailey LL, Warrier RA. Conserving tigers in working landscapes. Conserv Biol. 2016;30(3):649–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12633 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Gangadharan A, Vaidyanathan S, Clair CC. Planning connectivity at multiple scales for large mammals in a human-dominated biodiversity hotspot. J Nat Conserv. 2017;1(36):38–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2017.02.003 .

Puyravaud JP, Cushman SA, Davidar P, Madappa D. Predicting landscape connectivity for the Asian elephant in its largest remaining subpopulation. Anim Conserv. 2017;20(3):225–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12314 .

•• Goswami VR, Vasudev D, Joshi B, Hait P, Sharma P. Coupled effects of climatic forcing and the human footprint on wildlife movement and space use in a dynamic floodplain landscape. Sci Total Enviro. 2021;758:144000.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144000 . This article investigated wildlife movement patterns during flood events and movement variation across species and seasons. The authors also identified areas important for refuge migration.

Pal R, Sutherland C, Qureshi Q, Sathyakumar S. Landscape connectivity and population density of snow leopards across a multi-use landscape in Western Himalaya. Anim Conserv. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12754 .

Sarkar MS, Pandey A, Singh G, Lingwal S, John R, Hussain A, Rawat GS, Rawal RS. Multiscale statistical approach to assess habitat suitability and connectivity of common leopard (Panthera pardus) in Kailash Sacred Landscape. India Spatial statistics. 2018;1(28):304–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spasta.2018.07.006 .

Vasudev D, Fletcher RJ Jr. Incorporating movement behavior into conservation prioritization in fragmented landscapes: an example of western hoolock gibbons in Garo Hills. India Biological Conservation. 2015;1(181):124–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.021 .

• Mukherjee T, Sharma V, Sharma LK, Thakur M, Joshi BD, Sharief A, Thapa A, Dutta R, Dolker S, Tripathy B, Chandra K. Landscape-level habitat management plan through geometric reserve design for critically endangered Hangul (Cervus hanglu hanglu). Sci Total Environ. 2021;777:146031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146031 . The article highlights the application of Geometric Reserve Design for conservation and management of global conservation priority species .

Sharma LK, Mukherjee T, Saren PC, Chandra K. Identifying suitable habitat and corridors for Indian Grey Wolf (Canis lupus pallipes) in Chotta Nagpur Plateau and Lower Gangetic Planes: a species with differential management needs. PloS One. 2019;14(4):e0215019. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215019 .

Mukherjee T, Chongder I, Ghosh S, Dutta A, Singh A, Dutta R, Joshi BD, Thakur M, Sharma LK, Venkatraman C, Ray D. Indian Grey Wolf and Striped Hyaena sharing from the same bowl: high niche overlap between top predators in a human-dominated landscape. GECCO. 2021;28:e01682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01682 .

• Rodrigues RG, Srivathsa A, Vasudev D. Dog in the matrix: envisioning countrywide connectivity conservation for an endangered carnivore. J Appl Ecol. 2022;59(1):223–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14048 . The article highlights an approach for assessing spatial distribution and habitat use of a data deficient species, and a non-flagship in India context.

• Dalui S, Khatri H, Singh SK, Basu S, Ghosh A, Mukherjee T, Sharma LK, Singh R, Chandra K, Thakur M. Fine-scale landscape genetics unveiling contemporary asymmetric movement of red panda (Ailurus fulgens) in Kangchenjunga landscape, India. Scientific reports. 2020;10(1):1-2. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-72427-3 . The article highlights a genetic approach towards predicting connectivity for a species of conservation significance.

Roy A, Devi BS, Debnath B, Murthy MS. Geospatial modelling for identification of potential ecological corridors in Orissa. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing. 2010;38(3):387–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-010-0042-6 .

Kale MP, Talukdar G, Panigrahy RK, Singh S. Patterns of fragmentation and identification of possible corridors in north Western Ghats. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing. 2010;38(3):401–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-010-0043-5 .

Joshi PK, Yadav K, Sinha VS. Assessing impact of forest landscape dynamics on migratory corridors: a case study of two protected areas in Himalayan foothills. Biodivers Conserv. 2011;20(14):3393–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-0123-z .

Shanu S, Idiculla J, Qureshi Q, Jhala Y, Aggarwal A, Dimri P, Bhattacharya S. A graph theoretic approach for modelling tiger corridor network in Central India-Eastern Ghats landscape complex. India Ecological Informatics. 2019;1(50):76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2019.01.002 .

Dutta T, Sharma S, McRae BH, Roy PS, DeFries R. Connecting the dots: mapping habitat connectivity for tigers in central India. Reg Environ Change. 2016;16(1):53–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0877-z .

Thatte P, Joshi A, Vaidyanathan S, Landguth E, Ramakrishnan U. Maintaining tiger connectivity and minimizing extinction into the next century: insights from landscape genetics and spatially-explicit simulations. Biol Cons. 2018;1(218):181–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.12.022 .

Kanagaraj R, Wiegand T, Kramer-Schadt S, Goyal SP. Using individual-based movement models to assess inter-patch connectivity for large carnivores in fragmented landscapes. Biol Cons. 2013;1(167):298–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.08.030 .

Jayadevan A, Nayak R, Karanth KK, Krishnaswamy J, DeFries R, Karanth KU, Vaidyanathan S. Navigating paved paradise: evaluating landscape permeability to movement for large mammals in two conservation priority landscapes in India. Bio Conserv. 2020;247:108613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108613 .

• Krishnamurthy R, Cushman SA, Sarkar MS, Malviya M, Naveen M, Johnson JA, Sen S. Multi-scale prediction of landscape resistance for tiger dispersal in central India. Landscape ecology. 2016;31(6):1355–1368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-016-0363-0 . This article presents a multi-scale approach to model resistance for tiger movement using UNICOR.

Reddy PA, Cushman SA, Srivastava A, Sarkar MS, Shivaji S. Tiger abundance and gene flow in Central India are driven by disparate combinations of topography and land cover. Divers Distrib. 2017;23(8):863–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12580 .

• Sidharthan A, Dahanukar N, Sundar RL, Ranjeet K, Raghavan R. Beyond waterfalls and dams: riverscape genetics of two endemic mountain loaches in the Western Ghats biodiversity hotspot. River Res Appl. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3885 . The article highlights balitroid loaches’ response to natural and artificial riverine barriers applying a genetic approach .

Tripathy BR, Liu X, Songer M, Zahoor B, Wickramasinghe WM, Mahanta KK. Analysis of landscape connectivity among the habitats of Asian elephants in Keonjhar Forest Division, India. Remote Sensing. 2021;13(22):4661. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13224661 .

• Vasudev D, Goswami VR, Oli MK. Detecting dispersal: a spatial dynamic occupancy model to reliably quantify connectivity across heterogeneous conservation landscapes. Biological Conservation. 2021;253:108874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108874 . The article highlights application of occupancy framework in predicting connectivity.

• Habib B, Ghaskadbi P, Khan S, Hussain Z, Nigam P. Not a cakewalk: insights into movement of large carnivores in human‐dominated landscapes in India. Ecol Evol. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7156 . The article highlights a multi-species approach towards movement ecology across a heterogeneous landscape.

Gangadharan A, Vaidyanathan S, St. Clair CC. Categorizing species by niche characteristics can clarify conservation planning in rapidly‐developing landscapes. Anim Conserv. 2016;19(5):451–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12262 .

• Mukherjee T, Sharma LK, Kumar V, Sharief A, Dutta R, Kumar M, Joshi BD, Thakur M, Venkatraman C, Chandra K. Adaptive spatial planning of protected area network for conserving the Himalayan brown bear. Sci Total Environ. 2021;754:142416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142416 . This article extended the ensemble species distribution modelling approach for estimating biological connectivity to climate change scenarios.

Rashid I, Romshoo SA, Vijayalakshmi T. Geospatial modelling approach for identifying disturbance regimes and biodiversity rich areas in Northwestern Himalayas. India Biodiversity and conservation. 2013;22(11):2537–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0538-9 .

Singh H, Garg RD, Karnatak HC, Roy A. Spatial biodiversity modeling using high-performance computing cluster: a case study to access biological richness in Indian landscape. Geocarto Int. 2021;36(18):2023–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2019.1678679 .

Sharma J, Upgupta S, Kumar R, Chaturvedi RK, Bala G, Ravindranath NH. Assessment of inherent vulnerability of forests at landscape level: a case study from Western Ghats in India. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change. 2017;22(1):29–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-015-9659-7 .

Sahana M, Ganaie TA. GIS-based landscape vulnerability assessment to forest fire susceptibility of Rudraprayag district, Uttarakhand. India Environmental earth sciences. 2017;76(20):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-7008-8 .

Achu AL, Thomas J, Aju CD, Gopinath G, Kumar S, Reghunath R. Machine-learning modelling of fire susceptibility in a forest-agriculture mosaic landscape of southern India. Ecological Informatics. 2021;64:101348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2021.101348 .

• Majeed A, Singh A, Bhardwaj P. Transcribing molecular and climatic data into conservation management for the Himalayan endangered species, Taxus contorta (Griff.). Conserv Genet. 2021;22(1):53–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-020-01319-w . This article highlights a population and landscape genetic approach towards directing conservation of an endangered gymnosperm species .

Saranya KR, Lakshmi TV, Reddy CS. Predicting the potential sites of Chromolaena odorata and Lantana camara in forest landscape of Eastern Ghats using habitat suitability models. Ecol. 2021;66:101455.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2021.101455 .

Rather TA, Kumar S, Khan JA. Using machine learning to predict habitat suitability of sloth bears at multiple spatial scales. Ecol Process. 2021;10(1):1–2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-021-00323-3 .

• Rather TA, Kumar S, Khan JA. Multi-scale habitat selection and impacts of climate change on the distribution of four sympatric meso-carnivores using random forest algorithm. Ecological Processes. 2020;9(1):1–7. This article demonstrated the use of Multi Species Occupancy Modelling with predictors at multiple scales.

•• Sharma A, Dubey VK, Johnson JA, Rawal YK, Sivakumar K. Dendritic prioritization through spatial stream network modeling informs targeted management of Himalayan riverscapes under brown trout invasion. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2021;58(11):2415–2426. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13997 . This article highlights a strategy to mitigate brown trout invasion into the Himalayan riverscape .

Jha KK, Jha R. Habitat suitability mapping for migratory and resident vultures: a case of Indian stronghold and species distribution model. Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity. 2020;4(3):91–111. https://doi.org/10.22120/jwb.2020.120246.1111 .

• Walsh MG, Mor SM, Maity H, Hossain S. Forest loss shapes the landscape suitability of Kyasanur Forest disease in the biodiversity hotspots of the Western Ghats, India. International journal of epidemiology. 2019;48(6):1804 1814.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyz232 . This article studied the landscape suitability of Kyasanur Forest Disease and linked its risk to forest loss and mammalian species richness.

• Purse BV, Darshan N, Kasabi GS, Gerard F, Samrat A, George C, Vanak AT, Oommen M, Rahman M, Burthe SJ, Young JC. Predicting disease risk areas through co-production of spatial models: the example of Kyasanur Forest Disease in India’s forest landscapes. PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 2020;14(4):e0008179.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008179 .  This article demonstrated the adaptation of spatial resolution of spatial model and its outputs to scale of forest use and forest management.

Kanagaraj R, Wiegand T, Kramer-Schadt S, Anwar M, Goyal SP. Assessing habitat suitability for tiger in the fragmented Terai Arc Landscape of India and Nepal. Ecography (Cop). 2011;34(6):970–81.

Wordley CF, Sankaran M, Mudappa D, Altringham JD. Landscape scale habitat suitability modelling of bats in the Western Ghats of India: bats like something in their tea. Biol Cons. 2015;1(191):529–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.08.005 .

Mondal K, Sankar K, Qureshi Q. Factors influencing the distribution of leopard in a semiarid landscape of Western India. Acta Theriol (Warsz). 2013;58(2):179–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13364-012-0109-6 .

Kalle R, Ramesh T, Qureshi Q, Sankar K. Predicting the distribution pattern of small carnivores in response to environmental factors in the Western Ghats. PLoS One. 2013;8(11):e79295. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079295 .

Bashir T, Bhattacharya T, Poudyal K, Qureshi Q, Sathyakumar S. Understanding patterns of distribution and space-use by Ursus thibetanus in Khangchendzonga, India: initiative towards conservation. Mamm Biol. 2018;92(1):11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2018.04.004 .

Babu S, Karthik T, Srinivas G, Kumara HN. Linking critical patches of sloth bear Melursus ursinus for their conservation in Meghamalai hills, Western Ghats, India. Curr Sci. 2015;1492–8.

Jathanna D, Karanth KU, Kumar NS, Karanth KK, Goswami VR. Patterns and determinants of habitat occupancy by the Asian elephant in the Western Ghats of Karnataka, India. PloS one. 2015 ;10(7):e0133233. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133233 .

Srivathsa A, Karanth KK, Jathanna D, Kumar NS, Karanth KU. On a dhole trail: examining ecological and anthropogenic correlates of dhole habitat occupancy in the Western Ghats of India. PloS one. 2014;9(6):e98803. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098803 .

Srivathsa A, Karanth KU, Kumar N, Oli MK. Insights from distribution dynamics inform strategies to conserve a dhole Cuon alpinus metapopulation in India. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):1–2. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-39293-0 .

Karanth KK. Wildlife in the matrix: spatio-temporal patterns of herbivore occurrence in Karnataka. India Environmental Management. 2016;57(1):189–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0595-9 .

• Majgaonkar I, Vaidyanathan S, Srivathsa A, Shivakumar S, Limaye S, Athreya V. Land‐sharing potential of large carnivores in human‐modified landscapes of western India. Conserv Sci Prac. 2019;1(5):e34. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.34 . The article highlights potential of co-existence among large carnivore and humans in a multiuse landscape owing to adaptability of large carnivores.

Srivathsa A, Puri M, Karanth KK, Patel I, Kumar NS. Examining human–carnivore interactions using a socio-ecological framework: sympatric wild canids in India as a case study. R Soc open sci. 2019;6(5):182008. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.182008 .

Yadav N, Areendran G, Sarma K, Raj K, Sahana M. Susceptibility assessment of human–leopard conflict in Aravalli landscape of Haryana using geospatial techniques. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment. 2021;7(3):1459–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-020-00858-y .

Naha D, Dash SK, Chettri A, Chaudhary P, Sonker G, Heurich M, Rawat GS, Sathyakumar S. Landscape predictors of human–leopard conflicts within multi-use areas of the Himalayan region. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):1–2. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67980-w .

Sharma K, Acharya BK, Sharma G, Valente D, Pasimeni MR, Petrosillo I, Selvan T. Land use effect on butterfly alpha and beta diversity in the Eastern Himalaya, India. Ecol Indic. 2020;110:105605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105605 .

Naha D, Sathyakumar S, Dash S, Chettri A, Rawat GS. Assessment and prediction of spatial patterns of human-elephant conflicts in changing land cover scenarios of a human-dominated landscape in North Bengal. PloS one. 2019;14(2):e0210580. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210580 .

Bargali HS, Ahmed T. Patterns of livestock depredation by tiger (Panthera tigris) and leopard (Panthera pardus) in and around Corbett Tiger Reserve, Uttarakhand, India. Plos one. 2018;13(5):e0195612. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195612 .

Porwal MC, Padalia H, Roy PS. Impact of tsunami on the forest and biodiversity richness in Nicobar Islands (Andaman and Nicobar Islands), India. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2012;21(5):1267-87.

Chakraborty D, Reddy M, Tiwari S, Umapathy G. Land use change increases wildlife parasite diversity in Anamalai Hills, Western Ghats. India Scientific reports. 2019;9(1):1–1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-48325-8 .

Mukherjee T, Sharma LK, Saha GK, Thakur M, Chandra K. Past, present and future: combining habitat suitability and future landcover simulation for long-term conservation management of Indian rhino. Scientific reports. 2020;10(1):1-2.

• Datta D, Dey M, Neogy S, Basu Roy T, Dutta D, Kundu A, Nandi G. Assessing vegetation fragmentation and plantation efficiency in an intertidal mudflat of Eastern India using Radar Forest Degradation Index and spatial metrics. Geocarto International. 2021:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2021.2017014 . This article demonstrated spatial integration of radar-based Radar Forest Degradation Index and spatial landscape metrics for coastal ecosystems.

Quamar MF, Kar R, Thakur B. Vegetation response to the Indian Summer Monsoon (ISM) variability during the Late-Holocene from the central Indian core monsoon zone. The Holocene. 2021;31(7):1197–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F09596836211003191 .

Ismail SA, Ghazoul J, Ravikanth G, Uma Shaanker R, Kushalappa CG, Kettle CJ. Does long-distance pollen dispersal preclude inbreeding in tropical trees? Fragmentation genetics of Dysoxylum malabaricum in an agro-forest landscape. Mol Ecol. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12054 .

Joshi BD, Matura R, MA P, De R, Pandav B, Sharma V, Nigam P, Goyal SP. Palghat gap reveals presence of two diverged populations of Nilgiri tahr (Nilgiritragus hylocrius) in Western Ghats, India. Mitochondrial DNA Part B. 2018;3(1):245–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/23802359.2018.1436990 .

Ram MS, Marne M, Gaur A, Kumara HN, Singh M, Kumar A, Umapathy G. Pre-historic and recent vicariance events shape genetic structure and diversity in endangered lion-tailed macaque in the Western Ghats: implications for conservation. PloS one. 2015;10(11):e0142597. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142597 .

Rashid I, Romshoo SA, Chaturvedi RK, Ravindranath NH, Sukumar R, Jayaraman M, Lakshmi TV, Sharma J. Projected climate change impacts on vegetation distribution over Kashmir Himalayas. Clim Change. 2015;132(4):601–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1456-5 .

