Community-based ecotourism has increasingly been promoted as a mechanism for linking biodiversity conservation with rural development in and around protected areas. Its significance is particularly evident where local communities bear both the opportunity costs of conservation and the environmental risks associated with human–wildlife interactions. This study examines the contribution of community-based ecotourism to rural development and biodiversity conservation around Kaziranga National Park (KNP), Assam, India. The analysis is based primarily on a household survey of 400 households from 15 fringe villages, supplemented by stakeholder interviews, field observations and secondary information. Of the sampled households, 95 (23.75%) were directly engaged in tourism-related activities, while 305 (76.25%) were primarily dependent on agriculture, wage labour, business and other non-tourism activities. The findings indicate a substantial difference in household income: tourism-engaged households reported an average monthly income of Rs. 24,474 compared with Rs. 10,675 among non-tourism households, representing a difference of Rs. 13,799 and an income ratio of approximately 2.29:1. Tourism has also contributed to livelihood diversification through safari services, accommodation, transport, guiding, handicrafts, handloom, food services and cultural activities. The estimated tourism income multiplier of 2.63 suggests considerable indirect and induced economic effects, with direct, indirect and induced effects accounting for 38.09%, 19.05% and 42.86%, respectively. Approximately 73% of households reported improvement in quality of life. At the same time, the study identifies unequal distribution of tourism benefits, seasonal income fluctuations, environmental pressure, waste, habitat disturbance and human–wildlife conflict. Approximately 74% of respondents perceived tourism benefits to be concentrated among economically stronger households, while the estimated Gini coefficient was about 0.347. The study argues that ecotourism cannot be considered automatically sustainable. Its contribution to rural development and conservation depends upon equitable benefit sharing, local ownership, community participation, women’s empowerment, local procurement, carrying-capacity management and effective mechanisms for addressing conservation-related livelihood costs. The paper concludes that community-based ecotourism can create a virtuous relationship between biodiversity, tourism, local income and conservation when supported by inclusive governance.
Community-based ecotourism has increasingly been promoted as a mechanism for linking biodiversity conservation with rural development in and around protected areas. Its significance is particularly evident where local communities bear both the opportunity costs of conservation and the environmental risks associated with human–wildlife interactions. This study examines the contribution of community-based ecotourism to rural development and biodiversity conservation around Kaziranga National Park (KNP), Assam, India. The analysis is based primarily on a household survey of 400 households from 15 fringe villages, supplemented by stakeholder interviews, field observations and secondary information. Of the sampled households, 95 (23.75%) were directly engaged in tourism-related activities, while 305 (76.25%) were primarily dependent on agriculture, wage labour, business and other non-tourism activities. The findings indicate a substantial difference in household income: tourism-engaged households reported an average monthly income of Rs. 24,474 compared with Rs. 10,675 among non-tourism households, representing a difference of Rs. 13,799 and an income ratio of approximately 2.29:1. Tourism has also contributed to livelihood diversification through safari services, accommodation, transport, guiding, handicrafts, handloom, food services and cultural activities. The estimated tourism income multiplier of 2.63 suggests considerable indirect and induced economic effects, with direct, indirect and induced effects accounting for 38.09%, 19.05% and 42.86%, respectively. Approximately 73% of households reported improvement in quality of life. At the same time, the study identifies unequal distribution of tourism benefits, seasonal income fluctuations, environmental pressure, waste, habitat disturbance and human–wildlife conflict. Approximately 74% of respondents perceived tourism benefits to be concentrated among economically stronger households, while the estimated Gini coefficient was about 0.347. The study argues that ecotourism cannot be considered automatically sustainable. Its contribution to rural development and conservation depends upon equitable benefit sharing, local ownership, community participation, women’s empowerment, local procurement, carrying-capacity management and effective mechanisms for addressing conservation-related livelihood costs. The paper concludes that community-based ecotourism can create a virtuous relationship between biodiversity, tourism, local income and conservation when supported by inclusive governance.
