Abstract
This study examines how Village Defence Party, a community-based institution around Kaziranga Tiger Reserve, shapes conservation outcomes through institutional coherence and leadership practice. Drawing on Institutional Collective Action (ICA) theory and the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), we combine participatory rural appraisal techniques with inferential tests to assess coordination, motivations and risk attitudes. We document a rule-bound organisational structure and routine patrol practices that evidence effective inter-institutional coordination. TPB constructs, such as subjective norms and perceived behavioural control, significantly predict flood patrol participation, while qualitative narratives highlight cultural reverence and moral obligation as motivational content. Leaders function as boundary spanners under ICA dilemmas, leveraging NGO/state support, social capital and cultural norms to set expectations, and sustain vigilance beyond mandates regarded as hallmarks of collaborative governance.
Introduction
The conservation of protected areas (PAs) for wildlife extends beyond ecological protection and is inherently social, political and institutional in nature (Das 2024; Zhang et al. 2020). Few PAs exist without surrounding human settlements and resource dependencies (Ashraf et al. 2022). Local institutions, therefore, mediate between state regulations and socio-ecological realities by facilitating co-management, participation and negotiation between formal authorities and local people (Colding et al. 2003). Institutions embed rules, norms and roles that guide collective or individual behaviours, influencing conservation outcomes, from local stewardships to gazetted PAs (Hodgson 2006). However, institutional effectiveness depends on coherence, legitimacy and coordination among actors, mandates and incentives (North 1990; Ostrom 1990). Fragmented governance systems often generate Institutional Collective Action (ICA) dilemmas, where choices by one authority impact others because of overlapping jurisdictions and misaligned enticements (Feiock 2013). In spite of these difficulties, effective PA management requires the inclusion of multiple stakeholders in decision-making across governance levels (Hartanto et al. 2019). In practice, such arrangements actually depend on credible leadership to leverage trust and small wins that coil into broader cooperation (Iddrisu 2025). Their presence strengthens the participatory security model grounded in trust and local knowledge. This model aligns with the wider theoretical consideration cited by Ming’ate et al. (2014) and Ntuli and Muchapondwa (2018) that appropriate institutional mechanisms will prevail when there is transparency between authorities and communities, attached with incentives for local cooperation. In PA landscapes with dense human populations, challenges such as human–wildlife conflict, flooding, encroachment and poaching threats cannot be solved alone by a single authority (Ekka et al. 2022). Governance, therefore, becomes an ICA problem requiring coordination among the forest department, district administration, police and community-based institutions to manage shared risks and reduce transaction costs. The ICA framework highlights coordination failures arising from information asymmetries, enforcement gaps and low inter-agency trust, which can be lessened through formal and informal mechanisms such as joint patrols, Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs), village committees, and shared reporting and data-sharing arrangements (Feiock 2013, 2016).
Collective responsibility for security has deep roots in the Indian subcontinent. Contemporary institutions such as Village Defence Parties (VDPs) formalise this principle. The Mizoram Police Act, 2011, supports the establishment of VDPs. It can be regarded as an extension of the police that functions as a substitute for regular police forces in villages (Lalthanmawia and Sinha 2023). In Assam, the VDP is a statutory institution created under the Assam Village Defence Organisation Act, 1966, with distinct duties to support the police in maintaining law and order, prevent cognisable offences, collect intelligence and undertake night patrolling; these are mandated functions rather than purely voluntary roles (Sarma 1966). In Maharashtra, under the Bombay Police Act, 1951, VDPs exist in the form of Gram Rakshak Dals (Village Protection Group) (Indian Kanoon n.d.). Alongside VDPs, India’s conservation governance includes (a) Eco-Development Committees (EDCs) formed under Project Tiger to plan micro-level interventions and reduce biotic pressure through livelihood incentives and participation, and (b) Joint Forest Management Committees (JFMCs) constituted under the National Forest Policy (1988) and the Government of India’s 1990 JFM Resolution to co-manage degraded forests and share benefits from non-timber forest produce (Brandon and Wells 1992; Dejouhanet 2010; Mahanty 2002; Patra 2015). Comparable international models, such as Zimbabwe’s CAMPFIRE (Community Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources) and Indigenous-led conservation by the Kayapó people of Brazil, exemplify how devolved authority, incentives and legitimacy enhance conservation outcomes (Hogan 2024; Jani 2022). Together, these examples situate VDPs, EDCs, JFMCs and government departments as an operational nexus linking security, community engagement and conservation of PA interfaces.
