Copyright by Kalli Fullerton Doubleday 2018

The Dissertation Committee for Kalli Fullerton Doubleday Certifies that this is the approved version of the following Dissertation:

Rewilding Expectations: Human-Environmental Relations in Context of Apex Predator Reintroduction in Rajasthan, India

Committee:

Paul C. Adams, Supervisor

Janet M. Davis

Gregory W. Knapp

Clayton K. Nielsen

Rebecca M. Torres

Rewilding Expectations: Human-Environmental Relations in Context of Apex Predator Reintroduction in Rajasthan, India

by

Kalli Fullerton Doubleday

Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

The University of Texas at Austin May 2018 Dedication

To the less than 4,000 wild tigers on Earth and the people who dedicate their lives to them.

Acknowledgments

The field work in India, data processing and writing in Texas culminating in this dissertation were made possible by many individuals and funding organizations. First, I would like to thank Paul Adams, my advisor, for his immediate support and faith when this project was still in its infancy. Paul provided a consistent point of reference in identifying the most critical pieces in webs of data and unparalleled brainstorming capabilities to push my considerations and interpretations. Each conversation left me with new ways to consider the obvious, and “work to the profound.” Similarly, I would like to thank Clayton Nielson for his knowledge and early direction on pursuing this research. Both provided support when my eagerness was the only engine behind this project. Further, a thank you to the rest of the committee: Janet Davis for great conversations, enthusiasm, and discernment; Greg Knapp for thoughtful feedback at the major points of progress; Rebecca Torres for being there at the start with productive advice and consul on the project and beyond over the last five years. Also, thank you to Kelley Crews for “turning back around and helping the next one in line.” Your mentorship on everything from research design, academic life, running study abroad, down to local Thai food is a highlight and cherished part of my time at UT. Thanks to all the people across Sariska’s landscape, they are the facilitators of this dissertation. The women who took time out of their hectic days to talk and tell stories over chai in their kitchens provided insight but also kindness and support. The many men and women who participated in focus groups in 2014 and 2015 were so accommodating and thoughtful in their participation the dissertation took on entirely new areas of emphasis. Their honesty and emotive descriptions of their relationships with Sariska and its tigers brought new understanding and perspectives on my part. I appreciated their frankness and willingness to discuss these intimate and life-depending topics. Most of all, my gratitude goes out to the nearly 200 women who agreed to lengthy focus group discussions that included difficult topics such as household violence. Throughout v fieldwork, countless families graciously offered dinners, refreshment and time with them to enjoy their company and continue relevant conversations in their homes. These families took care of my research team and me; I am grateful for their offers and for the opportunity to experience Rajasthani hospitality from so many. India, its wildlife and conservation landscapes were open to me in unequaled ways with the help of Anu Marwah, Chinmay Massey, Rodrick Roben and Aman Bhatia. Walking through bamboo jungles behind a forest guard on his search for a cattle-killing tiger, looking a tigress with cubs in the eye from just 30 feet away on foot, moving a hundred pounds of rubbish to rescue a cobra, or trying to keep it together as a macaque monkey peed all over me are just a few of the hundreds of experience that gave me insight into the realities of the human-wildlife relations in India. Anu, and with permission of the Forest Department of Maharashtra, provided access to learn more about tigers, human-tiger conflict and conservation management in India from forest guards and those in reserve management that I ever thought possible. Chinmay’s immediate eagerness to share his passion for wildlife and rescuing those in most conflict opened my mind to a new and broader understanding of conservation at the individual animal scale. Rodrick was a lifeline in the field on more than one occasion, and his friendship was crucial to this work. Aman likewise provided invaluable support and help in the field. Anu, Rodrick, and Aman’s friendship and help over the years sustained me over the long stretches between field seasons. Archna Merh and Apoorva Rana were key to expanding this research into the scared space of women’s lives; their discipline, judgment, and friendship were instrumental to the 2016-2017 field season. Without each of these and many others, this research would have been impossible. Thank you to all the graduate students that have encouraged me, made me take breaks, and renewed my soul, especially Kaiti, Sam, Amelia, and Bisola. Kaiti your 100 offers of assistance and follow through have enriched and eased this process. Your friendship and consul in the past and the future are lifelong treasures. Sam and Amelia, your hard work has been inspiring and your continued ethic of care to reach out, check in, and be there are some of the best moments from the last five years. Bisola, what would I vi have done without your effortless wisdom in life and all things dissertation. Thank you, my friend, for all you have done. Thank you to the rest of GAGE for your support and encouragement. I thank my parents, Kevin and Linda Fullerton, who had always provided the needed support and unwavering faith in me when I embarked on an entirely new path toward the unknown. Without their reactions of confidence, there is no doubt I would be several leaps short of my current position. And, especially to my dad for exemplifying a life of courage and determination. My sister, Constance, thank you for the encouraging letters that were all taped around my desk. For several years your words and sketches reminded me of what is important and to keep moving forward. Above all, I thank my husband, George Doubleday, for his kindness, steadfastness, financial support and love from the first day I started this work. George, you made the difficult times manageable and the high moments memorable. Your continued petitions to maintain a life outside of work indeed sustained me and enriched the last five years. Even more, your passion for the land and wildlife renewed my convictions. The care and dedication you have for our own restoration project at Placedo Prairie is inspiring—spreading to me, and everyone you share it with. Without financial support from the following institutions, this dissertation could not have been possible: University of Texas at Austin Graduate School Continuing Fellowship (~$40,000 including tuition and fees), P.E.O. International Scholar Award ($15,000), Evelyn L. Pruitt National Fellowship for Dissertation Research (~$8,000), American Association of University Women Doctoral Fellowship ($2,400), Maurine McElroy Excellence Grant from UT-Austin Quest ($2,000), and College Recruitment Fellowship, University of Texas at Austin (~$30,000). Lastly, but first, in confidence, the Department of Geography and the Environment at the University of Texas provided support and a grant through the Veslka Endowed Fellowship ($900) to conduct the first field season—the launching point.

vii Abstract

Rewilding Expectations: Human-Environmental Relations in Context of

Apex Predator Reintroduction in Rajasthan, India

Kalli Fullerton Doubleday, Ph.D.

The University of Texas at Austin, 2018

Supervisor: Paul C. Adams

This dissertation considers hidden dimensions of human-tiger relations between people who live in and adjacent to Sariska Tiger Reserve (Sariska), Rajasthan, India and the population of reintroduced tigers. While translocation of wild animals in India is not new, Sariska provides a relevant and high profile case study for examining the re- introduction of a charismatic carnivore as the site of the first tiger reintroduction in the world. This research demonstrates how human dimensions of reintroductions can be studied from a social science perspective to further our understanding of tolerance and intolerance towards reintroductions in the developing world. First, it is imperative to understand past human-wildlife relations and how those relations are re-negotiated spatially by people and predators. Secondly, it is critical to examine hidden costs from human-wildlife interactions, costs explicitly borne by women. And third, to consider these histories, re-negotiations, and hidden costs together to see their formative influences in perceptions of reintroduction benefits and negatives. This is accomplished through three field seasons (summers of 2014 and 2015; winter 2016-2017) utilizing 52 Focus Group Discussions as the primary data. The findings suggest that people’s experiences with Sariska’s original tigers impact their expectations, tolerance, and

viii perceptions of the reintroduced tigers and the conservation policies directed at their conservation. Further, the findings argue women may suffer domestic abuse as a result of complex relationships between patriarchal society, gendered labor roles, and tiger presence. These hidden costs then influence women’s perception of benefits and negatives of tiger reintroduction. The hidden costs women endure and the consequential disparity in gendered perceptions, men perceiving more benefits and far fewer negatives than women, is a shortcoming that should be redressed with policy as well as communication strategies by conservation practitioners. This is an area of commonality between human rights groups looking for ways to improve women’s well-being and livelihoods that if addressed would also benefit the reintroduction of tigers to Sariska. To build these arguments, I integrate research from animal geographies, feminist political ecology, conservation social science and human geography. Adding to these literatures, this dissertation broadens the scope of social science examinations of apex predator reintroductions, and human-environmental geographies by incorporating theoretical frameworks and qualitative methods to provide new social-environmental knowledge and areas of inquiry.

ix Table of Contents

List of Tables ...... xvii

List of Figures ...... xviii

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1

Overview ...... 1

Research Objectives ...... 3

Dissertation Structure & Guiding Research Questions ...... 4

Chapters 1-3: ...... 4

Chapters 4-8: ...... 5

Rationale for Study & Site Description ...... 6

Sariska’s Historical & Present Context ...... 10

Local Extinction ...... 10

Reintroduction of Tigers to Sariska ...... 13

Continued Challenges of a Contested Landscape: Humans, Livestock, Tigers, & Roads ...... 15

Rewilding Tiger Landscapes: First the Reintroduction, then the Landscape Rewilding ...... 23

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework & Foundational Research Themes...... 29

Theoretical Framework ...... 29

More-Than-Human Geographies ...... 29

Human-Dimensions of Wildlife Studies ...... 30

Foundational Research Themes: (1) Restoration and Rewilding, (2) Human- Wildlife Conflict, (3) Tiger Geographies, (4) Carnivores in the Anthropocene ...... 31

Restoration & Rewilding ...... 31

x Defining Restoration ...... 32

Defining Reintroduction ...... 32

Defining Rewilding ...... 34

Rewilding and Apex Predators ...... 36

Human-Wildlife Conflict ...... 41

Animal Geographies and HWC ...... 45

Tiger Geographies ...... 47

Human-Tiger Conflict (HTC) ...... 49

Carnivores in the Anthropocene ...... 51

Carnivore Vulnerabilities ...... 53

Context of Global Habitat Loss & Fragmentation ...... 54

Further Consequences ...... 55

Habitat Loss, Fragmentation & Corridors ...... 56

Solution: Corridors & Connectivity ...... 57

Human-Carnivore Conflict (HCC) ...... 58

Chapter 3: Methods & Analysis ...... 68

Introduction ...... 68

Focus Groups ...... 70

Sampling ...... 71

Sampling Location and Time ...... 73

Demographics and FGD Formation ...... 75

Female Participation in FGDs ...... 80

FGDs Development ...... 81

xi Development of Women-Only Focus Group Discussions ...... 84

Research Assistants ...... 85

2014 and 2015 Interpreters: Mr. Chinmay Massey & STCO ...... 88

2016-2017 Interpreters: Ms. Apoorva Rana & Mrs. Archna Merh .....91

Keeping the men distracted ...... 94

Participant Observation ...... 96

Wildlife Rescues ...... 96

Walking Tours ...... 101

Consent & Anonymity ...... 103

Conclusion ...... 104

Data Analysis ...... 105

Transcription ...... 106

Positionality ...... 109

Team Composition 2014, 2015 ...... 111

Semi-structured Approach and Grounded Theory ...... 112

Chapter 4: Human-Tiger (Re)Negotiations of Coexistence & Boundaries ...... 114

Introduction ...... 114

Wildlife/Wildlife Conservation in Animal Geography ...... 115

Co-Constructed Conservation Landscapes ...... 115

Boundaries & Classifications ...... 117

Human-Tiger Encounters – More than Human-Tiger Conflict ...... 118

Results ...... 119

What is a “Sariska Tiger”? ...... 122

xii Vagabond ...... 125

Giving Way ...... 127

Discussion ...... 132

Conclusion ...... 134

Chapter 5: “Not Our Tigers” & Why the Discourse Matters ...... 137

Introduction ...... 137

Not Our Carnivores ...... 140

Tiger Others of Sariska ...... 142

Why the Discourse Matters Long-Term ...... 148

Conclusion ...... 152

Chapter 6: Feminist Political Ecology & Hidden Costs of Human-Carnivore Conflict ..155

Introduction ...... 155

Theoretical Frameworks ...... 159

Feminist Political Ecology ...... 159

Feminist Political Ecology & Human-Wildlife Conflict ...... 161

Findings ...... 163

Dependency on Sariska: Livestock-Based Livelihoods (A., D., C.)...... 165

Gendered Division of Labor: Working in & out of Apex Predator Territory (A., B., C., D.) ...... 170

Women’s perspective of men’s work ...... 175

Walking in Fear to & from Sariska ...... 181

Access to Natural Resources & Park Management (C.) ...... 183

Perceptions on Alternative Livelihoods ...... 187

Local Social Factors (A.): Expectations & Good Indian Wives ...... 189 xiii Domestic Abuse in Rajasthan ...... 192

Tigers & Milk: Meeting Expectations ...... 195

Unfulfilled Expectations ...... 201

Discussion ...... 203

Compounded Risk Conceptual Framework ...... 203

Applied to Ogra’s Hidden Costs Model...... 204

Attention to Livelihood Diversification ...... 208

Resentment: Divisions of Livelihood, Consequences, Attitudes towards Tigers ...... 211

Conclusion ...... 214

Chapter 7: Dowry & Human-Wildlife Conflict ...... 217

Biography: Shilpi ...... 217

Introduction ...... 219

Dowry in Rajasthan: A Condensed Context ...... 224

Methodology Note ...... 228

Findings ...... 232

Paying for Dowry ...... 232

Dowry Inflation in Sariska ...... 236

Dowry Inflation, Tiger Reintroduction, & Loans ...... 238

Compensation—Shame—Treatment ...... 240

Dowry: Possible Mechanism for Further Poverty ...... 246

Transfer of Risk & Blame ...... 247

Discussion & Conclusion...... 249

xiv Chapter 8: Gendered Perceptions of Tiger Extirpation and Reintroduction: Risks & Benefits ...... 253

Introduction ...... 253

Women & Conservation ...... 254

Findings ...... 257

Gendered Perceptions of Fear ...... 257

Gendered Perceptions of Tiger Reintroduction & Extirpation Benefits .....261

Gendered Perceptions of Tiger Reintroduction Benefits 1: Crop Protection ...... 264

Gendered Perceptions of Tiger Reintroduction Benefits 2: Natural Resource Protection ...... 265

Gendered Perceptions of Tiger Reintroduction Benefits 3: Protection of Property ...... 269

Gendered Perceptions of Tiger Reintroduction Benefit 4: Benefits to Livestock ...... 270

Gendered Perceptions of Tiger Reintroduction Benefits: Conclusion ...... 272

Extirpation...... 274

Reintroduction...... 275

Discussion ...... 279

Conclusion ...... 283

Chapter 9: Conclusion...... 285

Introduction ...... 286

Main Arguments & Contributions ...... 289

Main Arguments & Contributions: Chapters 4-5...... 290

Main Arguments & Contributions: Chapters 6-8...... 291

Cumulated Arguments & Contributions ...... 293 xv Limitations and Areas of Future Research ...... 295

Appendices ...... 298

Appendix 1: Details for the Reintroduction & subsequent Recovery Plan for Sariska Tiger Reserve ...... 298

Appendix 2: MG-FGDs 2014-2015 ...... 302

Appendix 3: WO-FGDs 2016-2017 ...... 306

Appendix 4: Condensed Code Tree Appendix ...... 311

Appendix 5: Water & Climate Change ...... 313

Rajasthan: Monsoon Change & Ground Water Depletion ...... 314

Caste Study Example: Importance of Water ...... 315

Bibliography ...... 317

xvi List of Tables

Table 1: Caste characteristics and number of times each caste was represented in

FGDs: not per individual, but Yes/No represented in a FGD...... 79

Table 2: Livelihood, religion and caste for WO-FGDs in 2016-2017...... 161

Table 3: Adding average hours and kilometers walked reported in WO-FGDs to

demographic characteristics...... 169

Table 4: Dowry abuse. The consequences that further jeopardize girls and women conceptually represented in Figure 36 are quantified in this table represents the number of times each consequence was described during

the 20 WF-FGDs by different people...... 235

Table 5: Dowry sums and interest on loans to borrow for dowry payments was

similar across the study area...... 243

Table 6: Gendered response to the question: “Are there any benefits when all the tigers were gone?” Across all 52 FGDs (n = 32 MG-FGDs; n = 20 WO-

FGDs)...... 260

Table 7: Gendered responses to the question “Are there any benefits to the tiger reintroduction?” Across all 52 FGDs answers were grouped together

under the five benefit attributes listed above...... 264

Table 8: Gender and attitudes towards tigers were strongly correlated with p= 6.5726E-60; far greater than .001 significance level. These results reject the null hypothesis that there is no relationships between gender and

attitudes regarding tigers in Sariska...... 274

Table A1: Sariska tiger characteristics...... 301

xvii List of Figures

Figure 1: Interior of Sariska with Aravalli Mountain Range in the background...... 7

Figure 2: Approximate representation of the various conservation zones, such as Sariska National Park, Core I, II, III and the Buffer Zone, which together

comprise Sariska Tiger Reserve...... 9

Figure 3: Bala Quila Fort pictured above and the surrounding area was incorporated in Sariska’s Buffer Zone in 2017 to expand ecotourism

outside Sariska Core Zone safaris...... 10

Figure 4: A woman feeding fodder to one of six domestic buffalo owned by her

family for milk production...... 21

Figure 5: Locations of focus groups from 2014 and 2015, in black. The remaining 20 WO-FGDs are not identified based on confidentiality and not reporting location of violations of the law (e.g., dowry, violence). The

distance was recorded from relative area of these 20 WO-FGDs to the park boundary and included when quotations are used throughout the dissertation. Five WO-FGDs were conducted in each quadrant. Estimated home ranges are based on Ramesh et al. (2015). *ST15 is a sub-adult male tiger yet to establish a territory. ST15 has traveled ~60

km south west of Sariska to Jamwa Ramgarh Sanctuary, and was sighted

in-between these locations in December 2017...... 72

Figure 6: FGDs were stratified across four age groups as a way to elicit views

from a variety of lived experiences alongside tigers...... 77

xviii Figure 7: After a MG-FGD the local doctor (center in all white) ask to talk to me further. We continued our conversations with a few other FGD participants. You can see the wife of one of these participants off to the side with her vail pulled over her face. This is where MG-FGD participants who were women would often insist on sitting—on the ground and outside the main circle—still participating, but reluctantly

and maintaining an air of subservience...... 81

Figure 8: After FGDs it was common for families to invite the research team to their home for dinner, to rest, or tea. These exchanges often became extended time for FGD participants to expand on issues they felt they had not fully described. This woman was not a FGDs participant but the mother of a participant. After providing us a meal she and I spent time discussing her daily activities inside Sariska and the role of buffalo (calf

pictured enjoying a belly rub) in their household security...... 83

Figure 9: Research assistant Rodrick Roben taking a cup of porridge from a man who participated in a MG-FGD earlier in the afternoon. This man invited us to have dinner with his family nearby where they continued to

share their stories and perspectives...... 84

Figure 10: STCO trash bin seen inside Sariska Buffer Zone, with hotline number at

the bottom and Sambar deer looking up from a water container...... 90

Figure 11: Mr. Massey after a cobra rescue describing the animal to residents

briefly before securing the snake in a snake bag...... 91

Figure 12: Mrs. Merh (fifth women from left) and myself (third woman from left)

with women after a walking tour through mustard fields...... 92

Figure 13: Mr. Bhatia, Mrs. Rana and myself after a WO-FGD in 2016...... 94 xix Figure 14: Mr. Massey, Mr. Bhatia, myself, and Mr. Roben after a morning of

wildlife rescues in the Sariska buffer...... 96

Figure 15: Number of rescues I volunteered with over three research seasons, 2014, 2015, 2016-2017. These rescues took place in Jaipur, the surrounding area, and primarily in the Alwar district that includes Sariska Tiger

Reserve...... 97

Figure 16: Myself wearing my rescue backpack at the time carrying two cobras, a krait, and a sand boa (each in separate snake bags, in separate backpack

compartments, and venomous snakes doubly wrapped in newspaper outside their snake bags by Mr. Massey). That evening, Mr. Massey and I had rescued these four snakes within a four hour period. This photo was taken before we released the snakes at Bali Quila, part of Sariska’s

buffer zone...... 100

Figure 17: Photo of the sand boa referenced above being carried in my backpack. Mr. Massey and I rescued it from a trash heap area requiring an hour of us moving earth and garbage to locate and remove the boa to prevent

onlookers from killing it...... 101

Figure 18: Woman (orange sari) herding goats (small white spots to the left of her) on a hillside where FGD participants had just previously said they did

not go for fear of a resident leopard...... 103

xx Figure 19: Sixteen distinct comparative descriptions of new and old tigers were determined after thematic analysis of all 32 FGDs using Dedoose (2016). Each time a participant described the new or old tigers within one of these frames it was coded. General agreements or disagreements are not represented here; only direct descriptions participants wear eager

to verbalize...... 121

Figure 20: Five distinct comparative descriptions that framed the new tigers as “Other” were determined after thematic analysis of all 52 FGDs using

Dedoose (2016). Each time a participant described the new tigers within

one of these frames it was coded...... 144

Figure 21: Conceptual representation of factors shaping human-environmental relations, women’s devaluation, and women’s risk in Sariska (A.). This then joins with the external fear of tiger encounters (B.), which together shape women’s well-being (C.). Women’s well-being influence their

attitudes, then influences their compliance, which impacts reintroduction

success of tigers in a human-tiger landscape...... 157

xxi Figure 22: Local societal factors are represented in (a.), including the major factors women in WO-FGDs and MG-FGDs brought up explicitly and implicitly. Tiger presence and the sometimes-consequential attack on people (women of concern here) and cattle (women’s responsibility) are represented by (b.) Access to natural resources and park management are represented in (c.). Moreover, the livestock-based livelihood of milk

sales, which is highly gender-based, is represented in (d.). All of these internal factors shape the devaluation of women/girls and the larger

human-environmental relations (attitudes, management, etc.) that impact

each other and shape women’s risk of abuse...... 164

Figure 23: Livestock-based livelihoods and factors shaping women’s risk and

abuse...... 165

Figure 24: HTI and HTC, fundamental societal factors, access to natural resources, and livelihoods all overlap in Sariska to form a complicated socio-

environmental landscape that influences women’s and tiger’s lives...... 170

Figure 25: Woman carrying branches from a Tendu tree (Diospyros melanoxylon)

for fodder...... 172

Figure 26: Kutcha houses are made of impermanent materials such as mud, thatch, and dung. Many of the Kutcha houses in the study had portions built

with cement such as this hybrid houses of mixed materials...... 179

Figure 27: Elderly woman feeding buffalo pearl millet during the dry season,

January 2017...... 184

Figure 28: Women and girls are walking back to their homes after collecting

fuelwood from inside Sariska...... 184

Figure 29: Women carrying fuelwood and a man shepherding goats...... 185 xxii Figure 30: The interlinking costs of, and need to focus on, livelihood diversification of women’s activities in Sariska—not only for tigers but for women’s

well-being...... 207

Figure 31: This conceptual model demonstrates the links between factors shaping women’s risk of abuse, fear of tiger encounter, and women’s well-being

that eventually link to long-term tiger reintroduction success...... 213

Figure 32: Milkmen, pictured in the foreground with large milk cans, visit villages throughout the Sariska landscape to collect fresh milk, which is often

taken back to Alwar, the nearest city, and sold to larger cooperatives...... 219

Figure 33: A woman shepherding buffalo and a cow in Sariska’s southern buffer zone. Less than half a mile from this women and her livestock we found a cow killed by a large feline (leopard or tiger) with evident canine teeth

marks on its neck ...... 223

Figure 34: During a walking tour with WO-FGDs participants through livestock grazing areas in the Sariska buffer zone we came across this calf. Clear canine teeth marks on the neck led the research team to conclude either tiger or leopard predation. This calf was found less than half a mile from

a woman shepherding a large herd of 17 buffalo and one cow...... 223

Figure 35: Women were for the majority eager to participate in WO-FGDs, walking tours and generally have myself and research assistants join them for tea and we often helped them make chapati (unleavened flatbread). Even

after difficult conversations women more than not were joyful and welcoming throughout the process, as you can see in the jovial goodbye

(this photo was requested by the woman on the right)...... 230

xxiii Figure 36: The phenomenon of dowry inflation (and the many associated emergent expectations) (A.) is added here to the conceptual representation of factors shaping women’s gendered experiences previously explored in Chapter 6 (B). The interaction of these two realities has consequences to a family’s ability to afford dowries (C), which can further jeopardize daughters’ well-being (D), which can lead to further jeopardizing of the

mothers’ well-being (E)...... 234

Figure 37: Women who describe the tiger reintroduction and associated realities as “unfair,” proceed to ascribe responsibility and blame to the Forest Department for the unfair consequences. This effectively negates the blame of socio-cultural practices such as the caste system, patriarchal attitudes and practices like the dowry for this unfairness. In reality, the risked women describe together as “unfair” are a result of not only tiger

reintroduction but the socio-cultural landscape...... 248

Figure 38: This conceptual framework shows relationships between the environment, society and tiger conservation in Sariska based on this research. This framework amplifies the need to focus on livelihood diversification of women’s activities in Sariska—not only for tigers but

for women’s well-being...... 253

Figure 39: During FGDs, such as this WO-FGD, benefits to reintroduction and

extirpation discussed were participant-identified and characterized...... 262

xxiv Figure 40: Concept map illustrating participants’ perceptions of tiger reintroduction risk and benefits to themselves or their communities. FGDs participants (men= 202; women=214) described benefits and risks from tiger reintroduction. Responses are displayed in a gender-segregated concept map showing the contrary perceptions of benefits and negatives/risks from tiger reintroduction. This concept map is based on Gore and Kahler

(2012) concept maps of gendered risk perceptions of HWC in Namibia. ..263

Figure 41: This photo of an unprotected area where buffalo are chained close to homes is representative of how many buffalo are kept at home—without

structural protection from predation...... 272

xxv

Chapter 1: Introduction

OVERVIEW

Tiger conservation embodies the considerable challenges of carnivore conservation worldwide. First, it requires vast areas set aside for a dangerous predator, often in proximity to human populations whose survival depends on the land. Second, large carnivores vie for the same resources as human populations, resulting in a broad spectrum of human- carnivore conflict. Without local support, conservation efforts are ineffective; this is particularly true of tiger conservation, as people occupy tiger reserves in India in multiple spatial and temporal intersections. Notably, most tiger reserves have villages within their boundaries1 with accompanying agricultural fields; many contain religious sites visited year-round by devotees2 (Ali and Pai 2001), and each reserve is patrolled by forest guards and crisscrossed with roads bearing tourists for the majority of the year,3 with varying biological consequences (Seshadri and Ganesh 2011). Thus, tigers, even within reserves, seldom have territories that are entirely void of human presence. Tigers living in and outside of, and moving through, protected areas4 (PAs) face a plethora of challenges to survive in human-dominated or –highly affected landscapes.

1 Tiger reserves are created and maintained to chiefly preserve the habitat for large carnivores (especially tigers). The National Tiger Conservation Authority has implemented new policies regarding village relocation from PAs in India but these measures have primarily been implemented in national park sections within tiger reserves (Shahabuddin and Bhamidipati 2014). 2 Temple festivals and related tourism have major effects within Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve in Tamil Nadu, India. Tourists start fires, litter, and add significant noise levels (through radios etc.) to the forest. The largest festival is Adi Amavasi, which attracts around 500,000 people over ten days inside the tiger reserve (Ali and Pai 2001). 3 Some reserves, such as Corbett Tiger Reserve and Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve, close during the monsoon season. 4 In India, protected areas are recognized as legally established wildlife reserves with a variety of protection levels from controlled used sites, such as wildlife sanctuaries, to strictly unaltered areas, such as national parks (in theory). Tiger reserves are a new legal category within this system, and typically a single tiger 1 The dominant human perspective in this nature-society interaction holds to the notion “there is a ‘correct place’ for large felids, and their presence outside this moral geography is regarded as an abnormality” (Ghosal et al. 2013, 2677) and, reserves, at least officially, set aside such places for tigers. However, even in officially designated tiger- landscapes and human-landscapes the two blur together through human and animal mobility and resource needs. Of particular interest here, Sariska Tiger Reserve (Sariska) provides an example of tigers in place and out-of-place, but in both cases there is significant human-tiger interaction. Sariska offers the context of endangered Bengal tigers (Panthera tigris tigris) and people sharing space inside and outside a reserve, with tigers frequently venturing outside Sariska’s boundaries and moving through agricultural fields and near human dwellings, and humans extensively using areas that tigers may have established as their own territories. Yet, the most striking part of this human-tiger landscape is that the adult tigers are not locals but transplants from another tiger reserve. In 2005, Sariska represented the lowest point in India’s history of tiger conservation. Despite the Indian Government spending millions of dollars to protect this endangered species, Sariska’s entire resident tiger population was extirpated by 2005. Tigers were reintroduced to Sariska in 2008 and 2009--the first wild tiger reintroduction in the world. While the reintroduction came only three years after the official admission of complete species loss from the park, tigers as a dominant force on the landscape had been absent for more than a decade in some places. As a result, many people see the reintroduced tigers in Sariska as outsiders; disturbing boundaries solidified by Sariska’s original tigers in the eyes of local people. The tiger’s return is consequently reorganizing the network of

reserve includes land under both sanctuary and national park demarcations (Shahabuddin and Bhamidipati 2014).

2 actors that organize daily activities, gendered risk, conflict, and co-existence—essential components of rewilding that are often not considered with reintroduction-focused studies. This situation has analogs at the global scale. Persecution at the individual, local, and even national levels towards predators in countries across the globe has led to the extinction of many of the world’s apex carnivores and has led to the local extirpation of most of those that remain. Against this human history of intolerance, a growing awareness of predators’ critical roles in ecosystem function and maintaining biodiversity has spurred the reintroduction of extirpated predators. The study site, then, is more than a stage of human-tiger interaction (HTI) human-tiger conflict (HTC) or co-existence. It is a place that has been undone then redeveloped as “nature,” and it serves as an illustration of a place culturally and ecologically affected by the loss of an apex predator and the subsequent reintroduction of that species. Sariska provides an opportunity to respond to work within wildlife management and conservation biology that increasingly calls for scholars to go beyond the biophysical, urging social science to consider the “human dimensions” of human-wildlife conflicts (Dickman 2010; Treves and Karanth 2003) as well as the dimensions that are inhuman, and thus beyond our ability to define fully.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Knowledge of the complex relationships between rural peoples and tigers is essential to the long-term conservation of tiger populations whose survival depends on, and yet is threatened by, feline incursions into human-dominated landscapes and human incursions into feline landscapes. Through a content analysis of research literature on India’s large felids, Ghosal et al. found that “only 18% of papers address[ed] socio- economic issues, peoples’ attitudes, and community participation” and they go on to point out an evident lack of knowledge on the active interactions between people and wildlife in

3 India (2013, 2668). India, nevertheless, has numerous ecological, socio-economic, cultural, and historical contingencies that make it essential for continued tiger conservation and research. This research seeks to build foundational knowledge of the complex relationships between people and tigers in India by focusing on the “Other” within this body of research: understood as “new” tigers moving in and outside of protected areas and inside human landscapes as well as humans inside supposed wildlife reserves. Investigating the physical interactions between tiger-Others and humans as mutual incursions and mutual incomprehension, this research exposes underlining drivers of local peoples’ resistance to rewilding Sariska (those whose acceptance is critical to long-term success), with implications for rewilding apex predators in other areas with high human activity. Insights from the project will contribute to the scientific knowledge of the human dimensions of rewilding, still a nascent area of restoration ecology specifically in the case of apex predators in developing countries. More broadly, this research, in part, seeks to be foundational in finding the questions we need to ask in order to avoid failure from underestimated social impacts.

Dissertation Structure & Guiding Research Questions

Chapters 1-3:

This dissertation is interdisciplinary and includes discussions with typically disparate literatures. The remaining portion of Chapter 1 provides context of Sariska’s history, site and situation, and ongoing challenges to tiger conservation. Chapter 2 offers a general overview of the theoretical frameworks that provided early and underlying guidance throughout the dissertation, specifically more-than-human geographies and human-dimensions of wildlife studies. To critically engage in these literatures and provide 4 interdisciplinary insights the findings chapters (Ch. 4-8) include additional, appropriate literature reviews. To provide context for the reintroduction of tigers within the wider scientific inquiry and concerns of carnivore conservation worldwide a section titled “Foundational Research Themes” is included in Chapter 2. These research themes include: restoration and rewilding, human-wildlife conflict, tiger geographies, and carnivores in the Anthropocene.

Following Chapter 2 on theoretical frameworks and research themes, is Chapter 3 outlining research design, methods, and analysis procedure.

Chapters 4-8:

Chapters 4-8 comprise the findings chapters of this dissertation. The following research questions are all connected to the changing relationships between people and tigers through the previous state of co-existence, then tiger extirpation, and finally tiger reintroduction. Thus, the first questions are concerned with the metamorphosis of “tiger,” in human-tiger relations into two distinct populations: the “native, original Sariska tigers” and the “new, reintroduced tigers.” This distinction is at the crux of many subsequent questions and connections discussed in Chapters 4 and 5:  How do tigers transform materially, legally, and conceptually when they exist in different spaces (and at different times) in relation to different groups?  What are the relationships between people and reintroduced tigers? How do they differ from previous relationships and understandings of Sariska’s original

tigers? What are the consequences to Sariska’s success more generally to other large carnivore rewilding projects?

5 Next, this research explores the relationships between daily life in rural India and wildlife. This is explored through women’s understanding, attitudes, and gendered consequences of hidden costs of tiger reintroduction outlined in Chapter 6 and 7. Finally, under the research umbrella utilizing gender as a point of analysis, Chapter 8 identifies differing gendered perceptions of reintroduction. These chapters were guided by the primary research questions:

 How do gendered geographies in and around a national park influence rewilding initiatives? What is the nature of the relationships between women’s economic and

gender roles and attitudes towards tigers (original and reintroduced), and what are the main factors influencing this relationship?  Is rewilding viewed differently by men and women and if so, what are the drivers of different gendered perceptions? Throughout the dissertation, the research findings will be positioned to intervene in debates concerning human-carnivore conflict, co-existence, and non-human actors in the process of boundary maintenance and placemaking and the consequential impacts on protected-area governance and impacts on environmental conservation.

RATIONALE FOR STUDY & SITE DESCRIPTION

Recently, Ghosal et al. (2013) argued: “there is a vast knowledge gap in the literature on the complexity of relations between people and large felids in India” (2676). This research not only helps address this shortcoming but also adds focus from an area that is currently distinguished by a historic conservation initiative to reintroduce5 tigers.

5 I utilize the IUCN’s definition of reintroduction as “an attempt to establish a species within its historical range but where it has since been extirpated, and translocation as the deliberate movement of wild individuals between parts of their extant range” (IUCN 1998). 6 The study takes place in villages located within a 10-kilometer radius of Sariska in eastern Rajasthan, India. The forested area now known as Sariska was historically part of the former princely state of Alwar. During this time (1880s–1940s) it was renowned as a prime tiger habitat, especially favored for royal hunting. Today, Sariska comprises rugged terrain in the Aravalli Mountain Range (Figure 1), defined by narrow valleys and sharp cliffs and dry deciduous forests and tropical thorn forests6. Sariska and Ranthambhore

Tiger Reserve (Ranthambhore) constitute the only arid zone meta-population of tigers in the world (Shah et al. 2015).7

Figure 1: Interior of Sariska with Aravalli Mountain Range in the background.

6 Sariska has an altitude range between 540 and 777 meters with high spatial heterogeneity, as a result of fluctuating micronutrient and soil structure in the valleys and hill slopes (Yadav and Gupta 2006) 7 Tropical dry and evergreen forests have a tiger-carrying capacity of ~1.0 and 4.0 individuals per 100-km2 (Wikramanayake et al. 2011). 7 Sariska was designated a wildlife reserve in 1955 and upgraded in 1978–1979 to the status of tiger reserve as part of the second expansion of India’s Project Tiger (Narain et al. 2005). In 1982 a large portion within the area designated a tiger reserve added another layer of protection when it became a national park. Sariska has three “core areas” of tiger habitat with the middle comprising the national park; all three are separate from each other either by road or buffer area that is considered part of Sariska Tiger Reserve but where natural resource extract is allowed by local people (See Figure 2). The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) created guidelines in line with the Wild Life Protection

(Amendment) Act of 2006 (WLPA) and the Scheduled Castes and Tribes8 and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act of 2006, to facilitate state government’s demarcation of critical tiger and wildlife habitats in PAs including tiger reserves. These gridlines start with the recognition that viable tiger populations require at least an area of 800 to 1,000 km2 with limited to no human activity—i.e. critical tiger habitat (CTH). Based on the many requirements set out by the National Tiger Conservation

Authority (NTCA) (2010), the Government of Rajasthan (GOR) delineated 881.11 km2 as CTH in 2007. This included the Reserve Forest (602.97 km2) and the Protected Forest (276.14 km2) in Sariska Tiger Reserve (GOR 2004). Within these forest areas, 274 km2 is designated as a National Park.

8 The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are officially designated groups of historically disadvantaged people recognized by the Constitution of India. During most of the British Raj, these groups were known as Depressed Classes and in modern literature they are referred to as untouchables (Kumar 1992). Additionally, “Other Backward Classes” (OBC) are socially and educationally disadvantaged peoples. Of political concern, since Indian independence, Scheduled Castes and Tribes and OBCs were granted “reservation status,” guaranteeing each group political representation. This is also known as positive discrimination or affirmative action. Reservation is intended to improve the well-being of underprivileged, or “backward” castes by way of reservations in political positions, educational institutions and government jobs. Reservations are politically contentious as nearly 50 percent of all college admissions and government jobs are reserved for these groups (see Sekhri (2011) for further detail on the Indian reservation system and effects).

8

Figure 2: Approximate representation of the various conservation zones, such as Sariska National Park, Core I, II, III and the Buffer Zone, which together comprise Sariska Tiger Reserve.

The increasing tiger population and presence of several tigers moving into the buffer (5 km2 around STR) and into nearby forested areas led the officials to add an area of 332 km2 to the tiger reserve as buffer zone (Figure 3) outside the core tiger habitat of 9 881 km2, making the current total area 1213 km2 (Bhardwaj 2016). This expansion was also motivated by the hope of adding economic benefits to Sariska’s surrounding areas outside the core zones (or critical tiger habitats where human activity is curtailed or prohibited by the National Tiger Conservation Authority) through ecotourism.

Figure 3: Bala Quila Fort pictured above and the surrounding area was incorporated in Sariska’s Buffer Zone in 2017 to expand ecotourism outside Sariska Core Zone safaris.

SARISKA’S HISTORICAL & PRESENT CONTEXT

Local Extinction

In 2001, Project Tiger reported twenty-two tigers in Sariska and deemed it well protected. The official tiger census of 2001–2002 indicated at least twenty-six tigers in Sariska, but the last sighting was in November 2004 after which no signs of tiger presence were noted. This lack of tiger activity prompted the Ministry of Environment and Frosts to mandate an “intensive search.” On top of that, the Indian Prime Minister and the Chief Minister of Rajasthan both called on NGOs like the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) and the World Wildlife Fund (WFF) to conduct their own field studies. Sariska was undisputedly tigerless. Sariska lost all of its tigers as a result of poaching, local retaliatory 10 killings, and poor park management officially by 2005 (Wildlife Institute of India 2013; Narain et al. 2005). However, census figures continued to falsely report healthy numbers when no tigers were in Sariska (Narian et al. 2005). The loss of Sariska’s tigers was the most prominently broadcast wildlife-related headline story in post-independence India (Shahabuddin 2014). The loss, often called the “crisis,” was immensely unsettling for multiple reasons. As one of the first designated tiger reserves under Project Tiger,9 Sariska was a high-profile tourist destination with its advantageous location between Delhi (the capital) and Jaipur (a leading tourist destination for Indian and international travelers). Other than tourists, government officials, ministers, and bureaucrats were also frequent visitors. Sariska’s infrastructure and forest department personnel in the 1990s were impressive in comparison to the majority of other tiger reserves; notably, the ratio of guards to forest area was one of the highest in the country (MoEF 2005). These merits were bolstered by long-term grassroots forest and water conversation initiatives by local villages beginning in the late 1980s. This initiative started by Tarun Bharat Sangh, a well-recognized NGO targeting sustainable development, had, in part, led many conservationists to claim that a certain degree of coexistence had been achieved between locals and wildlife (Shahabuddin 2010). Within the larger context, this crisis sits at the nexus between tiger conservation and Indian nationalism. For instance, tigers’ deep mythological ties to an important Hindu deity (Jackson 1999) and status as the national animal of India are evident in the inter-linking of discourses of tigers and Indian nationalism (Sivaramakrishnan 2011; Lewis 2005; Ghosal et al. 2013). Thus, amidst this national setting and Sariska’s prestige, history, location, and heralded local conservation initiatives the extirpation reverberated into international shock.

9 Project Tiger was launched in 1973 by the Government of India during Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's tenure to conserver tigers, facilitate the recovery of tiger habitats, and ensure viable tiger populations throughout India. 11 Local observers, informed wildlife biologists, and ecologists were less surprised. The degradation of habitat and recognized low tiger numbers (Johnsingh et al. 1997) at the time led many biologists to anticipate an inevitable loss of tigers (Shahabuddin 2010, 1).10 Biologists familiar with Sariska assumed only ten to twenty tigers lived in the limited remaining patches of high-quality habitat in 1997 (Johnsingh et al. 1997). Widespread poaching had been documented in India’s reserves and was understood as the primary driver of local extinction (Banks et al. 2006). For many Indian conservationists, the dramatic revelation was a public climax uncovering a broad spectrum of failures within the management of India’s PA system (Shahabuddin 2010; Narain et al. 2005). Widespread poaching had been documented in India’s reserves and was understood as the leading driver of extirpations (Banks et al. 2006). A New Delhi police raid was a principal event in the lead-up to Sariska’s tigerless status. On February 1, 2005, police found a large collection of wildlife products, including: thirty-nine leopard skins (one from a snow leopard), two tiger skins, forty-two otter skins, 3 kg of tiger claws, fourteen tiger canines, ten tiger jaw bones, 135 kg of porcupine quills, 60 kg of tiger and leopard paws, and twenty small pieces of bone that appeared to be of tiger and leopard “floating” clavicle bones (Sharma et al. 2013, 47). This discovery revealed Sariska’s link to the international market for wildlife products and also highlighted the fact that poachers were operating

“openly and fearlessly” in the area (Sharma et al. 2013, 47). Likewise, the CBI arrested poachers who admitted to killing at least ten tigers in Sariska between 2002 and 2004. Local complicity in the poaching of Sariska’s tigers--for example, not reporting it to officials--undoubtedly facilitated the extirpation. However, this complicity by some, not all, does not negate Sariska’s history of low human-tiger conflict and high levels of local

10 By 1997, according to biologist only 10-20 tigers remained in Sariska (Johnsingh et al. 1997). Less than a decade later, villagers and biologist agreed only a few remained in 2004; likely 7-8 (Mazoomadaar 2005).

12 support for conservation (e.g., Sekhar 2003). Instead, it points to pressures of large, forest- dependent populations on a semi-arid landscape compounded by poor relations with a disinterested Forest Department11 that then paved the way for poachers filling the international demand for tiger products, which naturally influenced villagers’ decisions. While the people-park–original tiger relations were complicated, they do not negate the genuine perceptions of interspecies coexistence found in this research across caste, religion, and space. Regardless, the rapid discoveries of ramped-up poaching and the shock of the loss itself led then–Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to create the Tiger Task Force. What had been Project Tiger, the national tiger-conservation program, was reinvigorated, given more authority, and renamed the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) and the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau in 2006. Sariska’s temporary status as a tiger reserve devoid of tigers therefore motivated changes in state policy towards rapid assessment, resource allocation, and strengthened tiger conservation across India.

Reintroduction of Tigers to Sariska

India boasts the most robust tiger conservation programs, funding, and tiger numbers of any tiger-range country.12 However, India’s growing human population and development make natural dispersal from one reserve to another onerous for tigers, except for a few protected corridors (Sharma et al. 2013; Singh et al. 2013; Wikramanayake et al.

11 Shahabuddin et al. (2007) described guards’ weak motivation “to stop intruders [as] understandable, given their low pay scales and lack of arms training or insurance against injury” (Shahabuddin et al. 2007, 1858). 12 Only thirteen countries have retained wild tiger populations: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Russia, Thailand, and Vietnam. All of these countries are weathering relentless environmental challenges and degradation resulting from human population growth, climate change, quick economic expansion, accelerated urbanization, and enormous infrastructure development” (McNeely 1997; Sodhi et al. 2004; Shahabuddin 2010). 13 2011). Thus, the recolonization of a reserve by tigers without human assistance is not a plausible solution in many situations. Sariska is one such landscape. The 183 kilometers between Sariska and Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve (the nearest reserve) is not hospitable for tiger dispersal due to road networks, human-dominated landscapes, and lack of habitat corridors. Thus, translocation of tigers from one reserve to another was necessary to overcome the barriers obstructing a natural recolonization. The reintroduction was directed by the Wildlife Institute of India, in partnership with the Department of Forests and Environment and the Government of Rajasthan (Sankar et al. 2013, 157).

The Forest Department relocated three tigers (one male and two females) from Ranthambhore to Sariska between 2008 and 2009: the first tiger reintroduction in the world. The world-famous tigress Machli of Ranthambhore is the mother of Bhagani (T-

18), one of the tigresses introduced in 2008 (male – ST1 and female – ST2) to Sariska.13 Subsequently, a female tigress was relocated in February 2009 (female – ST3), and another two tigresses were relocated in July 2010 (male – ST4 and a female – ST5) to Sariska from

Ranthambhore. By November 2010, five tigers--two males and three females--were marking their new territories in Sariska, until the first male (ST1) was found poisoned on 14 November 2010 near the village of Kalakhet. This prompted the team to relocate another male, known as ST6 or Bharatpur. ST6 had strayed from Ranthambhore, settled in another reserve, Keoladeo National Park. The Forest Department relocated ST6 from Keoladeo to Sariska in February 2011. Lastly, two tigresses (ST9 and ST10) were relocated in January 2013.

The initial proposal recommended supplementation of three tigers (one male and three females) every three years for six years after the initial reintroduction of ST1 and ST2

13 ST1 and ST2 were tranquilized and fitted with radio collars (VHF satellite) and translocated to a 1 hectare enclosure inside Sariska on June 28 and July 4, 2008. The male tiger was released from the enclosure on July 8 and the female released on Feb 26, 2009 (Sankar et al. 2013). 14 (Sankar et al. 2013). However, the politics of moving tigers across state borders has been complicated, foiling the ambitious follow-up relocation schedule. With highly publicized talks of future relocations to Sariska, the NTCA finally permitted the shift of a male tiger to Sariska in early 2017; yet discussions are still ongoing to decide from which state and tiger reserve a tiger will be moved from (Joseph 2017). See Appendix 1 for more detail of the guidelines outlined and agreed upon by the Tiger Task Force (TTF), the State

Empowered Committee (SEC), the Government of Rajasthan (GOJ), and the final Recovery Plan for Reintroduction of Tigers in Sariska, approved by the NTCA in 2005.

Continued Challenges of a Contested Landscape: Humans, Livestock, Tigers, & Roads

International concern for biodiversity loss and extinction of charismatic megafauna has led to debate over land use and land rights at all scales, from local to global. Precipitating factors such as habitat loss, fragmentation, expanding human populations, and development are primary sources of conservation concern. For local people, rights and access to natural resources inside PAs and unfavorable relocations are significant concerns. Meanwhile, PAs are typically insufficient for wide-ranging tiger populations who continually hunt outside PAs boundaries for their own vital resources: water and prey. The two populations, people and tigers cross boundaries and enter into each other’s territories, often seeking the same resource, often resulting in conflicts based on different forms of territoriality (something people have in common with various other animals, particularly carnivores). These challenges are highly acute across India’s remaining tiger habitats and highly visible at Sariska. Sariska’s tiger population has grown to fourteen individuals, including cubs, as of June 2017. While poaching has declined somewhat as a prominent threat to the

15 reintroduced tigers,14 they have inherited a degraded habitat inundated with anthropogenic disturbances. Sariska’s tigers face threats similar to those affecting isolated tiger populations elsewhere in India (Sankar, Goyal and Qureshi 2005). Sariska’s tiger population is essentially isolated, cut off from corridors to other tiger populations,15 making it more susceptible to local extinction because of demographic and stochastic events (Gilpin and Soule 1986). Sariska’s tigers are likewise, as many others, surrounded by a more or less hostile matrix of human land uses. Two major highways, the Alwar- Thanagazhi-Jaipur and the Sariska-Kalighati-Tehla, cross through the center of the park, covering 44 kilometers. Substantial vehicular traffic passes through the best wildlife habitat in Sariska to the Pandupole Shrine (Johnsingh and Madhusudan 2009). Illegal livestock grazing, stone and sand mining, and vehicle traffic have degraded the ecosystem and continue to stress the wildlife.

…tiger habitat in STR (Sariska Tiger Reserve) has been and is being rapidly

deteriorated by the humans. There is high human presence within STR, in form of villagers, their livestock, tourists and their vehicles. (Ramesh et al. 2015, 77)

According to Dr. H. S. Pabla, retired Chief Wildlife Warden of Madhya Pradesh,

Sariska’s tigers only have 50 km2 of the 882 km2 reserve to themselves due to villages

14 From November 2016 to January 2017 forest guards caught eight poachers with guns. Fifteen poachers were arrested between May and June 2017. These arrests are raising fears of a reemerging threat. In response, Sariska’s forest guards have been armed with firearms to tackle poaching and assaults by locals. The Wildlife Protection Society of India (WPSI) estimated that tiger deaths across the country from “poaching and seizure of body parts,” recorded from January 1 to August 3, 2016, stood at thirty-one. For the entirety of 2015 the number was twenty-six, with twenty-three in 2014--an evident increase across the country. 15 Tigers are incredible dispersers; it is within the realm of faint possibility that a tiger could travel from Ranthambhore to Sariska. T-07, a male tiger from Ranthambhore, traveled north east over 240 kms to the area north of Keoladeo National Park, due east ~ 150 km from Sariska. After four months in a small bird sanctuary, T-07 was relocated to Sariska and became ST-06. 16 inside Sariska and other anthropogenic pressures (Sebastian 2016). Tiger experts advocate for the further relocation of villages to expand healthy habitat, such as moving people out of the Kiraska plateau and the Kankwari valley. The Forest Department did not force relocation of the villages inside Sariska when it was declared a Wildlife Sanctuary in 1958, even though relocation is required for the formal establishment of Reserved Forests or Wildlife Sanctuaries (Shahabuddin 2014).

Between 1966 and 1967, the Forest Department did start removing cattle camps from what are today Sariska’s core zones (Shahabuddin 2014). Ten years later, between 1976 and

1977, the department attempted to move two specific villages, Karnakawas and Kiraska, but was not successful (Shahabuddin 2014, 258). For decades, village displacement to meet conservation goals has provoked heated debates in public and scientific forums

(Shahabuddin and Bhamidipati 2014)16. Yet, due to recent poaching,17 the push for relocation of villages inside Sariska has gained traction (GOR 2014). The Forest Department maintains strong rhetoric for support and plans for continued relocations (GOR

2014). This is, in part, to encourage more supportive attitudes toward tiger conservation from local communities by relocating villages inside Sariska’s core zones where they live under strict laws and without many public services (GOR 2004).

16 These debates concern human rights, colonial legacies, indigenous knowledge and management, conservation merit, and various socio-economic consequences of displacement. Without well-planned safeguards of the areas for relocation, displaced peoples often suffer loss of livelihoods, limited resources, and socio-cultural dislocation (e.g., Sharma and Kabra 2007; Kabra 2003; Choudhary 2000). While these debates have central arguments, state, regional, and local contexts make generalization difficult. Relocation’s position within the conservation literature is important but outside the scope of this dissertation. See Shahabuddin and Bhamidipati (2014) for recent perspectives from India. 17 Three poachers from villages near Sariska were arrested in June 2017 for setting up poaching camps with the tigress ST13 as their target according to the forest officers. In February 2017, Environment Minister Rajendra Singh Khimsar began thinking of equipping FGs with firearms after FG was injured by poachers and half a dozen incidents have been reported in the media. 17 This goal has stalled. Only three18 of twenty-nine villages identified for relocation (because of their existence within critical tiger habitat (CTH) identified by the NTCA in 2007) have been relocated. Twenty-six villages remain inside Sariska’s CTH, with ten of those inside CTH priority I and the rest priority II (Joseph 2017)19. Over the last five years

(2017–2012) local politics and bureaucracy20 have stalled the intended relocation of villages inside Sariska to outside the core areas. In addition, some villagers have returned to their homes inside Sariska, and others have discouraged neighbors from participating in relocations (Jain and Sajjad 2016). Sariska, then, maintains a high human presence inside and adjacent to its boundaries. In 2008, twenty-nine villages (three now relocated) inside Sariska represented almost 1200 people and 32,704 livestock (Jain and Sajjad 2016). Currently, over forty villages adjoin the tiger reserve boundaries (Jain and Sajjad 2016). These human and livestock populations21 have continued to grow and deepen their dependence on Sariska, creating an unfavorable conditions for small tiger populations trying to reestablish a degraded landscape. In other words, the problems that hastened Sariska’s tiger loss have not been addressed to the desired levels and in some ways have gotten worse. This is due, in part, to Rajasthan’s push to right the “crisis” as soon as possible, defined as not meeting all of the

18 Bhagani village was relocated in 2007, followed by two other villages moved afterwards. The vacated area is now important tiger habitat occupied by ST-3 (female) and ST-5 (female) and cubs. See GOV (2014) for details on the plans for relocated other villages. 19 The Forest Department offers ~$15,000 per adult male or land for voluntary relocation. The monetary compensation is preferred due to a lack of forest area readily available for relocation (Ramesh et al. 2015). 20 Relocation packages have included a financial package of ₹1,000,000. (~$15,000) for each adult family member, a combination package of six bighas (.2529 hectare) of agricultural land, a plot, and ₹240,000 (~$3700). Sunayan Sharma, former Director of Sariska, accuses local politicians of hindering relocation progress. 21 According to the 2011 Indian census Alwar District, which includes Sariska, has a human population of 3,671,999, a 23% increase since the 2001 census (2,992,592 people) (Census Organization of India 2011).

18 pre-conditions, such as village relocation, set by the multiple organizations overseeing the reintroduction. The State-Empowered Committee Report of Rajasthan Government observes: In Sariska all the reasons responsible for [the] disappearance of tigers... zero in on one single factor and that is the large number of villages inside the reserve, where no successful rehabilitation of villages has ever taken place. Therefore,

poachers could shelter in the villages of the area and kill tigers. (cited in Rangarajan and Shahabuddin 2006, 365)

For further clarification, the Forest Department and conservationists identify the livelihood practices of the people as a major threat to Sariska’s tigers’ reestablishment. The Forest Department’s focus on village relocation is indicative of the dominant local livelihoods that cause widespread degradation of Sariska.22 The core areas and the buffer have suffered severe damage from anthropogenic activity; a significant amount of damage is caused by cattle/buffalo rearing--a significant economic activity in and around Sariska. As stated earlier, Sariska has three core zones, which De and Chauhan (2015) cite as Core- 1, housing eleven villages with 318 families; Core-2, with eleven villages and 364 families; and Core-3, with six villages and fifty-two families--respectively, citing 734 families in the core areas combined (De and Chauhan 2015). These villages inside Sariska have occupied this space for centuries; thus, their livelihoods heavily depended on the forest (Jain and Sajjad 2016). The heavy dependency on extracting products such as wood and fodder from

22 During each field visit, I witnessed illegal mining, usually during the evenings, or I saw the equipment or landscape scars from recent mining. In 2016, I personally witnessed young men getting on and off official safari vehicles inside Sariska while on safari. This in itself is anecdotal but speaks to the culture of lax protocal and to possible tourist disturbances to tigers spotted on safari. Third, I repeatedly heard people refer to Sariska as “BNP” or “Buffalo National Park” for the huge number of domestic water buffalo easily seen from the roads throughout much of the core and buffer zones. The pervasive anthropogenic pressures are evident. 19 the forest for survival “complicates the conservation policies of the Forest Department, and conflicts (as well as failures) often occur during the relocation processes of these villages” (Jain and Sajjad 2016, 62). People in this area were traditionally pastoralist communities, some being nomadic tribes; today most people are still pastoralists, with milk production, primarily from domestic Asian water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis), as the main economic activity (Figure 4).

Jain and Sajjad (2016) found livestock rearing to be the primary economic activity of 90 percent of their sample population. Likewise, the GOR (2014) found more than 80 percent of the average household income of families inside Sariska comes from milk sales and 20 percent from secondary occupations such as labor, drivers, farmers, government, and service (GOR 2014). The area within Sariska’s designated boundaries held around 10,000 people and 19,132 livestock animals as of 2005 (Sankar et al. 2005). Ten years later, this number has increased, posing a severe threat to the reintroduced tigers (Sankar et al. 2013). The livestock owned by the residents in the thirty-two villages located inside Sariska occupy an area that extends, on average, 3.3 kilometers around each village, leaving only 15 percent of the park without livestock presence (Sankar et al. 2008). Additionally, for villagers living outside Sariska, fodder is collected from inside the park and fed to buffalo inside the family dwelling area (See Chapter 6 for further discussion of milk-based livelihoods in Sariska). Thus, villagers inside and surrounding Sariska rely heavily on its flora to sustain their livestock (Sankar et al. 2013). This dependence exerts immense pressure on the vegetation and soils, resulting in widespread degradation and resource depletion.

20

Figure 4: A woman feeding fodder to one of six domestic buffalo owned by her family for milk production.

Such degradation has impacted the reintroduced tiger population. Using tiger-prey density models developed by Karanth et al. (2004), it is assumed that the high-quality area that is the National Park (274 km2) could support 15 tigers (95 percent Confidence Interval: 10 to 21). However, Sariska’s tigers’ population increase has been concerning in its slowness, with weak breeding success (significant compared to Panna Tiger Reserve’s similar management). Researchers at India’s Wildlife Institute blame the slow reestablishment on anthropogenic factors (Ramesh et al. 2015). In Sariska’s case, Ramesh et al. (2015) argue that physiological stress prompted reproductive failure by repeated chronic stress or “allostatic overload” consequent of anthropogenic disturbance23 (see more detail on these types of stresses in other carnivores and supportive material in: Ramesh et

23 Ramesh et al. (2014) documented Sariska’s reintroduced tigers’ stress levels as significantly higher than in the reintroduced tigers in Panna, Ranthambhore, and the tigers of Kanha, Pench, and Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserves.

21 al. 2015; Creel et al. 2013 (lions); Van Meter et al. 2009 (spotted hyenas); McEwen 2007; Dembiec et al. 2004; Creel et al. 2002 (wolves)). Bhattacharjee et al. (2015) document a significant correlation between higher glucocorticoid stress responses in Sariska’s tigers corresponding to their encounters with these anthropogenic variables. Encounters with people, livestock, and roads, for instance, increase stress, which may be a variable in fitness and reproductive success over prolonged periods (Bhattacharjee et al. 2015).

The degree of anthropocentric pressure leads Johnsingh and Madhusudan (2009), and others, to argue that village relocation, diversion of highways, and regulation of pilgrimage traffic are “necessary tasks” for successful tiger reestablishment in Sariska. While these immense political and logistical strategies are indeed desirable, the reality is a continued human-environment relation24 between Sariska’s flora, fauna, and people. Until powerful incentives for livelihood change is coupled with entire village relocation of the twenty-six villages inside Sariska, people and tigers are part of each other’s networks of experiences. Regardless of laws and relocations, people will continue to rely on Sariska’s natural resources driving human-tiger encounters. Likewise, due to tigers’ innate dispersal and large territories, widely ranging Sariska tigers will continue to venture into human- dominated landscapes. Sariska’s tigers already frequently venture outside Sariska’s boundaries and will continue to do so, and local people will continue to move into and out of the tigers’ territories. While this reality persists, there also exists the requirement to understand the nuanced networks among people, culture, and the environment that fuel conflict and the negative attitudes that continue to weaken the reintroduced tigers’ likelihood of reestablishment.

24 See Chapters 3 and 6 for more detail and discussion on demographics and human-environment relations. 22 Rewilding Tiger Landscapes: First the Reintroduction, then the Landscape Rewilding

Because Sariska was completely void of tigers in 2005, the translocation was a reintroduction--the first tiger reintroduction in the world. The term reintroduction can be applied to any organism at any conservation scale--for example, fish in a lake or rodents in a reserve. The reintroduction of apex predators to a large conservation area uniquely affects both the ecological and the human cultural landscapes. Bringing apex predators “back in…where both the physical (embodied) and cultural (symbolic) animal” affect the socio- physical landscape (Brownlow 2000, 144) has a variety of impacts. To distinguish this kind of reintroduction from the broader sense, I employ the term rewilding. Rewilding refers to species reintroduction or natural recolonization, ecosystem restoration, and restored human-wildlife interactions that influence human behavior and decision making. Together, this combination of factors rewilds the landscape. Rewilding efforts in relation to local, regional, and state-wide political backlash have been well studied, particularly examining wolf and other temperate carnivore reintroductions in U.S. and European landscapes (Garrote et al. 2013; Hebblewhite et al. 2011; Fontúrbel and Simonetti 2011). Jędrzejewski et al. 2008; General guidelines for strategic reintroductions exist (IUCN SSC 2013) and continue to gain attention in the related sciences of restoration ecology, rewilding, and in the human dimensions of human- wildlife interactions (Batson et al. 2015; Robert et al. 2015; Walsh 2013; Ritchie 2012; Shelley 2011).

However, tiger reintroductions are a nascent conservation strategy, with the first translocation program in India happening in 2008–2009 at Sariska. The processes of translocating and reintroducing tigers are still rare, and studies to understand the impacts after relocation are even less common (Nyhus and Tilson 2010). Literature on rewilding

23 historic tiger landscapes is limited but critical to policy development, as proposals for reintroduction proliferate to other historic tiger-range states (e.g. Cambodia25 [Gray et al. 2017], Central Asia [Chestin et al. 2017], South China [Qin et al. 2015], and Indochina [Lynam 2010]), and other tigerless landscapes in India (Johnsingh and Madhusudan 2009). The Global Tiger Recovery Program includes such reintroductions as principal objectives (Global Tiger Initiative 2010). The success of Panna Tiger Reserve’s rewilding, with a current population of about thirty-five tigers, tiger reintroduction is increasingly considered a viable conservation strategy for tiger recovery (Chestin et al. 2017; Gray et al. 2017;

Lynam 2010; Tilson et al. 2010). In addition, translocations are likely to increase in popularity after The Status of Tigers in India 2014 (Jhala et al. 2015) reported a 30 percent increase in India’s tiger population, now reported at 2226 (counting tigers over the age of 1.5 years). The rising numbers of tigers in PAs pose a conservation concern as competition for territory and resources within spatially limited PAs can lead to intraspecific conflict (conflict within a species population), prompting translocations. Moreover, an actual increase in wild tiger populations would also be hard to reconcile with the fact that their habitat is shrinking so fast. In just the last five years, tigers lost 40 percent of their remaining natural habitat, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature. These realities seem to have prompted the NTCA to action. During the months of spring

2017, the NTCA released a statement of their intent to replicate the reintroductions of Sariska and Panna in four other national parks—Buxa in West Bengal, Mukundra Hills in Rajasthan, the western part of Rajasthan in Rajaji National Park, and Satkosia in Odisha

(Pandey 2017). Moreover, in 2015 the NTCA released a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to direct the rehabilitation of tigers from source areas at the landscape level. This

25 The last tiger was recorded in Cambodia in 2007. Cambodia approved ambitious plans for tiger reintroduction in 2016, possibly with Indian tigers as well as guidance from India’s tiger experts (Woollaston 2016).

24 SOP was presented to the Chief Wildlife Wardens of tiger-range states and tiger reserve field directors. The document classifies populations with surplus tigers across India and recommends areas where the surplus tigers should be relocated. These plans and the SOP show the NTCA’s commitment to reintroduction as a key component in India’s national tiger conservation. However, many challenges to reintroductions exist, with cost being a paramount consideration. Reintroductions will remain challenging and contentious for many reasons, including social acceptance and perceived risk (Gray et al. 2017), which are both nested in larger human-environment relations and histories. Generally, carnivores are recognized as the most challenging species to reintroduce. This observation is not based on their biological needs but rather a recognition of the obstacle of “reversing the human social landscape that caused extinction in the first place” (Maehr et al. 2001, 350). Socio-cultural opposition toward large, roaming, carnivorous animals is a dominant global perception; carnivore reintroductions and range expansion are opposed, and when supported by conservation institutions, they can cause active political resistance by local stakeholders. As a result, reintroductions should include feasibility assessments that consider ecological and social factors, before execution, to increase the likelihood of success (Gray et al. 2017, 1). These factors are considered in Gray et al. (2017) in the context of rewilding the landscape of Cambodia’s Eastern Plains Landscape. Gray et al. (2017) provides a framework of possible indicators for successful tiger reintroduction. Specifically important to this research, Gray et al. (2017) point to a need of >75 percent support amongst local communities and clear protocols for mitigating human-tiger conflict (HTC) (Gray et al. 2017, 3). As well, Gray et al. (2017) emphasize that social factors associated with reintroductions are a major “cause of failure,” which some believe to be “outside the scientific realm” (Gray et al. 2017). 25 This dissertation illustrates the type of social factors that can be illuminated with qualitative methods. For instance, that local people interpret and interact with tigers in relation to their position within their families, community, and society; social dynamics, including gender relations, within these scales of nested intersectionality inevitably shape human interactions with tigers. In doing so, this research determines how large predators are understood, perceived, and negotiated by local people and provides valuable insight into future long-term tiger conservation strategies. Why is it relevant to India, and to large predator conservation in general to understand landscapes where tigers have been lost and are undergoing rewilding? One stark reality comes out of the 2014 Tiger Estimate Report (Jhala et al. 2015) revealing that only five tiger reserves in India can sustain viable populations on their own26. Sankar et al. believe “it is sensible to presume” local tiger extinctions will be more frequent in the future and require “immediate reintroduction and restoration programs to save our natural heritage” (Sankar et al. 2013, 158). This charge is nested in the recent national scale assessment concluding that tigers were extirpated from ninety-seven districts in the last 150 years (Qureshi et al. 2006). As Sarkar et al. (2016) articulate, tiger reintroductions are “imperative to address the extinction crisis” and provide “new knowledge of [tiger] biology,” including how tigers “explore and utilize new environments” (Sarkar et al. 2016,

537). For many decades to come reintroduction will likely be a conservation tool to strengthen long-term species survival in the wild. Additionally, local extinction is a constant threat to isolated tiger populations. For instance, Satkosia Tiger Reserve was

26 Corbett National Park (Uttarakhand), Kanha Tiger Reserve (Madhya Pradesh), Sundarbans (in India and Bangladesh), Kaziranga National Park (Assam), and the Madhumulai-Nagarhole-Bandipur Tiger Habitat (Karnataka) are the five identified tiger landscapes with adequate space, prey, and tiger populations where tigers can survive without human interference (Jhala et al. 2015). 26 identified as one of the nineteen most-essential landscapes for Indian tiger conservation (Johnsingh et al. 2010) with an estimated twenty tigers, but, as of 2014, the latest census reported only two resident tigers (Divisional Forest Officers cited in Indian Express 2014). In a new approach, Makandara Hills National Park was designated a tiger reserve in 2013 (Singh 2013) not for its current tiger population (at zero) but in hopes of acquiring future tiger residents. Tigers are set to be reintroduced to this area by relocating tigers from

Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra (Singh 2015). This raises the question of the effectiveness of relocation and rewilding, assumed to be a means of rendering small reserves useful but questionable from the standpoint of species viability or acceptability by the local population. Development is a massive additional threat that not only continues to degrade tiger reserves but threatens the long-term survival of the species. The tigers of Panna are threatened by a dam, while the nearby reserves of Kanha, Pench, and Navegaon Nagzira are fighting against the widening of National Highway 7 that would dissect two tiger corridors: Pench-Nagzira corridor in Maharashtra and the Pench-Kanha corridor in Madhya Pradesh. The central Indian tiger landscape affected by these issues contains around 33 percent of India’s tigers, estimated at around 688. The National Tiger Conservation Authority has stated that widening the road would cause irreparable damage to the tiger habitat and has turned down the proposal; unfortunately, the National Highways Authority has continued and is currently felling trees along the route. Tiger populations could well be devastated by these developments, leading to reintroduction as a means of

“maintaining” tiger reserves. But is reintroduction a viable solution? These examples highlight the important role that reintroductions will likely have in long-term tiger conservation in India and across the rest of the tiger-range states as they look to India for

27 conservation guidelines and program design. This research explores exactly what that might entail. Nogués-Bravo et al. captures the current tone of rewilding studies, saying, “As the drumbeat for rewilding gets faster and louder, such self-evaluations have been rare” (2016, R87). Qualitative evaluations addressing the human dimensions of rewilding are even rarer. To understand the human dimensions of this new method of wildlife management is the overarching goal of this study. Most specifically, this study addresses implications for rewilding apex predators in areas with high and prevalent human activity, as is the case in the reintroduction of tigers to Sariska. This research will also add to the debates and knowledge surrounding human-carnivore conflict, co-existence, and non-human actors in the process of boundary maintenance and placemaking; and the consequential impacts on protected-area governance and impacts on long-term tiger conservation. The study site, then, is more than a stage of human-tiger conflict or co-existence. Instead it is a place that has been undone then redeveloped as “nature,” and is culturally and ecologically affected by the loss of an apex predator and the subsequent reintroduction of the species. Work within wildlife management and conservation biology increasingly calls for scholars to go beyond the biophysical, urging social science to consider the “human dimensions” of human-wildlife conflicts (Dickman 2010; Treves and Karanth

2003) as well as the dimensions of non-human agency. This dissertation contributes findings from a timely in-depth case study to these growing areas of conservation social science.

28 Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework & Foundational Research Themes

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

More-Than-Human Geographies

Aspiring to go beyond a single world view, cultural geographers and other social scientists are actively including nonhumans into their work and challenging others to do so (Lorimer 2007). In recent years, the “animal question” has been raised as a significant subject in sociological and anthropological theory (Mullin 1999; Wolch and Emel 1998). Animal geography has solidified into a powerful voice confronting the challenge to go beyond a single world view with great success. While serving as a frame of analysis within the wider nature-society relationships studies (e.g., Whatmore 2002), animal geographies aims to inspire the deconstruction “of the allegedly stable and immutable order between human and nature, to focus our epistemologies in order to view… hybrid geographies… and see the multiple networks activated that network them” (Brown and Rasmussen 2010,

160). Geographers, specifically, have included the nonhuman component in several ways, as outlined by Lorimer (2007); firstly, hoping to ‘rematerialize’ geography (e.g., Jackson 2000) and to ‘ecologise’ social sciences (e.g., Ingold 2000; Scoones 1999; Hutchins 1995), to study ‘more-than-human’ geographies (e.g., Ojalammi and Blomley 2015; Braun 2004), and to observe the nonrepresentational aspects of social and environmental associations (e.g., Dewsbury et al. 2002). Philo and Wilbert skillfully define animal geographies as “focus[ed] squarely on the complex entangling’s of human-animal relations with space, place, location, environment, and landscape” (2004, 4). This type of animal geographies framework is applied to this research.27

27 Part of this review has been published: Doubleday, K. F. 2018. Human-tiger (re)negotiations: A case study from Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. Society & Animals 26: 1-23.

29 Employing a transspecies spatial theory, animal geographers uncover how animals are placed, conceptually and physically, by humans (Bolla and Hovorka 2012). How humans imagine wild animals, for instance, affects how wildlife is respected or exploited, forming dominant conservation and tourism strategies that confine wildlife to delineated protected areas /places (Bolla and Hovorka 2012). The interactions and transgressions in these placements, Bolla and Hovorka (2012) have argued, reinforce imaginings such as

“problem animals” and fear-based responses to them, “which ultimately reaffirm ideas and practices associated with wild animals’ proper place as being within bounded spaces”

(Bolla and Hovorka 2012, 1). These studies are gaining attention outside of the social sciences, as conservation and management studies realize that human encroachment upon natural habitats can produce ecologically and socially worrying interactions with wildlife (Capek 2005). This dissertation, then, pulls from the breadth of literature considered animal geographies to conceptualize tigers as co-creators of landscapes.

Human-Dimensions of Wildlife Studies

While human and animal geographies have provided the foundational framework for this dissertation, the results chapters (Ch. 4-8) inform a variety of literatures and consequently include respective literature reviews. The dissertation, as a whole, fits within the growing field of human dimensions of wildlife/natural resource studies. This interdisciplinary body of work is also broadly categorized as conservation social science and multispecies studies. These fields incorporate traditional and contemporary social science methodologies with the biological sciences and humanities to better understand the challenges of wildlife and natural resource conservation amidst rapid social and environmental change. With this in mind, I am broadly seeking to contribute to the growing

30 scholarship applying social sciences to conservation challenges (see Mascia et al. 2003). This interdisciplinary approach allows me to study and attempt to address underlying socio-ecological challenges to tiger conservation in Sariska Tiger Reserve.

FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH THEMES: (1) RESTORATION AND REWILDING, (2) HUMAN- WILDLIFE CONFLICT, (3) TIGER GEOGRAPHIES, (4) CARNIVORES IN THE ANTHROPOCENE

This research is positioned at the intersection of several bodies of research that are still in need of stronger integration into human geography as part of conservation social science research: restoration and rewilding within the wider scientific literature on large carnivore conservation; human-wildlife conflict (HWC)28; tiger ecology, distribution and behavior (which I combine as tiger geographies); and the reality of apex predators’ persistence on this earth in the face of far-reaching anthropogenic pressures. Part of this review has been published in Society & Animals (Doubleday 2018).

Restoration & Rewilding

Restoration, rewilding, and reintroduction are discrete but interdependent concepts and conservation approaches. While restoration of a functional ecosystem and the reintroduction of a species are essential components to Sariska’s history and present conservation plans, rewilding of the human-tiger landscape is of paramount concern in this dissertation.

28 The term ‘‘human–wildlife conflict” is “problematic for ignoring nuance and complexity in human– animal relations” (Jampel 2016, 84), however, the framing and use of HWC to capture human-wildlife interactions is inescapable throughout the conservation literature (Peterson et al. 2010). According to Peterson et al. (2010) the vast majority (>95%) of the 422 publications and presentations in their study utilized the term human–wildlife conflict to ‘‘referred to reports of animal damage to entities human care about.” Thus, I follow others such as Jampel (2016) in use the term in order to speak to that literature.

31 Defining Restoration

The study of ecological restoration, a subfield of ecological science, and the applied version, restoration ecology, are still-developing scientific endeavors. Restoration ecology undertakes reversing habitat loss and population decline for a particular species or group of species (Young 2000). If the species has been extirpated reintroduction is an indispensable part of restoration ecology (Young 2000). The overarching objective “is to restore complex and functional ecosystems, with a keen eye to sustainability, and thus encompassing technical, historical, political, social, cultural, and aesthetic aspects” (Higgs 1997) (Macdonald 2009, 423). Even so, what restoration encompasses is greatly contested within academic circles. The debate is often centered on what historical, ecological state should be considered the “goal” for conservation initiatives. Most scientific publications rely on the definition given in the official statement by the Society for Ecological Restoration: “the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed” (SER 2004). The lack of official benchmarks or specific ecological goals is likely part of this definition’s favor, as most conservationists and scientists agree they are attempting to return and restore something from the past--precisely what that is, however, is still debatable. A more philosophical discussion concerns the puzzle of whether an ecosystem that has been restored is natural--particularly if it must be maintained through human efforts--and how to understand its distinct value relative to other areas that are socially maintained.

Defining Reintroduction

“Restoration goes beyond holding the line for threatened wildlife, and seeks to regain lost ground. Reintroduction is a major component of the restoration toolkit.” (Macdonald 2009, 419).

32

Reintroduction of species is an integral part of restoration projects. The primary goal of reintroduction is:

To establish a viable, free ranging population in the wild, of a species, subspecies or race, which has become globally or locally extinct, or extirpated, in the wild. It should be reintroduced within the species’ former natural habitat and range and should require minimal long-term management29. (IUCN 1998)

Reintroduction proposals are generally seen as feasible and desirable once compelling evidence is presented arguing that conservation of the species in the wild or functionality of the ecosystems where the reintroductions take place will be greatly increased (IUCN 1998). The IUCN (1998) advocates reintroduction for four circumstances: (1) reintroduction of a species into part of its historic range, but where it has been extirpated; (2) translocation of wild animals into an existing population; (3) strengthening or supplementation of existing populations through adding (not necessarily wild) individuals; (4) conservation introduction of a species into a suitable eco-geographic region and habitat that is beyond its recorded distribution30 (Macdonald 2009). However, even if planners meet the IUCN’s circumstances, reintroductions are expensive and time consuming, with low corresponding success rates (Pullin 2002), which makes justifying spending precious conservation funding for reintroductions in place of other in situ conservation practices difficult and political (Pullin 2002). For instance, reportedly, the cost to transport the first two tigers to Sariska, by Indian Air Force helicopter from Rathambhore, and for their radio collaring was ₹150,000,000 (or roughly

29 Most large carnivores will require some level of management action (Frankham 2009). 30 Conservation introduction is only acceptable when no suitable sites for restoration are available in a species’ historical range (Macdonald 2009). 33 2.3 million dollars at the time) (Shahabuddin 2014). These expenditures related to moving large predators may be seen to outweigh the benefits of reintroductions. Johnsingh and Madhusudan (2009) argue against reintroductions of the tigers for this reason. In contrast, Henschel (2009), argues against reintroduction based on leopard biology. Each species, habitat, and the social circumstances surrounding them influence the appropriateness of reintroduction plans.

Defining Rewilding

Between the different understandings of restoration ecology’s aims, the term rewilding has joined the conversation, being used more frequently in conservation discussions. Rewilding seems a straightforward designation--“to make wild again”--yet, like many other conservation-oriented words, it has a complex history and a variety of meanings attached to it from different interest groups (Jorgensen 2014). The scientific use of rewilding comes from its application to the Wildlands Project, founded in 1991, with aims to establish North American core wilderness areas without human presence and, importantly, all connected by corridors. Further, the emphasis on creating these places specifically to facilitate the preservation and recolonization of large, territorial carnivores distinguishes rewilding from the broader restoration ecology. Rewilding is founded on three necessary elements: cores, corridors, and carnivores (Soulé and Noss 1998). The purpose statement for the Wildlands Project (published in Soulé and Noss 1998) is frequently referenced as the founding declaration for rewilding. As such, the definition they provide has been a constant within the literature:

Under this earliest rewilding concept, the “wild” is the time when large carnivores were abundant in North America. (Soulé and Noss 1998, 5)

34

Rewilding has a complex history. NGOs and advocates of restoring large predators primarily used the term rewilding, appearing less often in scientific publishing. However, a review by Svenning et al. (2016) of the international scientific literature on rewilding found that: (1) the number of publications using the term had increased; (2) the majority were essays or opinion pieces rather than empirical studies; and (3) and there was a geographic bias of projects in North American, Europe, and oceanic islands. The primary element of carnivores within rewilding is not essential in most scientific publications. Recently, however, Reznick et al. (2008) did reference rewilding by carnivore reintroductions within their study of the effects of predators on prey evolution. Rewilding has, for example, been a consistent term applied to the return of Pleistocene megafauna to North America; a scientific article has been published on this topic every year between 2005 and 2014 (Jørgensen 2015). These articles have established the baseline that conservationists should all aim for as the end of the Pleistocene era--a time before human habitation and the mass extinction of the continent’s megafauna. Reintroductions have also been characterized as rewilding in Europe and the Middle East. For instance, Brown et al. (2011) focus on reintroducing fauna across large time span of extinctions, the earliest being the extinction of elk over 3000 years ago, alongside lynx, wild boar and more recent extinctions from the twentieth century like the sea eagle and osprey. Brown et al. (2011) propose rewilding Scotland with this wildlife through core area conservation.

Stanley Price (2011) also argues for a large-scale landscape restoration by introducing a variety of large animals—not just carnivores. Yet, unlike Brown et al.’s (2011) reach back over thousands of years, Price (2011) argues for reintroductions of species extirpated from part of their ranges in the twentieth century, such as the striped

35 hyena and Arabian oryx. This occurs because, as Price argues, if a species is absent for more than one human generation, not enough support exists to ensure reintroduction success. Jørgensen (2015) provides a critical and helpful outline of how the word rewilding is used in academia and in public dialog. Overall, Jørgensen (2015) found most articles considered rewilding as holistic landscapes restoration through animal reintroduction. Through her research Jørgensen generalized six different predominant uses of the word:

(1) cores, corridors, and carnivores; (2) replacing Pleistocene megafauna; (3) island taxon replacement; (4) landscape rewilding through key species reintroductions; (5) land abandonment/ecological succession; and 6) releasing captive-bred species into the wild. Interestingly, these uses are linked to geographic areas. North America is almost exclusively linked to the second, while the Pacific islands are the primary focus for the third, and Europe with the fourth (Jørgensen 2015). Regardless of the specific or broad applications of rewilding, all of the above works deal with the reintroduction or replacement of locally extinct species. However, Jørgensen critiques the plasticity of the word over these six distinct uses, noting words in scientific language that become laymen’s terms with different contextual meanings overall can become “vague” and “fuzzy” (2015, 486). With a similar critique, I find it necessary to define how I use the word rewilding, which follows Jørgensen’s fourth use, “landscape rewilding through species reintroduction,” with the focus placed on an apex predator and its entanglements with social dynamics, material aspects of culture, and power relations.

Rewilding and Apex Predators

Svenning et al.’s (2016) article in PNAS further hones the rewilding debates around their preferred “trophic rewilding, defined as species introductions to restore top-down trophic interactions and associated trophic cascades to promote self-regulating biodiverse

36 ecosystems” (2016, 899). Their arguments are thus formulated around the ecosystem consequences, or trophic cascades, after the loss or reintroduction of megafauna. While large-bodied herbivore varieties often have important ecosystem functions31 that promote biodiversity (Estes et al. 2011; Hopcraft et al. 2010; Owen-smith 1987), this dissertation holds to apex carnivores, rather than all megafauna, as the species of reintroductions to fulfill the term rewilding.

Predators’ role in the conservation of large areas has a long history, yet the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park in 1995 was arguably the most influential action in carnivore conservation to date, spurring numerous scientific and public insights and attitude changes. The Yellowstone reintroduction enhanced wolf conservation regionally and predator conservation globally, based on the evident restoration of landscapes through trophic cascades starting with the suppression of over-abundant American elk (Chapron et al. 2014; Ripple et al. 2014) that consequently enhanced biodiversity and even changed the geomorphology of the park (Beschta and Ripple 2012).

Yet controversy still exists over the exact role wolves have in the ecosystem and landscape (Dobson 2014). Large-bodied carnivores have declined globally (Ripple et al. 2014), and almost 30 percent face a high to extremely high risk of extinction (IUCN 1994, 2007). Out of necessity in many cases, large carnivores are among the most reintroduced species (e.g., Seddon et al. 2007; Griffith et al. 1989). This results from many factors, such as the amount of knowledge gained from usually charismatic predators, the goal of restoring ecosystem function known to be related to trophic cascades (Beschta and Ripple 2009), the financial gains of large predators for ecotourism (Lindsey et al. 2005), and the reality of large

31 Large herbivores can have major impacts on ecosystem, including nutrient cycling, primary production, habitat heterogeneity, disturbance regimes, and seed dispersal (Doughty et al. 2013; Haynes 2012; Campos- Arceiz and Blake 2011; Hobbs 1996). 37 predators often being the first or only species driven to local extinction (Hayward and Somers 2009). Outside of these factors, recent literature suggests that large carnivore reintroductions are also growing in approval across much of the world, inspired by motives from aesthetics to cultural sentiments to ecosystem function (e.g., Gusset et al. 2008; Hayward et al. 2007a; Ripple and Beschta 2003). In 1988, the IUCN/SSC was quick to follow the rising support for reintroductions and formed the Reintroduction Specialist Group to develop guidelines for reintroduction practitioners and a protocol for distributing learned knowledge on reintroduction projects worldwide (IUCN 1998). The guidelines have been extensively accepted as the international standard for species reintroductions. Measuring reintroduction success is a more difficult but essential exercise. Success is often credited when a population of >500 individuals is self-sustaining (Griffith et al. 1989), or the species has a local categorization as vulnerable as conferred by the IUCN Red List (Breitenmoser et al. 2001). However, large predator populations that surpass 500 individuals are rare in today’s world of degraded and fragmented landscapes (Hayward and Somers 2009). Thus, shorter-term measurements of success, for the majority of large carnivores in isolated reserves, is a reintroduced population with a three-year breeding population with natural recruitment surpassing mortality (Hayward et al. 2007b; Griffith et al. 1989).

Only four years after the official declaration of Sariska’s tigerless reality, Panna Tiger Reserve in 2008–2009 was likewise declared tigerless, going from an estimated twenty-four tigers in 2006 to zero in 200932 (Gopal et al. 2010). Sariska and Panna’s reintroduction programs, in accordance with the IUCN and National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) guidelines, attest to successful reintroductions of apex predators into

32 A single male tiger was present in Panna in late 2008 but not sighted after January 2009 (Gopal et al. 2010). Panna is now home to third-generation tigers post-reintroduction. 38 landscapes with surrounding human populations in a developing country--supporting reintroduction as a viable conservation strategy for large-bodied, endangered carnivores. Until these reintroductions, no other documented reintroductions of tigers in the wild had taken place anywhere in the world. Yet there have been a number of successful carnivore reintroductions such as wolves (Canis lupus), bears (Ursus arctos), and African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) (Hayward and Somers 2009). Large felid restorations have been effective for lions (Panthera leo) (Funston 2008), cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) (Lindsey et al. 2011), and pumas (Puma concolor) (Johnson et al. 2010). South Africa was “restocked” with wildlife almost a century ago (Harper 1945), but large predator reintroductions are only recently being pursued as part of the enthusiasm to restore fully functional ecosystems, and “where the predator component becomes pivotal” (Maehr et al. 2001, xi). Hayward and Sommer (2009) provide an array of case studies and through an overview of literature concerning reintroducing carnivores.

The loss of species through anthropogenic causes (e.g., overharvesting, habitat destruction) in times past means that the development of wilderness requires the reintroduction of species that were once a part of the region’s biological communities. (Trombulak and Royar 2001, 157)

Government agencies through top-down management have traditionally managed the restoration of large mammals by considering little or no local or public opinion. This approach has progressed significantly in the last few decades as the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has created an extensive cooperative process that includes the public at many stages (Loveridge et al. 2010a). This has, in part, been a result of the public discussion of the controversial reintroductions of carnivores in North America. An interactive approach is beneficial in recognizing that without public support 39 restoration projects are unlikely to succeed, yet, by the same principle, if the general public does not agree to a restoration’s merits it is unlike to begin at all. It is unquestionable that “the ways in which people value and interact with organisms and their habitats is at the heart of conservation” (Loveridge et al. 2010a, 161). Generally, carnivores are recognized as the most problematic species to reintroduce, not based on their biological needs but rather because of the obstacle of

“reversing the human social landscape that caused extinction in the first place” (Maehr 2001, 350). Large carnivore reintroductions happen in “particularly complex ecological and social environment[s]” (Slotow and Hunter 2009, 44). This is, in part, because their initial loss or reintroduction to the system may result in extensive impacts on the landscape (e.g., Ripple and Beschta 2007; Ray et al. 2005; Schmitz et al. 2000). Moreover, they are usually threatening, but are also “cultural keystone species” (Garibaldi and Turner 2004), which may bring both negative consequences, such as HWC, and positive outcomes, such as ecotourism options. Socio-cultural opposition toward large, roaming, carnivorous animals is a dominant perception across the globe; carnivore reintroductions and range expansion are opposed and, when supported by conservation institutions, cause political and active resistance. The intentional killing of large predators, therefore remains a serious threat to population viability (Treves and Karanth 2003).

In conclusion, large carnivores tend to be threatened with extinction, and, consequently, need a broader approach concerning “social and biodiversity issues in order to promote larger, and a greater number of, populations” (Slotow and Hunter 2009, 44–

45). With the many substantial factors involving large carnivore conservation (e.g., dramatic declines worldwide, wildlife’s intrinsic value, human-animal relations at the center of longer-term conservation, historical aversion to carnivore’s coexistence) social

40 science research concerning rewilding is relevant to many disciplinary bodies of knowledge.

Human-Wildlife Conflict

Human-wildlife conflict, often defined as the “interaction between humans and wildlife which ends up with negative effects on the welfare (social, economic, cultural) of humans and wildlife conservation as well as the environment” (Muruthi 2005), is an obstinate problem surrounding conservation initiatives around the globe. This issue arises in a variety of environments and social contexts, and among species: from crop-raiding elephants to grain-eating rodents and human-eating tigers. Sharing space with wildlife often manifests in four substantial costs to local people that result in conflict: (1) depredation upon livestock or game (e.g., Thavarajah 2008); (2) crop-raiding or damage of stored food (e.g., Perez and Pacheco 2006); (3) opportunity costs, described by Dickman as “where people forgo economic or lifestyle choices due to impositions placed upon them by the presence of wild animals or conservation areas” (Dickman 2010, 458); and (4) attacks on humans (e.g., Athreya et al. 2013). More recently, “hidden costs” have been added to this list to encompass psycho-social impacts such as fear, well-being, and post- traumatic stress disorder (Bond and Mkutu 2017; Khumalo et al. 2015; Ogra 2008). Human encroachment into wildlife habitat, competition for resources between agriculturalists and wildlife, in addition to wild animals’ ability to adapt to human landscapes all herald negative encounters (Herda-Rapp and Goedeke 2005). In this research, I will be utilizing the term human-tiger interaction (HTI) in addition to the more common human-tiger conflict (HTC). This is because not all human-tiger carnivore are “not conflicts in the traditional sense, as they do not involve contact between parties” (Crown and Doubleday 2017, 304). HTI is used more broadly to include these non-fatal or negative encounters that

41 represent the majority of events. In addition, HTI and HTC will also encompass human- inflicted costs on tigers, including (1) wounding an animal to force it out of human space; (2) poisoning livestock killed by tigers, who return to their prey, in hopes of causing death; and (3) killing a tiger for monetary gain. Space between human landscapes and large-carnivore habitat continues to shrink around the world, causing a worldwide increase of human-carnivore conflict (Madhusudan and Mishra, 2003; Treves and Karanth, 2003). Livestock depredation is the largest negative impact, in the form of economic loss, attributed to predators. For instance, coyotes in North

America (Windberg et al. 1997), jaguars in South America (Zimmermann et al. 2005), dingoes in Australia (van Bommel and Johnson 2012), lions in Africa (Bauer et al. 2010) and tigers in South Asia (Bagchi et al. 2003) regularly come into conflict with humans for livestock predation. Large carnivores are adapted for predation on ungulates and readily kill livestock when occasions arise (Treves and Karanth 2003). Still, the process of domestication is believed to have weakening anti-predatory aptitudes in livestock, such as speed, making them particularly vulnerable to predation compared with wild ungulates (Zohary et al. 1998). Other reasons for increased livestock predation include increased livestock populations, increased carnivore abundance, or declines in local wildlife prey populations (Madhusudan and Mishra 2003).

At its core, HWC is driven by a demand for “access to and control over biological resources” (Brown 1998, 74). Yet the real conflict comes down to space. This is chiefly true for large carnivores, which pose some of the greatest challenges to conservation because of their low densities, requiring extensive ranges. As Inskip and Zimmermann (2009) state, “increasing competition for space between humans and felids is the core factor underlying the occurrence of conflict” (20). Large felids, namely tigers, require large territories that often extend outside PAs and into human-dominated landscapes. Thus, 42 conflict can become severe near PA boundaries (Inskip and Zimmermann 2009). Often, the response is lethal control (Dickman 2010), which, in the tiger’s case, constitutes a threat to the survival of endangered, fragile local populations. HTC is often conveyed as a local problem involving misbehaving people or animals, such as elephants crossing into farmland to raid crops, or farmers growing crops inside parks or wildlife habitat (Naughton-Treves and Treves 2005). This results in technical measures like fencing, visual barriers, and buffer crops, which are valuable deterrents, yet inadequate at promoting long-term coexistence (Breitenmoser et al. 2005;

Osborn and Hill 2005). Specifically, carnivores’ large home ranges and high-protein diets bring them into continuing competition with humans that share similar needs (Romanach et al. 2007). Further, many large predators specialize in ungulate predation, resulting in killing domesticated ungulates when openings arise (e.g., Meriggi and Lovari 1996). This causes conflict with pastoralists worldwide, epitomized by sheep predation by wolves (Canis lupus) and bears (Ursus spp.) in North America and Europe; pumas (Puma concolor) and jaguars (Panthera onca) killing cattle in South America; several carnivore genera eating livestock in Africa; and tiger (Panthera tigris) and leopard (Panthera pardus) predation in Asia (Treves and Karanth 2003). In all, large carnivores are disproportionately difficult to conserve, as a result of their low densities, large home ranges, and repeated conflict with people. The body of literature encompassing HWC has proposed many conflict-resolution techniques and assessments. However, as Dickman (2010) argues the need exists to recognize that “reducing wildlife damage alone will often fail to produce long-term conflict resolution” (462). Specifically, Dickman (2010) presents evidence that the main reaction “to conflict often appears disproportionate, and even a small level of wildlife damage can 43 still elicit harsh responses” (461). Ultimately, people confronted with wildlife conflict are affected by broader social practices, cultural norms, and beliefs creating a variety of perceptions and responses (Dickman 2010). Yet, the innumerable factors that influence local reactions and perceptions towards HWC are rarely addressed in this body of literature. The internal cultural and social factors that impact the intensity of retaliation towards conflict animals (as “animals out-of-place”) is an area of this literature still requiring development. Naughton-Treves and Treves (2005) reason that geographers, anthropologists, and other social scientists are poised to explore the social and spatial causes of conflict that could positivity influence long-term management resolutions. They specifically point to driving forces of land use in high-risk areas of conflict, understanding the severity of conflict through the spatial and social distribution of damage, and individuals’ ability to cope with conflict as primary areas in which social scientists can contribute to this body of work. Generally, geographers can illuminate the socio-spatial factors that increase HWC or enable coexistence.

Furthermore, much of this research, including the literature focused on social and cultural issues, is conducted in Africa. Possibly the last region on earth to contain low human density and large wildlife populations (outside urban areas), Africa has provided valuable insight into human-animal conflict. However, the most pressing conflicts are among the world’s wildlife populations that are increasingly finding themselves amid anthropogenic landscapes shaped by higher human densities. Ogra (2008) provides one of the rare studies of HWC in a rural setting in South Asia through a study of the costs of human-elephant conflict. Having a high primary productivity, India sustains a high population that consequently creates intense competition between people and wildlife (Harcourt et al. 2001). As a result, where human populations are dense, reserves are small and isolated, with hard edges (Harcourt et al. 2001). While tiger reserves overlap with 44 several of the last natural habitats in India, these “are not uninhabited areas of wilderness” (Seidensticker et al. 1999, 308), but are either inhabited by villages or surrounded by them. In this way, South Asia provides a needed context to build on human-wildlife studies, since the situations in Asia are more applicable to HWC issues worldwide and will expand the body of knowledge on HWC overall.

Animal Geographies and HWC

Human communities, rural or urban, struggle to accommodate the behaviors and directional tendencies of mobile animals (Lulka 2004). Subsequently, these animals are perceived as threats to health, social order, and institutions. While geographers have been significant contributors to HWC research (e.g., Barua 2013; Ogra 2008, 2009; Woodroffe et al. 2005; Terborgh et al. 2002), the scope fades at the fringes of rural-natural boundaries and areas outside of PAs in developing nations where human-animal contact is more visceral and has a greater impact on livelihoods. Instead, HWC, at the “wildland-urban interface” (areas where urban sprawl distorts the line between anthropogenic land use and natural landscapes) receives the most attention (Dwyer and Childs 2004). The majority of these studies are set in western, suburban settings dealing with dangerous, but not life- threatening, animals. Thus, this research adds scope and depth to animal geographies and HAS. In addition, geographers have made significant contributions to the study of HWC through: (1) developing frameworks and methods to measure conflict frequency and temporality; (2) detailing social, political, and cultural challenges to mitigating conflict; and (3) emphasizing direct causes, impacts, and economic costs of conflict (Ogra 2008). Yet, geographers and the wider group of scholars contributing to HWC studies have yet to focus substantially on the socio-geographic impacts associated with altered personal

45 geographies and how those changes in perception of place and boundaries can impact conservation. Moreover, as the discipline is aware of but is still slow to address, geographic research is inherently concerned with nature-human relations, yet animals infrequently figure into dialogues (Wolch 2002) about how nature influences human spatial changes and perceptions. This study seeks to go beyond the “generalities of the nature-society relations paradigm, and look more closely at human-animal interactions in order to revivify geographical understandings of the world” (Wolch 2002, 726). While, a direct method “bringing tigers in” or “listening” to tigers as active participants in this landscape’s evolution through species presence and absence and individual animal actions is difficult, my work will consider direct physical presence and actions, unfortunately described by human witnesses, as part of a tiger’s testimony in living through this developing human- tiger landscape. Overall, this study combines human and more-than-human geographies to enhance our understanding of nature-society relationships. Lastly, HTI research is essential because, as a result of their entanglement in HTI, individuals make land use and behavioral choices every day that impact tiger conservation. An improved understanding of human-tiger entanglements, with and in space, will enhance conservation strategies to better address the reality that tiger territory is overlaid with a mosaic of human landscapes. By studying how these human-tiger entanglements develop this research will enhance conservation strategies by providing impactful perceptions from local people on elements of rewilding yet to be considered. Qualitative information on the complex relationships between humans and tigers as well as data on the experiences and results of HTI are essential to the long-term viability of tigers across their remaining habitat and will contribute to saving the tiger from global extinction. Further, understanding community attitudes and individual perspectives will guide policy and management decisions that address the growing threat to conservation, human lives, and livelihoods 46 entangled in HTI, and help foster meaningful interaction with local communities that legitimate their concerns.

Tiger Geographies

Earth’s most biodiverse ecosystems are largely found in isolated or fragmented landscapes within a wider matrix of high human densities, where poaching and collection of non-forest timber products (such as fodder for livestock, honey, fruits, water, etc.) are common/necessary for nutritional and financial survival. Also, these ecosystems often lack sufferance financial or political support to stabilize conservation efforts. Against a global scene of habitat loss, how human social needs are met and balanced with ecological necessities will determine the future of large mammals (Tilson et al. 2001, 277). India will provide some of the most significant case studies for how these conflicting needs and agendas will or will not conserve large carnivores. Tigers are rare because of their roles as apex predators in their landscapes. Tigers require extensive habitat to maintain minimum viable populations (genetic variability), as a result of their need for high food intake—up to 3000 kg of meat for the average male tiger per year, which demands the establishment of territories encompassing several hundred square kilometers (Karanth et al. 2004). Sanderson et al. (2006), in the most comprehensive analysis of tiger-range occupancy, identified 1,185,000 km2 of occupied tiger habitat and potential habitat still available in the world in 2006. This area is further managed and studied through dividing it into seventy-six units called Tiger Conservation

Landscapes (TCLs). TCLs are considered areas where: (1) satisfactory habitat exists for a least five tigers; and (2) tigers have been recorded and confirmed in the past ten years in the area. Essentially, a TCL is a contained tiger metapopulation (Seidensticker 2010). The “question of territory and space is paramount,” for the tiger (Green 2006). There are only

47 four tiger reserves, Khana, Bandipur, Nagarhole, and the Sundarbans, in all of India that “provide sufficient continuous forest to allow tigers to live in the way 1.5 million years of evolution has equipped them to do, and even these are hardly adequate” (Green 2006, 158). The Bengal tiger exhibits wide-ranging behavior throughout India’s fragmented forests, part of a mosaic of rural settlements and farmland which often brings tigers into conflict with humans (Athreya et al. 2013). India is home to more than half of the world’s remaining wild tigers, approximately 2226 of an estimated 3,890 worldwide (WWF 2016) yet India’s tigers inhabit only 11 percent of the globally available tiger habitat

(Seidensticker 2010). The species has experienced dramatic population declines and is now confined to 7 percent of its historic range (Sanderson et al. 2006; Schaller 2006); global extinction of wild tigers is predicted within the next twenty years if major drivers of local extinctions are not stopped (Dinerstein et al. 2006). Around the age of two, subadult tigers are forced out of their mother’s territories to find their own (Tilson and Nyhus 2010). Recently exiled tigers will either fight to oust a resident tiger, in turn causing that tiger to seek new territory or travel outside established tiger territories and into human landscapes. The territorially of these solitary animals, which directs their personal geographies, is at the root of HTI. Agents of mobility, tigers continually enter and exit networks that contribute to humans’ sense of place; much like cougars “they unsettle spaces and fabricate them anew” (Collard 2012, 35). Isolated by human-dominated landscapes, tigers looking for territory or a mate are frequently found “out of place” by villagers in buffer zones around PAs and village boundaries. This parallels Jhala et al.’s (2011) findings that connecting habitat corridors33 within tiger ranges decreased by 12.6 percent from 2006 to 2010. Furthermore, Ahearn et al. (2001) are critical

33 Habitat corridors are linear strips of protected habitat. In the context of conservation they are recommended as a way to lessen the impacts of habitat fragmentation and species isolation on animal movement and long-term viability (Collinge 2009). 48 of current national and global initiatives to conserve remaining tiger populations through connecting protected areas in the face of reality, in which protected areas only account for 17 to 25 percent of the remaining tiger habitation. In truth, more than 70 percent of tiger habitat is in multiple-use forests where human activity is a conspicuous landscape element (Ahearn et al. 2001). Unfortunately, once human activity reaches a certain level the forest no longer supports tigers (Woodroffe and Ginsberg 1998; Pulliam and Danielson 1991).

As PAs and corridors contract, more and more tigers become placeless as they belong to neither landscape and become unwelcomed trespassers in both.

Human-Tiger Conflict (HTC)

Three-fourths of the biological felids family, tigers being the largest member, are reported to be in conflict with people (Inskip and Zimmermann 2009). Human-felid conflict is considered most severe in the tropics due to human population growth and increased demand for land and natural resources (Madhusudan 2003). This issue is heightened in cases concerning the endangered tiger; decreasing human-caused mortality is imperative to effective tiger conservation as human retaliation for lost property or human life is a primary agent of tiger mortality (Goodrich 2010) and a driver of global carnivore declines (Rastogi et al. 2012; Inskip and Zimmermann 2009). Many nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and national governments have pledged to double tiger numbers in the next decade (e.g., Walston et al. 2010; Department of Wildlife and National Parks Peninsular Malaysia 2008; Dalton 2006). If these campaigns are successful, HTI will undoubtedly escalate. As human populations grow and wildlife habitats shrink, and if conservation pledges are successful and tiger populations grow, it means that India and other tiger-range countries will need to understand HTI, its underlying emotions, and the perceptions it creates to better address it at the local level.

49 Certainly, “understanding how humans respond to tiger attacks is as important as understanding the causes and magnitude of the attacks themselves” (Nyhus et al. 2010, 135). This call for information on HTC is not place specific or even truly species specific. Across the globe, top carnivores, critical to healthy and functioning ecosystems, are disappearing. HTC, in the form of predation on livestock, or in extreme cases human loss of life, followed by the retaliatory killing of tigers is a top concern across tiger-range states but also can inform human-carnivore conflict and conservation all over the world. Thus, studying local perceptions of tigers, HTC, and how they change and differ spatially would be helpful data in establishing whether coexistence is a viable strategy for tiger and human well-being, particularly in a landscape of tiger reintroduction. Possible alternative strategies may include alteration of certain landscape features, different means of coordinating human movements with tiger presence, or incorporating communities into active conflict mitigation through workshops, and communication strategies with officials. HTC in either livestock predation or attacks on humans “result in negative impacts on tigers and their conservation, including increased negative attitudes towards tigers, increased mortality through retaliation killing, poaching by local people, and lethal control or removal from the wild by government officials” (Goodrich 2010, 301). Individual tigers, regardless of whether they are born within PA boundaries, can be influenced to cross into human territory (villages, fields) by a variety of factors, including in interspecific fighting, seeking mates, disease, injury, and senescence (Goodrich et al. 2010; Gurung et al. 2008); therefore, wherever tigers are present, “mechanisms for dealing with individual conflicts are needed” (Goodrich 2010, 305)34. Both historically and currently, the most common

34 As preferable habitat dwindles resources are also concentrated, leading to species population density, which for territorial carnivores leads to increased intraspecific competition. For instance, because tigers are territorial animals (Smith 1993) and their densities are limited by prey species densities (Karanth et al. 2004), intraspecific competition is likely when confined tiger populations increase—leading to elimination of individuals from the population. This is ever more relevant in India, as stated previously, there are only 50 forms of controlling conflict animals has been lethal control and removal from the wild-- each results in reduced population survival rates (e.g., Nyhus et al. 2010; Gurung et al. 2008; Karanth and Gopal 2005; Miquelle et al. 2005; Treves and Naughton-Treves 2005). Thus, conflict is temporarily resolved (until the next tiger transgresses the same human boundaries), while the overall conservation efforts are negatively impacted. The present focus on HTC primarily derives from conservation biology, ecology, and environmental management studies which focus on numbers, location, animal health, and incident conditions; yet these studies do not reflect the complexities of the broader nature-society context of HTI. The significance of “the human aspect of wildlife management is becoming increasingly recognized among wildlife managers, especially those who deal with ‘problem wildlife’” (Knight 2000, 5). Moreover, the issue is inherently geographic, bound to the rapidly depleting resource of space, the dynamics of boundaries (village, PAs, and buffer zone, as well as the territorial behavior of animals), the sense of place, spatial strategies, and place-based solutions. Geographic thinking is being utilized through GIS to assess HTC, yet human geographers have not yet significantly contributed to the area of study of HTI. HWC studies can, in turn, provide a means of enriching human geographic concepts and methods.

Carnivores in the Anthropocene

Most of the earth’s natural systems have been degraded by development and industrialization of agriculture, among other anthropogenic pressures. Consequently, global extinction levels are greatly exceeding the natural rate, unmatched in the last 65 million years (Loveridge et al. 2010a). Large carnivores were eradicated from most of four tiger reserves, Khana, Bandipur, Nagarholie, and the Sundarbans, that offer adequate “continuous forest to allow tigers to live in the way 1.5 million years of evolution has equipped them to do, and even these are hardly adequate” (Green 2006, 158).

51 Europe by the early 1900s, such as the Sardinian lynx in 1908 (Wozencraft 2005) and the brown bear from Switzerland in 1904 and the French Alps in 1937 (Curry-Lindahl 1972). Deforestation, agricultural expansion, and government bounties followed European colonists to the United States, resulting in an almost complete extirpation of wolves by the start of the twentieth century (Paquet and Carbyn 2003). Now, most recently, large predators are quickly moving from the threatened to the endangered list across Asia and

Africa. Today viable populations of large carnivores are primarily restricted to protected areas (PAs) (e.g., lions, discussed in Bauer and Van Der Merwe 2004), habitat unsuitable to development (e.g., the largest continuous tiger territory being the mangrove swamps of the India-Bangladesh Sunderbonds), and the few remote areas with low human populations (e.g., wolves in Alaska). Unfortunately, continued human population growth, expanding capitalistic economies, and physical and emotional distance from the natural world have combined to present a crisis for large carnivores and a daunting task for conservationists (Loveridge et al. 2010a).

Primary threats to large carnivores include habitat loss and fragmentation (Hanski 2005), prey depletion (Woodroffe 2000), intentional eradication or persecution (often to protect livestock) (Treves and Karanth 2003), and a growing threat of utilization--due to the increased demand for traditional medicine in Asian markets--but also for trophy hunting and furs, to a lesser extent, as these are partially provided by commercial operations. These threats vary by region and can be localized, but they are all interdependent. The complexity of these threats will be expanded upon followed by mitigation strategies suited to particular causes of carnivore population declines. To illustrate this, I will focus on tigers, lions, and wolves with supporting evidence from many carnivore species, to provide context for tiger reintroductions generally.

52 Carnivore Vulnerabilities

As specialized species of high trophic rank, large carnivores exhibit multiple behaviors that put them in direct conflict with a developing, human-centered world. The large amount of protein required in their diets, in addition to their territoriality, lead carnivores outside PAs and into human-dominated landscapes—either looking for prey, territory, or mates. These three primal needs drive carnivores into conflict with humans as land and prey (wild and domestic) are pursued by carnivores without pre-knowledge that people consider both their property and not free for the taking. The conflict between large carnivores and people, then, is driven by a demand for “access to and control over biological resources” (Brown 1998, 74). More specifically, large carnivores require vast areas of undeveloped land-- that many human stockholders would prefer to use for economic pursuits or rely on for survival. Most large carnivores have evolved with large home ranges. This benefits species viability as genetic material can move between populations through dispersing sub-adults and other lone individuals stimulate recolonization and maintaining ecological balance by not depleting the prey base in one area, among other advantages. For example, wolves spend between eight and ten hours a day on the move but have been recorded making greater daily journeys. In British Columbia, for example, two wolves were observed crossing twenty-two miles through five feet of snow in a single day (Lopez 1978). However, territorial needs of many carnivores put them in direct competition with a growing human population demonstrating territorial pursuits and subsequent infrastructure. The largest contact point, and most severe conflict, occurs near PA boundaries (Inskip and Zimmermann 2009), specifically in developing countries when growing rural populations depend on natural resources--often found inside PAs. As Inskip

53 and Zimmermann state, “increasing competition for space between humans and felids is the core factor underlying the occurrence of conflict” (2009, 20). Moreover, high-protein diets bring them into continuing competition with humans that share similar needs. Many large predators specialize in ungulate predation, resulting in domesticated ungulate kills when openings arise (Polisar 2000; Meriggi and Lovari 1996). Lethal control is often carried out indiscriminately on the species as a whole instead of removing the culpable individual. In part this is because identifying individual animals is difficult; photographic evidence is rare, and targeting only the erring animal is just as challenging. Prey species combat high mortality (natural or human inflicted) with much larger fecundity rates than predators. Likewise, synced birthing seasons literally swamp predators to guarantee the next generation’s survival. Wolves, bears, and big cats do not have the luxury of overloading the system, as it were, like many prey species. In all, large carnivores are disproportionately difficult to conserve as a result of their low densities, low birthrates, need for long periods of parental support, large home ranges, and recurrent conflict with people (Macdonald and Sillero-Zubiri 2002).

Context of Global Habitat Loss & Fragmentation

Habitat loss is the primary threat to wildlife and cited as the cause for listing 85 percent of all endangered species in the United States on the IUCN Red List (Wilcove et al. 1998). Deforestation is a large part of this threat, yet the fragmentation and degradation of habitat by roads, cities, and agricultural landscapes makes habitat loss even more dangerous to conserving full ecosystems. The hastening of time-space compression via transportation and communication infrastructure is rapidly linking all aspects of the human world. In contrast, those infrastructures adversely increase the distance decay within the

54 non-human world (Emel 1998) as rapid expansion of bridges, impervious highways, and dams all hinder the flow of nutrients, natural disturbances, and species across the landscape. While hastening human connectivity, these concrete advancements are disconnecting carnivore ranges, significantly reducing individual territories, increasing travel time through uncovered territory, and slowing the processes of species recolonization and maintenance of genetic viability through animal fatalities.

Large carnivores are regularly the first victims, as territorial needs cannot be met and fragmentation leads to higher rates of poaching (Terborgh and van Schaik 2002).

Consequently, carnivore populations are most adversely affected by the pervasive fragmentation of habitat and consequent isolation within PAs, which are also often degraded (Emel 1998). This induces further difficulties, as isolated populations are slow to rebound from stochastic events and genetic diversity is restricted. This is evident by 27 percent of carnivores presently listed as threatened on the IUCN Red List (IUCN 2012).

Further Consequences

The study of fragmented and degraded landscapes is revealing complex interdependence between species and environments. Loss of an ecosystem’s top carnivores results in persistent changes throughout the flora and fauna communities and out into ecosystem functions. Galetti and Dirzo (2013) outline feedback in landscapes without top predators. Plant physiology and other animal behavior suffer immediate consequences, and there are long-term effects on vegetation dynamics, followed by likely evolutionary changes (Young 2014). Environmental differences, such as precipitation, physical features, and temperature will also influence these local consequences. Nevertheless, loss of carnivores ultimately affects overall biodiversity, productivity, and ecosystem function. These consequences can be far-reaching, as Ripple et al. point out: “In forest and arid

55 ecosystems, the loss of palatable perennial plant species” a possibility through the aforementioned feedback, “may interact with global warming to increase the rate of desertification” (2014, 1241488). The removal of threatening and nuisance predators leads to processes and events that Kareiva et al. (2007) refer to as “the domestication of nature.” Generalist species dominate landscapes absent of predators, leading to the homogenization of biological diversity. Terborgh et al. concur, stating: “our current knowledge about the natural processes that maintain biodiversity suggests a crucial and irreplaceable regulatory role of top predators” (1999, 58). The absence of top predators appears to lead inexorably to ecosystem simplification accompanied by a rush of extinctions. Baiser et al. (2012) provided ample evidence of this change through a comparison of paired sites with species similarity, recording homogenization following native species extirpation in many different plant and animal groups. Species adaptability and mobility will be necessary for long-term survival in the quickly developing world and as climate change accelerates ecosystem transition. Connectivity within the landscape matrix will be the ultimate deciding factor.

Habitat Loss, Fragmentation & Corridors

Habitat loss refers to any time an area is converted from its current condition to another land use or land cover type (Collinge 2009). Habitat loss is the colossal worldwide threat, quickly followed by fragmentation--signified as land conservation that most often involves both habitat loss and the detachment of remaining habitat. Habitat loss and fragmentation are compounded by succeeding edge effects: physical and biological changes accompanying abrupt, artificial edges of habitat fragments. Landscape matrixes that include isolated PAs and corridors between them (natural or not) are both subject to

56 human access in the form of poaching, resource collection (timber and non-timber forest products), and livestock grazing. These are all forms of human-induced edge effects, which directly or indirectly degrade the ecosystem and may permeate throughout PAs to reduce species viability within reserves (Collinge 2009). In a world where the centers of core areas are critical to carnivore survival, edge effects are of great concern. An analysis of global forest cover revealed that 70 percent of forests are within one kilometer of the forest edge, and another 20 percent are within a football field of a forest edge (Haddad et al. 2015). The authors argue that these findings require conservation and restoration measures to focus on increasing and improving current habitat connectivity (Haddad et al. 2015). Connectivity of habitats is reliant on suitable corridors, characterized as linear strips of natural areas between core conservation areas. Corridors are offered as a means to moderate the local effects of fragmentation on species movement and viability (Collinge 2009). Some species may not prefer linear or structural corridors (e.g., bridges) leading to the adoption of the broader concept of landscape connectivity (Taylor et al. 1993).

Corridors and connectivity are essential as small and fragmented habitats are challenging to manage and expose all the resident wildlife to pressures that directly compromise their long-term survival.

Solution: Corridors & Connectivity

Confronted with the reality that most carnivores live in a mix-use landscape, threatened by the eternal, external dangers that surround PAs, corridors become a principle element of longer-term conservation of carnivores. While there are hopeful examples of recolonization and monumental individual animal migrations, generally, large carnivores rarely are able to fully recolonize parts of their historic ranges due to habitat fragmentation, disturbance, and other anthropogenic landscape changes (Onorato and Hellgren 2001).

57 Fragmentation and habitat reduction increase the contact zone between people and carnivores, resulting in a global escalation of HCC (Madhusudan and Mishra 2003; Treves and Karanth 2003). Conflict intensifies in areas without connectivity to other habitat patches. Again the lion and tiger provide examples. Dispersing tigers from the growing local population of Chitwan National Park, Nepal, has led to eighty-eight human deaths from 1980 to 2005 (Gurung et al. 2006) as human landscape surrounds the park, cutting off connectivity to other habitats. Similarly, a pride of lions, displaced from Lupande Game Management Area, Zambia, by another stronger pride, was forced to move out into human- settled areas where three people were killed (Yamazaki and Bwalya 1999). Woodroffe and Ginsberg (1998) analyzed ten large carnivore species finding that conflict with people on

PA boundaries is a primary cause of mortality—PA borders, hence, are population sinks35 without corridors providing passage to other areas. Thus, carnivores’ large home ranges and dietary necessities not only make them particularly susceptible to habitat loss and fragmentation but also prone to conflict (e.g., Inskip and Zimmermann 2009; Madhusudan and Mishra 2003; Macdonald and Sillero-Zubiri 2002).

Human-Carnivore Conflict (HCC)

While habitat loss is often credited as the largest global threat to biodiversity, conflict with humans, however, is cited as predominate for carnivore declines (Ripple et al. 2014; Treves and Karanth 2003; Woodroffe 2000). Inskip and Zimmermann outline a clear definition of human-wildlife conflict as “the situation that arises when behaviour of a non-pest, wild animal species poses a direct and recurring threat to the livelihood or safety of a person or a community and, in response, persecution of the species ensues… either in

35 Population sinks are areas where mortality exceeds reproductive output; thus, they are not self-sustain and reply on immigrating individuals from source populations to endure (Seidensticker 2010). 58 retaliation or as a preventative measure” (2009, 19, 18). More specifically, HCC primarily involves the killing of livestock or game animals, and occasionally attacks on people. The former impinges upon carnivores across the planet: subsistence yak shepherds in Central Asia kill snow leopards for similar reasons that commercial ranchers in the United States trap and kill wolves (Hunter 2011).

Livestock Depredation Many of the most vulnerable livestock are those raised near protected areas--key conservation areas for carnivores--but where animal husbandry is a primary economic activity (Karanth and Madhusudan 2002). A survey of carnivore scientists affirmed livestock depredation as the most cited (40 percent) cause for HCC (Sillero-Zubiri and Laurenson 2001). Multiple proximate causes are responsible for the escalating levels of livestock depredation, such as an increase in local carnivore populations, increase in livestock, or decline in wild prey populations (Madhusudan and Mishra 2003). Livestock in areas where predators have been eliminated retain little anti-predator behavior, many places, like much of Europe and North America, do not use guard dogs or provide night shelter for livestock, so recolonizing carnivores easily kill livestock (Thirgood et al. 2005). The absence of livestock defenses leads to human efforts to control predator populations. For instance, 47 percent (Cunningham et al. 2001) of the total monitored puma populations in Arizona, and 24 percent of those monitored in Utah (Lindzey et al. 1988) were killed over livestock; between 1987 and 1990, 1160 pumas were culled in an attempt to limit livestock losses in ranching areas in the United States (Johnson et al. 2001b).

Unfortunately, much of the time the perceived threats and economic impacts from carnivores exceeds the evidence (e.g., Sillero-Zubiri et al. 2007 Chavez and Gese 2006; Karanth and Madhusudan 2002).

59 HCC and the economic cost of conflicts appears to be increasing in many areas (Treves and Karanth 2003) in part due to the direct and indirect consequences of large- scale land-use change (Woodroffe 2000; Naughton-Treves et al. 2003), which all contribute to wild prey depletion. Reductions in wild prey force large predators to feed on domestic animals, as a dramatic increase in depredation on livestock from Asiatic lions, leopards, snow leopards, or tigers has shown (Miquelle et al. 1999b; Miller and Jackson

1994; Seidensticker et al. 1990). This, of course, increases the risk to human life. For example, the depletion of natural prey in central and southern Tanzania forced lions to hunt prey (e.g., bush pigs) found near human settlements (Loveridge et al. 2010a). Retaining adequate levels of natural prey in buffer zones around PAs may help limit livestock depredation (Loveridge et al. 2010a). Prey depletion, then, is a driver of HCC but is inextricably linked to human-induced habitat loss, fragmentation, and overhunting or poaching.

Human Side of HCC Among the most emotive conservation issues is an attack on humans by big cats (Loveridge et al. 2010b). Felids are at the top of the HWC list in large part due to their propensity to attack people (Macdonald et al. 2010). Man-eating tigers and leopards incite anger and anxiety over whole regions. Historically, this has prompted attempts at local and even nationwide eradication of predators through state-supported bounties. For instance, between 1860 and 1875, 4708 tigers and leopards deaths were recorded in India (Boomgaard 2001). More recently, in a twelve-month period, Michalski et al. (2006a) uncovered 110–150 jaguars and pumas were killed by professional hunters in southern Brazil. Inskip and Zimmermann (2009) found that 75 percent of the world’s wild felids are affected by conflict, with the severity and likelihood of reaction increasing with body mass. 60 Conflict has the most adverse impact on caracal, cheetah, Eurasian lynx, jaguar, leopard, lion, puma, snow leopard, and tiger species (Inskip and Zimmermann 2009, 18). Specifically, retaliatory killing is credited with up to 50 percent of tiger mortality (Miquelle et al. 2005) and 47 percent of cheetah mortality (Marker et al. 2003) in certain regions. Species with a body mass under 50 kg, however, rarely attack people. For example, puma and jaguar attacks are very rare (Altrichter et al. 2006), and snow leopards and cheetahs have not been reported to attack people in the wild (Macdonald et al. 2010). The figures of cheetah mortality show the amount of persecution raised not over threat to human life and sometimes not even over livelihood. Marker et al. (2003) found that 60 percent of farmers she interviewed removed cheetahs even though they noted they did not see them as problematic. This type of indiscriminate removal effects many carnivores as explained by Marker et al. (2003) as a reaction based on traditional attitudes against predators; they are frequently killed regardless of whether they are seen as posing a concrete and definable threat.

Similarly, a government report on the controversial recolonizations of wolves in the Alps highlights: “Attacks by wolves provoke emotional responses that are far stronger than for other predators. Farmers, confronted by the presence of wolves, live with an increasing sense of powerlessness and worthlessness, both in a productive and in an environmental sense” (cited in Buller 2008, 1590). Likewise, Brazilian ranchers’ intentions to kill jaguars is driven by social factors, in that those most likely to kill jaguars thought their peers killed jaguars or thought their peers expected them to do so (Marchini and

Macdonald 2012). Clearly, more than economic loss drives HCC, and this topic is gaining attention across multiple disciplines.

Solutions: Compensation Strategies Post-Damage Compensation 61 Increasing and maintaining carnivore populations often results in higher levels of HCC causing emotional and economic difficulties. In attempts to alleviate the burden of negative side-effects of conservation and mitigate future conflict, compensation for loss of cattle or human life is often a standard reaction. Damage compensation aims to reduce the economic burden and financial risk for those living alongside carnivores (Loveridge et al. 2010a). This is widely practiced in Norway, Sweden (Swenson and Andren 2005), and

India (Karanth and Gopal 2005). Further, compensation systems can be in place outside the reaches of economic benefits trickling down from tourism, but where protection is critical - i.e. corridors. Post-damage compensation in carnivore conservation is most often in the form of compensation for livestock depredation or loss of human life. Defenders of Wildlife, a non- profit based on promoting support and reintroductions of predators, has established one of the most successful and applauded compensation programs, driven by the mentality “to shift economic responsibility for wolf recovery away from the individual rancher and toward the millions of people who want to see wolf populations restored” (Vynne 2009). The group’s designated trust has paid out over a million dollars for several thousand livestock losses and now provides preventative technologies to ranchers (Vynne 2009). Rancher attitude change has been noted, as that seen by Curt Hurless, an Idaho rancher, who first wanted the wolf pack that attacked his cattle to be shot, but soon after accepting an alarm system triggered by radio collars things changed: “I enjoy that we have wolves in Idaho” (Fraser 2009, 52).

Conservation Performance Payments (CPP) There is another proven, yet more costly, compensation system: conservation performance payments (CPP). CPPs are associated with specific environmental outcomes (often increase species populations/births) or compensation in advance so that when 62 damage occurs it does not result in retaliation (Zabel and Holm-Muller 2008; Schwerdtner and Gruber 2007). These payments are made directly to land owners where damage is highly likely; for example, in the Sami reindeer (Rangifer taradus) husbandry area of Sweden, payments are given out based on the number of certified reproductions of lynx and wolverines; and credited as “instrumental” in wolverine recovery (Persson et al. 2015, 1). Therefore, those who would otherwise be negatively impacted by loss of reindeer are compensated for the birth of predators, and subsequently accept occasional loss of reindeer. Unlike, selective removal, livestock protective measures, and other forms of conflict mitigation CPPs actively provide motivations for human-carnivore coexistence. In this era of intense illegal-wildlife trafficking, and faced with the realities that most compensation systems are connected with perverse incentives (e.g., reduced reasons to protect livestock) (Persson et al. 2015) limiting their conservation effect (Zabel et al. 2011), CPPs are becoming more appealing. CPPs uniquely give carnivores a nonconsumptive value (Persson et al. 2015), while creating accountable measures for conservation objectives (e.g., Ferraro 2001). As part of the larger Northern Jaguar Project to conserve borderlands habitat for the remnant northern Mexico and Southern US jaguar population and facilitate recolonization, Peter Warshall a biologist, introduced the idea of paying ranchers for photos of the big cats.

Warshall hoped this would stop illegal killing and moreover encourage general support for predators (Fraser 2009). This tactic was well suited for the area as trying to implement a compensation scheme for killed livestock in the remote Mexico would have been nearly impossible. The son of a rancher when asked what he would do with the money earned from eight photos said, “buy more cats!” Clearly this form of CPP is changing attitudes of cattle ranchers.

63 Despite the financial obstacles, CPPs offer many advantages and build on the principles established for effective conservation intervention programs laid out by (Ferraro 2001): (1) focus stake-holder involvement in a few activities with high success probability (camera trap image collection) (2) achieve short and long term conservation objectives (3) achieve landscape/ecosystem level conservation goals and (4) provide residents with clear and direct incentives. CPP success (e.g., reduced levels of carnivore morality and protection of carnivore habitat (Loveridge et al. 2010a)), is most impressive, as in the case of lynx and jaguars above, it is its ability to change attitudes where cultural and economic reasons have historically meant heavy carnivore persecution. Paying people to conserve habitat and welcome predators on their land may seem an expensive scheme, yet the land suitable for this type of program is often at the margins of the economy where land uses are not very lucrative (Ferraro 2001). Residents around PAs have indicated adequate payment of $28 to $190 per year per ha to stop habitat conversion in favor of conservation (Shyamsundar and Krafmer 1996; Ferraro 1994). Costa

Rica’s system, with $35 per ha per year payments, has generated surplus requests for conservation contracts (Calvo and Navarrete 1999). CPPs adapted for protecting endangered and vulnerable carnivore species in developing countries36 will be the next big movement in HCC mitigation.

While full of logistical issues that would require extensive planning and pilot testing, an innovative way to extend CPPs outside of well-funded areas would be to establish them through a system similar to that of ecosystem service payments. While tourist dollars, preventative measures (fencing, deterrents), compensation and ecosystem services in the form of carbon credits or water quality are pieces of the overall strategy to

36 Population sinks are areas where mortality exceeds reproductive output; thus, they are not self-sustain and reply on immigrating individuals from source populations to endure (Seidensticker 2010). 64 make coexistence with top predators attractive, new strategies are needed. Stacking CPP funded by an international ecosystem services market, what I would refer to as Global Carnivore Performance Payments (GCPP), could add a significant layer of protection to endangered carnivores. Thus the overarching question guiding is: Can carnivore presence/increases be incorporated into the ecosystem services marketplace to make them valuable to land owners, just like trees are gaining value based on carbon markets?

Solutions: Increasing Human Tolerance Taken together, economically based programs have been successful only intermittently. They can fail for any number of reasons, including lengthy time lags, fraud, problems with trust and transparency, or cultural inertia. That is because killing predators is motivated only partly by economics, as detailed above (e.g., Marchini and Macdonald 2012; Buller 2008; Marker et al. 2003). The points raised by this statement and Marker et al. (2003) exemplify the need to consider human dimensions of wildlife conservation as part of carnivore conservation biology (e.g., Sillero-Zubiri and Laurenson 2001).

Scientists and policy makers have determined that encouraging human tolerance is critical to the success of predator conservation (Ripple et al. 2014). Coexisting with predators is, therefore, best thought of as a psychological problem rather than an economic one. In 2013, researchers wanted to see whether education about the benefits of black bears would encourage Ohio residents to think more positively about the predators. (Slagle et al. 2013). They found that when people were given only tips on how to avoid bear conflicts, tolerance actually decreased. But when safety tips were paired with information about the importance of bears for tourism and for the greater ecosystem, acceptance of black bears increased. The tips alone made the fearful aspects of wildlife encounters more salient; pairing tips with knowledge about the benefits of predators allowed people to feel greater control. Likewise, in another experiment, researchers discovered that tolerance for tigers 65 in Nepal improved when people better understood how tigers contributed to local tourism and controlled the wild ungulate populations that were eating their crops (Carter et al. 2012). In addition, psychologists studying human relations and interactions with wildlife emphasize the part of emotional affect (Bruskotter and Wilson 2014)—namely, it is vital to account for the role of fear in any effort to raise predator tolerance. For example, fear of wolves and brown bears arose not only from merely understanding the harm they can inflict, but also from peoples’ supposed lack of control if they were to meet one in the wild.

These findings advocate for more education on reactions to carnivores, which may be more effective than simply teaching carnivore biology (Johansson and Karlsson 2011). Local support is an enormous influence on large carnivore conservation, removing tangible and perceived threats and establishing broader education programs are essential. Aldo Leopold and others believed that carnivore preservation would be the ultimate measure of a civilization’s commitment to conservation (Meine 1988). The dramatic range losses of the world’s top predators are fulfilling pessimistic predictions. The Barbary lion; the Javan, Bali, and Caspian tigers; and the California grizzly, among a long list of others, have vanished within the last few centuries. Extinction relies on many interrelating dynamics--some local, some global, some measurable and controllable, and some not. The human elements that are based on perception and false knowledge--the unmeasurable--will be a large part of future conservation plans. Ultimately, the threats to carnivores and the threats carnivores pose to humans are intertwined. Bringing all the elements of this review together illustrates this reality in that overstocking of livestock often leads to lower wild prey densities, which in turn increases livestock depredation—while all of the above stem from the large-scale global decline of natural habitat, driven by increasing human populations and consumerism. The consequential growth of development, resource 66 extraction, agriculture, and other manifestations of economic development will continue to fuel habitat loss in the earth’s most biodiverse regions in the tropics.

67 Chapter 3: Methods & Analysis

INTRODUCTION

To understand physical and conceptual placements of wildlife, geographers regularly employ qualitative methods (Seymour and Wolch 2010) to focus on the “everyday spaces of encounter” as an extension of the previous pursuit of co-constructed places. These insights are articulated through rich description (Geertz 1973), largely achieved by combinations of interviews (e.g., Collard 2012; Yeo and Neo 2010), participant observation (e.g., Hodgetts 2017; Sundberg 2011), archival and content analysis (e.g., Mansfield 2003; Barua 2014), and ethnography (e.g., Braverman 2014; Lorimer 2006). Focus group discussions (FGDs), while used for more than a decade to explore various domestic human-animal relations and animal welfare (e.g., Griffith et al. 2002), are gaining in popularity to study perceptions of and relations with wildlife (Lassiter and Wolch 2005). For example, Ojalammi and Blomley (2015) (eight interviews and five focus groups) explore human-wolf relations in Finland, and Boonman-Berson et al. (2016) (three focus groups and 37 in-depth interviews) explore cohabitation with black bears in Colorado, USA. The authors of these studies do not provide justification or a specific value of FGDs. Expanding on methodological benefits and shortcomings is often not prioritized in peer-reviewed research articles in this sub-field. However, a general conclusion is

FGDs’ usefulness in revealing local communities’ perceptions of wildlife that may be oversimplified by survey data (Wolch et al. 2000). I attempt to provide insight into this method’s practicality, usefulness, and shortcomings in the socio-environmental context of the study area in Rajasthan, India. Participant observation informed this research insofar as I worked as an assistant wildlife rescuer and then expanded on these findings with interviews and focus group

68 discussions (FGDs). During the first four days of field work in 2014, I pursued interviews as the primary source of data, but this did not prove sustainable as the primary data collection. FGDs proved the most successful, in comparison to interviews, within these communities for various reasons. Primarily, conducting interviews with one individual is almost impossible. While attempting to interview individuals, entire families and community members were intent on adding their own responses and debating one another.

Private or secluded areas to discourage other voices and/or interruption to conduct one-on- one interviews were also challenging to find. To ameliorated interruptions we asked the eldest participant to help moderate and discourage interruption or participation from any onlookers. Thus, FGDs quickly became the preferred method. FGDs are often defined as a method of group interview used to leverage group dynamics, used extensively to collect qualitative data and explore people’s lived experiences and perceptions in context. FGDs allow for both individual voices, debates and a variety of perspectives to be counted from one lived space – a valuable method when investigating an emotionally complicated matter, (e.g., HTI and having tigers reintroduced to a nearby area). In addition to community dynamics, FGDs were also optimal because “much geographic research is about understanding the multiple meanings that people attach to places and about the significance of space-society relationships” (Bosco and Herman

2010, 202). FGDs allow participants to collaborate, bring theory to the ground level, and collaborate with researchers on the production and application of academic knowledge. Information on the social side of human-tiger coexistence gathered through FGDs can help focus the allocation of resources to best mitigate HTC and promote tiger conservation at local levels. The shortage of knowledge on human-tiger encounters results in tense environments where both humans and wildlife are at risk of injury (Baron 2003): knowledge of wildlife conflict, based on understanding is necessary (e.g., Baron 2003; 69 Quammen 2003). Mitigating conflict and reducing encounters not only increases human and wildlife safety but “promote[s] good will toward wildlife, minimize economic loss and improve quality of life for humans” (Quigley and Herrero 2005, 28). This is certainly true of the study area evident throughout FGDs, a methodology that facilitated natural discussion about how these attitudes of “good will” formulate through human-wildlife negotiations. Understanding the human reactions in spatial patterns and boundary-making as a response to human-tiger interactions in Sariska will help answer questions related to the improvement of human-tiger coexistence strategies and offer insights for other areas facing comparable carnivore conservation obstacles in similarly coupled human-natural systems.

Further, we require interdisciplinary and integrated research initiatives to more clearly understand the social factors that affect tiger conservation at various levels of policy formulation and implementation: local, regional, national and international (Rastogi et al. 2012, 336).

FOCUS GROUPS

Animals “out of place” provoke inconsistent responses from people, ranging from chaos to fascination, to dread and admiration. Thus, even when encounters are categorized as HTC, these events do not fit neatly into defined categories because of each individuals’ interpretation. Individuals can interpret wildlife experiences as moments of conflict, life- threatening, non-harmful, or even spiritual; individuals think with and about “animals in different and often conflicting ways, using different arguments in different social situations” (Lofgren 2007, 105). Thus, a goal of twenty FGDs over the course of three fieldwork stages was established to provide a variety of individual perceptions from a

70 diversity of stakeholders, with various livelihoods, differ in their proximity to the PA and to known tiger territories. FGDs conducted in 2014 and 2015 were gender-mixed FGDs (GM-FGDs), yet answers and discussion primarily came from the male participants. This gender imbalance along with new areas of participant-driven concerns specific to women’s experiences necessitated the implementation of women-only FGDs (WO-FGDs) in 2016- 2017.

Sampling

First, the study area was systematically divided into four quadrants with a goal of five FGD per quadrant to capture the diversity of human-tiger cohabitation across the plane of spatially irregular removal, reintroduction, and tiger mobility37. Greater transportation accessibility exceeded the original goal during the second field season38 and the total grew further by a third field season. Three field seasons concluded with a final count of 13 FGDs per quadrant (Figure 5) for a total of 52 FGDs: 15 FGDs were completed in 2014 (three test FGDs and 12 FGDs included in the study), and 20 FGDs in 2015, and again 20 FGDs in 2016-2017. A total of 256 people participated in the 32 G-FGDs (2014, 2015), and 160 women participated in the 20 WO-FGDs (2016-2017): 416 total FGD participation.

37 ST15, a young sub-adult male tiger recently left Sariska traveling south west roughly 80 km to Jamwa Ramgarh Wildlife Sanctuary in fall 2017. ST15’s dispersal exemplifies the fluid presence and absence of tigers across the study area and across FGD locations. 38 During 2014 field work, a dirt bike was the only form of transportation available limiting the study to 12 FGDs. During 2015 and 2016-2017, I was able to secure an SUV making it possible to visit remote areas very near the boundary of Sariska even when roads or clear paths were not evident.

71

Figure 5: Locations of focus groups from 2014 and 2015, in black. The remaining 20 WO-FGDs are not identified based on confidentiality and not reporting location of violations of the law (e.g., dowry, violence). The distance was recorded from relative area of these 20 WO-FGDs to the park boundary and included when quotations are used throughout the dissertation. Five WO- FGDs were conducted in each quadrant. Estimated home ranges are based on Ramesh et al. (2015). *ST15 is a sub-adult male tiger yet to establish a territory. ST15 has traveled ~60 km south west of Sariska to Jamwa Ramgarh Sanctuary, and was sighted in-between these locations in December 2017. 72 Secondly, criterion and opportunistic sampling techniques (Patton 1990) were employed within each quadrant, forming an FGD when three criteria were met: (1) the availability of three persons for MG-FGDs and two women for WO-FGDs per the four age groups (18-20; 21-29; 30-50; 51-70+ years old) (Figure 6), (2) the ability for all twelve participants for MG-FGDs and eight participants for WO-FGDs to attend for at least an hour, and (3) the ability to access agreed upon location by foot within 30 minutes of walking from 4x4 vehicle abandonment point. These criteria were very limiting, especially securing three people for age groups. Thus opportunistic sampling was employed until these criterion were met. Requiring 12 people per MG-FGD and eight women per WO- FGD and the large sample size (52 FGDs) achieved a variety of demographic representation. This study is less about obtaining a representative sample for this large study area of diverse ethnic, religious and classes of people than about gaining in-depth information about people’s everyday experiences and perceptions of rewilding. The information collected via FGDs is considered here as “representations of what they wanted to reveal of their lives,” or what Goldstein refers to as the “performative encounter” (2002, 486). It remains unknown which performances and articulations offered to myself and research assistants are best understood as indicative of perceptions and feelings of subjects and which are strongly linked to actual facts and conditions of life in these areas. As such, the FGDs must be taken as indicative of lived reality as it may be articulated in this place.

Sampling Location and Time

It was important to conduct FGDs in all four quarters of the study area as tigers are mobile and people encountered them differently across the landscape. The data for this study were collected in a 10 kilometer (km) buffer around Sariska. Of the 52 FGDs, 75%

73 (n = 39) were conducted with communities who live 5 km or less from Sariska; 55% (n = 11) FGDs were either inside Sariska, on the boundary or within 1 km of Sariska’s boundary. As a result of the sampling locations, tigers are a regular presence for some FGD participants. For many others, the landscape is still void of tigers. Some have never seen a tiger; for others, the thought of bringing tigers back makes no sense as human well-being comes well ahead of reestablishing a dangerous predator. A diversity of experiences was guaranteed by the spatial range and age group criteria of each FGDs.

Following Breen (2006) and other researchers, the place of FGDs was heavily considered allowing groups to decide the time and place within their community for them. This sometimes was out near the agricultural fields, inside living quarters or most often in the community center. Typically this would be an open area near a water well or covered pavilion type of structure providing shade. In Rajasthan, May through July is the driest time of the year. People stay out of fields due to the extreme heat and can be found taking refuge in the shade during mid-day. This is accordingly the time GM-FGDs were conducted in 2014 and 2015. WO-FGDs in 2016-2017 were primarily conducted between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. as women were near their homes for meal preparation and rest after forest visits in the morning. This allowed for minor disruption of daily tasks. As a result, the majority of FGDs lasted nearly two hours since people were eager to participate as a way to pass the time. It was concluded in the field that discussions reached “saturation”—or the point when discussions produced little or no new information (Guest and MacQueen 2008). This is a well-established standard in a qualitative inquiry to determine sample size. Saturation of data was confirmed when qualitative coding was conducted finding high frequencies of repeated themes and comments. 74 Demographics and FGD Formation

Traditional reliance on intra-group homogeneity in FGDs is somewhat under the assumption that they have a shared identity (Bosco and Herman 2010). A degree of homogeneity, be it demographics or culture, serves the purpose of facilitating people’s authentic participation as they feel comfortable and identify with other group members. This helps participants express their opinions, prompting more complex and detailed responses, and encourages the working out of differences in experiences or perceptions among group members. This shared identity is then seen as a validation for understanding or presenting the shared perspective of a group of people with similar characteristics (Bosco and Herman 2010). This research aligns with Bosco and Herman (2010) that say:

…through a focus on difference that we might be able to uncover what Nancy Ettlingeer (2004) calls ‘untidy geographies’ – contextual differences relative to variation in individual experience across time and space…[also beneficial] when trying to understand two sides of a social conflict (2010, 199).

In this case, the “untidy geographies” and areas of difference within the FGD participants of concern to this study is diverting views of tigers. This difference is presumed to be partly attributed to the amount of time and at what age participants co-existed with tigers. Thus, family and neighbors were the intra-group factor of homogeneity in these FGDs—having similar life experiences and navigating the same local landscape with a general familiarity for one another. Age of participants is the heterogeneous element used to stratify the FGDs, as it is presumed to be a factor in attitudes towards tigers. Organizing FGDs with this factor of heterogeneity allowed for mothers, daughters, fathers, and grandfathers to reflect on dimensions of their surrounding environmental context, biosecurity, and relationship with nature to highlight “untidy geographies” or “contextual

75 differences…[in] experiences across time and space,” (Bosco and Herman 2010, 199)– all topics seldom discussed among themselves.

76

Figure 6: FGDs were stratified across four age groups as a way to elicit views from a variety of lived experiences alongside tigers.

77 Stratifying the FGDs by four different age groups allowed for generational disagreement and insight into how tigers, conservation, and Sariska are perceived over time and by different generations. This organization also help constrain the dominant voices and opinions, avoiding a “groupthink,” of the older participants39. FGDs composed of relatives, neighbors, and friends allowed for discussion across generations, occupations and other demographics. Thus, FGDs represent natural groups as they were familiar with one another by family or as neighbors, with the added parameters of age groups (Frey and Fontana 1993; Ghosal and Kjosavik 2015). Therefore the groups felt comfortable talking to each other (Longhurst 2016). As with all FGDs, the emphasis is on the interaction between participants rather than the interviewer and interviewee (Longhurst 2016). For this research, an advantage of FGDs is obtaining “a multiplicity of views and emotional processes within a group context” (Gibbs 1997, 2). Because the FGDs were conducted with neighbors and extended family, participants felt comfortable with each other, noting similarities and differences through occupation, religion, or experiences.

Several environmental and social factors are present throughout virtually all of the participants and village settings. Yet, many cultural traits such as language, religion, caste, and livelihoods vary among the participants. Religion and caste (often distinguished by livelihood) are particularly important elements in human-animal relations in this setting and consequently were included in FGDs discussions. The most dominant castes in the study are Gujars40 (~40% of participants) who rely heavily on livestock keeping, milk production, and Meenas (~15% of participants) who are agriculturalists traditionally, but whom in this research identify as both farmers and milk producers. Banjara usually

39 This objective was intentional as traditional concepts of authority and who has the authority to speak in a group situation would otherwise default to the older men dominating the discussion. 40 Gujars make up the majority of the people living near/in Sariska. By equally distributing the number of FGDs between each quadrant the representation of minority groups was recorded. 78 described as nomadic herders but who have now settled in the last half of the century, and likewise herd livestock for milk production are also present in the study area, as are Rajputs, Brahmins, and Raiger (Table 1).

Table 1: Caste characteristics and number of times each caste was represented in FGDs: not per individual, but Yes/No represented in a FGD.

While each cast has a dominant livelihood, such as cattle versus goat herding, most households have high rates of livelihood diversification, “some drive gypsies [safari vehicles]…or work in shop…but main occupation is take care of cattle and graze cattle” (Male, Gujar, ~3 km from Sariska). Households depend on an array of labor work, forest product collection, milk production, and farming. Having two dominant groups and four primary minorities as part of the study provides a complex human landscape but one that reflects the reality. Additionally, these groups have a level of homogeneity due to their economic and subsistence reliance on milk, which drives human-tiger encounters and joins participants’ experiences. While comparisons will be made between groups at times, this is not the primary goal of the proposed research, but instead the goal is to find overarching perspectives.

79 The area poses great linguistic challenges as the dialect from one area to the next changes – local knowledge of these changes is necessary to conduct qualitative work in this region. Thus interpreters were chosen based on their linguistic skills and local residency or knowledge (see more detail below). Specifically, we encounter people who speak Mewati, spoken by the Mev Tribe, and many individuals speaking Dhundhari, which also means Rajasthani, which has varying accent changes across the study area. Gujari, also known as Gojiri, is a regional dialect spoken by Gujars. Marwari is another dialect spoken by Rajputs, the previous rulers of the kingly states of Rajasthan and today considered to be a Forward Caste, and other tribes known as Marwar in the area. Pseudonyms were assigned to each participant to provide clarity when using multiple participants’ voices in the findings chapters.