Prakash Singh C, Mohapatra J, Pandya HA, Gajmer B, Sharma N, Shrestha DG. Evaluating changes in treeline position and land surface phenology in Sikkim Himalaya. Geocarto Int. 2020;35(5):453–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2018.1524513 .

Rather TA, Kumar S, Khan JA. Multi-scale habitat modelling and predicting change in the distribution of tiger and leopard using random forest algorithm. Sci Rep. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-68167-z .

Forrest JL, Wikramanayake E, Shrestha R, Areendran G, Gyeltshen K, Maheshwari A, Mazumdar S, Naidoo R, Thapa GJ, Thapa K. Conservation and climate change: assessing the vulnerability of snow leopard habitat to treeline shift in the Himalaya. Biol Cons. 2012;150(1):129–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.03.001 .

Bagaria P, Sharma LK, Joshi BD, Kumar H, Mukherjee T, Thakur M, Chandra K. West to east shift in range predicted for Himalayan Langur in climate change scenario. GECCO. 2020;22 : e00926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e00926 .

Raman S, Shameer TT, Charles B, Sanil R. Habitat suitability model of endangered Latidens salimalii and the probable consequences of global warming. Trop Ecol. 2020;61(4):570–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42965-020-00114-5 .

•• Shameer TT, Nittu G, Mohan G, Backer SJ, Khedkar GD, Sanil R. Consequences of climate change in allopatric speciation and endemism: modeling the biogeography of Dravidogecko. MESE. 2021;1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-021-01284-4 . This article used past, present and future climate scenarios.

Tripathi P, Behera MD, Roy PS. Plant invasion correlation with climate anomaly: an Indian retrospect. Biodivers Conserv. 2019;28(8):2049–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01711-0 .

Chaudhary A, Sarkar MS, Adhikari BS, Rawat GS. Ageratina adenophora and Lantana camara in Kailash Sacred Landscape, India: current distribution and future climatic scenarios through modeling. PloS one. 2021;16(5):e0239690. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239690 .

• Singh M, Arunachalam R, Kumar L. Modeling potential hotspots of invasive Prosopis juliflora (Swartz) DC in India. Ecol. 2021;64:101386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2021.101386 . The article highlights the approach to predict the invasive spread of P. juliflora under future climate change scenarios, thus facilitating early monitoring of vulnerable areas.

Reddy CS, Faseela VS, Unnikrishnan A, Jha CS. Earth observation data for assessing biodiversity conservation priorities in South Asia. Biodivers Conserv. 2019;28(8):2197–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-018-1681-0 .

Wikramanayake E, Dinerstein E, Seidensticker J, Lumpkin S, Pandav B, Shrestha M, Mishra H, Ballou J, Johnsingh AJ, Chestin I, Sunarto S. A landscape-based conservation strategy to double the wild tiger population. Conserv Lett. 2011;4(3):219–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00162.x .

Ranganathan J, Chan KM, Karanth KU, Smith JL. Where can tigers persist in the future? A landscape-scale, density-based population model for the Indian subcontinent. Biol Cons. 2008;141(1):67–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.09.003 .

Bhatt JP, Manish K, Mehta R, Pandit MK. Assessing potential conservation and restoration areas of freshwater fish fauna in the Indian river basins. Environ Manage. 2016;57(5):1098–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0670-x .

Padalia H, Bahuguna U. Spatial modelling of congruence of native biodiversity and potential hotspots of forest invasive species (FIS) in central Indian landscape. J Nat Conserv. 2017;1(36):29–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2017.02.001 .

Reddy CS, Debnath B, Krishna PH, Jha CS. Landscape level assessment of critically endangered vegetation of Lakshadweep islands using geo-spatial techniques. J Earth Syst Sci. 2013;122(2):271–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-013-0272-4 .

Milda D, Ramesh T, Kalle R, Gayathri V, Thanikodi M. Ranger survey reveals conservation issues across Protected and outside Protected Areas in southern India. GECCO. 2020;24:e01256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01256 .

• Naha D, Chaudhary P, Sonker G, Sathyakumar S. Effectiveness of non-lethal predator deterrents to reduce livestock losses to leopard attacks within a multiple-use landscape of the Himalayan region. PeerJ. 2020;8:e9544. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9544 . The article highlights the effectiveness of visual deterrent as a community-based initiative to mitigate human–carnivore conflict.

Bhardwaj GS, Kumar A. The comparison of shape indices and perimeter interface of selected protected areas especially with reference to Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. GECCO. 2019;17:e00504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00504 .

Everard M, Khandal D, Sahu YK. Ecosystem service enhancement for the alleviation of wildlife-human conflicts in the Aravalli Hills, Rajasthan. India Ecosystem Services. 2017;1(24):213–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.005 .

Gubbi S, Mukherjee K, Swaminath MH, Poornesha HC. Providing more protected space for tigers Panthera tigris: a landscape conservation approach in the Western Ghats, southern India. Oryx. 2016;50(2):336–43. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605314000751 .

Banerjee P, Sowards SK. Working across languages/cultures in international and environmental communication fieldwork. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication. 2022;15(1):36–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2020.1850844 .

Li J, Weckworth BV, McCarthy TM, Liang X, Liu Y, Xing R, Li D, Zhang Y, Xue Y, Jackson R, Xiao L. Defining priorities for global snow leopard conservation landscapes. Biol Conserv. 2020;241:108387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108387 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada

Vaishali Vasudeva & Ramesh Krishnamurthy

Wildlife Institute of India, Chandrabani, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, 248001, India

Meera Makwana, Kamana Pokhariya, Orvill Jude Nazareth, Shah Nawaz Jelil, Meghna Bandyopadhyay, Deepti Gupta & Ramesh Krishnamurthy

Wildlife Biology and Conservation Program, National Centre for Biological Sciences, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Kodigehalli, Bengaluru, Karnataka, 560065, India

Orvill Jude Nazareth

Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History, Anaikatti, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, 641108, India

Deepti Gupta

School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA

Satyam Verma

Department of Environmental Science, School of Engineering and Sciences, SRM University-AP, Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh, 522240, India

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ramesh Krishnamurthy .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 11433 KB)

Supplementary file2 (xlsx 2646 kb), supplementary file3 (docx 21 kb), rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Vasudeva, V., Makwana, M., Pokhariya, K. et al. Contextualising Landscape Ecology in Wildlife and Forest Conservation in India: a Review. Curr Landscape Ecol Rep 8 , 90–101 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40823-023-00084-z

Download citation

Accepted : 05 January 2023

Published : 11 February 2023

Issue Date : June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40823-023-00084-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Systematic literature review
• Biodiversity hotspot
• Spatial planning
• Network analysis
• Biogeographic zones
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Beasts in the garden: human-wildlife coexistence in india's past and present.

• Dakshin Foundation, Bangalore, India

Human-wildlife encounters are characterized by a diverse array of engagements located on the continuum between the negative and the positive. In India, protracted conflict with wildlife is reflected in violence across a range of rural and urban ecologies, but is only one aspect of the multiple facets of ongoing human-non-human encounter. Within these shared spaces, there are often equally significant elements of acceptance, tolerance and reverence. Together, these are dependent on context, and can be explored via lived experiences and worldviews, and a moral economy of human-wildlife and human-human relationships. Historically, though hardly static, such relationships have been mediated by the ontological positioning of traditional societies and their embedded rules and practises. In recent years, these tenuous equilibria have been disrupted by top-down catalysts, including universalist conservation agendas percolating from the state and the global arena. This study aims to explore the changing nature of coexistence by using several historical and contemporary vignettes in relation to key species that routinely “transgress” from their primary natural habitats into the “garden” spaces of human cultivation and habitation. The study will argue that insights at the intersection of environmental history, political ecology and anthropology can improve our understanding of human-wildlife coexistence in India as well as across the world.

Introduction

Violent conflicts are an increasingly common feature of the developing tropics where attempts to conserve charismatic, yet dangerous flagship species, face resistance from people whose lives, livelihoods and worldviews are impacted. Conflict typically takes on two overlapping forms. The first pertains to fine-grained, negative interactions between local communities and wildlife, and the second, to differences between groups of people with divergent aspirations for land and nature ( Redpath, 2013 ). In India, both forms of conflict are prevalent and their significance is reflected in the numbers of human and animal casualties: ~500 people lose their lives each year to elephants ( Panda et al., 2020 ), and annually over 1.2 m snake bites result in 30,000 to 40,000 human fatalities ( Suraweera et al., 2020 ). Human casualties to other species such as large carnivores are also considerable as are those of their animal counterparts.

Across the country, there is mounting evidence of increasing conflict in zones of overlap between formally protected wild spaces and human habitation ( Anand and Radhakrishna, 2017 ). As is the case elsewhere in the developing world, an overwhelming majority of human victims of these encounters belong to poor and marginalized communities living around protected areas ( West et al., 2006 ; Barua et al., 2013 ). In most situations, the understanding of conflict is restricted to highly visible impacts such as loss of life and crop-raiding, and inputs towards reconciliation are similarly restricted towards the provision of compensation or more effective separation of people and wildlife. Conservation scholars have only recently begun to explore seriously, the hidden dimensions of conflict such as a range of opportunity and transaction costs as well as significant disruptions to psycho-social well-being ( Barua et al., 2013 ).

However, a narrative of conflict, despite its significance, is not the only storey. In India as well as across the world, a singular focus on violent encounters often neglects the multi-faceted nature of entanglements in geographies where people and wildlife have interacted and coexisted over the span of several millennia ( Sukumar, 1994 ; Morris, 1998 ; Knight, 2004 ). The engagements between the rich variety of Indian megafauna as well as equally diverse historical and contemporary human societies offer an axis of exploration for contrasting engagements in conjunction with parallel shifts in their social, economic and cultural situations. Across many rural communities and traditional societies, we find that wildlife, including dangerous species involved in conflict, are an integral part of networks of reciprocity, reverence and kinship ( Athreya et al., 2013 ; Aiyadurai, 2016 ; Oommen, 2019 ; Thekaekara, 2019 ; Nijhawan and Mihu, 2020 ). While communities sometimes retaliate with violence towards animals, local conceptualisations may also align simultaneously with accommodation, worship, and propitiation, frequently considering wildlife attacks as punishment or retribution by animals for human misdemeanours. As pointed out in the scholarship of Norton (1991) , Morris (1998 , 2000) , Franklin (1999) , and Ingold (2000) , a community's relationship with animals is neither monolithic nor homogenous, but a complex one that is contingent on circumstance, social relations and history. Therefore leaving out any set of engagements, positive, negative, or ambivalent, provides a misleading picture of human-animal relationships.

In understanding the nature of coexistence, of particular significance are India's diverse ethno-sociological traditions that range from mainstream religious affiliations to traditional animistic cosmologies, folklore, and worldviews incorporating animals into relational frameworks of giving and reciprocity, and management outcomes evolved as a consequence of ritual and taboo. While a large number of these have been of a local or regional nature, a few religious traditions have garnered widespread acceptance. Further, upheavals caused by major watersheds such as colonialism and recent discontinuities that came in the form of post-Independence legislation have nation-wide significance with strong connexions to perceptions about distributive justice and the moral economy. These are in turn translated to retaliation to animals and other forms of negative human-animal encounter, and conflicts between different groups of people. While colonial laws and policies set the stage for exclusionary conservation throughout most of the Indian subcontinent, of key significance for the post-Independence era is the impact of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the country's flagship conservation legislation which cemented the separation of people and wildlife; as well as recent laws such as the Forest Rights Act, 2006 which attempt the redressal of “historical injustices” (including loss of land and rights for conservation) to forest-dwelling communities. Modern conservation sensitivities driven by urban communities and mediated by a range of domestic and outside influences too play a significant role and often faces resistance from local communities.

This manuscript attempts to provide snapshots of coexistence in India via an exploration of engagements between people and wildlife that are typically categorized as “problem species.” In other words, these are species that are traditionally regarded as boundary crossers (as defined by humans) that frequent human-dominated spaces and interact with people, often causing different forms of conflict. In attempting to understand coexistence, the aim has been to review and synthesise using an interpretive approach, numerous empirical sources ranging from historical and anthropological accounts to recent work from conservation science that addresses the issue of coexistence (without delving much into anthropological theory). An effort was made to select widely distributed species on which adequate empirical scholarship on long-term interactions was available and accessible. The latter condition was instrumental in framing an adequate historical narrative as informed by historical and contemporary scholarship. The author's own long-term research has focused human interactions with two of the species (elephants and pigs). It has to be noted that the accounts of individual species presented in this manuscript are not exhaustive with respect to their historical or contemporary relationships with people and vice versa, rather, the intent has been to highlight a selection of accounts that encapsulate or highlight specific aspects of coexistence between people and animals.

While the definitions of coexistence vary according to different conservation researchers (e.g., Madden, 2004 ; Frank, 2015 ; Konig, 2020 and references there in), this manuscript follows the definition provided by Carter and Linnell (2016 , p. 575) who define coexistence as “a dynamic but sustainable state in which humans and wildlife co-adapt to living in shared landscapes, where human interactions with wildlife are governed by effective institutions that ensure long-term wildlife population persistence, social legitimacy, and tolerable levels of risk.” In the opinion of the author, coexistence does not entirely preclude elements of conflict, rather, it refers to a multidimensional and multifaceted situation in which engagements are often simultaneously located at different points on the continuum between accommodative strategies and negative interactions, but nevertheless ensures the continued existence of wildlife populations.

Beasts in the Garden

In India, free-ranging, wild species that attack people or livestock, raid crops or cause other forms of damage to human lives and livelihoods are very much part of the dynamic of zones of overlap between formally protected wild spaces and human habitation. Many are widely distributed generalists that can adapt to multiple habitats, and especially human use landscapes with their abundance of agriculture, livestock and other benefits compatible with the “merits of margins” ( Peterson, 1977 ). Most, if not all of these species, have a long history of interaction with human communities. Human-animal relationships in such zones evolved with context and are highly contingent on local lived experiences over an extended period of time. These can be examined through a series of explorations of several widely distributed species that routinely “transgress” from the forest and other natural habitats into the “garden” spaces of human habitation—big cats (tigers and leopards), elephants, wild pigs and other ungulates—which have not only figured significantly in conflict in India but are also accommodated within positive, ambivalent and contradictory relationships.

In his seminal article on “the war against ‘dangerous’ beasts in colonial India,” Rangarajan (1998) points to the subcontinent's diverse heritage of entanglements with large carnivores such as tigers, that simultaneously symbolise power and danger. In some quarters, tigers were considered the inveterate problem species, to be eliminated on account of their attacks on livestock and their occasional propensity to kill and devour people. In others, especially during the late colonial era, they assumed a new reputation as the saviours of agriculture and even as embodiments of “gentlemanly virtue” ( Rangarajan, 1998 , p. 299, see also MacKenzie, 1988 ). While the latter sentiments were attributed to colonial officers as well as the Indian elite who questioned the wisdom of removing this top predator which brought down the numbers of crop-raiding ungulates, tigers were also extensively hunted for sport by the very same constituencies.

On the whole, neither conflict nor peaceful cohabitation were a given, prompting Rangarajan (1998 , p. 299) to point out as misleading, a universal romanticised notion of harmonious coexistence or that of all-out conflict. Cohen (2012) too points to the dynamic and anthropocentric nature of human-tiger interactions ranging from the extermination and subjugation under colonial hunting and vermin control to their representation as charismatic conservation icons and playthings in contemporary tourism. Tracing engagements with tigers in diverse contexts before, during and after the colonial watershed provide further support to this.

Local historical conceptualizations of man-eating tigers and leopards, especially beliefs in human to animal transformation, and vice versa, are useful avenues for exploration in this regard, and find parallels with other situations such as the werewolf in European folklore ( MacKenzie, 1988 ). Shapeshifting and therianthropy are informative with regard to coping strategies that benefit coexistence, as well as community cohesion and related social dynamics. Liminal areas of the fringes of human occupation were particularly conducive to the development of such beliefs ( Brighenti, 2017 ). An example is the historical (and even contemporary) belief among the Kondh communities of Odisha that a man-eating tiger or cattle lifter was a were tiger (practitioner of kṛāḍi mliva ) or person whose soul or life force entered a tiger by divine facilitation and carried out malicious acts ( Brighenti, 2011 ). Related accounts equated the man-eater with the earth goddess ( Darṇi Pēnu ) herself, who, enraged at the lack of human sacrifices (traditionally known as Meriā ) devoured her victims ( Macpherson, 1852 ). The belief in human to animal transformations not only cut across class and caste boundaries but was geographically widespread encompassing the central and eastern parts of the subcontinent. For instance, the colonial official William Sleeman was informed by the Raja of the princely state of Maihar (in the Bagelkhand region of Central India) that the tigers who killed large numbers of people were in fact men who had mastered the “science” of converting themselves into tigers. In the latter's opinion, Gonds and other “wild people from the jungles” were to be paid sums of money for propitiating marauding tigers by prayers and sacrificial offerings ( Sleeman, 1844 , p. 165).

Tigers were venerated as part of the Saiva cult in many places; tiger worship in Central (by the Santals of Chota Nagpur, the Kurku and Bhomkas of Hoshangabad) and Northwestern India (by the Baghel Rajputs and the Bhils in Rajputana) was common and the species figures prominently in totemic representations ( Bhattacharya, 1947 ). While killing of tigers under the colonial bounty system for exterminating vermin was commonplace in these regions (bounties were paid for an estimated 56,000 tigers between 1875 and 1925, excluding about 13 years for which data is unavailable), vermin killing itself was viewed differently by different communities: the Baghel Rajpiuts who claimed descent from tigers, refused to provide baits for white hunters, as did the Khonds in Ganjam who believed tigers to be their ancestors ( Rangarajan, 1998 ). In many instances, forest-dwelling communities such as the Gonds responded with physical resistance, refused to divulge information about the whereabouts of tigers or admonished white hunters when tigers and other carnivores were killed ( Rashkow, 2014a , b ). Others killed tigers when there was a necessity, or avoided them on the whole.

