VISITOR SATISFACTION AND COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT

FOR SUSTAINABLE ECOTOURISM: AN EVALUATIVE STUDY

ON PERIYAR TIGER RESERVE IN KERALA

THESIS SUBMITTED TO PONDICHERRY UNIVERSITY, PUDUCHE RRY FOR THE

AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN TOURISM STUDIES

By

Mr. RAVISH MATHEW

Under the Guidance of

Dr. Sampada Kumar Swain, PGDTTM, MTA, FDPM (IIM, In dore) Ph.D in

Tourism

Reader and Supervisor, Department of Tourism Studies,

School of Management, Pondicherry University

DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM STUDIES SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT PONDICHERRY UNIVERSITY

PUDUCHERRY – 605 014. INDIA

NOVEMBER – 2012

DDrr .. SSAAMM PPAADDAA KK UUMM AARR SSWWAAII NN, PGDTTM, MTA, FDPM (IIM, Indore) Ph.D., Reader & Research Supervisor Department of Tourism Studies School of Management Pondicherry University

GUIDE CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the thesis entitled Visitor Satisfaction and Community

Empowerment for Sustainable Ecotourism: An Evaluative Study at Periyar Tiger

Reserve in Kerala. submitted to Pondicherry University, Department of Tourism

Studies, School of Management, Kalapet, Puducherry – 605014, in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the award of Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Tourism Studies is

a record of original research work done by Mr. Ravish Mathew,Full time Research

Scholar during the period of his study in the Department of Tourism Studies, under my

supervision guidance, and the thesis has not formed the basis for the award of any

Degree/Diploma/ Associate ship/ Fellowship or similar title to any candidate of any other

Universities or Institutions.

SAMPADA KUMAR SWAIN

Date: Place: Puducherry

Mr. RAVISH MATHEW Ph.D. Full-Time, Research Scholar, Department of Tourism Studies, School of Management, Pondicherry University

DECLARATION

I do hereby declare that the thesis entitled “Visitor Satisfaction and Community

Empowerment for Sustainable Ecotourism: An Evaluative Study on Periyar Tiger

Reserve in Kerala” submitted to Pondicherry University, R.V.Nagar, Kalapet,

Puducherry – 605 014 in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the

Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Tourism Studies is a record of original research work

done by me under the supervision and guidance of Dr. Sampada Kumar Swain, Reader,

Department of Tourism Studies, Pondicherry University, Puducherry, and that it has not

formed the basis for the award of any Degree/Diploma/Associateship/ Fellowship or

similar title to any candidate of any other Universities or institutes.

Date:

Place: Puducherry RAVISH MATHEW

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This Ph.D work is the outcome of supports, blessings and encouragements of many people at many stages of my work. I take it as a great pleasure in acknowledging their contributions and I first offer my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor and teacher, Dr Sampada Kumar Swain for having helped me throughout the research work. One could not wish for a better and friendly supervisor than him.

I also extend my sincere thanks to the Honorable Vice Chancellor Prof J.A.K Tareen, the Director (EIR&R) Prof M. Ramadass, the University Librarian Prof R.Samyuktha, the Dean, SoM, Prof. Chandrasekhar Rao, the CoE, Dr. J. Sampath and the Staff of CoE Office, Pondicherry University for having given me an opportunity to pursue the Ph.D Degree in this Central University. I also extend my sincere gratitude to Prof. G. Anjaneya Swamy & Prof. M.Vikram Reddy for their invaluable guidance as the Doctoral Committee members. I extend my sincere thanks to Dr Y.Venkata Rao, Head, Department of Tourism Studies, and Pondicherry University for his emotional support and guidance. I am indebted to all the faculty and staff members in the Department of Tourism studies for their kind helps and supports.

I extend my thanks to the librarians of M.G.University, Kerala University, National Institute of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Jammu University, Forest Research Institute, Kerala Institute of Tourism and Travel Studies, Kerala Tourism Development Cooperation, District Tourism Promotion Council and the Christ University.

I extend my sincere thanks to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Chief Wildlife Warden, Kerala for having permitted me to conduct the data collection in the tourism zone of the PTR. My heartfelt thanks to Mr. Sanjayan Kumar IFS, the Deputy Director Project Tiger Periyar East Division, Mr. B. Joseph, the Assistant Field Director, Mr. M.P.Sanjayan, Eco Range Officer & Mr. Manu Sathyan, Thekkady Range Officer for their kind supports and cooperation to use the library and other resources. I am equally thankful to the Chairman’s of different EDCs for their valuable suggestions & cooperation. I profoundly acknowledge the help of my scholar friends Dr Shathi Marie C, Dr R.Narasimmaraj, Mr. Rajib Bhaduri, Mr. Thrinadha Rao Bandaru &Mr. Sadanandam.

Words will not be enough to remember the blessings and love of my beloved parents Mr.C.O.Mathew,(Retd Govt Employee,Govt of Odisha),Chankur Carmel, Karuvatta, Adoor and Mrs.Leelamma Mathew, (Retd) Teacher to fulfill their long-cherish dreams of seeing me as an academician. I also thank my Father- in-Law and Mother-in-Law Adv.T.K.Thankachan (Retd) RBI, Employee and Mrs. Elsey Thankachan for their constant supports, encouragements and affections all through my research works. I thank from the core of my heart to my twin brother Mr. Rakesh Mathew, Senior Reservation Executive Akbar Travels of India Private Ltd, Kottayam and his family for their continuous support in accomplishing the Himalayan work. I would like to thank my beloved wife Deepthy Ravish (Ancy) for her timely help, understanding and cooperation for completion of the work.

I remember the love and affection of Mrs. Puspalata Rout, the wife of my supervisor and Purbasha and Pratyasha, their two lovely daughters.

I sincerely thank to all the respondents for their opinions in enriching my research work. I thankfully acknowledge the authors whose research papers, books, and articles have been reviewed for this research work. Finally, I thank Almighty for giving me the strengths to complete this piece of research work.

RAVISH MATHEW

LIST OF TABLES i - iii LIST OF FIGURES iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS v - vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii - ix

CONTENTS

Sl.No TITLE Page No.

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1-36

1.0 Introduction 1

1.1. Mass Tourism and Ecotourism 3

1.2. Evolution of Ecotourism 5

1.3. Conceptual Overview of Ecotourism

1.3.1 Ecotourism –An Alternative Option

1.3.2 Types of Ecotourism

1.3.3 Trends in Ecotourism

7

10

10

11

1.4. Visitor Satisfaction 13

1.5. Wildlife Tourism- A Chief Attraction of Ecotourism 15

1.6. Statement of the problem 18

1.7. Significance of the Study 19

1.8. Rationale of the Study 20

1.9. Scope of the Study 21

1.10 Major Objectives 22

1.11. Methodology of the Study 22

1.11.1 Sources of Data 23

1.11.2 Selection of Sampling Method and Sample size. 24

1.11.2.1 Sample Size 25

1.11.3. Pilot Survey

1.11.4.Questionnaire Construction

1.11.5.Scale Development 1.11.6.Stastistical Tools Used for Data Analysis 1.12. Major Hypothesis 1.13. Contours of the Study

27

27

29

31

32

33

Chapter 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 37-81

2.0. Introduction 37

2.1. Basic Theory of Tourism 39

2.2. Origin, Type and Concept of Ecotourism 41

2.3. Ecotourism System 47

2.3.1. Dimensions of Ecotourism 48

2.3.2. Types of Eco-Tourists 48

2.3.3. Ecotourism in Protected Areas 51

2.4. Conceptual overview of Wildlife Tourism 53

2.5. Wildlife and Conservation 60

2.6. Community Participation 61

2.7. Community Empowerment 63

2.8. Visitor Satisfaction 66

2.9. Carrying Capacity 73

2.10. Sustainable Tourism 74

2.11. Synthesis of Review for Conceptual Frame Work 78

Chapter 3 ECOTOURISM IN PERIYAR TIGER RESERVE –A MICROSCOPIC OVER VIEW.

82-160

3.0. Introduction 82

3.1. Geographical Background of PTR 83

3.1.1. Location and Boundaries 83

3.1.2. Topography 84

3.1.3. Geomorphology 85

3.1.4. Climate 85

3.1.5. River Basins 86

3.2. Values of Periyar Tiger Reserve 86

3.2.1 Ecological Values 86

3.3. Economic Values 87

3.3.1. Nature-Based Tourism Activities 87 3.3.2. Catchment values 88 3.3.3. Subsistence values 88 3.4. Cultural values 89 3.4.1 Sabarimala pilgrimage 89 3.4.2. Archaeological values 90 3.4.3. Human ecological values 90 3.4.4. Aesthetic values 91 3.5. Historical background 91 3.5.1. Early period 91 3.5.2. Later period 93 3.6. Administrative and Topographical Background 97 3.6.1. PTR east division 98 3.6.2. Vallakkadavu range 100

3.6.3. Periyar range 101 3.6.4. Periyar west division 102 3.6.5. Azhutha range 102 3.6.6. Pamba range 103 3.6.7. Riverine system 104 3.6.8. The Periyar Lake 104 3.7. Typical biodiversity 105 3.7.1. Vegetation types and floristic 105 3.7.2. Classification of forest areas 105 3.8. Plant Diversity 110 3.8.1. Orchids 110 3.8.2. Grasses 111 3.8.3. Legumes 111 3.8.4. Balsams 112 3.9. Animal Diversity 112 3.9.1. Wildlife population 114 3.9.2. Tiger population 116 3.9.3. Avifauna 119 3.9.4. Reptiles 119 3.9.5. Amphibians 120 3.9.6. Fishes 120 3.10. Tourist Arrivals in Kerala 120 3.11. Revenue earnings from tourism 127 3.12. Visitor Amenities and facilities 129 3.12.1 Registered Hotels in Kumily 130 3.12.2. Alternative Accommodation 131 3.12.3. Boating Facility 133 3.12.4. Revenue generation from KTDC boat services 134 3.13. Community-Based Ecotourism Programme 135 3.13.1 Visitor participation in CBEP 136 3.13.2. Year-wise revenue from CBEP 141 3.14. Manpower in PTR 146 3.14.1 Staff strength in Periyar East Division 146 3.14.2.Staff strengths in Periyar Foundation 147 3.15. Roles and functions of Periyar Foundation 148 3.15.1 Activities of Periyar Foundation 149 3.15.2. Structure and Composition of EDC’s 151 3.15.2.1. Structure of the EDC 151 3.16.3. Village Eco-Development 152 3.16.3.1. Eco-Development Committee Formation 153 3.16.4. Micro Planning 153 3.16.5. Types of Eco-Development Committee 154 3. 17. Major Sources of Generating Revenue 156

Chapter 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 161-290 4.0. Introduction 161 4.1. Demographic Distributions 164 4.2. Cross Distribution of Key Demographic Indicators 169 4.3. Cross Distribution of Types of Tourists across Destination

Selection Indicators 178

4.3.1. Selection of Mode of Transport 175 4.3.2 Last places Visited before Arriving at the PTR 176 4.3.3. Duration of Stay 177 4.3.4. Frequency of Visit 178 4.3.5. Activities other than Wildlife Tourism 180 4.4. Cross Distribution of age Across Destination Selection

Indicators 181

4.4.1. Plan of the trip 181 4.4.2. Age across mode of transportation 183 4.4.3. Age across mode of accommodation 184 4.4.4. Age across duration of stay 186 4.4.5. Age across frequency of visit 187 4.4.6. Age across common interest activities 188 4.5. Cross Distribution of Educational Qualifications Across

Destination Selection Indicators 190

4.5.1. Educational qualifications across duration of stay 190 4.5.2. Educational qualifications across frequency of visit 192 4.5.3. Educational qualifications across common interest

activities 193

4.5.4. Types of participation across duration of stay 194 4.6. Group statistics and Levene’s independent t-test 195 4.6.1. Descriptive statistics between Foreign & Domestic

tourists on the factors explaining Visitor Satisfaction 196

4.6.2.‘t’ test for equality of variances between Foreign & Domestic tourists on the factors explaining Visitor Satisfaction

197 4.6.3. Descriptive statistics between Foreign & Domestic

tourists on respecting culture & heritage 200

4.6.4. T’ test for equality of variances between foreign & domestic tourists on respecting culture & heritage

203 4.6.5. Descriptive statistics between foreign & domestic

tourists on elements of visitor satisfaction 205

4.6.6. T’ test for equality of variances between foreign & domestic tourists on the elements of visitor satisfaction

208 4.7. Test of One Way ANOVA on Visitor Satisfaction 213 4.7.1. Descriptive statistics of frequency of visit 213 4.7.2. Test of Anova for differences between three groups on

Frequency of visit 218

4.7.3. Descriptive statistics of duration of stay 222 4.7.4. Test of Anova for differences between three groups on

duration of stay 224

4.8. Results of mean and standard deviation of visitor satisfaction indicators

228 4.9. Factor analysis for visitor satisfaction 229 4.9.1. KMO and Bartlett’s test 230 4.9.2. Communalities 230 4.9.3. Principal Component Analysis 232 4.10. Correlation of the factor 236 4.11. Friedman’s Rank Test 237 4.11.1. Maximum enjoyment from ecotourism activities 238 4.11.2. Provision for add-on facilities 240 4.11.3. Provision for amenities 242

4.12. Demographic distributions 247 4.13. Cross distribution between age and selected demographic

factors 251

4.14. Cross distribution between occupational patterns across selected demographic factors

256 4.14.1. Occupational patterns across household requirements 258 4.14.2. Period of residing across occupational patterns 261 4.15. Cross distribution between educational qualifications across

monthly income 262

4.16. Cross distribution between household requirements and expenditures across family size

263 4.17. Cross distribution between types of house across period of

residing 266

4.18. Group statistics and Levene’s independent t-test 267 4.18.1. Descriptive statistics 268 4.18.2.‘t’ test for equality of variances 272 4. 19. Results of cross tabulation, Pearson chi-square test & Cramer 274 4.19.1. Demographic factors and decision making for

ecotourism 275

4.19.2. Gender and Sustainable Ecotourism issues 281 Chapter 5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, SUGGESTED STRATEGIC

ACTIONS AND CONCLUSION 291-327

5.1. Findings From Secondary Data Analysis 293 5.1.1. Insignificant Increase in Wildlife Population 293 5.1.2.Tourist Arrivals in Kerala 293 5.1.3. Inconsistent Growth in Revenue Earnings from

Tourism 295

5.1.4. Insufficient Hotel Rooms and Beds 296 5.1.5. Non-Adherence to the Green Globe and Agenda 21 297 5.1.6. Insufficient Number of Boats 297 5.1.7. Scanty Revenue Earnings from the Boat Services 297 5.1.8. Need for Improving the Safety Measures 298 5.1.9.Commercialization of CBEPs and Continuous

Variations in Revenue Earnings 298

5.1.10. Shortage of Manpower 299 5.1.11. Lack of Training Programmes 299 5.1.12. Generation of Revenue from Entry Fees 300 5.2.Findings From Demographic And Socio-Economic Background

Tourists 300

5.3. Findings from the Analysis of Opinions of Tourists Factor Analysis

302 5.3.1. Findings on the Basis of Five Important Factors 303 5.4. Findings From Hypotheses Testing Levene’s Independent T

Test and Anova 304

5.4.1. Visitor Satisfactions 304 5.4.2. Respecting Culture and Heritage 304 5.4.3. Seven Critical Factors for Visitor satisfaction 305 5.4.4. Frequency of Visit & Visitor Satisfaction 305 5.4.5. Duration of Stay & Visitor Satisfactions 306 5.5. Findings On The Basis of Friedman Rank Test 306 5.5.1. Enjoyment from Ecotourism Activities 306 5.5.2. Add-on Facilities & Amenities 306

5.6. Findings From Demographic And Socio-Economic Background Community Members

307 5.7. Findings From Chi-Square Test 308 5.7.1. Decision Making for Ecotourism 308 5.7.2. Sustainable Ecotourism Issues 309 5.8. Suggested Strategic Intervention 310 5.8.1 Preservation of Wildlife Habitation 312 5.8.2 Regulation of Entry of Visitors 312 5.8.3 Promoting Responsible Tourism 313 5.8.4 Addition of more EcoAccomodation 313 5.8.5 Development of transport and communication network 314 5.8.6 Qualitative improvement of Facilities and Amenities 314 5.8.7 Penetration of Professional service 315 5.8.8 Capacity Building Training Programmes 315 5.8.9 Preservation of Originality and Authenticity of

CBEP’s 316

5.8.10 Approach for preserving Ecology and Environment 316 5.8.11 Spontaneous Community Participation 317 5.8.12 Strengthening the Disaster Preaparedness 318 5.8.13 Enriching and Preserving Social and cultural values 318 5.8.14 Trickling down the Economic Benfits 319 5.8.15 Management of Carrying Capacity 319 5.8.16 Local Area Development Fund LADF 321 5.9 Model for Sustainable Ecotourism Development 321 5.10 Scope for Future Research 324 5.11 Concluding Note 324 BIBILIOGRAPHY 328-350 APPENDIX I - XXVII

i

LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Title Page no

CHAPTER-I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Wildlife-Tourist Spectrum 17 CHAPTER-III

A MICROSCOPIC OVERVIEW

ECOTOURISM IN PERIYAR TIGER RESERVE

3.1 Historical Events 97 3.2 Classification of Forest Areas 106 3.3 Wildlife Population in PTR 116 3.4 Wildlife Population in PTR (Tigers) 118 3.5 DTAs & FTAs to Kerala from 2001 to 2011 123 3.6 Tourist Arrivals to Idukki District 125 3.7 Day-Visitors from 2008-2010 in PTR (In Thousands) 126 3.8 Revenue Generated from Tourism (Rs. in Crore) 129 3.9 Number of Registered Hotels in Kumily 131 3.10 Home Stays in and around Kumily 132 3.11 Maximum Seating Capacity of the Boats 134 3.12 Revenue Generation from the KTDC-Operated Boats 135 3.13 Year-Wise Participants in CBEP 141 3.14 Revenue Generated from CBEPs 145 3.15 Staff Strength in Periyar East Division, Thekkady 147 3.16 Distribution of Staff in Periyar Foundation 148 3.17 Major Sources of Generating Revenue from Entry Fees of Visitors 158

CHAPTER-IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Demographic Distribution of Sample Tourist Respondents 168 4.2 Distribution of Types of Tourists Across the Gender 170 4.3 Distribution of Types of Tourist Across Categories of Age 171 4.4 Distribution of Types of Tourist Across Marital Status 172 4.5 Distribution of Types of Tourist Across Monthly Income 173 4.6 Distribution of Types of Tourist Across Family Type 174 4.7 Distribution of Types of Tourist Across Mode of Transport 176 4.8 Distribution of Types of Tourist Across Last Place Visited 177 4.9 Distribution of Types of Tourist Across Duration of Stay 178 4.10 Distribution of Types of Tourist Across Frequency of Visit 180 4.11 Distribution of Types of Tourist Across Activities other Than

Wildlife Tourism 181

4.12 Distribution of Categories of Age Across Plan of the Trip 183 4.13 Distribution of Categories of Age Across Mode of Transport 184 4.14 Distribution of Categories of Age Across Preferred Mode of

Accommodation 185

ii

4.15 Distribution of Categories of Age Across Duration Of Stay 187 4.16 Distribution of Categories of Age Across Frequency of Visit 188 4.17 Distribution of Occupational Patterns Across Activities Other Than

Wildlife Tourism 190

4.18 Distribution of Educational Qualifications Across Duration of Stay

191 4.19 Distribution of Educational Qualifications Across Frequency of

Visit 193

4.20 Distribution of Educational Qualifications Across Other Than Wild Tourism Activities

194 4.21 Distribution of Types of Participation Across Duration of Stay 196 4.22 Descriptive Statistics 200 4.23 Levene’s t Test for Equality of Variances 202 4.24 Descriptive Statistics 204 4.25 Levene’s t Test for Equality of Variances 207 4.26 Descriptive Statistics 209 4.27 Levene's t Test for Equality of Variances 212 4.28 Descriptive Statistics 217 4.29 One-Way Anova 221 4.30 Descriptive Statistics 224 4.31 One-Way Anova 227 4.32 Descriptive Statistics (N 500) 229 4.33 KMO and Bartlett’s Test 230 4.34 Communalities 231 4.35 Factor Loadings, Eigen values, Variance and Cronbac’s Alpha 236 4.36 Pearson Correlation of the Five Factors 237 4.37 Maximum Enjoyment from Ecotourism Activities 239 4.38 Add-on Facilities 242 4.39 Additional Amenities 245 4.40 Demographic Distribution of Community 250 4.41 Distribution of Gender Across Categories of Age 251 4.42 Distribution of Categories of Age Across Educational

Qualifications 252

4.43 Distribution of Categories of Age Across Occupations 254 4.44 Distribution of Categories of Age Across Gross Monthly Income 255 4.45 Distribution of Categories of Age Across Period of Residing 256 4.46 Distribution of Occupational Patterns Across Gross Monthly

Income( ) 257

4.47 Distribution of Occupational Patterns Across Educational Qualifications

258 4.48 Distribution of Occupational Patterns Across Types of House 259 4.49 Distribution of Occupational Patterns Across Types of Vehicle 260 4.50 Distribution of Period of Residing Across Occupational Patterns 262 4.51 Distribution of Educational Qualifications Across Monthly Income 263 4.52 Distribution of Types of Vehicle Across Family Size 264 4.53 Distribution of Electricity Connection Across Family Size 265 4.54 Distribution of Maximum Monthly Expenditure () Across

Family Size 266

4.55 Distribution of Types of House Across Period of Residing 267 4.56 Levene’s Independent Samples t Test 274 4.57 Distribution of Categories of Age Across Management of

Ecotourism 277

4.58 Distribution of Period of Residing Across Management of Ecotourism

279

iii

4.59 Distribution of Occupational Patterns Across Decision-making Process

281 4.60 Distribution of Gender Across Demonstration of Cultural

Attractions 283

4.61 Distribution of Gender Across Types of Conflicts 284 4.62 Distribution of Gender Across Alternative Sources of Income 286 4.63 Distribution of Occupational Patterns Across Revenue Used for

LAD 288

4.64 Distribution of Gender Across Types of Issues Affecting 290

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No Title Page

1.1 Step- by -Step Research Design 30

2.1 Conceptual Model for Sustainable Ecotourism in Protected Area 81

5.3 Suggested Model for Strategic Actions for Sustainable Ecotourism 323

v

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Annapurna Conservation Area Project (ACPA) Anoo Domine (AD) Communal Area Management Program for Indigenous Resource (CAMPFIRE) Community Based Ecotourism Programme (CBET) Community Development Fund (CDF) Community-Based Tourism (CBT) Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) District Tourism Promotion Council (DTPC). Domestic Tourist Arrival (DTA) Eco Development Committee (EDC) Eco Development Implementation Committee. (EDIC) Ex Vayana Bark Collectors (EVBC) Foreign Exchange Earning (FEE) Foreign Tourist Arrival (FTA) Free Independent Travellers (FITs) Global Positioning System (GPS) Grass Land Afforesting Development Programme (GLADP) Grassland Afforestation Division (GLAD) Group Inclusive Tours (GITs) Importance Performance Analysis (IPA) India Eco Development Project (IEDP) Indian Vetinary Association (IVA). Indicator Performance Estimate (IPE) Indira Awas Yojana (IAY) International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) International Year of Ecotourism (IYE) Kaiser–Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Kerala Forest Research Institute (KFRI) Kerala Tourism Development Cooperation (KTDC) Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) Local Area Development (LAD) Micro planning Support Teams (MIST) Multicriteria Satisfaction Analysis (MUSA) Non Government Individuals (NGI). Non Governmental Organization (NGO). Non Timber Forest Products. (NTFP) Periyar Tiger Reserve (PTR) Periyar Tiger Samrakshana Samiti (PETS), Principle Component Analysis (PCA). Pro-Poor Tourism (PPT) Protected Area (PA) Protected Area Mutual Interaction Assessment (PAMIA)

vi

Service Quality (SERVQUAL) State Gross Domestic Product (SGDP) Swami Ayyappan Poonkavanam Punarudhanam (SAPP) The Canadian Environment Advisory Council (CEAC) The Cooperative Research Center (CRC) The United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) Tiger Reserve Management (TRM) Travancore Devasome Board (TDB) Tribal Heritage Eco Development Committee (THEDC) Tribal Trekkers Eco Development Committee. (TTEDC) United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Wild Life Institute of India (WII) World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) World Tourism Organization (WTO) World Conservation Strategy (WCS) World Travel and Tourism Environment Research Center (WTTERC)

vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Implementing the paradigm of Ecotourism and conservation of forest and wildlife

in the protected areas has been an untiring effort of the national and international

organizations to establish a symbiotic relationship for the larger benefits of sustainable

human habitations. It is better late than never, many initiatives were reinforced during the

celebrations of the International Year of Ecotourism in 2002 with a theme “Ecotourism-

A Key to Sustainable Development”. As a signatory of the declarations, India has agreed

to embrace the principles of ecotourism in the protected areas as they are the open

laboratory for the students, scholars, nature lovers, etc to learn, appreciate, admire and

respect the pristine beauty and its serenity. Kerala was the first state to implement the

ecotourism projects with the involvement of the EDCs and this has become an example

for other states in India. The Periyar Tiger Reserve is one of the oldest protected areas

which have become an internationally known wildlife tourism destination. It has gained

worldwide visibility for its salubrious climate, captivating wildlife, lovely people and the

striking cultural activities along with the facilities and amenities.

There is a growing demand for visiting ecotourism sites for novelty and

originality and the trend is to visit the undisturbed and uncontaminated nature scenic

places for the purpose of studying and admiring the priceless beauty of the nature. Indian

in general and Kerala in particular have made all possible efforts to woo maximum

foreign tourists for ecotourism and wildlife tourism. Kerala as such has been branded as a

“God’s Own Country” with abundance of natural scenic beauty and awe-inspiring

topography and the PTR has grown to become a must-see destination for wildlife spotting

and diverse ecotourism activities. In this connection, the PTR has been enticing a large

viii

number of foreign and domestic visitors, including the day visitors for about 8-9 months

in a year. Moreover, the Administration of the Tiger Reserve has identified the

ecotourism as an important means for the generation of revenue for meeting the overhead

expenditures and the socio-economic development in the local area. The impacts that

have occurred at the PTR and its adjoining areas need to be studied for the administration

of Tiger Reserve and tourism organizations to take corrective actions for sustainable

development.

With this backdrop, an attempt was made to study on two important constructs

like Visitor Satisfaction and Community Empowerment for sustainable ecotourism in the

PTR. The argument on which the study has built is that visitors are the integral part of

ecotourism projects and their presence and participation can make the project more

sustainable and community members for whom the ecotourism projects are implemented

are also equally important for sustainable ecotourism projects. Both are closely knitted

each other in contributing the PTR immensely. The problem for which the study has been

conducted has been identified as the mismatch between the visitors on the facilities,

amenities, service quality, disaster preparedness and value- added services as well as

community members on the socio-economic development. However, visitors are

concerned for value for money and community members are worried for their rights and

privileges from the ecotourism projects.

This study is significant for providing practical solutions to the planners,

policymakers and service providers as far as the issues connected to visitor satisfactions

and community empowerment. Further, the study has uncovered the problems pertaining

to sustainable ecotourism and the relationship between visitor satisfaction and community

ix

empowerment. In order to present the study in a logical and scientific manner, five

chapters have been created to incorporate the theoretical and conceptual backgrounds,

research design, review of literature, microscopic overview of ecotourism in the PTR,

results and discussions of the primary data and summary of findings and suggestions.

Finally, the study has found certain genuine problems that largely lead to

disturbing the visitors and Tiger Reserve due to the lack of proper facilities and amenities

and unregulated visitor inflows, more importantly entry of large number of day visitors.

On the other hand, the EDC has not become so effective in bringing about radical

changes of socio-economic conditions of the local people. Thus, the study has come out

with some suggestions like improvement of basic facilities, amenities, service quality,

disaster preparedness, regulation of entry of visitors, parking management, imposition of

user fees, conservation measures, collaboration and participation, carrying capacity

management, etc. Lastly, a model was developed to be used as a guiding principle for all

the stakeholders at the PTR. However, the future research may venture into the other

dimensions of sustainable ecotourism.

KeyWords: Ecotourism, Community Participation, Sustainable Development, Protected

Areas, Visitor Satisfaction.

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1

1.0. INTRODUCTION

Ecotourism is an ideal and alternative choice to the devastating nature of mass

tourism in the 21st century. This is an alternative form with the primary objective of

providing wilderness experience to the nature lovers. It is a paradigm, philosophy and

catalyst to promote responsible travel to study, enjoy and admire the natural beauty, wild

animals, plants and indigenous culture. Promoting ecotourism through community

participation can help conserve the ecology and environment and improve the well-being

of local people. Conservation of biodiversity and cultural diversity is implicitly and

explicitly ingrained in the principals of ecotourism with much emphasis on sustainable

use of natural resources and scope for income generation and employment opportunities.

Establishing and maintaining harmonious relationships between environmental

conservation, well-being of local people and visitor satisfaction have become a big

challenge for the planners, the policymakers and tourism stakeholders. Even though

ecotourism or ecological tourism is a western construct, it aims to provide the ways and

means to many practical problems, hampering the conservation of biodiversity in the

protected areas.

Ecotourism is a western concept that underpins on the key constructs such as

conservation, protection, nature, wilderness, wildlife, plants, indigenous people, novelty,

authenticity, education, learning, admiration, participation, empowerment, interpretation

etc. Even though ecotourism is well appreciated and recognized as an important low-

impact and non-consumptive form of tourism, the involvement of tourism service

providers like resorts, hotels, tour operators, etc largely ignore the basic duties to be

performed at the ecotourism sites due to their primary motives of profit maximization. In

2

most cases, ecotourism has become a marketing gimmick to entice the high-end visitors

to spend more money for the sake of enjoying the nature through various fun activities.

One of the principles of ecotourism is to encourage and motivate the visitors to buy

organic and locally made products and to help save the nature and culture of the locality.

With the growing attention towards the emerging ecotourism destinations by the

visitor’s and service providers, many well-preserved and prize-winning ecotourism sites

appear to witness the increasing number of visitors’ footfalls. As a result, several issues

are created at the ecotourism sites and these issues have posed permanent threats to the

ecotourism sites. Many conferences and summits at the national and global level were

organized to discuss and deliberate upon the dynamics of sustainable ecotourism by the

way of certain declarations. For example, the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change and its

Impacts, the Quebec Declarations and the Oslo Declarations on Sustainable Ecotourism

have contributed significantly to the orderly management of ecotourism resources. The

Kyoto Protocol acted as a catalyst to the United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC), aimed at fighting global warming. The objective

of the Quebec Declarations was focused on setting the preliminary agenda and a set of

recommendations to bring in systematic operation of ecotourism activities. The Oslo

Declarations of Ecotourism have furthered the efforts of private and public organizations

at the international and national level to reinforce the commitments towards imbibing the

principles and following sternly the practices of sustainable tourism at the ecotourism

sites.

With the declaration of the year 2002 as International Year of Ecotourism, all the

protected areas in India have adopted the principles of ecotourism so as to promote low-

3

impact ecotourism activities. For instance, the CAMPFIRE programme (Communal Area

Management for Indigenous Resources) in Zimbabwe and the ACAP (Annapurna

Conservation Project) at Nepal are some of the successful models of ecotourism projects

which ensure conservation, enhancement of revenues and visitor satisfaction. The present

study is an attempt to elucidate need for the Community Participation and Visitor

Satisfaction for Sustainable Ecotourism in the Periyar Tiger Reserve, (PTR) Kerala.

1.1. MASS TOURISM AND ECOTOURISM

Mass tourism activities bring about noticeable changes in the economic well-

being of people due to diverse categories of employment and self-employment

opportunities. With the heavy and unprecedented inflow of tourists during the summer

and winter months, sporadic developments take place in terms of construction of roads,

rail lines, airports, hotels, parking, business centers, etc around the destinations to cater

to the accentuating tourist demands. Furthermore, the requirements for infrastructural

developments have increased manifold due to massive demands of tourism industry.

Ironically, numerous destinations have been witnessing irreparable damages to the

ecology and environment. Thus, the positive impacts have been overshadowed by the

negative impacts so much so that policymakers and planners are concerned for mass

tourism at the cost of ecology and environment.

Taking in to account the irreversible or permanent loss to the local environment

caused by mass tourism activities, many countries have enforced the guidelines of

sustainable tourism to help check unplanned tourism development. At the same time,

ecotourism has become an emerging form of nature-based tourism to neutralize the loss

4

caused to the ecology and environment and to help the ecosystem function effectively. As

such, ecotourism aims to attract the visitors who are expected to be conscious and

cautious towards the ecology and environment. Thus, ecotourism has been identified as

an ideal and alternative form to curb the menace of mass tourism and maximize the

positive impacts. In this context, this chapter describes the concept and impacts of mass

tourism and the promotion of ecotourism as an alternative approach to minimize the

impacts through various sustainable tourism practices.

For example, Goa is a spellbound tourism destination offering a wide range of

leisure, pleasure and fun activities. The tolerance levels of locals in the state are relatively

high in accepting the fast-paced tourism development as it was an erstwhile Portuguese

Colony with profound influence of European culture. Yet, tourism development is now

vehemently opposed in Goa since it has led to harmful effects on the social and cultural

tradition of Goa. A kind of touristic culture has almost rooted out the original culture of

the tiny coastal tourist city. At the same time, the Periyar Wildlife Sanctuary is an

identified ecotourism site located in Idukki district of Kerala. The Department of Forest,

Government of Kerala has opened the sanctuary for tourism activities in the buffer area;

paradoxically, the sanctuary has become a mass tourism destination due to heavy inflow

of tourists causing several negative impacts.

Therefore, whether it is mass tourism or ecotourism, when it is promoted without

having any control or regulation; it will certainly become an unsustainable form of

tourism. In most of the research works, one may come across the monstrous outcome of

mass tourism, because it dominates the tourist visiting region with its demand for non-

local products and cultural activities. The inflow of revenue through tourist expenditures

5

gets leaked to other regions of the country or foreign countries due to the procurement of

products to cater to the tourist demand. There are star hotels and mega beach or hill

resorts symbolizing the domination of mass tourism in the region. Those hotels do

aggressive marketing and publicity to sell the rooms which in turn bring more visitors

and increase the per capita consumption at the destinations. It becomes more chaotic

during high-peak season for example, the Christmas or the New Year.

All the following points are contrary to the mass tourism

• It imparts sustainability of environmental ethos to mainstream tourism or mass

tourism.

• It provides diversification of opportunities for mass tourism.

• It attracts to an increasingly green tourist market

Ecotourism Mass Tourism

• It provides sufficient market and revenue flows to position ecotourism as a major

resource stakeholder with significant lobbying clout

• It introduces effective environmental management system

Source: Weaver, B. D.(2000).Encylopedia of Ecotourism, p.79.

1.2. EVOLUTION OF ECOTOURISM

The origin of the term ‘ecotourism’ may be traced back to the four pillars or

principles of responsible tourism expounded by Hetzer in 1965, who conducted the first

eco-tours in the Yucatan during the early 1970s. His study found the intricate

relationships between tourists and the environments and the cultures in which they

interact. However, Hector Ceballos-Lascurain first coined the term ‘ecotourism’ in July

6

1983 when he was in the process of developing the PRONATURA, an NGO in Mexico.

The PRONATURA worked for creating awareness for the conservation of American

Flamingo in the wetlands in northern Yucatan for sustaining the breeding and feeding

habitats. Other early references to ecotourism may be found in the work of Miller (1978)

with reference to the national park planning for eco-development in Latin American

countries. Documentation was prepared by the Environment Canada to make the broad-

based eco-tours from the mid 1970s to the early 1980s. Each tour was conducted in the

ecological zone in the corridor of Trans-Canada Highways with information to aid

effective interpretation.

The need for conceiving ecotourism arose from the worldwide environment

movement in the 1970s and 1980s. For example, the International Conference was held in

Geneva on Human Environment in 1972, followed by the World Conservation Strategy

by the IUCN in 1980 during which sustainable development or eco-development was

debated and discussed on the growing concern for environmental pollution and loss of

species coupled with the aversion towards mass tourism led to the creation of a new class

of tourists interested and motivated towards seeking nature-based experiences. At the

same time, the third-world countries devised the form of nature-based tourism as a means

for earning revenue to sustain the livelihood of people as an additional occupation or as a

substitute for agriculture, logging, fishing, hunting, etc. By the mid 1980s, many such

less developed countries with huge potential for promoting nature-based tourism resorted

to sustainable management as a means of protecting environment and ensuring

development.

7

1.3. CONCEPTUAL OVERVIEW OF ECOTOURISM

Ecotourism is a well-defined approach explaining management of tourism

impacts and conservation of nature in a way so as to maintain a fine balance between

socio-economic development and conservation. The global importance of ecotourism was

largely realized in 2002 when the International Year of Ecotourism (IYE) was celebrated

on the theme “Ecotourism- A Key to Sustainable Development”. The term ecotourism

was figured in the English Dictionary in the mid 1980s and it was also found mentioned

with a hyphenated term (eco-tourism) in the article by Romeril in the year 1985.

Hector Ceballos Lascurain, the Mexican Ecologist used the Spanish word

ecotourismo even earlier in the decade. Ceballos Lascurine (1991) defines ecotourism as

“travelling to relatively undisturbed or uncontaminated natural areas with a specific

objective of studying, admiring, and enjoying the scenery and wild plants and animals, as

well as any cultural manifestations (both past and present) found in these areas”. Ziffer

(1989) pointed out that ecotourism is a form of tourism inspired primarily by the natural

history of an area, including its indigenous cultures. The eco-tourist visits relatively

undeveloped areas with the spirit of appreciation, participation and sensitivity. The

ecotourism is a practice of a non-consumptive use of wildlife and natural resources and

contributes to the visited area through labour or financial means, It aims at directly

benefiting the conservation of the site and the economic well-being of the local people.

Some of the earliest studies on ecotourism attempted to classify eco-tourists on

the basis of settings, experiences and group dynamics. Kusler (1991) classified eco-

tourists as belonging to three main groups, including; Do-it-yourself Eco-tourist, Eco-

8

tourists on tours, and School groups or Scientific groups. The first category constitutes

the largest percentage of all eco-tourists and their experiences are characterized by a high

degree of flexibility of staying in different types of accommodations, having taste of

different food, and indulging in a variety of activities. The second category namely eco-

tourists on tours usually preferred organized tour to exotic or unusual places where

conventional tourist cannot make the tour. The third type of eco-tourists is called school

groups or scientific groups, who are seriously committed for carrying out scientific

research for extensive periods of time and have strong will power and inclination to

endure harsher site conditions. Nothing would deter them from completing the study.

Conversely, Lindberg (1991) identified four different types of eco-tourists such as

hard-core nature tourists, dedicated nature tourists, mainstream nature tourists and casual

nature tourists. Scientific researchers or members of tours specifically designed for

education and removal of litter, or similar purposes are treated as the first type of eco-

tourists. The second category includes people taking trips specifically to see protected

areas to understand local, natural and cultural history. People visiting the Amazon, the

Rwandan Gorilla Park, or other destinations are the mainstream nature tourists as they

primarily take an unusual trip. The last types of eco-tourists are those who experience

nature incidentally as part of a broader trip.

Boo(1990) explains that ecotourism is a form of nature tourism that contributes

to conservation through generating funds for protected areas, creating employment

opportunities for local communities and offering environmental education. The

Ecotourism Society (1991) defines ecotourism as “responsible travel to natural areas

which conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people”.

9

Valentine (1992) defines ecotourism “as a form of nature-based tourism that is

ecologically sustainable and is based on relatively undisturbed natural areas, which is not

damaging and non-degrading and it contributes to the continued protection and

management of protected areas, and is subjected to an adequate and appropriate

management regime.” Richardson et al, (1993) describes ecotourism as “ecologically

sustainable tourism in natural areas that interprets local environment and cultures,

furthers the tourist understanding of them, fosters conservation, and adds to the well-

being of the local people.” Forestry Tasmania (1994) focuses on provision of learning

opportunities while providing local and regional benefits and demonstrating

environmental, social, cultural and economic sustainability. Tickell (1994) explains

ecotourism as travelling to enjoy the worlds’ amazing diversity of natural life and human

culture without causing damage to either.

Goodwin (1995) called ecotourism as “purposeful travel to natural areas to

understand the cultural and natural history of the environment, taking care of not to alter

the integrity of the ecosystem, while producing economic opportunities that make the

conservation of natural resources beneficial to local people.” Lindberg and Mc Kercher

(1997) define ecotourism as a blend of tourism and recreation and both are based on

natures and sustainability. The United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO)

in (2002) defined ecotourism as “tourism that involves travelling to relatively undisturbed

natural areas with the specific objective of studying, admiring and enjoying nature and its

wild plants and animals as well as existing cultural aspects (both of the past and present)

found in these areas”

10

1.3.1. Ecotourism- An Alternative Option

The logic behind alternative tourism is to counter the onslaught of mass tourism.

As Krippendorf (1982) postulated for alternative tourism that it is a shift of the priority of

government from mere economic gains to preservation of unspoiled environment and

consideration of the needs of local people. He suggested that alternative tourism aims to

discourage the outside influence in the development and lays emphasis on proactive

participation of local people. Thus, alternative tourism is a generic term that may

represent appropriate tourism, ecotourism, soft tourism, responsible tourism, people to

people tourism, controlled tourism, small-scale tourism, low-impact tourism, cottage

tourism and green tourism in order to minimize the impacts of mass tourism activities.

More specifically, Weaver (1993) presented the potential benefits of an

alternative tourism that is largely designed from the perspective of accommodations,

attractions, market, economic impact and regulation. This more sensitive approach to

tourism development strives to satisfy the needs of local people, tourists and the resource

base in a complementary rather than a competitive manner.

1.3.2. Types of Ecotourism

Ecotourism is a form of alternative tourism which mostly attracts nature and

wildlife lovers from the urban, industrial and cosmopolitan centers. Mostly, the

industrialized and developed countries have earmarked on special budgetary financial

packages for ecotourism projects. People of those industrialized countries are more

motivated to visit the ecotourism places as the lives in big cities become restless and

11

stressful. There can be several types such as soft or hard, consumptive or non-

consumptive, natural and unnatural and exploitive, passive & active (Weaver 1999).

1.3.3. Trends in Ecotourism

Since the new global environment movement in the year 1970 and the general

dissatisfaction towards mass tourism as a development tool, a new form of tourism

emerged generally termed as Ecotourism. Especially in 1990s, ecotourism was identified

as the fastest-growing sector with 20 per cent to 34 per cent growth in a year. The

International Year of Ecotourism has brought about several fundamental changes of

perceptions and approaches of ecotourism. As a result, ecotourism and nature-based

tourism are growing three times faster than mass tourism. Regardless of the natural scenic

places, developed, developing and underdeveloped countries have embraced the

promotion of ecotourism in their countries for achieving the objectives of conservation

and economic well-being. Leading countries with huge ecotourism potentials like Costa

Rica, Galapagos Island, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Nepal, Australia, and

United States of America have established a dynamic system that takes care of non-

consumptive aspects of ecotourism. These countries are immensely benefited from the

ecotourism projects.

Ziffer (1989) pointed out that the overall number of nature-based tourists grew at

about 20 per cent annually that could also result in the increase of operators offering

nature tours. The (WTO) in the early 1990s predicted an annual growth rate of 10-15 per

cent in the demand for ecotourism.

12

Starmer and Smith (1991) found that the number of tourists taking ecotourism

holidays grew three times faster than those who chose mainstream holidays. Ecotourism

will represent 5 per cent of the global holiday market by 2024. The global estimate

revealed that, 32 per cent of visitors search for the scenery, wild plants and wildlife as a

part of their trip in Australia and New Zealand. In Africa, 80 per cent of tourists who

visited the countries in this continent named wildlife as a primary motivational attribute.

In North America, 69-88 per cent of the European and Japanese travelers considered

wildlife and bird watching to be the most important motivations. In Latin America, 50-79

per cent of the visitors advocated for nature-based tourism which represented an

important factor in choosing such destinations. In America, it was claimed that over 100

million people participated in the wildlife activities, of which 76.5 million were related to

viewing wildlife, and 24.7 evinced interested in bird watching.

Filion et al. (1993) uncovered that ecotourism generated more than US$ 20 billion

by the way of economic activities with an estimated growth of 30 per cent per year.

Cater (1993) found that annual tourist arrivals during 1980s in certain ecotourism

destinations were reported to be more than double while in the case of Belize, tourist

receipts were reported to witness ten-fold increase. It was estimated that tourism in the

natural and wildlife settings accounted for a total of 20-40 per cent of the international

tourism receipts, while it will increase by 20-50 per cent per year (Filion et al. 1994).

Animon et al. (1997) found that most of the protected areas, which would have been

converted into ecotourism destinations, are unnoticed and ignored by the domestic and

international tourists due to lack of basic facilities. They emphasized that ecotourism

13

plays a major role in planning and policymaking and brings employment opportunities to

the local community living in and around the parks.

Rodgers et al. (2000) suggested that the Protected Area Network of India can be

enhanced to 160 National Parks and 698 Wildlife Sanctuaries accounting for about 5.69

percent of the total geographical area. For instance, Kerala forms an important part of

Western Ghats with 324 km protected areas covering six per cent of the total

geographical area of the state. About 26.6 per cent of the total geographic areas of the

state is under forest cover as compared to 19.4 per cent for India. Tourists with interest in

visiting ecotourism places largely pay their visit to the PTR and more than 2, 38,047

tourists visited the Tiger Reserve in 1991-92 that accounted for 8.4 per cent of the total

tourist arrivals. Furthermore, it was reported that 216,621 visitors in 1995 and 476,824

visitors in 2009 visited the sanctuary respectively. It is reported to be 45.49 per cent

growth between 1995 and 2009. As wildlife is one of the primary motives of eco-tourists

and one of the activities of ecotourism, Page and Dowling (2002) came out with a more

recent estimate of wildlife-related tourism that represented up to 40 per cent of

international travel.

1.4. VISITOR SATISFACTION

Tourists visit a particular destination in order to fulfill their desires and satisfy the

specific needs. Swarbooke (1995); Eagly and Chaiken (1993) have attempted to measure

visitor satisfaction in consonance with the capacity of a tourist destination to meet the

recreational and leisure need of the visitors. It is often found that the experience of

visitors and the level of satisfaction from the visit to a national park are largely affected

14

by their past experiences from visiting other national parks or protected areas, the prior

knowledge and the capacity to learn and understand about the space with which all these

experiences are linked. (Hughes 1991; Mossberg 1995; Yu and Weiler (2000); Mossberg

(1995) added that the past experience of visitors and their socio-economic profiles are

some of the important parameters determining the way in which they themselves evaluate

the performance and efficiency of the accompanying guides. Various studies conducted

by Gyte and Phelps (1989); Yuksel (2001); Tian Cole et al. (2002) revealed that visitors,

who have visited the same natural park repeatedly, are more likely to be satisfied from

their visit as compared to those who have visited the same park once.

Hull and Stewart (1995) attributed a more functional approach to the term

landscapes by combining three very basic elements such as viewing ability, the objects in

the landscape and perception on the subjective element. Two other very important

factors that influence visitor satisfaction include movement and noise in the marine parks.

Kozhak (2001) outlined the importance of fulfillment of expectation, importance of

fulfillment and denial of fulfillment as the factors influencing visitor satisfactions. Scott

et al. (1995) developed tourist satisfaction model based on the cumulative nature of

visitor experiences that include overall satisfaction of visitors and the intension to revisit

and recommend others to visit. Therefore, these three basic criterion may be used for

defining visitor satisfaction with regard to tourist spots in national parks and protected

areas.

Bowen and Clarke (2002) formulated a general framework for the study of Visitor

Satisfaction related to certain unique and particular characteristics related to tourism such

as integrity, heterogeneity and degradation of tourist product quality with time. Fick and

15

Ritchie (1999) found that every tourist destination is endowed with various attributes

such as transport, hospitality, entertainment and community related services for alluring

visitors with adequate option for cost effective pricing. It is also observed that Visitor

Satisfaction from the perspectives of the expectations of visitors at various destinations

also depends on the quality of products and services provided along with the friendly

attitude of the locals (Crompton and Love (1995); Lounsbury and Hopes; (1985); Qu and

Li (1997); Ryan (1999); Stevens (1992).

1.5. WILDLIFE TOURISM- A CHIEF ATTRACTION OF ECOTOU RISM

Human fascination with animals has been around for quite long since they have

co-existed on planet Earth. Relationships between humans and animals can take many

different forms, including being a source of food, clothing or shelter, use for scientific

and medical research, as sport or entertainment, or as a form of companionship and/or

point of connection with the natural world. Understanding this relationship with animals

is important because it shapes the feelings and actions of human beings. This has a direct

bearing on the view of animals in and for tourism. According to Malcom Hunter, the term

wildlife is less than a century old and was not included in the major dictionaries before

1961 in the United States and before 1986 in the United Kingdom (Cited Hunter, 1990).

A few definitions of wildlife lay stress on the game animals, while others include

all non-domesticated vertebrates and in some cases, invertebrates and plants. Wildlife

tourism is primarily based on encounters with non-domesticated (non-human) animals.

These encounters can occur in either the animals’ natural environment or in captivity. It

includes activities historically classified as ‘non-consumptive’, such as viewing,

16

photography and feeding as well as those that involve killing or capturing animals,

particularly hunting (in the terrestrial environment) and recreational fishing(in the aquatic

environment).

Wildlife tourism attractions can be enjoyed at the fixed sites during the organized

tours. The definition is restricted to ‘wildlife’ or fauna (animals) and it coincides with

general use of the term by the tourism industry and public. The term ‘animal’ is defined

in the biological sense to mean any member of the Kingdom Animalia (except humans).

It thus includes not only land dwelling vertebrates such as mammals, birds and lizards,

but also aquatic vertebrates that usually live in the sea or inland waters such as platypus,

fish and turtles. It also includes invertebrates such as glow-worms, butterflies, corals and

starfish. Wildlife is not restricted to animals that are native to the country such as

kangaroos and emus in Australia, but it also includes exotic animals, whether held in

captivity, or introduced into the natural environment either deliberately or accidentally

such as feral pigs and camels in Australia.

The term ‘non-domesticated’ is otherwise known as ‘wild’, because it is unclear

whether the latter term is related to the species or its setting ( a tiger in a zoo is a non-

domesticated species, but some might argue it is no longer wild). Thus, wildlife tourism

can be applied at a number of hierarchical scales. Its application is complicated by the

fact that wildlife tourism at one level offers unique experiences as part of nature-based

tourism or special interest tourism product for the park authorities and tourism

intermediaries to earn revenue for the management of park as well as for the community

in particular and for the country in general.

17

Wildlife is featured as a component of a travel package which offers rewarding

experiences to visitors. A whale watching tour and an eco-tour as one of the activities,

that includes wildlife, are both considered wildlife tourism products. Thus, a zoo and a

farm-stay business that promotes viewing of wild animals (among other experiences) are

both included as wildlife tourism business. At the highest level, some places such as the

Galapagos Islands and Kenya are the two notable examples of as wildlife tourism

destinations in the world. Table 1.1 illustrates the various dimensions of wildlife tourist

spectrum.

Table 1.1

Wildlife Tourist Spectrum

Category Setting Example Human Influence

Captive Aviaries Gondwanaland, Queens Land, Australia

Completely Human

Constructed

Zoo San Diego Zoo, California, USA

Oceanariums Sea World, Florida,USA

Aquariums Monterey Bay, California, USA

Semi Captive Wildlife Parks Partially Human

Constructed

Rehabilitation Centers

Sea Pens Dolphin Plus, Florida USA

Feeding Wildlife

Dolphins, Monkey Mia, Shark Bay, Western Australia

Natural Environment

Reef Sharks, Bahamas

Kea (Parrots), South Island, New Zealand

Wild National Parks Kruger National Park, South Africa

Migratory Routes Cape Cod Massachusetts, USA (whales)

Breeding Sites Mon Repos, Australia(sea turtles)

Feeding/ Drinking Sites

Source: Oram (2002) Cited in Newsome et al. (2009). Wildlife Tourism, CBS Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi.

18

1.6. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The idyllic Idukki district of Kerala is one of the most green cover areas of the

State girded by three main rivers such as the Periyar, the Thalayar and the

Thodupuzhayar. As a tourist destination, Idukki offers a wide range of attractions such as

wildlife, soft adventure, salubrious climate, boating, spice garden, primitive lifestyle and

other non-consumptive ecotourism activities. Moreover, the district draws a large number

of tourists to view the wildlife attractions from motorized boats. The PTR is also known

for attracting Ornithologists to study the abundance of avifauna. It is found that majority

of tourists visiting Kerala flock to the PTR for the purpose of wildlife sightseeing. The

park has already witnessed manifold increase of the day visitor and tourist arrivals due to

the high probability of spotting the wild animals. This has resulted in a sporadic rise of

tourist traffic into the park and tourist vehicles, thus leading to noise pollution, emissions,

parking problems, etc. Further, the main and fundamental problem is identified as the

uncontrolled tourist arrivals and the entry of tourist vehicles.

A reasonably good number of studies have so far been conducted from the

perspectives of Ecology, Environment, Eco-Development Committees,(EDC)

Community Funding, Anthropology and Ethnology. However, in-depth studies with

regard to Tourism Impacts, Ecotourism, Wildlife Tourism and other forms of nature-

based tourism have not been carried out so far for which this piece of research work is

expected to be unique and relevant in the context of tourism development and its direct

bearings on the local community.

19

On the other hand, the need of the study arises as the tourists do not seem to be

satisfied with the existing facilities and amenities being provided by the park authorities.

Besides the availability of facilities and amenities is not adequate to cater to the tourists

resulting which the day-visitors and tourists get dissatisfied. It is also observed that the

(EDC) does not seem to be much effective for addressing the socio-economic problems

of the community. Further, it is supposed to work for community empowerment. The

park has also been facing problems with stakeholders as there is a lack of coordination in

dealing with the prevailing issues. With the increase in the number of day visitors, the

PTR, as an ecotourism destination will gradually be transformed into a mass tourism

destination. The present study will try to fill the gap as regards the problem of visitor

satisfaction and community empowerment in the context of the sustainable ecotourism in

the park.

In this backdrop, the two major constructs “Visitor Satisfaction” and “Community

Empowerment” have been studied logically by employing scientific research methods

with regard to sustainable development of ecotourism in the PTR.

1.7. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

Ecotourism in the PTR is obviously significant for providing learning experience

of its unique natural scenic beauty and wildlife along with the local culture. Ecotourism

is partly proven to be an effective model for keeping away the local people from

poaching and other illegal activities in the PTR. This particular form of tourism has

brought about economic development indirectly around the periphery area. As a result, it

has been instrumental in providing a unique interface between the visitors and nature,

20

leading to a greater understanding and consciousness towards the preservation of nature

of resources. This study is significant for providing practical solutions to the planners,

policymakers and service providers. Further, an argument about the modalities of

relationship between community empowerment and visitor satisfaction as the means for

sustainable ecotourism has been put forth for the clarity of research problems as the

means for sustainable ecotourism.

An attempt has also been made to study visitor satisfaction and community

empowerment from the perspectives of tourists and the community members at the PTR.

The study has recommended some workable solutions for improving the level of

satisfaction as well as the degree of empowering community members. The core

objective of study is to find sustainable ways for managing varied ecotourism activities in

the park. The most significant part of the studies has expanded the scope for the

planners, policymakers, park authorities like Periyar Foundation, Periyar Tiger Reserve

Administration, EDC, Kerala Tourism Development Corporation,(KTDC), District

Tourism Promotion Council(DTPC) and Forest and Wildlife Department to take

references from the findings and suggestions.

1.8. RATIONALE OF THE STUDY

The review of literature revealed that significant amount of studies have been

undertaken from different perspectives of visitors, but limited literature has touched upon

visitor satisfaction. In the same manner, many studies have highlighted on the various

dimensions of community participation in tourism, but community empowerment has not

been highlighted so significantly. However, there is no study conducted by combining the

21

visitor satisfaction and the community empowerment as the two key elements for

sustainable ecotourism in the protected areas. On the contrary, most of the studies have

been undertaken by taking the issues, problems and challenges in the western countries.

Moreover, studies conducted so far on the PTR have focused more on Ecological,

Environmental and Biological aspects of the EDC and community participation.

Therefore, the present study is a sincere attempt to integrate visitor satisfaction and

community empowerment to uncover the theoretical gap and search for relationships

between the two constructs.

Thus, the study “Visitor Satisfaction and Community Empowerment for

Sustainable Ecotourism: An Evaluative Study on Periyar Tiger Reserve” has been

relevant in answering the research questions leading to fill the theoretical gap.

1.9. SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The scope of the study is quite confined to the PTR East Division, more

particularly to the Tourism Zone. The primary data have been collected from both

tourists and community members in the tourism zone in the surrounding villages with a

radius of two kilometers. The tourism zone includes Vanashree Dormitory, Interpretation

Center, Tiger Trail Office, Parking, Boat Landing, Tribal Trekkers’ Office, Snack Bar

and Bamboo Rafting Point. The periphery villages adjacent to the Reserve includes

Mannakudi and Paliyankudi as two important tribal hamlets and its neighbourhood places

like Ceylon Colony, Chottupara, GandhiNagar, Kollampattada, Kurishumala, Periyar

Colony, Ex Vayana, PETS EDC, Tribal Trekkers, Tribal Heritage, Vidiyal, Ex Thelli,

Graziers and Fisher Group. The scope of study is limited to six important theoretical

22

concepts such as Ecotourism, Sustainable Development, Protected Areas, Visitor

Satisfaction, Community Participation and Community Empowerment.

1.10. MAJOR OBJECTIVES

The broad objective is to study the understanding of tourists and local community

members on the various elements of visitor satisfaction and community members on

different indicators of community empowerment. The objectives have been framed by

taking the interest and benefits of the planners, policymakers and other agencies

connected with ecotourism in the PTR.

The Study has made an attempt

• To study the level of visitor satisfaction on the tangible and intangible attributes;

• To find out the level of community participation and empowerment through the

ecotourism activities; and

• To evolve sustainable methods for the management of resources and stakeholders

1.11. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

The objective of social science research is to provide relevant, accurate, reliable,

valid, logical and latest information to deal with research problems with the help of

systematic data collection and analysis. Taking this objective into considerations, the

methodology comprises the sources of data, selection of sample size and method, pilot

study, questionnaire construction, scale development and hypothesis.

23

1.11.1. Sources of Data

Both the primary and secondary sources of data were used to gather the data with

regard to visitor satisfaction, community empowerment, ecotourism and sustainable

development in the PTR.

Primary data include the method of gathering data with the help of questionnaires.

Tourist and community respondents were administered the questionnaires at the study

site. However, the researcher himself used the scheduled method for community

members to answer the questions correctly as the community respondents found much

difficulty in understanding the questions.

The secondary data pertaining to tourist arrivals, number of hotels, room & beds,

animal census, ecotourism activities, tourist arrivals and revenue earnings in the PTR in

particular and Kerala in general from the Department of Tourism, Department of Forest

and Wildlife, Government of Kerala. Periyar Foundation, DTPC and KTDC provided

relevant data for the substantial understanding of the research problems. In addition,

many reputed Institutions, Libraries, Universities and NGOs were also visited to collect

hard and soft copies of literature for getting an in-depth knowledge and clear

understanding on the research problems. Several research journals, books, periodicals,

web references, and databases were also referred to understand the concepts, current

trends, challenges, problems and development of ecotourism and its relationship with

other key elements.

The relevant literature was reviewed to develop a strong argument as to how

visitor satisfaction and community empowerment can play a major role in the

24

development and management of sustainable ecotourism in the tiger reserve. To get

firsthand experience and more practical knowledge on ecotourism and park activities, an

in-depth interview was conducted with Ecologists, Nature Education Officer, Forest

Officials, EDC Chairpersons and local people. Finally, several research questions were

emerged during intensive field work and pilot survey. All those questions were

incorporated in two sets of questionnaires: one for the tourists and other for the local

community members.

1.11.2. Selection of Sampling Method and Sample Size

A convenient sampling method was adopted for the collection of data. The

primary data have been collected with the help of two sets of well-structured

questionnaires. A total of 540 tourist respondents were interviewed at Vanashree

Dormitory, Rajiv Gandhi Interpretation Center, Tiger Trail Office, Parking, Boat

Landing, Nature Walk, Bamboo Rafting Starting Point, Green Walk and Border Hiking

Starting Point. Similarly, a total of 320 community respondents were approached with the

structured questionnaires for collecting primary data. The sites at which the community

members were requested to answer the questionnaires include villages adjacent to the

PTR starting from the tribal hamlets.

Finally, the filled-in questionnaires were collected from 505 domestic as well as

foreign tourist respondents and 303 from local community members. For the coding and

final analysis purposes, 500 (93 %) and 300 (94 %) filled-in questionnaires with complete

answers from the tourist and community respondents respectively were included for

25

coding and analysis. The SPSS-17 spreadsheet was used for feeding the primary data

directly from the filled-in questions.

1.11.2.1. Sample Size

The selection of sample size needs a systematic scientific approach for which

many related published literatures from the reputed international journals were referred to

substantiate the sample size selected for the study. For example, Stoeckel et al. (2006)

made an empirical study on “community impact of different types of visitors: An

empirical investigation of tourism in North West Queens Land” and used 510 sample of

foreign tourists. Similarly, Behand and Bruyere (2007 ) studied on “segmentation by

visitor motivation in three Kenyan National Reserves” by using 465 sample of foreign

tourists. Obua and Harding ( 1996) undertook a study on “visitor characteristics and

attitudes towards Kibale National Park in Uganda” and used 213 sample of foreign

tourists. Arabatzis and Grigoroudis (2010 ) studied on visitor satisfaction, perceptions

and gap Analysis: the cases of Dadia –Lefkimi-Souflion National Park in Greece and

used 230 sample of foreign tourists. Ballantyne et al. (2011) studied on “visitor

memories of wildlife tourism: implications for the design of a powerful interpretive

experience” used 240 sample of foreign tourists. Akama and Kieti (2003 ) studied on

“measuring tourist satisfaction with Kenya’s wildlife safari: A case study of Tsavo West

National Park” and used 200 sample of foreign tourists”.

As far as the determination of sample size for community members is concerned,

Tosun (2004) used 248 samples for conducting a study on “expected nature of

community participation in tourism development”, Okazaki (2008) used 420 samples

26

from the local community members to undertake a study on “community-based tourism

model : its conception and use” and Kibicho (2008) used 176 samples for carrying out a

study on “community-based tourism: a factor cluster segmentation approach”.

Thus, a sample of 540 foreign and domestic tourist respondents were used for

carrying out the study on visitor satisfactions. The selection of sample size is highly

substantiated with the sample size used for the similar studies in Australia and Africa.

However, these research studies used less sample size to diagnose the research problems

as compared to the sample used for the present study. Further, a sample of 320 local

community members was included in the primary data collection to elicit opinions on

various aspects of community empowerment, ecotourism and sustainable tourism. The

selection of sample size is substantially validated with the sample size used for the

similar type of studies.

Further, the convenient sample method was preferred for three important reasons.

First, most of the research questions were clarified during the pilot study that largely

helped in retaining the variables for the final questionnaire. Second, any probability

methods would have been inappropriate to be used for the data collection as tourists were

generally fussy, non-cooperative and causal in responding the questions. Third,

questionnaires were administered to those tourists who were cooperative and unbiased in

answering the questions and tourist respondents were requested to spend maximum time

to understand and answer the questions correctly. All these criteria were used to collect

the data so as to reduce the response and sample error.

27

1.11.3. Pilot Survey

The basic purpose of this study was to eliminate ambiguous and non-

discriminating items and to eliminate any impact discrepancies. Further, as an alternative

solution, the Kaiser–Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sample adequacy tests was also

used for additional verifications of the sample size. The researcher used area sampling

method in which convenience sampling method was chosen for increasing the

representativeness of the sample. There were two key considerations to form the number

of tourist destinations as a unit of study and to reduce the number of variables responsible

for explaining sustainable ecotourism at this stage of the research. The independent

characteristics of 39 indicators for tourists and 37 indicators for community members

related to sustainable ecotourism development were examined during the pilot study.

Finally, 35 indicators for tourist respondents on visitor satisfaction and 33 indictors for

community respondents on community empowerment were set in the form of seven and

five point Likert scale respectively.

1.11.4. Questionnaire Construction

Designing a flawless questionnaire needs ample time to understand the variables.

Questionnaire is an instrument to capture the data in such a manner that respondents

should easily understand the questions. It must be simple without having any ambiguity.

In order to obtain a robust questionnaire, the methods of explorative study, field visit and

pilot study were used to comprehend clearly the implicit and explicit meaning of

variables determining the study.

28

Two questionnaires were prepared: one for the Tourists and the other for the

Local Community members. The questionnaire designed for the tourists consists of three

parts. The first part deals with the demographic data consisting of Age, Gender,

Nationality, Income and Education. The first part was further divided by the sub headings

called visitor awareness where different questions were asked regarding frequency of

visits, mode of transport, point of entry, duration of stay, main motivations behind the

visit, ecotourism activities, problems faced by tourists and interest in ecotourism. These

questions were framed in a nominal scale. The second part deals with visitor satisfaction

indicators based on statements prepared on a seven point Likert scale ranging from (7)

Very Strongly Agree to (1) Very Strongly Disagree. A seven point scale was used to

capture the levels of visitor satisfaction.

The questionnaire designed for the local community members consists of three

parts. The first part includes Age, Gender, Marital Status, Occupation, Residence,

Qualification, Monthly Income, and Family members, Monthly Expenditures,

Nationality, Income and Educational Qualification as the key demographic backgrounds.

Further, questions related to community participation have been included in the first part.

The second part deals with statement type questions framed in a five point scale ranging

(5) Strongly Agree (4) Agree (3) Undecided (2) Disagree (1) Strongly Disagree. All the

questions are directly and indirectly related to four key factors like social impacts,

economic impacts, cultural impacts and ecological impact. The third part deals with the

functioning of EDC on five point scale followed by open-ended questions.

29

1.11.5. Scale Development

Scale development is itself a huge exercise and it is a research itself. Developing

an independent scale needs long time and patience and it was almost impossible to evolve

a scale of its own during the course of the study due to paucity of time. Taking this

limitation into consideration, the study has largely referred two different scales used by

Akama and Kieti (2003) for conducting an empirical research work on “ measuring tourist

satisfaction with Kenya’s wildlife safari: A case study of Tsavo West National Park and

Beh and and Bruyere (2007 ) on segmentation by visitor motivation in three Kenyan

National Reserves. Both the studies have used a seven point scale ranging from (1)

Strongly Unimportant to (7) Strongly Important. Thus, these two scales were used with

marginal moderations. Figure 1.1 depicts the step-by-step research design for carrying

out the scientific study with regard to sustainable ecotourism in the PTR.

30

Figure 1.1

Step- by- Step Research Design

31

1.11.6. Statistical Tools Used for Data Analysis

The univariate and bivariate analysis were conducted by using cross tabulations to

analyze and interpret the relationships between variables applied on the nominal

questions. The Chi-square test has been used to test the association between two variables

for nominal scale questions. Mean and standard deviation were also used to work out the

average of the responses. The Cramer test has been used to find the effects of

independent variable on the dependent variable.

The KMO test of sampling adequacy for testing the partial correlations between

variables was conducted and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was conducted to identify

the correlation matrix. Further, The factor analysis has been used on the ordinal scale

questions to reduce the number of indictors under the broad factor. The Principal

Component Analysis (PCA) has been used to extract the uncorrelated measure of

sampling adequacy tests to find out the partial correlations among variables. Maximum

variance was identified in the variables with higher loadings of the first factor, while

small variances were recorded to be in the successive factors. Varimax rotation was

applied to minimize the number of variables through higher loadings for the easy

interpretations of results. The Pearson’s correlation tool was used to check the pattern of

relationships between the factors. Moreover, the one-way Analysis of Variance

(ANOVA) has been used to identify the differences between the variables. Levene” t”

test has been conducted to find out the equity of variance in different samples. The

Friedman’s Rank test has been conducted to rank the variables as per the mean values.

32

1.12. MAJOR HYPOTHESES

H0: The means of both foreign and domestic tourist respondents are not significantly

different on the five factors signifying the visitor satisfaction with reference to

Ecotourism/Wildlife Tourism in PTR.

H0: The means of both foreign and domestic tourist respondents are not significantly

different on the seven different statements explaining the appreciation and respect

towards the culture and heritage of primitive people in Thekkady.

H0: The means of both foreign and domestic tourist respondents are not significantly

different on the eight different statements explaining the visitor satisfactions while

visiting and sojourning in PTR and Thekkady.

H0: On the criterion of frequency of visit, visitors are not significantly different on the

five broad factors determining the visitors satisfaction.

H0: On the criterion of duration of stay, there are no significant differences of

experiences of the tourists on the key factors of visitor satisfaction.

H0: All five factors reflecting the level of visitor satisfaction are not significantly

correlated. H0: Mean ranks are not different significantly on securing maximum enjoyment from

ecotourism activities, provision for add-on facilities and amenities while finding

the differences of experiences of 500 sample tourist respondents.

H0: The means of community members with less than 20 years and more than 21

years of residing at the PTR are not significantly different on the 10 indicators

signifying the tourism impacts on community empowerment.

H0: There is no significant association between the categories of age and interest in

management of ecotourism activities and the years of residing and interest in

management of ecotourism sites.

33

H0: There is no association between occupational patterns of community members

and their involvements in the decision-making process with regard to the

management of ecotourism activities and revenue earned from the ecotourism for

the LAD.

H0: There is no association between gender and interest in displaying cultural

activities to the tourists, negatively affected by the regular conflicts with tourists,

ecotourism as an alternative source of income and addressing problems for

sustainable development.

1.13. CONTOURS OF THE STUDY

The study has been presented in five chapters and each chapter is unique in its

own way in widening scope for more lucidity and clarity of discussions. More

importantly, each chapter is closely connected to other in illustrating the facts and figures

pertaining to the visitor satisfaction and community empowerment for sustainable

ecotourism in the PTR, Thekkady.

