Local people’s attitudes towards conservation and wildlife tourism

around Sariska Tiger Reserve, India

Nagothu Udaya Sekhar*

Rogaland Research, P.O. Box 8046, Stavanger N-4068, Norway

Revised 3 June 2003

Abstract

Conservationists in the recent years view local peoples’ support for protected areas management as an important element of biodiversity

conservation. This is often linked to the direct benefits, which local communities get from the protected areas. These benefits could be in the

form of biomass resources, park funds diverted to local villages by state agencies and revenue from wildlife tourism. There are a very few

studies which have attempted to study the direct relationship between benefits from wildlife tourism and local support for conservation. In

India, wildlife tourism is restricted, and mostly controlled by state and private agencies. Wildlife conservation policy does not view tourism

in protected areas as a source of revenue for the local communities. The present study examines the local people’s attitudes towards wildlife

tourism and the impact of benefits from tourism on the local support for Sariska Tiger Reserve (STR), India. STR is a flagship for tourism

where protected areas are increasingly being visited and where local support for wildlife tourism has not been studied adequately. Results

indicate that two-thirds of the respondents were positive towards tourism and support for conservation. The respondents were aware that

more tourism benefits are possible from a well-conserved protected area. There appears to be correlation between benefits obtained by local

people from wildlife tourism and other sources, and support for protected area existence, suggesting that benefits impact people’s attitudes

towards conservation. Some of the main problems are the unequal distribution of tourism benefits, lack of locals’ involvement in tourism and

development. There is a need to clearly address these issues, so that protected areas may get the support of local people, which may lead to

sustainable development.

q 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Wildlife tourism; Conservation; Local people; Benefits; Parks; India

1. Introduction

Establishment of protected areas (PAs) has been the most

widely accepted means of biodiversity conservation so far,

supported by national and international agencies. By

definition, designation of a PA implies some restricted use

of its resources (Hales, 1989). Local communities are

vulnerable to the establishment of PAs, particularly in

developing countries since their livelihoods are dependent

on them (Rodgers, 1989; Gadgil, 1990; Mishra et al., 1992).

They pay indirectly not only by loss of access to resources—

fuelwood, fodder and other non-timber forest products, but

often by direct losses from crop and livestock raiding by

wild animals dispersing from PAs. However, in the recent

years it is being increasingly recognised that PAs should

play a role in sustaining local people’s livelihoods

(IUCN/UNEP/WWF, 1980; McNeely, 1995; Ghimire and

Pimbert, 1997). This falls very much in the context of the

discussions within Convention on Biological Diversity

(CBD) and its goals of conservation and sustainable use

of Biological Diveristy, for example Article 10 and 11 of the

CBD (Porter et al., 1998). These articles encourage national

governments to adopt economically and socially sound

measures, for example tourism development in PAs that

provides incentives to local people in return for their support

towards conservation several projects linking conservation

and development have been promoted around PAs, for

example the integrated conservation and development

project (ICDPs). The rationale behind such paradigms as

ICDPs was mainly to engender support for conservation

among the communities living adjacent to PAs. This was

done by providing them benefits to offset the costs of

conservation. However, the success stories from ICDPs in

0301-4797/$ - see front matter q 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2003.09.002

Journal of Environmental Management 69 (2003) 339–347

www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

* Tel.: þ47-51-87-51-66; fax: þ47-51-87-52-00.

E-mail address: usn@rf.no (N. Udaya Sekhar).

developing countries are few. Some researchers with

a political ecologist view attribute the poor performance

to the failure to devolve authority to local communities and

unequal distribution of tangible economic benefits around

PAs (Little, 1994; Sibanda and Omwega, 1996; Udaya

Sekhar, 1998). On the contrary, biologists claim that

wildlife species are at risk if local people are given more

priority over conservation objectives. (Terborgh and van

Schaik, 1997; Hackel, 1999; Oates, 1999). But the general

consensus is that such projects if successful, would lead to

better support from local communities towards

conservation.

Several studies have concluded that costs associated with

conservation such as wildlife depredation of crops and

livestock have negative effects on local attitudes, whilst

benefits from conservation may have positive effects

(Heinen, 1993; Fiallo and Jacabson, 1995; Nepal and

Weber, 1995; Udaya Sekhar, 1998; Walpole and Goodwin,

2001). This suggests that, conservation policy should

promote sustainable measures within PAs that can give

rise to benefits to local communities. Also, these economic

benefits should be shared with those who are immediately

affected by a PA (Wells et al., 1992; Western and Wright,

1994; Ghimire and Pimbert, 1997). However, linking

economic benefits to conservation is difficult where wildlife

is highly endangered, pressure on biomass resources is high,

and stakeholders are many. This could be more serious if the

economic benefits from the parks are few and the number of

beneficiaries is large.

