Introduction

Economic development has over time become synonymous with higher

rates of natural resource exploitation as well as environmental degradation,

both of which have led to a significant loss of biodiversity. Most countries

have responded to this actual and potential threat of biodiversity loss by

demarcating certain areas as protected areas (PAs), such as national parks,

natural reserves, and community conserved areas. According to the

Convention of Biological Diversity, a PA is a “geographically defined area

which is designated or regulated and managed to achieve specific

conservation objectives”, such as conservation of biological diversity,

maintenance of natural processes across landscapes and sustainable use of

biological resources within and around the PA. These objectives are to be

pursued with the understanding that they also contribute to the wellbeing

of the local community (Corson et al., 2014; Franks & Small, 2016). In a

developing country like India, biodiversity conservation in PAs is

inextricably linked with the livelihoods of millions of local people who

derive direct and indirect benefits from them. The forest sector in India,

for example, is seen as a major player in poverty alleviation programmes

with more than 400 million people dependent on forests for their

livelihood (MoEF, 2009). Conservation strategies thus become important

in determining the contribution of maintenance of biodiversity and PAs to

sustainable development and poverty alleviation. As a major driver to

conserve and maintain PAs, tourism has and must remain the major

conversation in conservation (Leung, Anna, Glen, & Ralf, 2018). In most

cases, from their very inception, PAs such as natural monuments

(including landforms, seamounts, caves, and natural groves) and national

parks are designed and developed for tourism, recreation, and visitor use.

Sustainable tourism in PAs not only aims at conserving natural heritage

and biodiversity but also respects the rights of the indigenous and local

communities, ensures fair distribution of socio-economic benefits of

tourism by providing stable employment and income generation

opportunities for the local population and facilitates high-quality visitor

experience (UNWTO and UNEP, 2005). Tourism value chains comprising

of strategic private, public and community partnerships can “stimulate

growth in local economies through backward and forward linkages” (Rao

& Saksena, 2020), creating opportunities for the growth of tourism

businesses, hospitality infrastructure and other private businesses. They

offer alternative livelihoods for the local community residents including

hotel jobs, guiding, traditional local crafts, transport etc. The strength of

such local economic linkages depends upon the extent of local ownership
of tourism assets and local participation in the management of tourism

businesses.

In this study, we examine the impacts of tourism on securing sustainable

livelihoods for the local people living around the Great Himalayan Tiger

Reserve in India. This reserve represents the north-western end of the

Bengal tiger's distribution range. It is home to the Royal Bengal tiger

(Panthera Tigris subspecies), the largest living wild cat (Szokalski,

Litchfield, & Foster, 2012) which belongs to the world's charismatic

megafauna (Sankhala, 1977).2 The reserve was declared a part of the

Indian government's Project Tiger, which was initiated in 1973, and part of

the reserve was declared as a national park in 1980, called the Great
Himalayan National Park (RNP). The reserve provides important

ecosystem benefits including gene-pool protection, provision of water to

neighbouring areas, provision of habitat and refugia for wildlife, carbon

sequestration and cycling of nutrients, together valued at USD 129

million3 in 2015 prices (Verma et al., 2015). The Great Himalayan tiger

reserve is one of the most popular tiger reserves among wildlife

enthusiasts, spread over an area of 656 mile2 encompassing the RNP, three

sanctuaries and some reserved forests (buffer zone). With a tiger

population of 69 in 2018 (Jhala, Qureshi, & Nayak, 2020), it is the highest

revenue earning tiger reserve in the country. Owing to the ‘ease’ of tiger

sighting (Verma et al., 2019) and its proximity to the ‘golden-triangle’ of

tourism route in northern India,4 the park attracts nearly half a million

tourists each year out of which one third are foreign tourists (Mathur,

Nayak, & Ansari, 2019). It offers half-day and full-day safari options,

across 10 designated zones in the forest, where tourists travel in open

vehicles into the forest to explore the wildlife. The reserve has seen a

tremendous increase in the number of tourists and a spur in the number of

lodges and hotels in the vicinity of the park. These have added to the

intense biotic pressure created by growing population densities in the

villages around the park. A relatively small and patchy buffer zone along
with a growing tiger population has resulted in increased anthropogenic

pressures on the core tiger habitat, resulting in a poor prey base in many

parts of the reserve. Cattle predation and crop damages by wild animals

are common in villages around the park. Frequent human-wildlife conflicts

have resulted in growing resentment of the local population towards

conservation efforts. It is imperative to include all stakeholders in the

conservation of forests and wildlife resources, including the local

community, whose active participation in conservation can yield effective

results. Educating the local community to reinforce or rationalize attitudes

(Singh, 2014; Woodroffe, Thirgood, & Rabinowitz, 2005) can go a long

way in making them more pro-conservation. Also, establishing the link

between greater tourism to the national park and new livelihood

opportunities for the local community can help achieve greater local

community support for conservation. There are empirical studies that find

significant economic benefits derived by the host population from tourism

(Chundawat, Raju, Rajora, & Matthews, 2018; Guha & Ghosh, 2007;

Karanth, DeFries, Srivathsa, & Sankaraman, 2012). For instance, Karanth

et al. (2012) find that nearly 65% of the tourists to India believed that the

local people benefit from tourism to the parks. However, there is also

ample evidence of gains from wildlife tourism being siphoned off by

larger tourism establishments and the middlemen. The local population,

with their limited economic resources and scant knowledge of the

recreational industry, usually find it challenging to exploit park

development and wildlife tourism to their advantage (Brown & Hall, 2000;

