Professional Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/Assessing-Flow-Benefits-Of-Protected-Ar 👈

1. Int. J. Sustainable Society, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2019 65
Copyright © 2019 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
Assessing flow benefits of protected areas of central
India: a case study from Maharashtra state of India
Adrija Roy*, Vicky Yadav and
Pradeep Chaudhry
Indian Institute of Forest Management (IIFM),
Nehru Nagar, Bhopal, 462003, India
Email: adrija.ju76@gmail.com
Email: aroy19@iifm.ac.in
Email: vickyyada31@gmail.com
Email: pradeep@iifm.ac.in
Email: pradeepifs@yahoo.com
*Corresponding author
Abstract: It is a common realisation that protected areas (PAs) are playing a
valuable role in maintaining biological diversity as well as providing immense
economic benefits arising out of tourism and other direct uses. They are the
cornerstone of most conservation strategies. They protect biodiversity,
safe-guard ecosystem health, and provide an array of ecosystem services, such
as fresh drinking water, places for recreation and relaxation, storehouses of
genetic material, pollination, gas regulation, biological control and providing
habitat and refugia for wildlife. In the present article, we have given an account
of flow benefits, including employment opportunities to locals and other
intangible or non-market benefits, emanating from five protected areas
(national parks/tiger reserves and a sanctuary) of Maharashtra state from central
India. These benefits have been analysed with the help of collected primary
data and available secondary information. We understand that improved
governance and appropriate investment in these areas would ultimately lead to
maintaining ecological security, food security and finally sustainable
development of society in long term basis.
Keywords: national parks; tiger reserves; stock and flow benefits; ecosystem
services; biodiversity conservation; non-market benefits; intangible benefits;
indirect benefits of forests.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Roy, A., Yadav, V. and
Chaudhry, P. (2019) ‘Assessing flow benefits of protected areas of central
India: a case study from Maharashtra state of India’, Int. J. Sustainable Society,
Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.65–78.
Biographical notes: Adrija Roy is currently doing her Post Graduate Diploma
in Forestry Management (PGDFM) from the Indian Institute of Forest
Management, Bhopal, India. Her academic interests include development
management, conservation and livelihood and statistical modelling. She is
about to take on the role of a Young Professional at The Odisha Livelihood
Mission, India.
Vicky Yadav is currently doing his Post Graduate Diploma in Forestry
Management (PGDFM) from the Indian Institute of Forest Management,
Bhopal, India. His academic interests include skill development for the
underprivileged, environment management and green marketing.

2. 66 A. Roy et al.
Pradeep Chaudhry is currently working as a Professor in the Technical Forestry
Area at Indian Institute of Forest Management Bhopal, India. He is from the
Indian Forest Service having more than 33 years of working experience in
forest management, conservation/research and currently holds the rank of
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. He has served in different capacities in
the field of forest management and conservation in the states/union territories
of Arunachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Andaman and Nicobar Islands and
Chandigarh. He has many research papers/book chapters to his credit in the
areas of urban forestry, tourism and biodiversity conservation in peer-reviewed
scientific journals.
1 Introduction
The world’s system of protected areas (PAs) has grown exponentially over the past
25 years, particularly in developing countries where biodiversity is richest. Concurrently,
the mission of PAs has expanded from biodiversity conservation to improving human
welfare (Naughton-Treves et al., 2005). At present, the world has more than 200,000
designated PAs, which are not only the last strongholds of nature but also have a main
role towards providing humankind with a range of valuable ecological services (Chape
et al., 2008; UNEP-WCMC, 2014). PAs such as national parks and reserves now cover
more than 12% of the world’s land area and occupy nearly 32 million sq. km globally in
2014 (Wells and McShane, 2004; UNEP-WCMC, 2014).
