Tourism at Protected Areas: Sustainability or Policy Crunch?

Introduction

Protected areas (PAs) have a long history cherishing the social, cultural and economic aspects and are now recognized as a resource for sustainable development. Highlighting the history and evolution of protected areas, Eagles, McCool and Haynes (2002, p. 5) have rightly stated,

[S]ome historians claim that areas were specifically set aside in India for protection of natural resources over two millennia ago…. While many societies set aside special areas for cultural and resource uses, protected areas were first set by kings and other national rulers in Europe early in the Renaissance, typically as royal hunting reserves. Slowly these sites became open for public use, providing the basis for community involvement and tourism.

These areas target a symbiosis of humans and beasts, aiming for ‘conservation’ as a well-promulgated weapon of development and not to create an empty forest syndrome (Redford, 1992). The first truly national park, the Yellowstone National Park, was established in 1872 by the US law ‘as Public Park or pleasuring ground for the benefit and the enjoyment of the people’. But the same ethics of separating humans from the wild beasts operated in its formation. The creation of the Yellowstone National Park did not allow for a systematic treatment of the native people and their environment (Eagles et al., 2002). As such, the first protected area national park did not follow any distributive aspect of welfare. The people who were living in the wilderness previously were thrown out from the national park. The attempt of getting access to public use at the park had only the allocative aspect of welfare, because only the elites enjoyed the park access. In 1885, the government of Canada, formed the Banff National Park, in a similar line to that of Yellowstone National Park, and then passed a legislation with the objective of being ‘reserved and set aside as a public park and the pleasure ground for the benefit, advantage and enjoyment of the people of Canada’. Thus, from the very initial stages of the national park formation, park visitation and tourism has been central to the design of national parks. In this context, the United States of National Park Service (USNPS; 1916) opined that the philosophy behind the management of protected areas is both ‘protection’ and ‘use’. But it never adequately addressed the questions of ‘whose protection’ and ‘for whose use’. Dealing with the question of protection and use, the management policy is biased towards the conservation of the species. The USNPS Act states.

This is somewhat the gist of the Brundtland Report regarding the sustainable use of resources. But in practice, the management of national parks or protected areas does not fulfil any normative ethos like well-being and livelihood, equity and sustainability. The modern PA movement, however, has nineteenth-century origin in the then new nations of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and the United States (Eagles et al., 2002). But during the twentieth century, the idea spread around the world. As pointed out by the first director of USNPS, the objective of allowing people access to parks is to let them enjoy and support the parks financially.

However, protected areas are now classified into six categories by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) on the basis of the management objectives and not all categories of the protected areas are considered suitable for tourism (Eagles et al., 2002; IUCN, 1994; Spenceley, Nevill, Faustino Coelho, & Gomes Souto, 2016). These categories of protected areas are: Ia. strict nature reserve; Ib. wilderness area; II. national park; III. national monument; IV. habitat/species management area; V. protected landscape or seascape; and VI. managed resource protected areas. Out of these, except for category Ia. strict nature reserve, tourism is either allowed systematically or has a potential to be developed in the rest (Spenceley et al., 2016). The ‘tourism and recreation’ gets the top priority and is the primary objective of the categories II, III and V of the protected areas, whereas it is a secondary objective for Ib, IV and VI categories, and tourism and recreation is observed to have a potentially applicable objective (Eagles et al., 2002).

Again, the contributions of tourism in protected areas are also recognized for creating revenues and generating employment (Xu, Lü, Chen, & Liu, 2009). In this context, the guidelines instituted by IUCN highlight the contribution and importance of sustainable tourism in protected areas and emphasize,

Tourism produces 4.4 percent of world’s GDP and employs around 200 million people globally. It can also help the sustainable management of protected areas, as a market-based alternative. It can support the protection of natural resources, as local residents realise the value of their asset and want to preserve it. (Eagles et al., 2002)

Tourism’s contribution to the global economy rose to 9.5 per cent and 9.8 per cent of global gross domestic product (GDP) and created nearly 266 million and 284 million jobs during 2013 and 2016, respectively (WTTC, 2013, 2016). Tourism based on nature is one of the non-polluting or low impact polluting industry, which is widely accepted and often criticized as a tool for conservation and development of the PAs (Smith, 2013). Tourism industry in PAs is valued for its potential to reproduce benefits in a non-exploitative way and thus can be thought of as a sound policy for a sustainable conservation and development (Leung, Spenceley, & Buckley, 2015).

Many successful instances of tourism in protected areas have been applauded and different beneficial aspects of tourism at protected areas are highlighted, particularly in the conservation of local biodiversity as well as natural and cultural heritage, and in generating jobs and revenues for the maintenance of the protected areas, thus enhancing the quality of life (Eagles & Higgins, 1998), strengthening the local economy by boosting social welfare (Brown, 2001; Lindberg, 1998 as cited in Eagle et al., 2002) and offsetting the cost of conservation (Eagles et al., 2002). Tourism at protected areas may also contribute to generating finance and support in the management of parks (Church & Brandon, 1995; Langholtz & Brandon, 2001). The importance of sustainable tourism as a concession at protected areas has also been acknowledged in the United Nation Conference (Rio+20) and United Nations General Assembly, 2012 (Thompson, Massyn, Pendry, & Pastorelli, 2014).

