From Conflict to Coexistence Failure: Rethinking Human–Wildlife Relations in India

Abstract

Human-wildlife conflict in India is commonly framed as a series of isolated encounters involving species or locations, typically addressed through reactive mitigation measures and compensation schemes. This study revisits these interactions from a systemic perspective by examining whether persistent conflict outcomes reflect deeper conditions of coexistence failure. Rather than treating conflict as episodic incidents, the study analyses how structural transformations in landscapes, livelihoods, and governance arrangements shape recurring patterns of interaction between humans and wildlife. Using a Critical Interpretive Synthesis (CIS) approach, the research integrates evidence from interdisciplinary literature, national wildlife mortality records, compensation statistics, and policy documents to examine the drivers of human–wildlife conflict across India. The analysis focuses on five interrelated domains: land-use configuration and habitat fragmentation; expansion of linear infrastructure; livelihood dependence on agriculture and forest resources; climatic variability; and institutional governance frameworks. National evidence indicates that a substantial proportion of wildlife populations occur outside protected areas within agricultural and multi-use landscapes where routine livelihood activities intersect with wildlife movement. Human fatalities from wildlife encounters exceed several thousand annually, while infrastructure-related wildlife mortality - including elephant deaths from electrocution and train collisions - continues to rise. Compensation payments for crop damage and human fatalities have also increased significantly, reflecting the growing socio-economic burden borne by rural communities. The findings suggest that conflict persists not merely because of wildlife behaviour but because land-use planning, infrastructure development, and livelihood systems increasingly produce conditions in which human and wildlife activities overlap. Institutional responses remain fragmented and largely reactive, focusing on incident management rather than addressing structural drivers of risk. Conceptualising human-wildlife conflict as coexistence failure therefore provides a broader analytical framework for understanding persistent conflict outcomes and highlights the need for landscape-level planning, wildlife-sensitive infrastructure design, and coordinated governance approaches to support more stable forms of human-wildlife coexistence in India.