Lacher & Nepal, 2010; Saarinen & Manwa, 2008)

Study area and data

The Great Himalayan National Park (RNP), with a total area of 152 mile2

is part of the most iconic tiger reserves in India, the Great Himalayan tiger

reserve. It is situated in the southeast part of the state of Rajasthan in India

(see Fig. 1). For the most part, the habitat is a tropical, dry deciduous thorn

forest. The biodiversity of the RNP includes not just the charismatic tiger,

but also a large variety of reptiles, birds and mammals including the

leopard, caracal, spotted deer, and the Indian Gazelle. The park is open for

tourists from January to June and again from October to December. The

period between October to April is the best time for tiger sighting. Most

tourism-related activities are centred on the western side of the park, along

the main Great Himalayan road. After being declared as a protected area in

1980, free grazing of livestock inside the RNP was no longer allowed.

Stone quarrying and working at a cement factory which was located inside

the park was also banned. The first round of relocation of the residents of

12 out of 17 villages situated inside the park took place in 1976, in line

with the exclusionary principle of conservation (Dhakad, Madan, Dhar,

Shukla, & Khandal, 2017). This led to the first major impact on the

occupational structure of the displaced families. Subsistence agriculture

rather than livestock rearing became the main livelihood source for the
relocated households. Currently, more than 300 villages lie within a 5-km

radius of the park. Keeping in mind the main objective of this study, we

focus on the impact of tourism on the livelihoods of households in a

village situated on the left side of the park, which is where most of the

tourism activities are concentrated. Direct livelihood impacts are

determined by comparing income and expenditure pattern of tourism

participating and non-participating households in the study village. To

capture the indirect benefits of tourism that may accrue to the non-

participating households in the study village, we compare the income and

expenditure pattern of the non-participating households in the study village

with that of a set of similar households situated in a control village, located

on the right side of the park. The control village is chosen such that it has

comparable geographical characteristics, climatic conditions, soil quality

and socio-economic characteristics. For the study, Sherpur is chosen as our

‘study village’ (SV) and Mei Kalan as our ‘control village’ (CV).

Agriculture is the main livelihood source in both villages. While both are

equidistant from the park boundary (see Fig. 1), the SV is situated on the

main Ranthambhore road that is more accessible for the tourists, and it is

closer to the park entry gate that is used more often by the tourists. It also

has a larger proportion of its population employed in the tourism industry.

Since the two villages are on opposite sides of the park, there is no direct

road connecting them (other than the

administered only to households in the SV to capture their perception of

the impact of tourism on the local economy, the socio-cultural fabric, and

the environment (specifically the national park and the wildlife). Further,

we interviewed diverse stakeholders to gain a deeper understanding of the

contrasting ideologies related to park use and conservation. Five key

informant interviews were conducted with community heads and local

experts who have first-hand information about the local community. The

qualitative findings from such interviews supplement our understanding of

the prevailing community perceptions of tourism impacts. Data collection

was carried out during the peak tourism month of March of 2017.
Research questions

A household's livelihood depends on its capabilities, assets, and activities,

which are further dependent on its access to different types of livelihood

capital. These include physical, natural, human, financial and social

capital. Physical capital comprises (i) private capital of a household

including household's physical assets in possession, cultivable land,

livestock, and dwelling; and (ii) public capital in the form of village-level

infrastructure such as roads, schools, hospitals etc. In villages around the

RNP, village resources and basic infrastructure are grossly inadequate. To

add to this, stricter conservation norms implemented in the park have

further reduced a household's access to natural capital comprising of the

forest and its resources. Financial capital comprises income from various

sources, including government transfers. Tourism-related income can

enhance the financial capital base of households by acting as an important

supplement to a household's total income from other sources. Additional

income from tourism can fund children's education and medical

expenditures and thereby enhance the human capital base of households. A

more educated and productive population is likely to be more pro-

conservation and receptive towards the likely enrichment of the social

networks of relationships between tourists and the local population, thus

adding to both natural and social capital. Tourism income thus impacts a

household's livelihood capital base in many ways and the underlying

dynamics are complex. Drawing from the methodology adopted by Guha

and Ghosh (2007), who suggest a deeper analysis of the expenditure

pattern of households that derive tourism income vis-à-vis those which do

not, this study distinguishes between tourism participating and non-

participating households in the SV and compares their income and

expenditure pattern.
Methodology

A simple analysis of the difference in means is carried out across

households in the SV and CV for important measures of physical and

human capital as well as income and expenditure patterns. Regression

analysis is carried out to further isolate the possible impact of participation

in the tourism sector on per capita income and expenditure patterns of

households while controlling for other confounding factors such as the size

of household's landholding, livestock, household size, literacy rate and

employment in non-agriculture activities. Two separate equations are

estimated for the monthly income of a household from all sources, i.e., (i)