Individual animals were sometimes identified as just cattle-lifters or as individuals that did not harm humans, with some constituencies viewing these individuals as somewhat affable predators that also needed to eat to survive (Interesting parallels can be drawn here between modern conservation contexts such as those in parts of Scandinavia where hunters support the rights of large carnivores such as wolves to exist—including reinstating populations by reintroduction—but favor the extermination of individual animals that are perceived to be behaving unnaturally, i.e., deviating from normalcy in behaviour, genetics or spatial boundaries, Von Essen and Allen, 2020 ). For many local communities, the relationship depended on the amount of the reward offered or the nature of local exigencies. The whole scenario was tied up heavily with agrarian practises, arming of the population (the iniquities of the Arms Act which prevented local populations from keeping firearms was particularly problematic), and the politics of sport hunting ( Rangarajan, 1998 ).

Similarly, in northeastern India, the Garos, Rabhas, Bodos, Mikirs, Karbis, Tiwas and Khasis and the Naga communities have folklore about tigers and leopards, and several clans also claim kinship with tigers ( Aiyadurai, 2016 ; Lyngdoh, 2016 ; Brighenti, 2017 ). Different forms of human-animal transformations that were conceptualized by the communities as either malevolent entities or special individuals selected by deities to execute certain roles, or ancestral spirits embodying the essence of clans ( Lyngdoh, 2016 ). While some of these relate to warriorhood and headhunting, and even the use of “animal doubles” to attack their enemies, others consider it a curse or disease, and yet others such as the Mishmis claim strong kinship with tigers ( Aiyadurai, 2016 ; Lyngdoh, 2016 ; Brighenti, 2017 ). Some, such as the Khasi attribute attacks on livestock to the needs of a local tiger deity ( Lyngdoh, 2016 ).

Despite a heavy influence of modern Western education and Christianity, there is evidence of a continuing presence of traditional animistic beliefs in were tigers and different forms of human-animal transformations in which the misdemeanours committed by these individuals are somewhat condoned ( Brighenti, 2017 ). A significant aspect is that the presence of these traditions do not preclude the hunting of tigers by some groups. However hunting and lethal control itself in many traditional societies was historically guided by different forms of rules, ritual and taboo though in the contemporary period there has been an erosion of strong community rules and control in many places.

For groups such as the Mishmi of Arunachal Pradesh who continue to acknowledge strong kinship links with tigers (they consider tigers as their brothers born of the same mother) and typically refrain from their killing, modern conservation has been problematic. In situations of last resort, i.e., when individual tigers become dangerous, they follow a pragmatic approach and occasionally kill or trap their “problematic brother” bringing them into direct conflict with India's conservation laws ( Aiyadurai, 2016 , p. 312). In recent years, these communities have opposed a unilateral, top-down decision by the government to declare parts of their richly forested landscapes under the Dibang Wildlife Sanctuary and further plans by conservationists and the state to elevate its status to that of a Tiger Reserve. These designations entail restrictions on the community on access and use of the forest. The Mishmi who consider themselves to be conservationists and guardians of the forest, managing their resources through ritual and taboo, view such acts as detrimental to their livelihoods as well as infringing on their cultural rights ( Aiyadurai, 2016 ). This signifies that even in spaces with high levels of organic “cultural capital” ( Bourdieu, 1986 ) and close kinship ties with key species such as tigers, the imposition of conservation can not only disrupt a largely peaceful set of relationships but also result in conflict with a community's own cultural icon which received some amount of protection. Modern conservation with its exclusionary ethic (evidenced by continued efforts to maintain pristine spaces for tigers) is seen by most local communities as immensely problematic.

In certain persistent regional epicentres of man-eating such as the Sunderbans of Bengal, though tigers themselves were not venerated, Dakshin Ray or Dakshinraj, and other presiding deities of tigers such as Badagazikhan, Kalugazikhan and Bonbibi (Banabibi) were worshipped by local groups such as woodcutters, hunters and boatmen belonging to both Hindu and Muslim communities ( Bhattacharya, 1947 ). This syncretic tradition involved a number of prayers and propitiation exercises. However, in recent years, as pointed out by Jalais (2008) , nationalistic passions and universalist notions (both Western and upper middle class) engendered the “cosmopolitan” tiger (see also Cederlof and Sivaramakrishnan, 2007 for cosmopolitan/ metropolitan and native/ indigenous conceptions of nature) far removed from its local counterparts in places such as the Sunderbans. Such a disjunct is detrimental to coexistence. A recent set of incidents in Yavatmal in Central india involving a tigress that had killed several people is also a case in point. Officially known as “T1” the tigress was rechristened by activists and the media as “Avni” (Earth), the killing of this tigress witnessed protests from large sections of urban animal lovers who objected to this decision.

Further, the oft quoted, yet contested (e.g., Carter et al., 2012 ; Rai, 2012 ; Goswami et al., 2013 ) conservation mantra that tigers and humans cannot coexist has been used as a justification to create exclusionary spaces for tiger conservation in India ( Bejoy, 2011 ). Relocation of local forest-dwelling communities has been one of the hallmarks of protected area establishment in India ( Rangarajan and Shahabuddin, 2006 ). In the case of tiger conservation, a significant criticism of the government's displacement and relocation of forest-dwellers contrasts with its accommodative stance on tourists and other urban visitors into protected areas ( Bejoy, 2011 ). Some tiger conservationists consider bringing “a tiger in the drawing room” via tourism a pragmatic conservation tool through a protectionist conservation and by the outward expansion of tiger habitats through incentivizing private land holders, agro-corporates and tourism entrepreneurs ( Karanth and Karanth, 2012 ). Others point out that this amounts to colonial style “green grabbing” ( Vidal, 2008 ) of rural land with its already known undesirable outcomes: agrarian distress, migration, exclusion, and alienation and loss of ties with land, and rights of local communities ( Rai, 2012 ). However, on the question of coexistence, at least some carnivore ecologists have been known to support a pragmatic, context specific strategy. For instance Karanth and Gopal (2005) suggest that “tactics ranging from lethal control of tigers at one end of the spectrum to relocation of human settlements at the other would have to be part of the mix…” in establishing “sustainable landscapes.”

The leopard, unlike its more charismatic cousin, the tiger, is mostly unseen, yet emphatic in its presence in many human-modified landscapes. While historically, problems such as man-eating had a very regional dimension, in contemporary times, this adaptable species not only continues to exploit the farmland niche, but has on occasion successfully crossed over into urban spaces, living off livestock, domestic dogs and occasionally attacking humans (e.g., Athreya et al., 2013 ; Ghosal and Kjosavik, 2015 ). The most notable regional geography with regard to conflict with leopards is the Himalayan state of Uttarakhand (particularly the districts of the Garhwal Himalaya) where attacks on people have been a chronic phenomenon at least since the colonial period and continue to report an average of about 60 incidents each year ( Sondhi et al., 2016 ). The presence of a “man-eater” is a significant daily stressor for local communities, which combined with ineffective mitigation measures (typically limited to payment of compensation and translocation) continues to generate negative perceptions and occasional retaliation against leopards. In other parts of India, leopards figure much less prominently in conflict. This is exemplified by the situation in the Valparai Plateau, a plantation landscape in southern India, where largely neutral perceptions of leopards and associated accommodative human behavioral responses are the norm with occasional shifts towards negative reactions (coinciding with attacks on humans) ( Sidhu et al., 2017 ). At the positive end of the spectrum, in other sites such as Rajasthan, in northwestern India, leopards have received some amount of active protection by local Jain and Gujar communities and community-based organizations ( Kumbhojkar et al., 2019 ).

As is the case of tigers, leopards too have been incorporated into networks of social relations both historically and in the contemporary sphere. Like tigers, individual leopards involved in conflict (especially predation on humans) have long been considered to be possessed by malevolent spirits. The Rudraprayag leopard (which killed over a hundred people) which was shot by Jim Corbett in 1926 was emphatically regarded an evil spirit that could not be vanquished. (An interesting parallel can be found in Patterson's 1907 account that the Indian coolie labourers on the Kenya-Uganda Railway—many of whom fell victim to the lions—considered the Tsavo lions to be evil spirits). In many parts of the country, the wearing of claws and teeth of leopards and tigers as amulets and pendants is supposed to ward off misfortune and provide the wearer with courage, health and wealth. There is a widespread perception of leopards as protectors in parts of Himachal Pradesh, where they are strongly embedded in local myth and folklore and considered the vahana (vehicle/ mount) of the local goddess (like the tiger is to the Goddess Durga) ( Dhee et al., 2019 ). Ethnographic characterised research in these systems reveal that local communities view leopards as complex, thinking individuals and with whom the sharing of space is negotiated ( Dhee et al., 2019 ). In the central Indian state of Maharashtra, which is by relatively lower levels of conflict in agrarian habitats with a high density of leopards, Athreya et al. (2013) report a high level of social tolerance to leopards and other predators and suggest an exploration of “social carrying capacity” that promotes coexistence with carnivores in such spaces.

A closer examination of this situation by Ghosal and Kjosavik (2015) arrives at two sets of relations borne out of distinct ontologies that operate together in the same spatial setting by mutual accommodation and co-opting. The first, revolving around the village deity Waghoba (represented by tiger or leopard iconography, wagh denotes tiger or leopard) is prominent among tribal communities and involves a network of reflexive and reciprocal relations with leopards that inhabit the landscape. Livestock depredation within this framework is viewed either as retribution for disrespect or as an act of benevolence or necessity by Waghoba ( Ghosal et al., 2015 ). The annual festival of Waghbaras celebrating the benevolence of the deity (in livestock protection) is characterized by ritual sacrifices and feasting, which are also considered to promote social stability and cohesion as well as contribute critical animal protein. The second, the “legal-scientific leopard” of state-sponsored conservation has a heritage of dualism of people and nature. Local forest managers, however, negotiate both spheres and enable both sets of practises. This integration of traditional and the modern ontologies engenders a hybrid coexistence perspective that appears to be somewhat beneficial for the continued survival of the species in this landscape without too much conflict.

Modern conservation and tourism have combined to provide another axis of interaction between big cats and the Indian public. While tiger-viewing safaris in national parks are more popular in terms of scale, leopards too are increasingly considered part of the attraction. Sightings of known individuals leopards are particularly sought after. This is exemplified by the case of a melanistic leopard inhabiting the environs of the Kabini forest in southern India. Known variously as Karia (lit. translation Blackie), Saaya (shadow) and Blackie, this black leopard and his encounters with other local resident leopards (Cleopatra, Scarface) are widely anthropomorphised in the media, and spark frequent interest among urban wildlife enthusiasts (e.g., Bangalore Literature Festival, 2020 ; The Indian Express, 2020 ). However, in stark contrast to these positive sentiments, individual leopards involved in conflict cause fear and apprehension among local communities, and typically suffer a different fate in relocation or lethal control.

For sentient species with high behavioural plasticity and adaptability, the immediate local context and embedded interactions with local communities are of paramount significance. The types of entanglements in such interactive contexts reveal as much about the elephants as the human societies that live within their range. Although highly visible negative incidents and interactions receive inordinate focus, recent nuanced explorations shows that elephant landscapes can be broadly placed along a continuum of more or less peaceful coexistence (e.g., Thekaekara and Thornton, 2016 ), episodic conflict (e.g., Oommen, 2019 ), or more continuous and protracted conflict (e.g Münster and Münster, 2012a ). Generalising interactions as peaceful coexistence or conflict, however, beyond an immediate regional or even local geographical unit is problematic as elephants are capable of a wide range of behavioural repertoires. Similarly the diverse human communities living within elephant landscapes tend to display an equally varied set of responses between and within social groups.

As pointed out by Sukumar (1994) , elephant incursions into human habitation and vice versa have been an ongoing feature throughout the range of this species. Early references to agriculture-centric interactions as well as a range of multi-faceted engagements with elephants can be found in numerous Indian historical and literary sources ( Sukumar, 2011 ). The bardic poetry of the Sangam literary tradition of Early Historical (300 BCE to 300 CE) Tamilakam (the ancient Tamil microregion comprising most of southern India) exemplifies this. Crop-raiding and everyday conflicts, ivory extraction and elephant capture figure extensively in these representations, along with an equal diversity of allusions to the sentience and sociability of elephants ( Oommen, 2019 ). Coexistence with this species, therefore has had many dynamic and contradictory facets over millennia.

As a more general pattern, human-elephant relationships are known to have a strong temporal dynamic that is often directly linked to the length of time local communities have spent with elephants. Migrant communities, especially recent agriculturalist settlers who have poor familiarity with elephant movements and behaviour are often located on the negative end of the spectrum ( Thekaekara and Thornton, 2016 ; Oommen, 2019 ). This is exemplified by the case of early- and mid-twentieth Century Syrian Christian migrants to the frontier forests of the Western Ghats who either continue to be in conflict with elephants in many places or have begun to develop accommodative relationships after decades of occupation ( Münster and Münster, 2012a , b ; Thekaekara and Thornton, 2016 ; Oommen, 2019 ). This is often in stark contrast with indigenous forest-dwelling groups whose engagements with elephants are traditionally less confrontational and reflective of ways of life that have evolved from constant interaction and accommodation between both parties. For these communities, elephants are not only part of the landscape but are important deities and community members embedded within relational networks. To cite an example, Bird-David (1990 , 1999) studies report how the Nayaka (Kattunayaka/n) of southern India often relate to elephants that pass by without reacting to them or harming people as “ devaru ” (superpersons/ divine persons) or “ anadevaru ,” whereas elephants that they encounter in some form of conflict are simply referred to as elephants ( ana/e ). Such forms of justification and discrimination of elephants as persons or individuals, or as objects, are highly contingent on situation.

As intelligent and interactive social beings, elephants provide fascinating opportunities for exploring issues related to nonhuman personhood and its role in coexistence outcomes. While traditional societies typically attribute personhood to many species, elephants on account of their high levels of sentience and consciousness have often been accommodated within a wider network of intimacy and trust than most other species. The behavioural peculiarities of individual wild elephants that frequent human habitation are sometimes known to village communities resulting in both positive and negative views. For example, a mostly harmless makhna , Nadodi Ganesan ( nadodi can be roughly translated as “village loafer”) was fondly regarded by local communities in the Gudalur landscape in southern India ( Thekaekara, 2019 ) (Here, parallels can be drawn with the Finnish “yard-wolf,” a designation given to a wolf that is habituated to and frequents human-dominated spaces, resulting in legal and ethical dilemmas for its removal, Ojalammi and Blomley, 2015 ). A long history of capture and training, and heritage of working elephants have also contributed to the public understanding of elephants as individuals and nonhuman persons.

In India, the elephant figures extensively in religion and mythology both on account of its links with mainstream, non-sectarian gods such as Ganesha/Ganapati in Hindu, Buddhist and Jain traditions. Elephants as totems of autochthonous clans and the havoc caused by wild elephants figure among the various origins suggested for this non-sectarian deity worshipped widely under various appellations across the Indian subcontinent and beyond as the remover of obstacles (.e.g., Michael, 1983 ; Ayuttacorn and Ferguson, 2018 ). Even Judaeo-Christian traditions within India such as those of the Kerala Christians established strong connexions with this charismatic species. For instance, construction rules of most early Syrian Christian churches in the erstwhile kingdoms of Travancore and Cochin (part of present day Kerala) mandated prominent iconographic representation of a working elephant and a wild elephant, as well as a number of elephant related features ( Menachery, 2014 ).

As in the case of large carnivores such as the tiger, in the colonial era, elephants represented a paradox. In many places, the government had to walk the tight rope balancing elephant populations by keeping agriculturalists safe and sportsmen happy, while at the same time ensuring revenues from ivory extraction and elephant labour. In many regions of the subcontinent, elephants, due to their economic and symbolic importance, received a greater degree of formal protection before mainstream conservation laws were enacted. In some regions, post-Independence conservation with its blanket laws for preservation created zones of anomaly where conflict with forest fringe farmers escalated; in others especially those occupied by traditional forest-dwellers, their status as a highly sentient species positively entangled in religion and folklore continued.

To understand and enable a dynamic perspective on human-elephant encounters within temporal and regional (e.g., the Wayanad District) frames, Münster and Münster, 2012b use “the notions of ‘frontier,’ ‘fortress,’ and (precarious) ‘conviviality’.” Planning on-the-ground coexistence strategies in elephant landscapes is likely to be a complex process given the history of interactions with the species in a particular area, the nature of land use as well as that of the wide diversity of local communities that interact with it. However, it has to be kept in mind that positive relationships with elephants unless organically evolved are difficult to engender or sustain.

One of the most iconic images of prehistoric representations from the Bhimbetka rock shelters in central India is that of a mutant boar chasing a tiny fleeing human. While it is not known what the primaeval artist exactly intended to communicate, legends, myths and iconography of ferocious giant boars appears at frequent intervals throughout India's recorded history. The legend of Komban, the wild boar that destroyed crops in the Tamil province of Kongu Nadu and the “ veeragallu ” (hero stones) scattered across Karnataka—many of them commemorating deeds of valour against ferocious boars—are examples ( Oommen, forthcoming a ). Enigmatic and intelligent, pigs are known to challenge farmers, trappers and hunters in as many ways that have been devised to outwit them. But the “heavy” meat of wild pigs was equally sought after in ancient Indian zoology that was a “catalogue of meats” and Vedic pharmacopoeia that treated the “universe as a kitchen” ( Zimmermann, 1982 ). Local communities as early as the Sangam period benefited not only from the meat of pigs, but planted their grain in the soft soil of hillslopes rooted around by wild boar ( Oommen, 2019 ).

