Displacement, Deprivation and Development: The Impact of Relocation on Income and Livelihood of Tribes in Similipal Tiger and Biosphere Reserve, India Ajay Kumar Mahapatra 1 • D. D. Tewari 2 • Biplab Baboo 1 Received: 18 December 2013 / Accepted: 15 April 2015 Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015 Abstract A large volume of literature describes adverse consequences of conservation-induced displacement on indigenous communities depended on natural resources of wildlife habitat. Resettlement policies in protected areas the world over are mainly designed and implemented without consideration of social and economic costs of ex- clusion. This study examined income and poverty profile of tribal residents in Similipal Tiger and Biosphere Reserve in India, relative to the households relocated out of the re- serve. The income from different sources and livelihood diversification of displaced reserve dwellers reflected changes resulting from the loss of access to natural and household assets. The results contradicted common per- ception about impoverishment outcome of relocation. It showed an increase in the per capita income for poorer segments with an overall 8 % increase in absolute house- hold income and corresponding improvement in the poverty ratio (head count ratio) and FGT index (0.241) for the relocated community. Contrary to other studies, the finding did not observe social alignment or marginaliza- tion; however, on-farm livelihood diversification reduced with increased dependence on off-farm sources. Expulsion of people from forest reserves to support conservation is inadequate in restricting habitat use of locals unless suitable alternative livelihood options are available for forest dependent was proven from the study. Keywords Forest income Á Resettlement Á Household economy Á Park dwellers Introduction Sustainable management of protected areas (PAs) the world over is based on the principle of habitat preservation through constituting ‘inviolate’ or ‘people free’ zones, on the premise that undisturbed species-specific habitat is imperative to sustain endangered wild fauna and to mini- mize man–animal conflict (Gell and Roberts 2003; Karanth 2006; Terborgh et al. 2002; Redford et al. 2006). Conser- vationists argue that unless anthropogenic impact is ex- cluded from natural habitats of endangered species, the current level of ecosystem degradation and man–animal conflict in many populous and developing countries, in- cluding India, would eventually lead to loss of vulnerable faunas (Bagchi et al. 2004; Kumar and Sahabuddin 2005). Concerns about numbers of wildlife diminishing in habitats shared with people prompted many countries to bring large areas of land, particularly forested landscape under the PAs network and consequent expulsion of local inhabitants from those territories. However, conservation-centric policies and an exclu- sionary PAs management approach have resulted in serious social and economic consequences for native populations in many poor but wildlife-rich countries (Colchester 2004; Berkes et al. 2003). This happened because while creating PAs, the socio-economic interrelationship existing between local communities and their habitat was ignored, and the traditional rights of the residents were eroded. The & Ajay Kumar Mahapatra otelp@rediffmail.com D. D. Tewari TewariD@unizulu.ac.za 1 Forest and Environment Department, Regional Plant Resource Center, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar 751015, Orissa, India 2 Faculty of Commerce, Administration and Law, University of Zululand, KwaDlangezwa, Richards Bay 3886, South Africa 123 Environmental Management DOI 10.1007/s00267-015-0507-z