There are 771 PAs in India spread over an area of 162,099.47 sq. km, covering about
4.93% of the country’s area. These PAs cover various national parks, wildlife sanctuaries,
conservation reserves and community reserves. Though India’s forests occupy only 1.8%
of world’s geographical area, the country supports 16% of world’s human population and
17% livestock population. Per capita availability of forest and productivity are one of the
lowest in the world, biotic pressure on country’s forests is immense making biodiversity
conservation a very challenging task. In the recent years, it is being increasingly felt that
PAs should play a role in sustaining local people’s livelihoods (McNeely, 1995; Ghimire
and Pimbert, 1997; Sekhar, 2003). Keeping the theme of PAs supporting livelihoods of
nearby community in view, five PAs of Central India namely Pench Tiger Reserve
(PTR), Navegaon-Nagzira Tiger Reserve, Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve (TATR), Bor
Tiger Reserve (BTR) and Umred-Karhandla Wildlife Sanctuary (UKWLS) of
Maharashtra state, were studied by the first two authors during the period April 2018 to
June 2018 as part of their summer internship work (Figure 1). We estimated the annual
income (a kind of flow benefits) of nearby local community from tourism and hospitality
activities arising mainly due to these PAs, apart from estimating other regulating kind of
flow benefits emanating from these areas. These flow benefits were then compared with
the annual PA management costs to estimate investment multiplier. Broadly, the
‘investment multiplier’ demonstrates the quantum of benefits derived from each PA by
spending one rupee on it. From the present study context, the benefits from these PAs can
be categorised into stock and flow benefits. Broadly, stock benefits refer to timber (or
trees) standing in these PAs, while flow benefits refer to real feasible flow of benefits like
carbon sequestration, water supply, recreational opportunities, employment provided to
local communities, all on annual basis. A large proportion of flow benefits are intangible
in nature, and hence often unaccounted for in market transactions.

3. Assessing flow benefits of protected areas of central India 67
Figure 1 Locational map of protected areas under study (see online version for colours)
According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
(IUCN), a national park is ‘a place where the ecosystem is not materially altered by
human exploitation and occupation, where the park is protected by the highest authority
of the country and where visitors are allowed for inspirational, educative, cultural and
recreational purposes’ (Dobson, 1996). 771 PAs of the country (as on July 2018) consist
of 104 national parks, 544 wildlife sanctuaries, 46 community reserves and 77
conservation reserves (ENVIS, 2018). Some of these PAs have been declared as tiger
reserves, where sufficient tiger presence is there and habitat is suitable for the animal.
National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), Government of India provides financial
assistance to such areas declared as tiger reserves in the mode of a centrally sponsored
scheme (CSS). Project tiger was launched by the Government of India in the year 1973 to
save the endangered species of tiger in the country. Starting from 9 reserves in 1973, the
number is grown up to 50 in 2018. A total area of 71,027.10 km2
is covered by these
project tiger areas. It is worth mentioning that more than 50% of world’s tigers reside in
Indian forests (Verma et al., 2015) and project tiger has turned out to be one of the most
successful wildlife conservation projects in the world and applauded for the dedication
and professionalism of all those involved.
2 Site description
The forests of these PAs support a wide variety of flora and fauna. Major forest type
existing in the region is the ‘southern tropical dry deciduous forest’ grouped as 5A as per

4. 68 A. Roy et al.
the classification done by Champion and Seth (Figure 2). The prominent tree species are
teak (Tectona grandis) and its associates namely haldu (Adina cordifolia), dhaoda
(Anogeissus latifolia), salai (Boswellia serrata), kulu (Sterculia urens), tendu (Diospyros
melanoxylon), baheda (Terminalia belirica), achar (Buchanania lanzan), amaltas (Cassia
fistula), aaonla (Embelica officinalis), arjun (Terminalia arjuna), bel (Aegle marmelos),
bamboo, etc.
Figure 2 Summer season panoramic view of vegetation in Pench Tiger Reserve (see online
version for colours)
Above mentioned four tiger reserves serve as prime habitat of royal Bengal tiger
(Panthera tigris) (Figure 4) and panther (Panthera pardus). The mammalian population
comprises of mainly species like sambhar (Rusa unicolor), chital (Axis axis) (Figure 5),
nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus), gaur (Bos gaurus), sloth bear (Melursus ursinus), wild
dog (Lycaon pictus), langoor (Semnopithecus), jackal (Canis aureus), fox (Vulpes
vulpes), hyena, porcupine, etc., and wide variety of aquatic life. Overgrazing in buffer
area by local nearby living cattle remains a serious issue in these PAs (Figure 3).