Chapter I deals with introduction to the study about recent trends in tourism,

current trends in ecotourism and statement of the problem. This chapter is also devoted to

review various studies on the evolution, meaning, concept, importance and various

dimensions of sustainable ecotourism. This chapter has also included major objectives,

hypotheses, significance and scope of study in an argumentative manner. The hallmark of

the chapter is the research design that consists of sources data collection method,

sampling method, sample size, questionnaire design, pilot study and use of statistical

tools.

34

Chapter II has covered the review of previous studies based on the conceptual

and empirical works in different countries and States in India in general and in the PTR in

particular. The detailed Review of Literature on various aspects of Wildlife Tourism,

Ecotourism, Visitor Satisfaction, Community Participation, Sustainable Development and

Carrying Capacity has been presented in a very argumentative manner. The interesting

part of the chapter is the construction of theoretical background that has been emerged

from the synthesis of review of literature.

Chapter III provides an overview of microscopic development of

ecotourism/wildlife tourism in the PTR along with background of the Reserve,

Geographical, Ecological, Environmental, Social, Economical and Administrative

background, Tourist arrivals, Revenue earnings from tourism, Accommodations,

Ecotourism Activities and Animal Census, Roles of Periyar Foundations, etc.

Chapter IV presents the analysis of primary data collected from tourists and

local community members with the help of the SPSS package. It presents the output of

primary data in different tables relevant to the study. This chapter presents

interpretations in two different parts: one consists of data analysis of tourist respondents

and other part consists of local community respondents.

Chapter V is the final chapter which presents various findings of the study in a

logical manner and suggests the strategic interventions and actions for ensuring visitor

satisfaction and community empowerment in the PTR. The chapter also provides policy

suggestions to the Government of Kerala for sustainable ecotourism development in the

Reserve with the help of a workable model. The chapter also highlights the need for

35

future research in order to carry on the efforts for making the PTR a pristine and awe-

inspiring wildlife-cum-ecotourism destination.

1.14. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Despite taking many best possible efforts, the researcher faced a few limitations

during this study. These limitations were indeed unavoidable, but could not prevent the

researcher from completing the research work in a time bound manner.

• The researcher collected primary information mostly through field visits. Thus, it

was not possible to give sufficient time for each study site due to the time and cost

constraints.

• The size of sample is another limitation since the main source of data has been

derived from primary sources. The size of the sample would have been more if

the time was sufficient for administering the questionnaires. Hence, generalization

of the study may be a problem due to the convenient sample method.

• Many respondents were hesitant in giving some demographic information like

Income, Age, Educational Qualifications, Place of stay, Use of mode of transport,

Use of water and energy, Designations, etc correctly as they were taking it very

personal .

As tourism is a young discipline, the contemporary research works do not seem to

be substantial to develop theoretical background, but all possible attempts were made to

make use of the available literature optimally for which a synthesis of review could

become possible leading to the creation of theoretical framework. Despite these

36

limitations, the present study shall definitely be useful for the researchers, planners,

policymakers and administrators in the tourism sector.

CHAPTER-II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

37

2.0. INTRODUCTION

A literature review is a body of text that is studied comprehensively to make a

logical order of the concepts and their relationships. A review is otherwise called as a

view of the reviewer on the subjects on which the study area is conducted. Deeper

understanding of a particular subject and its interrelationship with other subjects is

essentially required when the root of the research problems is traced out. Thus, it aims to

review the critical points of historical evolution of knowledge, including substantive

findings as well as theoretical and methodological contributions to a particular topic.

Review of literature is an important part of any research work that gives enough

insights to understand and frame the logical relationships of key concepts or variables

determining the study. The review of previous original works help in developing

comprehensive ideas on the research area through continuous readings, discussions and

analysis in the same or related fields of studies. In this context, the review of literature

helps the researchers find out the key variables to be studied in the research work and

logically establish the theoretical gap in the studies. Furthermore, the review widens the

scope for identifying the untouched or unexplored research areas to be studied. However,

each research scholar strives hard to make the study unique and original for greater

recognition and acceptability.

The review of literature usually throws light on the hidden facts and figures and

provides scope for clearing ambiguities in many subjects. Many grey areas can be

unfolded through extensive collection of relevant literature and reading. The in-depth

reading raises several pertinent questions with regard to the area of study and these

38

questions give shape to the research hypotheses. While reviewing the previous published

or unpublished journals, books, periodicals, documents, etc, the researcher come across

the qualitative and quantitative research outputs for selecting the key concepts, sampling

method and sample size, method of data collection, scale development, reliability and

validity test, level of significance, statistical tools, etc.

From the review of literature, major findings and suggestions are referred to build

a logical theory and add to the existing body of knowledge. At the end of the research

work, a researcher is expected to develop the conceptual framework that must be

pragmatic, usable, and implementable. In many cases, the research becomes deductive

in nature and the researcher studies the topic in a broader sense to reach at the particular

concepts. Finally, narrowing down to the specific research area and getting clarity for

conducting the research work in a methodical manner enables the researcher to explain

the reasons of the gap and build a theoretical frameworks for enriching the knowledge.

Tourism is a young discipline which is just about four decades old. The discipline

is being developed with the basic inputs from other social science subjects. In course of

time, several studies have been conducted in the main and sub-themes of tourism,

hospitality and travel related areas and these qualitative and quantitative research works

have been published in the academic journals of national and international repute. It is

frequently noticed that more number of empirical studies in the area of alternative

tourism (ecotourism and wildlife tourism) are now being undertaken due to its

contemporary relevance in the global context. The present study is a sincere attempt to

uncover many hidden facts and figures in the area of sustainable ecotourism in the

protected areas by taking both local community and visitors into the scope of the study.

39

Ecotourism, wildlife tourism, community participation and empowerment, visitor

satisfactions, carrying capacity and sustainable tourism have been reviewed extensively

from the past and current literatures to understand the meaning, importance, issues,

challenges, etc.

In a nutshell, the review of literature in the related areas of ecotourism has given

sufficient insights to comprehend the rationale of visitor satisfactions and community

empowerment as two important core elements for achieving sustainable ecotourism in the

protected areas at the PTR in Kerala.

2.1. BASIC THEORY OF TOURISM

Travelling and exploring places are considered to be among the basics of human

nature. People have been traveling for meeting their various needs since time

immemorial. The term ‘tourism’ was first used in the 19th

century, but it has its origin

long back. The word has been derived from the Hebrew word Torah, which means

Studying, Learning, and Searching. Today, Travel and Tourism is regarded as one of the

dynamic global industries which stimulate international trade and commerce. As the

world population is rising, the demand for Travel and Tourism is also increasing at a

faster pace. In 2011, 972 million international travelers spent US$230 billion. As a result,

tourism is emerged to be the fastest- growing industry in the world. The international

tourist arrivals are projected to be one billion in 2012.

Tourism is mainly divided into mass and alternative tourism. Alternative tourism

is further divided into natural, cultural, event, etc. The natural attractions are still divided

into adventure, indigenous, wildlife and ecotourism. Out of all the types of alternative

40

tourism, wildlife tourism is the best preferred attraction as regards new-age tourists.

Thus, wildlife tourism is defined as a trip undertaken to watch or encounter with wildlife

in a natural setting. It can happen in a range of locations from captive to semi captive of

the wild and it also encompasses a variety of interactions from passive observation to

feeding and touching.

According to Reynolds and Braithwaite (2001), interaction with wildlife is

increasing and becoming immensely popular around the world. Another report of the

International Ecotourism Society (1998) estimated that 40 per cent to 60 per cent are

nature tourists worldwide. Out of which, 20 per cent to 40 per cent were wildlife related

tourists. The USA, New Zealand, Australia, China, Kenya, Tanzania, Zimbabwe and

South Africa are some of the leading hotspots of wildlife tourism. Hence, there is a need

for sustainable wildlife tourism across destinations that largely provide economic benefits

to the local community and brings about a planned conservation mechanism to the

wildlife and forests.

There should be a combined effort for promoting wildlife tourism as Newsome et

al. (2002) highlighted that stakeholder planning may occur at the planning process and on

the other hand, local communities should be involved and acknowledged as key groups.

Thus, properly managed wildlife tourism has a huge market to be targeted at, but

systematic planning and involvement of stakeholders and local community is utmost

essential.

41

2.2. ORIGIN, TYPE AND CONCEPT OF ECOTOURISM

The history of ecotourism may be dated back to the 1950’s and it was not widely

recognized or understood as a form of attraction. Some select countries in the African

continent have been in the limelight for jungle safari and wildlife watching. Tourism was

promoted in the parks and sanctuaries in the name of ecological tourism in Africa in

1950’s with legalization of hunting (Miller 2007).

The need for recreational hunting zones led to the creation of protected areas,

National Parks and Game Reserves. Nevertheless, the concept of ecotourism became

widely known and was vigorously studied in 1980’s as a subject integrated with ecology,

anthropology, sociology, ecology and environmental science.

The concept of ecotourism is embedded with two components: conservation and

community well-being. Today, it is seen that tourists are more interested towards activity-

based tour rather than sightseeing-based tour. Moreover, tourists are more conscious of

conservation of wildlife and plants and they wish to undertake tours for helping the

conservation efforts. The governments take it as a means for supporting conservation

measures and achieving economic gains

Honey (1999) remarked that ecotourism was developed within the womb of the

environmental movement in the 1970s and 1980s. During this period, the world

witnessed the awakening of governments for the preservation of ecology and

environment. The literature pertaining to nature tourism and environment impacts of the

industry dates back to the late 1970’s. The word ‘Ecotourism’ first appeared within the

English language academic literature as a hyphenated term (eco-tourism) in an article by

42

Romeril (1985). Ecotourism, basically, is regarded as one of the forms of responsible

tourism and is an integral part of sustainable tourism development, which was declared as

a global strategy during the World Summit at Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Prior to one decade

of the World Summit, Krippendorf (1982) coined the term “Alternative Tourism”.

Tourism to natural areas has been touted for its potential to allow sustainable

development of ecosystems and to provide incentives to preserve these areas rather than

converting them to other uses. Fennel (1970) studied about many ecological zones and

eco-tourists at the Trans Canada Highway. Although the origin of the term “ecotourism”

is not entirely clear, but one of the first to use the term is Hetzer (1965), who identified

the four “pillars” or principles of responsible tourism: minimizing environmental

impacts; respecting host cultures; maximizing the benefit for local people; and

maximizing tourist satisfaction.

However, it was Hector Ceballos-Lascuraine who provided a precise and

acceptable definition on ecotourism. The definition is stated as “travelling to relatively

undisturbed or uncontaminated natural areas with the specific objective of studying,

admiring and enjoying the scenery and its wild plants and animals, as well as any

existing cultural manifestation (both past and present) found in these areas” Ceballos-

Lascurian (1987). At the same time, Laarman and Durst (1987) described “hard” and

“soft” dimensions of ecotourism after taking the nature and motivations of eco-tourists

into considerations. Wallace and Pierce (1996) strongly argued for promotion of true

ecotourism when it minimizes negative impacts and maximizes positive impacts. The

early and long-term participation of local people in the decision-making-process is

possible through ecotourism. He further suggested for increasing the awareness and

43

understanding the values of natural and cultural system and its contribution to the

conservation and management of protected and other natural areas for more direct

economic and other benefits to local people.

Ziffer (1989) included motivation, philosophy, conduct and economic benefit to

conservation as the indicators for sustainable ecotourism. In a similar fashion, Kusler

(1990) observed that many conservation organizations and governments see ecotourism

as the means to both preserve and develop remote areas. For the first time, ecotourism

gained direct institutional patronization and it is the International Ecotourism Society

(1991) that defined ecotourism as responsible travel to natural areas to conserve the

environment and improve the well-being of local people. This Society was intended to

promote ecotourism as a form of cooperative tourism that can be more sustainable and

viable for the governments and the local community members.

Lindberg and Hawkins (1993) defines ecotourism as a purposeful travel to natural

areas to understand the culture and natural history of environment, thereby taking care of

not to altering the integrity of ecosystem while producing economic opportunities that

make the conservation of natural resources beneficial to local people. The Ecotourism

Association of Australia (1992) defines ecotourism as ecologically sustainable tourism

that fosters environmental and cultural understanding, appreciation and conservation.

The World Travel and Tourism Environment Research Center in its 1993’s World

Travel and Environment Review defines ecotourism as tourism with the specific motive

of enjoying wildlife or undeveloped natural areas. Steele (1993) found ecotourism as an

economic process where rare and beautiful ecosystems are marked internationally to

44

attract visitors. Cater (1993) critically stated that ecotourism will not be significantly

different from conventional tourism unless it is carefully managed and controlled. Boo

(1992) defined ecotourism in similar terms as nature travel that advances conservation

and sustainable development efforts, integrating conservation with economic

development and providing increased funds to parks, new jobs for local residents and

environmental education for visitors. The National Ecotourism Strategy of Australia

(1994) highlights that ecotourism is nature-based tourism that involves education and

interpretation of natural environment and is managed to be ecologically sustainable.

Tickell (1994) stated that it is a travel to enjoy the world’s amazing diversity of

natural life and human culture and without causing damage to either. Wheat (1994)

dwelled on ecotourism that it is a niche market for environmentally aware tourists, who

are interested in observing nature. Buckley (1994), for example, developed a framework

of ecotourism based on four main dimensions: ecotourism being nature based;

conservation supporting; sustainably managed; and environmentally educating. Orams

(1995) refers to an active approach on the part of tourists to show positive or responsible

behavior that respects and contributes to the environment and local community. The

World Conservation Union (1980) defines ecotourism as responsible travel to natural

areas that conserves the environment and sustains the well-being of the local people

WTO (1995). It is interesting to note that there is only one reference to protected areas,

where ecotourism has been identified as a suitable mechanism for improving links

between local communities and protected area managers.

45

In brief, it may be inferred from these selected and internationally known

ecotourism definitions that ecotourism is an offshoot of alternative tourism with larger

scope for ecological and environmental conservation with direct and indirect support

from community members. Majority of definitions, apart from endorsing ecotourism as a

means for economic well-being of the local people, have dwelled on the activities of

visitors and their consciousness and responsibilities towards environment and ecology.

An eco-project or an ecotourism destination should be benefited when it fulfills

the four important criterion such as it must be economically viable, ecologically

sustainable and involving over whelming local community participation. As a result,

there should be more scope for research to be carried out.

Wesche (1997) highlighted that numerous indigenous groups in the wilderness

peripheries of less developed countries have adopted ecotourism as part of their

development strategy. Ecotourism can be the thin edge of a wedge which opens the door

to mass tourism, unless policies and measures are put in place early on to manage the

potential impact of introducing an ecological area to tourism (Bookbinder et al. 1998;

Mow Forth and Munt (1998); Lieberknecht et al. (1998) stated that ecotourism in nature

reserves provides opportunities for benefiting local communities, local economy and

environmental protection. Ross and Wall (1999) outlined five fundamental functions of

ecotourism: protection of natural areas, education and generation of money, quality

tourism, and local participation. Fennel (1999) considers ecotourism to be a form of

tourism, that focuses primarily on experiencing and learning about nature, and it is

ethically managed to be low impact, non-consumptive, and locally oriented.

46

The Canadian Environment Advisory Council (CEAC) has documented the

characteristics of modern ecotourism that enlightens the natural experience and

contributes to conservation of ecosystem while respecting the integrity of host

community.

Ogutu (2002) and Diamantis (1998) have suggested that the concept of

ecotourism needs to exercise environmental auditing to monitor the environmental

impacts throughout the tourism lifecycle of a site. Stamer and Smith (2004) could foresee

the bright prospects of ecotourism with the rising number of tourists taking part in

ecotourism holidays and it is growing three times faster than those choosing the

mainstream holidays and by 2024, ecotourism will represent 5 per cent of the global

holiday market. Deng et al. (2003) stated that national parks and protected areas have

become popular destinations for nature tourism and ecotourism over the past two

decades. Stem et al. (2003) stressed on two ecotourism objectives such as generation of

financial support for protected area management and generation of local support for

conservation.

Stone and Wall (2004) had laid emphasis on the multiple role of ecotourism that

is promoted and widely adopted as a strategy for funding conservation initiatives, socio-

economic development of host communities and providing for quality tourism experience

to the visitors. Hearne and Santos (2004) argued that ecotourism in protected areas has

the potential to provide economic development as well as source of funding for

maintaining the environmental values of national park in a sustainable manner. The term

is prefixed with ecotourism for generating tremendous interest and sales with reference to

47

eco-travel, eco-vacation, eco-cruise, eco-safari, eco-expedition and eco-hotel. It is a

marketing gimmick to impress upon the eco-tourists by providing nature experiences.

Weaver and Lawton (2007) critically commented that the definition of ecotourism

leaves a much freedom to the interpretation of the readers, but they more or less cohere

around the criteria namely predominantly nature-based attractions; visitor interaction

with those attractions for learning or education purposes; and experience and product

management principles and practices associated with ecological, socio-cultural and

economic sustainability.

In essence, the word ‘ecotourism’ is an appealing label that has no doubt helped

galvanize interest in the concept of environmental conservation. The global impact of

ecotourism as well as its benefits was recognized with the celebration of International

Year of Eco Tourism (IYE) by the United Nations General Assembly in 2002.

2.3. ECOTOURISM SYSTEM

The ecotourism system involves visitors, natural areas, including both public and

private areas, authorities, communities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and

businesses, including various combinations of local businesses, inbound operators,

outbound operators, hotel and other accommodation providers, restaurants and other food

providers. A common phenomenon is that ecotourism can generate both symbiosis and

conflict between the stakeholders. The potential for ecotourism results in the creation of

symbiosis between conservation (natural areas) and development (businesses). The

symbiotic relationship has been widely touted, but the potential for conflict should not be

ignored. For example, the natural area managers and ecotourism businesses have a shared

48

interest in conserving the natural environment. However, there often arises with the

conflicts at a point of time when tourism activity jeopardizes the conservation

approaches. Bjork (2002) delineated on an expanding livelihood base through ecotourism

initiatives that largely reduce local vulnerability to disaster and man-animal conflicts.

2.3.1. Dimensions of Ecotourism

There are basically four dimensions of ecotourism: Environmental, Experimental,

Socio-cultural and Economic. Larman and Durst (1987) have divided ecotourism into

hard and soft dimensions. Weaver (2001) has described the characteristics of the

ecotourism spectrum and divided into hard and soft ecotourism. The hard ecotourism

activities need strong environmental commitment, specialized visits, small groups and

physical activeness and physical challenge. Other aspects of hard ecotourism include

services expected, deep interaction with nature, personal experience and own travel

arrangement. In soft ecotourism, it is superficial environmental commitment,

multipurpose visits, short trips, large groups, physically passive, physical comfort,

service expected, shallow interaction with nature, interpretation and organized tours by

travel agents and tour operators.

2.3.2. Types of Eco-tourists

Eco-tourists have positive attitudes in themselves about the environment, culture

and development. Learning about the traditions and customs of community, experiencing

the cuisine and watching the fairs and festivals are some of the key dimensions of

ecotourism that majority of eco-tourists wish to do at the ecotourism sites. Eco-tourists

are generally informed about the green practices, the size of group, employment practices

49

of the company and other organizations associated with the trips. The economic benefit

from the trip must percolate down to the local community.

In addition, the history, culture, and geographical features are printed in the

brochures for providing reading aids and guests are handed over the brochures during the

trip. Further, eco-tourists are expected to behave in a responsible manner in the host

community and they are also educated to render their cooperation and support for

resource and energy conservation. Respecting local customs, travelling responsibly, and

spending money on local enterprises acting as a guest are some of the primary duties of

an eco-tourist. Staying for longer time in places visited can provide more interactions and

scope for having better understanding about the host people and culture.

When ecotourism was defined and the principles of ecotourism were formulated,

there was a need for identifying and classifying the eco-tourists along with their inherent

motivations. For example, Kusler (1991) proposed three main groups of eco-tourists,

namely do it yourself (those eco-tourists are independent, flexible and mobile),

ecotourism on tours (those are up-market group tours with demand for comfort and soft

ecotourism activities) and school or scientific groups (their principal focus is to acquire

and spread environmental education or research). In the same year, Lindberg (1991)

emphasized the importance of dedication and time as a function of defining and

classifying different types of eco-tourists on the basis of their travel profiles. He

identified four basic types of eco-tourists: hardcore nature tourists, dedicated nature

tourists, mainstream nature tourists, casual nature tourists. More interests were shown to

study the factors that largely influenced the people to undertake eco-travel to ecologically

sensitive places. Eagles (1992) studied the motivations of Canadian eco-tourists and

50

identified 15 dominant factors encouraging eco-tourists to travel. However, he found that

majority of them were motivated towards wilderness and undisturbed nature, lakes and

streams or mountains as some of the environmental nature of eco-tourists.

Eagles (1992) studied about motivations of Canadian eco-tourists and identified

15 dominant factors or the pull factors associated with the destination attributes that

encourage eco-tourists to travel to nature, lakes and streams or mountains. Mc Claren

(2003) underpinned on the “reality tours” offered by specialized organizations that can

foster ‘people to people’ tourism and can allow tourists to get involved emotionally and

intellectually with local community issues. Weaver and Lawton (2002) explored the hard-

soft continuum of eco-tourists through an analysis of the opinions of a sample of 1,180

overnight patrons of two eco-lodges in Lamington National Park in Australia.

Three distinct types of eco-tourists were discerned from Weaver’s work (2002)

including harder eco-tourist characterized by high level of environmental commitment,

specialized trips, and longer trips, small groups, being more physically active and

requiring fewer services. A softer eco-tourist cluster was defined by moderate passive

with requirement of more services. The third type is the structured eco-tourist who has a

strong pattern of environmental commitment. However, desired interpretation, escorted

tours, personalized service and facilities as expected by structured eco-tourists are more

congruent with mass tourism.

Mowforth (1993) classified eco-tourists into three categories such as the rough,

the smooth and the specialist on the basis of age, travelling, organization of the event,

budget and type of tourism. The rough eco-tourists are young to middle-aged travelers;

51

individually or in small groups; and seek sports and adventures. The smooth eco-tourist

belong to the middle-aged to old aged, in groups with a high tour budget, spending for

experiencing nature and safari. The specialist eco-tourists are young to old-aged,

individually independent relying on special tours with a mid to high budget for travelling,

ranging from scientific interest to hobby pursuits.

2.3.3. Ecotourism in Protected Areas

The increasing pressures exerted on the environment by humans make

preservation of natural areas crucial for the preservation of biological diversity. Protected

areas are one of the most effective tools available for conserving biodiversity. While

protected areas can be degraded by external pressures, the majority of terrestrial protected

areas are successful at preventing deforestation and mitigating the damaging effects of

logging, hunting, fire and grazing. According to the Convention on Biological Diversity

(CBD), a “protected area” is a geographically defined area designated or regulated and

managed to achieve specific conservation objectives.

Protected areas had received the patronization and support from the governments

and the local community members in early 1960’s. Over 80 per cent of the world’s

protected areas have been established since the First World Parks Congress, held in 1962.

There are 104,791 protected areas covering approximately 18.38 million km on land and

1.89 million km at sea worldwide. It has been seen that there is an increase of 12.65 per

cent of earths land surface. As protected areas are facing a number of internal and

external challenges, many plans and policies were executed as per the declarations of the

52

First World Park Congress at Seattle,USA. And it was decided to redouble or reinforce

the efforts in the World Park Congress in 1972.

Six years later (in 1978), the IUCN unveiled its first official classification system.

This system came out with ten categories of Protected Areas included for the

discussions during the Third World Park Congress in 1982. However, the ten level

systems did not contain an overall definition of Protected Areas. These concerns were

highlighted at the Third and Fourth World Park Congresses. Eventually, the IUCN issued

its six level criterion for classifying Protected Areas in 1994. This category system was

endorsed at the Fifth World Park Congress in 2003. It includes

Strict nature reserve: Protected area managed mainly for scientific research

Wilderness area: Protected area managed mainly for wilderness protection

National Parks: Protected area managed mainly for ecosystem protection and

recreation

Natural monument: Protected area managed mainly for the conservation of

specific natural features.

Habitat/Species Management Area: Protected area managed mainly for

conservation through management intervention.

Protected landscape/seascape: Protected area managed mainly for

landscape/seascape conservation and recreation.

Managed resource protected area: Protected area managed mainly for the

sustainable use of natural ecosystems.

53

2.4. CONCEPTUAL OVERVIEW OF WILDLIFE TOURISM

Wildlife has been a fervent topic in the discussions since the last two centuries.

The wild occupies a special place in the consciousness of human civilization. It lies

outside its historical and geographical reach. The conservation ethics was imbibed in the

sylvan surrounding of the ashram of our sages. The evidence of wildlife in the Indus

Valley Civilization and the seals excavated from the excavated sites followed by training

of wild horses for warfare. Worshiping animals as gods and goddess by Aryans is an

earliest example of love, care and reverence for the wild animals. Ashoka, the Great

emperor of the Mauryan dynasty had stopped the killings of animals and birds for

wildlife preservation. One of the rock edicts in the foothills of Dhauli, the historic battle

place in the erstwhile Kalinga kingdom, shows the king’s decisions to stop the killings of

peacocks for cooking in the kitchen. Further, the first recorded game laws were

promulgated by Kautilya in the third century B.C.

The Indian mythology is equally important in reference to care, love and

benediction for the wild animals. There are references of wild and wildlife in Jataka

stories of Buddhism. A poem in the “Yajur Veda” invokes universal “peace of water,

peace of air, peace of earth and peace of trees”. This reference to Vedic poetry reveals

how responsive the Indian sensibility was in the earliest days to the benediction of nature

and wildlife. The Upanishidic speculations about man’s spiritual destiny were undertaken

in the deep peace of forest retreats. Different animals associated with different gods

symbolize the love and care for animals as a religious sanctity. For example, Rudyard

54

Kipling’s Jungle Book gives much information regarding wildlife and their habitats in the

protected areas in India.

There are about 350 species of mammals, 1200 species of birds with nearly 2100

forms and more than 20,000 species of insects. The love and regard for wildlife is a part

of India’s culture (Gokhale et al. 1997). India has a long history of conservation, at both

official and people’s levels. Forest areas were protected for the preservation of

biodiversity as early as the 3rd century BC during the reign of Ashoka. There are also

numerous examples of sacred land/waterscapes especially among the hunters, food

gatherers, agriculturists and pastoral communities throughout the country. One recent

statement has suggested that about 10 per cent of India might have been covered by the

sacred places in the past. Patches of forest and other ecosystems were also kept

undisturbed by the strict social sanctions.

Gadgil and Guha (1992) found that even outside such spaces, hunting and fishing

communities followed strict rules for not killing the pregnant females and young ones or

sub adults, not hunting and fishing in certain seasons and many others. Many individual

species were also protected for their religious or social, or economic importance. For

example, the Black Buck by Bishnoi Community in Rajasthan, Painted storks and Grey

Pelicans in Kokrebellure in Karnataka, the Langur and Ficus species all over the country

and many others clearly symbolize the respect for wildlife and denote the hereditary

dependence on the wildlife habitats.

Nonetheless, different researchers have defined wildlife from various aspects and

dimensions. White (1978) narrated that a place without ‘us’ populated by creatures

55

(including clandestinely uncivilized humans) at once monstrous and wonderful, whose

very strangeness gives shape to whatever we are claimed to be.

The term “wilderness” is derived from Norse and Teutonic languages in the

rhetorical terms. The term wild” was derived from “willed” meaning self-willed or

uncontrollable. The word “Deor”, from the Old English meaning animals not under the

control of man was combined with “Wild” to form “Wilderness”. Thus, “wild-doer-

ness”means “place of wild beast (Nash 1973). Further, the physical wilderness refers to

places or regions that are uncultivated and uninhabited. These places include swamps,

forest areas, grass plains, savannah, mountains and oceans for perfect wilderness (Hill

1994).

Yuan et.al (2004) defines wildlife tourism based on encounters with non-

domesticated (no human) animals in either their natural environments or in captivity. The

major components of wildlife tourism comprise nature-based tourism, special interest

tourism and ecotourism. Increased level of participation in a particular type of wildlife,

specialization of wildlife tourism, consideration of wildlife issues, environmental

awareness and recognition of synergies between the wildlife tourism and conservation is

figured in most of the definitions of wildlife tourism.

Aspects of sustainability relevant for wildlife tourism are included as financial

viability, visitor satisfaction, visitor education and impact of tourism on wildlife and its

habitats. Some other issues associated with wildlife tourism include Carrying Capacity,

Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) and Precautionary Principle determining a

sustainable level of activity for wildlife tourism activities. The study suggested that tour

56

operators need to adopt best practices of environmental management process for

sustainability. Furthermore, adopting the concept of sustainability requires the integration

of wildlife tourism development into the national, regional, and local strategic and

planning frameworks. However, planning is required to ensure that wildlife resources are

not overexploited and the natural environment is protected to provide real benefits to host

communities.

On the other hand, local people should be involved in the implementation of best

ecotourism practices for the preservation of culture and traditions. Wilderness Act (1964)

states that wilderness is a place where one can obtain a primitive travel and recreational

experience away from society and the built-environment. Conway (1995) defines that

wildlife tourism is based on encounters with non-domesticated animals in either their

natural environment or in captivity. It includes both so called non-consumptive forms

such as viewing, photography and feeding and consumptive forms that comprise hunting

and recreational angling.

Technically, the life in the wild regions includes both flora and fauna, but it is

limited to faunal species (animals). As usually, any animal is a member of animal

kingdom. In this context, wildlife tourism is overlapped with nature-based tourism,

special interest tourism and ecotourism in most of the literature. Historically, wildlife

refers only to some game species that people used to hunt. In course of the time, the term

‘wildlife’ includes all living forms even those that are not used for sport. The Cooperative

Research Center (CRC) for Sustainable Tourism (2001) describes wildlife tourism as

“tourism that involves encounters with no domesticated animals either in their natural

environments or in captivity. Furthermore, wildlife tourism experiences provide

57

opportunities to observe and interact with animals that may be endangered, threatened or

rare, and being offered in an increasing number of destinations worldwide (Cousins 2007;

Orams 2002; Shackley 1996; Wood and Mascardo 2003).

Moulton and Sanderson (1999) explained that any living non-human and

undomesticated organism in the kingdom of Animalia is generally considered to be

wildlife. Burns and Field (2001) argued for wildlife tourism as a subset of nature-based

tourism that can then be defined as tourism based on interactions with wildlife, whether

in its natural environment or in captivity.

One of the main arguments for continuing the development of wildlife tourism

attractions is to help secure a long- term conservation strategy for wildlife and habitats

to sustain in their own ecosystems without having shortage of basic foods (Higginbottom

2004; Newsome et al. 2004; Reynolds and Braithwaite 2001; Wilson and Tisdell 2001).

Reducing negative impacts through the implementation of appropriate policies, planning

and management strategies are essentials to the development of sustainable wildlife

tourism industry (Higinbottom 2004; Newsom et al. 2004; Rodger et al. 2007.) As a

result, the demand for trophy hunting and the opportunity to hunt is diminished because

of stricter government regulations and declining number of wildlife.

When a tourist travels to a particular destination primarily for the purpose of

having a wildlife experience, obviously wildlife tourism can be seen as a form of special

interest tourism. In the areas where the density of wildlife is relatively more, the

governments can generally permit the visitors to learn and admire the wildlife viewing or

any other non-consumptive activities that can provide economic incentives and revenues

58

for conservation of natural habitats and wildlife conservation (Higginbottom et al. 2001).

Similarly, Jaquemot (1992) argued for tourism based upon wildlife that becomes one of

the ways of earning foreign exchange to eradicate poverty and prevent the killings of

animals and cutting down the trees by the local tribal people in several countries.

Gauthier (1993) delineated that the great interest in nature and nature-based

experience is reflected in increasing demand to experience the wilderness and increasing

value being placed on, animals in the wild, as opposed to those in captive or semi-captive

situation. Increased level of participation, increased consideration of animal welfare,

increased environmental awareness and increased recognition of synergies between

wildlife tourism and conservation are some of the recent trends in wildlife tourism.

Duffus and Dearden (2003) linked the growth and development of a recreational

relationship with wildlife that is surrounded by several issues like growing societal re-

evaluation of wildlife, the growth trends in nature and wildlife-related tourism and the

changing attitude to particular species due to the rising interest in wildlife education. The

report for Alberta Tourism (HLA, Gaia and Cotton Wood consultant) in 1990 suggested

that people involved in consumptive wildlife use were mainly male (90 %) and meager

educational degrees (5.6%), while, in consumptive users, the genders were evenly

balanced and 60 per cent possessed educational degrees.

Knight and Coley (1995) found four broad causes of impacts on wildlife, harvest,

habitat modification, pollution and disturbance. Duffus and Dearden (1993) suggested for

recreational use of wildlife that incorporates a wide array of economic and non-economic

values. Carney and Sydeman (1999) studied into the human conflict with wildlife that is a

59

growing concern for conservation problems around the world. Conservation has long

been concerned about the effects of human disturbance on wildlife.

Bauer and Giles (2001) revealed that hunting has a lower public profile as

compared to wildlife viewing that constitutes a large proportion of “tourists”. Wildlife

tourism is a multi-billion dollar industry within the USA alone. Roe et al. (1997) found

that the enjoyment of wildlife was reported to be a priority for 90 per cent of

holidaymakers in the UK. In the similar findings, Gray (2004) reported that wildlife is a

prime attraction for 32 per cent of international tourists to Australia, whereas 80 per cent

of international tourists to Kenya and Zimbabwe.

Shackly (1996) made the arguments that the growing interest in, and concern for

the natural environment, including wildlife among residents of more developed countries

has apparently contributed greatly to increased demand for tourism in viewing animals

within their natural environment. All forms of non- consumptive outdoor recreation

(hiking, camping, boating and photography can adversely impact wildlife (Boyle and

Samson 1985; White et al. 1999). Reynolds and Braithwaite (2001) remarked that the

probability of positive encounter with wildlife for visitors is essentially increasing while

protecting the wildlife resources.

Aldo Leopold (1966) remarked that the problem of game management is not as to

how the deer are handled, but the real problem is one of the actions of human

management. Wildlife management is comparatively easy, but human management is

difficult. Honavalli et al. (2009) studied about the endangered lion tailed macaque

(Macaca Silenus) and this threatened species is endemic to rainforest patches of the

60

Western Ghats Mountains in the southwestern India. The study has covered the walking

speed of lion tailed macaques and the hunting of this species was high between 1960 and

1990 in the areas of Talakaveri, Pushpagiri and Sharatha Valley Wildlife Sanctuaries and

their adjacent reserve forests.

Nair (1981) identified eight major areas of distribution of elephants in South

India and these areas face a major threat like human activities, hydroelectric and

irrigation projects, plantation and spread of agriculture, poaching. Ravindranathan

(2004) briefly described about the environment at Sabarimala and its neighboring wildlife

sanctuaries like the PTR and its adjacent areas. It is a matter of great concern that the

increasing traffic of Ayyapa devotees has also caused serious threats to the wildlife of the

sanctuaries. It is estimated that 20-25 tones of plastic material are left littered owing to

large-scale pilgrimage activities, thus affecting the wildlife. The Sannidhanam is a

natural habitat to Malabar Gaint Squirrel, Nilgiri Langur and Great Indian Hornbill. The

study has suggested for a firm decision to regulate the vehicular traffic and restriction of

accommodation facilities at Pamba and Chalakkayam.

2.5. WILDLIFE AND CONSERVATION

Sudhi (2008) prepared a list of the animals and plants of Kerala under the

category of the red list and Black Head Ibis as one of the threatened bird species in the

wildlife sanctuaries. For instance, Myristica Malabaria in a swamp forest is under extinct.

According to a list of 35 mammals, including critically endangered Malabar Civet, 12 are

endangered, 15 are vulnerable and seven are near threatened. The condition of the species

outside the protected areas is stated to be critical and poaching continues to be the major

threat for the species.

61

2.6. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

The initiative for the creation of protected areas was taken almost 125 years ago

for preservation of wildlife and forest resources. The declaration and demarcation of

protected areas and their boundaries in the developing countries has resulted in the

conflicts between local communities and protected areas authorities. In the last four to

five decades, huge loss of animal and human life was reported in the developing

countries due to the encroachment of human habitation into the animal habitation. The

fundamental cause for this unnatural conflict is the developmental approach that brings

benefits to the people and poses permanent threats to the ecosystems. Hence, protected

area authorities have embraced the approach of integrating the local population into the

conservation of forests and wildlife in a more dignified way.

Community-based ecotourism was started with an aim for supporting biodiversity

conservation, particularly in the developing countries linking conservation and local

livelihoods, thereby reducing rural poverty and achieving both objectives of

sustainability. Ghimire and Pimbert (1997) emphasized that if the protected areas need to

be maintained sustainably and the local communities must be given a great role in the

decision-making capacity and they should be actively involved in the protected area

policies and planning. It is reported that a majority of the local people suffer in one way

or other from tourism related developments in and around the protected areas.

Stanley and Perron (1995) identified that protected areas in the North Western

Territory in Canada generated CAD$ 12.86 million in the form of labour income while

creating employment to 488 persons. Similarly, tourism generated annually about US$ 7,

62

00, 000 in a year in Rwanda’s Parc National des Volcanoes (WTO/UNEP 1992). Wells

(1994) found that receipts from entry to parks and from trekking permit for those parks

generally exceed one million US dollar in Nepal. But, it is found that there are some

people who are benefited while a vast majority of local people have been displaced due to

the declaration of protected areas. For example, the non-locals get menial jobs due to the

lack of skills and knowledge for which tourism stakeholders hire skilled tourism

professionals from the outside at the Royal Chitwan National Park as it is a protected area

promoting ecotourism.

Boo (1990) found out that local people hardly get any benefits from the nature-

based tourism activities in the protected areas in Belize, Costarica, Dominica, Ecuador

and Mexico. In order to make more community involvement in protected areas, the

Zimbabwean CAMPFIRE and the Nepalese ACAP have been established to sensitize

community about their roles and responsibilities towards the protected areas. If

conservation and local livelihood issues are to be resolved in a much better way,

community participation can be more effective with the provision of direct benefits.

Brechin et al. (1991) highlights that “protected areas will not survive for long

whenever local people remain impoverished and are denied access to needed resources

inside” Honey (1999) found that ecotourism projects have become ineffective in La

Gamba due to the lack of community participation. It is reported that there is no much

change in demand for local products due to the rise in hotel business. The study

suggested that hotels and restaurants should procure the local products and ecotourism

operators should work towards better interaction between tourists and local residents

through the cultural tours to the villages.

63

2.7. COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT

Community empowerment is an important dimension of sustainable ecotourism in

the protected areas. As it is one of the objectives of ecotourism, the governments largely

assign the task to the local people to extend their cooperations to the hotels, restaurants,

tour operators, etc in the ecotourism sites. Empowerment is the means to achieve the

goals of ecotourism as people largely get freedom for participating and sharing their ideas

and thoughts for the ecotourism projects to sustain for long without having any adverse

impacts to the ecology and environment. It is proven to be one of the ways for

transferring power and authority to take their own decisions and manage the resources for

their own benefits and benefits of all those connected with the ecotourism projects.

The word “community” has been used in an aggregated sense to represent a group

of citizens in a given geographical space. Godde (1998) defines community which is

based on “shared profession, religion, geographical location and interest in tourism” or on

“the interactions and relationships between many groups “were all considered. He

explained that “Community-Based Tourism” (CBT) could be tourism de-facto planned

and managed by a group of individual/households comprising the community as

communal enterprise. It could also be managed by a private entrepreneur whose activity

agenda is set by community and is accountable to it.

Keshav (2005) suggested that there are two types of community development

namely “general and ad-hoc”. The general community development programmes are

mostly social in nature and have long-term perspective, whereas the ad-hoc type of

programmes is problem specific and have a short-term perspective. Murphy (1985,p.171)

64

writes that “inputs from the concerned community groups could provide a balance to the

sustainable tourism objectives of the business sector and possibly encourage greater

variation and local flavor in future projects”, while Simmons(1994,p.98) asserts that

“residents of the destination areas are being seen increasingly as the nucleus of the

tourism product”. Catley (1999) stressed that the motive behind community development

is to educate and remove the stigma of charity and involve local people in the decision-

making process.

Aylward and Freeman (1992) cautioned that if the revenue of ecotourism does not

get accrued to national parks systems or local communities, there will be little economic

incentive for investment in the recurring costs of conservation activities.

Lea (1988) pointed out that community participation is often regarded as one of

the most essential tools, if tourism is to make a substantial contribution to the national

development of a country. Tosun (2000) commented that community participation is seen

as a useful tool for educating locals about their rights and laws and political good sense.

Therefore, it is very important for public education through the host-guest relationships.

Grossman and Tosun (2000) gave emphasis to the fact that community participation is a

tool whose aim is to readjust the balance of power and to modify the local community

views against those of the developers or the local authority. Hardely et al. (2002) stated

that the call for community participation is based on the assumption that participation

lessens opposition to development, minimizes negative impacts and revitalizes

economies.

65

Woodley (1993) regards community participation as a way of ensuring

sustainability of tourism places of interest. Similarly, Tosun (2006) pointed out that

community participation gives better opportunities for local people to gain benefits from

the diverse tourism activities in their localities with positive local attitudes and

conservation of local resources. The WCED (1987) has been promoting community

participation for the protection and improvement of the quality of life of communities

influenced by tourism development. France (1998) mentioned that local participation

includes empowerment and involvement of communities in decision making,

implementation and identifying the local problems.

Arnstein (1971) has classified eight types of community participation like

Manipulation, Therapy, Informing, Consultation, Placation, Partnership, Delegated

Power and Citizen Control. Similarly, Pretty’s (1995) has classified seven types of

community participations such as Manipulative Participation, Passive Participation,

Participation by Consultation, Participation for Material Incentives, Functional

Participation, Interactive Participation and Self-Mobilization. Tosun (1999) gives a more

precise typology of community participation like Coercive Participation in which the

participation is mostly indirect, formal, participation in implementation but not

necessarily sharing benefits, paternalism, non-participation, high degree of tokenism and

manipulation. Induced Participation is top down, passive, formal, mostly indirect, degree

of tokenism, manipulation, pseudo participation, participation in implementation and

sharing benefits, choice between proposed alternatives and feedback. Spontaneous

Participation includes bottom-up active participation, direct participation in decision

making, authentic participation and self-planning.

66

Munro and Willison (1998) came out with the views that ecotourism cannot exist

in isolation from the human systems in the protected areas and it has led to the belief that

protected areas must, in some cases, engender a culture of balanced profitability. In this

regard, the often quoted notion is “wildlife stays because wildlife pays”. The quote is apt

as it suggests a more broadly based context to conserve the resources for sustaining the

livelihood in and around the protected areas. Karlsson et al. (2005) stated that citizen

participation is regarded as very essential to make the planning process more effective,

equitable and legitimate as long as participation is representative in nature with clear

focus on collective interest as well as for their own groups.

Telfer (2002) emphasized on the small scale tourism that brings more benefits for

locals as it makes use of locally available materials and creates higher multiplier effects.

Moreover, most part of the income generated from tourist expenditures is percolated in

the local economy in such a way that governments incentivize the small business

enterprises to sell the local products directly to the tourists. Mbaiwa (2007) suggests that

once local communities fully participate and derive benefits, they can develop a sense of

ownership and will use their natural resources sustainably. Scheyvens (1999) emphasized

the need for participation that leads to making the people economically, psychologically,

socially and politically empowered.

2.8. VISITOR SATISFACTION

Visitor Satisfaction is one of the major aspects for any tourist visiting a

particular destination. A good number of studies have been conducted from different

aspects of tourist satisfaction. The very word ‘satisfaction’ can be defined as a post-

67

consumption evaluation of a chosen alternative cause of action to determine if it meets or

exceeds expectations (Engel et al. 1993).Satisfaction can also be defined as an emotional

response derived from a consumption experience (Spreng et al. 1996). Recently,

satisfaction is defined as a cognitive-affective state derived from a consumer experience.

Swarbrooke (2002) comments that the attraction of a tourism product is not

viewed as an experience and it is a nebulous concept as the tourist experience is an

amalgam of factors that shape the tourist feelings and attitudes towards his or her visit.

Yale (1997) states that the success of a tourist attraction lies in the critical areas, such as

parking, visitor center, signs and labels, shops, guides, refreshments, toilets, litter bins,

seating and disabled provision and off-site amenities like sign posting, local

accommodation and local services.

Swarbrooke (2002) emphasizes that a range of elements affects the visitor

experience on the site beyond the core aspects of attraction. Tangible elements of the

product include retail outlets, cafes, toilet facilities and site cleanliness. Further, the

quality of service delivery elements comprises the appearance, attitudes and behaviour

and competence of staff. The expectation, behaviour and attitude of the visitors are

determined by the climatic conditions of tourism destinations. At the same time, a wide

mix of people using the attraction first time also determine the visitor about the amount

of experience and the level of satisfaction that tourists want at the destinations. Thus,

visitor experience is the product of the combinations and interrelationships of these

factors and it may be different for each individual visitor (Bosque and Martin 2008).

68

The study on visitor satisfaction level helps in maintaining the carrying capacity

and it helps in the sustainable growth of the destination since a tourist comes to a

particular destination with lots of expectations. Many authors have viewed the crucial

roles of visitor satisfaction to support the implementation of ecotourism projects in the

protected areas. Hull and Stewart (1995) made a functional approach to the term

landscape which combines three basic elements: observed landscape, order of sequence

and perception. The observed landscape includes ones’ viewing ability, the people and

objects in the landscape observed by visitors. The order of sequence refers to the order

with which the visitor perceives the image and object of landscape. Perception involves

the subjective element, the method used and the interpretation that visitors attribute to the

objects when they observe in the landscape. Visitor experience in natural landscape is

considered integral components of visitor satisfaction (Chhetri et al. 2004).

Stoeckl et al. (2006) have conducted a study on community impacts of different

types of visitors in North West Queensland. Fallon and Kriwoken (2003) have conducted

a study on the involvement of community in tourism infrastructure at Strahan Visitor

Center at Tasmania. Obua and Harding (1996) have carried out an extensive study at

Kibale National Park in Uganda on visitor characteristics and attitude. In the same line, a

study was conducted by Beh and Brayer (2007) at three Kenyan National Reserves to

find out visitor motivation level.

Arbatzis and Grigoroudis (2010) have studied on visitor satisfaction perception

and the gap analysis at Dadia-Lefkimi-Souflion National Park in Greece. Ballantyne et al.

(2011) have studied on visitor memories at one of the four marine-based wildlife tourism

venues at Southeast Queensland. Thus, visitor memories of wildlife tourism identified

69

four levels of visitor response to their wildlife experiences. They are Sensory Impression,

Emotional Affinity, Reflective Response and Behavioral Response. In Sensory

impression, the tourist refers to the visitors’ report to understand the vivid visual and

tactile memories of their responses. Emotional Affinities are the emotional responses to

the experience or emotional connections with the animals that they observe. Reflective

responses are the visitor reports with regard to the new insights as a result of cognitively

processing the experience or making comments as they reflect on what they see or hear.

Behavioral response is related to the visitors’ report that takes specific actions in response

to their wildlife tourism experiences or report a heightened awareness of the need of such

actions.

Akama and Kieti (2003) have conducted a study at Tsavo West National Park to

find out the tourist satisfaction level with Kenya’s wildlife safari. The study has

suggested that the wildlife tourists identify the wildlife viewing as a primary travel

motivation, but their overall satisfactions with the visits generally revolve round few

species. Swarbooke (1995); Eagle and Chaiken (1993) attempted to measure visitor

satisfaction as the capacity of a tourist destination to fulfill visitors need for recreation

and leisure time. Akama and Keiti (2003) and Kerley et.al 2003 identified that tourist

motivation can be useful and effective to find out appropriate visitor opportunities and

heterogeneous tourists can be segmented easily by these motivation factor. They also

suggest a more diversified tourist experience like attracting more tourists with more

varied interests and improving tourist’s satisfaction (Awaritefe 2003; Keng and Cheng et

al. 2004).

70

Understanding tourist motivation for visiting protected areas has also proven to be

the most useful discriminator of segment groups. All the travelers are engaged in their

respective behaviors in order to reach a desired state (Driver 1996; Fondness 1994;

Morgan and Hodgkinson 1999; Sarigollu and Huang 2005). In these studies, the

motivational factors such as Escapist, Learners and Spiritualist were used to segment the

visitors. The Escapist groups look for going to see some serene climate from the hustle

and bustle of hectic life and spend some time with nature, greenery and adventure. The

Spiritualist prefers to have opportunities for getting away from daily routine and having a

sense of self-reflection. Both of these groups could be accommodated by trips to the less

visited northern reaches of the park. The largest group is Learners who would get

benefited from a more thoughtful and connected education from the reserve staff.

The service quality attributes are used to measure the quality of services and

overall visitor satisfaction with tourist products and services of the park (Akama and

Kieti 2003). The values of conservation, animal welfare, visitor satisfaction and

profitability are often in conflicts in wildlife tourism and trade-offs are necessary

Reynolds and Braithwaite (2001). The influence of push and pull factors to the national

parks is regarded as the impact on visitor satisfaction (Kim et al. 2003).

Mc Kerch (1996) brings to light that there is little or no difference between

tourists and “wilderness” visitors because they share the same resources and facilities and

exert similar impacts when the same activity is undertaken. Increased human presence

may lead to disturbances such as litter as well as air and noise pollution caused by the

carbon emissions of tourist vehicles. Further, direct impacts on wildlife include breeding,

feeding, mother offspring interaction, poaching and killing (usually accidentally) as the

71

forms of disturbances. Indirect impacts on wildlife include disruption of predator prey

relationships.

Even the pressures of photography may impact on wildlife and it is reported to

have caused a decline in the breeding success of many coastal bird species in the

Galapagos Island (Matheson and Wall 1982). Wildlife may also be directly impacted by

visitor management techniques which place a priority on visitor satisfaction. For

example, the Yucatan Peninsula boatloads of tourist were driven in two groups of feeding

flamingos to approach frigate bird nesting areas (Mackinnon et al. 1986).

Many biophysical impacts also adversely affect the visitor experience and

additional impacts on such experience include noise. Moscardo and Saltzer (2004) found

that seeing rare or large species and getting close to wildlife in natural settings, learning

about the wildlife and settings of the natural environment contribute to the overall visitor

satisfaction. Jenner and Smith (1992) pointed out that there is an increase in the desires

for interaction with the natural environment in different ways. Various studies have

concluded that repeat visits to a particular destination have got a higher level of visitor

satisfaction since satisfaction partly motivates these people to revisit the same destination

again. Visitors have visited the same natural park repeatedly and they are more satisfied

than those compared to first-time visitors. Two important factors which influence tourist

satisfaction are the movement and noise (Geva and Goldman 1991; Yuksel 2001; Tian

Cole 2002; Rittichainuwat 2002).

72

Kozak (2001) mentions four research approaches such as fulfillment of

expectations, importance of fulfillments, denial and only fulfillment. Browen and Clarke

(2002) formulated a framework for visitor satisfaction related to certain unique tourism

characteristics such as integrity, heterogeneity and the degradation of tourist product

quality with time and uncertainty. A number of models have been developed to evaluate

quality and customer satisfaction in different operations. Different methods were adopted

for better visitor satisfaction in different fields of tourism. One such method is the

Importance Performance Analysis (IPA) which is broadly used in tourism research.

Wade and Eagle (2003) have applied the IPA model at two National Parks at

Tanzania in order to examine the importance and performance of tourist (tours and

accommodation) and recommended suitable measures to the park authorities for

increasing the visitor satisfaction level. Another such method is the Indicator

Performance Estimate (IPE) used by the researcher to assess visitor satisfaction based on

the different aspects that exist between the visitors and actual conditions.

Akama and Kieti (2003) have found out the reason for the reduction of visitor

arrivals to the different National Parks in Kenya and particularly to the Tsavo West

National Park with a structured questionnaire. The main reason for the fall in the visitor

numbers was attributed to insufficient facilities, poor quality transport network, low

quality service and political instability that all have made to decrease the visitor

satisfaction. Further, the SERVQUAL Model evolved by Parushuraman et al. (1990) was

used in order to examine any differentiations (positive or negative) that exist between

expectations of visitors and existing quality of leisure service offered at Tsavo West

National Park in Kenya. Similarly Knutson et al. (1995a) designed LODGESERV as an

73

evaluation instrument for the service quality of lodging industry. In the same year,

Knutson et al. (1995b) proposed DINESERV as an evaluation instrument for the service

quality of restaurants. MacKay and Crompton (1990) designed RECQUAL as an

evaluation instrument for recreation centers. Tibe and Snaith (1998) used the HOLSTAT

to evaluate the destination satisfaction of Varadero, Cuba.

Arabatzis and Grigoroudis (2010) have studied about perceptions and gap

analyses at Dadia-Lefkimi-Souflion National Park by using Multicriteria Satisfaction

Analysis (MUSA) methodology and software to identify the factors affecting visitor’s

satisfaction level as well as the critical points. The study suggested the park management

to focus on the improvement and action plans.

Tonge and Moore (2007) have redefined (IPA) method to evaluate the

differentiations observed in quality of services offered at the various areas of a National

Park (Service Quality Gap). Ryan and Cessford (2003) have also used the IPA model in

connection with the Service Quality Gap of facility and related issues at National Parks of

New Zealand. Swarbrooke (2001) has identified some key factors for visitor attractions

like product development and innovation, marketing and promotion, revenue generation

and funding, education and training and community and public sector intervention.

2.9. CARRYING CAPACITY

The concept of “carrying capacity” has been the object of numerous publications

and discussions in the last 30 years. According to the UNWTO, the maximum number of

people that may visit a tourist destination at the same time, without causing destruction of

the physical, economic and socio cultural environment and an unacceptable decrease in

74

the quality of the visitors’ satisfaction’(UNEP/MAP/PAP 1997). Hunter (1995) gives a

more precise definition by distinguishing four different types of carrying capacity:

Physical carrying capacity-the limit of a site beyond which wear and tear starts taking

place or environmental problem arises. Psychological (or perceptual) carrying capacity-

the lowest degree of enjoyment by a tourist is prepared to accept before they start seeking

alternative destinations, Social carrying capacity- the level of tolerance of host population

for the presence and behavior of tourists in the destination area and /or the degree of

crowding of users (tourists) is prepared to be accepted by others (other tourist) and

Economic carrying capacity- the ability to absorb tourism activities without displacing or

disrupting desirable local activities.

2.10. SUSTAINBALE TOURISM

The term “sustainable tourism development” is derived from the generic concept

of sustainable development and the concept was brought to prominence with the

publication of the Report “Our Common Future” (WCED (1987). The WTO (1993)

defines sustainable tourism that tourism meets the need of the present tourists and host

regions while protecting and enhancing opportunities for the future. Eber (1992) defines

that sustainable tourism is a tourism associated with infrastructures that both now and in

the future operate within natural capacity for the regeneration and future productivity of

natural resources. It recognizes the contribution of people and community, customers and

their lifestyles to make tourism experience acceptable. These people must have an

equitable share in the economic benefits of local people and communities in the host

areas. The Country-Side Commission (1995) explains that tourism sustains local

economies without damaging the environment on which it depends.

75

Payne (1993) views that sustainable tourism must be capable of adding to the

array of economic opportunities and opening to the people without adversely affecting

the structure of economic activity. Sustainable tourism ought not to interfere with

existing forms of social organization. It respects the limits imposed by ecological

communities. Woodley (1993) states that sustainable tourism in parks (and other tourism

areas) must primarily be defined in terms of sustainable ecosystem. Bramwell (1996)

explains that sustainable tourism is a form of tourism while taking into account current

accommodation, capacity, the local population and the environment and tourism. It

respects the environment and its consequences do not aid its own disappearance. The

implementation of the principles of sustainable tourism is especially important in

saturated areas and this can be more pragmatic with the practices of responsible tourism.

Thus, sustainable development meets the needs of the present generation while saving the

resources sufficiently for future generation to meet their own needs.

Li (2003) explored six issues of sustainable tourism development and these issues

are: the role of tourism demand; the nature of tourism resources; the imperative of intra-

generational equity; the role of tourism in promoting socio-cultural progress; the

measurement of sustainability and the forms of sustainable development. Bramwell et al.

(1996) has classified them into seven dimensions such as environmental, cultural,

political, economic, social, managerial and governmental.

The Ecologically Sustainable Developement Working Group (1991) defines

sustainable tourism as tourism that is concerned with the quality of experience offered to

the visitors. It provides economic return to host communities by ensuring cultural

integrity and social cohesion of host communities and protecting biological diversity. It

76

maintains ecological system and operates within the resources available. It also maintains

the full range of opportunities within and across generations. Finally, it is based on

activities or designs. All reflect the character of the region and allow the visitors to gain

an understanding of the destination and encourage them to be concerned about and

protective of the destination.

Wang et al. (2004) warned that tourism operators need to adopt best

environmental management practices that can contribute to sustainability in future.

Coccossis (1996) suggested that there are at least four ways to interpret tourism in the

context of sustainable development. A sectoral viewpoint explains about the economic

sustainability of tourism and an ecological viewpoint emphasizes the need for

ecologically sustainable tourism. Finally, a viewpoint of the long-term viability of

tourism recognizes the competitiveness of destinations. Generally, a viewpoint accepts

tourism as a part of a strategy for sustainable development throughout the physical and

human environments.

Butler (1993) remarks that the concept of sustainability is not unfortunate, but it

is extremely misleading. Sustainable is a widely used term with a specific meaning and it

is the adjective form of the verb “to sustain” (to sustain or to prolong). In the context of

tourism, an appropriate definition of sustainable tourism is explained as tourism in a form

that can maintain its viability in an area for an indefinite period of time. Eagles and

McCool (1994) made much discussion on sustainable development and tourism

development in the context of environment in which tourism occurs.

77

Eden et al. (2000); Spangenberg (2002); Spangenberg and Valentine (1999)

commonly observed that any tourism promotional effort, however, can have positive and

negative ecological, economic and socio cultural consequences. Achieving a balance

among these three classical dimensions of sustainable tourism is difficult to realize

without an institutional perspective to manage, meditate and facilitate growth.

Spangenberg and Valentine, (1999) emphasized on the participatory decision-

making processes to be more effective through public participation and involvement of

local people. It is the fourth institutional dimension that builds a strong confidence among

the participants in decision making. The institutional dimension calls for strengthening

people’s participation in political governance. The dimension of sustainable tourism

development is broadly classified into four categories such as ecological, social, cultural

and economic sustainability. Butler (1991) and Wright (1993) advocated for alternatives

to mass tourism in the form of environmentally sensitive small scale. Therefore,

sustainable tourism may be the best form of environmentally sensitive small scale form

of “alternative tourism”.

Mow Forth and Munt (2003) precisely define that “alternative tourism” can be

interpreted as an umbrella term covering a range of new forms of tourism that emerged

during the 1980’s and early 1990’s in response to the perceived costs of mass tourism. It

has been described by using varying terms, including Soft and Educational Tourism

(Krppendorf 1982), Co-Operative Tourism (Farrell 1986), Appropriate Tourism (Ritcher

1987), Responsible Tourism (Wheller 1991), Special Interest Tourism (Hall & Weiler

1992) and the popular term Ecotourism (Boo 1990 and Ceballous-Lascurine 1991) and

the newly emerging Pro-Poor Tourism (PPT)(DFID 1999). Butler (1991) suggested that

78

alternative tourism rather than a solution to mass tourism may just be its vanguard to

open up new and potentially more sensitive destinations to the development of mass

tourism.

Jafar (1989) believed that the sustainable tourism debate entered a period typified

by a need for knowledge about the different forms of tourism and the potential impacts.

Butler (1990) commented with eagerness to promote one form of tourism as a solution to

the multiple problems that can be caused by extensive and long-term development and is

somewhat akin to selling 19th century’s magic medicine.

2.11. SYNTHESIS OF REVIEW FOR CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The review of literature has covered a wide range of concepts, issues and

challenges with regard to finding a harmonious way of meeting the needs of community

members and the expectations of the visitors. As such, community members are the

fulcrums of the ecotourism projects and visitors are the backbones for generating income

and employment. Both the stakeholders directly contribute towards the sustainable

ecotourism projects. This is the argument on which many underlying core concepts of

ecotourism, wildlife tourism, sustainable tourism, alternative tourism and responsible

tourism have been reviewed with much emphasis on their significant contributions to

sustainable ecotourism. Nevertheless, ecotourism is a tested western model for meeting

the needs and expectations of all these stakeholders linked in ecotourism development.

This is an alternative form of tourism that ensures the equitable distribution of tourism

revenue among the community members and the ethical practices for the conservation of

natural resources.

79

The study has been significant from three important perspectives: accruing the

economic benefits to the community, providing opportunities to the visitors for learning,

and experiencing the natural scenic beauty, wilderness and cultural richness and

preserving the threatened species and plants. Further, the rationale of the study is relevant

for the PTR in Kerala, where some important bird species and plants are considered to be

endangered. More importantly, the EDC has been instrumental in reuniting the poachers

and primitive people for the cause of conservation of natural forest and wild animals.

After having reviewed some selected empirical studies with reference to

ecotourism and wildlife tourism in the protected areas, the study has come out with some

arguments that community participation and visitor satisfaction are the two important

dimensions of ecotourism in the PTR. In addition, most of the studies have dwelled on

facilities, amenities and service quality as the key determinants for visitor satisfaction and

income, employment, drinking water, health, sanitation, hygienic and self-respect for the

active community participation. With this backdrop, the theoretical gap can better be

explained with the help of the conceptual model that has been developed from the review

of various main and subthemes of community participation and visitor satisfaction with

reference to sustainable ecotourism in the PTR. Figure 2.1 illustrates the conceptual

model depicting the logical interrelationship between the community participation and

visitor satisfaction for achieving sustainable ecotourism.

The figure implicitly and explicitly explains the participation of community with

the direct and indirect influences of the factors such as empowerment, decision-making

ability, self-respect, self-pride, dignified life, quality of life, partnership, ownership,

mutual help and mutual respect. Both the authorities of ecotourism and service providers

80

in the adjoining buffer areas of the protected reserve aim to send back visitors satisfied.

Satisfying visitors on the various aspects of destination attributes along with core

attractions demand for the touristic infrastructures in harmony with the capacity of

destinations. However, visitor satisfaction is completely and clearly determined by the

factors like facilities, amenities, service quality, safety & security, attachment,

participation, mutual respect, activity and value for money.

The figure further intends to explain the role of the governments, NGOs, tourism

service providers, handicraft and boutique shops and educational institutions to look into

the active community participation and the visitor satisfaction. All these factors of

community participation and visitor satisfaction are mediated and moderated by the

factors related to meet the benefits, interests and expectations of community members to

develop ownership towards ecotourism projects and visitors to develop personal

attachment towards the ecotourism attractions. Subsequently, the objective of achieving

sustainable ecotourism can be practically possible for the mutual benefits of all the

stakeholders. The figure is a theoretical illustration of linkages between the constructs to

adequately understand the existing gaps in the conceptual relationships that have been

investigated with the help of scientific methods. For example, there are no qualitative or

quantitative studies focusing on these numbers of mediators and moderators determining

the visitor satisfaction and community participation.

To conclude, the theoretical gaps have been uncovered from the review of

previous literatures, in-depth interviews with key stakeholders, field visit and

observations. Thus, the study is extremely significant to understand critically the gaps

and find out the reasons of the gap and contribute to the existing theories.

81

Community

Participation

Visitor

Satisfaction

Su

sta

inab

le E

co

tou

rism

Fig. 2.1 Conceptual Model for Sustainable Ecotourism in the Protected Areas

Empowerment

Decision- Making

Self-respect

Self-pride

Dignified Life

Quality of Life

Partnership

Ownership

Mutual Help

Mutual Respect

Facilities

Amenities

Service Quality

Safety & Security

Attachment

Participation

Mutual Respect

Activity

Value for Money

Park Authority

Tourism Ministry

NGOs

Hotels

Restaurants

Tour Operators

Boutique Shops

Handicraft Emporiums

Youth Club

Educational Institutions

Direct

Indirect

Direct

Indirect D

I

R

E

C

T

Direct

Indirect Direct

CHAPTER III

ECOTOURISM IN PERIYAR TIGER RESERVE - A MICROSCOPIC

OVERVIEW

82

3.0. INTRODUCTION

The Periyar Tiger Reserve (PTR) is one of the well-known protected areas (PA)

for its rich biodiversity and it is a major constituent of the Western Ghats of India. It is

located on the mountains range of peninsular India in the Southern Western Ghats. The

Reserve falls in the 5-B Zone of the Western Ghats. Scenic beauty, religious and cultural

heritage and the rich assemblage of flora and fauna along with the perennial river Periyar

has become a perfect site for the nature lovers. As the PTR is one of the ecotourism sites

in Kerala with abundance scope for studying, admiring and enjoying the natural

habitations, cultural attractions and human life, visitors throng to the site for the purpose

of wildlife sighting during their boat trips in the buffer zone and during their

participations in the various community-based ecotourism programmes.

While conducting the empirical study of this nature, the secondary data are

immensely useful in substantiating the analysis of primary data. All those data are

presented in minute details of the PTR as a protected area as well as an ecotourism site.

Data pertaining to the wildlife population, tourist arrivals, revenue receipts, facilities, etc

have adequately portrayed the insights of PTR as an ideal ecotourism destination along

with commitment for community participation through empowerment and visitor

satisfactions through the direct interactions with the nature and people under the various

ecotourism programmes. The present chapter is relevant from the perspectives of

understanding the core ecotourism strengths and weaknesses with regard to the visitor

satisfaction and community empowerment in the PTR.

83

3.1. GEOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND OF PTR

The catchment areas form the major portion of the reserve and the area is formed

by the catchment of the river Pamba. The total areas of the reserve spread over 925 sq km

consisting of Core, Tourism and Buffer zones, including ecological, eco-development

and management zone respectively. Presently, it is the biggest wildlife sanctuary in

Kerala. Annexture IV shows the Core, Buffer and Tourism Zone in the PTR. The PTR

with an extent of 881 sq km of core critical tiger habitat areas has become a model of

participatory biodiversity conservation. The fringe areas of communities of PTR act as a

social fence around the park. Annexure III exhibits the map depicting the total reserved

forest areas of Kerala and Tamil Nadu.

3.1.1. Location and Boundaries

Lying between the Latitude - from 90-18’- 00 N To 90-41’-00 N Longitude - from

760-55’- 00 E to 770-25’- 00 E, the PTR falls administratively in the district of Idukki and

Pathanamthitta of Kerala. The Forest Division of Theni Srivilliputhur Grizzled Giant

Squirrel Sanctuary and Tirunelvely abutting the Tiger Reserve on the State of Tamil

Nadu. The PTR shares the common border with the three districts of Tamil Nadu such as

Theni, Ramnad and Thirunelvelli. On the Kerala side, it is bordered on the South by the

Ranni Division falling in district of Pathanamthitta and on the west by Kottayam Division

located between the Kottayam and Idukki district. For most parts of area, the Reserve is

surrounded by the forest of neighboring divisions. Large estates and uninhabited private

lands and small portions of the interconnected boundary in Theni Forest Division are

encircled by the Reserve. Only a few settlements in Ranni Division lie on the boundary,

84

but a number of habitations and large estates in Kottayam Division fall along the Western

boundary of the Tiger Reserve.

The internal boundaries include Pathanamthitta-Idukki district boundary and the

boundaries of important lease areas like Periyar Lake, Sabarimala and (KTDC). The three

tribal colonies and Pamba valley food production areas are adjoined technically inside the

PTR for all the practical purposes.

3.1.2. Topography

Around the Periyar Lake, the terrain undulates with the chain of rolling hills and

forested valleys, extending towards the west into a conspicuous and extensive tableland

known as the Mount Plateau at an average elevation of about 1200 m. From the edge of

the plateaus, the land falls steeply to the forested tracts of the Sabarimala Hills in the

Pamba river basin. One of the northern sides of the lake, the hills rise up to the state

boundary and fall sharply in to the Kamban valley, excepting along the northeast

boundary flanking the cultivated parts of the Cardamom hills in the northeast. The area is

narrowly linked with the highways offshoot of Theni division. From the highways, the

hill ridge arches around the head of the Varushanadu Valley to meet the Kottamala 2019

m highest peak. The South of Kottamala all along the eastern boundary, the densely

forested slopes rise gradually up to the border ending up in a Saw Tooth like the

formation of peaks and passes dropping abruptly towards the palm of Tamil Nadu.

A high ridge with prominent peaks separates the upper catchments of the river

Pamba. The lowest is 100 m at Pampa valley that is the confluence of Pampa and Azutha

River. However, most of the areas lie between 750 m and 1500 m. Towards the east, the

85

terrain is very steep at the adjoining area of the state boundary. There are some well-

known mountain peaks such as Vellimala (2016), Chokkampattimala (1801), Kallimala

(1637), Sundaramala (1808), Pachimala (1800), Nagamala (1733), Kottamala (2019m)

and Komala (1641m). Annexture IX is presented in a table showing three different

altitudes of terrains in the PTR.

3.1.3. Geomorphology

Rocks are Crystalline and Plutonic origin. The underlying rock formation consists

mainly of granites and gneisses. Numerous boulders are found in the ground particularly

in the stream beds and stream banks. Laterite stones are largely deposited at the lower

reaches of the reserve. In higher altitude, the soil is coursed with large amount of quartz

gravel formed from crystalline rock and the soil is acidic.

3.1.4. Climate

The PTR has a cool and humid climate with comparatively high rainfall. In almost

all the months excepting the months of December and January, it receives a few showers

from the southwest and northeast monsoon with a maximum rainfall in July and a

minimum in January. The average rainfall is 2500 mm annually and the temperature

varies from 150 C to 310C with April and May being the hottest and December and

January the coolest months respectively. Generally, the period from December to April is

considered to be the dry season. The average humidity varies between 60 per cent and 85

per cent round the year and the lowest prevails during the month of February–May. Air is

calm with an average wind velocity of 5 km an hour and the wind velocity is stronger on

higher elevations.

