Files
Abstract
Drawing on multispecies ethnography and Marxist political ecology, this researchexplores how peoples encounters with wildlife relate to their beliefs about the legitimacy of conservation institutions in two protected area buffer zones in central India. In India, buffer zones are meant to promote human-wildlife coexistence through institutions that minimize the extent to which humans and wildlife rely on the same natural resources. To do so necessitates transforming complex ecological and economic systems that have emerged from long histories of multispecies encounter and state appropriation of natural resources. This dissertation examines several ways in which efforts to promote human-wildlife coexistence intersect with these histories. Its chapters show (1) how multispecies relationships shaped the colonial appropriation of forests, (2) how wildlife encounters influence the spatial and temporal dimensions of peoples economic activities and movement across the landscape, (3) how the position of wildlife within local economies affects the implementation of coexistence programs, and (4) how alternative ways of living with wildlife emerge from peoples efforts to transform their relationships with the state.To make these arguments, this study draws on ethnographic fieldwork done in the buffer zones of Melghat and Tadoba-Andhari tiger reserves in Maharashtra, India. These buffer zones are home to different Adivasi and Dalit groups, as well as a variety of wildlife, including tigers, sloth bears, wild boar and snakes. In Melghat, the risk of violent human-wildlife encounters is low, as people mostly encounter wildlife when protecting their crops from herbivores. In Tadoba-Andhari, the risk of violent encounters is high and large carnivores often injure and kill people. These differential risks form the basis on which this research compares how different human-wildlife encounters relate to the implementation of human-wildlife coexistence programs.This dissertation contributes to environmental anthropology and conservation practice. On the one hand, it draws Marxist political ecology and multispecies ethnography together in a complementary way, showing how nonhumans help define modes of production, shape capitalist appropriation, and contribute to moral economies. On the other hand, it highlights how equitable and effective conservation practices emerge as people who live with wildlife challenge the states appropriation of natural resources.