Figure 3 Cattle moving out of buffer area in Pench Tiger Reserve (see online version for colours)

5. Assessing flow benefits of protected areas of central India 69
Figure 4 A royal Bengal tigeress (Panthera tigris) roaming leisurely in Tadoba-Andhari Tiger
Reserve (see online version for colours)
Figure 5 A chital (Axis axis) herd enjoying winter sun in Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve
(see online version for colours)
3 Methodology
Surveys, using structured interviews and questionnaires; focused group discussions
(FGDs), using semi-structured and unstructured interviews were used to collect
information. We also gathered some secondary information from various sources like
reports, articles, websites, forest department and Satpuda foundation, a reputed NGO of
the region. Surveys were conducted in and around various tourism gates of Pench,
Tadoba-Andhari, Navegaon-Nagzirta and Bor Tiger reserves (BTR) and Umred
Karhandla wildlife sanctuary (Table 1).
Villages in which most households earn a majority of their living from participation
in tourism activities, such as hospitality in nearby hotels/resorts, as gypsy drivers or
guides were classified as tourism villages and non-tourism villages are those in which
most households earn all of their income from agriculture only. Villages were classified
at the time of field visits by having a discussion with the residents and the Sarpanch (head
of village local body) of the village. Random sampling, as well as snowballing, was used
to form a sample size of 173 households from the 22 villages surveyed in the study area.

6. 70 A. Roy et al.
Table 1 Villages around gates of protected areas
Sanctuary/reserve Gate Tourism villages Non-tourism villages
Pench Tiger Reserve
(PTR)
Sillari, Khursapar,
Kolitmara, Surewani,
Khobala, and Chorbauli
Sillari, Pipriya, and
Khursapar
Khapa, Usripar, and
Sawara
Tadoba-Andhari Tiger
Reserve (TATR)
Moharli Moharli Mudholi
Navegaon-Nagzira
Tiger Reserve (NNTR)
Chorkhamara, Pitezari,
and Mangezari
Chorkhamara,
Pitezari, and
Mangezari
Kotebarra, Bodalkasa,
and Balapur
Bor Tiger Reserve
(BTR)
Bordharan, and Adegaon Bori, Salaipewat,
Adegaon, and
Gothangaon
Vihira, Dewli, and
Khappikhurad
Umred-Karhandla
Wildlife Sanctuary
(UKWLS)
Karhandla Karhandla, and
Thane
Tirkhura, and Vanora
3.1 Income accruing to tourist guides
Tourism in the surveyed tiger reserves/sanctuary is allowed in the form of safaris in the
allowed tourism areas of the reserves, either on gypsies or other private vehicles. Higher
the number of trips at a reserve or sanctuary, better the tourism for local people. If the
number of trips are higher, guides and gypsy drivers, who are paid on a per trip basis, get
better income during a particular season. On an average, every guide earning an amount
of INR 300 per trip, the guides working at the reserve with the highest number of trips
earn the highest income. TATR received the highest number of tourists during the season;
therefore the income to guides at TATR was the highest while it was the lowest to guides
at UKWLS (Table 2).
Table 2 Income of tourist-guides during the season 2017–18
Tiger reserve/
wildlife sanctuary
Gates surveyed
No. of guides
surveyed
Number of trips
during season
Total income to
guides during
season (INR)
Pench Tiger
Reserve
Sillari, Khursapar,
Chorbauli, Khobala,
Surewani
86 3069 9,20,783
Navegaon-Nagzira
Tiger Reserve
Mangezari, Pitezari,
Chorkhamara
39 2731 8,19,355
Tadoba-Andhari
Tiger Reserve
Moharli 44 41171 1,23,51,254
Bor Tiger Reserve Bordharan, Adegaon 45 1637 4,91,090
Umred-Karhandla
Wildlife Sanctuary
Karhandla 28 302 90,740
Income of guides during the tourist season 14,673,222
The income figures were calculated using data from the guides’ FGDs, and the data
collected from the Forest Department regarding the revenue from tourism at the gates
mentioned in Table 1. The number of trips were obtained from the total revenue at the

7. Assessing flow benefits of protected areas of central India 71
gate and the amount given to the department. The later comprised of the fees for an
average of three people, paying INR 180 each, the vehicle fees amounting to INR 440,
and an average of camera and online fees amounting to INR 120 (Pench Tiger
Conservation Foundation, Nagpur, 2018). Each guide receives INR 300 per trip, which is
used to estimate the total income to guides at a Tiger reserve or wildlife sanctuary. Apart
from this official income, tourists also give generous tips to the guide on a favourable
spotting. On an average, an amount of INR 250 to 300 is earned on the spotting of a tiger,
while leopard spotting invites a slightly smaller tip of INR 150 to 200. On the higher side,
guides at TATR have received tips amounting up to INR 2,000, as compared to an
amount of INR 500 at PTR (personal communication with officials). Apart from
monetary tips, the tourists sometimes also provide gifts such as cameras and books to the
guides who greatly impress them.