Despite debates centring on the importance of strong grassroots-level institutions in PA protection, Mishra et al. (2009) opine that there is little documentation of the evolution of this approach in India. Kaziranga Tiger Reserve (KTR), in the northeastern part of India, presents unique governance challenges. It harbours about 70% of the world’s population of the Indian rhinoceros and the third highest density of Royal Bengal Tiger in India (Singh 2025). It is surrounded by approximately 184 villages and 50,000 households (Misra 2005). Such people–PA proximity creates pressures, including habitat encroachment, natural resource dependence and human–wildlife interactions. Since wild animals do not recognise administrative boundaries, long-term conservation also depends on secure and cooperative fringe landscapes. Hence, institutionalising collective action becomes crucial. Local institutions such as EDCs, self-help groups (SHGs), Gram Panchayats (local self-government) and VDPs already operate in the fringe areas of KTR, yet inadequate empirical work shows how they function, what motivates participation, and how leadership shapes collective action amid occasional mistrust towards the forest department, compensation delays (e.g., loss inflicted by wildlife and displacement) and exclusion from decision-making.
Drawing from the ICA framework, the study addresses the core question: What determines the ability of VDP representatives to lead collective action both within and beyond their mandate in a contested conservation landscape like KTR? The objectives are to (a) analyse the VDP’s coherence and coordination; (b) understand motivations, aspirations and risks associated with VDP members’ actions; and (c) examine how leadership navigates institutional constraints to influence conservation-compatible behaviour.
Guiding Framework
Interviewing the heads of VDPs provides crucial perceptions of how individual attitudes, perceived social expectations, and cognitive self-regulation form their intention and capacity to guide collective action. A social–psychological model, the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), helps decode the underlying psychological and social determinants that influence VDP leadership (Ajzen 1985, 1991). The TPB suggests three conceptually independent determinants of intention to perform a given behaviour:
Attitude towards the behaviour: It is regarded as the degree to which a person has a favourable/unfavourable appraisal of the behaviour. For example, a college student deciding to use a cycle for daily commute because it saves money, keeps one healthy and is environmentally friendly. Subjective norm: It is regarded as the perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform the behaviour. For example, if a person is a member of a religious committee, then they are usually obliged to actively participate in organising religious events. Perceived behavioural control: It is supposed to reflect past experience as well as anticipated barriers and obstacles. For example, individuals who have prior experience of separating waste at home and access to nearby recycling facilities might recycle regularly. It is influenced by past successful enabling circumstances, such as infrastructure and time.
The greater the perceived behavioural control, the stronger should be an individual’s intent to perform the behaviour under consideration. The TPB postulates that ‘behaviour’ is a function of salient beliefs pertinent to the behaviour. Behavioural beliefs are supposed to influence attitudes towards the behaviour, normative beliefs establish the underlying determinants of subjective norms and control beliefs provide the foundation for perceptions of behavioural control.
Methods
Study Area
Kaziranga National Park is one of the oldest wildlife conservation reserves in India, with a conservation history spanning more than 100 years. It was first proposed as a Reserve Forest in 1905 and declared a National Park in 1974 and a Tiger Reserve in 2007. Declared in 1985, it is also an UNESCO Natural World Heritage Site. 1 The total area of KTR is 1,307.49 km2 and comprises three Wildlife Divisions (WLDs), namely Eastern Assam, Nagaon and Biswanath. The Park harbours the ‘Big Five’ megafauna: the one-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros Unicornis), Royal Bengal Tiger (Panthera tigris tigris), Asiatic wild buffalo (Bubalus arnee), Asiatic elephant (Elephas maximus) and Eastern swamp deer (Rucervus duvaucelii ranjitsinhi).
