See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/341736686

Exploring Socio-cultural Impacts of Ecotourism in the Annapurna Conservation

Area, Nepal

Article · December 2019

DOI: 10.3126/joetp.v1i0.38245

CITATIONS READS
0 1,346

1 author:

Kishan Datta Bhatta

Farwestern University, Nepal
21 PUBLICATIONS   47 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

China's Belt and Road: Impacts of the Cross-border infrastructure project along the Nepal-China Friendship Highway View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kishan Datta Bhatta on 29 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

JOETP, December 2019, Volume 1, Number 1 Kishan Datta Bhatta

Exploring Socio-cultural Impacts of Ecotourism in the Annapurna Conservation Area,

Nepal

Dr. Kishan Datta Bhatta1

1
Dean and Associate Professor, Faculty of Engineering, Farwestern University, Nepal.
Email:dbkishan76@gmail.com

Abstract:
Ecotourism is supposed to be culturally respectful and an agent to enhance indigenous values, culture and
heritage conservation through ethical and responsible approach of development. Acknowledging its
potential benefits, developing countries like Nepal have promoted ecotourism as a benign and alternative
strategy to attract foreign capital particularly by showing indigenous culture, heritage and environmental
resources to the tourists. However, in reality, ecotourism has also demonstrated its short-comings that
have caused severe environmental damage and socio-cultural problems. In this regard, by adopting
multiple techniques of data collection such as survey with households, interview with key informants,
participant observation and archival study, this paper examines the role of ecotourism in the conservation
of local culture and heritage, and explores the perceived socio-cultural impacts of ecotourism
development in the Annapurna Sanctuary Trail in Annapurna region. Research Findings reveal that
ecotourism has induced both positive and negative consequences on the local culture and social life. On
one hand, social facilities and infrastructure such as road, school, health post, drinking water, and tele-
communication have been improved in the settlements along the trail. On the other hand, local culture,
traditions and architectural heritage have been threatened by the tourism development. The key objective
of ecotourism i.e. conservation of local heritage and culture, is not fully achieved, however local people
perceived significant benefits in terms of conservation of biodiversity and economic benefits. The lack of
control on the construction of private buildings, and no specific attention on the vernacular architecture,
and local cultural practices has pushed communities towards crisis of cultural identity. It recommends to
the relevant stakeholders, specifically the government, for adopting comprehensive policies of ecotourism
development particularly to promote cultural heritage conservation and sustainability in the region.

Keywords: Ecotourism, Socio-cultural impacts, Community, Settlements, Annapurna Sanctuary Trail

Introduction:

In this 21st century, the advancement in science and technology, globalization of capitalism, and
increase in populations and their movement have significantly helped tourism to develop into
one of the world’s largest and fastest-growing industries. Tourism has become a global
phenomenon, and demand for leisure time and travel is increasing day by day, and will be
continued in future. It is because the household income in emerging economies is rising and
consequently the demand for travel is also increasing. It is a key provider of jobs, a leading
industry in service sector at global level, and a significant generator of foreign exchange at the
national level. According to World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC, 2019), the travel and
tourism has contributed to 10.4% of the total GDP and generated 319 million jobs (1 in 10 jobs)
in 2018.

Given the exponential increase in number of international tourists, and their potential
contribution to foreign exchange earnings and employment opportunities to the people;
alternative approaches to tourism such as ecotourism has been extensively promoted in the
developing countries mainly to alleviate rural poverty and achieve overall sustainable

55
JOETP, December 2019, Volume 1, Number 1 Kishan Datta Bhatta

development goals. As a result, ecotourism is expanding rapidly and penetrating into the rural
settlements and the protected areas (Lacher & Nepal, 2010). Ecotourism, as a subset of
sustainable tourism, is increasingly viewed as a green strategy to achieve sustainable
development goals. Many developing countries are committed towards ecotourism to receive
economic growth through responsible use of natural and cultural resources (Duffy, 2002).
Lindberg et. al (1996) argued that ecotourism could provide benefits to local communities if they
support conservation activities. It adopts an approach similar to the sustainable development, and
is positively and significantly correlated with each other.

Situated in the southern part of Asia, Nepal, the Himalayan Shangri-La, is a landlocked country
between two rapidly developing economies India and China. Nepal exhibits immense diversity in
geography, natural setting and culture, and has a comparative advantage for tourism
development. The number of tourist arrival in 2018 is 1173072 and the average length of stay is
12.4 days (MoCTCA, 2019). According to WTTC (2019), the travel and tourism has contributed
7.9% of the total economy of Nepal in 2018 (i.e. the total GDP contribution is USD 2,225.8
million). Similarly, it has generated 1051000 jobs (i.e. 6.7% of total employment). India and
China are the major tourist markets for Nepal. In 2018, they contributed about 16% and 12% of
total inbound tourist arrivals in Nepal respectively.

Protected areas (PAs) are the most popular tourist destinations of Nepal specifically for trekking,
mountaineering, rafting and exploring wildlife and diverse indigenous culture. There are 20 PAs
where more than 40% of the international tourists in Nepal prefer to visit every year (MoCTCA,
2011). The world's most famous trekking trails such as Annapurna-Trail is also situated within
PA namely Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA). As the large numbers of indigenous people
are living in or around the PAs, rapid growth of tourism has affected their way of life, local
heritage, economy and environment. With more than six decades of tourism development,
several settlements in and around the PAs (the major tourist destinations) have not only
experienced transformation in terms of land use, shape and size but also undergone through
significant economic, socio-cultural and environmental changes (Nepal, 2003, Nyaupane &
Thapa, 2004). Studies reveal that tourism development in PAs have actually induced problems of
environmental degradation, waste generation, pollution, and loss of socio-cultural values,
tradition and heritage (Gurung,1998;Sharma,1998;Nepal,2003;Nyaupane & Thapa,2004). In this
regard, this paper highlights on the role of ecotourism in promoting conservation of local culture
and heritage and explore the community perceptions towards socio-cultural impacts of
ecotourism with specific reference to the case of Annapurna Sanctuary Trail in the Annapurna
Conservation Area (ACA) in Nepal. It highlights on the socio-cultural impacts of ecotourism and
critically argued whether local culture and heritage has been preserved or deteriorated with the
growth of tourism in AST.

Ecotourism: Theoretical Definitions

Ecotourism, a highly–contested concept and strategy, is frequently adopted in developing

countries as a pro-poor, sustainable pathway for local communities to improve their livelihoods
(Kiss, 2004; Das and Chatterjee, 2015; Montes and Kafley, 2019). The concept of ecotourism
has its roots deepen in the environmental movement during the 1970s and 1980s (Honey, 1999;
Orams, 1995). Ceballos-Lascurain defined ecotourism as “environmentally responsible travel

56
JOETP, December 2019, Volume 1, Number 1 Kishan Datta Bhatta

and visitation to relatively undisturbed natural areas, in order to enjoy and appreciate nature (and
any accompanying cultural features- both past and present) that promotes conservation, has low
negative visitor impact, and provides for beneficially active socio-economic involvements of
local populations” (Blamey, 2001, p.5). This is one of the first formal and commonly accepted
definitions of ecotourism which not only stresses on what is done in the destinations (e.g. study,
admire, and enjoy nature and culture) but also suggests where it is done (relatively undisturbed
areas), who does it (person who believes in value of nature, society and culture) and how they do
it (low negative impacts, non–consumptive, involvements of local populations). It reveals nature
orientation and sensitive ethic both ecologically and culturally. It is therefore a “responsible
travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and sustains the well-being of local people
and involves interpretation and education” (TIES, 2015). This concept embraces the idea of
balanced approach that considers ecotourism both from eco-centric and anthropocentric planning
ethics, and addresses the issues of development without destroying the environmental resources.
Based on this concept, several principles have been portrayed for ecotourism development,
whose key purpose is to benefit local people, conserve resources and satisfy tourist’s need by
adopting appropriate policies, guidelines, and responsible behavior by the tourists, host
community, and the tourism industry.