On the other hand, there are studies which have found negative impacts of tourism at protected areas, for instance favouring select people of the society and creating a minimal number of jobs, while the profits accrued from tourism are grabbed by the private industry itself (Bosselman, Peterson, & McCarthy, 1999). It may also impose financial and economic loss to the poor people living near the tourism destination sites, inviting social and environmental costs (Brown, 2001). Apart from these negative socio-economic repercussions, tourism at protected areas may also adversely impact the environment which can pose challenges in managing the ecology, environment and economy (Anderson, 1995; Leung et al., 2015; Lin, 2010; Spenceley, 2003). Many guidelines and principles have been given by IUCN and competent organizations have come up to control particular segments of tourism such as mass tourism, adventure tourism, wildlife tourism, and have targeted to achieve sustainable tourism at protected areas (Eagle et al., 2002; Leung et al., 2015). However, these guidelines are scarcely followed in protected areas, making tourism spread its lofty sides such as increased number of tourists and high generation of revenue. To define sustainability in tourism at protected areas, the World Tourism Organization has come up with the concept of ‘sustainable tourism’, which ‘is envisaged as leading to management of all resources in such a way that economic, social and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological processes, biological diversity and life support systems’ (World Tourism Organization, 1997, p. 30). The linkage between United Nations World Tourism Organization’s sustainable tourism and the concept of ecological tourism aligned with poverty elimination initiatives 2004 is also directly linked to other parameters of sustainable development like preventing environmental degradation and bridging social inequality (Holden, 2010). In this context, involvement of stakeholders and their perceptions to evaluate benefits and costs of tourism (Eagles et al., 2002) are treated as one of the mechanisms to analyse sustainability of tourism in site-specific protected areas and this analysis helps in formulating public policy decisions regarding tourism and management at protected areas (Chen, 2015; Eagles et al., 2013; Holden, 2010; Imran, Alam, & Beaumont, 2014; Jamal & Stronza, 2009; Xu et al., 2009).

Theoretical Background

A rational question behind the creation of PAs is ‘why do we value the species conservation and biodiversity areas?’ The simple economic logic behind this strategy is that when resources become scarce, their price increases; likewise the interest of tourists also increases when resources are scarce and they are able to see them in their natural state. Again, the rationale behind allowing tourism with conservation to develop in protected areas is that those with both ‘ability to pay’ and ‘willingness to pay’ attach a great value to the biodiversity area for conservation and those are the tourists who visit these areas often. Although people living adjacent to a biodiversity area often have a great sense of appreciation for the biodiversity, they typically lack the ability to pay and, therefore, even their positive perceptions are rarely noticed. In this context, the protected areas are in high demand among tourists as important recreational destinations. Moreover, different categories of the protected areas (national parks, strict nature reserve, sactuary, etc.) matter for the tourists. National parks are more attractive for the tourists as compared to other forms of protected areas (Reinius & Fredman, 2007). Mismanagement of common pool resources and the tragedy of the commons (Hardin, 1968), followed by top-down policy of management approach are also believed to be the reasons for protecting the protected areas in modern times (Smith, 2013). To fix the degradation of natural resources and extinction of species have become the core objectives of international institutions like United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) along with the protected area networking agencies in their attempt of mainstreaming conservation and formulation of international principles, guidelines and treaties like Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 1992–1993. To safeguard and conserve nature, and for equitable distribution of benefits earned out of it, the protected areas are targeted to expand globally.

In the 1982 World Park Congress at Bali, the delegates recommended that all nations should strive to place 10 per cent of their lands under protection (Miller, 1984). The total area under PAs has increased continuously from less than 3 million sq. km in the 1970s to more than 20 million sq. km in 2004 and covers about 12 per cent of earth’s land surface. A great change has occurred in the redistribution of land use in and around the PAs as well. It is more likely that most of the PAs are established where land is relatively inexpensive—often amidst vast expanses of sparsely inhabited frontier land (Naughton-Treves, Holland, & Brandon, 2005). For such areas, the opportunity cost of the land is comparatively lower and the population is sparse.

It is a common perception that initially when PAs were set up with the objective of conservation of biodiversity, human welfare as such was not thought of and hence was not planned in the agenda (Wana, 2008). So, the form of fences and fines or the fortress approach (Brockington, 2002; Brockington & Schmidt-Soltau, 2004; Neumann, 1998; Wells & Brandon, 1992), which was biased against the well-being of local people, prevailed in the policy and management of PAs. This is one of the prominent negative aspects of creating PAs following the European colonial model of conservation of biodiversity or natural resources. Creating parks has sometimes negatively affected the local income and security, particularly in Africa, where they are associated with exploitative colonial regimes (Naughton -Treves et al., 2005). But the objective behind the creation of PAs has gradually expanded its ambit to include improvement of the local human condition in addition to conservation of biodiversity. Because it was observed that a gap exists between the policy framework of conservation and the degree of its implementation, which did not allow fulfilment of the objectives behind the creation of PAs, there was a hue and cry for human wellbeing because most of the PAs are surrounded by the poor local inhabitants. At the 1982 World Park Congress in Bali, the consensus emerged that ‘the PAs in developing countries will survive only if they address human concerns’ (Naughton-Treves et al., 2005).