Tools and Techniques of Data Collection
Supported by the Grounded Theory approach, the study starts with documenting individuals’ observations rather than hypotheses (Babbie 2013). The study used participatory rural appraisal techniques like key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs) and observation, which helped in eliciting narratives and stories after receiving written consent. Interviews were conducted in Assamese, the participants’ native language, using open-ended questions. Traceable qualitative responses were converted into binary codes (e.g., Yes = 1, No = 0) for quantitative analysis. Inferential statistical tests were done using SPSS Version 16.0 to test the significance of patterns observed in the data. The questions were deliberately framed in alignment with the ICA framework to uncover how mandates, inter-institutional dependencies and legitimacy influence decision-making (Table 1). We deliberately selected only leaders (presidents or secretaries) of VDPs as KII respondents because TPB posits that subjective norms are shaped by salient referents; in the context of VDPs, the presidents and secretaries are first responders, preside over internal meetings, attend meetings with stakeholders and usually participate in patrolling duty. Their vantage point is also central to ICA, where leadership mitigates coordination risks and tracks cross-agency workflows. Treating VDP leaders as ‘key informants’ for institutionalised norms and coordination mechanisms is consistent with community policing and collaborative governance literature. We then triangulated VDP leader narratives via FGDs to surface rank-and-file perspectives and validate claims. Since collaborative governance and ICA literature show that leadership is essential to convening actors, lowering transaction costs and sustaining cooperation, leaders are valid key informants for institutionalised expectations and coordination.
Interview Prompts Based on the Scope of Institutional Collective Action (ICA) Framework.
The study is based on 58 KIIs conducted across 58 villages located within the 3 WLDs (Figure 1). To triangulate and validate the responses of leaders, FGDs were conducted with 115 VDP members selected through random sampling. These provided a broader community perspective and helped contextualise leadership narratives within collective experience.
Study Villages Around Kaziranga Tiger Reserve (KTR).
Analysing Interview Transcripts and Focus Group Discussion Responses
Field notes written were duly transcribed and translated into English. As outlined by Chawla and Sondhi (2011), comparative scaling techniques were employed to assess respondents’ preferences and choices across selected attributes. For example, to assess patrolling confidence among VDP members, the six attributes were scored using the following method:
Calculating rank score of the aforementioned attribute:
For example, childhood exposure to wildlife = (no. of respondents assigning 1st rank × 1) + (no. of respondents assigning 2nd rank × 2) + (no. of respondents assigning 3rd rank × 3) + (no. of respondents assigning 4th rank × 4) + (no. of respondents assigning 5th rank × 5) + (no. of respondents assigning 6th rank × 6)
To calculate the summary rank ordering, the attribute with the highest rank score is assigned the lowest rank, and the attribute with the lowest rank score is assigned the highest rank. The study deployed the three-phase coding method that enabled a mechanism for establishing codes, relationship to each other and integration ensuing in themes used to construct deeper meaning. In the first phase, open coding, we worked through the transcripts line by line and defined keywords as codes at the first instance of finding material fitting the keywords (Charmaz 2006). In the second phase, axial coding, we aimed at expressing the data and phenomenon in the form of a concept that would help in identifying emergent themes. Meaningful word(s) were classified in different colours and grouped under conceptual headings. In the final phase of selective coding, core categories were identified and integrated to form coherent theoretical constructs. It enables the researcher to select and integrate categories of organised data from axial coding in cohesive meaning-filled expressions (Flick 2009).
The coding process generated 6 themes from 126 open codes. Table 2 illustrates the detailed three-stage manual coding procedure of developing one dominant theme, while Table 3 provides the remaining codes that contributed to the development of the other five themes.
Three-stage Manual Coding Process.
List of Open Codes Contributing to the Development of the Other Five Themes.
Results
Organisational Structure and Mandate
VDPs comprise 10–15 members, ideally males aged 20–45, led by a president, secretary and naik (prime mover). They report to the officer-in-charge of the local police station. General members include at least one representative from each household. The VDP patrolling duty is mainly done during the night from 22:00 to 02:00 hours for at least 3–4 days a week. As per the mandate, each member should participate in patrolling duty on a rotational basis, and if a member does not join patrolling duty for 3 consecutive months, the membership comes under scrutiny. Any police officer coming across a VDP on duty must also sign in their register. Enforcement powers include detaining offenders and assisting the police during emergencies. During the first week of every month, a meeting is conducted at the police station where the president and secretary discuss monthly activities and expenditure of the previous month. An honorarium of $29.17 is received by the VDP collectively each month.