Female Participation in FGDs

Women were included in all 2014 and 2015 FGDs (n = 32) except two with a total of 54 women participants in MG-FGDs. These women were generally reluctant to participate without significant coxing and insistence from the research team and other FGDs members (Figure 7). It is not typically, socially acceptable to interview women without the presence of a male relative, and requesting their input is often met with silence. However, FGDs discussions include a woman’s voice sporadically, usually after much encouragement from the research team. In this mixed-gender setting, women mostly spoke up to express general fear of tigers and hopes of physical separation from them. In 2016-

2017, WO-FGDs were conducted by utilizing three congruent strategies. First, women interpreters (see more below) with local knowledge and facilitation skills were employed. Secondly, we pose the FGDs as collective group discussions, not singling out any individual family or women; this was more positively received by male family members

80 that we required permission from. Thirdly, I employed local male research assistants, in part, to distract male family members present in the community by asking for tours of the property, fields or retiring for tea drinking (discussed further below, page 120). This multifaceted approached provided the privacy and consent to conduct 20 WO-FGDs during the 2016-2017 field season.

Figure 7: After a MG-FGD the local doctor (center in all white) ask to talk to me further. We continued our conversations with a few other FGD participants. You can see the wife of one of these participants off to the side with her vail pulled over her face. This is where MG-FGD participants who were women would often insist on sitting—on the ground and outside the main circle— still participating, but reluctantly and maintaining an air of subservience.

FGDs Development

FGDs followed a semi-structured pattern with a set list of topics needed to be covered (Edwards and Holland 2013) related to living alongside wildlife, with emphasis on tigers (similar to Jędrzejewski et al.’s (2017) FGDs regarding human-jaguar conflict).

81 This led to participant-driven conversations that permitted focus on the uniqueness of community and individual experiences while still allowing for similarities to be compared across the data. Guiding questions focused on attitudes of living near Sariska, alongside wildlife, perceptions of the tiger extirpation, and reintroduction (Appendix 2). The questions were co-created from five pilot interviews and three test FGDs in 2014 that were used to ensure the content was relevant to the people’s lives, and to uncover what was important I had not initially included in the questions. For instance, at the first reference to tigers, in general, a participant in each of the three test FGDs informed me there was a distinction between the “original Sariska tigers,” and the “new tigers” (see Chapter 4). These pilots exposed what issues I misunderstood or had left absent, and secondly, highlighted issues that impacted the relational attitudes of people towards tigers I had not considered. Thus, the final list of questions used for the subsequent 32 MG-FGDs was in large part co-created by participants of those three test FGDs and five interviews. Thus, FGDs were relevant but distinctive from other HWC and biologically focused studies, by providing insight into the narratives that produce animosity and/or coexistence. These guiding questions were then altered to include gender-specific topics for the 20 WO-FGDs (Appendix 3); see discussed further below (WO-FGD Development, page 110).

These FGDs and complimentary extended interviews with select participants (those willing to continue the discussions, invite myself and research assistants for tea or a meal; Figure 8; Figure 9) explored place-based and cultural issues related to losing tigers from the landscape and the challenges of new generations adapting to living with tigers for the first time. The goal was to allow the groups to explore the questions from as many angles as they wished (Longhurst 2016). The interpreters would provide interpretation of the group’s discussion to each question. I would then ask any follow-up questions or then 82 prompt them to continue, or prompt with the next question. Thus, this method allowed for a level of participant empowerment as the discussion is not as heavily influenced by question response, but question response, rebuttal, argument, agreement, and so on. This higher level of participant control in discussions is a known and valued factor in FGDs methods (Stewart and Shamdasani 2014).

Figure 8: After FGDs it was common for families to invite the research team to their home for dinner, to rest, or tea. These exchanges often became extended time for FGD participants to expand on issues they felt they had not fully described. This woman was not a FGDs participant but the mother of a participant. After providing us a meal she and I spent time discussing her daily activities inside Sariska and the role of buffalo (calf pictured enjoying a belly rub) in their household security.

83

Figure 9: Research assistant Rodrick Roben taking a cup of porridge from a man who participated in a MG-FGD earlier in the afternoon. This man invited us to have dinner with his family nearby where they continued to share their stories and perspectives.

Field notes were taken during and after interactions with participants, then elaborated and transcribed at night following the FGDs. This includes highlighting preliminary correlations and differences between participant perceptions and experiences of conflict and coexistence with tigers. Research participants were asked for their reflections as well and added to the end of field notes. These data sources are then enhanced by the spatial and social realities provided through participatory observation (see below) to generate a holistic perspective of the social and spatial dimensions of this human-tiger landscape.

Development of Women-Only Focus Group Discussions

These women only FGDs (N=20, 160 participants total) were started with broad issues, such as “tell us about your daily life”, “what do you think of Sariska,” and “what 84 are the major challenges you face most every day.” These questions always reaped enthusiastic answers, encouraged active participation, and helped convey understanding that we were interested in their daily lives. The other areas of focus revolved around the dowry norms, expectations, and impacts to their families. Lastly, tigers generally and the reintroduction where the priority. Participants voluntarily included comments and descriptions of abuse in relation to these areas of FGD discussion. During FGDs no questions ever asked if the women experienced domestic violence; it was a topic that entered the discussion through the initiative of the respondents. We did ask for clarification or if anyone else had similar experiences when abuse was discussed. As Bradley (2010) found speaking to researchers working at the IDSJ, Rajasthani women “are far from passive, but rather frequently voice concerns and disgust when they feel they are treated badly” (366). Similarly, in WO-FGDs women were, to my surprise, very open about the mistreatment and abuse they are subjected to. The intersection of abuse to FGD points is a product of grounded theory research, meaning it is a point of concern to the research participants—instead of my research interests. The women’s responses linking their concerns of human-tiger coexistence to issues of gendered violence is the materialization of their active participation in defining the research problem. The chapters that consider issues of gender inequality and abuse (Chapters 6 and 7) are the result of forgoing my own perceptions of needed research attention and realigning the project to the emergence of key concepts and linkages (Glaser 1998).

Research Assistants

FGDs facilitate insight into the community’s and/or family’s “shared understandings of everyday life and the ways in which individuals are influenced by others in a group situation” (Gibbs 1993, 1).While this can mask individual views the context in

85 this research worked well based on two primary factors: (1) a participant was given the role of stating the rules to the rest and ensuring that other participants and passersby or onlookers would not interrupt; we designated this person as the “peace-keeper;” and (2) interpreters served as research assistants; these people were chosen for skills as strong translators and moderators (detailed below). The first entailed asking someone from the oldest age group to step away and go over the parameters and expectations of participants.

In all cases, this was a male participant, but not always the oldest. Most specifically, (1) we explained that everyone’s opinion should be respected and cutting each other off was not productive; (2) the younger participants and women were just as important to the discussion and should be encourage to voice their opinions; (3) we emphasized the need for any onlookers to preferably move on or to be silent until we were finished. This simple overview with the designated peace-keeper and their subsequent explanation to the group, simultaneously representing this leaders’ agreement, worked very well. This also relieved the interpreter and myself from insisting on people not in the group to please leave, which could have been poorly interpreted. Instead, I often witnessed the leader simply lean back from the circle and quickly point to a shaded place a distance away and urge anyone gathering to watch the FGDS to wait. The peace-keepers did an excellent job of backing up the request for the research and the assistants for participants to voice other views on a discussion point—rather than moderating that themselves but agreeing and encouraging anyone who had not spoken yet to do so. This is certainly the conduit for the female participation in the 2014 and 2015 focus groups. Without that encouragement women rarely spoke first; they seldom added to the discussion without encouragement. Secondly, the interpreters were all accomplished in the many skills required to translate the often overlapping and rapid discussions of FGDs effectively. Before any 86 research had been undertaken, I had built a good relationship with the in-field research assistants, except Mrs. Merh. However, Mrs. Merh and I have mutual close friends that facilitated immediate familiarity and trust. The relationships between myself and the other assistants mostly came from volunteering as a wildlife rescuer (see below) and subsequent weeks of living together. Hautala (2011) connects trust, face-to-face communication, and local knowledge as essential for effective international research. The team at the end of each workday debriefed and then either worked together again as wildlife rescuers or socialized over dinner together. Throughout the research, there was fluid conversation between all members of the team on how best to navigate the physical and social landscape, save participants and ourselves time, how to best translate during FGDs (e.g., how often to pause discussion to translate participants comments to me, and when to translate my follow ups and comments back to participants), which all aided in the quality of the data collected. This was never more apparent than when Mr. Roben stepped in for me when a participant during an information exchange told me he thought, along with the other three young men present, that “all tigers should be in zoos.” We were sitting inside Sariska’s boundaries. At that moment the gravity of the younger generation living inside Sariska Tiger Reserve having such strong negative options overwhelmed me. I had heard similar opinions. This was not new information, but at the end of a very long day this blatant comment left me speechless. Mr. Roben stepped in to quickly take over the conversation so that I could look away and collect myself. The substitution was able to occur quickly as a result of our trust and relationship that allowed for non-verbal communication. I was able to use those few moments to pause and collect myself, so I could continue the FGD without drawing attention to my own emotions.

87 2014 and 2015 Interpreters: Mr. Chinmay Massey & STCO

The founder of Sariska Tiger Conservation Organization and Wildlife Rescue Hotline (STCO), a local nongovernmental organization (NGO), Mr. Chinmay Massey primarily facilitated fieldwork in 2014 and 2015. STCO works across much of eastern Rajasthan and in a few major cities in Jaipur through a network of rescue volunteers. Additionally, STCO holds fundraisers and clean drives to improve water catchment, clean up garbage, and provide other support to wildlife areas such as Bali Quila and Jhalana

Reserve Forest. The organization also often speaks at universities and primary schools on conservation, human-wildlife conflict mitigation, and general sustainability issues. Lastly, STCO holds wildlife awareness workshops in rural villages to help with specific identification, such as venomous verses nonvenomous snakes, and to debunk myths about species that result in their persecution (e.g., the false notion that monitor lizards are venomous). STCO’s founder, Chinmay Massey has been working as a wildlife rescuer in the wider Sariska area for twenty years and is known to most villagers (if not by face, by name, or by the STCO logo) within the study area. I have participated in all of the above with STCO. This type of relationship with Mr. Massey and STCO was instrumental in carrying out this study as it greatly increased local support and participation levels. Participant familiarity, trust and recognition of Mr. Massey as not associated with the Forest Department, but someone who for a long time has worked for their well-being was a tremendous asset in facilitating substantive FGDs that concern very political and sensitive topics such as wildlife laws, endangered species, poaching, coexistence, conflict and general perceptions of tigers. Mr. Massey’s reputation and STCO’s reputation is material in that Mr. Massey, and I wore STCO branded clothing. Most villages sport a large STCO sticker with the hotline number and logo on it, as well as restaurants, vegetable stands and many other everyday 88 spaces throughout the landscape (Figure 10). So the logo on our shirts and hats was very recognizable. We continued to solidify that reputation and our trust through holding wildlife workshops where we conducted FGDs. Wildlife workshops usually take forty-five minutes and gather larger crowds as photos of different species are rarely seen, and people are eager to learn and identify species they see often. Being able to identify venomous vs. non-venomous snakes is a workshop focus and provide valuable skills to the community and info on reducing snakes in and around their homes and high-activity areas. In the case of Mr. Massey, his masculine approach surprisingly created a space where all participants’ voices were welcomed, and participation was generally equal among participants. This effect is echoed by other researchers, such as Morgan and Kruger (1993) who concluded FGDs are chiefly valuable when participants have varying degrees of power—MG-FGDs having varying degrees of power between participants age and gender, but also with the authority and power Mr. Massey had. Further, Mr. Massey’s familiarity facilitated participants use of local language, slang and mentions of culturally specific identifiers and practices without participants pausing or worrying he would not understand context or their full meanings. Lastly, FGDs proved efficient at capturing agreement and disagreement among participants (Morgan and Kreuger 1993).

89

Figure 10: STCO trash bin seen inside Sariska Buffer Zone, with hotline number at the bottom and Sambar deer looking up from a water container.

Mr. Massey acted as interpreter for all FGDs and interviews in 2014 and 2015. Again, his reputation for wildlife rescues in the area for two decades provided him access, and by extension, me to conduct this research. Also, Mr. Massey’s reputation as a local help to people at little to no cost41 support his role as interpreter as a means to reduce directionally biased responses (e.g., bias resulting from participants giving answers they assume the researcher want to hear). Mr. Massey’s local clout, interpersonal skills and strong moderator skills come from his long-time work in corporate communication training and his practice of crowd control during wildlife rescues (a skill of paramount importance for wildlife and people’s safety42, Figure 11).

41 All rescues are volunteer based and donations are not requested but given frequently in city settings, but this is not the case in the area were this research was conducted. 42 I have experienced this many times and was trained by Mr. Massey to help with crowd control as part of the rescue team. 90

Figure 11: Mr. Massey after a cobra rescue describing the animal to residents briefly before securing the snake in a snake bag.

2016-2017 Interpreters: Ms. Apoorva Rana & Mrs. Archna Merh

Ms. Apoorva Rana and Mrs. Archna Merh acted as interpreters for the WO-FGDs in 2016-2017 (Figure 12-13). Ms. Rana is from Himachal Pradesh, India, and currently pursuing her Ph.D. in Medical Microbiology and Molecular Biology at Amity University Rajasthan, Jaipur. She is also interested in environmental health and wildlife and animal welfare. Ms. Rana has been an associate of several current and former STCO volunteers and works with a volunteer veterinarian in the city of Jaipur. Ms. Rana’s own Ph.D. studies meant she was well versed in research ethics and the necessary degree of good translation so that I could both take in the discussion and ask timely follow up questions. Mrs. Merh has a master’s degree in English Literature, and a master’s in Education from Rajasthan University and is a Senior Faculty and Student Affairs Coordinator with the SIT Study Abroad international program since 2008. In addition, she is the Country 91 Coordinator for Experiment in International Living Program for American high school students (www.experiment.org) since 2015 which is a part of the World Learning organization, based in Brattleboro, Vermont. In this position, she is involved in research design and involved in regular field work with students and other faculty. Thus, Mrs. Merh was also dedicated to ethical research procedures and nuanced translation.

Figure 12: Mrs. Merh (fifth women from left) and myself (third woman from left) with women after a walking tour through mustard fields.

Working with these two female interpreters and conducting women-only FGDs was a completely different experience from the previous research seasons. Mrs. Merh with her friendly disposition and age, “like an older daughter-in law” worked seamlessly in the communities. Within moments of arrival women who had never met her were hugging her, and on our departure, we all received hugs and other terms of affection. Mrs. Merh took the time to engage the women and answer questions about our personal lives (small talk on our husbands, ages, dreams, etc.) and she took the time to get everyone’s name before we

92 ever began in a way that was meaningful and not mechanical or procedural. Her instinct to spend quality time with these women in a manner they appreciated is not something I could emulate on my own. Essentially, Mrs. Merh became everyone’s “aunty” within a few short exchanges and me along with her. Of the 20 FGDs undertaken in 2016-2017, Mrs. Merh interpreted for 14 with two hours being the average length. Ms. Rana was likewise wise in her approach to making the women feel comfortable.

Ms. Rana’s younger age made for a different style. Ms. Rana was very familiar with the landscape as her extended family and close friends live in nearby Alwar so she was able to communicate an appreciate for the place and its people. Further, Ms. Rana as a scientist was able to communicate the power of knowledge. Her explanation of the research intent and goals eased the women’s minds and energized them in many cases. Women were excited to discuss their lives with us, and most FGDs started or ended with extended time making and having tea, in their homes. Ms. Rana completed six FGDs with an average of an hour and a half. In both cases, of Ms. Rana’s and Mrs. Merh’s interpreting, I felt what some feminists (Hartsock 1987) have described as “women’s shared identity as females transcend[ing] differences and creat[ing] an affinity between them that is benefited to the research process” (Sundberg 2003, 186). Sharing and hearing personal stories (unrelated to the research) and the shared laughter over domestic realities shared by women all over the world eased the research process into a serious but open and relaxed state.

93

Figure 13: Mr. Bhatia, Mrs. Rana and myself after a WO-FGD in 2016.

Keeping the men distracted

While conducting the WO-FGDs, two other research assistants kept the men and/or the children in the communities busy. Mr. Rodrick Roben, Mr. Aman Bhatia, and Dr.

Guarav Choudhary, the first two research assistants from 2014 and 2015 as well, made sure to keep the men and (majority) of children in the area at a distance so not to disrupt or influence the FGDs. While we gathered the women and set up, the research assistants would ask the men if they could show them their fields, or cattle, or walk them through their daily lives alongside wildlife. Mr. Roben, Bhatia, and Dr. Choudhary are all active wildlife rescuers (independent of STCO) and thus had valuable information the men were keen to discuss with them and vice versa. After an hour or so of touring, this often ended with a large group of men gathered under a tree relaxing and sharing stories. Very few times were the FGDs interrupted by men and when it did happen the research assistants were very skilled at coaxing them to join their men’s group and leave the women to

94 continue the discussion in private. This was a vital part of keeping the women comfortable, and the men entertained so as not to have any grievances for the women participating. In addition, the research assistants would regularly gain valuable contextual information regarding the events and issues the women discussed in the FGDs. For instance, the research assistants would be shown cattle with scars on their necks from escaping a big cat attack. This then went to substantiate those claims we had talked about with the women and add other details to the event. Once we left the FGDs, the male research assistants would recount their engagements with the men, and any details of importance were included in the field notes. Mr. Roben and Mr. Bhatia were critical components of all three seasons of fieldwork. They both acted as key sources of local knowledge, and one or both were always present for each FGD and often provided vital local knowledge beforehand that helped with facilitating produced FGDs. For instance, we were told before starting an FGD that many villages in the area had shown growing hostility towards the Forest Department. This knowledge did not change our discussion points but made us more aware and prepared for hostility and most importantly to stress that no team member worked for the Forest Department.

95

Figure 14: Mr. Massey, Mr. Bhatia, myself, and Mr. Roben after a morning of wildlife rescues in the Sariska buffer.

Participant Observation

Wildlife Rescues

Mr. Massey’s hotline number is frequently the first call in the account of a wild animal being seen or encountered on village property that needs to be removed (rather than chased away or brushed off). I did not come across a household without a cellphone, and the majority of villages we worked in had at least one flier or sticker with STCO’s hotline number on it.

96

Figure 15: Number of rescues I volunteered with over three research seasons, 2014, 2015, 2016-2017. These rescues took place in Jaipur, the surrounding area, and primarily in the Alwar district that includes Sariska Tiger Reserve.

I participated in over 30 wildlife rescues in 2014 in various ways in villages surrounding Sariska, in Jaipur proper and the rural area surrounding and in Alwar proper and in the rural area surrounding (Figure 2). I built up my rapport and became familiar with the broader issues of HWC by acting as a volunteer for STCO for two weeks before starting the first FGDs in 2014. This experience gave me unprecedented access to observe household and individual reactions to human-wildlife conflict (HWC) in the moment and after successful removal of the animals. Participant observation occurred through informal conversations, direct observation, and active participation as a wildlife rescuer (and various other activities) that enabled first-hand encounters (described previously, e.g., wildlife workshops, clean drives, speaking in schools). 97 I continued to help with rescues throughout the three research periods enthusiastically (2014, 2015, 2016-2017). In all, over three field seasons, I volunteered nearly 350 hours with various independent wildlife rescuers (Figure 14-17). Rescues could take anywhere from five minutes to three hours with many hours spent in activates like removing debris (wood piles, trash heaps, rubble piles from construction), cleaning out a warehouse, or waiting for an animal to come out of pipes. Most days consisted of early morning and evening rescues and mid-afternoon time spent in FGDs. This partnership, assisting Mr. Massey and Mr. Massey acting as my translator and research assistant in 2014 and 2015 was a primary conduit for understanding human-wildlife interactions and landscape familiarity. A typical evening for me was working in a 5x6 foot room, standing on top of a sleeping cot with a flashlight in hand doing my best to keep it on a juvenile cobra while Mr. Massey moved furniture to angle himself for a quick grab of the cobra’s tail. Exceptional circumstances would sometimes lead to the animals needing to stay with us overnight. Thus I also slept in the room with animals (secured) overnight, listening to them, or just trying to overcome the discomfort of sleeping in the same room with animals that kill 45,000 Indians a year.43 While paling in comparison with similar thoughts of people who live in rural areas experience daily, it nevertheless opened my mind in new ways. It was through these intense rescues where I was formally the “gear women” either holding the flashlight, snake tongs, or snake bag, all the while trying to keep the crowd back so Mr. Massey could work that the abstract fear and conflict between people and wildlife fell away. I never came face to face with a tiger or a leopard while out gathering wood or

43 The Million Death Study, conducted in 2002-2003 by the Registrar General of India and the Centre for Global Health Research, estimated 46,000 people die from snakebite in India. The four species mostly responsible, cobras (four species but common black cobra and spectacle head cobra are the two types common in this area), saw-scaled viper, krait, and Russell’s viper, are also regularly removed from human inhabited areas by STCO and the research assistants. 98 walking through fields and down dirt roads throughout the research area.44 Yet, being a wildlife rescuer allowed me to have conversations with people experiencing HWC in the moment, “facilitate[ing] inductive contextualization and ‘thick description,’ capturing human perceptions, beliefs, and meanings associated with animals” (Bolla and Hovorka 2012, 4) with that animal in the room (safely tucked away into a bag and then into my backpack in most cases). The geographical constructs of place, and territory and the subsequent “conceptual and material placement” of wildlife in these people’s everyday lives became evident through this “in-depth examination of and exposure to human-wild animal encounters” (Bolla and Hovorka 2012, 4). Which then allowed me to conduct FGDs without (or with less of) a “set of given constructs or assumptions of how those encounters evolve or ultimately occur” (Bolla and Hovorka 2012, 4). This permitted me to:

[acknowledge] the situated knowledge of human subjects involved in the research, recognizing that knowledge is based on social constructions of reality and mediated through the positionality of both the researcher and the researched.5 In this case, animals are represented through interpretations of human researchers and human respondents. (Bolla and Hovorka 2012, 4)

Participant observation via volunteering as a wildlife rescuer meant I not only was involved in the rescues but more generally, I shared in the life activities and sentiments of the other volunteers. I lived with them. I ate every meal with, played games and had deep, emotional conversations with them about wildlife conservation among other topics. This, of course, requires both personal involvement and emotional connection and conversely detachment (Bruyn 1986). Making sure to write down field notes and detach for at least an hour and a half each day was how I managed this. Observations focused on how HWC is

44 I have encountered both a tiger and a leopard on foot in Indian protected areas giving me a glimpse into those immediate feelings that come from looking apex predators in the eye. 99 discussed in casual conversations, how people react to HWC, and how space is navigated as a result of HWC. Rigorous field notes were kept during the day and transcribing of field notes was conducted nightly along with the addition of details from memory to ensure that rich context and descriptions could be drawn from the data.

Figure 16: Myself wearing my rescue backpack at the time carrying two cobras, a krait, and a sand boa (each in separate snake bags, in separate backpack compartments, and venomous snakes doubly wrapped in newspaper outside their snake bags by Mr. Massey). That evening, Mr. Massey and I had rescued these four snakes within a four hour period. This photo was taken before we released the snakes at Bali Quila, part of Sariska’s buffer zone.

100

Figure 17: Photo of the sand boa referenced above being carried in my backpack. Mr. Massey and I rescued it from a trash heap area requiring an hour of us moving earth and garbage to locate and remove the boa to prevent onlookers from killing it.

Walking Tours

In all of the field seasons, after the FGDs were complete I would ask if anyone would like to show me any of the areas they previously described. Volunteers guided us through agricultural fields, grazing areas, and repeatedly around village outskirts to point out places where leopards and tigers had been spotted or killed livestock. In 206-2017, this included going to collect firewood and fodder with women in the early morning. During all of these walking tours, I took photographs, and some videos and had casual interactions with the people showing and narrating the landscape; participating in the “daily routines of the setting” (Emerson et al. 1995, 1). These peripatetic experiences in the landscape provided additional sources of descriptive information to supplement and support data collected while seated (FGDs, interviews, post-rescue discussions) adding to the “more controlled and formalized methods” (Kearns 2005, 193). In addition, these experiences were part of these women’s everyday lives; I was not disrupting their flow or chores, taking 101 away their time. These direct experiences (Kearns 2005), out walking in tiger and leopard territory gave me more confidence interpreting qualitative data. I went on five walks that were longer than an hour (all to collect firewood) and seven shorter walks that primarily included seeing where the cattle are housed/tied down, agricultural/garden areas, and paths the women take up for wood and fodder. Evan and Jones (2011), find that while walking participants provide richer place narratives, and by determining the route naturally point out and emphasize the importance of environmental features. Elwood and Martin (2000) argue the places where interviews occur are “inscribed in the social spaces that we as geographers are seeking to learn more about” resulting in interview sites becoming “micro-geographies” of social relations and meanings (2000, 649). By walking with participants, these micro-geographies situate the discussions and help enrich the researchers understanding, as Hein et al. (2008) explore in their review of mobile methods. After an FGD and tea, one of the groups of women we spoke to in 2016 offered for me to accompany them up for afternoon wood collection. After thirty minutes, we were still at the lower levels of a scrubby hill that many of them had previously told me they did not venture to because a leopard had taken up residence there. This leopard had attacked people in the fields nearby. Looking upward, I could spot a woman much farther up the hill herding goats (Figure 18). The women I was with assured me we would not be going up there and they would only return there once they had seen many other women from different families they were not or less acquainted with a visit and return safely. This experience was profound for many reasons, but here demonstrates the further context and environmental relations provided by walking tours.

102

Figure 18: Woman (orange sari) herding goats (small white spots to the left of her) on a hillside where FGD participants had just previously said they did not go for fear of a resident leopard.

Consent & Anonymity

All participants gave verbal and informed consent and were at or over the age of

18. The primary interpreter (Mr. Massey 2014, 2015; Apoorva Rana and Archna Merh 2016-2017) gave a brief, standardized overview of the research project and its aims, discussed how the data would be used, and gave a reminder that the FGDs or interview would take an hour or more. Then a description of the voice recorder and how it would be 103 used was described. Questions were welcomed at this stage with the most frequent revolving around our association with the Forest Department, (i.e., explaining that there was none) and my marital status during WO-FGDs in 2016-2017. Once verbal consent was given, including consent to be recorded, the FGDs or interview began. All participants were guaranteed anonymity; this is a politically sensitive topic with many participants expressing their livelihoods are in precarious situations living near a tiger reserve an under threat via Forest Department policies stemming from tiger conservation. All participants in the 32 MG-FGDs agreed to have the location of the FGD (not village per se) recorded by GPS. Most participants were not OK with being identified by their village name but all agreed to be identified within the distance they live to Sariska. Thus, this is an identifier used throughout the dissertation. The remaining 20 WO-FGDs conducted in 2016-2017 are not identified by location on the study area map and village name was not recorded. This is based on confidentiality and not reporting location of violations of the law that were discussed by the women, such as, dowry and violence. The University of Texas approved the research procedures at Austin IRB. During our introductions, we explained the project was designed to explore Sariska’s history and how people feel living near to Sariska including near its wildlife, but we did not provide any great detail. This was sufficient to encourage the right number of volunteers and enough prompt to spur energetic FGDs.

Conclusion

In total, 52 FGDs were conducted over three research periods (2014, 2015, and 2016-2017). All focus groups were stratified by age groups (Figure 6) and comprised of several different castes, livelihood groups, combinations of family members and neighbors, and religions. These were all noted for data analysis (but not used to separate groups).

104 Undertaking this research required the help of three interpreters, two assistants that worked to keep men distracted during 2016-2017 FGDs and also generally helped guide with their local knowledge in 2014 and 2015, and five different drivers over the three research seasons. FGDs, participant observation during and after rescues and walking tours all come together to build on each other. The following chapters pull from these sources of data and experiences to provide not only quotes but thorough generalizable conclusions of the social-spatial relationships between people and tigers in Sariska. The findings presented throughout this dissertation derive from analysis of the entire FGDs sample and various observations.

Data Analysis

All data were analyzed using Dedoose (2016), a software program developed for automated coding, text search and retrieval, and pattern discernment. This tool allows for a thematic analysis of transcriptions from FGDs and participant observation notes and photos. Through this analysis, individual and group perspectives can be more clearly discerned, and comparative analysis between stakeholders, age groups, and occupations was conducted. The data was codified into categories founded in the major themes identified in the data (Malterud 1998). Codes and themes were identified initially by reading the twelve MG-FGDs from 2014 twice while taking notes of common themes. On the second read through, more specific codes were identified within each of the broader themes of interest and repetition. These initial codes were then applied to all twelve MG-FGDs. From this coding, correlations, similarities, and differences among the MG-FGDs were uncovered. This resulted in the identification of several binaries within the discussions and new themes. As

105 a result, new codes and rearrangements were made to the code tree (all codes organized under the larger research themes). The new code tree was then applied to all 2014 FGDs and subsequently to the 2015 and 2016-2017 FGDs. The first set of code themes used for preliminary analysis included: desire for physical barrier structures between human use areas and tiger habitat, perceptions of tiger territories (villagers are aware of places frequently visited by resident tigers that are avoided by most), tiger trespassing (places regularly visited by tigers but well within village boundaries, i.e. water well or streets within the village), change in daily geographies

(changing where one sleeps and travel routes), unwillingness or lack of behavioral change after HTI (many examples of individuals not changing behavior that likely brought them into conflict with tigers), and altered sense of place as a result of HTI (descriptions of change in how “home,” “village,” “forest,” and Sariska are perceived). The new set of codes includes greater attention to participants perceived binaries (e.g., reintroduced vs. original tigers) and socio-spatial gendered binaries (e.g., gender use of space, gendered expectations within and outside Sariska), and perceptions of the Forest Department, Forest Guards, and Sariska. The complete code tree includes 89 distinct codes (see condensed code-tree Appendix 4). Once these codes were finalized the transcriptions were coded and then cross-analyzed which provided an easy way to identify anomalies and saturation of dominant themes and narratives across the FGDs and landscape. Chapters 4- 8 explore these codes and themes in detail.

Transcription

The qualifications of the translators noted above were part of the overall goal to seriously consider the problems of representation and speaking for/with others (e.g., Alcoff 1991/1992; Crang 1992). Additionally, many measures were implemented at the

106 transcription phase to carry forward the determination to accurately present participants’ perspectives in this analysis. A trained and professional transcriber, Mrs. Gurpreet Kaur, was employed to translate and transcribe all audio recordings of FGDs. The transcriber is fluent in Rajasthani, Hindi, and English and is a resident of a town near the study area with the ability to discern regional dialects. On average it takes two to three weeks to have one hour of audio transcribed. I chose to work with a transcriber who was not part of this project. It was also preferable that the translator be a woman for various reasons. Most importantly, because Mrs. Kaur does not know any of the research assistants involved in the project except myself, she was unbiased in translating them verbatim without any caution to mask their wording. Of course, as Temple and Young say, “there is no neutral position from which to translate,” (2004, 165) and in this case, Mrs. Kaur was paid and thus part of the power relations within the research placing herself, in a way, above the translators. Meaning, she was not under pressure to moderate, translate and condense as the translators were. Instead, she interpreted slowly, over weeks at a time, and was double checked randomly creating a demand for detailed work. Specifically, I had six FGDs transcribed by other professional transcribers to compare to Mrs. Kaur’s work. In the few cases, there were any differences of concern Mrs. Kaur was given a chance to explain the difference.

This happened on the first transcription and was a result of Mrs. Kaur translation different voices and then reordering (out of time) those narratives together rather than transcribing precisely as the voices come across the audio. She believed this would be a better product for reading, but after further discussion, we agreed that the audio must be transcribed precisely in the order it came. This incident, however, did serve a purpose of installing checks and balances that resulted in thorough transcription work.

107 This process provided very detailed transcriptions, including my initial question, the translated version of the question by the interpreter, who in fact gives an interpretation of the initial question, then the responses from the FGDs participants, and finally the translator’s interpretation of the responses in English for me to hear and respond to. Thus for each participant’s comments, there are two translations provided: that of the translator and that of the professional transcriber. This translation of the entire, two-way process of translation, helps to trace ways in which meaning is altered through the process of translation and maintain clarity of participant’s intended context and tone.

In addition to this detail the transcriber often includes small additional information on words, phrases and place-names used that when translated merely do not adequately convey the cultural significance. For instance, when a participant spoke about food Mrs. Kaur added the dishes significance in parenthesis:

Translator (to villager): It is smelling good, what are you cooking? Till –laddu (Indian sweet).

Woman: No, Daal-Baati-Churmaa (a traditional Rajasthani food).

Additionally, Mrs. Kaur’s position as a woman was helpful in making sure any female voice being spoken over or clouded was included. Where it may have been easy to continue working without stopping and starting the audio many times to make sure a female voice was included, Mrs. Kaur did. Likewise, when women spoke of sensitive issues like domestic violence or simply conveyed their opinion with great emotion, Mrs. Kaur was attentive in adding a note to indicate that emotion. This was done for men also, a practice that may not be as likely undertaken by a male transcriber in India. Having a female transcriber ensured full transcription of female voices.

108 Positionality

The complexity of tiger conservation means solutions must be multi-scalar, integrated and diverse. When I began to consider ways a social scientist would contribute to the scholarship of saving the last remaining tigers on earth I was ambitious. After landing in India the scope and challenging reality of conservation in such a place became clear very quickly. It was difficult not to consider all of India, and its enormous scio-ecological challenges when entering my field sites. During my research I made a conscious effort to avoid biases in my data collection and analysis. I kept ever conscious of my positionality as a white Western woman, an outsider in every respect. Part of my bias is my deep adoration and concern for each individual wild tiger and the species as a whole. This concern does not deviate regardless of the consequences to people who live with wild tigers. I maintain empathy for marginalized communities living in tiger landscapes, while also bearing the weight of access to nearly limitless information on tiger’s endangered status. Thus, researching tiger’s physical and conceptual space within a disadvantaged human-landscape is unquestionably difficult for someone, like myself, who considers tiger conservation a worthy and critical human endeavor. Part of overcoming my immediate concern to focus on objective data gathering I employed local research assistants, lived in the area and spent roughly 125 hours45 with individuals and communities dealing with (perceived) negative and neutral wildlife interactions (described previously in Chapter 3). My gender was a constant element of influence in all aspects of the data collection and analysis. The gender-specific issues presented in this dissertation were not initially part of the research project. It was not through my own pursuits or interests that this area of consideration became a research focal point. The women and men who participated in the

45 I would credit roughly half of volunteer hours, ~350 hours, as time spend with individuals and families before and after rescues. The other half of the volunteer hours were spent traveling to and from rescue sites, relocating, and related activities. 109 first 32 MG-FGDs freely brought up the issues of unequal gender-labor divisions and associated risk and cultural practices such as dowry and patriarchal submission. I was originally resistant to explore these areas of the wider human-environment relation. However, with funding for a third field season and for the necessity of clarity I pursued these areas with diligence. My positionality as a woman who has experienced gender-based abuse while at a vulnerable age I had to take many precautions while doing an analysis of the 20 WO-FGDs. Having a strong community of research colleagues and friends at UT and other institutes with similar experiences was an immense help in processing these stories. These WO- FGDs included significant discussions on abuse mostly from family members. To ensure the women’s voices were considered and presented appropriately I employed a heavy qualitative description in the analysis to let their voices speak for themselves. The system of translation and transcription (described earlier) from independent consultants also enabled consistent and accurate representation of the women’s voices.

While conducting the MG-FGDs, I dressed in masculine clothing and wore apparel with logos for the wildlife rescue group, STCO. This was at the behest of my research assistants, who were all men. They believed by closely associating myself as a volunteer in the area for issues that cause a significant local concern (HWC) by wearing an STCO hat or shirt I would gain credibility and trust. This proved true. When discussing the project to potential participants men and women cited my volunteering as justification for not being with the Forest Department or political body. In addition to dressing more like an

Indian man than an Indian woman, my research assistants described me as able to handle and relocate wildlife, particularly venomous snakes, are part of the several factors placing me in the “third gender” category—not female/not male. Many researchers and ambassadors, for instance, speak about occupying a third space in patriarchal contexts. This 110 allows men in this cultures to speak and respect female researchers and moderators to a level that may not be forthcoming if they perceive that women as a “woman.” A minority of the older male participants still did not want to speak to me because I was a woman, but were willing to talk to Chinmay who they greatly respected. These participants were included in FGDs, and seemed to not address me or look at me directly when they added to the conversations. They did participate however so their disregard for me was not seen as a significant concern.

Team Composition 2014, 2015

Team composition, as described in various other places in detail, was made of male research assistants in 2014 and 2015 and female research assistants in 2016-2017. The all- male team I believe was a beneficial influence in MG-FGD participation. Because Chinmay, specifically, was recognized as a valuable advocate and local person participants were candid. However, Chinmay’s gender likely play a part in women’s hesitancy in vocal participation throughout MG-FGDs; this is likely though primarily because of male family member’s simultaneous participation. Team composition 2016-2017 The female research assistants in 2016-2017 may have influenced the WO-FGDs as well based on their higher social status in the caste system. They were often asked about their caste and place of residence. While this happened often it rarely took up more than a question or two. These inquires quickly turned to their and my marriages and banter about the difficulties of marriage. This was fortuitously an easy start to the initial WO-FGDs question, “what are your daily schedule of activities?” Both of the women translators were empathetic to rural women’s struggles before we engaged in this research. They had encountered gendered violence in their own

111 communities. Entering into women’s homes, kitchens and accompanying them in their daily tasks the three of us acknowledged the women’s difficulties. Moreover, Approova and Archna were able to empathize and recognize violence the women participation described in a way I never would be able to. Having them present, facilitating and translated enabled the participants to feel heard and understood. I had strong emotional reactions to women’s accounts of repeated violence. Mostly, a feeling of helplessness permeated my concern. The systemic nature and layers of cultural practices that maintain women’s devaluation left me without hope for a better future in many cases. Grieving with the women telling their stories of violence is an emotional act as well as a political one (Lopez and Gillespie 2016). By revealing insights about the nature and form of violence in the study area (Woodward 2009; Ahmed 2004) and by experiencing these feelings of grieving alongside the women, I am emphasizing the women’s value of their lives and suffering (Lopez and Gillespie 2016).

Semi-structured Approach and Grounded Theory

Because of my outsider positionality, as a foreign white woman who did not speak Hindi or the local dialects, the entire project was structured around a grounded theory approach. Because I had not spent time in India or communities living alongside tigers, FGDs were constructed as semi-structured to allow participants to drive the conversations to topics, benefits and concerns of rewilding most important to them. While FGDs had strategic discussion outlines, with specific questions I wanted to be answered, these questions were all crafted to be open-ended and interpretive. Further, they were covered in whatever order participants carried the conversation. The questions I wanted specific answers to were helpful in my own understanding of the landscape. Yet, participants’ answers included context, history and areas of concern that were complexly

112 unpredicted by my research team or me. Specifically the difference between the old and new tigers and the link between tigers, gendered labor, and abuse. The first of these became evident immediately and was incorporated into the MG-FGDs, but the MG-FGDs were organized strategically to prompt participants to discuss that on their own. The same was for the 20 WO-FGDs that started with descriptions of their day that naturally led to discussions on labor divisions, risks and consequences. As an outsider I wanted these topics to come up naturally without prompting other than asking questions that participants could willingly answer with details of areas of research concern. As a result, much of FGDs discussion was not imperative to answer the primary research questions. Yet, they were essential in setting the tone, providing the space and time for participants to become comfortable, and within that time and space to be roused to discuss difficult topics—topics not previously considered in the literature of human-dimensions of wildlife studies. In conclusion, spending significant time in Sariska before the research would have likely resulted in a very pointed FGD question outline. Instead, the points of focus in this dissertation were quite often unexpected. This prevented my bias or areas of most concern to drive the FGDs or become the center of this dissertation. Instead, the dissertation represents concerns and struggles of the people living in and adjacent to Sariska that push the boundaries of conservation literature.

113 Chapter 4: Human-Tiger (Re)Negotiations of Coexistence & Boundaries

INTRODUCTION

In this chapter46 I explore the perceptions of reintroduced and extirpated tigers to better inform the types of outreach necessary for successful long-term reintroduction goals. Studies of rewilding consider community support a critical aspect to success. However, qualitative studies that detail the depth of community support or contempt and present local narratives are rare. For instance, Gray et al.’s (2007) conducted 100 interviews with locals from villages surrounding Srepok Wildlife Sanctuary in Cambodia to determine attitudes to proposed tiger reintroduction. Only 59 percent of their sample support tiger reintroduction, which is below their recommendation that >75% community support is needed for successful reintroduction. However, their published findings essentially stop there, only briefly indicating the importance of perceptions on reintroductions: “the perception of tigers as ‘‘ferocious’’ carnivores extant in the landscape remains, and concerns over human-tiger conflict were the major reason cited by communities for not supporting reintroduction” (Gray et al. 2017, 2395). The authors go on to encourage the introduction of outreach, communication and robust safeguards for prevention and mitigation of human-tiger conflict to combat perception of “ferocious” tigers. But, without a deep and contextual understanding of these perceptions it will be difficult to create effective outreach and communication strategies. In response, the primary research question for this chapter is: How are the reintroduced tigers perceived by local peoples and does this differ from previous relationships and understandings of Sariska’s original tigers? To answer this question, this

46 This chapter has been adapted from an article in a special issue of Society & Animals, edited by geographers Monica Ogra and Julie Urbanik titled: Tracking the Human-Wildlife Conservation Nexus across the Human-Animal Studies Landscape: Doubleday, K. F. 2018. Human-tiger (re)negotiations: A case study from Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. Society & Animals 26: 1-23. 114 chapter examines the intergenerational (re)negotiation between people and tigers post- reintroduction and finds that it is a struggle rooted in place and territory, with boundaries constructed by both human and non-human actors. This chapter pulls from the MG-FGDs in 2014 and 2015 (384 participants). Specifically, this chapter reveals the widespread local perceptions of Sariska’s original and new tigers’ disparate spatial behaviors. A network of stories and encounters shapes the prevailing narratives people rely on to navigate life alongside tigers. Narratives are only part of the complex social-environmental network that dictates human-tiger relations; however, they have yet to receive empirical analysis at this scale.

WILDLIFE/WILDLIFE CONSERVATION IN ANIMAL GEOGRAPHY

Co-Constructed Conservation Landscapes

Spatial thinking and a foundation in human-environmental relations provide geographers with a lens with which to shed light on interspecies entanglements within the conservation landscape. Employing a transspecies spatial theory, animal geographers can uncover how humans conceptually and physically place animals. How humans imagine wild animals not only affects whether humans respect or exploit wildlife, but also forms dominant conservation and tourism strategies that confine wildlife to different places (Bolla and Hovorka 2012). The interactions within and transgressions of these placements reinforce imaginings such as: animals-out-of-place, problem species/animals, and fear- based responses to them, all of which culminate in reworked place-based practices (Bolla and Hovorka 2012). To contextualize wildlife conservation struggles, animal geographers have grounded their work in the idea that people and animals co-construct places, landscapes, and ecosystems (Whatmore 2002). By viewing biodiversity and conservation landscapes 115 as co-constructions, both can be understood as performative structures rooted in political contexts, practical constraints, ecological processes, partial knowledge, interspecies encounters, and resistance to management. For example, Dempsey (2010), examining human-grizzly bear relations, and Collard (2012), examining human-cougar relations, in British Colombia, argue that animals actively constitute space and politics. Both scholars argue that recognition of this agency advances understanding of how humans and wildlife transform space and one another. Likewise, both Dempsey (2010) and Collard (2012) uncover wildlife behavior and inclinations that alter and even displace communication, mediation, research, management, and recreation. Thus, management, maps, biologists’ methods, megafauna’s charisma, and narratives of human-wildlife encounters are all aspects of the assemblage of historic and current circumstances that impact and transform wildlife territories--shown through the tools and perspectives of animal geography (e.g., Sundberg 2011). Animal geographers can understand wildlife then by situating it within the many currents and flows that travel through places and facilitate the movement of multi-sited wildlife networks. These networks incorporate captive populations, the body parts and carcasses circulated through global wildlife trade, international translocation of endangered animals in hopes of preservation, and the spatial placements –real or imagined—that people ascribe to all animals. Ultimately, wild and captive spaces are increasingly becoming integrated into the global network of science and conservation practices (Whatmore 2002). Hence, the degree to which animals evade, transgress or accept the places imposed or suggested by humans either reinforces or counters human placements, engendering “relational negotiation[s] of physical boundaries and discursive imaginaries” (Bolla and Hovorka 2012, 3).

116 Boundaries & Classifications

Geographers have contributed significantly to understanding animals’ roles in the establishment of social-environmental classifications and boundaries (e.g., Doubleday 2017; Mansfield 2003). A prominent theme within this body of literature is assemblages (Deleuze and Guattari 1987), referring to “associations between entities” like “humans, animals, plants, machines, devices like maps or diagrams” (Sundberg 2011, 4) that influence nature-society delineations, outcomes and maintain social structures. This framework requires agency to be understood as part of the assemblage—bound in current and historical relations—among the actors (human and nonhuman) (Urbanik 2012). Within this framework, nonhumans are active in the outcomes and structure of the more-than human world. Wild animals’ behaviors, actions, and species histories then are understood as contextual and relational features that connect strategic places like PAs and zoos (Whatmore 2002). Animal geographers researching areas of human-wildlife conflict (HWC) (e.g., Crown and Doubleday 2017; Yeo and Neo 2010; Ogra 2009) are also an important voice in these examinations as HWC is increasingly recognized a concern no less important than habitat loss in the case of large-bodied predators. Further, they endeavor to engage the ideas of topological spaces, where space is relative and deformed by time- space compression, distance decay, other in-situ and ex-situ influences to identify conservation obstacles (e.g., Braverman 2014). This framework leads Whatmore to assert that, “‘wild’ animals and plants whose designation depends on their being forever somewhere else find their place in the world less than secure” (Whatmore 1999, 34). This statement raises a key question in today’s conservation concerns: Where does wildlife belong and how should spatial designations be raised and maintained to benefit wildlife and ecosystems?

117 Animal geographers then can offer critical analysis on wildlife’s capacity to co- create, maintain, and/or destabilize human-animal boundaries and to participate in the spatial relations maintained by conservation initiatives. This research provides a case study of perceptions revealing a history of humans and tigers creating, maintaining, and destabilizing boundaries.

HUMAN-TIGER ENCOUNTERS – MORE THAN HUMAN-TIGER CONFLICT

Moreover, this chapter adds to the growing literature of documenting more than just human-wildlife conflict, but histories and on-going negotiations of human-wildlife coexistence and encounter. This includes, highlighting how overlapping human and tiger populations (comprising conflict and coexistence) differ over time and space, even among the same human populations and species. People living in and adjacent to PAs, often reproach wildlife for conflict and loss one day and applaud wildlife the next for opportunity and development (Yurco et al. 2017). The continuous emphasis on human-wildlife conflict, as Goldman et al. (2010) have critiqued in Kenya and Yurco et al. (2017) have sought to counter in Botswana, “can obscure the realities of dynamic social and environmental processes that affect and may even invert human-wildlife relations on daily, seasonal, and yearly bases” (2017, 12). To that goal, this work adds evidence to how human-tiger conflict is produced in Sariska through complex relationships that including positive dimensions and narratives of coexistence. Telemetry has been a powerful tool in documenting many large carnivore species’ adaptability to cohabitate with human populations with little or no conflict through these species’ mobility during low-human activity times and spaces. Yet, we lack fine scale understanding of what happens just before or after a human-carnivore encounters. We don’t have the tiger’s emotional and experiential recount of interactions, but there are people

118 willing to talk about these moments. While incomplete, based off memory, and emotional, these recounts of encounter are part of the larger goal to address the inadequate understanding of the behavior of reintroduced animals (Breitenmoser et al. 2001; Fischer and Lindenmayer 2000). This qualitative work fills in those moments and immediate behavior at the very small scale, not hours apart but at the moment where tiger meets human.

RESULTS

Ecologists are starting to research the impacts of animal personality, described as “consistent differences in behavioral patterns between individuals,” on reintroduction success (Jensen et al. 2017). Personality could be considered a variable for predicting the animal’s reproductive success, as certain personality types have higher survival rates. Participants discuss Sariska’s new tigers as having individual and collective spatial personalities that differ from the original tigers. The distinctive personality displayed by the reintroduced tigers is then interpreted and enriched in a narrative of either coexistence (predictable movement, giving way to people, etc.) or conflict (wandering, standing their ground, etc.). This influences local willingness to coexist, which is a great concern, even over individual fitness for reintroduction, in biodiverse hotspots with dense human populations, like India. The growing call for social scientists to engage reintroduction studies is typically within the context of livelihood and economic development (e.g., Hayward and Somers

2009), and is irrefutably essential to successful reintroductions (and a part of this larger study). Yet, as this chapter demonstrates, there is yet more to learn from the emotive, narrative dimensions within the broader network of influences on local rejection or acceptance of rewilding. The focus on narratives saturated across the landscape (Figure 19)

119 presented here, strives to understand how rewilding is understood by local people based on their physical and conceptual entanglements with past and current tiger populations. The quotations used below are chosen as representative of prominent thematic patterns identified through analysis using the software Dedoose (2016), developed for mixed- method coding, and thematic pattern discernment, and discussed in Chapter 3. They are at the same time particularly insightful examples.

120

Figure 19: Sixteen distinct comparative descriptions of new and old tigers were determined after thematic analysis of all 32 FGDs using Dedoose (2016). Each time a participant described the new or old tigers within one of these frames it was coded. General agreements or disagreements are not represented here; only direct descriptions participants wear eager to verbalize. 121 What is a “Sariska Tiger”?

Within minutes of starting the first MG-FGD, an elderly participant quickly took a question on the reintroduction to an earlier time. He did not want to discuss the new tigers in isolation, but it seemed imperative to discuss the reintroduction in relation to “our original tigers” or the “old tigers” ('पुराने बाघ', or 'प्राचीन' or 'पहले समय के बाघ'). Going forward, if the general word “tiger” was used someone would correct me, noting there are two nonequivalent varieties of tiger:

Before we talk about the current [situation] let me tell you one thing [of] the olden tigers of Sariska. (Lakshmi, Man, ~15 km from Sariska)

These [tigers that you are asking about] are the ones brought by the sanctuary people, the old ones died (Devendra, Man, ~10 km from Sariska)

Next, without being prompted, someone would go into a direct comparison of the old and new tigers: “old tigers were real tiger[s], they [made] us feel that they are special but [the] new tigers [are] really good for nothing” (Gokul, Man, ~3 km from Sariska). Like this comparison, many relate not only to the differences between the tigers but also to the value of their presence.

Hariram: It’s nothing to compare to [the] older one.

Madhukar: [the new one is] like a fox compared to the older one.

Shyam: [they are] good for nothing.

Motilal: Old tigers used to roar [and the] entire jungle used to feel the sound but the new one has no impact. (Men, ~1 km from Sariska)

An illiterate daughter can make the butter and feed us -- It’s better than nothing [new tigers are better than nothing]. [But] an educated daughter is like the old tigers. (Hari, Man, ~8 km from Sariska)

122 This MG-FGD went on to detail how old tigers had intrinsic value as locals, with spiritual connections to the forest and temples, and as sources of tourism employment for their sons. Moreover, participants repeatedly credited the old tigers with keeping non-locals out of the forest, restricting wood collection by outsiders. The new tigers are a shadow of the old, providing only a few benefits like the “illiterate daughter” mentioned. Overall the problems with the new tigers were illustrated through the contrast with the old tigers.

When making these comparisons, participants often used the metaphor of “foreigners” (विदेशी) to describe the new tigers (39 mentions). As usual, an older man wanted to circumvent the question of “What is it like to live near Sariska?” and instead compare “olden tigers” to the new “foreigners” meaning the reintroduced tigers. Another man capped his story with this distinction: “There are two types of tiger. One is native and [the] other is foreigner” (Lakshmi, Man, ~15 km from Sariska). To further detail this depiction, one man provided a very shrewd set of metaphors that the entire MG-FGD of 12 people living inside Sariska agreed with:

The earlier ones were the real ones and these [new tigers] are like jerseys47. There is no comparison of the older and new one, it is absolutely like local cow and a jersey cow [foreign breed]… same way we cannot compare old tiger with new tigers, like you are local Indian [research assistant] and Madam [author] is from foreign country so both of you can’t be compared. (Badri, Man, inside Sariska)

Jalais (2008) found a similar dichotomy in the Sundarbans, highlighted by a honey collector who described current tigers as “tailormade in city labs with no prior knowledge of the difficult Sundarbans terrain” as compared to “their old tigers” that shared a history

47 Jersey cows, black and white milk cows, were brought to Rajasthan for their high milk production. It is widely believed in this area that on their own, without interbreeding with local cows, jerseys wither in the heat and droughts of Rajasthan. Making them more work than they are worth by having short lives. 123 of displacement and a torturous environment (Jalais 2008, 35). This study investigated these dichotomies, old versus new and local versus foreign, in the current chapter and Chapter 5. In this chapter, I specifically investigate the 631 distinct comparisons of the old versus new tigers recorded in FGDs, finding it to be a prevalent part of the reintroduction narrative. Only three MG-FGDs did not freely compare the new and old tigers. In which case, the simple question “Are there any differences between the old and new tigers?” was asked at the end of the MG-FGDs. This finding challenges dominant conservation practices that operate at the species level without considering perceived inter-species or chronological differences as a hindrance to rewilding. The people of Sariska perceive the new and old tigers as distinct nations with differing histories, contradictory intentions, and divergent spatial- understandings. Thus, the breakdown of the interspecies communication, described below, produces different human-wildlife boundaries of coexistence. Each encounter between people and new tigers that participants interpret as disregard for the boundaries negotiated by the original tigers feeds into the “collective performance” (Sundberg 2011) of the new tigers as agents unwilling to coexist. The landscape echoes a deep narrative with several distinct facets, two of which—"vagabond" and "giving way"—are the focus of this chapter. Participants were never asked to describe the new or old tigers specifically. For example, participants were never asked if the new or old tigers “gave way,” were wandering, or stayed in specific locations. Thus, the presence of these narratives across the landscape, in narratives the residence produced of their own volition without prompting in most cases, speaks to the weight of these narratives as something people found very important to communicate. If by the end of the MG-FGD a participant had not naturally compared the new and old tigers then the simple question “are there any differences between the old and new tigers?” was asked. 124 Vagabond

One prominent characteristic used to describe the new tigers is “vagabond” (आिारा, or नए बाघ आिारा की तरह हℂ) (42 mentions). This interpreted behavior creates unease when people expect the new tigers’ movements to be as predictable as the original tigers were.

...new tigers are like vagabond, they have no idea about this jungle… these tigers are not fixed to their respective positions [like the old tigers]… they roam from one place to another. (Ajit, Man, ~2 km from Sariska)

Through telemetry, Shekhawat (2012) found Sariska’s recently relocated tigers had large home ranges double that in some cases of established tigers reintroduced earlier. This was attributed to their initial habitat exploration, a behavior also noted in relocated tigers into Panna Tiger Reserve (Sarkar et al. 2016). This exploratory period of large carnivores post-relocation is determined by plotting the animal’s movements until the maximum home range is reached—the time it takes representing the exploration period (Sarkar et al. 2016).

In Panna, reintroduced tigers’ exploratory territory was likewise nearly double that of the final established territories (Sarkar et al. 2016). In Sariska, reintroduced tigers’ exploratory periods (and thus territories) were reduced by subsequent tiger releases—attributed to increased completion—contracting and stabilizing territories by 2011 (Shekhawat 2012). Of note, two sub-adult tigresses were released into Sariska in 2013, and participants described their wandering as ongoing in 2014 and 2015. Thus, the tigers’ exploratory period imprints strongly on villagers’ perceptions and has lasted past the recorded exploratory period. Participants interpret wide-ranging tigers moving through human areas (e.g., villages) as dismissive of coexistence. Conversely, Sariska’s original tigers were

125 understood as co-creators of an agreed upon landscape with combined human-only, tiger- only and human-tiger areas.

Till 1997, just like we recognize the humans by face we could recognize the [original] tigers by their face. We can tell that just by looking at the face of the tiger…which of those tigers belong to which place (Kailash, Man, ~5 km from Sariska)

When asking a FGD for their opinions on the reintroduction, the first comment centered on the new tigers’ wandering tendencies:

Narayan: A new tiger keeps coming in our field and villages.

Roop: So everyone is scared of them. Because they keep moving from one place to another like dogs, in the fields, in the village, and very often. Wandering. (Men, ~6 km from Sariska)

Then we asked an elderly woman in the group “when you heard about the new tigers being brought here, how did you feel?” She responded with another comparison:

Old tigers used to live in their particular area and they never harmed us but a new tiger keeps on coming in the village, just look at this hill, behind you, it comes here very often. (Nanda, Woman, ~6 km from Sariska).

Older generations narrated stories of the original tigers with admiration and sadness, while whole communities expressed fear of the new tigers, describing them as out-of-place, stumbling through the landscape without the inherited and learned place- based knowledge the original tigers possessed (27 mentions). The perception of old tigers as bound to specific places is part of the overall reasons they were “safe.” Asking for an elaboration of the new tigers as wandering, participants would explain this behavior equated to a continual threat:

126 [We are] scared that they could be anywhere. Because [new tigers] don’t have any specific locality, we run from pillar to the post. [We] get scared that anywhere we may be attacked. (Ambika, Man, ~2 km from Sariska)

The old tigers never possessed any danger to us and now there are new ones from outside. (Mukta, Woman, ~7 km from Sariska)

These new tigers they come from outside so they are not familiar with [this place]. (Ajay, Man, ~2 km from Sariska)

Participants’ emphasis of the new tigers’ wanderings “anywhere” meaning into human and livestock areas captured this unease.

[Losing the old tigers] was painful. They were like family members, and they had separated areas, and they used to stay in their fixed areas. But not these new tigers, they can go anywhere. (Ambika, Man, ~2 km from Sariska)

Now, the new tigers have no knowledge of this place. They go anywhere. (Gopilial, Man, ~15 km from Sariska)

The new tigers are really dangerous as they can come from anywhere. (Jawahar, Man, ~7 km from Sariska)

The prevailing perception of the tigers’ vagabond disposition and lack of place knowledge has weakened the buffer between them and people that previously allowed people to perceive a navigable landscape. Now the landscape is hazardous, without reliable, safe passages. Residents perceive tigers as coming from anywhere and into formerly recognized human-only areas.

Giving Way

Participants generally agree that people and tigers traversed the landscape for the last several decades without high levels of human-tiger conflict because “The old tigers…were not dangerous for us…They used to run away [when they heard] human 127 voices.” While the new tigers, “they don’t run. They don’t fear us” (Ambika, Man, ~2 km from Sariska). An older woman in the group retold a similar story, saying “if we encounter them then they don’t leave our way, they just block our path, they are not like the old tigers” (Laxmi, Woman, ~2 km from Sariska). Descriptions of the new tigers not giving way were also fervent, with participants joining in to agree and add emotional emphasis.

Yes [agreeing with others], if we would go in a group of 15 to 20 people they still never give us space and they try to show off (Menka, Woman, ~3 km from Sariska)

New tigers never give space even when they would sight a human being. In comparison the olden tigers were far better because they used to have localities… as soon as they sighted a person they give their way and [provided] space to move on (Baldev, Man, ~3 km from Sariska).

If there’s any human movement… [old tigers] would change their course. The new tigers have no attachment with humans… they do not appear to be afraid of humans. Now, if they see anyone they don’t move anywhere. (Kalyan, Man, ~5 km from Sariska).

Older participants continued to describe using and understanding their landscape based on mutual understanding of the old “tiger(s) territory” and “human territory.” The old tigers' perceived fear of human voices (127 mentions) assured they “gave [the] right of way.”

Indrani: These new ones are fearless.

Translator: The old ones used to feel fear?

Kalpana: Yes, the old ones use to run away if they hear human voices, but these new ones do not. (Women, ~4 km from Sariska)

Now, the tigers which have been newly introduced. They don’t understand anything. If a human voice reaches them then they immediately comes to them. (Badri, Man, inside Sariska). 128

If we meet the old tigers, then we just shout, and the tiger used to leave, but the new ones are not like those tigers. (Meenu, Woman, ~2 km from Sariska)

The old tigers were like this, like if we are talking here they will hear and go away but new ones follow the voices. (Nidhi, Woman, ~10 km from Sariska)

No, they didn’t come to our area. It is the tradition, that they may come out of the jungles but they do not come in our vicinity. (Jawahar, Man, ~7 km from Sariska)

In one FGD participants discussed the tigress ST10 at length. Participants described normal tiger behavior of ST10 having set paths and rest stops in her territory. Their descriptions are reminiscent of what many say of the old tigers “[having] treks but would move over to let people pass” (Ambika, Man, ~2 km from Sariska). Participants repeatedly defined this behavior as “giving way,” (पुराने बाघ रास्ता देते थे) (136 mentions). This was the only description of a new tiger with “old tiger” characteristic. This may be evidence of the slow but ongoing adaptation of the new tigers to cohabitate with Sariska’s human population effectively, and/or, the people’s slow recognition of this adaptation within the reintroduced population but only noticed so far in the case of ST10. Nevertheless, the conversation quickly turned from ST10 to another tiger. A year and a half before this MG-FGD, participants reported spotting a tiger on the road that didn’t retreat even amid “a lot of hype and commotion [human voices]… [Tiger] should have moved on.” This highly visible event compound the narrative of the new tigers as vagabond and confrontational. The entire MG-FG sees this resistance to “giving way” as a sign of disrespect: “there is a big difference that new tigers don’t respect humans and don’t leave path for humans, as our elders use to tell us that whenever old tiger see humans on their path, they respect them and leave a path for humans, they never attacked” (Jamna, Man,

129 ~2 km from Sariska). An older man named Vivek, who remembers when tigers were “common,” said,

Vivek: New ones are not good.

Translator: Meaning?

Vivek: When we went in the jungle, old tigers used to see us and give way, to move on or pass on, but new tigers, when they see people, they never give way (Man, ~3 km from Sariska)

Women from other MG-FGDs had a similar recollection of the old tigers:

Eila (woman): Like when we used to go and collect some woods and materials then we used to see the tigers.

Hemlata (woman): It [old tiger] would not attack us, it would leave that way and would not do anything to us.

Eila (woman): The tiger would leave the way. (Women, ~7 km from Sariska)

When we used to collect grass in the jungle, old tigers used to see us, and they used to give way or pass by… [they] never harmed us (Mridula, Woman, ~6 km from Sariska)

Galhano Alves (1996) described villager adaptability to amiably living with Sariska’s tigers by never getting between a tiger and its prey, keeping eye contact, and retreating slowly upon encountering a tiger. During this research, 18-19 years later, participants did not reveal or hint at this behavior. In fact, “if we meet them in the jungle, the only way to defend ourselves [noting nonthreatening interactions are not possible] is to climb up trees” (Hemlata, Woman, ~7 km from Sariska). This spatial negotiation, for the human to give up space on the ground, of climbing trees as the only option when encountering the new tigers was widespread among women and men. Tree climbing is now the people’s necessary retreat, giving way, instead of the new tigers. 130

If we need to go [to the jungle]…we go together carefully in groups of 2-3 persons. If we meet a tiger then we climb a tree. (Abhay, Man, ~2 km from Sariska)

They come [nearby] to eat… we have to climb the trees to protect ourselves. (Minakshi, Woman, ~10 km from Sariska).

Just climb up the tree, then the tiger will go in its own way and then you may get down (Akshay, Man, ~7 km from Sariska)

This person who owns the tractor...only got saved because he climbed the tree otherwise the tiger is so dangerous. (Jamna, Man, ~2 km from Sariska)

This continual repetition of the statement that the new tigers would not “give way” to humans seemed to be the source of peoples’ aversion for the new tigers. If people living near/in Sariska still practice the behaviors described by Galhano Alves above, it was not discussed in the villages I visited during FGDs or informal one-on-one conversations. Maintaining these types of coexistence strategies Galhano Alves mentions is important, and this study shows how quickly this co-adaptation can be lost. A middle-aged man named Bharat detailed his acceptance of tigers outside Sariska based on his own family’s dependence on the reserve, for grazing and firewood. But, Bharat added, “[tigers] should not attack us.” When I asked for more specifics on his indifference of non-attacking tigers outside Sariska, Bharat said, “they should leave the path… and seeing the human, they don’t stand. They give way” (Bharat, Man, ~2 km from Sariska). Repeatedly, when asked for specifics after describing tigers as threats, or on perceived future attacks, someone in the MG-FGD would clarify by defaulting to the simple expectation of tigers “giving way.” Tigers then were acceptable as long as they recognized human voice and acknowledged peoples’ right of way. Tigers “giving way,” perceived as a form of trust and respect, was described as the linchpin for people to accept

131 cohabitation. By giving way, people perceived Sariska’s original tigers as making space for humanity within the landscape. This act of respect is an otherwise rare compromise in this contentious landscape with historic conflict between local people and park officials/policies. These collective perceptions of Sariska’s original tigers across this varied and vast landscape speak to the complexity of the present negotiations and enduring human-tiger history. While unlikely that all tigers before 2004 “gave way,” there is a permeating perception of such behavior that has consequences in today’s more-than-human landscape.

Moreover, this case study highlights the prerequisite for appreciation of variable human perceptions of particular animal populations rather than assuming that interactions are determined by the animal species.

Kajala: They are not familiar with us; they are threat to us always. So they can never replace the old tigers.

Deepti: If they can find some like the old tigers then we have no problem. (Women, ~2 km from Sariska)

DISCUSSION

The repeated patterns, described above, of characterizing the new tigers as vagabond, then as a continual threat (because they are not fixed/go anywhere and do not give way), was repeatedly concluded with comments on aggression. The new tiger’s perceived proclivity to attack (there are no official records of any attacks on people by Sariska’s reintroduced tigers) was almost always discussed as a precursor to what seems to be the real issue: the new tigers are not afraid of human voices (further discussed below).

132 This combination of characteristics has generated participants’ desire for restricting tigers inside the park boundaries—a practice/infrastructure not widely desired previously.

They should be there in the forest provided such kind of tigers should be brought who do not attack, who are safe, those who stay at their place (Hanuman, Man, ~2 km from Sariska)

Generations of a shared ontology that dictated spatial behavior and thus safe space have been greatly diminished. People hold on to a revival of that ontology by believing the new tigers should understand (or they even do understand yet still transgress) what amounts to appropriate spatial behavior. To the people, the problem is simple: these tigers don’t know the place or the boundaries established by older negotiations with the original tigers that today’s people expect the new tigers to recognize. The narratives of past coexistence, transgression, and reconciliation reveal the layered history of human-wildlife relations that impact today’s conservation landscape. Reintroducing a species is not reinstating an old human-wildlife (spatial) relationship but starting a new one. Yet, Sariska still is navigated, in particular by those on foot, through interspecies communication that allows or jeopardizes human-tiger coexistence. Human-carnivore shared landscapes are accomplished by carnivores’ adaptability to the human element(s) in their landscape over time (e.g., Odden et al. 2014; Dickson et al. 2005). For example, “cougars (Puma concolor) have adapted to high density human areas in California by utilizing riparian woodlands (Dickson et al. 2005). Wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) living outside protected areas have adapted to living on community lands by changing their diet to smaller wild prey species (Woodroffe et al. 2012). The tigers of Chitwan National Park are primarily active at night when the area’s large human population is not collecting forest products (Carter et al. 2012). Leopards in the state of Maharashtra have also adapted to 133 living in high density human areas by hunting at night and avoiding contact (Odden et al. 2014). Carter and Linnell (2016), conclude it is mutual adaptation, both human and animal, that is critical to long-term coexistence. Adaptation here meaning “humans and carnivores are able to change their behavior, learn from experience, and pursue their own interests with respect to each other” (Carter and Linnell 2016, 575). In Sariska’s past that has amounted to collective spatial personalities that enhance coexistence.

Rangarajan (2013) provides another case study focused on the coexistence between lions of Gir Forest and local communities to explore the idea of cross-generational learning within lions. Rangarajan questions whether there is a historical adaptation within the lion populations that allows for space-sharing, and specifically asks, “Do these lions have a certain adaptive capability—to adapt, shift, or [how] they relate to one another and to humans they encounter [and] share living space?” to which he answers “Yes” based on a historical analysis (Rangarajan 2013, 111). The dominant narratives presented here indicate the old tigers had an adaptive capacity for coexistence. This adaptability is more apparent as the new tigers do not reflect this adaptive spatial behavior. Rangarajan (2013) offers a historical account of part of the lion-human relationships in Gir; this empirical case study provides a current and local narrative to substantiate Rangarajan’s claims of large carnivores’ cross-generational adaptability to human coexistence.

CONCLUSION

Carnivores’ adaptability must be part of the narrative of reintroductions to counter local communities holding to past expectations that this study reveals as compelling and effectual. Future plans for rewilding should be framed from the beginning as adapting to a new environment—removing expectations of immediate place-understanding. This should be a shared responsibility by conservation stockholders, but as Carter and Linnell (2016)

134 point out, “might rely on local community leaders to endorse behavioral adaptations or conservation organizations to implement various programs” (Carter and Linnell 2016, 575). This study adds the importance of behavioral narratives surrounding vulnerable reintroduced predator populations to the long list of tactics to sustain coexistence. Members of the research team for this project are making preparations to include this conversation within their already established wildlife safety workshops and typical discourse during wildlife rescues in the area. This work adds to Ojalammi and Blomley’s (2015) work on everyday encounters between people and carnivores in the creation of territories and related research in animal geography. This article intentionally presents samples of a rich narrative that is otherwise, to my knowledge, not presented in the literature on reintroductions (outside brief mentions, e.g., Jalais 2008). In so doing, I have shown a narrative observant of the daily, fine-scale perceptions of extirpation and reintroduction—a part of the human dimension of rewilding often left unexplored in place of generalizations of HWC from Likert scales. While this may take similar forms elsewhere, there are many social, economic and political structures and hardships Sariska’s human populations have undergone that influence their perceptions of wildlife, extirpation, and reintroduction in locally-peculiar ways. The people’s varied experiences with NGOs, the Forest Department, and local politicians are important factors shaping the perceptions presented here. This article while recognizing these influences provides a unique focus on a dominant interlinked-narrative across this social, cultural and political landscape. Analysis of difference between and across these socio-economic elements is necessary, and a needed area of future research. This empirical study in the Global South observing a temporally compressed phenomenon when the issues are still ongoing and acute is part of the burgeoning research considering the human dimensions of rewilding. Yet, the study timeline limits the degree 135 of understanding of how tigers and people do or do not effectively communicate a co- existence in their co-created landscape. Thus, longitudinal studies in areas of future reintroductions are needed to expand on the initial insights presented here.