When viewed through the lens of history, the Indian wild pig shared a diverse set of relationships with local communities across the subcontinent. However, in the contemporary conservation scenario dominated by influences from the Global North, wild pigs, despite their cultural significance and impacts on fringe cultivators, remain a forgotten species due to their supposed lack of charisma and sentience [e.g., ( Oommen, forthcoming a )]. This contrast is particularly stark when compared with conservation icons such as elephants, dolphins, etc. which are frequently highlighted in conservation discourses as being imbued with sentience and sapience. The long-term engagement between people and pigs on the subcontinent has resulted not only in widespread conflict with agriculturalists, but also a range of complex socio-economic and cultural arrangements ranging from religious proscriptions among mainstream societies to ritual and taboo among hunting communities (e.g., Oommen, forthcoming a ; Oommen, forthcoming b ).

Worship of the boar-headed god Varaha (an avatar of the god Vishnu represented iconographically as half man-half boar, or in completely zoomorphic forms) who lifted the Earth from the primordial flood (by bodily rescuing the earth goddess, Bhu), and the reputation of Varaha and his offspring as creators of mayhem, likely alluded to the crop-raiding tendencies of wild swine. Similarly, the wrathful Vajravarahi (the female form of Varaha) in Tāntric traditions was believed to transform the novice nuns of her monastery into sows and unleash them on her enemies. Despite, or because of their destructive nature, propitiation rituals and sacrifices towards enhanced human and livestock fertility, improved agricultural yields and soil fertility, the foretelling of rain, and protection from epidemics were common, and sacrifices involving pigs were particularly significant for many Dravidian rituals ( Oommen, forthcoming a ).

In parts of Northeast India as well as the Andaman and Nicobar islands, pigs are not only considered to be critical elements for nutrition, but also considered to be of great significance for a range of cultural engagements of local tribal communities. Andamanese communities such as the Jarawa and the Ongee, for whom wild pigs provide critical sustenance, regulate their hunting through different forms of resource habitat taboos (RHTs) as well as rituals and myths ( Pandya, 1993 , 2009 ). In northeastern India, the etymologies of several Naga clans originate from pigs, as do several storeys of village establishment which involve farrowing sows, runaway pigs and hunted boars (e.g., Hutton, 1921 ; Mills, 1922 ). Such diverse multifaceted engagements including origin storeys, folklore, and hunting rituals from both the islands as well as India's northeastern region are beneficial for conservation in these regions ( Oommen, forthcoming a ; Oommen, forthcoming b ).

Most historical societies (as well as contemporary traditional ones) managed at least an uneasy level of coexistence with wild pigs. Numbers were kept under control as part of management of populations, utilisation for nutritional sustenance and a range of cultural practises that also promoted tolerance and reverence. On the other hand, coercive top-down control that prohibited people from hunting or culling of this species has been hugely problematic as it neglects the enormous impact wild pigs have on agriculture. During the colonial period, local prohibitions on the removal of wild pigs were effected in order to manage adequate number of boars for pig-sticking, a form of hunting favoured by colonial officers and members of the Indian royal families. While a number of other lesser problematic species were declared as vermin, pigs were spared despite their daily depredations on village agriculture, leading to extensive rule breaking and illegal killing of pigs ( Hughes, 2014 ; Oommen, 2020 ). Gold and Gujar (2002) analysing peasants' memories from the erstwhile kingdom of Sawar in Rajputana report that prohibitions on killing pigs by local rulers led to impoverishment and revolts by villagers.

The recent dynamics of forest fringe villages across the country tell a similar storey of wild boar depredations as a consequence of wildlife preservation laws. In addition to being a persistent and highly effective crop raider that often results in farmers abandoning agriculture (wild boar pestilence has occasionally led to local famines among farming communities—e.g., Sunseri, 1997 ; Walker, 2001 ), wild pigs are highly fecund animals whose numbers tend to explode when provided adequate protection. Moreover, a lack of understanding by urban people and conservationists about how dangerous pigs are also figure prominently in discussions with local communities. Studies from both Kerala and Uttarakhand show that local people frequently blame government apathy and mismanagement in dealing with wild pigs, leading to a disruption of already tenuous coexistence scenarios with the species (e.g., Govindrajan, 2018 ; Oommen, 2019 ). In the Uttarakhand region, local people believed that that pig numbers increased after a pregnant sow escaped from the Indian Veterinary Research Institute. Continuing protection to pigs accorded by the Forest Department led to claims that the government was needlessly sympathetic to the descendants of an errant domestic pig instead of being concerned about the welfare of local people who suffered from their depredations ( Govindrajan, 2018 ). Such claims have strong links with concerns about distributive justice and have been highlighted in other studies as well.

Other Ungulates

In 2015, “ Bishnois: Environmentalists since the fifteenth Century ” authored by Franck Vogel, a photojournalist specialising in environmental issues was one of several catalysts garnering worldwide public attention to the Bishnois, a small, yet significant community primarily comprised of agriculturalists, residing in northwestern India. The community observes strict prohibitions against killing animals and cutting trees, Bishnoi women are known to even occasionally breastfeed orphaned offspring of blackbuck ( Antilope cervicapra ) and chinkara ( Gazella bennettii ) fawns. The community are believed to have derived their name from the 29 ( bish noi ) divinely-ordained rules (handed down in the fifteenth century by Guru Jambheshwar/ Jambhoji) that are integral to their central goal of purity. The history of the Bishnoi is steeped in the legend of the Khejarli massacre in which more than 300 community members, led by a local woman, Amrita Devi, sacrificed their lives protecting a khejiri ( Prosopis cineraria ) grove from the king's army. As part of their rules, each Bishnoi village also maintains an oran , or common land reserved for planting trees and for grazing land for wildlife. Ungulates such as blackbuck and chinkara are also allowed to feed on crops to a large extent.

Although syncretic in origin (a mixed transitory origin including Islamic antecedents for the now Hindu Bishnoi has been suggested—see Jain, 2011 ; Reichert, 2015 ), Bishnoi “environmentalism” provides an interesting backdrop to explore coexistence in relation to several mainstream aspects of morality, duty and virtue embodied in Hindu dharma (which can be translated, albeit simplistically, as moral code). While the scholarship on this is extensive and complex, an examination of early (c. 1500—c. 1000 BCE) and later Vedic (c. 1000—c. 600 BCE) philosophies that give rise to fundamental religious texts of ancient India provides basic insights. As opposed to the dvaita (duality) early Vedic conceptualisation in which the ultimate reality ( Brahman ) and the individual soul ( atman ) existed in distinct realities, the later Vedic advaita (non-duality) conceptualisation viewed duality only as illusory ( maya ) in nature. The central, recurring themes of the latter include the interconnectedness of the elements as well as that between human and non-human beings, and the omnipresence of the divine in everything including non-human animals ( Chapple, 1993 ; Dwivedi, 2003 ). The ideas of rebirth and cyclical change ( samsara ) and the transmigration of the soul through various animal bodies, especially the concept of “ Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam ” (the world is one family) as outlined in the Upanishads encourages kinship with animals.

The central ideas of advaita philosophies align with respect for animals and concomitant duties towards them. This is reflected in traditional beliefs such as those of the Bishnois as well as modern movements in the region such as Swadhaya ( Jain, 2011 ). However, as pointed out by Sivaramakrishnan (2015) , the presence of sacred elements alone does not reflect a deliberate environmental ethic. Many traditions both historical and contemporary, do not label their own work as environmental in nature, rather along with a number of religious and social outcomes, sustainability and kindness to animals are nevertheless, beneficial collaterals ( Jain, 2011 ). The debate as to whether some of these Indic theologies are genuinely environmental in nature is still unresolved despite an extensive body of scholarship (e.g., Doniger, 1976 ; Patton, 2000 ; Nanda, 2005 ; Nelson, 2006 ), however, they provide an interesting set of insights to understand human-nature relations.

Harking back to the Bishnois, a closer analysis of the community's worldviews and day-to-day engagements with animals reveal complexity and contradiction. While on the one hand several aspects of the teachings of Jambhoji is definitely is in place (e.g., the community's traditional opposition to hunting and prosecution of hunters, protection of trees), there are also other characteristics which seem to be in opposition with the stereotype as a peaceful community and their idealised representation as a group with an entirely harmonious relationship with nature. For instance, in contrast with articulated ethical mandate to protect animals, pigs are an exception and are often viewed by community members with revulsion. From time to time, the community also appears to be in violent opposition with other caste groups. Further, Reichert's 2015 interviews with Bishnois themselves point to an acknowledgement of different forms of romanticisation as well as a recent “greening” of the community by both insiders and outsiders,” occasionally for the benefit of Western audiences.

Key Learnings From the Indian Context

In India, as well as among traditional societies elsewhere, longer range histories of human-animal interactions can be characterised by a lack of dualism between people and nature. Communities with longer-term engagements with predators and other problem wildlife typically evolved a range strategies that appear to be on the whole beneficial to coexistence in shared spaces. In his wide-ranging, yet controversial commentaries on mythology and religion, Frazier (1922, p. 413) points to numerous examples of worship and propitiation of “obnoxious” species ranging from locusts and birds that decimate crops, rats and mice that destroy grain, and crocodiles that attack humans. As pointed out in the preceding sections, there are close parallels here with Indian traditions where nearly every species characterised as causing harm or conflict appear to have links with propitiation. Anthropological scholarship from across the world supports this, and shows that many species involved in predation on people and livestock, crop-raiding and other forms of harm have been long accommodated by local communities and assume sometimes contradictory spiritual and material roles (e.g., Lopez, 1978 ; Knight, 2004 ; McGregor, 2005 ; Pooley, 2016 ).

Coexistence between humans and wildlife was typically facilitated by what can be understood as different forms of balanced reciprocity and affordances by interacting parties. Human relationships with animals are often guided by informal institutions consisting rules, norms and prohibitions that are derived from autonomous decision-making by traditional communities. A long history of anthropological explorations have affirmed the effectiveness of adaptive responses that not only ensure the long-term sustainability of species and natural resources (though rules may not be explicitly directed at conservation) but also promote social identity and cohesion of communities themselves ( Rappaport, 1968 ; Harris, 1971 ; Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1976 ; Johannes, 1981 ). Among these, different types of resource and habitat taboos (RHT) (e.g., food, hunting and seasonal and habitat-related taboos), which are the result long-term adaptive engagements of a society in a landscape often serve overlapping social, ecological and psychological ends ( Gadgil and Guha, 1993 ; Colding and Folke, 2001 ).

Measures that promote coexistence, especially in relation to hunting and utilisation species that figure predominantly within such systems of rules can still be gleaned from examinations of traditional societies in parts of central (e.g., Ramnath, 2015 ) and northeast India (e.g., Aiyadurai, 2016 ; Nijhawan and Mihu, 2020 ) and the Andaman islands (e.g., Radcliffe-Brown, 1922 ; Pandya, 1993 , 2009 ). Hunting rituals and taboos that require a strict adherence to various rules such as refraining from overhunting, asking for permission and forgiveness to take life, and entreatments to ensure the future availability of animals are a large part of these local coexistence frameworks. The perception and treatment of individual animals is also significant and context driven. In some contexts, local communities may favour the elimination of individual animals on account of their idiosyncrasies including ecological and behavioural features that deviate from a commonly accepted species norm (for close parallels with other contexts, see Von Essen and Allen, 2020 ). In others, the behaviour of individual animals (e.g., man eating tigers), despite being involved in catastrophic attacks of people, is justified in some contexts through explanations such as therianthropy, where the blame is in effect shifted from the animal to that of misbehaving or malevolent humans.

In contrast with a lack of separation between people and nature as embedded within indigenous and traditional ontologies, colonial and post-colonial policies which enabled the creation of exclusionary protected areas and strengthening hands-off approaches to most species appear to have created a strong rift in the once-operational organic relations between the two. This strict separation between people and wildlife has been detrimental to long-term coexistence as, in most of the country, local communities began to view wildlife as government property, contest the presence of wild species outside protected areas, and question the impact of top-down conservation on local livelihoods and rights.

When viewed through the lens of moral economy ( Thompson, 1971 ; Scott, 1977 , 1990 ), the nature of conflict and coexistence underwent a distinct shift towards the articulation of resistance and inequality and in ensuing power struggles with the state and outsider stakeholders including conservationists. As pointed out by Pooley et al. (2017) in the context of human-predator relations, working out what conflicts are really about is critically important. As these authors point out, what may superficially look like human-wildlife conflicts may have more to deal with underlying differences between human actors with incompatible goals related to land and wildlife. Their embedment in wider societal conflicts and power equations, and the social constructions of landscapes has also been pointed out by several others (e.g., Ghosal et al., 2015 ). Conflicts between people as well as the historical contexts of these differences are therefore critical to understanding the dynamics of coexistence. As exemplified by the case of the Mishmis opposition to the establishment of a tiger reserve in northeast India ( Aiyadurai, 2016 ) or that of Chenchu hunter-gatherers asked to make way for a tiger reserve acerbically suggesting to conservationists for the same to be instead established in the urban centre of Hyderabad ( Guha, 1997 ), conservation entails resistance and discontent. Hegemonies imposed by the state and powerful outside groups go a long way in disrupting local equilibria, and bring to the surface concerns about the loss of rights and autonomy, and a lack of distributive justice.

In this context, a recurring phenomenon relates to conjectures circulating among local inhabitants that allude to secret introductions of wildlife by the government. Both Ghosal et al. (2015) and Oommen (2017) point to instances where local communities believe that tigers from zoos (local inhabitants claim that these individuals are easily identifiable on account of their preference for livestock and poor hunting skills) were introduced into their landscapes by the Forest Department in Maharashtra and Kerala. There are similar accounts relating the introductions of leopards in Himachal Pradesh ( Dhee et al., 2019 and references therein), though these could have some links with relocation of individuals involved in conflict from other human-dominated landscapes. To local communities, such acts often signify the government's heavy handedness and apathy to people. Similar parallels can be read in the storey of the runaway domestic sow and government protection for pigs in Uttarakhand ( Govindrajan, 2018 ). Accounts of clandestine wolf reintroductions in Norway ( Ghosal et al., 2015 ) show that such conceptualisations incorporating conspiracist theories and claims of introduction of tame animlals, hybridisation, etc. are as much a part of modern, Western ideas of wildlife as they are in India.

The relationship between the state and its local citizens is paramount here. Through the delineation of PA boundaries and exertion of ownership over animals (through overarching legislation such as the Wildlife (Protection) Act), the post-independence Indian state denied legitimacy to existing local relations between people and animals (e.g., Ghosal and Kjosavik, 2015 ). In the process, potentially fruitful alternatives for governance were also likely lost or diluted. As discussed before, in many cases, what people may in effect be resisting, is conservation which is imposed without adequate consultation or buy in. In yet others, it may be the lack of rights, tenure and autonomy that turn people against wildlife.

The dynamics of coexistence is also guided by newer developments that are strongly entangled with a suite of factors that fall under the umbrella of modernization including technological change, globalisation, proliferation of media and other influences (for a modern Scandinavian parallel, see Von Essen, 2018 ). For instance, proliferation of firearms as well as roads have resulted in expanding the scale of hunting in India's northeastern region. In this region, other influences that have brought about shifts in values and ethics include conversion from animism to Christianity (e.g., breakdown of some taboos) as well as the increasing influence of urban conservation groups that have campaigned against hunting (e.g., surrender of firearms and other hunting weapons). In recent years, the influence of social media is extremely relevant in mediating public perceptions of conflict and coexistence, both positive as well as negative. Coexistence is therefore contingent on a dynamic and changing set of interlinked values.

Concerns, Caveats and Ways Forward

The Indian context is very expansive, from multi-ethnic and multi-religious scenarios, to the influences of mass movements, public intellectuals and external factors. These are overlapping influences. On the one hand, interpretations of the Indian context in support of modern environmentalist sensibilities tend to be shoehorned into a valorization of Eastern traditions and religious practises such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism based on superficial similarities. For instance, similar to Inden' s 1986 caution about Orientalist constructions of India in general, Patton (2000) points to the common tendency among both ecologists and Indologists to privilege passages in Hindu scriptures that allude to a Romantic ideal of harmony with nature. Strong critiques of simplistic religious environmentalism can be found in the work of several scholars including Nelson (2006) , Doniger (1976) , and Nanda (2005) . As these authors point out, such readings are problematic and have consequences in modern interpretations that allow only a narrow set of acceptable human relationships with animals and the adoption of specific and limited environmentalist ideologies such as those encompassed within the Hindutva mobilisations of the Hindu Right (to the exclusion of others) ( Sivaramakrishnan, 2015 ). For example, in the modern sphere, despite limited overlap in fundamental philosophy and traditions, PETA mobilises the diasporic Jain community for promoting its arguments in favour of veganism and animal liberation ( Laidlaw, 2010 ). Similar examples can be found in Sivaramakrishnan' s (2015 and references therein) explorations which analyse environmental ethics within Indian environmental history, and also frequently highlighted examples such as Bishnoi environmentalism ( Jain, 2011 ; Reichert, 2015 ).

Similarly, an unpacking of the term “tolerance” in the context of wildlife pestilence is also required. In spaces of unequal power relations, what may be viewed as tolerance is likely to have strong political ramifications it is difficult to ascertain if expressions of tolerance by local communities is just limited to social and cultural acceptance of a particular species, or a coping mechanism used to justify and overcome helplessness in the face of such problems.

On the other hand, there is the question of understanding Indian contexts for coexistence against categorisations imposed by Euro-North American conceptualisations of environmentalisms ( Nadasdy, 2005 ). In the same way that a universal moral ethic for conservation is highly problematic, so is a monolithic, narrow view of coexistence defined only by scientists or environmentalists. Looking at the broad spectrum of environmentalism (see Nadasdy, 2005 ) for instance, a “dark-green” perspective of coexistence derived from radical ecocentric notions is likely to vary significantly from that of the broader conceptualisations of “light-green” or reform environmentalists which may include including some level of lethal control of problem animals or continued hunting, or harvesting at viable levels. In fact, many traditional societies that were discussed in previous sections conceive of hunting as essential to their very existence and identity, as has been pointed out emphatically in other contexts as well ( Nadasdy, 2007 ). As pointed out by Morris (1998) and Ingold (2000) , human-animal relationships are never homogenous or monolithic, but complex, multifaceted and locally co-constituted.

