Tourism and its impact on livelihood in Manaslu conservation area, Nepal

Tourism and its impact on livelihood in Manasluconservation area, Nepal

Anup K. C. • Resham Bahadur Thapa Parajuli

Received: 4 October 2013 / Accepted: 26 December 2013� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract Tourism is an activity of a person which includes traveling and staying in

places that are outside of their location for business, vacation and other purpose. Large-

scale tourism in developed and developing countries has positive and negative effects on

the regional and national economies, local culture, physical infrastructure and environ-

ment. There are considerable gaps in research regarding tourism and livelihood in

developing countries like Nepal. This research work aims at fulfilling such gap by

assessing the impact of tourism on livelihood in Manaslu conservation area (MCA) of

Nepal. We interviewed 76 household followed by three focus group discussions and five

key informant interviews. The first-hand information collected at the site is complimented

by socioeconomic and tourism-related secondary information. Socioeconomic variables

such as marital status, size of household, education and landholding status had positive

effect on tourism participation while livestock-holding status and occupation of the

household had negative effect on tourism participation. Number of visitors is increasing in

MCA in recent years, and tourism participation is helping local people to earn more

money and improve their living standard. So, awareness and education related to tourism,

gender empowerment of women, advertisement and publicity on tourism promotion,

adequate subsidy and training on ecotourism and skill development trainings on handicraft

are recommended.

Keywords Tourism participation � Socioeconomic status � Household

expenditure � Manaslu conservation area � Central Nepal

A. K. C. (&)Amrit Science Campus, Tribhuvan University, P.O. Box No. 23883, Kathmandu, Nepale-mail: [email protected]

R. B. Thapa ParajuliCentral Department of Economics, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal

123

Environ Dev SustainDOI 10.1007/s10668-013-9512-7

1 Introduction

Tourism is an activity of a person which includes traveling and staying in places that are outside

of their location for business, vacation and other purposes (Page 2009; Sung et al. 2012). It is one

of the largest and fastest growing economic sectors (Hamilton and Tol 2004; Bigano et al. 2005;

Hamilton et al. 2005; Sanchez 2010; Dwyer and Spurr 2011). United Nation World Trade

Organisation (UNWTO) has determined that tourism is a primary source of foreign exchange

earnings in 46 out of 50 of the world’s least developed countries (LDCs) (UNWTO 2007;

Simpson et al. 2008; Ramasamy and Swamy 2012). World Travel and Tourism Council

(WTTC) had estimated that tourism contributes 9.2 % of global Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

and forecasts that this will continue to grow at over 4 % per annum during the next 10 years to

account for some 9.4 % of GDP (WTTC 2010; Dwyer and Spurr 2011).

There are different types of tourism industry. Nature-based tourism is one which aims to

protect and conserve natural resources by providing a stable employment in the tourism

industry (Sung et al. 2012). Winter sports tourism is also a significant contributor to local,

state, and federal tax revenue (Burakowski and Magnusson 2012). Trekking and moun-

taineering tourism are creating opportunities for enterprise generation through the opera-

tion of tea houses and lodges along the trails (Sherpa 2006). But the climate is an important

factor in the destination choice of tourists for nature-based tourism and winter tourism

(Maddison 2001; Lise and Tol 2002; Bigano et al. 2008; Skanavis and Sakellari 2011;

Rayamajhi 2012; Roson and Sartori 2012).

Large-scale tourism in developed and developing countries has positive and negative

effects on the regional and national economies, local culture, physical infrastructure and

environment (Erdmann 1997). Visitor behavior and attitudes toward the environment are

likely to have impact on the ecological sustainability of a tourism site (Nicholas and Thapa

2010). It is assumed that 50 % of the loss of ecosystem productivity results from either the

direct impact of tourists or from the clearing of land as a result of development for the

tourist industry (Blersch and Kangas 2013). Western culture can dominate the local tra-

dition and culture from international tourism (Erdmann 1997).

Tourism focuses on personal economic benefit, encourages abandonment of traditional

resource-use systems, turns local natural resources into commodities, spreads the idea that

resources can be replaced by imports, imparts a negative effect on the local ecosystems and

turns the village into an emerging center of resource allocation (Gossling 2003). Tourism

has economic benefits on mountain environments and local mountain communities

(Beniston 2003). It can support livelihood diversification, which is important in remote

areas (Guha and Ghosh 2007). It had direct impact on livelihood of people (Pandey et al.

1995; Roe et al. 2004; Guha and Ghosh 2007; Adhikari and Fischer 2008; Farooq et al.

2012). Creation of employment and economic opportunities benefits individuals, house-

hold and community (Simpson 2007). Households entering into tourism have significantly

raised their living standard, so it has the potential to lift people out of poverty through

employment and entrepreneurship (Ramasamy and Swamy 2012). Households distribute

the seasonal inflow of tourism money over the year, and this additional money enables the

households to consume over and above their basic necessities (Guha and Ghosh 2007).

There is a trade-off between economic benefits and environmental and sociocultural costs

as it requires a good balance to implement the concept of ecotourism that boons for forest

conservation, livelihood and community development (Adhikari and Fischer 2008). There

is increase in direct benefit to the poor from tourism (Ashley and Goodwin 2001).