The Quebec Declaration also stresses on the participation of indigenous communities in the
planning, development and operation of ecotourism to actively contribute to well- being of
communities and the conservation of resources, as well as interpretation of local heritages to the
tourists who often visits in small size groups. These criteria or principles seem more like ethics
or norms of ecotourism, and demand for the consideration of balanced planning approach i.e.
combination of anthropocentric as well as eco-centric standpoint. In addition, these criteria
emphasize on the concept of sustainable development and sustainability (e.g. Ceballos-
Lascurain, 1996; Honey, 1999; Fennell & Eagles, 1990; Lindberg & Hawkins, 1993; Tourism
Concern & WWF, 1991; Wight, 1994; Ziffer, 1989).

Ecotourism Impacts in the Protected Areas

Ecotourism is an instigator of change (Wall, 1996). These changes reveal the impacts of
ecotourism which are often measured in terms of positive (beneficial) and negative (detrimental)
impacts. The impacts result from the complex interrelationship among host communities,
tourists, and natural environments, and are mutually interdependent (Mathieson & Wall, 1982).
Several scholars have conducted studies on the potential impacts of (eco)tourism on the
destination communities and environment, which are presented into three dimensions: economic;
environmental; and socio-cultural (e.g. Boo, 1993; Nyaupane & Thapa, 2004; Stone & Wall,
2003; Weaver, 1998; Pizam & Milman, 1984; UNESCAP, 1999; Gunn, 2002). The impacts vary
widely with variation in the quality of attraction, accessibility, regulations, management, and
many other factors. Extensive research has justified that benefits of ecotourism can be fully
realized (Eagles et al, 2001; Hatton, 1999; Mitchell & Reid, 2001; Norris, 1992; Slinger, 2000);
however in some cases ecotourism has fallen short of its objectives that have been set for it
(Nepal, 2000; Ross & Wall, 1999; Place 1991; Walpole & Goodwin, 2000).

Socio-cultural Impacts: Extensive research has confirmed that tourism not only plays an
important role in the economic development, but also brings enormous socio-cultural impacts

57
JOETP, December 2019, Volume 1, Number 1 Kishan Datta Bhatta

(Hall & Lew, 1998; Lindberg et.al, 2001; Pizam & Milman, 1984; Smith 1989). According to
Pizam and Milman (1984), socio-cultural impacts are the “ways in which tourism is contributing
to changes in value systems, individual behavior, family relationships, collective lifestyles, moral
conduct, creative expressions, traditional ceremonies and organizations”. It shows that the
changes in communities might be the structural such as change in livelihoods and increase in
population or changes in intangible heritages. Similar definitions have been proposed by many
other scholars (e.g. Fox, 1977; Honey, 1999; TIES, 2002).

The socio-cultural changes or impacts in local communities are brought by the interaction
between host and guest, and the difference in their basic values and logic systems; religious
beliefs; traditions; customs; lifestyle; behavioral patterns; dress codes; sense of time budgeting as
well as attitudes towards strangers (Inskeep, 1991). In addition to type of tourist’s activities, the
time of interaction between tourists and local communities also determine the magnitude of
socio-cultural impacts. Scholars such as, Cater (1987), Butler (1990) and Wearing (2001)
strongly argued that longer the duration of tourist’s stay in the destination, more will be the
tourists’ understanding of host community, and also accelerate the changes on the socio-cultural
pattern of the host. It shows that the host-guest interaction either leads to an improved reputation
and visibility of the host community among the eco-tourists or it can also be overly intrusive and
harmful despite the best of intentions among tourists (Wearing, 2001).

The increase in number of tourists and their interaction with host communities can bring several
local benefits, such as: new services and facilities become accessible to the host populations
which are actually developed to cater growing number of tourists; local arts, traditions and
cultural activities are revived and preserved as a tourism product; and attitude of local people and
tourists towards each other may be enhanced (Diamantis, 2004). Moreover, tourism has also
provided new jobs to women and youths that led to their economic independence and integration
into society. Alternatively, in some cases, cultural attractions through commoditization become
overtly commercialized in nature, satisfying the visitors need but losing all meaning and
significance for the local communities (Wearing, 2001). Moreover, in contrast to cultural revival,
scholars also reported the “demonstration effect” where local people imitate tourists’ behavior
and their way of life to become more westernized like tourists (de Kadt, 1979; Mathieson &
Wall, 1982).This impact is supposedly caused in large by perceived power differentials between
tourists and community members (deKadt,1979). Moreover, the cultural concerns in the
interaction between tourists and communities can also be viewed in terms of assimilation,
acculturation and cultural drift (Wall & Mathieson, 2006).

In many cases, tourism has created social problems on the communities. For example, in Costa
Rica, Campbell (1999) reported the negative impacts of tourism such as: increased drug use,
disorder, prostitution, crime, foreign land ownership and over-development. Influxes of tourists
and outsiders such as entrepreneurs and labors also exacerbate the overcrowding which may
displace local people to the periphery from the center of tourism activities, and may also create
conflicts between locals and outsiders specifically for grabbing tourism opportunities. It may
also contribute to power differentials between tourists and local people that further led to
separation and antagonistic relation between them. Physical displacement may also reduce the
local access to the PA resources also reduces local benefits from ecotourism.

58
JOETP, December 2019, Volume 1, Number 1 Kishan Datta Bhatta

These socio-cultural impacts of ecotourism on the host communities can be evaluated through
proper judgment on changes on the population structure; transformation of types of occupation;
transformation of values; influence on traditional way of life; and modification on consumption
pattern of local people (Wearing, 2001). It is, however, crucial to note that the identification and
examination of impacts depends on value judgments (Eagles, 2001), and who makes the
judgment is a critical element of decision making process. In this regard, appreciation of local
communities and their customs and traditions as a process of mutual respect and understanding
between different societies is crucial to promote long term sustainability.

Certainly, there exist mixed views about impacts of ecotourism on the local communities. In
some cases, scholars pointed that ecotourism development has faced organized protests of
communities to ensure that the projects should not be implemented in their areas. While on the
other hand, increasing dependency of communities on ecotourism to receive economic revenues
and benefits also make them unable to oppose ecotourism development. In this regard, the issues
of who gets benefits, and to what extent, are a crucial concern specifically to sustain ecotourism
development at the destinations. The widespread conception is that once communities get more
benefits, they will continue to support the tourism development. The perceptions and responses
of local communities towards ecotourism development are thus crucial to produce better results
as well as sustain ecotourism for long-term.

Community perceptions towards impacts of ecotourism

Telfer and Sharpley (2008, p.118) argued that interaction between tourists and communities may
occur in the “front stage” where more formal service, performance or demonstration is given, or
in the “backstage” where tourist view into the real life of residents, which may or may not be like
the formal performances. The perceptions and attitudes of local people towards tourism thus
depend, to a large degree, on the interaction with tourists and the possible consequences of
tourism. Murphy (1985, p.120) pointed that attitudes are personal and complex; however, in
terms of community attitudes, there are three main determinants. First is the type of contact
which exists between resident and visitor. Second is the relative importance of the industry to the
individual and community, and the third is a tolerance threshold.