86

3.1.5. River Basins

The Sanctuary has two river basins such as the Mullayar and the Periyar with its

numerous perennial and seasonal tributaries. It is the River Pamba on the southern side of

the reserve and the River Periyar is originated from Chokkampatti-Kottamalai at

Sivagirimettu and Mullayar from Kottamalai. These two rivers join together had formed

Mullaperiyar Dam in 1895 and it resulted in the formation of the Lake spreading over

about 26 sq km. The maximum depth of water at the maximum water level is 46 m and

the minimum depth is 32 m. The lake has spread extensively to the valleys between hills

catering to the need of the large area. Around the lake, the elevation is about 950 m and

most of the tributaries are not named. However, some of the them are named as

Inchipparathode, Vazhukkapparathode, Churakkottathode and Mullathode.

3.2. VALUES OF THE RESERVE

The PTR is known for its unique natural biodiversity and is a major constituent

ecosystem of the Western Ghats. As such, the climatic conditions of Kerala are largely

influenced by the ecological diversities comprising the largest predator Royal Bengal

Tiger apart from the other species in the food chain of the Reserve.

3.2.1 Ecological Values

The PTR forms one of the single largest compact forest blocks in the Southern

Western Ghats. The Reserve plays a key role in maintaining regional connectivity with

other forest tracts. The adjacent stretch of evergreen forest of the Tiger Reserve along

with the bordering forest area creates one of the 18 biodiversity hotspots of the country.

The neighboring forest areas of Theni division are proposed to be declared as

87

Meghamalai Wildlife Sanctuary, Srivilliputhur Grizzled Giant Squirrel Sanctuary and

Tirunelveli Division in Tamil Nadu. Moreover, the Kottayam and Ranni Forest Division

in Kerala spread over an area of evergreen forest in the entire Western Ghats.

At a landscape level, the Periyar Conservation Unit is extended up to the

Shengotta Gap and it has tenuous linkages with the Agasthyamalai Conservation unit

comprising Palakkad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve in Tamil Nadu and Neyyar, Peppara

and Shendurany Sanctuaries in Kerala. This forest supports the population of species

such as Tiger, Sloth Bear, Elephant, Gaur, Lion Tailed Macaque, Great Indian Horn Bill,

etc. It is a major repository of rare endangered and endemic species of flora and fauna

representing the Periyar region. These vast stretches of forest are specially noted for high

rate of endemism and are home for species of flora and fauna inhabited in the larger

region.

3.3. ECONOMIC VALUES

Apart from being known for its ecological and environmental values, the

economic values of the Reserve are assessed by the authorities of the PTR. Tourism,

Agriculture, Fishing, etc are taken as the key determinants of the PTR in the recent years.

Besides its traditional values of providing water for drinking and irrigation and forest for

the timber, ecotourism has been given due impetus to earn revenue for the meeting the

needs of the surrounding local people and conservation of forest and wildlife.

3.3.1. Nature-based Tourism Activities

The PTR is a world-famous tourism destination for wildlife and soft adventure

activities. Apart from providing sizeable revenue to the state government, the livelihood

88

of hundreds of local people is also linked to the inflow of revenues from tourism. The

number of tourists visiting the PTR has been increasing year after year. For instance,

tourist arrivals were reported to be 4.80 lakh during 2010 that was followed by the entry

of 35, 000 tourist vehicles in to the buffer zone. At the same time, boating and

community-based ecotourism activities have become the main sources of generating

revenue for the Forest Department. On the other hand, giving employment opportunity to

the local community in the periphery of the park, the KTDC is running three luxury

hotels, namely the Periyar House, the Aranya Niwas and the Lake Palace inside the Tiger

Reserve. The Lake Palace is situated inside the Tiger Reserve at Edapalayam.

3.3.2. Catchment Values

Three major rivers such as the Periyar, the Pamba and the Azhutha are originated

from the forest tracts of the PTR and form the lifeline for millions of people of Kerala

and Tamil Nadu. Apart from its ecological significance, the unique aquatic system of the

Periyar Lake spreading over an area about 26 sq km is an important water source to

Tamil Nadu for irrigation, drinking and power generation purposes. About 68,000

hectares of land in Theni, Madurai, Ramanad and Dindugal districts are irrigated from the

water of the Periyar Lake.

3.3.3. Subsistence Values

Both the primitive tribes and countryside population, who live in the fringes of the

sanctuary, depend directly and indirectly on the forest for fuel, wood, thatching grass and

Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFP). It is estimated that about 20,000/ 30,000 people are

used to make a living on these traditional resources. As a result, their dependencies have

89

come down drastically through the implementation of India Ecotourism Development

Project (IEDP) over the last five years.

3.4. CULTURAL VALUES

Cultural values have formed one of the inseparable values for the people of the

PTR areas. People of the area take pride of the inhabitants of the PTR and the nature has

been a boon for the people to live happily and the abode of the Lord Sri Ayyappa is truly

the guardian deity of the area. The annual religious congregations have made the Periyar

region very special for the devotees to realize the importance of cultural values.

3.4.1 Sabarimala Pilgrimage

Sri Ayyappa shrine at Sabarimala, one of the most important pilgrimage sites in

South India, is located in the Southern part of PTR at an elevation of 461m. It is

surrounded by the low altitude evergreen forest. The temple is opened for worship for

only 41 days during the mid-November to mid-January and the first five days of every

Malayalam month and special occasion like Vishu and Onam. Around four million

pilgrims from various parts of India more particularly from Karnataka and Andhra

Pradesh visit Sabarimala during the season.

The ecological sanctity of the area was totally affected by the high density

pilgrimage and the Forest Department seldom controls over the pilgrimage activities.

The major hazards caused by the movements of pilgrims include the collection of

firewood from the forest, cutting the poles for the temporary construction of sheds,

littering the biodegradable plastic wastes, noise pollution by chanting the religious

slogans, creating trekking tacks through trampling resulting in soil erosion, lighting at

90

night during trekking to the temple, temporary camps and halting places. Involvements of

31 EDCs, which generally cater the food and drinking water to the pilgrims at the

reasonable rates along with two or three traditional trekking routes to the holy shrine as

the basic needs of pilgrims, have taken certain preventing measures to curb the

unregulated pilgrimage activities.

3.4.2. Archaeological Values

The Mangaladevi Kannagi temple is located on the Northern boundary of the

PTR. The temple was demolished by Hyder Ali in 1770 in a war with Poonjar kingdom.

After the end of war, the area captured by Hyder Ali was returned by an agreement in

1772, but the temple was not reconstructed. Thousands of pilgrims from both Tamil Nadu

and Kerala visit Managaladevi temple for worshipping Kannagi on the occasion of Chitra

Pournami. The area is known for high altitude grasslands and Montane forest, Nilgiri

Thar (Hemitragus bylocrius) and an endemic orchid (Habenaria Periyarensis).

Innumerable numbers of local devotees throng to offer their traditional rituals and prayers

at the ruined archeologically important Managaladevi harbor in one of the auspicious

days in a year that falls on the day of ‘Chitra pournami’ (full moon day on the month of

Chitra).The heavy inflow of worshippers in a single day largely cause irreparable damage

to the fragile ecosystem due to the entry of vehicles, urinations, dumping of plastics and

wastes, trampling by tourists, eatery places, etc.

3.4.3. Human Ecological Values

About five tribal groups, who inhabit within and on the periphery of the reserve,

show the inseparable eco-cultural associations with the forest of Periyar. It is in fact the

91

first experiment in Kerala, where destroyers of forests (Primitive Tribes) have been

transformed to the creator and preserver of forests. Nevertheless, the PTR is one of the

seven IEDP sites in India. The reserve with its rich flora and fauna along with diverse

habitats and varied socio-cultural heritage on the fringes offers unique opportunities for

research, education and interpretation.

3.4.4. Aesthetic Values

Because of its scenic splendor, the PTR is a popular destination for the tourists

and nature lovers. The high altitude grassland spotted with shoals give the nature lovers a

unique feast with all its beauty and charm. The panoramic scenery of the undulating

mountain interspersed with fast-flowing streams and green meadows along with

salubrious environment attract the peace seekers and nature enthusiasts from all over the

world.

3.5. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The PTR has a long history of protecting the forest and wildlife for the game

safari and the wildlife hunting indulged by the royal family members. There are many

historical events starting from the construction of the Mullaperiyar Dam in 1895 to the

addition of 148 km areas into the PTR from Goodrical Range of Ranni Division in 2007.

These entire historical events connected to the PTR are divided into the early and later

period.

3.5.1. Early Period

From the records of the annals of history of the Poonjar palace, the identification

of the area as a unique place for biodiversity may be dated back to 1100 A.D when the

Madurai kings (two brothers) owned the area after having defeated the local king

92

Kulathungancholan. The areas under Thekkady, including Mangaladevi were under the

control of the elder brother. Sundarapandian, who settled at Gudallur and Periyakulam in

1180 A.D simultaneously and purchased the Poonjar along with Munnar. Subsequently,

Poonjar was made as the main province or center for administration. The area comprises

the whole of high ranges lying between Athirapally in the North, Manimala in the South,

Poonjar and Thodupuzha in the West and Dindugal and Theni in the East. It includes

Kodaikanal and the whole of Uthama Palayam high ranges (except the high ranges of

Thodupuzha) and the eastern part of Meenachil Taluk.

The area extends up to Athirappally, including Anamalai and south up to

Sabarimala in the south. The Managaladevi temple, which is located inside the sanctuary,

was demolished by Hyder Ali in 1770 in a war against the kings of Poonjar. The Poonjar

Kings later surrendered their lands to the kings of Travancore in three phases.

Mannans, Uralis, Paliyans, Malarayns and Malampandarams are the main

primitive tribes and settled themselves in the forest. They lived on the shifting cultivation

in a small scale and they used to collect fish, honey and tubers from the forest as other

primary sources of their livelihoods. These tribal groups lived near Poovarasu, Tanikudi,

Mlappara, Navikkayam, Ummikuppan, Vanchivayal, Pampa valley and Moozhikal

(Bourdillon 1893). However, the tribes continued the shifting cultivation extensively that

caused massive damage to the ecology in the subsequent time. They used to visit the

Poonjar Palace in every 10th of Medam month; and carry some crops, honey, tusk, etc as

the token of love and respect towards the local kings. Traditional tribal dances were also

performed by the tribes on the same occasion. These tribes also got engaged in the

merrymaking while celebrating the traditional festivals.

93

Hunting was considered as a matter of royal traditions and customs and the kings

were proud of hunting the predators like tiger and leopard. For facilitating the game

safari, the kings used to camp in the forest for 2-3 weeks with all basic services. Though

hunting was meant for seeking individual pleasure and deliberate interests, but efforts

were put in for securing tusk and tiger skin for use of paricha and sword. However, there

was no record of cutting the trees for the commercial purposes. In addition, soap bark

and “maravuries” were extracted occasionally for meeting the greedy personal needs as a

form of status symbol.

3.5.2. Later Period

The Periyar Lake was formed in the year 1895. It was constructed between 1887

and 1895 by the British Government to divert water eastwards to the Madras Presidency

area (present-day Tamil Nadu). It was the largest river in the erstwhile Travancore State

for channeling its waters to irrigate the dry areas in the plains of Tamil Nadu (the then

Madras Presidency under the British Colonial Administration). A lease agreement was

signed to this effect between the two governments for a period of 999 years. The forest

around Periyar Lake having an area of 600 sq km was only a part of the present

sanctuary and it was declared as Periyar Lake Reserve as per No. 39 under Section 18 of

Travancore Regulation Act 1068 in 1899. Having realized the importance of game

preservation, the then Travancore State in 1933 appointed Mr S.C.H.Robinson, a retired

Land Commissioner, as the Game Warden to undertake a feasibility study for

preservation of forest and faunal species. On his recommendation, an area around the

lake was declared as Nellikkampetti Sanctuary in 1934 with the headquarters at

94

Peermedu. In 1936, the project for the spotted deer was introduced, but it ended up in an

utter failure.

The Sanctuary became a hunting enclave of the Travancore state and the Lake

Palace was built at Edapalayam for accommodating the Maharaja (King) and his guests

during the animal hunting activities. In 1940, an independent game department was

created to facilitate the game-related activities in the sanctuary. The game management

practices that were carried out in the early years continued even after the independence.

In 1950, the Nelikkampatti Sanctuary was expanded to the Periyar Wildlife Sanctuary

(777sq km) by adding the adjoining forest areas of Rattendon valley (12.95 sq km) and

Mount Plateau (163.17 sq km) to the Periyar Lake Reserve (600.88 sq km). The

headquarters were shifted to Thekkady in 1965. As an effect, the Game Department was

merged with the Forest Department in 1966. The Sanctuary was included in the Project

Tiger in 1978 as the 10th Tiger Reserve in India. In 1982, the first notification was issued

to declare the core area (350 sq km) as a National Park. The Tiger Reserve was also

placed under the Project Elephant in 1991. During 1996, the focus of management got

shifted to biodiversity conservation with people’s participation in the implementation of

IEDP.

The first Prime Minister of Independent India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was

attracted with the rich biodiversity and scenic beauty and visited the Sanctuary in 1950.

The Aranya Niwas Hotel was constructed as per the direction of Pandit Nehru for the

creation of provision of facilities to the visitors for which the hotel Lake Palace was

handed over to the KTDC to better professionally manage the unique property.

95

Subsequently, some lands were leased out to the KTDC for carrying out the responsible

tourism activities within the sanctuary.

Reorganization of the PTR as Periyar East and Periyar West was done in

2001.Shifting of the tribal population (except the nomadic Malapandaram) from the core

areas of Sanctuary to the periphery started during 1930s and it was over by 1984 when

lease rights of the Mannans got expired. Ummikuppan cardamom leases of planters in the

interior areas around Mlappara also continued until 1984.

Meanwhile, the PTR has become a very popular destination for attracting lakh of

tourists from different corners of the world. Due to the unprecedented demand for the

production of forestry products in 1996, a functional division namely the Grassland

Afforestation Division(GLAD) was formed with a large stretches of grasslands available

inside (48.77 sq km) and outside (19.72 sq km). The PTR They were planted with

eucalyptus available inside (48.77sq km) and outside (19.72 sq km). Plantation of the

eucalyptus trees continued under the Grass Land Afforesting Development Programme

(GLADP) till 1967 to ensure the availability of the supply of raw materials to Hindustan

News Print Limited.

Overlapping the conservation measures of the Project Tiger, the extraction of the

plantations started from 1980 onwards. Many of the field areas were restocked from 1980

to 1985. Further, the wing of the Forest Department also planted up in some of the areas.

Further, the forest roads of about 159 km were laid as a part of extraction work.

Meanwhile, the higher level expert committee on the forest policy and management in

Kerala was formed in 1987 to recommend for a ban on Eucalyptus planting in wildlife

96

sanctuaries. Finally, the Honorable Supreme Court of India banned all sorts of extraction

works from sanctuaries and national parks in 1996, which necessitated a separate

management plan for the GLADP for the extraction of Eucalyptus. Subsequently, all

forms of extraction were stopped as per another order of the Supreme Court in 1999.

The Sabarimala Temple situated on the southern part of the park attracted only a

few thousand pilgrims during 18th century. The numbers of pilgrims visiting the holy

temple have been increased tremendously over the last several years, especially after the

sixties when all the motorable roads were opened in connection with the Moozhiyar

Power Project in the neighboring Ranni Division during the peak pilgrim season. An area

of 60 acres at Sannidhanam and 10 acres at Pampa was leased to TDB (Travancore

Devasome Board) during 1962. As a result, large scale constructions were made in the

leased area during 80s and 90s. The number of pilgrims visited the shrine annually is 50

lakh and the pressure as a result of large inflow of Sabarimala devotees and their

pilgrimage activities has caused the maximum threats to the biodiversity of Periyar

region.

Towards the southwest region, there were cultivations by the local inhabitants

due to the announcement of food policy adopted by the government during the Post-

Independence period that resulted in the encroachment of forest lands for sustaining

their livelihoods. In 1962, an area of 460.50 Ha of land inside the sanctuary at Pampa

valley was allotted to 692 families. Subsequently, the encroachment also took place and

efforts to relocate the settlers were stopped by government in 1968 as per the Official

Order for legalizing the occupations. The number of families has so far grown to about

97

1000 in an area of 502 Ha. Table 3.1 depicts the landmark years of historical events in the

PTR.

Table 3.I

Historical Events

Year Landmark Years

1895 Construction of the Mullaperiyar Dam

1899 Formation of the Periyar Lake Reserve

1933 Appointment of S.C.H. Robinson as the first Game warden.

1934 Formation of Nellikkampatty Game Sanctuary

1950 Consolidation of Periyar as a Wildlife sanctuary

1978 Declaration of Periyar as a Tiger Reserve

1982 Preliminary Notification of the core area as a National Park

1991 Status of the Project Elephant

1996 Establishment of India Eco-Development Project

2001 Re-organization of Two Divisions: Periyar East and Periyar West

2004 Formation of Periyar Foundation

2007 Addition of 148 sq km from Goodrical Range of Ranni Division

Source: Official Records, Rajiv Gandhi Interpretation Center, Department of Forest & Wildlife, Government of Kerala, Thekkady

3.6. ADMINISTRATIVE AND TOPOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND

Administratively, the PTR falls into Idukki and Pathanamthitta Dist of Kerala.

Periyar is divided into two divisions: Periyar East with three ranges under it Periyar (376

sq km), Thekkady (99 sq km) and Vallakadavu Range (143 sq km) and Periyar West with

two ranges under it Azutha Range (68 sq km) and Pampa (91 sq km). The Periyar Lake

Reserve, Mountain Plateau (163.17 sq km) and Rattenden Valley (12.95 sq km).

Annexture X is presented in a table showing the names of various protected areas in

Kerala.

98

The PTR is divided into two territorial divisions: Periyar West and Periyar East

with the headquarters at Thekkady and Peermede respectively. The Periyar West Division

is divided into two ranges: the Azutha Range and the Pampa Range. Further, the Azutha

Range is divided into five sections such as Pampa Valley, Puthserry, Karimala,

Sabarimala and Pachakanam. Annexture VII presents the map of Thekkady town as it is

the gateway to the PTR.

3.6.1. PTR East Division

The Periyar East Division is divided into three ranges such as Periyar,

Vallakadavu and Thekkady. Thekkady is again divided into five sections: Thekkady,

Edapalayam, Nellikkampetty, Mullakudy and Medakanam. Periyar Range is further

divided into twelve sections: Kottamala, Thamara, Randattinkara, Manalar, Eravangalar,

Mavady, Thannikudy, Mlappara, Ummikuppan, Moolavaiga, Sundaramala and Periyar.

Vallakkadavu range is divided into five sections: Thondiyar, Vallakkadavu, Kozhikanam,

Kallaradichan and Aruvioda. Thekkady Range consists of Edapalayam, Thekkady,

Medakanam, Nellikampetty and Mullakudy sections.

Of these, the Medakanam section is the largest range and Thekkady is the smallest

range. Most of the mainstream tourism related activities are reported in Thekkady

section. Thekkady Range was earlier called as Tourism Range consisting of Edappalam,

Thekkady and Nellikampetty sections. Thekkady section is surrounded by the forest on

all sides excepting Kumily Region. On the northern side of the range, the forest areas of

Tamil Nadu are located. The interstate boundary forms the northern boundary of the

99

sections. The southern boundary also runs along the watershed. Finally, the canal forms

the western boundary.

The Division and Range offices and several public buildings such as rest house,

quarters and KTDC-managed hotels are situated inside this area. The northern side is

surrounded by the forest of Tamil Nadu. The Medakkanam section is located on the

eastern side, Nellikampetty section is situated on the southern side and Kumily town is

located on the western side. The section headquarter of forest division is located at

Kokkara. The Edapalayam section is situated to the west of Nellikampetty and Thekkady

Section. On the western side, there are cardamom estates and inhabited areas. The eastern

boundary goes along the marshy lands through which the canal passes. Edapalayam is

one of the sections that adjoin inhabited areas. In this case, the adjoining areas are mostly

covered with the mixed cultivation of Coffee, Pepper and Tapioca. The headquarters of

this section is located at Mullayar.

The Nellikampetty section is situated in the south of Thekkady Section, the west

of Medakanam South, the north of Kozhikanam section and the east of Vallakadavu and

Edapalayam section. Nellakkampetty is a hilly area near Edappalayam. Most of the areas

are covered by the arms of the reservoir. There are several islands of the forest inside the

reservoir. The corridors between the islands are usually marshy areas which get

submerged only at high water level. The Nellikampetty section starts immediately

opposite to the boat landing. The dam site itself is situated in the southwest corner of the

section.

100

Regions near Manakavala are accessible by boat. Boat route starts from the boat

landing and go past Edapalayam and take a sharp bend and come near the Deer Island.

The headquarters of Nellikampetty section is located at Karadikavala. The Mangaladevi

road is deviated from this point. The Medakanam section is an important section with the

state border on one side. Several major streams are originated from this area. Grasslands,

deciduous forest and evergreen forest are largely seen in this area. Many bamboo brakes

can also be seen in this area. Most of the mainstream tourism related activities take place

in the Thekkady section.

3.6.2. Vallakkadavu Range

The Vallakkadavu range consists of five sections: Thondiyar, Vallakadavu,

Kozhikanam, Kallardichan and Aruvioda. All these sections have grasslands and

eucalyptus plantations. Cardamom Estates and Tea Estates are situated on the western

side. The Vanchivayal tribal settlement is on the periphery of this section. This section

has a large stretch of grasslands and evergreen forest. Some of the eucalyptus plantations

are still seen in this area. On the eastern side, the section extends up to the reservoir. This

section is situated on the right side of the Periyar River downstream of the dam.

The Vallakadavu section is situated down the Thondiyar section on the left side of

the river. The Vallakkadavu via Pachakanam road forms another boundary. On the east,

the forest extends up to the lake. Some of the Ceylon repatriates are resettled near

Pachakanam. The forest of Kozhikanam section extendes from the Pamba crest line to the

lake edge. The Aruvioda section is the largest section in Vallakkadavu range. Major areas

of the section are covered by thick evergreen forest with reeds as the main under growth.

101

The lake side is mostly moist and deciduous forest. Away from the lake, the vegetation

changes to semi evergreen and evergreen type of forest.

The Aruvioda section contains some good eucalyptus plantations. This section is

accessible from the Vallakkadavu Pachakanam with a distance of 09 km. The road goes

up to Aruvioda forest quarters covering about 20 km distance from the main road. From

the main road, the mud road passes through the area of the Kozhikanam section up to the

Aruvithode. Moreover, Aruvithode is a perennial stream and this is located next to the

Aruvithodu. The road crosses the Aruvithodu through a concrete building. The Aruvioda

section area is also accessible by boat from the dam site. The forest region of Aruvioda in

the lower side of Swamikayam Mala is accessible from Mullakudy region by crossing the

Lake. After the Aruvithodu, the thick evergreen forest starts. The Kumarikulam station

and Mangaladevi region and a major part of the lake are visible from the watch tower.

The Kallaradi section is on the southern boundary of the range and it is mostly evergreen

forest.

3.6.3. Periyar Range

The Periyar Range consists of 12 sections, of these Thannikudy is the largest and

Mavady is the smallest. The Kottamala section forms the northern catchment area of

Mullayar, It is a remote section with the catchment area of Mullayar on the left blank.

The Randattin Kara Section consists of valleys drainage to Mullayar with a large section

situated on the northern side of Mullayar. It extends up to interstate ridge. This section

contains mostly evergreen forests and grasslands limited to a few hill tops. This section

can be accessed from Tamil Nadu and Mullakudy previously. The Mavady section has

102

been split into Mavady and Eravangalar section. The Eravanglar section is situated in the

state border. Mavady is a small section situated north of Mullakudy. This section is

accessible by road as the Kumily-Mullakudy road passes along the western side of the

section.

3.6.4. Periyar West Division

The Periyar West Division is divided into the Azhutha and the Pamba ranges. The

Azhutha range consists of two sections and the Pamba range consists of three sections.

3.6.5. Azhutha Range

The Azhutha Range consists of four sections. The main access to the present

Moozhikal section is through Koruthode, where the section headquarters are located. The

Choozhy section is the second section. The Sathram and Uppupara sections are also parts

of Azhutha Range. The Moozhikal section occupies the western most portion of the PTR.

On the northern side, the Forest of Erumeli ranges are situated. The western and southern

sides are inhabited. One of the routes to Sabarimala starts from this section. The forest of

this section is situated amidst the Azutha River. There are a series of hills situated at the

right angles to the river. This section has evergreen forest, semi evergreen forest, moist

deciduous forest and grasslands. This evergreen forest and semi evergreen forest seen at

the low elevation is particularly notable.

The Choozhy section contains a good amount of undisturbed forest. The forest of

Erumely Range serves as a buffer area. The Sathram section is notable for extensive

grasslands with extensive eucalyptus plantations. The eastern portion of the section is

covered with evergreen forest. The section gets its name from an abandoned camping

103

place for Sabarimala Pilgrims. The Sathram section is drained by the streams joining

Periyar and Sabarimala Thodu. The relatively plain area of Uppupara is now brought

under the new section. This section is located on the right side of the road to Uppupara.

3.6.6. Pamba Range

The Pamba range consists of five sections: Pambavalley, Puthussery, Karimala,

Sabarimala and Pachakanam. The Pachakanam and Puthurssery sections are the largest of

all the sections. These two sections of Pamba Range are very important as far as the

vegetation and pilgrimage to Sabarimala Temple is concerned. The Pampa valley section

lies on the right bank of Pamba River downstream of Pamba-Azutha sangamam. The

notable features of this section are evergreen, grasslands, semi evergreen and deciduous

forest, pilgrim route and settlement in Pamba valley. A headquarter of the section is

located at Pamba Valley. Areas near the river are inhabited and Udumpara is a small

patch of forest on the hilltop surrounded by cultivation on all sides. The Sabarimala

section is important from the three respects such as the holy Ayyappa temple, a good

stretch of evergreen forest and grasslands. Pachakanam is situated to the east of

Sabarimala section. The entire section is drained by the tributaries of Pamba River.

On the northern side, the waters shed to the Periyar form the boundary. This

section is notable for the presence of evergreen forest in highly steep terrain. Chentamara

Kokka is one such region where the altitude varies from 1200m to 1100m. The tributaries

to Pamba flowing through this gorge create a scenic waterfall. This section is also notable

for the grasslands in Uppupara region. One of the Pilgrimage routes to Sabarimala passes

through this area. The ring road forms one of the boundaries. The Eucalyptus due to

104

repeated harvesting and degrading factors has practically been vanished and the areas

have now become the grasslands. There are several shoals of evergreen forest in valleys

of these grasslands. The part of Poonkavanam which is sacred forest for Sabarimala

pilgrims falls in this section.

3.6.7. Riverine System

The four major rivers draining the PTR are named as the Mullayar, the Periyar,

the Azhutha and the Pamba. These two Rivers: the Mullayar and the Periyar come

mostly under the high elevation, medium elevation and low elevation altitude. However,

the Mullayar and the Periyar fall under the high elevation category. On the Western Side,

there are two rivers: the Azhutha and the Pamba come under the low elevation area. The

Azutha River forms the northern boundary of western side of the PTR. The river Pamba

forms the southwestern boundary of the PTR. On the southern side of the lake is Pamba

Periyar divide a chain of hills about 1200m in elevation, the northern side draining to

Periyar Basin and the southern side draining to Pamba Basin. Unlike the streams in high

altitudes, some of the streams feeding the Azhutha and the Pamba dry up in peak

summer.

3.6.8. The Periyar Lake

A masonry dam creating a lake of about 26 sq km was constructed near Thekkady

in 1895. The Catchment area of the lake is 603 sq km. The water levels in the lake

fluctuate between a maximum of 46m and a minimum of 32m.The two main river

systems: the Mullayar and the Periyar join together near Mullakudy, thus draining their

water in to this lake.

105

3.7. TYPICAL BIODIVERSITY

Biodiversity of the PTR forms to be an important attraction for the eco-tourists,

wildlife tourists and nature tourists to understand the intricacies of the biotic factors. It is

one of the important parts of the biodiversity of the Western Ghats. The rich diversities of

living and non-living elements in the ecosystem of the PTR have been protected by the

Forest Department in association with the local community members under the

ecotourism projects. The EDC has been instrumental in working in tandem with the

Forest Department to preserve the biodiversity of the PTR.

3.7.1. Vegetation Types and Floristic

The PTR harbours an array of vegetation for wilderness activities. Seven types of

forest ecosystems have been identified in the Tiger Reserve, of which the evergreen and

semi-evergreen forests form the major chunk of the total forest areas. Besides, the marshy

grasslands and streams form extremely valuable micro ecosystems. Major types of

vegetation in the PTR include tropical evergreen and semi-evergreen forest (74.6%),

moist deciduous forest (12.7%), grasslands (1.5%) and eucalyptus plantations (7.1%).

The Periyar Lake forms an important aquatic ecosystem with an area spreading about 3.5

per cent of the total protected areas. Annexture XI is presented in table showing types of

vegetations seen in the PTR.

3.7.2. Classification of Forest Areas

There are eight different types of forest areas which are commonly seen in the

PTR. Each forest area is unique in its ecosystem and biodiversity to make the eco-tourists

106

spellbound and enthralled with awesome floral and faunal species. Table 3.2 presents the

eight different types of forest areas in the PTR.

Table 3.2

Classification of Forest Areas

Sl. No. Name of the Forest Area 1 West Coast Tropical Evergreen Forest

2 Southern Hilltop Tropical Evergreen Forest

3 West Coast Semi Evergreen Forest

4 Southern Moist Mixed Deciduous Forest

5 Southern Montane Wet Temperate Forest

6 Southern Montane Wet Grasslands

7 South Indian Subtropical Hill Savannahs

8 Marshy Grasslands (Vayals)

Source: Official Records, Department of Forest & Wildlife, Government of Kerala, Thekkady

West Coast Tropical Evergreen Forest: This classical Malabar rainforest of the

Western Ghats forms an extremely rich biotope in terms of biological diversity. Seen at

an altitudinal range of 150-1300m, these forests are characterized by the presence of very

tall trees. The forest canopy is well stratified into four to five layers. Mesua, Palaquim,

Cullenia, Hopea, Dipterocarpus, Vateria, Polyalthia, Myristica, Calophyllum are some of

the important tree associations largely seen in this area. In the PTR, these types of forest

are distributed across Koruthodu, Sabarimala and Poonkavanam areas. Different species

of Strobilanthus and Psychotria are mainly distributed in the Shrubby layer. The

important woody climbers are Gnetumula and Butea Parviflora. Balsams, Aroides and

Ferns form the typical environment for the growth of floral population.

107

Southern Hilltop Tropical Evergreen Forest: Distributed mainly in an

altitudinal gradient between 1300 and 1700m, this type of forest forms the dominant

vegetation of the core area of the Tiger Reserve especially at Mlappara, Aalady and

Chokkampetty. Syzygium, Palaquium, and Cullenia are the common trees of this place.

These forests also harbour two threatened tree species of the Tiger Reserve: the endemic

Syzgium Periyarensis, the indigenous conifer and Nagaea Wallichiana.

West Coast Semi Evergreen Forest: An assemblage of evergreen and deciduous

forest is mainly distributed in Thekkady, Swamikayam, Vallakkadavu and Mullakkudy.

Further, Terminalia, Syzygium, Actinodaphne and Bichofia javanicia and Artocarpus

hirsutus form the major floristic elements. Strobilanthes, Psychotria and Memecylon are

some of the important shrubs seen in the forest. The climbing creepers include Jasminum

and Mucuna, Entada rheedi and Gnetumula as the major woody climbers.

Southern Moist Mixed Deciduous Forest: The PTR comprising chiefly the

deciduous species under the vegetation category spread over around 100 sq km of the

reserve. Thanikkudy, Mullakkudy, Methakanam and Edapalayam are importantly known

for the rich vegetations. These forest areas harbour some of the most valuable timber

species like Teak and Rose wood. Tectona grandis, Pterocarpus marsupium, Terminalia

paniculata and Lagerstroemia microcarpa are some of the important tree species that

support the natural ecosystem of the PTR.

Southern Montane Wet Temperate Forests- Sholas: It is generally called as

Shoal forests and these types of forests are seen in the valley and cliffs across the peaks

in the PTR. These forests are characterized by a high degree of humidity and a-year-

108

round dampness that result in the abundance of epiphytic orchids and ferns. They are

ecologically hyper sensitive to disturbances of the ecosystem. Seen normally above

1700m, these forests are mostly confined to Vellimala, Kottamala, Sundaramala and

Chokkampetty. Unlike other types of evergreen forests, the distinct canopy stratification

is absent in the forest. Rhododendron arboretum, Vernonia travancorica, Syzygium

Parameswaranii etc are some of the important tree species unique to the Periyar

ecosystem.

Southern Wet Montane Grasslands: Like shoal forests, this type of vegetation

is ecologically very sensitive. This unique grassland system is seen on the roofs of

mountain that houses rare species of orchids and balsams. Spreading over a small area at

Mangaladevi, Arjunankotta and Kalvarimala, they represent a unique form of ecological

diversity evolved through millions of years. Strobilanthus kunthianus and Hypericum

hookerianus are the important shrubs grown almost exclusively in these areas.

South Indian Subtropical Hill Savannahs: Tall grasses interspersed with

deciduous trees provide a typical vegetation character of the reserve forest. Elephant

grass and Cymbopogon are the important varieties of vegetation that are largely used for

covering roof of the tribal huts. Some of the major trees, which are seen in the PTR,

include Terminalia chebula, Careya arborea, Phyllanthus emblica and Bridelia airy-

Shawii. The main areas of distribution across the forest include Kavalapara,

Thannikkudy, Edapalayam and Manakkavala.

109

Marshy Grasslands (Vayals): Vayals are marshy grasslands and they are wet

and humid throughout the year. These important ecological zones are rich in grasses and

herbaceous species, which make the islands a unique biodiversity. Several herbivores

prefer these habitats for food, thus paying a key role in the food chain. Among the several

vayals located in the Tiger Reserve, the important ones are seen at Kokkarakandam,

Pothukandam, Aanakuthivayal and Nellipparakandam. Panicum repens, Leersia

hexandra, Eragrostis sp.and Eriocaulon sp. are abundantly seen in these areas along with

species like Cyperus, Drocers and Lindernia.

Riverine Vegetation: Even though distinct riparian ecosystems are absent in the

Reserve, the streams and rivulets often harbour many typical riparian species. Different

species of Algae and Utriculaaria are some of the examples to the vegetation in the

riverine ecosystem. Important medicinal plant namely Rotula aquatic and a species of

Balsam (Impatiens verticillata) grow commonly in Rocky River beds. Homonoia riparia

is a common shrub growing in the fast-flowing streams along with the members of

Podostemonaceae. The important trees associated with riparian ecosystems are

Humboltia vahliana, Ixorabrachiataa and Neonauclea purpurea.

Bamboo and Read Breaks: Important hill slopes of Sundaramala, Melmala and

Manikyamala are luxuriant with reed breaks where Ochlandra travancorica is abundant.

The areas like Vellimala and Upper Manalar a scandent reed and Pseudoxytenanthera

monadepha are more commonly seen. Extensive bamboo breaks are seen along the

stream sides of Thannikudy and Mullakkudy areas.

110

Plantations: Eucalyptus grandis plantations have naturally grown at Aruvi,

Kozhikkanam, Thondiyar and Uppupara. Though the plantation of this plant is

encouraged for commercial pulp wood plantations, but it subjugates other species in the

forest. These areas are now left for natural regeneration. Several abandoned cardamom

estates are seen in the areas like Mlappara and Naduthottam, where natural regeneration

is fast catching up.

3.8. PLANT DIVERSITY

The PTR is unique in floral diversity with the presence of more than 50 per cent

of the entire flowering plants of Kerala. It includes 149 species listed under various threat

categories. Out of the estimated 3800 species of flowering plants (Angiosperms) of

Kerala, the Tiger Reserve is endowed with 2000 species. This is in fact the highest

number from a protected area of the state. Moreover, three of them are endemic to the

PTR. The Angiosperm includes 1441 species of Dicots and 525 species of Monocots. The

Dicots are represented by 613 genera spreading over 128 families, while the monocots

are distributed under 210 genera belonging to 23 families. All the Angiosperms represent

823 genera under 151 families. Poaceae (Gramineae) with 168 species forms the largest

family of the reserve.

3.8.1. Orchids

The family Orchidaceae is the third largest family of the flowering plant in the

Reserve. It is represented by 145 species under 52 genera, including 53 endemics. The

presence of 145 species of orchids from the enlisted 216 species in Kerala is quite

remarkable. The Reserve is the only known home in the entire planet for the endemic

111

species like Habenaria Periyarensis. For example, some of the rare and endangered

orchids are Vanda thwaitesii (a Srilankan Species).

3.8.2. Grasses

Grasses are the largest family of the flowering plants in the Tiger Reserve.

Poaceae is represented by 168 species of grasses spreading over 76 genera and out of

which, 25 species are southern Western Ghats endemics. Panicum with nine species is the

largest genera. Similarly, two species of rice Oryza meyeriana and O.rupogan have been

recorded from the Reserve. Arthraxom lanceolatus and Isachne setosa are two threatened

grass species. Four species of bamboo and one species of reed are also present in the

reserve. The Tiger Reserve has four species of bamboos and one species of reed. Apart

from the commonly seen Bambusa Bamboos, two species of small bamboos and one

species of Taeniostachyum are also reported. For example, Ochlandra travancorica is the

reed species.

3.8.3. Legumes

In the PTR, the family Leguminosea is represented by 155 species under 52

genera and Crotalaria with 22 species in the largest genera. In the subfamilies, Faboidae

represents 121 species under 40 genera, Caeesalpinioideae represents 21 species under

six genera and Minmosoideae represents 13 species under six genera. A variety of

common Cowage, Mucuna, Smithia, snd venkobarowii are the two species, which have

been formerly considered as possibly extinct species from the Reserve.

112

3.8.4. Balsams

The family Balsaminaceae is well represented in the Tiger Reserve with 28

species under single genus Impatient. Majority of them are endemic and are highly

sensitive to changes in the climatic condition. Out of the 28 species, 26 species are

endemic to South India. Impatiens verecunda is a critically endangered species, whereas

Impatiens Parasitica is a rare epiphyte.

3.9. ANIMAL DIVERSITY

Mammalian fauna is unique in the PTR and as many as 63 species have been

identified. Of these, seven are endemic and endangered to South Western Ghats like Lion

Tailed Macaque (Macaca Silenus), NilgiriThar, (Hemitragus Hylocrius), Nilgiri

Langur,(Trachpithecus johnii),Nilgiri Marten (Martes gwatkinsi) and Travancore Flying

Squirrel (Petynomis fuscocapillus). It is the only Tiger Reserve in Kerala which forms

one of the finest breeding sites in the entire Western Ghats. Tigers are found in all types

of habitats, but the density is very less in the evergreen forests. As a result, the big cats

are difficult to be traced out in the evergreen forests. Still pugmarks, scats, scratches and

carcasses are located in many places around the forest at the time of trekking or jungle

walks. Some of the major carnivorous mammals of the PTR are Leopard (Panthera

Pardus), Wild dog (Cuon alpines), Leopard Cat (Felis bengalensis), Jungle Cat (Felis

Chaus), Rusty spotted cat (Felis Rubiginosa) and fishing cat (Felis viverrina). Other

major carnivores are also distributed across the Reserve.

The Periyar holds a credit of a sizeable population of Elephants (Elephas

Maximas) with as many as more than 1000. This unique ecosystem is home to Gaur (Bos

113

Gaurus), Sambhar Deer (Cervus unicolor), Barking Deer,(Muntacus muntjac), Mouse

Deer(Tragulas meminna),Nilgiri Thar, Porcupine,(Hystrix indica) and Black Naped

Hare( Lepus nigricollis). Among the five primates found in the southern Ghats, four are

distributed in the Periyar natural region. Further, Lion tailed macaque, Bonnet macaque,

Nilgiri Langur and Slender Loris (Loris tardigradus) and Nilgiri langur are the common

primates and they enjoy a wider distribution throughout the Sanctuary. The tiger reserve

is a potential lion tailed macaque’s natural habitat place and it is the second to the Silent

Valley National Park in the state.

Malabar giant squirrel (Ratufa indica) is the commonest among squirrels, but the

three-striped palm squirrel (Funambulus palmarum) is also frequently sighted in the

forest. Though the presence of small Travancore flying squirrel is recorded, but the large

brown flying squirrel (Petaurista petaurista) is one among the mongoose (Herpestes

viticollis) is not very common in the forest. The presence of common mongoose

(Herpestes ededwardsi) and Ruddy Mongoose (Herpestes smithi) are also seen in their

habitats.

Bat species of the reserve include very rare species like Salimali’s fruit bat

(Latidens salimali) and Painted bat (Kerivoula picta). The bat is listed as critically

endangered and considered as very rare in the world. Rats are the least studied

mammalian group in the reserve. However, about 12 species were recorded from the

PTR. Among the musttellids, Periyar holds a comparatively good population of Nilgiri

marten that is the potential habitat to be affected in the future. Periyar Lake is an abode

of two species of semi aquatic mammals like the common otter (Lutra lutra) and the

114

smooth Indian otter (Lutra persipicillata). A recent study on Otters revealed that the total

population size ranges around 60 in the Lake.

3.9.1. Wildlife Population

Table 3.3 shows the wildlife populations in the PTR other than the Royal Bengal

Tigers from 1978 to 2002. The periodic census of the mammalian animals given in the

table includes Bonnet Macaque, Lion Tailed Macaque, Nilgiri Langur, Sambar Deer,

Gaur, Leopard, Wild Dog, Elephant, Wild Boar, Barking Deer, Mouse Deer, Malabar

Giant Squirrel, Indian Porcupine, Small Indian Civet and Common Palm Civet. As many

as 16 different varieties of mammals are the natural habitats of the PTR. Like the tiger

census carried out by the PTR in 1978, the census for the mammalian populations was

also conducted along with the tiger census in the same year. The year 1978 is historic in

conducting the tiger census along with other wildlife census in the PTR. It is reported in

1978 census that there was a very high count for the Bonnet Macaque with only 10

troops. After a gap of 25 years, only 102 Bonnet Macaques were counted in an area of

59 decimal sq km during the 2002 wildlife census in the PTR.

As the Lion Tailed Macaque is an endangered species in Western Ghats, the 1978

census captured a count of 11 troops and 210 Lion Tailed Macaques in 2002 were

reported. Nilgiri Langur is one of the most frequently sighted animals with 170 troops in

1978 and they constitute the major wildlife population a count of 573 Nilgiri Langur in

2002. The Sambar Deer population was 452 in 1978 and it is one of the important

mammalian habitats in the PTR ecosystem. Further, it was last reported that there were

249 Nilgiri Languar in an area of 0.2495 decimal.

115

As far as the Gaur population is concerned, there was an increase from 100 Gaurs

in 1978 to 438 Gaurs in an area of 0.5376 decimal in 2002. Similarly, the leopard

population has significantly been reduced from 14 in 1978 to 8 in 2002. As reported from

the census, there was remarkable increase in leopard population in 1987, 1988, 1989 and

2002. The Wild Dog population, as reported in different census, was 49 packs in 1978

and was 18 in 1630.88 decimals in 2002. As elephant is one of the key species in the

hierarchy of wildlife population in the PTR, the census reports revealed that 588

elephants were counted in the survey conducted in 1978 and the number went down to

177 as per the 2002 census. The remaining other mammalian species have also been

covered in the later wildlife census in the PTR.

The distribution of wildlife population in the PTR, excluding the Royal Bengal

Tiger speaks so much about the wildlife diversities in the reserve area. The attempt for

conducting various censuses with the huge financial support of the government could

yield fruitful results with regard to the wildlife population and their habitats. Since

wildlife of the PTR is a key element of ecotourism activities and the visitor satisfaction is

directly related to the wildlife sighting, the wildlife census data is handy for the visitors to

pay their visits.

116

Table 3.3

Wildlife Population in PTR Sl. No.

Name of the Species

Year-Wise Wildlife Population 1978 1987 1988 1989 1991 1993 1995 1996 1997 2000 2002

1 Bonnet Macaque 10

troops 50

Nos. 65 Nos.

32 Nos.

* 43 Nos. * * 4.84 D 128 Nos. 102

Nos./0.0759 D

2 Lion Tailed Macaque 11

troops 200 Nos.

235 Nos. 182 Nos.

* 90 Nos. * * 60 Nos. 178 Nos. 210 Nos.

3 Nilgiri Langur 170

troops 300 Nos.

839 Nos. 765 Nos.

* 1530 Nos. * * 6.59 D/155 Nos. 322 Nos. 573 Nos.

(0.6495 D)

4 Sambar Deer 452 Nos.

490 Nos.

560 Nos. 580 Nos.

* 10.37 D * * 86 Nos./0.27 D 57 Nos. 249 Nos.

(0.2495 D)

5 Gaur 100 Nos.

350 Nos.

378 Nos. 412 Nos.

* 1.59 D * * 108 Nos./0.42D 201 Nos. 438 Nos.

(0.5376 D)

6 Leopard 14 Nos. 26

Nos. 27 Nos.

21 Nos.

* 7 D * * 23 Nos. 8 Nos.

7 Wild Dog 49

packs 55

Nos. 64 Nos.

62 Nos.

* 216.6 D/E * * 653.61 D/E * 18 Nos. (1630.88

D/E)

8 Elephant 588 Nos.

950 Nos.

1020 Nos.

980 Nos.

* 615 Nos. * * 175 Nos./0.72 D 144 Nos. 177 Nos. (0.1595 D)

9 Wild Boar 500 Nos.

1100 Nos.

1300 Nos.

1290 Nos.

* 27.14 D * * 119 Nos./0.43 D 224 Nos. 422 Nos.

(0.4951 D)

10 Barking Deer * * * * * 30 Nos. * * 30 Nos./3992.47

D/E 8 Nos.

58 Nos. (2.1781 D)

11 Mouse Deer * * * * * 200 D/E * * 1049.52 D/E 4 Nos. 8 Nos.

(837.16 D/E)

12 MG Squirrel * * * * * 6.75 D * * 141 Nos./0.26 D 90 Nos. 208 Nos.

(0.2186 D)

13 Indian Porcupine * * * * * 417.5 D/E * * 1188.28 D/E 1 No. 1653.48 D/E

14 Small Indian Civet * * * * * 84.29 D/E * * 929.44 D/E * 344.24 D/E

15 Common Palm Civet * * * * * 218.11

D/E * * 1135.04 D/E 4 Nos. 1043.44 D/E

16 Sloth Bear * * * * * 284.68DS * * 3026.78 D/E 3 Nos. 3 Nos.

(1502.20 D/E)

Source: http://www.periyartigerreserve.org/result.php, Accessed on 15/06/12.

3.9.2. Tiger Population

A census is the procedure of systematically acquiring and recording information

about the members of a given population. It is a frequent occurrence of official count of a

particular population. A wildlife census determines three things such as the abundance

and distribution of wildlife species, the trend in species numbers compared with past

counts and the extent of human activities in the ecosystem.

This information is used to identify threats to wildlife and to design conservation

activities to address these threats in scientific manner (www.awf.org). Table 3.4 shows

the census of the tigers in the PTR form 1978 to 2008. It is a-thirty-year efforts of the

117

Periyar Foundation to carry out the census by using all scientific methods in order to

ensure precision in the data. The Forest Department, Government of Kerala conducted

the survey of the tigers as many as eight times that include the survey conducted in

1978, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1995, 1996 and 2000.

Further, both the Forest Department and Kerala Forest Research Institute have

conducted the Tiger census in 1993, 1997 and 2002 respectively. In the year 2002, the

Easa, a wildlife NGO also conducted a Tiger Survey at the PTR. Similarly, the Wild Life

Institute of India (WII) conducted a Tiger Survey in 2006. The Management of the PTR

conducted a Tiger Census in 2008. However, all the census surveys carried out between

1978 and 2002 primarily used the pugmark method to capture the data pertaining to the

tiger. On the other hand, all these agencies involved in the tiger census from 2006 to 2008

used the Camera Trap method to conduct the survey. As per the latest census there are 23

adult tigers and there would be requirements of 640 sq km as per the estimated by the

Department of Forest and Wildlife.

As per the census results of the various agencies given in Table 3.4, the Kerala

Forest Department revealed about 34 tigers in 1978 and it rose to 45 and 46 as per the

results conducted between 1987 and 1991. The results of the Department and the Kerala

Forest Research Institute (KFRI) unveiled a downfall of tiger census that was 33. The

results of survey conducted by the Department in 1995 showed 39 tigers. It subsequently

declined to 30 in 1996 survey and got increased to 40 in 1997 survey conducted by the

KFD.

118

It astonished the wildlife lovers in general and the Government of Kerala in

particular when the Easa revealed about a total 21 tiger population in 2002. Subsequently,

the tiger population has been under the grave threat since the results of the survey

conducted by the Department in 2002, the WII in 2006 and the Tiger Reserve

Management (TRM) 2008 showed the marginal increase in tiger population. However,

the increase is not so encouraging given the cost, time and manpower employed for

increasing the number of tigers in the ecosystem.

Therefore, the present efforts of the authorities of the PTR to combine ecotourism

into the management of forest and wildlife may be productive to increase the tiger

population. It is substantiated with the facts that almost all the traditional poachers and

hunters have been brought to the folds of the management of the PTR. Hopefully, the

present study based on visitor satisfaction and community empowerment may provide

practical solutions to increase the tiger populations.

Table 3.4 Wildlife Population in PTR (Tigers)

Year of Census

Name of the Agency

Tiger Census

Techniques Used

1978 DFW 34

Pugmark Method

1987 DFW 45 1988 DFW 45 1989 DFW 46 1991 DFW 46 1993 DFW /KFRI 33 1995 DFW 39 1996 DFW 30 1997 DFW /KFRI 40 2000 DFW 36 2002 Easa 21 2002 DFW /KFRI 29±3 2006 WII 23*

Camera Trap 2008 TRM 24**

Source: http://www.periyartigerreserve.org/result.php, Accessed on 17/8/12

119

3.9.3. Avifauna

A total of 525 species of birds have so far been recorded in the Tiger Reserve. Out

of which, 14 are endemic to Western Ghats that include the birds of prey (Raptors), water

bodies, galli form birds, pigeons, woodpeckers and passerins. The southern part of

Western Ghats is known for high avian endemism. About 14 endemic species are

reported from southern Western Ghats. Malabar Grey Hornbill (Tockus griseus), the

Nilgiri wood pigeon (Columba elphinstoni), Blue winged parakeet (Psittakula

columboides), Crimson throated barbet, (Megalaina rubricapilla), Rufous Babbler

(Turdoides sabrafous), White breasted laughing thrush (G.Cachinnas), Black and orange

flycatcher, ( Muscicapa nigrorufa) and Nilgiri flycatcher (M albicaudata) are some of

the bird species. Except the Nilgiri laughing thrush, all other aviafauna are endemic

in the Western Ghat endemics as reported from Periyar. Among the endemic, the White

bellied short wing is seen fairly good numbers in the Reserve. The White breasted

laughing thrush, the black and orange flycatcher and Nilgiri flycatcher are restricted to

the high altitude grasslands.

3.9.4. Reptiles

A total of 45 reptile species are reported from the PTR, that includes two species

of testudine, 11 species of lizard and 31 species of snake. However, eight species are

endemic to the Western Ghats and out of these, the status of five species is rare. Among

the two species of testudines, the Travancore tortoise (Geochelone elegans is endemic to

Western Ghat endemics. The King Cobra (Ophiophagus Hannah), an endangered

rainforest reptile is also found in the evergreen forest of the core zone and in Sabarimala

120

region. Out of the 11 species of lizard, four of them are endemic to Western Ghats. They

are Dwarf forest gecko (Cnemaspis Indica), Spotted tree lizard (Calotes ellioti), Forest

calotes (Calotes rouxi) and common skink (Mabuya Carinata. Out of the 44 species of

reptiles found in the PTR, 18 are endemic to the Western Ghats.

3.9.5. Amphibians

A total of 27 species of amphibians have been reported from the Periyar, of which

10 are endemic to the Western Ghats. They are (Micrixalus fuscus), (Micrixalus nudis),

(Rana malabarica), (Rana beddomei), (Rana curtipes), (Rana brevipalmate),(Rana

temporalis), (Bufo micritympanumm), (Phileatus beddomei) and (Rhacophorus

malabaricus). The Malabar Gliding Frog, Common Indian Toad, Beddomes Frog,

Fungoid Frog and Bi coloured Frog are the most common frogs found in this area.

3.9.6. Fishes

As many as 38 species of fishes are reported and four of them are endemic to the

PTR. They are (Puntius micropogan paeriyarensis), (Crossochelus Periyarensis),

(Lepidopygopsis typus) and (Noemachelus menonii) Among the 38 species of fishes,

seven species are very common and 18 species are rarely distributed in the Reserve.

3.10. TOURIST ARRIVALS IN KERALA

As regards the year-wise tourist arrivals and growth from 2001 to 2010 presented

in Table 3.5, there has been a variation of percentage growth of domestic and foreign

tourist arrivals (FTAs). After showing a steady growth of domestic tourist arrivals

(DTAs) from 2001 to 2002 the DTAs significantly declined to 1.7 per cent in 2004 and –

121

4.3 per cent in 2005 following the regular strikes, etc. However, the growth of DTAs

bounced back with 5.47 per cent in 2006, 5.92 per cent in 2007 and 14.28 per cent in

2008 respectively. There was a nosedive in DTAs in 2009 and recovered again in 8.61

per cent in 2010 and 9.15 per cent in 2011 respectively. Nonetheless, the year 2008 as

compared to other years witnessed an outstanding growth in the first decade of new

millennium.

Similarly, the growth of FTAs in Kerala between 2001 and 2011 is given in Table

3.5 and the table presents the year-wise growth of the FTAs. As indicated, there has been

a marginal increase in the FTAs from 2002 to 2010. The number of foreign tourists

reached 7.32 lakh in 2011 from 2.09 lakh and it is 3.45 times more in these 10-years

period. This phenomenal growth has been achieved owing to the concerted efforts of the

government in giving tourism as priority sector for which the State Government

sanctioned sufficient budgetary support to increase the FTAs in the State.

As such, Kerala Tourism has been singularly making aggressive multimedia

campaign in the overseas source markets to entice the visitors and the initiative has given

rich dividend to the State in terms of the FTAs and Foreign Exchange Earnings.

Furthermore, the State has emerged as a growing inbound market for the inbound air

charter tour operators for the last several years with a given reason of the three

international airports located at the vantage points ( Cochin, Calicut and Trivandrum) for

facilitating visitors to visit the places of interest. In addition to this, wellness is the

hallmark of Kerala Tourism and the State has capitalized the core tourism attraction for

which the sojourn of an average foreign tourist in Kerala as compared to other states is

longer. The State has already been recognized as a long-haul destination for its rich

122

traditional ayurvedic treatment facilities. On the other hand, the growth of FTAs does not

seem to be impressive while comparing to our neighboring tiny island nations like Sri

Lanka and Maldives.

As regards the total tourist arrivals in Kerala, Table 3.5 shows the gradual

increase in the tourist arrivals during the entire period excepting the year 2005 during

which there was a fall of 0.39 per cent in the tourist arrivals. Similarly, the year 2008 is

reported to show a double-digit growth of 14.41 per cent that happens to be the highest in

the entire year.

The table further revealed an interesting finding that the highest growth of 14.28

per cent and 20.37 per cent is reported in case of DTAs in 2008 and in case of FTAs in

2007. It is heartening to highlight that as much as 79.03 per cent growth of DTAs was

reported by comparing the DTAs between 2001 and 2011. Further, the growth of DTAs is

not so impressive as compared to the growth of the FTAs during the whole period. The

FTAs is reported to be almost 2.5-times more from 2001 to 2011. However, the total

tourist arrivals comprising the domestic tourists and foreign tourists registered a growth

of 83.99 per cent in 2011 over the total tourist arrivals in 2001.

The interference from the analysis was drawn that Kerala has been a destination

showcasing world-class tourism products for domestic tourists with much interest in

nature and wellness tourism. However, the growth of FTAs is itself an indication of

Kerala’s nature-based and religious-related tourism attractions to woo more number of

foreign tourists. The length and breadth of Kerala, as such, is richly endowed with the

natural scenic beauty that comprises backwater, tea garden, spice garden, landscape,

123

valleys, waterfalls, wildlife, etc. Apart from being a place for rich natural endowment, the

State has been a popular pilgrimage center for Ayappa Swamy Temple at Sabarimala and

the Guruvayur Temple in Thissur. Moreover, Kerala is the first State to institutionalize

the guidelines of responsible tourism for all the forms of tourism. Thus, it is suggested

that all the forms of nature-based tourism, including ecotourism and wildlife tourism

should be included under the purview of responsible tourism that leads to making the

ecotourism destination, including the PTR as a sustainable tourism destination in Kerala.

Table 3.5

DTAs & FTAs to Kerala from 2001 to 2011 (In Lakh)

Year DTAs %

Growth FTAs

% Growth

Total Tourist Arrivals

% Growth

2001 52.40 2.09 54.99 2002 55.68 6.3 2.32 11.3 58.00 9.07 2003 58.71 5.4 2.95 26.7 61.66 6.31 2004 59.72 1.7 3.45 17.3 63.17 2.44 2005 59.46 -4.3 3.46 6.27 62.92 -0.39 2006 62.71 5.47 4.28 23.7 66.99 5.99 2007 66.42 5.92 5.16 20.37 71.58 6.85 2008 75.91 14.28 5.99 16.11 81.90 14.41 2009 79.91 4.25 5.57 -6.96 85.48 4.37 2010 85.95 8.61 6.59 18.31 92.54 8.25 2011 93.81 9.15 7.32 11.18 101.13 9.28

Source: Flash Report of Tourism Statistics, Department o of Tourism, Government of Kerala, Trivandrum, p.2.

The high footfalls and longer duration of stay of foreign & domestic tourist

arrivals at several ecotourism and wildlife tourism destinations in Kerala clearly indicate

the position of the State in the international tourism map. At the same time, the position

of Idukki district in the tourist map of Kerala is prominent for its nature scenic beauty,

wildlife attractions and primitive people & culture.

124

The annual total tourist arrivals, including the FTAs and DTAs, as it is illustrated

in Table 3.6, to the Idukki district from 2001 to 2011 substantially signify the ecotourism

and wildlife tourism potentials of the PTR as it is one of the finest attractions of the

district. While looking at the FTAs between 2001 and 2006, it is found to be about 80.75

per cent growth as against a decline of -136.55 per cent between 2006 and 2011.

However, the growth of FTAs during the entire 11 years (from 2001 to 2011) is reported

to be 99.46 per cent. On the contrary, the growth of DTAs during the first half i.e. 2001-

2006 showed a growth of 46.01 per cent as against a marginal decline of -1.57 per cent in

the second half of the first decade of the new millennium (2006-2011). Nevertheless, the

total tourist arrivals to Idukki district indicate a significant growth of 53.16 per cent from

2001 to 2006 and a decline of -13.90 per cent from 2006 to 2011.

It is surprised to find the decline of total tourist arrivals from 2006 to 2011 and the

cause for the decline of tourist arrivals must be attributed to the boat mishap at the PTR

since it is a must-see place for the tourists when they usually enter to Idduki district.

Thus, the trend of tourist arrivals to the district should be taken seriously at the

government level and this decline may directly affect the growth of tourism business,

thereby displacing people from the tourism industry.

125

Table 3.6

Tourist Arrivals to Idukki District (In Lakh)

Year FTAS DTAs Total Tourist Arrivals 2001 0.254 2.78 3.03 2002 0.247 3.67 3.92 2003 0.318 4.21 4.53 2004 0.460 4.82 5.28 2005 0.393 4.74 5.13 2006 1.32 5.15 6.47 2007 0.465 5.05 5.52 2008 0.510 5.31 5.83 2009 0.382 4.30 4.68 2010 0.483 4.64 5.12 2011 0.558 5.07 5.68

Source: Flash Report of Tourism Statistics, Department o of Tourism, Government of Kerala, Trivandrum, p.2.

The PTR generally witnesses a large number of footfalls of day visitors and the

demand of day visitors is largely for boating activity in the reserve. Table 3.7 presents the

year-wise day visitors of both foreign and domestic tourists from 2005 to 2010. The

trend shows an increase in the arrivals of day visitors (foreign) from 37.48 thousands in

2005 to 39.34 thousands barring a decline of from 12.84 thousands between 2008 and

2009. The growth of the entire six years is reported to be a meager 4.72 per cent.

However, the year 2008 witnessed a highest number of day visitors (foreign) that is

recorded as 51.02 thousands or a rise in 26.53 per cent from the arrivals of day visitors in

2005.

At the same time, when the growth of day visitors (domestic) is taken into

consideration, it shows almost the same trend like day visitors (foreign) during the same

period. However, there has been a fluctuation in the total day visitor arrivals at the PTR.

There is an increase from 425.22 thousands in 2005 to 480.40 thousands in 2010,

126

showing a growth of 11.48 per cent. Obviously, a highest number of day visitor arrivals

are reported in 2008.

The analysis of the day-visitor arrivals at the PTR provides sufficient evidence

that the Reserve has been a common interest place for all those visitors who appear to

visit for the sake of wildlife sighting and experiencing the boat journey in the protected

areas. As such, ecotourism destinations do not encourage the day visitors and the footfalls

of these visitors largely harm the natural beauty and its ecosystem. When the numbers of

day visitors keep increasing, though it is marginally, the PTR has already faced the

negative impacts that include trampling, noise, loiters, traffic, demonstration effects, etc

over the years. Thus, it is suggested that the Administration of the Reserve should take

note of this trend of day visitors seriously and make all possible steps to convert the day

visitors to tourists, where by tourists as well as local community members can get

largely benefited with their interactions.

Table 3.7

Day-Visitors from 2008-2010 in PTR (In Thousands)

Year FTAs DTAs Total

2005 37.48 38.77 425.22 2006 44.58 51.52 559.76 2007 46.47 50.55 551.99 2008 51.02 53.20 582.95 2009 38.18 42.94 467.59 2010 39.34 44.11 480.40

Source: Official Records, District Tourism Promotion Council, Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala, Trivandrum

127

3.11. REVENUE EARNINGS FROM TOURISM

Kerala is a glaring testimony of nature’s bountiful gift that has helped the State

earns the coveted title “God’s Own Country. Almost it is ingrained in the minds of those

visitors who wish to sojourn in the serene environments along with peace-loving and

hospitable people. The State has created a niche in the international tourism map for its

unique backwater and wellness tourism. Most of the tourism-rich states in India have

been pushed down in the ranks of foreign tourist arrivals and foreign exchange earnings

with the persistent growth of tourist arrivals to Kerala. No hesitation to say that tourism is

the mainstay of the economy of Kerala and it contributes significantly to the State Gross

Domestic Product (SGDP). The remarkable growth in tourist arrivals explains volume

about the wholehearted support of the entire population for tourism development as it is a

major employment generator. In this backdrop, Table 3.8 presents total foreign exchange

earnings from tourism from 2001 to 2011 in the State.

The data pertaining to the Forest Exchange Earnings (FEEs) in Kerala show a

4.73-times increase from 2001 to 2008. Almost the five-times more increase in the

tourism revenue from inbound tourist traffic during the above period clearly indicates the

amount of multiplied economic activities at the various stages of the economy. It is by far

one of the major contributors to the SGDP and Income as reported in the various

government survey reports. As illustrated in the table, the amount of FEEs got declined

by 6.96 per cent in 2009 due to the impact of global recession on the movement of

inbound tourist traffic to India. Subsequently after, there has been an increase in the FEEs

since 2010. The latest data shows that the State earned Rs. 4221.99 cores of FEEs in

2011.

128

The table also presents the continuous increase in the total revenue generated

from tourism directly and indirectly from 2001 to 2011. It is reported that the State could

generate Rs. 4500 crore directly and indirectly from the tourism activities across the

primary, secondary and support service sectors in 2001. The growth in increase in

revenue during the entire period ( from 2001 to 2011) is reported to be 3.23 times.

However, the total revenue generated directly and indirectly from all these tourism and

allied sectors was almost unchanged between 2008 and 2009.

While looking at the annualized percentage growth of total revenue from tourism,

there were frequent variations in the percentage increase in the total tourism revenue of

the State. Across all the years, the year 2010 witnessed a growth of 31.12 per cent from

tourism revenue directly and indirectly and 33.09 per cent the FEEs generated directly as

compared a complete slump in 2009 in terms of total FEEs and total tourism revenue.

Similarly, the year 2007 experienced a growth of 25.28 per cent in the revenue generated

from tourism. Surprisingly, the percentage increase in the growth of total revenue got

reduced to single digit i.e. 9.74 per cent in 2011 and the FEEs slashed down to 11.18 per

cent in the same year.

Furthermore, the share of FEEs from the total tourism revenue is 11.88 per cent in

2001, whereas the share has increased to 22.18 per cent in 2011. Nevertheless, the

percentage share of FEEs from total revenue generated directly and indirectly varies

between as low as 11.88 per cent in 2001 and as high as 23.35 per cent in 2008. The

percentage share of FEEs from the total revenue from tourism between 2005 and 2009

has a marginal variation.

129

Apart from the share of FEEs, the domestic tourism also makes remarkable

contribution to the generation of tourism revenue in the State. It is further explained that a

major amounts of revenue generated from tourism generally come from the varied

tourism activities at various levels of tourism industry indirectly. Hence, tourism industry

known for its trickle down effects through the passing of tourism expenditures at the

transfer of money in different hands is strongly supported and substantiated with the

secondary data given in Table 3.8.

Table 3.8

Revenue Generated from Tourism (Rs. in Crore)

Year FEEs) % Increase

Revenue Generated From Tourism

(Direct and Indirect

% Increase

% Share of FEEs from

Total Revenue from Tourism

2001 535.00 1.85 4500.00 9.58 11.88 2002 705.67 31.90 4931.00 20.42 14.31 2003 983.37 39.35 5938.00 12.83 16.56 2004 1266.77 28.82 6829.00 15.01 18.54 2005 1552.31 22.54 7738.00 13.31 20.06 2006 1988.50 28.09 9126.00 17.94 21.78 2007 2640.94 32.82 11,433.00 25.28 23.09 2008 3066.52 16.11 13,130.00 14.84 23.35 2009 2853.16 -6.96 13,231.00 0.77 21.56 2010 3797.37 33.09 17,348.00 31.12 21.88 2011 4221.99 11.18 19,037.00 9.74 22.18

Source: Flash Report of Tourism Statistics, Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala, Trivandrum, p.2.

3.12. VISITOR AMENITIES AND FACILITIES

Accommodation is a primary touristic facility for the tourists visiting the PTR and

its neighborhood places of tourist interest for an excursion trip. As the PTR has earned

the name and fame for the wildlife tourism and ecotourism over the years, the

requirements for the accommodations would obviously be more.

130

3.12.1 Registered Hotels in Kumily

Table 3.9 shows three different types of registered hotels in Kumily as it is the

gateway to the PTR. As it is locally classified, A Class category of hotel generally

charges Rs. 5000 roof tariff and above per day with fixed or 24 hours check-in and

check-out. Similarly, the room tariff for B Class varies between a minimum of Rs. 2000

and a maximum of Rs.5000 and the C Class hotels have the room tariff below Rs. 2000.

As per the official record of the hotels in 2011, all these nine A Class hotels in

Kumily, as reported in 2011, have 18 single as well as 330 double rooms with a

maximum capacity of 731 rooms. Whereas, all these 11 B Class hotels in Kumily

comprise all the 319 double rooms with a maximum capacity of 642 beds to

accommodate the guests. Similarly, there are 30 C Class hotels with having maximum

capacity of beds to accommodate 1563 guests. However, there are 50 numbers of hotels

with 18 single rooms and 1300 double rooms along with the maximum capacity of 2936

beds. All these hotels are located in the adjoining areas of the PTR and provide rooms,

foods, bar and other hospitality services to the sojourners. Thus, the present existing

capacity of hotels does not seem to have sufficient number rooms and beds to meet the

growing demands of the visitors.

While looking at the growth of the visitors to the PTR, one can clearly state the

need for more additional rooms. When there seems to be insufficient number of rooms

and the demand usually exceeds supply during the high peak period, obviously the hotels

with all probabilities may not look into the improvement of the various service

parameters determining the service quality that leads to satisfying the guests. Most

131

critical aspect has been observed during the field visit and pilot study that most of the

hotels do not have adopted the codes of conduct of Green Globe and Agenda 21 to be

eligible to serve the guests and contribute to the sustainable ecotourism in the PTR.

Hence, it is suggested that more rooms should be created to meet three major objectives

for which the Government of Kerala is concerned for saving the forest and wildlife

through community participation and visitor satisfaction at the PTR as an ecotourism site.

Table 3.9

Number of Registered Hotels in Kumily

Type of Hotels No of Hotels Single Room Double Room Maximum Capacity A Class 9 18 330 731 B Class 11 ** 319 642 C Class 30 ** 651 1563 Total 50 18 1300 2936

Source: Official Records, District Tourism Promotion Council, Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala, Trivandrum

3.12.2. Alternative Accommodation

Kerala is pioneer in the introduction of the concept of home stay as an alternative

mode of accommodation in Kerala and the State has shown the ways for other states like

Maharashtra and Delhi to create as many home-stay accommodations as possible with the

wholehearted cooperation from the house owners. This concept has been deep rooted in

to the hospitality industry as the people of Kerala are extremely hospitable and oriented

towards serving the visitors.

As such, Kumily is known for having possessed a large number of home- stays

accommodations and this typical accommodation is very much appreciated by the foreign

tourists. Along with rooms, the guests find a kind of homely ambience along with

homemade food and exchange of culture at a very reasonable cost. With the creation of

132

home stay, the tourism industry has managed to overcome the acute shortage of rooms

and the host-guest interaction as the part of community-based tourism has become

possible through this wonderful concept. So much innovations and experimentations have

been initiated at the government level to ensure the uniform standards for the home- stays

operators across the State.

As far as the availability of home stays in Kumily is concerned, Table 3.10

exhibits the data with regard to number of rooms and beds and category of home stays in

2011. The DTPC has classified the home stays into Diamond, Gold and Silver on the

basis of facilities and quality of accommodation. It is found that there are 90 home stays

in Kumily. Out of which, eight home stays come under the Diamond Category, 15 under

Gold and 67 in the Silver Category respectively. All these three categories have created a

total 314 rooms and 658 beds. The concept of home stay is slowly gaining visibility and

acceptability in Kumily. However, foreign tourists largely sojourn in the home stays as

per the field visit reports.