Some pertinent questions about the creation of PAs and other related issues arise which need to be addressed. Some issues could include questions like why the local people should not be debarred from their long-occupied rights; how to maintain equity between human rights and the non-sentient rights, how should the local rights be traded off for the global laws and objectives; is there any need to provide next best alternative to the neighbouring local people in compensation for loss of their old (user) rights; and how to create the sources of finance for providing alternative livelihood. Urgent appeals to human rights concerns and equity have pushed a more people-centred paradigm for parks (Naughton-Treves et al., 2005). So, tourism was thought of as a means to increase human welfare along with conserving the biodiversity in such areas.

There are many obstacles in the path of functioning of PAs, ranging from management to financial issues. Government-run PAs are often problematic, which allow space for commercial objectives. There are a lot of issues from governance to the financial accounts irregularities. Moreover, there is a scarcity of funds for the PAs in the developing countries. Although the PAs in developed countries get a large amount of funding from different international agencies and through donations, the sources of funds for the PAs in developing countries are still limited. If each of the one lakh nationally designated PAs require an average of $50 million per year for their maintenance, the total cost of maintaining the global network of PAs will be around $50 billion per year. The cost of conservation of the 25 of the top world biodiversity hotspots has been estimated at $500 million per year (Gossling, 2002). Therefore, in the quest for funds, some innovative ways are needed to be explored. So, there is an urgent need to find ways for PAs to be able to generate sufficient funds to make a contribution to their operating cost (Chase, Lee, Schulze, & Anderson, 2000; Dharmaratne, Sang, & Walling, 2000) and, therefore, financial sustainability is a fundamental problem for managing the PAs (CBD, 2004).

In this list of self-fund raising sources, tourism is one the most attractive sources. What is implied is that tourism has the potential to compete financially with other more destructive industries that pose threats to the biodiversity such as commercial logging, farming and also to enable the survival of biodiversity amid the growing population and escalating poverty that often surrounds it (Novelli & Scarth, 2007). One of the important reasons for integrating tourism into PAs is to get a renewable source of funding with scant investment. There is a near-universal under-investment in nature protection (Wells, 1997). Moreover, ‘most protected area systems in the world are under-funded; many are starved of funds, even when they are the central focus of a major tourism industry’ (Eagles et al., 2002, p. 113). Tourism is said to be one of the pioneering attempts for the conservation of biodiversity, because of two characteristics: one, it generates revenue which can be used for the maintenance and management of the PAs and, two, it creates employment opportunities for those who previously depended on the PA, which can reduce the dependency.

Explaining the global demand for tourism, Font, Cochrane and Tapper (2004) cite three types of tourism market segments: mass tourism, adventure tourism and ecotourism or nature-based tourism. Each of these segments can function in the PAs depending upon the geographical and biodiversity of the PA. To note specifically, ecotourism means responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and sustains the well-being of local people (The International Ecotourism Society, 1991), and is a form of sustainable tourism. Font et al. (2004) asserted that ecotourism or nature-based tourism, in general, has been tipped as the key segment of tourism sector that will generate and spread favourable effects in conservation. They addressed two vital questions: first, what mechanisms can PAs use to raise funds from tourism and, second, to what extent should the PAs raise funds from tourism?

In continuation to the previous discussion, keeping in the view the aspects of little research in the field of tourism and ecotourism and conservation in India in general and Bhitarkanika wild life sanctuary in particular, this article aims to see whether the experiences concerning the global issues of tourism in PAs can be applied to the Indian situation. Some recent studies on ecotourism in Bhitarkanika highlight the potential and significance of ecotourism on the livelihood aspects of the local households (Das & Chatterjee, 2015, 2018). The present study also finds similar findings as far as ecotourism is about creating jobs, revenue and furthering livelihood options and thus validating the potential of ecotourism. Moreover, it adds to the existing literature concerning the implementation of the very concept of ecotourism as has been in practice in Bhitarkanika, by highlighting the stakeholders’ perceptions on ecotourism, finding major existing and potential issues about mismanagement, scarcity of start-up capital and lack of using modern technology in visitors’ management and waste management. The article contributes by studying the status and effects of tourism at the Bhitarkanika protected area and to the growing literature on tourism in protected areas by addressing important issues related to channelization of tourism benefits in creating employment opportunities, creation of infrastructure and other welfare schemes. It also studies the importance of start-up capitals including provision of physical capital, skilling the human capitals as well as networking among local people, forest management authorities and banking facilities such as micro finance and related institutional set up. It also highlights the importance of technology in surveillance, monitoring, management and governance of tourism as an indispensable mechanism for conservation and sustainable development by analysing stakeholders’ perceptions. The article tries to address two questions: (a) What is the necessity to explore individual site-specific issues and problems about ecotourism in protected areas? (b) What is the importance of stakeholders’ in identifying the existing as well as potential issues, their views and involvement in solving and managing the problems of tourism and conservation in protected areas? The motivation is to explore the global issues of tourism in PAs, to find reasons behind the integration of tourism in PAs and to find whether similar global issues arise in Indian protected areas. The main objectives of the article are (a) to analyse the effect of ecotourism on the local economy, conservation and management of the protected area and (b) to analyse the perceptions of the stakeholders —local households as well as forest officials—on tourism in protected areas.