3.2 Income of local community from hospitality sector
The local community also finds a fair livelihood option in the hospitality sector near these
PAs. Employed as junior staff (such as cook, helper, and waiter) and mid-management
(like supervisor), the income of the employees across various resorts around the tiger
reserves of Maharashtra are shown in Table 3.
Table 3 Income from hospitality sector during the season 2017–2018
Tiger reserve/wildlife
sanctuary
Number of resorts
surveyed
Number of people employed
from community
Income to local
community (INR)
Pench Tiger Reserve 8 106 9,322,500
Nagzira Tiger Reserve 7 35 2,794,800
Tadoba-Andhari Tiger
Reserve
7 58 3,594,000
Bor Tiger Reserve 3 23 1,875,000
Umred Wildlife Sanctuary 5 61 3,306,000
Total income to community from hospitality 2,08,92,300
3.3 Other flow benefits of PAs under study
Broadly, tangible benefits from PAs ecosystem refer to goods obtained from these areas,
while intangible benefits (mainly flow benefits) include the set of services which improve
human well-being indirectly. While tangible benefits may be of great importance,
especially to the local community; the intangible benefits as many of these are not
marketed and perhaps not appropriately managed. Some of these flow benefits/intangible
benefits are listed below. On account of lack of site specific studies for estimating the
economic value of the ecosystem service related to various services (mentioned below),
the method of benefits transfer has been used (Verma et al., 2015).
3.3.1 Gene – pool protection
Tropical biodiversity within the PAs, especially endemism and speciation, is the result of
evolutionary processes over thousands of years. Natural organisms, especially endemic
species, have evolved an astounding variety of chemical compounds to escape predators,

8. 72 A. Roy et al.
capture prey, enhance reproductive success and fight infections. These compounds have
proved to be of great value when adapted for various human uses, especially the
pharmaceutical industry (Mace et al., 2012). For example, leukemia is today treated with
medicines derived from the rosy periwinkle of Madagascar, and the bark of the pacific
yew tree is the source of a treatment for ovarian cancer (Simpson, 1997). Using estimates
of economic value of gene-pool protection for tropical forests (Rs. 91,020/ha/year) from a
global meta-analysis study (Costanza et al., 2014), the economic value for different PAs
in our study are given in Table 4.
Table 4 Gene – pool protection value of selected PAs
S no. Name of protected area
Core plus buffer area
(sq km)
Gene-pool protection
value (Rs. billion/year)
1 Pench Tiger Reserve 741 6.74
2 Nagzira Tiger Reserve 1,895 17.24
3 Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve 1,724 15.70
4 Bor Tiger Reserve 816 7.43
5 Umred Wildlife Sanctuary 189 0.02
3.3.2 Biological control
There is growing evidence that deforestation or/and forest degradation results in an
increased spread of incidence of human infectious diseases (Patz et al., 2000; Vittor et al.,
2006). Forests and other natural ecosystems within the PA system moderate the risk of
infectious diseases by regulating the populations of disease organisms like viruses,
bacteria and parasites or the intermediate disease vectors (e.g., rodents and insects)
(Verma et al., 2015). Using estimates of economic value of biological control for tropical
forests (Rs. 660/ha/year) from a global meta-analysis study (Costanza et al., 2014), the
economic value for different PAs in our study are given in Table 5.