Table 3.10

Home Stays in Kumily

Category No of Home Stays No of Room No of Beds Diamond 8 32 58

Gold 15 59 112 Silver 67 223 488 Total 90 314 658

Source: Official Records, District Tourism Promotion Council, Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala, Trivandrum.

133

3.12.3. Boating Facility

Table 3.11 shows the maximum seating capacity of motorized boats engaged for

ferrying the visitors to sight the wild animals and forest from the running boats. As

many as five boats are put into service in the Thekkady lake as it is the only entry point

for the visitors. The KTDC has owned three boats namely Gala Raja, Jalasundari and

Jalamohini and the Department has owned other two boats named as Vanajyotsana and

Periyar Annexture XVII shows the boat timings and the duration of trip in the buffer zone

spreading over the water bodies of the Periyar Lake.

While looking at the total capacity of the boats, it is found that Gala Raja can

accommodate as many as 62 number of visitors in the upper deck and 64 in the lower

deck. Similalry, Jalasundari as one of the double-decker boats can accommodate as

maximum as 36 visitors in the lower deck and there is no facility for the visitors to sit in

the upper deck. In addition, Jalamohini is a small boat with a capacity of carrying 20

visitors. Other two medium-sized boats namely Vana Jyotsna and Periyar have the total

capacity of 40 in the upper deck and 80 in the lower deck respectively. Thus, all the five

boats irrespective of seat capacities can take a maximum of 302 visitors breaking into 102

for upper deck and 200 for lower deck in one time. As per the arrangements of the Forest

Department and the KTDC, one boat can ferry the visitors a maximum five times in a

day. Finally, it comes to a total of 1510 visitors that all the five boats can take the

visitors to the core areas for wildlife sightseeing.

134

Table 3.11

Maximum Seating Capacity of the Boats

Sl. No. Name of the Boat Upper Deck Lower Deck Total 1 Gala raja(KTDC) 62 64 126 2 Jalasundari(KTDC) ….. 36 36 3 Jalamohini(KTDC) …. 20 20 4 Vanajyotsna(Forest) 20 40 60 5 Periyar (Forest) 20 40 60 Total 102 200 302

Source: Official Records, Department of Forest & Wildlife, Government of Kerala, Thekkady

3.12.4. Revenue Generation from KTDC Boat Services

Table 3.12 shows the generation of revenue from the three KTDC-owned and

operated boats from 2006-07 to 2011-12. The year-wise total revenue generated from the

KTDC boat services as against of total number of visitors taken the services of boat was

21.78 lakh during 2006-2007 tourism season. There was a steady decline in number of

visitors in taking the boat ride between 2006-07 and 2011-12, excepting 2008-09 during

which the PTR could witness 2.01 lakh visitors taken the services of boat and the KTDC

operated boats alone generated total revenue of Rs.30.54 lakh.

While looking at the revenue earned from the boat services of KTDC, there was a

gradual rise in the revenue from 2006-07 to 2008-09 and subsequently, it declined in the

number of visitors to availed the boat services and revenue earned from the KTDC-

owned boats from 2009-10 to 2010-11. After a decline in the number of visitors for the

boat ride and revenue earnings, the PTR has witnessed the number of visitors to avail the

boat services and revenue earnings between 2010-11 and 2011-12. Thus, there is a

direct positive relationship between the rise in tourist arrivals and the rise in revenue

receipts from selling the tickets for the wildlife sightseeing from the boats.

135

It is found from the field the visit that there was a tragic death of 45 visitors,

including small children on September 30, 2009 in a boat mishap in the regular routes in

the tourism zone of the PTR. The unfortunate incidence raised the question of

preparedness of the authorities to such a magnitude of disaster. The loss of innocent life

in the capsized boats maligned the stainless image of the PTR which was known for its

safety, security and hospitality. The recent rise in the demand for boat ride and the

increase in the revenue from the KTDC operated boat services show the persistent efforts

of the Forest Department along with the KTDC in the improvement of safety measures

for the visitors, including life jackets, emergency boat and lifeguard. The study has

suggested that visitors should be sensitized about the safety measures with the help of

brochures or audio visual presentations in the nearby interpretation centers. Annexture

XII presents the per head by the KTDC and Forest Department-operated boat charges for

the visitors to sight the wild animals.

Table 3.12

Revenue Generation from the KTDC-Operated Boats (in Lakh)

Year No. of Visitors Availed the Services of Boat

Revenue Earned

2006-2007 1.99 21.78 2007-2008 1.90 23.09 2008-2009 2.01 30.54 2009-2010 1.78 19.33 2010-2011 1.28 20.90 2011-2012 1.38 24.37

Source: Official Records, Transit Lounge Office, KTDC, Government of Kerala, Trivandrum

3.13. COMMUNITY-BASED ECOTOURISM PROGRAMMES

The community-based ecotourism programmes (CBEPs) aim to equip the local

people with technical skills and knowledge to help the visitors learn and experience in the

136

soft adventure activities through their active participations. This programme is unique in

meeting the two objectives. One is to diversify the ecotourism activities for the visitors to

prolong the stay that benefits the local community in earning livelihoods and the second

is to provide a wide range of choices to the visitors to spend in the various soft adventure

activities. Annexture VIII shows the road map of tourism zone along with the indentified

routes and places for undertaking ecotourism activities.

3.13.1 Visitor Participation in CBEPs

Table 3.13 shows the list of soft community-based and protection-oriented

ecotourism programmes and the number of visitors participated in each activity from

2004 to 2011. These programmes comprise Bamboo Rafting, Border Hiking, Bamboo

Groove, Jungle Camp, Windy Walk, Periyar Tiger Trail, Jungle Scout, Jungle Inn, Nature

Walk, Tribal Heritage Museum, Green Walk, Bullock Cart Discoveries, Range Scan and

Clouds walk. However, the nature walk, including trekking is one of the finest

programmes being enjoyed by the visitors.

While comparing the 15 types of the CBEPs presented in Table 3.13, it is clearly

evident from the secondary data pertaining to the year-wise total number of visitors

participated in the activities that the nature walk has attracted a maximum number of

visitors between 2004-05 and 2010-11. This particular activity attracted a total of 78,112

numbers of visitors from a total of 1,73,567 number of participants from all categories of

activities between 2004-05 and 2010-11. Furthermore, the participants, who joined in

the nature walk conducted by the PTR authority, constitute about 45 per cent of total

participants for all activities during the same period.

137

Thus, it is proved from the analysis that the nature walk has become a principal

attraction that both the PTR has properly been showcasing and organizing for which

almost half of the participants enjoyed the joy of walking in the trails of jungle to sample

the species and their movements along with plants in the protected areas. Nevertheless,

there was a gradual increase of participants in the nature walk activity and it got declined

during 2007-08 and 2008-09 due to the heartbreaking death of innocent visitors in the

boat mishap. As reported in the table, there is an increase in the number of participants

for the nature walk during the next subsequent two tourist seasons (2009-10 and 2010-

11).

In order to find the year-wise percentage share of nature walk activities from the

total participants across the 15 different ecotourism activities, it is reported that the share

of nature as compared to the total participants accounted for 57.86 in 2004-05, 54.44 in

2005-06, 51.59 in 2006-07, 45.44 in 2007-08, 34.36 in 2008-09, 34.99 in 2009-10 and

47.13 in 2010-11 respectively. As it is clearly evident from the analysis that the

percentage share got gradually reduced till 2009-10 and got marginal increased in 2010-

11.

It may be interpreted from the results that participants across the age, gender and

income are delighted to take the nature walk with the help of certified and trained eco-

guide. Unlike bamboo rafting, the charge quoted by the PTA for undertaking nature walk

activity is comparatively low and is almost zero risk. Since this does not need for special

skills and fitness, many senior citizens and children are the target groups for the activity.

Further, it is designed to enable the visitors irrespective of income and budget for the

138

activities in the PTR. The charge for nature walk is Rs.800 for four persons and Rs. 1200

for six persons. It is programmed in such a way that participants can leisurely walk,

observe and learn about the topography, ecosystem, animal habitations, etc. It is the

hallmark of the PTR’s ecotourism activities.

Green walk is one of the interesting and highly motivated activities that is a short

walk in the wilderness in the PTR areas. This particular walk is conducted to offer the

participants a kind of opportunity to admire, appreciate and enjoy the greenery of the

dense forest. Therefore, the soft adventure titled as “ Green Walk” is found to be the

second most important ecotourism activity on the basis of the total number of

participants. It is reported that as many as 25,898 participants took part in the green walk

in the PTR between 2007-08 and 2010-11 since the green walk was inducted into the

ecotourism programmes in 2007-08.

As far as bamboo rafting is concerned, the PTR authority has created this activity

for the visitors to take the enjoyment of rafting on a bundle of bamboos. This is typically

known as a traditional form of crossing the river and this form of soft adventure gives the

visitors to experience the bamboo rafting. It is reported that as many as 2360 visitors

participated in bamboo-rafting activity in the PTR during 2004-2005 and the number of

participants got increased to 3642 till 2006-07. Hence, it shows an increase of 35.2 per

cent from 2004-05 to 2006-07. However, the number of participants got declined by

47.83 percent i.e. 1900 during 2007-08. Subsequently, the number of participants for the

bamboo rafting witnessed marginal increase and decrease from 2008-09 to 2010-11. It is

ascertained from the fact that there was a decline in the total tourist arrivals due to the

139

tragic boat incident in 2009 that obviously resulted in the low participations in the

bamboo-rafting activity.

Jungle scout is the third important soft adventure activity that offers unique

opportunity to the participants to stumble upon the nocturnal species during the jungle

tour in the night along with forest guard on the night patrolling duty. This activity has

received well appreciations from the participants since the probability of encountering the

species like porcupine, rabbit, and Malabar giant squirrel, etc is relatively high. There are

two objectives to conduct the jungle scout in the night escorted by the poacher-turned

eco-guide from the local tribal villages. The first is to generate direct income for the eco-

guide and the second is to stop poaching or hunting in the night. As revealed from the

interviews from the officials of the PTR that the night patrolling has been beefed up

through this activity and the traditional poachers have been transformed to be the

invaluable source of providing protections to the wildlife due to their much acquaintances

to the terrains and deep forests.

Jungle scout that has enticed 16,111 numbers of participants from 2004-05 to

2010-11, are figured as the fourth important activity in order of the number of

participants. There was a year-wise increase in the total number of participants for jungle

scout activity from 2004-05 to 2006-07 and it faced a marginal decline during 2007-08

due to the boat calamity. Surprisingly, there was a sudden increase in the number of

participants for this activity in 2008-09 and there has been a sharp fall in the number of

participants from 2010-11. Even it got down to 1157.

140

The gradual decline and variations in the number of participants for jungle scout

seem to have occurred following the reasons other than the boat mishap, such as high

altitude walking in the night and targeted age group of participants, more importantly

tourists within the age group between 22 and 40.

Tribal heritage museum is a must-see place in the PTR and this museum exhibits

the various arts, artifacts and other household objects for the visitors to be familiar with

the rich tribal heritage. As many as 8160 number of visitors visited the museum as per the

departmental record. It is the fifth place in order of the number of visitors. The museum

not only houses a large collection of objects belonging to the primitive tribes of the

Periyar region, but also symbolizes a true testimony to preserve for the tribal culture and

heritage. It has its own significance when the community-based ecotourism is largely

given thrust in the PTR.

Besides all these five notable ecotourism programmes, the remaining others do

not seem to have become so effective in alluring the visitors to take part in the activities.

Even though some of these activities have all potentials to be as attractive as the leading

five ecotourism activities, but the PTR ought to bring the benefits of participations to the

knowledge of visitors. For example, Periyar tiger trail and bullock cart discoveries are the

two important CBEPs to entice the visitors to learn, appreciate, admire and enjoy the

activities aiming for saving the tiger and the age-old mode of transport for novelty

feeling.

141

Table 3.13

Year-Wise Participants in CBEPs

CBEP

Year-Wise No. of Participants ( In Thousands)

TTotal

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Bamboo Rafting 2.36 2.51 3.64 1.90 2.28 2.03 2.10 16.82

Border Hiking 0.517 0.885 1.11 1.04 0.939 0.833 0.974 6.30

Bamboo Groove 0.351 0.653 1.30 1.12 1.29 1.51 0.516 6.73

Jungle Camp 0 0.032 0.480 0.415 0.125 0.180 0.140 1.37

Windy Walk 0 0 0 0.026 0.018 0.012 0 0.056

Tiger Trail 0.230 0.291 0.329 0.330 0.402 0.341 0.235 2.15

Jungle Scout 1.75 2.52 2.98 2.48 2.70 2.54 1.16 16.11

Jungle Inn 0.032 0.053 0.076 0.029 0.034 0.035 0.036 0.295

Nature Walk 8.92 10.33 12.76 11.60 9.58 11.10 13.84 78.11

Tribal Museum 1.04 1.25 1.43 1.12 1.41 1.20 0.696 8.16

Green Walk 0 0 0 3.97 5.69 8.91 7.32 25,898

Bullock Cart Discoveries

0.212 0.452 0.633 0.634 0.450 0.538 0.538 3.46

Range Scan 0 0 0 0 0.314 0.446 0.142 0.902

Clouds Walk 0 0 0 0.844 2.64 2.04 1660 7.19 Total 15.41 18.97 24.74 25.50 27.87 32 29.00 174.000

Source: Official Records, Periyar Foundation, Department of Forest & Wildlife, Government of Kerala, Thekkady

3.13.2. Year-Wise Revenue from CBEPs

Table 3.14 presents the year-wise revenue from CBEPs between 2004-05 and

2010-11. All forms of ecotourism are designed to seek supports from the local

community members to implement the policy and programmes for the mutual benefits of

all the stakeholders. The fundamental benefit that the ecotourism projects aiming to bring

for the local community members are the socio-economic development through the

income and employment generation. This particular objective that the Forest Department

of Kerala has been critical about from the very beginning of implementation of

ecotourism projects in the PTR has been achieved with the committed efforts of the

142

Department to get the project implemented through the EDC as a community-oriented

approach.

The Department of Forest, the PTR East Division has incurred the total revenue of

Rs.690.27 lakh from all these 15 ecotourism programmes from 2004-05 to 2010-11. This

amount of revenue generation itself explains about the trickle down effects in the local

economy of Thekkady that remains to be a backward district in Kerala. While taking the

total revenue generated from the individual ecotourism programmes, bamboo rafting

programme has contributed an amount of Rs. 174.24 lakh to the PTR from 2004-05 to

2010-11. This accounts for one fourth (25.24 %) of the total revenue generated during

the whole period. However, the bamboo rafting is third largest programmes in terms of

attracting the number of participants during the same period.

It may be further interpreted that this activity could generate one fourth of

revenue due to the relatively high participation fees and value-for-money for the

participants. In addition, this programme includes both the trekking as well as rafting for

which participants seem to have regarded the activity as worth participating and

spending. Moreover, bamboo rafting is a soft adventure activity, which has all potentials

to contribute more revenue to the socio-economic mission of the PTR to alleviate

poverty, hunger and malnourishment.

The second highest revenue to the tune of Rs. 108.51 lakh has been generated

from the nature walk activity from 2004-05 to 2010-11. This forms 15.67 per cent of the

total revenue (690.27 lakh) generated from all the 15 activities.

143

Apart from being one of the major contributors of tourism revenue to the

exchequer of the PTR East Division, the nature walk has become the first major

ecotourism programme in respect of handling the number of participants shown in Table

3.13. Thus, there is large scope for nature walk to generate more revenue for the EDC in

the future since it is generally amenable to all the age and income segments of the

visitors. In this regard, the authority should conduct more nature walk activity that is non-

consumptive and direct form of ecotourism. As reported in the field visit and pilot study,

there was overwhelming response and interest for taking part in the nature walk not

because of less strenuous, zero risk and low participation fee, but because of appreciating,

learning and enjoying the nature’s beauty, serenity and sanctity.

As regards the tiger trail as a potential ecotourism programme, the revenue

generated from this particular programme has turned to be Rs. 83.54 lakh accounting for

12.10 per cent from the total revenue earned during the same period. Having looked into

the number of participants, the tiger trail has not become a major attractive ecotourism

prorgamme being promoted by the PTR since its beginning. Whereas, the volume of

revenue has made the tiger trail as a third most important revenue contributor in the PTR.

One of the reasons for the tiger trail to contribute a little more than one tenth of the total

revenue may be attributed to the higher participation fees and it is a niche attraction for

hard-core eco-tourists or wildlife tourists having much interest and care for wild animals.

It was reported from the interviews and interactions with participants during the field

visits that most of the participants wish to contribute for the development of the

community.

144

Close to the amount of revenue generated from tiger trail is found to be jungle

scout with an amount of Rs. 82.12 lakh between 2004-05 and 2010-11. The share of

revenue earned through the jungle scout activity is 11.89 per cent. As it is a programme

being conducted in the night and escorted by the trained eco-guides, the fee for

participating is relatively high and hard-core or dedicated type of eco-tourists with much

interest and curiosity to experience the dense forest and high altitude areas. Hence, there

is a scope for increasing revenue from this activity as it forms to be one of the major

activities on the basis of the number of participants. More importantly, it is essential to

increase the amount of revenue from this activity to stop illegal poaching in the reserve

areas and to encourage the poachers to work for the jungle scout for earning dignified and

steady income. As revealed, the authorities of PTR have converted the traditional

poachers into eco-guides or nature guides and the participants are enlightened with the

traditional knowledge and experience of eco-guides. Thus, jungle scout has sufficient

prospects for attracting more participants in the future.

Other ecotourism programmes, which also share significant amount of revenue

with the total revenue generated from the whole activities, comprise bamboo grove with

9.38 per cent or Rs. 64.81 lakh, Range scan with 5.32 per cent or 36. 75 lakh and green

walk with 4.38 per cent or 30.25 laks respectively.

On the other hand, it is reported from the table that there was a gradual increase in

the year-wise revenue generated from all 15 activities between 2004-05 and 2006-07. The

amount of inflow of revenue through all the ecotourism programmes was down about

23.74 per cent i.e. 92.31 lakh in 2007-08 as compared to 114.23 lakh in 2006-07. The

one-fourth downfall of revenue was reported in 2007-08 due to the mid-water boat

145

mishap. Subsequently after, there was a rise in the amount of revenue consecutively for

two years and a decline again in 2010-11.

It is inferred from the analysis of the year-wise revenue generated from the

various activities that many so called CBEPs do not seem to yield desired results,

excepting a half dozen ecotourism prorgammes. Thus, this is an important finding from

the analysis of the data that the continuous variation in the year-wise revenue and revenue

generated from the individual ecotourism activity is a concern to be investigated further

by the authorities. The amount of revenue generated from the ecotourism activities does

not seem to bring about visible changes in the PTR areas and the community members do

not seem to be benefited much from the revenue. These are the possible reasons such as

lack of focused eco-tourists or nature lovers, increasing number of day-visitors and lack

of coordinated efforts for which the volume of revenue has not been increased over the

years.

Table 3.14

Revenue Generated from CBEPs

Name of the CBEPs Year-Wise Revenue ( In Lakh)

2004-05 2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

Total

Bamboo Rafting 23.60 25.07 36.42 19.00 22.83 20.34 26.98 174.24 Border Hiking 3.88 6.64 10.46 8.26 7.04 6.24 8.48 51 Bamboo Groove 3.51 6.52 12.94 11.20 12.86 11.33 6.45 64.81 Jungle Camp 0 0.16 2.40 2.07 0.62 0.90 0.70 6.85 Windy Walk 0 0 0 0.19 0.13 0.09 0 0.41 Tiger Trail 9.48 11.33 12.53 12.26 15.06 12.67 10.21 83.54 Jungle Scout 8.74 12.59 14.86 12.40 13.47 12.69 7.38 82.13 Jungle Inn 0.64 1.07 1.53 0.59 0.68 0.70 0.72 5.93 Nature Walk 13.44 13.66 16.92 15.38 12.71 14.70 21.70 108.51 Tribal Museum 1.04 1.25 1.43 0.56 0.70 0.60 0.35 5.93 Green Walk 0 0 0 3.97 5.69 8.91 11.68 30.25 Bullock Cart Discoveries

0.16 3.39 4.74 4.75 3.37 4.03 4.61 25.05

Range Scan 0 0 0 0 2.35 33.34 1.06 36.75 Clouds Walk 0 0 0 1.68 5.28 4.08 3.83 14.87

Total 64.49 81.68 114.23 92.31 102.79 130.62 104.15 690.27 Source: Official Records, Periyar Foundation, Department of Forest & Wildlife, Government of Kerala, Thekkady

146

3.14. MANPOWER IN PTR

The custodian of the PTR is the Department of Forest, Government of Kerala and

the Department has been vested with authority to safeguard the flora and fauna and

regulate the livelihood related activities such as agriculture, collection of forest products,

tourism, etc. More importantly, ecotourism has been preferred for providing alternative

occupations to the local tribes. The efforts through the formation of the EDC have

resulted in the creation of dignified income for both men and women from the local

community. They were otherwise engaged in the traditional agriculture activities or in the

direct collection of barks, honey, seeds, fruits, medicinal plants, etc. Those tribes are also

fond of trapping live birds, hens, rabbits, porcupine etc and catching fish.

3.14.1 Staff Strength in Periyar East Division

Table 3.15 contains the total number of official staff, including officers of the

Department of Forest working for PTR. As many as 193 staff members along with

officers are posted in the various positions to discharge the duties like guarding forest,

wildlife and other natural resources, the conduct of tiger and elephant census, creation of

awareness programme among the local people and school children, regulation of

ecotourism activities, management of the EDC, operation and maintenance of forest

lodges, jungle roads, parking areas, boats, conduct of research, participation in the

workshop, coordination with other stakeholders, estimation of budget outlays,

computation of tourist arrivals and revenue receipts from tourism.

As seen in the table that the Department has posted 125 forest guards for the PTR

and these guards account for 64.76 per cent of the total staff positions. Similarly, there

147

are 25 foresters representing 12.95 per cent of the total sanctioned staff strength of the

PTR. Hence, the distribution of staff across the positions indicates that the forest guards

have outnumbered all the positions.

Table 3.15

Staff Strength in Periyar East Division, Thekkady

Sl No. Official Positions Sanctioned Staff Strength

1 Deputy Director (Project Tiger) 1 2 Asst Field Director 1 3 Deputy Director (WE) 1 4 AFVO 1 5 Senior Superintendent 1 6 Junior Superintendent 1 7 Head Accountant 2 8 Range Officer 6 9 Deputy Ranger 3 10 Forester 25 11 Forest Guard 105 12 UD Clerk and LD Clerk 12 13 UD Typist 1 14 LD Typist 1 15 Confidential Assistant 1 16 Statistical Asst Grade I 1 17 Driver 4 18 Peon 8 19 Watcher Cum Cook 2 20 Boat Driver 6 21 Boat Watcher 2 22 Boat Cleaner 2 23 Boat Lascar 1 24 Trekker Cum Gardner 1 25 Mahout 1 26 PTS 3 27 Total 193

Source: Official Records, the Deputy Director Office, Department of Forest & Wildlife, Government of Kerala, Thekkady

3.14.2. Staff Strengths in Periyar Foundation

Table 3.16 shows the distribution of staff members at the various official

positions in the Periyar Foundation. This foundation has been established with a noble

148

cause for saving the tiger as a biggest predator in the natural ecosystem in the PTR. As

tiger is the key species and its presence is essentially important for the ecosystem to

function, the foundation has so far done commendable works for increasing the tiger

census that has resulted in the rise in other faunal species in the ecosystem. For instance,

the age-old poachers have been appointed as the eco-guides, escorts, porters and other

service staff in the ecotourism programmes. The most visible initiative of staff members

of the foundation is focused on the research on the tiger and predators in the forest of

Periyar. As many as 11 staff members are working for the foundation to execute policy

and programmes for the conservation of tiger.

Table 3.16

Distribution of Staff in Periyar Foundation

Sl. No. Official Positions No. of Staff 1 Member Secretary 1 2 Conservation Biologist and Ecologist 2 3 Assistant Nature Education Officer 1 4 Accountant 1 5 Information Assistant 1 6 Computer Operator 1 7 Data Entry Operator 2 8 Clerical Assistant 1 9 Peon- Cum-Sweeper 1 Total 11

Source: Official Records, Periyar Foundation, Department of Forest & Wildlife, Government of Kerala, Thekkady

3.15. ROLES AND FUNCTIONS OF PERIYAR FOUNDATION

The Periyar Foundation is a Government-owned public trust with the legality of

the Government organization and flexibility of a good NGO. The main aim of the

foundation is to facilitate and support the biodiversity conservation initiatives through

149

eco-development and people’s participation in the PTR. It also supports similar initiatives

in adjoining landscapes formed as per G.O (MS) No. 36/2004/F&WLD, dated 27-7-2004.

3.15.1 Activities of Periyar Foundation

The conservation Biology Wing of the Foundation carries out long-term as well as

short-term research and monitoring programmes in the surrounding areas of the PTR and

its adjoining landscapes. This includes monitoring of tigers, co-predators and health

monitoring of prey species and their habitats. Even studies are related to monitoring of

population of Elephants, Gaur and other animals along with contentious and complex

issues linked to human-wildlife conflict, impacts of eco-development initiatives on the

ecosystem, baseline studies, impact of Sabarimala pilgrimage and community-based

ecotourism.

The Foundation seeks the external direct funding from the Department of Tourism

and Directorate of Ecotourism of Government of Kerala along with the US Fish and

Wildlife Service to undertake studies related to sustainable ecosystem in the PTR. Many

studies have revealed the path-breaking research findings to address the negative impacts

due to the ecotourism, agriculture, timber trade, dam, etc. Preparation of management

plans for other protected areas, participatory micro planning and rapid biodiversity

assessment are some of the consultancy works are largely taken up as a non-profit

making activity.

Training workshops and seminars are conducted at local, regional, national and

international levels. Training programmes include the capacity building for field staff in

wildlife techniques and biodiversity assessment, law, habitat and fire management,

150

Global Positioning System (GPS), eco-development, crime investigation, use of GPS,

camera traps, India Tiger Monitoring Programme, Elephant Census, training in

management of wild elephants, collection of metrological data such as rainfall,

temperature, humidity etc. Seminars and workshops are conducted for the vetinary

doctors in collaboration with Indian Vetinary Association (IVA). National level

workshop for senior forest officers in ecotourism planning in protected areas in

collaboration with the WII, Dehradun is regularly conducted.

Nature education and trainings are conducted for a variety of campaigns for

creating nature awareness, sensitization, dissemination, outreach, awareness, campaigns,

celebrations, exposure visit for the EDC members, students, members of the nature

clubs and other stakeholders, including Panchayat (local administration) and tour

operators, home-stays owners, hoteliers, the local administration and Anganwadis.

The Foundation provides camp equipment to the field staff and watchers from the

local community engaged for protection in the interior forest areas. The professionals of

the Foundation support the park management in analyzing the data on wildlife

monitoring, weather projects/programmes pertaining to effective management and

documentation of park values.

The Foundation supports eco-development activities by funding various micro

plan activities and helps the EDCs in reviewing and implementing various micro plan

activities and in conducting various studies on ecological and socio economic impacts.

Local people are empowered through continuous training, capacity building and scientific

temperament of research. The foundation helps in the formation of new EDCs and

151

innovative alternate income generation activities. It acts as a nodal agency for marketing

and branding the producers of EDCs, including exporting the indigenous products. Other

activities include the adoption of the health center and tribal schools for providing dust

bins and technical support for waste management.

3. 15.2. Structure and Composition of EDC’s

The relationship between the park authorities and local people is harmonized

through the IEDP, established in the PTR on December 29, 1996 till June 2004. The

major objective of the IEDP was to improve capacity of protected area management, to

conserve biodiversity and to minimize negative impacts of people. The major

components of IEDP include the management of protected areas, village eco-

development, nature education and training research and monitoring. At the end of the

project period, about 72 EDCs were formed encompassing almost 40,000 people from the

forest fringe areas. As a result, negative dependency of these people on forest was almost

reduced and poaching and wildlife crime rate was reported to be at its lowest. Further,

sandal smuggling and forest fires were controlled through participatory management of

these EDCs beyond the project period. Annexture XIV presents the names of various

EDCs in a table in the Periyar East Division.

3.15.2. 1. Structure of the EDC

As per the bylaws of the EDC, all the SC and ST families along with all women

are to be included apart from the other representations of other members. Each family is

represented by two members and one of the members must be a female. The Range

152

Officer is deemed to be the Assistant Eco-development Officer and the forester is the Ex-

office Secretary. However, one of the best forest guards in the area is the Assistant Ex-

officio Secretary. The General Body of the EDC elects an Executive Committee

consisting of seven members and one person is the chairperson of the committee. Among

the remaining six members, three shall be female and three from the SC and ST category

(only if the SC and ST representation is there in the General Body).

The forester is the member secretary. The Ex-office secretary does not have any

voting power and the bank account of EDC is jointly operated by Chairman Ex-office

Secretary and one nominated female member of the Executive Committee. The micro

plans are prepared by the committee and submitted in the meeting of Eco-Development

Implementation Committee (EDIC) for approval. All the 72 EDC’s functioning have

passed through 5th years of micro plan implementation. The target population is about

58,000 in selected villages with in 2 km radius of which 25 per cent belongs to the SC

and 4 per cent to the ST. Every family of the village EDC is eligible for an amount of Rs

12,500 as project investment and the villages have to contribute 25 per cent in the form of

Kind, Cash or Labour. A part of this money thus invested is collected back to the

Community Development Fund (CDF).

3.16.3. Village Eco-Development

The objectives of the village eco-development activity are to reduce negative

interaction of local people on the biodiversity of PTR and increase collaboration of local

people in its conservation. Three micro planning support teams were constituted,

including the trained forest staff, ecologist, sociologist and non-government individuals

153

(NGI’s) for preparing micro plans for village investments. The process of micro planning

completed by September 2000 and 72 micro plans covering 5,540 families irrespective of

the EDC’s were prepared and it is now in the stage of implementation.

The central to this programme is the participatory planning. It is a dynamic

ongoing process that runs concurrent to implementation due to the combination of factors

more than three fourths of the available project time used to constitute the EDC’s and to

review the working of EDC’s. Two case studies from the PTR on eco-development

initiative were published in the World Bank document with a title namely “Supporting

the Web of Life” during 2001.

3.16.3.1. Eco-Development Committee Formation

For the formation of EDC, an Eco-development Zone has been created in a

distance of 2 km from the boundary of the protected areas. Annexure V shows the Eco-

development Zone and Core Areas within which several CBEPs are conducted for the

visitors in association with the local community members. Tribal settlement, SC colonies

and other marginal and backward fringe area communities were given the maximum

priority. However, the committee was constituted as per the government order in a

phased manner.

3.16.4. Micro Planning

Micro planning was initiated through the Protected Area Mutual Interaction

Assessment (PAMIA) methods. The areas selected for EDC formation passes through the

three micro planning support teams consisting of trained forest staff and NGO’s with the

154

support of sociologists. The feasibility analysis is done by the Ecologist and Sociologist

during Micro Planning. The teams conduct the PAMIA and organize a series of

discussions with the EDC members. Micro plans were prepared jointly by the EDCs and

Micro planning Support Teams (MIST) and were subsequently approved by the Eco-

Development Implementation Committee (EDIC). Annexure VI shows the seven

identified India Eco-Development Project Reserves across India.

3.16.5. Types of Eco-Development (EDCs)

The process of Micro planning was completed by September 2000 and 72 Micro

plans covering 5440 families have been prepared. As the Micro plan progressed, the

dependency level varies from one EDC to another. People tend to identify themselves in

strong social and ethnic groups. As a result, a novel approach evolved for the formation

of the EDC based on occupational groups rather than settlement alone due to peculiar

geographical settlement pattern in the area and social structure. There are four categories

of the EDC: neighborhood, pilgrimage management, professional group and user group.

Neighborhood: These are EDCs at the village level comprising of all the

families in a particular geographical or administrative area. The micro plans for these

committees mainly aim at improving the economic conditions of those families and

providing financial, technical and marketing support to improve their resources mainly

agriculture. They include Manakudy, Sathram, Ceylon Colony and Angel Valley EDCs.

Pilgrimage Management: Even though it is a part of the User Group of EDCs

known as SAPP (Swami Ayyappa Poonkavanam Punarudhanam), but their activities are

limited to the pilgrimage season. These members operate along the traditional pilgrimage

155

routes to Sabarimala Shrine and provide basic amenities to pilgrims in an eco-friendly

way.

Professional Group: This committee works for the long-term positive

interactions and supports in various management activities in the protected areas. The

membership is permanent based on the levels of interaction and knowledge about the

protected areas in the past. For instance, the Ex Vayana Bark Collectors EVBC EDC,

Periyar Tiger Samrakshana Samiti, PETS EDC, TTEDC Tribal Trekkers EDC, and Tribal

Trekkers Heritage EDC,TTHEDC, Vidiyal EDC and Ex Thelli Collectors EDC

User Group: Reduction of negative impacts on the resources of protected areas is

given utmost priority in this category. Groups of individuals that depend on a particular

resource of the park include graziers, fuel wood and thatching grass collectors as the

EDC members. The members need not necessarily belong to one settlement. It is the use

of a particular resource that being them one fold.

The PTR has evolved a self-managed ecotourism site to raise the revenue for

conservation of forest and wildlife. One of the key objectives is to earn from the visitors

as a part of sustainable tourism practices. Nothing is free in the world and there would be

charge for the user of facilities. Similarly, there is no free lunch for those who wish to

enjoy the nature in the protected areas. Over and above, the philosophy for conservation,

more important thing is to make the visitors feel responsible for and affectionately

attached with the flora and fauna.

156

It is a kind of contribution that the visitors share for the fulfillment of mutual

benefits. Visitors with much interest in learning, experiencing, admiring and enjoying the

rich biodiversity along with the culture are largely conscious of their roles and behaviours

at the ecotourism destinations. The user fees being collected by the authority of PTR is

well accepted and appreciated across the categories of visitors and the service providers.

It is a proven case as far as the productive utilization of revenue generated from the entry

fees, camera and video fees, parking fees and the sale of tickets for using boats for

sighting the wildlife and enjoying the nature, etc for keeping upkeep of the public areas in

the reserve. Those amounts of revenue are directly spent for the welfare of local

community and are utilized for the payment of remunerations to the forest guards, eco-

guides and boat man, and etc. journey in the PTR. As a model Reserve in promoting

responsible ecotourism tourism, managing the facilities and amenities from the tourism

revenue is essentially important step of the PTR.

3. 17. Major Sources of Generating Revenue

As it is shown in Table 3.17, the authorities have generated revenue mostly from

the entry and user fees. As much as Rs. 1387.14 lakh or Rs. 13.87 crore have been raised

from both domestic and foreign visitors in the Reserve from 2006-07 to 2010-11. Apart

from a fall in the total revenue in 2009-10, there has been an increase in the inflow of

revenue through entry and user fees during the period. However, the total revenue during

2010-11 was collected to the tune of Rs. 336.73 lakh. It is further reported that the entry

fees collected from the foreign check post accounts for the maximum as compared to

other sources of generating revenue.

157

While looking at the individual component of revenue generation, the check post

for foreign and domestic tourists account for 55.42 per cent (768. 76 lakh) , revenue

from boat service 12.74 per cent ( 176.86 lakh) from the total revenue collected over the

five year period. A total of 219.29 lakh or 15.80 per cent of the total revenue was

collected through the component of entry fees of tourist vehicles. Thus, it is found from

the data that forest check post has remained to become the first important source of

revenue, followed by the domestic check post, vehicle entry fees and tickets for taking

boat ride in order of second, third and fourth highest contributors to the total revenue

generated during the five years. Annexture XIII (a), (b) and (c) shows the visitor fees,

vehicle entry fees and still and video camera respectively as the sources of revenue for

the PTR.

158

Table 3. 17

Major Sources of Generating Revenue from Entry Fees of Visitors in PTR (In Lakh)

Source: Official Records, Thekkady Range Office, Department of Forest & Wildlife, Government of Kerala, Thekkady

Year

Bo

at

Ind

ians

Fo

reign

KT

DC

Vid

eo

Still

Cam

era

R/H

Ro

yalty

Pen

alty

Ind

ian C

heck

Po

st

Stu

den

t In

dian

Fo

reign C

heck

Po

st

Stu

den

ts F

oreign

Veh

icle

12

yrs C

hild

ren

To

tal

2006-07 17.23 30 3.66 1.58 14.95 16.50 0.736 0.173 0.645 62.35 2.25 90.21 0.0381 40.09 1.89 255.81

2007-08 22.41 -- 4.07 1.31 14.22 17.20 -- 0 0.045 64.33 2.16 103.62 0.0577 42.40 2.06 273.91

2008-09 34.18 --- 3.16 1.48 13.35 18.04 --- --- 1.25 72.94 1.97 95.34 0.0666 48.25 0.0079 290.03

2009-10 34.56 -- 2.25 0.833 6.57 10.21 --- --- 61.99 0.932 70.76 0.0574 40.53 1.96 230.66

2010-11 68.48 --- 2.37 1.74 48.02 15.43 --- --- 2.10 70.55 1.14 76.67 0.0443 48.02 2.17 336.73

Total 176.86 30 15.51 6.943 97.11 77.38 0.736 0.173 4.04 332.16 8.45 436.6 0.264 219.29 8.08 1387.14

159

Conclusion

The PTR has a long history in taking care of the conservation measures for the

protection of wildlife and preservation of forest resources. With the passage of time, the

construction of irrigation dam, sporadic shifting cultivation and animal poaching by

tribes and hunting by the royal family members and collection of forest products like

timber, barks, leafs and honey, etc have largely disturbed the functioning of ecosystem

and altered the natural landscape of the Reserve. Embracing ecotourism as an alternative

form for conservation of wildlife, forest, primitive people and culture and other natural

resources has produced perceptible improvement since the paradigm was introduced. The

PTR has not only wooed the tourists for inculcating love and care for nature, wildlife and

primitive people, but also generated substantial amount of revenue from the various

activities of ecotourism with marginal variations. This has resulted in the creation of

employments for the local community members, thus increasing the income and

purchasing power.

The Forest Authorities have so far become proactive in regulating the tourism

activities and innovative in introducing the activities with strict adherence to the

ecotourism guidelines and the International Ecotourism Society (TIES). The participants

or the tourists are largely enlightened with the relationships in the ecosystem and their

interdependences. As a result, the EDCs have set the examples for other ecotourism

projects to emulate the social and economic empowerment programmes. The Periyar

Foundation is committed for the education, training, research and empowerment, etc in

160

the PTR and it is proved to be a catalyst for the EDCs to get benefited largely from the

ecotourism activities.

The analysis of the secondary data pertaining to the microscopic view of the

ecotourism in the PTR has widen the scope for drawing the inferences with regard to the

visitor satisfaction and community empowerment through the practices of sustainable

ecotourism. Many of the unanswered questions related to the facilities, amenities, safety,

hospitality and activities, etc do not seem to have been clarified with the interpretations

for which the primary data presented in Chapter IV have comprehensively been analyzed

and interpreted. However, the elaborate, intensive and comprehensive analysis and

discussions with reference to the ecotourism in the PTR have certainly revealed that the

PTR is not a symbolic ecotourism destination rather it has become a model ecotourism

site for others to emulate the practices over the years. It is truly a site to be reckoned with

as identified for fostering symbiotic relationships between local people, visitors, service

providers, NGOs, government, wildlife and plants, etc.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

PART-I

161

4.0. INTRODUCTION

The present research work focuses on the level of visitor satisfaction and

community empowerment by conducting an opinion survey through a well-structured and

well-tested questionnaire. The study is titled as “ Visitor Satisfaction and Community

Empowerment for Sustainable Ecotourism: An Evaluative Study of Periyar Tiger

Reserve”. Both the constructs are the major determinants for making the PTR a

sustainable ecotourism destination. After making a macroscopic overview of total tourist

arrivals and revenue earnings, total number of hotel rooms and beds, total employment,

etc, an attempt has been made to further investigate the fundamental problems of the

study by making minute analysis of demographic background of respondents as well as

the individual opinions of tourists and community members on the basis of their

experiences and understandings with regard to ecotourism and wildlife tourism in the

PTR.

Nevertheless, the presentation of secondary data cannot suffice to prove the

arguments that both visitor satisfaction and community empowerment can be the decisive

factors to make sure the sustainable ecotourism with a principle of providing value-for-

money experience to the visitors and freedom to the community members to participate

in the decision making and to work directly and indirectly for the eco-development

projects as a member of the EDC.

Certainly right, the secondary data that have been collected for some other

purposes have been used to widen the scope of understandings and inferences of the same

on the principles and practices of sustainable ecotourism in the PTR for logical

162

conclusion. Otherwise, the secondary data have its own limitations to help draw

inferences on the defining problems of sustainable ecotourism in the Reserve. As it is

reflected, the PTR is a world-famous wildlife tourism destination and a century-old tiger

reserve forest facing serious threats from the human exploitations and natural calamities.

The option of integrating tourism into the conservation of forest and wildlife and

improvement of socio-economic development has been well appreciated and many

benefits have been percolated into the Thekkady region through the influx of tourists

while taking the need for conservation through community participation and visitor

satisfaction into consideration.

With this backdrop, efforts were put forward to prove the trend of secondary data

as well as the theoretical gap in the study. The need for primary data has arisen when the

secondary data could not throw feelings, emotions, sentiments, experiences and

satisfactions of visitors and community members as the two stakeholders play defining

roles in the PTR. Further, inflow of visitors helps generate revenue to take care of the

maintenance of the reserve and remuneration along with other welfare schemes for the

community members. At the same time, majority of empirical studies are based on the

primary data and most of the findings of those studies have been the guiding sources for

the current and future studies. Moreover, decision to adopt the method of investigating

the research problems through conducting primary data was taken keeping in view the

invaluable opinions of visitors and community members as both are the two pillars of the

success of ecotourism projects in the PTR.

163

The study broadly intends to analyze the primary data to find out the

demographic characteristics of the respondents and their understandings and experiences

on various dimensions of sustainable ecotourism. The primary data analysis was carried

out on the basis of objectives set for the study. The data analysis is divided into two

parts. The first part discusses the analysis of results of opinion of the visitors, who spent a

minimum of 24 hours in Thekkady and the second part interprets data collected from the

community members, who have been the residents of the locality for long time and the

members of the EDC. Hence, these two primary datasets were analyzed comprehensively

on the objectives of sustainable ecotourism

164

PART I

4.1. DEMOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTIONS

The study has analyzed the understandings of visitors on various dimensions of

sustainable ecotourism in the PTR. Tourist respondents were asked to view their

agreements or disagreements on the seven point Likert Scales varying from definitely

agree to disagree to definitely disagree related to quality of facilities, amenities, services,

hospitality, safety and security along with some common questions in a nominal scale.

These questions include sources of information, frequency of visit, duration of stay, mode

of transport and accommodation, FIT or GIT, and amount of expenditures, etc. The

primary data also included the demographic information to help analyze and test the

opinion of respondents as independent variables. Table 4.1 presents the percentage

distribution of tourist demographic data such as Nationality, Gender, Marital Status,

Income, Educational Qualification and Occupation of the respondents.

Out of the 500 tourist respondents, 290, 58.0 per cent of them were domestic and

210, 42.0 per cent of were foreign tourists. Gender differentiates human beings on the

basis of their own understandings and likings. Similarly, the understandings of male

tourists generally differ from that of their female counterparts due to their change in

tastes and preferences. Thus, the results of frequency revealed that majority of the

respondents (341 out of 500 or 68.2%) are male while the remaining 159 (31.8%) are

female tourists. The distribution seems to be adequate to make further interpretation and

inferences. It may be interpreted that more male tourists are motivated to visit the PTR

since it is a well-known wildlife tourism destination with soft and hard adventure

165

activities, whereas female tourists might not prefer many of the ecotourism activities of

the PTR. As such, majority of the adventure tourism destinations do not seem to witness

more number of female tourists and the number of female tourists is relatively lesser than

the male tourists.

Marital status is a key demographic data that explains the selection of tour,

accommodation, transportation, duration and frequency of travel. With respect to the

marital status, 264 (52.8%) were married, followed by 222 (44.4%) unmarried. It is also

found that 11 (2.2%) were separated and 3 (0.6%) were widows. Thus, a little more than

half of the total respondents are married and a little less than half are unmarried. The

distribution on the basis of marital status appears to have explained that the PTR is a

preferred destination for both married and unmarried tourists.

Age of the respondents is a critical independent factor that influences the

decisions of the visitors to visit a particular wildlife tourism site. For instance, the

younger tourists are interested more risk-taking wildlife or ecotourism tour as compared

to the elderly or middle-aged tourists. As such, the PTR is unique in providing a wide

range of ecotourism activities for different age group of the tourists. While analyzing the

age of the respondents, It is found that more than half of the total sample respondents 320

(64.0%) in the age group between 21 and 40, followed by almost one fifth of the

respondents 102 (20.4%) visited the PTR. The remaining other age group of respondents

constitute less than one fifth of the total respondents. Thus, it may be interpreted that the

tourists with the age between 21 and 40 usually undertake adventure with a mix of nature,

wildlife and primitive people. As such, this age group of people can generally afford to

spend for this type of special interest travel.

166

Income is one of the decisive factors to induce someone to travel off-the-beaten-

track travel with primary urge for novelty, and authentic experience of wildlife, forest,

endogenous community and cuisine. As it is presumed that tourists regardless of their

disposable incomes wish to spend for the outdoor recreational activities and the hustle

and bustle of urban life have forced the people to search for uncontaminated and

undisturbed natural scenic places for enjoyment and experience. Thus, the monthly

income is an important indicator as it reveals the spending ability of the respondents.

It is found that all the 500 sample tourist respondents are classified into four

different monthly income groups and each group accounts for a little more than one

fourth of the respondents with an income between 25,001 and 50,000 (144 or 28.8%),

more than 1, 00,000 (134 or 26.8%) and between 25,001 and 50,000 (133 or

26.6%), excluding the first income group 89 (17.8 %) with a monthly income below

25,000. Thus, the distribution of four different income groups seem to have provided

sufficient pointer that 82.2 per cent or 411 respondents have a minimum of 25,001 and

50,000 and visitors with this income range have the disposable income to spend for

wildlife or ecotourism like the tour to the PTR.

The educational qualification largely determines the travel desire and choice of

destination of a person. Different tourist comes to a particular destination with different

motives. Especially tourist visiting the protected areas have a special flare in themselves

as they want to get indulged in some wildlife activities and the qualification and the

personal knowledge of the tourist plays a major role in conducting their behaviour

towards the nature, wildlife and local people. It is found that as many as 197 (39.4%) are

post graduates that is followed by 185 (37.0%) graduates and 69 (13.8%) are

167

undergraduates. The remaining others with higher qualifications like primary, secondary,

Ph.D and other professional courses constitute 49 (9.8 %).

Thus, it is inferred that as much as 76.4 per cent of sample respondents possessed

a minimum of undergraduate degree that seems to be adequate qualification for someone

to get conscious of the travel to natural areas with the primary purpose of studying,

admiring and enjoying the nature, wildlife and culture. It is commonly understood that

the more the person qualified the better would be the love, respect and admiration

towards the nature and its species. Here in the case of the sample respondents, majority of

them are qualified with graduation degree.

Occupation is another deciding factor as it determines how often a person can

plan for a tour. Since, the nature of occupation is a function of getting free time or

holiday or paid holidays, the type of work and income. This particular variable can speak

volumes about an individual interest in undertaking travel to the special interest tourism

places of interest like wildlife, nature and tribal. It is found from the distribution of total

respondents with regard to five different types of occupation. As many as 216 (43.2%)

were the private employees, followed by 98 (19.6%) respondents were self-employed, 93

(18.6%) were the employees of public sector undertaking and 83 (16.6%) were the

government employees respectively.

This distribution provides adequate indications that the employees of the private

sector have much preference for the wildlife and nature travel as they constitute highest

among other groups. With the rising income of the employees working in the private

sector along with the free time or paid holiday contribute significantly to travel more

frequently to the non-conventional places of interest with the curiosity to explore the

168

nature and its ecosystem in an extremely undistributed environmental settings. Thus, it is

proved in case of the PTR that the reserve not only allures the highest income groups of

visitors, but also entices visitors with high qualification, fat salary and lucrative

occupation.

Table 4.1

Demographic Distribution of Sample Tourist Respondents

Sl. No Demographic Variables

Category of Respondents Frequency Percentage

(%)

1 Type of Tourists Domestic 290 58.0 Foreign 210 42.0

2 Gender Male 341 68.2 Female 159 31.8

3 Marital Status

Married 264 52.8 Unmarried 222 44.4 Separated 11 2.2 Widow 3 .6

4 Categories of Age

Below 20 47 9.4 21-40 320 64.0 41-60 102 20.4 More than 60 31 6.2

5 Monthly Income

Below 25,000 89 17.8 25,001- 50,000 133 26.6 50000- 1,00,000 144 28.8 1,00,000 and Above 134 26.8

6 Educational Qualifications

School 3 .6 Secondary 29 5.8 Under Graduate 69 13.8 Graduation 185 37.0 Post Graduation 197 39.4 Professional Degree 17 3.4

7 Occupational Patterns

Self-Employment 98 19.6 Government 83 16.6 Private 216 43.2 House Wife 10 2.0 Business 93 18.6

169

4.2. CROSS DISTRIBUTION OF KEY DEMOGRAPHIC INDICA TORS

Table 4.2 displays the types of tourists of the respondents across the gender. It is

depicted that out of the total 500 respondents, as many as 290 (58.0%) of them are

domestic tourists and the remaining 210 (42.0%) of them are foreign tourists. A total of

341 that accounts for 68.2 per cent were the male domestic and foreign tourists, whereas

31.8 per cent or 159 female domestic and foreign tourists were the sample respondents

who visited the tiger reserve during the survey period. In order to find out the male and

female tourists with respect to the domestic and foreign tourists separately, 229 (79%)

and 112(53.3%) were the male domestic and foreign tourists respectively. On the other

hand, 61(21.0%) and 98 (46.7%) were the female domestic tourists in that order. Further,

the distribution revealed that out of 341, 229(67.2%) and 112(32.8%) were the male

tourists. On the contrary, out of 159 (31.8%) , 61( 38.4%) and 98 (61.6%) were the

female domestic and foreign tourists correspondingly.

After all, as far as female tourists are concerned, the percentage of female foreign

tourists seems to have outnumbered the female domestic tourists in the PTR. As it is

obvious, the percentage of domestic male tourists have become more than the male

foreign tourists. Thus, it is inferred that there is a marginal differences in number of total

male and female domestic and foreign tourists who largely visit the reserve since nature

travel is of interest for male as well as foreign tourists owing to the change in the travel

motivations. Nature travel is figured as the best preferred travel choice today as it is

evident from the growing demand for visiting safari, protected areas and ecotourism

destinations worldwide.

170

Table 4.2

Distribution of Types of Tourists Across the Gender

Types of Tourist

Gender Total

Male Female

Domestic 229

(79.0%) (67.2%)

61 (21.0%) (38.4%)

290 (100%) (58.0%)

Foreign 112

(53.3%) (32.8%)

98 (46.7%) (61.6%)

210 (100%) (42.0%)

Total 341

(68.2%) (100%)

159 (31.8%) (100%)

500 (100%) (100%)

Table 4.3 presents the cross tabulation between types of tourists and the age of

respondents. Out of total 500 respondents, as many as 320 (64.0%) respondents belong

to the age group between 21 and 40, followed by 102 (20.4%) belonging to the age group

between 41 and 60. It is also found that out of 320 respondents belonging to the age

group 21 to 40, 189(59.1%) are the domestic, tourists, while 131 (40.9%) are the foreign

tourists. Similarly, in the age group between 41 and 60, 56 (54.9%) are domestic tourists,

whereas 46(45.1%) are foreign tourists. On the contrary, in the age group more than 60,

22 (71.0%) are foreign tourists, while only 9(29.0%) are domestic tourists. It is inferred

that majority of the tourists belonging to the young age group 21 to 40, who are

interested for undertaking adventurous activities in the reserve.

171

Table 4.3

Distribution of Types of Tourist Across Categories of Age

Types of Tourist

Categories of Age Total

Below 20 21-40 41-60 More Than

60

Domestic 36

(12.4%) (76.6%)

189 (65.2%) (59.1%)

56 (19.3%) (54.9%)

9 (3.1%) (29.0%)

290 (100.0%) (58.0%)

Foreign 11

(5.2%) (23.4%)

131 (62.4%) (40.9%)

46 (21.9%) (45.1%)

22 (10.5%) (71.0%)

210 (100.0%) (42.0%)

Total 47

(9.4%) (100.0%)

320 (64.0%) (100.0%)

102 (20.4%) (100.0%)

31 (6.2%) 100.0%

500 (100.0%) (100.0%)

Table 4.4 depicts the distribution of type of tourists across the marital status. It is

found that out of total 500 respondents, 264 (52.8%) of them are married while 222

(44.4%) of them are single and 11 (2.2%) of domestic tourist respondents are separated.

In the married category, 181 (62.4%) are domestic tourist respondents, while 83 (39.5%)

are foreign tourists. As far as respondents under single category is concerned, 121

(57.6%) are foreign tourists, while 101 (34.8%) are domestic tourists.

It is inferred that family plays a vital role in visiting the nature-based tourism like

the wildlife or ecotourism in the PTR. Similarly, significant numbers of domestic and

foreign tourists were found to be single without any family obligations and they are free

to visit the ecotourism places. The results of distribution have further indicated that there

are a wide mix of ecotourism activities to provide educative and activity-based

opportunities to the Free Independent Travellers (FITs) and Group Inclusive Tours

(GITs) in the PTR. The Department of Forest and the Department of Tourism may be

guided by the findings of the study that the PTR has been attracting the tourists who are

172

largely not married and single with much interest in staying longer duration in the

Thekkady region, thereby increasing hotel occupancy rate and revenue generation.

Table 4.4

Distribution of Types of Tourist Across Marital Status

Types of Tourist

Marital Status Total

Single Married Separated Widow

Domestic 101

(34.8%) (45.5%)

181 (62.4%) (68.6%)

6 (2.1%) (54.5%)

2 (.7%)

(66.7%)

290 (100.0%) (58.0%)

Foreign 121

(57.6%) (54.5%)

83 (39.5%) (31.4%)

5 (2.4%) (45.5%)

1 (.5%)

(33.3%)

210 (100.0%) (42.0%)

Total 222

(44.4%) (100.0%)

264 (52.8%) (100.0%)

11 (2.2%)

(100.0%)

3 (.6%)

(100.0%)

500 (100.0%) (100.0%)

Table 4.5 depicts the distribution of type of tourists across the monthly income.

Out of total 500 respondents, 144 (28.8%) of them have the monthly income between

50,000 and 1,00,000, followed by 134 (26.8%) drawing a monthly income of

1,00,000 and above. Similarly, as many as 133 (26.6%) of them get monthly income

between 25,000 and 50,000. Whereas 89 (17.8%) of them earn a monthly income

below 25,000. Out of 144 or 28.8 per cent, as many as 84 (58.3 %) with the monthly

income of 50,000 and 1,00,000 are the domestic tourists, whereas 60 ( 41.7%) are the

foreign tourists with the same range of monthly income. It is surprising to note that 102

(35.2 %) numbers of domestic tourists with the monthly income between 25,000 and

50,000 are found the dominant group as against 96 (45.7.6%) number of foreign

tourists with the monthly income of 1, 00,000 and above.

It is inferred from the results of cross distribution that a vast majority of domestic

as well as foreign tourists have sound monthly income that seems to have created heavy

173

disposable income to keep aside for the eco-tour or wildlife tour. This particular indictor

provides sufficient evidence to substantiate the rising revenue from the ecotourism

activities in the PTR. Thus, the public and private tourism organizations must be guided

by the findings to take appropriate policy decisions to arouse interest for nature travel and

widen the scope for maximizing the revenue for the nature conservation and community

welfare.

Table 4.5

Distribution of Types of Tourist across Monthly Income

Types of Tourist

Monthly Income (in Rupees or ) Total Below

25,000 25,000-50,000

50,000-1,00,000

1,00,000 & Above

Domestic 66

(22.8%) (74.2%)

102 (35.2%) (76.7%)

84 (29.0%) (58.3%)

38 (13.1%) (28.4%)

290 (100.0%) (58.0%)

Foreign 23

(11.0%) (25.8%)

31 (14.8%) (23.3%)

60 (28.6%) (41.7%)

96 (45.7%) (71.6%)

210 (100.0%) (42.0%)

Total 89

(17.8%) (100.0%)

133 (26.6%) (100.0%)

144 (28.8%) (100.0%)

134 (26.8%) (100.0%)

500 (100.0%) (100.0%)

Table 4.6 illustrates the results of cross tabulation between the types of tourists

and the family size. It comprises nuclear family that consists of parents and child and

the joint family comprising parents, grandparents and grand children. It is found that

364 (72.8%) of the sample tourist respondents hailed from the nuclear family, while the

remaining 136 (27.2%) of them live in a joint family. The results have further explained

that as many as 193 (53.0%) of domestic tourist respondents were groomed and nurtured

in a nuclear family environment, while a little less than half 171 ( 47.0%) foreign

tourist respondents do have the same family background. Similarly, 97 (71.3%) of

174

domestic tourist respondents are the members of joint family, whereas a little more than

one fourth 39 (28.7%) of the foreign tourist respondents are from the same family

background.

As the world has already witnessed a significant rise in the number of nuclear

family, majority of tourists fall in this category and tend to travel more due to the two

important reasons. First, the income gets maximized and second, the isolated and lonely

family life. Both the factors significantly lead to creating a spur in the demand for the

special interest places rather than the common interest places. The present travel trend is

to find an exclusive place where there must not be disturbances and the places of interest

must be free from the noise. Thus, the cross distribution results, however, have provided

enough hints to the travel trade professionals and the government to design the nature-

travel packages that must suit the needs of tourists with the nuclear family background.

As such, the PTR has somehow attracted more number of tourists with the nuclear family

background. Astonishingly, it is a rare coincidence that both domestic and foreign tourists

are almost equal in number as far as the nuclear family is concerned.

Table 4.6

Distribution of Types of Tourist Across Family Type

Types of Tourist

Types of Family Total

Nuclear

Joint

Domestic 193

(66.6%) (53.0%)

97 (33.4%) (71.3%)

290 (100.0%) (58.0%)

Foreign 171

(81.4%) (47.0%)

39 (18.6%) (28.7%)

210 (100.0%) (42.0%)

Total 364

(72.8%) (100.0%)

136 (27.2%) (100.0%)

500 (100.0%) (100.0%)

175

4.3. CROSS DISTRIBUTION OF TYPES OF TOURISTS ACROSS DESTINATION SELECTION INDICATORS

4.3.1. Selection of Mode of Transport

Table 4.7 depicts the cross distribution of the types of tourist against the mode of

transport that tourists used during their trips to the PTR. It is found that majority 173

(34.6%) of both domestic and foreign tourist respondents traveled by luxury taxi as

against 97 (19.4%) utilized tourist bus and 97 (19.4%) utilized their own vehicles to reach

the PTR. While the government buses were utilized by 96 (19.2%) of tourist respondents

and as many as 37 (7.4%) of tourist respondents used the share taxi to reach at the PTR.

As many as 113 (65.3%) domestic and 60 (34.7%) foreign tourist respondents used the

service of luxury taxis. Of the total 97 tourist respondents, 75 (77.3%) of tourists used

own vehicle while only 22 (22.7%) of foreign respondents utilized the hired self-driven

car.

Thus, it is inferred that majority of the tourist respondents preferred for the luxury

taxis services, the own or the hired self-driven car and luxury tourist transport. The

findings may be supported with the breakup of the monthly income of the respondents.

At the same time, majority of respondents belong to the age group between 21 and 40 and

are employees working in the corporate. Thus, it is obvious to draw inference that the

Forest Department of Kerala or the Management of the PTR should increase the amount

of entrée fees and user fees from the luxury taxis and buses for meeting the cost for

maintenance, salary and conservation. This can be one of the solutions to make the PTR

self-sufficient to take care of its own expenditures.

176

Table 4.7

Distribution of Types of Tourist Across Mode of Transport

Types of Tourist

Mode of Transport Total Own

Vehicle/Self -Driven Car

Government Bus

Luxury Tourist

Bus

Luxury Taxi

Shared Taxi

Domestic

75 (25.9%) (77.3%)

30 (10.3%) (31.3%)

54 (18.6%) (55.7%)

113 (39.0%) (65.3%)

18 (6.2%) (48.6%)

290 (100.0%) (58.0%)

Foreign 22

(10.5%) (22.7%)

66 (31.4%) (68.8%)

43 (20.5% (44.3%)

60 (28.6%) (34.7%)

19 (9.0%) (51.4%)

210 (100.0%) (42.2%)

Total 97

(19.4%) (100.0%)

96 (19.2%) (100.0%)

97 (19.4%) (100.0%)

173 (34.6%) (100.0%)

37 (7.4%)

(100.0%)

500 (100.0%) (100.0%)

4.3.2 Last Places Visited Before Arriving At the PTR

Table 4.8 presents the distribution of types of tourists across the last places visited

before the PTR. These cities are Cochin, Kottayam, Kumily, Pathanamthitta, and

Chengannur. As it is found from the results, 252 (50.4%) of both domestic and foreign

tourists entered to the PTR through Kumily as the entry point followed by Cochin 143

(23.6%) and Kottayam 59 (11.8%) respectively. Tourists do not seem to come through

other three entry points such as Pathanamthitta, Chengannur and Thekkady. Thus, as

many as 135 (53.6%) domestic tourists and 117(46.4%) foreign tourist respondents got an

entry to Thekkday through Kumily as it is around 4 km away from Thekkady. The cross

tabulation results have found that half of total tourists surveyed entered to the PTR

through Kumily since Kumily lies in the border of Tamil Nadu and Kerala. It may be

one of the significant reasons for which majority of visitors find it convenient to enter

into the PTR.

177

Table 4.8

Distribution of Types of Tourist Across Last Place Visited

Types of Tourist

Last Place Visited Before Arrived At PTR Total

Cochin Kottayam Kumily Pathanamthitta

Chengannur Thissuar

Domestic 88

(30.3%) (61.5%)

42 (14.5%) (71.2%)

135 (46.6%) (53.6%)

9 (3.1%) (90.0%)

3 (1.0%)

(100.0%)

13 (4.5%) (39.4%)

290 (100.0%) (58.0%)

Foreign 55

(26.2%) (38.5%)

17 (8.1%) (28.8%)

117 (55.7%) (46.4%)

1 (.5%)

(10.0%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

20 (9.5%) (60.6%)

210 (100.0%) (42.0%)

Total

143 (28.6%) (100.0%

)

59 (11.8%) (100.0%)

252 (50.4%) (100.0%)

10 (2.0%)

(100.0%)

3 (.6%)

(100.0%)

33 (6.6%)

(100.0%)

500 (100.0%) (100.0%)

4.3.3. Duration of Stay

The duration of stay is a key factor that is associated with the range of attractions

and quality of facilities, amenities and services at the places of tourist interest. As far as

the PTR is concerned, the duration of stay should be longer to study, enjoy and appreciate

the natural scenic beauty and wild beasts in the dense jungle. One of the ecotourism

objectives is to allow the tourists to stay longer duration to understand the nature and

culture and at the same time, the local community would be benefited with the

expenditures.

Table 4.9 presents the results of cross tabulation of the types of tourists across the

duration of stay at Thekkady. It is evident from the results that 280 (56.0%) sojourned at

Thekkady for 1-2 days, followed by 122 (24.4%) of them for 3-4 days and 98 (19.6%) for

one week and above. Among 280 respondents who stayed for 1-2 days, the domestic

tourists accounted for 65.4 per cent while foreign tourists comprise 34.6 per cent. On the

contrary, 59.2 per cent tourists who stayed for one week and above were foreign

nationals, while domestic tourists, who halted the same duration were 40.8 per cent.

178

However, almost one fourth of the tourist respondents broke the journey for 3-4 days at

Thekkady.

It may be interpreted that ecotourism activities or adventure tourism activities do

not appear to have motivated the visitors to stay longer at Thekkady. There is an

argument that the longer the duration of stay the better would be the prospects of earning

revenue from tourist expenditures. The members of EDC can be largely benefited from

the revenue. As a result, poverty and malnourishment can be eradicated through direct

and indirect benefits from tourist expenditures. Since the results revealed that a little

more than half of total respondents could stay for 1-2days, efforts should be made to

increase the duration of stay. It is inferred that the PTR has potential for tourists to extend

the duration of stay due to the presence of other tourist attractions in and around PTR for

acquiring greater satisfaction through the extended stay.

Table 4.9

Distribution of Types of Tourist Across Duration of Stay

Types of Tourist

Duration of Stay Total 1-2

Days 3-4

Days One Week & Above

Indian 183

(63.1%) (65.4%)

67 (23.1%) (54.9%)

40 (13.8%) (40.8%)

290 (100.0%) (58.0%)

Foreign 97

(46.2%) (34.6%)

55 (26.2%) (45.1%)

58 (27.6%) (59.2%)

210 (100.0%) (42.0%)

Total 280

(56.0%) (100.0%)

122 (24.4%) (100.0%)

98 (19.6%) (100.0%)

500 (100.0%) (100.0%)

4.3.4. Frequency of Visit

The frequency of visit is a major determinant of the amount of satisfaction,

loyalty and attachment. It is a key factor that measures the tourists’ interest, motivation,

179

love and respect for the nature, wildlife and culture. Each destination strives for adding

more repeat visitors along with the creation of more potential visitors with the spread of

word of mouth. As it has been disproved with respect to the PTR, where a vast majority

of the sample tourists are the first timers. Table 4.10 presents the distribution of types of

tourists across the frequency of visit.

It is evident from Table 4.10 that 428 (85.6%) of total respondents visited

Thekkady for first time. It is followed by 51 (10.2%) who visited for second time and the

least 21 (4.2%) of them visited for third time as well as made many subsequent visits.

Out of total 428 respondents who visited for first time, 227 (53.0%) were domestic

tourists while 201 (47.0%) were foreign tourists. Similarly, domestic tourists who paid

the second and third visit contributed to 43 (84.3%) and 20 (95.2%) respectively.

However, foreign tourists who visited Thekkady for second and third time or subsequent

times were 8 (15.7%) and 1 (4.8%) respectively. It is inferred that Thekkady attracts the

first time visitors more when compared to second, third or subsequent visitors. The

findings of the analysis have revealed that all the efforts of the Department of Forest and

the Tourism, Government of Kerala have gone in vain to attract repeat visitors to the PTR

180

Table 4.10

Distribution of Types of Tourist Across Frequency of Visit

Types of Tourist

Frequency of Visit

Total First Visit

Second Visit

Third & Subsequent Visit

Domestic 227

(78.3%) (53.0%)

43 (14.8%) (84.3%)

20 (6.9%) (95.2%)

290 (100.0%) (58.0%)

Foreign 201

(95.7%) (47.0%)

8 (3.8%) (15.7%)

1 (.5%) (4.8%)

210 (100.0%) (42.0%)

Total 428

85.6% 100.0%

51 10.2% 100.0%

21 4.2%

100.0%

500 100.0% 100.0%

4.3.5. Activities Other Than Wildlife Tourism

Table 4.11 depicts the results of cross tabulation between the types of tourists and

activities other than wildlife tourism undertaken by them. Out of 500 tourist respondents,

197 (39.4%) of them are engaged in spice garden visit, followed by Ayurvedic massage

115 (23.0%), cultural programme and wildlife photography sharing each equally of 94

(18.4%). Out of total 197 respondents who got engaged in spice garden visit, a majority

of 100(50.8%) are foreigners while the remaining 97 (49.2%) are domestic tourists.

Among the total tourist respondents 115 (23.0%) took the service of Ayurvedic massage,

64 (68.1%) of them are domestic tourists, while 30 (31.9%) are foreign tourists.

The sample tourist respondents, who participated in cultural programmes and

wildlife photography shared equal percentage 94 (18.8%), there is a difference in the

composition of the two groups of tourists i.e., 64 (68.1%) are domestic involved in

cultural activities, while 30 (31.9%) are foreigners. Among the tourist respondents who

got engaged in wildlife photography, 58 (61.7%) are domestic, while the remaining 36

181

(38.3%) are foreign tourists. It is inferred that apart from the wildlife tourism activities,

Thekkady is rich in other tourism activities inducing much interest to get acquainted with

the surrounding places of tourist importance.

Table 4.11

Distribution of Types of Tourist Across Activities Other Than Wildlife

Tourism

Types of Tourist

Activities Other Than Wildlife Tourism Total Spice

Garden Visit

Cultural Programme

Ayurvedic Message

Wildlife Photography

Domestic 97

(33.4%) (49.2%)

64 (22.1%) (68.1%)

71 (24.5%) (61.7%)

58 (20.0%) (61.7%)

290 (100.0%) (58.0%)

Foreign 100

(47.6%) (50.8%)

30 (14.3%) (31.9%)

44 (21.0%) (38.3%)

36 (17.1%) (38.3%)

210 (100.0%) (42.0%)

Total 197

(39.4%) (100.0%)

94 (18.8%) (100.0%)

115 (23.0%) (100.0%)

94 (18.8%) (100.0%)

500 (100.0%) (100.0%)

4.4. CROSS DISTRIBUTION OF AGE ACROSS DESTINATION SELECTION INDICATORS 4.4.1. Plan of the Trip

Table 4.12 presents the distribution of age of respondents across the plan for the

trip. Out of 500 respondents, 177(35.4%) and 154(30.8%) of them across all four

categories of age planned the trip to visit the PTR on their own and through the travel

agents and tour operators respectively. Similarly, as many as 138(27.6%) organized the

trip to the PTR with the help of friends. The analysis has also revealed that a meager

number of respondents 15(3.0%) and 16 ( 3.2%) were guided by the KTDC and hotel

travel desk at Thekkady respectively. It is also found that as much as 65.0 per cent of 177

182

tourist respondents belonging to the age group 21-40 as compared to other age groups

arranged travel on their own, whereas 35.9 per cent of 320 tourist respondents across the

five important ways of planning the trip visited the PTR.

In essence, it may be interpreted that arranging a trip to the PTR and getting

involved in various ecotourism activities are largely done by the visitors themselves

without depending much on the professional travel agents or KTDC tourist office.