We analyse the effects of ecotourism in the local economy by highlighting its contribution in the generation of employment and revenues and the management of the benefits of ecotourism—apportionment of the revenues for community development schemes. We also analyse the perceptions of local households and forest officials to identify non-economic impacts and different issues of tourism, to make tourism and conservation attempt sustainable at the site.

The article is organized as follows: the succeeding sections present study area, describe data and methodology, analyse results and discussions and finally conclude the discussions with some relevant policy suggestions to make ecotourism sustainable at the site.

The Study Area

Bhitarkanika, a mangrove wetland and also a type II category of protected areas as per the IUCN classification, was a Zamindari (ruled by the landlords of the colonial era) controlled forest, governed by Kanika Zamindar Raj until 26 November 1951 and was managed as per Kanika Raj Jungle Mahal Niyamabali, 1935 (Chadha & Kar, 1999). As the name suggests, Bhitarkanika is composed of two Odia words, bhitar (meaning ‘innermost’) and kanika (‘full of natural beauty’). This area was mostly inaccessible till the 1990s. After the construction of Rajnagar bridge (a bridge over Khola creek at Rajnagar on the Talchua Rajnagar Embankment, constructed in 1994–1995), this hitherto inaccessible area became relatively easy to reach. It is located at 20⁰ 4 ^/ N to 20⁰ 8 ^/ N latitude, and 86⁰ 45/E to 87⁰ 50 ^/ E longitude, in the coastal district of Kendrapara, Odisha, India. It is the second largest mangrove wetland of India and is full of the beauty of mangroves (71 types of mangrove species), estuarine creeks, saltwater crocodile (Crocodylus porous), Olive Ridley turtles (red-listed in IUCN), the large water monitor, Bengal vulture, marine crabs and migratory birds in winter, for which it has become a popular tourist destination. The total mangrove area comprises 13 protected reserve forests, 12 protected forests and one newly formed island (Nayak, 2004).

In 1975, the area of 672 km² was declared as the Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary by the Government of India. The core area of the sanctuary, which is 145 km², was declared Bhitarkanika National Park in September 1998. The Gahirmatha Marine Wildlife Sanctuary—a part of Bhitarkanika that surrounds the Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary to the east—was created in September 1997, where it hosts the Olive Ridley nesting site. For its rich biodiversity significance, this site was designated as Ramsar Wetland of International Importance in 2002 (see Figure 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Source: Sample villages are located by their lattiude and longitude Google Earth (retrieved 15 March 2015).

There are 324 villages inside the sanctuary area (Badola & Hussain, 2003, p. 97). Considering their high concentration of population in the area and their socio-economic conditions, the villages located inside the sanctuary have no option but to use the resources from the PA (Badola & Hussain, 2003). The government of Odisha, despite the PA’s national park status, has failed to encourage the diversified alternative livelihood occupations and to create enough employment. Although tourism in various forms (not ecotourism) was prevalent at this pristine beauty since the Zamindari period, the common people did not have access to it as now in those days. But, since the Odisha government has taken the PA under its control, it has been accessible to the public.

This sanctuary is considered as one of the ecotourism destinations in Odisha for its rich biodiversity, and ecotourism plays an important role in empowering the local people in terms of job avenues and community development programmes (Das & Chatterjee, 2015, 2018). This area under study, as per tourists’ demand, can be classified into five recreational destinations, namely, Crocodile Sanctuary at Dangamala, Kalibhanjadia (island), Ekakula (Habalikati) beach, Gahirmatha for Olive Ridley turtles nesting and mass nesting site (rookeries) and marine drive, and migratory bird’s paradise at Bagagahana. Thousands of black- and brown-headed seagulls visit Gahirmatha coast, coinciding with the peak nesting season of the Olive Ridley sea turtles at this rookery during the winter and early summer months (Kar & Satapathy, 1999[1996]). This PA is managed by two forest ranges, Kanika range and Gupti range, under the DFO (Wildlife), Rajnagar for smooth management of tourists. Tourists are given their entry passes here. With all these present arrangements for integrating ecotourism at the park, the park faces certain issues, which the present study attempts to analyse.

Data and Methodology

The study discusses the potential of ecotourism at Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary (BKWS) by analysing both primary and secondary data and interpreting the views of two stakeholders: local households and forest officials. Primary data are collected from household surveys and views and opinions held by forest officials through direct interview using a semi-structured, open-ended questionnaire. Secondary data are collected from the DFO (Wildlife), Rajnagar office, the concerned range offices and statistical bulletins and reports of the government of Odisha. We identified six peripheral villages, chosen on the basis of their proximity to the national park and their being situated less than half a kilometre away from the park. The village boundaries coincide with the Bhitarkanika National Park edges. The villages were selected also on the basis of their exposure to tourist flow on the assumption that villages located near the entry point of the sanctuary or near any spot of the attraction are more exposed to tourists. Accordingly, six villages, namely, Bankual, Dangamal, Charigharia, Kanaknagar, Sailendranagar and Satavaya, were selected as sample for our study. A total of 300 households were randomly sampled during December 2010–February 2011. Views of these stakeholders were collected to bring out paradigms of conservation and ecotourism. The study is based on primary survey method and qualitative data were collected through focus group discussions (FGDs), semi-structured questionnaire schedules, informal talks and direct observations.