PAs can generate economic benefits through sustainable

use of biological diversity to local communities in many

ways. One such potential means of economic benefits is

wildlife tourism. Tourism use of PAs basically involves the

travel for the discovery and learning about wild environ-

ments. The importance of nature in attracting tourists is

significant, and as Williams (1992) states, “nature and

cultural heritage represent a competitive advantage” for

many areas, for example Nature Reserves, National Parks,

etc. “A chance to see wildlife and undisturbed nature” is

rated as very important reason for visits to PAs. Tourism is

viewed in many industrial nations as an environmentally

friendly way to revitalize distressed rural communities and

economies. A similar view is gaining momentum in

developing countries where PAs are becoming more

popular destinations for wildlife tourists of national and

international origin. Thus, tourism is seen to have the

potential to generate substantial revenues that local people

can realize, and therefore contribute to the protection of the

PA. Porter et al. (1998) discuss the importance of

identifying sustainable means of livelihoods such as

tourism in PAs and its significance in promoting stake-

holder participation in conservation The linkage between

environment as a tourist attraction and economic impact

can be substantial. Yuan and Moisey (1992) in their study

estimated that about half of the economic impact of

tourism industry could be attributed to recreation activities

occurring in wilderness areas.

In Kenya, for instance, tourism is the largest earner of

foreign exchange, and contributes as much as US$ 500

million annually (Gakahu, 1992). The majority of tourists

visiting Kenya are wildlife tourists, interested in viewing

large mammals. And wildlife tourism in Kenya, South

Africa, Zimbabwe and a few other African countries is

supported with a relatively solid institutional framework.

New park management plans and conservation policy

supports revenue sharing with local communities. For

example, in Uganda, the National Wildlife Policy of 1994

stipulates that revenue sharing will be administered by a

Park Management Advisory Committee where locals are

represented (Archbald and Naughton-Treves, 2001). The

revenue from entry fees, game viewing and photography is

significant. Tourists pay US$ 250 to view gorillas for 1 h

while the local per capita income is less than US$ 220. In

Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda, tourism

revenue sharing has resulted in US$ 4000 for each of the

21 villages bordering the park (Archbald and Naughton--

Treves, 2001). Earlier studies have mostly examined the

nature of economic benefits from tourism in PAs in Africa.

But a very few attempted to analyse the local attitudes

towards wildlife tourism and whether economic benefits

from tourism can bring about support amongst locals

towards conservation.

Wildlife tourism in South Asia is recent, when compared

to many African countries where wildlife based tourism is

more active, promoted by the state. Tourism has not been

viewed as a potential income generating activity by the

governments in the South Asian region until recent years.

Nepal has been in the forefront, supporting wildlife tourism

as a source of revenue that can be shared with local

communities. In India, the institutional framework to

promote tourism in PAs is weak. The draft National

Tourism Policy of 1997 in India, speaks of “maintaining a

judicious balance between conservation and development”.

The policy addresses social and environmental impacts and

also suggests guidelines for sustainable growth, but does not

discuss the legal or institutional framework for activities

that would contribute to sustainable development, for

example wildlife tourism, or the role of local communities

in tourism development. Sustainable tourism here refers to

activities that, individually and in aggregate, function within

ecological carrying capacities while contributing to durable

economic prosperity. However, sustainable tourism levels

are not estimated for many areas in the south Asian region.

Tourism in PAs in India changed from a few hundred

visitors to several thousands in recent years. Nature and

wildlife tourism account for only 7% of all tourism in India

in the year 1997, which indicates that the potential to

develop is large. Some studies show that local communities

participate actively and support conservation, when they see

direct economic benefits from activities such as tourism

(Panwar, 1996).

N. Udaya Sekhar / Journal of Environmental Management 69 (2003) 339–347340

The objective of this paper is to study the local people’s

attitudes towards wildlife tourism in Sariska Tiger Reserve

(STR), Rajasthan, India, and the impact of benefits from

tourism on the locals support for conservation. The study

assumes that economic benefits through activities such as

tourism in PAs can influence local communities and

engender their support for conservation. The study makes

an assessment of the benefits from tourism and attempts to

analyse the people’s attitudes towards tourism.

2. Methods

2.1. The study area

The study was conducted in STR located in the semi-arid

region of Rajasthan (Fig. 1) in India. The tract is mainly

hilly and undulating with altitudes ranging from 270 to

360 m above msl and has numerous narrow valleys. In the

northeastern boundary of the reserve is situated the Siliserh

lake which attracts several migratory birds every winter.

The reserve is spread over 800 km2 of which 497.8 km2 is

the core area. The mean annual rainfall is around 600 mm

(Government of Rajasthan, 1990) and highly fluctuating.

The vegetation of STR comes under (1) Tropical Dry

Deciduous Forest and (2) Tropical Thorn Forest (Champion

and Seth, 1968). Sankar et al. (1993) recorded 211 species

of birds in STR of which spotted Painted Spurfowl

Galloperdix lunulata is one, which has not been previously

recorded from the semi-arid tracts of Rajasthan. The rich

avifauna in STR makes it an interesting site for bird

watchers. The Tiger (Panthera tigris) and Leopard

(Panthera pardus) are the two major predators in STR

(Management plan of STR 1990). The other interesting

feature of STR is the high density of ungulates including

Sambar (Cervus unicolor), Chital (Axis axis) and the Four

horned antelope (Tetracerus quadricornis). Besides, STR

has ruins and monuments of historical importance, which

can be of interest to visitors.

This sub-region was declared as a ‘Project Tiger’

Reserve in 1978 (Government of Rajasthan, 1990) for

conservation of a few endangered species. The largest of the

core areas identified within STR was proposed as a national

park in 1982, where resource exploitation is banned (Fig. 1).