136 Chapter 5: “Not Our Tigers” & Why the Discourse Matters

INTRODUCTION

Nature48 is, discursively, something to be explored, protected, delineated, accurately understood, tamed, restored and/or improved (Castree 2014). These diverse applications of nature speak to the multiple values and goals of those who purposefully use the idea in media, education, and policy. In many contexts, the view of nature as the non- human world has been wielded as an instrument of power and domination (Castree 2001b), most notably within the early large-scale conservation movements in Africa and the United

48 The debate around what constitutes “nature” is most often dualistic. Literature from critical social science, political ecology, science and technology studies48, and beyond have created two heavily defended and distinct views of nature. One camp treats nature as a fabrication of the social imagination, and thus is known as ‘social constructionism,’ in contrast to the notion of ‘natural realism,’ which views nature as a substantive entity and unbiased force (Soper 1995). The adamant divide between constructionist and realist views itself echoes the long standing binary thought separating the natural from the social (Whatmore 1999). Deviating from a simple combination of ideas from both side of the nature debate is the growing literature on hybrid geographies. Whatmore (1999) poses this geographical initiative as a way to study the “living rather than abstract spaces of social life, configured by numerous, interconnected agents – variously composed of biological, mechanical and habitual properties and collective capacities – within which people are differently and plurally articulated” (Whatmore 1999, 26). This framework provides the critical voices in the social sciences a way out of the standoff between ‘constructionist’ and ‘realist’ interpretations of nature. Whatmore (2002) favors and pulls from the wider literature on Actor-Network Theory, while trying to develop what she calls “more than human” modes of analysis. This hybrid geography employs a decentered agency, linking and created between actors instead of a “manifestation of unitary internet” (Whatmore 1999, 27). Further, agency must be disengaged from the subject/object binary to allow for “the “material” and the “social” [to] intertwine and interact in all manner of promiscuous combinations” (Thrift 1996, 24). Whatmore (1999) emphasizes this expressive agency as a relational effect engendered from the large network of dissimilar, connecting components whose action is established in the networks and that they partially form. Whatmore’s engagement of the non-human in large part forms this hybrid geographies framework; likewise, non-human agents are a vital part of her conception of networks and their capability to collectively act. Latour and Haraway are also influential voices within this larger post-humanist discussion of nature and both refuse to join one side of the debate over the other. Haraway’s (2013) concepts of the cyborg and the coyote and Latour’s (1993) work on actants have extended the notions of agency to nonhumans in ways that allow scholars to abdicate the constrictions of a realist verses constructionists dispute. Haraway and Latour dissolve nature-society boundaries and contextualize nature as both material and socially constructed by an assemblage of human and nonhuman elements (Instone 1998). These contributions along with those of Whatmore (2002), Hobson (2007), and Sundberg (2011; 2014) have provided analytical frameworks that can recognizes the discursive influence on nature in addition to the tangible ecologies that allow for a more holistic understanding of environmental change and degradation. 137 States. The establishment of national parks across the United States forcibly displaced Native Americans, just as indigenous people have been forcibly removed from (or deprived of entry to) traditional lands for a century across Africa. Both examples reflect the idea that nature must be segregated from people for its own survival. The Forest Department (GOR 2004) and conservationists alike (e.g., Johnsingh and Madhusudan 2009) encourage this conceptualization of Sariska tigers. Local people resist this conceptualization through their own discourse about original/old tigers and reintroduced/new tigers (Chapter 4) by envisioning a situation where human activities overlap or intersect with those of tigers, with people and tigers making way for the other. Yi-Fu Tuan’s work in the 1980s is part of an earlier body of work that broadened the understanding of animals. This broader understanding applied concepts normally employed by human geographers when studying “outsider” human groups, or the “Other.” Specifically, Tuan described the places where outsiders, minorities, and placeless beings create and live, while also focusing on the encroachment of outsiders’ webs of power (Philo

1998). In Dominance and Affection (1984), Tuan started seeing animals as a “social” group trapped in struggles with people. He also emphasized the contrasting perspectives animals occupy in human conceptualization, oscillating between admiration and disgust, empathy and control, profitability and indifference. Wild animals do not fit neatly into cultural imaginations (Harding 2014); the same animal can engender fear, fascination, or affection. People think of animals in diverse and often contradictory ways, employing various opinions in different social contexts (Lofgren 2007). Bears for instance, are depicted in ways that “are not neutral but have been continually constructed and reconstructed in political contexts in which they have reflected some interests and not others” (Mullin 1999, 213). Harding’s (2014) work on narratives of bears leads him to link, as other animal geographers do, the complex relationships between animal representations to cultures’ 138 “ideas of wilderness, nature, and the role of humans in the natural world” (Harding 2014, 177). Wild animals were missing from social science discourse and from the general public’s concerns as a result of their “physical absence (in the landscape)… as though we had lost both the opportunity and the ability to see them” (Shepard 1996, 9); but this is changing. This absence, though being addressed, has left various media (e.g., books, television, film, zoos, news outlets) to construct long-lasting representations of wildlife

(Brownlow 2000; Crown and Doubleday 2017), which frequently underline the distinction of “Others” (Anderson 1998). However, these distinctions are not only created and internalized by distant, urban societies, but created and utilized by people with a limited political voice, cohabitating with the world’s endangered apex predators. These reconceptualizations solidify through discursive repetition. Discourses are critical in constructing “otherness” (Neumann 2004). Discourses are frameworks that envelop “particular combinations of narratives, concepts, ideologies and signifying practices” (Barnes and Duncan 1992, 8). Discourse “emphasizes some concepts at the expense of others” (Peet and Watts 1996, 14). In conservation landscapes, for example, the idea of “amoral and brutal poacher/Other” is founded on comparisons with “compassionate and conservation-minded hunter/European” and also differentiating African poachers as “less worthy of moral consideration… making shoot on sight [rational] and [an] ethical tool” in wildlife conservation (Neumann 2004, 833). The constructed superiority of the European is essential in the devaluating of the “Other,” who is invariably African. The measures of such inferiority are generated in a constant practice of discursively creating difference (Neumann 2004). In the discourse about the original/old tigers and the reintroduced/new tigers of Sariska, local people rely on a discourse of the new tigers that is representative of carnivore reintroductions in many places. This discourse does more than “Other” the new tigers; it 139 works to delegitimize their right to be “Sariska tigers,” and the laws that protect them through the dis-appropriation: “not our tigers.”

NOT OUR CARNIVORES

Before reintroduction, it is important to recognize the “existence of a ‘place’ where both the physical (embodied) and cultural (symbolic) animal” may or may not be welcomed (Brownlow 2000, 144). The reintroduced animal’s survival rests on the success of the ecological-political process of “‘bringing the animals back in’ (cf. Wolch and Emel (1995), both materially (physically) and figuratively (symbolically)” (Brownlow 2000, 144) in the surrounding societies’ minds. In many cases of carnivore reintroduction and natural recolonization, local communities resist “bringing the animals back in” with a discourse of “they [carnivores] are not ours,” placing the animals outside the cultural and moral landscape. Anecdotally, Samar Halarnkar, a Bangalore-based journalist for the Hindustan

Times, reported that many people who deemed leopards as man-eaters in Pauri-Garhwal, Uttarakhand said those were not “our leopards” “but animals trucked in surreptitiously from the plains” (Halarnkar 2014). As mentioned previously, Jalais (2008), working in the Sundarbans, also reported islanders describing “their tigers,” in opposition to tigers they believed to be introduced by the government. The islanders emphasize the aggressive tigers they believed to be introduced as coming from “city labs.” This origin, of non-nativeness is used as the identifier to discredit the aggressive tigers as well as identify “their old tigers,” who had intrinsic knowledge of Sundarbans hardships and co-existed with its people. A similar pattern of discrediting discourse has been observed in the United States. A reporter for The New Yorker, Dana Goodyear, listened in on a meeting of victims of the

140 mountain lion known as P-45 living in the Santa Monica Mountains in California. The victims likened P-45 to a serial killer, a “sociopath, a freak—‘the John Wayne Gacy of mountain lions’” for his seeming indiscriminate killing of livestock, resulting in livestock owners calling for his removal (Goodyear 2017). Adding to this reputation is P-45’s origin, “He is an outsider… [with] an alien provenance,” a trait livestock owners have brought into their discourse of him. “I know P-45 is not indigenous to here,” Goodyear records one of P-45’s victims saying. Likewise, I personally spoke to a ranch owner near Yellowstone National Park and was told “they introduced the wrong wolves.” The ranch owner went on to describe undesirable behavior, emphasizing, “Canadian wolves are not the answer.” These are anecdotal stories, but they all contain local people’s discourse of non-nativeness as a threat. By emphasizing non-nativeness, people living alongside these predators remove moral worthiness for the carnivores in question. They all represent the concern of

“nativeness” at the core of biopolitics49 of species placement and belonging. The consequential Othering of reintroduced or recolonizing predators is evident across the globe (e.g., Rust and Taylor 2016; Buller 2008). The original and reintroduced, or believed to be reintroduced, carnivores of Yellowstone, Sariska, Uttarakhand, and Sundarbans are appropriated with similar discursive practices. Both original and reintroduced are wild but in each case are characterized as outsiders by the discrete narrative of “not ours.” Katz (2000) points out wolves are reprehended and admired based on nearly opposite conceptualizations of “nature,” both populations’ categorization hinging on perceived “nativeness.” Carnivores seen as not native then, are then at the same time rejected as not natural. Katz points to the direct human intentionality (physically relocating through human processes) as “creat[ing]

49 Scholarship on biosecurity/biocontrol is also an important area animal geographers are pioneering in conversation with philosophies and management of “nature” (e.g., Hodgetts 2017; Buller 2008). 141 a clear distinction between human artifacts and natural entities” (2000, 37). Government agencies try to make a place more natural, before high levels of human impact, through reintroduction of native species but ironically local inhabitants code the reintroduced populations as unnatural. Thus, the government’s hand in the process as well as the species non-nativeness combined, are interpreted as unnatural, which delegitimizes the reintroduced animals’ worthiness of occupation. Buller (2008), in his consideration of wolf recolonization in the Alps, summarizes the difficulties of such realities:

Different and competing philosophies of nature (its value, its knowledge, its relationality, its science, its practice, etc.) are revealed, generating complexities (Law and Mol 2002) and pluralities that no single management solution can resolve (Mauz 2005). (Buller 2008, 1595)

TIGER OTHERS OF SARISKA

The process of discursively constructing people, places, and animals as different or similar to create moral worthiness and standing in conservation landscapes has a long history rooted in colonial conservation schemes (Neumann 2004). This discursive construction has often come at the cost of othering local people, restricting their access to ancestral lands, and placing wildlife at a higher level of worthiness and standing in wildlife reserves—producing longstanding material consequences (Neumann 2004). As Neumann (2004) has argued, “Discursive practices construct difference in a way that establishes relative positions in the moral community” (833). In Sariska, it is a discourse of difference within a species, tigers, shifting in the moral community. Tigers’ moral standing in Sariska is contested, as evident in Chapter 4, distinctive differences in discourse about the original/old and the reintroduced/new tigers that have been largely accepted there. As a result, the old tigers are afforded higher moral standing and worthiness as an accepted part 142 of local people’s lives; while the new tigers have not achieved this level of worth. It is not merely that the new tigers are characterized as dangerous and unpredictable, but that this difference makes them less worthy of full respect. Thus, these representations make vilifying the new tigers and disregarding conservation laws to protect them, retaliating against the forest guards, and other forms of conflict more acceptable. There are five discourses that, together, make “Others” of the new tigers, to fit the characterization of “not ours,” or not the local people’s tigers (shown in the five color gradients, Figure 20). The powerful images of the vagabond and dangerous new tigers, and the ancestral and predictable old tigers (Chapter 4) are the base for the more universal representation of reintroduced or naturally recolonizing carnivores aground the world as “not ours” (mentioned 108 times).

143

Figure 20: Five distinct comparative descriptions that framed the new tigers as “Other” were determined after thematic analysis of all 52 FGDs using Dedoose (2016). Each time a participant described the new tigers within one of these frames it was coded.

Participants described their versions of the new tigers’ histories, true and construed, as through emotive discourse about Sariska’s purpose, advantages, and disadvantages to their lives. Participants in every quadrant of the study area relayed very specific histories of the new tigers, with emphasis on what they believed to be the tigers’ troubled histories from Ranthambhore or their beginnings in zoos or circuses.

Ajeet (man): They are very dangerous. The one, which have been migrated to the park from outside are really dangerous. They were man-eaters [in Ranthambhore].

Kajal (woman): If they come out, then they will eat humans. (Gujar, ~10 kilometers from Sariska)

144 There [the new tiger] was called by the name Kumar and had eaten lot of humans…Yes, in Ranthambhore that tiger has devoured many humans, and after its migration, it’s doing the same [in Sariska] again and again. (Suraj, Man, Benjara, ~2 kms from Sariska)

We were scared about it. We were ok with the old Sariska tigers. But these new reintroduced tigers are not afraid of human beings. They attacked in Ranthambhore. So we are afraid that they might attack us. (Ratan, Man, Gujar, ~10 km from Sariska)

Gopal: These [new] tigers come from the circus...

Adarsh: And these circus tigers they come close to humans, they don’t fear anyone.

Jaskaur: What can we expect? They are not from here [new tigers] will not give space for humans [because “circus tigers” are used to being near people].

Translator: They will learn to adapt to people?

Gopal: No, they are not Sariska tigers. (Men, Benjara, ~5 km from Sariska)

If a distinctive place such as Ranthambhore, zoos, or circus was not mentioned, the new tigers’ origins were still described and anchored to places “outside” of Sariska. The new tigers were described generally as “foreign,” including terms like “from outside” 63 times in the 52 FGDs.

They [original Sariska tigers] were traditional, they were living ancestrally. (Vijay, Man, Gujar, ~7 km from Sariska)

We fear from new tigers but not from old ones… they do not belong [new] tigers come from outside that should be outside (Moti, Man, Gujar, ~2 km from Sariska)

These new tiger we feel some threat, which may be they will attack, because these tigers are from somewhere else. (Abhijeet, Man, Gujar, ~10 km from Sariska)

145 One afternoon, we requested navigational help from a farmer. He insisted that we visit with the local Holy Man in the area before our final destination. The man was introduced as a Saint and keeper of a small temple on the edge of Sariska. We talked with him and two other visiting Holy Men for roughly 45 minutes and were given a tour of the temple and surrounding lands, including areas frequently visited by tigers. When asking if anything had changed in Sariska over the last few years the Holy Man immediately started to describe the new tigers as “a difficult change.” He explained further:

Saint: The old tigers were very good, they were familiar with me and never caused any harm to us, they use to sit and drink water close to me and never harmed. But the new ones are not that familiar and comfortable with us.

Translator: They are not used to you?

Saint: They have been brought. They are not the tigers of [Sariska] the new tigers are weak from this, and we are weak from this.

Translator: Who is also weak?

Saint: Here in the jungle we, Saints, tigers, and wild animals are living together for thousands of years. The [Forest Department] sold old tigers and ate [took] the bribe. The people are weak without the tiger [discussion of tigers as protectors of the forest which is a benefit to everyone]… the new tigers are not our tigers. (Saint at Sacred Space, ~.5 km from Sariska)

In complementarity to the dominant “not our tigers” narrative, participants also characterized the reintroduced tigers as “rented” or “circus” tigers (mentioned 19 times), another way to distinguish their non-nativeness.

Felt bad [when we heard the news of the extirpation] because original tiger were totally gone and new tiger means rented tiger brought from different places. (Bajrang, Man, Joji, ~10 km from Sariska)

146 Means we stay here since 1000 year and original tiger of this land were gone and some rented tiger were brought from other place, it is not good. (Kanhaiya, Man, Meenas, ~10 km from Sariska)

They are not the real tigers they are like rented out tigers here. They are very weak. (Limba, Man, Gujar, ~.5 km from Sariska)

Participants described at length the new tigers’ dependency on the Forest Department (mentioned 37 times) for survival, attributed to the special task force designated to track and monitor the collared tigers. Two participants summarized this sentiment saying:

Arvind: Old tigers were free; they use to live their natural life but these new tigers are taken care by two, three persons.

Jagat: [New tigers] do not belong, they are a burden to us. Our tigers [original tigers] were strong and [did not need help from the Forest Department]. Tigers from outside are better in a zoo [than in Sariska]. (Men, Gujar, ~2 km from Sariska).

The people of Sariska link themselves to a tigered landscape of the past, but not to the new human-tiger landscape. There is a palpable dis-ownership, an untangling of kinship between tigers and humans. The depth of this dis-ownership and othering echo the fragility of species’ value and symbolism. Buller (2008) says “simply naming [reintroduced carnivores] as ‘wild’ is no longer enough” (Whatmore 2002, 33). Sariska’s people agree. People’s characterization of Sariska’s current tigers as “not ours,” adds to Buller’s (2008) argument that contemporary reintroductions, especially of large mammals, are initiating contradictory and competing “philosophies of nature” (Thompson 2002). The widespread use of the terms “rented tigers,” “weak,” and “dependent” is a way to devalue the tigers. Typically, tigers would be devalued as a threat to human life. Oddly, the discourse of weakness is also of major concern here and indicates that the reintroduced 147 tigers are interpreted as not only unworthy from a human point of view, but they are also poor and unworthy representations of true tigers from a wilderness-centric point of view. This facilitates the devaluation of Sariska as a wilderness area by association.

Now we can just say that tiger are there - just a formality. (Sarayu, Woman, Meena, ~1 km from Sariska)

[Sariska] has tigers now [Forest Department] will see the profit but we will suffer. They are no benefit to us. (Vishwa, Man, Gujar, ~1.5 km from Sariska)

These participants emphasize the in-progress reconstruction of Sariska into a prominent tiger landscape worthy of international tourism for its conservation successes. The reintroduced tigers, however, are constructed as lacking value in this restoration because their value depends on stronger law enforcement to limit human presence and extractive use inside Sariska.

WHY THE DISCOURSE MATTERS LONG-TERM

Discourses are “experientially grounded manifestations of social and power relations” (Harvey 1996, 80). The discourses of “not our tigers,” are a product of “an internally consistent knowledge field” (Said 1978, 94). The original tigers with distinct human-tiger histories are considered worthy of integration into “Sariska” as a socio- environmental construct, while non-native tigers are not. The past human-original tiger histories unite a discourse of nativeness and coexistence that can be used against conservation-political measures to relocate people from Sariska, limit access to Sariska’s natural resources, and re-construct the landscape to suit a narrative of tiger-only territory. The conservation-political initiatives, then, are finding local resistance to expanding moral

148 worthiness from Sariska’s original tigers with history and “rights” to occupy Sariska, to “any tiger” reintroduced to Sariska. Research in various fields has documented the exploitation of indigenous groups, women, and non-human animals as following a formula to achieve domination (Joy 2011; Morelli 2001; Ponsonby 1928). Rust and Taylor (2016) used Plumwood’s (2003) identification of seven steps toward domination to expose subjugation of Namibian peoples and predators. This scholarship “builds on the psychological theory of moral exclusion, whereby one group (the ‘in-group,’ also known as the ‘One’) believes it is dominant to others (the “out-group” or the “Others”)” (Rust and Taylor 2016, 658-659). This moral exclusion allows for exploitation, omission, thoughtlessness, violence and/or injustice of the “Others.” There is a long-standing tradition to form narratives (many outlined in Rust and Taylor 2016) around “problem animals” such as man-eaters that Other them with a distinctive mission to disrupt conservation ontologies such as not killing endangered species.

This case study reiterates the power of language in “the depersonalization and objectification necessary to designate one group as the subordinate ‘Other,’ be they human or animal” (Dunayer 2001 as cited by Rust and Taylor 2016, 659). Most evidence of this type of wildlife othering has been reconceptualizing carnivores as “the enemy,” and as “out of place” (Peace 2009, 53). Being out of place justifies their eradication (van Sittert 1998). This case study adds to the material consequences of this type of othering in landscapes of reintroduced carnivores.

This is an important point for future carnivore conservation strategies. These strategies will inevitably include reintroductions in this age of species extinction and habitat fragmentation. Does the spread of narratives that create a detailed othering between the old and the new signify a lasting pattern that compromises conservation management 149 plans involving carnivores? The repeated patterns of othering in this research is more than the creation of a binary within a species (new vs old tigers). It is a polarization. The process of othering then is the mechanism to activate polarization (Papadopoulos 2009), which dis- appropriates reintroduced tigers worthiness to be “Sariska tigers,” leading to extreme characterization. Othering discourse has caused an “ethical acceptance of actions that would otherwise be deemed unacceptable” (Rust and Taylor 2016, 661). In this case, those accepted actions would be verbalizing support for eradication and or of a tigerless Sariska, evident in comments such as,

Kamlesh: Put them all in zoos. [Or] there are empty [peopleless] places tigers should be put.

Chandrahas: Tigers should be in zoos. (Men, Gujar, inside Sariska)

Participants mentioned support for removing or relocating Sariska’s current tiger population 123 times. Additionally, participants mentioned support for euthanizing tigers 42 times. These comments were phrased as: “these animals should be wiped out…” “They should be wiped out” (Men, Gujar, ~2 km from Sariska). Or, more common, was phrasing that did not specifically call for any killing but did not imply relocation to a zoo or other place, such as, “they should be done” (Woman, Gujar, ~3 km from Sariska) or “should be finished”:

Satish (man): It’s better to finish them.

Rajendra (man): Sir, because of these tigers…

Karishma (woman): These should be finished as they kill our cattle. (Gujar, ~4 kms from Sariska)

150 These sentiments are striking coming from Hindus who described the original Sariska tigers as the “ride of goddess Lakshmi” (Bajrang, Man, Meena, ~10 km from Sariska), and as “the vehicles of the gods” (Rajendra, Man, Gujar, ~4 km from Sariska), and even seeing them as co-worshipers: “tiger use to come [to temple in Sariska] for worship and bow. People used to tell… [Original] tigers used to stand around the priest of this temple and used to worship along with him” (Nawal, Man, Gujar, ~1 km from Sariska).

The new tigers are given accolades for benefits such as protecting the forests’ resources (discussed further in Chapter 8), but they were not discussed with reverence or association to religion, like frequent characterizations of the old tigers. The deepening polarization leaves little room for reconciliation between people and the relocated tigers. The role of narratives moving by word of mouth, newspapers and other media that have helped solidify an overwhelmingly consistent discourse across the study area is a powerful finding. Attention must be paid to the creation (why, by whom) of these narratives that create “incorrect stereotypes and scapegoats, along with the physical and mental barriers” (Rust and Taylor 2016, 663), as they undermine the co-existence of large apex predators and people. Community conservation has a long history and so does co-existence in this landscape. The way a community describes the reintroduced individuals and species impacts its success. Any reintroduction effort must be carried out with intentional participation from conservation stakeholders (FD, NGOs, etc., and local leaders) to help create that narrative before the reintroduction even begins. Finally, the narratives must be sensitive to the prevalent discourses Othering the reintroduced carnivores.

151 CONCLUSION The dominant discourse of participants (of all ages, sex, caste and location) to continually strip the reintroduced tigers of their given classification as “Sariska tigers” and instead “Other” them as “not Sariska’s original tigers” dis-appropriates their worthiness and nativeness, coding them as unnatural. The consequential othering does not encourage allowances that would be granted to the original tigers. Doing so dissolves the latitude granted to the original tigers for actions such as an occasional cattle kill so that it is not extended to reintroduced tigers; thus, human-tiger coexistence becomes unacceptable to some. For instance, Forest Department policies restricting people and livestock access to the park (for fodder, firewood, grazing, etc.) is considered unacceptable and leave tigers to blame. Life changes that better ensure safety (not going to collect fodder/wood in the early morning or late evenings) lose their meaning and instead become another form of institutional repression in the eyes of Sariska’s local people.

Many participants of this study have moved on, with a notion of “nature” as post- tiger. The inclusion of tigers in the idea of Sariska’s function, or worthiness as a tiger reserve/national park are no longer as strongly linked. In the eyes of many, there is no reason to bring them back, since without “native” or “original” tiger blood they are not worthy, and any landscape that includes them by human-action is an unnatural landscape.

Through careful discursive analysis of the data presented in Chapter 4, it is evident that the new tigers are reconstructed to reorder the moral standing of the species by splitting the “new” vs “the old” tigers of Sariska. The two discursively constructed groups

152 function to keep tigers as a species in reverence, while simultaneously allowing the speaker to malign the reintroduced tigers, the ones that must be lived with. By maligning the “new” tigers, vilifying and disregarding conservation tools (laws, relocations etc.) is more easily accepted as it is not harming “the original tigers.” These steps of dis- appropriation and describing the landscapes as unnatural also remove a sense of obligation to observe the principle of ahimsa (harmlessness). As a consequence, intolerance for a religiously honored, nationally revered and sometimes economically profitable important animal has been normalized.

For the people of Sariska, tigers are given meaning within a system of mental reparations with what Richard Shweder calls the “intentional world” of people. Tigers do not exist “in themselves,” as indifferent beings, but are understood and responded to in ways that appropriate, categorize, and either “valorized” or vilified “in terms of particular, preexisting design” (Ingold 2000, 32, used in a different context). The multigenerational conceptual schemata that guided response to Saiska’s original tigers is now ruptured, transitioning to “not our” tigers.

In the Hindu culture, nature incurs certain ethical obligations from people. Yet,

Sariska via the tiger reintroduction is coded as an unnatural rewilded landscape that does not deserve the same level of reverence and tolerance. At the center of this change in the landscape is the dichotomy between old and new tigers that splintered Sariska into natural and an unnatural landscape for local people to navigate. This qualitative analysis considering the dominant narratives around tiger reintroduction provides insight into how discourse justifies actions and opinions that may oppose current conservation practices. 153 Because the reintroduced tigers are not the original tigers, people are able to classify and create a widespread narrative that allows tiger absence (not extirpation necessarily) to go unregretted. This case study shows how a discourse of othering provides the justification for moral exclusion and a discouraging change in humans’ views of their landscape as tigerless. As this case study shows, these discourses of “Other” have influence on conservation landscapes and goals.

154 Chapter 6: Feminist Political Ecology & Hidden Costs of Human- Carnivore Conflict

INTRODUCTION

The human-tiger landscape of Sariska is deeply gendered. Not only are the living spaces in and around the villages gendered, but so are the places where daily activities bring people into close proximity with tigers. In this context of gendered spaces and gendered routines, it is now apparent that women are bearing an unequal risk of loss of life, and of household conflict due to tiger presence that can increase their exposure to domestic violence. Following Ogra’s (2008) seminal work bringing together Feminist Political Ecology (FPE) and human-wildlife conflict (HWC), this research continues to fill the knowledge gap by exposing hidden costs related to gender-based relationships within families (hierarchy of women’s worth), to gender-based divisions of labor, and to gendered uses of space within a tiger landscape. This chapter argues that gender and labor/class are significant considerations to any tiger conservation strategy in India. Based on reoccurring themes of conversation in the 2014 and 2015 MG-FGDs, and also on emerging conservation literature concerning gender, the 20 WO-FGDs carried out in 2016–2017 included more specific questions on gendered labor roles50. The primary questions driving these WO-FGDs were:  Considering gender-based labor roles and consequential use of space, what are the hidden costs of HWC that impact women’s well-being?

50 As stated in Chapter 3, the location of the 20 WO-FGDs were not recorded (are not show on the study area map) to protect the women's identity. All the women agreed to be identified with the distance they lived from Sariska but not within study area quadrants (North, East, South, and West). This is also in part because violations of the law are discussed (e.g., resource collection, dowry, and violence). 155  What are the drivers of this gender-environment relationship? How does this impact women’s perceptions of large carnivores and rewilding programs? Kaplan-Hallam and Bennet (2017) provide a conceptual representation of human well-being for social impact assessments in conservation and environmental management. The framework has five domains: governance, economic, health, social, and cultural.

Within each of these domains are several subdomains.51 For instance, the health domain is made up of connections to the natural environment, food security, physical health, mental health, and emotional health. In Sariska each of these domains and their sub-categories for women’s well-being are impacted by (1) milk production as the primary livelihood, (2) patriarchal, caste-based marriage market, and (3) Sariska’s management and conservation activities (heavily centered on tiger conservation). All three of these pre-conditions interlink to greatly impact women’s well-being, experiences, and attitudes. This chapter links these disparate factors together to show how women’s well-being must be considered as a significant facet of long-term tiger52 conservation in Sariska and other tiger landscapes

(Figure 21).

51 See Kaplan-Hallam and Bannett (2017) for further discerption. Their five domains and subcategories include: (1) Governance: rights and access, transparency and accountability, local institutions, empowerment and agency, participation; (2) Economic: employment, livelihoods, equity, economic wealth, material wealth; (3) Health: physical, connection to nature, food security, emotional and mental; (4) Social: adaptive capacity, infrastructure, education and knowledge, safety and security, capital and cohesion; (5) Cultural: identity, activities and practices, traditional knowledge, diversity. 52 Leopards are also an important component of women’s well-being in Sariska. However, leopards were described as “not as scary” as tigers. This varies from area to area but is primarily based on leopards’ more elusive behavior, nocturnal movements, and smaller bodies. This is compared to tigers, with both diurnal and nocturnal movements and the ability to kill large domestic animals, such as half-ton domestic water buffalo. Domestic buffalo are typically too large for leopard predation; domestic buffalo are the primary milk producers of concern in this study and thus, tigers, a threat to buffalo and women, are the focus. 156

Figure 21: Conceptual representation of factors shaping human-environmental relations, women’s devaluation, and women’s risk in Sariska (A.). This then joins with the external fear of tiger encounters (B.), which together shape women’s well-being (C.). Women’s well-being influence their attitudes, then influences their compliance, which impacts reintroduction success of tigers in a human-tiger landscape.

Damania et al. (2008, 9) have stressed:

“With large and permeable boundaries, an exclusive reliance on punitive approaches and planning will not suffice. The evidence suggests that a conservation model that resists development and growth will be overwhelmed and undermined by the forces it opposes. A new paradigm for conservation must recognize that those who live with the tiger determine its fate. Learning how this can be achieved remains a formidable challenge.”

157 This research echoes the emphasis of Damania et al. (2008) on learning more from communities who live with tigers. Specifically, this chapter adds depth and urgency to the study of women’s intersectionality within tiger landscapes—more than merely resource collectors. It is clear that the “human social and political structure” in which tigers are embedded is a major factor in their fate (Seidensticker 2010, 293; Walker and Salt 2006). Here, I scale down to the micogeographies of the everyday to deep links between women’s lives and tigers’ lives, concerning the well-being of both. This chapter presents a case study of women’s attitudes towards their working and household lives, also providing insight into the hidden costs of living with tigers while living within embedded hierarchical family tendencies. More specifically, within families that socialize their female family members “to accept hierarchical relations expressed in an unequal division of labor between the sexes” (Mathur 2004, 97). To do this, I employ a feminist political ecology (FPE) framework (e.g., as described in Rocheleau et al. 1996; see also Agarwal 1992) that focuses on everyday practices and micropolitics. The debates on rewilding, while sensitive to the diversity of landscapes, cultures, and development stages, remain on-going (in addition to having a conservation-biology focus without consideration of social components). This study examines both the PA scale, the scale of a community of women, and down to individual bodies. By attending to embodied experiences, this research furthers consideration of how women experience risk, labor, and co-existence with tigers within the unique context of tiger reintroduction.

158 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

Feminist Political Ecology

Feminist researchers have made clear the linkages between household dynamics and differential control over resources (e.g., Dwyer and Bruce 1988; Folbre 1988; Agarwal 1987; Sen 1981; Boserup 1970), as well as the struggles over gender divisions of labor and livelihood security (Mollett and Faria 2013; Radel 2012; Sultana 2011; Truelove 2011;

Gezon 2006; Jarosz 1999; Mackenzie 1998). Feminist political ecologists have furthered this work by reconceptualizing the physical environment in women’s lives as part of the household (e.g., Bebbington 1999; Pearson and Jackson 1998; Jarosz 1997; Carney 1996; Fortmann 1996; Rocheleau et al. 1996; Braidotti et al. 1994; Leach 1992), “casting the ‘environment’ as at once a source of physical asset as well as cultural, economic, and even domestic spaces” (Ogra 2008, 1409). The wider body of FPE literature builds on earlier research in political ecology (e.g., Blaikie and Brookfield 1987; Peet and Watts 1996) by assigning gender as the principal investigative category (Ogra 2008). Gender is a critical variable in shaping resource control and access that interacts with caste, age, family structure, economic exchange, and other differences that impact processes of ecological change (Rocheleau et al. 1996). Gender-nature-society relationships are not only suspended between material needs and access to natural resources, but these relations are formed by “particular regimes of cultural meaning that in turn shape social relations” (Mollett and Faria 2013, 117) that substantially impact the landscape. There are still shortcomings in the FPC literature (e.g., discussions of race; see

Mollett and Faria 2013), of which, how patriarchy “shape[s] and inform[s] women’s subordination and oppression” is key to the development of the FPC framework (Chua et al. 2000, 823). This dissertation contributes to redressing that shortcoming with inclusion

159 of women’s intersectionality within a patriarchal society and their existence within conservation networks aimed to reestablish a tiger population. The thirty-two MG-FGDS have more religious and caste variety (see Chapter 3). The twenty WO-FGDs are more homogeneous in that only five castes were represented, and all participants were Hindu. Most women were from the Gujar caste (65%), followed by the Meena caste (15%), Jogi

(10%), Phulmali53 (5%) and Kumhaar54 (5%) castes (Table 2). These are all considered

Scheduled Castes or Tribes55 (Meenas) by the Social Justice and Empowerment Department (SJED), based on historical disadvantage. While there is a diversity of scheduled castes in the Sariska area, there is relative homogeneity based on the social context that has aided social cohesion between villages and has reduced conflict. Buffalo milk was considered a primary livelihood in 75% of WO-FGDs (Table 2), another area of similarity across these WO-FGDs. A shortcoming of this data is the lack of sufficient breadth to make comparisons across castes. The castes included in this study do have distinct histories, traditions, and perceptions of human-environmental relations. However, the livelihoods, overriding cultural practices, and human-environmental foundations that apply to the majority indicate considerable similarity in their daily lives rather than dissimilar experiences.

53 Also known as the Saini, but the women provided the caste name Phulmali. The Phulmali are present throughout the northern districts of Rajasthan. Phulamli are known to be gardeners (Singh 1998). 54 Members of the Kumhaar caste are traditionally the village potters, providing earthen vessels for cooking and storage. The village of Kumhaar in this study did not create pottery; instead, the women made saris, some members herded goats, and five men from the community worked in a stone mill. 55 Scheduled Castes and Tribes are guaranteed affirmative action or representation by the Indian Constitution by their caste-based historic disadvantage. Representation manifests in percentages of college admissions, and government jobs and political offices being reserved for these designated groups (see Chapter 1: Kumar 1992; Sekhri 2011 for further detail). 160

Table 2: Livelihood, religion and caste for WO-FGDs in 2016-2017.

FEMINIST POLITICAL ECOLOGY & HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT

Apprehensions about the social consequences of conservation are rooted in historic injustice and ongoing negative social impacts to communities living in, adjacent to, and beyond protected areas. Conservation projects and areas can provide benefits, such as livelihood provision through tourism development, financial gains, sustainable management, participatory governance, and the safeguarding of heritage sites and cultural resources (e.g., Andam et al. 2010; Timko and Satterfield 2008). In the context of rapid biodiversity and habitat loss globally, conservation of protected areas, landscapes, and species is paramount but must adapt to provide benefits for local communities. Benefits include economic opportunity, but also less considered elements of social sustainability such as well-being. Social scientists have long studied the social impacts of conservation and continue to do so through various frameworks (e.g., Bennett et al. 2017; Charnley et 161 al. 2017; Ahmadia et al. 2015; Ferraro and Pressey 2015). This includes the still-growing study of hidden costs of conservation and wildlife conflict (e.g., Ogra 2009) overlapping with the literature on well-being and conservation (Lovell et al. 2016; Leisher et al. 2013; Dhakal et al. 2010). Ogra defines hidden costs as “those characterized by one or more of the following traits: (a) uncompensated, (b) temporally delayed, or (c) psychological or social in nature”

(Ogra 2008, 1410). These types of costs go by many other names but center on the indirect costs of HWC outside of purely economic loss. Scholars are increasingly highlighting hidden costs of HWC (e.g., Bond and Mkutu 2017; Barua et al. 2013; Holmes and Brockington 2012; Jadhav and Barua 2012), but by definition “they remain largely overlooked” (Bond and Mkutu 2017, 2). In particular, studies considering HWC effects on well-being are still limited. Particularly scant are studies focused on the well-being of women living under restrictive patriarchal societies and restrictive conservation aims. Chowdhury et al. (2008) provide a critical examination of the linkages between women’s suffering (from abuse), mental health, and conservation. HWC can impact household members differently regarding the potential for injury, contact with diseases, and interruption of daily chores and school attendance (Hill 2004). Wealth, livelihood strategies, and social capital (Naughton-Treves and Treves 2005) are essential variables in the degree of vulnerability households experience from HWC. Looking within the household, this research highlights women’s risk of violence or mistreatment consequent of gendered divisions of labor as a psychological or social hidden cost. Thus, Ogra’s second and third hidden costs, temporarily delayed costs and psychological or social costs, are of prominence in this research. These costs materialize in many ways, with the two prominent ones highlighted by twenty WO-FGDs: (1) higher 162 risk of domestic abuse and (2) further devaluation of women by long-term family debt and pressures of dowry (both emotionally and physically borne by women). The first, domestic abuse, is the center of this chapter; a subsequent chapter explores the second cost. Specifically, this chapter examines women’s embodied consequences of living in households56 controlled by patriarchal power relations, within a conservation landscape of laws restricting gendered livelihood strategies. Within an FPE framework, this situation is re-conceptualized to more fully include disparities of well-being, security, and people-park relations with consequences for tiger conservation.

FINDINGS

The reintroduction of tigers forms a human-carnivore landscape with obvious and hidden costs specific to women in and near Sariska. The following sections present empirical findings of FGDs in narrative form, concentrating on the hidden or nonvisible dimensions of tiger reintroduction. The quotes that follow are all from WO-FGD and MG-

FGD participants’ descriptions of their experiences within this socio-environmental landscape. The findings below are organized to provide a perspective on each of the four socio- environmental factors shaping women’s risk of abuse (a., b., c., d. in Figure 22) in Sariska. Each factor is an essential component to understanding women’s lives in Sariska and their undeniable influence, as residents, users, and decision makers, on Sariska’s success as a Tiger Reserve. In the context of this discussion, these factors are not isolated but always entangled—thus they are discussed as overlapping. The many local societal factors (a. in Figure 22) are complex issues in themselves with vast histories and critical literatures

56 The term household is used in this dissertation as described by the Census of India, i.e., ‘‘a group of persons who normally live together and take their meals from a common kitchen” (GOI 2007). 163 across disciplines. For this chapter, the primary factor explored is the cultural norm described as “the good Indian women/wife/daughter-in-law,” and the gendered expectations that follow it. Subsequently, Chapter 7 explores the dowry within this network of cultural norms.

Figure 22: Local societal factors are represented in (a.), including the major factors women in WO-FGDs and MG-FGDs brought up explicitly and implicitly. Tiger presence and the sometimes-consequential attack on people (women of concern here) and cattle (women’s responsibility) are represented by (b.) Access to natural resources and park management are represented in (c.). Moreover, the livestock-based livelihood of milk sales, which is highly gender-based, is represented in (d.). All of these internal factors shape the devaluation of women/girls and the larger human-environmental relations (attitudes, management, etc.) that impact each other and shape women’s risk of abuse. 164 Dependency on Sariska: Livestock-Based Livelihoods (A., D., C.)

Figure 23: Livestock-based livelihoods and factors shaping women’s risk and abuse.

Many factors merge to subjugate women in Rajasthan. Long-standing traditions, such as child marriage and dowry, caste-based patriarchy, religion, high illiteracy, poverty, and the economic outcomes from global capitalism, combined with life-threatening environmental issues complicate women’s future in Rajasthan (Prakash 2011). During the British occupation through to the present day, old traditions, such as child marriage, female 165 infanticide, the purdah (veil), polygamy, the dowry, sati (widow self-immolation after husband’s death), nata (agreement when a woman has a conjugal relationships with a married man if she is a widow or payment is given to her ex-husband), permanent widowhood, illiteracy, wife beating, trafficking of women and girls, unmatched marriages, dasi (female servant), reet (bride prize), and others, combined with new customs and modern influences, worsened the position of women (Kaushik 2015). Despite a push for social justice, patriarchal traditions treat women as burdens much of the time (Prakash 2011). Literacy rates in the 2011 census reported Rajasthan’s male literacy rate as 80.51% and female literacy as 52.66%, the lowest in the country. To understand women’s intersectionality with their environment and social position, background on the widespread dependency of local peoples on Sariska for their livestock-based livelihoods57 is necessary. Many credit Sariska’s tiger extirpation to the villagers living inside Sariska working with poachers to remove the threat to their livestock (Jain and Sajjad 2016). This dependency is multifaceted but dominated by the need for green fodder to produce buffalo milk58 for consumption and sale, which involves a gendered division of labor and gendered expectations regarding the allocation of household capital. Milk from domestic Murrah water buffalo, Bubalus bubalis, is the primary livelihood of families who participated in the fifty-two FGDs (2014, 2015, 2016–2017).

Others scholars have also that found livestock are the primary source of income inside (Jain and Sajjad 2016, 68) and around the periphery of Sariska (Shahabuddin et al. 2007). Shahabuddin et al. (2007) found 72.33% of average household income in Core Zone 1

57 Data was collected on livestock specifics, including number of livestock per household, the price of livestock, liters of milk (cow and buffalo) produced during the wet and dry seasons, price per liter, and other specifics. Most of these data were lost during transportation on departure from the field in January 2017. Consequently, a study by Jain and Sajjad (2016), which collected similar data from surveys inside the core areas of Sariska provide recent and applicable context for the findings of this study. 58 Buffalo milk is the primary livestock milk for sale based on its higher market value; cow and goat milk, however, are also a much smaller portion of livestock based livelihoods in Sarsika. 166 comes from milk, mawa, and ghee sales59, while 14% is coming from agriculture and daily wage labor. Jain and Sajjad (2016) similarly reported that raising livestock was the primary livelihood for the majority (90%) of households sampled in their study of 11 villages inside Sariska. Agriculture, labor jobs, and tourism accounted for the other 10% (Jain and Sajjad

2016).60 Jain and Sajjad (2016) found the average number of livestock for households inside Sariska to be twenty-six. This average increased to thirty animals per household inside the core areas. According to the WO-FGDs milk is the most reliable source of cash; “milk is main source of income, we sell milk then we buy food and clothes for our kids” (Roopa, Gujar, 6 ~km from Sariska). Milk is the means to currency. “For the sake of money, we sell milk…” (Aneeta, Meenas, ~1.5 km from Sariska). Mala, an older mother, said she would sell milk at any opportunity: “if someone comes to buy the milk, I sell it at any cost [lower than market value]… to have money in hand” if her daughter visits, “I have to give some money to her,” or they have guests and need to prepare food, or if someone needs to go to the city. Sometimes this means selling her milk for twenty rupees; “If someone comes early in the morning to buy milk, then how can we send them back?...We just give it at any rate” (Mala, Gujar, ~6 km from Sariska).

59 As Jain and Sajjad (2016) have noted, because not all villages inside Sariska are connected to roads, a similar situation for many villages in my study located around the periphery, the daily transportation of milk to markets is not feasible. Consequently, in these places a signification portion of the milk is converted into mawa (a solid product of milk evaporation) to stop it from spoiling, and reducing the weight enough to make transport by head, donkey, or bike easy (Jain and Sajjad 2016; personal observation, a process I observed often over the three research periods 2014, 2015, 2016–2017). The majority of Jain and Sajjad (2016)’s surveyed households earned their livelihood by selling milk and mawa at the market for $0.5/L (milk) and $2.5/kg (mawa), respectively (Jain and Sajjad 2016). Due to data loss, I do not have comparable data on selling prices, but observed comparable selling prices as Jain and Sajjad (2016) report. Environmentally the cost is much greater as 1 kg of mawa involves 4 liter of milk and 6 kg of fuel wood— obtained illegally in most cases from Sariska’s forests (Jain and Sajjad 2016). 60 Outside of fodder, grass is collected for thatching, wood is collected for firewood and for building and repairing houses. Bamboo is also collected for household building purposes. Wild fruits and honey are also collected for household consumption. 167 To feed a half-ton buffalo, women spend several hours a day collecting fodder, “we have to get the grass from the jungle, but that is not enough for a day” (Padma, Gujar, ~6 km from Sariska).61 As a woman and husband told us, they both go out and cut fodder and bring it back, saying “the full day is gone” to feed our five buffalo “And that does not satisfy for their hunger” (Chandni, Gujar, ~2 km from Sariska). On average, women said they needed to collect at least twenty-two pounds of fodder for their livestock every day.

Two women in one household said they do not let their thirteen buffalo roam freely because, “in the jungle [tigers or leopards] will kill them, then what will we do?” Instead, the women spend three to four hours every day collecting fodder from the jungle for their buffalo, “doing all the hard work. They [buffalo] are our income” so it is not worth risking the buffalo’s lives—but it is necessary to risk their own lives (Jaya, Gujar, ~4 km from Sariska). Averaging the hours reported by women from all twenty WO-FGDs, four hours are spent inside Sariska or the buffer area daily collecting (primarily) fodder and wood, and other forest products (Table 3).

61 In general, foraging conditions near people’s homes are not sufficient to sustain buffalo, cattle, or goats. This is most obvious by the practice of some to allow their buffalo and cattle to roam freely for foraging. The majorities of these free-ranging animals do not linger near the villages but travel to forested areas for forage and return to the villages when they are done. See Chapter 1 for more detail on the dependency on Sariska for livestock-based livelihoods. 168

Table 3: Adding average hours and kilometers walked reported in WO-FGDs to demographic characteristics.

Also of note is the pride in owning buffalo, especially several. Thus, women’s jobs to bring monetary value from these socially valuable animals adds to women’s pressure to keep them safe for monetary and social reasons. The following section builds on this brief overview of livelihood in the Sariska landscape (see Jain and Sajjad 2016; Bhattacharje et al. 2015; Shahabuddin et al. 2007), to redress the lack of context and depth on the gendered division of labor that maintains this livelihood. Without a critical look at who is responsible for this economic activity and the social consequences (the label by which ecological consequences are more known), the solutions will remain unclear. In their own words, women describe their role in this overwhelmingly important job of buffalo milk production as the stable and main source of income for households. 169 Gendered Division of Labor: Working in & out of Apex Predator Territory (A., B., C., D.)

Figure 24: HTI and HTC, fundamental societal factors, access to natural resources, and livelihoods all overlap in Sariska to form a complicated socio-environmental landscape that influences women’s and tiger’s lives.

“Those grazing cattle, usually encounter tigers.”

“Who are ‘those?’” I asked.

“Women,” he said. (Male, Meena, ~1 km from Sariska)

During the thirty-two MG-FGDs men frequently took a nonchalant tone in answering questions such as, “who has seen a tiger?” or “who is most likely to see a tiger?” 170 When men answered, they commonly used a gender-neutral term, like “those” (with forty- four uses of gender-neutral term on first answers), rather than “women” (with seventeen uses of “women” in first answers). Only on a second or third follow-up did men specifically identify women as more likely to encounter tigers because of their labor roles. For instance, when we asked “is it a problem for tigers to move outside Sariska?” a man answered, “No, no, that is also problematic and bad, it is dangerous if some woman goes for taking fodder and wood from jungle” (Gujar, ~3 km to Sariska). This comment summarizes the reality that men rarely experience risk of tiger encounter to the degree women do, while also reflecting the lack of appreciation for this disparity. This is a result of the fairly rigid gendered livelihood roles in the study area62. In the study area, women are responsible for feeding their families, raising children, general housekeeping, plus subsistence farming and gathering fuelwood, along with tending to the family’s livestock in various ways. Major components of tending livestock include collecting fodder, chopping branches with nutritional leaves such as from Tendu trees (Figure 25), and/or shepherding buffalo into Sariska for grazing. Depending on the family’s location (across Sariska and the buffer’s dynamic landscape of varying soils and vegetation, with varying access to roads, and varying access to water sources), income, and caste, their time invested in agriculture or livestock fluxgates in intensity from subsistence to their primary economic activity. All of these represent physically challenging and time-consuming labor outside the village. Of note, other studies in Sariska often comment on women’s responsibility for

62 Similarly, when Ogra (2008) asked men and women to gauge whether men or women are more affected by HWC, participants effectively saw the affect as equal, with 50% responding that women were more affected and 43.5% describing men as more affected. This response trend did not vary much by gender, but those who did see women as more affected usually credited this to the gender-based division of labor and said that “women have no choice but to go” (Ogra 2008). While this was a broader question, there are important parallels in comparing women’s and men’s risk based on divisions of labor. 171 gathering wood and other non-timber forest products, but no studies found precisely articulate women’s significant role in tending and shepherding buffalo to a degree that it can be considered women’s work.63 Every WO-FGD with buffalo milk as a primary livelihood (N 15) was asked if men or women are mostly responsible for shepherding. The majority, eleven WO-FGDs, agreed among themselves that women regularly shepherd buffalo more than men (~73%). Four WO-FGDs agreed that women and men were equally responsible for shepherding buffalo (~28%); most surprising, no women reported men as the primary gender responsible for shepherding.

Figure 25: Woman carrying branches from a Tendu tree (Diospyros melanoxylon) for fodder.

Women’s identities are intertwined with their economic productivity and care for the household, typically considered one in the same. Pride comes from being able to send their children to school and feed them robust meals. This is primarily possible with the

63 Ogra (2008) also found that women in Uttarakhand, India, are equally likely to be involved in night- guarding crops, a task typically considered “men’s work.” 172 money women make from milk sales. Four women summarized their economic position within the household; the rest of the WO-FGD agreed wholeheartedly with the summary. After the group had described their daily activities, I asked if they were ever afraid to go to the jungle for the fodder they described. This exchange between four daughters-in-law followed:

Kamini: Yes, we are scared, but in fear we bring it [fodder]. What can we do? We have so many buffalo, hence it is needed to bring the fodder [from the jungle].

Geeta: We are scared but we cannot keep our buffalo starving.

Neera: Yes, if we do not give them fodder how would we get milk? And how would we earn money?

Priya: We run our house with that money only, this is how our children survive. (Women, Gujar, ~2 km from Sariska)

I asked the last woman in this exchange to explain what she meant by “we run our house with that money only.” She explained her husband’s pattern of on-and-off labor employment, which other women echoed. She said his jobs did not provide a consistent income for the things the family needed daily, like vegetables64. Women in all twenty WO- FGDs told of similar circumstances. Men’s varied work does not provide a consistent regular income that can provide for daily needs—milk is the means of daily survival for most. Usha, one of the older mothers-in-law in this group, pointed to her daughter-in-law and said, “she milks the cow, sells it, and earns the money ...When [the husband] gets the money, they are happy with their wives.” Roopa, the daughter-in-law replied, “women are responsible for this, to get the grass, take care of the buffalo, half our life is spent on this.

64 Scholars have documented patterns of women spending more of their earnings or loans on household well-being, rather than personal well-being, in comparison to men in South Asia (Garikipati 2008; Blumberg 1988; Mencher 1988). 173 It’s our duty” (Gujar, ~6 km from Sariska). In this group, the women agreed that men earn between fifty and seventy rupees doing labor (per day but intermittently). They calculated that they earn roughly ₹200 per buffalo a day (varies between families, 2–6 in this community) from milk during the rainy season and between sixty and eighty rupees per buffalo a day during the dry season. In this WO-FGD, four women in a family with six buffalo made ₹1200 a day (₹300 per women, per day) during the rainy season and ₹420

(₹105 per woman, per day) in the dry seasons. After asking for these details, a thirty-three- year-old daughter-in-law said she even has to save money during the dry season because her husband usually does not have a job then (farming or labor) so the saved money is used then for daily needs. Several other women nodded in agreement and explained similar routines in their own management. Men then, as reported in WO-FGDs and MD-FGDs, on average earn ₹200 a day, intermittently. This is in comparison to the average women making ₹~230 a day (average of dry and wet season’s milk production and market value, per day for a woman in a family of three women with five buffalo) on a consistent basis.65 While incomes are similar, the majority of men’s labor work is not a stable constant source of income. Where milk sales are more dependable, even though there are differences in dry- versus wet-season milk production.

Women report selling their buffalo milk for between 30 and ₹100 a liter (depending on availability primarily), with the average being ₹41 a liter. Most households have several buffalo (a wide variety from three to more than twenty) and reserve a portion for their own

65 The only place this did not fit was the potter community where women primarily spent their economic time making saris. In this community, the men are responsible for transporting the saris the women make to market in the cities (mostly Jaipur). The women reported it takes 5–6 days to make a sari, and 2–3 women working on the same sari at a time, and then the money received for it is around 250 rupees. If their work brings more money at market “they would not know” as their husbands come home and distribute the same each time (Kumhaars, ~1.5 km from Sariska).

174 consumption. During the rainy season, the average of reported liters a single buffalo will produce is 8.3. The average of reported liters during the dry season is three per a day. Even with these elements of variety (market, number of buffalo, dry vs. wet seasons), buffalo milk is likely to earn a minimum of ₹270 a day (three buffalo, three liters a day, at ₹30). This benchmark means milk sales are the principal, regular form of income in comparison to most men’s work as farmers, miners, or in other labor jobs.66

While the forest dependency and milk-based livelihoods are well known, this data has been collected at the household or village levels. Not discussed, to my knowledge, is the gendered aspect of this livelihood and its connection to HWC—specifically, women’s significant role in this dependency and the hidden consequences that result from women being primarily responsible for livestock milk production.67 This weighty responsibility means expectations are high and disruption in providing income from milk sales may incur mistreatment: a form of hidden cost and risk.

Women’s perspective of men’s work

By contrast, men’s work may include farming or chopping wood (for the women to collect and bring back), working in nearby towns selling produce, or working as laborers68. After women told us about their husbands’ work days, mostly farming in WO-

66 I cannot speak to the percentage or income from men who work in cities or government jobs. These rough estimates are not meant to be representative for all families in the Sariska landscape. These estimates are intended to show the general consistency of income women earn from buffalo milk. 67 Studies in India concerning gendered labor roles in livestock rearing indicate women are primarily responsible for feeding, milking, cleaning, and caring for animals, as well as providing medical care (WRI 2003; FAO 2002; Niamir-Fuller 1994). Of note, the many articles that discuss livestock-based livelihoods in Sariska do not identify buffalo and cattle rearing as primarily women-facilitated livelihoods. 68 Population increase across South Asia has contracted forest cover, depleted water tables, and fragmented naturally vegetated areas. Indiscriminate application of chemical fertilizers and pesticides has resulted in widespread soil degradation (ISCB 2003; Rola and Pingali 1993). Further, monsoon irregularity and failure, undercut by droughts and frequent flooding, have further jeopardized food security for much of South Asia. Under these and other factors, rural South Asian men have increasingly sought urban employment, and consequently further feminized agriculture and natural resource collection (management) 175 FGDs, we asked if the workload was equal. Several laughed, then Divya said, “males they just roam…farming but we do not have much farming because of water shortage” (Gujar, ~5 km from Sariska). There were exceptions, with a minority of women, primarily from the Gujar community, who spoke about their husbands spending time shepherding buffalo (Gujar, ~4 km from Sariska). However, in these instances, it would always come out later in the discussions that the women accompanied any male shepherds and collected fodder or wood at that time. So women have similar exposure but must lift and carry wood and/or fodder while wearing constricting saris, adding physical difficulty to escaping from any predator encounter. The only occupation that brought men into the forest on a similar time scale and with a similar exposure to “jungle” areas was shepherding goats69. Shepherding goats is primarily, but not completely, men’s responsibly. I never received a conclusive answer as to why men are typically responsible for this livelihood. While this labor does require the shepherds to spend extended time in the park and vegetated areas, women reported that goats were able to eat “poor quality” vegetation. This allows the goat shepherds to stay at the periphery of the park, along roads and near towns and human habitations (areas far less dangerous than inside Sariska on vegetated hillsides) (Figure 29). This is compared to women shepherding cattle or buffalo, which required better-quality fodder in the interior buffer zone or inside Sariska. Men also work in government jobs throughout the study area, and many report spending time in Delhi or Jaipur for various work opportunities. Women described these jobs as good for their families but emphasized the “easy work” compared to their own. For in South Asia (Upadhaya 2005). This has increased rural women’s daily workload outside the home (Upadhaya 2005). 69 Goat herding is a new phenomenon related to growing demand for and price of goat meat. Goats are having a severe negative impact on Sariska’s vegetation, competing with wild herbivores like Chital and Sambar (GOR 2014). 176 instance, after hearing about their days, a woman added, without prompting, “And our men they do farming and go out for work and enjoy there, they go to Delhi to Jaipur. And come after two months and all. And stay for one or two nights only” (Jogi, ~1 km from Sariska). In another WO-FGD, Devi stood up from the group and acted out her husband coming home. Devi walked back to us and said, “Oh I am so tired, I am doing so much hard work!” while stretching her arms out and acting sleepy. Everyone laughed. Devi then sat down and said, “Daily he is doing labor work…Maybe he works six hours. I work from dawn, taking no rest” (Gujar, ~5.9 km from Sariska). Most WO-FGDs spent more than twenty minutes on the topic of men’s work being physically less demanding and requiring significantly fewer hours. When we asked directly if men’s or women’s work was more difficult, no woman expressed that men’s work was more difficult; twelve WO-FGDs came to the conclusion that women’s work and the time they spend on their responsibility made their work more difficult. Seven WO-FGDs concluded that men’s and women’s work was equally difficult—these WO-FGDs had more diversity of livelihoods, and men were regularly responsible for goat herding. This and the remainder of women’s sentiments are in line with the notion that women in rural India “work 2.5 times as many hours as men,” (Upadhyay 2005), illustrated by the well-known example from the Indian Himalayas: on a one-hectare farm, a pair of bullocks work 1,064 hours, a man 1,212 hours, and a woman

3,485 hours in a year, on average (FAO 1999). Discussions of difficulty were mostly light-hearted, with the women laughing at the thought of men working as hard as the women and with comments on drinking alcohol and sleeping being muttered under their breath. For instance, a middle-aged daughter-in-law said:

177 I wake up at 4 am to feed [prepare food and clean] for my husband’s meal. He works at the stall selling but in the company of dice and alcohol [playing games and drinking with other men]… enjoying. (Gujar, ~3.5 km from Sariska)

In the larger conversation this woman went on to emphasize that her husband is sitting in the stall or when he is playing games or drinking while she is walking 6 km daily for wood and/or fodder in dangerous and physically taxing environments. Her details were echoed and interrupted by the other women in this group, adding that their husbands too did not work for the extended hours or to a comparable physical degree as they did. Many of the other women in this group considered farming a primary livelihood. They described their husbands spending most of their other time farming. One women named Pooja summarized this as:

[My husband] after eating builds fencing around the fields [sometimes]. Doing farming, digging, maintaining [fields]. He then takes rest to eat and we [she and her two sisters-in-law] join farming work…. Yes, we are doing these things more on top of waking so early to prepare the meals, go to the jungles, return for [lunch preparation] and then farming. Men are done and we return to the forest…our four buffalo require this daily [two trips of the three sisters-in-law and sometimes the mother-in-law to Sariska for fodder]. (Gujar, ~3.5 km from Sariska)

We asked Pooja and her younger sister-in-law if they considered their daily schedules more dangerous than working in the fields or at home where their husbands spend more time. Pooja grabbed me by the knee after the question was translated. With a tight grip on my knee she leaned across her sister-in-law next to me in the circle on the kitchen floor and said, “we are the brave ones.” Chatter broke out across the group and the next two minutes of audio are inaudible. After the conversation became manageable again, we asked if everyone agreed that women are “the brave ones,” to which one of the mothers- in-law in the group said: 178

This life is difficult; we have no water, we are poor, we live in kutcha houses [mud, dung and thatch houses (Figure 26)]. We [women] have days with our backs to man-eaters. It is dangerous. It is not wise. We do not understand why they [the Forest Department] has brought them [tigers] here. Yes it is risky. We are risking our lives every day at 5am at 6 am at noon at dusk. What would we do? … No, [farming] is not risky like going to the hills [Sariska]….Yes, yes, we are scared but we go. (Gujar, ~3.5 km from Sariska)

Figure 26: Kutcha houses are made of impermanent materials such as mud, thatch, and dung. Many of the Kutcha houses in the study had portions built with cement such as this hybrid houses of mixed materials.

In another WO-FGD, a woman named Eila of the Meena caste, said she can buy feed, Pearl Millet (Bajra), for her buffalo and manage her household funds with proper payment for milk. We then asked about the men in the family, to which Eila said, “they do nothing”70 (Meenas, ~1.5 km from Sariska). Even in MG-FGDs, men often described their work in the forest (chopping wood, shepherding) and farming as less risky than women’s

70 Other women did say men spend the most hours working in the fields, compared to women because of women’s time commitments in the jungle and at home. We then asked if they received any help in their responsibilities at home. One said: “No, not even help in watering [bringing water]” (Gujar, ~4 km from Sariska). 179 work in these spaces. When we probed further, we found general agreement for women’s heightened likelihood of seeing carnivores because in their extended time (mornings and evenings) shepherding and collecting forest products in brushy areas they were more prone to tiger encounter. Yet there was also a general disregard for this fact. In WO-FGDs women often described the difficulty of their work as going unnoticed, “Now, how much efforts we are putting for that milk that no one knows, we collect fodder for buffalos for hours that no one care[s] [about]” (Gujar, ~5.9 km from Sariska). After a group discussed their daily routines, we asked about their husbands and sons, to which a middle-aged daughter-in-law said, “we bring the wood and grass, other jobs [men’s work] are nothing” because the milk is cash-in-hand and reliable. The other women in the WO-FGD nodded in agreement, and one added “[men’s work] is scattered… not difficult like we are suffering in the jungle” (Gujar, ~4 km from Sariska). Women consistently reported men’s work as far less physically difficult, but, most importantly to women, they emphasized men’s work as requiring significantly less time “exposed” to leopards or tigers, or the Forest Department. Women rarely include men as at risk in these comments. In the twenty WO-FGDs we specifically asked if men or women were more at risk of encountering a tiger. The majority, eleven WO-FGDs, concluded that women’s work put women at more risk of encountering a tiger. Three WO-FGDs (two with goat herding as a primary livelihood activity, and one with farming a primary livelihood activity that men spend most of their time committed to) concluded that men’s and women’s work was equally risky. Lastly, two WO-FGDs concluded that men’s work put them at more risk of encountering a tiger (in one the women spent their time making saris and the other reported men as goat herders and doing labor work in the buffer). Thus, communities sustained by milk sales perceive greater risk of tiger encounters during women’s work over men’s work. 180 While men’s work such as agriculture and mining are undoubtedly dangerous (e.g., due to pesticides, injury, etc.) there is a difference in fear of health threats or injury and fear of being eaten. The universal human fear of being eaten, not just killed, spurs an entirely different terror. Man-eating species are reviled and persecuted throughout human history for a reason. That fear is especially acute to unarmed women wearing saris and flip- flops working inside Tiger Reserves; see Figures 26-28).

Walking in Fear to & from Sariska

At the midway point of a WO-FGD, we ask women how their days compared to their husbands’. The first comment was “We get up at 5 in the morning. We work for entire full day in the jungle…we could be killed” (Gujar, ~4 km from Sariska). The women’s tone made the statement a standalone comment, implying that this difficult work routine is not comparable to men’s work—not even worth mentioning. Older women often talked about the difficulty of the women’s only work of collecting fodder and wood—as it requires extensive walking in Sariska’s rocky terrain. When discussing the time spent in the forests a fifty-year-old woman said: “Cannot bring [fodder and wood] in one go, sometimes two or three times we need to go to the jungle…we could be attacked [by predators]” (Gujar, ~6 km from Sariska). The group added their agreement and noted each trip they must walk 5–6 kilometers each way, “We need to go so far. The fear of tigers is there. Sometimes it may eat one of us” (Gujar, ~6 km from Sariska). The women in this

WO-FGD, located ~6 km from Sariska, on average walk 20 km a day, with some days

181 walking nearly 40 km when vegetation is sparse and closer areas are recovering from grazing71. When discussing the distance women walked, regularly women over age fifty would add their physical complaints consequent of walking very far for fodder or grazing. For instance, “no, I am not okay…they are going to keep aching as we must graze the buffalo at least 5 km away daily” (Gujar, 6 km from Sariska). There was a wide variety of distance from Sariska to the homes of the 160 women (eight per twenty WO-FGDs) who participated in WO-FGDs. The women reported walking an average of just over 11 km per trip for fodder or wood, with the majority of women citing two trips a day as average (a minority of WO-FGDs reported more than two trips or only one trip), meaning women, on average, walked 22.5 km a day (with the average per WO-FGD ranging from 50 km to 8 km a day) (Table 3). A group of women living 5.9 km from Sariska, said during the dry season they need to walk an additional 8–9 km into Sariska (once they reached “the hills”) past their typical

4 km to find fodder (Gujars, ~5.9 km from Sariska). We asked, “going this far do the forest guards ever stop you,” to which they said, “yes, they stop us. But we tell them if we will not go there, how would we eat?” The women said they had to go, they were not able to save much money, and their husbands only earned ₹100–200 a day for labor work.

These two WO-FGD conversations epitomize the issues with gendered divisions of labor in the study area: (1) most women must walk several km carrying heavy loads of wood or fodder back and forth from home to Sariska; (2) this work is done while fearing a tiger attack and facing possible punishment or harassment from the Forest Department; and

71 According to Shahabuddin et al. (2007) 93% of their sample of respondents living in Sariska’s Core Zone 1 felt time to collect wood, fodder and other natural resources had significantly increased between 1997-2007. 182 (3) men’s work is not constant and, when it is, their daily income, on average, is ₹200— less than or equal to milk sales.

Access to Natural Resources & Park Management (C.)

These people’s dependence on the forest complicates implementation of the park’s conservation policies (Jain and Sajjad 2016). Year-round grazing of the thousands of buffalo and cattle in the reserve everyday result in significant ecological stresses (Jain and

Sajjad 2016) that “[cascade] through the ecosystem” (Ahearn and Smith 2005). As it stands, utilizing the grazing land and water (both illegally) inside Sariska make raising livestock inexpensive in terms of money, albeit expensive in terms of labor. Water and fodder are costly otherwise—by way of hauling, paying for delivery or drilling a borehole, and the price of feed coming at a substantial expense (Figure 27-29). Unfortunately, water is a quickly diminishing resource in the area, and groundwater depletion is a major concern for Rajasthan (Sharma 2016) (see Appendix 5) and much of India. Jain and Sajjad (2016) found the more livestock a household has, the greater the household’s dependence on the forests of Sariska.72 The immense biomass extraction from villagers living inside and along the periphery of Sariska greatly threatens the integrity of the ecosystem (GOR 2004) and the success of the tiger reintroduction. With these stresses and regionally increasing human population,73 milk is a livelihood activity at odds with the health and sustainability of

Sariska's ecosystem.74

72 At night livestock are sheltered to varying degrees. Some are simply tied to homes without shelter, some are kept in earthen-walled stalls near or adjacent to homes, and some are kept in boma-like structures made of thorns and branches. 73 The 2011 census reported the district of Alwar, containing Sariska, had a 22.75 percentage decadal growth rate, a sex ratio of 894 females per 1000 males, and a population density of 438 people per square kilometer, and 75% of Rajathan’s population is rural (Census Organization of India 2011). 74 This has resulted in increased labor hours and distance needed to travel to find resources (De and Chauhan 2014, 24). 183

“The main objective of the Forest Department, to create a space for tigers free from any human interventions [in Sariska], has not been successfully accomplished due to the villagers’ considerable dependency on surrounding forests for their livelihood” (Jain and Sajjad 2016, 63)

Figure 27: Elderly woman feeding buffalo pearl millet during the dry season, January 2017.

Figure 28: Women and girls are walking back to their homes after collecting fuelwood from inside Sariska. 184

Figure 29: Women carrying fuelwood and a man shepherding goats.

To reduce villagers’ biotic pressures on the landscape, the Forest Department has employed restrictions on grazing, construction of new structures, producing mawa (made from evaporated milk used in sweets which requires much firewood), and agriculture (Jain and Sajjad 2016). Restrictions have also been put in place to curb encroachment, mining, and poaching. These restrictions have, of course, led to people-park conflict. Conflict between local communities and PA management personnel is common and often escalates when laws are implemented to limit or prohibit access to natural resources inside PAs

(Mishra et al. 1992; Wells, Brandon, and Hannah 1992).75

75 These are “people-park conflicts” (Keleman, Goodale, and Dooley 2010). Numerous studies have analyzed the connections between PAs and local peoples’ livelihoods (e.g., Tieguhong and Nkamgnia 2012; Mamo, Sjaastad, and Vedeld 2007 Dewi 2005; Masozera and Alavalapati 2004; Bahuguna 2000; Reddy and Chakravarty 1999; Barham et al. 1999). These studies advocate for management schemes of PAs and forests that acknowledge the underlying causes of local people’s dependence on the PAs and subsequently create policies to reduce such reliance (Patna et al. 2009; Hedge and Enters 2000; Beckley 1998; Gunatilake 1998). 185 Thus, women are also at higher risk of repercussions from the Forest Department, as their responsibilities for fodder and wood collection are illegal. Even though there are restrictions on cattle grazing, the FD was reportedly stricter with wood collection. Many women expressed concern over being taken to jail or punished for wood collection with less concern about official reprimand from grazing. This is important, as grazing is predominantly women-led, but also taken on by a minority of men, while wood collection is a strictly female job. Thus, women are at more risk for official punishment that may also lead to family displeasure or sacrifice (children not being able to eat) that also puts them at risk. This exchange for instance:

Aarti: If we encounter wild animals it is also fatal.

Bindu: And yes, while bringing wood from jungle if we are caught by forest officers, they arrest us.

Translator: Because of collecting wood?

Aarti: Yes, like we are bringing wood, keeping [it] on our head and [if we] are seen by anyone [Forest Department Officials] they arrest us and take us to the police station and behind the bars.

…

Translator: It means, there is risk in both whether you wish to collect wood or wish to graze your cattle.

Aarti: Yes. (Women, Gujar, ~4 km from Sariska)

When difficulties of Forest Guard encounters emerged in another WO-FGD we asked how women avoided detection. One of the young daughters-in-law in the group named Chetna said:

Chetna: We send them [buffalo] at night.

186 Translator: Okay, and if the tiger eat your buffalo?

Chetna: We go with them. Translator: But, even in the night?

Chetna: We take a stick with us. (Women, Gujar, ~2 km from Sariska)

Women and buffalos then, can be exposed to even more risk during the dry season when those who cannot afford to buy fodder or millet resort to taking their buffalo into

Sariska during late evenings and nights—when tigers are active (6 p.m. to 9 p.m. and midnight to 3 a.m.; Modal et al. 2012).

Perceptions on Alternative Livelihoods

These details on the difficult measures it takes to feed their buffalo make farming and other work more appealing to many women. Farming is part of most households, but determined by factors such as wealth and water. For most, farming is becoming more and more difficult because of the lack of water (Appendix 5). Given the choice, many women said they would choose farming over fodder or wood collection: “[between the two] we like farming more …it is less risky.” Another said, “farming we won’t see a tiger during the day…we get food and fodder from farming” so it “obvious” to want to farm (Gujar, ~2 km from Sariska). While I did not ask every woman who participated if they would prefer farming over their current daily labors, those that were asked (N 23) chose farming or volunteered other options (e.g., working in schools) as preferable to work that requires entering the forest. Most preferable was farming, which additionally produced fodder so their buffalo could be maintained but without the need for fodder collection outside their fields.76

76 Farming families often harvest parts of their crops as fodder, however water scarcity is making farming more and more difficult. Many farmers are moving away from cereal crops that also provide fodder for 187 A contrast between female participants in Ogra’s study and this study is women deriving status from their activities in the forest collecting resources. Ogra finds women of both wealthy and poor households repeatedly constructing their time in the forest as a source of worthy and valuable time fulfillment. For instance: “My husband earns but why should we spend ₹300 each month to buy LPG [cooking gas] when I can collect the fuelwood? Besides, what would I do with my time if I did not go to the forest?” (Ogra

2008, 1417). Ogra (2008) also found at the same time young women with greater dependence on the forest felt they had little other choice but to face the constant fear because they had no choice.77 Gururani (2002) likewise describes women’s significant pain with their forest labor but in parallel with the women’s pride in their contribution to their households from this work. The forest, then, is a paradoxical space of “pleasure and pain” in the entangled network of patriarchal relations in India (Gururani 2002). Similarly, embodied practices of women inside Sariska are consequent of and impactful to patriarchal and gendered subjectivities. This research found a dominant theme of women looking for alternatives and or similar notions of the hopelessness of “what else can I do?”78 The lack of water and tiger presence is causing one woman, Henna, to consider finding labor work:

Translator (to villager): She is asking that like you have sold all your cattle, so what do you do now, do you do farming?

Henna: We do not have water for farming.

cash crops. This trend, water scarcity, and restriction of grazing inside Sariska has even caused some families to graze their buffalo in neighboring states. 77 There are studies arguing that women value time alone while carrying out gendered labor roles, such as water collection (e.g., Truelove 2011). However, in this study questions of work time away from the home or away from in-laws, or husbands was not included in the FGD question guidelines. It is likely that women do take some pleasure in their work as “time away,” but this was not discussed in this study’s FGDs. 78 According to the 2011 census on 17.77 percent of Scheduled Castes and 7.87 percent of Scheduled Tribes in Alwar district are literate (Census Organization of India 2011). 188 Translator: So, what are you thinking to do?

Henna: We will do labor job only what else can we do?

Translator: So, you did not think anything to do in future.

Henna: We cannot do farming because of shortage of water and cannot keep buffalos also, if they kill one buffalo it’s a loss of 50 thousand. So it’s a loss of efforts as well as of money. What can we do? Labor is left.

Translator: It is better option or only option?

