Turismo Aventura Nepal

8/13/2019 Turismo Aventura Nepal

1/21

A dv en ture Travel a n d Sustainable T ou r ismin th e P er ipheral Econom y of Nepa lDavid N. Zur ick

Department of Geography and Planning, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, KY 40475FAX 606622-1020, e-mail [email protected].

Abstract. Adventure travel i s one of the fastestgrowing but least understood forms of interna-tional tourism. Its role i n the economic devel-opment of remote world places and its impacton local society, economy, and the environ-ment are not fully comprehended, eventhough adventure tourism has been adoptedenthusiastically by many Third World nations.The paper analyzes adventure travel in Nepaland places i t within the theoretical frameworksof tourism models and sustainable develop-ment. Building on core-periphery tourism the-ory, an adventure travel spatial-linkage modeli s proposed that connects Nepals remotefrontiers with the global tourism economy.Within this model, adventure tourists movethrough a hierarchy of travel gateways beforereaching adventure destinations locatedamong isolated, subsistence populations. Thismovement produces a unique structure oftourism space that in turn contributes to theformation in Nepal of regional developmentssuch as hil ltown gateways, hinterland tourismdestinations, and multi-use parklands. An ad-venture tourism impact model relates tourismproblems associated with exceeding social andenvironmental carrying capacities. It also in-cludes more positive impacts linked to con-verging the interests of Nepals national econ-omy, indigenous populations, tourists, andconservation development. With i t s steadygrowth, adventure tourism in Nepal will playan increasingly important role for national andlocal development in the frontier areas.Key Words: Nepal, tourism, development, adven-ture travel.

Annals 1 t h e As s o c l a i m of Amerrcan Geographers 82 4),1992, pp. 608-628Copyright 1992 by Association of Arnercan Geographers

N the view of many scholars, internationaltourism plays a contentious role for ThirdWorld development. The criticism of tour-

ism parallels a general paradigm shift awayfrom purely growth-oriented economic devel-opment towards more sustainable forms of de-velopment (Friedmann et al. 1980; Redclift1987; Brookfield 1988) The new paradigm re-quires programs that l imit the negative effectsof economic behavior on local environmentsand cultures. It proposes linkages betweeneconomy, culture, and ecology in whatNorgaard (1984) calls co-evolutionary develop-ment, and what others have termedecodevelopment (Farvar and Glaeser 1979).Conventional or mass tourism developmentencounters skepticism mainly because its im-pacts and linkages are not necessarily, or evenprobably, sustainable or benign, and because,as Lea (1988, 2 observes, there is no otherinternational trading activity which involvessuch a critical interplay among economic, po-litical, environmental, and social elements astourism. The 1980s witnessed the appearanceof new tourism designs that both recognizetourisms negative impacts and imagine a morepositive role for tourism. These alternativemodels of tourism, which include ecotourism(Brockelman 1988; Durst 1988), ethnic tourism(McKean 1989), and adventure travel (Cutler1988), view tourism as a way to foster meaning-ful cross-cultural relationshipsas well as to pro-mote environmental conservation and a moreequitable distribution of tourism earnings(Gonsalves 1987, 12). Proponents of alternativetourism argue that since it provides scope forless negative impacts while retaining the posi-


2/21

Sustainable Tourism in Nepal 609

tive economic benefits, it therefore contrib-utes to more appropriate development.

This paper describes adventure travel inNepal, where tourists visit some of the worldsmost remote natural and cultural settings, anddiscusses its contr ibution to the national econ-omy and its impacts on local society and thenatural environment. Adventure tourismplaces have little traditional investment in tour-ism and are particularly vulnerable to changesinitiated by tourists. Hence, while adventuretourism in Nepal carries with i t behavioral pat-terns and impacts well documented i n the lit-erature, it also contains unique componentsthat influence nature-society change and re-gional development prospects in Nepals fron-tier areas. The study specifically links adven-ture travel in Nepal with sustainabledevelopment by examining how this travelconnects remote rural places and people withwider economic systems and how such con-nections change the ways local systems func-tion. In this context, I examine some of thecontradictions that adventure tourism posesfor regional development, for traditional cul-tures, and for fragile environments in Nepalsdeveloping economy. These contradictions liein the issues of tourism flows, tourist placedevelopment, and environmental and culturalimpacts.

Due to their overall importance in the main-stream tourism economy, resort enclave devel-opments are a common focus of geographicaltourism studies. Adventure travel meanwhilereceives scant attention in the literature,mainly because its economic role is consideredto be minimal (Butler 1990), although it i s oneof the fastest growing sectors of internationaltourism, and its impacts, while poorly under-stood, are especially significant for remote des-tinations. The geographical analyses of tourismtraditionally center on tourist flows (Cooper1981; Keogh 1984), tourist area development(Butler 1980; Lundgren 1984), regional plan-ning (Murphy and Andressen 1988), and theimpacts of tourism on local cultures and envi-ronments (Britton and Clarke 1987; Cohen1978). The modern adventure traveler i s largelyinvolved in pushing the tourism frontier far-ther in to the worlds periphery. Because Nepaloccupies such a peripheral position, i t serveswell to illustrate the processes that underliethe geographic expansion of adventure travel.The expansionary process itself i s examined

according to core-periphery spatial tourismmodels (Pearce 1979). The consequences of ad-venture travel are then discussed in a proposedimpact model that integrates adventuretourisms spatial development wi th consequentchanges in local society-nature relations.

Study Aims and Data SourcesThe study uses information obtained from

several sources. I gathered background pri-mary data in a mail survey sent to 100 US.-based adventure travel firms. Information so-licited from these operators, together with dataobtained from US. and world travel industrysources, identi fied the broad contours of theadventure travel industry, against which theNepal case study i s framed. Case studies ofnature tourism by other private researchersadd to the discussion of the problematique ofadventure travel for Third World development.

I also collected data during three periods offieldwork in Nepal in 1987, 1989, and 1990, atotal of eight months, as part of a larger ongo-ing research program. These data comprise thebulk of this analysis.2 Extensive visits to Nepalsmajor adventure regions provided informationon the location and use of trekking routes andimportant stopover villages, trail conditions,lodging services, and local tourism manage-ment efforts. Earlier visits to Khumbu in 1975and 1980 provided impressionistic material thatis set against the more recent reports ofchanges in the region. The study included visitsto various government and private agencies forinformation on national tourism policy andtravel industry promotions.

Background on Tourism andDevelopmentThe primary generating areas for interna-

tional tourism are the developed countries,where populations enjoy affluence and leisuretime. While the bulk of international tourisminvolves travel within the West, for examplebetween the U S and Europe or within Europe,a growing sector of international tourism alsodirects travel to the developing world regions(Barbier 1989; de Kadt 1979; Mathieson andWall 1982). The reasons for increased travel t odeveloping world places are many and com-plex, but they include the sensual lure of the


3/21

610 Zurick

Figure 1. Popular destinations for American adventure tourists, compiled from data obtained by author in U.S.adventure travel industry survey.

tropics as promoted in the travel brochures,the rich cultural and natural heritages of manyThird World places, the opportunities for ex-plor ing unique natural environments, the avail-ability of cheap labor and property for tourisminfrastructure in developing countries, and theliberal investment policies of many developingnations. In view of these factors, tourism argu-ably has become the most enticing and prob-lematic business in much of the Third World(Turner 1976).The nations of the developed world domi-nate the appropriation of world tourism earn-ings, reflecting their well-entrenched positionin the global economy and in the so-calledpleasure periphery (Turner and Ash 1975), aswell as the concentration of industry support(,airlines, cruiselines, car rentals, hotel chains)in the developed countries. As a result, thephysical flow of tourists and the financial flowof tourism earnings have been skewed tobenefit the West, despite tourisms promot ionas an economic panacea for Third World re-gions (Gray 1970; IUOTO 1966, 1975). Somewriters (Britton 1982; Hills and Lundgren 1977)

contend that structural inequities resultingfrom historical relations between developedand developing nations in fact are reproducedand exacerbated by international tourism, thuscontributing further to the pernicious effects ofpleasure travel as it continues to favor theeconomies of the western nations.A new type of adventure tourist has emergedwithin the international tourism agenda, drawnbeyond the standard tourism sites to seek ex-otic and unknown places, primarily in the de-veloping world (Fig. 1 .The adventure tourismindustry places such people directly into re-mote cultural and natural settings. I t s programsinclude mountain trekking in Nepal and Peru,bicycling through China, river safaris in PapuaNew Guinea, wildlife viewing i n Africa and Ant-arctica, nature tours to Central Americanrainforests, and monastic tours of Tibet. Thisrecent form of international tourism, which hasreceived only passing reference in the litera-ture (Cohen 1987), needs to be explained andmeasured against the broader studies of tour-ism development and the models and conceptsthey provide.