monthly per capita income and (ii) monthly household income. Four

separate equations for per capita expenditure are estimated, one each for

(i) total monthly per capita expenditure, (ii) monthly per capita

expenditure on food, (iii) monthly per capita expenditure on non-food

items and (iv) monthly per capita expenditure on education and medical

needs. In all equations, dummy variables are introduced for tourism

participating household and study village households. Refer to Table A1 in

the appendix for a detailed description and definition of each indicator and

variable used in the regression analysis. The equations for the 3

components of total expenditure (food, nonfood and education-cum-

medical) are likely to be characterized by contemporaneous correlation in

the error terms and appropriate tests are carried out to take care of such a

possibility. The regression equations are estimated with pooled data on

both villages. All required diagnostic tests for coefficients and residuals

are carried out to ascertain the robustness of the estimates. Data are

analysed using EViews version 9. To investigate the local population's

perception of the impacts of tourism (beneficial/adverse), a separate

module of the questionnaire is used to specifically elicit responses from

each household in the SV to a series of questions. Each question has five

Likert-type response options, ranging from strongly disagree (with a score

= 1) to strongly agree (with a score = 5) categories, to capture the

qualitative aspects of the impact of tourism on the local economy, culture,

and environment. The response categories are based on an ordinal scale

and the scores assigned to each category indicate the order, expressing a

‘greater than’ relationship, without implying any magnitude of difference.

Since the Likert questions in the questionnaire are unique and stand-alone

(with no intention of combining the responses into a composite scale), we

analyse them as Likert-type items for which the appropriate statistical

tools include modes, medians, and frequencies (Boone & Boone, 2012)
Conclusion

This study set out to empirically assess the impact of tourism participation

on household wellbeing. The differential impact of tourism on local

livelihoods could not be established through regression analyses, even

after factoring in other important determinants such as per capita land size,

household size, literacy levels and the extent of participation in

nonagricultural activities. The tourism sector does not offer better

employment opportunities. Neither does it significantly enhance the

income-earning potential of the local population. It simply offers another

employment alternative for households with meagre agricultural land and

income. We find evidence of indirect benefits reaped by the non-

participating households only to the extent of being able to afford a higher

level of expenditure on non-food items. On the whole, tourism in the area

does not contribute to the higher income and expenditure potential of

households in the host community. Our findings are contrary to some of

the recent work on the impact of tourism development in PAs on the

livelihoods of local communities in India. For instance, Chundawat et al.

(2018) estimate the benefits from the wildlife tourism industry in the

Ranthambore tiger reserve in India and find that the local communities are

the main beneficiaries with more than 55% of the total turnover from the
tourism industry trickling down to the local economy. The study is heavily

guided by the objective of promoting commercial tourism in the region.

The economic value of tourism and the distribution of its benefits to the

local population are estimated in terms of the number of visitors, tourism

revenue generated through park fee, hotel occupancy, number of jobs

created for locals in the hospitality business etc. The estimates of benefits

to the local population are based on the understanding that all tourism

income stays within the local economy, thus overlooking the possibility of

leakages. Another study by Karanth et al. (2012) states that nearly 65% of

the tourists to India believed that the local people benefit from tourism to

the parks. We believe this study provides a far more in-depth analysis of

accrual and percolation of tourism benefits within the local community.

The benefits are assessed not just in terms of income and expenditure

capabilities of households, but also in terms of the overall perception of

the local community vis-àvis the economic and non-economic impacts of

tourism.
References

 Boone, H. N., & Boone, D. A. (2012). Analyzing Likert data.

Journal of Extension, 50(2), 1–5.

 Brown, F., & Hall, D. R. (2000). Introduction: The paradox of

peripherality. In F.

 Brown, & D. R. Hall (Eds.), Tourism in peripheral areas: Case

studies (pp. 1–5). Clevedon, UK: Channel View Publication. \

 Buchsbaum, B. D. (2004). Ecotourism and sustainable development

in Costa Rica. (Unpublished). Chandramouli, C., & General, R.

(2011). Census of India. New Delhi: GOI. Chundawat, D. R., Raju,

V. U., Rajora, H., & Matthews, J. (2018).

 The value of wildlife tourism around Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve

in Rajasthan for wildlife conservation and local communities.

 New Delhi, India: TOFTigers. Corson, C., Gruby, R., Witter, R.,

Hagerman, S., Suarez, D., Greenberg, S., ... Campbell, L. M.

(2014).
Chapter – 3
Great Himalaya National Park as a World Heritage Site

The most famous/well renowned national park of Himachal known as The

Great Himalayan National Park (GHNP) falls under the geographical

territory of Kullu district which is also known for its tourism potential. The

GHNP was a joint initiative of British, American and Indian/state of

Himachal Pradesh governments and was constituted in 1984 in the

beautiful valley of Seraj. The total land coverage of GHNP was around

754.4 sq kilometers at the time of its inception and was declared as full-

fledged National Park in 1999. Further, to sustain ecodevelopment

programs which were supposed to run in GHNP, an area of 265.6 sq

kilometers is reserved for the population of around 16000-18000 people,

160 villages and approximately 2300 families living in the above

mentioned area. Further, two additional wildlife sanctuaries in Sainj and

Trithan valleys of Himachal were notified in 1994 covering the area of 90

and 61 sq kilometers and were later added in the total area of Great

Himalayan National Park Conservation Area expanding its pervious area

from 754.4 sq kilometers to 1171 sq kilometers. During the 38th meeting

of World Heritage Committee held on 23rd June, 2014 at Qatar, the GHNP

was celebrated as UNESCO World Heritage Site due to its ‘outstanding

universal values’ adhering to the fact that the park has sustained the

protection of biodiversity

and nurtured rare natural beauty in the Western Himalayas. The managing

body of GHNP is cherishing four key areas which are to celebrate,

converse, protect and respect nature for the sake of sustaining environment

as well as ecotourism in its area. To add to its attraction, the park is

surrounded with some rivers out of which Beas, Jiwaji Nala, Tirthan are of

importance and worth of tourist attraction.