The basic attitude underlying the PA management is the

conventional isolationist approach, wherein the state

agencies seek to protect the PA from the local people who

are viewed as sources leading to deforestation. Whereas,

studies show that the society–nature interface in the region

is based on peoples culture and religious values, which

indicate that people support nature (Udaya Sekhar, 2000).

Local people in and around STR have demarcated patches

of forests termed as ‘dev banis’ or sacred forests to be

conserved. Most of these sacred forests have more diversity

of species and safely harbour wildlife.

Tourism has been recording a steady growth since 1978

in the state of Rajasthan in general and STR in particular

(Government of Rajasthan, 1990). In 1996 alone, STR had

27,000 tourists, of whom 40% were of foreign origin

including the day visitors (Director, STR, 1997, Personal

communication). This does not include the local visitors

who visit to worship in the temples within STR, and

exempted from paying entry fee. Tourism in STR involves

mostly day visitors taking wildlife safaris organized by

private operators. Often the visits are restricted to short

safari trips of 3–4 h on routes earmarked for tourists. Due to

lack of proper infrastructure and services, tourists tend

to make short day visits, although the park has potential to

offer more, which can generate more revenue for the locals.

The management of STR is not proactive in tourism

development and the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972,

restricts infrastructure development for tourism within the

PA. Today, park management is characterized by restricted

access for local people and policing to protect the wildlife.

Despite the lack of proper infrastructure and services, the

numbers of visitors are increasing every year. The presentFig. 1. Study area and the villages surveyed.

N. Udaya Sekhar / Journal of Environmental Management 69 (2003) 339–347 341

trend is likely to continue, since STR is located close to the

national capital and is rich in biodiversity, thereby attracting

wildlife enthusiasts. If properly developed and managed,

wildlife tourism could be an important source of income for

local communities. But more research is needed to analyse

the problems and potentials of tourism development, and

how people can be actively involved in such forms of

development.

2.2. Data collection and field techniques

General observations were made since 1996 during

regular visits to the Reserve. The detailed data for this study

was collected, from October to March 2001. A close-ended

structured questionnaire was administered to 180 house-

holds from 18 villages to get an overview of the local people

attitudes towards tourism in STR and their support for

conservation. Information was also gathered from key

informants who included informal leaders and local officials

during focus group discussions. Households were selected

by stratified random sampling based on land ownership and

location within the village. The dwellings are grouped in the

village with caste (group classified mostly on the basis of

occupation) as the basis of grouping. Care was taken to

ensure that women were present and supplemented

information during the surveys. It is socially not accepted

to interview women without the presence of men. Random

cross checking of 10% of households from the respondent

list was done to test the reliability of the data.

Demographic data related to profession, income, occu-

pational patterns, etc. were collected. This was followed by

questions related to their dependency on STR for resources,

their attitudes towards tourism and conservation (qualitative

and quantitative data), their involvement and benefits from

tourism. Some of the questions were close ended, and the

respondents were asked to agree or disagree (Nepal and

Weber, 1995). Descriptive statistics were derived to

summarise the property of the dataset, while analytical

methods (Simple and Multiple Regression and Correlation

and Chi-squared test) were used to analyse the data and test

for differences (at 95% level of significance). However, the

constraints with these statistical models are that they cannot

fully explain the relationships between some variables,

especially to measure the local attitudes towards

conservation.

3. Data Analysis

3.1. Benefits from PA including tourism and impact on

peoples attitudes

The present population in the study area is a mix of 18

social classes (castes in India). The dominating castes are

Meenas who are agriculturists, and Gujjars mainly depen-

dant on livestock keeping. A majority (92%) of the farmers

are small or marginal farmers. Traditionally, people were

more dependant on land and other natural resources for

livelihood. It is only in the recent years that people are

seeking other sources of income. Nearly 65% of households

surveyed benefit from the collection of fuelwood and fodder

resources from the PA. Direct or indirect benefits from

tourism were restricted to only 24% of the households as

shown in Table 1. This included income from sale of dairy

and agricultural products to the restaurants catering to the

tourists, employment as tourist guides and safari operators,

etc. However, a majority of the respondents (76%)

expressed that they neither had any direct experience with

tourism, nor received any benefits. Households who

benefited from sale of dairy and agricultural products

reported that it contributed 47% of their annual household

income. These benefits are meant to offset the costs incurred

by the adjacent communities, for example, damages to crop

and livestock depredation by wildlife.

In general, the attitudes of respondents towards the PA

were dependant on the tangible benefits they received from

STR (Udaya Sekhar, 1998). A regression test between the

attitudes of people towards STR (Y) and tangible benefits

they obtained from STR (X) showed a positive correlation

(correlation coefficient 0.705; P-value 0.001; degrees of

freedom 11). Respondents were supportive of conservation

overall (68% of respondents) and were aware that a well

preserved PA would attract more visitors. This could be due

to the fact that local people have long traditions of

worshipping nature including wild animals. Nature forms

a part of their religion and culture. This prompts them to

support conservation despite the lack of participatory

governance.

Overall, respondents in villages close to the tourism zone

(located within 2 km radius) had benefited more from

tourism than respondents from villages located outside the

2 km radius (Chi-Square value ¼ 60.60, p , 0:005).

(Table 2) This is mostly due to the restricted movement of

tourists within the tourism zone of the PA, and interaction

with villages located closer to the PA.

