Abstract

Kaziranga National Park (henceforth, KNP) is a protected area situated in the North Eastern part of India. The park is a World Heritage Site and has a very rich ecosystem. KNP is an attractive tourist destination and occupies a significant place in the life and culture of the people living in this part of the country. Conservation of the park started more than a century ago, and local people have often contested such efforts. This is mainly because indigenous people have been facing displacement and deprivation from resources, which they have been using for centuries. Besides deprivation, wild animals often damage their properties and paddy fields. This leads to resentment among local people and become potential cause of grudge in the form of encroachment, poaching, biodiversity loss, and excessive collection of forest products. As a result, conservation measures may fail to deliver desired outcome. This paper tries to examine the gains and losses for living around KNP and assess the park-people relation. We conduct a case study in some periphery villages of the park and find that people have been suffering from difficulty in rearing livestock and loss caused by wild animal. However, people gain from tourism business. Based on the findings we recommend extension of tourism/allied activities and community welfare measures. The findings may be used to derive policy implication for sustainable management of the park.

Highlights

  • Humankind is very much dependent on forests

  • Kaziranga National Park (KNP), geographically located in the state of Assam in the North Eastern part of India, refers to a vast forest area spreading over two districts, namely, Golaghat and Nagaon

  • The livelihood of around 20 per cent people depends upon tourism-related business

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Humankind is very much dependent on forests. To protect forests from anthropogenic pressure, forests have been given legal status of Protected Areas ( PA). Such strategy is very much effective in enhancing biodiversity and human well-being (Kalaand Maikhuri, 2014). PA may prove to be as attractive as tourist destinations and provide income and livelihood opportunities (Hussain et al, 2010). People may extract resources like fodder or firewood for sustenance with or without provision in the park management rule from these areas (Thapa &Chapman, 2010;; Nepal, 2000). Park authority may administer welfare schemes for local people commonly known as ‘eco development works’ (Rishi et al, 2008)

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.