Table 5 Biological control value for selected PAs
S no. Name of protected area
Core plus buffer area
(sq km)
Biological control value
(Rs. million/year)
1 Pench Tiger Reserve 741 48.91
2 Nagzira Tiger Reserve 1,895 125.07
3 Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve 1,724 113.78
4 Bor Tiger Reserve 816 53.86
5 Umred Wildlife Sanctuary 189 12.47
3.3.3 Habitat and refugia
PAs also provide non-instrumental benefits such as habitat and refugia for wildlife. These
areas provide suitable living space and food for wild animals and birds. Further, intact
natural ecosystems within the tiger reserves with their buffering functions (e.g., cooling
effects, interception of precipitation and evapo-transpiration, water storage and wind
shield) can significantly contribute to the mitigation of and adaptation to extreme weather
events (Verma et al., 2015). Using estimates of economic value for provisioning of

9. Assessing flow benefits of protected areas of central India 73
habitat and refugia for wildlife in tropical forests (Rs. 2,340/ha/year) from a global
meta-analysis study (Costanza et al., 2014), the economic value for different PAs in our
study are given in Table 6.
Table 6 Habitat and refugia value of selected PAs
S no. Name of protected area
Core plus buffer
area (sq km)
Habitat and refugia protection
value (Rs. million/year)
1 Pench Tiger Reserve 741 173.40
2 Nagzira Tiger Reserve 1,895 443.43
3 Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve 1,724 403.42
4 Bor Tiger Reserve 816 190.90
5 Umred Wildlife Sanctuary 189 44.22
3.3.4 Pollination
PAs and tiger reserves provide a natural habitat to pollinators which consequently help in
increasing the quantity and quality of pollinator-dependent agricultural and horticultural
crops in the surrounding areas of these areas. Using estimates of economic value of
pollination for tropical forests (Rs. 1,800/ha/year) from a global meta-analysis study
(Costanza et al., 2014), the economic value for different PAs in our study are given in
Table 7.
Table 7 Pollination value of selected PAs
S no. Name of protected area
Core plus buffer area
(sq km)
Pollination value
(Rs. million/year)
1 Pench Tiger Reserve 741 133.40
2 Nagzira Tiger Reserve 1,895 341.10
3 Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve 1,724 310.32
4 Bor Tiger Reserve 816 146.88
5 Umred Wildlife Sanctuary 189 34.0
Table 8 Gas regulation value of selected PAs
S no. Name of protected area
Core plus buffer area
(sq km)
Gas regulation value
(Rs. million/year)
1 Pench Tiger Reserve 741 53.40
2 Nagzira Tiger Reserve 1,895 136.44
3 Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve 1,724 124.12
4 Bor Tiger Reserve 816 58.80
5 Umred Wildlife Sanctuary 189 13.60
3.3.5 Gas regulation
Natural ecosystems within the PAs/tiger reserves regulate chemical composition of
various atmospheric gases such as oxygen, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur oxides.
On account of lack of site-specific studies for estimating the economic value of gas

10. 74 A. Roy et al.
regulation, the method of benefits transfer has been used. Using estimates of economic
value of gas regulation for tropical forests (Rs. 720/ha/year) from a global meta-analysis
study (Costanza et al., 2014), the economic value for different PAs in our study are given
in Table 8.
3.3.6 Waste assimilation
Natural vegetation and biota within these PAs/tiger reserves break down xenic nutrients
and compounds and help in pollution control and detoxification. Due to paucity of data
for estimating the economic value of waste assimilation, the method of benefits transfer
has been used. Using estimates of economic value of waste assimilation for tropical
forests (Rs. 7,200/ha/year) from a global meta-analysis study (Costanza et al., 2014), the
economic value for different PAs in our study are given in Table 9.
Table 9 Waste assimilation value of selected PAs
S no. Name of protected area
Core plus buffer area
(sq km)
Waste assimilation value
(Rs. million/year)
1 Pench Tiger Reserve 741 533.52
2 Nagzira Tiger Reserve 1,895 1364.40
3 Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve 1,724 1241.30
4 Bor Tiger Reserve 816 587.52
5 Umred Wildlife Sanctuary 189 136.08
4 Discussion
Twenty-five to 30 years ago, PAs were largely the domain of ecologists, forestry
officials, and the occasional land-use planners. Now, they are included in the
international arena as part of the Millennium Development Goals, and their mission has
broadened substantially. PAs are expected to directly contribute to national development
and poverty reduction (Naughton-Treves et al., 2005). Annual agricultural income of
around 815 households in non-tourism villages (Table 1) situated away from the PAs
(under consideration) was estimated during the study period. When the annual tourism
income (Tables 2 and 3) of tourism villages was compared with the annual agricultural
income, it was found that with half of the effort, and in lesser time, villagers earn a fairly
good amount of income from tourism activities, while also earning from agriculture (Roy
et al., 2018). This proves that local livelihood or employment opportunities (a kind of
annual flow benefit) from these PAs are quite substantial in magnitude in addition to
other intangible flow benefits (Tables 4 to 9).