4/21


5/21

61 2 Zurick

Figure 2. Locations of Nepal parklands and gateway towns. Access to Shey Phoksunko National Park in Dolpaand to some of the lowland tarai wildlife reserves was restricted to foreign tourists in 1990.

Mountain trekking i s the most important ad-venture activity in Nepal. Group treks are ar-ranged and paid for abroad or in Kathmandu.Alternatively, individuals may trek withoutgroup services, relying instead on the villagesen route for food and lodging. In the lattercase, economic benefits may be dispersedmore widely through the countryside, but localsocial and environmental impacts are likely t obe more pronounced. The purpose of moun-tain trekking is to pass slowly through the land-scape, allowing time to explore both natureand village life. The experiences available aredescribed in the catalogueof Mountain Travel1990,54), one of the worlds foremost adven-

ture firms:Our trekking route passes through the ShimshalGorge, where the roar of the river reverberatesagainst sheer-walled canyons calved by theShimshal River, then across immense scree slopes,testimony to the instability of the Karakoram land-

scape. After three days of trekking, we arrive at theisolated community of Shimshal, an emerald oasisin an arid valley, and the most remote village in theKarakoram.While one might muse over the reactions ofShimshal villagers when a weary line of West-erners enter their village wearing gortex andthe pained looks of discovery, such encountersare of real importance to the future of suchisolated place^ ^The Orig ins of Ad venture Travel in Nepal

Nepal opened its borders to foreigners in1951, but not until the 1960s did many west-erners visit the country (only 4017 in 1960).Among them were mountaineering teams,some members of which went on to establishadventure travel programs in the country.Mountaineering has remained important forsome tourism agencies in Kathmandu and for


6/21


the regions near the high summits (visited in1988 by 94 international teams), but elsewhereit remains a relatively minor component i n thelocal economy. The rise in Nepals popularityas an adventure travel destination began in ear-nest during the 1970s when Kathmanduwas theterminus for long overland journeys under-taken by backpackers from Europe (Cohenscounterculture traveler.) During the past twodecades, the numbers of tourists enteringNepal has grown steadily, to exceed a 500-per-cent increase (Fig. 3a). The per iod 1976-88 alsoshows a steady rise in the number of touristswho entered for trekking purposes (Fig. 3b). In1988 approximately 20 percent of the visitorscame exclusively to trek in the mountains. Anadditional 60 percent came for some combina-tion of trekking, jungle safaris, river rafting,and ethnic touring (NRB 1989, 85). Due to thesignificance of adventure travel for Nepalstourism development, the country has up-graded its adventure travel objectives in recentFive-Year Plans, including calls for the diver-sion of tourists into newly-opened areas (Napit1982).

Creation of Adventure PlacesNepals diverse natural and cultural heritage

partially determine the level of tourism activityand the types of programs found at specificlocalities. Other factors include advertise-ments by the adventure travel industry, Nepalgovernment policies, and the promotional ef-forts of local entrepreneurs, individuals Richter(1989) calls cultural brokers. Valued geo-graphic attributes include remoteness, lack ofcontact, aesthetic landscapes, and cultural tra-ditions. Unlike resort developments, the ab-sence of.amenities i s part of the appeal. Theimage of the place i s coupled with physicalactivity. Mountain trekking, river travel, andelephant safaris all provide modes of travel andthematic entry into very different places. Thefashioning of such places in the adventuretravel brochures is central to the phenomenon.The brochure writer often attempts to interpreta place for the readerklient. A Nepal adventurei s described as follows in the Above the CloudsTrekking brochure (1990, 12):

Trekking in Nepal i s a kaleidoscopic sensual andcultural experience. The sheer mass of the Hima-laya, rugged spires rising up to over 29,000, will

3oa

250

200

150-D

L O

50

0Year

706

50p 40a 3 0E

2010

1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988YearFigure 3. A: Tourist arrivals in Nepal, 1970-88. B:Annual increase in number of trekkers to Nepal,1976-88. Compiled from data obtained by authorfrom Ministry of Tourism, Kathmandu.

overwhelm you. The colors are bright, rich, andalluring, a pleasure to the eye and spirit. Thesounds are equally delightful, whether i t s the songof the river lulling you to sleep at night, or a monksmuffled chanting in a remote monastery, or just thesound of the Nepalese talking, which often soundsmore like music than speech.

Such a description tells few facts about theregion or the trip, but it does evoke appealingimages in the minds of prospective tourists.These images partly explain why people travelwhere they do and, consequently, they affectthe development of adventure tourism. Theformation of place perceptions, a matter ofgreat interest to some geographers (Lowenthaland Bowden 1976; Relph 1976; Tuan 1977;Zonn 1990), i s thus integral to adventure tour-ism development (Fig. 4).

The choice of adventure places by tourists ishighly dependent, therefore, upon how suchplaces are (re)presented in the travel literature.


7/21

614 Zurick

Figure 4. Promotional material for adventure programs in Nepal, Wilderness Travel catalogue, 1990-91 used bypermission.

Words and photographs interpret locales forthe reader and determine the quality of au-thenticity, an elusive but necessary ingredientfor successful adventure travel programs. Theterm authenticity i s frequently encounteredin program descriptions. Nature tourism, if re-stricted to well-managed parks and sanctuar-ies, undoubtedly encounters authentic envi-ronments. In cultural tours, however, thesubtle or obvious changes that tourists bringto a region in their search for authenticity iron-ically often dispel the very qualities they seek.Dearden (1988) noted that villages well-estab-lished along the northern trekking routes inThailand soon modernized to the point thatthey lost value as an adventure travel destina-tion. This i s true for Nepal where jaded trek-kers purposefully avoid the favorite trekkingroutes and stopover villages because they feelthe villagers themselves have become jadedtoward trekkers. For many adventure travel op-erators and tourists alike, authenticity is most

achieved by finding unknown and unvisitedplaces. Conlons (1990,2) letter to prospectiveclients in a 1990 Above the Clouds Trekkingbrochure stated:You have to get into an area that has not beenexposed to tourism, because i f the local peoplehave the concept of tourism in their mindset, itmay be impossible for them to treat you as any-thing but a tourist. And the agents who aredesigning your trip and/or leading you on the itin-erary should be masters of the Art of Travel.