A total of twelve FGDs were conducted in these villages. Seven to ten people participated in each FGD and the first author was the initiator and moderator who initiated conversations on different topics on ecotourism and conservation which were then discussed. Two FGDs were carried out in each village, except in Dangamal and Satavaya. For Dangamal, the largest village with 93 households, three FGDs were carried out and in Satavaya, which is the smallest village, with only nineteen households at present, one FGD was carried out.

Assessment of the economic impacts of tourism can be measured in terms of GDP, labour income or number of jobs created by the park; non-market benefits are captured through non-market valuation techniques and non-economic impacts of tourism are studied using qualitative method based on perception analysis. In this study, allocative economic impacts of tourism are measured in terms of the number of jobs created and revenue generated; distributional economic impacts of tourism are studied by the allocation of revenue for the conservation of the site and developmental activities benefiting the local households. Non-economic impacts are analysed by using qualitative method.

Seven national park officials were also interviewed through a self-administered questionnaire in order to know their perception on conservation, ecotourism, and livelihood issues and other conflicts at BKWS. These personnel, from different ranks and designations, namely, range officer, forester, forest guard, research officer, field assistant and local guide, were selected on the basis of their presence in the office during working hours at BKWS. One person each from these categories was selected except that two field assistants were interviewed. It was really difficult to administer the survey to the forest officials as they frequently remain outside in field duties. They could be approached only when they were in office. The procedure to obtain permission for conducting a survey at the sanctuary from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Wildlife) and Chief Wildlife Warden was a cumbersome one. It took several months with lots of queries and re-queries. During a visit to an office, the first author interacted with the officer to allow her to conduct a survey at BKWS. However, the officer hesitated to give permission for any kind of survey stating that there was no ecotourism and recreational facilities available there. The officer (who was stationed at the capital of Odisha) had a bad view of tourists and conservation of this park. To quote the officer, ‘In the name of doing a survey and research, you with your family and relatives will roam around in this national park and will add more garbage at this site and will come with your findings of issues of conservation and management….’ On the other hand, the Ministry of Environment and Forest (2011), Government of India, stressed the implementation of ecotourism in and around protected areas with desired ecotourism facilities. Therefore, we focused on the forest officials who have more exposure to the field duties inside park area rather than those stationed at office headquarters. The former categories of officials can provide more ground realities in comparison to the latter. These are some official constraints and loopholes in doing research on BKWS. Data is also greatly supplemented by the secondary sources from the DFO (Wildlife), Rajnagar office and the concerned range offices.

Results and Discussion

Tourism in BKWS

BKWS is a well-known wildlife tourism destination, which occupies a central place of tourism in the state. Boasting multiple sites of natural attractions like the crocodile sanctuary and breeding centre, marine sea beach, endangered Olive Ridley nesting site with a pristine scenic beauty of the mangroves, it attracts many domestic and a few foreign tourists. Before 2008, there was no private overnight stay facility at this place, with a limited number of government-run accommodations at different tourist destinations of the site. During 2008, some private tourists’ operators started providing night halt facilities to tourists and now different tour operators offer different attractive packages to visit this place. The question that needs to be answered is whether tourism is integrated at PAs to attain sustainability or is it introduced to meet the financial ends of the management of the site? So, it will be apt to see the strategy of tourism in this PA from the perspective of allocative and distributive effects of tourism, its ultimate beneficiaries and its mechanism of operation. The earlier practice of fencing the protected areas for conservation was hugely criticized as it brought with it an unexpected trade-off between conservation of biodiversity and livelihood dependencies of the local households. Although the theoretical reason behind the concept of ecotourism and the inclusion of protected areas is to maintain a balance and alignment between conservation and development of the local people, the reality may be different. For example, implementation of ecotourism at protected areas to achieve the very objectives of sustainable conservation and development is challenging and sometimes mismanagement may be disastrous. As the Bhitarkanika economy is characterized by extreme remote locality (Das & Chatterjee, 2015), the trend of tourists’ arrival and the potential of tourism must be highlighted for delineating policies conducive for sustainable tourism at the site. Figure 2 depicts the flow of tourism around over a decade.

The domestic tourists’ arrival shows an increasing trend since 2004–2005, while the foreign tourists show a constant picture. Total tourists’ arrival at BKWS has increased over years. The arrival of foreign tourists at this site is around 0.63 per cent of the total foreign tourists in Odisha. These statistics regarding the growth in the regional tourists may be attributed to the fact that there is no substitute site of the Bhitarkanika PA in Kendrapara district and it is the nearest and unique nature-based site for tourists. Whereas the almost constant number of the foreign tourist may be attributed to several factors like lack of developed infrastructure (roads, hotels and restaurants), proper night stays, extremely remote location and lack of proper information.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Source: DFO (WL), Rajnagar.

