Adventure Travel and Sustainable Tourism in the Peripheral Economy of Nepal

David N. Zurick
Department of Geography and Planning, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, KY 40475
FAX 606622-1020, e-mail geozuric@eku.bitnet.

Abstract. Adventure travel is one of the fastest growing but least understood forms of international tourism. Its role i n the economic development of remote world places and its impact on local society, economy, and the environment are not fully comprehended, even though adventure tourism has been adopted enthusiastically by many Third World nations. The paper analyzes adventure travel in Nepal and places it within the theoretical frameworks of tourism models and sustainable development. Building on core-periphery tourism theory, an adventure travel spatial-linkage model is proposed that connects Nepals remote frontiers with the global tourism economy. Within this model, adventure tourists move through a hierarchy of travel gateways before reaching adventure destinations located among isolated, subsistence populations. This movement produces a unique structure of tourism space that in turn contributes to the formation in Nepal of regional developments such as hilltown gateways, hinterland tourism destinations, and multi-use parklands. An adventure tourism impact model relates tourism problems associated with exceeding social and environmental carrying capacities. It also includes more positive impacts linked to converging the interests of Nepals national economy, indigenous populations, tourists, and conservation development. With its steady growth, adventure tourism in Nepal will play an increasingly important role for national and local development in the frontier areas.
Key Words: ture travel. Nepal, tourism, development, adven-

N the view of many scholars, international tourism plays a contentious role for Third World development. The criticism of tourism parallels a general paradigm shift away from purely growth-oriented economic development towards more sustainable forms of development (Friedmann et al. 1980; Redclift 1987; Brookfield 1988) The new paradigm requires programs that limit the negative effects of economic behavior on local environments and cultures. It proposes linkages between economy, culture, and ecology in what Norgaard (1984) calls co-evolutionary development, and what others have termed ecodevelopment (Farvar and Glaeser 1979). Conventional or mass tourism development encounters skepticism mainly because its impacts and linkages are not necessarily, or even probably, sustainable or benign, and because, as Lea (1988, 2) observes, there is no other international trading activity which involves such a critical interplay among economic, political, environmental, and social elements as tourism. The 1980s witnessed the appearance o f new tourism designs that both recognize tourisms negative impacts and imagine a more positive role for tourism. These alternative models of tourism, which include ecotourism (Brockelman 1988; Durst 1988), ethnic tourism (McKean 1989), and adventure travel (Cutler 1988), view tourism as a way to foster meaningful cross-cultural relationships as well as to promote environmental conservation and a more equitable distribution of tourism earnings (Gonsalves 1987, 12). Proponents of alternative tourism argue that since it provides scope for less negative impacts while retaining the posi-

Annals 01 the Assoclaim of Amerrcan Geographers.82(4), 1992, pp. 608-628 0 Copyright 1992 by Association of Arnercan Geographers

Sustainable Tourism in Nepal tive economic benefits, it therefore contributes to more appropriate development. This paper describes adventure travel in Nepal, where tourists visit some of the worlds most remote natural and cultural settings, and discusses its contribution to the national economy and its impacts on local society and the natural environment. Adventure tourism places have little traditional investment in tourism and are particularly vulnerable to changes initiated by tourists. Hence, while adventure tourism in Nepal carries with it behavioral patterns and impacts well documented in the literature, it also contains unique components that influence nature-society change and regional development prospects in Nepals frontier areas. The study specifically links adventure travel in Nepal with sustainable development by examining how this travel connects remote rural places and people with wider economic systems and how such connections change the ways local systems function. In this context, I examine some of the contradictions that adventure tourism poses for regional development, for traditional cultures, and for fragile environments in Nepals developing economy. These contradictions lie in the issues of tourism flows, tourist place development, and environmental and cultural impacts. Due to their overall importance in the mainstream tourism economy, resort enclave developments are a common focus of geographical tourism studies. Adventure travel meanwhile receives scant attention in the literature, mainly because its economic role is considered to be minimal (Butler 1990), although it i s one of the fastest growing sectors of international tourism, and its impacts, while poorly understood, are especially significant for remote destinations. The geographical analyses of tourism traditionally center on tourist flows (Cooper 1981; Keogh 1984), tourist area development (Butler 1980; Lundgren 1984), regional planning (Murphy and Andressen 1988), and the impacts of tourism on local cultures and environments (Britton and Clarke 1987; Cohen 1978). The modern adventure traveler i s largely involved in pushing the tourism frontier farther into the worlds periphery. Because Nepal occupies such a peripheral position, it serves well to illustrate the processes that underlie the geographic expansion of adventure travel. The expansionary process itself i s examined

609

according to core-periphery spatial tourism models (Pearce 1979). The consequences of adventure travel are then discussed in a proposed impact model that integrates adventure tourisms spatial development with consequent changes in local society-nature relations.

Study Aims and Data Sources

The study uses information obtained from several sources. I gathered background primary data in a mail survey sent to 100 US.based adventure travel firms. Information solicited from these operators, together with data obtained from U S . and world travel industry sources, identified the broad contours of the adventure travel industry, against which the Nepal case study i s framed. Case studies of nature tourism by other private researchers add to the discussion of the problematique of adventure travel for Third World development. I also collected data during three periods of fieldwork in Nepal in 1987, 1989, and 1990, a total of eight months, as part of a larger ongoing research program. These data comprise the bulk of this analysis.2 Extensive visits to Nepals major adventure regions provided information on the location and use of trekking routes and important stopover villages, trail conditions, lodging services, and local tourism management efforts. Earlier visits to Khumbu in 1975 and 1980 provided impressionistic material that is set against the more recent reports of changes in the region. The study included visits to various government and private agencies for information on national tourism policy and travel industry promotions.

Background on Tourism and Development

The primary generating areas for international tourism are the developed countries, where populations enjoy affluence and leisure time. While the bulk of international tourism involves travel within the West, for example between the U.S. and Europe or within Europe, a growing sector of international tourism also directs travel to the developing world regions (Barbier 1989; de Kadt 1979; Mathieson and Wall 1982). The reasons for increased travel to developing world places are many and complex, but they include the sensual lure of the

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 i n the travel brochures, the rich cultural and natural heritages of many Third World places, the opportunities for exploring unique natural environments, the availability of cheap labor and property for tourism infrastructure in developing countries, and the liberal investment policies of many developing nations. In view of these factors, tourism arguably has become the most enticing and problematic business in much of the Third World (Turner 1976). The nations of the developed world dominate the appropriation of world tourism earnings, reflecting their well-entrenched position in the global economy and i n the so-called pleasure periphery (Turner and Ash 1975), as well as the concentration of industry support (,airlines, cruiselines, car rentals, hotel chains) in the developed countries. As a result, the physical flow of tourists and the financial flow of tourism earnings have been skewed to benefit the West, despite tourisms promotion as an economic panacea for Third World regions (Gray 1970; IUOTO 1966, 1975). Some writers (Britton 1982; Hills and Lundgren 1977)

contend that structural inequities resulting from historical relations between developed and developing nations i n fact are reproduced and exacerbated by international tourism, thus contributing further to the pernicious effects of pleasure travel as it continues to favor the economies of the western nations. A new type of adventure tourist has emerged within the international tourism agenda, drawn beyond the standard tourism sites to seek exotic and unknown places, primarily in the developing world (Fig. 1). The adventure tourism industry places such people directly into remote cultural and natural settings. I t s programs include mountain trekking in Nepal and Peru, bicycling through China, river safaris i n Papua New Guinea, wildlife viewing i n Africa and Antarctica, nature tours to Central American rainforests, and monastic tours of Tibet. This recent form of international tourism, which has received only passing reference i n the literature (Cohen 1987), needs to be explained and measured against the broader studies of tourism development and the models and concepts they provide.