However, the visitors arranging the trip on their own do not seem to affect negatively the

amount of revenue for the PTR. Nevertheless, almost one third of the respondents took

the help of the travel agents and tour operators to organize the tour to the PTR. It further

opens an opportunity for the travel agents to target the visitors who plan on their own.

As majority of the respondents are domestic tourists, arranging the trip to the PTR

appears to be possible due to the familiarization with the places. It is also interesting to

see a little more than one fifth of respondents who were guided by experiences and word-

of-mouth publicity of their friends and relatives. Thus, the findings of the study have

suggested that the KTDC tourist office and the travel desk in the hotels should evolve

ways and means to reach out the visitors at Thekkady to provide brochures about the PTR

as well as neighborhood places of tourist importance.

183

Table 4.12

Distribution of Categories of Age Across Plan of the Trip

Categories of Age

Plan of the Trip

Total On My Own

Friends & Relatives

Travel Agents &

Tour Operators

KTDC Tourist Office

Hotel Travel Desk

Below 20 Years

14 (29.8%) (7.9%)

13 (27.7%) (9.4%)

18 (38.3%) (12.0%)

1 (2.1%) (6.7%)

1 (2.1%) (6.3%)

47 (100.0%) (9.4%)

21-40 Years 115

(35.9%) (65.0%)

96 (30.0%) (69.56)

87 (27.2%) (56.5%)

8 (2.5%) (53.3%)

14 (4.4%) (87.5%)

320 (100.0%) (20.4%)

41-60 Years 37

(36.3%) (20.9%)

25 (24.5%) (18.1%)

34 (33.4%) (22.0%)

5 (4.9%) (33.3%)

1 (1.0%) (6.3%)

102 (100.0%) (20.4%)

More Than 60 Years

11 (35.5%) (6.2%)

4 (13.0%) (2.8%)

15 (48.4%) (10.0%)

1 (3.2%) (6.7%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

31 (100.0%) (6.2%)

Total 177

(35.4%) (100.0%)

138 (27.6%) (100.0%)

154 (30.8%) (100.0%)

15 (3.0%)

(100.0%)

16 (3.2%)

(100.0%)

500 (100.0%) (100.0%)

4.4.2. Age Across Mode of Transportation

Table 4.13 illustrates the cross tabulation output explaining the distribution of

four categories of respondents on the basis of age across the five different modes of

transport. As many as 173 (34.6%) of tourist respondents across four categories of age

groups used luxury bus services, followed by tourist bus and own vehicles/self-driven car

sharing 97 (19.4%) each. On the other hand, the government buses were used by 96

(19.2%) of all four categories of age groups, while just 37 (7.4%) used shared taxi as the

mode of transport. However, the least percentage of respondents across all four age

groups preferred the shared taxi. Thus, it is inferred that utility of the luxury bus explains

the comfort mode of transport.

184

Table 4.13

Distribution of Categories of Age Across Mode of Transport

Categories of Age

Mode of Transport Total Own Vehicle/

Hired Self-Driven Car

Government Bus

Tourist Bus

Luxury Bus

Shared Taxi

Below 20 Years

15 (31.9%) (15.5%)

8 (17.0%) (8.3%)

15 (31.9%)

( 15.5%)

6 (12.8%) (3.5%)

3 (6.4%) (8.1%)

47 (100.0%) (9.4%)

21-40 Years

52 (16.3%) (53.6%)

75 (23.4%) (78.1%)

58 (18.1%) (59.8%)

113 (35.3%) (65.3%)

22 (6.9%) (59.5%)

320 (100.0%) (64.0%)

41-60 Years

23 (22.5%) (23.7%)

12 (11.8%) (12.5%)

15 (14.7%) (15.5%)

41 (40.2%) (23.7%)

11 (10.8%) (29.7%)

102 (100.0%) (20.4%)

More Than 60

7 (22.6%) (7.2%)

1 (3.2%) (1.0%)

9 (29.0%) (9.3%)

13 (41.9%) (7.5%)

1 (3.2%) (2.7%)

31 (100.0%) (6.2%)

Total 97

(19.4%) (100.0%)

96 (19.2%) (100.0%)

97 (19.4%) (100.0%)

173 (34.6%) (100.0%)

37 (7.4%)

(100.0%)

500 (100.0%) (100.0%)

4.4.3. Age Across Mode of Accommodation

Table 4.14 presents the four different age groups of tourist respondents across the

nine different mode of accommodation. It comprises both the conventional and non-

conventional hotel rooms. It is evident that 205 (41.0%) of 500 tourist respondents

preferred to stay in hotels, followed by 133 (25.4%) in home-stay type of

accommodation, 47 (9.4%) in resorts, 33 (6.6%) in lodging and boarding, 24 (4.8%) in

eco-lodges. It is also found that 119 (37.2%) of the total tourist respondents belonging to

the age group 21 to 40 preferred to stay in hotels, while 96 (28.4%) preferred to stay in

the home-stay accommodation. In all four age groups, it is evident that hotels and home

stays as an alternative accommodation are more comfortable to stay at Thekkady.

185

It can further be interpreted that it is a combination of modes of accommodation

like home stay, tents, eco-lodge and resort which account for 204 (40.8%) that explains

interest and likings of tourists to stay at the undisturbed natural settings. It is suggested

that more alternative accommodations like eco-lodges and youth hostel & dormitory

should be built in the vicinity of Thekkady. With the additional creations of eco-lodges

and eco-resorts at Thekkady, the local people can get direct employment and more day

visitors can be converted into the tourists to make overnight stay. As such, the experience

in staying in the aesthetic type of accommodations (Home Stays) can give more

satisfaction and tourists will certainly be stimulated to spend more on these eco-friendly

accommodations.

Table 4.14

Distribution of Categories of Age Across Preferred Mode of Accommodation

Categories of Age

Preferred Mode of Accommodation Total

Hotels Lodging

& Boarding

Paying Guest

Home Stay

Eco- lodge

Youth Hostel &

Dormitory Resort

Friends &

Relatives

Govt. Guest House

Below 20 Years

18 (38.3%) (8.8%)

3 (6.4%) (9.1%)

3 (6.4%) (14.3%)

11 (23.4%) (7.9%)

1 (2.1%) (4.2%)

2 (4.3%) (16.7%)

6 (12.8%) (12.8%)

1 (2.1%) (7.1%)

2 (4.3%) (18.2%)

47 (100.0%) (19.4%)

21-40 Years

119 (37.2%) (58.0%)

24 (7.5%) (72.7%)

13 (4.1%) (61.9%)

96 (28.4%) (71.7%)

16 (5.0%) (66.7%)

7 (2.2%) (58.3%)

29 (9.1%) (61.7%)

10 (3.1%) (71.4%)

6 (1.9%) (54.5%)

320 (100.0%) (64.0%)

41-60 Years

48 (47.1%) (23.4%)

5 (4.9%) (15.2%)

4 (3.9%) (19.0%)

18 (17.6%) (14.2%)

7 6.9% 29.2%

3 (2.9%) (25.0%)

12 (11.8%) (25.5%)

3 (2.9%) (21.4%)

2 (2.0%) (18.2%)

102 100.0% (64.0%)

More Than 60 Years

20 (64.5%) (9.8%)

1 3.2% 3.0%

1 (3.2%) (4.8%)

8 (25.8%) (6.3%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

1 (3.2%) (9.1%)

31 (100.0%) (20.4%)

otal

205 (41.0%) (100.0%)

33 6.6%

100.0%

21 4.2%

100.0%

133 25.4% 100.0%

24 (4.8%)

(100.0%)

12 (2.4%)

(100.0%)

47 (9.4%)

(100.0%)

14 (2.8%)

(100.0%)

11 (2.2%)

(100.0%)

500 (100.0%) (100.0%)

186

4.4.4. Age Across Duration of Stay Across Age

Duration of stay is a dependent variable that is determined by the age of the

respondents. Table 4.15 presents the cross tabulation between the categories of age and

the duration of stay at the PTR. It is evident that 280 (56.1%) of the total respondents

stayed for one to two days, followed by 122 (24.4%), three to four days and 98 (19.6%)

for one week and above. As explained form the table, 182 (56.9%) of the respondents

belong to age group from 21 to 40 years who stayed for one to two days as against 86

(26.9%) for three to four days and 52 (16.3%) for one week and more. In the age group

of 21 to 40 years, 182 (65.0%) stayed for one to two days and this particular age group

of tourist respondents dominated other groups across the duration of stay. However, out

of 122 (24.4%) of total tourist respondents across the four categories of age, 86 (70.5%)

of them sojourned at the PTR for three to four days. At the same time, out of 98(19.6%)

of total tourist respondents, 52(53.1%) halted for one week and more.

This particular age of respondents accounts for the highest percentage of the total

sample respondents. At the same time, the percentage share for the duration of stay

would obviously be more. Nevertheless, it may be drawn inference from the distribution

of results that respondents with age more than 60 would not be interested to stay longer

as the adventure activities are largely contrary to their motivations. On the other hand, as

much as 84.4 per cent of total respondents fall in the age bracket between 21 and 60 and

these two groups are generally adventure seekers and wildlife lovers and they spend

maximum time at the destination to learn, admire and enjoy the serenity of climate.

187

Table 4.15

Distribution of Categories of Age Across Duration Of Stay

Categories of Age Duration of Stay

Total 1-2 Days

3-4 Days

One Week & More

Below 20 Years 31

(66.0%) (11.1%)

8 (17.0%) (6.6%)

8 (17.0%) (8.2%)

47 (100.0%) (9.4%)

21-40 Years

182 (56.9%) (65.0%)

86 (26.9%) (70.5%)

52 (16.3%) (53.1%)

320 (100.0%) (64.0%)

41-60 Years

54 (52.9%) (19.3%)

24 (23.5%) (19.7%)

24 (23.5%) (24.5%)

102 (100.0%) (20.4%)

More Than 60 Years

13 (41.9%) (4.6%)

4 (12.9%) (3.3%)

14 (45.2%) (14.3%)

31 (100.0%) (6.2%)

Total 280

(56.0%) (100.0%)

122 (24.4%) (100.0%)

98 (19.6%) (100.0%)

500 (100.0%) (100.0%)

4.4.5. Age Across Frequency of Visit

Frequency of visit is a key variable that is influenced by the age of respondents.

Both the variables are determined by each other. The results of cross tabulation between

the categories of age and frequency of visit to the PTR are presented in Table 4.16 and

respondents were classified into four different age groups and three different frequency-

of-visit groups. As it is found from the results that as many as 428 (85.6%) of them are

the first-time visitors, followed by 51 (10.2%) second-time visitors and 21 (4.2%) third

and subsequent-time visitors across the four different age groups of respondents. In

order to find out the breakup of categories of age across the frequency of visit, it is found

that around 281 (87.8%) of sample respondents visited PTR for first time in the age

group from 21 to 40 years and out of 428 (85.%) first-time visitors across four age

groups, 21-40 years accounts for 65.7 per cent.

188

Thus, it is inferred that tourist respondents do not seem to make repeat visits to

the PTR as it is evident from the results. As it is found that majority of respondents

generally stay one to two days at the PTR and majority of them are the first-time visitors.

Therefore, it may be interpreted that the PTR’s ecotourism and wildlife tourism activities

do not appear to be attractive to the visitors or do not appear to add much value to the

experience. The results have clearly given indication or signals to the Department of

Forest and Tourism to emphasize on evolving the suitable strategies to transform the first

time visitors to second-time visitors and increase the duration of stay.

Table 4.16

Distribution of Categories of Age Across Frequency of Visit

Categories of Age

Frequency of Visit

Total First Visit

Second Visit

Third & Subsequent

Visit

Below 20 Years 38

80.9% 8.9%

6 12.8% 11.8%

3 6.4% 14.3%

47 100.0% 9.4%

21-40 Years

281 (87.8%) (65.7%)

29 (9.1%) (56.9%)

10 (3.1%) (47.6%)

320 (100.0%) (64.0%)

41-60 Years

82 (80.4%) (19.2%)

15 (14.7%) (29.4%)

5 (4.9%) (23.8%)

102 (100.0%) (6.2%)

More Than 60 Years

27 (87.1%) (6.3%)

1 (3.2%) (2.0%)

3 (9.7%) (14.3%)

31 (100.0%) (6.2%)

Total 428

(85.6%) (100.0%)

51 (10.2%) (100.0%)

21 (4.2%)

(100.0%)

500 (100.0%) (100.0%)

4.4.6. Age Across Common Interest Activities Activities other than wildlife tourism induce the tourists to explore the

neighbourhood places of tourism importance. Wildlife-cum- adventure and ecotourism

activities can be enjoyed in the buffer and manipulation zone of the reserve forest of the

PTR. Add-on activities include visiting to the spice garden, enjoying the cultural events,

189

taking ayurvedic massage and indulging in nature photography. The primary reason for

analyzing the results is to find the interest of respondents in the activities other than the

wildlife.

As it is presented in Table 4.17 between the occupation of respondents and their

involvements in the activities other than wildlife tourism, about 197(39.4%) of total

respondents belong to four different categories of occupational backgrounds and they

visited spice garden at the nearby places from Thekkady as an excursion trip. The next

best activity that attracted the visitors is the ayurvedic massage and it accounts for 115

(23.0%) respondents. The other two activities like cultural events and nature photography

enticed the equal number of respondents (94 or 18.8%).

The results of distribution revealed that more number of visitors visiting the PTR

largely undertake an excursion tour to the spice gardens in the vicinity of Thekkady and

Kumily. Many private households have made the arrangements for visitors to walk

around the garden accompanied by guide or member of the household to get first-hand

experience about how the spice garden is maintained. At the same time, other activities

have equally attracted the visitors to learn, admire and enjoy the unique cultural heritage

of Kerala along with photography of scenic beauty and countryside. Thus, it is inferred

that visitors are more enthralled with other activities along with wildlife and ecotourism

activities.

190

Table 4.17

Distribution of Occupational Patterns across Activities Other Than Wildlife

Tourism

Occupational Patterns

Activities Other Than Wildlife Tourism Total

Spice Garden Visit

Cultural Programme

Ayurvedic Massage

Nature Photography

Self Employment

35 (35.7%) (17.8%)

23 (23.5%) (24.5%)

27 (27.6%) (23.5%)

13 (13.3%) (13.8%)

98 (100.0%) (19.6%)

Government 28

(33.7%) (14.2%)

15 (18.1%) (16.0%)

21 (25.3%) (18.3%)

19 (22.9%) (20.2%)

83 (100.0%) (16.6%)

Private 88

(40.7%) (44.7%)

41 (19.0%) (43.6%)

45 (20.8%) (39.1%)

42 (19.4%) (44.7%)

216 (100.0%) (43.2%)

House Wife 4

(40.0%) (2.0%)

2 (20.0%) (2.1%)

4 (40.0%) (3.5%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

10 (100.0%) (2.0%)

Professionals 42

(45.2%) (21.3%)

13 (14.0%) (13.8%)

18 (19.4%) (15.7%)

20 (21.5%) (21.3%)

93 (100.0%) (18.6%)

Total 197

(39.4%) (100.0%)

94 (18.8%) (100.0%)

115 (23.0%) (100.0%)

94 (18.8%) (100.0%)

500 (100.0%) (100.0%)

4.5. CROSS DISTRIBUTION OF EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATI ONS ACROSS DESTINATION SELECTION INDICATORS 4.5.1. Educational Qualifications Across Duration of Stay

The educational qualifications and duration of stay at the PTR are influenced by

each other. Tourists with higher qualifications have much better understanding and

concern for the wildlife and nature conservation. The duration of stay at the nature-based

tourism attractions would be more as tourists wish to participate and contribute to the best

of their abilities and knowledge to help in the conservation. As it is reflected in Table

4.18, out of 280 (56.0%) tourist respondents with one to two days duration of stay at the

PTR, 112 (40.0%) and 108 (38.6%) number of sample tourist respondents were graduate

and post graduate as against 122 (24.2%) of the sample tourist respondents with three to

191

four days halt at the PTR and respondents with graduation and post graduation degree

account for about 32.7 per cent and 41.8 per cent respectively. Similarly, respondents

with the same two higher qualifications account for 34.7 per cent and 38.8 per cent

respectively from 98 (19.6%) of the respondents with one week and more duration of

stay.

The cross tabulation results have demonstrated that more qualified people are

visiting the PTR and the nature travel usually attracts the conscious visitors who not only

learn, enjoy and admire the nature’s beauty, but also work for the conservation of the

forest and wildlife. Further, the PTR has attracted significant number of well-qualified

visitors and each of the visitors would be a messenger of the unique scenic beauty and

biodiversity of the reserve to other potential visitors in their own countries and domiciles.

This is the way that objective of educating the people about conservation of wildlife and

forest can be possible in the long run. Thus, it is inferred that the level of education is a

key factor deciding the duration of stay of according to the availability of time, money

and level of satisfaction at the PTR.

Table 4.18

Distribution of Educational Qualifications Across Duration of Stay

Educational Qualifications

Duration of Stay Total 1-2

Days 3-4

Days One Week &

Above

School 3

(100.0%) (1.1%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

3 (100.0%)

(.6%)

Secondary 11

(37.9%) (3.9%)

5 (17.2%) (4.1%)

13 (44.8%) (13.3%)

29 (100.0%)

(.6%)

Under Graduation 35

(50.7%) (12.5%)

23 (33.3%) (18.9%)

11 (15.9%) (11.2%)

69 (100.0%) (13.8%)

Graduation 112

(60.5%) (40.0%)

39 (21.1%) (32.0%)

34 (18.4%) (34.7%)

185 (100.0%) (37.0%)

192

Post Graduation 108

(54.8%) (38,6%)

51 (25.9%) (41.8%)

38 (19.3%) (38.8%)

197 (100.0%) (39.4%)

Professional Degrees

11 (64.7%) (3.9%)

4 (23.5%) (3.3%)

2 (11.8%) (2.0%)

17 (100.0%) (3.4%)

Total 280

(56.0%) (100.0%)

122 (24.2%) (100.0%)

98 (19.6%) (100.0%)

500 (100.0%) (100.0%)

4.5.2. Educational Qualifications Across Frequency of Visit

The relationship between the educational qualification and frequency of visit may

be interpreted from the perspectives of love and respect for the tourism destination. Many

tourists pay repeat visits along with others and recommend others to visit the destinations.

When a person is more educated or qualified, his perspectives on the tourism destinations

would be different from the less qualified people. The behaviour of tourists towards the

sanitation and hygienic would be better in case of tourists with wider outlooks and

exposures. With this argument, the cross tabulation has been done between the level of

educations and frequency of visit.

Table 4.19 presents the results of cross tabulation between the level of educational

qualification and the frequency of visit. Out of 428 respondents who paid first visit to

Thekkady, 161(37.6%) are graduate and 164(38.3%) are post graduate. At same time,

185 (37.0%) respondents are graduates and 197(39.4%) respondents are post graduates

who visited Thekkady and the PTR first, second and third time and more. However, a

vast majority of the sample tourist respondents (85.6%) paid first visit and the remaining

14.4 per cent could visit the second and third time and more.

Thus, it is inferred that both Thekkady and the PTR have not witnessed the repeat

visitors and the reasons may be attributed to the poor facilities, amenities and lack of

193

availability of hotel rooms, etc or there may not be any novelty for the visitors if they

plan to visit second time. It is just a broad thinking that has been put forward to support

the argument. Moreover, many of the visitors seemed to have been dissatisfied with the

arrangements of boat and amenities as reported from the conversations with the visitors

during the primary data collection. It is inferred from the table that majority of the

respondents are well educated which influence their decisions on the frequency of visit to

Thekkady

Table 4.19

Distribution of Educational Qualifications Across Frequency of Visit

Educational Qualifications

Frequency of Visit Total

First Visit Second Visit Third and Subsequent

Visit

School 2

(66.7%) (.5%)

1 (33.3%) (2.0%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

3 (100.0%)

(.6%)

Secondary 24

(82.8%) (5.6%)

4 (13.8%) (7.8%)

1 (3.4%) (4.8%)

29 (100.0%) (5.8%)

Under Graduation 61

(88.4%) (14.3%)

4 (5.8%) (7.8%)

4 (5.8%) (19.0%)

69 (100.0%) (13.8%)

Graduation 161

(87.0%) (37.6%)

14 (7.6%) (27.5%)

10 (5.4%) (47.6%)

185 (100.0%) (37.0%)

Post Graduation 164

(83.2%) (38.3%)

27 (13.7%) (52.9%)

6 (3.0%) (28.6%)

197 (100.0%) (39.4%)

Professional Degree

16 (94.1%) (3.7%)

1 (5.9%) (2.0%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

17 (100.0%) (3.45%)

Total 428

(85.6%) (100.0%)

51 (10.2%) (100.0%)

21 (4.2%)

(100.0%)

500 (100.0%) (100.0%)

4.5.3. Educational Qualifications Across Common Interest Activities

Table 4.20 illustrates the results of distribution of level of education of tourist

respondents across the activities other than wildlife tourism. A relationship exists

194

between the level of education and interest in seeing, enjoying and learning other tourism

activities in the vicinity of Thekkady. Across six categories of respondents on the basis of

level of education, as many as 197 (39.4%) visited spice garden as one of the prime

attractions of Thekkady, while 115(23.0%) tourist respondents experienced the treatment

of ayurvedic massage. Thus, it may be interpreted that even though specie garden and

ayurvedic massage are found to be two finest attractions for visitors and other two

attractions such as cultural events and wildlife photography are, however, equally

important attractions for visitors.

Table 4.20

Distribution of Educational Qualifications Across Other Than Wild Tourism

Activities

Educational Qualifications

Other Than Wildlife Tourism Activities Total

Spice Garden Visit

Cultural Programme

Ayurvedic Massage

Wildlife Photography

School 1

(33.3%) (.5%)

2 (66.7%) (2.1%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

3 (100.0%)

(.6%)

Secondary 16

(55.2%) (8.1%)

4 (13.8%) (4.3%)

4 (13.8%) (3.5%)

5 (17.2%) (5.3%)

29 (100.0%) (5.8%)

Under Graduation

28 (40.6%) (14.2%)

9 (13.0%) (9.6%)

17 (24.6%) (14.8%)

15 (21.7%) (16.0%)

69 (100.0%) (13.8%)

Graduation 66

(35.7%) (33.5%)

43 (23.2%) (45.7%)

47 (25.4%) (40.9%)

29 (15.7%) (30.9%)

185 (100.0%) (37.0%)

Post Graduation 81

(41.1%) (41.1%)

33 (16.8%) (35.1%)

41 (20.8%) (35.7%)

42 (21.3%) (44.7%)

197 (100.0%) (39.4%)

Professional Degrees

5 (29.4%) (2.5%)

3 (17.6%) (3.2%)

6 (35.3%) (5.2%)

3 (17.6%) (3.2%)

17 (100.0%) (3.4%)

Total 197

(39.4%) (100.0%)

94 (18.8%) (100.0%)

115 (23.0%) (100.0%)

94 (18.8%) (100.0%)

500 (100.0%) (100.0%)

195

4.5.4. Types of Participation Across Duration of Stay

Local community is an integral part of the ecotourism projects and their roles and

participations determine the positive impacts of ecotourism on the socio-economic

development. Interactions of visitors with community members in the PTR do happen

during the ecotourism programmes. The genuine argument is that respect for community

well-being and concern for quality of life by tourists explains the host-guest relationships.

Both tourists and host respect each other as the former gets an opportunity to learn

experience and appreciate the practices of tradition and custom of the host community

and the later is equally benefited economically with the visits of tourists. Besides, the

perspectives of the members of local villages on the world and people would be

broadening that result in the wider understandings.

As it is reported from the results of cross tabulation given in Table 4.21 that as

many as 429 (85.8%) opined that there are enormous positive impacts through the direct

participation of tourists and it leads to establishing a strong bond between tourists and

community members. As the ecotourism project in the PTR is operated with direct

participation of the EDC members as guide, porter, boat driver, forest guard, etc. On the

other hand, the remaining 71 (14.2%) sample tourist respondents emphasized on indirect

participation of tourists that largely bring about socio-economic changes in the host

community. It is obviously clear that all tourists may not be able to participate directly

owning to have different perceptions and understandings.

196

Nevertheless, while doing the cross distribution between the variables

representing the respect for community and the duration of stay of tourists at Thekkady, it

is revealed that majority of the tourist respondents 280(56%) stayed one to two days with

having interest in direct as well as indirect participation and a vast majority i.e.

234(83.6%) have much love and respect for the community members. However, a vast

majority of respondents were happy to participate directly regardless of duration of stay.

Thus, the analysis has led to drawing an inference that tourists have clear and deeper

understandings on the larger benefits of direct participation that would be the real tribute

to the community well-being and it is wholehearted respect for the community to lead

dignified life.

Table 4.21

Distribution of Types of Participation Across Duration of Stay

Types of Participation

Duration of Stay Total

1-2 Days

3-4 Days

One Week & More

Direct Participation

234 (54.5%) (83.6%)

104 (24.2%) (85.2%)

91 (21.2%) (92.9%)

429 (100.0%) (85.8%)

Indirect Participation

46 (64.8%) (16.4%)

18 (25.4%) (14.8%)

7 (9.9%) (7.1%)

71 (100.0%) (14.2%)

Total 280

(56.0%) (100.0%)

122 (24.4%) (100.0%)

98 (19.6%) (100.0%)

500 (100.0%) (100.0%)

4.6. GROUP STATISTICS AND LEVENE’S INDEPENDENT T-TE ST

Levene’s independent sample t-test is used to find the mean differences between

two groups. It is a parametric test used for testing the differences of mean.

197

4.6.1. Descriptive Statistics between Foreign & Domestic Tourists on the actors Explaining Visitor Satisfaction

It is shown in Table 4.22 that the first group (foreign tourist) consists of 290

respondents and the second group (domestic tourists) comprises 210 respondents. Both

categories of respondents were interviewed on 35 indicators related to the five broad

factors such as hospitality services, basic services, basic facilities, disaster preparedness

and value-added services. The results show that the level of understanding of foreign

tourists is higher than domestic tourists on all the five factors. Thus, it is quite obvious

that foreign tourist respondents are relatively more concerned for the sustainable

ecotourism in the PTR. The standard deviation of the five factors is somewhat between

4.54 and 11.18. It explained that there are differences of mean between the two groups of

respondents on the five factors.

The Table presents the descriptive statistics that include the results of mean and

standard deviation. The mean is a statistical tool to explain the average value of the

agreements of the respondents on the quality of hospitality services as a first factor

representing nine variables. The agreement of foreign tourists on the standard of

hospitality services in a seven point scale produced a mean value of 49.39 that is

comparatively higher than the mean value of domestic tourists on the same factor. At the

same time, the results of standard deviation for the quality of services show more

uniformity towards the maintenance of quality of services in case of foreign tourists as

compared to the domestic tourists. Thus, the standard deviation of agreements on the

hospitality services is 9.52 in respect of foreign tourists, whereas 11.18 in case of

domestic tourists.

198

As far as basic facilities are concerned, the mean values that are based on the

agreements of foreign and domestic tourists are 50.35 and 50.01. It is reported that there

is a marginal difference of mean value between the two types of tourists. However, the

mean value in case of foreign tourist respondents is relatively more than the domestic

tourist respondents. Similarly, the results of standard deviation for both foreign and

domestic sample tourist respondents are 8.32 and 10.70. This explains more unanimity of

foreign tourists on the maintenance of quality of basic facilities at the PTR and relatively

less agreements on the same factor. Therefore, it further explains that the differences

have occurred between the foreign and domestic tourists due to different socio-cultural

background.

Basic amenities of the PTR contribute largely towards the level of satisfactions of

the tourists as a tourist destination irrespective of its strength in resources. In order to find

out the mean and standard deviation of agreements of respondents on six individual

indictors explaining the quality of amenities at Thekkady and the PTR, it is reported from

the results that the mean value is 27.21 in case of foreign tourists and 26.03 in case of

domestic tourists. There is a marginal difference between these two groups as far as their

agreements in a seven point scale are concerned. Moreover, the result of standard

deviation is 5.79 in case of foreign tourists that clearly indicate the uniformity in

agreements on basic amenities as an important factor to determine the level of visitor

satisfaction, whereas domestic tourists have relatively less uniformity in agreeing with

the quality of basic facilities as the standard deviation is 8.32.

199

As the PTR offers a wide mix of adventure tourism activities, tourists are more

prone to the manmade or natural disasters. The efforts of the Forest Department to

prepare for countering the disaster were evaluated by tourists on the five indicators in a

seven point scale. The results of mean of the factor “disaster preparedness” indicate

22.67 and 24.20 for foreign and domestic tourists respectively. The higher mean value

that was obtained from the total value of the agreements of foreign tourist respondents on

five indicators explains that foreign tourists are comparatively more concerned for the

disaster preparedness as it is a key determinant for safety of tourists leading to visitor

satisfaction. Nevertheless, the standard deviation in case of the agreements of foreign

tourists is 4.54 as compared to 5.28 in respect of domestic tourists. The relatively low

standard deviation explains that there is a better understanding of foreign tourists contrary

to domestic tourists on the preparedness of the Forest Department of Kerala to deal with

the disasters.

The value-added services may otherwise be explained as the value for money that

tourists look for in Thekkady and the PTR. This is a kind of service that helps maximize

the visitor satisfaction and tourists feel happy or delighted. For instance, services of eco-

guide or nature interpreter or binocular or umbrella or walking stick make experiences

more memorable and delightful. The authorities of the PTR have taken all measures to

ensure the delivery of value-added services to the tourists during the tour programme.

The mean values for both foreign and domestic tourists are 24.76 and 24.20 respectively

and the standard deviation for foreign and domestic tourists is also 4.82 and 5.21

respectively. The mean results clearly explain that there is a higher degree of agreement

of foreign tourists on the importance of value-added services in enhancing the level of

200

visitor satisfaction as compared to the domestic tourists. Similarly, the results of standard

deviation also show the difference between the two groups of tourists and foreign tourists

have, however, better uniformity in the agreements due to low standard deviations.

Thus, it may be inferred that foreign tourists seem to have largely agreed on the

factors such as hospitality services, basic facilities, basic amenities, disaster preparedness

and value-added services to contribute maximum to the level of visitor satisfaction as

compared to domestic tourists. Similarly, the low standard deviation across five factors

categorically explain that there is a strong consistency and unanimity of foreign tourists

on these five factors that influence the amount of satisfactions that a visitor can obtain

while visiting the PTR and the neighborhood places of tourist importance.

Table 4.22

Descriptive Statistics

Visitor Satisfaction Factors

Types of Tourist

Descriptive Statistics Results

Mean Std. Dev.

Hospitality Services Domestic 46.10 11.18 Foreign 49.39 9.52

Basic Facilities Domestic 50.01 10.70 Foreign 50.35 8.32

Basic Amenities Domestic 26.03 6.21 Foreign 27.21 5.79

Disaster Preparedness Domestic 22.97 5.28 Foreign 22.67 4.54

Value-Added Services Domestic 24.20 5.21 Foreign 24.76 4.82

4.6.2.‘t’ Test for Equality of Variances between Foreign & Domestic Tourists on the Factors Explaining Visitor Satisfaction

H0: The means of both foreign and domestic tourist respondents are not

significantly different on the five factors signifying the visitor satisfaction

with reference to Ecotourism/Wildlife Tourism in PTR.

201

It is important to find whether the value is less than or greater than .05. In the case

of Levene’s t-test analysis presented in Table 4.23, the two tailed values of P are as

follows; .001 &. 000, .701 & .690, .032 &.030, .501 &.490 and.217 & .211. The

differences of means between foreign and domestic tourists are rejected with p value

.000 (Hospitality Services) and not rejected in case of the remaining four factors such as

basic facilities, basic amenities, disaster preparedness and value-addition. With regard to

visitor satisfaction, there are not differences of experience between foreign and domestic

tourist respondents on facilities, basic amenities; disaster preparedness and value-addition

are different. However, there exist no differences of understanding in case of hospitality

services.

When the two-tailed probability is used, it does not give specific prediction about

the direction of effect. For example, foreign tourist respondents are more particular for

the various aspects of facilities, amenities, services, safety and addition of value than the

domestic tourist respondents, and then a two-tailed test has to be performed to find the

effect of two means. It can further be simplified that the mean values of foreign tourist

respondents on the determinants of visitor satisfaction are greater than the mean values of

domestic tourist respondents on five factors reflecting upon the visitor satisfaction. To

test the hypothesis, the output of one-tailed probability is.135, .119.112,.186 and .295

respectively for all the five factors. The one tailed t-test is still greater than .05 ( P<.5) in

case of all these five factors. It is inferred that foreign tourist respondents equally

emphasized on the hospitality services, basic facilities, basic amenities, disaster

preparedness and value-addition.

202

Table 4.23

Levene’s t Test for Equality of Variances

Visitor Satisfaction

Factors

Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F

Sig

.

t Df

Sig

. (2

-ta

iled)

Mea

n D

iffer

ence

Std

. E

rror

D

iffer

ence

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference Lower Upper

Hospitality

Services

Equal variances assumed 2.244 .135

-3.453 498 .001 -3.29179 .95342 -5.16501 -1.41857

Equal variances not assumed -3.542 485.050 .000 -3.29179 .92936 -5.11786 -1.46572

Basic

Services

Equal variances assumed 2.443 .119

-.384 498 .701 -.33990 .88583 -2.08033 1.40053

Equal variances not assumed -.399 495.473 .690 -.33990 .85148 -2.01286 1.33306

Basic

Amenities

Equal variances assumed 2.535 .112

-2.150 498 .032 -1.17635 .54726 -2.25157 -.10114

Equal variances not assumed -2.173 467.391 .030 -1.17635 .54123 -2.23990 -.11281

Disaster

Preparedness

Equal variances assumed 1.751 .186

.674 498 .501 .30443 .45180 -.58323 1.19209

Equal variances not assumed .690 483.636 .490 .30443 .44100 -.56209 1.17095

Value-Added

Services

Equal variances assumed 1.100 .295

-1.237 498 .217 -.56667 .45794 -1.46639 .33306

Equal variances not assumed -1.253 469.076 .211 -.56667 .45235 -1.45555 .32221

203

4.6.3. Descriptive Statistics between Foreign & Domestic Tourists on Respecting Culture & Heritage

The test of differences between foreign and domestic tourists on seven different

independent statements explaining on culture and heritage of indigenous tribal

community in Thekkady was done by using the levene’s independent sample t test along

with the mean and standard deviation. Table 4.24 presents the descriptive statistics

between foreign and domestic tourists consisting of 290 and 210 respectively.

Both categories of respondents participated to give their learned comments on

seven aspects related to the interaction with local people, learning and experiencing the

cultural events, having a taste of local food, respecting local people, helping the

community with buying the crafts or donating, educating people about preservation of art

and culture and acknowledging the cultural pride and values.

The results of mean for foreign tourists have a range between 5.02 and 5.59,

whereas the mean values for domestic tourists vary between 5.03 and 5.57 across seven

statements measured in a seven point scale (from very much important to very much

unimportant). Further, all the statements signifying interest, love and respect for local

culture secured the mean values more than five. Thus, the relatively high mean value has

given a clear indication that respondents were privileged to have interacted, enjoyed,

learned and experienced the primitive tribal culture and heritage as an integral part of

ecotourism in the PTR. Similarly, the results of standard deviation explain that there is a

variation of dispersion from 1.26 to 1.58. As such, the higher the standard deviation the

lower would be the uniformity of interests in appreciating and learning the culture and

heritage of primitive people in Thekkady. In a seven point scale, the results of standard

204

deviation are relatively low explaining the importance that respondents attached to each

of the statements.

Table 4.24

Descriptive Statistics

Appreciating and Learning Local Culture & Heritage Types of Tourist

Descriptive Statistics Results

Mean Std. Dev. Interested to visit local villages for interaction with people

Domestic 5.03 1.40 Foreign 5.20 1.45

Eager to learn and experience the cultural events of the place

Domestic 5.22 1.30 Foreign 5.36 1.26

Happy to have the taste of the local food Domestic 5.48 1.30 Foreign 5.59 1.58

Giving due respect to local community members

Domestic 5.38 1.32 Foreign 5.50 1.37

Financial contribution to community members

Domestic 5.18 1.34 Foreign 5.02 1.44

Educating the local people about preservation of art, culture and heritage

Domestic 5.16 1.39 Foreign 5.38 1.39

Acknowledge the cultural pride and values of local community members

Domestic 5.57 1.36 Foreign 5.55 1.36

The mean results show that the level of understanding of foreign tourists in

extending their respects for local culture is almost higher as compared to the domestic

tourists on all the factors, excepting helping the community financially and

acknowledging the cultural pride and values of local community members. However, the

differences of mean are insignificant in case of all the statements. It may tentatively be

inferred that both foreign and domestic tourists found each statement important in

creating a harmonious relationship between the hosts and guests. Nevertheless, it is quite

obvious that foreign tourist respondents are relatively more concerned for more

interactions with the local community in the PTR.

205

4.6.4. t’ Test for Equality of Variances between Foreign & Domestic Tourists on Respecting Culture & Heritage H0: The means of both foreign and domestic tourist respondents are not significantly different on the seven different statements explaining the appreciation and respect towards the culture and heritage of primitive people in Thekkady.

In a bid to carry out the hypothesis test, Levene’s sample independent t-test is

employed for testing the significance of mean differences between foreign and domestic

tourists. It is important to find out whether the differences of mean between the two

groups are statistically different or not. It is important to find whether the t-value is less

than or greater than .05. The two-tailed P values for all the seven factors are .565, .650,

.012, .727, .968, .921 and .983 respectively. Table 4.25 illustrates the Levene’s t test for

equality of variances between domestic and foreign tourists on seven different interests of

tourists for local culture and heritage.

Having compared the two-tailed P values with the significance level 0.05, it is

clearly found that null hypothesis “the means of both foreign and domestic tourist

respondents are not significantly different on seven different statements explaining the

appreciation and respect towards culture and heritage of primitive people in Thekkady” is

not rejected as P value for each individual statement is more than 0.05. Thus, the mean

differences between foreign and domestic tourists are statistically insignificant that leads

to drawing the conclusion that both two categories of respondents on the basis of their

nationalities do not have differences as far as the seven aspects comprising broadly the

interests of the tourists in mingling with the local people to know, understand, learn and

experience various cultural practices with the community members and vice-versa.

206

Though there are mean differences between the two categories of respondents, it is

marginal and it seems to have occurred by chance. It is inferred that foreign tourist

respondents equally emphasized on the significance of interactions of guests with host for

sustainable ecotourism in the PTR.

207

Table 4.25

Levene’s t Test for Equality of Variances

Appreciating and Learning Local Culture &

Heritage

Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F

Sig

.

t Df

Sig

. (2-

taile

d)

Mea

n D

iffer

ence

Std

. Err

or

Diff

eren

ce

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference Lower Upper

Interested to visit local villages for interaction with people

Equal variances assumed

.332 .565 -1.385 498 .167 -.17849 .12888 -.43170 .07473

Equal variances not assumed

-1.377 440.707 .169 -.17849 .12963 -.43327 .07629

Eager to learn and experience the cultural events of the place

Equal variances assumed .206 .650

-1.219 498 .223 -.14253 .11692 -.37225 .08719

Equal variances not assumed

-1.225 458.830 .221 -.14253 .11630 -.37109 .08603

Happy to have the taste of local food

Equal variances assumed 6.367 .012

-.833 498 .405 -.10772 .12937 -.36190 .14646

Equal variances not assumed

-.807 394.047 .420 -.10772 .13353 -.37024 .15480

Giving due respect to local community members

Equal variances assumed .122 .727

-1.012 498 .312 -.12332 .12189 -.36280 .11617

Equal variances not assumed

-1.006 440.586 .315 -.12332 .12261 -.36430 .11766

Financial contribution to community members

Equal variances assumed .002 .968

1.280 498 .201 .16108 .12583 -.08614 .40831

Equal variances not assumed

1.266 431.522 .206 .16108 .12724 -.08900 .41116

Educating the local people about preservation of art, culture and heritage

Equal variances assumed .010 .921

-1.767 498 .078 -.22365 .12653 -.47225 .02496

Equal variances not assumed

-1.769 451.458 .078 -.22365 .12646 -.47216 .02487

Acknowledge cultural pride and values of local community members

Equal variances assumed .000 .983

.190 498 .849 .02348 .12361 -.21937 .26634

Equal variances not assumed

.190 449.890 .849 .02348 .12365 -.21952 .26649

208

4.6.5. Descriptive Statistics between Foreign & Domestic Tourists on Elements of Visitor Satisfaction

Visitor satisfaction is one of the key objectives of the sustainable ecotourism since

the visitor expenditures largely provide the ways and means of increasing the revenue of

the protected areas. This can result in the socio-economic development of local areas,

whereby the objective of ecotourism site to be pro-poor can be realized in letter and

spirit. As regards the key determinants of visitors satisfaction, the differences between

foreign and domestic tourists on eight different independent statements explaining visitor

satisfaction in Thekkady was found out by using the mean and standard deviation.

Table 4.26 presents the descriptive statistics between the foreign and domestic

tourists consisting of 290 and 210 respectively with regard to eight different aspects

highlighting on the items, such as reasonable entry free ticket, friendliness of employee,

affordable room and food tariff, convenient to reach, peacefulness, community

interactions, exhibition of local arts and crafts and friendly behaviour of people. The

results of mean for foreign tourists show a close variation between 4.56 and 5.76,

whereas the mean values for domestic tourists show a range between 5.13 and 5.66 across

eight statements measured in a seven point scale (from very much important to very

much unimportant). Further, all the statements reinforcing on the key determinants of

visitor satisfactions have the mean values more than five, excepting one i.e. 4.56

(reasonable entry fee tickets in case of foreign tourists). Thus, the relatively high mean

values evidently imply that tourists respondents were more critical about the eight

elements.

209

Similarly, the results of standard deviation show a clear dispersion from the mean. The

dispersion is as low as 1.28 and as high as 1.60 in case of domestic tourists and as low as 1.30

and as high as 1.76 in respect of foreign tourists. It is explained that the results of higher value

of standard deviation explain the more dispersion from the mean and vice versa. It means that if

the lower the values of standard deviation and the higher the mean values, there would be more

emphasis on the particular item reflecting the visitor satisfaction. However, the results of

standard deviation are relatively low while taking the use of seven point scale in capturing the

responses from the respondents into consideration.

Table 4.26

Descriptive Statistics

Key Elements of Visitor Satisfactions Types of Tourists Descriptive Statistics

Results Mean Std. Dev.

Reasonable entry free ticket Domestic 5.20 1.60 Foreign 4.56 1.76

Friendliness of employee Domestic 5.36 1.34 Foreign 5.47 1.43

Affordable room and food tariff Domestic 5.24 1.29 Foreign 5.24 1.36

Convenient to reach Domestic 5.25 1.23 Foreign 5.13 1.47

Peacefulness Domestic 5.66 1.24 Foreign 5.51 1.48

Community Interactions Domestic 5.16 1.31 Foreign 5.17 1.30

Exhibition of local arts and crafts Domestic 5.13 1.31 Foreign 5.00 1.33

Friendly behaviour of the people Domestic 5.52 1.28 Foreign 5.76 1.35

210

The mean results show that the level of understanding of both domestic and

foreign tourists in extending their respects for local culture is almost equal on all the

factors, excepting the reasonable entry fee ticket by foreign tourist respondents.

However, the differences of mean are insignificant in case of all statements. It may

tentatively be inferred that both foreign and domestic tourists attached much importance

to all eight elements as these largely decide the level of satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

All the same, foreign tourist respondents are relatively more concerned for some items as

compared to domestic tourist respondents in regard to the amount of satisfaction that they

derive from experiencing.

4.6.6. t’ Test for Equality of Variances between Foreign & Domestic Tourists on the Elements of Visitor Satisfactions

H0: The means of both foreign and domestic tourist respondents are not

significantly different on the eight different statements explaining the visitor

satisfactions while visiting and sojourning in PTR and Thekkady.

In a bid to carry out the hypothesis test, Levene’s sample independent t-test is

employed for testing the significance of mean differences between foreign and domestic

tourists. It is important to find out whether the differences of mean between the two

groups are statistically different or not. It is important to find whether the t-value is less

than or greater than .05. The two-tailed P values for all the seven factors are .010, .306,

.327, .030, .008, .979, .792 and .760 respectively. Table 4.27 illustrates the Levene’s t test

for equality of variances between domestic and foreign tourists on seven different

interests of the tourists for local culture and heritage.

211

Having compared the two-tailed P values with the significance level 0.05, it is

clearly found that null hypothesis “the means of both foreign and domestic tourist

respondents are not significantly different on the eight different statements explaining the

visitor satisfactions while visiting and sojourning at the PTR and Thekkady is not

rejected, excepting “peacefulness” with P value 0.008. Thus, the P value for each

individual statement, barring peacefulness is more than 0.05.

Thus, the mean differences between foreign and domestic tourists are statistically

insignificant that leads to drawing the conclusion that both two categories of respondents

on the basis of their nationality do not have differences as far as seven aspects such as

reasonable entry free ticket, friendliness of employee, affordable room and food tariff,

convenient to reach, community interactions, exhibition of local arts and crafts and

friendly behaviour of the people are concerned.

However, the hypothesis on this particular item “peacefulness” is rejected as the P

value is less than the significance value drawing inference that there is a difference

between the two categories of tourists as far as the peaceful atmosphere of the PTR is

concerned. Thus, the differences seem to have occurred by chance. It is inferred that

both domestic and foreign tourists have equally regarded all eight items excepting one

“peacefulness” as the key elements for visitor satisfaction.

212

Table 4.27

Levene's t Test for Equality of Variances

Seven Critical Factors for Visitor Satisfaction

Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F

Sig

.

t Df

Sig

. (2-

taile

d)

Mea

n D

iffer

ence

Std

. Err

or

Diff

eren

ce

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference Lower Upper

Reasonable entry free ticket Equal variances assumed 6.625 .010

4.218 498 .000 .64023 .15177 .34204 .93842 Equal variances not assumed 4.155 424.340 .000 .64023 .15408 .33737 .94309

Friendliness of employee Equal variances assumed 1.050 .306

-.874 498 .382 -.10936 .12510 -.35515 .13643 Equal variances not assumed -.865 431.803 .388 -.10936 .12648 -.35795 .13923

Affordable room and food tariff Equal variances assumed .965 .327

.005 498 .996 .00066 .12026 -.23562 .23694 Equal variances not assumed .005 436.024 .996 .00066 .12129 -.23773 .23905

Convenient to reach Equal variances assumed 4.743 .030

.992 498 .321 .12053 .12144 -.11808 .35913 Equal variances not assumed .965 399.953 .335 .12053 .12495 -.12511 .36616

Peacefulness Equal variances assumed 6.995 .008

1.207 498 .228 .14778 .12244 -.09278 .38835 Equal variances not assumed 1.174 401.242 .241 .14778 .12589 -.09969 .39526

Community interactions Equal variances assumed .001 .979

-.119 498 .906 -.01412 .11892 -.24778 .21953 Equal variances not assumed -.119 451.425 .905 -.01412 .11885 -.24770 .21945

Exhibition of local arts and crafts Equal variances assumed .070 .792

1.120 498 .263 .13448 .12002 -.10133 .37029 Equal variances not assumed 1.117 445.931 .264 .13448 .12035 -.10204 .37101

Friendly behaviour of people Equal variances assumed .094 .760

-2.010 498 .045 -.23908 .11892 -.47273 -.00543 Equal variances not assumed -1.992 435.305 .047 -.23908 .11999 -.47492 -.00324

213

4.7. TEST OF ONE-WAY ANOVA ON VISITOR SATISFACTION FACTORS

The one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is used to determine the statistical

difference between three or more means. The test explains the differences among two or

more means of the treatment group. Table 4.28 shows the summery that is divided into

between the group effects (Effects due to the Model-the Experimental Effect) and within

group effects (Unsystematic Variation in Data). It is explained about the variance of

means between and within the groups of respondents. The test of ANOVA explains the

differences among two or more means of the treatment group. Table 4.29 gives the

average mean difference of three categories of tourist sample group respondents on the

five visitor satisfaction factors. Thus, it is an attempt to determine as what extent the

observed differences are statistically significant?

4.7.1. Descriptive Statistics of Frequency of Visit

In a bid to find the differences of mean and standard deviation on five important

attributes of the PTR that largely influence the visitors to obtain satisfaction; the

descriptive statistics of the three groups of respondents across the frequency of visit are

illustrated in Table 4.29. In the first attempt, the analysis is made on the variable of

hospitality of services to find the difference of means and square of means of three

categories of respondents. The group of sample tourist respondents having more

frequency of visit have regarded to the quality of hospitality services as a major factor

giving maximum satisfactions to the visitors as compared to other two groups of tourist

respondents such as second time and third time and subsequent visit.

214

There is a highest mean value of 47.81 in case of group having longer duration of

stay, whereas the mean values of 12.58 and 7.69 in case of other two groups, such as

second and third-time and subsequent-time visit respectively. The results of standard

deviation are also equally important in establishing the degree of dispersion among the

three respondent groups on the quality of hospitality services as a key factor of providing

maximum satisfaction to the visitors. However, there is a marginal dispersion between

the experiences of the first-time and second-time on the hospitality services.

Considering the quality of basic services as another vital attribute of visitor

satisfaction, it is reported that the mean value for the first-time visitors is 52.14, followed

by the mean values (50.33 and 47.86) of second-time and third or subsequent-time

visitors respectively. However, the sample tourist respondents with multiple visits have

relatively secured highest mean score. It explains that visitors who paid multiple visits to

the PTR seem to have attributed to the basic facilities as a significant factor of visitor

satisfaction. There is a dispersion of difference of standard deviation among the three

groups. The low standard deviation in case of multiple time visitors is 6.91 as against the

standard deviation value 9.57 and 11.94 in respect of first and second-time visitors to the

PTR. The results of the standard deviation denote greater consistency about the quality

of basic facilities in case of first-time and multiple-time visitors as compared to the

second time visits.

Basic amenities largely contribute to the level of visitor satisfaction at the tourist

destinations. Unlike basic facilities, amenities are provided to ensure the comfortable

stay, visit and enjoyment at the places of tourist importance. Having taken this factor as

one of the key elements of visitor satisfaction, the responses on this factor have been

215

analyzed with the help of mean and standard deviation. The results show that the mean

value is 26.84 in case of the first-time visitors followed by the mean values of 25.57 and

24.31 in respect of multiple and second-time visitors to the PTR. The inference of the

mean values for each of the group indicates that the first-time visitors are more serious

and concerned for basic facilities when compared to other two groups. Nevertheless,

there is a marginal difference across three different groups of sample tourist respondents

on the criterion of frequency of visit.

While finding out the measures of dispersion from the mean values on the basic

amenities for each group of respondents, the standard deviation is 4,89, 6.06 and 6.08 in

case of the multiple-time, first-time and second-time visitors respectively. Further, the

results of standard deviation clearly demonstrate that there is extremely less dispersion in

case of subsequent-time visits as compared to the other two groups of respondents.

However, all the three groups have relatively low standard deviation and the less

dispersion from the mean clearly explains the consistency and unanimity as far as the

basic amenities as a key factor influencing the visitor satisfaction is concerned.

Disaster preparedness of the authorities of tourism destinations is described as an

essential quality that visitors assess this element at the time of zeroing in the destinations.

The concern for safety would be more when it is an off-the-beaten-track destination.

Moreover, it has become an important part of the safety measure of the PTR to ensure the

visitor satisfaction. The mean value for 51 second-time tourist respondents is 21.82,

followed by 22.93 for first-time visitors and 23.52 for subsequent-time visitors. The

results of mean across the three groups of respondents show a marginal difference, but

the tourists with subsequent- time visits underscored the disaster preparedness that gives

216

much confidence to tourists to undertake ecotourism programmes, including the boating

in the reservoir to sight the wildlife and birds.

At the same time, the results of standard deviation on the same factor between the

three groups show a small difference. The low standard deviation (4.17) is reported in

case of tourists having subsequent-time visits to the PTR and there is very less dispersion

or deviation from the mean. Whereas, other two groups such as first time and second time

have the standard deviation of 4.95 and 5.48 respectively. It shows that there is relatively

more dispersion as compared to the subsequent-time visits. However, the dispersion may

be considered as very insignificant and there is much emphasis on the disaster

management capacity of the PTR authorities since there are high possibilities of accidents

due to erroneous operations or natural calamity during the soft and hard adventure

tourism activities.

Value-added services have the advantage of enhancing the scope for visitor

satisfaction. Apart from the usual or basic facilities, amenities and services, tourists are

provided certain personalized care or services to maximize their enjoyments and

experiences leading to optimize the level of visitor satisfaction. Taking this into

consideration, the mean and standard deviation was used to find the differences of

experiences of sample tourist respondents on the value-added services that comprise

guide or interpreter service, binoculars, umbrellas, brochures, etc. The mean values for

first, second and subsequent-time sample tourist respondents are 24.45, 24.21 and 24.66

respectively. Out of the three, the highest mean value is reported in case of multiple time

visitors as compared to other two groups. However, there is a marginal difference of

217

mean values across the three groups. It is inferred that all these three groups seem to have

stressed on the value-added services to enhance the visitor satisfaction.

The results of standard deviation for the value-added services reveal that the first,

second and subsequent-time tourists have 5.02, 5.72 and 4.11 standard deviation

respectively. Further, the lowest standard deviation is reported in respect of multiple

time visitors. Nevertheless, there is less dispersion from the mean value in case of all

three groups and it is inferred that all three groups have consistency and uniformity of

opinions while regarding value-added services as a significant factor to give them value-

for-money experiences.

Table 4.28

Descriptive Statistics

Name of Factor Frequency N Mean Std. Dev.

Hospitality Services

First Visit 428 47.81 10.45 Second Visit 51 44.11 12.58 Multiple Visit 21 48.95 7.69

Total 500 47.48 10.63

Basic Facilities

First Visit 428 50.33 9.57 Second Visit 51 47.86 11.94 Multiple Visit 21 52.14 6.91

Total 500 50.16 9.76

Basic Amenities

First Visit 428 26.84 6.06 Second Visit 51 24.31 6.08 Multiple Visit 21 25.57 4.89

Total 500 26.53 6.06

Disaster Preparedness

First Visit 428 22.93 4.95 Second Visit 51 21.82 5.48 Multiple Visit 21 23.52 4.17

Total 500 22.84 4.98

Value Added Services

First Visit 428 24.45 5.02 Second Visit 51 24.21 5.72 Multiple Visit 21 24.66 4.11

Total 500 24.43 5.05

218

The results of the mean values clarified that there are differences of means among

three groups of respondents on the basis of duration of stay (overnight) at the

destinations. The results of the standard deviation explained that there is a dispersion in

the views of each category of respondents on all the five factors pertaining to sustainable

ecotourism development.

4.7.2. Test of ANOVA for Differences between Three Groups on Frequency of Visit

H0: On the criterion of frequency of visit, visitors are not significantly different

on the five broad factors determining the visitors satisfaction.

The results of one-way ANOVA explaining about the variance of means between

and within the three groups of respondents are presented in Table 4.29 While taking the

instance of hospitality services as an important factor for visitor satisfaction, the F-

statistics is 2.986 that is followed by the F distribution with df (2, 497) and an associated

P- value.051. Thus the null hypothesis is not rejected at the 5 per cent significance level.

Further, basic facilities at the ecotourism destinations play a very important role in

sending tourist satisfied and without the same the tourists cannot stay or visit the places

of tourism importance.

Here is the basic facilities as the second most important factor with the F-

statistics is 1.920 and F distribution is df (2, 497). The associated P value is .148 that

leads to not rejection of hypothesis. Further, basic amenities at the ecotourism

destinations make tourists comfortable and relaxed that motivates tourists to stay longer.

Thus, the F- statistics is 4.300 and F distribution is df (2, 497) for the basic amenities.

The associated P- value is .014 that does not reject the hypothesis.

219

Similarly, disaster preparedness is the fourth factor that gives ultimately a kind of

satisfaction with regard to safety and rescue of the tourists at the time of accidents or any

natural calamities. Thus, the F- statistics is 1.341 and F distribution is df (2, 497) for the

basic amenities. The associated P- value is .263. The P value does not reject the

hypothesis as it is more than the significance value 0.05. When the value-added services

for tourists are taken into consideration to test the hypothesis and it adds much value to

the experience of tourists. To find the differences between the three groups of

respondents, the F- statistics is 0.72 and F distribution is df (2, 497) for the basic

amenities. The associated P- value is .930. The P value does not reject the hypothesis as it

is more than the significance value 0.05.

When the effects of the one-way ANOVA are reported to be insignificant, it tends

to reveal that the means do not differ more than that would be expected by chance alone.

In terms of the above experiment, it would indicate that all five factors were equally

effecting in providing maximum satisfactions since both the two groups of tourists do not

differ in the opinions. Even though there are marginal differences of mean values across

three groups for each of the factor, but the broad hypothesis “on the criterion of

frequency of visit and visitors are not significantly different on the five broad factors

determining the visitors satisfaction” is not rejected as the P values for all these factors

are far more than the significance level 0.05.

Hence, it may be inferred from the test of hypothesis with reference to the

frequency of visit and five factors of visitor satisfaction that foreign tourists did not differ

from domestic tourists in attaching importance to visitor satisfaction factors. In most of

the studies, the differences are reported between the two groups of tourists and there exist

220

no differences between the two groups due to the different sample of population and

different destinations. Moreover, it may further be interpreted that foreign tourists are as

much aware and conscious as domestic tourists in finding these five factors that can

enrich the experience of tourists or may spoil the experience since ecotourism or wildlife

tourism can be promoted with the minimum of these factors. Thus, the Forest Department

and the administrations of the PTR and the private tourism service providers may be

guided with the findings that apart from giving importance to foreign tourists, attention

should also be given to domestic tourists as far as the five visitor satisfaction factors are

concerned.

221

Table 4.29

One-Way Anova

Name of Factors Frequency N Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Hospitality Services

First Visit 428 Between Groups 670.237 2 335.119

2.986 .051 Second Visit 51 Within Groups 55786.665 497 112.247

Third and Subsequent Visit 21 Total 56456.902 499 Total 500

Basic Services

First Visit 428 Between Groups 365.038 2 182.519

1.920 .148 Second Visit 51 Within Groups 47246.162 497 95.063

Third and Subsequent Visit 21 Total 47611.200 499 Total 500

Basic Amenities

First Visit 428 Between Groups 311.853 2 155.927

4.300 .014 Second Visit 51 Within Groups 18022.635 497 36.263

Third and Subsequent Visit 21 Total 18334.488 499 Total 500

Disaster Preparedness

First Visit 428 Between Groups 66.501 2 33.251

1.341 .263 Second Visit 51 Within Groups 12325.947 497 24.801

Third and Subsequent Visit 21 Total 12392.448 499 Total 500

Value Added Services

First Visit 428 Between Groups 3.718 2 1.859

.072 .930 Second Visit 51 Within Groups 12755.360 497 25.665

Third and Subsequent Visit 21 Total 12759.078 499 Total 500

222

4.7.3. Descriptive Statistics of Duration of Stay

In an attempt to find the differences of mean and standard deviation across the

five important factors of visitor satisfaction, the descriptive statistics of the three groups

of respondents on the basis of duration of stay are presented in Table 4.30. In the first

attempt, the analysis is made on the variable of hospitality of services, the group of

sample tourist respondents having longer duration ( one week and more) of stay stressed

on hospitality services with the mean value 48.33 while comparing the mean values (

47.88 & 47.01) of other two groups of tourist respondents such as 3-4 days and 1-2

days. On the other hand, the results of standard deviation explain the dispersion of values

from the mean on hospitality services. It is found from the results that there is a

negligible dispersion between the experiences of first-time and second-time visitors on

the hospitality services. Thus, all three groups regardless of duration of stay regarded

hospitality services as a key determinant of visitor satisfaction.

As regard the basic services at the PTR and Thekkady, the mean value for the

visitors with the duration of 3-4 days is 51.59, followed 49.86 and 49.63 for the groups

with one week and more and 1-2days respectively. It explains that visitors who stayed

3-4 days regarded the basic facilities to be an important to make their sojourn

comfortable as compared to other two groups. In addition, the low standard deviation in

case of 3-4 days is 9.42 as against the standard deviation value 5.73 and 10.20 in respect

of 1-2 days and one week and more . The results show greater consistency of basic

facilities as there is low standard deviation.

223

With regard to the basic amenities, the mean value for the visitors with the

duration of 1-2 days is 25.99 and other two groups have the mean value of 27.30 and

27.11 respectively. In addition, the low standard deviation in case of 1-2 days is 5.79 as

against 5.93 and 6.82 in respect of one week and more and 3-4 days . The results show

that there is marginal difference across the three groups and it is low dispersion from the

mean.

The disaster preparedness is the fourth factor in order and the mean value for

the group with the duration of one week and more is 22.59 and other two groups have

the mean value of 22.82 and 23.11 in case of 3-4 days and 1-2 days respectively. At the

same time, the low standard deviation in case of 1-2 days is reported to be 4.60 as

against 4.86 and 6.08 in respect of one week and more and 3-4 days. The results show

that there is a marginal difference of standard deviation across three groups from the

mean.

Value-added service is the fifth factor and the mean value for the group with

the duration of one week and more is 23.97 and other two groups have the mean value

of 24.14 and 24.72 in case of 3-4 days and 1-2 days respectively. At the same time, the

low standard deviation in case of 1-2 days is reported to be 4.63 as against 5.25 and 5.89

in respect of 3-4 days and one week and more. The results show that there is a small

difference of standard deviation across three groups from the mean.

224

Table 4.30

Descriptive Statistics

Name of Factors Duration of Stay

N Mean Std. Dev.

Hospitality Services

1-2 Days 280 47.01 10.19

3-4 Days 122 47.88 11.10

One Week & More 98 48.33 11.29

Total 500 47.48 10.63

Basic Facilities

1-2 Days 280 49.63 9.73

3-4 Days 122 51.59 9.42

One Week & More 98 49.86 10.20

Total 500 50.16 9.76

Basic Amenities

1-2 Days 280 25.99 5.79

3-4 Days 122 27.30 5.93

One Week & More 98 27.11 6.82

Total 500 26.53 6.06

Disaster Preparedness

1-2 Days 280 22.82 4.60

3-4 Days 122 23.11 4.86

One Week & More 98 22.59 6.08

Total 500 22.84 4.98

Value-Added Services

1-2 Days 280 24.72 4.63

3-4 Days 122 24.14 5.25

One Week & More 98 23.97 5.89

Total 500 24.43 5.05

4.7.4. Test of ANOVA for Differences between Three Groups on Duration of Stay

H0: On the criterion of duration of stay, there are no significant differences of

experiences of the tourists on the key factors of visitor satisfaction.

The results of one-way ANOVA explaining about the variance of means between

and within the three groups of respondents are presented in Table 4.31. As regards the

hospitality services, tourists are reported to have differences of opinions on the visitor

satisfaction. The F- statistics is .674 that is followed by the F distribution with df (2,

497) and an associated P- value .510. Thus, the null hypothesis “ no significant

225

differences among the three groups of respondents on hospitality services as far as the

duration of stay is concerned” is not rejected at the 5 per cent significance level.

Similarly, basic facilities and amenities at the PTR contribute largely to the level

of visitor satisfaction and the duration of stay is directly determined by the basic services.

The F- statistics and F distribution for basic facilities is 1.775 and df (2, 497). The

associated P- value is .170. Similarly, The F- statistics and F distribution for basic

facilities is 2.560 and df (2, 497). The associated P- value is .078. The P values of two

factors indicate that the hypothesis “ no significant differences on basic facilities and

amenities on the criterion of duration of stay” are not rejected.

The disaster preparedness is the fourth factor signifying the safety and rescue

measures of authorities for tourists at the time of accidents or any natural calamities.

Thus, the F- statistics 0.307 and F distribution is df (2, 497) for the basic amenities. The

associated P- value .736 does not reject the hypothesis “no significant differences on

disaster preparedness on the basis of duration of stay” as it is more than the significance

value 0.05. The last factor namely value-added services determine the level of

satisfaction. To find the differences between the three groups of respondents, the F-

statistics is 1.005 and F distribution is df (2, 497) for the basic amenities. Hence, the

associated P- value .349 does not reject the hypothesis as it is more than the significance

value 0.05.

It is reported from the F statistics, the F distribution and P value that the effects of

one-way ANOVA are insignificant or are not rejected. As a result, it reveals that the

means do not differ more than that would be expected by chance alone. While taking the

226

experiment, all the five factors had equal in effect in providing opportunities to visitors to

evaluate various parameters on the visitors satisfactions since both three groups of

tourists do not differ in opinions. Since there are some marginal differences of mean

values for each of the factor, but the broad hypothesis “on the criterion of frequency of

visit, visitors are not significantly different on the five broad factors determining the

visitors satisfaction” is not rejected as the P values for all these factors are far more than

the significance level 0.05.

Thus, it may be inferred from one-way Anova test results on all five factors of

visitor satisfaction that foreign tourists did not differ from domestic tourists in attaching

importance to visitor satisfaction factors. In most of the studies, the differences are

reported between three groups of tourists and there exist no differences between three

groups due to the different sample of population and different destinations. Moreover, it

may further be interpreted that foreign tourists are as much aware and conscious as

domestic tourists in finding these five factors that can enrich the experiences of tourists or

may spoil the experience since ecotourism or wildlife tourism can be promoted with the

minimum of these factors. Thus, the Forest Department and the administrations of the

PTR and the private tourism service providers may be guided with the findings that apart

from giving importance to foreign tourists, attention should also be given to the domestic

tourists as far as the five visitor satisfaction factors are concerned.

227

Table 4.31

One-Way Anova

Name of Factors Frequency N Sum of Squares Df Mean Square

F Sig.

Hospitality Services

1-2 Days 280 Between Groups

152.678 2 76.339

.674

.510

3-4 Days 122 Within Groups 56304.224 497 113.288

One Week and More 98 Total 56456.902 499

Total 500

Basic Services

1-2 Days 280 Between Groups

337.762 2 168.881

1.775 .170 3-4 Days 122 Within Groups 47273.438 497 95.118

One Week and More 98 Total 47611.200 499

Total 500

Basic Amenities

1-2 Days 280 Between Groups

186.958 2 93.479

2.560

.078

3-4 Days 122 Within Groups 18147.530 497 36.514

One Week and More 98 Total 18334.488 499

Total 500

Disaster Preparedness

1-2 Days 280 Between Groups

15.310 2

.307

.736

3-4 Days 122 Within Groups 12377.138 497 7.655

One Week and More 98 Total 12392.448 499 24.904

Total 500

Value-Added Services

1-2 Days 280 Between Groups

53.950 2 26.975

1.055

.349

3-4 Days 122 Within Groups 12705.128 497 25.564

One Week and More 98 Total 12759.078 499

Total 500

228

4.8. RESULTS OF MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF VIS ITOR SATISFACTION INDICATORS

The results of mean and standard deviation for 35 indicators explaining the

elements of visitor satisfaction in the PTR are presented in Table.4.32 Each individual

indicator is directly and indirectly integrated to the needs and expectations of visitors, but

for these elements of facilities, amenities and services, visitors can seldom obtain

satisfaction.

The mean values of all 35 indicators given in the descending order ranging

between 5.04 and 5.86. It accounts for a moderate variance of opinion across the

indicators on various problems, prospects and strategies of sustainable tourism

development in PTR. It revealed that tourist respondents largely agreed upon the

statements covering tourism impact and the role of the tourist in ensuring sustainable

tourism development. It indicated that the higher mean score is an indication of

uniformity in agreement on various aspects of sustainable tourism development.

The value of standard deviation ranges between .995 and 1.53 across the 35

indicators. The higher or lower standard deviation occurred depending on the judgments

of respondents on the particular statement. The results of standard deviation explained

that respondents did not differ about the indicators focusing on the visitor satisfaction.

The higher mean value indicates the better concern of sample respondents towards the

visitor satisfaction. Similarly, the higher standard deviations indicate the inconsistency of

opinions of sample respondents about the environmental conservation. Further, if it is

high, it indicates larger dispersions in the opinion of the sample respondents about that

particular variable.

229

Table 4.32

Descriptive Statistics (N 500)

Sl. No Indicators Mean Std.

Dev. 1. Local people are friendly and helpful 5.56 1.37 2. The behaviour of park staff is friendly 5.36 1.38 3. Knowledge & service of eco-guide enhances experience & enjoyment 5.35 1.61 4. Check-out and Check-in in the hotel is perfect 5.26 1.33 5. Food is properly served in restaurant 5.25 1.50 6. Staff are prompt and professional 5.24 1.53 7. I found that the hotel staff are professional 5.23 1.47 8. Food quality and service in restaurant is fine 5.21 1.50 9. The lifeguard service is well taken care of 5.20 1.48 10. Taste of local food is unique 5.19 1.44 11. Life Jacket is made mandatory 5.17 1.52 12. Sitting arrangement is comfortable and relaxing 5.17 1.39 13. I experienced sincerity in room service 5.15 1.44 14. Boating is safe and secured 5.14 1.29 15. Carrying capacity is maintained in the boat 5.11 1.36 16. I enjoy the walk from parking to the Boat Jetty 5.08 1.36 17. Location of the ticket counter is convenient 5.04 1.38 18. Seating arrangement at Jetty is adequate 4.94 1.24 19. I find dustbins placed at key places for use 4.92 1.30 20. Interpretation center is resourceful and educative 4.85 1.32 21. I see well maintained mechanism of collecting garbage 4.81 1.29 22. Binoculars are provided to watch the wild animals from boats 4.77 1.74 23. I got drinking water that is purified 4.76 1.39 24. Toilets and waiting rooms are located at convenient place 4.75 1.29 25. I find the cleanliness of outer ring road and parking area 4.73 1.39 26. I get guided by the instruction from the signage 4.72 1.39 27. I do not have problem of getting drinking water 4.70 1.34 28. There is provision of emergency speed boats in case of any emergency 4.69 1.18 29. Parking area is well planned and organized 4.54 1.48 30. Emergency relief boat facility is available 4.49 1.26 31. General information on park is given at vantage points and on boats 4.29 1.48 32. There is facility of ambulance and first-aid center 4.26 1.24 33. Refreshment stalls provide fresh snacks & tea along with souvenirs 4.22 1.41 34. There is a fire brigade if anything goes wrong in the park 4.19 1.31 35. Brochures and guide books are provided on demand 4.01 1.52

4.9. FACTOR ANALYSIS FOR VISITOR SATISFACTIONS

Factor analysis is one of the statistical tools used to deduct a large number of

variables and helps in summarizing the data and also to simplify the data. Researchers

always try to eliminate the data which are found to be less than .50 and apply Principle

Component Analysis (PCA) by combining varimax rotation on the variable having

230

higher loading than the previously specified. Here 35 variables with high factor loadings

are placed in five respective factors.