Therefore, the need to accept pluralism in knowledge and practise embodied in calls for “cognitive justice” ( Visvanathan, 1997 ) is particularly relevant in the case of coexistence. Nadasdy's 2007 recommendation for accepting the ontological assumptions of indigenous groups as literally and metaphorically valid is also food for thought. This means that views of local communities living with wildlife who are the custodians of situated knowledges, local traditions and lived experiences need to be privileged and accepted in ways that may be anathema to the ontological boundaries and barriers of scientists and conservationists. In the same way that Baviskar (2011) cautions against “bourgeois environmentalism” and Jalais (2008) argues for accommodating the views of the people who live with “wild” tigers as opposed to those who embrace the “cosmopolitan” tiger far removed from reality (see also Cohen, 2012 ), the nature of local coexistence could be defined by the lived experiences and conceptualisations of communities who actually share spaces with wildlife. Different forms of social and cultural capital ( Bourdieu, 1986 ) embedded within the lived experiences of local communities are particularly relevant as they provide for alternate ways of knowing, interacting and coexisting with wildlife. A phenomenological approach to coexistence that privileges the subjective, lived experiences and sensibilities (e.g., Husserl, 1913/1963 ; Heidegger, 1971 ) as opposed to a universal ethic would be pragmatic. These need not be just for indigenous animist societies, but for the vast majority of rural populations for whom traditional practises and modern lived experiences intersect to form sometimes hybrid or newer relationships with wildlife. This may also mean diverging from “hands-off,” preservationist conservation ideals and the re-examination of “third rail” issues such as hunting, culling, etc. that are pragmatically appropriate or culturally embedded within a particular geography.

Further, this also means questioning the patronising assumptions of the knowledge/ information deficit model—in this context, that local communities do not really know their animals or are not already aware of the positive interactions and social relations with wildlife. An emerging acceptance by conservationists of the simplistic conceptualisations on human irrationality (e.g., Knopff et al., 2016 ; Bombieri et al., 2018 ) as put forward by the heuristics and biases school (e.g., Tversky and Kahneman, 1992 ) is also at play when it comes to the public understandings that may impact human animal relationships. This politics of conservation is reminiscent of Kipling's exhortation (in The White Man's Burden, The Times , February 4, 1899, London) to serve the best interests of “new-caught, sullen peoples…,” a civilising mission that is all too familiar in the Southern conservation contexts that is based on a widespread mistrust of the ability of local communities to manage on their own. In reality, while there have been examples of indigenous destructions of environments, for some communities and contexts, religious and spiritual leanings engender an organic/unconscious conservation ethic including that of “animal persons,” ( Snodgrass and Tiedje, 2008 ). Sponsel's argument for a “middleground” ( Sponsel, 2001 , p. 170) between “romantic myth” and “oversimplified counter to romanticism” in viewing indigenous communities either as protectors or destroyers of nature is, therefore, relevant ( Snodgrass and Tiedje, 2008 , p. 8).

Academic scholarship aligning with radical protectionist conservation paradigms such as compassionate conservation (e.g., Wallach et al., 2018 ) promote an impression that sentience, sapience and sociality in animals is a new discovery that calls for support of a universal moral conservation ethic that shuns any form of violence. However, as mentioned before, ontological equality and personhood figure prominently, if not fundamentally, in many traditional animist cosmologies, but within the communities' own cultural models and social relations that are locally contingent ( Hallowell, 1960 ). Hunter-gatherers and rural communities routinely incorporate animals into such frameworks, understanding animals as individuals with consciousness, morality, spiritual power and intentionality, and people and animals are located within webs of reciprocal relations. In some contexts, animals may be exterminated but in others, there may be explicit injunctions against destroying even individual animals that are involved in catastrophic conflict. Within local systems, these serve as critical anchors for social cohesion and ecological sustainability and form important ingredients of coexistence. However, their significance is highly specific to context as opposed to recent cosmopolitan theorisations that argue for a universal conservation ethic such as that espoused by the proponents of compassionate conservation and associated ideologies (e.g Wallach et al., 2018 ; Wallach, 2020 ). The difference is important as these are not shared equally/ uniformly (either by communities or even by individuals within them), are of varying ethical obligations, and are activated depending on context ( Snodgrass and Tiedje, 2008 ). Such a shift away from moral monism towards a pluralistic system of values aligns strongly with Norton's 1991 convergence hypothesis which encourages local freedom and determination, and context specific adoption of priority rules and decisions. Here, Neumann's 2004 caution to conservationists against moral extensionism or the attribution of moral standing to non-human animals outside traditionally located human spheres of ethics and morality is also critical. The consequences of viewing animals a certain way (e.g., humanising wild animals) are strongly related to our perceptions and treatment of our own species who behave differently from us. Using the example of African Parks, he points to the influence of such moral and discursive narratives in normalising violence against poachers. Similarly, as has been shown elsewhere, injunctions against hunting, meat eating, animal sacrifices and similar practises situated outside modern Western ethical frameworks could align with intolerance related to race, ethnicity or religion ( Boaz, 2019 ; Oommen et al., 2019 ).

Learning coexistence from traditional societies is not easy either. Anthropological scholarship on different ontological positionings of communities have shown that these notions can vary across different cultures (e.g., Viveiros de Castro, 1998 ; Ingold, 2000 ; Descola, 2013 ). Nijhawan and Mihu (2020) point out that efforts by conservation organisations to co-opt them into formal conservation strategies have often been ineffective, and may in fact create unintended adverse consequences. Efforts in other countries such as Madagascar ( Sodikoff, 2012 ) have shown that simplistic translation of such rules are unlikely to succeed, and the embedded, context-specific nature of such rules within traditional systems cannot be emphasised enough.

Species such as elephants, pigs and some large carnivores are particularly adept at responding to local stimuli especially those relating to fear, risk and opportunities whereas in landscapes occupied by others (e.g., snakes, though many such species have more complex social dynamics than we typically assume) human behavioural modification or the removal of problem individuals may be the more pragmatic approach. In India, human relationships with snakes is a particularly interesting subject for potential insights as regional pockets such as Agumbe in Karnataka and Burdwan in Bengal have scenarios in which snakes live in close (sometimes intimate) proximity to people without being harmed (Romulus Whitaker, personal communication).

A take home lesson is that within spaces of interaction, the actions of both animals and people influence each other. When viewed from this perspective, contact zones remain negotiated spaces, with the boundaries of engagements and “transgressions” being drawn both by opportunity and fear. Further, violent, traumatic events, though relatively rare in number, are often strongly imprinted in memory, calling for further research on such interactions. In wild spaces, human fears are more immediate and pressing whereas the opposite holds true for animal interactions resulting in differently viewed landscapes of risk. While technical definitions vary according to disciplinary focus, the concept of “landscape/s of fear” has been examined from ecological ( Laundré et al., 2001 , 2010 ) and social ( Tuan, 1979 ) perspectives, for both people and animals, and could serve as a useful starting point for local evaluations of violent as well as non-violent encounter. As pointed out by Tuan (1979) , fear is one of the primary forces that shape us (fear of animals, darkness and heights being key universals among humans). Similarly, studies of predation risk in animal systems reveal numerous anti-predator responses that involve substantial costs and trade-offs for individuals and “risk effects” that prevent them from engaging in other useful behaviours, as well as resulting in increased physiological stress, and eventually “fitness costs” that translate to long-term demographic changes ( Lima and Dill, 1990 ; Brown, 1999 ) could serve as the ethological extension of coexistence studies. For example, for several species, conservation has resulted in a watering down of “landscapes of fear” ( Laundré et al., 2001 , 2010 ), as hunting, harvesting and persecution of animals has reduced in some spaces. These topics require further research and exploration.

In the preceding sections, a range of explorations of historical and contemporary engagements between people and wildlife were examined. These provide empirical evidence for both positive as well as negative or ambivalent relationships. As pointed out by Frank (2015) , such interactions are emphatically context-laden, and dynamic as opposed to being fixed to any particular location on the continuum.

A general pattern that emerges here, especially in the context of historical relations is that in many instances, indigenous ontologies typically engendered multifaceted engagements ranging from reverence and propitiation to elimination of wildlife, but nevertheless enabled coexistence, at least in the generic sense of the term. These have been disrupted by modern conservation whose predominantly top-down nature privileges only a narrow set of acceptable relationships while excluding and marginalising a range of human practises. Modern conservation's adherence to moral and ethical positions aligned with urban sensitivities (e.g., wildlife watching in protected areas from which local communities have been excluded) has been particularly problematic as this has contributed to the disruption of organic relationships and the emergence of distributive justice concerns, eventually leading to discontent and even retaliatory attacks. While the clock cannot be dialled back, it is nevertheless important to look towards local and rural worldviews that are synergistic with coexistence at a broad scale. As opposed to exclusionary measures that create and reinforce dualism between people and nature, they tend to be more inclusive especially on account of their potential for shared decision-making, and their legitimacy with respect to organic origins and lived experiences.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics Statement

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation was not required for this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements. Ethical review and approval was not required for the animal study because this is not a field study involving animals.

Author Contributions

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to reviewers, AA and EV as well as editorial comments from SP for significantly improving the manuscript. I would also like to thank Kartik Shanker for comments and suggestions, and Dakshin Foundation for institutional support.

Aiyadurai, A. (2016). ‘Tigers are our brothers’: understanding human-nature relations in the Mishmi Hills, Northeast India. Conserv. Soc. 14, 305–316. doi: 10.4103/0972-4923.197614

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Anand, S., and Radhakrishna, S. (2017). Investigating trends in human-wildlife conflict: is conflict escalation real or imagined? J. Asia Pac. Biodiv. 10, 154–161. doi: 10.1016/j.japb.2017.02.003

Athreya, V., Odden, M., Linnell, J. D. C., Krishnaswamy, J., and Karanth, U. (2013). Big cats in our backyards: persistence of large carnivores in a human dominated landscape in India. PLoS ONE 8:e57872. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057872

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ayuttacorn, A., and Ferguson, J. (2018). The sacred elephant in the room: ganesha cults in Chiang Mai, Thailand. Anthropol. Today 34, 5–9. doi: 10.1111/1467-8322.12458

Bangalore Literature Festival (2020). Romancing the Black Panther . Available online at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL1Htf5vZaE (accessed June 22, 2021).

Barua, M., Bhagwat, S., and Jadhav, S. (2013). The hidden dimensions of human–wildlife conflict: health impacts, opportunity and transaction costs. Biol. Conserv. 157, 309–316. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.014

Baviskar, A. (2011). “Cows, cars and cycle-rickshaws: bourgeois environmentalists and the battle for Delhi's streets,” in Elite and Everyman , eds Baviskar A. and R. Ray. (New Delhi: Routledge), 391–418. https://www.academia.edu/41666304/Cows_Cars_and_Cycle_rickshaws_Bourgeois_Environmentalism_and_the_Battle_for_Delhi_s_Streets

Bejoy, C. R. (2011). The great Indian tiger show. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 46, 36–41.

Bhattacharya, A. (1947). The tiger cult and its literature in Lower Bengal. Man India 27, 44–56.

Bird-David, N. (1990). The giving environment: another perspective on the economic system of gatherer-hunters. Curr. Anthropol. 31, 189–196. doi: 10.1086/203825

Bird-David, N. (1999). “Animism” revisited: personhood, environment and relational epistemology. Curr. Anthropol. 40, S67–S91. doi: 10.1086/200061

Boaz, D. N. (2019). The “Abhorrent” practice of animal sacrifice and religious discrimination in the global south. Religion 10:160. doi: 10.3390/rel10030160

Bombieri, G. V, Nanni, M. D. M., Delgado, J. M., Fedriani, J. V., López-Bao, P., and Penteriani, V. (2018). Content analysis of media reports on predator attacks on humans: toward an understanding of human risk perception and predator acceptance. BioSci. 68, 577–584. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biy072

Bourdieu, P. (1986). “The forms of capital,” in Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education , ed Richardson, J.G . (New York: Greenwood) 46–58.

Google Scholar

Brighenti, F. (2011). Kradi Mliva: The Phenomenon of Tiger-Transformation in the Traditional Lore of the Kondh Tribals of Orissa . Lokaratna: Folklore Foundation.

Brighenti, F. (2017). Traditional beliefs about weretigers among the Garos of Meghalaya (India). eTropic 16:1. doi: 10.25120/etropic.16.1.2017.3568

Brown, J. S. (1999). Vigilance, patch use and habitat selection: foraging under predation risk. Evol. Ecol. Res . 1, 49–71.

Carter, N. H., and Linnell, J. D. C. (2016). Co-adaptation is key to coexisting with large carnivores. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 575–578. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2016.05.006

Carter, N. H., Shrestha, B. K., Karki, J. B., Pradhan, N. M. B., and Liu, J. (2012). Coexistence between wildlife and humans at fine spatial scales, PNAS 109, 15360–15365. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1210490109.

Cederlof, G., and Sivaramakrishnan, K., (eds.). (2007). Ecological Nationalisms: Nature, Livelihoods and Identities in South Asia . Seattle, WA; London: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Chapple, C. C. (1993). Nonviolence to Animals, Earth, and Self in Asian Traditions . New York: SUNY Press.

Cohen, E. (2012). Tiger tourism: from shooting to petting. Tourism Recreation Res. 37, 193–204. doi: 10.1080/02508281.2012.11081708

Colding, J., and Folke, C. (2001). Social taboos: “invisible” systems of local resource management and biological conservation. Ecol. Appl. 11, 584–600. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2001)0110584:STISOL2.0.CO

Descola, P. (2013). Beyond Nature and Culture . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226145006.001.0001

Dhee, A., threya, V., Linnell, J. D. C., Shivakumar, S., and Dhiman, S.P. (2019). The leopard that learnt from the cat and other narratives of carnivore–human coexistence in northern India. People Nat. 1, 376–386. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10039

Doniger, W. (1976). The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology . Berkley: University of California Press, 173.

Dwivedi, O. P. (2003). “Dharmic ecology,” in Worldviews, Religion, and the Environment: A Global Anthology , ed. Richard C. Foltz (Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth), 119–129.

Frank, B. (2015). Human–wildlife conflicts and the need to include tolerance and coexistence: an introductory comment. Soc. Nat. Resour. 29, 738–743. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2015.1103388

Franklin, A. (1999). Animals and Modern Culture: A Sociology of Human-Animal Relations in Modernity . London: Sage, 21–22.

Gadgil, M., and Guha, R. (1993). This Fissured Land: An Ecological History of India . Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Ghosal, S., and Kjosavik, D. J. (2015). Living with leopards: negotiating morality and modernity in western India. Soc. Nat. Resourc. 28, 1092–1107. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2015.1014597

Ghosal, S., Skogen, K., and Krishnan, S. (2015). Locating human-wildlife interactions: landscape constructions and responses to large carnivore conservation in India and Norway. Conserv. Soc. 13, 265–274. doi: 10.4103/0972-4923.170403

Gold, A. G., and Gujar, B. R. (2002). In the Time of Trees and Sorrows: Nature, Power and Memory in Rajasthan . Durham, NC: Duke University Press. doi: 10.1515/9780822383475-004

Goswami, V. R., Vasudev, D., Karnad, D., Yarlagadda, C. K., Krishnadas, M., Pariwakam, M., et al. (2013). Conflict of human-wildlife coexistence. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110:E108. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1215758110

Govindrajan, R. (2018). Animal Intimacies: beastly love in the Himalayas. New York, NY: Penguin Viking. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226560045.001.0001

CrossRef Full Text

Guha, R. (1997). The authoritarian biologists and the arrogance of anti-humanism: wildlife conservation in the Third World. Ecologist 27, 14–20.

Hallowell, A. I. (1960). “Ojibwa ontology, behavior, and world view,” in Culture in History: Essays in Honor of Paul Radin , ed. Stanley Diamond, (New York: Columbia University Press), 19–52.

Harris, M. (1971). Culture, Man, and Nature: An Introduction to General Anthropology . New York: Thomas Y Crowell.

Heidegger, M. (1971). “Building dwelling thinking,” in Poetry, Language and Thought , (New York, NY : Harper & Row), 145–161.

Hughes, J. (2014). “Environmental status and wild boars in princely India,” in Shifting Ground: People, Animals and Mobility in India's Environmental History , eds M. Rangarajan, and K. Sivaramakrishnan (New Delhi: Oxford University Press). doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198098959.003.0005

Husserl, E. (1913/1963) Ideas: A General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology (Ideas I) . Transl. by W. R. Boyce Gibson in original German. New York, NY: Collier Books.

Hutton, J. H. (1921). The Sema Nagas . London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd.

Inden, R. (1986). Orientalist constructions of India. Mod. Asian Stud. 20, 401–446. doi: 10.1017/S0026749X00007800

Ingold, T. (2000). Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood . Routledge: Dwelling and Skill.

Jain, P. (2011). “Dharma and ecology of hindu communities: sustenance and sustainability,” in New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology and Biblical Studies Series . Farnham: Ashgate.

Jalais, A. (2008). Unmasking the cosmopolitan tiger. Nat. Cult. 3, 25–40. doi: 10.3167/nc.2008.030103

Johannes, R. E. (1981). Words of the Lagoon: Fishing and Marine Lore in the Palau district of Micronesia . https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=Berkeley Berkeley, C: University of California Press.

Karanth, K. U., and Karanth, K. K. (2012). A tiger in the drawing room: can luxury tourism benefit wildlife? Econ. Politic. Wkly. 47, 38–43.