Sustainable Tourism in Nepal The de facto acceptance of mass tourism as a vehicle for economic development among developing nations, particularly small vulnerable countries, is critically examined in recent studies (Britton and Clarke 1987; Lundren 1984). Britton (1982) argues that tourism i s not the great economic leveler it is promoted to be, nor does it necessarily provide sustainable forms of internal development within the host countries. It may, in fact, contribute to the further underdevelopment of some regions as they lose control over important economic decisions. The critical perspective of Britton and others (Bryden 1973) identifies the political economy of tourism with the formation of structural inequities resulting from capital transfers, economic leakages, and enclave develop ment A growing number of case studies show the adverse social and cultural effects of mass tourism in developing regions (Smith 1989; Travis 1982; Young 1983). Such criticisms may hold equally for adventure tourism, which may produce more pronounced impacts because, as Butler (1990, 41) noted, alternative forms of tourism penetrate further into the personal space of residents. Research has shifted away from conventional systematic issues of accessibility, flow, supply and demand, and infrastructure, towards more pluralistic or multidisciplinary perspectives (what Murphy [I9851 calls community concerns that encompass not only economic factors but also social and environmental ones (Mitchell and Murphy 1991). Cohens (1987) study of alternative tourism found it to be either counterculture travel, that is, unadulterated immersions into the lost paradises by starry-eyed backpackers, or responsible tourism intended to relieve the exploitative nature of mass tourism. Neither description fully depicts adventure travel, which makes possible unconventional travel for basically conventional people. But more important, Cohen (1987,15) sees such travelers as the spearhead of mass tourism penetration. In such a view, adventure tourism may in fact not be alternative at all, but merely an initial phase in an evolving tourist system. Moreover, adventure travel occurs precisely in those places that otherwise would not develop mass tourism because of their remoteness or their unique natural or cultural heritage. In such locations, adventure tourism i s not alternative

611

to anything. The issue, then, i s not whether adventure travel is alternative tourism, but whether it is appropriate tourism. The measure of appropriateness ultimately rests in the measure of it s sustainability.

The Nature of Adventure Travel in Nepal

Mountain trekking, nature tours into the lowland tarai jungles, and whitewater river rafting are the main forms of adventure tourism in Nepal (Fig. 2). These derive from a much longer list of adventure travel activities offered worldwide by U.S.-based adventure travel firms (Table 1). River rafting i s relatively new in Nepal. In 1985, only 1735 rafters traveled the rivers, increasing to 4169 in 1988. While several rivers offer rafting opportunities, 89 percent of all rafters in 1988 went on the Trisuli River, which i s most accessible to Kathmandu. Jungle safaris, although less developed in Nepal than in the African gameparks (Rajotte 1987), are popular in the lowland tarai regions, where exquisite habitat still remains for wildlife viewing. Nature tourism must, however, contend with the fact that wild habitat in Nepal i s commonly sacrificed for national modernization purposes. One of the goals of nature tourism is to call attention to the problems of habitat loss and endangered species and to provide economic support for their management (Boo 1990; Laarman, et al. 1989).

Table 1 . U.S.-Based Adventure Programs Worldwide

Program type Trekking Vehicle overland Destinations Argentina, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Peru, Turkey China, Egypt, Malawi, Mongolia, Sahara region, Tibet, Tunisia, West Africa Antarctica, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Galapagos, Madagascar Central Africa, Kenya, Tanzania Egypt, Tunisia Mexico

Natural history Wildlife safari Archaeology Kayakingrafting

Data source: Authors U.S. adventure travel industry survey, 1989-90. Major adventure activity (more than 25 percent of total) for each country listed.

612

Zurick

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

Mountain trekking i s the most important adventure activity in Nepal. Group treks are arranged and paid for abroad or in Kathmandu. Alternatively, individuals may trek without group services, relying instead on the villages en route for food and lodging. In the latter case, economic benefits may be dispersed more widely through the countryside, but local social and environmental impacts are likely to be more pronounced. The purpose of mountain trekking is to pass slowly through the landscape, allowing time to explore both nature and village life. The experiences available are described in the catalogue of Mountain Travel (1990, 54), one of the worlds foremost adventure firms:
Our trekking route passes through the Shimshal Gorge, where the roar of the river reverberates against sheer-walled canyons calved by the Shimshal River, then across immense scree slopes, testimony to the instability of the Karakoram land-

scape. After three days of trekking, we arrive at the isolated community of Shimshal, an emerald oasis in an arid valley, and the most remote village in the Karakoram.

While one might muse over the reactions of Shimshal villagers when a weary line of Westerners enter their village wearing gortex and the pained looks of discovery, such encounters are of real importance to the future of such isolated place^.^

The Origins of Adventure Travel in Nepal

Nepal opened its borders to foreigners in 1951, but not until the 1960s did many westerners visit the country (only 4017 in 1960). Among them were mountaineering teams, some members of which went on to establish adventure travel programs in the country. Mountaineering has remained important for some tourism agencies in Kathmandu and for

Sustainable Tourism in Nepal the regions near the high summits (visited in 1988 by 94 international teams), but elsewhere it remains a relatively minor component in the local economy. The rise in Nepals popularity as an adventure travel destination began in earnest during the 1970s when Kathmanduwas the terminus for long overland journeys undertaken by backpackers from Europe (Cohens counterculture traveler.) During the past two decades, the numbers of tourists entering Nepal has grown steadily, to exceed a 500-percent increase (Fig. 3a). The period 1976-88 also shows a steady rise in the number of tourists who entered for trekking purposes (Fig. 3b). In 1988 approximately 20 percent of the visitors came exclusively to trek in the mountains. An additional 60 percent came for some combination of trekking, jungle safaris, river rafting, and ethnic touring (NRB 1989, 85). Due to the significance of adventure travel for Nepals tourism development, the country has upgraded its adventure travel objectives in recent Five-Year Plans, including calls for the diversion of tourists into newly-opened areas (Napit 1982).
Creation of Adventure Places
3oa
250

613

-200
D

4 150
0

50
0
Year
70

60
50

40

a30

20
10
1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988

Year

Nepals diverse natural and cultural heritage partially determine the level of tourism activity and the types of programs found at specific localities. Other factors include advertisements by the adventure travel industry, Nepal government policies, and the promotional efforts of local entrepreneurs, individuals Richter (1989) calls cultural brokers. Valued geographic attributes include remoteness, lack of contact, aesthetic landscapes, and cultural traditions. Unlike resort developments, the absence of.amenities i s part of the appeal. The image of the place i s coupled with physical activity. Mountain trekking, river travel, and elephant safaris all provide modes of travel and thematic entry into very different places. The fashioning of such places in the adventure travel brochures is central to the phenomenon. The brochure writer often attempts to interpret a place for the readerklient. A Nepal adventure i s described as follows in the Above the Clouds Trekking brochure (1990, 12):
Trekking in Nepal i s a kaleidoscopic sensual and cultural experience. The sheer mass of the Himalaya, rugged spires rising up to over 29,000, will

Figure 3 . A: Tourist arrivals in Nepal, 1970-88. B: Annual increase in number of trekkers to Nepal, 1976-88. Compiled from data obtained by author from Ministry of Tourism, Kathmandu.

overwhelm you. The colors are bright, rich, and alluring, a pleasure to the eye and spirit. The sounds are equally delightful, whether its the song of the river lulling you to sleep at night, or a monks muffled chanting in a remote monastery, or just the sound of the Nepalese talking, which often sounds more like music than speech.