The point i s that adventure travelers are touristsand if, i n their quest for the authentic experi-ence, they are propelled in to ever more re-mote locations, then quite clearly the contin-ued geographic expansion of adventure travelis inevitable. This suggests also that once aplace becomes too successful in the adventurecircuit, it i s no longer a desired destination.Hence, a somewhat precarious spatial and tem-poral balance, such as that envisioned by Butler(1980) in his tourist area cycles model, exists


8/21


among adventure places that may precludetheir long-term sustainability for national tour-ism.Main tenance of Adventure Tourism Places

Traditional tourism concerns over land usezoning, catering provision, performance stan-dards and the like must be augmented foradventure travel with strategies aimed at man-aging culture contact and minimizing environ-mental impacts. The needs of tourism, unfor-tunately, often conflict with those of the localpopulations and with environmental preserva-tion. The appropriate management of a regionfor such a tripartite goal determines i t s poten-tial for sustainable tourism development.Nepal's parklands show mixed ratesof success.In the Khumbu region at Sagarmatha NationalPark, where tourists interact with the residentSherpa population in a world-class natural her-itage site, some observers noted that con-sumption of natural resources by tourist ac-commodations has depleted forests in the Parkand that the Sherpa culture has changed withthe new monetized tourism economy (Furer-Haimendorf 1975; Coppock 1978; Fisher 1990).Yet where Park policies are rigorously en-forced, Sagarmatha National Park representssome of the most progressive conservation de-velopment in Nepal. The rate of land degrada-tion associated with tourism remains uncertainbut the rate of Sherpa affluence has risen no-ticeably.

As with other forms of tourism, the impactof adventure travel is tied to the volume ofactivity in a given place. The number of touristsinto Nepal's mountains exhibits steady in-crease but i s unevenly distributed. The chang-ing visitation rates for the main trekking re-gions during the 1980s are depicted in Figure5. Khumbu tourism has been fairly consistent,owing to the sustained appeal of the Mt. Ever-est landscape and the Sherpa culture. Otherregions show more changes. The Annapurnaarea, recently designated a national conserva-tion area, is the most popular mountain desti-nation in Nepal, partly because of its easy ac-cessibility from Pokhara, an important regionaltourist gateway. From 1980-86, Annapurna in-creased its relative share of trekkers from 52percent to 68 percent of the national total, asthe number of trekkers in Nepal increased

%

1980 1983 1986

Annapurna Langtang-Helam buKhumbu Other

Figure 5. Percentage of trekkers to Nepal mountainadventure regions, 1980-86.Compiled from data ob-tained by author from Trekking Agents Association ofNepal, Kathmandu.

from 14,332 to 33,620. Preliminary figures for1990 showed a drop in Annapurna's share ofvisitors to 60 percent because the region nowi s commonly perceived to be overcrowded,particularly during the fall trekking season. To-gether, the three regions of Khumbu, An-napurna, and Langtang-Helambu accountedfor 95 percent o f trekkers in Nepal in 1988 (Fig.6). According to figures provided by the Cen-tral Immigration Office, the newly opened trek-king regions show the highest rates of recentgrowth-from 805 visitors in 1986 to 3582 in1988, nearly a 350 percent increase. These areasinclude Rara Lake National Park and the Humlaarea north of Jumla in western Nepal, theKanchenjunga region in the east, and Dolpa inthe northwest.

In addition to changes in annual visitation,travel destinations face seasonal fluctuationsand competition from adjoining areas. In SouthAsia, where Nepal has dominated the trekkingscene, other Himalaya regions have developedadventure tourism. In Pakistan, the Karakoramhighway now makes the northern mountaindistricts of Gilgit and Hunza accessible to tour-ists (Allan 1988). The Buddhist cultures ofLadakh and Zanskar in northern India success-fully compete for mountain tourists during thesummer months when monsoon rains inhibittravel to Nepal. The annual pattern of adven-ture travel in Nepal exemplifies the importanceof seasonality factors (Table 2). Autumn clearlywas the busiest time in 1988 when 43 percentof all trekkers visited. Summer months in con-


9/21

61 6 Zurick

i KILOMETERSGATEWAYS@ NationalGatewayTrekking Flows to

Nepal Mountain Regions, 1988Percentof annual total)

L A

Langtang HelambuA Mt. fv r s t

Figure 6. Percentage of mountain trekkers visiting adventure regions and location of travel gateways. Figuresare based on trekking permits issued by the Department of Immigration; actual numbers of trekkers may beless than the numbers of permits issued. Source: Ministry of Tourism, Kathmandu.

trast showed very li ttle activity. The othertrekking category in Table 2 , showing import-ant activity during summer, includes rainshadow locations on the northern slope of theHimalaya. These places offer opportunities forsummer trekking when other areas in Nepalare closed by flooded rivers, impassable trails,and clouded vistas.

Host regions must accommodate the sea-sonal shifts in visitor arrivals by adjusting activ-ities accordingly. In Nepals Khumbu region,where summers are devoid of tourists, lodgesshut down and the local Sherpa populationreturns to its traditional subsistence living. Inmany remote areas now, local people marktime as being either the tourist season or offseason. Because of the limitations that sea-sonality imposes for the expansion of Nepalsnational tourism industry and the maintenanceof specific host regions, efforts are continuallymade to develop off-season activities and tomaximize activity during the regular season-at the risk of exceeding natural and social car-

rying capacities. In Nepal these efforts includethe opening of new trekking areas, diversifyingthe tourism base to attract more nontrekkers,and promoting monsoon trekking for adven-ture travelers who want to see the hills alivewith village life but empty of western tourists(Bezruchka 1989).

The creation of adventure places in theminds of prospective visitors constitutes asignificant achievement of the international ad-venture travel industry. The infrastructural de-velopment and maintenance of such places,meanwhile, i s left largely to the host country,with varying degrees of success (Lea 1988;Saglio 1979). In Nepal, where mountain roadsprior to 1958 were nonexistent and travel wasrestricted to foot and pack animal, an inn-keep-ing tradition prospered to serve local pass-ersby. The pathways and lodges that connectedvillages for indigenous travel purposes existstill, but they now also form the basis for manytrekking circuits. In addition, traditional migra-tory routes and seasonal encampments among


10/21


Table 2. Seasonal Variations in Number o f Trekkers in Nepal, 1988Season

Trekking route Winter Spring Summer Fall TotalAnnapurna 9585 25) 11086 29) 1556 4) 15675 42) 37902 100)

3126 28) 282 2) 5418 48) 11366 (100)verest 2540 22)Langtang-Helambu 1812 21) 2518 30) 318 4) 377s 45) 8423 100)Other 660 18) 886 25) 480 13) 1556 43) 3582 (100)Total 14597 24) 17616 29) 2636 4) 26424 43) 61273 (100)aPercentageof annual total in parentheses.Source: Government of Nepal Min ist ry of Tourism Kathmandu.highland pastures now lead tourist expeditionsinto the more remote wildlands. Hence, mod-ern trekking in Nepal follows age-old patternsof movement within the mountains.

Modern roads extend the traditional travelcircuits for tourism purposes. Bus travel nowi s possible up to the village of Jir i en route toKhumbu, cutting the walking time fromKathmandu to Namche Bazaar, the main centerfor trekkers in Khumbu, from two weeks toone week; the recently constructed road northof Kathmandu to Dhunche allows public trans-port to Langtang National Park; and theroadhead north of Dhumre in west-centralNepal, which leads to the circum-Annapurnatrekking route, shifts farther up theMarsyangdi valley each year. These roadsshould be seen as part of an overall develop-ment strategy in Nepal meant to tie in ruralareas to the national economy (Fricke et al.1990; Koppel and Zurick 1988), but their impacton tourism development is especiallysignificant. For the less intrepid tourist, theymean that parts of the country can be visitedwith greater ease, hence enticing more visi-tors. For more demanding adventure travelers,it means that the most remote and thereforedesirable (and authentic) regions are pushedeven further away. Dolpa, for example, whichopened to tourists in September 1988, remainsone of the most inaccessible regions of Nepal.Only 142 trekkers visited the area in 1988-90,all of them on organized group treks. By thesummer of 1990, Dolpa was promoted heavilyin Kathmandu as the new adventure region forthe upcoming fall season. Government regula-tions currently restrict the number of visitorsallowed to enter Dolpa and limit where theymay travel, but it i s clear through the heavypromotional efforts in Kathmandu that this re-gion, like the other new trekking routes, wi llcontinue to attract greater numbers of visitors.