Effect of Tourism on the Local Economy

After becoming the Ramsar site of International reputation, the rate of revenue generation from the tourism at this site has increased more than the rate of increase in the number of tourists. In 2004–2005, the total number of the tourist arrival was 26,079, and the total revenue was ₹489,050 whereas during 2005–2006, although the tourist arrival was decreased to 24,288, with a non-significant increase in foreign tourists (from 132 to 181), its revenue more than doubled (₹1,033,181). This may be due to the increase in the non-local domestic tourists. Since 2005–2006, there is an increase in the revenue, which is generated through night stays and use of government mechanized boats, conveyance, parking and camera fees. After the financial year of 2005–2006, the growth of revenue generation has not been as fast as the increase from 2004–2005 to 2005–2006. This is due to the increase in licenses permitted to the private mechanized boats for the tourists. So, the share of the boat charges in the government revenue has not jumped in the subsequent years. The trend in revenue is shown Figure 3.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Source: DFO (WL), Rajnagar.

Ecotourism and Conservation at BKWS: Perspectives of the Peripheral Local People

Although very few households (30 households, i.e., 10%) had heard the word ‘ecotourism’, they are familiar with tourists coming to this spot for recreational purposes and regard it as a tourist destination. This shows the lack of reciprocity and cooperation between the forest officials and local people. This means that the local people do not comprehend the meaning of ‘ecotourism’ and this word is confined only to the policy dialogues of the planners. The objectives and necessity of ecotourism have not been explained to the public for whom this policy is planned (ecotourism is designed for the benefit of the local people by taking the local economy and environment into consideration). Here, a gap exists between the policy and the furthering of that policy for its implementation. The caveat is that implementation of a policy cannot be successful without the concerned parties’ comprehension of that policy. That is why more emphasis should be given on the question ‘how a new policy objective and its guidelines reach the local?’ Although ecotourism has already set in and plans and schemes have been launched, people are still not fully aware of it. Only nine households out of 300 are aware of the existence of ecotourism at this national park. It means that ecotourism is an unfamiliar concept in the area. However, 14.34 per cent of the households shared their views about tourism facilities available in this site; out of which 9 per cent of households perceive these facilities to be good, while 4.66 per cent of households opine that these need improvements and 0.33 per cent of households perceive it to be bad. These actual figures show a very deem picture of ecotourism and hence it would be necessary to know the potential of ecotourism which will be helpful for management and conservation of this area.

We tried to find the perceptions of local people towards the potential of ecotourism at the park and its capability for employment generation. We explored some factors for the potential development of ecotourism which may lead to several trickle-down effects. The results of their perceptions about ecotourism with respect to whether it can generate employment are furnished in Table 1.

The data shows that about 33 per cent of the local households perceive the potential of ecotourism positively, that is, they believe that it can generate employment, whereas 40.66 per cent of the households viewed it negatively and 26.33 per cent of households did not give any remarks on this. This is in contrast with the study in Lai and Nepal (2006) at Tawushan Nature Reserve, Taiwan, where a majority of the households (more than 75%) were interested to participate in ecotourism planning and employment. In the present study, the perceptions of households in each village regarding the potential of ecotourism for employment generation are different. This difference, as far as the views and perceptions about tourism are concerned, may be attributed to lack of dialogue, discussion, cooperation, coordination of plans and programmes between the policymakers and the local people. From the data (Table 1) it can be seen that the households of Bankual and Satavaya are highly optimistic about the employability of ecotourism, whereas in Charigharia and Kanaknagar, the households are least optimistic about the same. Sailendranagar and Dangamal households have a moderate hope about the role of ecotourism in employment generation. This variation in outlook and perception across villages can be attributed to the location of entry points for the visitors to get into the park. Another factor responsible for this variation in perceptions is the distance between the spots of attraction and the villages. Apart from these two factors, the socio-economic factor which can partially influence is ‘education’. The other factor which we found important through our observation and experience is ‘exposure’. Bankual and Satavaya villages are more exposed to tourists. As Bankual is closest to the entry point, people come in contact with a large number of tourists entering the national park. Likewise, Satavaya village is at the edge of the Bay of Bengal and closest to one of the spots of attraction, the Olive Ridley Turtle’s nesting site. So both these villages are more exposed to tourism.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Perception Regarding Employment Generation and Ecotourism

7Village	Yes (In Absolute Figure) (%)	No (In Absolute Figure)	Cannot Say (In Absolute Figure)
Chargharia N = 65	2 3.07	32	31
Satavaya N = 19	12 63.15	1	6
Kanaknagar N = 41	9 21.95	15	17
Sailendranagar N = 33	12 36.36	18	3
Dangamal N = 93	32 34.40	43	18
Bankual N = 49	32 65.3	13	4
Total N = 300%	99 33	122 40.66	79 26.33

Source: The authors.