The traditional rights of local communities to collect

biomass resources within STR have not survived the new

wildlife legislative reforms, leading to conflicts between

locals and the management. Although nature predominates

local people’s perceptions, as evident from the subjects in

Table 1

Tourism benefits received by respondents in STR

S. no. Type of benefits No. of households benefited

1 Revenue from sale of milk and

vegetables

21

2 Informal employment 12

3 Sale of handicrafts 8

4 Guide services 2

Average annual household income was 36,000 Indian Rupees (One US

dollar ¼ 45 IRs).

N. Udaya Sekhar / Journal of Environmental Management 69 (2003) 339–347342

local paintings observed on household dwellings in some

villages, local folklore and religion, the state policies

conveniently ignore the society–nature interaction. The

examples of these societies may constitute useful references

to the conception of management systems attempting to

involve local people. However, the formal state regimes

leading to alienation of local people from the traditional

resources have gradually started influencing the forest

dweller’s attitudes towards wildlife. The following quote

from a local key informant representing Meenas who

worship nature encapsulates the reality and their changing

attitudes which is not good for promoting conservation of

biological diversity:

“The state conservation policy is contributing to the

dilution of the traditional society–nature relationship

which can strongly impact our community attitudes

towards wildlife” (Tilwarh village, January 1999,

personal comm.).

Nearly 62% of the respondents would like to see more

benefits from tourism in the future, in the form of

employment and income from marketing of local products,

etc. Outsiders take a larger share of the benefits from

tourism within STR as tourist guides, safari and hotel

operators than the local people. This unequal distribution of

benefits is also a source of conflict and resentment amongst

the local communities. In addition, the average household

income in the adjacent villages is much below the average

when compared to villages farther away from the PA. The

latter have more income from livestock and agriculture, than

the communities closer to the PA as a result of restrictions

placed on grazing and agricultural expansion. Many of the

landless households depend on PA resources for their

livelihood. Any contribution to the household income from

tourism and other related activities can be significant. The

respondents were not concerned by the presence of tourists

within STR. Only 29% of the respondents were of the

opinion that tourism might influence the local culture, which

shows that people do not see it as a problem yet.

A series of tourism related questions revealed that

respondents who benefited from tourism already, were

significantly more positive than the respondents who have

not realized any benefits so far. The latter expressed that

they would like to see more tourism development in the

future and a desire to realize economic benefits. The results

from a Multiple Regression test (Table 3) show that

‘Attitude’ score on tourism is dependent on several

variables included in the model (significant at 0.05 level).

The model is defined as: At ¼ f ðd; b; a; i; lÞ; where At is

attitude towards tourism (‘for’ and ‘against’ categories), d is

the distance of the village from the tourism zone, b is the

direct benefits received from tourism, a is the age of

the respondent, i is the interaction with the tourists, and l is

the land holding size. The R-square value is 0.53 for the

model that best fit the regression.

Respondents who had benefited from tourism and who

had interacted with tourists and respondents from villages

closer to the tourism zone were more positive towards

tourism development. ‘Benefits from tourism’ was the most

important factor explaining the attitude towards tourism.

There was a significant difference in the attitude scale

between respondents who received economic benefits from

tourism and those who did not. Age also influenced the

respondents’ attitudes towards tourism, with younger

respondents more supportive of tourism than older respon-

dents. Respondents with larger land holdings were not

supportive of tourism, since they do not depend on sources

such as tourism for income. The regression model explains

only a part of the dependency for people’s support towards

tourism. The unexplained variance could be due to the fact

that respondents were not sure if they would benefit by more

tourism activity and if the government would take care of

their interests, and the religious and cultural factors.

4. Discussion

Most tourism is currently ‘self-regulated’ which is

evident from the poor quality and disregard for local

people. The industry practise could be improved through

effective collective action, and additional institutional

mechanisms to improve performance. Currently, only a

small proportion of people living closer to STR receive any

kind of economic benefits from tourism which is similar to

the trends observed in other PAs (Hales, 1989; Hannah,

1992; Government of India, 1994; Fiallo and Jacabson,

1995; Ite, 1996; Mehta and Kellert, 1998; Rao, 1996). This

indicates that steps need to be taken to develop and ensure

benefits and income from tourism to be spread out to more

households. Goodwin (1996), Mehta and Kellert (1998)

Table 2

Results from Chi-square test identifying the levels of difference between

the two groups of people receiving benefits from tourism

Benefits No benefits x2 p

People close to Reserve 58.9 41.1

People far from Reserve 20.4 79.6 60.62 0.000

Table 3

Results from multiple regression for dependent variable attitudes towards

tourism

Variable Parameter estimate ^ standard error Prob . F

Distance 267 ^ 12 0.007

Benefits 78.72 ^ 7 0.004

Age 257.30 ^ 4 0.002

Interaction 42.50 ^ 3 0.045

Land holding size 235.0 ^ 11 0.006

Source: Field work from September 1996 to April 1997 and May–June

2000.

N. Udaya Sekhar / Journal of Environmental Management 69 (2003) 339–347 343

have demonstrated that if locals are actively involved in

planning and development of tourism, it becomes much

easier for the management to gain their support for

conservation. In the study area, local culture and traditions

strongly influence people’s attitude towards STR. The

‘temple lands’ or ‘dev banis’ which are part of STR, provide

a sanctuary for spirits or local deities, or protect a sanctified

place from exploitation; some derive their sacred nature

from natural springs of water that originate in them, from

the medicinal and ritual properties of their plants, or from

the wild animals they support. The temple lands are named

after the local deity, and pilgrims in thousands come

throughout the year from near and far to worship in the

temples and also take a dip in the natural water springs.