Heightened Patrolling and Support During Floods
During the seasonal floods in KTR, wildlife species such as hog deer, rhinoceros, wild buffalo and elephants frequently cross National Highway 715 as they move towards the higher elevations of the nearby Karbi Anglong District. To ensure their safe passage, VDP members actively support the forest department, NGOs and civil administration. They help regulate traffic by issuing time cards to vehicles at both ends of the highway and ensuring that drivers adhere to the prescribed speed limit of 40 km/h by using placards and awareness slogans to avoid collision with wild animals. Recognising the risks faced by animals and the increased need for vigilance during floods, VDP members take on additional patrolling responsibilities. As one respondent from the Burhapahar range explained:
Patrolling duty is an additional duty that is entrusted to us. Aaranyak and The Corbett Foundation (NGOs) encourage us to assist the administration in these efforts. There have been instances where animals were struck by vehicles while crossing the highway. Therefore, we never hesitate to contribute through our presence, especially during nighttime.
Respondents state that due to joint flood preparedness and awareness by the government and NGOs on appropriate action and behaviour, the local community no longer solely handles cases of stray wildlife in stressful situations. The local community is also aware of the need to inform the VDP of any untoward situation, which the VDP relays to the forest department. A binary logistic regression was directed to examine the influence of behavioural determinants, guided by the TPB, on VDP’s participation in flood duty. The three predictors (independent variables) are (a) encouragement to VDPs by external agencies; (b) confidence to patrol during floods and awareness of flood-appropriate behaviour, and (c) acceptance that flooding is an unavoidable calamity in the area (Table 4).
Regression Results for the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Constructs and Participation in Flood Patrolling.
Table 4 revealed that all three predictors were statistically significant (p < .05) and associated positively with their participation during the floods. Specifically, individuals who reported being ‘confident’ in their ability to patrol effectively were more likely to participate (p < .001). This confidence reflects the TPB construct of subjective norms and perceived behavioural control/self-efficacy, the belief in one’s capability to perform the required behaviour. The strong positive association suggests that when VDPs feel capable of managing flood-related duties, they are significantly more inclined to engage in such activities. Studies applying TPB to natural resource contexts show that these constructs drive compliance (e.g., water conservation, community forestry), supporting that social approval and efficacy beliefs translate into action (Apipoonyanon et al. 2020; Chaudhary et al. 2017). Additionally, acceptance of flooding as an unavoidable natural event (p = .030) aligns with the attitudinal component of TPB, demonstrating that cognitive acceptance of environmental realities fosters proactive behaviour. Lastly, encouragement from external agencies (p = .005) represents subjective norms, showing that external social pressure and institutional support play an important role in motivating participation. Together, these patterns reveal a bold leadership influence that converts normative signals and situational efficacy into sustained flood patrol intention and behaviour.
Interaction with Wild Animals
All respondents acknowledged having encountered wild animals at least once during duty hours, highlighting the prevalence and seriousness of risk. However, Chi-square test revealed no association between perceived risk and actual participation in patrolling duty (Pearson χ²(1) = 1.879, p = .170). Although this risk is acknowledged, it does not significantly deter VDPs from engaging in patrolling activities. In the context of TPB, this indicates that attitude-related constructs such as risk perception may not be the primary drivers of actual behavioural participation.
Only respondents from Biswanath Wildlife Division reported that rhinoceroses and wild buffaloes have been moving more frequently into human-dominated areas over the past 5–10 years. In contrast, respondents from Tamulipathar, Difflopathar and Beloguri (Eastern Assam WLD) said that wildlife movement has decreased due to measures such as solar-powered electric fences (both private and government-supported), increased forest patrolling camps and the construction of highlands to provide shelter for animals during floods. No negative encounters with wildlife during the patrolling hours of VDPs were recorded. Even when occasional encounters occur, respondents do not express fear or reluctance to continue their duties. Respondents from Methoni, Borbheta, Tamulipathar, Harmoti and Panbari Mising Gaon (villages under Eastern Assam WLD) reported frequent sightings of elephants, especially near the Panbari and Haldibari animal corridors. One FGD participant from Tamulipathar, who encountered a wild buffalo around midnight, described the situation as follows:
The relationship between the local community and Kaziranga is like fish and water, complementing each other. No matter the negative situation, we will always consider ourselves as the stewards of Kaziranga.