A number of models have been used to elucidate the response of communities towards tourism.
One of the first models is the “Irritation Index” proposed by Doxey (1976), who consider
community attitudes towards tourism go through a series of stages such as euphoria, apathy,
irritation, antagonism and the final stage when a community is undermined and destination lose
its attraction (Telfer & Sharpley,2008). It indicates that local perceptions of tourism impacts are
linked with the stages of development, for example: positive attitudes are found at less developed
destinations or at initial stage of tourism, however with increase in tourism they may perceive
negative impacts and oppose the tourism development. The Doxey’s model however has been
criticized for two reasons. First, the attitudes of communities towards tourism may not always
move in one direction such as from positive at the start to the negative at later stages; opposite
may also be true. Second, it may be misleading for communities to have dominant attitudes
(Wall & Mathieson, 2006).

59
JOETP, December 2019, Volume 1, Number 1 Kishan Datta Bhatta

In a cross-cultural study of European tourists holidaying in Turkey, Dogan (1989) evaluated the
response of local communities towards tourism from resistance to adoption of western culture,
and proposed four categories of local responses, for example: resistance, retreatism, boundary
maintenance, and adoption. Although several models have been used to examine community
perceptions and responses; the theoretical foundation for these studies is largely the social
exchange theory, which was proposed by Ap (1992) to explain local attitudes towards tourism
development. This theory contends that attitudes are influenced by the perceptions of benefits
(positive impacts) associated with tourism development. It revealed that local people evaluate
tourism in terms of expected benefits and costs obtained in return for their services that is social
exchange (Lee & Back, 2006). Therefore, residents who perceive themselves as benefiting from
tourism will most likely to view it positively; while those who perceive themselves as incurring
costs will be negative towards tourism (Telfer & Sharpley,2008). Nevertheless, since Ap’s
(1992) study, social exchange theory has been widely used in evaluating local attitudes and
perceptions towards tourism.

This theory is most frequently confirmed by studies that link positive attitudes towards tourism
development with economic benefits (Lee & Back, 2006; Walpole & Goodwin, 2001). However,
understanding of local attitudes is not as simple as weighting up the perceived benefits and costs.
In addition to the stage of tourism development, local attitudes and perceptions are also
influenced by several other factors, for example demographic variables influence attitudes
indirectly through values (Lindberg & Johnson, 1997). Attitudes are also related with
individual’s characteristics such as level of contact with tourists, length of residence at
destination, ethnicity (Liu & Var, 1986), economic dependency (Milman & Pizam, 1988),
education and many others. As such, there would be no universal indicators to evaluate
community perceptions and attitudes towards (eco) tourism, rather, site-specific criteria and
assessment is crucial. Once the perceived benefits of ecotourism outweigh the costs, local people
may continue to support ecotourism development.

Research Methodology:
This study is primarily associated with the interpretivist paradigm and employs a qualitative
approach with descriptive and explanatory methods. The Settlements around Annapurna
Sanctuary Trail (AST) such as Dhampus, Landruk, Ghandruk and Birethanti are selected for
detailed investigation. Multiple methods of data collection such as questionnaire survey with
households (n=199), semi-structured interview with key informants (n=8), participant
observation, informal discussion and documentation analysis have been used. The set of
questionnaires were designed with open and close ended questions that provided respondents an
opportunity to express their opinions and suggestions. A 5-point Likert scale ranging from
strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5) has been used in evaluating perceived impacts of
ecotourism. Besides impacts, the scale varies according to set of questions and its objectives.
Documentation consisted of collection of written documents from the official records, relevant
publications, reports, photographs and videos. Extensive discussion and field notes were carried
out through in-depth interviews, participant observation, and informal discussion. Use of variety
of research instruments and data sources enhanced triangulation approach that provided cross-
data validity checks and the reliability of data sources.

60
JOETP, December 2019, Volume 1, Number 1 Kishan Datta Bhatta

Preliminary discussion with the key informants at local level such as the local leaders, and
entrepreneurs was conducted to identify the number and type of enterprises, number of
households and their occupation, concentration of the tourism related enterprises and services,
location and condition of local heritage, and associated issues. After the preliminary discussion,
an extensive tour of the settlement was conducted with the help of experienced local residents
which helped to define the boundary of study areas. During the selection of survey unit,
stratification criteria such as location of households, type of enterprise, use of the building and
the household activities were used. Considering the spatial context, households were selected
from the Major Trail (MT) i.e. major streets in the settlements as well as from off-the trail (OT)
i.e. secondary or branch streets in the settlements. These were selected as survey units through
systematic and stratified random sampling. The approximate distance of a peripheral household
from main trail is supposed to be 500 meters (maximum).
Figure 1: Map showing typical settlements in the Study Area (not in scale)

(Source: Author)

Households representing both the locations were selected specially to understand the perceptions
and attitudes of households towards ecotourism development and its socio-cultural impacts. It
helped to compare the perceived tourism impacts among the households in both the locations
(MT and OT). In addition to spatial location, the type of use of the building and the engagement
of households in specific activities were the additional criteria for selecting the households as a
survey unit. Attempt was made to seek maximum responses from different people engaged in
different types of activities.

The examination of perceived impacts would help to understand the current stage of ecotourism
development as well as the efficacy of existing ecotourism policies and plans, which is crucial to
determine the direction of ecotourism development and state of sustainability. It also helps to
predict future patterns and impacts of ecotourism development. The key criteria or issues that
will be examined as perceived socio-cultural impacts in the study areas include (i) Local values,
customs and identity (i.e. change in traditional values and customs; and change in family
relationship and cohesiveness) (ii) Local art, craft, and heritage conservation (i.e. appreciation
and revival of traditional art and crafts; conservation of local architecture, heritage and overall
built environment; and codes of conduct) (iii) Cultural exchange and appreciation (i.e.
interaction, intercultural appreciation and harmony between tourists and local community;
education, and interpretation facilities) (iv) Crime and vandalism (i.e. use of drug, sexual
61
JOETP, December 2019, Volume 1, Number 1 Kishan Datta Bhatta

harassment, vandalism and other crimes) and (v) Quality of life (i.e. social services and facilities;
local participation in planning and decision making; and overall satisfaction and happiness).

Overview of the Study Area:

Established in 1986, the Annapurna Conservation Area Project (ACAP) covers a land area of
7,629 Sq. Km., the largest conservation area in Nepal. The ACA is a land of spectacular beauty
and diversity, stretching from the subtropical zone in the south to the alpine and dry alpine
steppes in the north with altitudinal variation from 100 m. to the 8091m. It is unique and crucial
for its outstanding landscape, diverse flora and fauna, and the most geographically and culturally
diverse area in the world (Nepal, 2000). It is a region of deep river valleys, gorges, and high
mountain ranges including two of the world’s tallest mountains Dhaulagiri (8167m) and the
Annapurna (8091m). The drainage system includes several rivers as well as high altitude glaciers
and lakes (Nepal, 2003). Its diversity in terms of topography and climatic condition is favourable
to produce variety of vegetation (1236 plants), mammal (102), reptiles (40), birds (488),
amphibian species (23), fishes (20) and many wild endangered animals such as Himalayan Thar,
barking deer, blue sheep, red panda, snow leopard and langur (NTNC, 2009). The majority of the
residents live at subsistence level or below with a high level of dependence on natural resources.