Henna: Both but because it is obvious to be scared. (Women, Jogi, ~3 km from Sariska)

Local Social Factors (A.): Expectations & Good Indian Wives

The risks women take on are indispensable for the functioning of the household— the cash, and consumption value of milk, that allows for school and medicine and daily needs, as well as the status of having well-taken-care-of livestock (especially having multiple buffalo). As Indira, a daughter-in-law, articulated:

Look, there is a danger going in jungle, if anything happens to the buffalo it is dangerous or if we are hurt it is also risky. (Gujar, ~2 km from Sariska)

This statement and the conversation around it do not mention tigers or leopards as the danger in the forest. In effect, the key pronoun is missing from the end. Indira has implied, “it is dangerous…risky for us.” “Us” being the women shepherds. A careful read shows Indira attributes the danger and risk after the loss of livestock or injury; not that the jungle is dangerous because of predation or injury. The danger of injury or of losing buffalo to predators impacts the women’s ability to provide via work and milk sales. Any fluctuation in their roles as provider is a great danger and a substantial risk to their family 189 and to their children’s health, and, secondarily, their social status. The web of dangers includes risks from predators and also their husbands and families. Thus, the risk they incur by venturing into carnivore territory is for the welfare of their families, which Ogra (2008, 1419) points out (in the case of women at risk of elephant encounters in northern India), supports the views that sacrifice is a significant component of being a ‘‘good” Indian women/wife/mother/daughter/daughter-in-law (e.g., as in Narayan 2002)—an ideal enforced by relatives, community, the state, and religion. Haq (2008) states that Indian women, generally and across social class, are brought up to accept “that suffering in this life is bearable by hoping for a better life after death, only if they are patient, pious and persistent in graciously bearing the burden of this life through self-sacrifice” (2008, 174). Many studies have traced domestic violence against women in India to “alleged failure of the wife to fulfill household responsibilities and obligations of a ‘good wife’” (Vindhya 2007, 349; Sriram and Mukherjee 2001; see also, Dhawan et al. 1999). In Sariska, this manifests if women do not live up to the ideal of a “good Indian wife,” due to injury or predation decreasing their productivity, they suffer a hidden cost of abuse. Utilizing the only resource available, Sariska, to provide and meet the expectations of good Indian wives “is risky” but necessary. The hidden risk is a product of family hierarchy, expectations, and gendered roles that place them in tiger territory.

The household unit in this area has a standard hierarchy, with variations from household to household depending on the number of children. For this research, the perspective of the daughter-in-law (a category most women embody at some point—for the majority of their lives) is central. Within the patrilineal, patrilocal household,79 all resident women are “outsiders,” with new wives of course feeling this position most

79 Much of domestic violence is partly credited to the pressures from joint family structure (e.g., Vindhya 1997). 190 starkly. Daughters-in-law occupy the precarious position at the bottom of the household. New wives are “the lowest-ranking members of a household and are thus treated as servants” (Fahn 1990, 114). Her in-laws are at the top, her husband is next, and then her sons; she and her daughters are at the bottom.80 Because of their position in this hierarchy and their typical youth, compared to their mothers-in-law, daughters-in-law take over the difficult tasks that require the most time and physical exertion inside tiger territories

(forests). Daughter-in-laws have come into the household unit as a commodity, their worth first demarcated by their dowries, then by their ability to produce male children then by their ability to keep cattle productive (producing milk). Their worth continues to fluctuate based on the money they can earn. In Sariska, to be a good wife/woman they must enter precarious areas of the landscape to secure their family’s survival and meet family expectations (only sometimes the same). Any abuse a daughter-in-law suffers from not meeting expectations is considered the daughter-in-law’s fault (Kaushik 2003). Therefore, women’s, and particularly daughters-in-law’s, subjectivities are characterized by living in a hierarchy of male81 and older female family members82, fear, and hardship. Their identities are rooted in their marginalized status within everyday life, Sariska, the network, and their work roles. Their spatiality (contextual factors) emerge from their performances as working mothers,

80 Overall the interfamily hierarchy is governed by age and then by men over women (Malhotra et al. 1995). See Castle (1993) “diagrammatical representations of women’s intra-household social status and associated household types” for detailed information on gendered hierarchies (pg. 14–144). Across India, girls grow up hearing a strong message of “Pita, Pati, Purta” (father, husband, son); in other words, they must follow their father’s commands during childhood, then their husband’s commands in marriage, and follow their sons’ commands in widowhood (Haq 2008, 173). 81 The entrenched gender hierarchy within families places men in a “paradoxical space” where they are moving up a patriarchal hierarchy, with age, within the household and village life, yet “due to their racialized identities in the nation, as tribal, black, nomadic and/or indigenous may simultaneously exist at the margin (Mollett 2006, 2011; Li 2007; Tsing 2004; Jarosz 1992)” (Mollett and Faria 2013, 119). 82 The role of the mother-in-law is one of household power in deciding the daughter-in-law’s divisions of labor, for instance, and in many ways controls the household (Arnot et al. 2012). 191 providers, livestock feeders, and obligatorily, tiger challengers. Underlining this embodiment is the need to replicate traditional Hindu standards of a “good wife.”83 From early childhood, girls are directed to mirror the goddess Sita, whom the religious epic Ramayana describes as chaste, shy, and obedient to her husband. A study of women in rural Gujarat, India, found causal factors for violence to be failure to perform duties and responsibilities, financial stress, inadequate dowry, alcohol abuse, and hierarchical gender relations (Burton et al. 1999). While women’s larger exposure to risk from HWC has been recognized by others, of primary discussion here is the revelation of human-tiger coexistence within the rural Indian patriarchal society that couple with women’s gender roles to result in the hidden cost of abuse.

Domestic Abuse in Rajasthan

International news media repeatedly scrutinize public violence against women in India. However, private violence against women is socially normalized. Rajasthan had the highest number of filed domestic cases across India between the enforcement of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), starting October 2006 and November 2007 (The New Indian Express, November 2007). Rajasthan women’s high rate of filing domestic cases is a significant reflection of progress in women’s agency in resistance to domestic abuse. India currently ranks 125 on the Gender Inequality Index (HDR.UNDP.org). According to the National Family Health Survey (NFHS)-3, the most common form of violence Indian women between the ages fifteen and forty-nine experience is spousal violence. The NFHS-3 reported 40 percent of ever-married women had endured spousal physical, sexual or emotional violence. The 2005–2006 NFHS-3

83 While there maybe caste-based differences of performativity of the ideal “good wife,” this standard is in large part sustained by a masculine identity that “cuts through distinctions of caste and class” in much of India (Vindhya 2007, 349). 192 reported 37 percent of Indian women face domestic violence, and 46 percent of women in Rajasthan have experienced physical or sexual violence. Only 2 percent of the abused women have requested institutional assistance. In a study outside New Delhi, Kaur and Garg (2010, 246) found that nearly 20 percent of the women reported wife beating as a common occurrence even if husbands are not drunk. The women in this study stressed that wife beating was a socially learned behavior, and a means of demonstrating power and control (Kaur and Garg 2010). Wife beating was a greater issue in joint families, where in many instances, the in-laws encouraged their sons to harass their wives (Kaur and Garg

2010). Further, the mothers-in-law were involved in 60 percent of the domestic violence cases (Kaur and Garg 2010). The widely reported mother-in-law and even elder sisters-in- law involvement in abuse is sometimes physical, but even more so emotional, through support of the violence. NFHS data found 50 percent of married women, ages fifteen to eighteen, in Rajasthan felt husbands are correct in perpetuating violence (Times of India, 2009). It is evident that “violence is deeply ingrained in the lives of women in Rajasthan”

(Bradley 2010, 361). Women in the twenty WO-FGDs discussed that violence in relation to their intersectionality as laborers in a tiger landscape. Discussing the fear after personally seeing a predator or hearing about someone else seeing one, we asked the WO-FGD, “do your husbands also have that fear?” A thirty-six-year-old women said, “they tell their wives to get out from the house without a thought [to tigers and dangers], and in the evening he calls her back inside” to prepare dinner and fulfill marital duties. Another woman spoke up to confirm this comment and elaborate:

They [men in the community] work in mines, earns around 200-250 rupees, and give nothing to family but drink [alcohol] every day, and after drinking beat their wives. If they [wives] are having no money they beat them again. And in the evening 193 when he calls her and if she say “no” to him, he again beats her (Jogi, ~3 km from Sariska).

We asked if other women in the WO-FGD felt their husbands did not share their labor income. Most agreed, accept two older mothers-in-law who said everything was shared. This prompted others to talk about the instability of their husbands work as laborers that cause their husbands to have poor attitudes leading to drinking problems, “now look, when they have no money they sell our jewelry and drink liquor” (Jogi, ~3 km from

Sariska). A twenty-seven-year-old mother summarized a similar conversation with, “women over here are just very upset, very, very upset” (Gujar, ~6 km from Sariska). Alcohol is a major factor in domestic violence. In Rajasthan specifically, Prakash (2011) in a study of two rural villages with 150 women found alcohol to be the main reason for violent behavior. Likewise, husbands who were daily-wage workers constituted 86 percent of violent cases (Prakash 2011). Thus, daily wage labor and alcohol, prevalent in the study area, are already major players in domestic abuse in Rajasthan. Further, because men’s work is typically less consistent, possible times of unemployment and deeper-poverty may lead to stress and frustration (Babu and Babu 2011). This frustration may lead to violence against women and a possible increase in alcohol consumption which is also positively associated with violence against women (Babu and Babu 2011). Women not meeting financial expectations, regardless of cause, can easily be imagined as basis for further abuse.

Mathur84 (2007) synthesized why violence against women is so ingrained in everyday life in Rajasthan as: “The woman’s body is continuously made to fit and mold to societal expectations with a severe denial of rights, her bodily integrity constantly violated” (2007, 3). Expectations are linked to obedience in this cultural context (Bradley 2010),

84 A key researcher in the Institute of Development Studies, Jaipur (IDSJ) gender research group. 194 which often is generalized to obedience in gendered divisions of labor. Yet, it is not just being a shepherd or gatherer, and assuming the risk associated with that role but also meeting performative economic expectations. Falling short of milk sales expectations as a result of tiger reintroduction (as fear of tiger interaction limits grazing or fodder gathering time or because the Forest Department makes these activities more difficult for the benefit of tigers) was a dominant theme in the fifteen WO-FGDs that listed milk sales as a primary household livelihood (mentioned 108 times). This demonstrates the profound link between women’s lives and well-being and to Sariska’s tiger population’s presence and growth.

Tigers & Milk: Meeting Expectations

Tigers are a threat to women in multiple ways, commonly reported in HWC studies, as women in a MG-FGD pointed out:

Kamala: Our children play in the fields, we too work in the fields. [Tigers] can come from anywhere and could eat our children.

Amba: We rear cattle and they provide us our livelihood and if they [are killed by tigers] then how could we live? (Women, Gujar, ~15 km from Sariska)

A woman named Girja told us the story of seeing a tiger while cutting fodder for her buffalo as “very scary,” but thankfully the tiger “moved on.” Yet, Girja concluded with “tigers should not come to our area,” by “our area” she explained on further inquiry as “where we are.” Girja added, “We are underprivileged and poor, we don’t have any jobs.

If they kill [people or livestock] we have nothing” (Meenas, ~10 km from Sariska). Girja’s consideration of anywhere she is, where she lives (~10 km from Sariska) and works (the Sariska buffer area), as inappropriate for tigers is rooted in her second statement that she and her family do not have “jobs.” While Girja works for income she does not classify her

195 work as a “job,” a term she selectively applies to paid work in the public sphere (men’s work), and by association that is free of vulnerability of being eaten. She desires these types of stable government and tourist jobs for her family members. In Contrast, her work as a milk saleswoman, requires her to consider tigers as well as all other dynamic environmental factors invariably in her management of time and resources. The necessity to consider protecting her life from apex predators undignifies her work and removes it from the more prestigious category of a “job,” that would not require this primeval consideration. Seeta, another woman in this WO-FGD, continued to link difficulty with tigers to her work, physical ability, and large family:

… tigers should not come here [or more be relocated]. We women are weak, men are strong, they can manage, but we are poor. How could we run and manage our escape or defend [livestock]? … You know handling all these children in poor conditions is very tough (Meenas, ~10 km from Sariska).

Seeta’s comments are insightful of the prevailing tone that men could manage protecting livestock better as well as have better chances of escape, compared to women who are slower.85 This discussion turned to the lack of appreciation men have for their many challenging roles and how tiger reintroduction has made all the “pressures more heavy” (Seeta, Meenas, ~10 km from Sariska). These pressures can be summarized into more stringent policing by the Forest Department of laws meant to protect Sariska from

85 This woman doesn’t specifically say she is in more danger because of her work or gender but does point out the difference and the ability of men to use a space. Seeing women in saris and flip-flops and men in trousers and, mostly flip flops, but other more sturdy shoes, you see how escape ability could be more optional for men as the men sight climbing vehicles, structures, or trees as escape while women are not able to do anything but run in saris. Also, if men are part of the resource collection, it is usually with a weapon in hand. For instance, men who participated in wood collection are almost exclusively doing the chopping and the women the collecting. Men then, do not have their hands full or preoccupied with keeping wood on top of their heads, like the women, but instead walking with a knife of some sort of cutting and moving on. This is usually done by men already in the forest and hills shepherding goats, so that when they are in proximity or in Sariska they are armed. 196 degradation. The tigers’ return ushered in a new boundary wall, tall enough to keep cattle/buffalo out of the park (where it is erected) but not tall enough to keep in wild ungulates or predators from easily leaping over the structure (the wall segments were built by the Forest Department two to three years before FGD). The wall’s primary function, then, is to restrict fodder collection as part of the broader enforcement of conservation laws. These restrictions and their enforcement vary across the study area, but there is a consensus from women that it is more difficult to provide enough fodder for their livestock than before the tigers’ reintroduction—either by buffalo freely grazing or the ability to collect plenty of nutritious fodder. For instance:

Madhuri: That time our buffalo roamed freely but now they are bound [after tiger reintroduction]. So there is a lot of difference in milk.

Bharti: Now we face a situation, we get less milk because we are not permitted to go inside to collect grass (Women, Gujar, ~.5 km from Sariska)

When we posed the question of “was life different when there were no tigers?” in another WO-FGDs, women responded immediately by describing women’s past ability to go deep into the jungle for fodder:

Mohini: Yes, at that time we were going into dense jungle to get the grass.

Translator: This is biggest change?

Varsha: Yes. Now the milk is less. (Women, Gujar, ~6 km from Sariska)

Other WO-FGDs had the same consensus that during the tigerless period it was “a good time,” because “We were able to graze our cattle very well” (Elder woman, mother-

197 in-law, Gujar, inside Sariska). To which her two daughters-in-laws, Pratibha and Rohini, added: Pratibha: But now neither are able to graze our cattle nor can our children go there.

Rohini: It is necessary to bring little bit fodder, but we are so scared. (Women, Gujar, inside Sariska)

The fear and risk never subside. Meeting expectations of milk have changed because of the reintroduction and extirpation. During the period of no tigers in Sariska, fodder collection and grazing were “better” and thus the milk production, at times, was higher. Women feel their families hold them to past expectations when milk production was easier and more productive. After a WO-FGD turned to women talking about reasons they are not able to collect enough fodder, including fear of sighting predators, we asked: “so do the men come and ask why the supply has reduced?”

Radha: Yes, they do fight us about this.

Translator: Really?

Aparna: When the men return from the fields, they do ask.

Shruti: Yes, they do ask if there is money.... why the production has reduced?

Chhaya: Yes, they are just concerned about the milk production.... how and when they are not bothered about. (Women, Gujar, ~6 km from Sariska)

The women went on to explain that daily milk production is very sensitive. If fodder is poor quality even for a day, the milk collector may not give them their usual price seeing a variety in their milk (quality). In all sixteen WO-FGDs where buffalo milk is a primary livelihood, women talked about a typical pattern of not going to the forest for 2-3 days after

198 a tiger or leopard was sighted (see temporally delayed Ogra 2008). This is because of fear for themselves and their livestock; the delay comes with a substantial hidden cost: “It is that day…they [buffalo] will not produce. It is a challenge” a woman said of her buffalo not being able to graze after sighting a tiger. Women in all of these 15 WO-FGDs stressed the immediate drop in milk production when buffalos are fed substandard fodder (old or unfavorable leaves), as a result of the women not collecting fresh fodder or letting the buffalo graze freely. Women regularly said without fresh fodder buffalo will only produce one or half a liter of milk. This is hardly enough for their family’s sustenance. As a result, cash from daily milk sales is significantly reduced: “That is the problem, we are not able to meet expenses, and we have a big problem in the home” (Woman, Meena, ~3 km from Sariska). During these days of waiting after sighting a predator, a woman described her anxiety at home as: “Without cash [from selling milk] we do not want to stay home” (Chhaya, Gujar, ~6 km from Sariska). The translator asked for clarification on “not

[wanting] to “stay home” to which the Chhaya, a daughter-in-law, said, “beatings,” as her neighbor sitting next to her nodded and met my eye. During this part of WO-FGDs, mothers-in-law repeatedly verbalized their understanding of the situation; it is not their daughters-in-law’s fault for lower milk production as a result of truncated fodder collection and grazing after predator sightings. Yet, they said their voice did not reach the ears of their husbands and sons: men had unbroken expectations. The reintroduction has not uniformly impacted male family members’ expectations (for lower production) thus women’s risk of not meeting expectations has increased. Milk sales are expected to stay constant. A difficult conversation followed that added more detail to “[men] are just concerned about milk production…not bothered” about “how” the milk is produced. The 199 women say men’s concern for production supersedes their worry for their female family members. Women discussed verbal abuse and physical abuse in the moments “cash is discussed…beatings—it is all happening here.” Radha, a thirty-one-year-old woman added, “A tiger does not matter to [my husband]” when the milk quantity does not meet his expectations. Shruti added, “we are living with our [in-laws], and it is expected...what we see [predators] does not matter” (Gujar, ~6 km from Sariska). In thirteen of the sixteen

WO-FGD groups citing buffalo milk as a primary livelihood, participants described physical abuse (over the last four years) as a consequence of not meeting milk production expectations as a result of predator presence, i.e. a temporally delayed hidden cost, that subsequently materialized into a psychological or social cost (Ogra 2008). The NFHS-3 has likewise uncovered a distressing connection between women’s employment and domestic violence at the national scale. Women employed (waged labor) at any time over the last twelve months are 39%–40% more likely to experience violence. This is inconsistent with the general assumption that women who economically contribute to their households reduce their risk of domestic abuse, or that working assures extra- household agency. The study area echoed these national statistics. As in the national statistics, at Sariska, women’s financial contributions to the household are not shields against abuse. Rather, their income is a measured benchmark they are held to even though the fluctuation is out of their hands—carnivore presence, environmental changes (water table, monsoon changes, etc.; see Appendix 5). Thus, when women’s contributions to do not meet the benchmark they may face abuse: regular contribution is not protection against abuse, failure to do so is a liability in tiger territory.

200 Unfulfilled Expectations

Scholars widely credit patriarchy as “responsible for creating and maintaining a system that leaves women vulnerable to male control, which is often violent” (Bradley 2010, 364). Part of this system is concepts like the “good Indian wife” or ultimate “Bharatiya nari” (Indian woman) that includes specific expectations, including monetary contribution. In a similar manner, Truelove (2011, 147) finds that women must face the ramifications in compensating for Delhi’s “unreliable” water supply; one of her participants goes on to talk about how men “need water” but do not have the “headache of collecting water” and that the men do not even “want to know” the problems the women face to get the water. In Sariska, the women say men do not want to know the difficulties women bare to ensure milk production (e.g., leopards/tigers, being caught by the Forest Department). In both cases, the women must face the consequences of their gendered association with very “unreliable” sources of survival (water/milk). As a result of women shouldering an unpredictable and susceptible economic activity (milk production), they are in a continuous position to meet expectations. When the income falls short, they face consequences—and their status at the bottom of the hierarchy is compounded. Not meeting expectations impacts women’s physical security as mistreatment or abuse86 from their in-laws or husbands may result and/or emotional violence may ensue. In all twenty WO-FGDs domestic violence was verbally confirmed as a regular occurrence by at least one WO-FGD participant, to varying detail. Verbal abuse was also regarded as frequent and touching every family. These repeated experiences “reinforce

86 Domestic abuse, partner abuse, and its intersections with culture, patriarchy, religion, and gender have been widely investigated across India, and I will not cover the vast literature here (see Bradley 2010; Tamsin 2010; Kumar et al. 2005; Ahmed-Ghosh 2004; Mathur 2004, 2007; Kapadia 2003; Nayak et al. 2003; Best 2002; Engla and Merry 2001; Emerson Dobash and Dobash 1998; Nangia 1997; Banerjee 1997; Martin et al. 1992). 201 gendered and classed social differences materially shaping and constraining physical hardships and life opportunities” (Truelove 2011, 147). This is not to say that men do not likewise have precarious work. Rather, it is to say that men’s impermeable position at the top of the family hierarchy87 affords them little fear of repercussion or risk of not meeting expectations to the degree of abuse—to then compound the physical risk of working in Sariska. The women’s overall well-being is affected by the many socio-environmental conditions of their lives. Prerana, a fifty-year-old woman, ended a discussion on working inside Sariska by saying:

We are really very unhappy, very, very unhappy. In city, there is peace and peace but here it’s only trouble and trouble… I leave home at 4 in the morning to go to forest, just leaving the house as is.... return by 11 and just start preparing food for lunch and then do the other house chores. That’s just our daily routine…and to prepare the food for the children also. Then again in the evening we go to forest. Suffering. No happiness at all.

Prerana further described her fear of being eaten by a tiger or leopard during the nearly ten hours a day she spends inside and coming and going from Sariska (part of this time is during peak tiger activity; see Modal et al. 2012). To this older woman’s ominous portrait of life, a younger woman concluded, “This is Rajasthan and everyone over here is distressed” (Gujar, ~6 km from Sariska). While this was the only statement on the whole of Rajasthan, nine WO-FGDs included a similar ending with the women making a

87 The risks taken to ensure milk production and cash inflow in part is to send children to school. However, this is not equally distributed to send girls to school. Sons are the principle concern and sending them to school comes first. Mothers spend their money to send their sons to school rather than girls or for much longer (to completion rather than girls stopping early). This perpetuating the cycle of women’s risk (for fodder) to privilege their sons over their daughters. Girls are not allowed to travel outside their village for school for safety but also for cultural norms of girls and women traveling alone. Girls’ family value is inside the home, so sending them far for education is an unnecessary risk. Girls are also not given education because they will eventually join their husband’s family. Sons’ education will become a family asset and thus is prioritized. Many male and female participants believe more schools would be helpful in knowing their rights and for their children’s opportunities. 202 generalized statement about their condition of unhappiness—and general lack of well- being.88

DISCUSSION

Compounded Risk Conceptual Framework

From these findings, I argue that there is a causal link to abuse because of the a (cultural and social context), b (tiger presences and conflict), c (access and management of natural resources), d (gendered divisions of labor and livestock based livelihoods) factors of women’s lives in Sariska (Figure 22). Regardless of quantitative evidence of which of these factors plays the largest role, women in the WO-FGDs perceive tigers to be a disproportionately weighty factor in their experiences of abuse. These perceived links influence attitudes, which have cascading adverse effects on long-term tiger conservation (see Chapter 8). The daughters-in-law’s position in society and the home, resulting in their spatiality inside Sariska, result in a life of high emotional and physical risk (Figure 23). Male family members’ expectations and repercussions enact place-based divisions of labor that put women in severe danger. This creates an overlapping and ever-present risk geography for women. Highlighting this social-ecological network (humans, environment, cultural, and non-humans) of interlinking subjectivities, described in the sections above, is part of the aim to uncover not only proximate but less obvious coupled lives (human, nonhuman) and context (landscape, culture) of gendered risk. This data reveals women’s fear and well- being while co-habituating with tigers is not solely dependent on fear of lethal tiger

88 Thus, in Sariska women (1) live in a social context where violence against women is a learned social behavior; (2) live in extended-family settings where their mothers-in-law may encourage this violence; (3) the women are major economic contributors; and (4) their husbands and fathers-in-law frequently work in less-stable employment (in comparison to milk sales). These pre-existing conditions make domestic abuse a collective reality for most women in this study. 203 encounters but intensified by pre-existing social-ecological context, such as domestic abuse, the dowry system, changing climate (see Chapter 7 and Appendix 5), and anthropogenic degradation of Sariska and surrounding lands. This research then contributes to the notion that women’s vulnerability is not only gender-based but shaped by the confluence of caste, traditional Indian family hierarchy, religion, environmental positionality and other factors (Agrawal and Gibson 2001; Agarwal 1997). As Figure 30 illustrates, the materialization of this risk is a result of a complex human-environmental network. Also evident is that tiger reintroduction alone does not create risk, but several concurring factors produce the hidden cost of women’s risk of familial violence. Figure 30 showcases women’s multifaceted risk geography throughout their household (as understood to include the natural environment they work in as an extension of the household). Shown here is that women are:

1) Vulnerable Physically to Leopard/Tiger attack: when they are in carnivore territory for wood/fodder collection

2) Vulnerable socially and physically: When their livestock are in the forest alone

3) Vulnerable physically and socially: When women are with their livestock in tiger territory.

Applied to Ogra’s Hidden Costs Model

In attempts to alleviate the burden of negative side-effects of conservation and mitigate future conflict, compensation for loss of cattle or human life is often standard policy. Damage compensation aims to reduce the economic burden and financial risk for those living alongside carnivores (Loveridge et al. 2010a). This is widely practiced in Norway, Sweden (Swenson and Andren 2005), and India (Karanth and Gopal 2005). Much

204 of the discussion on predator conservation in India centers on reimbursements for livestock predation or post-death compensation. While this is an important component of tiger conservation, many scholars advocate for strategies that target attitudes and argue that compensation does little in that way. Sariska shows that not just the financial value of livestock animals is at risk but the value of young women for whom the well-being of livestock is essential for stabilizing household relations.

In summary, the male expectation here is reliable income from milk, which is dependent on fodder, either gathered by women and brought back to the house or accessed by the women shepherding the livestock to the fodder in the jungle. When collection or shepherding are interrupted by a tiger sighting, for instance, the milk production is impacted. This disrupts expectations and often exacerbates real and immediate needs for cash (for immediate needs), which can lead to domestic violence towards women. Thus, not only the lives of livestock but their ability to produce an expected number of liters of milk is a major concern for women in this landscape. Most HWC literature that considers predation focuses on the lives lost. However, the susceptibility of milk production is shown here to be significantly important for daily needs and for women to satisfy expectations to prevent abuse. The results presented here provide further evidence that the three primary hidden costs of HWC (Ogra 2009) are not isolated, but that (a) uncompensated and (b) temporally delayed costs can lead to (c) psychological or social costs to women, as a result of socio- environmental context of human-wildlife encounters and conflict. In this research, these three hidden costs were repeatedly discussed—at length, many times without prompting, in the WO-FGDs. A summary of the primary issues associated with these three hidden costs outlined by Ogra (2008) includes:

205 a) Uncompensated: predation of livestock the Forest Department may or may not compensated. b) Temporarily delayed: women repeatedly reported they would not visit the forest for two to three days if they saw a tiger or leopard (meaning not collected fodder/wood leads to little or significantly less milk production, or the need for purchasing fodder/feed that is costly).

c) The temporarily delayed cost (b) in Sariska has two major results that fall under Psychological or social (c):

1) This can result in higher rates of domestic abuse, or women giving up their own food/etc. for other family members— potentially having nutritional or psychological impacts. (Giving up food for family and lost work time are reported in the literature, the correlation with domestic abuse is not.)

2) The reinforcement of women and girls as “worth” less than boys and men; impacts on women’s income (reduced milk sales, or reduced stock) that may diminish available funds for dowries therefore hampering a daughter’s likelihood for amiable marriage, which could mean higher rates of domestic abuse and/or long-term family tensions. *These are also areas underreported in the literature.

206

Figure 30: The interlinking costs of, and need to focus on, livelihood diversification of women’s activities in Sariska—not only for tigers but for women’s well- being. 207 Attention to Livelihood Diversification

Women are noted as major actors (GOV 2014) in Sariska’s degradation through grazing, fodder, and wood collection. Women are easily blamed as a result, overlooking the household dynamics that place them in this position. This dissertation shows that the household and broader social systems reinforce gendered divisions of labor that support dangerous livelihoods that are worthy of blame. Livelihood limitations and lack of economic resources reinforce women’s exposure to violence (Prakash 2011). In Sariska, women’s critical role in an unreliable economic activity can expose them to violence. Gender-based violence and risk of death via HWC is dependent on silence. The forest department (and by extension the policies and forest guards who enforce them) silence women’s risk. The fact that grazing inside and outside of Sariska is illegal, in addition to wood/fodder gathering, which is primarily a woman’s role and more often punished by the FD, means women must be silent while working in Sariska. I hypothesize that because women, by a vast majority, undertake this risk and are socially less vocal there is hesitancy in demand for livelihood adaptation. I further hypothesize that if men were undertaking these jobs the associated risk would possibly be deemed too great. The current push for better compensation and village relocations result in visible, measurable outcomes towards the Forest Department’s goals for tiger conservation, but, in reality, maintain women’s precarious role in supporting the families of and adjacent to Sarsika. In contrast, changing women’s livelihoods, and familial expectations is slower and more difficult but may provide more powerful benefits to tiger conservation goals and women’s well-being. This dissertation should enhance the ongoing initiatives for livelihood diversification, more difficult but more equitable. The insights here further demonstrate that livelihood diversification must be conceptualized through women’s experiences if it is to be successful in this human-environmental landscape. 208 The Rajasthan Forest Department has put forth ambitious socio-environmental plans to improve Sariska’s habitat and suitability for forty to fifty tigers (carrying capacity determined by Hayward’s Formula (Hayward et al. 2007)). Sariska’s Tiger Conservation Plan (GOV 2014) includes ambitious goals for removing all cattle/buffalo grazing from the park through multiple initiatives: village relocation, further construction of periphery walls, creating alternate grazing areas, improving milk yields through breed improvement (to reduce number of animals), promoting stall feeding,89 encouraging farmers to grow fodder crops rather than cash crops, “promoting non-cattle-based livelihood options” and stringent law enforcement (GOV 2014, 147). It is encouraging to see official documentation outlining these goals. Implementation, however, will continue to be very difficult due to politics, tradition, and logistics. Livelihood diversification, as noted by the Forest Department, is of paramount importance in achieving these goals. Right now GOV (2014)’s plan that includes livelihood diversification is gender- neutral. Recruiting local employment in the tourism industry is worded as “local work force will be employed…” without specific gender goals (GOV 2014, 344). These positions need to have specific goals for equipping local women with education and opportunity to be employed in these local Sariska-related jobs. The many tourism positions (guides, services, etc.) that require training should likewise have goals of female employment. This would likely require workshops with families to articulate to male family members the benefits of this type of employment to the household long-term well-being and in particular to their female family members.

89 Milk production is conducive to rural Rajasthani women’s lives as the skills are well developed and passed from generation to generation; marketing is easy as milkmen collect milk from all over; part of the work can be done from home (milking, feeding, etc.); and milk at home enhances children’s nutrition (Bisht et al. 2013). Thus, the Forest Department wants to promote stall feeding to maintain the milk production, but without dependence on Sariska. 209 In other sections of the 2014 tiger report, ecotourism is planned to include “local host communities” and tourism on “private lands” (GOV 2014). The plan does include goals of having at least one woman on each micro planning support team. This is a good start, but falls short when considering women’s roles in the financial decisions and labor described here. The lack of direct initiatives to employ local women in Sariska’s multifaceted tourism economy leaves the nearly nine-hundred-page report lacking full potential of implementation.90 The Forest Department’s acknowledgment of livelihood diversity as critical is deficient without parallel affirmation that that diversification needs to focus on women’s livelihood options. Women are the stable earners of many households in Sariska and the conduits of the major ecological force—grazing; destabilizing Sariska’s sustainability must be at the center of conservation plan. Johnsingh and Madhusudan (2009) note that economic losses from predation and the absence of options to offset said losses result in considerable local animosity toward tigers and support for activities that undercut tiger conservation (e.g., forest fires, hunting, poisoning wildlife, working with poachers, etc.). This research highlights the hidden costs of current gendered divisions of labor that negatively influence women’s well-being in many ways outside of economics. These negative experiences impact the way women perceive tigers, which percolates to their children and impacts conservation in other ways

90 Rajasthan starting employing women as Forest Guards in 2011, and has around twenty women forest guards. The report cites women forest guards specifically three times. First, the report cites women forest guards as tools in restricting these activities and educating women in “not carrying axe [or] cutting green trees” (GOR 2014, 173). The second and third mention of women forest guards is to “deal with women offenders” and “catch women offenders [of wildlife and forest offences] and for registering proper case for prosecuting them” (GOR 2014, 157, 291). Only noting women forest guards’ role in Sariska’s sustainability in their ability to reprimand local women is short-sighted. The role of women forest guards in communicating laws to local women is indeed very important. Yet, this report does not consider the hidden costs of women not fulfilling their roles as fodder and wood collectors. The role of female forest guards as communicators must include an acknowledgement of local women as key players in the health of Sariska and not just as law breakers.

210 (see Chapter 8). This coupled with recognition of the hidden costs described here add significant emphasis for the necessity of alternative livelihood options to conserve endangered tigers and benefit a local community’s stability (as other scholars have argued as well, e.g., Chowdhury et al. 2008; Nyhus and Tilson 2004; WWF 2002). Across India, human-tiger conflict is largely confined to PA boundaries, and some multiple-use forests and plantations (Karanth and Gopal 2005). Multiple-use forests on the edge of PAs (and PAs themselves in India where resource collection is omnipresent) then become conflict-prone land uses. Thus, tiger conservation success leads to higher conflict levels, that conservationists like Karanth and Gopal (2005) say “can only be mitigated by a proactive policy mix of conflict prevention and mitigation, rooted in sound science and practical experience (see Bangs et al. chapter 21)” (386). No doubt mitigation is important, but discussion on “prevention” must become more centered on livelihood change; when, in fact, relocation of communities seems to be the largest target it may be easier to change livelihoods. The problem is not living near tigers but rather the livelihood in which women bend down and gather fodder/wood, carrying these heavy loads, unprotected and ill- equipped for defense in the face of tiger encounters.

Resentment: Divisions of Livelihood, Consequences, Attitudes towards Tigers

Feminist scholars have articulated the political struggles of making women’s work and their daily realities more socially visible and economically viable (Write 2004). The economic process that devalues women’s labor often comes as the result of the female subject as socially obscure, “as a subject who does not count in history, in the public sphere, in cultural practices, or even in conceptualizations of some place (see Scott 1988)” (Write 2004, 372). Feminist geographers have illustrated the powerful compounding of this issue based on discourse associated with spatial practices (Lawson 1999; McDowell 1997) that

211 create “sociospatial circuits through which cultural and personal stories are circulated, legitimated, and given meaning” by way of producing space and places (Pratt 1999). “So let us try not to fragment people and their lives,” as Kamla Bhasin implores, but consider “hierarchies, such as those of class, caste, race, and the north-south dive, majority versus minority...try[ing] to understand their interconnection” (Bhasin 2012, 2–3). In Sariska, women’s personal stories while carrying out their expected labor roles of resource collection for livestock rearing, and the recognition that carnivore presence, especially tigers, have negative consequences to their social standing and raise the level of abuse create a landscape of fear. This human landscape is in place because of women’s historical invisibility and consequential low regard of their work and/or little recognition from male family members that women’s roles are more dangerous which may/should result in high esteem for carrying them out. In reality, their roles in tiger and leopard territory are downgraded to “necessary,” and “not any more difficult.” This devaluing of women’s labor, is part of the system that creates higher rates of resentment toward the forest guards, Sariska as a PA, and the reintroduced tigers (Figure 31). While women have long been undervalued (Haq 2008) this does not mean they are not aware of this inequality of work, of risk, and of the disproportionate burden. This is compounded by women’s responsibility to maintain the household, which materializes in their prioritizing of other family members’ welfare at the cost of their own, which Ogra (2008) hypothesizes may lead to greater resentment of carnivores.

212

Figure 31: This conceptual model demonstrates the links between factors shaping women’s risk of abuse, fear of tiger encounter, and women’s well-being that eventually link to long-term tiger reintroduction success.

As Chowdhury et al. (2008) argue, to have a practical and rational conservation policy an understanding of the undercurrent of a “negative ecological cycle” operative in tiger landscapes is needed, including insight into the eco-psychiatric aspect (ecological influence on mental health) of conservation: the aftermath, hidden costs, of human-wildlife conflicts (Chowdhury et al. 2008). As Chowdhury et al. (2008) argue, this research highlights HTI’s influence on abuse which likely influences eco-psychiatric consequences to women. Thus, Sariska and the surrounding area must be managed through a holistic approach to provide livelihood improvement that is not dependent on women spending extended hours inside Sariska. This more complex understanding of women’s experiences

213 within a conservation landscape may also enable local and regional women’s groups and NGOs to form pertinent narratives to improve ongoing campaigns for more equitable distribution of labor roles to start moving toward practical conservation. Women have influence and contribute to intra-household and extra-household (Agarwal 1997) decisions and attitudes. Intra-household decisions revolve around livelihood and family welfare and extra-household decisions influence community ideas and policies. As the principal caregivers, women can communicate and strengthen knowledge and positive attitudes in their children, which has enduring effects for conservation (Carter and Allendorf 2016). As Carter and Allendorf (2016) point out, women have power at the community level to help ensure that tigers are conserved and laws are followed (Doss 2013). They argue the more knowledgeable and positive women are about tigers, the safer tigers will be. Understanding and then addressing hidden costs of human-tiger coexistence has to be a precursor to that aim. This research demonstrations the visible costs, such as decreased resource access (wood, fodder), are paralleled by many women-specific hidden costs such as fear of domestic consequences (physical or emotional), where they are compounded by patriarchal customs.

CONCLUSION

Research and conservation practices that involve gender-sensitive approaches contribute to more equal and inclusive strategies that strengthen conservation (Carter and Allendorf 2016; Sodhi et al. 2010). By illuminating why co-existence is difficult for women who spend more time in PAs and collect forest products, we can better identify the drivers of negative perceptions and find ways to improve co-existence. This research is part of the larger body of literature redressing the issue of wildlife conservation with predominant

214 masculinist perspectives, with the aim of better conservation (Carter and Allendorf 2016; Carter and Linnell 2016; Hunter et al. 1990). This case study agrees that “the complex suite of social factors responsible for the decline and eventual extirpations of these tiger populations (Government of India 2005) continue to prevail” (Johnsingh and Madhusudan 2009, 150). With this study, some of those drivers become clear. And while the reintroduction will continue to be difficult, better understanding these socio-cultural threads make policy more precise to improve the outcomes for wildlife and people.

“In countries with high human density, intense land hunger, widespread anthropogenic impact on wildlife and relatively poor socio-political, financial and governmental systems, is it feasible to undertake the complex technical and socio- political tasks associated with large-carnivore reintroduction?” (Johnsingh and Madhusudan 2009, 149)

Not only conservation practices need to change, but pursuits highlighting and protecting women’s rights and well-being must also be promoted. As scholars call for more mitigation in developing countries around HWC and better preparations for reintroductions, do they truly want to “address” the deeply culturally gendered disparities that are the “conflict potential” (Linnell et al. 2005, 171) within conservation zones for carnivores? If so, women’s well-being within societies in conservation landscapes must be prioritized to ensure equity in conservation landscapes that do not despairingly disadvantage women based on culturally gendered labor and responsibilities.

In addition to the visible human costs (economic, physical) of human-wildlife co- habitation, many costs are hidden, temporally delayed and psychosocial (Bond and Mkutu 2017; Barua et al. 2013; Ogra 2008). These hidden costs must be identified as they percolate into perceptions of the park’s management, the park as an entity in itself, and the

215 official purpose of the park: preserving and reestablishing tigers. The Chapter 8 focuses on these different gendered perceptions (rather than experiences) of co-habituating with reintroduced tigers.

216 Chapter 7: Dowry & Human-Wildlife Conflict

BIOGRAPHY: SHILPI

At 24 years-old, Shilpi is a married woman living adjacent to Sariska in a kutcha house with her husband’s family. With her mother-in-law, and two elder sisters-in-laws she wakes early in the morning around 5 a.m. to collect fodder from Sariska. She described her growing fear of being eaten by a tiger or leopard during the dry season as they venture deeper and deeper into the park for rich food for their nine buffalo. She says she is

“terrified” that a tiger will eat her or her family members while they are in the forest. However, she has no choice, as it is the women’s responsibility to take care of the household, and feed their families as well as their buffalo. The latter two are linked as the food they prepare for their children and husbands is mostly bought with money from milk sales. Shilpi was visibly emotional describing the last time she and her female family members saw a tiger earlier in the month. The tiger was sleeping nearby when a buffalo caught the smell. The buffalo made a panicked noise waking the tiger. The women immediately began to pull at their saris so their legs could move faster and ran away from the tiger. Thankfully the tiger did not kill any buffalo, nor follow the fleeing women and animals. However, back at home, the buffalo only had stored dry fodder to eat for the rest of the day. Thus, the buffalos produced significantly less milk than usual. When the milkman came to collect the milk he was disappointed with the reduced amount (Figure 32). He only gave Shilpi and her sisters-in-law 30% of their normal daily milk sales. Partly, this is because they had less to sell and further reduced by the lack of their bargaining power. The women said they were desperate for cash so would sell regardless of the price. The next two days the women refused to go to the jungle as the tiger was still likely in the area. These two days the buffalo were fed dried fodder, any vegetation near the road, and

217 with expensive purchased fodder. This meant the meals they prepared where mostly chapatti (bread) rather than curried vegetables as they were not able to buy new produce. Shilpi said she would eat less these days, when milk sales were lower, so her daughter did not have to feel hungry. Later in the evening, the men in the family would be coming home. They each have differing types of part-time work. Shilpi’s husband works in a wooden stand on the road selling mints, crackers, and other small edibles. When he heard Shilpi’s story, he was thankful the tiger harmed no one and no buffalo. However, he was very upset about the milk sales. Shilpi says that day he was not violent but later when he needed cash he “did not remember there was a tiger,” he only thought “…we [female family members] are to blame.” Shilpi then told us a “beating” followed days later for not meeting his expectations of being a “good wife,” taking good care of the household. Shilpi’s mind is already worried about further repercussions if this continues to happen. Shilpi told us she is worried that the tiger she saw will stay in the area. If this happens, she is afraid buffalo will eventually be killed, and her family will not be able to produce enough milk from the remaining buffalo to provide “decent funds” to secure a “safe” marriage for her daughter. She further explained on inquiry, that a "safe marriage" is one where the in-laws are happy with the dowry. If the in-laws are satisfied, they will treat Shilpi’s daughter “without abuse.” However, if they lose buffalo or the tiger prevents the buffalo from grazing and having fresh fodder the family will not be able to take out enough loans (multiple) to secure her daughters safety. Instead, Shilpi and the family will "manage what we can, but it will not be sufficient" and her daughter “will have suffering...

[in-laws] will not forget a small dowry.” Further, not providing a sufficient dowry would cause Shilpi’s family to feel shame--shame her daughter will also endure; “a girl growing with this knowledge” that she is a burden and source of shame to her family “it is a concern.

218 She will know this.” If the “tiger stays here, we will not [be able to] arrange a good marriage.”

Figure 32: Milkmen, pictured in the foreground with large milk cans, visit villages throughout the Sariska landscape to collect fresh milk, which is often taken back to Alwar, the nearest city, and sold to larger cooperatives.

INTRODUCTION

Violence against women in Rajasthan is perpetuated by embedded histories, power relations, and socio-economic relations at various scales and locations, primarily: (1) the community, (2) the family, (3) the workplace, and (4) the state (Mathur 2004)91. The present Chapter furthers understanding of the process of risk’s manifestation in the home as a consequence of women’s work in context of the tradition of dowry. Gendered

91 See Mathur (2004) for a monograph covering these location’s influence through participatory work in these areas for two decades in Rajasthan. Most importantly, Mathur (2004) provides a thorough investigation into the historical expressions of violence ingrained into the socio-economic and political background of power relations. Marthur (2004) finds contemporary Rajasthan crippled by a persistence of medieval, old feudal values and practices of women’s oppression. These values and norms of women’s subordination define gender relations in premodern Rajasthan (Mathur 2004). 219 expectations and concepts of marriage legitimize violence in orthodox Hinduism92, with clear evidence presented from many scholars of key connections to the traditions of dowry (Bradley 2010 [Rajasthan]; Bradley and Tomalin 2009; Srinivasan and Bedi 2007 [South India]; Basu 2005, 2001, 2015 [Rajasthan/Delhi]; Leslie 1995; Menski 1998 [South India]; Kumar 1989). As Bradley (2010) says:

“Although many other types of violence exist including rape, abuse by in-laws, husbands, and abuses by other community members, dowry is frequently cited by women as the reason for a significant proportion of the violence they suffer.” (Bradley 2010, 364)

Domestic violence is a global phenomenon; one in three women have been beaten or abused. Yet, domestic violence in India remains one of the most complex as, “the status of women fits into a vicious circle of mutually reinforcing gender inequalities and patriarchal practices in Rajasthan” (Prakash 2011, 89). It is over simplistic to generalize that all Hindu or Indian households malign women by following cultural norms such as the dowry. Women's treatment and equality within Indian culture are complex93. The Indian government continues to legislate for improved treatment, protections, and social status of women. Yet, cultural resentments towards these laws negate effective enforcement of such progress (e.g., Kaushik 2003; Newman 1992; Fahn 1990). Rajasthan faces particularly considerable challenges in this advancement. Among adult women 70 percent report

92 Muslim communities did not participate in 2016-2017 WO-FGDs which are the focus of this chapter, though Muslim communities were included in MG-FGDs. 93 Scholarship centered on dowry point to religion as a typical platform “upon which culture builds a patriarchal gendered ideology” (Bradley 2010, 365). Dowry as an investigative lens is also useful in understanding women’s vulnerability to violence (Brandley 2010). Indian women, lacking economic and social equity, depend on their husbands for physical survival and a community position (Bradley 2010). There are direct links between gender, religion, cultural practices and violence in India (e.g., Bradley 2010; Ahmed-Ghosh 2004, Mathur 2004, 2007; Kapadia 2003, Nayak et al. 2003; Engla and Merry 2001; Dobash and Dobash 1998). 220 marrying before the age of 18, while the situation has only marginally improved; at present 68 percent of girls turning 19 are married (Speizer and Pearson 2011). Moreover, 45 percent of Rajasthani women reported experiencing physical or sexual violence in their lifetime (Speizer and Pearson 2011). Through analysis of national Indian data, Speizer and Person (2011) found Rajasthan youth who marry before 18 are at greater risk of intimate partner violence than of youth in other Indian states94.

Within the literature on violence and dowry drivers of payment difficulties are still an area of emerging concern, the violence itself and cultural context being the main focus.

As these are complex, regional, and well-established areas of literature I will only describe the foundational background here for context. Primarily, I will present a case of the hidden costs of human-tiger interaction, building on the risks discussed in Chapter 6 and posing an additional risk that further jeopardizes not only women but their daughters’ well-being. Thus, building on Chapter 6’s discussion of women’s gendered labor roles, here I add dowries as an element of investigation to the links between women’s lives and tiger conservation. This chapter outlines the process of further hidden costs to women and girls as a result of their intersectionality in society and the process of tiger reintroduction. The voices of the women provide the foundation on which I trace this process summarized here in six steps: (1) dowry is a multi-generational financial and physiological burden vital to secure a daughter’s marriage, (2) dowry inflation is recognized and lamented by the majority of families in the study, (3) milk sales, primarily ensured by women’s labor and risk (Figure 33-34), are a primary means of dowry payment and subsequent dowry requests,

(4) milk sales are a means to ensure daughters will not suffer abuse/torture/killing/suicide

94 Speizer and Persaon (2011) hypothesize Rajasthan’s significant representation of child marriage and IPV may be connected to the tradition of early childhood marriage during Akha Teej festival. This custom then results to even more limited educational opportunities “for child brides compared to girls married during their teenage years; these girls may be less empowered and thus at increased risk of violence on cohabitation” (Speizer and Persaon 2011, 1975). 221 so that subsequent dowry payments can be met, (5) tiger presence, interaction and attack can diminish milk sales through reduced fodder and livestock predation thereby reducing ability to pay large dowry, take on loans, and pay post-marriage dowry payments to the in- laws, (6) HTI thereby jeopardizes the well-being of women and girls, and even female fetuses. As previously argued, greater attention is needed to identify and incorporate hidden social costs of conservation to minimize said costs and maximize social benefits (Kaplan-

Hallam and Bennett 2017) in long-term conservation management. To widen these insights and demonstrate the possibilities of such research, this Chapter traces steps that in the end can negatively affect the way women and girls—and communities in general--view tiger reintroduction and conservation. These views and their impact are the subject of Chapter 8. Thus, this chapter is a bridge to further connect the arguments made in Chapter 6 to conclusions in Chapter 8.

222

Figure 33: A woman shepherding buffalo and a cow in Sariska’s southern buffer zone. Less than half a mile from this women and her livestock we found a cow killed by a large feline (leopard or tiger) with evident canine teeth marks on its neck

Figure 34: During a walking tour with WO-FGDs participants through livestock grazing areas in the Sariska buffer zone we came across this calf. Clear canine teeth marks on the neck led the research team to conclude either tiger or leopard predation. This calf was found less than half a mile from a woman shepherding a large herd of 17 buffalo and one cow. 223 Dowry in Rajasthan: A Condensed Context

The Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961 first restricted the dowry by declaring that demanding, giving or accepting dowry is a punishable crime. The practice continues, however, and in 1984 an amendment added five-year minimum imprisonment and fine of a least ₹15000 for those involved. Under Section 304 of the Penal code, dowry is punishable with a minimum of seven years imprisonment to a maximum of life imprisonment. Added protection for women against all forms of domestic violence

(emotional, verbal, sexual, physical and economic) came in the form of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005. Regardless of these legal protections, Indian women across virtually all castes and states suffer from the demands of dowry (Kaushik

2003)95. Scholars loosely defined dowry as "movable or immovable property that a bride's father or guardian gives to the bridegroom, his parents, or his relatives as a condition to the marriage, and under duress, coercion or pressure", or "cash, consumer goods, and jewelry that a wife brought with her to her husband's household" (Nangia 1997, 630; Sitaraman 1999, 287). Dowries vary depending on the bride’s status, education, physical appearance, caste and economic status (Gondal 2015). Dowry is a burden for the bride’s families, especially of middle and lower classes (Teays 1991). A daughter is often considered a “cause for sorrow,” as after years of being a burden on family resources (as they save for her dowry), she will belong to and benefit another household after marriage (Newman 1992). The financial investment of daughters with no material returns is a cause for high rates of infanticide and female feticide in parts of the country, and gender-based health

95 Kaushik (2003) provides an analysis of the dowry devolution, laws and the lack of their implementation within the antagonistic relationships between patriarchal tradition and the laws endeavoring to alter the societal treatment of women in India. 224 disparities that impact neonatal mortality96. Educating daughters is also neglected to save money for the dowry (Gondal 2015); in-laws demand a higher dowry for educated women (Gondal 2015). This is because more educated women are viewed as less able to focus on household matters, and considered "less likely to be humble, chaste and obedient"- justifying more substantial dowries (Kaushik 2003, 96). Overall, the family-level struggles and related violence over expectations and dowries have a substantial part in shaping numerous social and health conditions of women and female children (e.g., Ackerson and Subramanian 2009; Chowdhary and Patel 2008; Patel et al. 2006; Jejeebhoy 1998).

The dowry system reaches back to Roman and Greek Civilization (Anderson 2007), yet people in South Asia remains the predominant modern practitioners of the dowry system97 (Gondal 2015) The historical and modern notions of dowry are very different, the latter becoming a “business” with dowry and social status the main negotiation pieces (Gondal 2015; Kaushik 2003; Hitchock 2001; Umar 1998; Nangia 1997; Fahn 1990). In the face of materialism and self-interest, marriage in South Asia has become a business negation over dowry requirements despite growing literacy rates, laws and state and NGO actions (Gondal 2015). Modern dowry is considered a “display of social and economic status [rather] than a traditional custom” (Gondal 2015, 41). Babu and Babu (2011) describe this new form as an “ignoble commercial transaction in which financial considerations receive preference over all other qualities of the bride” (Babu and Babu

96 Gender discrimination throughout the female life cycle contributes to gender-based health disparities such as, sex-selective abortions, neglect or poor access to home and healthcare of girls (Dettrick et al. 2013; MOHFW 2013; Willis et al. 2009; Fikree and Pasha 2004; Claeson et al. 2000; Murthi et al. 1995; Chatterjee 1990). 97 The dowry has maintained prominence for multiple reasons in rural Indian marriage. First, marriage is restricted to endogamous groups meaning "people are only permitted to marry within a well-defined set of families who make up their subcaste” (Bolch and Rao 2002, 1030). Bride or grooms would face major social sanctions if they married outside their caste. Second and thirdly, marriage is patrilocal so that brides join the husband's households and both families arrange the marriage. Lastly, it is important to recognize marriage is considered final; there are cases of separation and divorce but they are very rare in rural settings (Bolch and Rao 2002). 225 2011, 36). This is significantly influenced by the procurement of technological goods as a means for attaining status (Kaushik 2003). “Dowry is a polyvalent institution” that links with “conspicuous display in status competition in a hierarchical society” partaking in humanity’s global “aspirations to possess consumer goods within the wider context of contemporary India’s rapidly changing political economy” (Jeffery 2014, 171). Consequently, there is a growing reliance on dowries to meet economic and social requirements (Kaushik 2003); the dowry is now a considerable transfer of wealth (Srinivasan and Lee 2004). As a result, dowry inflation has increased over the last several decades (Srinivasan and Lee 2004; Anderson 2003; Rao 1993)98 and the marriage expenses are such that they may now be financially devastating for the bride’s parents (Rao 1993; Nadagouda et al. 1992). The dowry is not a one-time payment, but increasingly demands are made long after the marriage. The demands may continue for years, with the wife's treatment depending on the extent of her parents meeting these demands (Kaushik 2003; Agrawal 1995). Failure to pay these subsequent dowry demands can result in mental and physical abuse for daughters-in-law (Gondal 2015; Kaushik 2003). Extensive literature documents the psychological and physical abuse that includes rape, abduction, beatings, and dowry death99 or forced suicide (Bolch and Rao 2002; Umar 1998). One sex does not wholly commit the dowry-related violence; mothers-in-law (Kaur and Garg 2010) and sisters-in- law often participate in dowry violence or harassment (Kaushik 2003). This is in part because mothers-in-law oversee a daughter-in-law’s day to day activities from divisions of

98 Logan and Arunachalam (2014) contest systematic increases in dowry in South Asia, though many scholars acknowledge it (e.g., Jeffery 2014). In this study participants consistently spoke of dowry inflation—a phenomenon I was not aware of before conducting the 20 WO-FGDs. 99 Dowry death is a premeditated act of killing women by her husband or in-laws or marital family members (Menski 1998). In 2001, 6851 dowry deaths were documented; in 2006 the number increased to 7,618 and in 2013 it was recorded to exceed 8,233 deaths (Domínguez, 2013). Ferraro and Andreatta (2014) determined, on average, one bride is burned every ninety minutes. 226 responsibilities to what cooking preferences to follow. Mothers-in-law were most likely victims of abuse when they were younger and now remain in a subordinate status as women, but do have a higher status than daughters-in-law. Thus, part of performing and displaying that (relative but not absolute) improvement in her status is by exerting power and contribute to the abuse of daughters-in-law. It is not only patriarchal social norms that perpetuate dowry-related violence. Social status and reputation in Indian society is a momentous force in inflating the dowry system (see Kaushik 2003 for an in-depth discussion on status and dowry). As Kaushik articulates,

“Indian society's hunger for social status, coupled with its relegation of young women to subservient roles together form a fertile ground” for the dowry system to flourish (Kaushik 2003, 100). As a result, reports of dowry-related abuse or killing are regularly not reported. Reporting abuse can depreciate the reputation and status of the bride’s family and negatively affect the bride’s relationships to the groom’s family (Gondal 2015), or could provoke retaliation against the bride’s children (Kaushik 2003). Maintaining the status quo also stems from the fact that women who return to their parents are considered failures as wives (Menon 1999), a dishonor to their families (Nangia 1997; Fahn 1990). This social system is a reinforcing “network to nurture the dowry system because the newlywed woman is vulnerable to abuse” (Kaushik 2003, 97). Essentially, domestic violence against daughters-in-law is a means of extorting further payments from the bride’s family past the original dowry (Bolch and Rao 2002). The use of the dowry system to attain valuable goods like scooters, motorcycles and even cars, especially in villages such as the study area (where there is a widespread standard of requesting motorcycles) combined with other factors to form a compound situation of deepening poverty (Tully 1991). The combination of dowry requirements and

227 environmental insecurity prompted Mary C. Grey100, to write “Never have I seen a situation where factors from tradition, religion, poverty, patriarchy and the effects of global capitalism come together to make the lives of women so trapped in degrading poverty” as in Rajasthan (Grey 2000, 34). While there is progress across many spaces in India, the laws against building roads, electricity, and buildings in PAs and their buffers stifle women’s progress with limited market access and fewer schools for instance. This along with the family-level stressors described in Chapter 6, like husband’s temporary and unreliable employment, increase women’s probability of being victimized as it leads to husbands’ frustration and possible alcohol abuse which is positively associated with violence against women (Babu and Babu 2011). Thus, women in communities in/near PAs face compounded socio-economic disadvantages and a likelihood of familial violence within this complicated socio-cultural- political landscape. This is of course the case of the women of Sariska whose value and well-being are linked to these site and situation realities that this chapter links to issues of dowry.

METHODOLOGY NOTE

Women were open and eager to talk in the group setting of WO-FGDs, which were stratified by age to hear various voices (Figure 35). We were able to ask open questions about work-related difficulties that often prompted participants to talk about marriage, dowries and emotional or physical abuse. For instance, when asking "if a buffalo is eaten

[by a predator] what problems do you face," a woman named Kavita promptly said "We face a lot of problems. Related to marriage also…” (Gujar, ~6 km from Sariska); similar

100 Mary C. Gray is Professor Emeritus of the University of Wales and co-founder of the NGO, Wells for India. 228 transitions were common. However, the inter-generational 20 WO-FGDs also meant daughters-in-law were in groups with their mothers-in-law at times. Mothers-in-law often insisted on participating if their daughters-in-law were. This was negotiated at times because there were more volunteers than needed, so we were able to convincingly request only one representatives per household. At other times, that was more difficult, and family members participated. This undoubtedly affected daughters-in-law’s participation, possibly underreporting violence and abuse, or presenting a favorable reality of their husbands and in-laws. Alternatively, it is also possible women exaggerated their experiences of human-carnivore encounters or experiences of domestic violence. The research assistants specifically reminded participants throughout WO-FGDs of the need for honesty and our intent to specifically learn about their lives to encourage genuine conversation.

229

Figure 35: Women were for the majority eager to participate in WO-FGDs, walking tours and generally have myself and research assistants join them for tea and we often helped them make chapati (unleavened flatbread). Even after difficult conversations women more than not were joyful and welcoming throughout the process, as you can see in the jovial goodbye (this photo was requested by the woman on the right).

While the women were very open about their own or their daughter's suffering from abuse no woman described inflicting or encouraging this abuse. This is problematic as previously noted, older women within families are often inflictors or perpetrators of abuse (Kaur and Garg 2010; Kaushik 2003). The WO-FGDs are made up primarily of women who live with their mothers-in-law as well as many who are “in the middle” between their mothers-in-law and younger sisters-in-law. Thus many are likely experiencing or imposing degrees of woman-to-woman abuse. The two women translators did not feel comfortable asking if participants contributed to the abuse of other women in their households. This is understandable and likely would not have allowed for discovery and discussion of other topics. However, not having this piece of inter-household abuse as part of this study is a shortcoming providing an incomplete picture of household dynamics.

230 We did not use the word "dowry" unless it was used first by participants. If dowry did not come up in conversation naturally a question on girls going to school was asked that then would usually lead into marriage and from there likely statements on dowries, from which we could ask for further clarification. For instance, Nandini, a young mother introduced us to her daughter Manju before we officially started the WO-FGD. Early in the WO-FGD, the translator asked Nandini “do you send Manju to school?”

Nandini: Yes, she attends school.

Translator: So till the age of 17-18 you give her education?

Villager: No, up to 8th or 10th [grades] only.

Translator: 8th – 10th only and then marriage?

Villager: Yes. We arrange it.

What started with these simple questions naturally transitioned into discussions on Nandini’s (and the other mothers in the WO-FGD) involvement in arranging marriages and dowry. This was a useful question pattern to lead conversations towards dowry and well- being that more often than not, included discretions of abuse. Also, questions of dowries and gendered labor were not at any point specifically asked about in 2014, 2015 MG-FGDs. All quotes that include references to daughters, dowry and other issues discussed here from 2014 and 2015 were brought up independently by participants. The findings are written descriptively using representative quotes to support the main arguments. Women in the rural landscape of Sariska are relatively silent in public or community discussions on issues of gender inequality, “silently suffering” so as not to bring their families shame or provoke retaliation (see Sharma 2015; Indupalli and

231 Giri 2014). Consequently, this chapter provides a space for these narratives of resistance and recognized inequalities from women with traditionally little voice. Participants experience unique lives intersected by a variety of class, land- ownership or no ownership, family status, caste, skin color, access to education, and history to name a few. Yet, there are many similarities across the stories retold during WO-FGDs. Agreeing with Vindhya (2007) this research is based on the assumption that:

[In India] Amid the heterogeneity of class, caste and location differences among women, being female in a culture that devalues women may create a shared social experience that in turn may create a similar set of psychological experiences … (Vindhya 2007, 346).

FINDINGS

Paying for Dowry

Women almost universally credited “money which we earn by selling milk” as the means for dowries (Gujar, ~5 km from Sariska). For example, three women from different WO-FGDs who had daughters yet to be married said:

“We have just this as source of income [milk], what can we do [to pay high dowry]?” (Rakhi, Gujar, ~2 km from Sariska)

“Whatever we will save [from milk] little bit, we will spend all that [on dowry]” (Amba, Gujar, ~4 km from Sariska).

In various ways, in all 20 WO-FGDs, women emphasized milk and dairy-product sales are a primary source of payment for dowry, and or paying for loans and interest. The clarity that milk, through women’s work, is the primary means of dowry payments gives new light to comments on tigers and predation. For instance, when asking what women 232 thought of tigers generally, an older woman named Bhaanu said, “they possess danger for our cattle” (Gujar, ~2.5 km from Sariska). Three women in the WO-FGD went on to confirm and agree, the last ending with “they are good for nothing…it is unfair.” This is a common narrative around carnivores in general. The inability to pay for ever-increasing dowries results in a loss of social capital. The stigma that comes from not being able to pay for dowries is shameful enough that women—as milk producers—bear any subsequent violence for allowing related dowry- shame to rest on their family. Thus, women perceive the tiger reintroduction as “unfair” because the tiger’s presence in areas of resource extraction initiates a chain of consequences that results in severe risks to women’s well-being, mental health, and life itself. These risks are the result of the unfairness of the intergenerational power relations and patriarchal system that ascribe women to risky labor roles. This risk is in effect punishment of women for the household’s economic precarity101. Instead of recognizing the larger social system of inequity, the tigers are blamed for the unfairness. Recognizing the ever-present pressures of dowry (financial, physical, and psychological) in relationships to tiger presence from in-depth analysis help expose the presumptions of unfairness (see Figure 36 and Table 3).

101 According to regional specialists Shahabuddin et al., the average household “based on livestock grazing and milk sales, literally subsists on the edge…The economy of the average household is debt-ridden and precariously balanced” (2007, 1857). 233

Figure 36: The phenomenon of dowry inflation (and the many associated emergent expectations) (A.) is added here to the conceptual representation of factors shaping women’s gendered experiences previously explored in Chapter 6 (B). The interaction of these two realities has consequences to a family’s ability to afford dowries (C), which can further jeopardize daughters’ well- being (D), which can lead to further jeopardizing of the mothers’ well-being (E).

Without compensation for tiger predation families lose an income generator and sustenance, but also pride (buffalo are status symbols), and the ability to pay for current or upcoming dowry payments. Giving small dowries or parents not paying post-marriage subsequent dowry requests can lead to abuse of the newlywed daughters. Thus, the threat

234 tigers pose to buffalo are a threat to daughters future as compensation, or a lack of, may interrupt the ability to pay for dowries, payments on interest, or subsequent dowry payments to the in-laws (all three of related payments are referred to as: dowry-associated payments). If compensation is not viable then the dynamics remain in place that categorize tiger reintroduction as unfair. These have consequences to women and girls well-being and intra-household relations moreover.

Table 4: Dowry abuse. The consequences that further jeopardize girls and women conceptually represented in Figure 36 are quantified in this table represents the number of times each consequence was described during the 20 WF- FGDs by different people.

235 Dowry Inflation in Sariska

When we asked what types of gifts were common in current dowries, the translator said: "do you give gold, or silver, or utensils or only cash money?" An older woman named Ambika said, "We have to give everything,” followed by another woman saying, "90% are giving bikes [motorcycles]… there is no limit" (Ambika, Phulmali, ~3 km from Sariska). An 80-year-old woman, named Bimla, who married around age 14 explained the demanding of gold and bikes, and dowry-associated payments is a new phenomenon starting 10 to 15 years ago. Bimla said, in earlier times the girls' parents provided the wedding food and if they wished maybe gave a gift because they wanted to. Bimla says, during these past times the husbands' parents never demanded dowry, especially not at today’s levels.

"In past marriages were not that costly but nowadays because of show off these are becoming expensive.” (Payal, Gujar, inside Sariska).

“seeing today’s conditions…whatever money we [women] make it needs to be spent on marriages” (Rakhi, Gujar, ~2 km from Sariska).

“Nothing happens in 1 lakh102- 2 lakh [anymore]. We need at least 7 to 8 lakhs” (Kavita, Gujar, ~6 km from Sariska)

“It’s not like the past. Everything is needed to be given” (Chaaya, Gujar, inside Sariska).

“…in past we use to bring money in hand and goods in bag [small items like jewelry and utensils], and these days we bring money in bags and goods in hand” (Amisha, Gujar, ~2 km from Sariska).

102 One Lakh is ₹100,000. 236 Overall, out of the 20 WO- FGDs, dowry inflation was described or acknowledged by 149 of 160 participants (93%). Those that did not describe dowry inflation (N 11) said dowries were not “demanded” but “given” and the amounts were “within capacity” (Gujar, ~3.5 km from Sariska). When the topic of marriage was brought up in another WO-FGD, a woman pointed to her friend who has five daughters and said, "Like [Pushpa] has five daughters, so two were married by any means.” The translator asked for clarification, “What do you mean by ‘any means’? Money must have been spent on them?” Pushpa cut off her friend with a sharp hand and a heavy sigh, then said, “Girls grow very fast,103 time is not favorable. What can we do? That is why we are sad” (Pushpa, Meena, ~3 km from Sariska). Several difficulties echo through Pushpa’s experience. As a poor mother to five daughters, Pushpa watched as two of her daughters joined even poorer families whom she suspects “beat” her daughters because of their small dowries and the family’s inability to pay when the in-laws make new demands. In her situation “By any means” were these unfortunate marriages, but for others child marriage was also described as a last resort option (mentioned in three WO-FGDs by seven women directly and within coded language). When discussing dowry in a Gujar community, a woman named Radha faintly said “few gives also,” to which another woman, Rakhi, said “yes, most give all their money, but some take also” (Rakhi, Gujar, ~2 km from Sariska). This conversation was nested in narratives of difficulty and poverty so possibly prompted this participant to bring up the significant financial opportunity that comes from community demographics. “If girls are less in number, we sell them for a price” said Radha a mother of two girls and three boys. The translator replied, “I have heard that it is needed to pay in girl marriages, but on

103 Daughters growing fast, e.g., “Girls are like plant, they grow very fast” (Woman, Gujar, ~5.9 kms from Sariska), is a common comment when the WO-FGD turns to dowries as the women talk of their poverty and the short amount of time they have to acquire wealth for dowries. 237 contrary you can take?” Radha went on to explain that raising a girl child for seventeen years is costly, so “we sell our daughter for that [the time to raise her]…because after that she is not part of our life, it is a new life” (Gujar, ~2 km from Sariska). Child marriages and selling daughters were not discussed by most WO-FGDs, but it does occur. For instance, in early 2017, the father of a 14-year old girl from a village in the Alwar district (that includes the Sariska area) attempted to “sell her” for ₹700,000 (~$10,700) (Sharma

2017). The girl, who refused to be returned home after she was rescued by other villagers, accuses her mother in the scheme as well (Sharma 2017).

Dowry Inflation, Tiger Reintroduction, & Loans

As overgrazing degrades the landscape and the Forest Department tightens access to Sariska, milk production has decreased noticeably for some families. The reintroduction of tigers and following self-imposed and law-based restrictions of grazing also negatively impact milk production. With diminished incomes104 and dowry inflation families must borrow heavily to pay dowry-associated payments. This hardship sometimes materializes in familial conflict, abuse, or greater risk to the daughter’s female family members (e.g., forced conception105, more risky behavior inside Sariska [e.g., extended hours for fodder collection]) and to the daughter herself.

104 In 2005, Shahabuddin et al. (2005) reported Gujar households in Sariska had an average annual income of ₹30,000. 105 There are other means of negatively impacting women's well-being that come from dowry customs. A woman spoke up emotively during the discussions of dowry inflation. While wrapping her arms around herself and rocking back and forth, the women told us her in-laws were demanding she have more children in hopes of a son to make up for the cost of her two daughter's dowries. "I don't want one more daughter, or one more kid even a boy, but they [in-laws] did not agree, and I must have more" (Abhilasha, Gujar, ~4 km from Sariska). This exchange highlights a daughter-in-law's value and the expectations she has to produce sons and the consequences (lack of choice) if she does not meet those expectations that are being reinforced by the national trend of dowry inflation.

238 For instance, if a family is not able to meet dowry-associated payments then the daughter-in-law is at risk of abuse. Two mothers-in-law, Vasanti and Chameli, spoke about Vasanti’s son’s daughter saying:

Vasanti: If we do not give as per the [post-marriage] request, then they torture the girl.

Translator: They will torture her?

Chameli: Yes, this kind of thing is happening daily. (Women, Gujar, ~4 km from Sariska)

Participants explicitly mentioned torture as a bargaining mechanism for post- marriage dowry payments 47 times. When we asked about prevention of this type of torture women regularly brought tigers into the conversation organically. For instance, when the translator asked “how are you to prevent this [torture]?” to another group, a middle-aged daughter-in-law, named Anju, said:

Having girls means buffalo are more important. If they are to be eaten then how would we pay [subsequent dowry payments]? ... I have [four] daughters. We cannot do labor jobs as women, besides harvesting… so we tie the buffalo [at home] and go to the jungle for grass. If a tiger attacks on us or buffalo she [daughter, newly- married] will be tortured. How else? How to pay? ... Interest is so high. To pay interest to pay more [dowry] monies we can only make buffalo safe. (Anju, Gujar, ~2 km from Sariska)

Mothers in the WO-FGDs with daughters yet to be married expressed a greater concern for this than those who already married their daughters. Thus the younger participants showed more concern over the dowry inflation and likely consequences to their daughters' treatment. Thus, it is not only the risk of experiencing abuse that propels women

239 into Sariska (Chapter 6) but also the fear of not earning enough for a proper dowry that may result in abuse of their daughters at their in-laws and new husband’s displeasure.

Compensation—Shame—Treatment

Anju, the mother of four daughters, went on to detail the realities of paying for dowry-associated payments. Specifically, Anju emphasized her choice of collecting fodder rather than shepherding her buffalo regularly to prevent predation of buffalo at all costs.

She cannot risk her buffalo's lives —if she is to pay the high-interest rates of dowry loans and make post-marriage dowry demands to prevent her daughters from being tortured. Within this description, like many others, the absence of compensation in these conversations is telling. The Forest Department's initiatives of compensation for livestock killed by tigers is a national program aimed to ameliorate the financial costs of living alongside endangered tigers (Karanth and Gopal 2005). While the effectiveness of post- loss compensation schemes' is heavily debated (Marino et al. 2016), the fact that women do not widely perceive compensation as a viable or worthwhile option by the majority of women in this study is informative. Women only saw compensation as an option in eight of the 20 WO-FGDs. For the 52 FGDs, the average value of a buffalo reported was ₹74,000 (~$1150) (high value at ₹100,000 (~$1550) and low value at ₹60,000 (~$930)). On average, women stated buffalo calves are worth ₹50,000 (~$780). The eight WO-FGDs that described compensation as an option all reported ₹10,000 (~$150) for a typical buffalo compensation. Thus the majority did not see compensation as an option, and those that did report recuperating less than 15% of an adult buffalo's value. Of importance to this discussion is the pervasive perception that compensation is not an option or if it is that compensation is not enough to even replace an

240 adult buffalo with a purchased calf106. Thus, women do not perceive compensation schemes in Sariska as effective in reducing the cost of living with tigers—making their reintroduction prejudiced against them. During the 2014 and 2015 MD-FGDs men often brought up dowries or marriages in conversation with compensation of tiger predation. Three brothers, aged 63, 62, and 59, immediately brought up their daughters when we asked if they received any compensation for livestock predation. The youngest brother, a father of three daughters, said: "without compensation, we can't afford to marry off girls" (Gujar, ~3 km from Sariska). The eldest brother went on to explain a “girl child is a commitment” and no one can “afford” to “keep a daughter because she belongs to someone else” (Gujar, ~3 km from Sariska). The middle brother who only had one daughter (already married), said “to marry a girl, the father has to spend more than his limits and capacity. Without compensation and [with] daughters he will be bankrupt” (Gujar, ~3 km from Sariska). Women had similar sentiments. An older woman, a mother-in-law to two women in the WO-FGD who also had two daughters of her own said, "Now after spending so much money [dowry plus 3% interest], we send our daughter to other house for work." Her daughter-in-law, a mother of a young boy and girl, echoed the same inclination: "We spend such a big amount of money which we earn by selling [milk], hard earn money" (Prerna,

Gujar, ~5.9 km from Sariska). These women explained that buffalo cost ₹60-80,000 (~$930-$1240) but if predators killed them there is no compensation. This is because grazing inside Sariska is illegal. Yet, Sariska’s vegetation is the only way for buffalo to thrive in most of this landscape. So, if a buffalo is killed and a family loses a significant

106 Families that did note compensation as an option also described the difficulties and money it takes to travel to fill out forms, print photos, and other documentation (averaged ₹1500 / ~$23). The required financial and time commitment to prove tiger predation make seeking compensation undesirable—a well- known shortfall of compensation schemes. 241 component to their income without compensation families cannot negotiate “good marriages” for their daughters. The marriage itself is a reflection of the family; a poor marriage reflects poorly on the daughter's parents—a point of possible shame. After talking about the tiger reintroduction, a woman commented on the danger tigers pose to their cattle, a typical transition. After another woman named Sangita said “tigers may eat our buffalo,” we asked, "if your buffalo are gone what would you do?”