Such a description tells few facts about the region or the trip, but it does evoke appealing images in the minds of prospective tourists. These images partly explain why people travel where they do and, consequently, they affect the development of adventure tourism. The formation of place perceptions, a matter of great interest to some geographers (Lowenthal and Bowden 1976; Relph 1976; Tuan 1977; Zonn 1990), i s thus integral to adventure tourism development (Fig. 4). The choice of adventure places by tourists is highly dependent, therefore, upon how such places are (re)presented in the travel literature.

614

Zurick

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

Words and photographs interpret locales for the reader and determine the quality of authenticity, an elusive but necessary ingredient for successful adventure travel programs. The term authenticity i s frequently encountered in program descriptions. Nature tourism, if restricted t o well-managed parks and sanctuaries, undoubtedly encounters authentic environments. In cultural tours, however, the subtle or obvious changes that tourists bring to a region in their search for authenticity ironically often dispel the very qualities they seek. Dearden (1988) noted that villages well-established along the northern trekking routes in Thailand soon modernized to the point that they lost value as an adventure travel destination. This i s true for Nepal where jaded trekkers purposefully avoid the favorite trekking routes and stopover villages because they feel the villagers themselves have become jaded toward trekkers. For many adventure travel operators and tourists alike, authenticity is most

achieved by finding unknown and unvisited places. Conlons (1990,2) letter to prospective clients i n a 1990 Above the Clouds Trekking brochure stated:
You have to get into an area that has not been

exposed to tourism, because if the local people have the concept of tourism in their mindset, it may be impossible for them to treat you as anything but a tourist. And the agents who are designing your trip and/or leading you on the itinerary should be masters of the Art of Travel. The point i s that adventure travelers are tourists and if, i n their quest for the authentic experience, they are propelled into ever more remote locations, then quite clearly the continued geographic expansion of adventure travel is inevitable. This suggests also that once a place becomes too successful in the adventure circuit, it i s no longer a desired destination. Hence, a somewhat precarious spatial and temporal balance, such as that envisioned by Butler (1980) in his tourist area cycles model, exists

Sustainable Tourism in Nepal among adventure places that may preclude their long-term sustainability for national tourism.

615

Maintenance of Adventure Tourism Places

1980 1983 1986

Traditional tourism concerns over land use zoning, catering provision, performance standards and the like must be augmented for adventure travel with strategies aimed at managing culture contact and minimizing environmental impacts. The needs of tourism, unfortunately, often conflict with those of the local populations and with environmental preservation. The appropriate management of a region for such a tripartite goal determines its potential for sustainable tourism development. Nepal's parklands show mixed rates of success. In the Khumbu region at Sagarmatha National Park, where tourists interact with the resident Sherpa population in a world-class natural heritage site, some observers noted that consumption of natural resources by tourist accommodations has depleted forests in the Park and that the Sherpa culture has changed with the new monetized tourism economy (FurerHaimendorf 1975; Coppock 1978; Fisher 1990). Yet where Park policies are rigorously enforced, Sagarmatha National Park represents some of the most progressive conservation development in Nepal. The rate of land degradation associated with tourism remains uncertain but the rate of Sherpa affluence has risen noticeably. As with other forms of tourism, the impact of adventure travel is tied to the volume of activity in a given place. The number of tourists into Nepal's mountains exhibits steady increase but i s unevenly distributed. The changing visitation rates for the main trekking regions during the 1980s are depicted in Figure 5. Khumbu tourism has been fairly consistent, owing to the sustained appeal of the Mt. Everest landscape and the Sherpa culture. Other regions show more changes. The Annapurna area, recently designated a national conservation area, is the most popular mountain destination in Nepal, partly because of its easy accessibility from Pokhara, an important regional tourist gateway. From 1980-86, Annapurna increased its relative share of trekkers from 52 percent to 68 percent of the national total, as the number of trekkers in Nepal increased

Annapurna Khumbu

Langtang-Helam bu Other

Figure 5. Percentage of trekkers to Nepal mountain adventure regions, 1980-86.Compiled from data obtained by author from Trekking Agents Association of Nepal, Kathmandu.

from 14,332 to 33,620. Preliminary figures for 1990 showed a drop in Annapurna's share of visitors to 60 percent because the region now i s commonly perceived to be overcrowded, particularly during the fall trekking season. Together, the three regions of Khumbu, Annapurna, and Langtang-Helambu accounted for 95 percent of trekkers in Nepal in 1988 (Fig. 6). According to figures provided by the Central Immigration Office, the newly opened trekking regions show the highest rates of recent growth-from 805 visitors in 1986 to 3582 in 1988, nearly a 350 percent increase. These areas include Rara Lake National Park and the Humla area north of Jumla in western Nepal, the Kanchenjunga region in the east, and Dolpa in the northwest. In addition to changes in annual visitation, travel destinations face seasonal fluctuations and competition from adjoining areas. In South Asia, where Nepal has dominated the trekking scene, other Himalaya regions have developed adventure tourism. In Pakistan, the Karakoram highway now makes the northern mountain districts of Gilgit and Hunza accessible to tourists (Allan 1988). The Buddhist cultures of Ladakh and Zanskar in northern India successfully compete for mountain tourists during the summer months when monsoon rains inhibit travel to Nepal. The annual pattern of adventure travel in Nepal exemplifies the importance of seasonality factors (Table 2). Autumn clearly was the busiest time in 1988 when 43 percent of all trekkers visited. Summer months in con-

616

Zurick

Trekking Flows to Nepal Mountain Regions, 1988

(Percent of annual total)

KILOMETERS

i
trast showed very little activity. The other trekking category in Table 2, showing important activity during summer, includes rain shadow locations on the northern slope of the Himalaya. These places offer opportunities for summer trekking when other areas in Nepal are closed by flooded rivers, impassable trails, and clouded vistas. Host regions must accommodate the seasonal shifts in visitor arrivals by adjusting activities accordingly. In Nepals Khumbu region, where summers are devoid of tourists, lodges shut down and the local Sherpa population returns to its traditional subsistence living. In many remote areas now, local people mark time as being either the tourist season or off season. Because of the limitations that seasonality imposes for the expansion of Nepals national tourism industry and the maintenance of specific host regions, efforts are continually made to develop off-season activities and to maximize activity during the regular seasonat the risk of exceeding natural and social car-

GATEWAYS

@ National
L A

Gateway

Langtang-Helambu
A
mA

Mt. fverest

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

rying capacities. In Nepal these efforts include the opening of new trekking areas, diversifying the tourism base to attract more nontrekkers, and promoting monsoon trekking for adventure travelers who want to see the hills alive with village life but empty of western tourists (Bezruchka 1989). The creation of adventure places in the minds of prospective visitors constitutes a significant achievement of the international adventure travel industry. The infrastructural development 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 roads prior to 1958 were nonexistent and travel was restricted to foot and pack animal, an inn-keeping tradition prospered to serve local passersby. The pathways and lodges that connected villages for indigenous travel purposes exist still, but they now also form the basis for many trekking circuits. In addition, traditional migratory routes and seasonal encampments among