These springs are important source of drinking water for

villages in the dry periods. The local people thus, have

cultural reasons in addition to economic ones to support the

conservation of these temple lands from exploitation.

Studies by Chandrakanth et al. (1990), Gadgil and Rao

(1994), Agarwal (1994) and Kothari et al. (1995) in other

areas, provide evidence of such nature-society relations.

This could be seen from the conservation perspective as an

advantage, and also a starting point for the management of

STR to involve people in conservation and development.

Tourism in this context can be supplemented as conserva-

tion and development tool, capable of generating benefits to

local communities in and around STR. Emphasising on low

impact activities (e.g. walking trails) and other approaches

to non-consumptive wildlife utilisation and conservation it

is possible to preserve the wilderness. In the process, active

involvement of people is important to ensure that they are

not left out in the process. This may avoid serious conflicts

between the locals and management and reduce their

hostility towards tourists, a problem noticed in other

reserves, for example Nagerhole National Park, within the

country (Panwar, 1996).

The case of Nagarhole National Park in southern India

provides evidence showing why locals turn hostile to the

management and tourists. In this area, the powerful

movement by local Adivasi (tribal) groups against the

establishment of a hotel by a prominent Indian hotel chain

reflects the intensity of conflicts in wildlife tourism

development. The Adivasis who had lived there for

generations were displaced and their use of the park’s

resources was restricted. Ironically, the government

approved a proposal to develop tourism in the region,

which would benefit mostly outsiders, in this case the hotel

entrepreneurs. It failed to specify the benefits for local

people in the process, leading to widespread protests and

hostility. This indicates that tourism operations, when

carried out without considering the implications for local

people, provokes conflict between local communities on one

hand and park authorities and visitors on the other,

hindering development in the region.

In general, the respondents (63%) were not happy with

the unequal distribution of benefits from tourism. They also

feel that their involvement is not adequate in the tourism

development. As seen in other parks, both within and

outside the country, outsiders benefit most from wildlife

tourism in STR. This is because the local residents do not

have the awareness and also the capacity to invest. This is a

worldwide phenomenon, where the private sector moves in

quickly to develop lodges in areas near important natural

sites, typically parks (Alderman, 1992). Typically, these

involve mostly low-scale accommodation designed with

minimum environmental concern. For example, in Keola-

deo National Park and Ranthambore Tiger Reserve in

Rajasthan, India, outsiders own the majority of the hotels

and other tourist establishments. The local villagers are

unhappy with this development process, and it has led to

violent conflicts on several occasions. Similarly in STR,

local people sell their farmlands to entrepreneurs from

outside for hotels and other construction activities, since do

not have capacity on their own. External tourism operator’s

objective is primarily to make profits and do not place their

efforts within a larger context of local community develop-

ment and environment. Whereas, the goal of sustainable

development is to help put tourism promotion within a

broader context that helps communities identify their goals

and the role of tourism in achieving them. But, wildlife

tourism should satisfy conservation and development

objectives in order to be considered sustainable. These

objectives include: (1) to generate financial support for

conservation of PAs; (2) to generate economic benefits for

local people living near PAs and thereby generate support

for conservation among these local communities, in part due

to the economic benefits.

In STR, local interactions other than tourism have been

found to be influencing people’s attitudes towards con-

servation, which are positive, as investigated in earlier

studies (Udaya Sekhar, 1998, 2001). This is despite the fact

that the majority of them do not gain anything from tourism

within STR at present. The management should see this as

an opportunity when prioritizing management initiatives for

the future.

Tourism can also impact the local culture and traditions,

as observed by researchers in other parks (Dogan, 1989;

Mieczkowski, 1995). In STR, the respondents do not see

this as a problem so far, since tourism is still in its early

stages, and majority of the villages have not experienced the

tourists. But tourist growth patterns in other parks show that

if tourist activity is not regulated properly from early stages,

it could lead to social, cultural and ecological impacts.

Villages closest to the tourism zone are the ones impacted

most and thus the focus should be on them in the initial

stages. Tourism can also have an impact on the wild

animals, by way of interrupting their migratory paths,

feeding patterns, etc. For example, in STR tourists are often

taken to the waterholes for wildlife sighting. This disturbs

the animals feeding and movements in the region. Care

needs to be taken to design the safari routes so that they

cause minimum disturbance to animals. These problems

N. Udaya Sekhar / Journal of Environmental Management 69 (2003) 339–347344

occur when tourists have unregulated access to different

locations and authorities have difficulty in enforcing visitor

management regulations. Some of the reasons behind such

mismanagement are poorly funded park agencies, corrup-

tion and bribery at the local level and dominance of private

agencies in the tourism development. This trend is observed

in STR, although the impact on the local environment is not

a problem yet. Field staff accepts token money from tourists

to be allowed to enter restricted areas. It is possible for a

small number of tourists to have a negative impact on the

environment if not regulated. Many development prac-

titioners see this as a negative impact of wildlife tourism.