Annapurna Sanctuary Trail (AST) is one of the oldest and popular tourism trails in the region
starting from Dhampus and Birethanti leading to the base camp of Mount Annapurna (4070m)
and Mount Machhapuchre (Fishtail) (3703m). It passes through several ethnic villages in the
southern Annapurna region, of which Dhampus, Landruk, Ghandruk and Birethanti have specific
importance attracting thousands of tourists every year. These villages are the major stop-points
for trekkers going to or returning back from the base camps and thus have been influenced by the
tourism activities. Ghandruk, predominantly a Gurung ethnic village, is the region where the
pilot project of ACAP was first implemented in 1986 to mitigate the environmental problems of
the region. The unique geographical, biological and cultural diversity has made the area the most
popular trekking destination in Nepal (Nyaupane & Thapa, 2004). The AST follows the southern
slopes of Annapurna range and offers dramatic views of some of the highest and most beautiful
mountains in the world. It also exhibits the diverse and fascinating ethnic culture of the Gurungs,
Magars, Bahun, Chhetri and Kami. The livelihood of these communities has been largely
influenced by the tourism development in the region.

The village of Dhampus lies within the jurisdiction of then the Dhampus Village Development
Committee, whereas the village of Landruk belongs to then the Lumle Village Development
Committee, and that of Ghandruk and Birethanti belongs to then the Ghandruk Village
Development Committee. While the Village Development Committee (VDC) in the rural context
was subdivided into nine wards, these settlements only form the portion of the VDC and cover
only some of its wards which lie along the major tail of the Annapurna Sanctuary. The total
households and the population of the three VDCs mentioned above reached to 2778 and 11060
respectively (CBS, 2012). Now these VDCs have been restructured as Rural Municipalities.

Since the inception of ACAP, the plans and policies advocate the concept of ecotourism
(sustainable tourism) as a tool to promote conservation of local heritage (natural and cultural)
vis-a-vis socio-economic development of the communities. Ecotourism has become one of the
major alternatives for supporting livelihoods of local people in the ACA. The region is attracting
62
JOETP, December 2019, Volume 1, Number 1 Kishan Datta Bhatta

different types of tourists including luxurious, pleasure seeking, adventurous, holiday making
and economical budget backpackers. It has been visited by large number of international tourists
every year which usually accounts more than 60 percent of the country’s total trekkers (NTNC,
2009). Since the opening of the first lodge in Ghandruk village in 1976, there has been a
significant growth in the construction of lodges, and tourism services in the region. By the end of
the year 1999, there were 518 lodges in the region, which increased rapidly and now reached
over 1,000 lodges, and tea-shops along with hundreds of other subsidiary services especially to
cater the trekkers and pilgrims (NTNC, 2009). In the AST, there are also more than 300 lodges
and tea-shops operated and registered under the Annapurna Sanctuary Tourism Entrepreneurs
Committee. The number of international tourists visiting the region has increased from 14,332 in
1980 to 47584 in 1995 and 99296 in 2011 (NTNC, 2009; MoCTCA, 2012). A steady growth in
international tourist’s arrival was observed till 2000 when it reached to 73,407. Since then it was
however dramatically dropped due to various reasons including national and international
security concerns, and reached to 38,642 in 2002 Since the restoration of peace in 2006/2007,
international tourist arrival was increased and reached to 99296 in 2011(NTNC, 2009;
MoCTCA, 2012). Tourism has thus become one of the prime economic activities in the region,
providing local employment to over 50,000 people during the peak season (Nepal, 2003).

Figure 2: Map of ACA showing locations of tourist villages along the AST and other trails

Source: Modified from Nepal (2007).

63
JOETP, December 2019, Volume 1, Number 1 Kishan Datta Bhatta

Perceived Socio-Cultural Impacts of Ecotourism: Research Findings and Discussion

One of the significant concerns arising from the rapid development of tourism in the developing
destinations is its socio-cultural consequences on the lives of indigenous people (Pizam &
Milman, 1984; Hall & Lew, 1998; Lindberg et.al., 2001). Assumed to be a benign idea,
ecotourism maximize social benefits while minimizing socio-cultural costs. In this regard, the
socio-cultural impacts of ecotourism will be discussed critically specifically with reference to the
findings of the perceptions and attitudes of local communities in the AST including MT and OT.

Community perceptions towards significance of local culture and heritage

Akin to natural environment and scenery, indigenous culture, traditions, and archaeological
heritage play significant role in the development of ecotourism. In case of AST, majority of
residents believed that local culture, tradition and heritage play vital role to promote sustainable
tourism development. The survey results (chart 1) also reports that 91% respondents in AST
strongly acknowledged their culture and heritage significant in attracting tourists in their
villages. Almost similar proportion of respondents in MT (91.7%) and OT (90.1%) also
considered their culture and tradition crucial in promoting tourism development. Comparatively,
respondents in OT seem more conscious to their culture and thus value more to it than that of
MT. In addition to local culture, residents also perceived built heritage and historical
(archaeological) sites as the crucial elements for (eco) tourism development in the region.
Chart 1: Importance of local culture and traditions Chart 2: Importance of built heritage

Source: Author's Survey (2012 & 2013)

The survey results (chart 2) reveal that majority of respondents (75.9%) perceived their
architectural heritage as significant for attracting tourists. It is crucial to note that majority of
residents seem positive towards indigenous culture and their heritage, while the influence of
tourist culture is also growing in the region. With regard to MT and OT, relatively more residents
in MT seem positive with the built heritage than that of OT. Nevertheless, both local culture and
architectural heritage are assumed important elements in ecotourism development which the
local residents also valued as important assets for sustainable community development.

Community perceptions towards tourism-induced socio-cultural changes in their life

The survey results reveal that majority of respondent in AST perceived ecotourism as an agent of
socio-cultural changes. The Chart 3 shows most of the respondents (83%) admitted that tourism

64
JOETP, December 2019, Volume 1, Number 1 Kishan Datta
D Bhatta

has changed their socio-cultural

cultural life to some extent; however, only 15.15.6%
6% disagreed with the
statement. Respondents in MT and OT perc perceived these changes differently such as 17.6% in MT
agreed with the facts that tourism has brought significant socio
socio-cultural
cultural changes in their life than
that of 5.5% in the OT; whereas almost equal proportion in both areas (MT: 70.4%, and OT:
71.4%) believed that these are only minor changes. On n the other hand, 22% in OT and 10.2% in
MT did not perceive socio-cultural
cultural changes at all. Nevertheless, it is true that rapid growth of
tourism has changed the lives of residents both in the MT and OT though in a varying degree. To
explore the nature of these changes, households were further asked how they view tourism- tourism
induced socio-cultural changes (see chart 4).. Interestingly, of the total respondents (n=166),
majority (96%) perceived these changes positively and rests (3.6%) shared mixed views both
‘good’
od’ and ‘bad’. Nearly similar proportion of respondents in MT (95.8%) and OT (97.1%)
perceived these changes positively. The positive changes are reported as increase in social
services and facilities, intercultural appreciation, and understanding of forei
foreign
gn culture. On the
other hand, negative changes include loss of traditional socio socio-cultural
cultural activities, community
cohesiveness, and gatherings.

Chart 3: Has tourism changed your/household life? Chart 4 : How

ow do you view these changes?

