Compensation-type influences people's happiness, optimism and desire to remain after being relocated from protected areas

The creation of protected areas (PAs) is a key species conservation approach. PA establishment involves multiple stages, but some PAs have been, and are, created, through the removing human populations away from biodiversity-rich landscapes. Some such relocations result in displaced communities experiencing net benefits, but others have disrupted livelihoods, leading to impoverishment and social injustices and the return of people to their previous locations. If relocations are to be used for PA creation and management, it is critical to understand what circumstances result in the best outcomes for people and wildlife. We surveyed villagers relocated from Satpura Tiger Reserve in India (between 1 and 19 years previously), who had been provided with one of two compensation options: money only, or a mixture of land and money. Respondents who received a mixture of land and money stated that they were happier, more optimistic, more contented with the relocation, more likely to trust the authorities involved, and less likely to wish to return to their original village. Substantial proportions of respondents also stated that an ideal compensation package should provide land (91.8 % of respondents), pre-installed amenities (64.2 %, e.g. electricity, water, roads, access to schools), and money for housing (48.8 %). Providing cash only as compensation does not adequately address the multiple and complex risks to the happiness and livelihoods of relocated human populations. Detailed consultation and consent processes should be undertaken with communities to be relocated, and serious consideration given to providing land, housing, and amenities in addition to cash when devising compensation packages.