Hunt (1993) argued that the tourism development should

care both for visitors and for the places they visit: “the

communities in which we live”. Academics and prac-

titioners in general agree that these impacts should be

addressed by applying a balanced planning approach to

tourism development that incorporates public participation

and issues of sustainability (Inskeep, 1991). Sustainable

tourism allows visitors to enjoy an attraction, community or

region with a volume and impact in such a way that the local

culture and nature are unimpaired (Hill, 1992). Entering a

sustainability-based management debate is essentially a

value judgment, a decision which helps to examine whether

the current management is adequate or not and which

direction it should take necessary in the current situation.

5. Wildlife tourism and national policy

The concept of ‘wildlife tourism’—as an alternative and

sustainable form of development—emerged in the 1980s as a

logical corollary to the paradigm of sustainable develop-

ment, and to provide solutions to the dilemmas associated

with people–park conflicts. It is based on the assumption that

wildlife tourism can substantially benefit local commu-

nities—with the economic benefits it brings and jobs it

creates (Cook et al., 1992). Most developing countries have

failed to come up with appropriate policies in support of this

paradigm. But, tourist numbers to wildlife reserves are

showing steady growth, bringing in more benefits. Most of

the reserves are located in the rural locales, and tourism

development can have significant economic impact on the

rural poor. If the state intends to engender the local support

for tourism and conservation, tourism policy should be

sensitive to the local needs and interests (Ioannides, 1995).

The current Tourism Policy prescriptions by the Government

of India are mostly influenced by conservationist’s views,

leading to restrictions on tourism development. The local

people in STR support tourism development, in anticipation

of the economic benefits it would generate. This indicates

that the state and its policies should not ignore peoples’

interests, if they are genuinely interested in conservation.

The new tourism policy should keep in mind that the

current tourism growth needs to be supported by a proper

institutional framework. One of the necessary elements is

the local involvement in tourism planning and development,

to ensure that their interests are taken into account (Wells

et al., 1992). Currently, there is a lack of participatory

governance structure, enforcement capabilities, and the

political will required to pursue a participatory management

approach. This is despite the new Joint Forest Management

Policy of 1990 promoted by the Ministry of Environment

and Forests, Government of India, which attempts to

promote people’s participation.1 The new policy offers a

promising opportunity to respond to the problems, which the

parks are facing (Guha, 1997). The success will depend on

how the new policy initiatives will empower local people

and to what extent the people will be involved in new

development initiatives. Similarly, the task of defining the

role of women will prove to be a challenge while pursuing

tourism development. Co-management, involving local

villages in decision-making, may to some extent ensure

the active support of people towards tourism development

(Child, 1995). State initiatives to promote locally beneficial

tourism across the country are mostly isolated attempts. For

example, in Rajasthan state in India, the Tourism Develop-

ment Corporation (RTDC) is actively involved in promoting

commercial tourism in the region. But their involvement in

wildlife tourism is restricted mostly to creation of holiday

resorts. If there is proper co-ordination between different

state agencies and locals, it can generate significant

economic benefits, as observed by Lindberg and Enriquez

(1994) in Belize.

The South African example illustrates how tourism once

viewed as a symbol of racial discrimination, has been

transformed into an important tool to conserve the physical

environment and to provide local people with sustainable

livelihood options (Child, 1995). One of the fundamental

drawbacks in the Indian scenario is the considerable dearth of

infrastructure, expertise and resources to develop and

implement management measures for tourism (Kothari et al.,

1995). Almost all the revenue earned in PAs through tourism

by the park management is diverted either to the government

exchequer as forest revenue, or goes to private tour operators

and hotel owners. In India, in particular, the absence of a

proper framework has left the task of regulation either to the

companies themselves, as a result of which most initiatives

towards tourism development in the sector have become

relatively arbitrary. Trends among private companies, who

advertise their operations as wildlife tourism, reflect a

predominance of token initiatives to palliate a few visible

symptoms rather than an attempt to address some of the more

important issues raised by the concept.

The importance of formulating comprehensive policy

and legislation for the industry has been frequently

1 Wyckoff-Baird (1991) defines participation as “giving people more

opportunities to participate effectively in development

activities…empowering people to mobilize their own capacities, be

social actors rather than passive subjects, manage the resources, make

decisions and control the activities that affect their lives”.

N. Udaya Sekhar / Journal of Environmental Management 69 (2003) 339–347 345

emphasised, as a measure to ensure that all forms of private

tourism companies comply with prescribed rules and

guidelines, to facilitate environmental protection, resource

conservation and to safeguard the interests of the local

people and consumers. But corruption at various levels of

the government makes it convenient for the private agencies

to ignore the regulations. Some policy and legislative

regulations cannot be ignored, for example, to divert a

specific proportion of profits made by businesses into local

conservation efforts or towards providing local people with

sustainable livelihood options, if the communities are given

adequate role in decision making.

Local Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) working

towards development can play a decisive role in defining

and directing the growth of tourism. The fundamental

differences between the approaches of NGOs and the private

sector probably lies in the fact that while businesses

sometimes tend to see increased tourism as an objective,

the goals of NGOs are often facilitated with tourism as a

means.

6. Conclusions

This study has revealed mixed patterns in local attitudes

towards tourism and conservation, which appear similar to

the findings from earlier studies made in other parks.

People who benefited from tourism showed a positive

attitude and support for tourism development in STR.