The development of adventure tourism

places in Nepal appears to be following a se-quence similar to that proposed by Butler(1980) in his tourist-area cycle model: an ex-ploratory stage when travelers are few and fa-cilities nonexistent; an involvement stagewhen local residents begin to provide simpleservices to increasing numbers of visitors; adevelopment stage when the destination i s ad-vertised in tourist generating areas, facilitiesare developed as components of national plan-ning, and the number of visitors peaks; a con-solidation stage when the economy of the tour-i s t region becomes primarily, if not exclusively,directed toward visitor services; a stagnationstage when the carrying capacity thresholds areexceeded and genuine attractions aresupplanted by artificial ones; and, finally, adeclining stage when the area loses i t s appealand competitiveness in the tourist market.

Nepals adventure tourism regions move rap-idly through the early stages, but it i s unlikelythat they will ever truly proceed beyond thedevelopment stage. Any further change alongthis proposed sequence invalidates a destina-tion as an adventure place. The region itselfmay indeed continue to evolve unilinearly as atourist place, as Butlers model proposes, butbeyond the involvement stage, where local res-idents provide meager services in traditionalways, it will cease to be a destination for trueadventure travelers. In effect, with increasingvisitation rates, the tourism product wouldchange (Butler 1974, 1990 . The implication i sthat adventure travel truncates the tourism de-velopment cycle at the developmental stage.Hence, before adventure destinations becomefully articulated into the national economy,they will be abandoned for adventure tourismpurposes. Nepal proposes to partially resolvethis limits to growth problem by managingnational parklands and conservation areas toconverge the interests of local people, the en-vironment, tourists, and the national economy.


11/21

618 Zurick

Such places, if properly designed and man-aged, may arrest the evolutionary processoutlined by Butler at the development stageand prolong it in some balanced fashion. Theresulting development product may be a tour-istic system tailored more toward local thannational development, but with limited growthpotential for the Nepalese economy. If suchtourist places continue to evolve beyond thedevelopment stage, they wil l in effect becomeadvanced stages for more conventional tour-ism, bringing with them the impacts commonlyencountered in mass tourism.

Tourism ImpactsNepals touristic system requires local peo-

ple to adopt an externally driven service econ-omy that relies heavily on the importation ofgoods, the use of local natural resources, andthe formation of new social arrangements.Where such impacts on host regions are pri-marily negative, tourism may not be a panaceafor development (Nash 1989.) It i s instructiveto consider some general points common totourism impacts before applying impact mod-els to adventure travel in Nepal.Social Impacts

The acculturation models that predominatein the anthropology of tourism view host cul-tures borrowing from tourists (only rarely willthe opposite occur; for instance, with cos-tume borrowing); hence, an asymmetricalhost-guest relationship develops (Nunez 1989,266). For adventure tourism, where entrepre-neurs transform remote worlds into touristplaces, the cultural consequences can be con-siderable. Greenwood (1989, 179) sees this asa particularly insidious process:

Treating culture as a natural resource or a com-modity over which tourists have rights i s not sim-ply perverse, it i s a violation of the peoples cul-tural rights. While some aspects of culture havewider ramifications than others, what must be re-membered i s that culture in its very essence issomething that people believe in implicitly. Bymaking it part of the tourism package, it i s turnedinto an explicit and paid performance and nolonger can be believed in the way i t was before.Thus, the commoditization of culture in effect robspeople of the very meanings by which they orga-nize their lives.The limit to what a culture can absorb be-

fore social inequity and cultural decay occur i sdifficult to determine or to measure because i tdepends upon the resiliency of culture, but theeffects of exceeding the limit are quite obvi-ous-social inequity increases, values change,lifestyles shift, and frustration and antagonismincrease (Din 1988). These conditions increas-ingly describe Nepals frequented trekkingroutes, where villagers complain of inappropri-ate tourist behavior and where the reports oftheft and violence to trekkers have increased.Cohens (1987) typology of tourists claims thatthe independent explorer-type tourist has lessimpact on host cultures than mass tourists be-cause their numbers are small and becausethey have a sympathetic attitude. This may betrue insofar as the numbers remain small, butthe growth of adventure tourism in Nepal pre-dicts increasing numbers of tourists visitingever more remote settings. Because adventuretourists concentrate in only a few isolatedplaces where cultures are most vulnerable tochange, their impact may be greater even thantheir numbers suggest.

The common belief that tourism necessarilywreaks cultural havoc ignores the potential forcultures to absorb tourist demands in creativeand conservative ways. This absorption ulti-mately depends upon the degree to whichtourists channel cultural behavior into con-sumptive norms. Some forms of culture, suchas handicrafts and performances, become tour-ist art, bringing high prices that are favorablyreceived, but are produced to meet tourist de-mands rather than retain cultural traditions.This need not be a conflict, however. McKean(1989) found the Balinese very effective at pro-ducing culture for tourists, but nonethelessmaintaining culture for themselves. NepalsKhumbu Sherpa ceremonies, such as the ManiRimdu festival at Thyangboche Monastery,have attracted international recognition, whichin turn has financed the reconstruction of localreligious sanctuaries. But wi th the monetizedtourism economy, religious l ife in Khumbu ap-pears less attractive than in former times. Ineffect, tourism may safeguard the artifacts ofculture but destroy the spirit that initially cre-ated them. I t s clear that overall social impactsvary widely enough by region, by culture, andby tourist type to preclude generalizations.Change, however, is inevitable when local pop-ulations embrace the touristic system (Copp-ock 1978).


12/21

Sustainable Tourism in Nepal 61 9

Environm ental impactsThe environmental impacts of tourism are

tied to the number of tourists, their behavior,and the resiliency or fragility of the naturalenvironment. Negative environmental impactslinked with tourism and commonly notedworldwide include l itter and vandalism, trailerosion, habitat change, water pollution,poaching, l oss of endangered plant and animalspecies, and resource depletion. Some writersargue that over the long term, tourism i s inev-itably destructive to the environment (Cohen1978). Others point out how tourism can actu-ally benefit the environment (Pigram 1980).Boos (1990) study of ecotourism, while cau-tioning against adverse environmental conse-quences, notes that tourism can promote theestablishment of protected areas and raisefunds to maintain them. In such cases, theenvironment should not be restricted to thesetting for tourism, but rather should be akey component in its development. Such aview joins conservation and tourism develop-ment, or neither succeeds. It i s common prac-tice for adventure firms to operate from a con-servation premise and many now donate aport ion of their earnings for conservation pro-grams in host countries (Durst and lngram1988). Discrepancies do exist between thestated aims of adventure travel and the realevents of a tour. Many trekkers in Nepal utilizefuelwood and other resources n unsustainableways, despite the concerns of adventure tourleaders and the Nepal government to promoteenvironmentally responsible tourism.

