This study examined the knowledge and understanding of sustainable tourism (ST) in relation to key channels and sources of ST information of four key stakeholder groups in the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants in three sites located along the most popular trekking routes with economies heavily reliant on tourism. Important differences among stakeholders were identified and related to sources of knowledge sharing. Implications on ST development and management, as well as emerging issues facing ST and park management, were explored.

1. Stakeholder Knowledge and
Understanding of
Sustainable Tourism
Management in the
Annapurna Conservation
Area (ACA), Nepal
Caroline Wrobel
International Conference on Tourism,
Climate Change and Sustainability 2012
Bournemouth, UK

2.  2011 – Tourists’ WTP for the
entry fee to the ACA
 Contingent valuation
 Interviews
 Observations
 Informal conversations
 2012 – Qualitative data
collection
 75+ interviews and informal
conversations
 Observations
 Road development study

3. Tourism Management in
Protected Areas (PAs)
Management
Objectives
• Maximize
tourism benefits,
minimize costs
Review of
Adjust actions? Management
Management
Actions
Strategy
• Monitor
outcomes • Policy
• Are outcomes implementation
in line with Monitoring & • Proactive
objectives? Evaluation management
(Eagles et al., 2002)
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

4. Sustainable Tourism (ST)
 In the Context of Tourism:
“Tourism which is in a form which can maintain its
viability in an area for an indefinite period of time”
-Butler, 1993, p. 29
 In the Context of Sustainable Development:
“Tourism that takes full account of its current and
future economic, social and environmental impacts,
addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the
environment and host communities”
-UNWTO website
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

5. Interpretations of ST
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

6. Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

7. Annapurna
Conservation Area
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

8. Regional Tourism Trends
120,000
100,000
Number of Tourists
80,000
Number of Tourists
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2011
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Year
Jan Feb Mar May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Seasonality of international in the arrivals in Conservation
International tourist arrivals tourist Annapurnathe Annapurna
Conservation 2011 (Source: ACAP, 2012, communication).
Area, 1996 to Area (ACAP, 2012, personalpersonal communication).
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

9. Regional Tourism Trends
120,000
100,000
Number of Tourists
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2011
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Year
Seasonality of international tourist Annapurnathe Annapurna
International tourist arrivals in the arrivals in Conservation
Conservation Area (ACAP, 2012, personal communication).
Area, 1996 to 2011 (ACAP, 2012, personal communication).
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

10. • Established 1986
• NGO
• Under the National
Trust for Nature
Conservation (NTNC)
• Retention of entrance fees
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

11. Management Plan Objectives
• Intrinsic PA objectives
• Biodiversity
• Environmental services
• Sustainable use of resources
• Implement programs based on
sustainability that can be locally
managed
• Sustainable tourism management
program
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

12. In Transition…
Map of the Annapurna Circuit trek.
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

13. Research Motivation
• What has been studied:
 Impacts of tourism
 Perceptions of tourism development and impacts
 Community-based conservation
• What is not yet known:
 Knowledge and understanding of tourism
management objectives by relevant stakeholders
 Ability of local communities to manage for ST
 Implications of emerging developments and
issues in the area on current tourism
management
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

14. Research Questions
Sustainable Tourism
• Stakeholder knowledge of ST?
• Interpretation of the ST concept?
• Perceptions of responsibility?
• Most important channels and sources of ST information?
• Implications of recent developments and issues on tourism
management?
Comparisons
• How do knowledge and interpretations of ST differ among
stakeholders and groups?
• How are differences these differences influenced by access
to different information channels and sources?
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

15. •Tourism business owners
Stakeholder • Guides
Groups • Management agency (ACAP)
• International tourists
• Purposive sampling
Qualitative • 55 semi-structured interviews
Methods • 22 informal conversations
• Observations
• Qualitative coding and analysis (NVivo 9)
• Constant comparison
Data Analysis • Triangulation: qualitative content analysis, coding
matrices, multiple data sources
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

16. Jomsom Muktinath
Manang Chame
Annapurna 1
Annapurna 3
Annapurna 4 & 2
Annapurna South
Tatopani
Ghandruk
Besisahar
Beni Pokhara
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

17. Stakeholders Interviewed
18.20% ACAP (n=10)
30.90%
Guides (n=12)
21.80%
Tourism business
owners (TBO, n=16)
29.10%
Tourists (n=17)
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