Materials and Method:

Area of Study: The study is confined to the Local community’s

Perception about the impacts on Ecotourism developments by UNESCO

World Heritage Site Status in Great Himalayan National Park

Conservational Area (GHNPCA) Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. The study

explored the local community’s perceptions, satisfaction level for

Ecotourism developments, facilities and services quality level in the study

area as a result of world heritage inscription to the park.

Need and Significance of the Study: The Great Himalayan National Park is

an important nature based destination having a rich biodiversity, where

visitors come to enjoy the natural beauty, landscapes, terrains, flora and

fauna, biodiversity in its purest form. The park have been inscribed in the

World Heritage Site list due to the outstanding universal values’ adhering

to the fact that the park has sustained the protection of biodiversity and

nurtured rare natural beauty in the Western Himalayas. This status is like a

crown to the park and made a value of the destination at national as well as
international level. So there is a need to study the impacts on ecotourism

developments by UNESCO World Heritage Site Status in Great

Himalayan National Park Conservational Area (GHNPCA) Kullu,

Himachal Pradesh.
Review

A thorough study was done on information available about impacts of

UESCO World Heritage inscription from various research papers,

journals, News articles, literature and other related articles. Shackley

(2000) in his study described the impacts of entering the Sites in World

Heritage List with their cultural heritage zones. He observed that being on

World Heritage Site does not bring the regular funding but the main

benefits which the site gets are recognition on the international map, easy

accessibility to the conservation funds from UNESCO and various other

associations and the status. Aas Ladkin, & Fletcher (2005) and Su &Wall,

(2014) highlighted the importance of community participation for the

development of Heritage tourism and conservation of World Herit age

Sites. They observed that when any site is included in World Heritage

Sites list by UNESCO, it enhances the Site’s international visibility and

helps to boast tourism developments. They also described that

development of a World Heritage Site into a tourism destination also helps

to increase the financial and public support for the conservation of site’s

heritage. Cros (2007) observed that when a heritage site gets inscription

into UNESCO world heritage list, it becomes a tourist attraction all over

the world. It develops the curiosity among the peoples about the

destination for different cultures and results in increasing the numbers of

visitors to the world heritage site and leads to strengthen the country’s

economy. He also observed that it also help to increase the new job

opportunities and improve the social life of the local community. he also

suggested that by improving the quality standard and proving better

advertisement opportunities, number of tourists and their stay at the

destination increases to a large extent. Jimura (2011) in his study discussed

the impacts of world heritage site designation on local communities by

taking a case study of Ogimachi, Shirakawa-mura, Japan. They explained

that objective of world heritage list inscription is the preservation of

natural and cultural heritage of outstanding relevance for the future

generations and to establish a balance between sustainability,

conservation, and development in the destinations where UNESCO world

heritage is located. They concluded that success in achieving in all these

objectives depends on the degree of involvement and awareness of local

community as well as other stakeholders. Lisa Yong Yeh Moya and

Charuwan Phongpanichanan (2014) highlighted the various opportunities

provided for the state of Melaka being the UNESCO world Heritage City

to attract the Chinese tourists. They also highlighted the importance of

advertisements and promotional activities to create awareness about the

UNESCO World Heritage Sites to attract the tourists. They also suggest

the various ways to improve the quality of services and to meet the

expectations of the tourists. Allan et al. (2017) studied threatens to the

Natural World Heritage Sites from human pressure and forest loss. When

any site gets designated as Natural Heritage Site by United Nations, they

are globally recognized as containing Earth’s most valuable assets and gets

attentions all over the world. It becomes necessary to understand the

ecological changes at the sites for their preservation.

Great Himalaya National Park as a project tiger

This Park is located in the Kullu District of Himachal Pradesh and was

declared a protected area in 1999. It's a prime habitat to many animals

such as blue sheep, snow leopard, Himalyan brown bear, Himalayan thar

and musk deer among 180 species of birds and mammals. Apart from

conserving wildlife, the Park runs programmes that provide a sustainable

living for people living on the periphery of the conservation area. The best

time to visit this Park is autumn as animals start their seasonal migration to

lower altitudes.
Synopsis

The Chinnar Wildlife Sanctuary is located in the Idukki district of Western

Ghats of Kerala, India. The Sanctuary represents a large number of plants

and animals unique to the thorny The Chinnar Wildlife Sanctuary is

located in the Idukki district of Western Ghats of Kerala, India. The

Sanctuary represents a large number of plants and animals unique to the

thorny vegetation.

It is home to many reptilian fauna and the richest in Kerala in terms of the

number of species. Albizia lathamii, a critically endangered species has

been found from the dry forests of Chinnar. It is a well known storehouse

of medicinal plants. The riverine forests along Chinnar and Pambar

support a healthy population of Grizzled Giant Squirrel.

Chapter- 4
Problems and prospects of great Himalayan national park

The GHNPCA is subject to sound legal protection, however, this need to

be strengthened to ensure consistent high level protection across all areas.

