No abstract

This paper examines people's experiences with economic compensation for losses due to human-wildlife conflict (HWC) in Uttarakhand, India. Employing a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches, we used a case study approach to investigate (1) socioeconomic characteristics of applicant versus non-applicant households, (2) explanations for why only some households chose to apply, and (3) perceptions of program effectiveness. We found that despite widespread complaints, the participation rate was only 37%. Our results broadly support the findings of other studies which have identified inadequate remuneration, processing delays, and corruption as key problems. However, we also found that nonparticipation was itself a critical problem. Our study indicates that participation in the scheme was shaped by factors including wealth, gender, social networks, and preexisting expectations. We highlight the need for improved communication about what "compensation" can and should be, advocate for reconceptualizations of compensation that are more closely based on ground-level realities, and point to the potential for alternative forms of payment to be more sustainable and socially just.

Understanding local attitudes towards humanwildlife conflict (HWC) is key to developing successful conflict mitigation strategies. In this paper, in-depth interview and questionnaire data about resolution of HWC in Uttarakhand, India are examined from both qualitative and quantitative approaches (n=70). Responses are differentiated between and within three subgroups: gender, literacy status, and relative wealth. Overall, the plurality of respondents said that fencing is the best solution, that the Forest Department should take leadership, and that villagers would be willing to participate in a cooperative management institution. However, cooperative action was only actively supported by 27.4% of respondents, suggesting that comanagement of this protected area will require significant capacity building and trust building activities. Intragroup differences show that all three factors are significant, and underscore the importance of addressing gender differences in attitudes about HWC in particular. Women were less likely than men to support compensation, more likely to prefer that the village take leadership, and less willing to participate in a cooperative management institution. The study illustrates the value of mixed-method research, and suggests a number of specific entry points for action.

Abstract. Global climate change has numerous implications for members of mountain communities who feel the impacts in both physical and social dimensions. In the western Himalayas of India, a majority of residents maintain a livelihood strategy that includes a combination of subsistence or small-scale agriculture, livestock rearing, seasonal or long-term migration, and localized natural resource extraction. While warming temperatures, irregular patterns of precipitation and snowmelt, and changing biological systems present challenges to the viability of these traditional livelihood portfolios in general, we find that climate change is also undermining local communities' livelihood assets in gender-specific ways. In this paper, we present a case study from the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve (Uttarakhand, India) that both outlines the implications of climate change for women farmers in the area and highlights the potential for ecotourism (as a form of livelihood diversification) to strengthen both key livelihood assets of women and local communities' adaptive capacity more broadly. The paper intentionally employs a categorical focus on women but also addresses issues of inter-group and gender diversity. With this special issue in mind, suggestions for related research are proposed for consideration by climate scientists and social systems and/or policy modelers seeking to support gender justice through socially transformative perspectives and frameworks.

Many international agreements, such as the 1992 UN Convention on Biological Diversity, posit that successful community-oriented (community-based) wildlife conservation depends on partnerships with stakeholders of different class, ethnicity, and gender. Gender is of particular interest because it often relates to environmental use, attitudes, and knowledge and operates across other key categories. This study uses fieldwork, interviews, and a survey of 52 project heads in India to address two research questions: (1) How are gender issues viewed by supervisors of community-based wildlife conservation projects, in relation to their work? (2) What types of resources would be most useful to project heads seeking to promote gender equity through their conservation work? The results suggest that while there is widespread support for integrating gender equity issues into communityoriented wildlife conservation, many believe that gender may be a potentially distracting and secondary issue. Several reasons for the variation in views were identified including the following: the dearth of relevant empirical research about gender issues in wildlife conservation; ambiguities about the concept of gender itself; and a lack of opportunities to critically discuss the role of gender equity issues for conservation. These factors may contribute to a disconnection between international rhetoric and on-the-ground practice as it relates to gender and community-oriented wildlife conservation. Increased opportunities for professional capacity building among project supervisors and staff members, coupled with increased collaboration between social and natural scientists, will be important for strengthening the links between international conservation policy and on-the-ground practice.Readers should send their comments on this paper to BhaskarNath@aol.com within 3 months of publication of this issue.