18. Knowledge of ST
100%
5.9%
Percentage of Participants 90% 18.8% 16.7%
80%
70%
60% Lack of
50% 100.0% knowledge
94.1%
40% 81.3% 83.3%
Knowledge
30% of ST
20%
10%
0%
TBOs Guides Tourists ACAP
(n=16) (n=12) (n=17) (n=10)
Stakeholder Group
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

19. Interpretations of the ST Concept
Greater-than-
Weakest
Weakest (GTW)
Interpretation
Interpretations
Sustainability of Weak to strongest
tourism industry interpretations
NO mention of
Other economic
other economic
aspects
aspects
NO mention of
Environmental/
environmental/
social dimensions
social dimensions
Background Objectives Methods Results Conclusions

20. Interpretations of ST: TBOs
16 TBOs
Interviewed
Env't 3 TBOs (18.8%)
13 TBOs (81.2%)
50% No Knowledge
Knowledge of ST
of ST
50.0%
37.5%
(18.8%) 8 TBOs (50.0%) 5 TBOs (31.2%)
GTW Weakest
Social Interpretation
Interpretation
75% 75% Economic
100%
3 TBOs (18.8%) 5 TBOs (31.2%)
Holistic Weak
Interpretation Interpretation
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

21. Interpretations of ST: Guides
12 Guides
Interviewed
10 Guides 2 Guides (16.7%)
Env't (83.3%) No Knowledge
44.4% Knowledge of ST of ST
22.2% 22.2% 9 Guides (75.0%) 1 Guide (8.3%)
(16.7%) GTW Weakest
Interpretation Interpretation
Social
66.7% Economic
66.7% 77.8%
2 Guides (16.7%) 5 Guides (41.7%)
Holistic Weak Interpretation
Interpretation 2 Guides (16.7%)
Strong Interpretation
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

22. Interpretations of ST: Tourists
17 Tourists
Interviewed
16 Tourists 1 Tourist (5.9%)
(94.1%) No Knowledge
Knowledge of ST of ST
Social
68.8% 62.5%
Env't 16 Tourists (94.1%)
93.8% GTW
Interpretation
18.8%
(17.6%)
25.0%
Economic
3 Tourists (17.6%) 1 Tourist (5.9%)
25.0%
Holistic Weak Interpretation
Interpretation 13 Tourists (76.4%)
Strong
Interpretation
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

23. Interpretations of ST: ACAP
10 ACAP Staff
Interviewed
10 ACAP Staff
Env’t (100%)
80.0% Knowledge of ST
70.0%
60.0% 10 ACAP Staff (100%)
GTW Interpretation
Social 60.0%
80.0%
70.0%
6 ACAP Staff (60%) 2 ACAP Staff (20%)
Economic Holistic Weak Interpretation
80.0% Interpretation 2 ACAP Staff (20%)
Strong Interpretation
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

24. Sources of ST Information
Stakeholder No. Participants
Source of ST Information
Group that Used Source
TBOs ACAP education & training 13 (100%)
Newspaper & radio 2 (15.4%)
Guides Guide training 10 (100%)
Television & radio 1 (10%)
Tourists Internet 10 (62.5%)
News media 10 (62.5%)
Common knowledge 4 (25%)
Formal education 2 (12.5%)
Training seminars &
ACAP 10 (100%)
workshops
Formal education 7 (70%)
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

25. Comparisons Among Stakeholders
Stakeholder Group
ACAP Tourists Guides TBOs
Variable
(n=10) (n=17) (n=12) (n=16)
With knowledge of the ST 10 16 10 13
concept (100%) (94.1%) (83.3%) (81.2%)
1 5
Weakest interpretation - -
(8.3%) (31.2%)
2 1 5 5
Weak interpretation
(20%) (5.9%) (41.7%) (31.2%)
2 13 2
Strong interpretation -
(20%) (76.4%) (16.7%)
Holistic understanding 6 3 2 3
(all 3 dimensions) (60%) (17.6%) (16.7%) (18.8%)
Primary dimension of All 3
Environmental Economic Economic
sustainability Dimensions
Secondary dimension of
- Social Social Social
sustainability
Tertiary dimension of
- Economic Environmental Environmental
sustainability
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