Overall locals have a positive attitude towards STR. The

management should see this as opportunity to facilitate

community participation in tourism. This should begin

with measures such as: including tourism as part of the

STR management plan that gives it legitimacy; allocating

part of annual STR budget for tourism development;

establishing liaisons between private tourist agencies and

village forest protection committees; and introducing

ecotourism based activities that can generate employment

to local youth. Such practical measures can be initiated at

the PA level, which would contribute to sustainable

development and help direct the local tourism growth for

the benefit of locals, a goal envisaged by the Convention of

Biological Diveristy.

The management should deal with the current pattern

of unequal distribution of benefits and ensure a fair share

for the local people. This requires regulating the outsiders

from taking over the tourism industry in the area. Private

investment should be allowed wherever there is a

potential for tourism development. But a proper legal

framework should ensure that the locals get a share of the

employment and revenue generated from tourism growth

in the region. Besides, providing training to local people

who can find employment as guides to visitors, caterers,

safari organisers, etc. the local people should also be

involved in tourism planning and development along with

the park authorities. Similar proactive efforts are needed

to combat impacts from tourism growth on regional and

local systems. Since tourism is still in its early stages and

restricted to a small zone, the negative impacts are not yet

seen or felt by the people.

The findings from the study have to be seen within the

specific cultural and geographical environment. India has

much to learn from the examples of tourism in other

countries, where a constructive balance is beginning to be

attained between the environments, locals and visiting

tourists—with tourism establishments playing a beneficial

and a commercial role. Towards the achievement of such a

balance, the regulatory mechanism of the state in which the

local people have a stake, for example, a role in the Local

Development Authority to make decisions related to

establishment of new tourism facilities, collection of royalty

from tour operators entering into village forest areas and

exclusive rights to revenue from ecotourism based activities

in the respective villages. Villager’s anticipation of benefits

from tourism is a positive indication for the park manage-

ment to act immediately and help the local people to realize

these expectations. If not, the present support for conserva-

tion may slowly evaporate.

References

Agarwal, A., 1994. Rules, Rule Making, and Rule Breaking: Examining the

Fit between Rule Systems and Resource Use. In: E. Ostrom, R. Gardner

and J. Ostrom (eds.) Rules, Games and Common-pool resources, Ann

Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press.

Aldermann, C.L., 1992. The economics and the role of privately owned

lands used for nature tourism, education and conservation, Paper

presented at the Fourth World Congress on National Parks and

Protected Areas, Caracas, Venezuela.

Archbald, K., Naughton-Treves, L., 2001. Tourism revenue sharing around

national parks in Western Uganda: early efforts to identify and reward

local communities. Environmental Conservation 28 (2), 135–149.

Champion, H.G., Seth, S.K., 1968. A Revised Survey of Forest Types of

India, Govt. of India publication, New Delhi.

Chandrakanth, M.G., Gilless, J.K., Gowramma, V. & Nagaraja, M.G.,

1990. Temple forests in India’s forest development. Agroforestry

Systems, 11(3), 199-211.

Child, G., 1995. Managing wildlife successfully in Zimbabwe. Oryx 29 (3),

54–63.

Cook, S.D., Stewart, E., Repass, K., 1992. Tourism and the environment.

Travel Industry Association of America, Washington, DC, pp. 79.

Dogan, H.Z., 1989. Forms of adjustment: socio-cultural impacts of tourism.

Annals of Tourism Research 16, 216–236.

Fiallo, E.A., Jacabson, S.K., 1995. Local communities and protected areas:

attitudes of rural residents towards conservation and Machalilla

National Park, Ecuador. Environmental Conservation 22 (3), 241–249.

Gadgil, M., 1990. India’s deforestation: patterns and processes. Society and

Natural Resources 3, 131–143.

Gadgil, M., Rao, P.R.S., 1994. On designing a system of positive incentives

to conserve biodiversity for the ecosystem people of India. Workshop

on Exploring the Possibilities of Joint Management of Protected Areas

IIPA, New Delhi, 1–3 September.

Gakahu, C.G., 1992. Tourist Attitudes and Use Impacts in Maasai Mara

National Reserve. Wildlife Conservation International, Nairobi, Kenya.

Ghimire, B.K., Pimbert, M.P., 1997. Social change and conservation: an

overview of issues and concepts. In: Krishna, P.G., Michel, P.P. (Eds.),

N. Udaya Sekhar / Journal of Environmental Management 69 (2003) 339–347346

Social Change and Conservation. Earthscan Publications Limited,

London, pp. 1–45.

Goodwin, H., 1996. In pursuit of ecotourism. Biodiversity Conservation 5

(3), 277–292.

Government of India (GOI), 1994. National Tiger Action Plan. Ministry of

Environment and Forests, Government of India, New Delhi.

Government of Rajasthan (GOR), 1990. Working Plan of Alwar District,

Department of Forests, Jaipur, India.

Guha, R., 1997. The authoritarian biologist and the arrogance of anti-

humanism: wildlife conservation in the third world. The Ecologist 27

(1), 14–20.

Hackel, J.D., 1999. Community conservation and the future of Africa’s

wildlife. Conservation Biology 13 (4), 726–734.

Hales, D., 1989. Changing concepts of national parks. In: Western, D.,

Pearl, M. (Eds.), Conservation for the Twenty-First Century. Oxford

University Press, London, pp. 139–144.