Sustainable Tourism in Nepal Table 2. Seasonal Variations in Number of Trekkers in Nepal, 1988 Season Trekking route Annapurna Everest Langtang-Helambu Other Total Winter
9585 (25) 2540 (22) 1812 (21) 660 (18) 14597 (24)

617

Spring
11086 (29) 3126 (28) 2518 (30) 886 (25) 17616 (29)

Summer
1556 (4) 282 (2) 318 (4) 480 (13) 2636 (4)

Fall

Total

15675 (42) 5418 (48) 377s (45) 1556 (43) 26424 (43)

37902 (100) 11366 (100) 8423 (100) 3582 (100) 61273 (100)

aPercentageof annual total in parentheses. Source: Government of Nepal, Ministry of Tourism, Kathmandu.

highland pastures now lead tourist expeditions into the more remote wildlands. Hence, modern trekking in Nepal follows age-old patterns of movement within the mountains. Modern roads extend the traditional travel circuits for tourism purposes. Bus travel now is possible up to the village of Jiri en route to Khumbu, cutting the walking time from Kathmandu to Namche Bazaar, the main center for trekkers in Khumbu, from two weeks to one week; the recently constructed road north of Kathmandu to Dhunche allows public transport to Langtang National Park; and the roadhead north of Dhumre in west-central Nepal, which leads to the circum-Annapurna trekking route, shifts farther up the Marsyangdi valley each year. These roads should be seen as part of an overall development strategy in Nepal meant to tie in rural areas to the national economy (Fricke et al. 1990; Koppel and Zurick 1988), but their impact on tourism development is especially significant. For the less intrepid tourist, they mean that parts of the country can be visited with greater ease, hence enticing more visitors. For more demanding adventure travelers, it means that the most remote and therefore desirable (and authentic) regions are pushed even further away. Dolpa, for example, which opened to tourists in September 1988, remains one of the most inaccessible regions of Nepal. Only 142 trekkers visited the area in 1988-90, all of them on organized group treks. By the summer of 1990, Dolpa was promoted heavily in Kathmandu as the new adventure region for the upcoming fall season. Government regulations currently restrict the number of visitors allowed to enter Dolpa and limit where they may travel, but it i s clear through the heavy promotional efforts in Kathmandu that this region, like the other new trekking routes, will continue to attract greater numbers of visitors. The development of adventure tourism

places in Nepal appears to be following a sequence similar to that proposed by Butler (1980) in his tourist-area cycle model: an exploratory stage when travelers are few and facilities nonexistent; an involvement stage when local residents begin to provide simple services to increasing numbers of visitors; a development stage when the destination i s advertised in tourist generating areas, facilities are developed as components of national planning, and the number of visitors peaks; a consolidation stage when the economy of the touri s t region becomes primarily, if not exclusively, directed toward visitor services; a stagnation stage when the carrying capacity thresholds are exceeded and genuine attractions are supplanted by artificial ones; and, finally, a declining stage when the area loses its appeal and competitiveness in the tourist market. Nepals adventure tourism regions move rapidly through the early stages, but it is unlikely that they will ever truly proceed beyond the development stage. Any further change along this proposed sequence invalidates a destination as an adventure place. The region itself may indeed continue to evolve unilinearly as a tourist place, as Butlers model proposes, but beyond the involvement stage, where local residents provide meager services in traditional ways, it will cease to be a destination for true adventure travelers. In effect, with increasing visitation rates, the tourism product would change (Butler 1974, 1990). The implication i s that adventure travel truncates the tourism development cycle at the developmental stage. Hence, before adventure destinations become fully articulated into the national economy, they will be abandoned for adventure tourism purposes. Nepal proposes to partially resolve this limits to growth problem by managing national parklands and conservation areas to converge the interests of local people, the environment, tourists, and the national economy.

618

Zurick fore social inequity and cultural decay occur i s difficult to determine or to measure because it depends upon the resiliency of culture, but the effects of exceeding the limit are quite obvious-social inequity increases, values change, lifestyles shift, and frustration and antagonism increase (Din 1988). These conditions increasingly describe Nepals frequented trekking routes, where villagers complain of inappropriate tourist behavior and where the reports of theft and violence to trekkers have increased. Cohens (1987) typology of tourists claims that the independent explorer-type tourist has less impact on host cultures than mass tourists because their numbers are small and because they have a sympathetic attitude. This may be true insofar as the numbers remain small, but the growth of adventure tourism in Nepal predicts increasing numbers of tourists visiting ever more remote settings. Because adventure tourists concentrate in only a few isolated places where cultures are most vulnerable to change, their impact may be greater even than their numbers suggest. The common belief that tourism necessarily wreaks cultural havoc ignores the potential for cultures to absorb tourist demands in creative and conservative ways. This absorption ultimately depends upon the degree to which tourists channel cultural behavior into consumptive norms. Some forms of culture, such as handicrafts and performances, become tourist art, bringing high prices that are favorably received, but are produced to meet tourist demands rather than retain cultural traditions. This need not be a conflict, however. McKean (1989) found the Balinese very effective at producing culture for tourists, but nonetheless maintaining culture for themselves. Nepals Khumbu Sherpa ceremonies, such as the Mani Rimdu festival at Thyangboche Monastery, have attracted international recognition, which in turn has financed the reconstruction of local religious sanctuaries. But with the monetized tourism economy, religious life in Khumbu appears less attractive than in former times. In effect, tourism may safeguard the artifacts of culture but destroy the spirit that initially created them. It i s clear that overall social impacts vary widely enough by region, by culture, and by tourist type to preclude generalizations. Change, however, is inevitable when local populations embrace the touristic system (Coppock 1978).

Such places, if properly designed and managed, may arrest the evolutionary process outlined by Butler at the development stage and prolong it in some balanced fashion. The resulting development product may be a touristic system tailored more toward local than national development, but with limited growth potential for the Nepalese economy. If such tourist places continue to evolve beyond the development stage, they will in effect become advanced stages for more conventional tourism, bringing with them the impacts commonly encountered in mass tourism.

Tourism Impacts
Nepals touristic system requires local people to adopt an externally driven service economy that relies heavily on the importation of goods, the use of local natural resources, and the formation of new social arrangements. Where such impacts on host regions are primarily negative, tourism may not be a panacea for development (Nash 1989.) It i s instructive to consider some general points common to tourism impacts before applying impact models to adventure travel in Nepal.
Social Impacts

The acculturation models that predominate in the anthropology of tourism view host cultures borrowing from tourists (only rarely will the opposite occur; for instance, with costume borrowing); hence, an asymmetrical host-guest relationship develops (Nunez 1989, 266). For adventure tourism, where entrepreneurs transform remote worlds into tourist places, the cultural consequences can be considerable. Greenwood (1989, 179) sees this as a particularly insidious process:
Treating culture as a natural resource or a commodity over which tourists have rights i s not simply perverse, it i s a violation of the peoples cultural rights. While some aspects of culture have wider ramifications than others, what must be remembered is that culture in its very essence is something that people believe in implicitly. By making it part of the tourism package, it is turned into an explicit and paid performance and no longer can be believed in the way it was before. Thus, the commoditization of culture in effect robs people of the very meanings by which they organize their lives.