The following types of employment can be expected from tourism. Most of the employment opportunities are in boating and related work (47.23%) and shops (28.01%). Other opportunities for employment include catering and related work (10.74%), while parking facilities and hotels comprise 10.42 per cent. Only 3.25 per cent of employment opportunity is expected from tourist guide system and a meagre 0.32 per cent for handicraft products. The effects of ecotourism on the wellbeing and income of the households are noteworthy. The survey revealed that all (100%) households get seasonal employment opportunities. Again, the majority of the households (65.66%) hold the view that the employment created by ecotourism facilities at the site can be sustained for only up to two months, while 29.34 per cent of households opine that it can continue up to four months. Only 4.66 per cent of the respondents perceive that ecotourism here can continue for about six months. Observing the seasonal nature of ecotourism industry, the effect of ecotourism on the income generated by the local households ought to be known for major planning and decisions.

It was found that the tourists who stay overnight in one or another house pay between ₹50–150 for the same, although the costs of an overnight stay at forest department guest houses, cottages and private resorts are much higher. Only four households in Dangamal village and 21 households in Bankual villages host tourists in their houses as paying guests. Their monthly income ranges between INR 500–1,000 only. But in the rest of the four villages, no household has lodging facility for tourists. However, only 13 per cent of 300 households from the six villages are interested in hosting tourists at their homes for a night stay. Some more households (19%) could be interested in hosting tourists for the night stay, provided they can get some financial help to set basic facilities like toilets and bathrooms in their homes. The majority of these households are from Bankual and Dangamal villages. Likewise, 58.06 per cent of the households in Dangamal village and 67.34 per cent of households in Bankual village are interested in becoming tourist guides at the park. On the other hand, only 6.06 per cent of the households in Sailendranagar, 7.31 per cent in Kanaknagar and none in rest of the two villages prefer to be tourist guides at the national park. It can be concluded that the households of the two villages Bankual and Dangamal can get benefits from ecotourism programmes.

The local households also expressed their views about the effect of ecotourism on the mangroves and conservation of biodiversity. While 17.67 per cent of households shared that the effect is favourable for conservation, only 7 per cent are of the opinion that it has a bad effect and 75.33 per cent did not know about its effect on the mangroves and the conservation of biodiversity.

Issues, Actual and Potential: Unsustainable Practices for Sustainable Tourism

The study from one of the nearest villages of BKWS, Bankual tells a different story. This village touches the swamps and mangroves and can be considered as a threshold to BKWS. It is one of the entry points (there are two) for the tourist and fulfils the requirement of a perfect hamlet for an eco-tourist to halt. An outsider has built a private nature-home inside the village close to the gate to BKWS. It is to host the eco-tourist and is running well for quite some time. Seeing its success, 42.8 per cent of the households (n = 49) are willing to host tourists at their homes for night stay. However, they need to provide basic facilities like safety latrine or a separate bathroom or a well-designed cottage to do that, which means that they need financial help but they lack the start-up capital. Due to some factors like unavailability of microfinance or lack of information regarding microfinances, these villagers are unable to offer their homes for night stay to the tourists. Those who are not willing to provide the stay believe that this act may endanger their girls and women. ‘How many can be employed this way? And employment is for smart and educated people. We all suffer because we are deprived of our fuel and fish’, a local person laments. Another one adds, ‘What is left behind for us and why do we live here? Wild animals are valued here, we are not.’ An elderly person remarked, ‘We need to be in a symbiotic relationship. We love these wild animals, but we don’t need either their extinction or ours. We don’t want to endanger the species or our livelihood.’ What all this means is that there is a need for sustainable livelihood and diversification for sustainable development and conservation. These sorts of issues require an urgent attention for developing institutional set-ups for both adaptive efficiency and allocative efficiency (Scoones, 1998).

In 2010, another outsider started another private nature resort near this village and villagers willing to set their homes as resorts are not happy with the management’s decision regarding the permission given to private resort operators to establish their business. Since the very inception of the recent private resorts, the villagers realized that their dream of earning something from tourists’ stay is not going to come true. This resort is running very well, with a good connection from the state capital and it can pay the royalty. Although the revenue is generated, the welfare effect in terms of the distributional aspect is not justified. This again is not the objective of allowing tourism in PAs; rather this action on the part of the authority results in deteriorating local people’s financial condition and creating social disturbance and conflicts.

A very fundamental question is that whether all visiting tourists come to the PAs? It is needless to say that some tourists come here thinking it is a picnic spot. Sometimes they get drunk and behave with unexpected attitudes. Two liquor shops are located just outside the national park (Das & Chatterjee, 2015), which only increase the nuisance inside the park. There are no mechanisms to guard this type of misbehaviour which may put the species and fellow tourists at risk.

Waste management is not effective here and may prove harmful to the wild animals and birds. Although food in non-biodegradable packages is not allowed inside the Bhitarkanika PA, its practice on the part of the tourists is yet to be verified. No frisking procedure or modern equipment and technology like drone monitoring are used to monitor such situations. At times, news about animals being hunted for meat are published. Often, some tourists ally with some local people to perpetrate this. Since there is no advanced mechanism to trace the food items carried by people while entering or exiting the sanctuary, this practice is often repeated. A photograph of waste disposal is displayed in Figure 4.