PAs (under study) annual management costs/budget allotted for the year 2017–18 are
provided in Table 10. It can be observed that for every rupee spent on management costs
in these PAs, flow benefits (in terms of Rs.) realised within and outside these PAs vary
between 49 and 478. These findings are quite similar to the study conducted by Verma
et al. (2015) across six tiger reserves of India.
Economic valuation, i.e., estimation of flow benefits or intangible benefits is an
attempt to assign quantitative values to the goods and services provided by natural
resources where market prices are not available, and thus help to inform decisions

11. Assessing flow benefits of protected areas of central India 75
regarding resource allocation (Barbier et al., 1997; Daily et al., 1997). In the field of PA
management, economic valuation can be useful to indicate the real opportunity cost of
alternative uses of natural resources (Richards, 1994). The local people as well as policy
makers need to be made were aware of and must appreciate the functions performed by
the PAs in maintaining ecological security and food security. But support and
cooperation of local community is a must for these areas as conservationists/foresters/
ecologists recognise that many PAs have limited future prospects without the cooperation
and support of local people, especially in developing countries (Wells and McShane,
2004).
Table 10 Annual management costs v/s flow benefits from PAs under study
S no. Name of PA
Annual management
cost (million Rs)
Overall flow
benefits
(million Rs./year)
Investment
multiplier
1 Navegaon-Nagzira Tiger Reserve 158.85 19,650.44 124.0
2 Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve 365.0 17,893.00 49.0
3 Pench-Bor Tiger Reserve 33.80 (combined
cost)
16,150.50 478.0
PAs in developing countries are generally associated with high levels of poverty. But
there are certain success stories where local communities have been benefitted
economically by PA network. Ferraro et al. (2011) concluded that after accounting for the
selective placement of PAs in locations with dramatically lower development potential,
the PAs had contributed to economic development and reduced poverty in Thailand and
Costa Rica. The most likely explanation lies in economic benefits from increased
tourism, large enough to offset the costs of restrictions on land use. There are few more
studies in other developing countries, including India, which suggested positive
correlation between PA establishment and poverty reduction among nearby community
(Clements et al., 2014 in Cambodia; Gurney et al., 2014 in Indonesia, Karanth and Nepal,
2012 in India and Nepal). However, without replications of such kind of studies in larger
area of PA network in most of the other developing countries, it would be rather unfair to
draw similar conclusions as the enabling conditions vary in different countries. Wildlife
tourism (particularly tiger tourism) is on the rise in India and Thailand both but the recent
experience of Jim Corbett Tiger Reserve, North India has shown that such tourism is
negatively impacting PA ecology and monetary benefits are not reaching local
community, rather enjoyed by middle men (Rastogi et al., 2015). Nevertheless, in order
to achieve PA conservation success in long run, managers of parks should focus on
building social capital and strengthening local institutions instead of increasing tourist
pressure unwisely. The larger challenge is to allow human society to meet its potential
and share the fruits of economic growth while sustaining a biosphere that not only
sustains full ecological functions but retains its living diversity (Adams et al., 2004).
Insufficient funding is another issue which means that many PA systems have
inadequate staff, equipment, and other management necessities (Bruner et al., 2004). The
world famous first tiger reserve of India, Jim Corbett National Park and Rajaji National
Park, both located in North Indian state of Uttarakhand face shortage of frontline staff.