Karanth, U., and Gopal, R. (2005). “An ecology-based policy framework for human–tiger coexistence in India,” in People and Wildlife (Conflict or Coexistence?) , eds R. S. Woodroffe, A. Thirgood, and A. Rabinowitz (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 373–387. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511614774.024

Knight, J. (2004). Wildlife in Asia: Cultural Perspectives . London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203641811

Knopff, A. A., Knopff, K. H., and St. Clair, C. C. (2016). Tolerance for cougars diminished by high perception of risk. Ecol. Soc. 21:33. doi: 10.5751/ES-08933-210433

Konig, H. J. (2020). Human–wildlife coexistence in a changing world. Conserv. Bio. 34, 786–794. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13513

Kumbhojkar, S., Yosef, R., Benedetti, Y., and Morelli, F. (2019). Human-leopard ( Panthera pardus fusca ) co-existence in Jhalana Forest Reserve, India. Sustainability 11:3912. doi: 10.3390/su11143912

Laidlaw, J. (2010). “Ethical traditions in question: diaspora Jainism and the environmental and animal liberation movements,” in Ethical Life in South Asia , eds A. Pandian, and D. Ali, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press), 61–80.

Laundré, J. W., Hernandez, L., and Altendorf, K. B. (2001). Wolves, elk, and bison: reestablishing the “landscape of fear” in Yellowstone National Park, USA. Can. J. Zool. 79, 1401–1409. doi: 10.1139/z01-094

Laundré, J. W., Hernandez, L, and Ripple, W J. (2010). The landscape of fear: ecological implications of being afraid. Open Ecol. J. 3, 1–7. doi: 10.2174/1874213001003030001

Lima, S. L., and Dill, L. M. (1990). Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can. J. Zool . 68, 619–640. doi: 10.1139/z90-092

Lopez, B. H. (1978). Of Wolves and Men . New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Lyngdoh, M. (2016). Tiger Transformation among the Khasis of northeastern India: belief worlds and shifting realities. Anthropos Bd . 111, 649–658. doi: 10.5771/0257-9774-2016-2-649

MacKenzie, J. M. (1988). The Empire of Nature . Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Macpherson, S. C. (1852). An account of the religion of the Khonds in Orissa. J. R. Asiat. Soc. GB. Irel. 13, 216–274. doi: 10.1017/S0035869X00165116

Madden, F. (2004). Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: Global perspectives on local efforts to address human–wildlife conflict. Hum. Dim. Wildl. 9, 247–257. doi: 10.1080/10871200490505675

McGregor, J. (2005). Crocodile crimes: people versus wildlife and the politics of post-colonial conservation on Lake Kariba, Zimbabwe. Geoforum 36, 353–369. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.06.007

Menachery, G. (2014). Aanayum Nazraaniyum [The Elephant and the Thomas Christians] (Malayalam). Pazhama 1, 7–63.

Michael, S. M. (1983). The origin of the Ganapati cult. Asian Folkl. Stud. . 42, 91–116. doi: 10.2307/1178368

Mills, J. P. (1922). The Lhota Nagas . Macmillan and Co. Ltd., London.

Morris, B. (1998). The Power of Animals: An Ethnography . New York: Berg Publishers.

Morris, B. (2000). Animals and Ancestors: An Ethnography . Oxford: BERG.

Münster, D., and Münster, U. (2012a). Consuming the forest in an environment of crisis: nature tourism, forest conservation and neoliberal agriculture in South India. Dev. Change 43, 205–227. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7660.2012.01754.x

Münster, D., and Münster, U. (2012b). Human-Animal conflicts in Kerala: elephants and ecological modernity on the agrarian frontier in South India. Fields and Forests: Ethnographic Perspectives on Environmental Globalisation. RCC Perspectives, Issue 5, Munich.

Nadasdy, P. (2005). Transcending the debate over the ecologically noble Indian: indigenous peoples and environmentalism. Ethnohistory 52, 291–331. doi: 10.1215/00141801-52-2-291

Nadasdy, P. (2007). The gift in the animal: the ontology of hunting and human–animal sociality. Am. Ethnol. 34, 25–43. doi: 10.1525/ae.2007.34.1.25

Nanda, M. (2005). The Wrongs of the Religious Right: Reflections on Science, Secularism, and Hindutva , New Delhi: Three Essays Collective.

Nelson, L. (2006). “Cows, elephants, dogs, and other lesser embodiments of atman: reflections on hindu attitudes toward nonhuman animals,” in A Communion of Subjects , ed Paul Waldau, and Kimberley Patton (New-York: Columbia University Press), 179–193.

Neumann, R. P. (2004). Moral and discursive geographies in the war for biodiversity in Africa. Politic. Ecol. 23, 813–837. doi: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2004.05.011

Nijhawan, S., and Mihu, A. (2020). Relations of blood: hunting taboos and wildlife conservation in the Idu Mishmi of northeast India. J. Ethnobiol. 40, 149–166. doi: 10.2993/0278-0771-40.2.149

Norton, B. G. (1991). Toward Unity Among Environmentalists . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Ojalammi, S., and Blomley, N. (2015). Dancing with wolves: making legal territory in a more-than-human world. Geoforum 62, 51–60. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.03.022

Oommen, M. A. (2017). Understanding conservation challenges: investigating conflict in a forest-agriculture fringe in southern India using multidisciplinary approaches . [dissertation/ doctoral thesis]. [Sydney(AU)]: University of Technology Sydney.

Oommen, M. A. (2019). The elephant in the room: histories of place, memory and conflict with wildlife along a southern Indian forest fringe. Environ. Hist. Camb. 25, 269–300. doi: 10.3197/096734018X15217309861559

Oommen, M. A. (2020). Colonial pig-sticking, imperial agendas, and natural history in the Indian subcontinent. Hist. J. 64, 626–649. doi: 10.1017/S0018246X20000308

Oommen, M. A. (forthcoming a). “Conflict, coexistence and conservation: cultural and material entanglements between people and pigs in India,” in Nature's Present: Dilemmas, Conflicts, Opportunities , eds M. Rangarajan, R. Sarkar, and R. Agarwal (Hyderabad: Orient Blackswan Publishers).

Oommen, M. A. (forthcoming b). “The pig and the turtle: an ecological reading of ritual and taboo from ethnographic accounts of Andamanese hunter-gatherers,” in Sustainable Use and Biodiversity Conservation in India , eds A. Varghese, M. A. Oommen, M. Paul, and S. Nath (Kotagiri: Keystone Foundation), 72–84.

Oommen, M. A., Cooney, R., Ramesh, M, Archer, M, Brockington, D., Buscher, B., et al. (2019). The fatal flaws of compassionate conservation. Conserv. Bio. 33, 784–787. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13329

Panda, P. P., N, T., and oyal Dasgupta, S. (2020). Best Practices of Human—Elephant Conflict Management in India . Uttarakhand: Elephant Cell, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.

Pandya, V. (1993). Above the Forest: A Study of Andamanese Ethnoanemology, Cosmology, and the Power of Ritual . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Pandya, V. (2009). In the Forest: Visual and Material Worlds of Andamanese History (1858–2006) . Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Patterson, J. H. (1907). The Man-Eaters of Tsavo . New York, NY: Macmillan and Co. Ltd.

Patton, L. (2000). “Nature Romanticism and Sacrifice in Rgvedic Interpretation,” in Hinduism and Ecology: The Intersection of Earth, Sky, and Water , eds Christopher Key Chapple, and Mary Evelyn Tucker, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press), 39–58.

Peterson, J. T. (1977). “The merits of margins,” in Cultural Ecological Perspectives on South East Asia , ed W.Wood, (Athens: Ohio University),41.

Pooley, S. (2016). A cultural herpetology of Nile crocodiles in Africa. Conserv. Soc. 14, 391–405. doi: 10.4103/0972-4923.197609

Pooley, S., Barua, M., Beinart, W., Dickman, A., Holmes, G., Lorimer, J., et al. (2017). An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to improving human-predator relations. Conserv. Biol . 31, 513–523. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12859

Radcliffe-Brown, A. (1922). The Andaman Islanders . Cambridge: The University Press.

Rai, N. D. (2012). Green grabbing in the name of the tiger. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 42, 108–109.

Ramnath, M. (2015). Woodsmoke and Leafcups: Autobiographical Footnotes to the Anthropology of the Durwa . New York, NY: Harper Litmus.

Rangarajan, M. (1998). The Raj and the natural world: the war against 'dangerous beasts' in colonial India. Stud. Hist. 14, 265–299. doi: 10.1177/025764309801400206

Rangarajan, M., and Shahabuddin, G. (2006). Displacement and relocation from protected areas: towards a biological and historical synthesis. Conserv. Soc. 4, 359–378.

Rappaport, R. (1968). Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People . New Haven: Yale University Press.

Rashkow, E. (2014a). Resistance to hunting in pre-independence India: religious environmentalism, ecological nationalism or cultural conservation? Mod. Asian Stud. 49, 270–301. doi: 10.1017/S0026749X14000110

Rashkow, E. (2014b). Making subaltern shikaris: histories of the hunted in colonial central India. South Asian Hist. Cult. 5, 292–313. doi: 10.1080/19472498.2014.905324

Redpath, S. (2013). Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. TREE 28, 100–109. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2012.08.021

Reichel-Dolmatoff, G. (1976). Cosmology as ecological analysis: a view from the rainforest. Man 11, 307–318. doi: 10.2307/2800273

Reichert, A. (2015). Sacred Trees, Sacred Deer, Sacred Duty to Protect: Exploring Relationships between Humans and Nonhumans in the Bishnoi Community . [dissertation/ master's], University of Ottawa.

Scott, J. C. (1977). The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in South East Asia . New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Scott, J. C. (1990). Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts . New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Sidhu, S., Raghunathan, G., Mudappa, D., and Shankar Raman, T. R. (2017). Conflict to coexistence: human—leopard Interactions in a plantation landscape in Anamalai Hills, India. Conserv. Soc. 15, 472–482.

Sivaramakrishnan, K. (2015). Ethics of nature in Indian environmental history: a review article. Modern Asian Stud. 49, 1–50. doi: 10.1017/S0026749X14000092

Sleeman, W. H. (1844). Rambles and Recollections of an Indian Official . London: Hatchard and Son.

Snodgrass, J. G., and Tiedje, K. (2008). Introduction: indigenous nature reverence and conservation—seven ways of transcending an unnecessary dichotomy. J. Stud. Relig. Nat. Cult. 2, 6–29. doi: 10.1558/jsrnc.v2i1.6

Sodikoff, G. M. (2012). “Totem and taboo reconsidered: endangered species and moral practice in Madagascar,” in The Anthropology of Extinction: Essays on Culture and Species Death , ed G. M. Sodikoff (Bloomington: Indiana University Press), 67–86.

Sondhi, S., Athreya, V., Sondhi, A., Prasad, A., Verma, A., and Verma, N. (2016). Human attacks by leopards in Uttarakhand, India: an assessment based on perceptions of affected people and stakeholders . A technical report submitted to the Uttarakhand Forest Department.

Sponsel, L. (2001). Is indigenous spiritual ecology just a new fad? reflections on the historical and spiritual ecology of Hawai‘i. Grim 2001, 159–174.

Sukumar, R. (1994). “Wildlife-human conflict in India: An ecological and social perspective,” in Social Ecology , ed R. Guha, (New Delhi: Oxford University Press), 303–317.

Sukumar, R. (2011). The Story of Asia's Elephants . New Delhi: Marg Publications.

Sunseri, T. (1997). Famine and wild pigs: gender struggles and the outbreak of the Majimaji War in Uzaramo (Tanzania). J. Afric. Hist . 38, 235–259. doi: 10.1017/S0021853796006937

Suraweera, W., Warrell, D., Whitaker, R., et al. (2020). Trends in snakebite deaths in India from 2000 to 2019 in a nationally representative mortality study. eLife 9:e54076. doi: 10.7554/eLife.54076.sa2

The Indian Express (2020). Phantom of the forest (auth. Surbi Gupta) . Available online at: https://indianexpress.com/article/lifestyle/art-and-culture/phantom-of-the-forest-shaaz-jung-documentary-the-real-black-panther-6279305/ (accessed June 22, 2021).

Thekaekara, T. (2019). Living with Elephants, Living with People: Understanding the Complexities of Human-Elephant Interactions in the Nilgiris, South India . [dissertation/doctoral] [The Open University].

Thekaekara, T., and Thornton, T. F. (2016). “Ethnic diversity and human–elephant conflict in the Nilgiris, South India,” in Conflict, Negotiation, and Coexistence: Rethinking Human–Elephant Relations in South Asia , eds P. Locke, and J. Buckingham (Oxford University Press), 300–329. Available online at: doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199467228.003.0014

Thompson, E. P. (1971). The moral economy of the English crowd in the eighteenth century. Past Present 50, 76–136. doi: 10.1093/past/50.1.76

Tuan, Y.-F. (1979). Landscapes of Fear . New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertain. 5, 297–323. doi: 10.1007/BF00122574

Vidal, J. (2008). “The great green land grab,” in The Guardian , Available online at: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/feb/13/conservation (accessed March, 2014).

Visvanathan, S. (1997). A Carnival for Science: Essays on Science, Technology and Development . London: OUP.

Viveiros de Castro, E. (1998). Cosmological Perspectivism in Amazonia and Elsewhere . HAU: Masterclass Series, 145–168.

Von Essen, E. (2018). The impact of modernization on hunting ethics:emerging taboos among contemporary Swedish hunters. Hum. Dim. Wildlife 23, 21–38. doi: 10.1080/10871209.2018.1385111

Von Essen, E., and Allen, M. (2020). ‘Not the wolf itself’: distinguishing hunters' criticisms of wolves from procedures for making wolf management decisions. Ethics Policy Environ. 23, 97–113. doi: 10.1080/21550085.2020.1746009

Walker, B. L. (2001). Commercial growth and environmental change in early modern Japan: Hachinohe's wild boar famine of 1749. J. Asian Stud. 60, 329–351. doi: 10.2307/2659696

Wallach, A. D. (2020). Recognizing animal personhood in compassionate conservation. Conserv. Biol. 34, 1097–1106. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13494

Wallach, A. D., Bekoff, M., Batavia, C., Nelson, M. P., and Ramp, D. (2018). Summoning compassion to address the challenges of conservation. Conserv. Biol. 32, 1255–1265. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13126

West, P., Igoe, J., and Brockington, D. (2006). Parks and peoples: the social impact of protected areas. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 35, 251–277. doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123308

Zimmermann, F. (1982). The Jungle and the Aroma of Meats: An Ecological Theme in Hindu Medicine . Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Keywords: coexistence, conflict, India, human-animal relationships, conservation

Citation: Oommen MA (2021) Beasts in the Garden: Human-Wildlife Coexistence in India's Past and Present. Front. Conserv. Sci. 2:703432. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2021.703432

Received: 30 April 2021; Accepted: 23 June 2021; Published: 21 July 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Oommen. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Meera Anna Oommen, meera.anna@gmail.com

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Be a part of our donor community!

About centre for wildlife studies.

The Centre for Wildlife Studies (CWS) is an internationally recognized centre-of-excellence in the areas of wildlife research, conservation, policy, and education. Our mission is to safeguard and conserve India’s rich and diverse wildlife heritage through cutting-edge research, effective conservation strategies, and community engagement. For forty years, we have been committed to advancing scientific knowledge, promoting sustainable practices, and inspiring a collective sense of stewardship to ensure the survival of India’s wildlife and their habitats for future generations. Our vision is of a society that values and protects its natural heritage, fostering a sustainable environment where wildlife thrives and human well-being is interconnected with the health of the natural world. Through our research, conservation efforts, and community empowerment, we aspire to create a future where wildlife and humans can coexist, ensuring the perpetuity of India’s extraordinary natural wildlife heritage.

Our Donors & Partners

CWS India Conservation Programs

A novel conservation intervention programme which provides access to ex-gratia compensation payments from the government and timely assistance to people affected by human-wildlife conflict.

Wild Shaale

An environmental education curriculum with holistic learning that teaches children living near wildlife reserves, to be future stewards of conservation and turn them into young naturalists!

Wild Surakshe

A public health and safety training program that helps rural communities of India tackle zoonotic diseases and prevent wildlife disease transmission and provides emergency service support.

Research Projects At CWS India

Biodiversity Research 

A vast collective of researchers aiming to find answers amidst one of the world’s the most unique biodiversity landscapes.

Human-Wildlife Interactions 

Using hard data to solve an extremely complex problem: Bridging the human-wildlife coexistence gap.

Nature Based Tourism

Introducing the public to the wonders of the wild through intuitive approaches and data backed methodologies in the hospitality industry.

Wildlife Diseases And Community Health

Going on the frontlines with the highest qualified veterinarians to tackle wildlife diseases and safeguard the residents of the forest.

Connectivity and Infrastructure Development

Ensuring that the wild has a safe passage in an ever changing landscape, across the country.

Doctoral Program

In partnership with Manipal University , CWS India offers a Ph.D. in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation. Our doctoral fellows study a broad array of species from tigers, elephants, hornbills, gibbons and mountain ungulates as well as human dimensions of conservation.

Master’s Program

In 2004, CWS India initiated the two year Masters’ Degree Program in Wildlife Biology And Conservation at the National Centre for Biological Sciences (NCBS). It’s the brainchild of Dr. K. Ullas Karanth, who donated his $200,000 WWF Getty Award to start the course.

Study Abroad Program

With our partnership with the Duke University and Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, we run a study abroad program for undergraduate students. This provides a nuanced understanding in wildlife conservation, along with practical field techniques.

CWS Updates

Why Birds of Different Feathers Flock Together

Do you care about protecting wildlife and wild places then pledge to help and together let’s ensure the voice of wildlife in india is heard.

CWS INDIA © 2024 . All rights reserved

• Español (Spanish)
• Français (French)
• Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
• Brasil (Portuguese)
• India (English)
• हिंदी (Hindi)
• Feature Stories
• Explore All
• Subscribe page
• Submissions
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Advertising
• Wild Madagascar
• Selva tropicales
• Mongabay.org
• Tropical Forest Network

Bringing biodiversity and conservation to the forefront in India

Share this article.