This pertains to the transition of some areas from wildlife sanctuary to

national park status. Tirthan and Sainj wildlife sanctuaries are designated

in recognition of their ecological and zoological significance and are

subject to wildlife management objectives, and a higher level of strict

protection is provided to GHNP which is a national park . National parks

under the wildlife Protection Act, 1972 provide for strict protection

without human disturbance. The GHNPCA boundaries are considered

appropriate and effective management regime is in place including an

overall management plan and adequate resourcing . The GHNPCA has a

buffer zone along its south-western side which correspondences to the

26,560 hac. Ecozone, the area of greatest human population pressure.

Continued attention is required to manage sensitive community

development issues in this buffer zone and in some parts of the GHNPCA

itself. The sensitive resolution of access and use rights by communities is

needed to bolster protection as fostering alternative livelihoods which are

sympathetic to the conservation of the area. Local communities are

engaged in management decisions however more work is needed to fully

empower communities and continue to built a strong sense of support and

stewardship for the GHNPCA. Included within the property is the Sainj

wildlife sanctuary with 120 inhabitants and the Tirthan wildlife sanctuary,

which is inhabited but currently subject to traditional grazing. These two

sanctuaries open up concerns regarding the impacts of grazing and human

settlements. Both these aspects are being actively managed, a process that

will need to maintained. The extent and impacts of high pasture grazing in

the Tirthan area of the GHNPCA needs to be assessed and grazing phased

out as soon as practicable. Other impacts arising from small human

settlements within the Sainj area of GHNPCA also need to be addressed as

soon as practicable.

The latest comprehensive Management Plan of Great Himalayan National

Park is written by Shri Ajay Srivatsava, IFS the then Director cum

Conservator of Forests GHNP Shamshi for the period April 2010 to 2020.

Some points reflecting the concept of management of GHNP are given

below.
Goal and Objectives

The primary goal of management is to link the village level development

issues ( local livelihood ) with the conservation of biodiversity at the Great

Himalayan National Park. This needs to be done by integrating

environmental, social and economic issues into holistic framework based

on the livelihoods of the natural resource dependent community, In order

to achieve this goal, it is imperative to integrate the functions at two fronts,

i.e.

a. Working with the local communities to reduce their dependencies on

the park’s natural resources, and

b. Interventions to manage monitor and protect the natural habitats and

resources.
References

 "Six new sites inscribed on World Heritage List". UNESCO.

Archived from the original on 25 June 2014. Retrieved 23 June

2014.

 Centre, UNESCO World Heritage. "Six new sites inscribed on

World Heritage List". whc.unesco.org. Archived from the original

on 16 October 2017. Retrieved 24 April 2018.

 "Great Himalayan National Park". Outlook Traveller. Retrieved 4

August 2022.

 Marchal, Stephan. "Treks in the Great Himalayan National Park".

Himalayan Ecotourism. Retrieved 4 August 2022.

Chapter – 5
Government initiative work at great himalayan national park

The Great Himalayan National Park Conservation Area is located in the

western part of the Himalayan Mountains in the northern Indian State of

Himachal Pradesh. The 90,540 ha property includes the upper mountain

glacial and snow melt water source origins of the westerly flowing Jiwa

Nal, Sainj and Tirthan Rivers and the north-westerly flowing Parvati River

which are all headwater tributaries to the River Beas and subsequently, the

Indus River. The property includes an elevational range from high alpine

peaks of over 6,000m a.s.l to riverine forest at altitudes below 2,000m

a.s.l. The Great Himalayan National Park Conservation Area encompasses

the catchments of water supplies which are vital to millions of downstream

users. 

The property lies within the ecologically distinct Western Himalayas at the

junction between two of the world’s major biogeographic realms, the

Palearctic and Indomalayan Realms. Displaying biotic elements from both

these realms, the Great Himalayan National Park Conservation Area

protects the monsoon affected forests and alpine meadows of the

Himalayan front ranges which sustain a unique biota comprised of many

distinct altitude-sensitive ecosystems. The property is home to many plants

and animals endemic to the region. The Great Himalayan National Park

Conservation Area displays distinct broadleaf and conifer forest types

forming mosaics of habitat across steep valley side landscapes. It is a

compact, natural and biodiverse protected area system that includes 25

forest types and an associated rich assemblage of fauna species. 

The Great Himalayan National Park Conservation Area is at the core of a

larger area of surrounding protected areas which form an island of

undisturbed environments in the greater Western Himalayan landscape.

The diversity of species present is rich; however it is the abundance and

health of individual species’ populations supported by healthy ecosystem

processes where the Great Himalayan National Park Conservation Area

demonstrates its outstanding significance for biodiversity conservation. 

Criterion (x): The Great Himalayan National Park Conservation Area is

located within the globally significant “Western Himalayan Temperate

Forests” ecoregion. The property also protects part of Conservation

International’s Himalaya “biodiversity hot spot” and is part of the BirdLife

International’s Western Himalaya Endemic Bird Area. The Great

Himalayan National Park Conservation Area is home to 805 vascular plant

species, 192 species of lichen, 12 species of liverworts and 25 species of

mosses. Some 58% of its angiosperms are endemic to the Western

Himalayas. The property also protects some 31 species of mammals, 209

birds, 9 amphibians, 12 reptiles and 125 insects. The Great Himalayan

National Park Conservation Area provides habitat for 4 globally threatened

mammals, 3 globally threatened birds and a large number of medicinal

plants. The protection of lower altitude valleys provides for more complete

protection and management of important habitats and endangered species

such as the Western Tragopan and the Musk Deer. 