The limit to what a culture can absorb be-

Sustainable Tourism in Nepal

619

Environmental impacts
The environmental impacts of tourism are tied to the number of tourists, their behavior, and the resiliency or fragility of the natural environment. Negative environmental impacts linked with tourism and commonly noted worldwide include litter and vandalism, trail erosion, habitat change, water pollution, poaching, loss of endangered plant and animal species, and resource depletion. Some writers argue that over the long term, tourism i s inevitably destructive to the environment (Cohen 1978). Others point out how tourism can actually benefit the environment (Pigram 1980). Boos (1990) study of ecotourism, while cautioning against adverse environmental consequences, notes that tourism can promote the establishment of protected areas and raise funds to maintain them. In such cases, the environment should not be restricted to the setting for tourism, but rather should be a key component in its development. Such a view joins conservation and tourism development, or neither succeeds. It is common practice for adventure firms to operate from a conservation premise and many now donate a portion of their earnings for conservation programs in host countries (Durst and lngram 1988). Discrepancies do exist between the stated aims of adventure travel and the real events of a tour. Many trekkers in Nepal utilize fuelwood and other resources in unsustainable ways, despite the concerns of adventure tour leaders and the Nepal government to promote environmentally responsible tourism.

Nepal Spatial Hierarchy Model

Adventure tourism shares with other tourism models spatial structures that link tourism generating areas in wealthy nations with Third World destinations. But the hierarchy of travel gateways and the location of destinations are unique for adventure travel. Hills and Lundgren (1977) proposed that the regional imbalances imposed by international tourisms core-periphery spatial structure reflect the dominance of the metropolitan generating areas in tourism exchanges. In their view, the spatial structures of tourism development determine the extent and intensity of tourism impacts and subordinate the development goals

of Third World nations to the further consolidation of the global economy. Britton (1980, 1987) showed how this occurred among resorts on small Pacific island nations, noting that, with its dollars, tourism brings economic inequalities. The spatial structural models proposed by Britton and by Hills and Lundgren share a schema that concentrates tourist flows through a hierarchy of transfer points, ultimately connecting Third World resort enclaves with metropolitan-based countries. These models prescribe to multinational firms the control over directing international tourist flows. The focus of the structural tourism models on resort enclaves applies them widely to conventional international tourism development, but it makes them less appropriate for understanding adventure tourism. The monopolistic control by multinationals of international tourism becomes less significant for adventure travel where the geographic extension of the tourist periphery i s extremely dynamic, fractional by nature, and heavily dependent upon small numbers of tourists constantly seeking new destinations. The general spatial structure of adventure travel, schematized in Figure 7, shows how tourist flows through a hierarchy of tourist space define core-periphery relations. The generating areas for conventional tourism are limited in most of the core-periphery models to only a few metropolitan locations, whereas the origins of adventure travel are quite diverse. A tourism concentration ratio, developed by Pearce (1987) to show the importance for a destination of only a few tourist-generating regions, provides a measure of such diversity. Pearces analysis showed that fully three-quarters of 122 World Tourism Organization (WTO) destinations receive half or more of their tourists from only three markets. When we apply the concentration ratio to adventure tourism destinations, less than 45 percent show a similar concentration. The concentration ratios are shown in Table 3 for 18 WTO countries from Pearces list, identified by my survey as popular adventure destinations for Americans. Nepal recorded the lowest ratio in the group. While several regions contribute adventure tourists to Nepal, all come from developed nations (Table 4). The linkages between generating regions and resort developments i s clear and direct in the core-periphery models. As Figure 7 shows, adventure travel proceeds from the Western

620

Zurick

Table 3. Concentration Ratio of Adventure

Destinations
Destination Mexico Papua New Guinea Chile Malawi Morocco Ecuador Brazil Zaire Zambia Kenya Thailand Peru EUPt Indonesia Pakistan India Turkey Nepal Ratio

Table 4. Adventure Tourist Arrivals in Nepal,

1988, by Country of Origin
Country Germany United States Britain Australia France Japan Switzerland Netherlands Canada Denmark Italy Austria Spain Other" Number Percentage

87.4 70.4 67.1 63.7 56.8 56.1 53.7 52.9 41.2 40.7 36.6 35.9 35.0 33.5 32.2 32.1 31 .O 30.1

4992 4800 4611 3755 2660 2175 1536 1255 1186 923 893 643 332 7176

13.5 13.0 12.5 10.2 7.2 5.9 4.1 3.4 3.2 2.5 2.4 1.7 1.o 19.4

Data source: Ministry of Tourism, Kathmandu. adesignatedby Ministry of Tourism

Source: WTO data reported in Pearce 1987, p. 45, table 3.6.

generating areas through intervening international gateways national and regional staging areas. Hence, a more complicated hierarchy of tourism gateways may result. The intervening gateway, located by the model in the semi-periphery of the world economy, is often an important world travel link, such as Bangkok in Asia. In come cases, direct air travel to adventure countries is possible. Royal Nepal Airlines recently began nonstop flights between Kathmandu and Frankfurt. The national gateways (Fig. 7) are often the country's capital, where travel contacts are made and adventure programs planned and provisioned. In Kathmandu one finds representatives of most major US. adventure firms, as well as numerous European and Nepalese companies. These firms handle the local tour logistics. Independent travelers may also join a group excursion in Kathmandu or arrange their own itinerary. In either case, Kathmandu remains the primary link in Nepal's adventure tourism spatial structure. Additional regional gateways that further channel the flow of tourists (Fig. 7) are located along roadways or other transportation links near the entrances to established adventure regions. Examples are Jumla in the far west, near Rara Lake; Pokhara and Dhumre in the central region, gateways to the Annapurna region; Dhunche to the north of Kathmandu, located adjacent to Langtang National Park; and Jiriand Lukla, both en route

to the Khumbu area and Sagarmatha National Park. The regional gateways and the adventure places shown in Figure 7 extend into the frontier of the periphery destinations. Whereas travel to resort enclaves generally bypasses national and regional economies, the adventure travel model requires tourists to pass through a hierarchy of national and local economies. Therefore, adventure tourism in Nepal is closely associated with other regional developments such as roads and hill towns. Moreover, the adventure regions themselves constitute the margins of Nepal's developing economy and the farthest extensions of its spatial development. They are places where indigenous people traditionally reside, but they also represent resource frontiers for national development. Adventure tourism thus occurs precisely where the traditional interests of local people intersect with national development goals. Its evolution therefore reflects how well it resolves these two potentially conflicting interests.