If you liked this story, share it with other people.

• The National Mission on Biodiversity and Human Well-Being, set for debut, seeks to bring biodiversity and conservation to the forefront of Indian science, policy, and society’s attention.
• From addressing biodiversity knowledge gaps and restoring biodiversity in a range of habitats to developing an early warning system for zoonoses, the Mission’s activities will not be restricted to protected areas or specific geographical regions.
• Biodiversity science may turn out to be the most critical science in meeting Sustainable Development Goals and Targets, especially in the face of converging crises, such as climate change and COVID-19.

From addressing biodiversity knowledge gaps, restoring biodiversity in a range of habitats to developing an early warning system for zoonoses, the National Mission on Biodiversity and Human Well-Being , seeks to bring biodiversity and conservation to the “forefront” of Indian science, policy, and society’s attention.

Conservation biologists and ecologists associated with the Mission, under the Biodiversity Collaborative, posit that the mission will help meet conservation and sustainable development goals in several ways. They underscore that “activities under the mission will not be restricted to protected areas or some specific geographical regions.”

Home to nearly eight percent of global biodiversity on just 2.3 percent of global land area, India contains sections of four of the 36 global biodiversity hotspots. India’s unique and diverse ecosystems, distributed across many landscapes, rivers, and oceans are economically valuable too. The (asset) value of India’s forests adjusted for inflation was estimated to be at INR 128 trillion in 2018 (or 1.78 trillion USD using current exchange rates).

But “we do not know enough about biodiversity or wildlife anywhere in India,” emphasised the Biodiversity Collaborative members in an email to Mongabay-India. The Collaborative, a growing network of Indian conservation biologists and ecologists, was awarded a seed grant by the Principal Scientific Advisor (PSA) in 2019 to develop the program for the National Mission.

They are currently implementing a preparatory phase project for the Mission to be hosted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, with the National Biodiversity Authority as the nodal institution for managing it. On account of the COVID-19 pandemic, the launch of the Mission’s full-fledged implementation is likely to get delayed.

The Mission has two components. Its centerpiece, NISARG Bharat (National Initiative for Sustained Assessment of Resource Governance), will document and map India’s biodiversity, including its rich biocultural diversity, to enable conservation and sustainable use of biological resources. The second component will consist of six programs, each with field-based projects to realise the identified Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These will not be restricted to protected areas or some specific geographical regions, according to the Collaborative.

Noting that the mission has an expansive mandate, the Collaborative explained, “For example, a specific programme devoted to the enhancement of biodiversity in agro-ecosystems. Another important programme seeks to restore biodiversity in a range of habitats–grasslands, forests, wetlands, to name a few. Although the mission will have several core programmes, a large amount of resources will be dedicated to grants for research and action programmes relevant to biodiversity in any location.”

Commenting on the Mission’s framework, environmental geographer Ruth DeFries, who is not associated with the Collaborative, said the well-being of all people in all countries, and India in particular, is tied to biodiversity and wildlife surviving amid high human pressures is a “remarkable achievement.”

“The ability to grow food, filter clean water, and provide other resources depend on healthy, diverse ecosystems. I don’t know of other examples where countries have so explicitly recognised this connection, which is to India’s great credit,” DeFries told Mongabay-India.

“Inherently, many people in India value nature and diversity. Despite substantial challenges, the investments that society has made in conservation have paid off. Wildlife populations have fared better than in many other places. That does not mean that society should be complacent in the face of threats to biodiversity, but the ability of wildlife to survive despite high human pressures is a remarkable achievement,” said DeFries.

“India has a rich history of conservation movements, which speaks to the value people place on nature and biodiversity. On the other hand, conservation success can create difficulties for people who live near nature, such as crop-raiding and livestock predation by wildlife. For conservation to be successful, ways to mitigate these problems are critical,” she said.

Ecological restoration

While India faces several challenges in the sustainable use of biodiversity, its investments in transdisciplinary biodiversity science are not commensurate with the severity of these challenges. India faces several “pressing” policy and governance challenges, outlined members of the Biodiversity Collaborative in Opinion: Envisioning a biodiversity science for sustaining human well-being .

The effective and time-bound implementation of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, and ensuring both legitimate forest tenurial rights and forest conservation will require changes in governance, now dominated by top-down approaches, they noted in the opinion piece. Additional challenges include the restoration of degraded lands and wetlands, ensuring ecological flow regimes in rivers, and assessment and monitoring of biodiversity in the face of rapid environmental change and resource exploitation, especially in a world impacted by COVID-19.

Additionally, the declaration by the United Nations of 2021–30 as the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration is drawing worldwide attention to the challenge of restoring natural ecosystems that have been degraded or converted (for agricultural use, for example).

The Collaborative stressed that India must capitalise on the national and global emphasis on ecological restoration in this coming decade. The National Mission seeks to enable restoration across the country by (a) developing national guidelines, (b) helping create a community of restoration practitioners across the country, and (c) providing pilot funding for restoration projects where outcomes will be monitored.

But how crucial is wildlife (its protection and the role it plays in ecosystems) in ecosystem restoration? Restored habitats provide essential landscape linkages for wildlife. “Traditionally, wildlife refers to all undomesticated animal species. So any species that is naturally a part of an ecosystem is wildlife. Wildlife is part of biodiversity, and biodiversity is critical to ecosystem function and ecosystem services provisioning. Conversion of wetlands and land, as well as habitat loss, results in the loss of wildlife and biodiversity,” the Collaborative said.

“Restoration aims to restore vegetation, habitat, and ecosystem function. As habitats recover, wildlife associated with these habitats will return, re-colonising these restored lands, which in due course will result in an increased population of wildlife and habitat connectivity. Increases in coverage of conservation and restoration targets across diverse biomes can be achieved in India through both land sharing and land sparing approaches that take into account opportunities for enhancing existing and new livelihood and employment opportunities linked to diverse ecosystem services.”

“So yes, restoration is great for wildlife. If we only consider large mammals as wildlife, then not all restoration may be suitable to provide breeding habitats for large mammals (if they are small patches, for example). But restored habitats are sure to promote connectivity, providing stepping stone habitats within corridors between protected areas,” the Collaborative explained.

Early warning system for zoonoses

The Biodiversity and Health programme of the Mission will look into two aspects of how biodiversity can improve healthcare – one will create an interactive citizen’s portal on India’s medicinal plants to provide reliable information for managing human, livestock, and crop health. The second aspect will investigate the relationships between biodiversity loss and patterns of infectious diseases that spread to humans from animals (such as SARS, Nipah, and swine flu).

“In India, we do not have much in the way of an early warning system, and developing that is part of the mandate of the OneHealth and zoonoses programme of the Mission. Our biosafety policies are largely not cognisant of these concerns,” the Collaborative stressed.

“For example, the 2020 MoEFCC advisory on the import of live exotic species does not refer to the possibility that some of these may harbour zoonotic diseases. Owing to high population density, its rich biodiversity, and high livestock population, India has been identified as a global hotspot for the emergence of infectious diseases (Allen et al., 2017),” it added.

While the areas of rich biodiversity may serve as a source of new pathogens, most pathogens are generalists, and they infect more than one host, giving rise to reservoir species whose ecology may be impacted due to biodiversity loss. It is critical to assess the influence of biodiversity loss on the risks posed by emerging disease to predict and prevent future disease outbreaks, they said.

The biggest knowledge gap we face is that of wildlife health. “We need to revive OneHealth wildlife surveillance programmes that were initiated in the 1960s by epidemiologists such as Dr. P. K. Rajagopalan, and the legendary bird man Dr. Salim Ali, and use modern satellite tracking as well as genomic and viromic analyses to understand the movement of pathogens at global scales. This is especially important given that species distributions are predicted to alter due to climate change.”

Igniting public interest in biodiversity

The Collaborative also recognises the opportunity from the COVID-19 experience on people’s fascination with biodiversity. Early this year, the lockdown period birthed citizen science initiatives and even personal projects that are highlighting India’s urban biodiversity. The Aichi Biodiversity Target 1 (2010-2020) states that by 2020, at the latest, people are aware of the values of biodiversity and the steps they can take to conserve and use it sustainably.

While most of the targets will not have been reached by the end of 2020, the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) underscored the need to “ramp up collective ambition and willingness to do better in defining and implementing goals and targets for the next decade.”

Holding that biodiversity science “may turn out to be the most critical science” in meeting Sustainable Development Goals and Targets, the Collaborative underlined that biodiversity is “not a burden to be shouldered, but an essential benefit for our survival to be celebrated.”

“Such a deep connection and understanding of our human reliance on biodiversity can only come through targeted, local-level awareness and participation that incorporates the languages and cultures of our society. What is needed is a massive campaign for public engagement, with components that include mass communication and grassroots engagement. This will require broad involvement, from the largest organisations and government departments to small local groups and committed individuals. As the experience of the past few months has shown, people are inherently curious and fascinated by biodiversity, and it is that latent interest that needs to be sparked,” the Collaborative added.

Asked on rethinking the Wildlife Protection Act, (WLPA) V.B. Mathur, Chairperson, National Biodiversity Authority, noted that updated scientific data and information on wild species and their habitats need to be integrated into the Act’s legal provisions.

“Change is a natural process and therefore re-visiting the provisions of Wild Life Protection Act (WLPA), which was enacted  48 years ago in 1972 is a logical step. Further, in the last four decades, a lot of scientific data and information about the wild species and their habitats has become available, which needs to be integrated into the legal provisions of the WLPA in order to make them more effective in the conservation and management of wild species. This is particularly relevant in the context of the six Schedules of WLPA,” Mathur added.

Banner image : Brook’s House Gecko (Hemidactylus brookii) at Amboli, district Sindhudurg, Maharashtra. Photo by Raju Kasambe/Wikimedia Commons.

Climate Innovations

Polluting leather industry adopts sustainable practices to reduce environmental footprint

Brick kilns embrace zigzag design to cut pollution and boost efficiency

Innovating with deadstock: From dump yards to designer racks

Innovative air-to-water tech using liquid desiccant makes affordable, renewable water

If the Green Revolution rode on the strength of chemicals derived mainly from fossil fuels, now there is a shift in the thinking on how agriculture is being done in India, with a thrust on growing indigenous crop varieties and following natural farming practices. In the industrial sector, with initiatives such as ‘Make in India’, […]

Free and open access to credible information

Latest articles.

A new remote sensing study spotlights Indian savannas

Capturing the secret lives of small cats

[Explainer] What is micro irrigation?

Multiple studies flag food insecurity as a threat in the Himalayas

New urban governance bill in Bengaluru faces criticism, takes away citizen power says analysis

Your Environment This Week: Birds in Indian cities, Plastic and agriculture, Climate action plans for cities

Indian cities witness a growing momentum for climate action

Agriculture has a plastic problem and it’s threatening the future of food 

Popular Search Terms

Conservation in the Land of Hunters

Traditional Knowledge of Coastal Communities in Maharashtra

Nagaland - conservation & livelihoods.

The project seeks to promote community-led conservation in 15 villages on the fringe of Ntangki National Park, in the Peren district of Nagaland.

Human Wildlife Interactions

The urban Indian narrative around human-wildlife interactions has predominantly focused on the notion of conflict. However, across India and several other parts of the world, there is a growing understanding of the incredible capacity to coexist with a wide array of wildlife.

In the news

Illegal Wildlife Trade News: August 2024

Conservation Bulletin 2024 - Week 36

Credits: Photo - Joydeep Sarkar (cover)  | Illustration - Jessica Luis

• News, Stories & Speeches
• Get Involved
• Structure and leadership
• Committee of Permanent Representatives
• UN Environment Assembly
• Funding and partnerships
• Policies and strategies
• Evaluation Office
• Secretariats and Conventions
• Asia and the Pacific
• Latin America and the Caribbean
• New York Office
• North America
• Climate action
• Nature action
• Chemicals and pollution action
• Digital Transformations
• Disasters and conflicts
• Environment under review
• Environmental law and governance
• Extractives
• Fresh Water
• Green economy
• Ocean, seas and coasts
• Resource efficiency
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Youth, education and environment
• Publications & data

Shifting the needle on biodiversity conservation in India

In some ways India could be considered test case for the rest of the world, as it works out how to feed its population of 1.3 billion people in a sustainable way. The challenge is to achieve this feat without degrading the land, soil and water resources, destroying the country’s rich diversity of flora and fauna, or causing serious smog in cities like Delhi.

One project, implemented by India’s National Biodiversity Authority and supported by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) through funding by the Global Environment Facility , helped to achieve this through improved biodiversity utilization for improved rural livelihoods. The project ran from 2011 to September 2019.

India is a leading country in having established a comprehensive legal and institutional system to realize the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity . The third objective of the Convention—access to genetic resources and fair, equitable sharing of benefits—is being implemented in India through its Biological Diversity Act (2002) and Rules (2004).

The National Biodiversity Authority is recognized globally for its pioneering work to implement the Convention and fully operationalize the access and benefit-sharing provisions, among others through a national network of Biodiversity Management Committees, alongside the establishment of People Biodiversity Registers.

Biodiversity Management Committees are local level, statutory bodies, based on the 2002 Act, and require the selection and involvement of at least two women members through a democratic selection process, and are vested with enormous responsibilities. The Committees lead local processes of reaching consent in accessing bioresources by the proposed users (including researchers, private companies, governments). This encourages sustainable use and documentation of available resources through people’s biodiversity registers, as well as through the decision-making process for the conservation and sustainable use of biological resources.   

Titled  Strengthening the Implementation of the Biological Diversity Act and Rules with a Focus on its Access and Benefit Sharing Provisions , the project aimed to improve access to biological resources, assess their economic value and better share their benefits among local people. It covered 10 of the country’s 29 states: Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, West Bengal, Goa, Karnataka, Odisha, Telangana, and Tripura.

Many people may not know that India has significant global hotspots of biodiversity. Sikkim, for instance, has 422 species of birds and 697 species of butterflies, 4,500 species of flowering plants, 362 species of ferns and fern allies, and a rich diversity of orchids.

Assessing the economic value of tradable bioresources

“The project assessed and quantified the economic value of tradable bioresources at local, state and national levels to determine potential for benefit sharing,” says UNEP biodiversity expert Max Zieren, who worked with the project. “This has already helped pinpoint prospective users of available bioresources in India, assess market value chains and determine the willingness to pay by users. It has also facilitated new research and investments in prospecting for biological resources for possible economic use,” he adds.

At the same time, this process will help national and state-level decision makers to prioritize conservation action through, for example, the application of appropriate economic instruments (taxes, fees or royalties), the estimation of costs due to resources’ depletion, the need for restoration or conservation efforts, as well as the collectors’ willingness to accept sustainable harvesting standards and support benefit generation through local livelihoods.

So far, the project has established 315 biodiversity management committees to validate the data held in 140 peoples biodiversity registers—on flora, fauna and traditional knowledge. To help build local knowledge, the project also trained 25 young botanists in each state.

“The project—through leadership by the National Biodiversity Authority, was very successful in enabling many consultations between ayurvedic drug manufacturing agencies, academics, private research laboratories and bioresource-based industries—including on some very innovative potential uses of bioresources,” says Zieren.

“This helped their understanding and willingness to invest in research and potential product development. To date, over 400 access and benefit-sharing agreements have been signed between providers—mostly local communities—and users (such as national and international companies). Initial revenue from these agreements has raised US$1,800,000 for state biodiversity funds,” he adds.

For more information, please contact Max Zieren: [email protected]

• Biodiversity
• Agriculture
• Global Environment Facility
• Natural Resources
• Sustainable Development

Further Resources

• Biodiversity management - Indian style
• Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Production Landscapes
• Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition
• A New Deal for Nature – Change the Way We Produce and Consume Food
• Agroecology knowledge hub

Related Content

Related Sustainable Development Goals

© 2024 UNEP Terms of Use Privacy   Report Project Concern Report Scam Contact Us

Conservation of Wildlife: Legal Issues and Challenges in India

10 Pages Posted: 16 May 2014

Supriti Trivedi

Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU)

Date Written: January 27, 2014

Wildlife refers to all non-domesticated plants and animal species which live and grow in areas which are uninhabited by human. It also includes organisms and fungi. Wildlife is found in all ecosystems such as forests, plains, grasslands, deserts and all other areas with a specific characteristic and different forms of wildlife. This article mainly focuses on the wildlife in India and the available legal provisions to protect and conserve the wildlife. India is a country with rich and diverse forms of flora and fauna which makes it a biodiversity hotspot in the world. As human induced activities increased and development started taking place on a large scale, the wildlife and the ecosystems began to be affected by it. This called for some measures by the government to protect the wildlife and their habitat with the help of stringent legal provisions and conservation strategies. The Article highlights on the importance of conservation of wildlife and the problems faced in implementing these conservation measures with a reference to various forms of threats faced by these wild animals and plants. The article further goes on to describe the various legal provisions and Acts enforced and enacted in India in consonance with the international standards towards protecting and conserving the wildlife and biodiversity of the country. This article also highlights various problems and challenges in implementing these Acts and their reasons and also provides possible solutions for effective implementation of these legal provisions so as to maintain a balance of the environment and life forms on the earth.

Keywords: Wildlife Conservation, Wildlife Protection, Biosphere, National Parks, Sanctuary, Biodiversity

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Supriti Trivedi (Contact Author)

Indira gandhi national open university (ignou) ( email ).

Maidan Garhi school of social sciences New Delhi, 110068 India

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, built environment ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Sustainability & Economics eJournal

Law, international affairs & csr ejournal, human rights & the corporation ejournal, sustainability law & policy ejournal, india law ejournal, environmental law & policy ejournal, environmental anthropology ejournal, political economy - development: environment ejournal, biodiversity ejournal.

Subscribe to this free journal for more curated articles on this topic

Animal Behavior, Intelligence & Human-Animal Interaction eJournal

Animal law, welfare, ethics & forensics ejournal.