4.9.1. KMO and Bartlett’s Test

The KMO is found to be .947, as it is presented in Table 4.33 confirming the data

adequacy to carry out the factor analysis. The higher the value of KMO the higher would

be the chance of conducting factor analysis on the obtained data. As the value of KMO is

greater than 0.5, it is quiet good to use the factor analysis for analyzing the data to some

identified factors so as to give a broader explanation for each individual indicator.

Further, the Cronbach’s Alpha measures the internal consistency between the items of

discovered factors. Usually, the Alpha value above 0.70 and it explains higher

consistency. Out of the total variables taken for analysis, the overall Cronbach’s Alpha

shows .919. Thus, internal consistency on standardized items alone shows to be .950.

Hence, the overall consistency is found to be excellent.

Table 4.33

KMO and Bartlett’s Test

Kaiser –Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy

.947

Barlett’s Test of Sphercity Approx Chi Square 10277.088

df 595

Sig .000

4.9.2. Communalities The range of variance shared by a variable with all other variables is referred as

communality. The proportion of common variance of variable is known as the

communality. Table 4.34 presents the output of SPSS of communalities to find out the

231

common relationship among the variables. Common variance is all about the degree of

variance in the primary data. It is an attempt to find the proportion of common variance

by executing a PCA. The extracted variables represent the multiple correlations between

each variable and factors extracted. A wide range of communalities exist between 0.330

and 0.772 since each variable shared with other variables is significant. It shows that all

variables relating to the visitor satisfaction and there is an inter-relationship among the

variables.

Table 4.34

Communalities

Sl. No. Items Extraction 1 I enjoy the walk from parking to the Boat Jetty .474 2 Toilets and waiting rooms are located at convenient place .330 3 I got drinking water that is purified .514 4 Refreshment stalls provide fresh snacks & tea along with souvenir .517 5 I get guided by the instruction from the signage .456 6 Interpretation center is resourceful and educative .456 7 General information on park is given at vantage points and on boats .584 8 Brochures and guide books are provided on demand .548 9 Seating arrangement at Jetty is adequate .604 10 Location of the ticket counter is convenient .515 11 Parking area is well planned and organized .514 12 Binoculars are provided to watch the wild animals from boats .513 13 Knowledge & service of eco guide enhances experience & enjoyment .575 14 I find the cleanliness of outer ring road and parking area .490 15 I see the well maintained mechanism of collecting garbage .437 16 I find dustbins placed at key places for use .543 17 I do not have problem of getting drinking water .592 18 Boating is safe and secure .696 19 Sitting arrangement is comfortable and relaxing .670 20 Life Jacket is made mandatory .618 21 Carrying capacity is maintained in the boat .659 22 Emergency relief boat facility is available .573 23 There is facility of ambulance and first aid center .752 24 There is a fire brigade if anything goes wrong in the park .677 25 There is life guard service is well taken care of .671 26 There is provision of emergency speed boats in case of any emergency .644 27 The behaviour of park staff is friendly .626 28 Taste of the local food is unique .597 29 Local people are friendly and helpful .642 30 I found that the hotel staffs are professional .772 31 Food is properly Served in the restaurant .754

232

32 Check-out and Check-in in the hotel is perfect .729 33 I experienced sincerity in room service .676 34 Food quality and service in the restaurant is fine .749 35 Staff are prompt and professional .725

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis

4.9.3. Principal Component Analysis

Factor analysis is one of the useful methods of reducing and summarizing the

number of data from a larger group. Table 4.35 shows the Factor loadings, Eigen values,

Variances and Cronbachs Alpha. Factor loadings are the values representing the close

inter item relationship between variables and identified factors. Item which has factor

loading less than .4 is excluded. Eigen Value explains the relative importance of each

factor for a particular set of variable and variance is the total percentage of these Eigen

Values. Cronbach’s Alpha is the internal consistency between the items. All the 35

variables are classified homogenously into five factors under the PCA methods. They are

(i) Hospitality Services (ii) Basic Facilities (iii) Basic Amenities (iv) Disaster

Preparedness and (v) Value-Added Services.

Factor 1 - Hospitality Services: A total of nine indicators are loaded in the first

factor that represents the hospitality services meant for visitors at the PTR. The factor

includes the indicators with the loadings like Food quality and service in the restaurant is

fine (.821), I found that hotel staff are professional (.818), Food is properly served in the

restaurant (.814), Staff are prompt and professional (.803), Check-out and Check-in the

hotel is perfect (.794), I experience sincerity in room service (783), Local people are

friendly and helpful (.604), Taste of the local food is unique (.591) and The behaviour of

the park staff is friendly with a factor loading of (.565). With an Eigen value of 13.222,

233

the factor accounted for 37.776 percent of total variance with a cumulative per cent of

37.77 and with a Cronbach’s Alpha of (.938). Out of the nine indicators, the first item

food quality and service in the restaurant is fine with the highest loading (.821) and it

determines visitor satisfaction while visiting the park as compared to other indicators. As

accommodation and food is one of the major pull factors for the visitors to come to a

particular destination, hospitality is one of the important factors for visitor satisfaction.

Factor 2 - Basic Facilities: A total of ten items were loaded in the factor which

includes 10 items. Boating is safe and secured (.732), Seating arrangement is comfortable

and relaxing (.723), Carrying capacity is maintained in the boats (.713), Life jacket is

made mandatory (.707), Seating arrangement at Jetty is adequate (.676), Location of the

ticket counter is convenient (.619), I enjoy the walk from parking to boat Jetty (.558), I

find dustbins placed at key places for use (.506), Toilets and waiting rooms are located at

convenient places with a factor loading of (.472), and I see the well maintained

mechanisms of collecting garbage (.438). With an Eigen value of 2.565, the factor

accounted for 7.329 per cent of total variance with a cumulative percent of 45.106 per

cent. With a Cronbach’s Alpha of (.899), the item “Boating is safe and secured”

accounts for the highest loading with (.732) as compared to other indicators determining

the basic facilities, leading to the visitor satisfaction. Basic facilities are the most

important thing for any tourists visiting any destination. Here the respondents have given

emphasis on the safety of boating as one of the items in Basic Facilities.

Factor 3 - Basic Amenities: A total number of six indicators reflecting the third

factor at the site of the reserve as it influences the visitors to stay longer or suggests

others to visit the park. Thus, the factor includes idicators like General information on

234

park is given at vantage points on boats (.711), Brochures and guide books are provided

on demand (.708), Refreshment stall provides fresh snacks and tea along with souvenirs

and books (.638), Parking area is well planned and organized (.556), I get guided by the

instructions from the signage (.464) and I find the cleanliness of outer ring road and

parking area connecting (.434). With an Eigen value of 2.209, the factor accounted for

6.311 per cent of total variance with a cumulative percent of 51.416 per cent. With a

Cronbach’s Alpha of (.788), General information on park is given at vantage point and on

boats accounts for the highest loading with (.711) as compared to other indicators

determining the basic amenities for visitor satisfaction in the reserve. Basic facilities are

very important for visitors as they get guided by it after reaching a particular destination.

General information on the reserve is given at vantage point and on boats is given the

highest loading as it adds to the amenities of the park.

Factor 4 - Disaster Preparedness: A total number of five items are loaded in the

factor with indictors like, There is a facility of ambulance and first-aid center (.797),

There is a fire brigade if anything goes wrong in Park (.760), Emergency relief boat

facility is available (.621), There is provision of emergency speed boats in case of any

emergency (.620), There is life guard service is well taken care of (.521). With an Eigen

value of 1.569, the factor accounted for 4.482 per cent of total variance with a cumulative

per cent of 55.899 percent. With a Cronbach’s Alpha of (.823), there is a facility of

ambulance and first-aid center with the highest loading of (.797) as compared to other

indicators determines the preparedness of the park administration.

Factor 5 - Value Added Service: A total of five items were loaded in the factor

and the indicators include Binoculars are provided to watch the wild animals from the

235

boat (.646), Knowledge and service of the eco-guide enhances my experience and

enjoyment (.635), Ecotourism programmes are well programmed (.579), Trekking kits

are well maintained (.488), Interpretation Center is resourceful and Educative (.425).

With an Eigen Value of 1.330, the factor accounted for 3.801 percent of total variance

with cumulative percent of 59.700. Binoculars are provided to watch the wildlife animals

from the boat (.646) as compared to other indicators determines the Value-Added

Services as it delivers the Visitor Satisfaction about the park.

236

Table 4.35

Factor Loadings, Eigen values, Variance and Cronbac’s Alpha

Name of Factors

Indicators Loadings Eigen values

Variance Cumulative %

Cronbach’s Alpha

Hospitality Services

Food quality and service in the restaurant is fine .821

13.22 37.776 37.776 .938

I found that the hotel staff are professional .818 Food is properly served in the restaurant .814 Staff are prompt and professional .803 Check-out and Check- in the hotel is perfect .794 I experience sincerity in the room service .783 Local people are friendly and helpful .604 Taste of the local food is unique .591 The behaviour of park staff is friendly .564

Basic Facilities

Boating is safe and Secured .732

2.565 7.329 45.106 .899

Sitting arrangement is comfortable and relaxing .723 Carrying Capacity is maintained in the boat .713 Life Jacket is made mandatory .707 Seating arrangement at Jetty is adequate .676 Location of ticket counter is convenient .619 I enjoy the walk from parking to boat Jetty .558 I find the dustbins placed at key places of use .506 Toilets and waiting rooms are located at convenient place

.472

I see the well maintained mechanism of collecting garbage

.438

Basic Amenities

General information on the park is given at vantage point and on boats

.711

2.209 6.311 51.416 .788

Brochures and guide books are provided on demand .708 Refreshment stalls provide fresh snacks and tea along with souvenirs

.638

Parking area is well planned and organized .556 I get guided by the instruction from the signage .464 I find the cleanliness of outer ring road and parking area connecting to boat jetty.

.434

Disaster Preparedness

There is a facility of ambulance and first -aid- center .797

1.569 4.482 55.899 .823

There is fire brigade if anything goes wrong in the park

.760

Emergency relief boat facility is available .621 There is provision of emergency speed boats in case of any emergency

.620

There is a life guard service is well taken care of .521

Value-Added Services

Binoculars are provided to watch the wild animals from the boat

.646

1.330 3.801 59.700 .703 Knowledge & service of eco-guide enhances experience & enjoyment

.635

Ecotourism programs are well programmed .579 Trekking kits are well maintained .488 Interpretation center is resourceful and educative 425

4.10. CORRELATION OF THE FACTORS

H0 : All five factors reflecting the level of visitor satisfaction are not significantly

correlated.

The Pearson’s correlation tool was used to check the pattern of relationships

between the factors. Table 4.36 shows the correlation coefficient between five pairs of

237

factors separately. The easiest way to do this by scanning the significance values and

looking for any variable for which majority of values are > 5. Pearson correlation

coefficients between five pairs of factors are positively correlated. Therefore, it is

inferred that all five factors reflecting the level of visitor satisfaction are significantly

related. Further, each pair of factor correlated is as high as .674 between hospitality

services and basic services and as low as .429 between value-added services and basic

amenities. It is inferred from the results that all the five factors are correlated.

Table 4.36

Pearson Correlation of the Five Factors

Visitor Satisfaction

Factors

Visitor Satisfaction Factors Pearson

Correlation Hospitality

Services Basic

Facilities Basic

Amenities Disaster

Preparedness Value-Added

Services

Hospitality Services

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed) N

1 500

.674** .000 500

.537** .000 500

.462** .000 500

.494** .000 500

Basic Facilities

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed) N

.674** .000 500

1 500

.562** .000 500

.615** .000 500

.632** .000 500

Basic Amenities

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed) N

.537** .000 500

.562** .000 500

1 500

.445** .000 500

.429** .000 500

Disaster Preparedness

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed) N

.462** .000 500

.615** .000 500

.445** .000 500

1 500

.537** .000 500

Value- Added

Services

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed) N

.494** .000 500

.632** .000 500

.429** .000 500

.537** .000 500

1 500

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

4.11. FRIEDMAN’S RANK TEST

H0: Mean ranks are not different significantly on securing maximum enjoyment

from ecotourism activities, provision for add-on facilities and amenities

while finding the differences of experiences of 500 sample tourist

respondents.

238

4.11.1. Maximum Enjoyment from Ecotourism Activities

Table 4.37 illustrates the results of Friedman rank test on maximum enjoyment

from the key ecotourism activities in the PTR. The respondents were asked to rank each

ecotourism activity as per their own choices and enjoyments The question was “rank the

ecotourism activities as per your own judgment” and 500- respondents ranking on each of

the activities were coded and the first rank activity was valued as five, whereas the last

rank was valued as one. As such, tourists are the best judges to rank the ecotourism

activities as per the order of their choices and judgments. The primary objective of the

rank-type question is to find out the highest mean rank across the five best choices of

ecotourism leading to the conclusion that one of the activities is adjudged to be the highly

demanded one in the PTR.

Thus, the results of mean rank have created a distinct difference of each factor

with its mean rank value. The first ranked factor with the mean value 3.90 as judged by

the tourist respondents is found to be nature walk, followed by elephant ride with the

mean value 3.36 as the second ranked factor and bird watching with mean value 2.92 as

the second ranked ecotourism activities. The other two factors (photography and boating)

are the fourth and the fifth factor with the mean value 2.54 and 2.28 respectively.

Further, the differences of mean rank across the five key ecotourism attractions

distinctly explain that each factor was adjudged separately by applying their own

experiences and knowledge when the order of factors was established by the

respondents. It is found that the hypothesis is “mean ranks are not different significantly

while finding the keen interest of 500 domestic and foreign tourists on the five

239

ecotourism activities”. Thus, the Chi-Square value is 334.013 along with degrees of

freedom four and P Value .000. Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected with P value less

than 0.05 per cent significance level. It is obviously inferred from the mean ranks that

each activity is different and each one may be regarded as an independent attraction of its

own in providing maximum enjoyment leading to maximum satisfaction in the PTR. On

the contrary, it may be concluded that all these factors as a whole are very significant in

alluring the visitors to the reserve.

The elephant ride is one of the activities that offer a kind of thrilling and exciting

experiences to the visitors while taking a jungle safari tour in the PTR. In this regard, it

may be interpreted that maximum number of visitors with best of their knowledge and

cognizance appear to have adjudged the elephant ride as the first factor. When many

national parks in India have introduced to experience the nature and its wildlife in the

elephant ride, the PTR is not an exceptional in providing this experience to the visitors.

Apart from the elephant ride as a first choice, other four key ecotourism activities are

equally important in engaging the tourists in the PTR. Therefore, the PTR administration

should train more elephants for the tourists as one of the ecotourism activities and it is a

lifetime experience for the tourists.

Table 4.37 Maximum Enjoyment from Ecotourism Activities

Factors Giving Maximum Enjoyment

Mean Rank

Rank Chi-Square Value

Boating

2.28 4 Chi-Squre-

334.013 df-4

Asymp Sig.000

Nature Walk

3.90 1 Bird Watching

2.92 3 Photography

2.54 5 Elephant Ride 3.36 2

240

4.11.2. Provision for Add-on Facilities

Table 4.38 presents the results of Friedman rank test on the provision for add-on

facilities to be developed in the PTR. This rank type of questions was framed to seek

valuable suggestions from the respondents on the five important facilities, such as battery

driven car, refreshment center, additional toilet and washrooms, rest and reading room

and service boat. These facilities are yet to be developed in tourism zone. Thus, the

respondents were requested to give rank to each add-on facility in order of their choices

and judgments. All 500 respondents ranked each one of the facility and the first ranked

activity was valued as five, whereas the last ranked activity was valued as one. The

judgments of tourists on ranking the add-on facilities have been considered as the

methodical ways of finding out the highest mean rank across the five best choices

facilities. This may draw the inference that the first three ranked facilities to be

established from the highest the mean rank values in the ascending order.

Thus, the distinct results of mean rank of each rank explain that each facility is

unique in its own way to meet the requirements of tourists. The first ranked factor “

Service Boat” with the mean value 3.31 as judged by the tourist respondents that is

followed by rest and reading room with the mean value 3.17 as the second ranked factor

and refreshment center with mean value 3.02 as the third ranked add-on facility. The

last two ranked factors such as battery driven car and toilet and washroom are found to

be the fourth factor with the equal mean rank value 2.75.

241

The differences of mean rank across the important add-on facilities have given an

indication that each add-on facility was considered individually and tourists used their

experiences and knowledge when they established the rank order of five factors. Thus,

in order to find the statistical differences across the factors, the Friedman rank test was

used to test whether the hypothesis “mean ranks are not different significantly on the

factors explaining about add-on facilities”. Thus, the Chi-Square value is 50.070 along

with degrees of freedom four and P Value .000. Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected with

P value less than 0.05 per cent significance level.

The rejection of hypothesis helps draw the inference that each activity is different

from others and each one is regarded as an independent in contributing to the creation of

provision of add-on facilities. On the contrary, it may be concluded that all these factors

as a whole are very significant to be developed for tourists in the reserve.

The first factor with highest mean rank value is found to be the provision for

service boats to help rescue the tourists at the time of any untoward incidences. However,

it may be interpreted that maximum numbers of sample tourist respondents with best of

their knowledge and experiences have adjudged the service boat as the first facility to be

provided at the PTR. This has become the first factor since there was a boat mishap in

September 30, 2009 in the reserve. At the same time, many national parks in India have

introduced the standby vehicles and boats and trained elephants and camels to press

them into service at the time of emergency. Thus, the PTR does not have the service boat

for which this particular finding may be taken as a pointer for the PTR. Nevertheless, the

remaining four add-on facilities are also equally important to ensure visitor satisfactions.

242

Therefore, the PTR administration should look into the finding as all these five factors

largely determine the visitor satisfaction.

Table 4.38

Add-on Facilities

Add-on Facilities to be Developed

Mean Rank

Rank Chi-Square Value

Battery- driven Car 2.75 4 Chi-Squre-50.070 df-4

Asymp Sig.000

Refreshment Center 3.02 3 Additional Toilet & Washroom 2.75 4 Rest and Reading Room 3.17 2 Service Boat 3.31 1

4.11.3. Provision for Amenities

Table 4.39 gives a detailed presentation of the results of Friedman rank test on the

amenities to be developed for the visitors. As such, visitor amenities enhance the

destination image that results in the increase in the duration of stay and frequency of

visits. A special interest tourism place like the PTR has all credentials to attract the

tourists provided the amenities are taken into considerations. The report of field visit

revealed the need for additional amenities for the visitors at the PTR for which this

particular ranked type of question was formulated to elicit constructive suggestions.

These amenity factors include opening up of more ticket counters, online-ticket booking

facility, introducing wildlife documentary, staff training and visitor feedback form.

However, these amenities are yet to be created in the PTR for the visitors to get

comfortable stay. Taking each factor into consideration, each respondent ranked each

individual amenity factor in order of choice and judgment. After consolidating the

responses of 500 respondents on each factor, the first ranked amenity factor was valued

as five, whereas the last ranked factor was valued as one. The judgments of tourists on

243

ranking the amenity factors were considered as one of the ways to establish the order of

mean rank factor across five factors. Thus, this explains that the first three ranked factor

for amenities were established from the highest mean rank values in the ascending order.

Thus, the results of mean rank clearly indicate that each amenity factor is known

for its peculiar quality in its own way to meet the expectations of tourists. The first

ranked factor “Visitor Feedback Form” with the highest mean value 3.83 that is followed

by staff training with the mean value 3.18 as the second ranked factor and opening up of

more ticket counters with mean value 3.03 as the third ranked amenity. The last two

ranked factors such as online ticket booking facility and introducing wildlife

documentary are found to be the fourth and fifth factor with the mean rank value 2.61 and

2.35 respectively.

The results of Friedman rank show the clear differences of mean rank across the

five amenity factors and each factor can influence the visitor satisfaction independently.

Since each sample tourist respondent ranked the factors by applying their own

experiences and knowledge, each factor has become important in contributing to make

the overall development in amenities in the PTR. In order to find the statistical

differences across the factors, the Friedman rank test was used to test whether the

hypothesis “mean ranks are not different significantly on the factors explaining about the

provision for the amenities”. Thus, the Chi-Square value is 260.635 along with degrees of

freedom four and P Value .000. Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected with P value less

than 0.05 per cent significance level. The rejection of hypothesis helps draw the inference

that each factor is different from others an independent entity in building a strong

244

foundation for visitor amenities. This may be interpreted that all these factors as a whole

determine the quality of visitor amenities.

The first factor with highest mean rank value is found to be the provision for

visitor feedback form to collect the first-hand information from the visitors to improve

the visitor relationship management more effectively. Thus, the highest value was given

to this factor since there is no such provision to maintain the records for visitors with

regard to the demographic profiles and other travel related and motivation related

questions. On the contrary, tourism destination allocates more budgetary outlays for the

analysis of visitors’ feedback that largely help them evaluate strengths and weaknesses.

Many ecotourism and wildlife tourism destinations in Africa and the Western countries

have evolved the visitor feedback system to capture the personal and general information

related to the choice of attractions and activities in the destination and facilities,

amenities, service quality, etc.

In India, there is no such mechanism to make use of the feedback analysis that can

help the administration of the national parks and wildlife sanctuaries take timely

decisions so as to improve the amenities of the tiger reserve. It is found that the PTR does

not have the practice of collecting and analyzing the visitor feedback for which this

particular finding may be taken seriously for the PTR. On the contrary, the remaining

four amenity factors are also equally important to ensure visitor satisfactions. Therefore,

the PTR administration should find all possible ways to introduce the visitor feedback

system to capture the level of satisfactions on various aspects determining the visitor

satisfaction.

245

Table 4.39

Additional Amenities

Additional Amenities

Mean Rank

Rank Chi-Square Value

Opening up of more ticket counters

3.03 3 Chi-Square

260.635 df-4

Asymp Sig.000

Online ticket booking facility

2.61 4

Introducing wildlife documentary

2.35 5

Staff training 3.18 2 Visitor feedback form 3.83 1

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

PART-II

246

PART-II

Community plays a defining role at any tourism destination as a responsible

partner for the judicious and productive utilization of natural and human resources. Any

tourism destination can be improved provided the community living around the

destination is happy with the costs and benefits of tourism development. As far as the

ecotourism project in the PTR is concerned, there are four important criteria to be

emphasized on. They are: (i) Local Community Oriented and Driven (ii) Ecologically

Sustainable (iii) Economically Viable (iv) Education & Interpretation. These four

dimensions of ecotourism projects should be the key areas for concern and introspection.

In addition, most of the contemporary tourism research works have dwelled on the

community-based tourism, including ecotourism led by the local community members.

Community plays a decisive role in the uplifment of any destination since the

wholehearted participation can expand the opportunities and scopes for the ecotourism

projects to get implemented for the larger benefits of local households. Although this may

appear to be a simple question, there is no single definition of participation by

communities but, rather, a potpourri of definitions varying mostly by the degree of

participation “participation” ranges from negligible or “co-opted”—in which community

members serve as token representatives with no part in making decisions—to “collective

action”—in which local people initiate action, set a agenda, and work towards a

commonly defined goal.

Community Participation is basically classified as Co-Opted, Cooperating,

Consulted, Collaborating, Co-learning and Collective action. The need for continuous

247

participation of community occurs when a communities organizes to and takes

responsibility for managing the problems. Responsibilities largely include identifying the

problems, developing actions, putting them at the right place and follow through in such a

manner that Looking at the importance of community participation, the present research

is an endeavor to elicit, analyze and interpret the valuable opinions of the local

community members residing in the vicinity of PTR. In addition, the opinions of

community and the EDC members were also collected so as to dig out the problems

connected to the larger community participations and the future role of community in the

management of protected areas in order to achieve sustainable ecotourism development.

4.12. DEMOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTIONS

Table 4.40 shows the distribution of local community with respect to their socio

economic back grounds such as Gender, Age, Marital Status, Monthly Income,

Educational Qualification, Occupation, Monthly Expenditure and Residing. Out of the

total community respondents of 300, it is found that 203(67.7%) respondents were Male

and 97 (32.3%) were Female. This sample distribution is substantiated with the actual

gender distribution of tribal population where the male members have outnumbered the

female. As such, female members of each household were very shy of giving opinions.

As regards the distribution of age of the respondent, as many as 103(34.3%) of

respondents fall in the age bracket of 30-39, followed by 63 out of 300 respondents

(21.0%) in the age bracket 18- 29 and 73(24.3%) in the age group of 40-49 and the

remaining others about 39(13.0%) and 22(7.3%) respondents fall in the category of 50-59

and 60 and above respectively. This age-wise distribution has clearly indicated that there

248

was almost a proportionate representation of respondents from the community to share

their opinions. It is inferred that 79.6 per cent of the community respondents falling in

the three age brackets (18-49) participated in the primary data collection. This

demonstrates the spontaneous and wholehearted participation in the ecotourism projects

not because of their interests in getting socio-economic benefits, but because of

contributing to the ecological and environmental conservation of the PTR.

The marital status of the respondents shows that as maximum as 286(95.3%)

respondents are married and the remaining 14(14.7%) are single or unmarried. This

breakup of data gives rise to the conclusion that majority of the tourists flock to the PTR

with their family members. Income is one of the indicators that clearly explain the

affordability backed by the interests to visit tourist places of importance. Thus, the

distribution of monthly income across three categories of respondents shows that a little

more than half i.e. 154(51.3%) of the respondents have monthly income of 2,000-5,000

that is followed by 141(47.0%) of the respondents had the income of 5001 to 10000.

It is also reported that only 5 or 1.7 per cent of the respondents had the monthly income

between 10, 001 and 15,000. As found from the results that the Ecotourism Project at

the PTR has not generated substantial amount of income for the community members

given the household expenditures in the inflationary situation.

Looking at the educational qualifications, out of the 300 respondents were

interviewed, as many as half 153(51.0%) of the community respondents have received

Primary Education, followed by 80(26.7%) respondents with Secondary Education and

62(20.7%) of them without having formal education. And it is seen that a very negligible

numbers 5 (1.7%) of respondents have possessed Graduation degree to their credit.

249

Looking at the occupations of the sample community respondents, out the 300

respondents, 86(28.7%) of them are involved in the various ecotourism related

activities, whereas 75(25.0%) of them were traditional agriculturists and 54(18.0%) of the

respondents were daily labours. Surprisingly, 31(10.3) of the respondents were

unemployed and 27 (9.0%) of respondents were self-employed. As many as 21 (7.0%)

respondents were engaged in the small business and 6 (2.0%) respondents were

government employees. Though the distribution indicates that more sample community

respondents worked relatively for the ecotourism activities directly, but the community

members engaged in agriculture, daily labourers, small business, etc got benefited

indirectly from the ecotourism projects.

The monthly expenditure of local community members is a direct function of the

amount of monthly income and ability to spend for various needs in a month. It is

reported that as many as 96 (32.0%) respondents spends monthly expenditure varying

between 4001 and 6000, followed by 85(28.3%) respondents having the

expenditures of 6001- 8000 and 57(19.0%) of them spend amounting 2001- 4000.

As many as 35(11.7%) spend the expenditures between 8001 and 10,000. The

remaining others were 27(9.0%) with the monthly expenditures of 10, 00- 20, 00.

250

Table 4.40

Demographic Distribution of Community

Sl No Demographic Variables Demographic Sub Groups Frequency %

1 Gender Male 203 67.7 Female 97 32.3

2 Age

Below 29 63 21.0 30-39 103 34.3 40-49 73 24.3 50-59 39 13.0 60 & Above 22 7.3

3 Marital Status

Single 14 4.7 Married 286 95.3

4 Monthly Income

Below 5000 154 51.3 5001-10000 141 47.0 10001-15000 5 1.7

5 Educational Qualifications

No Formal Education 62 20.7 Primary Education 153 51.0 Secondary Education 80 26.7 Graduation 5 1.7

6 Occupational Patterns

Agriculture 75 25.0 Self-employment 48 16.0 Tourism Related Services 92 30.7 Unemployed 31 10.3 Labour 54 18.0

7 Monthly Expenditure

1000- 2000 27 9.0 2001- 4000 57 19.0 4001- 6000 96 32.0 6001- 8000 85 28.3 8001- 10000 35 11.7

8 Period of Residing

Last 20Years 10 3.3 11-20Years 47 15.7 21-30Years 131 43.7 31 & Above 112 37.3

The distribution of community respondents on the period of residing at Thekkady

as a permanent resident reveals that as many as 131(43.7%) respondents have been the

residents for the last 21 to 30 years that is followed by 112(37.3%) of them have been

residing for more than 31 years and 47(15.7%) for the last 11-20 years. It may be

interpreted that a vast majority of the sample community respondents have been residing

at Thekkady for the last two decades. Thus, their involvements in the ecotourism and

dependence on the forest and forest produce are obvious.

251

4.13. CROSS DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN AGE AND SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS

Table 4.41 presents the cross distribution between the gender and age of

community respondents. Out of 300 respondents, as many as 203(67.7%) are Male and

97(32.3%) are Female members. As many as 103 respondents 67(65.0%) of male and 36

(35.0%) Female respondents fall in the age group of 30-39. Similarly, 73(24.3%) out of

300 respondents belonging to the age group of 40-49 represent 52(71.2%) and 21(28.8%)

both Male and Female respondents respectively. The third highest sample community

respondents account for 63(21.0%) that constitutes Male 44(69.8%) and Female

19(30.2%) in the age group 18-29. The distribution also shows that 239 (79.6%)

respondents belong to the three age groups, such as 18-29, 30-39 and 40-49. This shows

that a vast majority of young community respondents are young and actively participated

in the primary data collection.

Table 4.41

Distribution of Gender Across Categories of Age

Gender Categories of Age

Total Below 29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and Above

Male 44

(21.7%) (69.8%)

67 (33.0%) (65.0%)

52 (25.6%) (71.2%)

22 (10.8%) (56.4%)

18 (8.9%) (81.8%)

203 (100.0%) (67.7%)

Female 19

(19.6%) (30.2%)

36 (37.1%) (35.0%)

21 (21.6%) (28.8%)

17 (17.5%) (43.6%)

4 (41.1%) (18.2%)

97 (100.0%) (32.3%)

Total 63

(21.0%) (100.0%)

103 (34.3%) (100.0%)

73 (24.3%) (100.0%)

39 (13.0%) (100.0%)

22 (7.3%)

(100.0%)

100 (100.0%) (100.0%)

The results of the cross tabulation, as it is shown in Table 4.42 between the age

and educational qualification of community respondents reveal that out of 300

respondents, 153(51.0%) have primary education as against 80 (26.7%) have secondary

252

education and 62(20.7%) respondents have no formal education. However, only 5(1.7%)

respondents were Graduates. Thus, it is inferred that majority of the community

respondents do not have formal education and primary education cannot alone become

sufficient for the community respondents to work in the skill-based jobs. At the same

time, ecotourism projects after the implementation of IEDP in the PTR do not seem to

have increased the educational level of local community members.

Table 4.42

Distribution of Categories of Age Across Educational Qualifications

Categories of Age

Educational Qualifications Total No-formal

Education Primary

Education Secondary Education

Graduation

18-29 Years

11 (17.5%) (17.7%)

28 (44.4%) (18.3%)

22 (34.9%) (27.5%)

2 (3.2%) (40.0%)

63 (100.0%) (21.0%)

30-39 Years

17 (16.5%) (27.4%)

55 (53.4%) (35.9%)

29 (28.2%) (36.3%)

2 (1.9%) (40.0%)

103 (100.0%) (34.3%)

40-49 Years

15 (20.5%) (24.2%)

37 (50.7%) (24.2%)

20 (27.4%) (25.0%)

1 (1.4%) (20.0%)

73 (100.0%) (24.3%)

50-59 Years

11 (28.2%) (17.7%)

21 (53.8%) (13.7%)

7 (17.9%) (8.8%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

39 (100.0%) (13.0%)

60& Above Years

8 (36.4%) (12.9%)

12 (54.4%) (7.8%)

2 (9.1%) (2.5%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

22 (100.0%) (7.3%)

Total 62

(20.7%) (100.0%)

153 (51.0%) (100.0%)

80 (26.7%) (100.0%)

5 (1.7%)

(100.0%)

300 (100.0%) (100.0%)

Table 4.43 presents the age-wise breakup of sample respondents across their

occupational patterns. It is reported that a little more than one fourth 86(28.7%) of

respondents were engaged in the tourism-related activities, out of which 33(38.4%)

belonging to the age bracket of 30-39 years that is followed by 22 (25.6%) and

21(24.4%) of respondents in the age group of 18-29 year and 40-49 years respectively.

Agriculture is one of the occupations that traditionally provides employment to one

253

fourth 75(25%) of community respondents. As many as 22(29.3%) and 20 (26.7%) of

them depending directly on the agriculture fell in the age bracket of 30-39 years and 40-

49 years respectively.

Thus, the results show that majority of young community populations are

absorbed in the tourism related business that is followed by agriculture and labour works

to earn their livelihoods. On the other hand, aged members in the community have

depended on the agriculture and other menial works for making their livelihoods.

However, tourism related occupations have not so far made any visible changes within

the community in creating employment opportunity. Obviously expected that as many as

31(10.3%) respondents remain to be unemployed despite the scopes for them to earn the

livelihoods from other primary occupations.

The results of cross tabulation have brought the impacts of ecotourism in the

creation of employment or in attracting local community members to work in various

ecotourism activities to the notice of the governments to take further actions so as to

increase the scope for employments for the skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled people

regardless of the age and occupational backgrounds. It has further revealed that

agriculture has remained to be one of the significant sectors for engaging local

community members. It is, however, suggested that unemployed people and people

working in the agriculture and daily labourer can be provided employments in the

ecotourism activities temporarily.

254

Table 4.43

Distribution of Categories of Age Across Occupations

Categories of Age

Occupational Patterns Total

Agriculture Self-

employed Tourism-

Related Service Unemployed Labour

18- 29 12

(19.0%) (16.0%)

8 (12.7%) (16.7%)

22 (34.9%) (23.9%)

10 (15.9%) (32.3%)

11 (17.5%) (20.4%)

63 (100.0%) (21.0%)

30-39 22

(21.4%) (29.3%)

20 (19.4%) (41.7%)

35 (34.0%) (38.0%)

7 (17.9%) (8.1%)

19 (18.4%) (35.2%)

103 (100.0%) (34.3%)

40-49 20

(27.4%) (26.7%)

10 (13.7%) (20.8%)

23 (31.5%) (25.0%)

6 (8.2%) (19.4%)

13 (17.8%) (24.1%)

73 (100.0%) (24.3%)

50-59 12

(30.8%) (16.0%)

7 (17.9%) (14.6%)

7 (17.9%) (7.6%)

4 (18.2%) (12.9%)

9 (9.1%) (3.7%)

39 (100.0%) (13.0%)

60& Above

9 (40.9%) (12.0%)

3 (4.5%) (6.2%)

4 (18.2%) (4.3%)

4 (18.2%) (12.9%)

2 (9.1%) (3.7%)

22 (100.0%) (7.3%)

Total 75

(25.0%) (100.0%)

48 (16.0%) (100.0%)

92 (30.7%) (100.0%)

31 (10.3%) (100.0%)

54 (18.0%) (100.0%)

300 (100.0%) (100.0%)

The results of the cross tabulation between the age and gross monthly income of

community respondents are presented in Table 4.44 A little more than 154(51.3%) of

community respondents have a monthly income below Rs.5000, followed by 141(47.0%)

of community respondents have a monthly income between Rs.5001-Rs.10,000. It is also

observed that a negligible number of community members around 5(1.7%) have a

monthly income between Rs. 10,000-Rs. 15,000. On the other hand, a little more than one

fourth of respondents 44(28.6%) and 40(26.0%) belonging to the age group of 30-39

years and 40-49 years managed to earn Rs.5000 and below. The cross distribution

clearly indicates that the gross monthly income of community members is meager to

meet the physiological needs. Thus, the economic impacts of ecotourism do not appear to

have increased the income of the community members.

255

Table 4.44

Distribution of Categories of Age Across Gross Monthly Income

Categories Age Gross Monthly Income in Rupees Total Rs.5000 5001-10,000 10,000-15,000

18- 29 Years

30 (47.6%) (19.5%)

33 (52.4%) (23.4%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

63 (100.0%) (21.0%)

30-39 Years

44 (42.7%) (28.6%)

55 (53.4%) (39.0%)

4 (3.9%) (80.0%)

103 (100.0%) (34.3%)

40-49 Years

40 (54.8%) (26.0%)

33 (45.2%) (23.4%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

73 (100.0%) (24.3%)

50-59 Years

27 (69.2%) (17.5%)

11 (28.2%) (7.8%)

1 (2.6%) (20.0%)

39 (100.0%) (13.0%)

60 & Above Years

13 (59.1%) (8.4%)

9 (40.9%) (6.4%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

22 (100.0%) (7.3%)

Total 154

(51.3%) (100.0%)

141 (47.0%) (100.0%)

5 (1.7%)

(100.0%)

300 (100.0%) (100.0%)

The age-wise distribution of community respondents by the four group

respondents of residing at Thekkady is presented in Table 4.45.Out of 103(34.3%)

belonging to the age group of 30-39 years, and 45(43.7%) of them have been residing for

the last 21-30 years as compared to other three groups. Out of 73 (24.3%) respondents

within the age group of 40-49 years, 35 (26.7%) of them have been the residents for the

last 21-30 years. It follows suite in case of respondents with the age group below 29 years

constituting 63(21.0%) and 32(24.4%) of them have been residing for the last 21-30

years. It may be inferred that majority of community respondents are young and have

shown their interests in participating and viewing their opinions.

It is reported that the community respondents with the period of permanent

residence about 21-30 years account for 43.7 per cent or 131 respondents as against 37.3

per cent or 112 with more than 31 years of permanent residence. Thus, as much as 81 per

256

cent of the total sample community residents are reported to have stayed more than two

decades. It may be interpreted that community members have been residing from the

generation to generation and getting the livelihoods directly from the PTR.

Table 4.45

Distribution of Categories of Age Across Period of Residing

Categories of Age

Period of Residing Total

Last 10 Years 11-20 Years

21-30 Years 31 & Above

Years

18-29 Years

2 (3.2%) (20.0%)

15 (23.8%) (31.9%)

32 (50.8%) (24.4%)

14 (22.2%) (12.5%)

63 (100.0%) (21.0%)

30-39 Years

5 (4.9%) (50.0%)

20 (19.4%) (42.6%)

45 (43.7%) (34.4%)

33 (32.0%) (29.5%)

103 (100.0%) (34.3%)

40-49 Years

1 (1.4%) (10.0%)

5 (6.8%) (10.6%)

35 (47.9%) (26.7%)

32 (43.8%) (28.6%)

73 (100.0%) (24.3%)

50-59 Years

1 (2.6%) (10.0%)

6 (15.4%) (12.8%)

13 (33.3%) (9.9%)

19 (48.7%) (17.0%)

39 (100.0%) (7.3%)

60 & Above Years

1 (4.5%) (10.0%)

1 (4.5%) (2.1%)

6 (27.3%) (4.6%)

14 (63.6%) (12.5%)

22 (100.0%) (7.3%)

Total 10

(3.3%) (100.0%)

47 (15.7%) (100.0%)

131 (43.7%) (100.0%)

112 (37.3%) (100.0%)

300 (100.0%) (100.0%)

4.14. CROSS DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN OCCUPATIONAL PATTE RNS ACROSS SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS

Table 4.46 presents occupational distribution across different income groups. Out

of 154 (51.3%) respondents, as many as 47(30.5%) could earn as much as Rs.5,000 or

below from the sale of various agricultural produces, whereas 18 (11.7%) respondents

earned Rs.5,000 and less from the tourism related activities in the form of salary and

remuneration. On the contrary, the highest number of respondents 69(48.9%) with the

monthly income between Rs.5,000 and Rs.10,000 earned from the tourism related

257

activities as staff members that is followed by 28(19.9) respondents with the income

Rs.5,000 and less earned from the agricultural activities.

This results show that apart from the main occupations, namely agriculture,

tourism related services and labour works, the community members are engaged in the

small business, government employees and self-employment. It is inferred that both

tourism and agriculture provide more employments given the nature of the occupational

patterns.

Table 4.46

Distribution of Occupational Patterns Across Gross Monthly Income ( )

Occupational Patterns

Gross Monthly Income Total

Below 5000 5001

to 10,000 10,001- 15,000

Agriculture 47

(62.7%) (30.5%)

28 (37.3%) (19.9%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

75 (100.0%) (25.0%)

Self-Employed 20

(41.6) (13.0%)

24 (50.0)

(17.0%)

4 (8.3)

(80.0%)

48 (100.0%) (16.0%)

Tourism Related Service

18 (20.9%) (11.7%)

73 (84.88%) (51.7%)

1 (1.16%) (20.0%)

86 (100.0%) (30.7%)

Unemployed 26

(83.9%) (16.9%)

5 (16.1%) (3.5%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

31 (100.0%) (10.0%)

Labour 43

(79.6%) (27.9%)

11 (20.4%) (7.8%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

54 (100.0%) (18.0%)

Total 154

(51.3%) (100.0%)

141 (47.0%) (100.0%)

5 (1.7%)

(100.0%)

300 (100.0%) (100.0%)

The occupation-wise distributions across the educational qualifications of the

respondents are presented in Table 4.47 Out of the 153 (51.0%) respondents, the

community respondents with the equal number 42(27.5%) with the primary educational

background worked for the agriculture and tourism related activities. On the contrary, 80

(26.7%) with the secondary education background, 21(26.3%) and 18 (22.5%) worked in

258

the agriculture and tourism related activities respectively. Thus, it is inferred that majority

of the respondents 233(77.7%) have the primary and secondary education with having

several types of occupation and agriculture and tourism are the two major areas creating

employments for the larger number of community members. However, employments

being created by the tourism sector are disproportionate to the amount of investment and

efforts of the government to make ecotourism as a means for income and employment in

the PTR.

Table 4.47

Distribution of Occupational Patterns Across Educational Qualifications

Occupational Patterns

Educational Qualifications Total No Formal

Education Primary

Education Secondary Education

Graduation

Agriculture 15

(20.0%) (24.2%)

42 (56.0%) (27.5%)

18 (24.0%) (22.5%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

75 (100.0%) (25.0%)

Self-Employed 2

(4.2%) (3.2%)

31 (64.6%) (20.3%)

14 (29.2%) (17.5%)

1 (2.0%) (20.0%)

48 (100.0%) (9.0%)

Tourism Related- Service

21 (22.8%) (33.9%)

44 (47.8%) (28.7%)

25 (27.2%) (31.3%)

2 (2.2%) (40.0%)

92 (100.0%) (30.7%)

Unemployed 9

(29.0%) (14.5%)

8 (25.8%) (5.2%)

13 (41.9%) (16.3%)

1 (3.2%) (20.0%)

31 (100.0%) (18.0%)

Labour 15

(27.8%) (24.2%)

28 (51.9%) (18.3%)

10 (18.5%) (12.5%)

1 (1.9%) (20.0%)

54 (100.0%) (18.0%)

Total 62

(20.7%) (100.0%)

153 (51.0%) (100.0%)

80 (26.7%) (100.0%)

5 (1.7%)

(100.0%)

300 (100.0%) (100.0%)

4.14.1. Occupational Patterns Across Household Requirements

Table 4.48 illustrates the cross distribution between occupational patterns and the

type of houses that the community members live in. Out of 86 (28.7%) employed in

tourism related services live in the asbestos type of house as against a little more than

one third 30(34.9%) respondents of them live in the concrete houses. Similarly, out of

259

75(25.0%) community respondents directly depending on the agriculture, as many as

47(62.7%) of them live in asbestos house, 14 (18.7%) reside in the titled roofed house

and 10(13.3%) live in the concrete house. On the other hand, out of 175(58.3) living in

the asbestos 46(26.3%) of them were engaged in tourism related service, 47(26.9%) in

varied agricultur activities. Thus, the results of distribution tend to explain that majority

of community members are living in the asbestos, concrete and tiled roofed houses.

However, community members could be able to build the concrete and asbestos type of

houses due to the financial support of the governments under the Indira Awas

Yojana.(IAY) Whatever improvements in the pattern of houses that have occurred at

Thekkady may not be fully attributed to the revenue percolated from the ecotourism

activities in the PTR.

Table 4.48

Distribution of Occupational Patterns Across Types of House

Occupational Patterns

Types of Houses Total

Concrete Asbestos Thatched

House Tiles

Agriculture 10

(13.3%) (14.9%)

47 (62.7%) (26.9%)

4 (5.3%) (22.2%)

14 (18.7%) (35.9%)

75 (100.0%) (25.0%)

Self Employed 9

(18.8%) (13.4%)

29 (60.4%) (16.6%)

3 (6.25%) (16.7%)

7 (14.6%) (17.5%)

48 (100.0%) (16.0%)

Tourism Related Service

31 (33.7%) (46.3%)

49 (53.3%) (28.0%)

3 (3.3%) (16.7%)

9 (9.8%) (22.5%)

92 (100.0%) (30.7%)

Unemployed 4

(12.9%) 6.0%

19 (61.3%) (10.9%)

5 (16.1%) (27.8%)

3 (9.7%) (7.7%)

31 (100.0%) (10.3%)

Labour 13

(24.1%) (19.4%)

31 (54.4%) (17.7%)

3 (5.6%) (16.7%)

7 (13.0%) (17.9%)

54 (100.0%) (18.0%)

Total 67

(22.3%) (100.0%)

175 (58.3%) (100.0%)

18 (6.0%)

(100.0%)

40 (13.0%) (100.0%)

300 (100.0%) (100.0%)

260

Table 4.49 represents the results of occupational-wise distribution across different

type of vehicles owned by the sample community members. Out of 300 respondents,

210(70.0%) of them do not have any type of vehicle as against out of 86(28.7%)

respondents employed in tourism related services, 59(68.6%) without having any

vehicle, followed by 11(12.8%) owned motor cycle and 12(4.0) owned cycle. Out of 75

(25.0%) respondents engaged in agricultural works, 51(68.0) do not own any vehicles as

compared to 17(22.7%) owned cycle. Similarly out of 54 (18.0%) respondents engaged in

labour works, 41(75.9%) do not have any vehicles.

This distribution seems to have given clear indication that majority of community

respondents do not own the vehicles regardless of their occupational patterns and the

revenue tricked down from the ecotourism activities do not seem to have enabled the

majority of community members to buy the bicycle as a basic requirement for

conveyance as well as an asset for an ordinary family.

Table 4.49

Distribution of Occupational Patterns Across Types of Vehicle

Occupational Patterns

Types of Vehicle Total

Cycle Motor Cycle Auto Rickshaw Car No Vehicles

Agriculture 17

(22.7%) (24.7%)

3 (4.0%) (9.7%)

2 (2.7%) (40.0%)

2 (2.7%) (40.0%)

51 (68.0%) (24.3%)

75 (100.0%) (25.0%)

Self Employed 7

(14.6% (14.3%)

11 (22.9%) (35.5%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

30 (62.5%) (14.3%)

48 (100.0%) (16.0%)

Tourism Related Service

13 (14.1%) (26.5%)

13 (14.1%) (41.9%)

3 (3.3%) (60.0%)

1 (1.1%) (20.0%)

62 (67.4%) (29.5%)

92 (100.0%) (30.7%)

Unemployed 3

(9.7%) (6.1%)

1 (3.2%) (3.2%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

1 (3.2%) (20.0%)

26 (83.9%) (12.4%)

31 (100.0%) (10.3%)

Labour 9

(16.7%) (18.4%)

3 (5.6%) (9.7%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

1 (1.9%) (20.0%)

41 (75.9%) (19.5%)

54 (100.0%) (18.0%)

Total 49 (16.3%) (100.0%)

31 (10.3%) (100.0%)

5 (1.7%)

(100.0%)

5 (1.7%)

(100.0%)

210 (70.0%) (100.0%)

300 (100.0%) (100.0%)

261

4.14.2. Period of Residing Across Occupational Patterns

Table 4.50 exhibits the relationship between the number of years that the residents

are staying and their occupations that they earn the livelihood. Out of the 131 respondents

who have been residing in a particular place for about 21-30 years, 45(34.4%) are

engaged in agricultural activities followed by 27(20.6%) respondents in tourism related

services and 17(13.0%) respondents in labour works. Out of 112 (37.3%) of community

respondents have been residing in a particular area for 31 and above years, 44(39.3%)

respondents were engaged in tourism related service, 19 (17.0%) respondents in

agricultural works and 29(25.9%) respondents in labour works. The table also exhibits

that about 80 per cent of the total respondents have been residing in a particular place for

more than 20 years and above.

On the contrary, out of 86(28.7%) community respondents working in the tourism

related services, 44(51.2%) and 27 (31.4%) of them worked in hotels and shops with the

background of 31 and more and 21-30 years of residing. Thus, it is inferred that

community members got opportunities as waiter, room boy, porter, cook, housekeeping

executive, driver, etc.

262

Table 4.50

Distribution of Period of Residing Across Occupational Patterns

Period of Residing

Occupational Patterns Total

Agriculture Self-

Employed

Tourism Related Services

Unemployed Labour

Last 10 Years

1 (10.0%) (1.3%)

3 (30.0) (6.3%)

4 (40.0%) (4.4%)

2 (20.0%) (6.5%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

10 (100.0%) (3.3%)

11-20 10

(21.3%) (13.3%)

11 (23.4%) (22.9%)

13 (27.6%) (14.1%)

5 (10.6%) (16.1%)

8 (17.0%) (14.8%)

47 (100.0%) (15.7%

21-30 45

(34.4%) (60.0%)

23 (17.5%) (47.9%)

30 (22.9%) (32.6%)

16 (12.2%) (51.6%)

17 (13.0%) (31.5%)

131 (100.0%) (43.7%)

31 and above

19 (17.0%) (25.3%)

11 (9.8%) (22.9%)

45 (40.2%) (48.9%)

8 (7.1%) (25.8%)

29 (25.9%) (53.7%)

112 (100.0%) (37.3%)

Total 75

(25.0%) (100.0%)

48 (100.0%) (16.0%)

92 (100.0%) (30.7%)

31 (10.3%) (100.0%)

54 (18.0%) (100.0%)

300 (100.0%) (100.0%)

4.15.CROSS DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN EDUCATIONAL QUALIFI CATIONS ACROSS MONTHLY INCOME

The level of educational qualification and income of the respondent is positively

related in the way that the higher the level of qualification, the higher would be the

income Table 4.51 shows the educational qualification across the monthly income of the

respondents. Out of 154 (51.3%) respondents with the average monthly income of Rs.5,

000 and less, 75 (48.7%) of them could earn Rs.5000 with primary education that is

followed by 39(25.3%) with secondary education and 38(24.7%) without formal

education. Similarly, 74(52.1%) could earn monthly income from Rs.5, 001 to Rs.10, 000

with primary education and 40(28.0%) could get the same range of monthly income

with secondary education. Hence, the monthly income indicated by the community

263

respondents does not seem to be adequate to meet the needs and many community

members with graduation degree do not have dignified employments.

Table 4.51

Distribution of Educational Qualifications Across Monthly Income

Educational Qualifications

Monthly Income ( ) Total Below

5,000 5,001- 10,000

10,001- 15,000

No formal Education

38 (61.3%) (24.7%)

24 (38.7%) (17.0%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

62 (100.0%) (20.7%)

Primary Education 75

(49.0%) (48.7%)

74 (48.4%) (52.5%)

4 (2.6%) (80.0%)

153 (100.0%) (51.0%)

Secondary Education

39 (48.8%) (25.3%)

40 (50.0%) (28.0%)

1 (1.3%) (20.0%)

80 (100.0%) (26.7%)

Graduation 2

(40.0%) (1.3%)

3 (60.0%) (2.1%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

5 (100.0%) (1.7%)

Total 154

(51.3%) (100.0%)

141 (47.0%) (100.0%)

5 (1.7%)

(100.0%)

300 (100.0%) (100.0%)

4.16. CROSS DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN HOUSEHOLD REQUIREMENTS AND EXPENDITURES ACROSS FAMILY SIZE

Table 4.52 presents the number of different vehicles owned by the community

respondents across the family size. The results show that majority of respondents

210(70.0%) do not own any vehicles, whereas 49(16.3%) and 31(10.3%) owned cycle

and motor cycle respectively. From the table it is also known that very less respondents

own car and auto rickshaw were there are very less members in the house. On the other

hand, out of 193(64.3%) community respondents with 4-6 family members, 135(69.3%)

do not own any vehicles while 31(16.1%) owned the bicycles. Thus, this distribution

results clearly explained that majority community members do have the ability to

purchase cycles when the monthly income of each of them is taken into consideration. It

264

may further be interpreted that ecotourism activities do not appear to have made any such

remarkable impacts on the improvement of socio-economic conditions of local

community members.

Table 4.52

Distribution of Types of Vehicle Across Family Size

Types of Vehicle Owned

Family Size Total

1-3 4-6 6 & Above

Cycle 15

(30.6%) (16.5%)

31 (63.3%) (16.1%)

3 (6.1%) (18.8%)

49 (100.0%) (16.3%)

Motor Cycle 11

(35.5%) (12.1%)

19 (61.3%) (9.8%)

1 (3.2%) (6.3%)

31 (100.0%) (10.3%)

Auto Rickshaw 0

(.0%) (.0%)

5 (100.0%) (2.6%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

5 (100.0%) (1.7%)

Car 2

(40.0%) (2.2%)

3 (60.0%) (1.6%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

5 (100.0%) (1.7%)

No Vehicle 63

(30.0%) (69.2%)

135 (64.3%) (69.9%)

12 (5.7%) (75.0%)

210 (100.0%) (70.0%)

Total 91

(30.3%) (100.0%)

193 (64.3%) (100.0%)

16 (5.3%)

(100.0%)

300 (100.0%) (100.0%)

Table 4.53 presents the cross distribution between the electricity connections and

the number of family members. Out of 270 respondents,173(64.1%) with the 4-6 family

members, 82(30.4%) with 1-3 family members and 15(5.6%) 6 & more than family

members respectively are found to primarily rely on monthly system of paying electricity

bill as against 10(3.0) respondents across the three groups of number of family members

without having electricity connections. Out of 193(64.3%) community respondents,

173(89.6%) pay the monthly bill and 14(7.3%) have not got electricity connections.

The results of cross tabulation explain that majority of the community members have got

265

the electricity connection with the provision of paying the monthly bill as per the amount

of consumption of electricity.

Table 4.53

Distribution of Electricity Connection Across Family Size

Electricity Connection

Family Size Total

1-3 4-6 6 & More

Subsidized Supply 3

(33.3%) (3.3%)

5 (55.6%) (2.6%)

2 (12.5%) (6.3%)

10 (100.0%) (3.0%)

Supply With Monthly Bill

82 (30.4%) (90.1%)

173 (64.1%) (89.6%)

15 (5.6%) (93.8%)

270 (100.0%) (90.0%)

No Electricity Connection

6 (30.0%) (6.6%)

14 (70.0%) (7.3%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

20 (100.0%)

(.3%)

Total 91

(30.3%) (100.0%)

193 (64.3%) (100.0%)

16 (5.3%)

(100.0%)

300 (100.0%) (100.0%)

Table 4.54 presents the cross relationship between monthly expenditure and the

family size of community respondents. 61(63.5%) out of 96 community respondents who

have 4-6 members in the family could spend as maximum as Rs 4001-Rs.6000 monthly

as against nearly one third 31(32.3%) and 4 (4.7%) have 1 to 3 and 6 & more family

members with the same monthly expenditure. Similarly, out of 85(32.0%) respondents

with an average monthly spending between 6001- 8000, 59(69.4%) respondents have

4-6 family members. On the other hand, out of 193 community respondents with 4-6

family members, 61(31.6%) could make maximum monthly expenditure of about

4001- 6000, followed by 59(30.6%) with expenditure 6001- 8000 and 30(15.5)

with monthly expenditure 2001to Rs. 4000. Thus, the distribution seems to have

reflected that 181(60.3%) community respondents could make maximum monthly

expenditures ranging between 4000 and 8000. On the contrary, 154 (51.3%)

respondents could earn an average monthly income of 5000 and less. There is a gap

266

between the monthly income and expenditures and it must be giving so much of strains to

each household to run the family in order to meet the basic needs.

Table 4.54

Distribution of Maximum Monthly Expenditure ( ) Across Family Size

Maximum Monthly Expenditure (in )

Family Size Total

1-3 4-6 6 & Above

1000-2000 9

(33.3%) (9.9%)

17 (63.0%) (8.8%)

1 (3.7%) (6.3%)

27 (100.0%) (9.0%)

2001-4000 22

(38.6%) (24.2%)

30 (52.6%) (15.5%)

5 (8.8%) (31.3%)

57 (100.0%) (19.0%)

4001-6000 31

(32.3%) (34.1%)

61 (63.5%) (31.6%)

4 (4.7%) (25.0%)

96 (100.0%) (28.3%)

6001-8000 22

(25.9%) (24.2%)

59 (69.4%) (30.6%)

4 (4.7%) (25.0%)

85 (100.0%) (32.0%)

8001-10000 7

(20.0%) (7.7%)

26 (74.3%) (13.5%)

2 (5.7%) (12.5%)

35 (100.0%) (11.7%)

Total 91

(30.3%) (100.0%)

193 (64.3%) (100.0%)

16 (5.3%)

(100.0%)

300 (100.0%) (100.0%)

4.17. CROSS DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN TYPE OF HOUSE ACROSS PERIOD OF RESIDING

Table 4.55 presents the cross distribution of type of house owned by the

respondents across the period of residing at Thekkady. Out of 175 (58.3%) respondents

with type of asbestos house, 78(44.6%) were the residents about 21-30 years, followed by

more than one third 67(38.3%) with 31 & more years. Similarly, out of 67(22.3%)

community respondents with the possession of concrete house, 32(47.8%) and 21

(31.3%) of the respondents have been residing 30 and more years and 21-30 years

respectively. On the other hand, out of 131(43.7%) and 113(37.6%) community

respondents with the background of residing 21-30 and 31 & more, 78(59.5%) and

67(59.8%) are living in the asbestos type of houses. Thus, the results of distribution

267

clearly show that there is improvement in the pattern of house of the community

members, but close to one fourth of the respondents have the concrete houses.

Table 4.55

Distribution of Types of House Across Period of Residing

Types of House

Period of Residing

Total Last 10 Years

11-20 21-30 31 &

Above

Concrete 2

(3.0%) (20.0%)

12 (17.9%) (25.5%)

21 (31.3%) (16.0%)

32 (47.8%) (28.3%

67 (100.0%) (22.3%)

Asbestos 6

(3.4%) (60.0%)

24 (13.7%) (51.1%)

78 (44.6%) (59.5%)

67 (38.3%) (59.3%)

175 (100.0%) (58.3%)

Thatched House 1

(2.6%) (10.0%)

4 (22.2%) (8.5%)

9 (23.1%) (6.9%)

4 (22.2%) (3.5%)

18 (100.0%) (6.0%)

Tiles 1

(2.5%) (10.0%)

6 (15.0%) (12.8%)

23 (57.5%) (17.6%)

10 (25%) (8.8%)

40 (100.0%) (13.0%)

Total 10

(3.3%) (100.0%)

46 (15.7%) (100.0%)

131 (43.7%) (100.0%)

113 (37.6%) (100.0%)

300 (100.0%) (100.0%)

4.18. GROUP STATISTICS AND LEVENE’S INDEPENDENT T-TEST

Table 4.56 presents the results of mean and standard deviation of the first group

of community respondents (less than 20 years) and the second group community

respondents (more than 21 years). These two categories of respondents were interviewed

on 10 key indicators related to the impacts of ecotourism on social and economic

empowerment. The results show that there is a marginal difference of means between

those who have residing less than 20 years and more than 21 years. No much big

differences of opinions have occurred between the groups as understandings of

community members regardless of their period of inhabitation at Thekkady and the PTR

on the impacts of ecotourism on community empowerment.

268

4.18.1. Descriptive Statistics

The mean is a statistical tool to explain the average value of the opinions of

respondents on the community empowerment through ecotourism development. The first

indicator is stated as “social change in the local community” and the mean differences

between the two groups are 4.00 and 4.10 respectively and the standard deviations of the

indicator between the two groups are 0.418 and 0.413 respectively. This explains that

community members residing more than 21 years construed the impacts of ecotourism on

community empowerment better than the those community members settling down less

than 20 years. The results of standard deviation clearly indicate that there is an

insignificant dispersion of opinions of the two groups of community members on this

indicator.

The second indicator is framed as “improvement of living condition “and the

results of mean between the two groups of respondents consist of 4.56 and 4.65 and the

standard deviation for the same indicator between the two groups is .703 and .708. As a

result, there is no much difference of means and standard deviation between the two

groups. It may be inferred that the high means between the two groups and relatively low

dispersion seem to have explained that improvement of living conditions of local

community members largely contribute to the community empowerment.

As regards the role of women in building the strong society, the third indictor is

stated as “women working in the tourism establishments”. The results of mean between

the two groups of respondents are 3.77 and 3.75 and the standard deviation for the same

indicator is .726 and .747. The low mean values and standard deviation for this indicator

269

clearly explain that no differences are reported between the two groups. It has led to the

conclusion that women working in the tourism establishments play a very decisive role in

bringing about social community empowerment.

Tourism development largely brings about rapid changes in the lifestyle of the

local households and that may lead to provide some interfaces to adopt the lifestyle of

tourists. As the tourist inflows increase over the time, the local people generally tend to

be attracted to wear the fancy dresses other than the traditional dress. Thus, the fourth

indicator is structured as “wearing the traditional dress for my self-pride”. The results of

means between two groups of community respondents are 4.10 & 4.19 and the standard

deviation for the same two groups is .949 &.805 . The high mean values and low standard

deviation clarify that community respondents have overwhelmingly agreed the indicator

focusing the use of traditional dress for self-pride. Thus, it is inferred that community

members appear to have given importance to the preservation of traditional dress as a

symbol of self-pride to be recognized.

In the process of tourism development, many social changes may also be

occurring at tourism destinations at it happen in case of PTR. The fifth indictor is stated

as “breaking the joint family pattern” and the statement captured the individual opinions

from the two groups. The results of means between the two groups are 2.51 and 2.83 and

the standard deviation is .977 and 1.19. The low mean values and relatively high

dispersion tend to imply that community members partly disagreed on the indicator.

Many studies have revealed that tourism impacts have broken the joint family system.

However, tourism development has not made any negative impacts on breaking away the

joint family system in the PTR areas.

270

The host-guest interaction is one of the primary objectives that nurture the

relationship between the tourists and the community members. Taking this philosophy

into consideration, the sixth indicator that is “enjoying the interactions with the visitors”

was asked to the local community members in order to ascertain their level of agreement

on this statement. The mean values between the two groups are 4.06 and 4.14 and the

standard deviation is .413 and .514. Hence, the high mean values and the low standard

deviation clearly signify the strong agreement of the community members on the

interactions with the visitors as a means for fostering relationship with the people in

different parts of the world.

Tourism development can transform the local people towards the tourists and

their lifestyle pattern. In most of the time, tourists experience the antagonistic behaviour

from the local people, that result in the dissatisfaction of tourists. In order to find out the

state of mind of the local community members towards the tourists, the sixth indicator

was structured i.e. “changing the perception and orientation” The results of mean for

the two groups on the indictor are 4.41 and 4.38 and the standard deviation is .649 and

.628 for the same two groups. Therefore, the high mean values and the low dispersion

from mean values confirm with the fact that community members were happy to interact

with the tourists and their perceptions towards tourists are also undergoing changes due

to the regular interactions. Furthermore, this clearly explains that tourists are treated as

guests for which community members have been sensitized to be friendly with the

tourists.

271

The tradition and custom of local people are themselves the attractions for

tourists and preservation of social and cultural practices can give a unique identification

to the people. The seventh indictor is, therefore, framed as “having strong belief in the

tradition and custom”, the mean values between the two groups for the indicator are 4.15

and 4.31 and the standard deviation for the same two groups is .695 and .491. It may be

interpreted that there is a small difference of mean values between the two groups and the

uniformity on the same indictor is high. Thus, the extremely high mean values and the

low standard deviation explain that these two groups of community members have strong

belief in the tradition and custom.

Language is one that recognizes the people and their cultural backgrounds. In

most of the time, the local people are very much vulnerable to the foreign languages.

With the inflows of tourists from different countries with cultural background at the

tourism destinations, local people tend to adopt the other languages and forget their own

languages. An indicator was framed “taking pride in speaking my own language” to find

out the frame of mind of the community respondents as to how far they are concerned for

speaking their own languages. The mean values of the two groups of respondents on the

indicator are 4.51 and 4.53 and the standard deviation for the same two groups is .537

and .547. Thus, the high mean values and low dispersion confirm that local community

members wish to speak their own languages. This draws the conclusion that community

members take pride in speaking the traditional languages.

Apart from speaking the traditional languages, the local community members

usually pick up some functional words and sentences of English to interact with the

visitors. It is possible for those who come in direct contact with the tourists when they

272

work in the tourism establishments and ecotourism projects of the PTR. While analyzing

the results of mean and standard deviation of an indicator that is stated as “no problem in

speaking in English with tourists”, The mean values between the two groups are 1.51 and

1.31 and the standard deviation between the two groups is 1.01 and .762. The low mean

values and relatively high standard deviation explain that the local community members

did not find problem in speaking English as it is one the soft skills for them to deal with

the tourists. However, there is a relatively inconsistency of opinions on this particular

indicator as per the results of standard deviation.

The analysis of mean values and standard deviation of the two groups of

community respondents across the 10 indicators explain broadly the impacts of tourism in

community empowerment. The results revealed that two groups of respondents do not

have much difference in their opinions and understandings on the empowerment of

community on social, cultural and economic aspects.

4.18.2. ‘t’ Test for Equality of Variances

H0: The means of community members with less than 20 years and more than 21

years of residing at the PTR are not significantly different on the 10

indicators signifying the tourism impacts on community empowerment.

It is important to find whether the value is less than or greater than .05. In the case

of Levene’s t-test analysis presented in Table 5.56, the two tailed values of P are as

follows; .077 &. 082, .418 & .417, .857 &.854, .438 &.484,.065 & .039, .294 &.218, .750

&.755, .044 &.105,.843 &.842, and .090 &.156. The differences of means across all the

10 indicators between the community members with less than 20 years and more than 21

273

years of residing at Thekkady are not rejected with p value greater than 0.05 (≥ 0.05) .

Thus, the null hypothesis that is stated as “the means of community members with less

than 20 years and more than 21 years of residing at the PTR are not significantly different

on the 10 indicators signifying the tourism impacts on community empowerment” is not

rejected at 0.05 per cent significance level. The inference of the test of hypothesis may be

interpreted that even though there might be differences between the two groups of

community respondents on the criterion of duration of residing, but the differences of

these two groups of respondents did not arise as far as their opinions and understandings

on the impacts of tourism on community empowerment.

However, there are marginal differences of mean values between the two groups

of community respondents on 10 indicators explaining the community empowerment

through the tourism development at Thekkady. To test the hypothesis, the output of one-

tailed probability is.038, .395,.917,.683,.026,.009,.520,.802,.915 and.002 respectively for

the indicators. The one tailed t-test is still greater than .05 (P<.5) in case of all the

indicators excepting the indicator “no problem in speaking in English with tourists”. It is

inferred that one-tailed t test has validated the test of two-tailed test. There is uniformity

between the two groups of community respondents that tourism impacts have brought

about so much development for the better quality of life and community members, at the

same time, are concerned for their duties and responsibilities in preserving the traditions

and customs. There is a difference of opinions on the using English as the medium of

doing conversations with the tourists as it is found in case of one-tailed test, but there was

no difference of opinions on this indictor in the two-tailed test. Thus, it may be

interpreted that no differences exist between the two groups while expressing their own

274

opinions on the 10 interrelated items regardless of their actual differences in residing at

Thekkady.

Table 4.56

Levene’s Independent Samples t Test

Impacts of Ecotourism on Community Empowerment

Duration of Stay

( in years)

Descriptive Statistics Results

Levene’s t-test for Equality Of Variance

Mean Std. Dev. F Sig t df

Sig(2-tailed)

Social change in the local community

≤ 10 4.00 .418 4.339

.038

-1.773 298 .077

≥20 4.10 .413 -1.759 85.633 .082 Improvement of Living condition

≤ 10 4.56 .703 .726

.395

-.812 298 .418 ≥20 4.65 .708 -.815 86.816 .417

Women working in the tourism establishments

≤ 10 3.77 .726 .011

.917

.181 298 .857 ≥20 3.75 .747 .184 88.238 .854

Wearing the traditional dress for my self-pride

≤ 10 4.10 .949 .167

.683

-.777 298 .438 ≥20 4.19 .805 -.703 77.831 .484

Breaking the joint family system

≤ 10 2.51 .977 4.977

.026

-1.853 298 .065

≥20 2.83 1.19 -2.095 102.020 .039

Enjoying the interactions with the visitors

≤ 10 4.06 .413 6.985

.009

-1.051 298 .294

≥20 4.14 .541 -1.238 109.232 .218 Changing the perception and orientation

≤ 10 4.41 .649 .415

.520

.319 298 .750 ≥20 4.38 .628 .312 84.440 .755

Having strong belief in the tradition and custom

≤ 10 4.15 .695 .063

.802

-2.026 298 .044 ≥20 4.31 .491 -1.643 71.181 .105

Taking pride in speaking my own language

≤ 10 4.51 .537 .011

.915

-.198 298 .843 ≥20 4.53 .547 -.200 87.560 .842

No problem in speaking in English with tourists

≤ 10 1.51 1.01 9.946 .002

1.702 298 .090 ≥20 1.31 .762 1.433 73.216 .156

4. 19. RESULTS OF CROSS TABULATION, PEARSON CHI-SQUARE TEST & CRAMER

The Chi-square is a non-parametric statistical tool used for testing the hypothesis.