Nep al Spatial Hierarch y ModelAdventure tourism shares with other tourism

models spatial structures that link tourism gen-erating areas in wealthy nations with ThirdWorld destinations. But the hierarchy of travelgateways and the location of destinations areunique for adventure travel. Hills andLundgren (1977) proposed that the regional im-balances imposed by international tourismscore-periphery spatial structure reflect thedominance of the metropolitan generatingareas in tourism exchanges. In their view, thespatial structures of tourism development de-termine the extent and intensity of tourism im-pacts and subordinate the development goals

of Third World nations to the further consoli-dation of the global economy. Britton (1980,1987) showed how this occurred among resortson small Pacific island nations, not ing that, withits dollars, tourism brings economic inequali-ties. The spatial structural models proposed byBritton and by Hills and Lundgren share aschema that concentrates tourist flows througha hierarchy of transfer points, ultimately con-necting Third World resort enclaves with met-ropolitan-based countries. These models pre-scribe to multinational firms the control overdirecting international tourist flows. The focusof the structural tourism models on resort en-claves applies them widely t o conventional in-ternational tourism development, but i t makesthem less appropriate for understanding ad-venture tourism. The monopolistic control bymultinationals of international tourism be-comes less significant for adventure travelwhere the geographic extension of the touristperiphery i s extremely dynamic, fractional bynature, and heavily dependent upon smallnumbers of tourists constantly seeking newdestinations.

The general spatial structure of adventuretravel, schematized in Figure 7, shows howtourist flows through a hierarchy of touristspace define core-periphery relations. The gen-erating areas for conventional tourism are lim-ited in most of the core-periphery models toonly a few metropolitan locations, whereas theorigins of adventure travel are quite diverse. Atourism concentration ratio, developed byPearce (1987) to show the importance for a des-tination of only a few tourist-generating re-gions, provides a measure of such diversity.Pearces analysis showed that fully three-quar-ters of 122 World Tourism Organization (WTO)destinations receive half or more of their tour-ists from only three markets. When we applythe concentration ratio to adventure tourismdestinations, less than 45 percent show a sim-ilar concentration. The concentration ratios areshown in Table 3 for 18 WTO countries fromPearces list, identified by my survey as popularadventure destinations for Americans. Nepalrecorded the lowest ratio in the group. Whileseveral regions contribute adventure tourists toNepal, all come from developed nations (Table4). The linkages between generating regionsand resort developments i s clear and direct inthe core-periphery models. As Figure 7 shows,adventure travel proceeds from the Western


13/21

620 Zurick

Table 3. Concentration Ratio of AdventureDestinationsDestination Ratio

MexicoPapua New GuineaChileMalawiMoroccoEcuadorBrazilZaireZambiaKenyaThailandPeruEUPtIndonesiaPakistanIndiaTurkeyNepal

87.470.467.163.756.856.153.752.941.240.736.635.935.033.532.232.131 O30.1

Source: WTO data reported in Pearce 1987, p. 45, table3.6.generating areas through intervening interna-tional gateways national and regional stagingareas. Hence, a more complicated hierarchy oftourism gateways may result. The interveninggateway, located by the model in the semi-pe-riphery of the world economy, is often an im-portant world travel link, such as Bangkok inAsia. In come cases, direct air travel to adven-ture countries i s possible. Royal Nepal Airlinesrecently began nonstop flights betweenKathmandu and Frankfurt.

The national gateways (Fig. 7) are often thecountry's capital, where travel contacts aremade and adventure programs planned andprovisioned. In Kathmandu one finds repre-sentatives of most major US. adventure firms,as well as numerous European and Nepalesecompanies. These firms handle the local tourlogistics. Independent travelers may also joina group excursion in Kathmandu or arrangetheir own itinerary. In either case, Kathmanduremains the primary link in Nepal's adventuretourism spatial structure. Additional regionalgateways that further channel the flow of tour-ists (Fig. 7) are located along roadways or othertransportation links near the entrances to es-tablished adventure regions. Examples areJumla in the far west, near Rara Lake; Pokharaand Dhumre in the central region, gateways tothe Annapurna region; Dhunche to the northof Kathmandu, located adjacent to LangtangNational Park; and Jiriand Lukla, both en route

Table 4. Adventure Tourist Arrivals in Nepal,1988, by Country of Origin

Country Number PercentageGermanyUnited StatesBritainAustraliaFranceSwitzerlandNetherlandsCanadaDenmarkItalyAustriaSpainOther

Japan

4992480046113755266021 7515361255118692389364333271 76

13.513.012.510.27.25.94.13.43.22.52.41.71 o19.4

Data source: Ministry of Tourism, Kathmandu.adesignatedby Ministry of Tourismto the Khumbu area and Sagarmatha NationalPark.

The regional gateways and the adventureplaces shown in Figure 7 extend into the fron-tier of the periphery destinations. Whereastravel to resort enclaves generally bypasses na-tional and regional economies, the adventuretravel model requires tourists to pass througha hierarchy of national and local economies.Therefore, adventure tourism in Nepal isclosely associated with other regional develop-ments such as roads and h il l towns. Moreover,the adventure regions themselves constitutethe margins of Nepal's developing economyand the farthest extensions of its spatial devel-opment. They are places where indigenouspeople traditionally reside, but they also repre-sent resource frontiers for national develop-ment. Adventure tourism thus occurs preciselywhere the traditional interests of local peopleintersect with national development goals. Itsevolution therefore reflects how well i t resolvesthese two potentially conflicting interests.

Nepal Adventure Tourism ImpactModelFigure 8 presents a schema that identifies a

set of dual linkages between adventure traveland various components of Nepal's local sys-tems. The model proposes that opportunitiesexist for both positive and negative impacts.New economic opportunities associated withtourism provide additional arrangements forwage labor and service provisions for local peo-


14/21


Figure7. Spatial hierarchy model showing adventure travel linkages. Nepal occupies a periphery position in thismodel, and adventure tourism occurs in the frontier regions of Nepals space-economy.

ple, but they also promote a dependency uponexternally driven tourism forces that under-mines the resiliency of local production andexchange systems. The model integrates theselinkages with systemic changes among indige-nous components of culture, economy, andthe environment. For example, tourist usage ofNepals forest resources may supplant tradi-tional economic ones (Metz 1990), thereby cre-ating additional demands for scarce resourcesand promoting management conflicts withinthe traditional relationships.

The model in Figure 8 proposes that import-ant structural changes accompany adventuretourism. The boom and bust cycles of tourismdraw people and places away from the securityof their subsistence economies, resulting inpotential instability through new economic di-versity rather than sustainability through tradi-tional ecological diversity. In Nepals Khumburegion the Sherpa culture, traditionally depen-dent upon a mixed transhumant economy, has

turned to tourism to acrgment or replace sub-sistence work. The new orientation i s nowintergenerational as young Sherpa children aresocialized and educated into a world of outsideagency. Shifts in cultural perspective, newforms of economic power, dependence uponexternal financial linkages, and the creation ofnew ethnic images now describe much ofSherpa culture (Fisher 1990; Furer-Haimendorf1975). Social stratification and new relations ofproduction resulting from new workdefinitions disrupt the composition of Sherpavillage society (Coppock 1978). Status has be-come associated less wi th yak herding, the tra-ditional basis for Sherpa culture (Brower 1990),and more with mountaineering exploits andmaterial acquisitions. Mountain populationselsewhere among Nepals adventure regionsshow similar changes where people have be-come increasingly estranged from customaryenvironmental relations as they pursue the neweconomic opportunities associated with tour-


15/21

622 Zurick

Figure 8. Adventure travel impact model showingdual positivelnegative linkages between tourism andlocal culture, economy, and the environment. Theouter circle denotes tourism-related systemicchanges between the three identified components oflocal systems.

ism. In some cases, the new innovations oftourism prompt changes in the spiritual as wellas material basis of culture. For example, in heheavily visited Annapurna region, the residentGurungs live in a world ordered by sacred de-cree, where the mountains and forests areguarded by spirits and where purification ritu-als and taboos mediate the relationship be-tween villagers and nature (Stevens 1988, 27-28). The demands on local resources and thenew conventions of culture initiated by adven-ture tourists who enter this world are partiallyresolved by the Gurungs according to modernconservation strategies which include planta-tion nurseries and bans on fuelwood cutting,and by traditional religious observances thatritually sanctify tourist entry into the sacredrealm of the mountains.