According to latest update, at least 40% posts of rangers and forest guards are lying
vacant in these two parks (The Tribune, 2018). In present case study, also, park officers
complained about constraints regarding insufficient and timely receipt of funds from state

12. 76 A. Roy et al.
and central governments. To overcome budget constraints, private hotels and lodges
nearby must be made to pay a ‘conservation tax’ since they depend on the publicly
funded PA for their business and earn a lot. In most PAs the entry fee is quite low, not
even inflation adjusted over time, therefore, a slight increase is unlikely to affect the
ability of ordinary citizens to visit their national parks (Banerjee, 2010). Some studies
advocated that scientific studies estimating average ‘consumer surplus’ enjoyed by
visiting tourists should be conducted to arrive at optimum entry fee and other related
expenses in PAs incurred by tourists (Seenprachawong, 2003; Bharali and Mazumdar,
2012; Chaudhry and Tewari, 2016). But no such study has been conducted in the PAs
discussed above. Lastly, in the absence of primary data and due to time constraints, flow
benefits regarding soil conservation, nutrient recycling, carbon sequestration, etc., could
not be assessed. Therefore, investment multiplier is likely to increase further if all these
intangible benefits are considered into analysis.
5 Conclusions
The study findings indicate that the monetary values of flow benefits emanating from
PAs of Maharashtra state of India range from 16.15 to 19.65 billion rupees annually. In
terms of unit area, this translates into about Rs. one lakh (or 0.1 million) per hectare per
year. Study findings also indicate that a large proportion of flow benefits are intangible,
and hence, often unaccounted for in market transactions. Economic valuation can help in
recognising these intangibles and hence, have them considered in policy actions. Further,
adequate investment in natural capital contained in PAs is essential to ensure the flow of
ecosystem services in future. The PAs of India support a wide range of economic sectors
and investment in this natural capital would lead to maintaining ecological security and
food security, thereby leading to overall sustainable development. These investments can
be cost effective responses to the climate change crisis, for creating jobs, for supporting
local economies and maintaining ecosystem benefits on a long term basis.
Acknowledgements
We express our sincere thanks to Satpuda Foundation for providing technical and
financial help during summer internship project entitled ‘Impact of Wildlife Tourism and
Ecotourism on Conservation and Community in the Tiger Reserves of Maharashtra’. We
are also thankful to Mr. Rishabh Jha, PGDFM student of 2017–19 batch of IIFM Bhopal
for the quality photographs inserted in the article.
References
Adams, W.A., Aveling, R., Brockington, D., Dickson, B., Elliott, J., Hutton, J., Roe, D., Vira, B.
and Wolme, W. (2004) ‘Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty’, Science,
Vol. 306, No. 5699, pp.1146–48.
Banerjee, A. (2010) ‘Tourism in protected areas: worsening prospects for tigers?’, Economic and
Political Weekly, Vol. 65, No. 10, pp.27–29.
Barbier, E.B., Acreman, M. and Knowler, D. (1997) Economic Valuation of Wetland: A Guide for
Policy Makers and Planners, Ramsar Convention Bureau Gland, Switzerland.

13. Assessing flow benefits of protected areas of central India 77
Bharali, R. and Mazumdar, R. (2012) ‘Application of travel cost method to assess the pricing
policy of public parks: the case of Kaziranga National Par’, Journal of Regional Development
and Planning, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.41–50.
Bruner, A.G., Raymond, E.G. and Andrew, B. (2004) ‘Financial costs and shortfalls of managing
and expanding protected-area systems in developing countries’, BioScience, Vol. 54, No. 12,
pp.1119–1126.
Chape, S., Spalding, M. and Jenkins, M. (2008) The World’s Protected Areas, Prepared by UNEP
World Conservation Monitoring Centre, University of California Press, Berkeley, USA.
Chaudhry, P. and Tewari, V.P. (2016) ‘Estimating recreational value of Mahatama Gandhi Marine
National Park, Andaman and Nicobar islands’, Interdisciplinary Environmental Review,
Vol. 17, No. 1, pp.47–59.
Clements, T., Suon, S., Wilkie, D.S. and Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2014) ‘Impacts of protected areas on
local livelihoods in Cambodia’, World Development, Vol. 64, pp.125–134.
Costanza, R., De Groot, R., Sutton, P., Ploeg, S.v.d., Anderson, S.J., Kubiszewski, I., Farber, S. and
Turner, R.K. (2014) ‘Changes in the global value of ecosystem services’, Global
Environmental Change, Vol. 26, pp.152–158.
Daily, G.C., Alexander, S., Ehrlich, P.C., Goulder, L., Lubchenco, J., Matson, P.A., Mooney, H.A.,
Postel, S., Schneider, S.H., Tilman, D. and Woodwell, G.M. (1997) Ecosystem Services:
Benefits Supplied to Human Societies by Natural Ecosystems, Ecological Society of American,
Washington, DC.