Source: Author's survey (2012 & 2013)

Similar to the changes in the socio
socio-cultural
cultural life of individual households, most respondents
(97.5%) believed that tourism has changed their community as well (see chart 5), where 13.1%
rated these changes as major (‘a lot’), and 84.4% as minor (‘a little’). Slightly larger proportion
of respondents in MT (15.7%) perceived these changes as major as that of OT (9.9%).
Conversely, respondents perceiving changes as minor are slightly m more
ore in OT (86.8%) than MT
(82.4%). Those who perceived socio
socio-cultural
cultural changes in their community (n=195) were further
asked how they viewed such changes (see chart 6).. Overall, 69.1% perceived the impacts
positively; 29.4% had mixed views (both good & bad) bad);; and rests (1.5%) perceived negatively.
Respondents in MT (75.5%) seemed more likely positive with the changes than that of OT
(61.4%). Furthermore, respondents perceiving changes both ‘good and bad’ are relatively higher
in OT (35.2%) than MT (24.5%). T Thus, tourism has indeed brought socio-cultural
cultural changes in the
communities which are perceived more positively by the residents in MT than OT. It is
apparently because residents in MT are mostly the tourism entrepreneurs who usually involve in

65
JOETP, December 2019, Volume 1, Number 1 Kishan Datta Bhatta

tourism activities, receive more benefits from it, and expect growth of tourism in the region, thus
perceived the tourism-induced community changes more positively than farmers or non-
entrepreneurs along OT, who do not often involve in tourism and receive fewer benefits.

Chart 5: Has tourism changed your community? Chart 6: How do you view these changes?

Source: Authors Survey (2012)

Revival of local culture, traditions and heritage

Well-planned ecotourism development contributes to the preservation and revival of local

culture, traditions and built heritage particularly through education, awareness, and financial
contribution. In case of AST, survey findings reveal mixed perceptions of local residents towards
tourism’s role in the preservation of cultural heritage. Majority of respondents (98.5%) believed
that tourism has enhanced resident’s feeling of pride and respect towards their indigenous
culture, and traditions. However, with regard to revival of cultural heritage, they perceived both
positively as well as negatively. About 28.6% respondents believed that indigenous arts, crafts,
customs and heritage have been revived; however majority (40.7%) disagreed with this
statement, and rests (30.7%) neither agreed nor disagreed.

Residents in MT and OT perceived socio-cultural impacts differently. For example, 41.7%

respondents in MT agreed with the revival of local culture and heritage through tourism
development, however it is only 13.2% in OT. Conversely, while nearly half of respondents
(49.5%) in OT disagreed with this statement; only 33.2% in MT did so. Differences in resident’s
perceptions could be because of the different degree of resident’s involvement and relationship
with tourism. Specifically, potential economic benefit from tourism is considered as one of key
factors determining community perceptions toward tourism development. More the direct
benefits from tourism, more residents will perceive it positively and vice-versa. As residents in
MT are more likely to receive direct economic benefits from tourism than that of OT, they
perceived tourism development more positively than that of residents in OT, who are usually the
farmers or non-entrepreneurs, and do not directly involve or less involved in tourism.

One of the significant features of indigenous culture in the AST is the traditional dances, songs
and dresses. In each village, women’s group has operated cultural shows to the tourists where
indigenous cultural activities such as Gurung folk dances and songs are performed by the local
artists. Based on the demand, each dancing group performs the shows in different hotels and
lodges in the village, and collects funds for community development and awareness activities.

66
JOETP, December 2019, Volume 1, Number 1 Kishan Datta Bhatta

On one hand these cultural programs have been supporting continuity of cultural practices of
Gurung community to some extent; while on the other hand, some residents commented that the
group members nowadays do not wear their traditional dresses nor sing folk songs. On the
contrary, residents criticized that artists tend to sing modern radio songs and wear jeans and non-
local dresses during the cultural shows, which does not convey cultural richness of Gurungs to
the tourists. More specifically, these activities do not actually provide sense of cultural
authenticity of Gurung ethnicity.

Wearing (2001) pointed that cultural attractions through commoditization may become overtly
commercialized in nature that satisfy the tourists need but may lose its authenticity and
significance for local communities. Research findings also justify that there has been a
commercialization of local culture, and heritage in the AST. Over half of the respondents
(51.2%) agreed with this statement, while only 9.5% disagreed and rests (39.3%) were unsure.
Findings reveal significant differences in the perceptions of residents along MT and OT. About
38.9% respondents in MT (38.9%) perceived that local culture has been commercialized; which
is nearly two third in OT (65.9%). It indicates that residents in OT (mainly the farmers) are more
sensitive to the cultural changes than that of MT (mainly the entrepreneurs). The reasons for
different perceptions may be because of the different level of tourism development, interaction
and local participation. Butler’s life cycle (1980) also argued that, with increase in tourism, the
authenticity of local culture and heritage might be lost if proper intervention are not taken on
early stage of planning. In the AST, local youths have been attracted towards tourist culture and
imitate tourist behavior, dress and fashion. Moreover, some of the youths have also adopted
alcohol and drugs. In this regard, one of the elderly residents in AST responded that:

“Our new generation is more inclined towards tourist culture and is forgetting our indigenous
traditions, festivals, and culture. They often imitate tourist behavior, food, fashion and culture and
value more to the tourist culture thinking that westerners are more civilized and what they do is the
right. On the other hand, as most of the festivals of Gurungs fall during tourist seasons; local people,
mostly the tourism entrepreneurs, do not have time to celebrate our festivals and cultural activities.
Thus, Gurung culture of this region is losing its authenticity with the growing influence of tourist
culture on community”

This argument is further validated from the findings of the household's survey. More than half of
the respondents (61.9%) agreed that locals are now inclined towards tourist culture. Reasonably,
respondents in OT (75.8%) are more likely to agree with the statement than that of MT (50%).
Scholars such as de Kadt (1979), and Mathieson and Wall (1982) pointed that copying of tourist
behavior and their way of life to become more westernized like tourists by the indigenous
community is a demonstration effect of tourism, which is also gradually increasing in the AST.
In addition, although these changes in socio-cultural values would have been partly caused by
the factors such as radio, televisions, newspaper, and migratory pattern of locals to the cities and
abroad; rapid development of tourism in the AST is the fundamental reason accelerating the
changes among the local communities.

Undoubtedly, tourism has brought significant changes in local culture and community life style.
Local residents are now increasingly motivated towards financial benefits from tourism, with
less attention towards family cohesiveness and kinship among the locals. Significant number of
respondents (15.1%) agreed that tourism has increased negative changes in the family

67
JOETP, December 2019, Volume 1, Number 1 Kishan Datta Bhatta

relationship and cohesiveness, whereas nearly half of the respondents (48.7%) were unsure
(neutral), and rests (36.2%) disagreed. It is found that slightly larger proportion of respondents in
MT agreed (16.7%) with this statement than that of OT (13.2%). However, significant proportion
also disagreed in both MT (37%) and OT (35.2%). Similarly, another substantial change in the
AST is the transformation of built space and physical environment. The rapid development of
tourism has also transformed the shape, size, and functional characteristics of rural settlements
along with tremendous changes in the architecture (Nepal, 2003; Chan & Bhatta, 2013). The
design and construction of hotels and lodges along the trail has not addressed the features of
local architecture and identity of the region. These buildings neither have adopted local
technology, materials, and architectural style nor considered socio-cultural essence of the
Gurung village. Only few lodges have been constructed in traditional architectural style, one of
them is the Gurung Cottage; a popular tourist lodge in the Ghandruk Village. During an
interview, the owner of the lodge who is also a chairman of Annapurna Sanctuary Tourism
Entrepreneurs Committee commented that:

“It’s really a big problem that tourism entrepreneurs have not well-recognized the significance of
our cultural heritage, identity and architecture. Most of them think that tourists only want modern
facilities and services like western countries, which is, in fact, not entirely true. According to my
experience of more than a decade, majority of tourists prefer to enjoy local food, customs, culture
and architecture. However, we, specifically lodge owners/hoteliers, have not been able to supply
our original local products. We have not only copied the foreign food items but also introduced so
called modern architecture which seems so ugly and alien to this region. I am happy that tourists
prefer Gurung Cottage because of its vernacular taste in architecture and services. Tourists are
fully satisfied and happy with my lodge. But, it’s really sad to say that staffs and members of
many of the community organizations working for conservation and development have also
constructed their hotels, lodges and houses in modern style concrete structure without
incorporating local architecture and materials. I think lack of knowledge and awareness about the
significance of vernacular architecture and its connection with tourism are the key reasons
undermining the local architecture and heritage in the AST”.