Hannah, L., 1992. African people, African parks: an evaluation of

development initiatives as a means of improving protected area

conservation in Africa. USAID/Biodiversity Support Program/Con-

servation International, Washington.

Heinen, J.T., 1993. Park–people relations in Kosi Tappu Wildlife Reserve,

Nepal: a socio-economic analysis. Environmental Conservation 20 (1),

25–34.

Hill, B.J., 1992. Sustainable tourism. Parks Recreation 27 (9), 84.

Hunt, J.D., 1993. The promise and challenge of tourism for Montana:

achieving sustainability. Paper presented on tourism and recreation,

Helena, MT, March 1993.

Inskeep, E., 1991. Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable

Approach. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

Ioannides, D., 1995. Planning for International Tourism in less developed

countries: towards sustainability? Journal of Planning Literature 3 (9),

235–254.

Ite, U.E., 1996. Community perceptions of the Cross River National Park,

Nigeria. Environmental Conservation 23 (4), 351–357.

IUCN, 1980. World Conservation Strategy. Living Resource Conservation

for Sustainable Development. IUCN, UNEP and WWF.

Kothari, A., Singh, N., Suri, S., 1995. Conservation in India: a new

direction. Economic and Political Weekly, 43 (October 28).

Lindberg, K., Enriquez, J., 1994. An Analysis of Ecotourism’s Eonomic

Contribution to Conservation and Development in Belize. World

Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC.

Little, P.D., 1994. The link between local participation and wildlife

conservation: a review of issues and experiences. In: Western, D.,

Wright, M., Strum, S. (Eds.), Natural Connections. Island Press,

Washington, DC, pp. 347–372.

McNeely, J.A., 1995. Expanding Partnerships in Conservation. Island

Press, Washington, DC.

Mehta, J.N., Kellert, S.R., 1998. Local attitudes towards community-based

conservation policy and programmers in Nepal: a case study of the

Makalu–Barun conservation area. Environmental Conservation 25 (4),

320–333.

Mieczkowski, Z., 1995. Environmental Issues of Tourism and Recreation.

University Press of America, Lanham, MD.

Mishra, H.R., Wemmer, C., Smith, J.L.D., Wegge, P., 1992. Biopolitics of

saving Asian mammals in the wild: balancing conservation with human

needs in Nepal. In: Wegge, P., (Ed.), Mammal Conservation in

Developing Countries: A New Approach, Occasional Paper Series C,

Noragric. Agricultural University of Norway, Norway.

Nepal, S.K., Weber, K.E., 1995. Managing resources and resolving

conflicts: national parks. International Journal of Sustainable Develop-

ment and World Ecology 2, 11–25.

Oates, J.F., 1999. Kigezi and its people, East African Literature Bureau,

Kampala, Uganda.

Panwar, H.S., 1996. Eco-development: an integrated approach to sustain-

able development for people and protected areas in India. Proceedings

of the SAARC Workshop on Wildlife Management, Dehradun, India,

November 1996.

Porter, G., Clemencon, R., Ofosu-Amaah, W., Philips, M., 1998. Study of

GEFs overall performance. World Bank, Washington, DC.

Rao, K., 1996. Management problems: people in protected areas.

Proceedings of the SAARC Workshop on Wildlife Management,

Dehradun, India, November 1996.

Rodgers, W.A., 1989. Policy Issues in Wildlife Conservation. Indian

Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi.

Sankar, K., Mohan, D., Pandey, S., 1993. Birds of Sariska Tiger Reserve,

Rajasthan, India. Forktail 8, 133–141.

Sibanda, B., Omwega, A., 1996. Some reflections on conservation,

sustainable development, and equitable sharing of benefits from

wildlife in Africa: the case of Kenya and Zimbabwe. South African

Journal of Wildlife Research 26 (4), 175–181.

Terborgh, J., von Schaik, C.P., 1997. Minimizing special loss: the

imperative of protection. In: Kramer, R., von Schaik, C., Johnson, J.

(Eds.), Last Stand. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 15–35.

Udaya Sekhar, N., 1998. Crop and livestock depredation caused by wild

animals in protected areas: the case of Sariska Tiger Reserve,

Rajasthan, India. Environmental Conservation 25 (2), 160–171.

Udaya Sekhar, N., 2000. Decentralized natural resource management: from

state to co-management in India. Journal of Environmental Planning

and Management 43 (1), 123–128.

Udaya Sekhar, N., 2001. Fuelwood and fodder extraction and deforestation:

mainstream views in India discussed on the basis of data from the semi-

arid region of Rajasthan. Geoforum 32, 319–332.

Walpole, M.J., Goodwin, H.J., 2001. Local attitudes towards conservation

and tourism around Komodo National Park, Indonesia. Environmental

Conservation 28 (2), 160–166.

Wells, M., Brandon, K., Hannah, L., 1992. People and Parks: Linking

Protected Area Management with Local Communities. World Bank,

Washington, DC.

Western, D., Wright, M., 1994. Natural Connections: Perspectives in

Community-Based Conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Williams, P.W., 1992. A local framework for ecotourism development.

Western Wildlands 18 (3), 14–19.

Wyckoff-Baird, B., 1991. Community Participation in ICDPs. WWF

Technical Paper.

N. Udaya Sekhar / Journal of Environmental Management 69 (2003) 339–347 347