Many of the negative environmental impactsof adventure tourism on host regions stemfrom exceeding the local carrying capacity.While we s t i l l lack data for the exact measure-ment of such impacts, it i s apparent that thelack of internal control, a result of economicdisincentives and the fractional nature of the

industry, contributes to the absence of self-reg-ulation that would curb the tourist numbers.The adverse effects of tourist overpopulation inthe Khumbu region, noted by Karan andMather (1985),-trailside litter, forest cuttingfor fuelwood and construction, trail erosion-are now commonly observed throughout heav-ily visited parts of the Nepal Himalaya (Stevens1988). Trail litter, while unsightly to tourists andperhaps offensive to local people, may not beimportant enough to curtail tourist activity, butother environmental disturbances such as in-creased tree cutting for tourist lodges andother forms of land degradation are seriousconcerns (Fig. 9).

With appropriate government policies, sometourism income may go toward establishingand maintaining national parklands in Nepal,much like the rainforest preserves in CentralAmerica and the Caribbean (Okey 1987; Laar-man and Durst 1987), and the eastern Africagame parks (Western and Henry 1979). TheKing Mahendra Trust projects in Nepal are ex-amples of such attempts to develop tourism forenvironmental education, local needs, andconservation. The success of these programs inNepal so far i s geographically imited and varieswidely from one project area to another.

The establishment in Nepal of parklands,which are meant to be areas of nature conser-vation as well as tourism, poses constraints onsubsistence activities for indigenous popula-tions and potential conflicts for park develop-ment. In Royal Chitwan National Park, poach-ing, illic it grass-cutting for thatch, burning andclearing land for agriculture, and grazing rightsare common problems for park management.Given the rapid gain in popularity of Chitwan,where visitation rates increased from 2206 in1975 to 34,000 in 1988, it appears that the prob-lems will not be resolved soon. ThroughoutNepal, local cultures, such as the Tharu tribesresiding near Chitwan and the highlanders inthe mountain parks, view the parklands asareas of key subsistence resources. Tourists, onthe other hand, view them as destinations foradventure and recreation. Finally, the Nepalgovernment views them as conservation andincome-generating institutions. Reconcilingthese divergent perspectives i s fundamental tothe success of nature parks as wilderness areas,as tourist spots for national economic develop-ment, and as places for indigenous people (Ste-vens 1986).


16/21


Figure 9. Porter carry ing wood to t rekk er lodges in Langtang Nat ional Park. Park o f f ic ia ls mo ni to r use of forestproduc ts by bo th tour is ts and Park res idents by requ ir ing permits for woo d-cut t ing in the Park forests; in f rac-t ions however are comm on. Source: Author.

The dual linkage between adventure tourismand the environment proposed in Figure 8 im-plies that while environmental degradation i soften associated with tourism, it does not haveto be; in fact, adventure travel can financesustainable management of natural areas. Buteconomic rationales for parks wi ll compromisetheir conservation goals if the latter are ig-nored over the long term for solely economicjustifications (Blower 1984). An early study byde Bli j and Capone (1969) of East African gamesanctuaries showed how the political complex-ity of national conservation efforts actually in-volved a host of factors, including ethnicity,land tenure and environmental quality, as wellas economic criteria. Park development shouldoccur at the national level to ensure wide po-tential use (Ledec and Goodland 1988), butmanagement efforts, which tend to develop inNepal in the main commercial centers, must belocalized if native people are to benefit (Fig.

10). Nepals attempts to resolve issues of con-servation, national economic development,and indigenous rights partially within a strategyof adventure tourism indicate the potentialscope for sustainable tourism. While the in-creasing number of parklands and preserves inNepal attest to these efforts, the establishmentof park boundaries and their appearance onthe maps do not mean that conservation objec-tives are necessarily met.

The presence of parklands throughout Nepalpredicts that tourism wil l continue as a primarycandidate for future investment and that thelong-term interests of the country will be bestserved by environmentally informed develop-ment choices. These alternatives will containtouristic elements. The establishment in Nepalof new parklands signals a policy shift awayfrom short-term, purely economic goals to-wards planning for the indef inite future, a nec-essary component in the design for sustainable


17/21

624 Zurick

Figure 10. The Thamel district in Kathmandu, where numerous tourist services are provided, i s the primarystaging area for travelers to Nepals adventure regions. Source: Author.

development. In this context, tourism must becompatible with other elements of planning,such as cultural preservation, habitat protec-tion, and wealth distribution, and be consis-tent with the long-term perspective. Farrel andRunyan (1991, 27 proposed the term ecolog-ical tourism to identify the conceptual andpractical linkages between tourism activity andsustainable development systems. They wrote,when development strategies, as described,appear capable of continuing indefinitely intothe future without harmful side effect, the op-eration i s at least on the sustainable develop-ment pathway 7991, 35).

The environmental concerns of tourismmust therefore go beyond preserving naturalscenery backdrops for commercial activity ifthey are to engender a holistic view of tourismdevelopment and how its various elements re-late to each other and to the environment.Moreover, tourism and sustainable develop-

ment concerns cannot be restricted solely toestablished recreation areas. Nepals parkland-based tourism allows a level of controlled tour-ism management not found elsewhere in thecountry. The eventual role of adventure tour-ism i n the Nepalese economy i s seriously lim-ited if its management i s spatially restrictedonly to those park areas where local populationneeds, public lands management, and tourismall converge within a strictly regulated publicpolicy arena. Tourism, in fact, occurs widely inNepal where tradition, not government agency,regulates it.

ConclusionThe study of adventure travel in Nepal shows

how this form of international tourism extendsthe world development process into frontierregions of a periphery nation. The spatial com-


18/21


ponents of adventure travel advance tourismscore-periphery models by showing how thegeographic expansion of adventure travel istied to the hierarchy of gateways and to thedevelopment of a periphery frontier. Travelerspass through national and regional space be-fore reaching the remote adventure destina-tion, contribut ing to such economic develop-ments as gateway towns, hinterland places,and multiple-use parklands. In the process, ad-venture tourism in Nepal promotes fundamen-tal shifts in local nature-society relations assubsistence populations turn to the tourismeconomy for livelihoods and thereby abandontraditional subsistence pursuits. As a result,conflicts may ensue over resource use, work,economic exchange, cultural identity, and res-idence. Such impacts are commonly noted inthe tourism models, and adventure travel ex-tends them to remote populations in Nepal.Adventure tourism in Nepal also promotes thepositive development of national parklands byraising awareness of the need for conservationdevelopment and the money for its financialsupport. Such parks constitute vital new areasfor natural lands management since they re-quire maintaining both natural and cultural di-versity (McNeely and Miller 1984). Both are atrisk in places where natural and social carryingcapacities are threatened by tourism growth.The paper identified an adventure tourism im-pact model that analyzes the potential benefitsand costs of this form of tourism in Nepal.Resolving ourism-related land disputes and in-troducing new resource regulations for bothlocal residents and tourists in the adventuredestinations are important criteria for the long-term success of Nepals natural and culturalheritage sites. These criteria remain unre-solved, and because they influence the sus-tainability of tourism development in Nepalsfrontier regions, they constitute an importantagenda for future research.

