Ecotourism’s Impact on Ethnic Groups and Households near Chitwan National Park, Nepal

Abstract

The Chitwan National Park (CNP) is renowned as a premier attraction in Nepal. This study surveyed the ethnic communities and households living in the buffer zone (BZ) proximate to the CNP, where ecotourism has been strategically introduced to provide an alternative means of livelihood to the locals and to enhance biodiversity conservation. This study examined to what extent these households have economically benefited from local ecotourism activities as well as their perceptions of ecotourism. A structured questionnaire was used to collect data, surveying 145 Kumroj and Amaltari village households using a stratified random sampling technique. The findings indicated that similar ecotourism activities were taking place in both sites. We found that only certain households benefited directly, and that it was mostly the socioeconomically disadvantaged households that missed out on the livelihood opportunities provided by ecotourism. Further, it was revealed that the socio-economically disadvantaged locals still illegally extracted/sold forest products. However, such individuals also acknowledged that ecotourism has increased employment, social development, and forest conservation, and they desired to participate in ecotourism activities. This research can help policymakers better understand the gaps in their policies and restructure them to level the ecotourism playing field for all ethnic groups and economic levels (e.g., landowners versus non-landowners). This study recommends that policymakers rethink and reframe policies to protect the interests of communities living in the BZs of national parks, especially low-income households and/or locals who are disadvantaged because they do not have land or facilities to conduct ecotourism activities.

Community Development for Bote in Chitwan National Park, Nepal: A Political Ecology of Development Logic of Erasure

“…The National Park and Wildlife Conservation Act 1973 provided the initial impetus for the creation of national parks as protected areas (PA) and the displacement of indigenous groups from park areas on the assumption their indiscreet use of forest and river resources was a danger to conservation goals. The fourth amendment (1992) included reference to BZs and local livelihoods [31]; Buffer Zone Regulations 1996, and Buffer Zone Guidelines 1999 formalised these provisions.…”

“…Notwithstanding, even advocates of community-based BZ programs report mixed benefits from modernization initiatives and 'conflicting priorities between conservation and development goals' [37] (p. 64). Thus, eco-tourism activities [31], community forestry, hydropower [38], aquaculture ventures [39][40][41], inter alia, have had modest to negative effects. Tourism and conservation have increased livestock losses due to wildlife incursions [32,[42][43][44][45][46].…”