Living with tigers: Perceptions of risk, equity, and cultural change amidst tiger attacks in a reserve's buffer zone

Abstract Large carnivores are widely promoted as flagship species in biodiversity conservation, yet, in high‐density landscapes they generate risks to human lives and livelihoods that are unevenly distributed. Understanding how coexistence is sustained under such conditions raises questions of governance, equity, and whose costs are normalized. We examine human–tiger interactions in the buffer zone of Tadoba‐Andhari Tiger Reserve, India, focusing on intra‐village differences between households that have directly experienced tiger attacks (victims) and neighbouring households that have not (non‐victims). We reviewed forest department records of 80 attacks on people between 2014 and 2024, and conducted 50 semi‐structured household interviews across 16 villages. Our qualitatively driven mixed‐methods approach combined descriptive analyses of attack patterns and socio‐economic profiles with inductive thematic analysis of interview narratives to examine how risk, livelihood disruption, cultural meaning, and governance are experienced under shared ecological and institutional conditions. Victim and non‐victim households articulated similar normative commitments to tiger conservation, including acceptance of tiger presence and recognition of ecological value. However, their lived experiences diverged sharply. Victim households reported frequent encounters, sustained restrictions on mobility and livelihoods, repeated engagement with compensation processes, and persistent fear. Non‐victims more often framed coexistence as requiring vigilance rather than continuous disruption. Cultural practices associated with Waghoba (local tiger deity) worship persisted across households, but among repeatedly affected families, they were described as commemorative rather than protective. Synthesis and applications . Coexistence in Tadoba is not a voluntary arrangement but a condition of compulsory coexistence, sustained through the uneven absorption of risk by a subset of households within the same villages. Aggregate indicators of tolerance or acceptance obscure this intra‐village differentiation and the cumulative endurance through which coexistence is maintained. Governance responses centred on compensation and technical mitigation acknowledge loss without reducing vulnerability where risk is spatially concentrated. Recognizing household‐level inequality is therefore essential for evaluating conservation success and designing interventions that address not only biological persistence, but the distributive conditions under which coexistence is lived. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.