The test is aptly applied to test the association between the non-parametric variable. The

Pearson Chi-square test has been used to test the association between the demographic

factors & decision-making for ecotourism in the PTR and gender and the opinions on the

275

some underlying issues of sustainable ecotourism in the PTR. Moreover, Cramer test has

been used to find the effects of independent variable on the dependent variable.

H0: There is no significant association between the categories of age and interest

in management of ecotourism activities and the years of residing and interest

in management of ecotourism sites.

H0: There is no association between occupational patterns of community

members and their involvements in the decision-making process with regard

to the management of ecotourism activities and revenue earned from the

ecotourism for the LAD

Ho: There is no association between gender and interest in displaying cultural

activities to the tourists, negatively affected by the regular conflicts with

tourists, ecotourism as an alternative source of income and addressing

problems for sustainable development

4.19.1. Demographic Factors and Decision Making for Ecotourism

Table 4.57 shows the results of cross tabulation along with the Pearson Chi-

Square test with regard to the interest of respondents in the management of ecotourism

sites across the five age groups of respondents. It further explains that out of 103(34.3)

respondents in the age group of 30-39, 98(95.1%) were interested in participating in the

management of ecotourism activities. Similarly, out of 73(24.3%) respondents falling in

the age of 40-49 years 70(95.9%) had shown their interest in the management of

ecotourism activities as against 3(4.1%) were in dilemma in showing the interest for the

same purpose. Out of 63 respondents in the age group 18-29, years 61(96.8) expressed

positively their willingness towards the management of ecotourism.

276

Nevertheless, as many as 284 (94.7%) community respondents were interested in

contributing their time and efforts for the management of ecotourism sites, 98(34.5%)

and 70(24.6%) and 61(21.0%) in the age group between 30-39 and 40-49 and 18- 29

were happy to be part of the management of ecotourism in the PTR. Thus, the breakup of

results demonstrated that more young people from the local community were concerned

for the ecotourism and its effective management.

Management of ecotourism activities in the PTR can only be carried out with the

direct intervention and participation of local community members. Inviting the interest of

community members is one of the primary activities to create a natural harmony between

the tourism and community benefits. It is quite certain that some age groups of

community members may not be interested in the ecotourism and their interest is a direct

function of the amount of tangible benefits and level of participation in the decision-

making process. As such, the association is sometime certain or uncertain depending on

the understanding and orientation of the community members. As long as the community

does not claim the ownership of the management of ecotourism sites, it would be a kind

of lopsided development.

With respect to association between Age of community respondents and interest

in management of ecotourism activities in the PTR, the Chi-Square Value is 26.624 an

the P-Value is .001 ( ≤0.5). This leads to reject the null hypothesis i.e. there is no

significant association between the categories of age and interest in management of

ecotourism activities.

277

Hence, the conclusion is that there exists the significant association between the

ages of respondents and interested in participating the management ecotourism activities.

This may further be interpreted that interest in the management of ecotourism sites is

closely associated with the age of the respondents. Here is a typical inference that there is

a wholehearted and spontaneous community participation in the PTR management

regardless of the categories of age of community members.

Table 4.57

Distribution of Categories of Age Across Management of Ecotourism

Categories of Age

Participation in Management of Ecotourism Total Chi-Square Value

and P-Value Yes No Cannot Say

18- 29 61

(96.8%) (21.5%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

2 (3.2%) (14.3%)

63 (100.0%) (21.0%)

Chi-Square Value 26.624 Df-8

P-Value-001

30-39 98

(95.1%) (34.5%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

5 (4.9%) (35.7%)

103 (100.0%) (34.3%)

40-49 70

(95.9%) (24.6%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

3 (4.1%) (21.4%)

73 (100.0%) (24.3%)

50-59 36

(92.3%) (12.7%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

3 (7.7%) (21.4%)

39 (100.0%) (13.0%)

60 and above 19

(86.4%) (6.7%)

2 (9.1%)

(100.0%)

1 (4.5%) (7.1%)

22 (100.0%) (7.3%)

Total 284

(94.7%) (100.0%)

2 (.7%)

(100.0%)

14 (4.7%)

(100.0%)

300 (100.0%) (100.0%)

While comparing the distribution of community members’ interest in the

management of ecotourism activities on the basis of their years of residing at the PTR in

Table 4.58, out of 131(43.7%) residing in the particular area between 21-30 years, 125

(95.4%) respondents were interested in working as a responsible partner for the

management of ecotourism activities. Similarly, out of 112 community respondents,

residing for 31 & more than years, a vast majority of 125(93.8) were interested for

278

participating in the management of ecotourism sites. In addition, out of 300 community

respondents, 284(94.7) were enthusiastically interested in management of ecotourism

sites. The results also reveal the fact that 10 out of 10 respondents residing in the area for

last 10 years were interested for management of ecotourism sites.

The period of residing at the ecotourism sites and the corresponding interest in

extending support for effective management of ecotourism activities is closely associated.

The former is directly linked with the latter in ensuring sustainable ecotourism in the

PTR. Moreover, the longer the duration of settling down at the ecotourism sites, the

greater would be the participation in managing the natural resources for ecotourism to be

more attractive for the visitors to enjoy the originality of natural and cultural attractions.

As the case of the community members living in the adjoining areas of the PTR, the

genuine interest of being a part of ecotourism activities is expected to be more for the

mutual benefits. As such, community members would not migrate from the

neighbourhood of the PTR for want of livelihood if the administration of the Tiger

Reserve empowers the community to take all types of decisions for the betterment of the

quality of life leading to the better management of resources.

The cross distribution of these two variables is tested to find the statistical

significance of the association. The association between years of residing and interested

in management of ecotourism sites shows a result of Chi-Square Value-4.186 and P

Value-.652(≥0.05) leading to the not rejection of the hypothesis that “there is no

significant association between two years of residing and interested in management of

ecotourism sites”.

279

Furthermore, it explains that the years of residing in the vicinity of the PTR is

independent of extending support for management of natural resources. When the null

hypothesis is not rejected at the 0.05 per cent significance level, the inference may be

drawn that the community members may or may not take part in the management of

ecotourism at the PTR irrespective of length of stay at the neighbourhood places. As most

of the studies have found the relationship between the period of inhabitation and interest

in participating in the management of ecotourism, the results of the test of hypothesis

indicates that both are independent to each other.

Table 4.58

Distribution of Period of Residing Across Management of Ecotourism

Period of Residing

Participation in Management of Ecotourism Total

Chi-Square and P-Value Yes No Cannot Say

Last 10 Years

10 (100.0%) (3.5%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

10 (100.0%) (3.3%)

Chi-Square Value-4.186 P-Value-.652

Df-6

11-20 Years 44

(93.6%) (15.5%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

3 (6.4%) (21.4%)

47 (100.0%) (15.7%)

21-30 Years 125

(95.4%) (44.0%)

0 (.0%) (.0%)

6 (4.6%) (42.9%)

131 (100.0%) (43.7%)

31 & Above 105

(93.8%) (37.0%)

2 (1.8%)

(100.0%)

5 (4.5%) (35.7%)

112 (100.0%) (37.3%)

Total 284

(94.7%) (100.0%)

2 (.7%)

(100.0%)

14 (4.7%)

(100.0%)

300 (100.0%) (100.0%)

The Chi-square test for independence was used to find the relationship between

the occupational patterns and their involvements in decision making process regarding

the eco-tourism activities in the PTR. The null hypothesis is “there is no significant

association between the occupational pattern of the community members and their

involvements in decision making-process for management of ecotourism activities”.

280

The results of cross tabulation given in Table 4.59 revealed that majority of

community members 177(59.0%) were positive about their involvements in decision-

making process as compared to 67(22.3%) community respondents were disinterested

and 56(18.7%) were in dilemma to support or no support the role of community in taking

important decisions. In order to find the statistical differences between the occupational

patterns and their urges for getting involved in the decision-making process, the Chi-

square was used to test the association between the two variables.

The Pearson Chi-square value is 26.816 with an associated significance level of

.001 (≤0.05). This rejects the null hypothesis leading to the conclusion that there is an

association between occupational pattern of the community members and their

involvements in the decision making process with regard to the management of

ecotourism activities in the PTR (X2 (8, n=300)=26.816,p =.001,Phi = .299,Carmers

V=.211). Thus, the Phi Coefficient (for 2 by 2 tables) Cramers V (For larger than 2 by

2tables) values indicate the correlation coefficient between the variables and it ranges

from 0 to 1. Here the Cramers V value is .211 and it indicates the effects of occupational

pattern of community members on involvement in decision-making process are relatively

medium.

281

Table 4.59

Distribution of Occupational Patterns Across Decision-making Process

Occupational Patterns

Involvement in Decision-making Process Total Chi – square

Yes No Not At All

Agriculture 50

(16.7%)

9

(3.0%)

16

(5.3%)

75

(25.0%)

Pearson Chi-Square =

26.816,df=8,

P value= .001,

Cramer's V = .211,

N=300

Self employed 19

(6.3%)

11

(3.7%)

18

(6.0%)

48

(16.0%)

Tourism Related

Service

68

(22.7%)

15

(5.0%)

9

(3.0%)

92

(30.7%)

Unemployed 14

(4.7%)

7

(2.3%)

10

(3.3%)

31

(10.3%)

Labour 26

(8.7%)

14

(4.7%)

14

(4.7%)

54

(18.0%)

Total 177

(59.0%)

56

(18.7%)

67

(22.3%)

300

(100.0%)

4.19.2. Gender and Sustainable Ecotourism Issues

Table 4.60 demonstrates the results of cross tabulation showing the interest of

male and female community members in displaying the cultural attractions to the tourists.

The distribution of gender comprises 203(67.7%) and 97( 32.3%) male and female

community respondents. While finding the breakup of the interests in portraying the

cultural features of the community, as many as 245(81.7%) of community respondents

were happy to host the visitors in the community and to explain the rich tradition and

custom, whereas 33(11.0%) of them were undecided to take any interests in doing so.

However, 22(7.3%) of them did not want to demonstrate the cultural objects. Thus, it is

inferred that majority of the community members seem to be positive in hosting the

visitors in their villages in the PTR. In order to find the association between the gender

282

and demonstration of cultural attractions, the Chi-square test was employed to test the

statistical significance of association.

Community members take pride and privilege in the demonstration of tradition

and custom as an important attribute of ecotourism. The gender and interest in displaying

the cultural manifestations of local community is generally associated. The former

explains the difference of interest of male community members than the latter in respect

of showcasing the various cultural attractions like community and family festivals, social

functions and gatherings, cuisine, sports, etc. The Chi-square test for independence was

used to find the relationship between the gender and their interests to display the cultural

attraction to the tourists. Thus, the null hypothesis is “there is no association between

gender and displaying cultural attractions to the tourists”.

The Pearson Chi-square value is 2.318 with an associated significance level of

.314 (≥0.05). It is greater than alpha value of .05. This means that the proportion of males

who are interested to display their cultural activities to the tourists is not significantly

different from the females. This indicates that there is no association between gender and

displaying cultural activities to the tourists (X2 (2, n=300)=2.318,p=.314,Phi =

.088,Carmers V=.088). The Phi Coefficient(for 2 by 2 tables)/Cramers V (For larger than

2by2tables) values indicate the correlation coefficient between the variables and it ranges

from 0 to 1. Here the Cramers V value is .088 and it indicates the effect of gender on

displaying cultural activities is small. This may further be interpreted that both male and

female community members are inspired to welcome the tourists in the community as

guests and display the cultural heritage of the villages.

283

Table 4 .60

Distribution of Gender Across Demonstration of Cultural Attractions

Gender Demonstration of Cultural Attractions Total Chi – square Yes No Undecided

Male 164 (54.7%)

18 (6.0%)

21 (7.0%)

203 (67.7%)

Pearson Chi-square = 2.318, df=2,

P value= .314, Cramer's V = .088,

N=300

Female 81 (27.0%)

4 (1.3%)

12 (4.0%)

97 (32.3%)

Total 245 (81.7%)

22 (7.3%)

33 (11.0%)

300 (100.0%)

The cross distribution of results between the male and female community

respondents on three different types of conflicts is presented in Table 4.61. The results

revealed that majority of community respondents 234(78.0%) had regular conflicts with

wild animals at the time crop damage and collection of forest produce along with

intrusion to the village. As illustrated that the conflicts of community members with the

tourists at the ecotourism sites or at Thekkady and other conflicts in using the facilities &

amenities and conflicts with all the three together are also reported, but the percentage of

community respondents across the male and female respondents in finding the other three

conflicts is very insignificant. However, this should not be underestimated as far as the

nature of conflicts is concerned. In order to find the statistical significance of association

between the gender and the types of conflicts at the PTR, the Pearson Chi-square test was

used to test the null the hypothesis.

The Chi-square test for the test of independence was used to find out the

association between gender and community members affected by the three different

types of conflicts. The hypothesis is “there is no association between gender and the

community members being affected negatively by the regular conflicts”. Thus, the

284

Pearson Chi-square value is 5.299 with an associated significance level of .151 (≤0.05). It

is greater than alpha value of .05. This does not reject the hypothesis and explains that the

proportion of male community members who found the conflicts is not significantly

different from the female members.

This indicates that there exists no association between the gender and types of

conflicts affecting the community members (X2 (3, n=300) =5.299,p=.151, Phi=.133,

Carmers V=.133). The Phi Coefficient (for 2 by 2 tables)/ Cramers V (For larger than 2

by 2 tables) values indicated the correlation coefficient between the variables and it

ranges from 0 to 1. Thus, the Cramers V value is .133 and it leads to the conclusion that

the effect of difference of opinions of gender on three different types of conflicts is

small. Furthermore, both the male and female members are independent of each other in

judging the conflicts as threats to the sustainable ecotourism at the PTR.

Table 4.61

Distribution of Gender Across Types of Conflicts

Gender

Types of Conflicts

Total Chi-square Conflicts with

Visitors

Conflicts with

Wildlife

Conflicts in Using

Facilities & Amenities

Conflicts With All

Male 21 (7.0%)

154 (51.3%)

16 (5.3%)

12 (4.0%)

203 (67.7%)

Pearson Chi-square = 5.299; df=3,

P Value=.151, Carmers V=.133,

N=300

Female 7 (2.3%)

80 (26.7%)

2 (.7%)

8 (2.7%)

97 (32.3%)

Total 28 (9.3%)

234 (78.0%)

18 (6.0%)

20 (6.7%)

300 (100.0%)

Ecotourism is one of the sources of livelihood for the community members and

the understanding of the male and female community members on the role of ecotourism

in providing alternative source of income to the community members has been reflected

285

in three different choices. As presented in Table 4.62, as many as 220(73.3%)

community members across the gender were well aware about the possible alternative

sources of income from the ecotourism activities in the first choice as against 61 (20.3%)

community members were unclear about the importance of ecotourism as an alternative

source of income and 19(6.3%) of them did not vouch for the ecotourism that can at all

provide any forms of income to the local community members.

Thus, the results of distribution may be interpreted that majority of respondents

regarded ecotourism at the PTR as an important medium through which the scope for

income and employment is more. The differences of opinions of male and female

community members on the three options ( Yes, No and Cannot Say) on the ecotourism

as an alternative source of income.

The Chi-square test for finding the independence between gender and ecotourism

as an alternative source of income was used to test the null hypothesis. The hypothesis is

“there is no association between gender and ecotourism as an alternative source of

income”.The Pearson Chi-square value is .30 with an associated significance level of .86.

It is greater than alpha value of .05 ( ≤0.05). This means that the proportion of males who

wanted ecotourism as an alternative source of income is not significantly different from

the female counterparts.

This indicates that the association between gender and community members

opinion towards ecotourism as an alternative source of income is not significantly related

and both are different in their opinions and understandings the prospects of ecotourism in

generating income for the local populations (X2 (2, n=300) =.30,p=.86, Phi = .032,

Carmers V=.032). The Phi Coefficient (for 2 by 2 tables)/ Cramers V (For larger than 2

286

by 2 tables) values indicate that the correlation coefficient between the variables and it

ranges from 0 to 1. As a result, the Cramers V value is .032 indicating the effects of

gender on ecotourism as an alternative source of income is comparatively small.

Table 4.62

Distribution of Gender Across Alternative Sources of Income

Gender Ecotourism As An Alternative

Sources of Income Total Chi – square Yes No Cannot Say

Male 147

(49.0%)

13

(4.3%)

43

(14.3%)

203

(67.7%)

Pearson Chi-square = .30,

df=2, P value= .86,

Cramer's V = .032, N=300

Female 73

(24.3%)

6

(2.0%)

18

(6.0%)

97

(32.3%)

Total 220

(73.3%)

19

(6.3%)

61

(20.3%)

300

(100.0%)

The results of cross tabulation presented in Table 4.63 revealed that nearly half of

community members across the five principal occupational patterns at Thekkady were

147 (49.0%) who endorsed the use of revenue generated through ecotourism in the PTR

for the Local Area Development (LAD). As many as 58 (19.3%) and 36 (12.0%) engaged

in tourism related service and agriculture respectively emphasized on the use of revenue

of ecotourism for the LAD. The results further revealed that about 133(44.3%)

community respondents regardless of their occupational patterns were unaware of the use

of revenue earned from the ecotourism activities at the PTR for the local area

development at all. In addition, 20(6.7%) community respondents across the five groups

of occupations were not certain of the use of revenue of ecotourism for the LAD.

287

However, the Department of Forest at the PTR along with the tourism service

providers do not seem to take the issue of LAD seriously as the results have given split

opinions. Thus, the Chi-square test was used to find the differences of associations across

the five different groups of respondents on their occupations on the use of revenue of

ecotourism for the development of infrastructure in the local areas in the neighbourhood

of Thekkady.

The Chi-square test was used to find out the independence of association between

five groups of community members and their opinions on the generation of revenue from

ecotourism activities for the LAD. Thus, the null hypothesis is “there is no association

between the occupation and revenue earned from ecotourism for the LAD.

The Pearson Chi-square value is 23.628 with an associated significance level of

.003 (≥0.05). It is lesser than alpha value of .05. This means that that there is an

association between occupation of the community members and revenue earned from

the ecotourism for development of the local area (X2 (8, n =300) =23.628, p=.003, Phi =

.281,Carmers V=.198). The Phi Coefficient (for 2 by 2 tables)/ Cramers V (For larger

than 2 by 2 tables) values indicate the correlation coefficient between the variables and it

ranges from 0 to 1. Thus, the Cramers V value is .198 and it indicates the effect of

occupational patterns of community members and revenue earned from ecotourism is

found to be medium.

The rejection of hypothesis leads to the conclusion that the concern of the five

groups of community members on the basis of occupational pattern is significantly

288

associated with the need for the use of revenue generated from ecotourism for the local

area development.

Table 4.63

Distribution of Occupational Patterns Across Revenue Used for LAD

Occupational Patterns

Revenue Used for LAD Total Chi-Square

Yes No Not Aware

Agriculture 36

(12.0%) 5

(1.7%) 34

(11.3%) 75

(25.0%)

Pearson Chi-square = 23.628, df=8,

P Value= .003, Cramer's V = .198, N=300

Self-employed 19

(6.3%) 1

(.3%) 28

(9.3%) 48

(16.0%)

Tourism Related Service

58 (19.3%)

4 (1.3%)

30 (10.0%)

92 (30.7%)

Unemployed 16

(5.3%) 1

(.3%) 14

(4.7%) 31

(10.3%)

Labour 18

(6.0%) 9

(3.0%) 27

(9.0%) 54

(18.0%)

Total 147

(49.0%) 20

(6.7%) 133

(44.3%) 300

(100.0%)

All the ecotourism sites are not completely free from the socio-economic,

cultural, ecological or environmental issues. These sites are prone to the issues due to the

imbalance development leading to the loss of biodiversity, unemployment, crime, drug

addition, divorce, erosion of value system, demonstration effects, etc. Equity is one the

objectives of ecotourism that ensures equitable distribution of revenue across the

community members. Environmental or ecological issues are related to the loss of species

affecting the function of ecosystem at the protected areas. Social issues comprise the

direct demonstration effect of tourism development on the food habits, dress, language,

education, marriage, etc and these issues are largely affected by the level of tourism

development at the ecotourism sites. Similarly, cultural issues largely include the change

289

in the practices of traditions and customs of local people at the ecotourism sites. All these

issues are directly linked to the tourism development.

Table 4.64 illustrates the association between the gender and types of issues

affecting sustainable development at the PTR. The cross tabulation results show that as

many as 210 (70.0) community respondents found the environmental and ecological

issues to be taken into consideration on a priority basis as against other issues that

35(11.7%) community respondents emphasized on social issues and 30(10%) community

respondents outlined the importance of economic issues. To find the association of

opinions of male and female community members on the key issues related to sustainable

development to be addressed, the Chi-square test was used to test the statistical

significance of association between the gender and addressing the issues pertaining to

sustainable development.

The Chi-square test was used to ascertain the independence of association

between gender and addressing the issues for sustainable development. The Pearson Chi-

square value is .481 with an associated significance level of .923 (≤0.05). It is greater

than alpha value of .05. This means that there is no differentiation of opinions between

male and female community respondents with regard to addressing the problems for the

sustainable development (X2 (3, n=300) =.481,p=..923, Phi = .040, Carmers V=.040).

The Phi Coefficient (for 2 by 2 tables)/ Cramers V (For larger than 2 by 2 tables) values

indicate the correlation coefficient between the variables and it ranges from 0 to 1.

Hence, the Cramers V value is .040 and it indicates the effect is relatively small. The

hypothesis is not rejected leading to the inference that both male and female community

290

members are independent in expressing their opinions in addressing the issues related to

sustainable development at the PTR.

Table 4.64

Distribution of Gender Across Types of Issues Affecting Sustainable

Development

Gender Issues Affecting Sustainable Development Total Chi-Square Economic Environmental Social Cultural

Male 21

(7.0%) 141

(47.0%) 25

(8.3%) 16

(5.3%) 203

(67.7%)

Pearson Chi-square = .481,

df=3, P Value= .923, Cramer's V =

.040, N=300

Female 9

(3.0%) 69

(23.0%) 10

(3.3%) 9

(3.0%) 97

(32.3%)

Total 30

(10.0%) 210

(70.0%) 35

(11.7%) 25

(8.3%) 300

(100.0%)

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, SUGGESTED STRATEGIC

ACTIONS AND CONCLUSION

291

The summary of findings is an outcome of analysis and interpretation of the

primary and secondary data. Every research, whether it is social or pure science research,

aims to produce desired outputs for the theories to be refined and strengthened and the

society to be largely benefited. There are instances where efforts for inventing new things

went in vain, but many noted social scientists and scientists have become successful in

findings the results. It certainly requires methodical, scientific and logical approaches

with creative thoughts and minds to indentify the need for undertaking research; diagnose

the roots of problems; and prescribe the remedies to overcome the problems. As such,

many social, cultural, economical, ecological and environmental issues have become so

chronic in the present time that both qualitative and quantitative research works are

largely needed for finding the ways and means for handling these issues for the greater

benefits of society. Tourism is a social science subject and the issues of tourism are the

issues of society and vice-versa. It has become a growing socio-economic phenomenon in

the 21st century and many burning issues are linked to the unplanned, unregulated and

unsustainable ways of tourism development. However, many on-going issues deep-

rooted in the tourism development are closely associated with the visitor satisfaction and

community empowerment. The former is an important means of generating revenue and

the latter is the means of providing social and economic freedom through the

development of tourism in the local areas.

After having clearly comprehended the fundamental elements of issues affecting

the visitor satisfaction and community empowerment, the present study has left no stone

unturned in using many possible scientific methods of analyzing the problems preventing

the sustainable ecotourism in the PTR. Thus, the study has critically discussed and

292

debated to find the trends of tourist arrivals, revenue earnings, the quality and

quantitative improvement in infrastructure, the quality of services, the role of Periyar

Foundation & EDC, the conflicts between man and animals, the issues affecting visitor

satisfaction and community empowerment, etc. After analyzing the secondary data, the

study has been enriched with the findings of primary data collected from both Tourists

and Local Community Members in the vicinity of PTR.

The study has also discussed the need for strategic actions to deal with the current

issues so as to make the PTR a sustainable ecotourism destination for ensuring balanced

development at the destination area. Even though the opinions of other stakeholders and

many other variables are essentially important to further enrich the research, but the

scope of the study has been confined to analyze the opinions of Tourists and Community

members along with three important theoretical constructs such as visitor satisfaction,

community empowerment, and sustainable ecotourism. Both the stakeholders are

interdependent and complementary to each other for their mutual benefits. While making

the analysis of primary and secondary data, the study has stumbled upon some major

findings that have broadly clarified many research questions and issues. Finally, many

genuine and feasible strategic actions are recommended for the implementation for the

benefits of policymakers, planners, researchers, etc. A model has been evolved from the

outcomes of the research findings and suggestions so as to enable the administration of

the PTR in particular and any other ecotourism sites in the protected areas in general to

implement for sustainable ecotourism.

293

5.1. FINDINGS FROM SECONDARY DATA ANALYSIS

5.1.1. Insignificant Increase in Wildlife Population

Apart from the tiger population, there has been an increase in the distribution of

wildlife population in the PTR. However, the tiger population has been under the grave

threat since only 21 tigers were reported in 2002. However, the tiger census conducted

during 2002, 2006 and 2008 by the DFW, the WII and the TRM revealed the marginal

increase in tiger population. Thus, the trivial rise in tiger population is not so satisfying,

encouraging and striking given the cost, time and manpower employed for the

preservation of tiger habitats in ecosystem. The Periyar is one of the project tigers

created way back 1973 with the objective of conserving the tiger as a key predator,

thereby increasing the wildlife diversities. It is found that tiger population is not

increasing so impressively as compared to the increase in diversities of other wildlife

population. It may be interpreted that jungle scout as a CBEP or the boating activity in

the dam or other tourism activities in the day time seem to have disturbed the movement

of tigers in the forest and it must be affecting negatively the tiger habitations.

5.1.2.Tourist Arrivals in Kerala

Tourism has been an integral part of the socio-economic development in

Thekkady and wildlife tourism in particular is a key attraction for which hundred

thousands of domestic and foreign tourists and day visitors arrive at Thekkady. The Park

Administration has laid emphasis on the responsible and community-based ecotourism

whereby local tribal and semi tribal population can get direct and indirect benefits from

the tourist expenditures. It is reported that there has been a variation of percentage growth

294

of domestic and foreign tourist arrivals between 2001 and 2011. It is heartening to find

that it is a 3.45-times increase in FTAs during the period.

The FTAs is reported to be almost 2.5-times more during the same period. Even

though domestic tourists have outnumbered foreign tourists, the growth of DTAs is not so

remarkable as compared to the growth of the FTAs during the whole period.

Nevertheless, the total tourist arrivals have registered a growth of 83.99 per cent between

2001 and 2011. Kerala has been a long-haul destination for foreign tourists for wellness

and nature-based tourism activities. Finally, instead of being impressed with the growth

of FTAs, the state has lagged behind in terms of attracting foreign tourists while

compared to our neighboring tiny island nations like Sri Lanka and Maldives

As far as the tourist arrivals in the Idukki district is concerned, the growth of

FTAs between 2001 and 2006 is found to be about 80.75 per cent as against a decline of

-136.55 per cent between 2006 and 2011. However, the growth during the entire 11 years

(from 2001 to 2011) is reported to be 99.46 per cent.

The annual total tourist arrivals, including the FTAs and DTAs to the Idukki

district from 2001 to 2011 substantially signify the ecotourism and wildlife tourism

potentials of the PTR as it is one of the finest attractions of the district. In addition, the

growth of DTAs is about 46.01 per cent from 2001 to 2006 as against a marginal

decrease of -1.57 per cent from 2006 to 2001. The total tourist arrivals to Idukki district

indicate a growth of 53.16 per cent from 2001 to 2006 and a decline of -13.90 per cent

from 2006 to 2011. It is, however, reported that there was a decline in the tourist arrivals

295

in Idukki district due to the boat mishap in 2009 and the global economic recession.

Nevertheless, the cause for the decline seems to be the lack of facilities and amenities.

The PTR is generally known for attracting a large number of day visitors for boat

ride in the dam. It is reported that the growth of domestic and foreign day visitors is

almost the same trend. However, there has been a fluctuation in the total day visitor

arrivals at the PTR. There is an increase of total day visitors from 425.22 thousands in

2005 to 480.40 thousands in 2010, showing a growth of 11.48 per cent. Obviously, a

highest number of day visitor arrivals are reported in 2008.

Thus, it is found that the Reserve has been a common interest place for the day

visitors who appear to visit for the sake of wildlife sighting and experiencing the boat

journey in the protected areas. As per the objectives and principles of ecotourism, the day

visitors are not encouraged and their footfalls largely harm and disturb the habitations in

the ecosystem. As reported that the numbers of day visitors keep on increasing, though it

is marginally, the negative impacts like trampling, noise, loiters, traffic, demonstration

effects, etc over the years have created a cause for concern for the preservation of wildlife

and human habitations. Thus, it may be interpreted that the very basic purpose of

ecotourism is defeated with the rising number of day visitors into the park and it has

become more acute during the peak season.

5.1.3. Inconsistent Growth in Revenue Earnings from Tourism

The generation of foreign exchange from inbound tourist traffic in Kerala shows a

4.73-times increase from 2001 to 2008. It itself indicates the amount of multiplied

economic activities at the various stages of the economy. Tourism sector is found to be

296

one of the major contributors to the SGDP and State Income. The year 2010 witnessed a

growth of 31.12 per cent from tourism revenue generated directly and indirectly and

33.09 per cent the FEEs generated directly as compared to a complete slump in 2009 in

terms of total FEEs and total tourism revenue. The major amounts of revenue generated

from tourism generally come from the varied tourism activities at various levels of

tourism industry indirectly. Hence, the tourism industry known for its trickle down

effects has stimulated the passing of tourism expenditures to different hands in Kerala.

Nevertheless, there were frequent variations in the percentage increase in the total

tourism revenue of the State.

5.1.4. Insufficient Hotel Rooms and Beds

The present existing capacity of hotels does not seem to have sufficient

number of rooms and beds to meet the growing demands of the visitors. The hotels may

not look into the improvement of the various service parameters determining the service

quality. As an effort to provide additional alternative accommodation, innovations and

experimentations have been initiated at the government level to ensure the uniform

standards for the home-stays operators across the State. Thus, the type of home-stays

accommodation has partly solved the acute shortage of rooms at Kumily and the host-

guest interaction has become possible. As a result, the concept of home stay is slowly

gaining visibility and acceptability in Kumily and foreign tourists largely sojourn in the

home stays as per the field visit reports.

297

5.1.5. Non-Adherence to the Green Globe and Agenda 21

Hotels at Kumily do not have adopted the codes of conduct of the Green Globe

and the Agenda 21 to be eligible to run the eco-hotels and contribute to the sustainable

ecotourism in the PTR.

5.1.6. Insufficient Number of Boats

All the five boats have the maximum capacity of carrying 1510 visitors in a day to

the buffer areas or tourism zone for wildlife spotting. Given the rising demands for the

wildlife sighting from the boats, the existing five boats appear to be inadequate to cater to

the heavy rush of the day visitors during the peak seasons.

5.1.7. Scanty Revenue Earnings from the Boat Services

There was a steady decline in number of visitors who availed the KTDC boat

services between 2006-07 and 2011-12, excepting the year 2008-09 during which 2.01

lakh visitors took the KTDC boating service. However, the KTDC-operated boats alone

generated total revenue of Rs.30.54 lakh during 2008-09. While looking at the revenue

earned from the boat services of KTDC, there was a gradual rise in the revenue from

2006-07 to 2008-09 and declined from 2009-10 to 2010-11. Nevertheless, there was a

marginal increase in the number of visitors availing the boat services during 2011-12.

Thus, there is a direct positive relationship between the rise in visitor arrivals and

the rise in revenue receipts from selling the tickets as boating is a principal attraction of

the tiger reserve. On the contrary, the revenue being generated through the sale of tickets

is certainly little as compared to the amount of damage and disturbances to the ecosystem

of the tiger reserve. The scale of disturbances is becoming more due to the increase in the

footfalls of the day visitors.

298

5.1.8. Need for Improving the Safety Measures

The KTDC has taken the persistent efforts along with the Forest Department for

the improvement of safety measures for the visitors, including life jackets, emergency

boat and lifeguard. However, it is found from the field visit and observations that there is

no standby boat for handling the emergency situations as the boat mishap occurred in

2009 at the dam. It is clearly found that safety measures are certainly inadequate at the

PTR.

5.1.9. Commercialization of CBEPs and Continuous Variations in Revenue Earnings

As found from the analysis, the Nature Walk has attracted a maximum number of

visitors accounting for 45 per cent of total participants between 2004-05 and 2010-11. It

is the hallmark of the PTR’s ecotourism activities. This particular walk is conducted to

offer the participants a kind of opportunity to admire, appreciate and enjoy the greenery

of the dense forest. Similarly, the Green Walk is found to be the second most important

ecotourism activity on the basis of the total number of participants.

It is also reported that the Department of Forest, the PTR East Division has

incurred the total revenue of Rs.690.27 lakh from all these 15 ecotourism programmes

from 2004-05 to 2010-11. This amount of revenue generation itself explains about the

trickle down effects in the local economy of Thekkady that remains to be a backward

district in Kerala. While taking the total revenue generated from the individual

ecotourism programmes, green walk, nature walk and bamboo rafting have been

identified as the first, second and third best CBEPs respectively in terms of earning the

revenue.

299

The continuous variation in the revenue generated from individual ecotourism

activity is a cause of concern to be investigated further by the authorities. The amount of

revenue generated from the ecotourism activities does not seem to bring about visible

changes in the PTR areas and the community members do not seem to be benefited much

from the revenue. These are the possible reasons such as lack of focused eco-tourists or

nature lovers, increasing number of day-visitors and lack of coordinated efforts for which

the volume of revenue has not been increased over the years.

5.1.10. Shortage of Manpower

The DFW has posted 125 forest guards for the PTR and these guards account for

64.76 per cent of the total staff positions. Similarly, there are 25 foresters representing

12.95 per cent of the total sanctioned staff strength of the PTR. Hence, the distribution of

staff across the positions indicates that the forest guards have outnumbered all the

positions. As many as 11 staff members are working for the foundation to execute the

policy and programmes for the conservation of tiger. It is found that there is a huge

shortage of manpower for carrying out the conservation measures and regulating the

ecotourism activities in the PTR.

5.1.11. Lack of Training Programmes

Training programmes are not sufficient for the staff and community members to

enhance their skills and capacities in wildlife techniques, functional language skills

(Hindi and English) and biodiversity assessment. It is found that training programmes are

also not being regularly conducted.

300

5.1.12. Generation of Revenue from Entry Fees

It is reported that the entry fees collected from the check post (foreign tourists)

accounts for the maximum as compared to other sources of generating revenue. The check

post for foreign and domestic tourists account for 55.42 per cent (768. 76 lakh) and the

revenue from boat service accounts for 12.74 per cent ( 176.86 lakh).

5.2. FINDINGS FROM DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC B ACKGROUND (TOURISTS)

The male tourist respondents have outnumbered the female tourist respondents in

the distribution and majority tourists belonging to the young age group between 21 and

40 were interested for undertaking adventurous activities in the reserve.

Majority of tourists were found to be single without any family obligations and

they are generally free to visit the ecotourism places. The PTR has been attracting the

tourists who are largely not married and single with much interest in staying longer

duration in the Thekkady region. The PTR has attracted more number of tourists with the

nuclear family background and both domestic and foreign tourists are almost equal in

number as far as the nuclear family is concerned. It is also found that there are a wide

mix of ecotourism activities to provide educative and activity-based opportunities to the

Free Independent Travelers (FITs) and (GITs) in the PTR.

A vast majority of domestic as well as foreign tourists have sound monthly

income that seems to have created heavy disposable income to keep aside for the eco-tour

or wildlife tour. This particular indictor provides sufficient evidence to substantiate the

rising revenue from the ecotourism activities in the PTR and the trend may be taken as a

reference for appropriate policy decisions to arouse interest for nature travel and widen

301

the scope for maximizing the revenue for the nature conservation and community

welfare.

Tourist respondents largely preferred for the luxury taxis services and self-driven

car to reach at Kumily. The findings may be supported with the breakup of the monthly

income of the respondents. Majority of respondents belonging to the age group between

21 and 40 are employees working in the corporate. Almost half of total tourist

respondents entered to the PTR through Kumily as it lies in the border of Tamil Nadu and

Kerala. It may be one of the significant reasons for which majority of visitors find it

convenient to enter into the PTR.

Ecotourism activities or adventure tourism activities do not appear to have

motivated the visitors to stay longer at Thekkady. The results revealed that a little more

than half of the total respondents could stay for 1-2days. Thekkady attracts the first-time

visitors more when compared to second, third or subsequent-time visitors. The findings

of the analysis have revealed that all the efforts of the Department of Forest and the

Tourism, Government of Kerala have gone in vain to attract repeat visitors to the PTR. It

is also found that wildlife tourism activities along with tourism activities usually induce

much interest to visit the surrounding places of tourist importance.

Majority of respondents are domestic tourists arranging their own trips to the

PTR. It appears to be possible due to the familiarization with the places. It is also

interesting to see a little more than one fifth of respondents who were guided by

experiences and the word-of-mouth publicity. As much as 84.4 per cent of total

respondents fall in the age bracket between 21 and 60 and these two groups are generally

302

adventure seekers and wildlife lovers and they spend maximum time at the destination to

learn, admire and enjoy the serenity of climate. The PTR’s ecotourism and wildlife

tourism activities do not appear to be attractive to the visitors or do not appear to add

much value to the experience.

More numbers of visitors visiting the PTR largely undertake an excursion tour to

the spice gardens. scenic beauty and countryside in the vicinity of Thekkady and Kumily.

Thus, it is inferred that visitors are more enthralled with other activities along with

wildlife and ecotourism activities. More qualified people are visiting the PTR and the

nature travel usually attracts the conscious visitors who not only learn, enjoy and admire

the nature’s beauty, but also work for the conservation of the forest and wildlife.

It is also found that tourists have clear and deeper understandings on the larger

benefits of direct participation that would be the real tributes to the community well being

and it is the wholehearted respect for the community to lead dignified life.

5.3. FINDINGS FROM THE ANALYSIS OF OPINIONS OF TOU RISTS (FACTOR ANALYSIS)

Tourist respondents largely agreed upon the creation and maintenance of facilities

and amenities along with safety measures for sustainable ecotourism the PTR. The

respondents have attached high importance to the improvement of professional skills,

quality of food and services in the restaurant, facility of ambulance and first-aid center,

carrying capacity, safety measures, community interactions, etc. It is revealed that

respondents moderately agreed with other statements explain the need for the

improvement of facilities and amenities.

303

5.3.1. Findings on the Basis of Five Important Factors

Hospitality Services: The relatively large proportion of variance explained by the

factor suggests that the quality of hospitality services is a dominant element of visitor

satisfaction. Ecotourism or wildlife tourism can be sustainable only when the service

providers at Thekkady are conscious of their duties and responsibilities towards the

destinations.

Basic Facilities: The relatively moderate proportion of variance explained by the

factor explains that tourist respondents emphasized on the creation and improvement of

the quantity and quality of facilities at the neighborhood of PTR and in the PTR.

Basic Amenities: The proportion of variance is relatively good and tourist

respondents found this factor as third important factor determining the level of visitor

satisfaction. It is inferred that amenities need to be improved to make tourists happy and

delighted.

Disaster Preparedness: The results of the third factor with relatively good

variance explain that disaster mitigation is an important factor that determines the

decisions of tourists to undertake the diverse soft and hard ecotourism activities. This

factor is regarded a key determinant of the visitor satisfaction.

Value-Added Services: The factor signifies the expectations of tourists for extra

services that make them feel value-for-money and belongingness towards the

destinations. This factor is found to be important when the PTR is taking all efforts to be

an internationally known ecotourism/wildlife tourism destination.

It is also found from the results of correlation that all five factors are correlated to

each other. The close relationship of all the factors clearly indicates that one factor alone

304

cannot have any positive impact on the visitor satisfaction rather all these factors can

contribute together for the optimum visitor satisfaction.

5.4. FINDINGS FROM HYPOTHESES TESTING (LEVENE’S IND EPENDENT T TEST AND ANOVA)

5.4.1. Visitor Satisfactions

The difference of means between foreign and domestic tourist are rejected with P

value .000 in case of Hospitality Services and not rejected in the case of the remaining

four factors such as Basic Facilities, Disaster Preparedness and Value-Added Services.

With regard to the visitor satisfaction, there are no differences of experience between

foreign and domestic tourist respondents on facilities, basic amenities, disaster

preparedness and value- added services .There exists no difference of understanding in

case of hospitality service. The one tailed t-test is still greater than .05 ( P<.5) in case of

all these five factors. It is inferred that foreign tourist respondents equally emphasized on

the hospitality services, basic facilities, basic amenities, disaster preparedness and value-

addition.

5.4.2. Respecting Culture and Heritage

The test of Levene’s sample independent t test shows that the mean differences

between foreign and domestic tourists are statistically insignificant that leads to drawing

the conclusion that both two categories of respondents on the basis of their nationalities

do not have differences as far as the seven aspects comprising broadly the interest of

tourists in mingling with the local people to know, understand, learn and experience

various cultural practices with the community members and vice-versa. Though there are

mean differences between the two categories of respondents, it is marginal and it seems

305

to have occurred by chance. It is inferred that foreign tourist respondents equally

emphasized on the significance of interactions of guests with the host for sustainable

ecotourism in the PTR.

5.4.3. Seven Critical Factors for Visitor satisfaction

It is found that the mean difference between the foreign and domestic tourist are

statistically insignificant that leads to drawing the conclusion that both two categories of

respondents on the basis of their nationalities do not have differences as the seven aspects

reasonable entry fee ticket, friendliness of employee, affordable room and food tariff,

convenient to reach, community interactions, exhibition of local arts and crafts and

friendly behavior of the people. The hypothesis on this particular item “Peacefulness “is

rejected as p value is less the significant value drawing inference that there is a difference

between the two categories of tourist as far as peaceful atmosphere of the PTR. It is

inferred that both domestic and foreign tourists have equally regarded all the eight items

expecting one “Peacefulness” as the key elements for visitor satisfaction.

5.4.4. Frequency of Visit and Visitor Satisfaction

The results of the mean values clarified that there are different of means among

three groups of respondents on the basis of duration of stay (overnight) at the

destinations. The results of the standard deviation explained that there is dispersion in the

views of each category of respondents on all the five factors pertaining to sustainable

tourism development.

306

It is inferred from the test of hypothesis that frequency of visit and five factors of

visitor satisfaction that foreign tourists did not differ from domestic tourists in giving

importance to visitor satisfaction factors. It may be further interpreted that foreign

tourists are as much aware and conscious as domestic tourists in finding these five factors

that may enrich or spoil the experience or since ecotourism or wildlife tourism can be

promoted when these factors are taken into consideration.

5.4.5. Duration of Stay & Visitor Satisfactions

It is inferred that foreign tourists did not differ from domestic tourists in attaching

importance to visitor satisfaction factors. Thus, the Forest Department and the

administration of PTR and the private tourism service provider may be guided with the

findings that apart from giving importance to the foreign tourists, attention should also be

given to domestic tourists as far as the five visitor satisfaction factors are concerned.

5.5. FINDINGS ON THE BASIS OF FRIEDMAN RANK TEST

5.5.1. Enjoyment from Ecotourism Activities

The nature walk, elephant ride and bird watching are three important factors as it

is revealed from the Friedman Rank Test. However, all these factors as a whole are very

significant in alluring the visitors to the reserve.

5.5.2. Add-on Facilities & Amenities

The requirement for service boat, rest and reading room and refreshment center is

found to be the first, second and third factors in order of the test results. However, all

these factors play a very significant role in providing better facilities and amenities for

visitor satisfaction.

307

5.6. FINDINGS FROM DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC BACKGROUND (COMMUNITY MEMBERS)

A vast majority of young community respondents are young in the local

community and majority of them do not have formal education and primary education to

work in the skill-based jobs. At the same time, ecotourism projects, after the

implementation of IEDP in the PTR, do not seem to have increased the educational level

of local community members.

It has revealed that agriculture has remained to be one of the significant sectors

for engaging local community members and the gross monthly income of community

members is meager to meet the physiological needs. Thus, the economic impacts of

ecotourism do not appear to have increased the income of community members.

However, both tourism and agriculture provide maximum employments given the nature

of occupational patterns. Many community members with graduation degree do not have

dignified employments. However, employments being created by the tourism sector are

disproportionate to the amount of investment and efforts of the government to make

ecotourism as a means for income and employment in the PTR. In addition, majority of

them are reported to have stayed more than two decades.

Majority of community members are living in the asbestos, concrete and tiled

roofed houses and this could be possible due to the financial support of the governments

under the Indira Awas Yojana.(IAY). Whatever improvements in the pattern of houses

that have occurred at Thekkady may not be fully attributed to the revenue percolated

from the ecotourism activities in the PTR.

308

Majority of community respondents do not own the vehicles regardless of their

occupational patterns and the revenue tricked down from the ecotourism activities do not

seem to have enabled to buy the bicycle as a basic requirement for conveyance as well as

an asset for an ordinary family. Hence, the monthly income indicated by the community

respondents does not seem to be adequate to meet the basic needs and majority

community members do have the ability to purchase cycles when the monthly income of

each of them is taken into consideration. It may further be interpreted that ecotourism

activities do not appear to have made any such remarkable impacts on the improvement

of socio-economic conditions of local community members.

Majority of community members have got the electricity connection with the

provision of paying the monthly bill as per the amount of consumption of electricity. It is

also found that there is a gap between the monthly income and expenditures and it must

be giving so much of strains to each household to run the family in order to meet the

basic needs.

5.7. FINDINGS FROM CHI-SQUARE TEST

5.7.1. Decision Making for Ecotourism

Interest in the management of ecotourism sites is closely associated with the age

of the respondents. Thus, there is a wholehearted and spontaneous community

participation in the PTR management regardless of the categories of age of community

members. The years of residing is independent of extending support for management of

natural resources. Community members may or may not take part in the management of

ecotourism at the PTR irrespective of length of stay at the neighbourhood places. There is

309

an association between occupational patterns of and involvements in the decision-

making process with regard to the management of ecotourism activities in the PTR. The

effects of occupational patterns on involvement in decision-making process are relatively

medium.

5.7.2. Sustainable Ecotourism Issues

The proportion of males who are interested to display their cultural activities to

the tourists is not significantly different from the females. This indicates that there is no

association between gender and displaying cultural activities to the tourists. Both male

and female community members are inspired to welcome the tourists in the community

as guests and display the cultural heritage of the villages.

Majority of community respondents had regular conflicts with wild animals at the

time of crop damage and collection of forest produce along with intrusion to the villages.

The proportion of male community members who found the conflicts is not significantly

different from the female members. Thus, both the male and female members are

independent of each other in judging the conflicts as threats to the sustainable ecotourism

at the PTR.

Majority of community members across the gender were well aware about the

possible alternative sources of income from the ecotourism activities in the first choice.

The proportion of males, who wanted ecotourism as an alternative source of income, is

not significantly different from the female counterparts. Thus, both are different in their

opinions and understandings on the prospects of ecotourism in generating income for the

310

local populations. Hence, the effects of gender on ecotourism as an alternative source of

income are comparatively small.

Nearly half of community members across the five principal occupational patterns

had endorsed the use of revenue generated through ecotourism in the PTR for LAD.

Thus, there is an association between occupations and revenue earned from the

ecotourism for LAD. Hence, the effect of occupational patterns of community members

and revenue earned from ecotourism is found to be medium.

5.8. SUGGESTED STRATEGIC ACTIONS

The major findings of study are the eye-openers for all those involved directly and

indirectly in the ecotourism projects at the PTR. All those findings are very indisputable

as far as the preservation of rich biodiversity of the tiger reserve and implementation of

sustainable ecotourism is concerned. The detailed analysis of both primary and

secondary data has uncovered many concealed and incomprehensible facts and figures

with regard to visitor satisfaction and community empowerment. It is quite certain that

any forms of development can have positive and negative impacts. There can be

variations in the impacts, but the possibility of creating more negative impacts is high

when the process of development is not monitored at different stages in a well-

coordinated manner.

Impossible to prevent the entry of visitors as the PTR has carved a special niche

in the wildlife tourism market in the overseas as well as domestic market. At the same

time, the expectations of local community from ecotourism would be more when

involvement is direct and spontaneous. Thus, all the findings are primarily relevant for

311

the policymakers, administrators, tourism enterprises and NGOs to discuss and debate as

to how the PTR can be a sustainable ecotourism site, how much development should be

permitted and who should take the lead roles for regulating the mass tourism menace.

Some of the findings are very genuine and actions need to be taken at different levels.

The study has indentified a good number of findings on which suggested strategic actions

can be initiated to meet the expectations of visitors and community members.

It was clearly and closely observed that there are fundamental issues related to

hospitality services, facilities, amenities, safety and personalized care with regard to

visitor satisfaction. Other issues like carrying capacity, visitor footfalls, manpower,

parking, traffic, behaviour of frontline staff, etc have become worrisome for the

administration of the PTR.

On the contrary, community members have just symbolic participations as a

member of EDC and the benefits for community from ecotourism and contributions of

community members with their indigenous knowledge to make ecotourism sustainable do

not seem to be noticeable at the PTR. However, closing the PTR forever for the entry of

visitors for the preservation of ecosystem cannot be the options or solutions, but some

remedial measures can be of immense beneficial to the PTR to bring visitors and

community together in order to make effective management of natural and man-made

resources for the sustainable ecotourism.

Thus, these are some of the chronic problems that will remain to create hindrances

if timely actions are not initiated. The discussions and debates have finally necessitated to

search for suitable or alternative ways of managing the PTR from the perspectives of

312

visitor satisfaction and community empowerment, After having been guided by the

results of the analysis of secondary data in general and primary data in particular and the

researcher’s own observations, the following strategic actions would certainly be the

remedies for the PTR to be as beautify and pristine as it has been from the time

immemorial.

5.8.1. Preservation of Wildlife Habitations

Wildlife is a key component of ecotourism and the uniqueness of the attraction of

the Periyar is tiger. As found from the study, there is a disproportionate increase in

wildlife population resulting in the disequilibrium in the ecosystem. As a result, it has

negatively affected the growth of tiger population. It is suggested that the rich

biodiversity of Periyar as a critical part of the Western Ghats should be protected for

evenly growth of wildlife population. Moreover, efforts should be taken to find the

primary reason of the imbalance in the wildlife habitations. The Department of Forest

should evolve the cutting-edge technological tools to conduct the tiger census in lieu of

the traditional camera trap and pug mark methods. These methods have many methodical

flaws resulting which the accurate tiger census may not be collected.

5.8.2. Regulation of Entry of Visitors

Each protected area should not be opened to the mass tourists and their activities.

As the PTR is an indentified ecotourism site in the protected area, tourists should be

permitted to participate in the CBEPs rather than the day-visitors. The activities of the

former generate tangible and intangible benefits than the latter. As such, the entry of day-

visitors is increasing and their contributions to the community benefits appear to be very

insignificant as compared to the damage or harm to the biodiversity and ecosystem of the

313

reserve. The activities of day-visitors have become a liability and a cause for concern for

the park administration.

Whatever primary problems are connected to the facilities and amenities, the

arrivals of day visitors make mess up the serenity and beauty of the reserve. Their

temporary stays and movements in a day largely create havoc at Thekkady. As such, the

day visitors do not have attachment or belongingness towards the tiger reserve. They are

more consumptive rather than participative. Thus, it is strongly recommended that heavy

entry fees and user fees should be charged to the day-visitors for the use of facilities and

amenities. At the same time, hotels at the Thekkady and Kumily should work with the

transporters, tour operators and travel agents to make the day-visitors as an overnight

visitors and this will increase the occupancy rate and revenue for the park. In this

connection, both these two Departments (Forest and Tourism) should take steps for

making publicity of the PTR as an overnight destination.

5.8.3. Promoting Responsible Tourism

Tourist arrivals should also be regulated by taking carrying capacity and visitor

satisfaction into consideration. The qualitative responsible tourism should be encouraged

to effectively position the PTR as a value-based tourism destination with strict adherence

to the guidelines of Green Globe and Local Agenda.

5.8.4. Addition of More Eco-accommodations

It is quite clear that the more the tourist arrivals the greater would be the impact

on the increasing number of hotel rooms and beds. More eco-hotels and resorts should be

built nearby Kumily and Thekkady to create additional rooms and beds to cater to the

314

growing number of tourists and all these hotels should follow the guidelines of

sustainable tourism framed by the UNWTO and the PATA. All the hotels must switch

over to the renewable energy, water treatment, rain water harvesting, solid waste

management and rapid plantation. The construction of eco-lodges should be permitted at

the manipulation zone or tourism zone and the eco-lodges should jointly be managed by

the Department of Forest and Tourism, Government of Kerala. However, the lodges

should adhere to the local house patterns as per the Jungle Lodges and Resorts in

Karnataka. The Department of Forest should enforce the stringent rules for the

accommodation operators and compel then to make use of renewable energy in the form

of biogas, wind and solar energy.

5.8.5. Development of Transport & Communication Network

The frequency of luxury intra-state and inter-state transport services should be

operated from the major cities from Kerala, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The initiatives

of the State Government to improve road conditions are well appreciated and other

extents of roads from various gateways to Kumily should regularly be maintained with

the help of the Public Private Partnership (PPP). All tourist vehicles plying to Thekkady

or Kumily should be governed by the strict traffic rules and there must be tolls for these

vehicles. It is recommended for the Build Operate and Transfer Basis (BOT).

5.8.6. Qualitative Improvement of Facilities and Amenities

Facilities and amenities should be developed without making any alterations to

the environmental settings and natural landscape. The eco-friendly facilities and

amenities determine the quality of visitor satisfaction. Efforts should be made to promote

315

ecotourism circuits and the PTR should also be included in the circuit. Drainage system

should be improved at Thekkady and Kumily and the sewerage treatment plant should be

set up to decompose the waste and recycling of sewerage should be used for manure

purposes. Illumination of streets should be done with the help of solar lights.

5.8.7. Penetration of Professional Services

The infusion of professionalism in the private tourism organizations should be

encouraged so as to bring about changes in attitude, dynamism, delivery, quality,

discipline, accountability, etc. For instance, the staff of KTDC should be given

continuous training. It is highly recommended that staff or executives should be

appointed with the basic qualifications of tourism and hospitality.

5.8.8. Capacity Building Training Programmes

Efforts should be made to enhance the capacities of the frontline workers in the

tourism industry through the sensitization programme for auto, bus, taxi and lunch

drivers. The Government of Kerala should formulate a government-led, private sector-

driven and community-oriented ecotourism policy and programmes for sustainable

ecotourism development that can be the means for poverty alleviation and unemployment

eradication. This goal of the government can certainly be achieved when more awareness

campaigns, training and capacity building programmes can be initiated. It is suggested

that the Department should go for collaborating with the professional institutes for

conducting training programmes on soft skills like grooming in personal etiquette,

communication, sincerity and honesty as part of professionalism.

316

5.8.9. Preservation of Originality and Authenticity of CBEPs

The present form of conducting the CBEPs seem to be highly commercial and the

aim is to generate revenue rather than providing an educative and learning experience.

The study has suggested that apart from nature, green walk and bamboo rafting as the

three best preferred activity-based ecotourism, other programmes need to be fine tuned in

accordance with the environmental and ecological capacity of the PTR. Thus, it is

suggested that the originality of all the programmes should be preserved as eco-lovers or

eco-tourism tend to visit the reserve for the sake of enjoying the originality. There should

not be commoditization of the products and alteration of any forms should be allowed to

happen at the reserve.

5.8.10. Approach for Preserving Ecology and Environment

Environmental conservation is a major factor for sustainable ecotourism. Hence,

tourism development should promote eco-friendly ambience and steps should be taken to

ensure massive plantation and protection to the wild animals, herbal plants, etc.

Ecotourism can be sustainable when there is a compatible with the environment. It is

highly recommended that eco-club should be established at educational institutions

nearby the Thekkady and Kumily to undertake several activities and the school children

and volunteers should be motivated to work as Green Brigade for conservation of forest,

wildlife and biodiversity. Tourism club should also be created to work in close

cooperation with the Department of Forest, the Periyar Foundation and the EDC for

solving the local issues of tourism.

317

Vehicles with Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) should be allowed to operate

between the main parking areas and entrances of the tourist centers For example; the

CNG driven auto rickshaw should be introduced from parking area to the boat jetty and

vice-versa. There should be well-defined regulations to check the rampant exploration of

ground water by the accommodation operators. A monthly programme should be

organized to encourage the visitors to plan the indigenous trees and visitors should be

motivated to take care of the cost of raising the trees. The implementation of model of

conducts for ensuring sustainable ecotourism as per the Agenda 21 and local Agenda 21

must be taken up prescribed by the UNWTO.

5.8.11. Spontaneous Community Participation

Sustainable ecotourism needs larger community involvement. They should be

empowered to be the custodian of tourism resources at the PTR. As a result, the

community members may develop a sense of belongingness towards the maintenance of

tourism facilities and amenities. Community participation and consultation should be

incorporated for making effective management of sustainable ecotourism.

Community empowerment is a major determinant of sustainable ecotourism

development as benefit should do tickle down directly to the local residents, including

economic benefits. Thus, community should be allowed to play a decisive role at the

PTR. The DTPC should be more proactive and should make regular interactions with the

community. Adequate representatives from community, government, tourism service

providers and NGOs should be given in the DTPC. Local community members should

be allowed to get free entry into the protected areas as it is the ego and pride of the local

318

people attached with the places from generation to generation. Community should be

empowered administratively and financially to take constructive decisions as an integral

part of development in their local areas.

5.8.12. Strengthening the Disaster Preparedness

The Department of Forest should look for strengthening the mechanism for any

untoward incidences. A minimum of one standby service boat along with lifeguard and

life jackets should be procured as the Tiger Reserve has already experienced the tragic

boat mishaps. It is suggested that a white brigade should be created consisting of

community members and students from local colleges and universities to assist the

Department to regulate the traffic and parking and at the PTR during the peak season. A

system of community policing should also be introduced around tourist destinations.

5.8.13. Enriching and Preserving Social and Cultural Values

Social and cultural values are the integral parts of sustainable ecotourism.

Though there are differences of understanding of community respondents for sustainable

ecotourism and tourism industry should provide suitable employment opportunities to the

women workforce to resolve the differences. Awareness should be created among the

women about the merits of tourism development. Efforts should be made to exhibit the

unique socio-cultural practices of nearby villages. It is suggested that tour operators

should conduct village tour with the support of villagers. Similarly, other tour operators

and hoteliers should indentify the potential villages and adopt the villages for

preservation of traditional dance, music and other forms of Art. Moreover, ethnic food

should be promoted to give delightful experience to the tourists during the village tour.

319

5.8.14. Trickling Down the Economic Benefits

Economic benefits should trickle down to the community not for the present but

for the future for which community members understood that tourism development

should tend to be community oriented. It is suggested that the revenue from tourism in

the form of tax should be spent for local area development. As a result, it will diminish

annoyance and antagonism of local people towards tourism. Private tourism

establishments should also spend for the LAD in the form of providing medicine to the

local primary health centers and books, uniforms, note books, etc to the school going

students. They may float a common fund to meet the expenditures for maintenance,

preservation, safety, rain water harvesting, sewerage treatment, etc. The proposed funds

may also meet the basic need of local people for instance, health, education, drinking

water, etc. Tourism service providers should use local raw materials to a maximum extent

to boost the local economy of the place.

5.8.15. Management of Carrying Capacity

Tourism offices should give descriptive information to visitors by means of

literature, guidance, lectures, exhibits and demonstrations, so that, they can be more

enlightened and responsible without damaging the environmental setting. Physical,

psychological, social and economic carrying capacity should be maintained in a very

scientific way to maintain the sustainability of tourism destinations. Carrying capacity

can effectively be managed and maintained by the creation of various zones at tourist

destinations. Zones should be established on the basis of natural resources and needs for

protection and capacity to absorb recreational involvement. They are specially meant for

320

preservation of Art, culture, wilderness, natural environment and outdoor recreation and

park services.

These zones should be named as entry and exit zone, rest and recreation zone,

interpretation zone, shopping zone, entertainment and amusement zone, adventure zone,

sculpture zone, parking zone, no horn zone, herbal plantation zone, accommodation zone,

water harvesting and treatment zone, sewerage zone, etc. Signage with captions in

multilingual language indicating the name and activities of zone should be fixed at the

visible places. Sale of entry tickets should be fixed to an optimum number beyond which

entry tickets should not be sold. It will have tremendous effect on the effective on the

management of carrying capacity and visitor satisfaction more effectively. Facilities for

advance entry ticket booking with a provision of online boat ticket should also be

introduced to determine the number of visitor arrivals in each day.

Interpretation center or visitor center should be built to exhibit the photographs

and video show for half an hour or an hour in order to make the visitors familiarize about

the cultural or natural richness of the place in the form of photographs of the ecosystems,

people and tourism attractions. A user friendly computer should also be fixed at the

entrance of the tourist centers to provide information on various aspects of destination.

On the top of all, traffic movement must be regulated to maintain the carrying

capacity of the place. It is suggested that road should be expanded; the entry of vehicles

should be regulated and parking areas should be created from a reasonable distance from

the tourist site.

321

5.8.16. Local Area Development Fund (LADF)

It is suggested that a common fund should be raised to meet the contingencies of

tourist destinations. It is a part of the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) of the hotels,

resorts, airlines, tour operators, souvenirs and shopping mall owners, etc to share their

profits towards the community and its neighborhood development. It is otherwise known

in tourism industry as responsible tourism. The fund should be spent for adopting

schools, villages and nearby potential tourism destinations.

Sustainable Tourism Certification Programme (STCP) should be organized in

collaboration with the UNWTO, WTTC and PATA for tourism stakeholders to increase

their capacities for working in the tourism sector more efficiently and effectively. This

proposed fund should also be spent for creating sensitization programme among the

tourists and local community members about the implications of sustainable tourism

development. A tag line in the title “Saving the Periyar Saves the Own Motherland” is

proposed in the study and this proposed tag line should be reflected in all tourism

information materials, websites, hoardings, posters, tourist vehicles, boats, etc to sensitize

all tourism stakeholders, including visitors.

5.9. MODEL FOR SUSTAINABLE ECOTOURISM

An integrated model has been evolved from the analysis and discussions to

provide a methodical approach and guidance to the implementing agencies at the PTR. It

is reported that the inflows of increasing number of day visitors have created a serious

pressure to the fragile ecosystem of the reserve, leading to the depletion of the rich flora

and fauna. In the present study, Visitor Satisfaction is one of the important aspects of

322

ecotourism that depends upon many factors. Similarly, community is also an important

partner for the successful implementation of ecotourism guidelines.

For taking care of the visitor satisfaction, Basic Amenities, Basic Facilities,

Value-Added Services, Environmental Education, Environmental Laws, Carrying

Capacity and Word of Mouth should be given much emphasis while managing and

operating the tiger reserve as an ecotourism destination. In the similar manner,

Community Empowerment can be more effective only when Training and Capacity

Building, Development of Local Livelihood, Role of NGO’s and Equity, Expansion,

Equal opportunity in decision-making process and involvement of women are included in

the policy. Figure 5.1 illustrates the model for Sustainable Ecotourism in the PTR with

special emphasis on the community-based ecotourism project. This must conduct various

trainings/capability-building programmes on leadership training, organizational

development, livelihood development, environmental laws, ordinances and

environmental resolutions, tour guides and environmental education. Other soft skills are

needed to manage the project effectively and profitably without destroying the

ecotourism attractions to ensure equity and excellence of ecotourism projects. The figure

also presents the importance for the need of collaborative work between the local private

tour operators, the local elected bodies, NGOs and various other government agencies.

323

Figure 5.1

Suggested Model for Strategic Actions for Sustainable Ecotourism

324

5.10. SCOPE FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The findings of the study have paved the way for further research in the similar

field. This particular research work has laid emphasis on Visitor Satisfaction and

Community Empowerment to study the problems related management of ecotourism

sites.

Hence, the future researchers should take up the study on the PTR from the

perspectives of other stakeholders or the day visitors. There can also be similar study

with special reference to Visitor Satisfaction and Community Participation at other

ecotourism sites in the protected areas in Kerala. Thus, the study is on “Visitor

Satisfaction and Community Empowerment for Sustainable Ecotourism: An

Evaluative Study on Periyar Tiger Reserve in Kerala.

5.11. CONCLUDING NOTE

Balancing the activities for promoting ecotourism and conservation of forest,

wildlife and indigenous people has been a strenuous and challenging task. Establishing a

harmonious and symbiotic relationship between the stakeholders involved in the

ecotourism projects directly and indirectly has become a mission of the government to

minimize the conflicts between man and nature for their own survivals. In certain cases,

the relationship is sustainable and in some cases, it has become seriously unsustainable.

Many protected areas in Europe, Africa and Australia have evolved many pragmatic

mechanisms to offset the negative impacts of tourism. Tourism and percolation of

benefits to the community is direct and participation of those community members is

spontaneous. As a result, ecotourism has been appreciated and accepted across the

325

protected areas in Africa to be institutionalized. Several studies have revealed the

outstanding contributions of ecotourism projects for ameliorating socio-economic

conditions.

Ecotourism is an important form of alternative tourism with primary objective of

making low negative impacts at the destinations and maximizing benefits for the

community. This form of tourism has been given an international recognition as an

impetus for nature conservation and economic development. The study has focused on

the Tiger Reserve in the protected areas at Thekkady in Kerala. The reserve has recently

received coveted a UN-India Biodiversity Governance Award instituted by the

Government of India and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) for the

best managed protected area of country. This award itself speaks so much about the

conservation measures for the tiger and the rich biodiversity. However, the tiger census

has recently published the report of 35 tigers in the reserve. It is certainly an indication

that there is a dynamic ecosystem that maintains a propionate growth of wildlife

population. This intends to explain that ecotourism does not seem to have made adverse

effects on the functioning of ecosystem for preservation of biodiversity.

The study after having discussed in length and breadth of sustainable ecotourism

in reserve has found that the increasing and uncontrolled form of mass tourism with the

heavy inflows of day visitors has become a major threat to the reserve to continue in

maintaining the balance between tourism and conservation. It is not to be

overenthusiastic with the rising number of predator population or worried for the

onslaught of mass tourism, but it is the time to reconcile the approaches to minimize the

326

day visitors with several suggested strategic actions, thereby saving the coveted

ecotourism destination for future tourists and host community members.

It is reported that community members are not largely being benefited from the

ecotourism projects and the EDC appears to be ineffective and partial in its approach to

empower the local people. At the same time, the overnight visitors are largely getting

disturbed by the irresponsible behaviour of day visitors. It is also found that day visitors

are shortsighted and narrow-minded. Their interests lie with the overconsumption of

nature for their own sake. The question will certain be raised while discussing the fate of

ecotourism projects at the PTR. These questions are as follows;

When can the administration of the PTR control the menace of day visitors?

How can the harmful effects be measured? and when will the corrective measures be

taken?

How the EDC can become effective in empowering the local people?

Have the local hotels become aware of their negligence towards the ecotourism projects?

Which agencies will monitor the implementation of the Agenda 21 for the tourism

service providers?

The study has made all possible attempts in a span of three and a half years to

investigate all these questions. However, the study has found some fundamental problems

and suggested some strategic actions to deal with these chronic maladies. Nevertheless,

the study has built an argument for sending the visitors happy and satisfied, but not

compromising the basic principles of sustainable ecotourism or not at the cost of loss of

habitats. At the same time, the has also put forth the logical inference for the community

327

to be empowered politically, socially and economically, but not the role of the

Department to sensitize for their basic rights and comfort, but the community members

themselves must how their keen interests and they should volunteer for ecotourism

projects.

A study of the reserve with special reference to ecotourism is a unique one and

studies so far conducted have only reflected on ecological, ethnographic, tribal related

studies. These studies are equally important as they are closely knitted with the

ecotourism development. Visitor Satisfaction and Community Empowerment are two

important variables that plays a pivotal role in the ecotourism development of any

destination has not been touched much in the literature.

Ecotourism must respect the socio-cultural authenticity of host community;

conserve their built and living cultural heritage and traditional values, thereby fostering

inter-cultural understanding and tolerance. Finally, the viable and long-term approach is

needed to make fair and equitable distribution of income and employment and to ensure

the social services to host community members. This will be real tribute the UNWTO’s

Agenda 21 that largely focuses on the alleviation of poverty, unemployment and

malnourishment. Further, the sustainable code of conducts should be implanted in letter

and spirit. There requires a forward-looking policy that must be led by the community

and controlled by the governments.

328

BIBILIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

Bhatt, S., & Liyakhat, S. (2008). Ecotourism Development in India, Communities, Capital

and Conservation. Cambridge University Press India Pvt. Ltd, pp.84-110, New Delhi.

India.

Boo, E.(1990) Ecotourism: The Potentials and Pitfalls. Washington: World Wildlife Fund.

Butcher, J. (2007). Ecotourism, NGO’s and development. A Critical Analysis. Routledge

Publication.London.UK.

Chandra, P. (2003). International Ecotourism Environmental Rules and Regulations.

Kanishka Publishers, New Delhi, India.

Charles, G.R., & Ritchie, B.J.R. (2006).Tourism Principles and Practices, Philosophies. John

Wiley and Sons, Inc, Canada.

Drumm,A., & Moore, A. (2005). An Introduction to Ecotourism Planning,Vol.(1),Nature

Conservancy,Arlington,Virginia,USA.

Fennell, D. (1999). Ecotourism-An Introduction. London: Rutledge.

Fennell, D.A. (2002). Ecotourism Programme Planning, Cabi Publications, London, UK.

Fennell, D.A. (2008). Ecotourism. Routledge Publications. New York, USA.

Guha,R.,&.Gadgil, M.(1992). The Fissured Land: An Ecological History of India, Oxford

University Press, New Delhi.

329

Higginbottom, K. (2004). Wildlife Tourism: Impacts, Management and Planning, Sustainable

Tourism Publisher, Australia.