The property is of a sufficient size to ensure the natural functioning of

ecological processes. Its rugged topography and inaccessibility together

with its location within a much larger ecological complex of protected

areas ensures its integrity. The altitudinal range within the property

together with its diversity of habitat types provide a buffer to climate

change impacts and the needs of altitude sensitive plants and animals to

find refuge from climate variability. 

A 26,560 ha buffer zone known as an Ecozone is defined along the south-

western side of the property. This buffer zone coincides with the areas of

greatest human pressure and is managed in sympathy with the core values

of the Great Himalayan National Park Conservation Area. The property is

further buffered by high mountain systems to the north-west which include

several national parks and wildlife sanctuaries. These areas also offer

scope to progressively increase the size of the World Heritage property. 

Human settlement related threats pose the greatest concern and include

agriculture, localised poaching, traditional grazing, human-wildlife

conflicts and hydropower development. Tourism impact is minimal and

trekking routes are closely regulated.

Protection and management requirements

The property is subject to sound legal protection, however, this needs to be

strengthened to ensure consistent high level protection across all areas.

This pertains to the transition of some areas from wildlife sanctuary to

national park status. Tirthan and Sainj Wildlife Sanctuaries are designated

in recognition of their ecological and zoological significance and are

subject to wildlife management objectives, and a higher level of strict

protection is provided to Great Himalayan National Park which is a

national park. National parks under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972

provide for strict protection without human disturbance. 

The property’s boundaries are considered appropriate and an effective

management regime is in place including an overall management plan and

adequate resourcing. The property has a buffer zone along its south-

western side which corresponds to the 26,560 ha Ecozone, the area of

greatest human population pressure. Continued attention is required to

manage sensitive community development issues in this buffer zone and in

some parts of the property itself. 

The sensitive resolution of access and use rights by communities is needed

to bolster protection as is fostering alternative livelihoods which are

sympathetic to the conservation of the area. Local communities are

engaged in management decisions; however more work is needed to fully

empower communities and continue to build a strong sense of support and

stewardship for the Great Himalayan National Park Conservation Area. 

Included within the property is the Sainj Wildlife Sanctuary with 120

inhabitants and the Tirthan Wildlife Sanctuary, which is uninhabited but

currently subject to traditional grazing. The inclusion of these two Wildlife

Sanctuaries supports the integrity of the nomination; however, it opens up

concerns regarding the impacts of grazing and human settlements. Both

these aspects are being actively managed, a process that will need to be

maintained. The extent and impacts of high pasture grazing in the Tirthan

area of the property needs to be assessed and grazing phased out as soon as

practicable.
References:

 Ahalya, N.; Ramachandra, T. D.; Kanamadi, R. Shackley, M.,

Visitor Management, Case Studies from World Heritage Sites,

ButterworthHeinemann, Oxford, 2000, 1-3, pp. 200-201.

 Aas, C., Ladkin, A., & Fletcher, J. Stakeholder collaboration and

heritage management. Annals of Tourism Research, 2005, 32(1), pp.

28-48.

 Cros, H. D. Too much of a Good Thing?Visitor Congestion

Management Issues for Popular World Heritage Tourist Attraction”.

Journal of Heritage Tourism, 2007, 2(3), pp. 225-238.

 Jimura, T. The impact of world heritage site designation on local

communities – A case study of Ogimachi, Shirakawa-mura, Japan.

Tour Management, 2011, Vol. 32, pp. 288-296.

Chapter – 6
Iitnerary and Packeges of Great Himalayan with tourist flow

Great Himalaya GHT has already generated considerable stakeholder

interest. Led by the Nepal Tourism Board (NTB), Treking Agencies

Association of Nepal (TAAN) and Nepal Association of Tour Operators

(NATO), it is being adopted by Nepal Tourism Year 2011 (NTY 2011), is

offered in trek and adventure operators’ brochures, and has attracted

extensive media coverage in Nepal, Australia, the USA, the UK, Germany

and other major source markets. Robin Boustead has featured the high

route in a pictorial guide, trekking guide (Trailblazer 2010) website

“greathimalayatrail.com” and maps published in Kathmandu. Adventure

activities in addition to trekking and lodge developments respond to

market demand and could include biking, horse riding and upmarket fly-

trek options using mountain airstrips. In 2010, American trail-runner Sean

Burch ran its length in a record 49 days to help the people of Nepal,

improving on Rosie Swales Pope’s time of 68 days in 2003. The Crane

brothers first ran the Himalaya in 1983 and Peter Hillary led the first

traverse in 1980. A GHT celebrity trek led by the veteran Everest climber,

Apa Sherpa, is planned for NTY 2011 with the World Wildlife Fund

(WWF) to promote trekking, conservation and climate change issues.

Development agencies and non-governmental organisations are seeking to

build on this marketing momentum and private sector commitment,

grasping the unique opportunity for public-private partnerships to help the

poor and disadvantaged people in the Nepal hills. The GHT has significant

relevance to Great Himalaya overall tourism context, government tourism

policy and market trends, and responds to Millennium Development Goal

(MDG) targets. Donor organisations involved include the Asian

Development Bank (ADB), Department Nepal Tourism & Development

Review (Volume 1, Issue 1, 2011) | 73 for International Development

(DFID), International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development

(ICIMOD), (SNV), The Mountain Institute, United Nations Development

Programme (UNDP), (UNEP), United Nations World Tourism

Organisation (UNWTO) and WWF amongst others.

