India’s tiger population doubles in a decade offering key lessons

India now hosts the world’s largest tiger population, despite having the highest human density and just 18% of global tiger habitat, according to a new study.

In just over a decade, India has doubled its tiger population to more than 3,600, accounting for 75% of the world’s tigers.

These tigers now inhabit an area of 138,200 sq km (53,360 sq miles) – roughly half the size of the UK – alongside some 60 million people.

This has been made possible by safeguarding the big cats from poaching and habitat loss, securing prey, reducing human-wildlife conflict, and uplifting local communities, the study published in Science, a leading peer-reviewed research journal, says.

“We think human densities are detrimental to conservation of large carnivores [like tigers]. But more than density it is the attitude of people that matters,” Yadvendradev Vikramsinh Jhala, the study’s lead author, told the BBC.

He cited Malaysia as an example, where, despite being economically prosperous and having a lower population density than India, tiger populations have not been successfully revived.

India’s tiger recovery shows how conservation can protect big cats, boost biodiversity, and support communities – offering key lessons for the world, the researchers believe.

The study by Mr Jhala, Ninad Avinash Mungi, Rajesh Gopal and Qamar Qureshi analysed tiger occupancy in India from 2006 to 2018.

Since 2006, India has surveyed tiger habitats every four years across 20 states, monitoring distribution of the big cats, co-predators, prey, and quality of habitat.

In that time, its tiger habitat has grown by 30% – about 2,929 sq km annually.

But while tigers in the country have thrived in protected, prey-rich areas, they have also adapted to landscapes shared by nearly 60 million people, primarily living in farming communities and settlements outside tiger reserves and national parks.

The level of coexistence with tigers varies across India, influenced by economics, social settings, and cultural factors, the researchers found.

In states like Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Uttarakhand, and Karnataka, tigers share space with people at high densities.

In regions with a history of bushmeat hunting or poaching, such as Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and northeast India, tigers are either absent or extinct. These areas also include some of India’s poorest districts.

In other words, researchers note, tiger coexistence with people is often found in economically prosperous areas, which benefit from tiger-related tourism and government compensation for conflict losses.

But development can be a “double-edged sword”, says Mr Jhala.

The researchers say economic prosperity through sustainable use of ecosystems helps recovery of tigers. However, it often leads to changes in land use that harm tiger habitats.

“Tiger recovery is thus constrained at opposite ends of the socioeconomic spectrum, by intensive urbanisation and poverty,” the researcher say.

“Hence, adopting an inclusive and sustainable rural prosperity in place of an intensive land-use change–driven economy can be conducive for tiger recovery, aligning with India’s modern environmentalism and sustainability.”

Armed conflict also significantly increases risk of extinction of tigers, the researchers found.

Globally, political instability has led to drastic wildlife declines, as militants exploit wildlife for funding, turning lawless areas into poaching hotspots.

In India, Manas National Park lost its rhinos during conflict, mirroring Nepal’s rhino decline during the civil unrest.

The researchers found tiger extinctions occurred in districts impacted by India’s Maoist conflict, particularly in tiger reserves in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand.

Reserves where the conflict has been controlled – Nagarjunsagar-Srisailam, Amrabad, and Similipal – have shown recovery, they say.

Also, several habitats in Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and eastern Maharashtra have faced armed insurgencies, resulting in low tiger occupancy and high extinction risk, the researchers found.

“With improved political stability, these areas may see tiger recovery,” they say.

India’s tiger-free habitats – some 157,000 sq km – are mainly in Chhattisgarh, Odisha, and Jharkhand. Reintroducing tigers and enhancing habitat connectivity in protected areas could restore around 10,000 sq km in these areas, the researcher say.

Recovering large carnivores in crowded, poverty-stricken areas is challenging, researcher say.

One approach, land sparing, suggests keeping people separate from predators. The other, land sharing supports coexistence between humans and wildlife.

Critics argue land sharing leads to conflict, while land sparing may be impractical. The study shows that both approaches – land sparing and land sharing – are necessary for tiger recovery in India, as each has a “role in conserving large carnivores”.

India is also grappling with rising human-wildlife conflict, leading to fatalities from tiger attacks. How does this align with the growing tiger population?

“We lose 35 people to tiger attacks every year, 150 to leopards, and the same number to wild pigs. Additionally, 50,000 people die from snake bites. And then about 150,000 also lose their lives in car accidents annually,” says Mr Jhala.

“It’s not about the number of deaths. Two hundred years ago, human deaths from predators were a normal part of mortality. Today, they’re abnormal, which is why they make the headlines. In fact, within tiger reserves, you’re more likely to die from a car accident than from a tiger attack.”