During discussion, some hoteliers however also replied that newly constructed buildings have
more space and rooms essential for catering growing numbers of tourists. They stressed that the
buildings are constructed with reinforced cement concrete (RCC) technology which is more
durable, and consume less amount of timber as compared to the traditional houses. On the
contrary, key informants stressed that as new buildings seem ugly and alien to indigenous
culture; there could be other possibilities to incorporate local architectural features even in the
RCC buildings, so they should have adopted vernacular style rather than introducing alien
features. Lack of proper regulations and architectural control on the private land and the lack of
awareness among residents are the key reasons accelerating the construction of hotels in alien
architectural style.

From the discussion, it is arguably concluded that local architecture, built heritage, and
traditional identity of Gurung ethnicity have been threatened by the rapid and unplanned growth
of tourism. The increased tendency of local people, specifically the youths and tourism
entrepreneurs, to abandon their traditional customs, values and heritage and their increased
desire to copy tourist attire, behavior and culture is similar to the Dearden’s (1991) arguments
in the study of trekking tourism in Hill-Tribes of Northern Thailand, where tribal people
exposed to trekkers were transformed from tribal host with traditional hospitality to small

68
JOETP, December 2019, Volume 1, Number 1 Kishan Datta Bhatta

tourism entrepreneur with cash transaction, and finally the tourism entrepreneur with
commercialization of local culture. It is also important to note that not all the activities of tourists
bring negative impacts on the local customs and culture. Some residents still continue to practice
local culture, social values and practice and also receive tourist dollars. In the policy level,
though ACAP has stressed on the conservation and revival of local traditions and built heritage
(NTNC, 2009); in practice, it has been given least priority. Additionally, most of the tourism
entrepreneurs including both locals and outsiders have placed more emphasis to the convenience
of tourists, with less or no priority for local architecture, culture and heritage conservation.

Fostering interaction and inter-cultural appreciation

Ecotourism is assumed as a tool to enhance host-guest interaction and inter-cultural appreciation

(Ross & Wall, 1999). Unlike the cultural degradation caused by the mass tourism, ecotourism is
considered supportive to enhance the understanding of indigenous culture, knowledge, skills,
traditions, and heritage. Interaction among hosts (residents) and tourists is thus inevitable to
promote cultural continuity and identity. Majority of the respondents in AST (65.3%) agreed that
interaction between tourists and local community has increased cultural exchange and respect to
each other, whereas 5% disagreed, and rests (29.7%) were unsure. Significant difference has
been identified in the perceptions of residents along MT and OT, such as, 78.7% respondents in
MT agreed with the statement, whereas it is only 49.5% in OT. It could be because the residents
along MT have more regular interaction with tourists than that of residents in OT. Butler (1990)
and Wearing (2001) also pointed that more the duration of interaction between host and guest
more will be the understanding of local culture and thus will respect each other and appreciate
socio-cultural values.

Eco-tourists are usually assumed purposeful and responsible and expected to appreciate local
culture and heritage. In case of AST, majority of respondents (81.9%) agreed that tourist’s stay
in their villages has increased the appreciation of local culture and heritage. Reasonably, higher
proportion of respondents in MT (87.0 %) has perceived tourism positively in appreciating
Gurung ethnic culture than that of OT (74.7%). The difference in the residents’ perceptions
could be because of resident’s level of interaction, involvement and dependence on tourism.
With regard to overall satisfaction of local people towards tourists’ behavior, findings reveal that
over half of respondents (50.7%) are satisfied with tourist’s behavior, whereas 2% disagreed and
rests (47.2%) have neutral response. Respondents in MT (58.3%) seem more likely positive with
the tourist behavior than that of OT (41.8%). It indicates that residents in both areas did not
perceive tourist’s behavior so negatively; only some key informants are more conscious about
potential negative impacts of tourism on the indigenous culture. It’s ironic that while tourists
respect local culture and traditions; increasing number of local residents, specifically the youth,
are neglecting their own culture and attracting towards tourist culture. It is thus indispensable to
educate, aware, and encourage local youths to respect, preserve and continue their local culture
and tradition.

Enhancing education and awareness

Education, awareness, and proper interpretation of indigenous cultural resources to the tourists
are crucial to motivate both locals and tourists for responsible and ethical behavior towards
communities and their culture. As Ross and Wall (1999) asserted that education and awareness

69
JOETP, December 2019, Volume 1, Number 1 Kishan Datta Bhatta

activities are the backbone of ecotourism development that will enhance mutual understanding
between tourists and locals, and thereby increase respect towards indigenous culture, traditions
and heritage. During the interaction, indigenous communities should be able to properly
communicate and interpret their local lifestyle, and cultural authenticity to the tourists. In the
AST, residents, specifically the farmers and non-entrepreneurs, can hardly communicate in
English language with the tourists, however tourism entrepreneurs and trek guides could do.
Nevertheless, significant proportions of residents, including those who have no formal education,
have now become able to communicate and behave with tourists appropriately.

Survey results reveal that 29.6% respondents in AST agreed with the statement “local people can
easily interpret their culture and social activities to the tourists”, whereas 36.1 % disagreed, and
remaining (33.7%) neither agreed nor disagreed. Comparatively higher respondents from MT
(36.1%) agreed with the statement than that of OT (22%). It is because tourism entrepreneurs
mostly live along the MT, and they more often interact with tourists than residents in OT.
Tourism has also provided learning opportunities to the residents to explore foreign culture that
has opened their eyes towards rest of the world. Most of residents believed that they have learnt
many good things from the tourists such as cleanness, mutual respect, and importance of their
local culture, and traditions. One of the respondents (entrepreneurs) commented that:

“We have got opportunities to communicate and enjoy dinner with some of the most educated
people in the world such as professors, scientists, doctors, engineers, and many others. We have also
learnt so many new things from tour operators, trek guides and porters. We all sit together and share
our experiences. There is no any cultural discrimination between tourists and locals. We have still
many more good things to learn from them. This is possible only because of tourism development in
the region”.

Undoubtedly, tourism has benefited local residents either directly or indirectly. However,
residents in OT criticized that educational and economic benefits are mostly accrued to the
hoteliers and residents along MT, with less or no benefits to peripheral areas. The proximity of
residents along the major trail (MT) and their frequent interaction and involvement in tourism
activities has benefited them more than that of OT. Community perception usually changes with
changes in the tourism intensity, its impacts on local people and temporal dimension. One of the
first hoteliers in the Ghandruk commented that “in the early days, none of the local people
wanted to invite tourists and serve them at their home; however nowadays everyone want to have
at least a group of trekkers in their lodge and hotels”. It indicates the transformation of local
communities from restraint nature to supporter (entrepreneurs) of tourism.