Despite the risk of negative encounters, positive attitudes towards elephants are influenced by cultural and religious connotations. It is believed that if elephants are not disturbed and verbally abused, they usually go back inside the forest. It is venerated as the embodiment of Lord Ganesha, a prominent deity in Hinduism associated with wisdom, intellect and auspiciousness. A Mann–Whitney U test was conducted to examine whether perceived risk varied based on individuals’ cultural and religious beliefs. Perceived risk was measured on an ordinal scale (1 = Low, 2 = Medium, 3 = High), and belief was treated as a binary variable (1 = Holds belief, 0 = Does not hold belief). The test produced a statistically significant result (U = 38.50, Z = –2.581, p = .010), indicating a reliable difference in risk perception between the two groups. Individuals who hold the belief that elephants are non-aggressive when undisturbed reported significantly lower levels of risk than those who do not. This signifies the role of attitude and subjective norms in shaping behavioural perceptions, as framed by the TPB. Comparable TPB applications in pro-environmental contexts show beliefs and social expectations shaping willingness to act, including willingness-to-pay and on-site rule compliance (Batool et al. 2024). The significant p value reinforces that these sociocultural constructs are not circumstantial but statistically linked to real differences in how risk is understood.
Respondents believe that having encountered wildlife since childhood, they have acquired practical knowledge beyond what is available in textbooks, an understanding that significantly aids their patrolling duty. Fisher’s exact test indicated a statistically significant (p = .017, two-sided) association between prior wildlife experience and participation in patrolling. The relationship is unlikely due to chance and reflects a meaningful behavioural pattern. This underpins the perceived behavioural control component, mainly the dimension of self-efficacy. Individuals with direct wildlife experience likely hold greater confidence in handling potentially risky encounters, which, in turn, strengthens their perceived ability to perform patrolling duties. Mastery experiences are powerful sources of efficacy and, hence, the strongest predictors of persistence under risk, a typical mechanism in Bandura’s model (Bandura 1977). In Guwaltoli (Biswanath WLD) and Bhokotsapori (villages under Eastern Assam WLD), respondents lack prior experience of close encounters with wildlife. As a consequence, there are no reported instances of active community-led patrolling.
The role of VDPs becomes particularly stringent during three critical periods. First, incidents of crop depredation by wild herbivores occur during the paddy harvesting seasons: October–November and April, when straying from the park increases. Second, as part of annual habitat management practices during February and March, the PA management conducts controlled grassland burning to prevent the expansion of invasive vegetation. Wildlife movement intensifies, likely due to shifts in foraging zones caused by the burning. Third, during and immediately after floods, the unpredictability of wildlife movement increases the potential for encounters, necessitating increased vigilance from VDPs in the civil areas. The increase in wildlife sightings during these mentioned situations ties habitat management (by the forest department), law-and-order (by police and VDP) and community tolerance very prominently. An uncoordinated situation in one segment (e.g., enforcement without outreach or compensation) can erode subjective norms and compliance in others.
Notably, respondents near Karbi Anglong Hill, such as Englepathar, Borjuri, Panbari and Deosur Chang, reported that elephants descending from the hills tend to be more aggressive compared to those entering from within the national park core area. Although no direct sightings of large carnivores have been recorded, livestock depredation incidents within human-dominated areas are not unusual, as noted during FGDs. One of the common resentments recorded is the delay in the disbursal of monetary compensation for losses incurred due to wildlife intrusion. Aligning with a similar emotion, an FGD participant from the Agoratoli range notes:
Who will take guarantee of this tolerance? Our future generation might not understand the logic behind free wildlife movement in search of food and space. For an average of 0.13-hectare loss of paddy cultivation, compensation received is USD 23.9 - 35.9 where the actual yield worth is more than USD 53.9. It is time that compensation package is robust and faster, so that people can justify the loss to some extent.
