際際滷

際際滷Share a Scribd company logo

Stakeholder Knowledge and Understanding of Sustainable Tourism Management in the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal

C
cwrobel

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 of 39
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
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
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
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
Interpretations of ST Background Objectives Methods Results Implications
Background Objectives Methods Results Implications
Annapurna Conservation Area Background Objectives Methods Results Implications
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
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
Established 1986 NGO Under the National Trust for Nature Conservation (NTNC) Retention of entrance fees Background Objectives Methods Results Implications
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
In Transition Map of the Annapurna Circuit trek. Background Objectives Methods Results Implications
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
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
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
Jomsom Muktinath Manang Chame Annapurna 1 Annapurna 3 Annapurna 4 & 2 Annapurna South Tatopani Ghandruk Besisahar Beni Pokhara Background Objectives Methods Results Implications
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
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
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
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
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
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
Interpretations of ST: ACAP 10 ACAP Staff Interviewed 10 ACAP Staff Envt (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
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
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
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
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 touristsour focus is how to manage. -ACAP staff Background Objectives Methods Results Implications
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
Emerging Issues Insufficient Tourist Information System Its 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
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
Domestic tourists, they dont 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
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
Emerging Issues Perceived inactivity of ACAP ACAPwere 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
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
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
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
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
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
Stakeholder Knowledge and Understanding of Sustainable Tourism Management in the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal

More Related Content

Stakeholder Knowledge and Understanding of Sustainable Tourism Management in the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal

  • 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 Envt (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 touristsour 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 Its 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 dont 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 ACAPwere 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