Some residents in AST, with support of ACAP, have operated cultural museum, such as the
privately-owned ‘Gurung Museum’ in Ghandruk village, which displays artifacts about local
culture, customs and daily life style of Gurung people that inform tourists about indigenous
community lifestyle. It has become one the key tourist attractions in the region, and provided
financial benefits to the owner through collection of entrance fee and selling of local arts and
crafts. Information on the local key attractions and trekking trails has also been provided in each
tourist spots either by the local hotels or the ACAP. About 45.2% respondents perceived that the
educational facilities such as museum, maps and information are well established in the AST,
whereas 26.1% disagreed and rests (28.6%) unsure. While over half of the respondents in MT
(53.7%) agreed with this statement; only 35.2% in OT did so. And nearly one fourth of

70
JOETP, December 2019, Volume 1, Number 1 Kishan Datta Bhatta

respondents in both areas disagreed with the statement (MT: 26.8% & OT: 25.3%). On the
whole, socio-cultural awareness and educational benefits are, to some extent, received by the
tourists and some local residents mainly in the MT; it is indispensable to implement more
effective educational programs on local culture, heritage and socio-cultural life style that would
aware and motivate local residents, both in MT and OT, and the tourists towards conservation of
local culture.

Improving overall quality of life

Compared with situation before 1986, residents along the AST perceived that tourism has now
significantly improved the social facilities and overall quality of their life. Since the inception of
ACAP, emphasis was provided on the development of community infrastructure and well-being
as a strategy to motivate local residents towards protection of biodiversity and local environment.
The collaborative efforts of ACAP and local people along with other actors have played crucial
role to develop social facilities such as school, health post, electricity, drinking water, roads and
telecommunication. About 97.6% respondents in AST agreed that social facilities and
infrastructure have been improved now, which is 99.1% in MT, and 96.7% in OT. It is one of
the most notable changes in the local communities brought by the ACAP and tourism
development. Moreover, majority of respondents (90%) also replied that tourism has increased
their happiness and quality of life. Relatively, more respondents from MT (93.5%) agreed with
the statement than that of OT (85.7%). On the other hand, despite its significant benefits to local
residents, tourism has also been perceived as an agent to increase crime rate, and use of drug in
the village. About 16.1% respondents in the AST agreed with this statement, though 48.2%
disagreed and rests (35.7%) were not sure. Relatively, more respondents from MT (18.5%)
agreed with the statement than that of OT (13.2%). Some hoteliers also reported that there
happened theft cases occasionally in their village, and the use of drug by the tourists, trek guides,
porters and sometimes local people is also increasing. With these exceptions, local residents in
general have perceived tourism as tool to improve their quality of life.

Conclusion

With regard to socio-cultural impacts, findings demonstrate that tourism has induced both
positive and negative consequences on the local culture and social life. On one hand, social
facilities and infrastructure such as road, school, health post, drinking water, and
telecommunication have been improved in the settlements along the trail. On the other hand,
local culture, traditions and architectural heritage have also been threatened by the tourism
development. Indigenous culture has been exploited increasingly by the profit-driven tourism
entrepreneurs. Evidences suggest that tourism is promoting the pursuit of modernity among
indigenous communities in the AST, and it has created contradiction between the tourist's quest
for authentic and exotic culture and the resident's desire for a modern life. One of the key
reasons behind this situation is the lukewarm policies of cultural heritage conservation both
tangible and intangible. Conservation of biodiversity is placed at the highest priority, with less
attention towards cultural heritage. The lack of control on the construction of private buildings,
and no specific attention on the vernacular architecture, and cultural practices has pushed
communities towards crisis of cultural identity. In addition, lack of awareness and education
about the cultural heritage conservation has further accelerated the degradation of local cultural

71
JOETP, December 2019, Volume 1, Number 1 Kishan Datta Bhatta

resources and their authenticity. It is noteworthy to remember that better the implementation of
conservation policies of local culture and heritage better will be the tourism situation that
eventually benefits local communities. It is suggested that the ecotourism policies should
therefore rigorously focus on the conservation of cultural heritage and community development
together in the tourist destinations.

References:
 Ap, J. (1992). Residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 19 (4), 665-690
 Blamey, R. K. (2001). Principles of ecotourism. In D.B. Weaver (Ed.), The encyclopedia of ecotourism (pp.5-22). Oxon &
New York: CABI Publishing.
 Boo, E.(1993). Ecotourism planning in protected areas. In K. Lindberg and D. Hawkins (Eds.), Ecotourism: A guide for
planners and managers (pp.15-54). North Bennington: The Ecotourism Society.
 Butler, R.W. (1990). Alternative tourism: Pious hope or Trojan horse? Journal of Travel Research, 28 (3), 40-45.
 Campbell, L. M. (1999). Ecotourism in rural developing countries. Annals of Tourism Research, 26, 531-553.
 Cater E. A. (1987).Tourism in the least developed countries. Annals of Tourism Research, 14,202-226.
 Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1996). Tourism, ecotourism and protected areas: The state of nature-based tourism around the
world and guidelines for its development. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN).
 Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) (2012). "National Population and Housing Census 2011". Kathmandu: Central Bureau of Statistics.
 Chan, R. and Bhatta, K. D. (2013). Ecotourism planning and sustainable community development: Theoretical perspective
for Nepal. South Asian Journal of Tourism and Heritage, 6(1), 69-96.
 Das, M. and Chatterjee, B.(2015). Ecotourism: A panacea or a predicament?. Tourism Management Perspectives, 14, 3-16.
 Dearden, P. (1991). Tourism and sustainable development in northern Thailand. Geographical Review, 81 (4), 400-413.
 deKadt, E. (1979). Tourism: Passport to development? Perspectives on the social and cultural effects of tourism in
developing countries. New York: Oxford University Press.
 Diamantis, D. (2004). Ecotourism: Management and assessment. London: Thomson.
 Dogan, H. (1989). Forms of adjustment: Socio-cultural impacts of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 16 (2), 216-236.
 Doxey, G.V. (1976). When enough's enough: The natives are restless in Old Niagara. Heritage Canada, 2 (2), 26-29.
 Duffy, R. (2002). A trip too far: Ecotourism, politics and exploitation. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.
 Eagles, P.F.J. (2001). Ecotourism impacts. In D.B. Weaver (Ed.), The encyclopedia of ecotourism (pp.359-362). Oxon and
New York: CABI Publishing.
 Eagles P.F.J., Bowman, M.E., and Tao, T.C.H.( 2001). Guidelines for tourism in parks and protected areas of East Asia.
World Conservation Union, World Commission on Protected Areas-East Asia Region, Gland, Switzerland.
 Fennell, D. A. and Eagles, P. (1990). Ecotourism in Costa Rica: A conceptual framework. Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration, 8(1), 23-24.
 Fox, M. (1977). The social impact of tourism: A challenge to researchers and planners. In R.B. Finney and A. Watson
(Eds.), A new kind of sugar: Tourism in the Pacific (pp.27-48). University of California, Santa Cruz, Centre for South
Pacific Studies.
 Gurung, H. (1998). Sustainability and development in mountain tourism. In P.East, K.Luger and K.Inman (Eds.),
Sustainability in mountain tourism (pp.29-45). Delhi: Book Faith India.
 Hall, C.M. and Lew, A. A.(Eds.). (1998). Sustainable tourism: A geographical perspective. Essex: Addison Wesley
Longman Limited.
 Hatton, M.J. (1999). Community-based tourism in the Asia-pacific. Humber College. Toronto: APEC Publication.
 Honey, M. (1999). Ecotourism and sustainable development: Who owns paradise? Washington DC: Island Press.
 Inskeep, E. (1991). Tourism planning: An integrated and sustainable development approach. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
 Kiss, A. (2004). Is community –based ecotourism a good use of biodiversity conservation funds? TRENDS in Ecology and
Evolution,19 (5).
 Lacher, R. G. and Nepal, S. K. (2010a).From leakages to linkages: Local-level strategies for capturing tourism revenue in
northern Thailand. Tourism Geographies,12(1), 77-99.
 Lacher,R.G. and Nepal,S.K. (2010b). Dependancy and development in Northern Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research, 37
(4),947-968.
 Lee, C-K., and Back, K-J (2006). Examining structural relationships among perceived impact, benefit, and support for
casino development based on 4 year longitudinal data. Tourism Management, 27 (3), 446-480.
 Lindberg,K., Anderson,T.D., and Dellaert, B.G.C.( 2001).Tourism development: Assessing social gains and losses. Annals of Tourism
Research, 28(4), 1010-1030.
 Lindberg,K., Enriquez, J. and Sproule, K. (1996). Ecotourism questioned: Case studies from Belize. Annals of Tourism
Research, 28(4), 1010-1030.