To effectively assess the influence of experiential knowledge, the rank order scaling method was applied during FGDs with 115 VDP members. Table 5 presents a structured evaluation of factors that contribute to VDP members’ confidence in performing patrolling duties.
The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Factors Contributing to Patrolling Confidence Based on Focus Group Discussion (FGD) Responses.
The findings reflect that perceived behavioural control, mainly rooted in lived experiences such as past encounters with wildlife and early-life exposure, plays a central role in shaping VDPs’ confidence to engage in patrolling with greater assurance. Additionally, subjective norms arise as a powerful driver, as shown by the influence of moral obligation. Moral obligation further reinforces normative pressures, anchoring participation in collective values and responsibility. In contrast, formal training. though important, seems to play a supplementary role. These factors shape attitudes by enhancing preparedness but are less influential than internalised beliefs and community-driven norms in shaping behavioural intention. These results foreground leadership influence as norm entrepreneurship, as leaders translate lived experience into collective action rules and confidence.
Social Vigilance and Collective Responsibility
Respondents have reported instances of questioning unknown individuals seen at odd hours and notifying the police when necessary. These actions are often motivated by the perceived risk of poaching, given the presence of charismatic species like rhinoceros and tigers. The recent surge in cattle smuggling has further heightened this sense of alertness. Beyond this, VDPs have extended their responsibilities to include diverse protection roles. For example, in Palasguri, members patrol village ponds to prevent bird hunting during winter. In Bohikhowa Ganak Ati, collaboration with NGOs has helped integrate environmental awareness programmes into the VDP’s duties. This echoes an understanding that safeguarding KTR also involves fostering informed and cohesive communities. The government’s decision to involve VDPs in disseminating COVID-19 safety practices demonstrates institutional trust in their outreach capacity. In places like Harmoti, the VDP president has guided its members to spread awareness against the sale and consumption of alcohol, gambling and drug use, and has even taken the initiative to clear vegetation that could impede patrol visibility. In Borhola, systematic measures such as maintaining a logbook for late-night vehicular entries indicate a structured approach to local surveillance. Other innovative practices have emerged in places like Englepathar, where VDPs work in tandem with youth squads to deter crop depredation. During festivals and occasions like Durga Puja (an annual Hindu festival that reveres the goddess Durga) and Independence Day, police authorities entrust VDPs with ensuring social order. Instances of notifying authorities about vulnerable individuals, such as reporting a homeless person (e.g., in Borbheta), also reflect the VDP’s sensitivity to broader community well-being. This indicates an ICA situation, as fragmented mandates and spillovers across government line departments (e.g., police, forest, civil administration) create transaction costs that local institutions and informal agreements help to bridge by collaborating on risk and coordinating mechanisms. If left to a single agency for maintaining security and public order (e.g., cattle smuggling prevention and festival crowd management), there might be enforcement gaps, raising transaction costs for others. Table 6 synthesises these TPB constructs through field-based quotes, apprehending how positive beliefs, social expectations and a sense of self-efficacy jointly shape VDPs’ conservation behaviour.
The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Constructs and Their Manifestation in Social Vigilance.
Strengthening Institutional Support Mechanisms for Effective Functioning
Respondents emphasised the need for awareness programmes focused on wildlife protection laws and basic biodiversity identification. Such initiatives should be inclusive of all age groups to bring more informed participation in conservation efforts. A total of 88% (n = 51) of KII respondents opine that the monthly honorarium of $29.17 is inadequate. Respondents have acknowledged the material support provided by NGOs like Aaranyak, The Corbett Foundation, WWF-India and the forest department jointly in the form of rechargeable torches, gumboots and jackets. While 97% (n = 56) of respondents reported performing patrolling duties, dissatisfaction with the monthly honorarium and occasional delays in disbursal prompted a Chi-square test to observe whether their satisfaction significantly influenced their participation in patrolling activities. The analysis was done under the null hypothesis (H0) that satisfaction with the honorarium is independent of duty participation, against the alternative hypothesis (H1) that it affects duty performance. Although satisfaction with the honorarium could be measured as a motivational factor that might influence perceived behavioural control, the test revealed no significant association with duty performance (χ²(1, N = 58) = 0.331, p = .565), thus supporting the null hypothesis, suggesting that participation is likely driven more by internalised attitudes, social norms and moral commitment than by extrinsic rewards, reinforcing the central role of TPB’s core constructs over material incentives. Though the honorarium is not a determining factor, Table 7 presents a comparative rank-ordering based on responses from FGD participants to recognise areas where institutional support is most required.