Nepal Adventure Tourism Impact Model

Figure 8 presents a schema that identifies a set of dual linkages between adventure travel and various components of Nepal's local systems. The model proposes that opportunities exist for both positive and negative impacts. New economic opportunities associated with tourism provide additional arrangements for wage labor and service provisions for local peo-

Sustainable Tourism in Nepal

621

Figure 7. Spatial hierarchy model showing adventure travel linkages. Nepal occupies a periphery position in this model, and adventure tourism occurs in the frontier regions of Nepals space-economy.

ple, but they also promote a dependency upon externally driven tourism forces that undermines the resiliency of local production and exchange systems. The model integrates these linkages with systemic changes among indigenous components of culture, economy, and the environment. For example, tourist usage of Nepals forest resources may supplant traditional economic ones (Metz 1990), thereby creating additional demands for scarce resources and promoting management conflicts within the traditional relationships. The model in Figure 8 proposes that important structural changes accompany adventure tourism. The boom and bust cycles of tourism draw people and places away from the security of their subsistence economies, resulting in potential instability through new economic diversity rather than sustainability through traditional ecological diversity. In Nepals Khumbu region the Sherpa culture, traditionally dependent upon a mixed transhumant economy, has

turned to tourism to acrgment or replace subsistence work. The new orientation is now intergenerational as young Sherpa children are socialized and educated into a world of outside agency. Shifts in cultural perspective, new forms of economic power, dependence upon external financial linkages, and the creation of new ethnic images now describe much of Sherpa culture (Fisher 1990; Furer-Haimendorf 1975). Social stratification and new relations of production resulting from new work definitions disrupt the composition of Sherpa village society (Coppock 1978). Status has become associated less with yak herding, the traditional basis for Sherpa culture (Brower 1990), and more with mountaineering exploits and material acquisitions. Mountain populations elsewhere among Nepals adventure regions show similar changes where people have become increasingly estranged from customary environmental relations as they pursue the new economic opportunities associated with tour-

622

Zurick industry, contributes to the absence of self-regulation that would curb the tourist numbers. The adverse effects of tourist overpopulation in the Khumbu region, noted by Karan and Mather (1985),-trailside litter, forest cutting for fuelwood and construction, trail erosionare now commonly observed throughout heavily visited parts of the Nepal Himalaya (Stevens 1988). Trail litter, while unsightly to tourists and perhaps offensive to local people, may not be important enough to curtail tourist activity, but other environmental disturbances such as increased tree cutting for tourist lodges and other forms of land degradation are serious concerns (Fig. 9). With appropriate government policies, some tourism income may go toward establishing and maintaining national parklands in Nepal, much like the rainforest preserves in Central America and the Caribbean (Okey 1987; Laarman and Durst 1987), and the eastern Africa game parks (Western and Henry 1979). The King Mahendra Trust projects in Nepal are examples of such attempts to develop tourism for environmental education, local needs, and conservation. The success of these programs in Nepal so far is geographically limited and varies widely from one project area to another. The establishment in Nepal of parklands, which are meant to be areas of nature conservation as well as tourism, poses constraints on subsistence activities for indigenous populations and potential conflicts for park development. In Royal Chitwan National Park, poaching, illicit grass-cutting for thatch, burning and clearing land for agriculture, and grazing rights are common problems for park management. Given the rapid gain in popularity of Chitwan, where visitation rates increased from 2206 in 1975 to 34,000 in 1988, it appears that the problems will not be resolved soon. Throughout Nepal, local cultures, such as the Tharu tribes residing near Chitwan and the highlanders in the mountain parks, view the parklands as areas of key subsistence resources. Tourists, on the other hand, view them as destinations for adventure and recreation. Finally, the Nepal government views them as conservation and income-generating institutions. Reconciling these divergent perspectives i s fundamental to the success of nature parks as wilderness areas, as tourist spots for national economic development, and as places for indigenous people (Stevens 1986).

Figure 8. Adventure travel impact model showing dual positivelnegative linkages between tourism and local culture, economy, and the environment. The outer circle denotes tourism-related systemic changes between the three identified components o f local systems.

ism. In some cases, the new innovations of tourism prompt changes in the spiritual as well as material basis of culture. For example, in the heavily visited Annapurna region, the resident Gurungs live in a world ordered by sacred decree, where the mountains and forests are guarded by spirits and where purification rituals and taboos mediate the relationship between villagers and nature (Stevens 1988, 2728). The demands on local resources and the new conventions of culture initiated by adventure tourists who enter this world are partially resolved by the Gurungs according to modern conservation strategies which include plantation nurseries and bans on fuelwood cutting, and by traditional religious observances that ritually sanctify tourist entry into the sacred realm of the mountains. Many of the negative environmental impacts of adventure tourism on host regions stem from exceeding the local carrying capacity. While we still lack data for the exact measurement of such impacts, it i s apparent that the lack of internal control, a result of economic disincentives and the fractional nature of the

Sustainable Tourism in Nepal

623

Figure 9. Porter carrying wood to trekker lodges in Langtang National Park. Park officials monitor use of forest products by both tourists and Park residents by requiring permits for wood-cutting in the Park forests; infractions, however, are common. Source: Author.

The dual linkage between adventure tourism and the environment proposed in Figure 8 implies that while environmental degradation i s often associated with tourism, it does not have to be; in fact, adventure travel can finance sustainable management of natural areas. But economic rationales for parks will compromise their conservation goals if the latter are ignored over the long term for solely economic justifications (Blower 1984). An early study by de Blij and Capone (1969) of East African game sanctuaries showed how the political complexity of national conservation efforts actually involved a host of factors, including ethnicity, land tenure and environmental quality, as well as economic criteria. Park development should occur at the national level to ensure wide potential use (Ledec and Goodland 1988), but management efforts, which tend to develop in Nepal in the main commercial centers, must be localized if native people are to benefit (Fig.

10). Nepals attempts to resolve issues of conservation, national economic development, and indigenous rights partially within a strategy of adventure tourism indicate the potential scope for sustainable tourism. While the increasing number of parklands and preserves in Nepal attest to these efforts, the establishment of park boundaries and their appearance on the maps do not mean that conservation objectives are necessarily met. The presence of parklands throughout Nepal predicts that tourism will continue as a primary candidate for future investment and that the long-term interests of the country will be best served by environmentally informed development choices. These alternatives will contain touristic elements. The establishment in Nepal of new parklands signals a policy shift away from short-term, purely economic goals towards planning for the indefinite future, a necessary component in the design for sustainable

624

Zurick

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

development. In this context, tourism must be compatible with other elements of planning, such as cultural preservation, habitat protection, and wealth distribution, and be consistent with the long-term perspective. Farrel and Runyan (1991, 27) proposed the term ecological tourism to identify the conceptual and practical linkages between tourism activity and sustainable development systems. They wrote, when development strategies, as described, appear capable of continuing indefinitely into the future without harmful side effect, the operation i s at least on the sustainable development pathway (7991, 35). The environmental concerns of tourism must therefore go beyond preserving natural scenery backdrops for commercial activity if they are to engender a holistic view of tourism development and how its various elements relate to each other and to the environment. Moreover, tourism and sustainable develop-

ment concerns cannot be restricted solely to established recreation areas. Nepals parklandbased tourism allows a level of controlled tourism management not found elsewhere in the country. The eventual role of adventure tourism in the Nepalese economy is seriously limited if its management i s spatially restricted only to those park areas where local population needs, public lands management, and tourism all converge within a strictly regulated public policy arena. Tourism, in fact, occurs widely in Nepal where tradition, not government agency, regulates it.