Origins of the Concept

The idea of the GHT first emerged in the late 1990s as having merit to

achieve both marketing and development objectives. The idea came

simultaneously from the Nepal tourism industry as a trek marketing tool

and from The Mountain Institute (TMI) as a rural development mechanism

to improve mountain livelihoods and reduce poverty. The twin concepts of

marketing and development were first pulled together in the ADB Nepal

Ecotourism Project in 2001, with a team led by Tourism Resource

Consultants. Implementation was constrained by the insurgency that made

it difficult for tourists or development workers to visit many parts of the

country, but the planning concept remains relevant. The GHT development

concept was featured in NTB’s National Ecotourism Strategy and

Marketing Programme of Nepal 2001 and 2004 (Figure 2), and adopted as

a sub-brand in Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation (MoTCA)’s Nepal

Tourism Vision 2020. In 2004, trekking the GHT was confirmed as a pro-

poor tourism initiative in the South Asia Subregional Economic

Cooperation (SASEC) Tourism Development Plan, supported by the ADB

with the governments of Nepal, Bhutan and India. With Nepal having the

most to gain due to its geography, SNV and ICIMOD took up the concept

in 2006. Following a series of consultations and workshops with tourism

stakeholders from the public and private sectors, SNV Nepal developed

the Great Himalaya Trail Development Programme Concept Document

and succeeded in attracting support from DFID (UKAid) private sector

funds. DFID has a track record in the sector, having funded MoTCA’s

Tourism for Rural Poverty Alleviation Programme (TRPAP) with SNV

and UNDP based in the NTB from 2001-2007. The TRPAP range of

activities are rooted in pro-poor rural tourism development. With tourism

arrivals restored following the 2006 Peace Accord, the Nepalese trek
agents need fresh products and new trek circuits. Over 25 % of Great

Himalaya half a million annual visitors go trekking and mountaineering,

and 92 % of these 133,000 trekkers are concentrated in the Annapurna,

Langtang and Sagarmatha regions (MoTCA 2009). These traditional trek

areas suffer from visitor management issues such as perceived

overcrowding and new roads impacting on established trekking routes.

The Current Situation

The proposed Great Himalaya Trail Development Programme 2010 –

2012 harnesses tourism to improve livelihoods, create employment and

bring sustainable development opportunities to remote communities.

Nepal is a recognised leader in pro-poor tourism, with long experience

using tourism as a driver for development. Designed in mid 2010, the

inception phase of the programme is being managed by SNV Nepal with

DFID funding, guided by a steering committee comprising representatives

from a range of stakeholders chaired by MoTCA. The programme focus is

on settlements along trekking routes in five districts, chosen for their

accessibility and market appeal. Pilot developments in Humla and Dolpa

are already underway. Three new districts are Gorkha (including Manaslu

Conservation Area), lower Solukhumbu (south of Lukla) and Taplejung

(including Kanchenjunga Conservation Area). These five areas have been

selected as having great potential to attract trekkers off the beaten track,

and thus help achieve the project’s purpose of spreading tourism benefits,

particularly to poor people from excluded groups and women. If

successful, other phases are likely to follow. The proposed Great Himalaya

Trail Development Programme has three interrelated elements: (i)

Marketing and promotion of the trail. (ii) Assisting new and enhancing
existing micro and small enterprises along the trail, with improved

linkages to tourism businesses. (iii) Building institutional capacity to better

manage tourism at central and district levels.

The proposed activities will increase awareness and use of new trekking

areas, strengthen the capacity of communities to engage in

environmentally sound, pro-poor tourism businesses, improve responsible

tourism best practice amongst Nepal trek agents and trek guides, improve

market linkages and communication links through local government and

ensure ongoing management of the Great Himalaya Trail.

Great Himalayan National Park | Facts & Figure

The Great Himalayan National Park (GHNP) was declared a UNESCO

World Heritage Site on 23 June 2014.

Confirmed Sighting of the Rare and Elusive “Seero” Made at GHNP in the

Month of May 2015

GHNP provides sanctuary to four globally threatened mammals (snow

leopard, serow, Himalayan tahr, musk deer), three globally threatened

birds (Western Tragopan, Kokla, Cheer Pheasant) and a large number of

medicinal plants.

The GHNP is home to 209 confirmed bird species, attracting bird watchers

from all over the world. These include the endangered western tragopan

and four other pheasant species.

The GHNP is a part of the Himalayan Hotspot – one of Conservation

International’s 34 Biodiversity Hotspots.

832 plant species have been recorded in the GHNP, representing 128

families and 427 species.

The rocks of the Great Himalayan Range were established in their present

locations 19 to 21 million years ago.

The Himalayan musk deer depend on Usonia longissima (also known as

Methuselah’s beard, the world’s longest species of lichen) for food during

the winter.

A little over half of GHNP is above 4,000m.

The upper part of the GHNP’s forest cover is home to the world’s largest

known population of western tragopan.

The dense forests of GHNP’s three major oak types – Ban, Moharu and

Kharsu – contribute to the continuity of the regional hydrological cycle

and help maintain water quality for millions of people in the Indian plains.

The park’s elevation, above 3,500 metres, is home to the bharal (blue

sheep), the snow leopard, and the Himalayan brown bear, tahr and musk

deer.

10% of the world’s known plant species can be found in the GHNP.