Sangita replied, “We have to arrange it [marriage] anyhow. At any means” (Sangita, Gujar, ~6 km from Sariska). This “anyhow” means borrowing money at interest. Across the 20

WO-FGDs, the average dowry costs ₹500,000, or nearly $7800; the average interest participants cited was nearly 4.5% interest (Table 5). In 2007, Shahabuddin et al. reported the average gross annual household income in the area to be roughly ₹48,175, with approximately ₹30,190 disposable household income. The need for borrowing is clear and so is the burden of a daughter and gravity of women’s work. The eldest women in one of the WO-FGD who was verbal about her disapproval of the dowry inflation added, "Nowadays, even the poor are also spending so much money in marriages." (Payal, Gujar, inside Sariska). One of her daughters-in-law named Chaaya added, "If we take loan, then its repayment is double hence we sell milk and earn money or sell our buffalos.” Another participant added, “How to pay interest of loan even we are not able to repay the principal. We need to pay 4-5% interest.” Other agreed that the interest alone could reach up to ₹300,000 (~$4650) for poor people who pass debt onto younger generations, like themselves. When a participant cited the average interest rate, others often added “if you have higher need then higher interest” or “poor pay higher.”

242

Table 5: Dowry sums and interest on loans to borrow for dowry payments was similar across the study area.

A woman named Pratiksha said that if families do not have daughters, and own more than five buffalo, they often save their extra income specifically to loan out to others in the community as it is very profitable107 (Pratiksha, Meena, ~1.5 km from Sariska). In families of opposite circumstance, those with many daughters, find the dowry inflation and necessity of loans to be nearly unbearable. This is especially true for those families who do

107 Loans can be perilous with high interest, but overall most women described loans as split between many different local people acting as periodic lenders. Because there are not exceptionally wealthy people in the area loaning money is not only for the wealthy. A woman named Astha said, "If I had a little bit extra money I can give her the loan and I can make money out of it. It’s not necessary if I have ₹100,000 then only I can give a loan to someone. If I have ₹20,000, I can give to her. She can give me later ₹25,000 so I earn ₹5000 [25% interest]” (Phulmali, ~3 km from Sariska). 243 not have secondary income, such as through goat herding, agriculture, farming or labor work. Divya, a woman with two daughters below age 14, spoke up when the conversation turned to loans. Divya said she was already saving for her two daughter's dowries but that it "is known we will take loans. [In-laws] demand huge sums for taking daughters and we cannot pray to pay if a tiger attacks… No, there will be no compensation. We will suffer only” (Gujar, ~.5 km from Sariska). Other women in this WO-FGDs, all Gujars relying on buffalo milk for income and sustenance, went on to elaborate on the link between dowries and tiger predation:

Translator: You will suffer because you cannot pay?

Garima: Yes. We cannot pay so our [newly married] daughters can be tortured. This happens.

Kanti: If tiger kills buffalo we have nothing.

Translator: You who are preparing to marry your daughters soon what would happen if a tiger attacks?

Garima: It [buffalo] is worth ₹80,000. We are poor people, we cannot [buy] another. Then how to pay interest on any loans without? Our grandsons will have this debt.

Translator: If you cannot pay loans…

Himani: Loans we will pay. We will work on farms and labor to make interest. But if more is needed [requested by their daughter’s in-laws] we cannot…. Yes. She will be suffering.

Deepali: It is obvious. (Women, Gujar, ~.5 km from Sariska)

244 In another WO-FGDs, a woman named Bela provided an example of her suffering thinking of what her daughter may face shortly:

[My daughter] is ready for marriage, now I am feeling terrified when we are in the jungle. If a buffalo is killed [by a tiger] then how I am going to pay right price? There is nothing to do about [replacing the buffalo] it costs ₹70,000. We cannot maintain [daily living] with less [buffalo] and pay what is expected… Yes, loans are there. But, even with [inaudible] then marriage will not meet levels of expected gifts… [My daughter] will be there with in- laws and suffering because she is poor, we are poor. She will be beat this is common of poor they [in-laws] want more, or they beat them… Yes. This I am worried, but girls are to go [join in-laws family]. (Bela, Gujar, ~6 km from Sariska)

Bela went on to interject throughout the rest of the conversation providing an overall picture of worry and anxiety over tiger predation as a major catastrophe that may mean her daughter's dowry will be insufficient and cause her daughter to endure years of suffering as a result. Most WO-FGDs reverberated his women's fear and fear of at-home abuse. Another worry women expressed was for their daughters' psychological abuse by their father or male family members (d.). If a buffalo is lost to tiger predation and there is no compensation and a daughter happens to be of marrying age she now may be seen as an even greater burden. She may be ridiculed or suffer knowing she is now an even larger financial burden. Women in the 20 WO- FGDs described family members as having abusive (physical or physiological) responses to the above-listed dowry stresses (Figure 36 (CDE graphic)) represented in Table 4 (Dowry Abuse). Participants repeatedly brought tiger attacks into discussions about dowry as abrupt and insufferable events that could lead to an inability to fulfill dowry-associated payments; leaving their daughters treatment in the balance.

245 Dowry: Possible Mechanism for Further Poverty

Family reputation is critically important in Indian society. When we asked women if they ever sold property or livestock to cover dowry costs, the majority said no. Selling land or buffalo was only for "really very poor people. If you are very poor nobody take your daughter, so we are not doing this. We will borrow with interest rather than selling [land or buffalo]" (Bimala, Gujar, ~4 km from Sariska). The cases in which the selling of buffalo was an option were Gujar families with several daughters. They verbalized the option to sell their lands or livestock for dowries to pay for the marriages for three or four daughters at once (the youngest daughters will remain with their families and be sent to their husbands when they are of age). In one specific conversation on the topic, a recently married 18-year-old participant named Maya summarized what can follow from selling land:

Translator: What your parents do after selling the farms for the dowry?

Maya: Then they start working on someone else’s farm. Half of the stock [of produce] they keep and half of the stock they give it to the owners of the land. It is not a good situation. (Woman, Gujar, ~2 km from Sariska).

This cycle contributes to the “burden of having daughters” as more than one may lead a family to the point of selling their land and assets. The borrowing is also regularly passed down. Kavita, a mother of three, said, “we pay the interest first… If I am not able to pay the amount, it will pass on to my son, then to my grandson, and this is how it goes on” (Kavita, Gujar, ~6 km from Sariska). Seventeen participants described multi- generational debt over dowries during the 20 WO-FGDs.

246 Transfer of Risk & Blame

The finances of households in and adjacent to Sariska are precarious. Many families deal regularly with hardship and scarcity. Any unexpected loss can have impacts that cascade down through generations with financial, nutritional, and social consequences. This means that loss of livestock to tiger predation poses a very significant risk to the household. However, that risk is not distributed equally throughout the household. Because of established power dynamics based on age and sex, young women are most exposed to risk, and are exposed to the greatest range of different risks, as a result of human-tiger interactions (lethal and non-lethal). Risk to people and livestock are at the same time risks to the household’s finances. This, in turn, becomes a risk to the women because of patriarchal attitudes and practices that have divided labor roles by gender. Thus, the cultural and environmental landscapes of Sariska facilitates a funneling of risk women must disproportionately endure. Tigers are perceived to be an “unfair” imposition from the Forest Department, who is to blame for the associated risk and hardships. This negates the influence of the socio-cultural practices (See “Society” in Figure 37) that share in the creation of these risks (Figure 37). Scholars such as Madden (2004) argue human-wildlife conflict is often human-human conflict at the core. This research argues for greater scrutiny of the local socio-cultural practices that are part of the larger system of risk. And additionally, this research provides an example of expanding the framework of human- human conflict within the HWC literature past the more typical focus on people-park conflict.

247

Figure 37: Women who describe the tiger reintroduction and associated realities as “unfair,” proceed to ascribe responsibility and blame to the Forest Department for the unfair consequences. This effectively negates the blame of socio-cultural practices such as the caste system, patriarchal attitudes and practices like the dowry for this unfairness. In reality, the risked women describe together as “unfair” are a result of not only tiger reintroduction but the socio-cultural landscape.

248 DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION

Girl children in India are still seen as a heavy burden by many including the people living in and around Sariska. This is for multiple cultural and historical reasons, with one such cause being women leave their families to join those of their husbands at the cost of a pricey dowry. Thus, any additional financial stressors can have a disproportionately adverse effect on a woman's marital prospects and long-term well-being. The patrilineal extended family households common in India diffuse experiences of violence in diverse ways across family lines, via interfamilial power dynamics (Shively 2011). The discussions on dowry-associated payments, compensation, and abuse across this vast landscape condense into a picture of women’s worry as a previously under-scrutinized hidden cost to HWC. In Chapter 6 this worry was centered on women's anticipation of abuse for not meeting milk sales expectations—greatly impacted by tiger encounters and predation. While this was the most prominent expression of worry, the secondary was women's worry for their daughters’ well-being consequent of tiger predation. Predation was discussed as a significant obstacle to recovering financially enough to (1) give sizable dowries that ensure good treatment of their daughters, (2) pay any subsequent post-marriage payments the in- laws demand to protect their daughters from “torture” or “beatings”, (3) to protect their families and daughter’s from any shame that would come from not being able to give a sizeable dowry—which could also lead to abuse from their father’s or future in-laws. This secondary funnel of risk, is a hidden cost to add to the list of women’s disproportionately large “burden of the indirect effects [hidden costs] of HWC, including increased workloads, decreased food resources, and decreased physical well-being” (Ogra 2008, 1414). Upadhyay’s (2005) case study in the neighboring state of Gujarat to the southwest of Rajasthan report women are primarily responsible for livestock rearing and that 249 livestock is the only consistent cash generator year-round; as similarly found in this case study. Upadhaya (2005) draws on a case study concerning several natural resource-based livelihoods, to argue that women’s increased involvement through the feminization of natural resource management (as men seek urban employment) has “enhanced their access to and control over resources, [and] also strengthened their bargaining power” (Upadhyay 2005, 227). This study considering hidden costs of the feminization of these roles in Sariska complicates these arguments by shining a light on consequential risk and vulnerability not only for themselves but their daughters. Thus, Upadhyay, who hypothesizes the feminization of natural resource collection could “[be] a stepping stone towards harmonizing power relations between the genders” lacks consideration of hidden costs to women across household-generations (Upadhyay 2005, 227). Moss and Dyck emphasize the need to recognize that “multiple discourses involving power affect the embodied experience of the material body" (1999, 377). In this landscape, women then must interpret tigers as co-landscape occupants through their own position in the hierarchy of worthiness of their household and community. Their willingness to sacrifice their safety for the good of the family is possibly optional but is widespread in India that it can be understood as obligatory for most108. The greater exposure to risk then materially positions them as more expendable than men. Thus women interpret large carnivores as part of the broader unequal system—they are seen with agency—actively influencing women's precarious situation within their families. In Conclusion, the findings of Chapter 6 and 7, suggest that the feminization of natural resource collection and livestock rearing in Sariska has unexpected and

108 Mathur speaks of women’s sacrifice as "negating the self in the cause of the family” as a “women’s prime concern/responsibility...throughout her life cycle she is socialized into accepting her 'lower' status. Even if she is subjected to physical violence she accepts it as her face" (2004, 97).

250 complicating effects on familial gender relations and women and girl’s exposure to risk that is in part a result of tiger reintroduction. These risks are many and most have not been reported in the literature in connection with the larger socio-environmental context of a conservation landscape presented here. The risks are intergenerational, compounding at times into sex-selective abortion, infanticide, and neglect109. This continues on into girl’s adolescence with poor or no education110 and risk as natural resource collectors and shepherds. The next phase, marriage, is precarious through possible child marriages, pre-

18 marriages, being sold as a bride111, or married to an even more impoverished family.

Once in the role of daughter-in-law, women are required to work at a level that causes physical injury often within carnivore territories. The long hours, exposed and vulnerable to carnivore encounter increases. This can lead to physical and emotional abuse, rape, and women being treated as a cause of familial misfortune by her own parents and siblings.

109 According to Shaankar, Indian couple’s propensity to have children until a boy is born has led to the birth of roughly 21 million girls considered “notionally… unwanted” (2017, 116). 110 Education is not easily accessible for all communities in the study area. The dangers of walking alone are cited as reason to not send daughters to school, as well as they “may run off with a boy” from another community which would bring shame to their families. While most mothers expressed a desire and support for educating their daughters, they wanted to emphasize the added pressure this puts on them, their mothers. If daughters attend school, they need to pair their daughters with husbands who are likewise educated. This seems to be for various reasons but the issue of an educated daughter being badly treated in a home of an uneducated husband and in-laws is underscored. Yet, in order to provide a marriage to an educated man “[we] need to pay more money” (Gujar, ~5.9 km from Sariska). Thus girls’ education is approached with this stipulation in mind. It can also be interpreted that school will threaten in-laws appreciation of their daughters-in-law by preferring girls who are hardworking laborers over “lazy educated” daughters. One WO-FGD concluded that girls should not attend school past their 8th class, as one mother put it, “we fear sending our daughters there [to school]. If they [future in-laws] think that [the daughter] won’t work then definitely it would be like affecting their marriages and all…could be torture.” A mother-in-law in this group added, “it is important for them [daughters] to work so that it doesn’t get any problem or issues in getting them married” (Gujar, ~2 km from Sariska). This woman went on to say everyone in the community knew which girls went to school and which were going to be “hard workers.” Essentially, girls who learn their place was in Sariska collecting fodder and wood and maintaining the household would be treated better once married. 111 The declining juvenile sex ration has caused a shortfall in marriageable women in low sex ratio areas of India (Kaur 2004) leading to a reversal in the dowry of the bride’s parents “selling” her for a price (e.g., Sharma (2017) in the case of a 14-year old girl being sold in Alwar district; see more detail on page 271). 251 Depression, and even suicide, may follow. Through all of this, women may then be subjected the anxiety of their own daughters exposed to these various risks. These chapters concur with Corson and MacDonald (2012) and Bennett and Roth (2015) who argue ignoring significant contextual factors and not considering sufficient contextual understandings “may lead to culturally inappropriate, socially unjust, and or untenable conservation actions” (Bennet 2016, 583). The socially unjust materializing in women and girls risk that likewise manifests in gendered perceptions of rewilding (discussed subsequently in Chapter 8). These Chapters have multiple implications, but in the context of support for tiger reintroductions and conservation, they lend credence and urgency to ongoing intentions to reduce forest-dependent livelihood that are central to gender based risk. This is only possible when recognizing the full context (Figure 36 and Figure 37).

252 Chapter 8: Gendered Perceptions of Tiger Extirpation and Reintroduction: Risks & Benefits

INTRODUCTION

In the previous chapters (6 and 7), I outline a few pre-existing socio-ecological conditions that impact women’s risk in Sariska. These embodied experiences contribute significantly to the perceived benefits and disadvantages of tiger extirpation and reintroduction. This chapter will focus on these perceptions as the subsequent reverberation of gendered risk in Sariska (Figure 38). The findings are presented through representational quotations from thematic coding, and descriptive statistics, to further demonstrate prevalent participant perceptions across the study area.

Figure 38: This conceptual framework shows relationships between the environment, society and tiger conservation in Sariska based on this research. This framework amplifies the need to focus on livelihood diversification of women’s activities in Sariska—not only for tigers but for women’s well- being. 253 Women & Conservation

In the 1980s, scholars drew considerable attention to the role of women as protectors of the environment, and their position as primary sufferers of degradation (Agarwal 1997; Braidotti et al. 1994; Joekes et al. 1994). However, women’s attitudes towards conservation and wildlife are generally underrepresented in the literature, and case studies that specifically focus on women’s experiences are more rare (Costa et al. 2017). This may be due to the fact that women are excluded from management activities (Reed and Christie 2009; Bandiaky 2008; Pandey 2008; Chandola et al. 2007; Kalibo and Medley 2007; Mukadasi and Nabalegwa 2007; Flinton 2003; Gillingham and Lee 2003), or because they do not feel empowered to express their opinions in their cultural setting (Meinzen- Dick et al. 2014; Chambers 2007; Moser 2007; Lee 2004; Mehta and Kellert 1998). Research on wildlife decision-making has historically focused on stakeholder groups mostly comprised of men112 (e.g., see Anthony et al. 2004). However, while the literature focuses on men, it also recognizes that women and men often interpret and react differently to wildlife and conservation (e.g., Allendorf and Allendorf 2013; Zinn et al. 2001) and experience different forms of vulnerability (e.g., Bauer 2003; Kuriyan 2002; Hill 1998; Naughton-Treves 1997; Nabane and Matzke 1997; Hunter et al. 1990). In the case of HWC, different experiences between men and women (Bhatia et al. 2016; Khumalo and Yung 2015; Ogra 2008; 2009) may be due in large part to sociocultural circumstances, rather than simple wildlife encounters (Dickman 2010; Ch. 6 and 7). As significant actors in the success, failure, and implementation of conservation strategies (Anthony et al. 2004), women thus form a distinctive stakeholder group of the utmost importance in HWC-related management (; Gore and Kahler 2012; Anthony et al. 2004; Hunter et al. 1990).

112 This study also admittedly followed this pattern of Man-perspective before adding a third field season to focus on women’s experiences explicitly. 254 Differences in perceptions of wildlife between women and men often lead to gendered variations in tolerance, particularly in regard to living with wildlife (Carter and Allendorf 2016). While tolerance is a critical area of research and a priority for carnivore conservation around the world (e.g., Frank 2016; Bruskotter and Wilson 2014; Slagle et al. 2013; Marker et al. 2003), the drivers of gendered perception and behaviors towards wildlife are still being hypothesized and remain largely deficient, particularly in developing countries (Carter and Allendorf 2016). Without an explicit examination of women and their experiences, the historical trends outlined above will only maintain conservation practitioners’ partial understanding of complex conservation networks; a problematic context for modern conservation decisions. Many socio-economic and cultural factors, such as, access to education and gendered division of labor, (Sunderland et al. 2014; UNDP 2006; UNDP 2012; Ellis 1999), among others, influence the way rural men and women relate to wildlife conservation initiatives and may account for gendered differences in their experiences (Costa et al. 2017;

Stringer et al. 2007; Gadd 2005). Despite these likely nuances, rural women’s perceptions of environmental issues and conservation management and curriculums have been insufficiently explored (Costa et al. 2017), and men’s testimonies still provide the majority of data (e.g., Hazzah et al. 2013; Andrade and Rhodes 2012; Bitanyi et al. 2012).

Women generally hold more positive perceptions towards wildlife and conservation (Czech et al. 2001) and show more concern for wildlife (Kellert and Berry 1987) and the humane treatment of species (Dougherty et al. 2003). Even when women may face higher risks from wildlife, they are often less disposed to accepting the destruction of wildlife (Zinn and Pierce 2002). However, in landscapes where daily wildlife interactions result in loss through crop raiding or livestock depredation, women often see wildlife more negatively than men (Bhatia et al. 2016 (snow leopards), Suryawanshi et al. 255 2014; Gore and Kahler 2012; Kaltenborn et al. 2006; Gillingham and Lee 1999) though not always (Bhatia et al. 2016 (wolves); Yang et al. 2010; Arjunan et al. 2006). Landscapes that experience higher rates of crop raiding and predation are also prone to other unfavorable conditions for women that exacerbate the situation. Typical gendered labor roles in developing countries designate women as the gatherers of natural resources (e.g., Upadhyay 2005). This can disproportionately expose women to risk from wildlife, as they spend considerable time gathering in wildlife habitat (Ogra 2008). Additionally, women’s marginalized positions in society (Carter and Allendorf 2016) and their limited access to, and participation in, out-of-home events—such as community meetings, which serve as primary sources of information about wildlife and conservation planning (Bhatia et al. 2016; Gillingham and Carter and Allendorf 2016; Allendorf and Yang 2015; Lee 1999; Hill 1998)—can further negative attitudes. Fear is another very consequential element of the real and perceived risk of living alongside large carnivores. Past research has found that women are collectively more afraid than men (Fredrikson et al. 1996), are more concerned about risks than men (Gustafsod 1998) and that these differences apply to fears of wildlife (Gore and Kahler 2012; Kaltenborn et al. 2006; Hill 1998). Accordingly, gendered risk perception is a growing dimension of human-wildlife studies (Gore and Kahler 2012). Women often feel a higher degree of risk from interaction with wildlife (Zinn and Pierce 2002; Kellert and Berry 1987) and have a higher concern for the negative impacts wildlife and conservation management have on their communities (e.g., Gore and Kahler 2012; Zinn et al. 2002). For instance, Ogra (2008; 2009) (a primary source for gendered effects on attitudes related to HWC) explored human-elephant conflicts, and found class, gender, social networks and pre-existing expectations hinder participation in compensation schemes from elephant crop damage. Ogra’s findings make compelling arguments for the inclusion of gender 256 differences in designing effective co-existence strategies between people and elephants in India and provide lessons for ameliorating other HWC situations. Overall, given the economic and social impacts that wildlife and HWC can have, studies that seek to understand the fear and disproportionate gendered risk involved are valuable. Gender relations, or the relations of power between men and women, is a complex system at the heart of gendered perceptions of HWC (Chapters 6 and 7). Gendered perspectives therefore constitute a growing area of research within conservation social sciences. However, the question of how gender relations affect conservation outcomes has received less attention. This chapter explores gendered perceptions and gender relationships within the context of a carnivore conservation landscape. Towards this end, it examines gendered-environmental relations broadly, and the underlying factors of (1) fear and (2) attitudes towards tigers, which could potentially harm the rewilding of Sariska.

FINDINGS

Gendered Perceptions of Fear

Risk perception can be understood as instinctive judgments rather than technical assessments of levels of risk (Slovic 1987). Correspondingly, gender’s influence on risk perception is manifold. Women and men may recognize the same risks differently, perceive entirely different risks, or assign contrary meanings to what are seemingly the same risks (Gore and Kahler 2012; Gustafson 1998). In Sariska, these variations are prevalent in all their diversity. While only 14 tigers are present (a number far below what is considered a viable source tiger population113 of >25 adult individuals (Walston et al. 2010)), the large

113 A source tiger population refers to a genetically viable breeding population that provides supplementary dispersing tigers to other landscapes. Dispersing individuals from source populations increase the probability of persistence of the metapopulational across the larger landscape (Wikramanayake et al. 2004, 839). A metapopulation is a network of populations that is fragmented with partially isolated “habitat patches” where movement between patches is restricted (Frankham et al. 2010). 257 territories each tiger requires, and the high human activities inside and around Sariska result in frequent human-tiger encounters. As a result, fear in Sariska is widespread; even when no one in an FGD had living relatives who had seen a tiger, many expressed great fear of tigers. For women specifically, this fear of large carnivore attacks may resemble fear of crime, in that it is both an emotional and a physiological response to an expectation of danger (Warr 2000; Ferraro 1995).

As discussed previously in Chapters 6 and 7, strong cultural patriarchal practices lead many women in the Sariska landscape to occupy a low household position. The risk associated with this status as livestock caretakers is compounded by both the vulnerable condition of women and livestock—walking unarmed and unprotected—and by the fact that the two are linked emotionally, socially, and through subsistence. Women and their cows/buffalo rely heavily on each other. This manifests into a life of unbounded anxiety nested in perceived and real risk. A woman’s position within the network of Sariska— including tigers, cattle, and the women’s own position in society (marriage)—intensifies her emotional view of tigers, in addition to the other risks she already navigates daily. In MG-FGDs, women and men often responded differently to questions such as, “do tigers pose a problem outside Sariska, or only inside?” For instance,

Arjun (man): No, we have not any problem.

Translator: You have no problem wherever tigers roam?

Prema (woman): We are afraid of them while we work in our fields.

Translator: You feel scared in the fields? And what do you feel [pointing at another Man participant]?

Jagdish (man) (interrupting): It’s fine.

258 Richa (woman): No, we are scared tigers will come outside.

Translator: You [men] do not have to worry?

Jagdish (man): No. Only if we have enjoyed [likely referencing alcohol] out some place [at night] (Meenas, ~.5 km from Sariska).

This discussion exemplifies the typical pattern of response to questions of tiger risk, as exhibited in MG-FGDs. Specifically, men disregard the risk of tiger encounter, while their disregard is interrupted or augmented by women verbalizing their fears. Commonalities that emerged from the conversations with women suggest a distinct emotional topography with pronounced common beliefs by both men and women that indicate men are less afraid than women. In addition, while women are openly afraid everywhere, men are predominantly afraid when they are in the mountains or coming home late at night. After all the Man participants in an MG-FGD gave a general disregard for concern over tigers, a woman quietly said, “collecting the wood from bamboo brush I’m scared, on the hill” (Meenas, ~.5 km from Sariska). Moderated FGDs provided a space for these demonstrations of dissent. Additionally, the research teams believe, from tone and timing of interjection, many women do not regularly voice these fears. In another example, from an MG-FGD only three km from Sariska, the men said tersely, “no issue,” and “it is a good thing” when asked for their opinions of the reintroduction. We then asked only the women to respond, emphasizing our desire to hear from them. The eldest mother-in-law, Vimla, said she had never seen a tiger but was nevertheless very scared:

“When we go to field, then we are afraid. And when we go to collect food for cattle, then. And we go for grazing our cattle, then we are afraid. However, I’ve never saw a tiger” (Vimla, Gujar, ~3 km from Sariska). 259

Vimla described her fear in complete association to her livelihood responsibilities. She described her day in terms of three locations—field, area for collecting fodder, area for grazing—all of which were fear-laden. This is representative of the majority of women who provided their opinions (Figure 1). Overall, women (n = 214) made 103 statements on experiencing less fear after the tiger extirpation, compared to 24 similar statements made by men (n = 202) (Figure 1). This finding is consistent with other, previous research that has examined gendered differences in attitudes towards apex predators (e.g., Carter and

Allendorf 2016; Gray et al. 2017).

Table 6: Gendered response to the question: “Are there any benefits when all the tigers were gone?” Across all 52 FGDs (n = 32 MG-FGDs; n = 20 WO- FGDs).

While I did not start FGDs with questions about tigers, unprompted discussions of tigers and fears sometimes arose. The following excerpt demonstrates such a time, when we had asked: “what is your daily routine?”

Sapna: Those who have the will, they go [to the jungle in the morning], not all go [because a] tiger attacked in this area.

Translator: You do not go because of this?

260 Sapna: Yes. (Women, Jogi, ~3kms from Sariska)

This exchange reflects a prominent pattern. Twelve of the 20 WO-FGDs discussed fear as part of their responses to this question of daily routines. Women in MG-FGDs rarely want to interrupt, but when they do it is to contradict men’s lack of fear with testimonies of their great fear. This is because fearful or not, women’s daily lives remain relatively the same. For instance, when asked if it is possible to see a tiger in her daily routine, a woman named Nitu said, “What does it matter if we [women] are afraid or not?” Nitu ended with,

“We have to go, how else to manage?” Women in other WO-FGDs said similar things.114 A woman who had seen a tiger while shepherding said, “We do not want to go, we are all scared, but what to do?” (Meenas, ~7 km from Sariska). This landscape of fear forms the foundation for women’s thoughts about the specifics of tiger reintroduction, and impacts their perceptions on the benefits and disadvantages of living with tigers.

Gendered Perceptions of Tiger Reintroduction & Extirpation Benefits

In all 52 FGDs, I asked if there were any benefits to the tiger reintroduction, and if there were any benefits to the extirpation. When participants started to respond, we regularly asked for clarification or further detail. However, I never followed up with questions on specific benefits, for example: “are there benefits such as tourism or crop raiding?” Specific benefits to reintroduction and extirpation discussed further below are participant-identified and characterized (Figure 39). The recurring responses to these questions indicate that there is a meaningful disparity between how women and men respond. Specifically, there are several areas of disagreement between men and women regarding tiger extirpation and reintroduction. For instance, women participating in MG-

114 Their need to squat (a particularly vulnerable position) to defecate and urinate—in contrast to men only doing this to defecate is also a concern and reason for greater fear within their context of greater temporal exposure. Women verbalized this disparity infrequently during WO-FGDs but was often cited while we made meals, tea or went on walking tours with women. 261 FGD (n = 54) and in WO-FGDs (n = 160) only described or agreed to benefits of tiger reintroduction115 a handful of times116, though they identified a long list of risks. This is in direct contrast to the large number of benefits men associate with tiger reintroduction (Figure 40).

Figure 39: During FGDs, such as this WO-FGD, benefits to reintroduction and extirpation discussed were participant-identified and characterized.

115 See context for the few instances women agreed tigers provided benefit to the forest on page 293. 116 This could be for various reasons from research design, time restrictions, or cultural reasons, yet, the stark difference between women and men’s responses to this question is striking. 262

Figure 40: Concept map illustrating participants’ perceptions of tiger reintroduction risk and benefits to themselves or their communities. FGDs participants (men= 202; women=214) described benefits and risks from tiger reintroduction. Responses are displayed in a gender-segregated concept map showing the contrary perceptions of benefits and negatives/risks from tiger reintroduction. This concept map is based on Gore and Kahler (2012) concept maps of gendered risk perceptions of HWC in Namibia. 263 Of the benefits men associated with tiger reintroduction, there were five that women participated in debating: (1) protection of natural resources (forest, fodder, water), (2) benefits to livestock (reduced disease, increasing heard numbers), (3) protection of crops from wildlife, (4) protection of cattle and village from theft, and the most contentious, (5) employment (Table 7). These benefits are discussed below.

Table 7: Gendered responses to the question “Are there any benefits to the tiger reintroduction?” Across all 52 FGDs answers were grouped together under the five benefit attributes listed above.

Gendered Perceptions of Tiger Reintroduction Benefits 1: Crop Protection

Two major benefits of tiger reintroduction that men regularly noted are crop protection and deterring forest degradation. Men described tigers as protecting fields from crop raiding ungulates117 (e.g., nilgai and wild pigs) 38 times, compared to just two times the benefit was identified by women (Table 7). In one MG-FGD, participants quickly brought Sariska’s original tigers118 into the conversation. The translator responded, saying, “The old tigers do not exist now.” To which a 48-year-old man said, “This is really bad.”

Another man in his forties added, “Yes, during that time wild animals used not to come

117 Thinley et al. (2019) have found tiger presence reduce crop and livestock losses to farmers in the eastern Himalayas. Findings of ecological benefits of tigers to farmers such as these could be utilized to work of existing notions of these benefits as evident by men in Sariska. 118 See Chapters 4 and 5 for an analysis of different perceptions of the original Sariska tigers versus the new, reintroduced tigers. 264 here” (Meena, ~1 km from Sariska). These comments are archetypical of men in MG- FGDs, who commonly described the new and old tigers as disrupting ungulate crop raiding.

If tigers live here, then it makes a good food chain as tigers eat the blue bull [nilgai] which destroy our fields (Vikrant, Meena, ~.5 km from Sariska)

Tigers are not only wiped out of Sariska, they controlled the rising population of these blue bulls [and] boars. We see this…and damage to crops. (Nagendra, Gujar, ~2 km from Sariska)

It is good tiger has come, else earlier when tigers were not here, wild animal from the jungle used to come here in the village [and fields] and use to create harm. Now because of tigers, their entry in the village has been prohibited. It creates a balance, and now wild animal do not come to our fields. (Balwant, Gujar, ~3 km from Sariska)

In contrast, women did not describe this benefit of past tigers or reintroduced tigers. In another MG-FGD, three women (all over the age of 50) were vocal participants. After several men described tigers reducing both the frequency and severity of crop raiding we asked the women their thoughts on this benefit. The first woman answered “yes,” though this was quickly followed by two elder women saying “Take them from here,” and “Yes, definitely, they should be removed!” (Women, Meena, ~1.5 km from Sariska). This was again a typical pattern—men would speak first and identify benefits, then the majority of women would disregard the same question and the men’s comments to voice their desire for tiger removal. The potential risk to their lives overshadowed any benefit the tigers could provide, motivating them to voice their disapproval of the reintroduction over any of the men’s comments and superseding any descriptions of tiger reintroduction benefits.

Gendered Perceptions of Tiger Reintroduction Benefits 2: Natural Resource Protection Some [thought] they had birthright to damage the forest [when tigers were extirpated], it is their birthright to damage which was not possible before [the 265 extirpation] because if tiger is friendly or not, it is still a tiger. (Man, Gujar, ~2 km from Sariska)

Men also prominently described tiger presence as a major deterrent to forest degradation, promoting overall forest health. This was described in tandem with community benefits, as the communities depend on natural resources from the intact forest for the livelihoods. When asking a holy man what he thought would happen if Sariska became tigerless again, he mentioned the reintroduced tigers’ role in forest protection and what he and others expect from another tigerless period:

The impact would be, we and this place will lose its value. If tigers will not be in jungle, then the fear of jungle will not be there, and jungle will lose totally [by being degraded] (Holy man, ~.5 km from Sariska)

The sentiment that forests will “lose” if tigers are not present was wide-spread among men. For instance, this first response to “what do you think of the reintroduction,” prompted several men in an MG-FGD to agree with one another that reintroduction was

“good for the benefit of the jungle.” We asked for more detail, and another man said, “Means people cut away at the jungle…”; reintroduction means “the forest will be protected,” as people are too afraid of tigers to spend much time collecting forest products (Gujar, ~3 km from Sariska).

Often, women’s role as resource collectors also came into these conversations of forest protection. As one man in an MG-FGD only ~.5 km from Sariska narrated, “Without tigers, women came into park at nights to collect firewood.” This woman went on to detail how women “living far from Sariska” reduce resources, a key issue (Man, ~.5 km from Sariska). As expected, men often framed women as the wrongdoers in these descriptions of resource collection. However, they also framed “outsiders” as wrongdoers as well:

266 If tiger not available in jungle then outsider will come in and cut the trees and destroy the jungle. (Tejraj, Meena, ~7.5 km from Sariska).

Even the people from outside cannot dare to enter in the jungle if tiger is there. (Prabhu, Gujar, ~1 km from Sariska)

The tigers which were here before, no thief can come because of them, no other thing can come. No other person can enter our jungle. (Natwar, Gujar, inside Sariska)

These descriptions of “outsiders” were laden with territorial comments over the forest and the natural resources it provides, as this discussion between three men demonstrates:

Singh: If tigers would stay in the jungle immoral people would not go there. They would not do locking and chopping of jungle…a kind of infiltration.

Mohan: The jungles are protected by these tigers.

Abhishek: Tigers do not possess danger [for us], and the unwanted people will not cut the woods from there.

Mohan: Unwanted persons will not go into our [jungle] and the trees will remain protected. (Men, Benjarah, ~5 km from Sariska)

Overall, men mentioned that tigers were effective in scaring away people who would remove resources (e.g., firewood, cutting down trees, removing tree branches, fodder, and other non-timber forest products) 11 times (Table 7). Men also described Sariska without tigers as “defenseless,” and bound to be damaged; pointing out that the abundance of natural resources would be severely reduced for families leaving near or inside Sariska who have a “right” to the resources, or depend on them. A man named Surya described many of these benefits in one comment: “If they will be here it’s good for our crops, and these wild animals are lord Ram’s followers. If they will stay here, there will be more rain which is good for our farms” (Gujar, ~2 km from Sariska). Similarly, in another 267 MG-FGD three men vocally supported each other in noting Sariska’s forests are “necessary for rain.” Without the status of ‘Tiger Reserve’, “all the trees will be smashed by outsiders…rain is life-giving,” the men continued (Men, Gujar, ~3 km from Sariska). Given that rain is essential for farming, men who are farmers identify forest preservation via tiger presence and political power behind them (e.g., Sariska maintain the conservation status of tiger reserve) as valuable; they know that water is a treasure, key for their livelihoods in a dry landscape119. After the men spoke, we then asked the women in the group for their opinion. The eldest said, “it is good if not any humans are there.” Another paraphrased saying “yes, when there is no human being in the jungle, it is good if tigers live there” (Women, Gujar, ~3 km from Sariska). These women’s statements are broad but we can infer their critique: when livelihoods require time inside the jungle, the women do not support tiger presence. See further discussion of livelihood perceptions between women and men in conversation with tiger reintroduction benefits below (page 300).

Three women (of 214) across the 52 FGDs agreed with men, describing tigers as protecting the forest (Table 7). However, as the woman’s comments above show, these women often made supplemental comments that isolate the benefits to the forest rather than to people. In other words, men accredit tigers with protecting the forest and see it as beneficial to both local people and the forest system. In contrast, the women acknowledge

119 Around 600 rivers start or are fed by Indian tiger reserves that produce water for hundreds of millions of people—rural and urban. For instance, Corbett Tiger Reserve, is filters drinking water for the capital city of Delhi home to 19 million people. Tiger reserves such as Corbett are regularly credited as critical protectors of watersheds and drinking water. Additionally, “Many of the large, intact tiger landscapes also cover important watersheds of major Asian river systems that sustain important ecological services such as water provisioning. The St. Petersburg Declaration recognizes these relationships and stresses the importance of including benefits for local communities in tiger conservation plans. Thus, conservation organizations must form alliances and partnerships to strategically channel funds invested by these donors for better landscape management that benefits both people and tigers” (Wikramanayake et al. 2011, 225). Further, water scarcity, poor vegetation cover and other environmental factors result in more frequent conflicts as animals and people seek the same resources. 268 the greater forest protection, but do not see a human benefit. For instance, when asked if she thought the reintroduced tigers would bring any benefit, a 55-year-old woman in a WO- FGD said, “There cannot be any benefit of it; rather it is risky for the villagers as they will eat our animals.” Another woman added, “It will cause loss not benefit.” A 26-year-old woman named Meera added, “It’s a benefit for the jungle.” When we asked Meera to clarify she said, “We will not go to jungle for wood cutting. Now, because this fear, no one will go to jungle and trees will remain as it is… this is not good for [women] as we have responsibilities” (Meera, Gujar, ~4 km from Sariska).

In this way, men and women recognize tigers as part of a balanced ecosystem. While men more often vocalized this belief, and the conviction that their community’s well-being is related to the health of Sariska’s forests, women showed more concern for the safety of themselves, their families and their livestock.

Gendered Perceptions of Tiger Reintroduction Benefits 3: Protection of Property

In MG-FGD comments, it is clear that tigers are seen to protect the forest and as a way to enforce territoriality between people and outsiders, across both villages and fields. Men also mentioned various ways that tigers protect cattle. These comments were usually paired with general worry over theft of crops, cattle or other property. In relation to keeping outsiders from degrading Sariska, men in four different MG-FGD stated that tigers prevent cattle theft (Table 7). For example, a man named Devilal said, “in absence of tiger, thieves come and hide in the bushes and steal our cattle” (Man, Meena, ~15 km from Sariska).

Men in other groups also put this benefit into wider context, for instance:

In winter, we leave our children in the field to watch [for crop raiders] then [tiger presence] is not in favor of us. [However, at the same time] if tigers are there then, it is very good for us as our fields are secured by them because no one dares to enter if tigers is present there. (Balavant, Meena, ~1 km from Sariska) 269

The benefit of the tigers is that no one can trespass through our territory and come to our village, any unknown person. Even the [very devious cattle] thieves were afraid of coming here. (Manik, Gujar, ~2 km from Sariska)

Many participants centered these comments within a framework of security without naming the specific threats that tigers would forestall: “Bring more tigers here…Other people will fear; they will have a terror that there are tigers in jungle, so it’s good for our safety” (Man, Gujar, ~2.5 km from Sariska). As another group of men put it:

Aatma: More tigers should be there in the jungle.

Translator: Why?

Mahenra: No one will enter in our village if tigers stay in the jungle.

Translator: You think of them as a security option?

Mahenra: Yeah.

Translator: What reasons could there be for the survival of the tigers in the jungle?

Gajendra: They will protect us. (Men, Gujar, ~1.5 km from Sariska)

In this way, men see tigers as the boundary keepers; first keeping outsiders from entering the forest or their property, then keeping ungulates from crossing the boundary between the forest and agricultural fields.

Gendered Perceptions of Tiger Reintroduction Benefit 4: Benefits to Livestock

The first benefit men noted from tiger reintroduction was that tigers reduce or prevent livestock disease. This benefit was brought up 18 times by men, and went unmentioned by women (Table 7). A man in his late thirties named Veer, raised his hand 270 when we asked about benefits, stating: “it is good for us.” Veer then paused and made sure we were both intently listening to him and not distracted from anyone else: “Listen. When any disease occurs in our animals and tiger killed and eat that particular animal, then the disease is wiped out, and we get rid of the disease,” (Veer, Gujar, ~.2 km from Sariska). When we asked the other men in this MG-FGD if they believed this as well, they all nodded in agreement.

Later, in another MG-FGD, a man named Sunil reiterated this benefit prompting us to ask if he or any of the other men had personally experienced this benefit from the new tigers being reintroduced. Sunil went on to explain his belief in this benefit:

In reality, this is the truth. Like, if there is no king in the jungle then what the subjects will do there without their king. The king also prevents diseases from entering in other animals’ body. When our cattle go to the jungle, the tigers also keeps the diseases at bay. (Man, Gujar, ~4 km from Sariska).

After Sunil spoke, Veer once again voiced his conviction that the new tigers were a benefit, saying “yes, if tiger doesn’t lives in the jungles then diseases will remain here” (Gujar, ~4 km from Sariska). Within these descriptions men would also comment that tiger predation is a blessing of sorts; one that would result in greater herd fertility. For instance, when asked about the benefits of tigers, a man named Naresh in another MG-FGD said, “Only fear from them is that they kill our cattles, but it’s all natural process of God.” Naresh then went on to add that even this negative can be a long-term benefit: “If one dies, two new take birth….Tiger kills only those whose time is over according to God” (Gujar, ~10 km from Sariska). This modest increase of two new animals taking the place of one that had been killed was a common response. In another case, two men even reported lavish fertility after tiger predation:

271 If one tiger hunts down a buffalo, then the buffalo’s population increases by 20 more buffaloes… Yes, over time. (Man, Gujar, ~2 km from Sariska)

Gendered Perceptions of Tiger Reintroduction Benefits: Conclusion

Overall, men generally agreed that, “tigers mean a lot of benefits.” Of these, the effect of tigers on ungulates was the most definitive benefit, to which all men in a MG- FDG agreed: “[tigers] will stop the danger we face by the boar and jackal” (Gujar, ~4 km from Sariska). Two men added additional support for a growing number of tigers, with one saying, “they should be there in good numbers,” and the other stating, “the more they multiply, the more they will benefit us” (Gujar, ~4 km from Sariska). After the men had made their points, we asked the women their views; to which they voiced a starkly different opinion from the men. The first woman to respond noted no benefits, and said, “It’s better to finish them.” We replied by asking, “The tigers should all be removed?” This was answered by two other women quickly saying “Yes,” followed by additional comments:

“Because of these tigers life is difficult,” and “These should be finished as they kill our cattle” (Women, Gujar, ~4 km from Sariska) (Figure 41).

Figure 41: This photo of an unprotected area where buffalo are chained close to homes is representative of how many buffalo are kept at home—without structural protection from predation.

This is representational of many MG-FGDs. Men often readily describe benefits of reintroduction, which is then followed by women who (either through interruption or 272 prompting) voice their contempt for tigers in their lives. As men do not spend as much time inside Sariska for resource collection or shepherding, it is possible that men see the ecosystem services and financial benefits of tigers more clearly. Of note, financial benefits of tiger tourism to local communities is lauded by the Indian government, Forest Department and studies around other tiger reserves show significant economic contribution to local economies (e.g., Chundawat et al. 2017), though this is not universal (e.g., Hussain et al. 2012; Banerjee 2011) and many Indian scholars argue for better profit-sharing of tourism incomes. Women, on the other hand, spend expanded periods of time vulnerable to tiger encounters and do not draw the same consistent conclusions as men. Rather than seeing tigers as beneficial, women overwhelmingly perceive the dangers and risks of tiger presence. When asked if there were benefits to the tiger reintroduction, men quickly list forest and crop protection, disease control, and employment. Women do not list benefits and instead immediately describe their own risk.

Men in the Sariska landscape are aware of, and more importantly, believe120 in tigers as a benefit for the forest and disease control. These are considered indirect benefits to carnivore conservation (e.g., they affect ecological processes that can benefit people; Beschta and Ripple 2010). However, women do not equally acknowledge or believe that tigers benefit their lives, or their communities, in a significant manner. Because of these disparate perceptions, the benefits of tiger reintroduction are often challenging to quantify and very difficult to predict (Peterson et al. 2014). Yet, through a chi-square test of the self- reported positives and negatives of tiger in Sariska (Table 6 and Table 7) this research

120 Religion is often considered an important driver of attitudes towards large carnivores. Yet, according to Bhatia et al. (2016) who studied the influence of Islam and Bhudhism towards carnivores in Northern India, religion has a relatively weak relationships with attitudes towards carnivores. Demographics, gender, education, and awareness of wildlife laws tempered religion’s effect on attitudes. Moreover, Bhatia et al. (2016) found only 10% of 194 interviewees citing moral or religious reasons to protect carnivores. During this research questions such as, “are there any moral reasons, or religious reasons to conserve tigers” was asked unsystematically, but the common response was a tares “no.” 273 rejects the null hypothesis that there is no relationships between gender and attitudes regarding reintroduction and extirpation of tigers (Table 8). These findings provides greater context for further research into the complexities of determining perceptions and indirect benefits of tiger reintroduction and conservation.

Table 8: Gender and attitudes towards tigers were strongly correlated with p= 6.5726E-60; far greater than .001 significance level. These results reject the null hypothesis that there is no relationships between gender and attitudes regarding tigers in Sariska.

Extirpation

As expected, reactions to tiger extirpation are varied. The multiform reality of gendered risk (partially explored via gendered divisions of labor in Chapters 6 and 7) is a major cause of the different views men and women hold with regard to extirpation. While FGDs do not provide a clear window into the opinion of a single individual, or facilitate one-on-one comparisons, they do highlight the back and forth dynamics, unease, and gray realities that are often missing from stricter or more explicit portrayals of HWC. For instance, during an MG-FGD, one woman named Neena (approx. 35-years-old) interrupted a male participant who was replying to the question, “How did you feel when you learned there were no more tigers in Sariska?” The man said, “We felt very bad. Forest Officials were also irresponsible,” before being cut off by Neena. Speaking of the tigers, Neena said, “It is good they [are] finished.” Immediately, an elderly woman got stiff and shouted at

274 Neena saying “just shut up!” The man spoke again, saying “Sariska is not Sariska without tigers,” but was quickly followed by a younger woman, who retorted: “The wipeout means we are able to live…to graze our cattle.” In an effort to present one consolidated opinion, another man spoke up: “No, when we came to know there were no more tigers we were felt badly because how would we work [in tourism and infrastructure] if there are no tourists?” (Meenas, ~10 km from Sariska).

These comments are just part of a longer back and forth discussion, where women’s voices (aged in their 30s and 50s) indicate contentment over the extirpation, stating that it was easier to graze livestock, while men express remorse for both the loss tigers and the jobs associated with them. While just a fragment of the conversation, this dialogue is representative of the general attitudes of both men and women. Men see tigers as job creators (construction, tourism, etc.) while women see them as job inhibitors (preventing livestock grazing, firewood, and natural resource collection).

Reintroduction

Many men associate tiger presence with increased work opportunities in hotels, as guides, and in construction.121 However, women see a binary: tiger presence equals more risk, tiger extirpation equals less risk. For instance, when asked if there are benefits to reintroduction, men in separate MG-FGDs provide terse examples of this sentiment:

It is good because if tigers would stay here then they will increase tourism and that will automatically provide employment to us, bread to our children. That’s the main reason (Man, 20-years old, Gujar, ~2.5 km from Sariska)

121 According to Shahabuddin et al. (2007) Sariska’s local people felt employment opportunities available in the past, including forest department labor, had declined by 2007. At the time of their study, Shahabuddin et al. report “villagers do not seem to have benefited, even marginally, from wildlife tourism- related livelihoods inside the reserve, being mostly employed on daily wages as drivers or waiters” (2007, 1857).

275

It has made a difference; it creates employment, it increases tourism and many people are dependent on tourism, and that is very good, and we feel good too. But this should be organized that their area should be in different place, means it should be separated. (Man, Benjara, ~5 km from Sariska)

Instead of describing employment opportunities, women instead discussed diminishing livelihood options, such as manufacturing Dhakoda:

These forest officials have barred us from entering there, and by doing this they have snatched our work from us and deprived us from our employment, making us unemployed as earlier we used to manufacture Dhakoda. (Woman, Meena, ~7 km from Sariska)

Women in a Meenas community further summarized the female perspective on future reintroductions and increasing tiger populations: “we can’t change our work, our patterns. What will we do?” (Woman, Meena, ~10 km from Sariska). Women universally expressed fear when working while men dismissed this fear in favor of applauding employment opportunities. However, rural women are unlikely to engage in these tourism and job opportunities at the same rate as local men. There are significant differences of interests between women and men in Sariska’s future. Specifically, women are not assuaged by the opportunities for family members to work in conservation-related jobs; it does not make tigers seem beneficial enough to support reintroduction. This is evident in the FGDs; while men mention 30 times that tigers bring jobs, women only mention jobs from tigers five times (Table 7). Furthermore, these five mentions of employment by women echo their previous mentions of forest benefits: while jobs may come and even be beneficial to the community, they do not directly benefit women. For instance, when we asked if there was any benefit from tigers being in Sariska, this exchange between women and men ensued: 276

Raj (man): For the benefit of the jungle it is good.

Translator: Why it is good for the point of view of jungle?

Udai (man): Means people cut the jungle. That is why tigers are left here [reintroduced] to stop that [tree cutting].

Translator: What else?

Raj (man): Means other animals are afraid of tigers in jungle. They don’t come to our fields.

…

Translator: Okay, what do ladies think? Of the FD bringing new tigers here in Sariska?

Lalita (woman): It is good if not any human is there.

Poonam (woman): Yes, when there is no human being in jungle it's good if tigers live there122. (Gujar, ~3 km from Sariska)

This exchange highlights the underlying female perspective of tiger reintroduction, namely that women and tigers are expected to share space. In this exchange, men describe tigers as protectors of the forest because they scare people from chopping down trees and scare away crop raiders (e.g., Samber deer, Nilgai, etc.). However, the women speak up to add that these benefits are only reasonable if no humans have to “be” in the jungle, i.e., if Lalita, Poonam and others do not have to carry out their livelihood responsibilities inside tiger territory.

122 These comments capture many of the tones and comments of women in MG-FGDs, who speak broadly of “people” or “humans”, but within conditions that women are most likely to experience. 277 Later in the conversation, this topic arose once again. When asked what it is like to live in Sariska, a man started talking about the issues of tigers, and said, “Tigers could be there, but in the jungle not in the village.” A woman named Aasha, in the MG-FGD quickly interjected, gesturing dismissively at the man’s nonchalance about tigers being in the jungle. Aasha emotively said, “Listen to me, where would we go? For many things, we are needed [for our families welfare] to go to jungle. Where would we go and our animals will go [if we cannot go to Sariska]? Day, night we go to jungle.” The man did not reply, seeming to process Aasha’s critique—namely that because women must go to the jungle for their livelihood, tigers co-occupying the space is a problematic (Gujar, on the Sariska boundary). In contrast to the stark divides between the perceptions of adult men and women, young men (aged 18-25) most often expressed conflicting attitudes over reintroduction, considering both their own opportunities and women’s risk. An 18-year-old man named Rajesh said, tigers are “good… they are the pride of Sariska,” but also “[harmful] for our cattle in the short term.” Two other young men, both 19, said of the reintroduction: “it’s not right,” and “it is unfair.” When we asked what was unfair, one of the 19-year old’s named Jaswant added:

Jaswant: What aunt was saying [earlier] when they [women] go to the jungle for fodder the tigers might create problem to them otherwise they are very good.

Translator: Why very good?

Jaswant: It is good because if tigers would stay here then they will increase tourism and that will automatically provide employment to us [point to young men in the group], bread to our children. That’s the main reason. (Women, Gujar, ~8 km from Sariska)

278 Jaswant acknowledged his aunt’s risk from tigers with his first comment (“it’s not right”), then again when he identified the risk his aunt, participating in the MG-FGD, will have to endure. However he also acknowledged that he and his friends may benefit from tourism employment, which involves little risk. This disparity brought him and others in the MG-FGD distress and unease as we continued to discuss tourism. The three of the four women participating in this MG-FGD, ages 33, 45, and 51, ended this part of the discussion with:

Bijli, age 45: It is not an option. Jobs for them as guides will not touch us [women].

Chanda, age 33: We will continue [to work inside Sariska] no matter if there are [tourism] jobs.

Jyoti, age 51: It is good for us [the whole family] for [men] to work in Sariska, but it does not stop the need for us to manage all the household. For this, we must have [fire wood] and fodder for a cattle. They will go in gypsies [safari vehicles], we will go ourselves [to Sariska]. (Women, Gujar, ~8 km from Sariska)

Jyoti captured the sentiment of women across Sariska. Tigers may bring employment, but that employment mostly mitigates risk for men, with little to no impact on the risk of tiger encounters experienced by women. Consequently, the majority of women participating in FGDs do not consider employment to be a benefit of reintroduction worthy of mention (Table 7).

DISCUSSION

Research shows perceived risks and benefits are significant predictors of individuals’ tolerance for large carnivores (e.g., Inskip et al. 2016; Carter et al. 2012) and for individuals’ endorsement of conservation policies (Slagle et al. 2012). Many rewilding

279 scholars argue local support is “required prior to… carnivore reintroduction programs” (Gray et al. 2017, 2391). Unfortunately, local support, discussions and understanding were not sought prior to the reintroduction of tigers to Sariska. This may be due to that fact that people-park relations in India have been historically strained, making any solidification of support in Sariska unlikely. Despite these challenges, this dissertation still offers important considerations for carnivore reintroduction. While local support may be hard to secure, this dissertation indicates that the willingness to support such programs is likely a highly gendered issue. Not only do traditionally gendered livelihood responsibilities create different levels of risk with regard to carnivore encounters, but, as shown in previous chapters and by other researchers (e.g., Ogra 2008), there are also many hidden costs to living with wildlife. Because of this, assessing local support, as others have called for, must continue to find ways to include women’s experiences, needs, and expectations into reintroduction planning, particularly within human-dominated or heavily influenced landscapes. In this case, the benefits of tiger conservation, as identified by people in the 52

FGDs carried out in Sariska, should be incorporated into the workshops, community discussions, and conversations that the Forest Department and NGOs have with local people before, during, and after conflicts. In addition, confirming and explaining these benefits (and others) for wider recognition across gender and age will be a key component to increasing local understanding and tolerance. Findings from Inskip et al. (2016) suggest that tiger education and awareness campaigns in Bangladesh, which were “inspired by existing values and positives beliefs about tigers, may maximize [a] message’s resonance and receptivity within the local community” (2016, 15; McKenzie-Mohr 2016). The people of Sariska have a diversity of perspectives that together suggest local support could be enhanced with increased awareness of the long-term benefits of tiger presence (e.g., ecosystem services and community benefits) and the long-term negative 280 effects of permanent tiger extirpation (e.g., increased crop raiding, job loss, forest degradation). Inskip et al. (2016) argue this point in their own work, based on the variety of positive belief statements and negative belief statements they received about tigers in the Sundarbans; which likewise revolve around long-term benefits to nurture greater tolerance. As other studies have shown, it is often those with the least direct experience with carnivores that have the most positive attitudes towards them (for instance with

Wolves, Williams 2002). Taking into consideration the highly gendered risk of tiger exposure seen in Sariska, this suggests that measures to reduce the likelihood of human- tiger encounters (e.g., livelihood diversification, tiger-proofing homes and livestock areas, enhancing non-lethal means for villages to response to tigers entering villages, as described by Inskip et al. 2016; Inskip et al. 2014; Inskip et al. 2013) should specifically consider benefits to women’s livelihoods and cultural responsibilities as a result of gendered forms of frisk associated with work responsibilities and spatial mobility patterns. In addition, tailored social marketing campaigns should focus on communicating benefits to women, in addition to (and perhaps as a priority over) men. Because the men of Sariska work in nearby or large cities, or come into regular contact with men working in nearby cities, they have greater access to news and information. Even news of something as dramatic as the tiger extirpation did not reach all women’s ears in Sariska:

Aditya: We know [about the tiger extirpation], they don’t know about this.

Translator: You know, but these women doesn’t know?

Aditya: No. They don’t know.

Translator: You came to know how?

281 Aditya: Everything was revealed by the media.

Translator: Women do not hear this news of the total wipe out of tigers?

Aditya: No. (Men, Meenas, ~10 km from Sariska)

Neglecting stakeholders in reintroduction considerations can obscure “the difference between those who have a stake in [wildlife conservation] and those who have the ability to act on it”; something Gore and Kahler (2012, e32901) have found in women’s involvement in conservation management decision making in Africa, and that Agarwal (2000; 1992) has documented in India. Because women’s social position in rural India limits contact with the news, social marketing campaigns aimed to increase tolerance should target women specifically and identify effect means of communicating directly to them. Also, organizing best strategies to avoid tiger encounter and what to do if one does encounter a tiger should be designed specifically for women. While delivering these messages to diverse places and stakeholders, who either have planned or possible tiger reintroduction, before initiation may be a difficult, time-consuming and expensive mission, fostering tolerance is a vital precondition to tiger reintroduction (Johnsingh and Madhusudan 2009) and should not go overlooked. The previous two Chapters (6 and 7) highlight hidden, gendered costs to HWC, as well as distinct gendered perceptions. Combined, these provide a more holistic picture for effective conservation communication planning (e.g., as advocated by Gore and Kahler 2012; Shanahan and Gore 2012). These findings will be honed to design messages and delivery strategies with information about the true nature of conflict and the benefits of long-term conservation. Such work will consider gendered differences in Sariska’s human- tiger relationships. I intend to do this with local NGOs I have guild relationships with and

282 will seek collaboration with the Forest Department on effective ways of educational communication throughout the Sariska landscape.

CONCLUSION

As Arora-Jonsson (2011) has argued, gender-specific research in conservation that is sensitive to women’s vulnerability is crucial. It can reveal options, and areas in need of attention, that could increase community support for, and participation in, wildlife conservation (Arora-Jonsson 2011). Additionally, Carter and Allendorf (2016) have found that the level, or lack, of knowledge is a major underlying factor in differing Male/Female attitudes, often with key implications for management: “It is easier to increase people's access to information than to increase their income, for example” (Carter and Allendorf 2016, 76). In this case, Carter and Allendorf (2016) are speaking about women in a tiger landscape. The authors powerfully recognize that “women directly contribute to tiger conservation through their contribution to household decision-making and within their communities,” as caregivers influencing their children’s attitudes, and much more (Carter and Allendorf 2016, 76). If Sariska is to sustain a tiger population, initiatives to address the concerns and perceptions of women and men are essential. Gendered experiences and positionality are not the only drivers influencing local perceptions of Sariska, the reintroduction process, and tigers. Women’s attitudes involve additional variables of exclusion (identified by work by Costa et al. 2017 in a West African protected area), which amount to adverse attitudes toward conservation activities. In Sariska, the reintroduction of tigers was seen by women as an extraordinary livelihood constraint; new and enforced laws on natural resource extraction were passed, and possible tiger predation impeded their ability to meet income expectations. Overall, women became more antagonistic towards the reintroduction plans and current restrictions than men. Transforming these negative

283 attitudes into positive ones will take multi-faceted efforts on the ground. These efforts include but are not limited to diversification of livelihoods to include options less susceptible to tiger encounters (for people and livestock), and organizing scientific and local, female knowledge of rules to reduce attach during tiger encounters into instructions (e.g., pamphlets, diagrams, photo essays) or other types of informative communication (e.g., performances, rhymes).

284 Chapter 9: Conclusion

The purpose of this dissertation has been to understand how people living in and adjacent to Sariska Tiger Reserve in Rajasthan, India have experienced the reintroduction of tigers to the landscape, to identify hidden social costs of the reintroduction, particularly costs to women, and to demonstrate the gendered perceptions of benefits and risks of carnivore reintroduction or “rewilding.” Based on 52 FGDs and in-depth interviews and participant observation, I found that tiger reintroduction is negotiated by people living in the tiger landscape in terms of past human-tiger relations. In essence, past human-tiger relationships included spatial patterns and interspecies boundary making and conceptual understandings of the landscape that generated coexistence without high human-tiger conflict. Additionally, I found women’s gendered labor roles and societal context not only place them at higher risk of tiger encounter but by doing so can increase their risk of domestic abuse, this increased risk (of tiger encounter and abuse) compound fear and intolerance for tigers evident in the vastly different perceptions women have from men on tiger reintroduction benefits and risk. National and state conservation initiatives to reintroduce and maintain a tiger population in Sariska overlook these complex social dimensions of their intended rewilding of Sariska. Disregarding these hidden costs and details of changing human-tiger relations is understandable. It is only through extended participant led conversations these undercurrents of attitudes towards tigers, extirpation, and reintroduction could be revealed. With limited research funds and time, these concerns may seem inconsequential. Further, conservation social science of this type is still an emerging area of research, and not typically a part of rewilding discussions. The literature on large-carnivore conservation has mainly focused on ecological aspects of species mobility, fertility, and quantified human-wildlife conflict. This dissertation, therefore,

285 provides a timely conservation social science perspective to a recent and still unfolding time-space of tiger extirpation, reintroduction, and on-going renegotiations of human-tiger coexistence.

INTRODUCTION

Large carnivores “are not merely ecological artifact[s],” for when they “are absent, possible subjective connections to the land, as well as biodiverse environments, are impoverished” (Van Horn 2012, 219). In this sense, large carnivores “are a window through which to think about what ecologically rich landscapes demand of humans” (Van Horn 2012, 219), especially the demands on communities living with conflict-prone species as part of a broader attempt to address exceptionally high global extinction rates (Pimm et al. 2014). Thus, global environmental issues, such as larger carnivore extinction, involve local solutions, but the local conditions make implementation of those solutions difficult. This is partially why conservation in the Anthropocene is so difficult.

Tigers as a species have experienced dramatic population declines and are now confined to 7% of their historic range (Sanderson et al. 2006). Tigers historically could be found along the watersheds that connect the Black Sea east towards the Caspian Sea, covering Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and a large part of Central Asia, and including territory all the way to Russia’s Far East (Driscoll et al. 2012). As well, tigers were historically present in the entirety of continental South East Asia, the islands of Sumatra and Java, and the majority of East Asia. Like other large carnivore species, several subspecies have become extinct. In the tiger’s case, all of these extinctions have occurred within the 20th century, including the Caspian, Bali, and Javan tiger subspecies (the South China subspecies has also not been seen in over ten years in the wild). India is home to more than half of the world’s remaining wild tigers, approximately 2200 Bengal tigers

286 (WWF 2016), but constitutes only 11% of the globally available tiger habitat (Seidensticker 2010). Thus India has become crucial to the survival of tigers not because of their original range but because it is where one finds the last vestiges of their original range. Despite India’s growing population and increased infrastructure development, the government’s conservation goals aim to double its tiger population by 2022. India then provides valuable lessons for how, or how not, tigers will be incorporated into a developing country’s future. However, conserving isolated groups of a hundred or so tigers—in unconnected tiger reserves—is a different goal than maintaining long-term, genetically viable populations as a result of landscape connectivity. Dr. R.S. Chandawat, the principal researcher for Panna Tiger Research Project, provides clarity on this ambiguity: “In India we can save the tiger but more and more only in small isolated patches….in controlled environments where humanity must constantly intervene and that is not wild animals living wild lives” (quoted in Green 2006, 159). This is a familiar story for apex predators—in large part due to the dramatic collapse of historic ranges and the subsequent loss of connectivity hampering recolonization. In truth, more than 70% of India’s tiger habitat is in multiple use forests where human activity is a conspicuous landscape element (Ahearn et al. 2001)123. Unfortunately, once human activity reaches a certain level the forest no longer supports tigers. To protect tigers, we need to understand the deep-rooted—not surface level124—social connections between people and their environment. This includes understanding the influence of powerful animals (conceptually, environmentally) such as

123 According to a new rapid assessment of management effectiveness against conservation assured tiger standards only 12.5% of tiger conservation sites are currently able to meet the full “conservation assured, tiger standards” (Conservation Assured 2018). 124 Surface level being blanket statements such as followers of Hinduism are more benevolent towards wildlife. When in reality, it is challenging to coexist with wild animals and those that do it, as I have observed throughout Rajasthan through wildlife rescues and participant observation during dissertation data collection, spend significant effort and emotional work on coexistence practices. Generalized statements of coexistence discredit those who put in the labor to live alongside wildlife that includes the sacrifice of human autonomy, altering perspectives and willingness to adapt to wildlife habits. 287 tigers. This dissertation adds depth and specific points of concern within human- environmental relations that influence, strengthen and deter those level of forest activities critical to healthy tiger populations. Highlighting these deeply gendered and hidden human-environmental relations also add to the discussions of rewilding. The reintroduction of threatening apex-predators to a large conservation area uniquely affects both the ecological and the human cultural landscapes. Bringing apex predators “back in…where both the physical (embodied) and cultural (symbolic) animal” affects the socio-physical landscape (Brownlow 2000, 144) has a variety of impacts. To distinguish this kind of reintroduction from the broader sense, this dissertation employed the term rewilding. Rewilding refers to species reintroduction, ecosystem restoration, and restored human-wildlife interactions that influence human behavior and decision making. Together, this combination of factors rewilds the landscape. To this point, Sariska is currently in the process of rewilding as old human-tiger relationships are still be lamented, and the new human-tiger relationships taking shape.

Human behavior and decision making is being altered, but slowly as the norms and boundaries instilled from past human-tiger negations still permeate the minds of people in Sariska. However, the reintroduced tigers’ distinct spatial personalities and the dominant narratives around them are effecting human activities and attitudes. These attitudes have material impacts in women and men’s differing support of conservation policies, Forest Officials, and tigers. Starting in 2005-6 with the world’s first tiger reintroduction, the rewilding of Sariska’s landscape and human-carnivore relations is on-going, but this research uncovers to unexpected pressure-points of that transformation. Thus, this empirical study in the Global South observing a temporally compressed phenomenon when the issues are still ongoing and acute is part of the burgeoning research considering the human dimensions of rewilding. The larger empirical concern this work informs is how 288 rewilding strategies can benefit from an understanding of local knowledges regarding human relations with apex predators.

MAIN ARGUMENTS & CONTRIBUTIONS

Geographers have made significant contributions to the study of HWC through: (1) developing frameworks and methods to measure conflict frequency and temporality; (2) detailing social, political and cultural challenges to mitigating conflict; and (3) emphasizing direct causes, impacts and economic costs of conflict (e.g., Ogra 2008; Woodroffe et al. 2005; Terborgh et al. 2002; Brandon et al. 1998). Yet, qualitative assessment of the multi-faceted perceptions, sensitive to multiple factors of influence, and costs of often hidden consequences of living alongside wildlife, especially for women, is a yet emerging area of research. Research of this kind within the context of large carnivore reintroduction is even sparer. Moreover, as the discipline is aware but is still slow to address, geographic research is inherently concerned with human-nature relations, yet animals infrequently figure into dialogues about how nature influences human spatial changes and perceptions. This study seeks to go beyond the “generalities of the nature- society relations paradigm, and look more closely at human-animal interactions in order to revivify geographical understandings of the world” (Wolch 2002, 726)—through the case of rewilding. While translocation of wild animals in India is not new, Sariska provides a significant and high-profile case study for examining the re-introduction of a charismatic carnivore as the site for the first tiger reintroduction initiative in the world (2008-2009). Conservation scientists generally recognize carnivores as the most challenging species to reintroduce, but not because of their biological needs but rather because of the need to reverse “the human social landscape that caused extinction in the first place” (Maehr 2001,

289 350). While economics, political structures and policies, and social geographies are major factors in Sariska’s local tiger extinction (officially declared in 2005), this research highlights underlying perceptions and hidden costs of reintroduction to better accomplish landscape level rewilding. Specifically, a human-wildlife landscape of high tolerance, human adaptability, and reasonable human expectations of reintroduced species. For more explicit direction on how to achieve such rewilding (of the landscape and expectations of people living alongside apex predators), this dissertation draws from multiple literatures to enhance our understanding of nature-society relationships in the context of reintroduced apex predators and forest-dependent peoples. This research has focused on furthering understanding of human-carnivore relations to recognize how reintroduction initiatives can better address, work, and plan in association with local community concerns. This dissertation makes contributions to the literature in Human-Environmental Geography, Carnivore Reintroduction, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, Animal Geographies, and Feminist Political Ecology.

Specifically, the dissertation builds on: (1) The idea of spatial re-negotiations between people and reintroduced carnivores as critical to tolerance in Chapter 4 and 5; (2) Research on gendered hidden costs of reintroduction, in Chapter 6 and 7; and (3) How gendered hidden costs impact perceptions of risk and benefits to reintroductions, in Chapter 8.

Contributing to these literatures, through an integrative approach utilizing participant- driven qualitative methodology, affords new insights into areas of consideration typically lacking in reintroduction plans.

Main Arguments & Contributions: Chapters 4-5

More specifically, Chapters 4 and 5 and 8 contribute to the body of literature arguing for more attention to the continuum (Yurco et al. 2017; Frank 2016) and

290 complexity of HWC. This type of continuum includes benign interaction and the occurrence of positive and negative attitudes simultaneously allowing for contradiction without undermining the validity of either attitude by local people. This is a needed perspective within HWC studies, management, and mitigation. This is in resistance to the more often propagated extreme narratives of human-wildlife landscapes as conflict-ridden or conflict-free. Understanding how past human-wildlife spatial relationships effect tolerance/intolerance and perceptions of reintroduced individuals and populations creating a more complex HWC continuum is the first contribution of this dissertation. Specifically, in Sariska, this research (Chapters 4 and 5) points to the distinct characterizations of Sariska’s original tigers versus the reintroduced tigers. The reintroduced tigers are dismissed as “not our original tigers,” based on their lack of place-knowledge, no understanding of co-constructed human-tiger boundaries of the past, and specific spatial behaviors that are interpreted as disrespect and a lack of willingness to coexist, such as vagabond and not giving way. Thus, even if carnivores may not acknowledge ownership by local people, people still feel a sense of ownership. When this feeling is disrupted, what were “our tigers” give way to “not our tigers” (Chapter 5). This changing dimension of human-tiger relations in Sariska is influenced by distinct tiger population behaviors that greatly affect how the reintroduced tigers as individuals and a population are perceived, and thus accepted or rejected by local people, all to varying degrees.

Main Arguments & Contributions: Chapters 6-8

This continuum becomes more evident in FGDs where tigers are described as “gods of the jungle,” but such views are followed with desires for tiger removal (Chapter 8). The centrifugal and centripetal forces at work are well balanced making it difficult for participants to completely agree or disagree with tiger presence in Sariska. This was further

291 exemplified in Chapter 8’s findings of gendered difference on perceptions of benefits and adverse consequences to tiger extirpation and reintroduction. Men’s greater appreciation for reintroduction benefits, such as employment or decreases in crop raiding by ungulates, than women and women’s higher fear and appreciation for negative consequences, point to the noticeable difference in gendered perceptions. These findings maintain a view of human-tiger co-occupation as a continuum of conflict and coexistence, positive and consequential—an overlapping, interrupted, and disputed continuum—recognizing areas of disagreement between women and men within this continuum. Finding solutions to conflict and facilitating greater understanding and human adaptation to tiger presence will greatly benefit from this type of knowledge presented in these chapters. Further, as a conservation social science project, my contribution as a human geographer is uncovering the network of societal, environmental, state, and gendered daily geographies people and tigers interact within to create spaces of physical and conceptual contact. Sariska provides the life to the large surrounding rural population by providing fodder for livestock. To acquire this natural resource women shepherd livestock into the reserve or go to collect it and bring it back to livestock safely tied up at home. Women's disproportionate risk of encountering a tiger compared to their male family members confirms established feminist political ecology findings of women's gender roles and risk.