Figure 4 displays non-biodegradable materials thrown in an open shallow dustbin, which can easily be carried in by wild animals across mangrove areas causing harm to both flora and fauna.

Although both stakeholders—households and forest officials—shared positive perceptions about the economic benefits of tourism at BKWS, its sustainability is observed to be uncertain. The main challenges include (a) lack of adequate capital and institutional mechanisms to chalk out a plan for the involvement of actual local household in tourism industry, (b) lack of infrastructural facilities/skills and managerial abilities on the part of the local households to host tourists as ‘paying guests’, (c) no proper institutions to monitor the private tour operators and the workforce involved is not efficient enough and is required to undergo training programmes provided under the Ministry of Tourism, and (d) lack of use of appropriate technology in monitoring and management of resources and tourism. From the facts and data, as discussed earlier, the present scenario of management and monitoring of tourism at the park is not satisfactory and if these scenario continues, the attempt of integrating tourism by creating mechanisms and practices, which are ecologically conducive, will not be sustainable and successful.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Source: The authors (photo taken by the first author at BKWS).

Conclusions and Policy Recommendations

Conflicting issues are expected when it comes to livelihood and employment of the people. But in any conflict resolution focus should be on management rather than prevention. Some formalized resolution of the conflicting processes such as negotiation and arbitration to resolve the matter is required. In the absence of adequate finance to encourage the households to offer a shelter to the tourists, soft loans and information about these loans need to be made available. However, in a recent study by Das and Chatterjee (2015), the importance of SHGs in encouraging savings in the Gramya banks has been highlighted, but no such provision of soft loans as a start-up capital is available so far. Moreover, some issues and potential conflicts have been identified in BKWS and three approaches are being adopted for the resolution of a dispute, namely, prohibition of certain activities, separation of activities in time and space and provision of information and education (Eagles et al., 2002). In these areas, prohibited activities include fishing in any form, harvesting any mangrove product, removal of any living and non-living resources and activities which disturb the flora and fauna. The objective behind these prohibitions is ‘conservation of biodiversity’ and ‘sustainable tourism’ amidst nature or tourism compatible with nature or ecological sense of nature or ecotourism. In addition to these, creating awareness, provision of information and education must be emphasized for the resolution of potential conflicts anticipated at BKWS. The tourist guides are employed to guide the tourists and prevent those who break the law deliberately or in ignorance. They educate the tourists about the activities that are allowed while they are inside the biodiversity area. This has created awareness among the tourists in general as well as among the so-called eco-tourists. As a result of employing tourist guides, many cases of abuse have been avoided and tourism has become more compatible with nature. Still, there is a need to warn the tourists about misconduct before entering the PA. For example, the tourists need to be clearly told not to consume alcohol before getting the entry ticket to the national park although it has been already mentioned in the list of banned activities. But this kind of cases are very often observed by fellow tourists and these unexpected behaviour (alcohol consumption) may put both the species and tourists in danger. At the entrance, no instrument is used to detect prohibited things carried inside. At times, only a random manual check is done to prevent the entry of prohibited items. This careless and casual approach on the part of the management may at times create dangerous circumstance.

The current practice of tourism in BKWS may create sustainability in finance and funding for the management authority but the majority of ecotourism benefits are grabbed by private operators, who do not have even any distant relationship with the locality. In this manner, the benefits are leaked to the private bodies and this is the reason why local people are not happy with the establishment of new private tourism resorts. It is not even the objective of ecotourism to let the outsiders get benefits and the local households cannot avail the facility of hosting tourists. But without developing mechanisms for the sustainable management practices, which aim to create sustainability in three aspects—environment, future generations and economy—the objective behind integrating tourism at PAs cannot be fulfilled. Tourism only creates jobs for a small group of people—mostly the young people—while a large section of people remain unemployed. The only problem that it solves is that it creates enough revenue for its maintenance. Moreover, it is very hard to differentiate between tourists and eco-tourists. Thus, the absence of scrupulous and strict implementation of the theory of tourism and ecotourism may put BKWS in grave danger. For any planned development and implementation, the first step is to communicate with the stakeholders. So, all the published documents regarding the laws concerning the development and implementation at PAs should be placed on the web for easy access. The attempt at creating alternative jobs for a sustainable development by implementing tourism in PAs is one of the necessary aspects of job creation. But this attempt is not sufficient enough for the larger aspects of creating sustainable alternatives in job creation and thus for the sustainable development and conservation of the PAs. A holistic approach is needed to create jobs according to the geographical location and availability of human resources for sustainable development and conservation of the area in question. This article suggests four important aspects of ‘sustainability of tourism’ at BKWS, that is, provision of start-up capital, facilitating training to the local people who are linked with tourism at the site or are interested in hosting up tourism and strengthening the institutional set-up for better management, networking and use of modern technology for monitoring tourism and conservation at the site.

Observing the present practices at BKWS, it may be remarked that integrating tourism into PAs is an alternative for creating funds and financing the management or to create financial sustainability. Although some steps have been taken to strengthen the distributional aspect of the created funds. To conclude, like many other policies, the policy of integrating tourism in BKWS is a good attempt, but it needs improvements in its management system and proper mechanisms and institutions need to be developed to strengthen it.