Conclusion
The study of adventure travel in Nepal shows how this form of international tourism extends the world development process into frontier regions of a periphery nation. The spatial com-

Sustainable Tourism in Nepal ponents of adventure travel advance tourisms core-periphery models by showing how the geographic expansion of adventure travel is tied to the hierarchy of gateways and to the development of a periphery frontier. Travelers pass through national and regional space before reaching the remote adventure destination, contributing to such economic developments as gateway towns, hinterland places, and multiple-use parklands. In the process, adventure tourism in Nepal promotes fundamental shifts in local nature-society relations as subsistence populations turn to the tourism economy for livelihoods and thereby abandon traditional subsistence pursuits. As a result, conflicts may ensue over resource use, work, economic exchange, cultural identity, and residence. Such impacts are commonly noted in the tourism models, and adventure travel extends them to remote populations in Nepal. Adventure tourism in Nepal also promotes the positive development of national parklands by raising awareness of the need for conservation development and the money for its financial support. Such parks constitute vital new areas for natural lands management since they require maintaining both natural and cultural diversity (McNeely and Miller 1984). Both are at risk in places where natural and social carrying capacities are threatened by tourism growth. The paper identified an adventure tourism impact model that analyzes the potential benefits and costs of this form of tourism in Nepal. Resolvingtourism-related land disputes and introducing new resource regulations for both local residents and tourists in the adventure destinations are important criteria for the longterm success of Nepals natural and cultural heritage sites. These criteria remain unresolved, and because they influence the sustainability of tourism development in Nepals frontier regions, they constitute an important agenda for future research. It remains unclear how the economic benefits of adventure travel are distributed through Nepals national and local economies. A good measure of sustainable development i s the degree to which earnings from development are distributed through the involved population (Dearden 1991). Since much of the earnings of adventure tourism never leaves the generating areas, where tour packages are created, the transfer of wealth to the destinations is unclear. Moreover, much of what reaches

625

the host country remains in the national gateways. Tourism earnings that accompany tourists to the rural host regions must flow through regional and local gateways, where affluent persons with investment capital profit most. The income that i s eventually captured by local rural economies i s prone to leakages, since villagers must import costly items to support tourists; hence, they may profit little from their enterprises. The circulation of earnings through the adventure tourism system and the Nepalese economy, from generating areas through the hierarchy of gateways to village economies, i s poorly understood and constitutes an important additional area for future research. Overall, adventure travel draws into the web of the global economy quite remote places and people. The appraisal of adventure travel for sustainable development prompts critical study of the interactive roles of remote people and places for national development purposes. Coburn (1984) and Gorio (1978) have commented on local peoples participation in conservation as a basis for development, a process that links adventure travel with parklands and with subsistence systems. This tripartite connection ties the dependent development of local subsistence systems to the design of tourism programs in the overall national economy. It may positively link adventure travel with environmental awareness among both tourists and hosts, with the need to maintain cultural traditions, and with economic incentives for national conservation development. The cost of these innovations to host populations i s a loss of autonomy, new demands on local resources, and increased vulnerability to outside economic and political events. By extending the geographical centers of tourism to the developing world frontiers, and by acting as a vehicle for social and economic interaction between developed and developing regions, adventure tourism thus transfers the concerns of sustainable development to the futures of some of the worlds most remote places.

Acknowledgments
This study was funded in part by grants from the National Science Foundation (#SES-M1-3172), the East-West Center, the NSF-Kentucky EPSCOR Scholars Program, and Eastern Kentucky University. I wish to thank the editor and several anonymous reviewers for their instructive comments on earlier drafts of the

626

Zurick
Blower, J. 1984. National parks for developing countries. In National parks, conservation, and development: The role of protected areas in sustaining society, ed. J. A. McNeely and K. R. Miller, pp. 722-27. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Boo, E. 1990. Ecotourism: The potentials and pitfalls, vol. 1 and 2. Washington: World Wildlife Fund. Britton, S. G. 1980. The spatial organization of tourism in a neocolonial economy: A Fiji case study. Pacific Viewpoint 21(2):144-65. 1982. The political economy of tourism in the Third World. Annals of Tourism Research 9(3): 331-58. and Clarke, W. C. 1987. Ambiguous alternative: Tourism in small developing countries. Suva, Fiji: University of South Pacific. Brockelman, W. Y. 1988. The role of nature trekking in conservation. International Symposium on Nature Conservation and Tourism Development. Swat Thani, Thailand, August 22-26 (mimeo). Brookfield, H. C. 1988. Sustainable development and the environment. Journal of Development Studies 25(1) :126-35. Brower, B. 1990. Range conservation and Sherpa livestock management in Khumbu, Nepal. Mountain Research and Development 10(1):34 42. Bryden, J. M. 1973. Tourism and development: A case study o f the Commonwealth Caribbean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Butler, R. W. 1974. Social implications of tourist development. Annals of Tourism Research 3(2): 100-11. 1980. The concept of a tourism area cycle of evolution: Implications for management of resources. The Canadian Geographer 24:5-12. 1990. Alternative tourism: Pious hope or Trojan horse? Journal o f Travel Research 28(3):40-45. Coburn, B. 1984. Sagarmatha: Managing a Himalayan world heritage site. Parks 9(2):10-13. Cohen, E. 1978. Impact of tourism on the physical environment. Annals o f Tourism Research 5(2):215-37. 1987. Tourism-a critique. Tourism Recreation Research 12(2):13-18. Conlon, S. 1990. Directors letter. Above the Clouds Trekking (catalogue). Worcester, MA. Cooper, C. P. 1981. Spatial and temporal patterns of tourism behavior. Regional Studies 15:359-71. Coppock, R. 1978. The influence of Himalayan tourism o n Sherpa culture and habitat. Zeitschrift fur Kulturaustausch 3:61-68. Cutler, B. 1988. Anything for a thrill. American Demographics 10(8):38-41. Dearden, P. 1988. Tourism in developing societies:

paper. I am also grateful to Tim Krasnansky for the maps and to Wilderness Travel for permission to use Figure 3.

Notes
1. The alternative tourism model engages a growing number of people who are concerned about tourisms pernicious affects on Third World development, including academics, governments, planners, and ecumenical bodies (cf. Gonsalves 1987). While few dispute the spirit of the movement, the goals of alternative tourism are sometimes challenged based upon the idea that alternative tourism often i s less a strategy and more a fashionable buzzword, employed without a clear understanding of what it i s and potentially implies for development (Richter 1987). Nonetheless, a network of concerned tourism planners exists, including the international Ecumenical Coalition on Third World Tourism, Bangalore; the U.S.-based Center for Responsible Tourism, San Anselma, CA; and the West Germany-based Tourism with Insight (Tourismus m i t Einsicht), Berlin. 2. The Nepal tourism study reported here i s a component of a larger research agenda that analyzes transformations among Himalaya subsistence populations as they become involved with wider political economic systems vis a vis the development process. This study views adventure tourism in Nepals remote places as one of the many new links that integrate local economy and environment within national development. 3. This excursion takes place i n northern Pakistan. Throughout the Himalaya, where new adventure itineraries are developed, remote border regions are frontiers for mountain trekking. The Shimshal trek encompasses much of the famed Hunza region near the Pakistan-China border, an area for which government restrictions banning foreigners have only recently been lifted. The lifting o f such bans, which were and still are common along sensitive border regions, represents shifts in border policy to accommodate tourism. In Pakistan, the completion of the trans-Himalayan Karokoram Highway into western China provides an important new transportation artery for travelers in the restricted areas (Allan 1988). In Nepal, tourism occurs now i n formerly closed border regions, including Dolpa and Humla in the west and Kanchenjunga in the east.