Holden, A. (2008). Environment and Tourism Routledge Publications. New York.USA.

Honey, M.(1999). Ecotourism and Sustainable development: Who owns paradise?

Washington DC; Island Press.

Hosetti, B.B. (2007). Ecotourism Development and Management.pp.90-110,Pointer

Publisher, Jaipur, India.

Hunter,M.L.(1990).Wildlife Forest and Forestry: Principles of Managing Forest for

Biological Diversity.NJ: Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.

John, R. W., Josielyn. T.W., & Michaud, H. (2011). Tourism Concept and Practices. p.14,

Pearson Publishers.

John, R.W., Josinelyn,T., & Michand, H. (2011). Tourism Concepts & Practices, Pearson

Publisher. Place.

Kumar,R.(2009).Research Methodology, A Step by Step Guide for Beginners. Pearson

Education, Australia.

Lea.J, (1988). Tourism development in the Third World London: Rout ledge.

Lovelock, (2008).Tourism and Consumption of Wildlife. Hunting and Shooting and Sport

Fishing, Routledge Publications. London, UK.

Mackinnon,J.,Child,K.& Thorsell,J. (1986).Managing Protected Areas in the tropics. Gland

,Switzerland : International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.

330

Mallya, A. (2006). Wildlife Tourism and Conservation. Gnosis Publisher, Delhi India.

Mathieson,A.&Wall,G. (1982).Tourism Economic, Physical and Social Impacts, London:

Longman.

McLaren,D (1998). Rethinking Tourism and Ecotravel:The paving of paradise and what you

can Do to stop it.CT: Kumarian Press.

Mclaren,D. (2003). Rethinking Tourism and Ecotravel. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.

Miller,G.Minnaert,L.,&Matland.R(2007). Social Tourism and its ethical foundations.

Tourism culture and communication (7): pp,7-17.

Moore,S.A., & Dowling, R.K. (2002). Natural Area Tourism: Ecology Impacts and

Management. Cleve don, England: Channel View Publication.

Mowforth,A.,&Munt,I.(1998).Tourism and Sustainability: New Tourism in the third

world.London, UK:Routledge.

Murphy, P. (1985). Tourism ‐ A Community Approach. London, Routledge.

Nair, S.M.(1981). Endangered Animals of India and their Conservation, National Book

Nash,R.F.(1990).The Rights of Nature: A history of Environmental Ethics.Leichardt,NSW:

Primavers Press.

Newsome, D., Dowling, R.K., & Moore, S.A. (2009). Wildlife Tourism.CBS Publishers and

Distributors. New Delhi, India.

Newsome, D., Moore, S.A.,&Dowling, R.K.(2002). Natural Area Tourism: Ecology, Impacts

and Measurement.Clevedon, England: Channel View Publication.

331

Page, S., & Dowling R, (2002). Ecotourism: Harlow Pearson Education Ltd.

Parushuraman, Zenithamal,V.A,. & Berry,L. (1990). Delivering Quality Service. New York:

Free Press.

Pretty,J.(1995).The many interpretation of participation,Focus,16,pp. 4-5.

Richard Son, J, (1993) Ecotourism and Nature Based Holidays, Sydney.

Ryan, C., & Page.S, (2000). Tourism Management towards the New Millennium.Elsiever

Publication, Oxford.UK.

Ryan,C.(1999).From the psychometric of SERVQUAL to sex.measurement of tourism

satisfaction, The Haworth Hospitality Press, New York.pp.267-286.

Saharia, V.B. (1982).Wildlife in India, Nataraj Publishers, Dehra Dun.

Scott, D., Tian,S., Wang,P., & Munson,W.(1995). Tourism Satisfaction and the cumulative

nature of the tourist experience, Conference paper presented at the 1995 Leisure Research

Symposium, October 5-8, San Antonio, Texas.

Sharpley,R. & Telfer.D.J. (2010).Tourism and Development, Concept and issues, pp.149-

155, Viva Books, Chennai, India.

Sing, R.(2003). Handbook of Environmental Guidelines for Indian Tourism,pp.109-126,

Kanishka Publishers, New Delhi, India.

Singh, K.R. (2003).Ecotourism and Sustainable Development, Abhijeet Publications, New

Delhi, India.

Singh, L.K . (2008). Ecology Environment and Tourism, Isha Books, New Delhi.

Singh, S. (2009). Ecotourism Development Management, A.K Publications, New Delhi,

India.

332

Steele, (1993) The economics of ecotourism’ InFocus (9): pp. 7-9.

Steele. (1993).The Economics of Ecotourism. In Focus,( 9), pp. 4-6.

Swarbrooke,.J.(1995). Development and Management of Visitor Attractions, Butterworth-

Heineman, Oxford.

Vijayakumar, B., & Sam. N. (2009). Sustainable Development of Tourism In Kerala.

Issues and Strategies, International Center for Kerala Studies, University of

Kerala, Kariavattom, Trivandrum.

Weaver, D., & Oppermann. M.(2000). Tourism Management towards the New

Millenium.Elsiever Publications, New York, USA.

White,H. (1978). The forms of wildness: archeology of an idea in White (Eds.), Tropics of

discourse: essay in cultural criticism Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp. 50-

82.

Wilks, J., Pendergast.D, & Leggat .D. (2006). Tourism in the Turbulent Times, Towards Safe

Experience for Visitors. Pp.185-196, Elsevier Publication, London.U.K.

World Commission on Environment and Development.(1987).Our Common Future. New

York: Oxford University Press.

EDITED BOOKS

Aylward, B. & Freedman, S. (1992). Ecotourism. In Global Biodiversity B. Groom bridge,

(ed.),pp. 413-415. London: Chapman & Hall.

Boo, E. (1991). Ecotourism: A tool for conservation and development. In J. A Kusler

(Complier) Ecotourism and Resource Conservation: A Collection of Papers (1), pp. 54-

60 Madison: Omni press. London.

Boo,E .(1990).Ecotourism: The Potential and Pitfalls. Washington DC: World Wildlife Fund.

Bramwell,B.,Henry,I.,Jackson,G.,Prat,A.G.,Richards,G.,&VanderStraaten,J.(1996). (Eds.).

Tourism Management: Principles and Practice. Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg University

Press.

333

Brechin,S., West. D., .Harmon., & Kutay. K. (1991). Resident peoples are protected areas: A

framework for inquiry. In Resident peoples and national parks: Social dilemmas and

strategies in international conservation, (Eds.) P.C West and S. .Brechin, pp. 5-28. Tucson:

University of Arizona Press.

Butler, R., & Wall, G. (Eds.). Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring,

Planning, Managing. Heritage Resources Centre, University of Waterloo, pp. 135–147.

Butler,R.W.(1993).Tourism - An Evolutionary Perspective. In Tourism and Sustainable

Development: Monitoring, Planning, Managing, (Eds.), J.G.Nelson, R.W.Butler and

G.Wall.pp, 27-44.Waterloo, Ontario: University of Waterloo, Department of Geography

Publication.

Cater and G. Lowman. (2002). (Eds.) Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option? pp. 69-86.

Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

Coccossis, H. (1996). Tourism and Sustainability: Perspectives and Implication. In Sustainable

Tourism? European Experience. (Eds.) G.K Priestely, J.A Edwards and H. Coccossis,pp.1-

21.Wallingford,Oxford:CAB International.

Coccossis,H.(1996).Tourism and Sustainability: Prespectives and Implications. In sustainable

Tourism? European Experience, (Eds.) G.K. Priestly, J.A.Edwards and H.Coccossis,

pp.153-75.Walling ford, Oxford: CAB International.

Filion, F.L. (1994). The economics of global ecotourism. In M. Munasinghe and J McNeely

(Eds.) Protected Area Economics and Policy Linking Conservation and Sustainable

Development pp 235-252 Washington, DC: World Bank.

France,(1998). Local Participation in tourism in the West Indian Islands. In E Laws

Faulkner&G.Moscardo (Eds.) Embracing and managing change in tourism pp.223-

224.London: Routledge.

Gauthier, D.A. (1993). Sustainable development tourism and wildlife. In Tourism and

sustainable development: Monitoring planning, managing. Heritage resource Center Joint

334

Publication No1, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, (Eds.) J.G .Nelson, R.W

.Butler &G.Wall, pp. 98-109.

J.G.Nelson, R.W.Butler and G.Wall, Ontario: University of Waterloo, Department of

Geography Publications 37.pp,83-96.

Kozak, M. (2001) A Critical review of approaches to measure satisfaction with the tourist

destinations. In Mazanac,J.A.,Crouch,G,I.,Ritchie,J.R.B., Woodside,A.G. (Eds.)

Consumer Psycology of Tourism ,Hospitality and Leisure, Cabi Publishers New York,

pp. 303-319.

Kozak, M., (2001). A Critical review of approaches to measure satisfaction with tourist

destinations. In Mazanec,J.A., Crouch, G.I.,Ritchie,JRB.,Woodside,A.G.(Eds). Consumer

Psychology of Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure, Vol. (2) CABI Publishing, New York,PP.

303-319.

Kusler,J.A.(1991). Ecotourism and Resource conservation: Introduction to issues’, in

J.A.Kusler(Ed.), Ecotourism and Resource Conservation; A collection of Papers, Vol.

(1)Madison,WI:Omnipress

Mbaiwa, J.E, (2007).Local community attitude towards Wildlife conservation and Botswana.

In B.Schuster, &O.T.Thakadu (Eds), National resource management and people, pp. 19-

26.Gaborone: IUCN CBNRM Support Programme.

Moscardo, G., & Saltzer,R. (2004).Understanding wildlife tourism markets. In K.Higginbottom

(Eds.).Wildlife tourism Impacts, management and planning, Common Ground Publishing

Pvt. ltd and Cooperative Research Center for Sustainable Tourism,pp.167-186.

Munro, N.W.P., &Willison, J.H.M. (1998). Linking protected areas with working landscapes

conserving biodiversity, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on science and

Management of Protected Areas, (Eds.) SAMP,Wolfville,Canada,pp.12-16.

Rayan,C.(1999). From the Psychometrics of SERVQUAL to sex; measurement of tourism

satisfaction In: Pizam.A., Mansfield,Y.(Eds.) Consumer Behavior in Travel and

Tourism. The Haworth Hospitality Press, New York, pp. 267-286.

335

Richardson,K.,& Corner,J.(1993). Environmental Communications and the contingency and

meaning: A research note. In A. research note. In A Hanson (Eds.), The mass media and

environmental issues, pp, 222-223Leicester,UK: Leicester University Press.

Telfer, D. (2002). The evolution of tourism and development theory. In R. Sharply &D.J.

Telfer (Eds.), Tourism and Development: Concept and Issues Clevendon: Channel View,

pp.35-77.

Tickell, C. (1994).Foreword. In E.Cater and G. Lowman (Eds.) Ecotourism a Sustainable

Option? pp. 9-10. Chichester; John Wiley and Sons.

Wells, M.P. (1994). Park tourism in Nepal: Reconciling the social and economic opportunities

with the ecological and cultural threats. In Munasinghe, M & McNeely, J.(Eds.) Protected

area Economics and Policy Linking Conservation and Sustainable Development, pp.319-

31.9Washington,DC: World Bank and World Conservation Union.

Woodley, S. (1993). Tourism and sustainable development in parks and protected areas. In

Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning, Managing (Eds.)

JOURNALS

Akama, J. S., & Kieti, D. M. (2003). Measuring Tourist Satisfaction with Kenya’s wildlife

safari: A case study of Tsavo West National Park, Tourism Management, Vol. 24(1),

pp.73-81.

Animon,M.M.,Jacob,V.Cheeran&Rajesh,K.(1997).Ecotourism as a Sustainable way for

Conservation of natural resources.Experiences from Vazhachal Forest

Division.Abst.Proc.National Symp.Nat Resource Manage.Trichy:76.

Arabatzis, G., & Grigoroudis, E. (2010). Visitor Satisfaction perception and gap analysis:

The case of Dadia-Lefkimi-Souflion National Park. Forest Policy and Economics. Vol.

(12), pp. 163-172.

Arnstein, R.S.(1969). A ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of

Planners, Vol. (35), pp. 216-224.

336

Awaritefe, O. D.(2003b).Destination image difference between prospective and actual

tourists in Nigeria. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(3), pp. 264-281.

Ballantyne, R., Packer, J. & Sutherland, L.A. (2011).Visitor’s memories of Wildlife Tourism:

Implications for the design of powerful interpretive experience, Tourism Management.

(32), pp. 770-779.

Bauer,J.,&Giles,J.(2001).Wild life Tourism Research Report No 13 (R).Gold Coast,

Queensland: CRC for Sustainable Tourism.

Beh, A.,& Brayer, L.B.(2007).Segmentation by Visitor Motivation in Three Kenyan National

Reserves. Tourism Management, 28, pp. 1464-1471.

Bjork,P.(2007). Defination paradoxes: from concept to definition. (In Higham,J.,(Ed),Critical

issues in ecotourism: understanding a complex tourism phenomena, Oxford: Butterworth-

Heinenan,p.24-25.

Bookbinder., Dinerstein,E.,Rijal,A.,Kattel,B.,&Rajuri,A.(1998).Tigers as neighbors: Efforts

to Promote Local Guardianship of Endangered Species in low land Nepal. pp, 316-333.

Bosque, I.R.D.,& Martin, H.S.(2008).Tourism Satisfaction: A Cognitive Affective Model.

Annals of Tourism Research, 35, pp.551-573.

Bowen, D., & Clarke.(2002).Reflections on tourism satisfaction research: Past Present and

Future, Journal of Vocation Marketing, 8 (4), pp. 297-308.

Boyle, S.A., & Samson, F.B. (1985).Effects of Non Consumptive Recreation on Wildlife: A

review. Wildlife Society Bulletin (13) pp, 110-116.

Buckley,(1994). A Framework for Ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 2 (21), pp.661-

665.

Budwoski, G. (1976). Tourism and Conservation: conflict. Coexistence or symbiosis?,

Annals of Tourism Research 3 (15), pp. 27-31.

Butler, R.W.(1991).Tourism environment, and sustainable development. Environmental

Conservation.18 (3): pp.201-209.

Carney,K.M.,&Sydeman,W.J.(1999).A review of human disturbance effects on nesting

colonial waterbirds.Waterbirds, 22,(1),pp,68-79.

Cater, E.(1993). Ecotourism in the Third World: Problems for Sustainable Tourism

Development. Tourism Management, 14 (2), pp. 85-90.

337

Cater, E.(1994). Ecotourism in the Third World: Problems and Prospects of Sustainability.

Tourism Management, 14(2), pp.85-90.

Ceballos-Lascurian, H. (1987). The future of Ecotourism. Mexican Journal of Tourism, 1

(12), pp.13-14.

Ceballos-Lascurian,H.(1991a).Tourism, ecotourism, and protected areas,(compiler)

Ecotourism and Resource Conservation, A collection of papers 21 (1), pp. 24-30.

Ceballos-Lascurine, H.(1991b) .Tourism, ecotourism and protected areas, Journal of Tourism

Management, 2(3), pp.31-35.

Chhetri,P.,Arrowsmith.C.,&Jackson,M.(2004).Determining hiking experience in nature

based tourism destinations. Tourism Management 25 (1), pp.31-43.

Clarke,(2002).A Synthesis of activity towards the Implementation of Sustainable Tourism:

Ecotourism in a different context, International Journal of Sustainable Development

5(3),pp. 232-249.

Collins, A.(1999). Tourism development and natural capital, Annals of Tourism Research

26(1), pp.98-109.

Cousin,(2007). The role of UK based Conservation tourism operators. Tourism Management

(28), pp.1020-1030.

Conway,W.(1995).Wild and Zoo animal interactive management and habitat

conservation(J),Biodiversity and Conservation,(4),pp.573-594.

Crompton, J.L., Love, L.L., (1995). The predictive value of alternative approaches to

evaluating quality of a festival, Journal of Travel Research, 34(1), pp, 11-24.

Crompton,J.L.,&Love,L.L.(1995).The predictive value of alternative approaches to

evaluating quality of a festival. Journal of Travel Research, 34(1), pp, 11-24.

Deng, J, K.B., & Bauer,T.(2002). Evaluating natural attraction for tourism. Annals of

Tourism Research 29 (2),pp,422-438.

Diamantis,D.(1999).The concept of ecotourism: evolution and trends, Current Issues in

Tourism2(2&3), pp,93-122.

Driver, B.L. (1996).Benefits driven management of natural areas. Natural Areas Journal.16

(2), pp. 94-99.

338

Duffus, D.A.,&Deardon,P.(1990).Non consumptive wildlife oriented recreation: A

conceptual frame work, Biological conservation, 12 (53), pp. 213-231.

Eagles,(1992). The travel motivations of Canadian Ecotourist, Journal of Travel Research, 31

(2),pp. 3-7.

Engel,J., Blackwell, R.,&Miniard,P.(1993). Consumer Behaviour, Orlando, FL: Dryden

Press.

Fallon, D.L,& Kriwoken, L.K. (2003).Community involvement in tourism infrastructure –

The case of the Strahan Visitor Center, Tasmania. Tourism Management, Vol, (24),

pp.289-308.

Farrell,B.H., & McLellan,R.W.(1987). Tourism and physical environment, Journal of Travel

Research, 14 (1), pp.1-16.

Fick, R., & Ritchie, J.R.B.(1991). Measuring Service Quality in the travel and tourism

industry Journal of Travel Research, 12 (3),pp. 2-9.

Fondness,D.(1994). Measuring tourist motivation. Annals of Tourism Research21 (3),

pp.555-518.

Gadgil,M.,& Guha.R (1992). Original Source: Compiled from Indian Forest Statistics, 1939-

40 to 1944-45 (Delhi, 1949).

Geva,A., & Goldman, A.(1991). Satisfaction measurement in guided tours. Annals of

Tourism Research (18),pp, 177-185.

Ghimire, K., & Pimbert, M.(1997). Social change and conservation. London: Earth scan.

Goodwin,H. (1995).In Pursuit of Ecotourism, Biodiversity and Conservation (5), pp.277-291.

Gokhale,Y., R.Velankar.,M.D. Chandran, S.,&Gadgil,M.(1997).Sacred woods, grass lands

and water bodies as self-organized Systems of Conservation in India. Paper presented at

the Regional Workshop on the Role of Sacred Groves in Conservation and Management

of Biological Diversity, Kerala Forest Research Institute,Peechi,pp.8-11.

Godde,P.(1998). Community Based Mountain Tourism Practices for Linking Conservation

with Enterprise, Synthesis of an Electronic Conference of the Mountain Forum,Mountain

Forum-USA,pp.130-135.

Groot,R.S.(1983).Tourism and Conservation in the Galapagos Islands, Biological

Conservation, 1 (26) ,pp. 291-300.

339

Gyte,M.D.,&Phelps,A. (1989). Patterns of destination repeat business: British tourists in

Mallorca, Spain, Journal of Travel Research.pp. 24-28.

Hassan, S.S.(2000). Determinants of Market Competitiveness in an Environmentally

Sustainable Tourism Industry, Journal of Travel Research,(1)38, pp. 239-245.

Hearne,R.,&Santos,C.(2005).Tourists’ and locals’ preferences toward ecotourism

development in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala. Environment, Development

and Sustainability, 7(3), pp, 303-318.

Herliczek, J.(1975). Where is Ecotourism Going? The Amicus Journal, 1 (12),pp. 31-35.

Hetzer, N.D.(1965).Environmenttourism,Culture’.LINKS(July):reprinted in Ecosphere1970.

Honnavalli.N.K.,&Sinha.A (2009).Decline of the endangered lion tailed macaque macaca

silenus in the Western Ghats, India. Fauna and Flora International, Vol. 43(2), pp. 292-

298.

Hughes, K.(1991). Tourist Satisfaction: A Guided cultural tour in the North Queensland.

Australian Psychologist, 26 (3), pp.166-171.

Hull, R.B., &Stewart, W.P.(1995).The landscape encountered and experienced while hiking,

Environment and Behaviour (27),pp.404-426.

Jenner,P.,&Smith,C.(1992).The tourism industry and the environment, special Report No

2453.The Economist Intelligence Unit,London,UK.

Karlsson,S.E.(2005).The social and cultural capital of a place and their influence on the

production of tourism: A theoretical reflection based on an illustrative case study,

Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 5(2),pp.102-115.

Keng, K.A., & Cheng, J.L.(1999).Determining tourist role typologies. An exploratory study

of Singapore vacationers. Journal of Travel Research, 37(4), pp.382-390.

Kerley, G.I.H., Geach, B.G.S.,&Vial.C. (2003). Jumbo or bust: Do tourist perceptions lead to

an under appreciation of biodiversity? South African Journal of Wildlife Research,33(1),

pp.13-21.

Keshav,L.M.(2005).Community Participation in Forest Resource Management in Nepal.

Journal of Mountain Science, 2(5), pp,32-41.

Kibicho,W.(2008).Community based Tourism: A Factor-Cluster Segmentation Approach,

Journal of Sustainable Tourism,16: (2),pp.211-231.

340

Kim, S.S., Lee,K.,&Klenosky,D.B.(2003).The influence of push and pull factors at Korean

National Parks.Tourism Management.Vol 24(2),pp.169-180.

Knutson,B.,Stevens,P.,&Patton,M.(1995).DINESERV: Measuring service qualityin quick

service,Casual/theme,and fine dining restaurant. Journal of Hospitality &Leisure

Marketing 3 (2),pp.35-44.

Krippendorf, J.(1982). Towards new tourism policies the importance of environmental and

socio- cultural factors. Tourism Management, 1(3), pp.51-48.

Lee,C.C.(2001).Predicting tourist attachment to destinations, Annals of Tourism

Research,28(1),pp.229-232.

Leopold, A.(1996).Wildlife in American Culture. In A Sand Country Almanac with other

essays on Conservation from Round River, New York: Oxford University Press, p.197.

Lieberknecht, K., Papazian, J., & McQuay,A.(1999). Balancing Conservation and

Economics: The Development of an Ecotourism Plan for Panama. Journal of Sustainable

Forestry 8. pp, 107-126.

Li,Z.(2003).Sustainable Tourism Development: A Critique, Journal of Sustainable

Tourism.(11) 6,pp.459-475.

Lindberg, K., & Mc Kercher,B. (1997). Ecotourism: A critical overview. Pacific Tourism

Review,1 (1), pp,65-79.

Lindberg, K.(1991). Policies for Maximising Nature Tourism’s Ecological and Economic

Benefits, World Resource Institute, Washington, DC.

Lindberg,K.&.,Hawkins,D.E(1993).Ecotourism a guide for palnners and managers.Vol 1.The

Ecotourism Society:North Benninton,Vermont,pp.12-14.

Loounsbury, J.W., & Hoopes,L.L.(1985). An investigation of factors associated with

vacation satisfaction. Journal of Leisure Research, 17(1), pp.1-13.

Mackay, K.J,&Crompton.J.L.(1988).A Conceptual model of consumer evaluation of

recreation service quality,Leisure Studies7,pp.41-49.

Mc Laren,D.(2003).Rethinking Tourism and Ecotoravel: The paving of paradise and What

You Can Do to stop it 2nd (Ed) West Hartford,CT,Kumarian Press.

Mike,S.,&Geoffrey,W(2004).Ecotourism and Community Development: Case Studies from

Hainan, China, Environmental Management,Vol(33)1,p.12-24.

341

Michael,P.M,&James,S(1999).Wildlife Conservation: Endangered Species,Animals:Human

animal relationships.

Morgan, J.M., & Hodgkinson, M. (1999).The motivation and social orientation of visitors

attending a contemporary zoological park. Environment and Behaviour, 31(2), pp.227-

239.

Mossberg,(1995). Tour Leaders and their importance in charter tours. Tourism Management,

16 (6), pp. 437-445.

Mowforth, M. (1993). Eco Tourism: Terminology and Definitions Tourism Management,1

(2),pp. 12.

Munro,N.W.P.&Willison,J.H.M.(1998).Linking protected area with working landscapes

conserving biodiversity.Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Science

and Management of protected areas,SAMDA,Wolfville,Canada,pp.12-16.

Obua, J., & Harding, D.M. (1996).Visitor Characteristics and attitudes towards Kibale

National Park, Uganda. Tourism Management: Vol (17), No 7, pp. 494-505.

Ogutu,Z.A.(2002).The impact of ecotourism on livelihood and natural resources management

in Eselenkei, Amboseli ecosystem,Kenya,Land Generation and Developement13, pp.251-

256.

Okazaki, E.(2008). The Community-Based Tourism Model: Its Conception and Use, Journal

of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 16, pp. 494-505.

Orams, M.B. (1995a). Towards a more desirable form of ecotourism, Tourism Management,

16 (1), pp. 3-8.

Orams, M.B. (1996).A Conceptual model of tourist wildlife interaction: the case for

education as a management strategy. Australian Geographer, 27(1), pp. 39-51.

Orams, M.B.(2002). Feeding Wildlife as a Tourism Attraction; A review of issues and

impacts. Tourism Management, 23, pp. 281-293.

Pandl,C.(2004). Determining hiking experiences in nature based tourist destinations, Tourism

Management, (25(1), pp.31-43.

Prentice,R.(1993).Community Driven Tourism Planning and Resident Preference, Tourism

Management, 15(5), p.369.

342

Qu, H.L., & Li, I.(1997). The characteristics and satisfaction of main land Chinese visitors to

Hong Kong, Journal of Travel Research, 35(4), pp.37-41.

Reynolds, P., & Braithwaite,D.(2001). Towards a Conceptual Framework for Wildlife

tourism .Tourism Management, 23(1), pp. 17-26.

Rittichainuwat, B.N., & Moongknonvanit, C. (2002).A study on the impact of travel

satisfaction on the likelihood of travelers to revisit Thailand. Journal of Travel and

Tourism Marketing 12 (2/3), pp, 19-43.

Ritcher,L.(1987).The search for Appropriate Tourism,Tourism Recreation Research,12,pp.5-

7.

Romeril, M.(1985).Tourism and the environment: towards a symbiotic relationship’,

International Journal of Environmental Studies (25):pp,215-218.

Ross,S.,&Wall,G.(1999).Ecotourism: Towards Congruence between theory and practice.

Tourism Management,20(1),pp,123-132.

Ryan,C.,& Cessford,G.(2003). Developing a visitor satisfaction monitoring methodology

quality gaps crowding and some results, Current issues in tourism 6(6),pp.457-507.

Sarigollu, E.,& Huang, R.(2005).Benefits segmentation of visitors to Latin America. Journal

of Travel Research,43(3),pp.277-293.

Shackley,M.(1996)Stingray City: Managing the impact of underwater tourism in the Cayman

Islands ,Journal of Sustainable Tourism6(4),pp,328-338.

Simmons, G.D.(1994).Community participation in tourism planning. Tourism Management,

15, pp, 98-108.

Spreng,R., Mackenzie,S.,&Olshavsky,R.(1996).A re-examination of the determinants of

consumer satisfaction, Journal of Marketing.60(3),pp.15-32.

Spangenberg,J.H.,&Valentine.A.(1999).Indicators for Sustainable Communities.Wuppertal

Institute for Climate.Environment and Energy.

Spangenberg, J.H.(2002). Environmental Space and the prism of Sustainability :Frame works

for indicators.Measuring Sustainable Development.Ecological Indicators,57,pp.1-15.

Starmer., & Smith.(2004). Ecofriendly tourism on the rise. Daily Telegraph Travel, 6th

November, p.4.

343

Stevens,B. F.(1992). Price Value Perception of Travelers. Journal of Travel Research, 31(2)

pp.44-48.

Stem,C.J.,Lassoie,J.P.,Lee,D.R.,Deshler,D.D.,&Schelhas,J.W.(2003).Community

participation in ecotourism benefits: The link to conservation practices and perspectives.

Society and National Resources,16(5),p.287-314.

Stoeckl, N.Greiner.R.,&Mayocchi,C. (2006). The Community impacts of different types of

visitors an empirical investigation of tourism in North West Queensland. Tourism

Management (27), pp/ 97-112.

Swarbrooke,J.(2002).The Development and Management of Visitor Attractions,Second

Edition.Oxford:Butterworth,Heinemann.

Syheyvens, R.(1999).Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities. Tourism

Management, Vol. (20), 2pp.245-249.

Tibe,J.,&Snaith,T.(1998).From SERVQUAL to HOLSAT: Holiday Satisfaction in Varadero,

Cuba, Tourism Mnagement.19(1).pp,41-49.

Tian-Cole,S.,Crompton,J.,&Willson,V.(2002).An Empirical investigation of the relationship

between service quality, satisfaction and behavioral intensions among visitors to a

wildlife refuge. Journal of Leisure Research34 (1),pp,1-24.

Tonge,J.,&Moore,S.A.(2007).Importance –Satisfaction analysis for marine park hinterlands:

a western Australia case study, Tourism Management 28 (1) ,pp.768-776.

Tosun, C.(2006).Expected nature of community participation in the tourism development.

Tourism Management 27(3), 493-504.

Tosun,C. (2000). Limits to Community Participation in the tourism development process in

the developing .Tourism Management, 21(6) , pp. 613-633.

Tosun,C.(1999). Towards a typology of community participation in the tourism development

process, International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality,(10),pp,113-134.

Tosun,C.(2000).Limits to Community participation in Tourism development process in

Developing countries, Tourism Management. 2 (15), p.99.

Tosun,C.(2004). Expected nature of community participation in tourism development,

Tourism Management.27.pp,493-504.

344

Valentine,P.S.(1992).Ecotourism and nature conservation: a definition with some recent

developments in Micronesia’, Tourism Management14 (2):pp107-115.

Wade, D.J.,&Eagle,P.(2003).The use of importance performance analysis and market

segmentation for tourism management in parks and protected areas: an application to

Tasmanian National Parks, Journal of Ecotourism2(3).pp.196-212.

Wang,R.S.,Lin,S.K.,Ouyang,Z.Y.(2004).Theories and practices on eco-provience

Construction in Hainan Provience.Chemical Industry Press,Beijing,p,96.

Warzecha, C.A.,&Lime, D.W.(2001).Place Attachement in Canyon lands National Parks:

Visitors assessment of setting attribute on the Colorado and Green rivers. Journal of

Parks and Recreation Administration,19(1),pp.59-78.

Wallace, G.N., & Pierce,S.M.(1996).An evaluation of ecotourism in

Amazonas,Brazil’,Annals of Tourism Research23(4), pp,843-873.

Weaver, D., & Lawton, L.(2007). Twenty years on: The state of contemporary ecotourism

research. Tourism Management, 28, pp, 1168-1179.

Weaver, D.B. (2001). Ecotourism as mass tourism: Contradiction or reality? Cornell Hotel

and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,42(2), pp,104-112.

Weaver, D.B.(1993). Ecotourism in the small Island Caribbean.Geo Journal, 31(4), pp, 457-

465.

Weaver, D.B.(1999).Magnitude of ecotourism in Costa Rica and Kenya. Annals of Tourism

Research, 26(4), pp, 792-816.

Weaver,D.B., & Lawton,L. (2002). ‘Overnight ecotourist market segmentation in the Gold

Coast hinterland of Australia’ Journal of Travel Research, 4 (12), pp.270-280.

Wesche,R.(1997).Developed Country Environmentalism and Indigenous Community

Controlled Ecotourism in the Ecuadorian Amazon.Geographische Zeitschrift.

Whatmore,S.(2002).Hybrid Geographies, natures, cultures, spaces, Sage Publications

Ltd,New Delhi,India.p,12.

Wheat, S.(1994). Taming Tourism. Geographical Magazines,(66): pp,16-19.

Wheeler,B.(1991). Tourism’s troubled time: Responsible tourism is not the answer. Tourism

Management.

345

Wilson,C., &Tisdell.,C.(2003).Conservation and economic benefits of wildlife based marine

tourism: sea turtle and whales as case studies’, Human Dimensions of Wildlife (8):pp,49-

58.

Yale,(1997).From Tourist Attractions to Heritage Tourism. Huntingdon: ELM Publications

Yuan, (2004) .The Prospects of Wildlife Tourism, Journal of Forestry Research, (15) 3.pp,

243-245.

Yu,X.,&Weiler,B(2001).Mainland Chinese Pleasure Travellers to Australia:Leisure

Behaviour Analysis.Tourism,Culture and Communication 3,pp.81-91.

Yuksel, A.(2001). Managing customer satisfaction and retention: a case of tourist destination,

Turkey. Journal of Vacation Marketing7 (2), 153-168.

Ziffer,K.(1989).Ecotourism: The Uneasy Alliance, Working Paper No. 1, Conservation

International Washington DC.

OFFICIALS REPORTS AND DOCUMENTS

Brohman, J. (1996). New Directions in Tourism in Third world Development, Annals

of Tourism Research. Press.

Burns,G.L., & Field, T.(2001). The Host community: Social and cultural issues concerning

wildlife tourism. Wildlife Tourism Report No.4, Status Assessment of Wildlife Tourism

in Australia Series CRC for Sustainable Tourism, Gold, Coast.

Catley, A. (1999). Methods on the move: A review of veterinary uses of participatory

approaches and methods focusing on experiences in dry land Africa. London:

International Institute for Environment and Development.

Eagly, A.H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes, Hard court Brace

Jovanovich College Publishers, Forth Worth.

Ecotourism in Kerala.(1999). Department of Public Relations, Govt. of Kerala.

Equations, (2000). Visitor Management &Participatory EcotourismStrategy for Periyar Tiger

Reserveand Surrounds.

Forestry Tasmania.(1994). Guided Nature Based Tourism in Tasmania’s Forest: Trends

Constraints and implications. Hobart: Forestry Tasmania.

346

George, B. (2000). Ecotourism value of Peechi-Vazhani Wildlife Sanctuary, B.Sc. Forestry

Project Report.

George, B. (2000).Ecotourism Value of Peechi- Vazhani Wildlife Sanctuary ,B.sc Forestry

Project Report, Kerala Forest Department ,Thekkady,p- 80.

Ghimire, K.B., & Pimbert, M.P. (1997). Social Change and Conservation(London: Earth

Scan)

GOI. (2002). Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, New Delhi.

p.853.

GOK. (1999). Ecotourism in Kerala. Department of Public Relations, Government of Kerala.

p.87.

Grossman, (2002). Management and development plan for the Khama Rhino Sanctuary Trust.

Publisher Unknown.

Inskeep, I. (1991). Tourism Planning: An integrated and sustainable development

approach, New York, Van Nost Land Reinhold.

Isaacs, J. C. (2000) .Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(1): pp. 61-69.

IUCN,(1987). Centres of Plant Diversity: A Guide and Strategy for their Conservation (An

outline of a book being prepared by the Joint IUCN-WWF Plants Conservation

Programme and IUCN Threatened Plants Unit).

Jenner,P., &., Smith,C.(1992). The Tourism Industry and the Environment. Special Report

No 2453, The Economist Intelligence, Unit London,UK.

KFWD.(2002). Kerala Forest and Wildlife Newsletter June 2002. Kerala Forest Department,

Kerala, India. p.4.

Kunhi, K.V.M., & Sankar,S.(2002). Environmental Impact of pilgrimage in Agasthyamala

region. KFRI Research Report No.211. KFRI, Peechi.

MacNeely,J.A.(1994). Protected Areas for the 21st century: working to provide benefit to the

society, pp. 390-405.

Manoharan, T.R. (1996). Economics of Protected Areas- A case study of Periyar Tiger

Reserve .Ph.D Thesis, Forest Research Institute, Dehradun, p.115.

347

McIntosh, C.R.,&Goldner.C.(1986), Tourism Principles, Practices and Philosophies,

John Wiley and Sons New York.

McNeely, J. A. (1988). Economics and Biological Diversity: Developing and Using

Economic Incentives to Conserve Biological Resources, IUCN, and Gland, Switzerland.

Michael, H. (1994). Tourism and Politics: Policy, Power and Place, London, Bell

heaven.

Padmanabhan, S. (2004). Vision from Periyar, The Hindu, February 15.

Page, S.J.,& Dowling, R.K.(2002).Ecotourism. Harlow: Pearson Education

Pearce, D.,&.,Moran, D.(1994). The Economic Value of Biodiversity, IUCN, Gland,

Switzerland.

Periyar in her Elements. (2008) . St Joseph Press Trivandrum. Periyar Tiger Reserve, “The

Wild & The Wonderful: Wildlife sanctuaries and National parks of Kerala”, Periyar

Tiger Reserve, Forests and Wildlife Department, Government of Kerala, (various

publications).

Periyar Tiger Reserve. A General Introduction, Periyar Foundation Library, pp.1-51.

Prabhu, R.Colfer, C.J.P., & Dudley, R.G.(1999).Guidelines for developing, testing and

selecting criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management. The Criteria and

Indicators Toolbox Series No.1.CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia Public Relations, Government

of Kerala, pp. 4-5.

Ravindranathan,(2004). Protecting Environment at Sabarimala, Kerala Calling.pp,29-31.

Rodgers, W.A., & Panwar, H, S. (1990). Planning a Wildlife Protected Area Network in

India, 1& 2.

Rodgers, W.A., Panwar, H.S., & Mathur, V.B. (2000).Wildlife Protected Area Network in

India: A Review.

Sankar, S.(1999). Environmental Impact Assessment of Thenmala ecotourism development

project. KFRI.

Shelby, B., & Heberlein, T.A.(1986). Carrying Capacity in recreation settings. Oregon State

University Press.

Simmon,S.D.G.(1994).Community Participation in Tourism Planning, Tourism

Management.

348

Stanley, & Perron, L.(1995). The Economic impact of Northern National Parks and Historic

Sites Administered by Parks Canada. Strategic and Research Analysis.

Sudhi,K.S.(2008). Large Number of Kerala animals,plants in Red List. Online edition. The

Hindu,October 13/2008.

The Ecotourism Society. (1998). Ecotourism Statistical Fact Sheet. VT The Ecotourism

Society.

The United Nations World Tourism Organizations.(2002).Tourismand Poverty

Alleviation.WTO,Madrid,Spain.

Thomas, K.V.(2002). Kerala Tourism- Noothana Saraniyilekku. Janapatham.October, 2002.

Department of Tourism Statistics, Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala.

Wildlife Institute of India. (2007).(Executive Summary). Wildlife Institute of India, pp.12.

Dehradun.

Woodley,A.(1993). Tourism and Sustainable Development: The community

prespective.In Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring,Planning,

Managing, J.G.Nelson,G.Wall, and R Butler,(Eds.).,Department of Geography,

Canada, University of Waterloo,p.369.

WTTC. (1992). The World Travel and Tourism Council Report: Travel and Tourism in the

world economy.

WEBSITES

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literature_reviewAccessedon10/6/11

http://www.benefitsofecotourism.com/ecotourism/history-of-ecotourism.Accessedon

13/6/111.20PM

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/orglr45&

div=31&id=&page=Acessed on 26/10/12

http://idukki.nic.in/Acessed on 4/6/12

http://sdt.unwto.org/en/content/ecotourism-and-protected-areas Accessed on 27/6/12.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTLACREGTOPSUSTOU/Resources/4649665-

1206026583447/MarthaHoneyLACLearningEvent.pdf. Accessed on 01/07/11

http://www.awf.org. Accessed on 11/03/12.

349

http://www.benefitsofecotourism.com/ecotourism/history-of-ecotourism, Accessed on

23/11/12

http://www.biodiversity.ru/coastlearn/tourism-eng/con_capacity.html.

Accessed on 01/01/12.

http://www.bukisa.com/articles/18712_what-is-ecotourismAcessed on 11/3/12

http://www.ecotourism.org/Accessed on 25/10/12

http://www.ecotourismkeralam.org/Accessed on 14/10/11

http://www.eravikulam.org/managementplan.htm. Accessed on 30/12/12.

http://www.indiawildlifeportal.com/periyar-wildlife-sanctuary

/wildlife-in-periyar.html Accessed on 01/03/12.

http://www.keralafdc.org/ Accessed on 10/10/11

http://www.keralafdc.org/Acessed on 11/10/11

http://www.keralaforest.org/htm/general/threats.htm. Accessed on 01/03/10.

http://www.keralatourism.org/tourismstatistics/tourist-statistic2008.

Acessed on21/11/2008.

http://www.ktdc.com/Acessed on 11/10/11

http://www.periyarfoundation.org Accessed on 21/2/2012.

http://www.periyartigerreserve.org/html. Accessed on 10/05.2009

http://www.periyartigerreserve.org/html. Accessed on 10/11/12.

http://www.periyartigerreserve.org/html. Accessed on 12.02.09.

http://www.periyartigertrail.in/programme.html Accessed on 27/6/12.

http://www.privateforests.tas.gov.au/profile/private_forests_act_1994

Accessed on 23/10/12

http://www.projecttiger.nic.in/publication.htm Accessed on 1/3/12.

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/ptr-bags-

unindia-biodiversity- award/article4008059.ece Accessed on 23/10/12

http://www.webaustralia.com.au/ac/whitew1.htmAcessed on 28/6/12

350

NEWS PAPERS AND MAGAZINES

Asian Biodiversity

Escapist Traveler

Express Travel World

Kerala Tourism

Mruthika WWF Publications

Sanctuary Asia

The Hindu

The Indian Express

The Times of India

Tourism India

APPENDIX

I

ANNEXURE I QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TOURIST

PART-A TOURIST PROFILE

1. Gender: (a) Male [ ] (b) Female [ ]

2. Nationality: (a) Indian [ ] (b) Foreign [ ]

(a) Name of the State ……………….. (b) Name of the Country……………...

3. Age (a) Below 20 [ ] (b) 21-40 [ ] (c) 41-60 [ ](d) More than 60 [ ]

4. Marital Status: (a) Single [ ] (b) Married [ ] (c) Separated [ ]

5. Occupation:

(a) Self- employment [ ] (b) Government [ ] (c) Private [ ]

(d) House Wife [ ] (e) Any Other Please Specify……………………

6. Level of Education:

(a) School [ ] (b) Secondary [ ] (c) Under Graduate [ ] (d) Graduation [ ] (e) Post Graduate [ ]

(f) Others (Please Specify)………………………………

7. Monthly Income (Rs):

(a) Below 25,000 [ ] (b) 25,001-50000 [ ] (c) 50,000-10, 00, 00 [ ] (d) 10, 00, 00 and Above [ ]

8. Which one of the following is your family type?

(a) Nuclear Family [ ] (b) Joint Family [ ]

9. What is your mother tongue?

(a) Malayalam [ ] (b) Kannada [ ] (c) Hindi [ ] (d) Tamil [ ] (e) Telugu [ ] (f) Marathi [ ]

(g) Gujarati [ ] (h) Bengali [ ] (i) Others Please Specify……………………………..

10. What are the other languages you can speak?

(a) English [ ] (b) Hindi [ ] (c) Tamil [ ] (d) Bengali [ ] (e) French [ ] (f) Malayalam [ ]

(g) Kannada [ ] (h) Gujarati [ ] (i) Others Please Specify……………………………

VISITOR AWARENESS

11. Is this your first visit to Periyar National Park?

(a) Yes [ ] (b) No [ ]

If No, how many times you have visited earlier?

(a) Once [ ] (b) Twice [ ] (c) Thrice and more

12. How did you come to know about the Periyar National Park as a place of tourist interest?

(a) Brochures [ ] (b) Tour Operator [ ] (c) Hotel [ ] (d) KTDC [ ] (e) DTPC [ ]

(f) Friends and Relatives [ ] (g) Website/Blog [ ] (h) Newspaper [ ](i)Others

Specify………………………………….

II

13. Which one of the following sources provides you enough information to read and select Periyar National Park? (a) Folders [ ] (b) Websites/ Blog [ ] (c) Guide Book [ ]

(d) Word of Mouth [ ] (e) Travel Magazine [ ] (f) News Paper [ ]

14. How did you plan your trip to Periyar National Park?

(a) On my own [ ] (b) Friends [ ] (c) Relatives [ ] (d) Travel Agents and Tour Operators [ ]

(e) KTDC/Tourist Office [ ] (f) Hotel (Travel Desk) [ ] (g) Shared Taxi [ ]

15. Please indicate one or more of the following that helped you in preparing your tour programme to Periyar National Park. (a) Brochure [ ] (b) Travel Guide Book [ ] (c) Official Website of PTR [ ] (d) Incredible India Website

[ ] (e) Travel and Tourism Magazine [ ] (f) News Item articles [ ]

16. Which are the other tourism places of interest that you are planning to visit along with the visit to Periyar National Park? (a) Alleppey [ ] (b) Munnar [ ] (c) Kumarakom [ ] (d) Pullumedu [ ] (e) Sabarimala [ ] (f)

Wayanad [ ] (g) Kovalam [ ] (h) Cochin [ ] (i) Any other please Specify……………………………………

17. Which is the mode of your transport?

(a) Own Vehicle [ ] (b) Govt Bus [ ] (c) Tourist Bus [ ] (d) Luxury Taxi [ ] (e) Shared Taxi [ ]

18. Which one of the following is your point of entry to the PNP?

(a) Cochin [ ] (b) Kottayam [ ] (c) Kumily [ ] (d) Pathanamthitta [ ] (e) Chengannur [ ]

(f) Any other Please Specify……………………………….

19. Which one of the following mode of accommodation do you prefer to stay?

(a) Hotels [ ] (b) Lodging and Boarding [ ] (c) Paying Guest [ ] (d) Home Stay [ ]

(e) Tent [ ] (g) Eco Lodge [ ] (h) Youth Hostel and Dormitory [ ] (i) Resort [ ]

(j) Friends and Relatives [ ] (k) Govt. Guest House [ ]

20. What will be the duration of your stay?

(a) 1-2 days [ ] (b) 3-4 days [ ] (c) 1 week and above [ ]

21. Listed below are a set of activities which have you given maximum enjoyment in the Park. As per your preference of choice, please rank each attribute from 1 to 5 with 1 being the most important activity and 5 being the least important activity required for the park. 1 Boating 2 Visiting Interpretation Center 3 Bird Watching 4 Photography 5 Elephant Ride 22. What is your frequency to visit Thekkady?

(a) First visit [ ] (b) Second Visit [ ] (c) Third and Subsequent visit [ ]

23. What is your main motivation behind your visit to Thekkady?

(a) Wildlife Watching [ ] (b) Ecotourism [ ] (c) Natural Beauty [ ]

(d) Indigenous culture [ ] (e) Rest and relaxation [ ] (f) Study Purpose [ ]

III

(g) Photography [ ] (h) Others (Please Specify)…………………...

24. What are the ecotourism activities that you are interested to carry out in Periyar National Park?

(a) Cloud Walk [ ] (b)Trekking [ ] (c) Jungle Patrol [ ] (d) Periyar Tiger Trail [ ](e)Bamboo Rafting [ ]

(f) Tribal village visit [ ] (g) Elephant Safari [ ](h) Clouds Walk [ ](i) Camping [ ] (j) Nature Walk [ ]

(k) Green Walk [ ] (l) Jungle Scout [ ] (m) Boarder Hiking [ ] (n) Bamboo Groove [ ](o) Jungle Inn [ ]

(p) Jungle Camp [ ] (q) Bullock Cart [ ] (r) None of the above [ ]

25. What are the animals that you have seen while boating in Periyar National Park?

(a) Tiger [ ] (b) Elephant [ ] (c) Sambar [ ] (d) Flying Squirrel [ ] (e) Monkeys [ ]

(f) Hornbill [ ](g) Nilgiri Thar [ ](h) Wild Pig [ ](i) Nilgiri Langur [ ] (j) Lion Tailed Macaque [ ]

(k) Gaur [ ]

26. Apart from wildlife tourism activity in Periyar National Park, what are the other activities that you are engaged in Thekkady? (a) Spice Garden Visit [ ] (b) Cultural Programme [ ] (c) Ayurvedic Massage [ ]

(d) Wildlife Photography [ ]

27. What are the problems that you have faced at the Periyar National Park during your visit?

(a) Noise [ ] (b) Congestion [ ] (c) Spill over garbage [ ] (d) Littering [ ](e) Lack of

transfer from Main gate to Boat Jetty [ ] (f) Uncleared garbage [ ] (g)Photography Hindrance

[ ] (h) Long Queue [ ] (i) Touts [ ] (j) Any Other Please Specify………………………………

IV

PART –B

VISITOR SATISFACTION INDICATORS

A 28

PROVISION OF AMENITIES

Very Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree

Very Strongly Disagree

1 I enjoy the walk from parking to the boat jetty

2 Toilets and waiting rooms are located at the convenient place

3 I got drinking water that is purified.

4 Refreshment stalls provide fresh snacks and tea along with souvenir and books

5 I get guided by the instructions from the signage

6 Interpretation center is resourceful and educative

7 General information on park is given at vantage points and in boats

8 Brochures & guide books are provided on demand

B VALUE ADDED SERVICE 1 Seating arrangement at Jetty

is adequate

2 Location of ticket counter is convenient

3 Binoculars are provided to watch the wild animals from boat.

4 Knowledge and service of Eco-guide enhanced my experience and enjoyment

C SANITATION AND HYGIENE

1 I find the cleanliness of outer ring road and parking area

2 Toilets and wash rooms are clean

3 I see the well-maintained mechanism of collecting garbage

4 I find dustbins placed at the key places for use

5 I do not have problem of getting drinking water

D SAFETY LEVEL 1 Boating is safe and secure 2 Sitting arrangement is

comfortable and Relaxing

3 Life jacket is made mandatory 4 Carrying Capacity is

maintained in the boat

V

E DISASTER PREPARDNESS

1 Emergency relief boat facility is available

2 There is facility of ambulance and first aid center

3 There is fire brigade service if anything goes wrong in the park

4 There is a lifeguard service is well taken care of

5 There is provision of emergency speed boat in case of any emergency

F LOCAL HOSPITALITY 1 The behaviour of the Park

Staff is friendly

2 The taste of the local food is unique

3 Local people are friendly and helpful

4 I have found that the hotel staff are professional

5 Food is properly served in the restaurant

G SERVICE QUALITY 1 Check-out and check-in the

hotel is perfect

2 I experienced sincerity in room services

3 Food quality and service in the restaurant is fine

4 Staff are prompt and professional

29. The following items indicating the relationship between visitors and community members represent for the sustainable tourism development in the park. You are requested to state your level of satisfaction on the 1---7, 1—Much less Satisfied, 2—Less Satisfied, 3—Slightly less Satisfied, 4—Just as Satisfied, 5—Slightly more satisfied, 6—More satisfied, 7— Much more satisfied 1. Interested to visit local villages for interaction with people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Eager to learn and experience the cultural events of the place 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Happy to have the taste of local food 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. Giving due respect to local community member 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Financial contribution for community member 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Educating the local people about the preservation of art, culture and

heritage 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. Acknowledging the cultural pride and values of local community members 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

30. The following items representing the key determinants of visitor satisfaction. The following items Indicating the relationship between visitors and community members represent for the sustainable tourism development in the park. You are requested to state your level of satisfaction on the (1---7),

VI

1—Much less Satisfied, 2—Less Satisfied, 3—Slightly less Satisfied, 4—Just as Satisfied, 5—Slightly more satisfied, 6—More satisfied, 7—Much more satisfied. 1. Reasonable entry fee ticket 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Friendliness of employee 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Affordable room and food tariff 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. Convenient to reach 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Peacefulness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Community Interactions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Exhibition of local arts and crafts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Friendly behaviour of local people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(PART-C)

RANK TYPE QUESTIONS

31. Listed below are a set of attributes as per your preference of choice, Please rank each attribute from 1 to 5 with 1 being the most important attribute and 5 being the least important attribute required for the park. 1 Battery driven car 2 Refreshment center 3 Additional toilet washroom 4 Rest and reading room

5 Service boat 32. Listed below are set of attributes as per visitor satisfaction of choice, Please rank each attribute from 1 to 5 with 1 being the most important attribute required for the park and 5 being the least important attribute. 1. Opening up more ticket counters 2. Online ticket booking facility 3. Introducing wildlife documentary

4. Staff Training 5. Visitor Feedback 33. Will you visit Thekkady again?

(a) Yes [ ] (b) No [ ] (c) Undecided [ ]

34. Will you recommend your friends to visit Periyar National Park especially for its natural beauty and its rich flora and fauna? (a) Yes [ ] (b) No [ ] (c) Undecided [ ]

35. Write your opinion and what can be done for the active community participation and visitor satisfaction for sustainable tourism development in Periyar National Park …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

THANKS FOR YOUR COOPERATION

VII

ANNEXTURE-II

QUESTIONNAIRE TO LOCAL COMMUNITY

PART-A

1.Name …………………………………………………………………………

2. Age: (a) Below 20 [ ] (b) 21-29 [ ] (c) 30-39 [ ]

(d) 40-49 [ ] (e) 50-59 [ ] (f) 60 and above [ ]

3. Marital Status:

(a) Single [ ] (b) Married [ ]

4. Occupation:

(a) Agriculture [ ] (b) Self Employed [ ] (c) Small Business [ ]

(d) Tourism related services [ ] (e) Govt Employee [ ] (f) Unemployed

(g) Others Please Specify……………………………………..

5. How long you have been residing?

(a) Last 10 years [ ] (b) 11-20 years [ ] (c) 21-30 years [ ] (d) 31and above [ ]

6. Which one of the following is your highest qualification?

(a) No Formal Education [ ] (b) Primary Education [ ] (c) Secondary (d) Education [ ] (e) Graduation [ ] (f) Post Graduation [ ] (g) Any other Specify…………………………………………….

7. Gross Monthly Income (Rs):

(a) Below 5,000 [ ] (b) 5,001-10,000 [ ] (c) 10,001-15,000 [ ]

(d) 15,001-20,000 [ ] (e) 20,001-25,000 [ ] (f) 25,001-30,000 [ ]

(g) Others (Please Specify) …………………………………..

8. Number of family members

(a) 1-3 [ ] (b) 4-6 [ ] (c) 6 and above [ ]

9. Type of house that you have owned or your family has owned

(a) Concrete [ ] (b) Asbestos [ ] (c) Thatched House [ ] (d) Tiles [ ] (e) Any others please specify………………

10. Type of vehicles you have owned or your family has owned.

(a) Cycle [ ] (b) Motor cycle [ ] (c) Auto rickshaw [ ] (d) Any other Please Specify…………………………………

VIII

11. Amount of Monthly Expenditure

(a) 1000-2000 [ ] (b) 2001-4000 [ ] (c) 4001-6000 [ ] (d) 6001-8000 [ ](e) 8001-10,000[ ]

12. Electricity Connection

(a) Subsidized Supply [ ] (b) Free Connection (c) Bill Paid Monthly [ ] (d) Others Please Specify ……………………………..

13. Drinking Water Facilities

(a) Own Well [ ] (b) Community Bore Well [ ] (c) Community Well [ ] (d) Municipality Supply [ ] (e) Any Other Please Specify…………………………………..

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

14. Are you interested in participating in Park Management?

(a) Yes [ ] (b) No [ ] (c) Cannot Say [ ]

If Yes, who has influenced you to take part in the ecotourism project?

15. Is your participation (a) Direct [ ] (b) Indirect [ ]

If No, why have you not participated?

16. When did you first come to know about the EDC?

17. How did you come to know about EDC?

18. Is EDC activities in community empowerment effective?

(a) Yes [ ] (b) No [ ] (c) Cannot Say [ ]

19. Do you think that EDC (Eco Development Committees) have uplifted the living condition of the people living in and around the Park?

(a) Yes [ ] (b) No [ ] (c) Some What [ ]

20. Are you happy to see tourist coming to the Park?

(a) Yes [ ] (b) No [ ] (c) Not at all [ ]

21. Are you involved in the decision making process of the park?

(a) Yes [ ] (b) No [ ] (c) Not at all [ ]

22. Whether the community members living in and around the park are giving importance to ecotourism as an alternative source of income?

(a) Yes [ ] (b) No [ ] (c) Cannot Say [ ]

IX

23. What issues should be addressed to increase the park contribution to both the welfare of the neighboring villages and sustainable development within the region?

(a) Economic [ ] (b) Environmental [ ] (c) Social [ ] (d) Other [ ]

24. The revenue earned from the Park is used for the development of the park.

(a) Yes [ ] (b) No [ ] (c) Not Aware [ ]

25. How is your village affected by decisions made regarding the use of the resources of the Park?

(a) Incidents with visitors [ ] (b) Incidents with the wildlife [ ]

(c) Restriction on access to park [ ] (d) other [ ]

26. Would you like to display your cultural attractions to the tourist?

(a) Yes [ ] (b) No [ ] (c) Undecided [ ]

PART –B

27. SOCIAL IMPACT

Sl.No

Items Strongly

Agree Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly Disagree

1 Social change in the local community

2 Improvement of living condition

3 Women working in the tourism establishment

4 Wearing the traditional dress for myself pride

5 Breaking the joint family pattern

6 Enjoying the interactions with the visitors

7 Changing the perception and orientation

8 Having strong belief in the tradition and custom

9 Taking pride in speaking my own language

10 No problem in speaking English with tourist

X

28. ECONOMIC IMPACT

Sl.No.

Items Strongly

Agree Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly Disagree

1 Tourism can be a source of income for me

2 More tourist will increase the local economy

3 Shopping has increased the scope for preserving rural handicrafts and income

4 Tourism provides jobs to the local population

5 Tourism plays a vital role in local area development.

6 I use the basic facilities meant for the visitors

7 EDC takes care of the primary needs like drinking water, electricity, and safety

8 Health and sanitation is well-maintained

9 Primary health care is improved due to EDC activities

29. CULTURAL IMPACT

Sl.No.

Items Strongly Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree

1 I am happy to see tourist in my village or community

2 I take interest in explaining the cultural attractions of our area

3 Tourists are very much attracted towards local cuisine.

4 Tourist are very much attracted towards local fairs and festivals

5 The local culture seems to get eroded

6 I see art and crafts preserved due to ecotourism.

XI

30. ECOLOGICAL IMPACT

Sl No Items

Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly Disagree

1 I take it a duty to work for ecological conservation of the park

2 I see the proper management of littering and other ecological hazards

3 Littering and other ecological hazards should be checked to safeguard the environment.

4 Entry of visitors needs to be regulated

5 Man animal conflict has been reduced

6 The park authority has taken a number of affeorestation programme

7 Maintaining the ecology of the park has direct bearing on the existence of community

8 Park can be better managed with indigenous or traditional technique.

PART –C

31. EDC FUNCTIONS

Listed below are a set of attributes as per your preference of choice, Please scale each attribute from 1-5 with (1) –Strongly Agree – (5) --Strongly Disagree.

1 The Functioning of EDC has given socio economic opportunity to me as well as to other community members.

1 2 3 4 5

2 EDC helps in providing financial existence to registered members. 1 2 3 4 5

3 EDC maintains amenable work culture. 1 2 3 4 5

4 Convenient working hours 1 2 3 4 5

5 Salary is paid on time 1 2 3 4 5

6 EDC also takes care of other benefits such as insurance, health and incentives.

1 2 3 4 5

7 EDC helps in sustainable and positive interaction of the group with Protected areas.

1 2 3 4 5

7 Eco Development Programme has built up an environment of mutual trust and respect between park staff and villagers.

1 2 3 4 5

XII

32. What steps can be taken for the successful functioning of community participation in Periyar Tiger Reserve.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

THANKS FOR YOUR COOPERATION

XIII

ANNEXTURE-III

RESERVED FOREST OF KERALA AND TAMILNADU

Source: Official Records, Periyar Foundation, Kerala Forest and Wildlife Department, Government of Kerala.

XIV

ANNEXTURE-IV

TOURISM AND BUFFER ZONE OF PTR

XV

ANNEXTURE V

THE ECODEVELOPEMENT ZONE AND CORE AREAS IN PTR

Source: Official Records, Periyar Foundation, Kerala Forest and Wildlife Department, Government of Kerala.

XVI

ANNEXTURE VI

INDIA ECO DEVELOPMENT PROJECT RESERVE

Source: http://www.projecttiger.com,Accessed on 12/8/2012

XVII

ANNEXTURE-VII

THEKKADY TOWN

Source: http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/kerala/thekkady-map.htmlAcessed on 5/9/12

XVIII

ANNEXTURE –VIII

ROAD MAP SHOWING THE TOURISM ZONE OF PTR

Source: www.periyarfoundation.org/html.jspw3_pop.htm.Acessed on 1/9/12

XIX

ANNEXTURE IX

TERRAIN

Sl No Total Area 925 sq km

1 Lowest 100 meter above sea level 2 Highest 2019 meter above sea level 3 Average 1200 meter above sea level

Source: Official Records, Rajiv Gandhi Interpretation Center, Department of Forest and Wildlife, Government of Kerala.

ANNEXTURE X

PROTECTED AREAS IN KERALA

Sl No Name Area in sq km Year of formation

1 Periyar Tiger Reserve 925 1978 2 Parambikulam Tiger Reserve 643.662 2009 3 Neyyar Wildlife Sanctuary 128 1958 4 Peparra Wildlife Sanctuary 53 1983 5 Shendurani Wildlife Sanctuary 171 1984 6 PeechiVazhaniWildlifeSanctuary 125 1958 7 Chimony Wildlife Sanctuary 85 1984 8 Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary 344.44 1973 9 Idukki Wildlife Sanctuary 105.364 1976 10 Shinar Wildlife Sanctuary 90.44 1984 11 Kurinjimala Sanctuary 32 2006 12 Aralam Wildlife Sanctuary 55 1984 13 Thattekad Wildlife Sanctuary 25 1983 14 Mangalavanam Bird Sanctuary 0.0274 2004 15 Choolanur Pea Fowl Sanctuary 3.42 2007 16 Malabar Wildlife Sanctuary 74.215 2009 17 Eravikulam Wildlife Sanctuary 97.00 1978 18 Silent Valley National Park 89.52 1984 19 Pampadum Shola National Park 11.78 2003 20 Mathiketan Shola National Park 12.817 2003 21 Anamudi Shola National Park 42.00 2003 22 Kadalundi Vallikunnu Common

Reserve 1.50 2007

Source: Official Records, Rajiv Gandhi Interpretation Center, Department of Forest and Wildlife, Government of Kerala.

XX

ANNEXTURE-XI

VEGETATION STATISTICS

Sl No Vegetation Sq km Percentage 1 Evergreen Forest 342.12 sq km 37% 2 Semi ever Green Forest 223.20 sq km 24% 3 Transitional dry fringe forest 41 sq km 4% 4 Moist Deciduous forest 38.48 sq km 5 Plantation 55.00 sq km 6% 6 Grassland Savannah Woodlands 199.20 sq km 22% 7 Water Spread Area 26 Sq km 3%

Source: Official Records, Rajiv Gandhi Interpretation Center, Department of Forest and Wildlife. Government of Kerala.

ANNEXTURE-XII

BOAT CHARGES FOR TOURIST AT PERIYAR TIGER RESERVE

Sl No Name of the boat Charges 1 Gala raja (KTDC) 150 2 Jalmohini (KTDC) 150 3 Jalsundari (KTDC) 150 4 Vanjyostna (Forest) 40 5 Periyar (Forest) 40

Note: If KTDC boat tickets are booked online 500 rupees is charged for one ticket. Source: Official Records, Ticket Counter Boat Landing, Dept of Forest and Wildlife. Government of Kerala.

ANNEXTURE XIII (a)

VISITOR FEE

Visitors Indian Foreign Adult Rs25 Rs 300

Children Between 5-11 Years Rs5 Rs 105 Student (Bonafide Indian) Rs 5 …..

Source: Check Post, Periyar Tiger Reserve, Department of Forest and Wildlife. Government of Kerala.

ANNEXTURE XIII (b)

VEHICLE ENTRY FEE

Type of Vehicle Charge 1 Heavy Motor Vehicle Rs 200 2 Light Motor Vehicle Rs 50

3 Two Wheeler Rs 25 4 Three Wheeler Rs 25

Source: Check Post, Periyar Tiger Reserve, Department of Forest and Wildlife. Government of Kerala.

XXI

ANNEXTURE XIII (c)

VISITOR FEE FOR STILL CAMERA AND VIDEO

Sl no Indian Foreign 1 Video Camera Rs 200 Rs 200 2 Camera Still Rs 25 Rs 25

Source: Check Post, Periyar Tiger Reserve, Department of Forest and Wildlife. Government of Kerala.

ANNEXTURE-XIV

NAME OF THE EDC’s IN PERIYAR EAST DIVISION

Sl No Division Name of the EDC Type of EDC Total House Holds Category

1 East Ceylon Colony Neighborhood 41 SC 2 East Chottupara Neighborhood 109 MD 3 East Gandhi Nagar Neighborhood 34 MD 4 East Kollampatada-1 Neighborhood 78 MD 5 East Kollampatada-2 Neighborhood 128 MD 6 East Kollampatada-3 Neighborhood 101 MD 7 East Kollampatada-4 Neighborhood 72 MD

8 East Kurishumala-1 Neighborhood 55 GL

9 East Kurishumala-2 Neighborhood 90 MD

10 East Mannakudi-1 Neighborhood 72 ST

11 East Mannakudi-2 Neighborhood 89 ST

12 East Mannakudi-3 Neighborhood 91 ST

13 East Mattuppetty-1 Neighborhood 77 MD

14 East Mattuppetty-2 Neighborhood 87 MD

15 East Mullayar Neighborhood 117 MD

16 East Paliyakudi Neighborhood 119 ST

17 East Periyar Colony Neighborhood 32 MD

18 East Spring Valley 1 Neighborhood 87 MD

19 East Staff Neighborhood 84 GL

20 East Thekkady Neighborhood 74 GL

21 East Vallakadavu-1 Neighborhood 84 MD

22 East Vallakadavu-2 Neighborhood 102 MD

13 East Vallakadavu-3 Neighborhood 71 MD

24 East Vallakadavu-4 Neighborhood 67 MD

25 East Vallakadavu-5 Neighborhood 73 MD

26 East Vanchivayal Neighborhood 47 ST

27 East Ex Vayana Professional 23 MD

28 East Pets Thekkady and Vallakadavu

Professional 80 MD

29 East TTEDC Professional 20 MD

30 East THEDC Professional 21 MD

31 East Vidiyal Professional 21 ST

XXII

32 East Ex Thelli Professional 27 ST

33 East Fire Wood and Thatching Grass

User Group 98 MD

34 East Graziers EDC User Group 88 MD

35 East Kollampatada (W) User Group 27 MD

36 East Fisher group User Group ---- ST

Source: Official Records, Periyar Foundation, Department of Forest and Wildlife. Government of Kerala.

ANNEXTURE-XV

COMMUNITY BASED ECOTOURISM PROGRAMMES

Sl No Name of the Programme Rate Minimum Charge

Starting Point

1 Nature Walk 7am,10am,2pm 3hrs day time trekking

Rs,1200/- for 6 persons

800/- For 4persons

Boat landing

2 Green Walk 7am,11am,2pm 3 hrs day time trekking

Rs 1200/- for 6 persons

800/- for 4 persons

Bamboo Groove Tribal Heritage

Office 3 Jungle Scout

7pm,10pm,1am Night Trekking of 6km

Rs 750/- for 1 person

Rs 1500/- for 2 persons

Entrance Gate

4 Bamboo Rafting 8am to 5pm Day long rafting and trekking

Rs 1500/- for 1 person

Rs 3000/- for two persons

Boat Landing

5 Border Hiking 8am to 5pm Day long trekking

Rs 1000/- for 1 person

Rs 4000/- fro 4 person

Bamboo Groove Entrance Gate

6 Periyar Tiger Trail 1 Night 9am to next day 12 pm.1 night camping and two day trekking

Rs 4000/- for 1 person

Rs 6000/- for 1 person

Ex Vayana Office

7 Periyar Tiger Trail 2 Nights 2 night camping and 3 day trekking

Rs 6000/- for 1 person

Rs 9000/- for 1 person

Ex Vayana Office

8 Bamboo Groove (Without Package) Accommodation

Rs 1500/- for 1 hut

----- Anavachal

9 Bamboo Groove (With Package) Accommodation

Rs 4000/- for 1 hut ----- Anavachal

10 Jungle Inn 4pm to 9am Accomodation

Rs 3000/- per day ---- Entrance Gate

11 Jungle Camp Rs 5000/- for 1tent. 12000/- for 4 Vallakadavu

XXIII

(With Package) Accommodations in tent

Rs 6000 for 1 tent person 2 tents

12 Bullock Cart 6am to 9am,2.30pm to 5.30pm Ride in Bullock Cart

Rs 1000/- for 1 person

Rs 2000/- for 2 person

Lower Camp

Source: Official Records, Eco Information Office,Department of Forest and Wildlife.Government of Kerala.

ANNEXTURE-XVI

CANCELLATION POLICY FOR ECOTOURISM PROGRAMMES

Sl no Date of Cancellation Percentage of refund

1 Before 30 days prior to commencement of the programme 100% 2 20 to 30 prior to commencement of the programme 50% 3 2 to 20 days prior to the commencement 25% 4 Less than 2 days(48 hrs)and after commencement of the

programme No refund

Note: The market promotion fee in addition to the cancellation charges is deducted from the amount paid while booking. Source: Eco Information Office.

Source: Official Records, Eco Information Center, Department of Forest and Wildlife. Government of Kerala.

ANNEXTURE-XVII

BOAT TIMING IN PERIYAR LAKE

Timing Ticket issue Duration 7:30-- 9:00 AM 6:30 AM 1:30 hr 9:30--11:00 AM 8:00 AM 1:30 hr 11:15--12:45 PM 9:45AM 1:30 hr 1:45--3 15 PM 12:15 PM 1:30 hr 3:30--500PM 2:00 PM 1:30 hr

Source: Official Records Boat Landing, Dept of Forest and Wildlife,Government of Keral

XXIV

ANNEXTURE-XVIII

PICTURE GALLERY

.

.

ENTRANCE TO PERIYAR TIGER RESERVE

A SCENIC VIEW OF PERIYAR TIGER RESERVE

XXV

FOREIGN TOURIST FILLING THE QUESTIONNAIRES

QUESTIONNAIRE BEING FILLED FROM A LOCAL COMMUNITY M EMBER

XXVI

RESEARCHER COLLECTING THE DATA FROM A TRIBAL COLONY

RESEARCHER WITH TRIBAL TREKKERS AT PTR

XXVII

VEHICULAR TRAFFIC AT PERIYAR TIGER RESERVE

TOURIST RETURN AFTER A BOAT RIDE IN THE LAKE AT PTR