Comparative Rank-Ordering of Institutional Support Needs Based on Focus Group Discussion (FGD) Responses.
All respondents have requested the government to develop insurance schemes and provide fluorescent jackets for distinction during night patrols. An FGD participant from the Burhapahar range notes:
One torch and stick won’t suffice. For example, a VDP member while on duty gets hold of a person doing illicit activity and hands them over to the police. There are chances that the miscreant might retaliate.
For tightening the security around KTR, a respondent from 2 No. Bohikhowa Ganak Ati suggested maintaining a register and personal identification proof record exclusively for guests coming to the village for long stay durations. But this proposal was deemed a sign of disrespect by the community and was not adopted.
Perceived Insecurity and Regulatory Challenges Around Kaziranga
Common resentment over non-existent or unsuccessful recruitment of local youth in the Special Rhino Protection Force or the forest department, as expected, has been recorded. An FGD participant from the Agoratoli range stated:
We have grown up in the vicinity of Kaziranga. Our youths and elderly people are well versed with animal movement and basic biodiversity. It is saddening when we see people from outside are recruited in the force.
All members expressed a lurking fear of eviction due to the notification of wildlife corridors and additional areas and the formalisation of Eco-Sensitive Zones. The highest resentment over debarment of livelihood rights on fishing due to the notification of additional areas was recorded from Biswanath WLD. Negative experiences such as exclusion from decision-making process over the expansion of boundaries and debarment from traditional livelihood practices such as fishing, grazing and harvesting reeds and grasses might provide strong grounds for the erosion of positive subjective norms. These factors, in turn, appear to weaken their behavioural intention to engage with long-term conservation goals, through increased hostility or disengagement. Strengthening institutional trust, inclusion and community-based decision-making may be critical in reinstating positive behavioural pathways towards PA stewardship.
Discussion
The VDP leaders are working inside a multi-authority field, a classic ICA terrain where decisions in one silo create spillovers in another. In ICA dilemmas, public actors function in fragmented authority structures where each stakeholder faces challenges to prioritise its own mandates, sometimes producing negative externalities or coordination gaps, even though all actors would benefit from collective action (Feiock 2013). Kaziranga echoes these features: police, forest, civil administration, NGOs and VDPs each hold partial responsibilities over the same socio-ecological landscape. When any actor performs strictly within its silo, for example, managing vehicular traffic, monitoring wildlife movement or ensuring local security, the decisions can unintentionally create spillovers for others, such as increased wildlife movement–vehicle collisions or conservation enforcement damaging community–PA management relations. This misalignment between localised incentives and shared socio-ecological goals is precisely what constitutes an ICA dilemma. VDP leaders intervene by plummeting these transaction costs through informal and formal coordination, bridging mandates and preventing precisely the type of conflict that characterises ICA dilemmas. Thus, the VDP leader’s role is not only collaborative but also corrective of underlying ICA pressures. Their role in persuading villagers, enforcing behavioural norms and organising patrols helps in preventing inefficient management and coordination failure that ICA theory predicts in fragmented governance settings.
Within the TPB, three categories of salient beliefs are profoundly embedded in the institutional setting in which VDP leaders operate (Figure 2). VDP leaders, by their example and rhetoric, often support the idea that patrolling, mainly during floods or heightened animal movement, is not simply an obligation but a moral commitment. It has become institutionalised via administrative practice and inter-agency coordination, thereby extending the mandated security remit into conservation-relevant applied duties. This affirms Bandura’s (1977) claim that self-belief, rather than external instruction, is a decisive determinant of action. Operationally, VDP engagement on NH-715 during floods sits evenly in collaborative governance practice: frontline community actors coordinate with state agencies and NGOs to mitigate a transboundary risk (wildlife–vehicle collisions) that no single authority can solve alone, underscoring the risk of ICA. Documented measures such as time-card speed control during flood peaks and the upcoming 34.5-km elevated corridor on NH-715 underline the continued institutionalised need for such co-action along Kaziranga’s highway edge (Baruah 2026). Again, VDPs engage in activities such as discouraging alcohol and drug use in their communities. These efforts help build trust, cooperation and strong social ties within and between groups, which, in turn, make it easier to quickly mobilise people during wildlife-related emergencies. This pattern mirrors evidence that trust, reciprocity and local rules predict durable collective action in managing commons.