GHNP is home to 34 of the 47 medicinal plants classified as threatened in

Himachal Pradesh.
Reference

 "Six new sites inscribed on World Heritage List". UNESCO.

Archived from the original on 25 June 2014. Retrieved 23 June
2014.
 Centre, UNESCO World Heritage. "Six new sites inscribed on
World Heritage List". whc.unesco.org. Archived from the original
on 16 October 2017. Retrieved 24 April 2018.
 "Great Himalayan National Park". Outlook Traveller. Retrieved 4
August 2022.
 Marchal, Stephan. "Treks in the Great Himalayan National Park".
Himalayan Ecotourism. Retrieved 4 August 2022.
Conclusion

I observed various aspects in pitfalls of frontier formalities in India during

at Dissertation Report. Now come to conclusion that government rules and

regulation of frontier formalities is not too much effective for giving the

travel document to the tourist and normal person.

Department of external affairs not stable on one verified documents the

changed types of document for the giving passport and visa. They want

much proof for giving travel document but not verify properly.

The online uses of the passport and visa applied process is taking too much

time and very hard process. On the undeveloped cities demand more

money by the travel agents which is provide a passport and visa.

Suggestion
Government give the online facilities for the passport and visa application

in the small cities because manual application takes a high cost travel

agents and passport agents. Use the only one document for all require

proof like address proof and date of birth proof and others.

.
Photo Gallery
Bibliography

1. Acharya R. Tourism in India, New Delhi, National, 1977.

2. Akhatar J., Tourism Development in India, New Delhi, Ashis, 1991.

3. Ananda M.M., Tourism andHotelIndustry in India: A study in Management,

New Delhi, Prentice Hall, 1976.

4. Archer H. B., Tourism Multiplier : The State ofArt Bangor, University of

Wales Press, 1977.

5. Bhatia A.K., International Tourism: FundamentalandPractices, NewDelhi,

Sterling, 1991.

6. Bhatia A.K., Tourism Development: Principles andPractices, New Delhi,

Sterling 1978.

7. Bhatia A.K., Tourism in India: HistoryandDevelopment, NewDelhi, Sterling,

1978.

8. Burkat and Medlik, Tourism Past, Present andFuture, London, Heinemann,

1981.

9. Burkat A.J., The Management ofTourism, London, Heinemann, 1975.

10. Brent Ritehie J.R and Goeldner (eds), Travel, Tourism and
HospitalityResearch:

A HandBookfor Managers andResearchers, New York, Wiley. 1986.

11. Buttle F., Hotel and Food Service Marketing : A Managerial Approach,
London, Rinehart & Winston 1986.
12. Chakraborty B.K., A Technical Guide to Hotel Operation, NewDelhi,
Metropolitan, 1981.

13. Chopra S., Tourism and Development in India, New Delhi, Ashis 1991.

14. Chuck Y.G., The Travel Industry, New York, Westport, 1984.

15. Coitman and Michael M., Introduction to Travel and Tourism : An

International Approach, New york, VNR, 1989. 275

16. Canter L., Environmental ImpactAssessment, New York, Me Graw Hall,

1979.

17. Chib. S.N., Perspectives on Tourism in India, New Delhi, PATA India
Chapter, 1981.

18. Chib S.N., Essays in Tourism, New Delhi, PATA India Chapter, 1981.

19. Cooper C., Tourism : Principles andPractices, London, Pitman, 1993.

20. Cooper C., (ed) Progress in Trourism Recreation and Hospitality

Management, London, Belhaven, 1994.

21. Das M., India: A Tourist Paradise, New Delhi, Sterling, 1985.

22. Davidson R., Tourism, London, Pitman, 1989.

23. Douglas P., Tourist Development, London, Longman, 1990.

24. Douglas P., Tourism Today: A Geographical Analysis, London, Longman

1987.

25. Foster D., Travel and Tourism Management, London, Macmillan, 1985.

26. Frechtling D., Practical Tourism Forecasting, London, Butterworth and

Heinemann,1996.

27. Gee C.Y., Professional TravelAgency Management, New York, Prentice

Hall, 1990.

28. Gee, Makens and Choy, The TravelIndustry, New York, VNR, 1989.

29. Gupta V.K., Tourism in India, Delhi, Gian, 1987.

30. Hawkins D.E., Tourism Planning and Development Issues, Washington,

George

Washington University, 1980.

31. Harrison C., (ed), Practicing Responsible Tourism, New York, Wiley, 1996.

32. Hollowy C., The Business ofTourism, Polymouth, Pitman, 1994.

33. Hollowy and Robinson, Marketingfor Tourism, London, Longman, 1994.

34. Inskeep E., Tourism Planning: An IntegratedandSustainableApproach, New

York, VNR, 1991.

35. Johnson amd Thomas, Choice and Demand in Tourism, London, Mansell,
1985. 276

36. Kaul R.N., Dynamics ofTourism Vol-I, Vol-II& Vol-III, New Delhi,
Sterling, 1985.

37. McIntosh, Tourism Principles, Practices andPhilosophies, New York,

Wiley, 1986.

38. Mill and Morrison, The Tourism System: An Introductory Text, NewJersey,
Prentice Hall 1985.
39. Mathieson and Wall, Tourism : Economic, Physical and Social Impacts,
London, Longman, 1982.

40. Medlik S., Managing Tourism, London, Butterworth and Heinemann,

1992.