References
Above the Clouds Trekking. 1990. Catalogue. Worcester, MA. Allan, N. J.R. 1988. Highways to the sky: The impact of tourism on South Asian mountain culture. Tourism Recreation Research 13(1):11-16. Barbier, B. 1989. International tourism today: A geographic approach. Geojournal19(3) :251-55. Bezruchka, S. 1989. The path not taken. Himal 2(3):6.

Sustainable Tourism in Nepal

Some observations o n trekking i n the highlands of north Thailand. In Tourism: A vital force for peace, ed. L. J.DAmore and J.Jafari, pp. 207-16. Vancouver: University of Victoria Press. 1991. Tourism and sustainable development in northern Thailand. Geographical Review 81(4):400-13. de Blij, H. J., and Capone, D. 1 . 1969. Wildlife conservation areas in east Africa: An application of field theory i n political geography. Southeastern Geographer 9(2):9&107. de Kadt, E. 1979. Tourism: Passport to development? Oxford: Oxford University Press. Din, K. H. 1988. Social and cultural impacts of tourism. Annals o f Tourism Research 15(4):56366. Durst, P. B. 1988. Nature tourism: Opportunities for promoting conservation and economic development. Paper presented at the International Conference o n Nature Conservation and Tourism Development, August 22-26, 1988, Surat Thani, Thailand. , and Ingram, C. D. 1988. Nature-oriented tourism promotion by developing countries. Tourism Management March: 39-43. Farrell, B. H., and Runyan, D. 1991. Ecology and tourism. Annals o f Tourism Research 18(1):2& 40. Farvar, M. T., and Claeser, B. 1979. Politics of ecodevelopment. Berlin: International Institute for Environment and Society. Fisher, J. 1990. The Sherpas: Reflections on change in Himalayan Nepal. Berkeley: University of California Press. Fricke, T . E.; Thornton, A.; and Dahal, D. R. 1990. Family organization and the wage labor transition in a Tamang community of Nepal. Human Ecology 18(3):283-314. Friedmann, 1 . ; Wheelwright, E.; and Connell, J. 1980. Development strategies in the eighties. Sydney: Development Studies Colloquium, University of Sydney. Furer-Haimendorf, C. von. 1975. Himalayan traders: Life in highland Nepal. London: John Murray. Consalves, P. S. 1987. Alternative tourism-the evolution of a concept and establishment of a network. Tourism Recreation Research 12(2):912. Corio, S. 1978. Papua New Guinea involves its people in national park development. Parks 3(2) ~12-14. Gray, H. P. 1970. lnternational travel-international trade. Lexington, MA: Heath Lexington Books. Greenwood, D. J. 1989. Culture by the pound: An anthropological perspective o n tourism as cultural commoditization. In Hosts andguests: The anthropology of tourism, ed. V. L. Smith,

627

pp. 171-86. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Hills, T . L., and Lundgren, J. 1977. The impact of tourism in the Caribbean: A methodological study. Annals of Tourism Research 4(5):24847. International Union of Official Travel Organizations (IUOTO). 1966. Study on the economic impact of tourism o n national economies and international trade. Geneva. 1975. The impact of international tourism on the economic development o f the developing countries. Geneva: IUOTOMlorld Tourism Organization. Karan, P. P., and Mather, C. 1985. Tourism and environment in Mount Everest region. Geographical Review 75(1):93-95. Keogh, B. 1984. The measurement of spatial variations in tourism activity. Annals o f Tourism Research 11(2):267-82. Koppel, B., and Zurick, D. 1988. Rural transformation and the future o f agricultural development policy in Asia. Agricultural Administration 28 :283-301 . barman, J.C.; Stewart, 1 . P.; and Prestemon, J.P. 1989. International travel by U.S. conservation groups and professional societies. journal o f Travel Research Summer: 12-1 7. , and Durst, P. B. 1987. Nature travel in the tropics. journal of forestry 85(5):43-46. Lea, J. 1988. Tourism and development in the Third World. 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. Geographies o f the mind. London: Oxford University Press. Lundgren, 1. 1984. Geographic concepts and development of tourism research in Canada. Geojournal9(1) :17-25. Mathieson, A., and Wall, C. 1982. Tourism: Economic, physical, and social impacts. London: Longman. McKean, P. F. 1989. Towards a theoretical analysis of tourism: Economic dualism and cultural involution in Bali. In Hosts a n d guests: The anthropology of tourism, ed. V. L. Smith, pp. 119-38. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. McNeely, J. A., and Miller, K. R., eds. 1984. National parks, conservation, and development: The role o f protected areas in sustaining society. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Metz, J. 1990. Forest-product use in upland Nepal. Geographical Review 80(3) :279-87. Mitchell, 1 . S., and Murphy, P. 1991. Geography and tourism. Annals o f Tourism Research 18(1):57-70. Mountain Travel. 1990. Catalogue. El Cerrito, CA.

628

Zurick Richter, 1. K. 1987. The search for appropriate tourism. Tourism Recreation Research 12(2):5-7. 1989. The politics o f tourism in Asia. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Saglio, C. 1979. Tourism for discovery: A project in lower Casamance, Senegal. In Tourism: Passport to development?, ed. E. de Kadt, pp. 32135. New York: Oxford University Press. Smith, V. L., ed. 1989. Hosts and guests: The anthropology o f tourism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Stevens, S. 1986. Inhabited national parks: Indigenous people in protected landscapes. East Kimberly Working Paper No. 10, Centre for Resource and Environment Studies, Australian National University, Canberra. 1988. Sacred and profaned Himalayas. Natural History 97(1):26-35. Travis, A. S. 1982. Managing the environmental and cultural impacts of tourism and leisure development. Tourism Management 3(4):256-62. Tuan, Y. -F. 1977. Space andplace: The perspective o f experience. London: Edward Arnold. Turner, 1. 1976. The international division of leisure: Tourism and the Third World. World Development 4(3):253-60. , and Ash, J. 1975. The golden hordes: International tourism and the pleasure periphery. London: Constable. Western, D., and Henry, W. R. 1979. Economics and conservation in Third World parks. BioScience 29(7):414-18. Young, 6. 1983. Touristization of traditional Maltese 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.

Murphy, P. 1985. Tourism: A community approach. London: Methuen. , and Andressen, B. 1988. Tourism development on Vancouver Island: An assessment of the core-periphery model. The Professional Ceographer 40: 32-42, Napit, K. P. 1982. Nepal. In Social and economic impacts of tourism in the Asian Pacific region, ed. D. Hawkins, pp. 78-84. Tokyo: Asian Productivi ty Organization. Nash, D. 1989. Tourism as a form of imperialism. In Hosts and guests: The anthropology o f tourism, ed. V. L. Smith, pp. 37-52. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB). 1989. lncome and employment generation from tourism in Nepal. Kathmandu. Norgaard, R. 1984. Coevolutionary development potential. Land Economics 60:2. Nunez, T. 1989. Touristic studies in anthropological perspective. I n Hosts andguests: The anthropology 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 tourism. Annals o f Tourism Research 6:245-72. 1987. Tourism today: A geographical analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Pigram, J. J. 1980. Environmental implications of tourism development. Annals o f Tourism Research 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. G. Britton and W. C. Clarke, pp. 78-90. Suva, Fiji: University of South Pacific. Redclift, M. 1987. Sustainable development: Exploring the contradictions. London: Methuen. Relph, E. 1976. Place and placelessness. London: Pion, Ltd.

-.

-.

Submitted 11/90, revised 9/91, accepted 11/91.