However, Chapters 6 and 7 add to this literature by uncovering hidden costs as a result of the gendered division of labor within a network of apex predators and economic dependence on the vegetation within tiger territories. Through 52 FGDs, women’s bodily risk in providing for livestock, which fluctuates in accordance with large carnivore encounters that result in variation in livestock milk production, was linked to household violence. At the small-scale, variation in milk sales may result in domestic violence (Chapter 6), or at a larger scale result in social stigma and shame at the inability to pay for 292 dowry and respond to continuing monetary demands from the families into which daughters have married (Chapter 7). These social, at-home and in-community costs are not part of the current discussion on tiger reintroduction initiatives. By following this network of risk through tiger territories and the home the findings in Chapter 8 (of gendered difference in perceptions of extirpation and reintroduction) carry a greater weight as it provides greater clarity to drivers of these perceptions.

This research found a variety of attitudes towards the reintroduction. No doubt, the fact that rural communities across much of Rajasthan rely on milk production as a major source of income drives a large portion of the negative attitudes towards tigers, the reintroduction, and the stakeholders that implemented it. However, underneath the livelihood are the social, cultural and cognitive factors that drive the livelihood practices and consequently, human tolerance/intolerance for tigers. Impacts to such a monumental cultural facet as the dowry is an unseen driver of negative attitudes that cannot be addressed with purely mitigation techniques but require on the ground training, enforcement of existing laws, and education of women and girls. This is an example of qualitative, participant-lead research providing contextual clarity that more concentrated studies regarding conflict often miss. In doing so, these chapters contribute to interdisciplinary inquiry connecting Feminist Political Ecology and Human Dimensions of Wildlife Studies.

Cumulated Arguments & Contributions

Combined, these chapters represent participant-driven concerns that arose in early

FGDs, that when knit together provide a more holistic picture of rewilding human-tiger relations and landscape. Together, this dissertation contributes to the emerging literature providing a contrast to the dominant framework of either human-tiger conflict or human- tiger coexistence. This dissertation adds qualitative data to the reasons cohabitation

293 between people and reintroduced tigers remain difficult in ways that cannot be explained through the typical focus on HTC via predation or human fatality. While removing either the human or tiger element from a landscape will lead to conflict-free zones, this is unrealistic in much of the tiger’s historic range. Relying on conflict-free protected areas is not sufficient; reintroduction plans with insights into evident and hidden costs must lead by example for effective reintroduction in developing nations. Tigers as part of human- environmental systems that trigger abuse, for instance, do not advocate for tiger removal but in this case advocate stronger measures to realign the societal factors that position tigers as those triggers in the first place. These insights outline actionable communication errors that need to be righted and integrated into effective conservation communication and management to ensure the success of Sariska’s rewilding. For instance, if NGOs and the Forest Department were able to communicate an understanding of economic scarcity and women’s financial responsibilities to stabilize their households, it might ameliorate local women's opposition to conservation and policies (i.e., natural resource collection restrictions). Otherwise, local people who believe they are not obtaining an equitable part of the benefits or their situations have been undermined may enthusiastically oppose conservation (Bennett et al. 2010; Kemf 1993). Thus, ignoring hidden costs only comes at the detriment of rewilding initiatives; uncovering them provide direction in communication and community campaigns to engender tolerance and (meaningful) education. Drawing on other conservation social science and mixed-methods research in the study of human dimensions of wildlife, I also maintain that a qualitative approach supports the presentation of a more holistic context for complex, political and potentially lethal human-wildlife relations that can add to quantified findings of tolerance, retaliation, compensation scheme effectiveness, community cost-benefits from conservation, and other important parts of forming effective conservation landscapes for apex predators in the 294 developing world. Scholars across disciplines contributing to these areas of conservation research agree that more attention to the hidden costs of all stakeholders is essential to then address and foster greater tolerance of large carnivores. This dissertation contributes to that aim by focusing on underrepresented, and or hidden, drivers and costs of human-wildlife conflict and perceptions of conflict, coexistence, and negotiations of those relations. There is an urgent need for bold initiatives in tiger conservation, such as reintroductions, to be guided by transparency that comes from the types of studies this dissertation models, involve inter-disciplinary discussion, and adaptation of educational campaigns with targeted messages based on cultural sensitivity and awareness.

LIMITATIONS AND AREAS OF FUTURE RESEARCH

Acknowledging the limitations of this research is important. While there are many areas of further research and research experience that would address many of the dissertation limitations, the principal areas of limitation are generalizability and methodology. The findings presented here provide generalizable areas of concern that other reintroduction and conservation initiatives should consider. The findings in Chapters 6, 7, and 8 on gendered risk and consequent perceptions of reintroduction highlight the need for conservation and reintroduction plans to seriously consider consequences women face inside and outside the home as a result of conservation policies. This is a general call for attention, but the specific findings, of domestic abuse related to interruptions in milk production from tiger interactions, is undoubtedly constrained by socio-environmental context. Rural Rajasthan is arguably the most precarious state in India for women’s well- being due to lack of education, patriarchy, cultural stigmas, child marriage, high maternal mortality ratio, an average of 9.2 reproductive years, rates of domestic abuse, rise in dowry deaths, and a state credited with the most drastic sex ratio in India (GOI 2014; Speizer and

295 Pearson 2011). India as a whole ranks 87th out of 144 countries on the World Economic Forum’s Gender Gap Report (WEF 2016). Thus, the findings centered on gendered divisions of labor, risk, and abuse are severe. This severity makes the problems and linkages more identifiable, as this study shows and now provides a framework to apply to other settings with similar dynamics. This framework is essential as women around the world are subject to unequal treatment while expected to provide for their families based on natural resource collection within a changing climate and amid global priority conservation areas. These findings then provide a guide and highlight the need for further research across diverse conservation landscapes to identify similar hidden costs of human- wildlife co-habitation and reintroduction. The findings in other Chapters, herald similar considerations for other studies to further generalize the findings from this case study. This study was limited by the method of focus group discussions (FGDs). FGDs provided in-depth knowledge and, more importantly, allowed participants to drive the research describing truly hidden costs I would not have inherently known to consider from a literature review. More than a dozen topics worthy of consideration in this dissertation came from FGDs. Time and participant emphasis limited inclusion to five topics (Chapters 4-8). Each of these topics was unforeseen and the product of participant emphasis on the issues within those chapters that even during the research process seemed, in many cases, inferior to other concerns (e.g., quantifiable “conflict”). This is the most significant benefit to FGDs. However, I was not able to follow through with cross-tabulation of demographics, such as livelihoods, age, religions, residence time, family size, or caste because of my inability to accurately track each participant within the FGD transcript at all times. During FGDs, my field notes were descriptive enough by writing bits of translated comments next to the participant’s demographic data and keeping a list of specific quotes from each participant that I could identify the speakers within the transcript. However, this was not 296 efficient enough to provide conclusive or continuous tracking. As a result, comparatives across demographics with several categories, such as age and caste, to prominent narratives or perceptions proved impossible. Such analysis would improve the findings from this research. Most specifically, generational and caste differences which were areas of intended analysis but that proved unattainable based on the realities of carrying out FGDs in this setting.

In this research, I have uncovered everyday experiences of men and women that influence perceptions of tigers and the reintroduction process. Academics working on social aspects of reintroduction or large carnivore conservation tend to focus their attention on quantifying tolerance, while this dissertation opted to provide a detailed account of perceptions and changing human-wildlife relations. Furthering this body of work through adapting dissertation chapters for peer-review articles is the next goal. Chapter 4 has been published in the journal Animals & Society, as part of geographers Monica Ogra and Julie Urbanik’s special issue titled, Tracking the Human-Wildlife-Conservation Nexus across the Human-Animal Studies (HAS) Landscape. Future research aspirations include expanding this study to include more quantifiable data. Specifically, data to allow for comparison across the four age groups decided on for FGDs experimental variety on the perception of original versus the reintroduced tigers (Chapter 5) would prove important for further generalizing those arguments. Additionally, further study to quantify women’s self-reported risk (Chapter 6) and specifically examine gendered perceptions via survey would complement the findings presented in Chapter 8. While FGDs proved, valuable, additional forms of data collection would have benefited this study. I intend to apply dissertation insights and type of inquiry to other studies concerning the human dimensions of wildlife.

297 Appendices

APPENDIX 1: DETAILS FOR THE REINTRODUCTION & SUBSEQUENT RECOVERY PLAN FOR SARISKA TIGER RESERVE

Researchers and Forest Department reports have extensively documented the logistics, politics, and implementation of tiger reintroduction to Sariska Tiger Reserve. Dr. Kalyanasundaram Sankar, currently the Director of the Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History, was actively involved in the planning and execution of the reintroduction. Sankar has published on these proceedings widely (e.g., Sankar et al. 2013; Sankar et al. 2010; Sankar et al. 2005); these works provide exceptional details on the reintroduction process. Further, Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Director of Tribal Welfare and Special Secretary to the Governor of Rajasthan, has provided a concise summary of the proceedings for the reintroduction process (Gupta 2009). The below summary is based on Gupta’s (2009) outline of steps recommended by the Tiger Task Force (TTF) and the Government of

Rajasthan for tiger reintroduction at Sariska: The Tiger Task Force (TTF) outlined preconditions for the reintroduction as: 1. Determine accountability for the extirpation. 2. Improve internal management of Sariska Tiger Reserve. 3. Relocate villages within critical tiger habitation, primarily: Haripura, Kankwari Umri and Kiraska with roughly 1800 people and 7000 livestock to be relocated. 4. Strategies put in place to regulate and control Religious tourism to Pandupole, as

well as, mechanisms to share tourism benefits with villagers and park management. 5. Improve forest productivity in buffer zones and areas outside Sariska. 6. Develop an institutional mechanism to monitor progress in habitat improvement and local involvement. 298

Further, the State Empowered Committee (SEC), Government of Rajasthan, counseled the following steps:

1. An organized and thorough ‘Tiger Re-introduction Plan’ should be prepared involving experts, park managers, and public and civil society representatives.

2. Disturbances to the Core Zones and Critical Tiger Habitat needs to be reduced by rehabilitating villages located in the Core I of STR. An amount of Rs.5600 Lakhs

was required for relocating 2780 families through four village relocation stages. 3. For Phase I, relocation of villages Bhagani, Kankwari, Umari and Kiraska (333 families) was planned. 4. Ranthambhore and Kanha Tiger Reserves were identified as having similar habitats to Sariska. As such, the SEC advised relocating tigers from both reserves to Sariska to ensure genetic variability and ecological suitability.

5. Also to promote genetic variability the creation of a wildlife corridor between Jamua Ramgarh and Sariska was advised. 6. To ensure protection of reintroduced tigers from poaching and other threats, radiotelemetry studies and camera traps should be readily used throughout the park.

7. Further, agencies should work to strengthen the protection network of tigers by identifying vulnerable areas (e.g., to poaching). This network should include partnerships with traditional Hunting Tribes and local people in general.

8. As part of regulating religious tourism, entry fees should be established. 9. The State Highway between Alwar and Jaipur should be closed. Instead, traffic should be diverted to other existing highways to avoid vehicular traffic between Sariska and Thanagazi. 299 Shortly after the extirpation in 2005, the Recovery Plan for Reintroduction of Tigers in Sariska was presented to the NTCA for approval. The Recovery Plan suggested the creation of 100-hectare enclosure for the reintroduced tigers. The NTCA sent the plan back with pre-conditions before initiating the plan, as follows: 1. Relocation of villages Bhagani, Kankwari, Umri, Kiraska from the Core Zone. 2. Reinforcing the protection network.

3. Regulation of religious tourism of Pandupole temple. 4. Regulation of State Highway 13 passing through the Core Zone.

5. Replacement of Forest Department staff who were posted before January 2005. Two years later, in 2007, some of these pre-conditions were met (e.g., village relocation not complete) and the plan was resubmitted to the NTCA for approval. The NTCA approved the plan with revision, such as reducing the relocation enclosure to 1 hectare instead of 100 hectares. See Table 9, below, for important characteristics, such as dates, for the tiger relocations from Ranthambhore to Sariska.

Tiger ID/Sex Date of Soft Date of Full Born in Characteristics / Events of Note Release into Release into Sariska Enclosure at Sariska Sariska ST1 (Male) 06/28/2008 06/07/2008 No - Poisoned in 2010 ST2 (Female) 07/04/2008 07/08/2008 No - Daughter of the tigress Machli of Ranthambhore - Mother of ST13 - Collar was removed as her territory was outside human interference ST3 (Female) 02/25/2009 02/27/2009 No - Daughter of the tigress Machli of Ranthambhore ST4 (Male) 07/20/2010 07/27/2010 No ST5 (Female) 07/28/2010 08/01/2010 No As of April 2018 ST5 has been missing since February 21, 2018. ST6 (Male) 02/23/2011 02/28/2013 No ST6 was originally ST7 of Ranthambhore. ST6 dispersed from Ranthambhore in August 2010 and then tranquilized a few months later and relocated to Sariska in February 2011. 300 ST9 (Female) 02/22/2013 02/28/2013 No ST10 (Female) 02/23/2013 02/28/2013 No - Mother of ST11 ST11 (Male) Yes - Firstborn tiger in STR post-reintroduction - Radio-collared May 2017 ST11 was killed March 2018 by snare near Indok village; a farmer is under arrest as of April 2018 for accused poaching. ST13 (Male) Yes - Son of ST6 and ST2 - Many attempts to tranquilize and bring back into core zone - Finally collard January 2017

Table A1: Sariska tiger characteristics.

301 APPENDIX 2: MG-FGDS 2014-2015

Socio-Demographic Variables

Community Name:

Date:

Pseudonyms and age for four people 51-70+ years of age:

Pseudonyms and age for four people 30-50+ years of age:

Pseudonyms and age for four people 21-29 years of age:

Pseudonyms and age for four people 18-20 years of age:

Are participant’s family members or neighbors?

Estimate of people living in their community:

Estimate of distance from village to Sariska National Park boundary (in many places demarcated with four foot stone wall / easily identifiable and recognized):

Time or residence for participants and their family’s history in the place?

Own or rent land? 302

Participant Occupations:

Religions and Castes:

Researcher’s description of the property:

Semi-Structured Focus Group Questions * Question order is flexible depending on conversation. Topic flow was directed by participants. Q. How is it living near Sariska Tiger Reserve? • Benefits? • Negatives?

Q. Are you aware of any legal protections afforded to wildlife that live near and move through your village/property/fields?

Q. Please indicate your attitude towards Sariska’s status as a Tiger Reserve and

National Park: • Dislike (legal status should be dissolved) • Like (legal protection should be continued)

• Indifference (no strong opinion)

Q. How do you feel about the Forest Department laws in Sariska?

303 Q. How would you describe a tiger? General attitude towards Tigers? • Dislike: . Why dislike? • Like: . Why like? • Indifference (no strong opinion)

Q. Has anyone seen a tiger outside the reserve in their lifetime?

• Yes/No • If yes: Could you describe the encounter, location, animal and your behavior towards one another? • If no, or not in significant time: Is it a good or bad thing tigers are not seen anymore? • How do you feel about tigers leaving the Park?

• Do tigers come into the fields or villages? • Do they have a right to live outside the park boundaries? • Do they have a right to move through your property/ into town?

Q. Did they hear about all tigers being lost from Sariska in 2004-5? • If yes, how did you feel when hearing this news? • How did you feel about Sariska after hearing this news?

Q. Are there any benefits or negatives from the extirpation (“total loss”) of Sariska’s tigers in 2004-5? Q. Did they hear about tigers being reintroduced in 2009? 304 • If yes, how did they hear about the reintroduction (type of media)? • If yes, how did you feel when hearing this news? • How did you feel about the park after hearing this news?

Q. Are there any benefits or negatives from the reintroduction and now ~10 tigers in Sariska?

Q. (If not brought up independently) Are there any differences between the old and the new tigers?

Q. Does seeing or hearing about a tiger being outside the park change your daily routine?

Q. How will they feel when 10 tigers grow to a larger population of tigers, like 20 tigers?

Q. How do you feel about the wall around Sariska? • Are they sufficient? Any other walls needed?

305 APPENDIX 3: WO-FGDS 2016-2017

Social-Demographic Variables

Community Name:

Date:

Pseudonyms and age for two people 51-70+ years of age:

Pseudonyms and age for two people 30-50+ years of age:

Pseudonyms and age for two people 21-29 years of age:

Pseudonyms and age for two people 18-20 years of age:

Are participant’s family members or neighbors?

Estimate of people living in their community:

Estimate of distance from village to Sariska National Park boundary (in many places demarcated with four foot stone wall / easily identifiable and recognized):

Time or residence for participants and their family’s history in the place?

Own or rent land? 306

Participant Occupations:

Religions and Castes:

Researcher’s description of the property:

Gendered Divisions of Labor Q. What is your daily routine? (Work, where you go, etc.)?

Q. How far do the cattle graze away from the village? • How deep into the forest do they go? How long are they gone? • Are they always accompanied? Who usually goes with them?

Q. Are livestock allowed by law to graze inside SNP? • Does the law change anything?

Q. How much is a buffalo worth? Cow? Goat?

Q. What work are men responsible for?

Q. Questions asking for comparatives between men and women’s work responsibilities.

Q. How is it living near Sariska Tiger Reserve? 307 • Benefits? • Negatives? Q. Are you aware of any legal protections afforded to wildlife that live near and move through your village/property/fields?

Q. Please indicate your attitude towards Sariska’s status as a Tiger Reserve and

National Park: • Dislike (legal status should be dissolved)

• Like (legal protection should be continued) • Indifference (no strong opinion)

Q. How do you feel about the Forest Department laws in Sariska?

Dowry *If dowry did not come up naturally in conversation we asked about girls attending school that usually drove the conversation to participants concerns of dowry expectations.

Q. Family economic activity (milk sales, labor work, etc.) enough to pay for

marriages?

Q. What is a cost of a dowry?

Q. Are there ever post-marriage dowry requests? • If yes, how do they impact you and your families? 308

Tiger Extirpation & Reintroduction Q. How would you describe a tiger? General attitude towards Tigers? • Dislike: . Why dislike? • Like:

. Why like? • Indifference (no strong opinion)

Q. Has anyone seen a tiger outside the reserve in their lifetime? • Yes/No • If yes: Could you describe the encounter, location, animal and your behavior towards one another? • If no, or not in significant time: Is it a good or bad thing tigers are not

seen anymore? • How do you feel about tigers leaving the Park? • Do tigers come into the fields or villages? • Do they have a right to live outside the park boundaries?

• Do they have a right to move through your property/ into town?

Q. Did they hear about all tigers being lost from Sariska in 2004-5?

• If yes, how did you feel when hearing this news? • How did you feel about Sariska after hearing this news? Q. Are there any benefits or negatives from the extirpation (“total loss”) of Sariska’s tigers in 2004-5? 309

Q. Did they hear about tigers being reintroduced in 2009? • If yes, how did they hear about the reintroduction (type of media)? • If yes, how did you feel when hearing this news? • How did you feel about the park after hearing this news?

Q. Are there any benefits or negatives from the reintroduction and now ~10 tigers in Sariska?

Q. (If not brought up independently) Are there any differences between the old and the new tigers?

Q. Does seeing or hearing about a tiger being outside the park change your daily routine?

Q. How will they feel when 12 tigers grow to a larger population of tigers, like 20 tigers?

Q. How do you feel about the wall around Sariska? • Are they sufficient? Any other walls needed?

310 APPENDIX 4: CONDENSED CODE TREE APPENDIX

311

312 APPENDIX 5: WATER & CLIMATE CHANGE

Sariska’s dynamic natural environment is the interface where people and wildlife interact. Much like Boomgaard (2001) recognizes in Malaysia, the behaviors of Sariska’s tigers and people alter “the actions of the other, mediated by environmental change” (Boomgaard 2001, 4). Women across developing countries are more likely to collect water, firewood, food, and to cook meals—and subsequently, experience climate change, via local changes such as diminished water resources and soil degradation, more acutely (Engelman

2009). This is a fraction of the effects climate change disproportionally has on women. In agreement with Rocheleau et al. (1996), it is evident women’s diversity of livelihood roles in Sariska lead them to participate in complex relations and flows of natural resources, commodities, and labor, rather than specializing in one economic activity. As a result, women in the study area are very observant of ecosystem change—including the land of their homes, fields, as well as Sariska’s buffer and core zones—as their responsibilities require attention to the environment (fodder, water, grazing lands, etc.).

Specifically, women’s roles as milk producers (and the many jobs associated detailed earlier) and wood gatherers means they are privy to information of the “physical environment and natural resources and potential threats to their sustainability (Sunderland et al. 2014; Ehrlich et al. 2012)” (Costa et al. 2017, 169). This is in opposition to men’s more urban and market-oriented work (Paolisso et al. 2002). Women’s responsibilities of milk sales leads them to keep appreciation water issues. The average water use of buffalo from villages in Gujarat, the neighboring state, is

71.1 liters a day per capita and 53.6 liters per cow (Upadhyay 2005b)—illustrating the substantial water needs for these animals. In Sariska a severe drought in 2002-2003 caused a devastating mortality of 50-70 percent of livestock. Reliance on the monsoon for surface water (availability limited to short monsoon/wet season) and groundwater for livestock, 313 agriculture and consumption is a collective worry across Sariska125. Shahabuddin et al. (2007) found people living in Sariska’s Core Zone 1 reported a sharp decline in average annual rainfall from 1997-2007 that caused as much as 75% reduction in natural fodder availability. Water is just as valuable a natural resource in this landscape as grazing lands and forests. For a more comprehensive context of environmental situation pertinent to Chapters 6—8, this appendix provides a short summary and discussion of these water issues.

Rajasthan: Monsoon Change & Ground Water Depletion

Across India, small and marginal farmers, like many adjacent to Sariska, rely on borewells as a means to intensify and diversify land use (to a greater extent than large and medium farmers) (Shah 2009)126. In fact, 83% of the 507,171 ha of cultivated land in Alwar District is supported by wells and tube wells (Everard 2015). Rathore (2003), with government data, reported Alwar District extracted 66% of the available ground water in

1984 and 118% in 2001, with groundwater levels retreating below 100 meters from the surface in many places (Everard 2015). According to Shahabuddin et al. (2005) borewell’s in areas near to Sariska go down as far as 400 feet due to depleted water table from water- intensive cultivation of wheat and mustard. Thus, in general, human activity and long historical processes (see Everard 2015) are to blame for the study area’s water depletion

125 Groundwater meets over 85% of rural domestic water requirements in India (GOI 2007B). In Rajasthan, 90% of the drinking water comes from ground water (Bhuiyan et al. 2009). 126 Villages in the Alwar District of Rajasthan, that includes Sariska, is famous for large-scale construction of johads (ponds) as a strategy to revive and sustain groundwater-based agriculture (Shah 2012). The local NGO, Tarun Bharat Sangh (TBS) was responsible for mobilizing this campaign since the mid-1980s which spread to 550 villages constructing 2000 johads and reinvigorated the agrarian economy (van Steengergen and Shah 2003). See Everard (2015) for recent assessment of this TBS-led initiative, reporting its contribution to reversing the cycle of groundwater depletion and linked ecological and social-economic decline. This system was unknown to me and not referenced by participants in my study. 314 (Rathore 2005). However, this does not negate the stresses of climate change that effect the monsoon’s timing and strength which exacerbate groundwater rejuvenation. Rajasthan is considered an area with great climatic sensitivity, where “vicissitudes of climate are likely to have a considerable impact on the physical and socio-economic fabric of the state” (Rathore and Verma 2013). The monsoon wet season traditionally starts near the end of June and may continue until the first weeks of October; with significant rainfall between July and September. During these months, the monsoon is responsible for 90% of the annual precipitation in Rajasthan (Jayanti 2009). According to Rathore and

Verma (2013), Rajasthan is expected to undergo overall reduction in rainfall and increased evapo-transpiration due to climate change. For instance, in 1973 the duration of the rainy season was 101 days, compared to 40 days in 2003, 2004 (Rathore and Verma 2013). These changes represent late arrival and early withdrawal of the monsoon, with a 1.5 percent decline in the average rainfall in the month of September (Rathore and Verma 2013). These change influence the rate or rejuvenation of over-used groundwater. Groundwater depletion is caused by human population growth, economic development, agriculture, decline in groundwater recharge and over-use as a result of accelerated building of wells and tubewells and increasing pumping technology (Rathore 2005).

Caste Study Example: Importance of Water

Milk has increased in importance as environmental factors have changed for the last few decades. One of these specifics talked about at length in all three research years is the lack of water (rain but primarily ground water) that makes agriculture less reliable. Agriculture also suffers greatly from crop raiding by pigs and large ungulates like nilgai. With these two significant difficulties on agricultural production in this rural landscape, the alternative to rear livestock on the vegetation inside Sariska becomes more and more

315 understandable. Thus the strengthening of milk’s place within the household economy and as a female responsibility are in part in place because of environmental change and over- exploitation (e.g., bore wells, over grazing that leads to loss of soil moister and nutrients etc.). A woman from a MG-FGD, early in the discussion, interrupted to say “I want to say that we will not have a better life than we are having at this place anywhere else.”

Asking her to clarify, the interpreter asked “what type of happiness are you talking about?” and she replied “water is available here!” And went on to detail how difficult water was becoming in the area and that they would not leave this place even though there “is no road, of which we have to face so much pain” in order to get goods and in especially for reaching a hospital. But even against these difficulties she would remain where the water was. A younger women, 19 asked, “why are you leaving out the tigers?” as a difficulty, to which the women continued to repeat all of these difficulties, including living with tigers, are doable when there is water.

316 Bibliography

Ackerson, L. K., and S. V. Subramanian. 2009. Intimate partner violence and death among infants and children in India. Pediatrics 124(5):e878–89. doi:10.1542/peds.2009-0524.

Agarwal, B. 1992. The gender and environment debate: lessons from India. Feminist Studies 18(1):119–158. doi:10.2307/3178217.

———. 1997. Bargaining and gender relations: within and beyond the household. Feminist Economics 3(1):1–51. doi:10.1080/135457097338799.

———. 2000. Conceptualizing environmental collective action: why gender matters. Cambridge Journal of Economics 24(3):283–310. doi:10.1093/cje/24.3.283.

Agarwal, S. 1995. Speech at the first International Conference on Dowry and Bride- Burning in India. Harvard Law School, 30 Sept–2 Oct.

Agrawal, A., and C. C. Gibson, ed. 2001. Communities and the environment: Ethnicity, gender, and the state in community-based conservation. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Ahearn, S. C., and J. L. D. Smith. 2005. Modeling the interaction between humans and animals in multiple-use forests: a case study of Panthera tigris. In GIS, Spatial Analysis, Modeling, 358–387. Redlands, CA: ESRI Press.

Ahearn, S. C., J. Ding, A. R. Joshi, and J. L. D. Smith. 2001. TIGMOD: an individual- based spatially explicit model for simulating tiger/human interaction in multiple use forests. Ecological Modelling 140 (1–2):81–97. doi:10.1016/S0304-3800(01)00258- 7.

Ahmadia, G. N., L. Glew, M. Provost, D. Gill, N. I. Hidayat, S. Mangubhai, Purwanto, and H. E. Fox. 2015. Integrating impact evaluation in the design and implementation of monitoring marine protected areas. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 370(1681). doi:10.1098/rstb.2014.0275.

Ahmed-Ghosh, H. 2004. Chattels of society: domestic violence in India. Violence Against Women 10(1):94–118. doi:10.1177/1077801203256019.

Alcoff, L. 1991–1992. The problem of speaking for others. Cultural Critique 20:5–32. doi:10.2307/1354221.

317 Ali, R., and A. Pai. 2001. Human use areas in the Kalakad–Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve. Current Science 80(3):448–452.

Allendorf, T. D., and J. Yang. 2013. The role of ecosystem services in park–people relationships: The case of Gaoligongshan nature reserve in Southwest China. Biological Conservation 167:187–193. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.08.013.

Allendorf, T. D., and K. Allendorf. 2013. Gender and attitudes toward protected areas in Myanmar. Society & Natural Resources 26(8):962–976. doi:10.1080/08941920.2012.729295.

Altrichter, M., G. Boaglio, and P. Perovic. 2006. The decline of jaguars Panthera onca in

the Argentine Chaco. Oryx 40(3):302–309. doi:10.1017/S0030605306000731.

Alves, J. P. G. 1996. A perfect world. Down to Earth 5(II):32–34.

Amin, S., E. Chong, and N. Haberland. 2007. Programs to address child marriage: Framing the problem. Brief no. 14. http://www.popcouncil.org/pgy.

Andam, K. S., P. J. Ferraro, K. R. E. Sims, A. Healy, and M. B. Holland. 2010. Protected areas reduced poverty in Costa Rica and Thailand. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(22):9996–10001. doi:10.1073/pnas.0914177107.

Anderson, K. 1998. Animals, science and spectacle in the city. In Animal geographies: Place, politics and identity in the nature- culture borderlands, ed. J. Wolch and J. Emel, 27–50. London, UK: Verso.

Anderson, S. 2003. Why dowry payments declined with modernization in Europe but are rising in India. Journal of Political Economy 111(2):269–310. doi:10.1086/367679.

———. 2007. The economics of dowry and brideprice. The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 21(4):151–174. doi:10.1257/jep.21.4.151.

Andrade, G. S. M., and J. R. Rhodes. 2012. Protected areas and local communities: An inevitable partnership toward successful conservation strategies? Ecology and Society 17(4):14–29. doi:10.5751/ES-05216-170414.

Anthony, M. L., B. A. Knuth, and T. B. Lauber. 2004. Gender and citizen participation in wildlife management decision-making. Society and Natural Resources 17(5):395– 411. doi:10.1080/08941920490430179.

Arjunan, M., C. Holmes, J. P. Puyravaud, and P. Davidar. 2006. Do developmental initiatives influence local attitudes toward conservation? A case study from the 318 Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of Environmental Management 79(2):188–197. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.06.007.

Arnot, M., R. Jeffery, L. Casely-Hayford, and C. Noronha. 2012. Schooling and domestic transitions: shifting gender relations and female agency in rural Ghana and India. Comparative Education 48(2):181–194. doi:10.1080/03050068.2011.608896.

Arora-Jonsson, S. 2011. Virtue and vulnerability: Discourses on women, gender and climate change. Global Environmental Change 21(2):744–751. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.

Athreya, V., M. Odden, J. D. Linnell, and K. U. Karanth. 2011. Translocation as a tool for mitigating conflict with leopards in human dominated landscapes of India. Conservation Biology 25(1):133–141. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01599.x.

Athreya, V., M. Odden, J. D. Linnell, J. Krishnaswamy, and U. Karanth. 2013. Big cats in our backyards: Persistence of large carnivores in a human dominated landscape in India. PLoS ONE 8(3):e57872. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057872.

Babu, G. R., and B. V. Babu. 2011. Dowry deaths: A neglected public health issue in India. International health 3(1):35–43. doi:10.1016/j.inhe.2010.12.002.

Badola, R., M. Ogra, and S. Barthwal. 2014. Ecodevelopment, gender, and empowerment: perspectives from India’s protected area communities. In Global perspectives on gender and space: Engaging feminism and development, ed. A. M. Oberhauser and I. Johnston-Anumonwo, 200–223. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bagchi, S., S. P. Goyal, and K. Sankar. 2003. Prey abundance and prey selection by tigers in a semi-arid, dry deciduous forest in western India. Journal of Zoology 260(3):285e290. doi:10.1017/S095283903003765.

Bahuguna, V. 2000. Forests in the economy of the rural poor: An estimation of the dependency level. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 29(3):126–129. doi:10.1579/0044-7447-29.3.126.

Baiser, B., J. D. Olden, S. Record, J. L. Lockwood, and M. L. McKinney. 2012. Pattern and process of biotic homogenization in the New Pangaea. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 279(1748):4772–4777. doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.1651.

Bandiaky, S. 2008. Gender inequality in Malidino Biodiversity community-based reserve, Senegal: Political parties and the village approach. Conservation and Society 6(1):62–73.

319 Banerjee, P. 1997. Bride Burning and dowry deaths in India. http://www.bahnhof.se/~evah/Dowrydeaths.html.

Banerjee, A. 2012. Is wildlife tourism benefiting Indian protected areas? A survey. Current Issues in Tourism 15(3):211–227. doi:10.1090/13683500.2011.599367.

Banks, D., N. Desai, J. Gosling, T. Joseph, O. Majumdar, N. Mole, M. Rice, B. Wright, and V. Wu. 2006. Skinning the cat: Crime and politics of the big cat skin trade, 25. Environmental Investigation Agency and Wildlife Protection Society of India, New Delhi, India.

Barham, B. L., O. T. Coomes, and Y. Takasaki. 1999. Rain forest livelihoods: Income generation, household wealth and forest use. Unasylva 50(198):34–42.

Barnes, T.J., and J. S. Duncan. 1992. Introduction. Writing worlds. In Writing worlds. Discourse, text and metaphor in the representation of landscape, ed. T. J. Barnes and J. S. Duncan, 1–17. London, UK: Routledge.

Baron, D. 2003. The Beat in the Garden: A Modern Parable of Man and Nature. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

Barua, M. 2014. Bio-geo-graphy: Landscape, dwelling, and the political ecology of human-elephant relations. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 32:915–934. doi:10.1068/d4213.

Barua, M., S. A. Bhagwat, and S. Jadhav. 2013. The hidden dimensions of human- wildlife conflict: Health impacts, opportunity and transaction costs. Biological Conservation 157:309–316. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.014.

Basu, S. 2001. She comes to take her rights. Property and propriety. New Delhi, India: Kali for Women.

———, ed. 2005. Dowry and inheritance. Delhi, India: Women Unlimited.

Batson, W. G., I. J. Gordon, D. B. Fletcher, and A. D. Manning. 2015. Translocation tactics: A framework to support the IUCN guidelines for wildlife translocations and improve the quality of applied methods. Journal of Applied Ecology 52:1598– 1607. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12498.

Bauer, H. 2003. Local perceptions of Waza National Park, northern Cameroon. Environmental Conservation 30(2):175–181. doi:10.1017/S037689290300016X.

Bauer, H., and S. Van Der Merwe. 2004. Inventory of free-ranging lions Panthera leo in Africa. Oryx 38(1):26–31. doi:10.1017/S0030605304000055. 320 Bauer, H., H. de Iongh, and E. Sogbohossou. 2010. Assessment and mitigation of human- lion conflict in West and Central Africa. Mammalia 74(4):363–367. doi:10.1515/mamm.2010.048.

Bebbington, A. 1999. Capitals and capabilities: A framework for analyzing peasant viability, rural livelihoods, and poverty. World Development 27(12):2021–2044. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00104-7.

Beckley, T. M. 1998. The nestedness of forest dependence: A conceptual framework and empirical exploration. Society & Natural Resources 11(2):101–120. doi:10.1080/08941929809381066.

Beckmann, J. P., and C. W. Lackey. 2008. Carnivores, urban landscapes, and longitudinal studies: A case of history of black bears. Human-Wildlife Interactions 2(2):168– 174.

Bell, C. 1997. Ritual perspectives and dimensions. New York, NY and Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Bennett, N. J. 2016. Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology 30(3):582–592. doi:10.1111/cobi.12681.

Bennet, N.J., and R. Roth, ed. 2015. The conservation social sciences: What? How? And why? Canadian Wildlife Federation and Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

Bennett, N. J., R. H. Lemelin, and S. Ellis. 2010. Aboriginal and local perspectives on the community benefits of conservation: A case study of a proposed Canadian national park and the Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation. Geography Research Forum 30:105–134.

Bennett N. J., R. Roth, S. C. Klain, K. Chan, P. Christie, D. A. Clark, G. Cullman, D. Curran, T. J. Durbin, G. Epstein, A. Greenberg, M. P. Nelson, J. Sandlos, R. Stedman, T. L. Teel, R. Thomas, D. Verissimo, and C. Wyborn. 2017. Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological Conservation 205:93–108. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.006.

Beschta, R. L., and W. J. Ripple. 2010. Recovering riparian plant communities with wolves in northern Yellowstone, USA. Restoration Ecology 18:380–389. doi:10.1111/j.1526-100X.2008.00450.x.

321 ———. 2012. The role of large predators in maintaining riparian plant communities and river morphology. Geomorphology 157–158:88–98. doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.04.042.

Best, K. 2002. Domestic violence examined. Qualitative research in India contributes to interventions to assist victims. Network 22(2):19–20.

Bhardwaj, D. 2016. Sariska Tiger Reserve to start ecotourism in buffer zone from July. HindustanTimes. http://www.hindustantimes.com/jaipur/sariska-tiger-reserve-to- start-ecotourism-in-buffer-zone-from-july/story- Wjb7OMRtZvD1ecyzIPYCSM.html (accessed July 5, 2016).

Bhasin, K. 2012. Feminist reflections on neo-liberalism, fundamentalism and survival In The future of Asian feminisms: Confronting fundamentalisms, conflicts and neo- liberalism, ed. N. Katjasungkana and S. E. Wieringa. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Bhatia, S., S. M. Redpath, K. Suryawanshi, and C. Mishra. 2016. The relationship between religion and attitudes toward large carnivores in northern India? Human Dimensions of Wildlife 22(1):30–42. doi:10.1080/10871209.2016.1220034.

Bhattacharjee, S., V. Kumar, M. Chandrasekhar, M. Malviya, A. Ganswindt, K. Ramesh, K. Sankar, and G. Umapathy. 2015. Glucocorticoid stress responses of reintroduced tigers in relation to anthropogenic disturbance in Sariska Tiger Reserve in India. PLoS ONE 10:e0127626. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127626.

Bhuiyan, C., W. A. Flügel, and R. P. Singh. 2009. Erratic monsoon, growing water demand, and declining water table. Journal of Spatial Hydrology 9(1).

Bisht, A., A. Joshi, and H. Pant. 2013. Role of NGO's For eradication of rural poverty through women empowerment (Case study Reference of MATREE Tonk District of Rajasthan). International Journal of Trends in Economics Management & Technology 2(1):33–36.

Bitanyi, S., M. Nesje, L. J. M. Kusiluka, S. W. Chenyambuga, and B. P. Kaltenborn. 2012. Awareness and perceptions of local people about wildlife hunting in Western Serengeti communities. Tropical Conservation Science 5(2):208–224.

Blaikie, P., and H. Brookfield. 1987. Land degradation and society. London, UK: Methuen.

Blumberg, R. L. 1988. Income under female versus male control: Hypotheses from a theory of gender stratification and data from the Third World. Journal of Family Issues 9(1): 51-84.

322 Bolch, F., and V. Rao. 2002. Terror as a bargaining instrument : A case study of dowry violence in rural India. The American Economic Review 92(4):1029–1043. doi:10.1257/00028280260344588.

Bolla, A., and A. Hovorka. 2012. Placing wild animals in Botswana: Engaging geography’s transspecies spatial theory. Humanimalia 3(2):56–82.

Bond, J. and K. Mkutu. 2017. Exploring the hidden costs of human-wildlife conflict in northern Kenya. African Studies Review 2017:1–10.

Boomgaard, P. 2001. Frontiers of fear: Tigers and people in the Malay world, 1600– 1950. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Boonman-Berson, S., E. Turnhout, and M. Carolan. 2016. Common sensing: Human- black bear cohabitation practices in Colorado. Geoforum 74:192–201. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.06.010.

Bosco, F. J., and T. Herman. 2010. Focus groups as collaborative research performances. In The Sage handbook of qualitative geography, ed. D. DeLyser, S. Herbert, S. Aitken, M. Crang, and L. McDowell, 193–208. London, UK: SAGE Publications.

Boserup, E. 1970. Woman’s role in economic development. London, UK: Earthscan.

Bradley, T. 2010. Religion as a bridge between theory and practice in work on violence against women in Rajasthan. Journal of Gender Studies 19(4):361–375.

Bradley, T., and E. Tomalin, ed. 2009. Dowry: Bridging the gap between theory and practice. New Delhi, India and London, UK: Women Unlimited and Zed Books.

Braidotti, R., E. Charkiewicz, S. Hausler, and S. Wieringa. 1994. Women, the environment, and development: Towards a theoretical synthesis. London, UK: Zed Books.

Brandon, K., K. H. Redford, and S. E. Sanderson, ed. 1998. Parks in peril: People, politics and protected areas. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Braun, B. 2004. Querying posthumanisms. Geoforum 35(3):269–273. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.03.002.

Braverman, I. 2014. Conservation without nature: the trouble with in situ versus ex situ conservation. Geoforum 51:47–57. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.09.018.

Breen, R. L. 2006. A practical guide to focus-group research. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 30(3):463–475. doi:10.1080/03098260600927575. 323 Breitenmoser, U., C. Angst, J. Landry, C. Breitenmoser-Worsten, J. D. C. Linnell, and J. Weber. 2005. Non-lethal techniques for reducing depredation. In People and wildlife: Conflict or co-existence?, ed. R. Woodroffe, S. Thrigood, and A. Rabinowitz, 49–71. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Breitenmoser, U., C. Breitenmoser-Wursten, L. N. Carbyn, and S. M. Funk. 2001. Assessment of carnivore reintroduction. In Carnivore conservation (conservation biology), ed. J. L. Gittleman, S. M. Funk, D. Macdonald, and R. K. Wayne, 241– 281. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, K. 1998. The political ecology of biodiversity, conservation and development in Nepal’s Terai: Confused meanings, means and ends. Ecological Economics 24(1):73–87. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00587-9.

Brownlow, A. 2000. A wolf in the garden. In Animal spaces, beastly places: New geographies of human-animal relations, ed. C. Philo and C. Wilbert, vol. 10, 143–158. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

Bruskotter, J. T., and R. S. Wilson. 2014. Determining where the wild things will be: Using psychological theory to find tolerance for large carnivores. Conservation Letters 7(3):158–165. doi:10.1111/conl.12072.

Bruyn, S. 1986. The methodology of participant observation. New York, NY: Irvington Publishers.

Buller, H. 2008. Safe from the wolf: Biosecurity, biodiversity, and competing philosophies of nature. Environment and Planning A 40(7):1583–1597.

Burton, B., N. Duvvury, A. Rajan, and N. Varia. 1999. Violence against women in India: Evidence from rural Gujarat [by] Leela Visaria. Summary report. International Center for Research on Women, Washington, DC.

Campos-Arceiz, A., and S. Blake. 2011. Megagardeners of the forests—The role of elephants in seed dispersal. Acta Oecologica 37(6):542–553.

Carney, J. 1996. Converting the wetlands, engendering the environment. In Liberation ecologies: Environment, development, social movements, ed. R. Peet and M. Watts, 165–187. New York, NY: Routledge.

Carter, N. H., and J. D. C. Linnell. 2016. Co-adaptation is key to coexisting with large carnivores. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 31(8):575–578. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2016.05.006.

324 Carter, N. H., and T. D. Allendorf. 2016. Gendered perceptions of tigers in Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Biological Conservation 202:69–77. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.08.002.

Carter, N. H., B. K. Shestha, J. B. Karki, N. M. B. Pradhan, and J. Liu. 2012. Coexistence between wildlife and humans at fine spatial scales. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 109(28):15360–15365. doi:10.1073/pnas.1210490109.

Castle, S. E. 1993. Intra-household differentials in women's status: Household function and focus as determinants of children's illness management and care in rural Mali. Health Transition Review 3(2):137–157.

Castree, N. 2001. Marxism, capitalism, and the production of nature. In Social nature: Theory, practice, and politics, ed. N. Castree and B. Braun, 189–207. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

———. 2014. Making sense of nature: Representation, politics and democracy. London, UK: Routledge.

Census Organization of India. 2011. Rajasthan Population Census data 2011. http://www.census2011.co.in/census/state/rajasthan.html.

Chambers, R. 2007. From PRA to PLA and pluralism: Practice and theory. London, UK: Institute of Development Studies.

Chandola, S., R. Badola, and S. A. Hussain. 2007. Factors affecting women's participation in conservation programmes in and around Rajaji National Park, India. Journal of the Indian Anthropological Society 42:111.

Chapron, G., P Kaczensky, J. D. C. Linnell, M. von Arx, D. Huber, H. Andren, J. V. Lopez-Bao, M. Adamec, F. Alvares, O. Anders, L. Balciauskas, V. Balys, P. Bedo, F. Bego, J. C. Blanco, U. Breitenmoser, H. Broseth, L. Bufka, R. Bunikyte, P. Ciucci, A. Dutsov, T. Engleder, C. Fuxjager, C. Groff, K. Holmala, B. Hoxha, Y. Iliopoulos, O. Ionescu, J. Kubala, S. Kunovac, J. Kusak, M. Kutal, O. Liberg, A. Majic, P. Mannil, R. Manz, E. Marboutin, F. Marucco, D. Melovski, K. Mersini, Y. Mertzanis, R. W. Myslajek, S. Potcnik, P. Quenette, G. Rauer, I. Reinhardt, R. Rigg, A. Ryser, V. Salvatori, T. Skrbinsek, A. Stojanov, J. E. Swenson, L. Szemethy, A. Trajce, E. Tsingarska-Sedefcheva, M. Vana, R. Veeroja, P. Wabakken, M. Wolfl, S. Wolfl, F. Zimmermann, D. Zlatanova, and L. Boitani. 2014. Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human- dominated landscapes. Science 346(6216):1517–1519. doi:10.1126/science.1257553.

325 Charnley, S., C. Carothers, T. Satterfield, A. Levine, M. R. Poe, K. Norman, J. Donatuto, S. J. Breslow, M. B. Mascia, P. S. Levin, X. Basurto, C. C. Hicks, C. Garcia- Quijano, and K. St. Martin. 2017. Evaluating the best available social science for natural resource management decision-making. Environmental Science & Policy 73:80–88. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.002.

Chatterjee, M. 1990. A report on Indian women from birth to twenty. National Institute of Public Cooperation and Child Development, New Delhi, India.

Chavez, A.S., and E. M. Gese. 2006. Landscape use and movements of wolves in relation to livestock in a wildland-agriculture matrix. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:1079– 1086. doi:10.2193/0022-541X(2006)70[1079:LUAMOW]2.0.CO;2.

Chestin, I. E., M. Y. Paltsyn, O. B. Pereladova, L. V. Iegorova, and J. P. Gibbs. 2017 Tiger re-establishment potential to former Caspian tiger (Panthera tigris virgata) range in Central Asia. Biological Conservation 205:42–51. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.11.014.

Choudhary, K. 2000. Development dilemma: Resettlement of Gir Maldharis. Economic & Political Weekly 35(30):2662–2668.

Chowdhury, A.N., R. Mondal, A. Brahma, and M. K. Biswas. 2008. Eco-psychiatry and environmental conservation: Study from Sundarban Delta, India. Environmental Health Insights 2:61–76.

Chowdhary, N., and V. Patel. 2008. The effect of spousal violence on women’s health: Findings from the Stree Arogya Shodh in Goa, India. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine 54(4):306–12. doi:10.4103/0022-3859.43514.

Chua, P., K. Bhavnani, and J. Foran. 2000. Women, culture, development: A new paradigm for development studies? Ethnic and Racial Studies 23(5):820–841. doi:10.1080/01419870050110913.

Chundawat, R. S, J. Merten, S. Agasti, K. Sharma, U. Raju, and J. Matthews. 2017. Value of wildlife tourism for conservation and communities: A study around four tiger reserves in Madhya Pradesh (Part I: Tourism infrastructure and revenue). Bagh Aap Aur VAN (BAAVAN) and TOFTigers.

Claeson, M., E. R. Bos, T. Mawji, and I. Pathmanathan. 2000. Reducing child mortality in India in the new millennium. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 78:1192–1199.

326 Collard, R. C. 2012. Cougar – human entanglements and the biopolitical un/making of safe space. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 30(1):23–42. doi:10.1068/d19110.

Collinge, S. K. 2009. Ecology of fragmented landscapes. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.

Conservation Assured. 2017. CA/TS Manual Version 1.4. March 2017, Singapore. Available at http://tigers.panda.org/reports/cats-manual/.

Corson, C., and K. I. MacDonald. 2012. Enclosing the global commons: The convention on biological diversity and green grabbing. The Journal of Peasant Studies 39(2):263–283. doi:10.1080/03066150.2012.664138.

Costa, S., C. Casanova, and P. Lee. 2017. What does conservation mean for women ? The case of the Cantanhez Forest National Park. Conservation & Society 15(2):168– 178. doi:10.4103/cs.cs_14_91.

Crang, P. 1992. The politics of polyphony: On reconfigurations in geographical authority. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 10(5):527–549. doi:10.1068/d100527.

Creel, S., D. Christianson, and P. Schuette. 2013. Glucocorticoid stress responses of lions in relationship to group composition, human land use, and proximity to people. Conservation Physiology 1(1):cot021. doi:10.1093/conphys/cot021.

Creel, S., J. E. Fox, A. Hardy, J. Sands, B. Garrott, and R. O. Peterson. 2002. Snowmobile activity and glucocorticoid stress responses in wolves and elk. Conservation Biology 16:809–814. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00554.x.

Crown, C. A., and K. F. Doubleday. 2017. ‘Man-eaters’ in the media: Representation of human-leopard interactions in India across local, national, and international media. Conservation and Society 15(3):304. doi:10.4103/cs.cs_15_92.

Cunningham, S.C., W. B. Ballard, and H. A. Whitlaw. 2001. Age structure, survival, and mortality of mountain lions in southeastern Arizona. The Southwestern Naturalist 46(1):76–80.

Curry-Lindahl, K. 1972. The brown bear (Ursus arctos) in Europe: Decline, present distribution, biology and ecology. In Bears – their biology and management 2:74– 83.

Czech, B., P. K. Devers, and P. R. Krausman. 2001. The relationship of gender to species conservation attitudes. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:187–194.

327 Dalton, R. 2006. Doing conservation by numbers. Nature 442:12. doi:10.1038/442012a.

Damania, R., J. Seidensticker, A. Whitten, G. Sethi, K. MacKinnon, A. Kiss, and A. Kushlin. 2008. A future for wild tigers. The World Bank, Washington, DC.

De, U. K., and K. Chauhan. 2015. Degradation of forest and biodiversity in Sariska National Park, India and the responsible factors. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development 14(4):398-426. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2472569.

Dedoose, version 7.0.23. 2016. Web application for managing, analyzing, and presenting qualitative and mixed method research data. www.dedoose.com.

Deleuze, G., and F. Guattari. 1987. A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Dembiec, D. P., R. J. Snider, and A. J. Zanella. 2004. The effects of transport stress on tiger physiology and behavior. Zoo Biology 23(4):335–346. doi:10.1002/zoo.20012.

DeMello, M. 2012. Animals and society: An introduction to human-animal studies. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Dempsey, J. 2010. Tracking grizzly bears in British Columbia’s environmental politics. Environment and Planning A 42(5):1138–1156. doi:10.1068/a42214.

———. 2011. The politics of nature in British Columbia’s great bear rainforest. Geoforum 42(2):211–221. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2010.12.003.

Department of Wildlife and National Parks Peninsular Malaysia. 2008. National Tiger Action Plan for Malaysia, 2008–2020. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Dettrick, Z., E. Jimenez-Soto, and A. Hodge. 2013. Socioeconomic and geographical disparities in under-five and neonatal mortality in Uttar Pradesh, India. Maternal and Child Health Journal 18(4):960–969. doi:10.1007/s10995-013-1324-8.

Dewi, S., B. Belcher, and A. Puntodewo. 2005. Village economic opportunity, forest dependence, and rural livelihoods in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. World Development 33(9):1419–1434. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.10.006.

Dewsbury, J. D., and S. Naylor. 2002. Practising geographical knowledge: Fields, bodies and dissemination. Area 34(3):253–260. doi:10.1111/1475-4762.00079.

Dhakal, N. P., K. C. Nelson, and J. D. Smith. 2011. Resident well-being in conservation resettlement: The case of Padampur in the Royal Chitwan National Park, 328 Nepal. Society and Natural Resources 24(6):597–615. doi:10.1080/08941921003709633.

Dhawan, N., D. Punetha, Y. Sinha, S. P. Gaur, S. L. Tyler, and F. B. Tyler. 1999. Family conflict/violence patterns in India. Psychology and Developing Societies 11(2):195–216. doi:10.1177/097133369901100205.

Dickman, A. J. 2010. Complexities of conflict: The importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict. Animal Conservation 13(5):458–466. doi:10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00368.x.

Dickson, B.G., J. S. Jenness, and P. Beier. 2005. Influence of vegetation, topography, and roads on cougar movement in southern California. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:264–276. doi:10.2193/0022- 541X(2005)069<0264:IOVTAR>2.0.CO;2.

Dinerstein, E., C. Loucks, A. Heydlauff, E. Wikramanayake, G. Bryja, J. Forrest, J. Ginsberg, S. Klenzendorf, P. Leimgruber, T. O’Brien, E. Sanderson, J. Seidensticker, and M. Songer. 2006. Setting priorities for the conservation and recovery of wild tigers: 2005–2015. A user’s guide. Worldwide Fund for Nature, Wildlife Conservation Society, Smithsonian Institution and Save the Tiger Fund, Washington, DC and New York, NY.

Dobash, R. E., and R. P. Dobash. 1998. Rethinking violence against women. London, UK: SAGE Publications.

Dobson, A. P. 2014. Yellowstone wolves and the forces that structure natural systems. PLoS Biology 12(12):e1002025. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002025.

Domínguez, G. 2013. Dowry thrives in modern India. Deutsche Welle 10 September.

Doss, C. 2013. Intrahousehold bargaining and resource allocation in developing countries. World Bank Research Observer 28(1):52–78. doi:10.1093/wbro/lkt001.

Doubleday, K. F. 2018. Human-tiger (re)negotiations: A case study from Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. Society & Animals 26: 1-23.

Doubleday, K. F. 2017. Nonlinear liminality: Human-animal relations on preserving the world’s most famous tigress. Geoforum 81:32–44. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.02.005.

Dougherty, E. M., D. C. Fulton, and D. H. Anderson. 2003. The influence of gender on the relationship between wildlife value orientations, beliefs, and the acceptability of lethal deer control in Cuyahoga Valley National Park. Society & Natural Resources 16(7):603–623. doi:10.1080/08941920309187. 329 Doughty C. E., A. Wolf, and Y. Malhi. 2013. The legacy of the Pleistocene megafauna extinctions on nutrient availability in Amazonia. Nature Geoscience 6(9):761– 764. doi:10.1038/NGEO1895.

Driscoll, C. A., I. Chestin, H. Jungius, O. Pereladova, Y. Darman, E. Dinerstein, J. Seidensticker, J. Sanderson, S. Christie, Shu-Jin Luo, S. Shrestha, Y. Zhuravlev, O. Uphyrkina, Y. V. Jhala. S. P. Yadav, D. G. Pikunov, N. Yamaguchi, D. E. Wildt, J. L. D. Smith, L. Marker, P. J. Nyhus, R. Tilson, D. W. Macdonald, and S. J. O'Brien. 2012. A postulate for tiger recovery: The case of the Caspian Tiger. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(6):2637–2643.

Dwyer, D., and J. Bruce, ed. 1988. A home divided: Women and income in the Third World. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Dwyer, J. F., and G. M. Childs. 2004. Movement of people across the landscape: A blurring of distinctions between areas, interests, and issues affecting natural resource management. Landscape and Urban Planning 69:153–164.

Edwards, R., and J. Holland. 2013. What is qualitative interviewing? London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Ehrlich, P. R., P. M. Kareiva, and G. C. Daily. 2012. Securing natural capital and expanding equity to rescale civilization. Nature 486(7401):68–73. doi:10.1038/nature11157.

Ellis, F. 1999. Rural livelihood diversity in developing countries: Evidence and policy implications. Natural Resource Perspectives 40:1–10.

Elwood, S. A., and D. G. Martin. 2000. “Placing” interviews: Location and scales of power in qualitative research. Professional Geographer 52(4):649–657. doi:10.1111/0033-0124.00253.

Emel, J. 1995. Are you man enough, big and bad enough? Ecofeminism and wolf eradication in the USA. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 13(6):707–734. doi:10.1068/d130707.

Emerson, R.M., R. I. Fretz, and L. L. Shaw. 1995. Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Engel, M. T., J. J. Vaske, A. J. Bath, and S. Marchini. 2017. Attitudes toward jaguars and pumas and the acceptability of killing big cats in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: An application of the Potential for Conflict Index 2. Ambio 46(5):604–612. doi:10.1007/s13280-017-0898-6.

330 Engelman, R. 2009. The state of world population 2009: Facing a changing world: Women, population and climate. New York, NY: United Nations Population Fund.

Estes, J. A., J. Terborgh, J. S. Brashares, M. E. Power, J. Berger, W. J. Bond, S. R. Carpenter, T. E. Essington, R. D. Holt, J. B. C. Jackson, R. J. Marquis, L. Oksanen, T. Oksanen, R. T. Paine, E. K. Pikitch, W. J. Ripple, S. A. Sandin, M. Scheffer, T. W. Schoener, J. B. Shurin, A. R. E. Sinclair, M. E. Soule, R. Virtanen, and D. A. Wardle. 2011. Trophic downgrading of planet Earth. Science 333(6040):301–306. doi:10.1126/science.1205106.

Evans, J., and P. Jones. 2011. The walking interview: Methodology, mobility and place. Applied Geography 31(2):849–858. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.09.005.

Everard, M. 2015. Community-based groundwater and ecosystem restoration in semi-arid north Rajasthan (1): Socio-economic progress and lessons for groundwater- dependent areas. Ecosystem services 16:125–135. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.011.

Fahn, M. S. 1990. Comment: Noncompliance with India's Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961: A society's reactions to imposed law. Temple International and Comparative Law Journal 4.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2002. Asian women in agriculture, environment and rural production: India. Sustainable Development Department, FAO, Rome, Italy.

Ferraro, G., and S. Andreatta. 2014. Cultural anthropology: An applied perspective. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Ferraro, K., and R. LaGrange. 1987. The measurement of fear of crime. Sociological Inquiry 57(1):70–101. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.1987.tb01181.x.

Ferraro, P.J., and R. L. Pressey. 2015. Measuring the difference made by conservation initiatives: Protected areas and their environmental and social impacts. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 370(1681). doi:10.1098/rstb.2014.0270.

Fikree, F. F., and O. Pasha. 2004. Role of gender in health disparity: The South Asian context. BMJ 328(7443):823–826. doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7443.823.

Flinton, F. 2003. Women, gender and ICDPs in Africa: Lessons learnt and experiences shared. London, UK: International Institute for Environment and Development.

331 Folbre, N. 1988. The black four of hearts: Toward a new paradigm of household economics. In A home divided: Women and income in the Third World, ed. D. Dwyer and J. Bruce, 248–289. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Fortmann, L. 1996. Gendered knowledge: Rights and space in two Zimbabwe villages. In Feminist political ecology: Global issues and local experiences, ed. D. Rocheleau, B. Thomas-Slayter, and E. Wangari, 211–223. New York, NY: Routledge.

Fontúrbel, F. E., and J. A. Simonetti. 2011. Translocations and human-carnivore conflicts: Problem solving or problem creating? Wildlife Biology 17(2):217–224. doi:10.2981/10-091.

Frank, B. 2016. Human–wildlife conflicts and the need to include tolerance and coexistence: An introductory comment. Society & Natural Resources 29(6):738– 743. doi:10.1080/08941920.2015.1103388.

Frankham, R. 2009. Genetic considerations in reintroduction programmes for top-order, terrestrial predators. In Reintroduction of top-order predators, ed. M. W. Hayward and M. J. Somers, 371–387. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

Frankham, R., J. D. Ballou, and D. E. Briscoe. 2010 Introduction to conservation genetics, 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Fredrikson, M., P. Annas, H. Fischer, and G. Wik. 1996. Gender and age differences in the prevalence of specific fears and phobias. Behaviour Research and Therapy 34(1):33–39. doi:10.1016/0005-7967(95)00048-3.

Frey, J. H., and A. Fontana. 1993. The group interview in social research. In Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art, ed. D. L. Morgan. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.

Gadd, M. E. 2005. Conservation outside of parks: Attitudes of local people in Laikipia, Kenya. Environmental Conservation 32(1):50–63. doi:10.1017/S0376892905001918.

Galetti, M., and R. Dirzo. 2013. Ecological and evolutionary consequences of living in a dafaunated world. Biological Conservation 163:1–6. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.04.020.

Galhano Alves, J. P. 1996. Man and tigers in Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. Down to Earth 5(11): 32-34. http://www.catsg.org/catsglib/recordetail.php?recordid=1776.

Garibaldi, A., and N. Turner. 2004. Cultural keystone species: Implications for ecological conservation and restoration. Ecology and Society 9(3):1. 332 Garikipati, S. The impact of lending to women on household vulnerability and women’s empowerment: Evidence from India. World Development 36(12): 2620-2642.

Garrote, G., G. López, J. M. Gil-Sánchez, E. Rojas, M. Ruiz, J. F. Bueno, S. de Lillo, J. Rodriguez-Siles, J. M. Martin, J. Perez, M. Garcia-Tardio, G. Valenzuela, and M. A. Simon. 2013. Human–felid conflict as a further handicap to the conservation of the critically endangered Iberian lynx. European Journal of Wildlife Research 59(2):287–290. doi:10.1007/s10344-013-0695-x.

Geertz, C. 1973. Thick description: Towards an interpretive theory of culture. In The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays, ed. C. Geertz, 3–30. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gehrt, S. D., J. L. Brown, and C. Anchor. 2011. Is the urban coyote a misanthropic synanthrope? The case from Chicago. Cities and Environment 4:1–23.

Gezon, L. L. 2006. Global visions, local landscapes: A political ecology of conservation, conflict, and control in northern Madagascar. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.

Ghosal, S., and D. J. Kjosavik. 2015. Living with leopards: Negotiating morality and modernity in western India. Society & Natural Resources 28(10):1092–1107. doi:10.1080/08941920.2015.1014597.

Ghosal, S., V. R. Athreya, J. D. C. Linnell, and P. O. Vedeld. 2013. An ontological crisis? A review of large felid conservation in India. Biodiversity and Conservation 22(11):2665–2681. doi:10.1007/s10531-013-0549-6.

Gibbs, A. 1997. Focus groups. Social Research Update 19(8):1–8.

Gillingham, S., and P. C. Lee. 1999. The impact of wildlife-related benefits on the conservation attitudes of local people around the Selous game reserve. Tanzania. Environmental Conservation 26:218–228.

———. 2003. People and protected areas: A study of local perceptions of wildlife crop- damage conflict in an area bordering the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania. Oryx 37(3):316–325. doi:10.1017/S0030605303000577.

Glaser, B.G. 1998. Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Global Tiger Initiative. 2010. Global Tiger Recovery Program: Executive Volume. The World Bank.

333 Goldman, M. J., J. R. De Pinho, and J. Perry. 2010. Maintaining complex relations with large cats: Maasai and lions in Kenya and Tanzania. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 15(5):332–346. doi: 10.1080/10871209.2010.506671.

Gondal, S. 2015. The dowry system in India – problem of dowry deaths. Journal of Indian Studies 1(1):37–41.

Goodrich, J. M. 2010. Human-tiger conflict: A review and call for comprehensive plans. Integrative Zoology 5(4):300–12. doi:10.1111/j.1749-4877.2010.00218.x.

Goodrich, J. M., D. G. Miquelle, E. N. Smirnov, L. L. Kerley, H. B. Quigley, and M. G. Hornocker. 2010. Spatial structure of Amur (Siberian) tigers (Panthera tigris altaica) on Sikhote-Alin Biosphere Zapovednik, Russia. Journal of Mammalogy 91(3):737–48. doi:10.1644/09-MAMM-A-293.1.

Goodyear, D. 2017. Lions of Los Angeles: Are the city’s pumas dangerous predators or celebrity guests? The New Yorker 13 February. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/13/lions-of-los-angeles.

Gopal, R., Q. Qureshi, M. Bhardwaj, R. J. Singh, and Y. V. Jhala. 2010. Evaluating the status of the endangered tiger Panthera tigris and its prey in Panna Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh, India. Oryx 44(03):383–389. doi:10.1017/S0030605310000529.

Gore, M. L., and J. S. Kahler. 2012. Gendered risk perceptions associated with human- wildlife conflict : Implications for participatory conservation . PLoS ONE 7(3):e32901. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032901.

Gore, M. L., B. A. Knuth, C. W. Scherer, and P. D. Curtis. 2008 Evaluating a conservation investment designed to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Conservation Letters 1(3):136–145. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2008.00017.x.

Government of India. 2006. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3). Vol. 1. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, India.

———. 2007.Office of the registrar general and census commissioner of India (Census of India). On-line metadata file associated with the results of the 2001 Census of India. http://www.censusindia.gov.in/Metadata/Metada.htm.

———. 2007. B. Report of the expert group on “Groundwater management and ownership” submitted to Planning Commission, September 2007. Government of India, Planning Commission, New Delhi, India.

———. 2013. Two-year progress of special newborn care units in India: A brief report 2013. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi, India.

334 ———. 2014. Sample Registration System Baseline Survey. http://www.censusindia.gov.in/vital_statistics/BASELINE%20TABLES07062016 .pdf.

Government of Rajasthan. 2004. Management plan for Sariska Tiger Reserve (2004– 2014). Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.

———. 2005. Securing the future: Rajasthan state empowered committee report on forest and wildlife management. Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.

Gray, T. N. E., R. Crouthers, K. Ramesh, J. Vattakaven, J. Borah, M. K. S. Pasha, T. Lim, C. Phan, R. Singh, B. Long, S. Chapman, and O. Keo. 2017. A framework for assessing readiness for tiger Panthera tigris reintroduction: A case study from eastern Cambodia. Biodiversity and Conservation 26(10):2383–2399.

Green, S. 2006. Tiger. London, UK: Reaktion Books.

Grey, M. 2000. Gender, justice and poverty in rural Rajasthan—Moving beyond the Silence. Feminist Theology 9(25):33–45. doi:10.1177/096673500000002504.

Griffith, B., J. M. Scott, J. W. Carpenter, and C. Reed. 1989. Translocation as a species conservation tool: Status and strategy. Science 245(4917):477–480. doi:10.1126/science.245.4917.477.

Griffith, M., J. Wolch, and U. Lassiter. 2002. Animal practices and the racialization of Filipinas in Los Angeles. Society and Animals 10(3):221–248. doi:10.1163/156853002320770056.

Grinder, M. I., and P. R. Krausman. 2001. Home range, habitat use, and nocturnal activity of coyotes in an urban environment. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:887–898. doi:10.2307/3803038.

Guest, G., and K. M. MacQueen. 2008. Reevaluating guidelines in qualitative research. In Handbook for team-based qualitative research, ed. G. Guest and K. M. MacQueen, 205–226. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

Gunatilake, H. M. 1998. The role of rural development in protecting tropical rainforests: Evidence from Sri Lanka. Journal of Environmental Management 53(3):273–292. doi:10.1006/ jema.1998.0201.

Gupta, R. K. 2009. Reintroduction of tigers in India: The Sariska and Panna perspectives. http://www.teriuniversity.ac.in/mct/pdf/new/assignment/Rajesh_Kumar_Gupta.pd f.

335 Gurung, B., J. L. D. Smith, C. McDougal, J. B. Karki, and A. Barlow. 2008. Factors associated with human-killing tigers in Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Biological Conservation 141(12):3069–78. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.09.013.

Gurung, C. P., T. M. Maskay, N. Poudel, Y. Lama, M. P. Wagle, A. Manandhar, S. Khaling, G. Thapa, S. Thapa, and E. D. Wikramanayke. 2006. The sacred Himalayan landscape: Conceptualizing, visioning, and planning for conservation of biodiversity, culture and livelihoods in the eastern Himalaya. In Conservation biology in Asia, ed. J. A. McNeely, T. M. McCarthy, A. Smith, O. L. Whittaker, and E. D. Wikramanayake, 10–20. Kathmandu, Nepal: Society for Conservation Biology.

Gururani, S. 2002. Forests of pleasure and pain: Gendered practices of labor and livelihood in the forests of the Kumaon Himalayas, India. Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography 9(3):229–243. doi:10.1080/0966369022000003842.

Gusset, M., S. J. Ryan, M. Hofmeyr, G. Van Dyk, H. T. Davies‐Mostert, J. A. Graf, C. Owen, M. Szykman, D. W. Macdonald, S. L. Monfort, D. E. Wildt, A. H. Maddock, M. G. L. Mills, R. Slotow, and M. J. Somers. 2008. Efforts going to the dogs? Evaluating attempts to re‐introduce endangered wild dogs in South Africa. Journal of Applied Ecology 45(1):100–108. doi:10.1111/j.1365- 2664.2007.01357.x.

Gustafsod, P. E. 1998. Gender differences in risk perception: Theoretical and methodological perspectives. Risk Analysis 18(6):805–811. doi:10.1111/j.1539- 6924.1998.tb01123.x.

Haddad, N. M., L. A. Brudvig, J. Clobert, K. F. Davies, A. Gonzalez, R. D. Holt, T. E. Lovejoy, J. O. Sexton, M. P. Austin, C. D. Collins, W. M. Cook, E. I. Damschen, R. M. Ewers, B. L. Foster, C. N. Jenkins, A. J. King, W. F. Laurance, D. J. Levey, C. R. Margules, B. A. Melbourne, A. O. Nicholls, J. L. Orrock, D. X. Song, and J. R. Townshend. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Science Advances 1(2):e1500052. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1500052.

Halarnkar, S. 2014. Leopard on the loose: Encounters with wildlife warning of accelerating crisis. Hindustan Times 27 February. http://www.hindustantimes.com/columns/leopard-on-loose-encounters-with- wildlife-warning-of-accelerating-crisis/story-ozvrKUg2sqTXfxIGftkzKN.html.

Hanski, I. 2005. The shrinking world: Ecological consequences of habitat loss. Vol. 14 of Excellence in ecology. Oldendorf/Luhe, Germany: International Ecology Institute.

336 Haq, R. 2013. Intersectionality of gender and other forms of identity: Dilemmas and challenges facing women in India. Gender in Management: An International Journal 28(3):171–184. doi:10.1108/GM-01-2013-0010.

Haraway, D. 2013. Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York, NY: Routledge.

Harcourt, A. H., S. A. Parks, and R. Woodroffe. 2001. Human density as an influence on species/area relationships: Double jeopardy for small African reserves? Biodiversity and Conservation 10(6):1011–1026. doi:10.1023/A:1016680327755.

Harding, L. 2014. What Good Is a Bear to Society? Society & Animals 22(2):174– 193. doi:101163/15685306-12341262.

Harvey, D. 1996. Justice, nature and the geography of difference. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Hautala, J. 2011. Cognitive proximity in international research groups. Journal of Knowledge Management 15(4):601–624. doi:10.1108/13673271111151983.

Haynes, G. 2012. Elephants (and extinct relatives) as earth-movers and ecosystem engineers. Geomorphology 157–158:99–107. doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.04.045.

Hayward, M. W., and M. Somers, ed. 2009. Reintroduction of top-order predators. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Hayward, M. W., J. Adendorf, J. O’Brien, A. Sholto-Douglas, C. Bissett, L. C. Moolman, P. Bean, A. Fogarty, D. Howarth, R. Slater, and G. I. Kerley. 2007. The reintroduction of large carnivores to the Eastern Cape, South Africa: An assessment. Oryx 41(2):205–213. doi:10.1017/S0030605307001767.

Hayward, M. W., J. O’Brien, and G. I. Kerley. 2007. Carrying capacity of large African predators: Predictions and tests. Biological Conservation 139(1):219–229. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2007.06.018.

Hazzah, L., S. Dolrenry, D. Kaplan, and L. Frank. 2013. The influence of park access during drought on attitudes towards wildlife and lion killing behavior in Massailand, Kenya. Environmental Conservation 40(3):266–276. doi:10.1017/S0376892913000040.

Hebblewhite, M., D. G. Miquelle, A. A. Murzin, V. V. Aramilev, and D. G. Pikunov. 2011 Predicting potential habitat and population size for reintroduction of the Far 337 Eastern leopards in the Russian Far East. Biological Conservation 144(10):2403– 2413. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.03.020.