120 Years of Wildlife Conservation in India – Conservation History

Published by vibhav on 01/09/2023 01/09/2023.

India has long conservation history which started from ancient times. Though this long conservation history helped us to save many of our wild animals, plants and ecosystems through the ages, the last 120 years were considerably very important. Industrial revolution & population explosion has impacted our environment and natural ecosystems on a great scale and we lost many species during this period. Various conservation oriented work has also be done during last 120 years which helped us to revive the lost ecosystems and also helped to stop the human induced species extinction.

Table of Contents

1904: Kaziranga visit by Mary Curzon, the wife of Lord Curzon, the then viceroy of India

The history of conservation was started in Kaziranga when Mary Curzon, the wife of then viceroy of India, Lord Curzon, has paid a visit to this area. The Kaziranga was quite famous for the population of Indian One Horned Rhinoceros but to her surprise the Lady Curzon does not find any during her visit. This has made her to think about the conservation of rhinos. She immediately urged Lord Curzon to take effective steps so that the population of the rhinos can recover. Her effort and effective action taken by Lord Curzon led to recover the population of rhinos and establishment of Kaziranga National Park, a highest degree of protection to the wild land.

1905: Conservation of Asiatic lions in Gir

Asiatic Lion is a subspecies of African Lion and they were once distributed in larger parts of Asia, North Africa and perhaps a part of Europe. Their area had been shrunk and the small population were confined to a small area in the state of Gujarat in Western India at the end of the 19 th century. This area known as Gir, was under the jurisdiction of Nawab of Junagarh. Worried about the dwindling population of the lion in Gir due to large scale hunting & poaching Nawab of Junagarh has taken a strong decision to stop the hunting of the lions. He completely banned all types of hunting of lions in Gir and refused any hunting permit. In the year 1905 there were only 60-70 lions left in the wild, then after this ban, in the year 1936 when first census was conducted by Nawab has given the figure of 287 lions in Gir landscape. After independence when this state merged with India, the government taken effective steps to give the area highest degree of protection so that lion could survive in their natural habitat.

1935: First National park of India has been declared

This year is remarkable in the history of wildlife conservation in India, as India’s first National Park ‘Hailey National Park’ was declared in this year. Major part of Kumaon hills and some part of Garhwal hills in present day Uttarakhand was given protection to conserve the unique wildlife of the region. The park was named after the then Governor of United Province, (Uttarakhand was part of United Province during that time) Sir Malcom Hailey, to recognize his work for the wildlife conservation and local community.  The park was later renamed after the river Ramaganga, which flows through the park. The name again changed in year 1956 as Corbett National Park , after Jim Corbett who has done lots of conservation work in this area. He was known to kill many man-eating tigers and leopard and simultaneously have created awareness on wildlife conservation which ultimately led to a positive attitude of local people towards wildlife.

1952: First Indian Board for wildlife (IBWL) was constituted

Indian Board for Wildlife was created to advise the central government on various nature & wildlife conservation related issues. After independence it was felt by the conservation community that due to uncontrolled hunting of wildlife and large scale deforestation during British period many species are on the verge of extinction and if immediate attention is not paid, they will go forever. The need of a committee with representative from all stakeholders in wildlife conservation was strongly felt and then in 1952 such of the committee was formed. The role of the committee was advisory and they advise the central government on various matters related with wildlife conservation. Once the committee was constituted, many state governments took initiative and formed a similar kind of committee which can advise state government on wildlife conservation.

The IBWL under the section 5 of Wildlife Protection Act was replaced by a statutory board renamed as National Board for Wildlife (NBWL).

The committee is chaired by Prime Minister while the minister of environment and forests is vice chairman.

Explore the best wildlife & tiger safari tours in India

1957: First big Mammal reintroduction project within India

At the inaugural session, Indian Board for wildlife in year 1952 has discussed about the conservation of Asiatic Lions in Gir forests. They were worried about the last surviving population of Asiatic Lion, which was on high risk of extinction. They have discussed the issue at in the meeting and came out with the conclusion that a second home is urgently needed for them.

The experts have agreed upon the name of the forests situated south from Varanasi in Vindhyan ranges of Central Indian Highlands. The forest was declared as a wildlife sanctuary and named Chandrprabha, after the river flows through it. Few individuals from Gir forests then shifted to Chandraprabha, initially they did well and their population have multiplied but due to lack of strong laws and patrolling, they fell to poachers when they crossed the border towards a bigger forested area in Bihar state.

Though this project failed but it was a great step taken by the policy makers which further helped to take decision on matters related with similar issues.

1963-65: First wildlife research in India was conducted by Dr. George Schaller in Kanha National Park

Dr. George Schaller, a world renowned wildlife biologist who has done many pioneer studies on endangered animals was invited by Indian government to do the similar study on tigers. He was shifted to Kanha National Park in a forest bungalow with his family for the study. He made a hide in Kanha meadow to observe wildlife at close quarter. His study was the first scientific study on wildlife in India. He has published a book ‘the Deer and the Tiger’ on his findings during the research work, which is still a ready reference for those who are doing research on tigers in central India.

1969: WWF India office started

World Wide Fund for Nature, is an international non-profit organization working in the field of wildlife conservation and climate change. Being one of the largest organization in the world in their respective field, the need was felt to have an office in India also. The Prime Minister of India Smt. Indira Gandhi has taken the initiative and an office of WWF was opened in Delhi on Lodhi Road. The space for the office was donated by Pirojsha Godrej, an Indian businessman.

1972: The Wildlife Protection Act is enacted, providing legal provisions for wildlife conservation and protection

In the year 1969 India hosted the 10 th General Assembly of IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) the issues related with the conservation of wildlife was discussed at large. As an outcome, our Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi has formed a task force to work on a dedicated law for wildlife conservation in India. The law was formulated and was enforced from 1972. The wildlife protection act 1972 was later amended several times but the foundation stone laid by Smt. Indira Gandhi helped to protect our keystone species. The act is one of the strongest act for wildlife protection in the world.

1973: Launch of Project Tiger, a major conservation effort aimed at protecting the Bengal tiger

Project tiger, one of the largest wildlife conservation project was launched in India on first April 1973. Initially only nine tiger reserves were declared but now the number has reached to more than 53. This was the one of the most ambitious project started by our conservation minded Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi.

A census of tiger was conducted in late sixties which showed a disappointing figure of 1800 individuals left in the wild. The Prime Minister acted swiftly and a draft report was prepared by Mr. Kailash Sankhala, who has been made the first director of Project Tiger . As per the latest census India holds around 3682, which is more than 75% of the global population. We could achieve this figure because of the project tiger only.

1985: Kaziranga National Park, Manas National Park and Keoladeo Ghana National Park was awarded World Heritage Site of UNESCO

A remarkable year, as three of our National Parks got the international recognition in this year. UNESCO has awarded Kaziranga, Manas and Keoladeo Ghana National Park as the natural world heritage sites of importance. Later few more protected areas has also been added and at present the list has eight natural world heritage site and there are many more in the tentative list.

2005: Indian Rhino Vision 2020 Established

Indian one horned rhinos are one of the highly endangered species of rhinos, they are found only in India, Nepal and Bhutan. Indian state of Assam is one of the stronghold of this species. Kaziranga and Manas National Parks have suitable habitat to increase their population but there were cases of poaching where rhinos shot by poachers for their horn. Indian Rhino vision 2020 is an ambitious program established to increase the rhino population to 3000 in seven protected areas of Assam by the year 2020. These seven protected areas are, Kaziranga, Pobitora, Orang, Manas, Laokhowa, Burachapori and dibru Saikhowa. The target population of rhinos was almost achieved and the project was closed in April 2021.

2009: Project Snow leopard was launched

Snow leopard is a keystone species of high Himalayas. Being a top predator of high altitude Trans Himalayan landscape, their survival is essential for the health of the ecosystem. Worried about the dwindling population of Snow Leopard, government of India has launched Project Snow leopard in 2009. The aim of the project is to safeguard and conserve India’s unique natural heritage of high altitude wildlife populations and their habitats by promoting conservation through participatory policies and actions. The project covered all the high altitude Himalayan region of India. You too can help us conserve this majestic wild cat by contributing to our motto of “conservation through tourism”, book snow leopard tour in India .

2008: First all India tiger census by Camera trap conducted

In the early years of 21 st century we have lost all tigers from two of our reserves. This local extinction has been caused by large scale poaching by organized poaching gangs. Reacting to the grievous situation the central government have formed a task force to work on the cause and remedial measures. An all India tiger estimation to know the situation and performance of other tiger reserves was suggested and then Wildlife Institute of India and ministry of environment, forest and climate change joins hands to conduct a this exercise. This was decided to do it by camera trap method so that the data obtained is more correct as compared to the earlier pugmark method. The census came out with a shocking no. of 1411 tigers left in all our tiger reserves, much lesser than the no. of tigers when project tiger was started. The government acted swiftly and several measures have been implemented and decided to conduct this tiger estimation exercise to know how the reserves are doing.

2023: Tiger estimation report out for the year 2022

On the occasion of Global Tiger Day, our prime minister Mr. Narendra Modi have launched the ‘Status of tigers, co-predators and      prey in India-2022’. The good news for the conservationists, scientists and tiger lovers that India has achieved a remarkable tiger figure within the span of 16 years. The tiger numbers according to new report is 3682, which accounts for more than 75% of tigers in the world. This is the increase of 2271 tigers from the first camera trap census which was conducted in the year 2006.

The above list of conservation milestone is very brief and there are so many more achievement on conservation in India which we will discuss in our coming blogs.

Related Posts

Wildlife Conservation Projects

What is iucn about international union for conservation of nature.

IUCN & Red List Categories We keep hearing about the status of various animal and plant species in the wild. These statuses are indicators of their population and the threat they are facing to survive. Read more…

Top 5 Wildlife Conservation Schemes of India

1. Project Tiger – Tiger Conservation Project of India Project Tiger is a tiger conservation initiative that was started by the Indian government in April 1973, under the leadership of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The Read more…

Tiger Conservation

Reasons behind the tiger population boost in india.

The Tiger in India “No wild animal in the past hundred years has arrested the imagination of man to the extent that this greatest of living felines has…It is at once an enigma and the Read more…

• Unusual India
• Breakfast Recipes
• Continental Food Recipes
• Desserts and Sweets Recipes
• Festival and Celebration Cuisines
• Indian Chinese Cuisine
• Indian Main course Recipes
• Indian Pickles and Chutney Recipes
• Indian Raita Recipes
• Indian Starters Recipes
• Indian Street Food Recipes
• Indian Vegetarian Recipes
• Italian Food Recipes
• Book Reviews
• Indian Restaurant Food Reviews
• Upcoming Movies
• Election Updates
• Automobiles
• Social Issues
• Subcontinent
• Uncategorized
• Sign in / Join

India’s Wildlife Conservation Efforts: Success Stories And Challenges

India is home to many varieties of species, around 7.6% of all mammal species, 12.6% of birds, and 6.2% of reptiles.

India is known for its rich biodiversity and is home to a many varieties of wildlife species and ecosystems. Even after many   threats from habitat loss, poaching, and climate change, India has made a lot of efforts to conserve its natural heritage.

India’s Wildlife Conservation Initiatives

India is home to many varieties of species, around 7.6% of all mammal species, 12.6% of birds, and 6.2% of reptiles. To safeguard this diversity, India has established over 106 national parks and 564 wildlife sanctuaries.

The Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 is a main measure that  bans the trade of endangered species and makes  protected areas for wildlife conservation. One major conservation effort is Project Tiger, started in 1973 to save the Bengal tiger from poaching and habitat loss. Thanks to this project, India has about 70% of the world’s tigers, with around 3,167 in the wild. The success of Project Tiger has led to the creation of many tiger reserves, helping the tiger population recover.

Success Stories in Wildlife Conservation

Project elephant.

Project Elephant was launched in 1992 and mainly focused on protecting the Asian elephant and its habitats. The initiative works on managing elephant populations and reducing human-elephant conflicts by establishing corridors and promoting community awareness. States like Karnataka and Assam have reported positive outcomes, with increased elephant populations and fewer conflicts.

Indian Rhino Vision 2020

The Indian Rhino Vision 2020 aims to increase the population of the Greater Horned Rhinoceros, transferring individuals to suitable habitats across Assam. Since its launch in 2005, the initiative has successfully boosted the rhino population to over 3,700 individuals, showing a remarkable recovery .

Return of the Asiatic Lion

Conservation efforts in Gir Forest National Park have led to a significant rebound of the Asiatic lion population. From about 20 individuals in the early 20th century, the population has grown to over 700 today. This success is all because of habitat protection, anti-poaching measures, and community involvement.

Challenges Faced By Wildlife Conservation

Despite these successes, several challenges are faced .

Habitat Loss

Urbanization, agriculture, and infrastructure development lead to habitat loss. They also cause fights and distances between humans and wildlife, which threatens wildlife and disrupts ecosystems.

Poaching and Illegal Wildlife Trade

Poaching remains a dangerous threat as people still demand body parts in illegal markets. Even after the laws and efforts of the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau, poaching continues to destroy conservation efforts.

Climate Change

Climate change impacts wildlife and their habitats by changing weather patterns, temperatures, and rainfall, which affects food availability and breeding patterns. Conservation programs must adapt to these changes to ensure species survival.

Participation Of Community In Conservatio n

Local communities are the mainstays of effective wildlife conservation. Many projects now focus on education and involve people, making them feel responsible for the care of local wildlife. These initiatives first give people responsible and alternative job opportunities, which reduces the use of natural resources and also decreases conflicts between animals and people.

In India, efforts to conserve wildlife have shown both successes and problems. Programs like Project Tiger and Indian Rhino Vision 2020 have achieved a lot but have also faced issues like habitat loss and the changing climate that still threaten wildlife. In the coming years, it is important to have some cooperation between the government, communities, and international supporters, which will help tackle the problems related to conservation and protect wildlife for future generations.

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Know about the revival of handwritten letters, top 5 must-watch malayalam movies on amazon prime video, 10 flowers that will invite birds and butterflies to your garden.

Advertisements

WILD LIFE CONSERVATION IN INDIA

• September 2021
• In book: Green Initiatives and Sustainable Development (pp.111-136)
• Publisher: Learning Media Publication, Meerut (Uttar Pradesh) India

• CCR(PG) College Muzaffarnagar

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Wls Van Vihar
• Sathyamangalam Wildlife
• Theerthangal
• Jai Prakash Narayan
• Park Khangchendzonga National
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• LIVE DISCOURSE
• BLOG / OPINION
• SUBMIT PRESS RELEASE
• Advertisement
• Knowledge Partnership
• Media Partnership
• Science & Environment

Balancing Renewable Energy with Wildlife Conservation: Insights from S P Yadav

India's renewable energy push is crucial for economic growth and climate change mitigation, but it must balance development with wildlife conservation, says s p yadav of the international big cat alliance. drawing on models like the uae’s successful artificial houbara bustard breeding program, yadav advocates for similar strategies in india..

India's need for renewable energy is undeniable for its economic growth and climate change efforts, but it shouldn't be at the cost of depleting natural resources, according to S P Yadav, director general of the International Big Cat Alliance.

In a conversation with PTI editors, Yadav, who has been pivotal in India's Project Tiger and Project Lion, emphasized exploring balanced approaches to meet energy demands while safeguarding wildlife. He cited the UAE's success in breeding houbara bustards through artificial insemination without endangering the species as a model worth replicating in India.

The Supreme Court recently acknowledged the right against adverse climate change impacts as a fundamental right, highlighting the need for harmony between renewable energy projects and wildlife conservation. Rajasthan and Gujarat, major hubs for solar and wind energy, also serve as habitats for the endangered Great Indian Bustard, making this balance even more imperative.

(With inputs from agencies.)

• READ MORE ON:
• Renewable Energy
• Wildlife Conservation
• Climate Change
• Great Indian Bustard
• Artificial Insemination
• Project Tiger
• Supreme Court

Human-Induced Climate Change Exacerbates Typhoon Gaemi's Devastation

Chinese minister departs nz after successful climate change dialogue, jairam ramesh calls for reviving climate change assessment network, south korea's climate change law conditionally unconstitutional: supreme court ruling, south korea's landmark climate change ruling: a turning point for asia.

Teenager Arrested for Spitting on Bread; Eatery Owner Detained

Andaman Police Bust Heroin Trafficking Network, Seize Drugs Worth Rs 14 Cror...

Leaders Remember Sitaram Yechury’s Enduring Commitment to Public Service

Pakistani Court Upholds Death Sentences for Chhotu Gang Members

Opinion / blog / interview, powering the future: decarbonizing economies with new energy transition models, zambia’s path to universal health coverage: a mixed journey of progress and challenges, the race to net zero: how critical minerals could shape a just energy transition, navigating an uncertain future: how trade unions are using foresight to stay relevant, latest news, iydf and tanav gift and toys bring hope and supplies to children in jammu, namal rajapaksa's bid: a controversial political comeback, usman khawaja backs travis head to open in tests; cautions against exposing steve smith early, international youth development foundation brings joy to kurnool orphanage.

Connect us on

• ADVERTISEMENT
• KNOWLEDGE PARTNERSHIP
• MEDIA PARTNERSHIP
• Agro-Forestry
• Art & Culture
• Economy & Business
• Energy & Extractives
• Law & Governance
• Science & Environment
• Social & Gender
• Urban Development
• East and South East Asia
• Europe and Central Asia
• Central Africa
• East Africa
• Southern Africa
• West Africa
• Middle East and North Africa
• North America
• Latin America and Caribbean

OTHER LINKS

• Write for us
• Submit Press Release
• Opinion / Blog / Analysis
• Business News
• Entertainment News
• Technology News
• Law-order News
• Lifestyle News
• National News
• International News

OTHER PRODUCTS

Email: [email protected] Phone: +91-720-6444012, +91-7027739813, 14, 15

© Copyright 2024