It remains unclear how the economicbenefits of adventure travel are distributedthrough Nepals national and local economies.A good measure of sustainable development i sthe degree to which earnings from develop-ment are distributed through the involved pop-ulation (Dearden 1991). Since much of theearnings of adventure tourism never leaves thegenerating areas, where tour packages are cre-ated, the transfer of wealth to the destinationsi s unclear. Moreover, much of what reaches

the host country remains in the national gate-ways. Tourism earnings that accompany tour-ists to the rural host regions must flow throughregional and local gateways, where affluentpersons with investment capital profit most.The income that i s eventually captured by localrural economies i s prone to leakages, sincevillagers must import costly items to supporttourists; hence, they may profit l itt le from theirenterprises. The circulation of earningsthrough the adventure tourism system and theNepalese economy, from generating areasthrough the hierarchy of gateways to villageeconomies, i s poorly understood and consti-tutes an important additional area for fu tureresearch.

Overall, adventure travel draws into the webof the global economy quite remote places andpeople. The appraisal of adventure travel forsustainable development prompts critical studyof the interactive roles of remote people andplaces for national development purposes.Coburn (1984) and Gorio (1978) have com-mented on local peoples participation in con-servation as a basis for development, a processthat links adventure travel with parklands andwith subsistence systems. This tripartite con-nection ties the dependent development oflocal subsistence systems to the design of tour-ism programs in the overall national economy.It may positively l ink adventure travel with en-vironmental awareness among both touristsand hosts, with the need to maintain culturaltraditions, and with economic incentives fornational conservation development. The costof these innovations to host populations i s aloss of autonomy, new demands on local re-sources, and increased vulnerability to outsideeconomic and political events. By extendingthe geographical centers of tourism to the de-veloping world frontiers, and by acting as avehicle for social and economic interaction be-tween developed and developing regions, ad-venture tourism thus transfers the concerns ofsustainable development to the futures ofsome of the worlds most remote places.Acknowledgments

This study was funded in part by grants from theNational Science Foundation (#SES-M1-3172), theEast-West Center, the NSF-Kentucky EPSCOR Schol-ars Program, and Eastern Kentucky University. I wishto thank the editor and several anonymous reviewersfor their instructive comments on earlier drafts of the


19/21

626 Zur ickpaper. I am also grateful to Tim Krasnansky for themaps and to Wilderness Travel for permission to useFigure 3.Notes1. The alternative tourism model engages a growingnumber of people who are concerned abouttourisms pernicious affects on Thi rd World devel-opment, including academics, governments,planners, and ecumenical bodies (cf. Gonsalves1987). While few dispute the spirit of the move-ment, the goals of alternative tourism are some-times challenged based upon the idea that alter-native tourism often i s less a strategy and morea fashionable buzzword, employed without aclear understanding of what it i s and potentiallyimplies for development (Richter 1987). Nonethe-less, a network of concerned tourism plannersexists, including the international Ecumenical Co-alition on Third World Tourism, Bangalore; theU.S.-based Center for Responsible Tourism, SanAnselma, CA; and the West Germany-based Tour-ism with Insight (Tourismus mit Einsicht), Berlin.2. The Nepal tourism study reported here i s a com-ponent of a larger research agenda that analyzestransformations among Himalaya subsistencepopulations as they become involved with widerpolitical economic systems vis a vis the develop-ment process. This study views adventure tourismin Nepals remote places as one of the many newlinks that integrate local economy and environ-

ment within national development.3. This excursion takes place in northern Pakistan.Throughout the Himalaya, where new adventureitineraries are developed, remote border regionsare frontiers for mountain trekking. The Shimshaltrek encompasses much of the famed Hunza re-gion near the Pakistan-China border, an area forwhich government restrictions banning foreign-ers have only recently been lifted. The lifting ofsuch bans, which were and still are commonalong sensitive border regions, represents shiftsin border policy to accommodate tourism. In Pa-kistan, the completion of the trans-HimalayanKarokoram Highway into western China providesan important new transportation artery for travel-ers i n the restricted areas (Allan 1988). In Nepal,tourism occurs now in formerly closed borderregions, including Dolpa and Humla in the westand Kanchenjunga in the east.ReferencesAbove the Clouds Trekking. 1990. Catalogue.Worcester, MA.Allan, N. J.R. 1988. Highways to the sky: The im-pact of tourism on South Asian mountain cul-

ture. Tourism Recreation Research 13(1):11-16.Barbier, B. 1989. International tourism today: Ageographic approach. Geojournal19(3) 251-55.Bezruchka, S. 1989. The path not taken. Himal2(3):6.

Blower, J 1984. National parks for developingcountries. In National parks, conservation, anddevelopment: The role of protec ted areas in sus-taining society, ed. J . A. McNeely and K. R.Miller, pp. 722-27. Washington: Smithsonian In-stitution Press.Boo, E 1990. Ecotourism: The potentials and pi t-falls, vol. 1 and 2. Washington: World WildlifeFund.

Britton, S. G. 1980. The spatial organization oftourism in a neocolonial economy: A Fiji casestudy. Pacific Viewpoint 21(2):144-65.-. 1982. The political economy of tourism inthe Third World. Annals of Tourism Research-, and Clarke, W. C. 1987. Ambiguous alter-native: Tourism in small developing countries.

Suva, Fiji: University of South Pacific.Brockelman, W. Y. 1988. The role of nature trek-king in conservation. International Symposiumon Nature Conservation and Tourism Develop-ment. Swat Thani, Thailand, August 22-26(mimeo).Brookfield, H. C. 1988. Sustainable development

and the environment. Journal of DevelopmentStudies 25(1):126-35.Brower, B. 1990. Range conservation and Sherpa

livestock management in Khumbu, Nepal.Mountain Research and Development 10(1):3442.Bryden, J. M. 1973. Tourism and development: Acase study of the Commonwealth Caribbean.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Butler, R. W. 1974. Social implications of touristdevelopment. Annals of Tourism Research-. 1980. The concept of a tourism area cycle

of evolution: Implications fo r management ofresources. The Canadian Geographer 24:5-12.-. 1990. Alternative tourism: Pious hope orTrojan horse? Journal of Travel Research28(3):40-45.Coburn, B. 1984. Sagarmatha: Managing a Himala-yan world heritage site. Parks 9(2):10-13.Cohen, E. 1978. Impact of tourism on the physicalenvironment. Annals of Tourism Research-. 1987. Tour is m-a critique. Tourism Recre-at ion Research 12(2):13-18.Conlon, S. 1990. Directors letter. Above theClouds Trekking (catalogue). Worcester, MA.Cooper, C. P. 1981. Spatial and temporal patternsof tourism behavior. Regional Studies 15:359-71.Coppock, R. 1978. The influence of Himalayan

tourism on Sherpa culture and habitat. Zeitschriftfur Kulturaustausch 3:61-68.Cutler, B. 1988. Anything for a thrill. American De-mographics 10(8):38-41.Dearden, P. 1988. Tourism in developing societies:

9(3): 331-58.

3(2): 100-11.

5(2):215-37.


20/21


Some observations on trekking in the highlandsof north Thailand. In Tourism: A vital force forpeace, ed. L. J .DAmore and J .Jafari, pp. 207-16.Vancouver: University of Victoria Press.-. 1991. Tourism and sustainable develop-ment in northern Thailand. Geographical Review81 (4):400-13.

de Blij H. J., and Capone, D. 1 1969. Wildlifeconservation areas in east Africa: An applicationof f ield theory i n politica l geography. Southeast-ern Geographer 9(2):9 107.

de Kadt, E. 1979. Tourism: Passport to develop-ment? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Din, K. H. 1988. Social and cultural impacts oftourism. Annals o f Tourism Research 15(4):563-

66.Durst, P. B. 1988. Nature tourism: Opportunities

for promoting conservation and economic de-velopment. Paper presented at the InternationalConference on Nature Conservation and Tour-ism Development, August 22-26, 1988, SuratThani, Thailand.,and Ingram, C. D. 1988. Nature-orientedtourism promotion by developing countries.Tourism Management March: 39-43.