Dobson, A. (1996) Conservation and Biodiversity, Scientific American Library, New York.
ENVIS (2018) ENVIS Centre on Wildlife & Protected Areas, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun,
India [online] http://www.wiienvis.nic.in/Database/Protected_Area_854.aspx (accessed 10
January 2019).
Ferraro, P.J., Hanauer, M.M. and Sims, K.R.E. (2011) ‘Conditions associated with protected area
success in conservation and poverty reduction’, PNAS, Vol. 108, No. 34, pp.13913–13918.
Ghimire, B.K. and Pimbert, M.P. (1997) ‘Social change and conservation: an overview of issues
and concepts’, Krishna, P.G. and Michel, P.P. (Eds.): Social Change and Conservation,
pp.1–45, Earthscan Publications Limited, London.
Gurney, G.G., Cinner, J., Ban, N.C., Pressey, R.L., Pollnac, R., Campbell, J., Tasidjawa, S. and
Setiawan, F. (2014) ‘Poverty and protected areas: an evaluation of a marine integrated
conservation and development project in Indonesia’, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 26,
pp.98–107.
Karanth, K.K. and Nepal, S.K. (2012) ‘Local residents perception of benefits and losses from
protected areas in India and Nepal’, Environmental Management, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp.372–386.
Mace, G.M., Norris, K. and Fitter, A.H. (2012) ‘Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a
multilayered relationship’, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp.19–26.
McNeely, J.A. (1995) Expanding Partnerships in Conservation, Island Press, Washington, DC.
Naughton-Treves, L., Holland, M.B. and Brandon, K. (2005) ‘The role of protected areas in
conserving biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods’, Annual Review of Environment and
Resources, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp.219–252.
Patz, J.A., Grczyk, T.K., Geller, N. and Vittor, A.Y. (2000) ‘Effect of environmental change on
emerging parasitic diseases’, International Journal for Parasitology, Vol. 30, Nos. 12/13,
pp.1395–1405.
Rastogi, A., Gordon, M.H., Anand, A., Badola, R. and Hussain, S.A. (2015) ‘Wildlife-tourism,
local communities and tiger conservation: a village-level study in Corbett Tiger Reserve,
India’, Forest Policy and Economics, Vol. 61, pp.11–19.
Richards, M. (1994) ‘Towards valuation of forest conservation benefits in developing countries’,
Environmental Conservation, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp.308–319.
Roy, A., Yadav, V. and Chaudhry, P. (2018) ‘Protected areas of Central India and livelihood issues
of nearby community’, Field Forester, communicated.

14. 78 A. Roy et al.
Seenprachawong, U. (2003) ‘Economic valuation of coral reefs at Phi Phi Islands, Thailand’,
International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.104–114.
Sekhar, N.U. (2003) ‘Local people’s attitudes towards conservation and wildlife tourism around
Sariska Tiger Reserve, India’, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 69, No. 4,
pp.339–347.
Simpson, D. (1997) ‘Shopping the wilds is not the key to conservation’, Resources Winter,
Vol. 126, pp.12–15.
The Tribune (2018) ‘Corbett, Rajaji Reserves face staff shortage’, Daily newspaper ‘The Tribune’,
Chandigarh ed., 6 August, p.6.
UNEP-WCMC (2014) Global Statistics from the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA),
August, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
Verma, M., Negandhi, D., Khanna, C., Edgaonkar, A., David, A., Kadekodi, G., Costanza, R. and
Singh, R. (2015) Economic Valuation of Tiger Reserves in India: A Value + Approach, Indian
Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal, India.
Vittor, A.Y., Gilman, R.H., Tielsch, J., Glass, G., Shields, T., Lozano, W.S., Pinedo-Cancino, V.
and Patz, J.A. (2006) ‘The effect of deforestation on the human-biting rate of Anopheles
darlingi, the primary vector of Falciparum malaria in the Peruvian Amazon’, Am Journal of
Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, Vol. 74, No. 1, pp.3–11.
Wells, M.P. and McShane, T.O. (2004) ‘Integrating protected area management with local needs
and aspirations’, Ambio, Vol. 33, No. 8, pp.513–519.