26. 80% ACAP
70%
Proportion of Respondents
Government
60%
Guides
50%
40% Local communities
30% TBO
20%
Local level institutions
10%
Trekking agencies
0%
TBOs ACAP Guides Tourists
Tourists
Stakeholder Group
Perceptions of who is most responsible for ensuring the sustainable
development of tourism among stakeholder groups.
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

27. “We cannot do ourselves. We have to go
through the government policies. It is
very challenging.”
-ACAP staff
“For long-term policy making and planning
there is contradiction with the government
because government emphasis is on road.”
-ACAP staff
“Even though this is a protected area, we are not
thinking about controlling the number of tourists…our
focus is how to manage.”
-ACAP staff
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

28. Emerging Issues
• Insufficient Tourist Information System
12
10
Lack of
information about
Number of Tourists
8 the ACA
6
Lack of
4 information about
ACAP
2
0
ACAP Checkposts Guides Internet Signs Trekking
Offices Agencies
Source of Information
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

29. Emerging Issues
• Insufficient Tourist Information System
“It’s a shame that there is not more information. I
learn it very late. At the beginning I bought water
because I did not know about the drinking
stations. I was not informed.”
-Tourist (with a guide) in Manang
“Even among the international trekkers, in my
personal view, individual trekkers they get
more message from us than the organized
one.”
-ACAP staff
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

30. Emerging Issues
• Increasing domestic and SAARC*
tourism
‐ 2010: 25% SAARC tourists in ACA
‐ 2011: 9.4% SAARC tourists in ACA
‐ 2011: 20.2% of all tourists in ACA from SAARC
countries (excluding domestic tourists)
‐ 2012: ACAP begins to record domestic tourist
numbers for the first time
• Environmental Impacts
*SAARC=South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

31. “Domestic tourists, they don’t know
actually what is the pollution and how
to save the environment.”
-Lodge owner in Jomsom
“Nepali peoples they are a little bit less
considerate about the environment.
Whenever they have wrapper or
something just only throw on the way.”
-Guide in Manang
“[Domestic tourism] means mixed
good and bad. Bad for environment.”
-Lodge owner in Manang
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

32. Emerging Issues
• Perceived inactivity of ACAP
“In the past they used to have like training programs,
like cooking, kind of like that. My father told me they
used to have that program.”
-Son of lodge owner in Manang
“But now, we do not see anything. No more training.”
-Lodge owner in Ghandruk
“[ACAP] did a really good job at the beginning….But
currently, it is not refreshed, not updated, so they are
being a bit lazy nowadays.”
-Lodge owner in Ghandruk
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

33. Emerging Issues
• Perceived inactivity of ACAP
“ACAP…were responsible for providing
training related to tourism before. But
nowadays they are a bit passive and they are
not giving them the training.”
-Lodge owner in Jomsom
“They spend 500 rupees on 57 [districts] and
1500 rupees maybe they are using for the
administration, a lot of staff. That means 75%
they use and 25% only for the development. “
-Lodge owner in Manang
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

34. Summary of Results
• TBOs weakest interpretation of the ST concept
• Limited environmental awareness
• Incongruence of planning and policies between
ACAP and the Government of Nepal
• Inadequate tourist information system
• Domestic & SAARC tourists – emerging key
stakeholder group
• Perceived inactivity of ACAP
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

35. Implications
• Destination level
 Tourist information-sharing system
 Guide training
 Local training and capacity building
 Ability of locals to manage for ST
 Limits of ACAP
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

36. Implications
• Wider context
 Challenges of identification and minimization of
stakeholder differences for ST
 Knowledge sharing for ST
 Need for on-going commitment
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

37. Recommendations
• Restarting of tourism training with updated
information for capacity building
• Improvement of the current tourist
information system
– Cooperation and coordination with trekking
agencies
• Planning and strategy development for
domestic and SAARC tourism management
– Information sharing with domestic & SAARC
tourists
• Improved integration of ACAP and
Government of Nepal tourism management
objectives
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications

38. Acknowledgements
• The author would like to thank:
– Dr. Bardecki, Supervisor
– Drs. MacKay and Teelucksingh, Committee
Members
– Dr. Khadka, External Reader
– Dr. Pushchak, Chair
– All of the participants of this study who took the
time to be interviewed or speak with me
– My wonderful research assistant and translator
Kabindra Bhatta
– The staff at ACAP, ICIMOD, and the NTNC for
providing assistance and information for this
study
– Ryerson International for assisting with funding
to conduct this study