Farrell, B. H., and Runyan, D. 1991. Ecology andtourism. Annals o f Tourism Research 18(1):240.

Farvar, M T. and Claeser, B. 1979. Politics ofecodevelopment. Berlin: International Institutefor Environment and Society.

Fisher, J 1990. The Sherpas: Reflections on changein Himalayan Nepal. Berkeley: University of Cal-ifornia Press.

Fricke, T. E.; Thornton, A.; and Dahal, D. R. 1990.Family organization and the wage labor transi-tion in a Tamang community of Nepal. HumanEcology 18(3) 283-314.

Friedmann, 1 Wheelwright, E.; and Connell, J.1980. Development strategies in the eighties.Sydney: Development Studies Colloquium, Uni-versity of Sydney.Furer-Haimendorf, C. von. 1975. Himalayan trad-ers: Life in highland Nepal. London: John Mur-ray.

Consalves, P. S. 1987. Alternative tourism-theevolution of a concept and establishment of anetwork. Tourism Recreation Research 12(2):9-12.Corio, S. 1978. Papua New Guinea involves i t speople in national park development. ParksGray, H. P. 1970. lnternational travel-interna-

tional trade. Lexington, MA: Heath LexingtonBooks.Greenwood, D. J. 1989. Culture by the pound: An

anthropological perspective on tourism as cul-tural commoditization. In Hosts andguests: Theanthropology of tourism, ed. V. L. Smith,

3(2) ~12-14.

pp. 171-86. Philadelphia: University of Pennsyl-vania Press.Hills, T. L. and Lundgren, J. 1977. The impact of

tourism in the Caribbean: A methodologicalstudy. Annals of Tourism Research 4(5):24847.International Union of Official Travel OrganizationsIUOTO). 1966. Studyon the economic mpact

of tourism on national economies and interna-tional trade. Geneva.-. 1975. The impact of international tourismon the economic development o f he developingcountries. Geneva: IUOTOMlor ld Tourism Or -ganization.

Karan, P. P., and Mather, C. 1985. Tourism andenvironment in Mount Everest region. Geo-graphical Review 75(1):93-95.Keogh, B. 1984. The measurement of spatial varia-

tions in tour ism activity. Annals o f Tourism Re-search 11(2):267-82.Koppel, B. and Zurick, D. 1988. Rural transforma-tion and the future o f agricultural developmentpolicy in Asia. Agricultural Administrationbarman, J.C.; Stewart, 1 P.; and Prestemon, J.P.1989. International travel by U.S. conservationgroups and professional societies. journal of

Travel Research Summer: 12-1 7.- and Durst, P. B. 1987. Nature travel in thetropics. journal of forestry 85(5):43-46.Lea, J. 1988. Tourism an d deve lopment in the ThirdWorld. London: Routledge.Ledec, G., and Coodland, R. 1988. Wildlands:Their protection and management in economic

development. Washington: World Bank.Lowenthal, D., and Bowden, M. J 1976. Geogra-phies o f the mind. London: Oxford University

Press.Lundgren, 1. 1984. Geographic concepts and de-velopment of tourism research in Canada.Geojournal9(1) :17-25.Mathieson, A. and Wall, C. 1982. Tourism: Eco-nomic, physical, an d social impacts. London:Longman.McKean, P. F. 1989. Towards a theoretical analysisof tourism: Economic dualism and cultural invo-lution in Bali. In Hosts and guests: The anthro-

pology of tourism, ed. V. L . Smith, pp. 119-38.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.McNeely, J. A. and Miller, K. R., eds. 1984. Na-tional parks, conservation, and development:The role o f protected areas in sustaining society.Washington: Smithsonian Insti tution Press.Metz, J. 1990. Forest-product use in upland Nepal.Geographical Review 80(3) :279-87.Mitchell, 1 S., and Murphy, P. 1991. Geographyand tourism. Annals o f Tourism Research18(1):57-70.Mountain Travel. 1990. Catalogue. E l Cerrito, CA.

28:283-301 .


21/21

628 Zurick

Murphy, P. 1985. Tourism: A community approach.London: Methuen.-, and Andressen, B. 1988. Tourism develop-ment on Vancouver Island: An assessment ofthe core-periphery model. The Professional Ce-ographer 40: 32-42,Napit, K. P. 1982. Nepal. In Social and economicimpacts of tourism in the Asian Pacific region,ed. D. Hawkins, pp. 78-84. Tokyo: Asian Pro-ductivi y Organization.

Nash, D 1989. Tourism as a form of imperial ism.In Hosts and guests: The anthropology o f tour-ism, ed. V. L. Smith, pp. 37-52. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press.

Nepal Rastra Bank NRB). 1989. lncome an d em-ployment generation from tourism in Nepal.Kathmandu.

Norgaard, R. 1984. Coevolutionary developmentpotential. Land Economics 60:2.

Nunez, T. 1989. Touristic studies in anthropologi-cal perspective. In Hosts andguests: The anthro-pology of tourism, ed. V. L. Smith, pp. 265-74.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Okey, R. 1987. Trekking in natures terrarium.

Americas 396) :8-13.Pearce, D. G. 1979. Towards a geography of tour-ism. Annals o f Tourism Research 6:245-72.-. 1987. Tourism today: A geographical anal-ysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Pigram, J. 1980. Environmental implications oftourism development. Annals of Tourism Re-

search 7(4) :554-83.Rajotte, F. 1987. Safari and beach resort tourism:The costs to Kenya. I n Ambiguous alternative:

Tourism in small developing countries, ed. S GBritton and W. C. Clarke, pp. 78-90. Suva, Fiji :University of South Pacific.

Redclift, M. 1987. Sustainable development: Ex-plor ing the contradictions. London: Methuen.Relph, E. 1976. Place and placelessness. London:Pion, Ltd.

Richter, 1 K. 1987. The search for appropriatetourism. Tourism Recreation Research 12(2):5-7.-. 1989. The poli tics of tourism in Asia. Ho-nolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Saglio, C. 1979. Tourism for discovery: A project

in lower Casamance, Senegal. In Tourism: Passp rt to development?, ed. E de Kadt, pp. 321-35. New York: Oxford Universi ty Press.Smith, V. L. ed. 1989. Hosts an d guests: The an-thropology o f tourism. Philadelphia: Universityof Pennsylvania Press.Stevens, S. 1986. Inhabited national parks: Indige-nous people in protected landscapes. EastKimberly Working Paper No. 10, Centre forResource and Environment Studies, AustralianNational University, Canberra.-. 1988. Sacred and profaned Himalayas. Nat-

ural History 97(1):26-35.Travis, A. S. 1982. Managing the environmental

and cultural impacts of tourism and leisure de-velopment. Tourism Management 3(4) 256-62.Tuan, Y. -F. 1977. Space andplace: The perspectiveo f experience. London: Edward Arnold.Turner, 1 1976. The international division of lei-sure: Tourism and the Third World. World De-

velopment 4(3):253-60.-, and Ash, J. 1975. The golden hordes: Inter-national tourism and he pleasure periphery. Lon-don: Constable.Western, D., and Henry, W. R. 1979. Economicsand conservation in Third World parks. BioSci-ence 29(7):414-18.Young, 6. 1983. Touristization of traditional Mal-tese fishing-farming villages: A general model.Tourism Management 4(1):35-41.Zonn, L. 1990. Place images in media. Savage, MD:Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.Submitted 11/90 revised 9/91 accepted 11/91.

Turismo Aventura Nepal

Documents

Transcript of Turismo Aventura Nepal