Hedge, R., and T. Enters. 2000. Forest products and household economy: A case study from Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary, southern India. Environmental Conservation 27:250–259. doi:10.1017/S037689290000028X.

Hein, J. R., J. Evans, and P. Jones. 2008. Mobile methodologies: Theory, technology and practice. Geography Compass 2(5):1266–1285. doi:10.1111/j.1749- 8198.2008.00139.x.

Henschel, P. 2009. The status and conservation of leopards and other large carnivores in the Congo Basin, and the potential role of reintroduction. In Reintroduction of top-order predators, ed. M. W. Hayward and M. J. Somers, 206–237. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

Herda-Rapp, A., and T. L. Goedeke, ed. 2005. Mad about wildlife: Looking at social conflict over wildlife. Boston, MA: Brill.

Higgs, E. S. 1997. What good is ecological restoration? Conservation Biology 11(2):338– 348. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1997.95311.x.

Hill, C. M. 1998. Conflicting attitudes towards elephants around the Budongo Forest reserve, Uganda. Environmental Conservation 25(3):244–250.

———. 2004. Farmers’ perspectives of conflict at the wildlife–agriculture boundary: Some lessons learned from African subsistence farmers. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 9:279–286. doi:10.1080/10871200490505710.

Hinchliffe, S., and S. Whatmore. 2006. Living cities: Towards a politics of conviviality. Science as Culture 15:123–138. doi:10.1080/09505430600707988.

Hitchcock, A. 2001. Rising number of dowry deaths in India. World Socialist Web Site 4 July. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jul2001/ind-j04.shtml.

Hobbs, N. T. 1996. Modification of ecosystems by ungulates. Journal of Wildlife Management 60(4):695–713. doi:10.2307/3802368.

Hodgetts, T. 2017. Wildlife conservation, multiple biopolitics and animal subjectification: Three mammals’ tales. Geoforum 79:17–25. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.12.003.

Holmes, G., and D. Brockington. 2012. Protected areas – What people say about well- being. In Linking biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction, ed. D. Roe, J. Elliott, C. Sandbrook, and M. Walpole, 160–172 . London, UK: Wiley. 338 Hopcraft, J. G., H. Olff, and A. R. Sinclair. 2010. Herbivores, resources and risks: Alternating regulation along primary environmental gradients in savannas. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25(2):119–128. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.08.001.

Hovorka, A. 2012. Women/chickens vs. men/cattle: Insights on gender–species intersectionality. Geoforum 43(4):875–884. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.02.005.

Hunter, L. 2011. Carnivores of the world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Hunter, M. L., R. K. Hitchcock, and B. Wyckoff-Baird. 1990. Women and wildlife in Southern Africa. Conservation Biology 4(4):448–451. doi:10.1111/j.1523- 1739.1990.tb00321.x.

Hussain, S. A., S. C. Barthwal, R. Badola, S. M. T. Rahman, A. Rastogi, C. Tuboi, and A. K. Bhardwaj. 2012. An analysis of livelihood linkages of tourism in Kaziranga National Park, a natural world heritage site in India. Parks 18(2):32–43.

Hutchins, E. 1995. Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

The Indo-Swiss Collaboration in Biotechnology. 2003. Bioremediation of pesticide- contaminated soils and its effect on soil functionality. Annual Report.

India Times. 2017. Elephants and tigers kill one person everyday in India as humans continue to encroach jungles. India Times 1 August. https://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/elephants-tigers-kill-one-person- everyday-in-india-as-humans-continue-to-encroach-jungles-326975.html.

Indupalli, A. S., and P. A. Giri. 2017. Sexual violence among married women: An unspoken sting. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences 2(4):1248–1252. doi:10.5455/2320-6012.ijrms20141109.

Ingold, T. 2000. The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. London, UK: Psychology Press.

Inskip, C., M. Ridout, Z. Fahad, R. Tully, A. Barlow, C. G. Barlow, A. Islam, T. Roberts, and D. C. Macmillan. 2013. Human–tiger conflict in context: risks to lives and livelihoods in the Bangladesh Sundarbans. Human Ecology 41(2):169–186. doi:10.1007/s10745-012-9556-6.

Inskip, C., N. Carter, S. Riley, T. Roberts, and D. Macmillan. 2016. Toward human- carnivore coexistence: Understanding tolerance for tigers in Bangladesh. PLoS ONE 11(1):1–20. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0145913.

Inskip, C., Z. Fahad, R. Tully, T. Roberts, and D. Macmillan. 2014. Understanding carnivore killing behaviour: Exploring the motivations for tiger killing in the 339 Sundarbans, Bangladesh. Biological Conservation 180:42–50. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2014.09.028.

Inskip, D., and A. Zimmermann. 2009. Human–felid conflict: A review of patterns and priorities worldwide. Oryx 43:18–34. doi:10.1017/S003060530899030X.

Instone, L. 1998. The coyote’s at the door: Revisioning human-environment relations in the Australian context. Ecumene 5(4):452–467. doi:10.1177/096746089800500404.

International Union for Conservation of Nature. 1994. Categories and Criteria (version 2.3), IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical- documents/categories-and-criteria/1994-categories-criteria (accessed October 28, 2008).

International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, version 2012. http://www.iucnredlist.org (accessed January 12, 2012).

International Union for Conservation of Nature /Staff Selection Committee. 1998. Guidelines for Reintroductions. IUCN/SSC Reintroduction Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland.

International Union for Conservation of Nature /Staff Selection Committee. 2013. Guidelines for reintroductions and other conservation translocations. Gland, Switzerland.

International Union for Conservation of Nature / Staff Selection Committee Cat Specialist Group. 2007. Digital Library. http:// lynx.uio.no/lynx/catsglib/ (accessed December 1, 2007).

Jackson, P. 1999. The tiger in human consciousness and its significance in crafting solutions for tiger conservation. In Tiding the tiger: Tiger conservation in human- dominated landscapes, eds. J. Seidensticker, S. Christie, P. Jackson, 50-54. London: Cambridge University Press.

Jackson, P. 2000. Rematerializing social and cultural geography. Social & Cultural Geography 1(1):9–14. doi:10.1080/14649369950133449.

Jadhav, S., and M. Barua. 2012. The elephant vanishes: Impact of human-elephant conflict on people’s wellbeing. Health and Place 18(6):1356–1365. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2012.06.019.

Jain, P., and H. Sajjad. 2016. Household dependency on forest resources in the Sariska Tiger Reserve, India : Implications for management. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 35(1):60–74. doi:10.1080/10549811.2015.1099108. 340 Jalais, A. 2008. Unmasking the cosmopolitan tiger. Nature and Culture 3(1):25–40. doi:10.3167/nc.2008.030103.

Jampel, C. 2016. Cattle-based livelihoods, changes in the taskscape, and human-bear conflict in the Ecuadorian Andes. Geoforum 69: 84-93.

Jarosz, L. 1997. Women as rice sharecroppers in Madagascar. In Women working in the environment, ed. C. Sachs, 127–138. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.

———. 1999. A feminist political ecology perspective. Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography 6(4):390.

Jathanna, D., K. U. Karanth, and A. J. T. Johnsingh. 2003. Estimation of large herbivore densities in the tropical forests of southern India using distance sampling. Journal of Zoology 261:285–290. doi:10.1017/S0952836903004278.

Jayanti, G. 2009. 25 years of evolution: Restoring life and hope to a barren land. Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar, India.

Jędrzejewski, W., B. Jędrzejewska, B. Zawadzka, T. Borowik, S. Nowak, and R. W. Mysłajek. 2008. Habitat suitability model for Polish wolves based on long‐term national census. Animal Conservation 11(5):377–390. doi:10.1111/j.1469- 1795.2008.00193.x.

Jędrzejewski, W., R. Carreño, A. Sánchez-Mercado, K. Schmidt, M. Abarca, H. S. Robinson, E. O. Boede, R. Hoogesteijn, A. L. Viloria, H. Cerda, G. Velásquez, and S. Zambrano-Martinez. 2017. Human-jaguar conflicts and the relative importance of retaliatory killing and hunting for jaguar (Panthera onca) populations in Venezuela. Biological Conservation 209:524–532. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2017.03.025.

Jeffery, P. 2014. Supply-and-demand demographics: Dowry, daughter aversion and marriage markets in contemporary north India. Contemporary South Asia 22(2):171–188. doi:10.1080/09584935.2014.899982.

Jejeebhoy, S. J. 1998. Association between wife-beating and fetal and infant death: Impressions from a survey in rural India. Studies in Family Planning 29(3):300– 308. doi:10.2307/172276.

Jensen, M. A., R. West, P. Fleming, D. Paton, and K. Moseby. 2017. The role of individual differences in conservation: Effects on the success of a threatened mammal reintroduction. 12th International Mammalogical Congress, Perth, Western Australia.

341 Jhala, Y. V., Q. Qureshi, and R. Gopal. 2015. The status of tigers in India 2014. National Tiger Conservation Authority, New Delhi and the Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, India.

Joekes, S., N. Heyzer, R. Oniang'o, and V. Salles. 1994. Gender, environment and population. Development and Change 25(2):137–165. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 7660.1994.tb00512.x.

Johansson, M., and J. Karlsson. 2011. Subjective experience of fear and the cognitive interpretation of large carnivores. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 16(1):15–29. doi:10.1080/10871209.2011.535240.

Johnsingh, A. J. T., and M. D. Madhusudan. 2009. Tiger reintroduction in India: Conservation tool or costly dream. In Reintroduction of top-order predators, ed. M. W. Hayward and M. J. Somers, 146–163. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Johnsingh, A. J. T., B. Pandav, and M. D. Madhusudan. 2010. Status and conservation of tigers in the Indian subcontinent. In Tigers of the world: The science, politics, and conservation of Panthera tigris, ed. R. Tilson and P. J. Nyhus, 163–173. Burlington, MA: Academic Press.

Johnsingh, A. J. T., K. Sankar, and S. Mukherjee. 1997. Saving prime tiger habitat in Sariska Tiger Reserve. Cat News 27(3).

Johnson, W. E., E. Eizirik, M. Roelke-Parker, and S. J. O'Brien. 2001. Applications of genetic concepts and molecular methods to carnivore conservation. In Carnivore conservation, ed. J. L. Gittleman, S. M. Funk, D. W. Macdonald, and R. K. Wayne, 335– 358. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Jørgensen, D. 2015. Rethinking rewilding. Geoforum 65:482–488. doi:10.1016/geoforum.2014.11.016.

Joseph, J. 2017. Relocation of villages comes to a halt in Sariska. Times of India 30 January. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/relocation-of-villages- comes-to-a-halt-in-sariska/articleshow/56861893.cms.

———. 2017. Sariska likely to get another tigers. Times of India 11 February. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/sariska-likely-to-get-another- tiger/articleshow/57089240.cms.

Joy, M. 2011. Why we love dogs, eat pigs, and wear cows: An introduction to carnism. San Francisco, CA: Conari Press.

342 Kabra, A. 2003. Displacement and rehabilitation of an Adivasi Settlement, case of Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh. Economic & Political Weekly 38(29):3073– 3078. doi:10.2307/4413809.

Kalibo, H. W., and K. E. Medley. 2007. Participatory resource mapping for adaptive collaborative management at Mt Kasigau, Kenya. Landscape and Urban Planning 82(3):145–158. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.005.

Kaltenborn, B. P., T. Bjerke, and J. Nyahongo. 2006. Living with problem animals—self- reported fear of potentially dangerous species in the Serengeti region, Tanzania. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 11:397–409. doi:10.1080/10871200600984323.

Kapadia, K., ed. 2003. The violence of development: The politics of identity, gender and social inequalities in India. New York, NY: Zed Books.

Kaplan-Hallam, M., and N. J. Bennett. 2017. Adaptive social impact management for conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology 00:1–11. doi:10.1111/cobi.12985.

Karanth, K. U., and M. D. Madhusudan. 2002. Mitigating human-wildlife conflicts in southern Asia. In Making parks work: Identifying key factors to implementing parks in the tropics, ed. J. Terborgh, C. P. Van Schaik, M. Rao, and L. C. Davenport, 250–264. Covelo, CA: Island Press.

Karanth, K. U., and R. Gopal. 2005. An ecology-based policy framework for human-tiger coexistence in India. In People and wildlife: Conflict or coexistence?, ed. R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood, and A. Rabinowitz, 373–387. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Karanth, K.U., J. D. Nichols, N. S. Kumar, W. A. Link, and J. E. Hines. 2004. Tigers and their prey: Predicting carnivore densities from prey abundance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA 101(14):4854–4858. doi:10.1073/pnas.0306210101.

Kareiva, P., S. Watte, R. McDonald, and T. Boucher. 2007. Domesticated nature: Shaping landscapes and ecosystems for human welfare. Science 316(5833):1866– 1869. doi:10.1126/science.1140170.

Katz, E. 2000. Another look at restoration: Technology and artificial nature. In Restoring nature: Perspectives from the social sciences and humanities, ed. P. Gobster and R. B. Hull, 37–48. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Kaur, R. Across-regional marriages: Poverty, female migration and sex ration. Economic and Political Weekly 39(25): 2595-2603.

343 Kaur, R., and S. Garg. 2010. Domestic violence against women: A qualitative study in a rural community. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health 22(2):242–251. doi:10.1177//1010539509343949.

Kaushik, A. 2015. Ending exclusion of women for economic growth in Rajasthan: A feminist approach. Journal of Governance & Public Policy 5(1):67–72.

Kaushik, T. S. 2003. The essential nexus between transformative laws and culture: The ineffectiveness of dowry prohibition laws of India. Santa Clara Journal of International Law 1(1).

Kearns, R. A. 2005. Knowing seeing? Undertaking observational research. In Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography, ed. I. Hay , 2nd ed. Victoria, Australia: Oxford University Press.

Keleman, A., U. M. Goodale, and K. Dooley. 2010. Conservation and the agricultural frontier: Collapsing conceptual boundaries. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 29(6– 8):539–559. doi:10.1080/10549811.2010.485676.

Kellert, S. R., and J. K. Berry. 1987. Attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors toward wildlife as affected by gender. Wildlife Society Bulletin 15(3):363–371.

Kemf, E. 1993. Indigenous peoples and protected areas: The law of mother Earth. London, UK: Earthscan.

Khumalo, K. E., and L. A. Yung. 2015. Women, human–wildlife conflict, and CBNRM: Hidden impacts and vulnerabilities in Kwandu conservancy, Namibia. Conservation and Society 13(3):232–43. doi:10.4103/0972-4923.170395.

Kissui, B. M. 2008. Livestock predation by lions, leopards, spotted hyenas, and their vulnerability to retaliatory killing in the Maasai steppe, Tanzania. Animal Conservation 11(5):422–432. doi:10.1111/j.1469-1795.2008.00199.x.

Knight, J., ed. 2000. Natural enemies: People-wildlife conflicts in anthropological perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.

Kosek, J. 2010. Ecologies of empire: On the new uses of the honeybee. Cultural Anthropology 25(4):650–678. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1360.2010.01073.x.

Kumar, D. 1992. The affirmative action debate in India. Asian Survey 32(3):290–302. doi:10.2307/2644940.

Kumar, R. 1989. Brides are not for burning: Dowry victims in India. Delhi, India: Radiant Publishers.

344 Kumar S., S. D. Gupta, S. Bhatt, A. George, and A. Bhattacharya. 2005. Men, masculinity and domestic violence against women. Jaipur, India: Indian Institute for Health Management and Research.

Kuriyan, R. 2002. Linking local perceptions of elephants and conservation: Samburu pastoralists in northern Kenya. Society and Natural Resources 15(10):949–957. doi:10.1080/08941920290107675.

Latour, B. 1993. We have never been modern. Cambridge,UK: Harvard University Press.

Lawson, V. 1999. Questions of migration and belonging: Understandings of migration under neoliberalism in Ecuador. Population, Space and Place 5(4):261–276. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1220(19907/08)5:4<261::AID-IJPG151>3.0.CO;2-5.

Leach, M. 1992. Women’s crops in women’s spaces: Gender relations in Mende rice farming. In Bush base, forest farm: Culture, environment and development, ed. E. Croll and D. Parkin, 76–97. New York, NY: Routledge.

Lee, P. C. 2004. Who wins? Human-primate conflict in the context of conservation, development and gender (abstract). Primate Eye 84:15–16.

Leisher C., L. Samberg, P. van Buekering, and M. Sanjayan. 2013. Focal areas for measuring the human well-being impacts of a conservation initiative. Sustainability 5(3):997–1010. doi:10.3390/su5030997.

Leslie, J. 1998. Dowry, dowry deaths and violence against women: A journey of discovery. In South Asians and the dowry problem, ed. W. Menski, 21–36. London, UK: Trentham Books.

Lewis, M. 2005. Indian science for Indian tigers?: Conservation biology and the question of cultural values. Journal of the History of Biology 32(2): 185-207.

Lindsey, P. A., R. R. Alexander, J. T. du Toit, and M. G. L. Mills. 2005. The potential contribution of ecotourism to African wild dog Lycaon pictus conservation in South Africa. Biological Conservation 123(2005):339–348.

Lindzey, F. G., B. B. Ackerman, D. Barnhurst and T. P. Hemker. 1988. Survival rates of mountain lions in southern Utah. The Journal of Wildlife Management 52(4):664– 667. doi:10.2307/3800928.

Linnell, J. D., E. G. Nilsen, and U. S. Lande. 2005. Zoning as a means of mitigating conflicts with large carnivores: Principles and reality. In People and wildlife: Conflict or co-existence?, ed. R. Woodruffe, S. Thirgood, and A. Rabinowitz, 162–175. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

345 Lofgren, O. 2007. Our friends in nature: Class and animal symbolism. In Animals and society, ed. R. Wilkie and D. Inglis, Vol. 2, 82–109. New York, NY: Routledge.

Logan, T. D., and R. Arunachalam. 2014. Is there dowry inflation in south Asia? An assessment of the evidence. Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History 47(2):81–94. doi:10.1080/01615440.2014.880642.

Longhurst, R. 2016. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. In Key methods in geography, ed. N. Clifford, M. Cope, T. Gillespie, and S. French, 3rd ed., 143– 156. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Lopez, B. 1978. Of Wolves and Men. New York, NY: Scribner.

Lorimer, H. 2006. Herding memories of humans and animals. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 24 (4):497–518. doi:10.1068/d381t.

Lorimer, J. 2007. Nonhuman charisma. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 25:911–932. doi:10.1068/d71j.

———. 2011. Nature – part II: The rise of multinaturalism. In The Wiley- Blackwell companion to human geography, ed. J. Agnew and J. Duncan, 197–208. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Lovell, R., K. Husk, C. Cooper, W. Stahl-Timmins, and R. Garside. 2015. Understanding how environmental enhancement and conservation activities may benefit health and wellbeing: A systematic review. BMC public health 15(1):864. doi:10.1186/s12889-015-2214-3.

Loveridge, A. J., G. Hemson, Z. Davidson, and D. Macdonald. 2010. African lions on the edge: Reserve boundaries as “attractive sinks”. In Biology and conservation of wild felids, ed. D. W. MacDonald and A. J. Loveridge, 283–304. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Loveridge, A. J., S. W. Wang, L. G. Frank, and J. Seidensticker. 2010. People and wild felids: Conservation of cats and management of conflict. In Biology and conservation of wild felids, ed. D. W. MacDonald and A. J. Loveridge, 161–195. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Lulka, D. 2004. Stabilizing the herd: Fixing the identity of nonhumans. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 22(3):439–463. doi:10.1068/d298.

Lynam, A. J. 2010. Securing a future for wild Indochinese tigers: Transforming tiger vacuums into tiger source sites. Integrative Zoology 5(4):324–334. doi:10.1111/j.1749-4877.2010.00220.x.

346 Macdonald, D. W. 2009. Lessons learnt and plans laid: Seven awkward questions for the future of reintroductions. In Reintroduction of top-order predators, ed. M. W. Hayward and M. Somers, 411–448. Hoboken, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Macdonald, D. W., A. J. Loveridge, and K. Nowell. 2010. Dramatis personae: An introduction to wild felids. In Biology and conservation of wild felids, ed. D. W. MacDonald and A. J. Loveridge, 161–195. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

MacDonald, D. W., and C. Sillero-Zubiri. 2002. Large carnivores and conflict: Lion conservation in context. In Lion conservation research. Workshop 2: Modelling conflict ed. A. J. Loveridge, T. Lynam, and D.W. Macdonald, 1–8. Oxford, UK: Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, University of Oxford.

Mackenzie, A. F. D. 1998. Land, ecology and resistance in Kenya, 1880–1952. Portsmouth, NH: Heinmann.

Madden, F. 2004. Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: Global perspectives on local efforts to address human-wildlife conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 9(4): 247-257.

Madhusudan, M. D. 2003. Living amidst large wildlife: Livestock and crop depredation by large mammals in the interior villages of Bhadra Tiger Reserve, south India. Environmental Management 31(4):466–475. doi:10.1007/s00267-002-2790-8.

Madhusudan, M. D., and C. Mishra. 2003. Why big, fierce animals are threatened: Conserving large mammals in densely populated landscapes. In Battles over nature: Science and the politics of conservation, ed. V. Saberwal and M. Rangarajan, 31–55. Columbia, MO: South Asia Books.

Maehr, D. S. 2001. Large mammal restoration: Too real to be possible? In Large mammal restoration: Ecological and sociological challenges in the 21st century, ed. D. S. Maehr, R. F. Noss, and J. L. Larkin, 345–354. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Mahendra, S. K. 2016. Ban on beef and the politics of food: An intercultural analysis. New Life Theological Journal 6(1):84–94.

Malhotra, A., R. Vanneman, and S. Kishor. 1995. Fertility, dimensions of patriarchy, and development in India. Population and Development Review 21:281–305.

Malterud, K. 1998. Kvalitativa metoder i medicinsk forskning (Qualitative methods in medical research). Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.

347 Mamo, G., E. Sjaastad, and P. Vedeld. 2007. Economic dependence on forest resources: A case from Dendi District, Ethiopia. Forest Policy & Economics 9:916–927. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2006.08.001.

Mansfield, B. 2003. From catfish to organic fish: Making distinctions about nature as cultural economic practice. Geoforum 34(3):329–342. doi:10.1016/S0016- 7185(03)00004-6.

Marchini, S., and D. W. Macdonald. 2012. Predicting ranchers’ intention to kill jaguars: Case studies in Amazonia and Pantanal. Biological Conservation 147(1):213–221. doi:10.1016/biocon.2012.01.002.

Marino, A. C. Braschi, S. Ricci, V. Salvatori, and P. Ciucci. 2016. Ex post and insurance- based compensation fail to increase tolerance for wolves in semi-agricultural landscapes of central Italy. European Journal of Wildlife Research 62(2): 227- 240.

Marker, L. L., M. G. L. Mills, and D. W. Macdonald. 2003. Factors influencing perceptions of conflict and tolerance toward cheetahs on Namibian farmlands. Conservation Biology 17(5):1290–1298. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.02077.x.

Martin, S. L., B. Kilgallen, A. O. Tsui, K. Maitra, K. K. Singh, and L. L. Kupper. 1999. Sexual behaviors and reproductive health outcomes: Associations with wife abuse in India. JAMA 282(20):1967–1972.

Mascia, M. B., J. P. Brosius, T. A. Dobson, B. C. Forbes, L. Horowitz, M. A. McKean, and N. J. Turner. 2003. Conservation and Social Sciences. Conservation Biology 17(3): 649-650.

Masozera, M. K., and J. Alavalapati. 2004. Forest dependency and its implications for protected areas management: A case study from the Nyungwe Forest Reserve, Rwanda. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 19:85–92. doi:10.1080/14004080410034164.

Mathur, K. 2004. Countering gender violence: Initiatives towards collective action in Rajasthan. New Delhi, India: SAGE Publications.

———. 2007. Body as site, body as space: Bodily integrity and women’s empowerment in India. IDSJ working paper series, 148. Institute of Developmental Studies, Jaipur, India.

Mazoomdaar, J. 2005. No Evidence of Tigers in Sariska – WWF India. India Express February 15.

348 McDowell, L. 2016. Social class: Position, place, culture, and meaning. In The Wiley- Blackwell companion to cultural geography, ed. N. C. Johnson, R. H. Schein, and J. Winders, 88–104. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

McEwen, B. S. 2007. Physiology and neurobiology of stress and adaptation: Central role of the brain. Physiological Reviews 8:873–904. doi:10.1152/physrev.00041.2006.

McKenzie-Mohr, D. 2011. Fostering sustainable behaviour: An introduction to community-based social marketing. 3rd ed. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers.

McNeely, J. A. 1997. Conservation and the future: Trends and options towards the year 2025. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

Mehta, J. N. and S. R. Kellert. 1998. Local attitudes toward community-based conservation policy and programmes in Nepal. Environmental Conservation 25(4):320–333. doi:10.1017/S037689299800040X.

Meine, C. 1988. Aldo Leopold: His life and work. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Meinzen-Dick, R., C. Kovarik, and A.R. Quisumbing. 2014. Gender and sustainability. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 39:29–55. doi:10.1146/annurev- environ-101813-013240.

Mencher, J. Women’s work and poverty: Women’s contribution to household maintenance in South Asia. In A home divided: Women and income in the Third World, eds. D. Dwyer and J. Bruce, 99-119. Stanford, CA.: Stanford University Press.

Menon, P. 1999. Dowry deaths in Bangalore. Frontline 16(17):64–73.

Menski, W. 1998. South Asians and the dowry problem. Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Trentham Books and School of Oriental & African Studies.

Meriggi, A., and S. Lovari. 1996. A review of wolf predation in southern Europe: Does the wolf prefer wild prey to livestock? Journal of Applied Ecology 33(6):1561– 1571. doi:10.2307/2404794.

Merry, S. E. 2001. Rights, religion and community approaches to violence against women in the context of globalization. Law & Society Review 35(1):39–88. doi:10.2307/3185386.

Michalski, F., R. L. P Boulhosa, A. Faria, and C. A. Peres. 2006. Human-wildlife conflicts in a fragmented Amazonian forest landscape: Determinants of large felid 349 depredation on livestock. Animal Conservation 9(2):179–188. doi:10.1111/j.1469- 1795.2006.00025.x.

Miller, D., and R. Jackson. 1994. Livestock and snow leopards: Making room for competing users on the Tibetan Plateau. In Proceedings of the seventh international snow leopard symposium, ed. J. L. Fox and D. Jizeng, 315–328. Seattle, WA: International Snow Leopard Trust.

Ministry of Law and Justice, government of India. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013, Chapter III (Section 376). http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Ordinances/Criminal%20Law%20Ordina nce%202013.pdf.

Miquelle, D. G., E. N. Smirnov, T. W. Merrill, A. E. Myslenkov, H .B. Quigley, M. G. Hornocker, and B. Schleyer. 1999. Hierarchical spatial analysis of Amur tiger relationships to habitat and prey. In Riding the Tiger: Tiger conservation in human-dominated landscapes, ed. J. Seidensticker, S. Christie, and P. Jackson, 71–99. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Miquelle, D., I. Nikolaev, J. Goodrich, B. Litvinov, E. Smirnov, and E. Suvorov. 2005. Searching for the coexistence recipe: A case study of conflicts between people and tigers in the Russian Far East. In People and wildlife: Conflict or coexistence? ed. R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood, and A. Rabinowitz, 305–322. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Mishra, H. R., C. Wemmer, J. L. D. Smith, and P. Wegge. 1992. Biopolitics of saving Asian mammals in the wild: Balancing conservation with human needs in Nepal. In Mammal conservation in developing countries: A new approach, occasional paper series C, ed. P. Wegge. As, Norway: Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.

MOEF. 2005. Joining the dots, report of the tiger task force. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, New Delhi, India.

Mollett, S., and C. Faria. 2013. Messing with gender in feminist political ecology. Geoforum 45(2013):116–125. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.10.009.

Mondal, K., S. Gupta, S. Bhattacharjee, Q. Qureshi, and K. Sankar. 2012. Response of leopards to re-introduced tigers in Sariska Tiger Reserve, Western India. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation 4(5):228–236. doi:10.5897/IJBC12.014.

350 Morgan, D., and R. Kreuger. 1993. When to use focus groups and why. In Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art, ed. D. L. Morgan. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Morelli, A. 2001. Principes élémentaires de propagande de guerre (Basic principles of war propaganda). Brussels, Belgium: Editions Aden.

Moser, A. 2007. Gender and indicators – overview report. New York, NY: United Nations Development Programme.

Moss, P., and I. Dyck. 1999. Body, corporeal space, and legitimating chronic illness: Women diagnosed with M.E. Antipode 31(4):372–397. doi:10.1111/1467- 8330.00110.

Mukadasi, B., and M. Nabalegwa. 2007. Gender mainstreaming and community participation in plant resource conservation in Buzaya county, Kamuli district, Uganda. African Journal of Ecology 45(1):7–12.

Mullin, M. H. 1999. Mirrors and windows: Sociocultural studies of human-animal relationships. Annual Review of Anthropology 28:201–224. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.28.1.201.

Murthi, M., A. Guio, and J. Dreze. 1995. Mortality, fertility, and gender bias in India: A district-level analysis. Population and Development Review 21(4):745–782. doi:10.2307/2137773.

Muruthi, P. 2005. Human-wildlife conflict: Lessons learned from AWFs African Heartland. African Wildlife Foundation. http://www.awf.org/sites/default/files/media/Resources/Books%20and%20Papers/ AWF_Human_Wildlife_Conflict.pdf.

Nabane, N., and G. Matzke. 1997. A gender-sensitive analysis of a community-based wildlife utilization initiative in Zimbabwe’s Zambezi valley. Society and Natural Resources 10 (6):519–535. doi:10.1080/08941929709381050.

Nadagouda, S. G., S. Krishnaswamy, and R. Aruna. 1992. Influence of socioeconomic factors on the employed Hindu woman's attitude toward dowry. Indian Journal of Social Work 53:679–688.

Nangia, A. 1997. The Tragedy of bride burning in India: How should the law address it? Brooklyn Journal of International Law 22:637–694.

Narain, S., S. Singh, H. S. Panwar, and M. Gadgil. 2005. Joining the dots: Report of the tiger task force, Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (Project Tiger). www.projecttiger.nic.in. 351 Narayan, U. 2002. Contesting cultures: Westernization, respect for cultures, and Third World feminists. In Development: A cultural studies reader, ed. S. Schech and J. Haggis, 225–238. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Naughton-Treves L. 1997. Farming the forest edge: Vulnerable people and places around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Geographical Review 87(1):127–46. doi:10.2307/215656.

Naughton-Treves, L., and A. Treves. 2005. Socio-ecological factors shaping local support for wildlife: Crop-raiding by elephants and other wildlife in Africa. In People and wildlife: Conflict or co- existence?, ed. R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood, and A. Rabinowitz, 252–277. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Naughton-Treves, L., A. Treves, and R. Grossberg. 2003. Paying for tolerance: Rural citizens’ attitudes toward wolf depredation and compensation. Conservation Biology 17(6):1500–1511. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00060.x.

Nayak, M., C. Byrne, M. Martin, and A. Abraham. 2003. Attitudes towards violence against women: A cross-nation study. Sex Roles 49(7/8):333–342. doi:10.1023/A:1025108103617.

Neumann, R. P. 1998. Imposing wilderness: Struggles over livelihood and nature preservation in Africa. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Neumann, R. P. 2004. Moral and discursive geographies in the war on biodiversity in Africa. Political Geography 23(7): 813-837.

Newman, A. 1992. For richer, for poorer, til death do us part: India's response to dowry deaths. ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law 15(109).

Niamir-Fuller, M. 1994. Women livestock managers in the Third World: Focus on technical issues related to gender roles in livestock production. Staff Working Paper 18, International Fund for Agricultural Development, Rome, Italy.

Nyhus, P. J., and R. Tilson. 2004. Characterizing human-tiger conflict in Sumatra, Indonesia: Implications for conservation. Oryx 38(1):68–74. doi:10.1017/S0030605304000110.

———. 2010. Panthera tigris vs Homo sapiens: Conflict, coexistence, or extinction. In Tigers of the world: The science of politics, and conservation of panther tigris, ed. R. Tilson and P. Nyhus. 2nd ed. London, UK: Elsevier.

Nyhus, P. J., E. D. Caitlin, M. C. Ambrogi, S. E. Hart, C. Caroll, and R. Tilson. 2010. Human–tiger conflict over time. In Tigers of the world: The science, politics, and

352 conservation of Panthera tigris, ed. R. Tilson and P. Nyhus, 132–135. 2nd ed. Burlington, MA: Academic Press.

Odden, M., V. Athreya, S. Rattan, and J. D. C. Linnell. 2014. Adaptable neighbours: Movement patterns of GPS-collared leopards in human dominated landscapes in India. PLoS ONE 9:e112044. doi:10.13714/journal.pone.0112044.

Ogra, M. V. 2008. Human–wildlife conflict and gender in protected area borderlands: A case study of costs, perceptions, and vulnerabilities from Uttarakhand (Uttaranchal), India. Geoforum 39:1408–1422. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.12.004.

———. 2009. Attitudes toward resolution of human-wildlife conflict among forest- dependent agriculturalist near Rajaji National Park, India. Human Ecology 37:161–177. doi:10.1007/s10745-099-9222-9.

Ojalammi, S., and N. Blomley. 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.

Onorato, D. P., and E. C. Hellgren. 2001. Black bear at the border: Natural recolonization of the Trans-Pecos. In Large mammal restoration: Ecological and sociological challenges in the 21st century, ed. D. S. Maehr, R. F. Noss, and J. L. Larkin, 245– 259. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Osborn, F.V., and C.M. Hill. 2005. Techniques to reduce crop loss: Human and technical dimensions in Africa. In People and wildlife: Conflict or co-existence?, ed. R. Woodroffe, S. Thrigood, and A. Rabinowitz, 49–71. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Owen-Smith, N. 1987. Pleistocene extinctions: The pivotal role of megaherbivores. Palaeobiology 13(3):351–362. doi:10.1017/S0094837300008927.

Pandey, M. 2017. India to get new tiger hubs, rise in big cat population expected. India Today 4 June. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/india-tiger-population-national- tiger-conservation-authority-tiger-census-tiger-reserve-national- parks/1/970309.html.

Pandey, S. 2008. Linking ecodevelopment and biodiversity conservation at the Great Himalayan National Park, India: Lessons learned. Biodiversity and Conservation 17(7):1543–1571. doi:10.1007/s10531-008-9365-9.

353 Panta, M., K. Kim, and C. Lee. 2009. Households’ characteristics, forest resources dependency and forest availability in central Terai of Nepal. Journal of Korean Forestry Society 98(5):548–557.

Papadopoulos, R. K. 2009. Jung and otherings in South Africa. In Cape Town 2007– journeys, encounters: Clinical, communal, cultural: Proceedings of the 17th congress of the international association for analytical psychology, ed. P. Bennett, 76–85. Einsieden, Switzerland: Daimon.

Paquet, P. C., and L. N. Carbyn. 2003. Gray wolf. In Wild mammals of North America: Biology, management, and conservation, ed. G. A. Feldhamer, B. C. Thompson, and J. A. Chapman, 2nd ed., 482–510. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.

Patel, V., B. R. Kirkwood, S. Pednekar, B. Pereira, P. Barros, J. Fernandes, J. Datta, H. Weiss, and D. Mabey. 2006. Gender disadvantage and reproductive health risk factors for common mental disorders in women: A community survey in India. Archives of General Psychiatry 2006(63):404–13. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.63.4.404.

Peace, A. 2009. Ponies out of place? Wild animals, wilderness and environmental governance. Anthropological Forum 19(1):53–72. doi:10.1080/00664670802695616.

Pearson, R., and C. Jackson, ed. 1998. Feminist visions of development: Gender analysis and policy. New York, NY: Routledge.

Peet, R., and M. Watts, ed. 1996. Liberation ecologies: Environment, development, social movements. New York, NY: Routledge.

Perez, E., and L. F. Pacheco. 2006. Damage by large mammals to subsistence crops within a protected area in a montane forest of Bolivia. Crop Protection 25(9):933–939. doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2005.12.005.

Peterson, M. N., J. L. Birckhead, K. Leong, M. J. Peterson, and T. R. Peterson. 2010. Rearticulating the myth of human-wildlife conflict. Conservation Letters 3: 74- 82.

Peterson, R. O., J. A. Vucetich, J. K. Bump, and D. W. Smith. 2014. Trophic cascades in a multicausal world: Isle Royale and Yellowstone. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 45:325–345. doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-120213- 091634.

354 Philo, C. 1998. Animals, geography and the city: Notes on inclusions and exclusions. In Animal geographies: Place, politics and identity in the nature-culture borderlands, ed. J. Wolch and J. Emel, 27–50. London, UK: Verso.

Philo, C., and C. Wilbert, ed. 2004. Animal spaces, beastly places: New geographies of human-animal relations. New York, NY: Routledge.

Pimm, S. L., C. N. Jenkins, R. Abell, T. M. Brooks, J. L. Gittleman, L. N. Joppa, P. H. Raven, C. M. Roberts, and J. O. Sexton. 2014. The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344(6187):1246752. doi:10.1126/science.1246752.

Platt, R. V., V. M. Ogra, R. Badola, and S. A. Hussain. 2016. Conservation-induced resettlement as a driver of land cover change in India: An object-based trend analysis. Applied Geography 69:75–86. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.02.006.

Plumwood, V. 2003. Decolonizing relationships with nature. In Decolonizing nature: Strategies for conservation in a post-colonial era, ed. W. M. Adams and M. Mulligan, 51–78. London, UK: Earthscan.

———. 2012. The eye of the crocodile. Canberra, Austtralia: Australian National University E Press.

Polisar, J., I. Maxit, D. Scognamillo, L. Farrell, M. E. Sunquist, and J. F. Eisenberg. 2003. Jaguars, pumas, their prey base, and cattle ranching: Ecological interpretations of a management problem. Biological conservation 109(2):297– 310. doi:10.1016/s0006-3207(02)00157-x.

Ponsonby, A. 1928. Falsehood in war-time. London, UK: Allen and Unwin.

Pradhan, K., K. Deka, G. Jayaraman, and D. Datta. 2015. Beef, ban and bloodshed. India Today 7 October. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/articlePrint.jsp?aid=493111 (accessed 21 July, 2017).

Prakash, N. 2011. Domestic violence against women in rural Rajasthan, India: A sociological analysis. In Democracies: Challenges to societal health, ed. B. Wejnert, 89–102. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Pratt, G. 1999. From registered nurse to registered nanny: Discursive geographies of Filipina domestic workers in Vancouver, BC. Economic Geography 75(3):215– 236. doi:10.1111/j.1944-8287.1999.tb00077.x.

PTI. 2015. Delhi Child Rape: BJP leader Shyam Jaju calls rape ‘small incident’. DNA India October 17.

355 Pulliam, H. R., and B. J. Danielson. 1991. Sources, sinks, and habitat selection: A landscape perspective on population dynamics. American Nationalist 137:S50– S66. doi:10.1086/285139.

Pullin, A.S. 2002. Protecting Species through ex-situ conservation and reintroduction. In Conservation Biology 227–251. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Qin, Y., P. J. Nyhus, C. L. Larson, C. J. W. Carroll, J. Munitgering, T. D. Dalmer, L. Jun, and R. F. Tilston. 2015. An assessment of South China tiger reintroduction potential in Hupingshan and Houhe National Nature Reserves, China. Biological Conservation 182:72–86. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2014.10.036.

Quigley, H. Q., and S. Herrero. 2005. Characterization and prevention of attacks on humans. In People and wildlife: Conflict or co-existence?, ed. R. Woodroffe, S. Thrigood, and A. Rabinowitz, 27–48. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Qureshi, Q., R. Gopal, K. Shirish, S. Basu, A. Mitra, and Y. V. Jhala. 2006. Evaluating tiger habitat at the Tehsil level. T R No. 06/001. Project Tiger Directorate, Government of India, New Delhi and Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, India.

Radel, C. 2012. Gendered livelihoods and the politics of socio-environmental identity: Women’s participation in the conservation projects in Calakmul, Mexico. Gender, Place and Culture 19(1):61–82. doi:101080/0966369X.2011.617905.

Ramesh, K., M. Malviya, G. Umapathy, and K. Sankar. 2015. Evaluation of physiological stress and reproductive potential in reintroduced tiger populations in Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan and Panna Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh. Final Report. Wildlife Institute of India and National Tiger Conservation Authority, India.

Rangarajan, M. 2013. Animals with rich histories: The case of the lions of Gir Forest, Gujarat, India. History and Theory 52(4):109–127. doi:10.1111/hith.10690.

Rangarajan, M., and G. Shahabuddin. 2006. Displacement and relocation from protected areas: Towards a biological and historical synthesis. Conservation and Society 4(3):359.

Rao, V. 1993. The rising price of husbands : A hedonic analysis of dowry increases in rural India. The Journal of Political Economy 101(4):666–677. doi:10.1086/261892.

356 Rastogi, A., G. M. Hickey, R. Badola, and S. A. Hussain. 2012. Saving the superstar: A review of the social factors affecting tiger conservation in India. Journal of Environmental Management 113:328–340. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.10.003.

Rathore, M. S. 2003. Community based management of ground water resources: A case study of Arwari River Basin. Institute of Development Studies, Jaipur, India.

Rathore, M. S. 2005. Groundwater exploration and augmentation efforts in Rajasthan – a review. Institute of Development Studies, Jaipur, India.

Rathore, N. S., and N. Verma. 2013. Impact of climate change in the southern Rajasthan, India. International Journal of Water Resources and Arid Environments 2(1):45– 50.

Ray, J. C., K. H. Redford, J. Berger, and R. Steneck. 2005. Conclusion: Is large carnivore conservation equivalent to biodiversity conservation and how can we achieve both? In Large carnivores and the conservation of biodiversity, ed. J. C. Ray, K. H. Redford, R. S. Steneck, and J. Berger, 400–427. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Reddy, P. A., K. Ramesh, M. S. Sarkar, and S. Sisinthy. 2016. Significance of mate selection and adult sex ratio in tiger reintroduction / reinforcement programs. Journal of Zoology 299(2):132–141. doi:10.1111/jzo.12331.

Reddy, S. R. C., and S. P. Chakravarty. 1999. Forest dependence and income distribution in a subsistence economy: Evidence from India. World Development 27(7):1141– 1149. doi:10.1016/ S0305-750X(99)00057-1.

Reed, M. G., and S. Christie. 2009. Environmental geography: Ee’re not quite home – reviewing the gender gap. Progress in Human Geography 33(2):246–255.

Reznick, D. N., C. K. Ghalambor, and K. Crooks. 2008. Experimental studies of evolution in guppies: A model for understanding the evolutionary consequences of predator removal in natural communities. Molecular Ecology 17(1):97–107. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03474.x.

Ripple, W. J., and R. L. Beschta. 2007. Restoring Yellowstone’s aspen with wolves. Biological Conservation 138(3):514–519. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2007.05.006.

Ripple, W. J., J. A. Estes, R. L. Beschta, C. C. Wilmers, E. G. Ritchie, M. Hebblewhite, J. Berger, B. Elmhagen, M. Letnic, M. P. Nelson, O. J. Schmitz, D. W. Smith, A. D. Wallach, and A. J. Wirsing. 2014. Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 343(6167):1241484. doi:10.1126/science.1241484.

357 Ritchie, E. G., B. Elmhagen, A. S. Glas, M. Letnic, G. Ludwig, and R. A. McDonald. 2012. Ecosystem restoration with teeth: What role for predators? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 27(5):265–71. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2012.01.001.

Robert, A., B. Colas, I. Guigon, C. Kerbiriou, J. B. Mihoub, M. Saint-Jalme, and F. Sarrazin. 2015. Defining reintroduction success using IUCN criteria for threatened species: A demographic assessment. Animal Conservation 18(5):397– 406. doi:10.1111/acv.12188.

Rocheleau, D., B. Thomas-Slayter, and E. Wangari. 1996. Feminist political ecology: Global issues and local experiences. London, UK: Routledge.

Rola, A. C., and P. L. Pingali. 1993. Pesticides, rice productivity, and farmers’ health: An economic assessment. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC and International Rice Research Institute, Manila, Philippines.

Romanach S., P. Lindsey, and R. Woodroffe. 2007. Determinants of attitudes towards predators in central Kenya and suggestions for increasing tolerance in livestock dominated landscapes. Oryx 41(2):185–195. doi:10.1017/S0030605307001779.

Rust, N. A., and N. Taylor. 2016. Carnivores, colonization, and conflict: A qualitative case study on the intersectional persecution of predators and people in Namibia. Anthrozoös, 29(4):653–667. doi:10.1080/08927936.2016.1228758.

Said, E. 1978. Orientalism. New York, NY: Random House.

Sanderson, E. W., J. Forrest, C. Loucks, J. Ginsberg, E. Dinerstein, J. Seidensticker, P. Leimgruber, M. Songer, A. Heydlauff, T. O'Brien, G. Bryja, S. Klenzendorf, and E. Wikramanayake. 2006. Setting Priorities for the conservation and recovery of wild tigers: 2005–2015. A technical assessment. Wildlife Conservation Society, New York, NY, World Wildlife Fund and Smithsonian National Zoological Park, Washington, DC, and Front Royal, VA.

Sankar, K., Q. Qureshi, P. K. Malik, P. Nigam, P. R. Sinha, R. N. Mehrotra, and R. Gopal. 2013. Reintroduction of Tigers in Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan. In Faunal heritage of Rajasthan, India, 157–171. New York, NY: Springer International Publishing.

Sankar, K., Q. Qureshi, P. Nigam, P. K. Malik, P. R. Sinha, R. N. Mehrotra, R. Gopal, S. Bhattacharjee, K. Mondal, and S. Gupta. 2010. Monitoring of reintroduced tigers in Sariska Tiger Reserve, Western India: Preliminary findings on home range, prey selection and food habits. Tropical Conservation Science 3(3):301–318. doi:10.1177/194008291000300305.

358 Sankar, K., S. P. Goyal, and Q. Qureshi. 2005. Assessment of status of tiger (Panthera tigris) in Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, India.

Sarkar, M. S., K. Ramesh, J. A. Johnson, S. Sen, P. Nigam, S. K. Gupta, R. S. Murthy, and G. K. Saha. 2016. Movement and home range characteristics of reintroduced tiger (Panthera tigris) population in Panna Tiger Reserve, central India. European Journal of Wildlife Research 62:537–547. doi:10.1007/s10344-016-1026-9.

Schaller, G.B. 2006. Foreword. Setting priorities for the conservation and recovery of wild tigers: 2005– 2015. A user’s guide. ed. E. Dinerstein, C. Loucks, A. Heydlauff, E. Wikramanayake, G. Bryja, J. Forrest, J. Ginsberg, S. Klenzendorf, P. Leimgruber, T. O’Brien, E. Sanderson, J. Seidensticker, and M. Songer. Worldwide Fund for Nature, Wildlife Conservation Society, Smithsonian Institution and Save the Tiger Fund, Washington, DC and New York, NY.

Schmitz, O. J., P. A. Hambäck, and A. P. Beckerman. 2000. Trophic cascades in terrestrial systems: A review of the effects of carnivore removals on plants. The American Naturalist 155(2):141–153. doi:10.1086/303311.

Scoones, I. 1999. New ecology and the social sciences: What prospects for a fruitful engagement? Annual Review of Anthropology 28(1):479–507. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.28.1.479.

Sebastian, S. 2016. A tale of two tiger reserves. The Hindu 24 July. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a-tale-of-two-tiger- reserves/article3019496.ece

Seddon, P. J., D. P. Armstrong, and R. F. Maloney. 2007. Developing the science of reintroduction biology. Conservation Biology 21(2):303–312. doi:10.1111/j.1523- 1739.2006.00627.x.

Seidensticker, J. 2010. Saving wild tigers: A case study in biodiversity loss and challenges to be met for recovery beyond 2010. Integrative Zoology 5:285–299. doi:10.1111/j.1749-4877.2010.00214.x.

Seidensticker, J., M. E. Sunquist, and C. McDougal. 1990. Leopards living at the edge of the Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. In Conservation in developing countries: Problems and prospects, ed. J. C. Daniel and J. S. Serrao, 415–423. Bombay, India: Oxford University Press.

Seidensticker, J., S. Christie, and P. Jackson, ed. 1999. Riding the tiger: Tiger conservation in human-dominated landscapes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

359 Sekhar, N. U. 2003. Local people’s attitudes towards conservation and wildlife tourism around Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of Environmental Management 69(4):339–347. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2003.09.002.

Sekhri, S. 2011. Affirmative action and peer effects: Evidence from caste based reservation in general education colleges in India. University of Virginia. http://people.virginia.edu/~ss5mj/peereffects_nov2011.pdf (accessed January 20, 2018).

Sellbach, U. F. 2012. The lives of animals: Wittgenstein, Coetzee, and the extent of the sympathetic imagination. In Animal others and the human imagination: Explorations of the non-human in self-understanding, ed. A. Vallely and A. Gross, 307–330. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Sen, A. 1981. Poverty and famine: An essay on entitlement and deprivation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Seshadri, K. S., and T. Ganesh. 2011. Faunal mortality on roads due to religious tourism across time and space in protected areas: A case study from south India. Forest Ecology and Management 262(9):1713–1721. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.07.017.

Seymour, M., and J. Wolch. 2010. “A little bird told me…”: Approaching animals through qualitative methods. In The SAGE handbook of qualitative geography, ed. D. DeLyser, S. Herbert, S. Aitken, M. Chang, and L. McDowell, 305–321. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Shaankar, A. 2017. Gender and son meta-preference: Is development itself an antidote? Economic Survey 1: 102-118.

Shah, T. 2009. Taming the anarchy? Groundwater governance in South Asia. Washington, DC: RFF Press.

———. 2012. Community response to aquifer development: Distinct patterns in India's alluvial and hard rock aquifer areas. Irrigation and Drainage 61(S1):14–25. doi:10.1002/ird.1656.

Shahabuddin, G. 2010. Conservation at the crossroads: Science, society, and the future of India’s wildlife. Mumbai, India: Orient Blackswan Private Ltd.

———. 2014. The ‘Tiger Crisis’ and the response: Reclaiming the wilderness in Sarsika Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan. In Shifting ground: People, mobility, and animals in India’s environmental histories, ed. M. Rangarajan and K. Sivaramakrishnan, 252–272. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.

360 Shahabuddin, G., and P. L. Bhamidipati. 2014. Conservation-induced displacement: Recent perspectives from India. Environmental Justice 7(5):122–129. doi:10.1089/env.2014.0012.

Shahabuddin, G., R. Kumar, and M. Shrivastava. 2007. Creation of ‘inviolate space’: Lives, livelihoods and conflict in Sariska Tiger Reserve. Economic and Political Weekly 42(20):1855–1862. doi:10.2307/4419608.

Shanahan, J. E., and M. L. Gore. 2012 Communication for human dimensions of wildlife. In Human dimensions of wildlife in North America, ed. D. J. Decker, S. R. Riley, and W. F. Siemer. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.

Sharma, A., and A. Kabra. 2007. Displacement as a Conservation Tool: Lessons from Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh. In Making conservation work: Securing biodiversity in this new century, ed. G. Shahabuddin and M. Rangarajan. Ranikhet, India: Permanent Black.

Sharma, B. K., S. Kulshreshtha, and A. R. Rahmani. 2013. Faunal heritage of Rajasthan, India: Conservation and management of vertebrates. New York, NY: Springer.

Sharma, C. P. 2016. Overdraft in the Indian water banks: Studying the relation between the production of water intensive crops and groundwater depletion in India. Georgetown University, Washington, DC.

Sharma, P. 2015. Chakravyuha: Silent suffering, agony, joys and sorrows of womanhood in The Binding Vine. Social Sciences Humanities 1(3):39–44.

Sharma, R. 2017. Girl sold for Rs seven lakh by father, saved by villagers. The Times of India. 20 Feb. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/girl-sold-for-rs- seven-lakh-by-father-saved-by-villagers/articleshow/57243278.cms.

Shekhawat, R. S. 2012. Reintroduction of tigers in India: A case study from the Sariska Tiger Reserve. New Delhi, India: Teri University.

———. 2014. Tiger conservation plan, Sariska Tiger Reserve: Period 2014–2015 to 2023–2024. Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.

Shelley, V., A. Treves, and L. Naughton. 2011. Attitudes to wolves and wolf policy among Ojibwe tribal members and non-tribal residents of Wisconsin's wolf range. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 16(6):397–413. doi:10.1080/10871209.2011.606521.

Shepard, P. 1996. The others: How animals made us human. Washington, DC: Island Press.

361 Shively, K. 2011. “We couldn’t just throw her in the street”: Gendered violence and women’s shelters in Turkey. In Anthropology at the front lines of gender-based violence, ed. J. R. Wies and H. J. Haldane, 71–90. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Sillero-Zubiri, C., and M. K. Laurenson. 2001. Interactions between carnivores and local communities: Conflict or co-existence? Conservation Biology Series – Cambridge, 282–312.

Sillero-Zubiri, C., R. Sukumar, and T. Treves. 2007. Living with conflict: The roots of conflict and the solutions. In Key topics in conservation, ed. D. W. Macdonald and K. Service, 253–270. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Singh, K. S. ed. 1998. People of India: Rajasthan. Vol. XXXVIII, Part 2. Mumbai, India: Popular Pakashan.

Singh, M. P. 2013. Mukundara Hills is Rajasthan’s third tiger reserve. The Hindu 12 April. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/mukundara-hills-is- rajasthans-third-tiger-reserve/article4610690.ece

Singh, R., Q. Qureshi, K. Sankar, P. R. Krausman, and S. P. Goyal. 2013. Use of camera traps to determine dispersal of tigers in semi-arid landscape, western India. Journal of Arid Environments 98:105–108. doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2013.08.005.

Sitaraman, B. 1999. Law as ideology: Women, courts and ‘dowry deaths’ in India. International Journal of the Sociology of Law 27(3):287–316. doi:10.1006/ijsl.1999.0083.

Sivaramakrishnan, K. 2011. Thin nationalism: Nature and public intellectualism in India. Contributions to Indian Sociology 45(1): 85-111.

Slagle, K., R. Zajac, J. Bruskotter, R. Wilson, and S. Prange. 2013. Building tolerance for bears: A communications experiment. The Journal of Wildlife Management 77(4):863–869. doi:10.1002/jwmg.515.

Slotow, R., and L. Hunter. 2009. Reintroduction decisions taken at the incorrect social scale devalue their conservation contribution: The African lion in South Africa. In Reintroduction of top-order predators, ed. M. W. Hayward and M. Somers, 41– 71. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236:80–285. doi:10.1126/science.3563507.

362 Society for Ecological Restoration International. 2004. The SER International primer on Ecological Restoration. Society for Ecological Restoration International, Tucson. www.ser.org (accessed February 20, 2015).

Sodhi, N. S., L. Koh, B. Brook, and P. Ng. 2004. Southeast Asian biodiversity: An impending disaster. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19(12):654–60. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2004.09.006.

Sodhi, N. S., P. Davidar, and M. Rao. 2010. Empowering women facilitates conservation. Biological Conservation 143(5):1035–1036. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.02.014.

Soper, K. 1995. What is nature? Culture, politics and the non-human. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell.

Soule, M., and R. Noss. 1998. Rewilding and biodiversity: Complementary goals for continental conservation. Wild Earth 8(3):18–28.

Speizer, I. S., and E. Pearson. 2011. Association between early marriage and intimate partner violence in India: A focus on youth from Bihar and Rajasthan. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 26(10):1963–1981. doi:10.1177/0886260510372947.

Srinivasan, P., and G. Lee. 2004. The dowry system in northern India: Women’s attitudes and social change. Journal of Marriage and Family 66(5):1108–1117. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00081.x/full.

Srinivasan, S., and A. Bedi. 2007. Domestic violence and dowry: Evidence from a South Indian village. World Development 35(5):857–880. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.08.005.

Sriram, R., and S. Mukherjee. 2001. The unsafe nest: Analysing and treating the roots and reaches of marital violence. In Mental health from a gender perspective, ed. B. V. Davar, 219–247. New Delhi, India: SAGE Publications.

Stewart, D. W., and P. N. Shamdasani. 2014. Focus groups: Theory and practice. Vol. 20. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE publications.

Stringer, L. C., C. Twyman, and D. S. G. Thomas. 2007. Combating land degradation through participatory means: The case of Swaziland. Ambio 36(7):387–393. doi:10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[387:CLDTPM]2.0.CO;2.

Sultana, F. 2011. Suffering for water, suffering from water: Emotional geographies of resource access, control and conflict. Geoforum 42(2):163–172. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2010.12.002.

363 Sundberg, J. 2003. Masculinist epistemologies and the politics of fieldwork in Latin Americanist geography. The Professional Geographer 55(2):180–190. doi:10.1111/0033-0124.5502006.

Sundberg, J. 2011. Diabolic caminos in the desert and cat fights on the Río: A posthumanist political ecology of boundary enforcement in the United States– Mexico Borderlands. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 101(2):318–336. doi:10.1080/00045608.2010.538323.

Sundberg, J. 2014. Decolonizing posthumanist geographies. Cultural Geographies 21(1):33–47. doi:10.1177/1474474013486067.

Sunderland, T., R. Achdiawan, A. Angelsen, R. Babigumira, A. Ickowitz, F. Paumgarten, V. Reyes-García, and G. Shively. 2014. Challenging perceptions about men, women and forest product use: A global comparative study. World Development 64(1):556–566. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.003.

Suryawanshi, K. R., S. Bhatia, Y. V. Bhatnagar, S. Redpath, and C. Mishra. 2014. Multiscale factors affecting human attitudes toward snow leopards and wolves. Conservation Biology 28(6):1657–1666. doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12320.

Svenning, J. C., P. B. Pedersen, C. J. Donlan, R. Ejrnæs, S. Faurby, M. Galetti, D. M. Hansen, B. Sandel, C. J. Sandom, J. W. Terborgh, and F. W. Vera. 2016. Science for a wilder Anthropocene: Synthesis and future directions for trophic rewilding research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(4):898–906. doi:10.1073/pnas.1502556112.

Swenson, J. E., and H. Andren. 2005. A tale of two countries: Large carnivore depredations and compensation schemes in Sweden and Norway. In The conservation of wildlife that conflicts with man, ed. R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood, and A. R. Rabinowitz. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Tamsin, B. 2010. Religion as a bridge between theory and practice in work on violence against women in Rajasthan. Journal of Gender Studies 19(4):361–375. doi:10.1080/09589236.2010.514208.

Taylor, P. D., L. Fahrig, K. Henein, and G. Merriam. 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68(3):571–573. doi:10.2307/3544927.

Teays, W. 1991. The burning bride: The dowry problem in India. Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 7(2):29–52.

Temple, B., and A. Young. 2004. Qualitative research and translation dilemmas. Qualitative Research 4(2):161–178. doi:10.1177.1468794104044430.

364 Terborgh, J., C. van Schaik, L. Davenport, and M. Rao, ed. 2002. Making parks work: Strategies for preserving tropical nature. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Terborgh, J., J. A. Estes, P. Paquet, K. Ralls, D. Boyd-Heger, B. J. Miller, and R. F. Noss. 1999. The role of top carnivores in regulating terrestrial ecosystems. In Continental conservation: Scientific foundations of regional reserve networks, ed. M. E. Soulé and J. Terborgh, 39–64. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Thavarajah, N. 2008. Predator–human conflict as influenced by livestock depredation. Grassroots: Newsletter of the Grassland Society of Southern Africa 8(3):11–17.

Thinley, P., R. Rajaratnam, J. P. Lassoie, S. J. Morreale, P. D. Curtis, K. Vernes, L. Leki, S. Phuntsho, T. Dorji, and P. Dorji. 2018. The ecological benefit of tigers (Panthera tigris) to farmers in reducing crop and livestock losses in the eastern Himalayas: Implications for conservation of large apex predators. Biological Conservation 219(2018):119–125. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2018.01.015.

Thirgood, S., R. Woodroffe, and A. Rabinowitz. 2005. The impact of human-wildlife conflict on human lives and livelihoods. In People and wildlife: Conflict or coexistence?, ed. R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood, and A. Rabinowitz. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Thompson, C. 2002.When elephants stand for competing philosophies of nature: Amboseli National Park, Kenya. In Complexities: Social studies of knowledge practices, ed. B. H. Smith, E. R. Weintraub, J. Law, and A. Mol, 166–190. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Thrift, N. J. 1996. Spatial formations. London, UK: SAGE Publications.

Tieguhong, J. C., and E. Nkamgnia. 2012. Household dependence on forests around Lobeke National Park, Cameroon. International Forestry Review 14(2):196–212. doi:10.1505/146554812800923426.

Tilson, R., and P. Nyhus, ed. 2010. Status and conservation of tigers in the Indian subcontinent. In Tigers of the world: The science, politics, and conservation of Panthera tigris. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.

Tilson, R., P. Nyhus, and N. Franklin. 2001. Tiger restoration in Asia: Ecological theory vs sociological reality. In Large mammal restoration: Ecological and sociological challenges in the 21st century, ed. D. Maehr, R. F. Noss, and J. L. Larkin, 277– 291. Washington, DC: Island Press.

365 Tilson, R., P. Nyhus, and J. Muntifering. 2010. Yin and yang of tiger conservation in China. In Tigers of the world: The science, politics, and conservation of Panthera tigris, ed. R. L. Tilson and U. Seal, 2nd ed., 439–451. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.

Times of India. 2009. Domestic Violence Victim get HC Relief. Times of India 19 August.

Timko, J., and T. Satterfield. 2008. Seeking social equity in national parks: Experiments with evaluation in Canada and South Africa. Conservation and Society 6(3):238– 254. doi:10.4103/0972-4923.49216.

Treves, A., and K. U. Karanth. 2003. Human–carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management worldwide. Conservation Biology 17(6):1491–1499. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00059.x.

Treves, A., and L. Naughton-Treves. 2005. Evaluating lethal control in the management of human-wildlife conflict. In People and wildlife: Conflict or coexistence?, ed. R. Woodroof, S. Thirgood, and A. Rabinowitz, 86–106. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

Trombulak, S. C., and K. J. Royar. 2001. Restoring the wild: Species recovery and reintroduction. In Rewilding the northeast: A new wilderness paradigm, 157–181. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

Truelove, Y. 2011. (Re-)Conceptualizing water inequality in Delhi, India through a feminist political ecology framework. Geoforum 42(2):143–152. doi:org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.01.004.

Tuan, Y.-F. 2004. Dominance & affection: The making of pets. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Tully, M. 1991. No full-stops for India. London, UK: Viking.

Umar, M. 1998. Bride burning in India: A socio-legal study. Delhi, India: Ashish.

United Nations Development Programme. 2006. Rapport national sur le développment humain en Guinée-Bissau (National Report on Human Development in Guinea- Bissau). United Nations Development Programme, New York, NY.

———. 2012. MDG Report 2012: Assessing progress in Africa toward the millennium development goals. United Nations Development Programme, New York, NY.

366 Upadhyay, B. 2005. Women and natural resource management: Illustrations from India and Nepal. Natural resources forum 29(3):224–232. doi:10.1111/j.1477- 8947.2005.00132.x.

———. 2005. Gendered livelihoods and multiple water use in North Gujarat. Agriculture and Human Values 22(4):411–420. doi:10.1007/s10460-005-3396-6.

Urbanik, J. 2012. Placing animals: An introduction to the geography of human-animal relations. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.

Van Bommel, L., and C. N. Johnson. 2012. Good dog! Using livestock guardian dogs to protect livestock from predators in Australia’s extensive grazing systems. Wildlife Research 39(3):220–229. doi:10.1071/WR11135.

Van Horn, G. 2012. The making of a wilderness icon: Green fire, charismatic species, and the changing status of wolves in the United States. In Animals and the human imagination: A companion to animal studies, ed. A. Gross and A. Vallely, 203– 237. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Van Meter, P. E., J. A. French, S. M. Dloniak, H. E. Watts, J. M. Kolowski, and K. E. Holekamp. 2009. Fecal glucocorticoids reflect socio-ecological and anthropogenic stressors in the lives of wild spotted hyenas. Hormones and Behavior 55(2):329–337. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2008.11.001.

Van Sittert, L. 1998. “Keeping the enemy at bay”: The extermination of wild carnivora in the Cape Colony, 1889–1910. Environmental History 3(3):333–356. doi:10.2307/3985183.

Van Steenbergen, F., and T. Shah. 2003. Rules rather than rights: Self-regulation in intensively used groundwater systems. In Intensive use of groundwater: Challenges and opportunities, ed. M. R. Llamas and E. Custodio, 241–256. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Balkema Publishers.

Vindhya, U. 1997. Dowry deaths and domestic harassment of women in Andhra Pradesh: An analysis of socio-cultural dimensions and judicial outcome of cases. Unpublished manuscript. Indian Council for Social Science Research, New Delhi.

———. 2007. Quality of women's lives in India: Some findings from two decades of psychological research on gender. Feminism & Psychology 17(3):337–356. doi:10.1177/0959353507079088.

Walker, B., and D. Salt. 2006. Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Washington, DC: Island Press.

367 Walsh, L. 2013. Resistance and common ground as functions of mis/aligned attitudes: A filter-theory analysis of ranchers’ writings about the Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project. Written Communication 30(4):458–487. doi:10.01177/0741088313498362.

Walston, J., J. G. Robinson, E. L. Bennett, U. Breitenmoser, G. A. B. da Fonseca, J. Goodrich, M. Gumal, L. Hunter, A. Johnson, K. U. Karanth, N. Leader-Williams, K. MacKinnon, D. Miquelle, A. Pattanavibool, C. Poole, A. Rabinowitz, J. L. D. Smith, E. J. Stokes, S. N. Stuart, C. Vongkhamheng, and H. Wibisono. 2010. Bringing the tiger back from the brink – the six percent solution. PLoS Biology 8:e1000485. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000485.

Warr, M. 2000. Fear of crime in the United States: Avenue for research and policy. In Measurement and analysis of crime and justice, ed. D. Duffee. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Wells, M., K. Brandon, and L. Hannah. 1992. People and parks: Linking protected area management with local communities. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Whatmore, S. 1999. Hybrid geographies: Rethinking the ‘human’ in human geography. In Human geography today, ed. D. Massey, J. Allen, and P. Sarre, 22–39. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

———. 2002. Hybrid geographies: Natures cultures spaces. London, UK: SAGE Publications.

Wikramanayake, E., E. Dinerstein, J. Seidensticker, S. Lumpkin, B. Pandav, M. Shrestha, H. Mishra, J. Ballou, A. J. T. Johnsingh, I. Chestin, S. Sunarto, P. Thinley, K. Thapa, G. Jiang, S. Elagupillay, H. Kafley, N. M. B. Pradhan, K. Jigme, S. Teak, P. Cutter, M. A. Aziz, and U. Than. 2011. A landscape-based conservation strategy to double the wild tiger population. Conservation Letters 4(3):219–227. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00162.x.

Wikramanayake, E., M. McKnight, E. Dinerstein, A. Joshi, B. Gurung, and D. Smith. 2004. Designing a conservation landscape for tigers in human-dominated environments. Conservation Biology 18(3):839–844. doi:10.1111/j.1523- 1739.2004.00145.x.

Wilcove, D. S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Philips, and E. Losos. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. BioScience 48(8): 607-615.

Wildlife Institute of India. 2013. Status of tiger and prey species in Panna Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh. Report submitted to Madhya Pradesh Forest Department and National Tiger Conservation Authority, New Delhi. doi:10.13140/2.1.3974.9122.

368 Williams, C. K. K., G. Ericsson, and T. A. Heberlein. 2002. A quantitative summary of attitudes toward wolves and their reintroduction (1972–2000). Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:575–584. doi:10.2307/3784518.

Willis, J. R., V. Kumar, S. Mohanty, P. Singh, V. Singh, A. H. Baqui, S. Awasthi, J. V. Singh, M. Santosham, and G. L. Darmstadt. 2009. Gender differences in perception and care-seeking for illness of newborns in rural Uttar Pradesh, India. Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition 27(1):62.

Windberg, L.A., F. F. Knowlton, S. M. Ebbert, and B. T. Kelly. 1997. Aspects of coyote predation on Angora goats. Journal of Range Management 50(3):226–230. doi:10.2307/4003719.

Wolch, J. 2002. Anima urbis. Progress in Human Geography 26(6):721–42. doi:10.1191/0309132502ph400oa.

Wolch, J., A. C. Brownlow, and U. Lassiter. 2000. Constructing the animal worlds of inner-city Los Angeles. In Animal spaces, beastly places: New geographies of human-animal relations, ed. C. Philo and C. Wilbert, 71–97. London, UK and New York, NY: Routledge.

Wolch, J., and J. Emel. 1995. Bringing the animals back in. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 13(6):632–636.

———, ed. 1998. Animal geographies: Place, politics, and identity in the nature-culture borderlands. London, UK: Verso.

Woodroffe, R. 2000. Predators and people: Using human densities to interpret declines of large carnivores. Animal Conservation 3(2):165–173. doi:10.1111/j.1469- 1795.2000.tb00241.x.

Woodroffe, R., and J. R. Ginsberg. 1998. Edge effects and the extinction of populations inside protected areas. Science 280(5372):2126–2128. doi:10.1126/science.280.5372.2126.

Woodroffe, R., S. Thirgood, and A. Rabinowitz, ed. 2005. People and wildlife: Conflict or coexistence? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Woodroffe, R., P. A. Lindsey, S. S. Romanach, and S. M. K. ole Ranah. 2007 African wild dogs (Lycaon Pictus) can subsist on small prey: Implications for conservation. Journal of Mammalogy 88(1):181–193. doi:10.1644/05-MAMM-A- 405R1.1.

Woollaston, V. 2016. Tigers are declared extinct in Cambodia: Illegal poaching is believed to have wiped out the species that hasn’t been seen since 2007. 369 Dailymail.co.uk 6 April. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article- 3525961/Tigers-declared-extinct-Cambodia-Illegal-poaching-wiped-species-hasn- t-seen-2007.html.

World Economic Forum. 2016. India: Global gender gap report. http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report- 2016/economies/#economy=IND.

World Resources Institute. 2003. Women, water, and work: The success of the self- employed women’s association. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

World Wildlife Fund. 2002. Conflict resolution can help save tigers. http://www.panda.org/news_facts/newsroom/features/index. cfm?uNewsID=2549 (accessed June 6, 2008).

———. 2016. Global wild tiger population status, April 2016. Background document. http://tigers.panda.org/wp-content/uploads/Background-Document-Wild-Tiger- Status-2016.pdf.

Wozencraft, W. C. 2005. Order Carnivora. In Mammal species of the world: A taxonomic and geographic reference, ed. D. E. Wilson and D. M. Reeder, 3rd ed., 532–628. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Wright, M. W. 2004. From protests to politics: Sex work, women's worth, and Ciudad Juárez modernity. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94(2):369– 386. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.2004.09402013.x.

Yadav, A. S., and S. K. Gupta. 2006. Effect of micro-environment and human disturbance on the diversity of woody species in the Sariska Tiger Project in India. Forest Ecology and Management 225(1):178–189. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2005.12.058.

Yamazaki, K., and T. Bwalya. 1999. Fatal lion attacks on local people in the Luangwa Valley, Eastern Zambia. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 29(1):19–21. doi:10.1080/10871200903510999.

Yang, N., E. Zhang, and M. Chen. 2010. Attitudes towards wild animal conservation: A comparative study of the Yi and Mosuo in China. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 6(1–2):61–67. doi:10.1080/21513732.2010.509630.

Yeo, J., and H. Neo. 2010. Monkey business: Human-animal conflicts in urban Singapore. Social & Cultural Geography 11(7):681–699. doi:10.1080/14649365.2010.508565. 370 Young, K. R. 2014. Biogeography of the Anthropocene: Novel species assemblages. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment 38(5):664–673. doi:10.1177/0309133314540930.

Young, T. P. 2000. Restoration ecology and conservation biology. Biological Conservation 92(1):73–83. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(99)00057-9.

Yurco, K., B. King, K. R. Young, and K. A. Crews. 2017. Human–wildlife interactions and environmental dynamics in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Society & Natural Resources 30(9):1112–1126. doi:10.1080/08941920.2017.1315655.

Zimmermann, A., M. J. Walpole, and N. Leader-Williams. 2005. Cattle ranchers' attitudes to conflicts with jaguar Panthera onca in the Pantanal of Brazil. Oryx 39(4):406–412. doi:10.1017/S0030605305000992.

Zinn, H., and C. Pierce. 2002. Values, gender, and concern about potentially dangerous wildlife. Environment and Behavior 34(2):239–256. doi:10.1177/0013916502034002005.

Zohary, D., E. Tchernov, and L. K. Horwitz. 1998. The role of unconscious selection in the domestication of sheep and goat. Journal of Zoology 245(2):129–135. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.1998.tb00082.x.

371