72
JOETP, December 2019, Volume 1, Number 1 Kishan Datta Bhatta

 Lindberg, K. and Hawkins, D.E. (1993). Ecotourism: A guide for planners and managers. Washington ,D.C: The
International Ecotourism Society.
 Lindberg, K. and Johnson, R. L. (1997). The economic values of tourism’s social impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 24
(1), 90-116.
 Liu, J. and Var, T. (1986). Resident attitudes toward tourism impacts in Hawaii. Annals of Tourism Research, 13 (2), 193-
214.
 Mathieson, A., and Wall, G. (1982). Tourism: Economic, Social and Physical impacts. Harlow: Longman.
 Milman, A. and Pizam, A. (1988). Social impacts of tourism on central Florida. Annals of Tourism Research, 15, 191-204.
 Mitchell, R.E. and Reid,D.G. (2001).Community integration: Island tourism in Peru. Annals of Tourism research, 28 (1),
113-139.
 MoCTCA (2019). Nepal tourism statistics 2018. Kathmandu, Nepal: Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation
(MoCTCA).
 MoCTCA (2011). Nepal tourism statistics 2010. Kathmandu, Nepal: Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation
(MoCTCA).
 MoCTCA (2012). Nepal tourism statistics 2011. Kathmandu, Nepal: Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation
(MoCTCA).
 Montes, J. and Kafley, B. (2019). Ecotourism discourses in Bhutan: contested perceptions and values, Tourism
Geographies, DOI: 10.1080/14616688.2019.1618905
 Murphy, P. E. (1985). "Tourism: A community approach". London, UK: Methuen and Co. Ltd.
 Nepal, S.K. (2003). Tourism and the environment: Perspectives from the Nepal Himalaya. Lalitpur, Nepal: Himal Books.
 Nepal, S. K. (2000). Tourism in protected areas: The Nepalese Himalaya. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 661-681.
 Norris, R. (1992). Can ecotourism save natural areas? National Parks,(Januray),22-34.
 NTNC (2009). Management plan of Annapurna Conservation Area 2009-2012. Kathmandu, Nepal: National Trust for
Nature Conservation (NTNC).
 Nyaupane, G.P. and Thapa, B. (2004). Evaluation of ecotourism: A comparative assessment in the Annapurna Conservation
Area Project, Nepal. Journal of Ecotourism, 3(1), 20-45.
 Orams, M.B. (1995). Towards a more desirable form of ecotourism. Tourism Management. 16(1).3-8.
 Pizam, A. and Milman, A. (1984). The social impacts of tourism. UNEP Industry and Environment, 7 (1), pp.11-14.
 Place, S. (1991). Nature tourism and rural development in Tortuguero. Annals of Tourism Research, 18, 186-201.
 Ross, S. and Wall, G. (1999). Ecotourism: Towards congruence between theory and practice. Tourism Management, 20(1),
123-132.
 Sharma, P.(1998). Sustainable tourism in the Hindu Kush- Himalaya: Issues and approaches. In P. East, K. Luger and K.
Inmann (Eds.), Sustainability in mountain tourism: Perspectives for the Himalayan countries (pp.47-69). Delhi: Book Faith
India.
 Slinger,V.(2000).Ecotourism in the last indigenous Caribbean community. Annals of Tourism Research, 27, 520-523.
 Smith,V. L. (1989). Introduction. In V.L. Smith (Ed.), Hosts and Guests: The anthropology of tourism (pp.1-17). Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
 Stone, M. and Wall, G. (2003).Ecotourism and community development: case Studies from Hainan, China. Environmental
Management, 33(1),12-24.
 Telfer, D. J., and Sharpley, R. (2008). "Tourism and development in the developing world". Oxon: Taylor and Francis.
 The International Ecotourism Society (TIES)(2015). What is ecotourism? Retrieved on 18th September 2019, from website:
https://ecotourism.org/what-is-ecotourism/
 Tourism Concern and WWF (1991). Beyond the green horizon. London: Roehampton Institute.
 United Nations' Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP)(1999).
Guidelines on integrated planning for sustainable tourism development. Retrieved on 20th September 2016, website:
http://www.unescap.org/publications/details.asp?id=818
 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and World Tourism Organization (WTO)(2002). The Quebec declaration
on ecotourism. UNEP and WTO.
 Wall, G. (1996). Ecotourism: Change, impacts and opportunities. In E. Malek-Zadeh (Ed.).The ecotourism equation:
Measuring the impact (pp.206-216). New Haven: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.
 Wall, G. and Mathieson, A. (2006). Tourism change, impacts and opportunities. Toronto: Pearson Prentice Hall.
 Walpole, M. J. and Goodwin, H. J.(2001). Local attitudes towards conservation and tourism around Komodo National Park, Indonesia.
Environmental Conservation, 28,160-166.
 Walpole, M. J. and Goodwin, H. J. (2000). Local economic impacts of dragon tourism in Indonesia. Annals of Tourism
Research. 27, 559-576.
 Wearing, S. (2001). Exploring socio-cultural impacts on local communities. In D.B. Weaver (Ed.), The encyclopedia of ecotourism
(pp.395-410). Oxon and New York; CABI Publishing.
 Weaver, D. B. (1998). Ecotourism in less developed world. Oxon: CAB International.
 Wight, P. (1994). Environmentally responsible marketing of tourism. In E. Cater and G. Lowman (Eds.), Ecotourism: A
sustainable option? (pp.38-55). Chichester: John Willey & Sons.

73
View publication stats

JOETP, December 2019, Volume 1, Number 1 Kishan Datta Bhatta

 World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) (2019),Travel and tourism: Economic impacts 2019,Nepal. Retrived on 20
January, 2020, from the website: https://www.wttc.org/economic-impact/
 Ziffer, K. (1989). Ecotourism: An uneasy alliance, working paper no 1. Washington D.C.: Conservation International.

74