Village Defence Party (VDP)–Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Integrated Leadership Model for Securing People–Protected Area (PA) Interface.
Normative beliefs, which form the base of subjective norms, are deeply influenced by the perceived expectations of influential actors. In this situation, VDP leaders’ actions, decisions and verbal encouragement form behavioural standards for other members. However, while external agencies may also offer encouragement, such influence can backfire when not backed by material or logistical support. For example, respondents continue to request additional torches and gumboots, reflecting the idea that human needs are sometimes difficult to fully satisfy.
The mismatch between expectations and resources, such as inadequate honorariums, lack of insurance or delayed compensation, places these VDP leaders in a grim position sometimes. While they may showcase high participation through informal authority and moral persuasion, sustained engagement cannot rely solely on goodwill. If systemic gaps continue, the credibility of VDP leadership may erode, weakening both normative and control beliefs within the group. Additionally, resentment over recruitment in the forest sector and fear of displacement due to PA-related laws may later undermine trust in the broader institutional framework. This highlights the necessity for awareness campaigns clarifying that such recruitments are conducted at the state level, with no customised reservation provisions. Though TPB delivers a structured lens to comprehend behavioural intention, the lived realities of VDPs spread beyond abstract constructs. They resonate with a grounded ethic of place-based stewardship, shaped by local knowledge, social identity and daily negotiations with wildlife and institutions. Their role demands not only clearer mandates and material support but also genuine co-management models rooted in trust and recognition of their irreplaceable value to conservation governance.
The study fulfils its objectives across three interconnected domains. First, in exploring VDP coherence and coordination, we documented a rule-bound organisational structure supported by routine patrol practices. Second, with respect to motivations, aspirations and risks, quantitative analyses show that key TPB constructs, especially subjective norms and perceived control, significantly predict participation in patrol duties. Qualitative insights additionally develop this understanding by revealing the influence of cultural reverence and moral obligation as dominant motivational drivers. Particularly, even when risks are acknowledged, they do not deter engagement, aligning with behaviour-specific determinants highlighted in the TPB framework. Third, it recognises how leadership navigates structural and operational constraints to shape community action. Leaders function as boundary spanners within ICA dilemmas, strategically leveraging external agency support, social capital and cultural norms to articulate expectations, organise resources and sustain vigilance beyond their formal mandates. These practices echo the attributes of effective collaborative governance.
Limitation of the Study
Focusing interviews on leaders might entail risks like (a) informant bias like a stronger emphasis on formal mandates and success narratives; (b) social desirability in reporting sensitive issues like poaching and cattle smuggling; and (c) under-representation of dissenting voices (women, youth, minority households). Although we addressed this through VDP member FGDs, there is scope for future work through stratified interviews with general members and non-members.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India and Assam Forest Department for financial and technical support. They are thankful to the Chief Wildlife Warden of Assam and the Field Director, Kaziranga National Park and Tiger Reserve. Sincere gratitude to the Director and Dean, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, for intellectual support. The authors are grateful to the members of local institutions for sharing their critical views related to the people-protected area relationship. The authors would like to thank Ms Adyasha Nayak, Dr Ashish Mani, Ms Priyanka Borah and Mr Akash Nath for helping during the fieldwork and data analysis phase.
Data Availability Statement
The article contains the qualitative data on which the narratives are based. Additional information is available from the authors upon reasonable request.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Ethical Approval and Informed Consent
The research adhered to the ethical principles of voluntary participation, informed consent and confidentiality. Written informed consent was obtained from all respondents before data collection. Participants were assured of anonymity and the right to withdraw at any stage of the study.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study is funded by the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, through the project ‘Promoting community participation in conservation and conflict resolution in fringe villages of Kaziranga Tiger Reserve, Assam’ through ecodevelopment, under Grant No. F.No.5-4/2018-NTCA.