Till the date, very few existing studies include stakeholders as the basis of study for

assessing the impact of tourism on livelihood of the people (Shah and Gupta 2000; Moreno

A. K. C., R. B. Thapa Parajuli

123

and Becken 2009; NCVST 2009). As tourism plays a pivotal role in economic develop-

ment, holistic approach is necessary for integrated management of stakeholder participa-

tion and involvement (Ramasamy and Swamy 2012). Therefore, the impact of tourism on

livelihood of local people is a contesting issue. In this context (1) does socioeconomic

status affects tourism entrepreneurship? (2) and does tourism had impact on livelihood at

local level are some pivotal questions that demand empirical answers.

2 Methodology

This study was carried out in trekking route from Machha Khola to Samagaun focusing

more in Lho and Samagaun VDC in Manaslu conservation area (MCA), Nepal, as shown in

Fig. 1 where the length of stay of tourist is more. MCA lies in the upper region of Gorkha

district and is bordered by Tibet autonomous region of China to the north and east, Manang

district to the west and Gorkha district to the south. MCA covers an area of 1,663 km2

which was declared conservation area in December 1998. The elevation of the area ranges

from 1,400 to 8,163 m above sea level (NTNC 2013).

For collecting primary information on socioeconomic status, tourism participation and live-

lihood status, clustered random sampling was applied for selection of household in survey on the

basis of their involvement in tourism. More than 66 % households involved in tourism businesses

were surveyed which were situated in the trekking route (38 out of 58). Equal numbers of non-

tourism-involved household were surveyed from Lho and Samagaon VDC. Semi-structured

questionnaire was used for data collection (Manu and Kuuder 2012). Besides household survey,

three focus group discussions (FGDs) consisting ten person each including sufficient number of

females were conducted using semi-structured checklist. To acquire more information on tourism

and livelihood, five key informants were interviewed including local leader, teacher and leading

tourism entrepreneur similar to that of Wood (2005). Secondary information related to tourist

number and household involved in tourism was taken from NTNC (2012).

To study the relationship between tourism participation and socioeconomic compo-

nents, graphical as well as correlation analysis was carried out. The socioeconomic vari-

ables taken for correlation analysis are per capita household consumption, productive

human capital, education ratio and landholding status of household, livestock number, per

capita income and age and gender of respondents.

Among various measurement of livelihood, consumption capacity can be considered as

one of the better measurements basically in the rural context of undeveloped economies.

To gauge whether engagement in tourism-related activities affects livelihood of local

people or not, per capita household consumption (PCHC) measured in rupees is regressed

with productive human capital (PHC), household size (SH), education of the household

head (ED), ownership of physical capital (PC), income from livestock (LS), tourism

participation dummy (TP) and other farm income besides livestock (IC). The regression

equation, where b0 is intercept coefficient, bs (s runs from 1 to 9) are partial slope coef-

ficients of respective variables and ei being residual term, is specified as follows:

PCHC ¼ b0 þ b1PHCþ b2SHþ b3SH2 þ b4EDþ b5PCþ b6PC2 þ b7LSþ b8TP

þ b9IC þ ei ð1Þ

Farooq et al. (2012) also estimated similar regression model to assess the relationship of

tourism and livelihood. We estimated the regression equations using STATA 12, and

summary of the results is reported in Table 2. Microsoft Excel 2007 and SPSS 16 software

were used to analyze descriptive statistic.

Tourism and its impact on livelihood

123

The degree of relationship existing between dependent and independent variables is

shown by the coefficient of determination (R2) which is calculated as follows.

The model with K explanatory variables

R2 ¼P

y2iP

y2¼ 1�

Pe2

Py2¼ ai

PyxiP

y2¼ a1

Pyx1 þ a2

Pyx2 þ � � � � � � þ ak

PyxkP

y2ð2Þ

where y ¼ Y � �Y ; x ¼ X � �X.

F test is used to measure the overall significance of the estimated regression, which is

shown below.

F ¼ R2=ðk � 1Þð1� R2Þ=ðn� kÞ ð3Þ

where k total number of parameters to be estimated, n number of observation, R2 coeffi-

cient of determination.

The SE of regression line (estimate) is a measure of precision in the reduction of value

of dependent variable based on the regression equation with the value of independent

variable. So, it was used during analysis of regression model.

3 Results and discussions

Among the respondents, 29 % of households have four members in their family as shown

in Fig. 2. Gender wise, the respondent were 51.32 % male and 48.68 % female which was

Fig. 1 Map of the study site. Source NTNC (2012)


123

different than the study of Manu and Kuuder (2012) in Ghana. About 90 % respondents

were married and 11 % were unmarried. The average household size of respondent was

similar to the national-level data according to CBS (2012). Both male and female are

participating in tourism-related activities as seen in field observation and household survey.

The families having more members were easily conducting tourism business without

employing supporting staff.

Among the respondents, there were 61.8 % literate and 38.2 % illiterate as shown in

Fig. 3. The literacy rate of the respondents was less than the national literacy rate of Nepal

(CBS 2012). Literate people are seen more involved in tourism business than the illiterate

people. It was due to the ecotourism-related information they have gathered from other

sites of Nepal such as Annapurna Conservation Area, Sagarmatha National Park and other

destination in the abroad. As the study area lies in mountain region of Nepal, 42 %

households were involved in agriculture only, while 32.9 % in tourism only as shown in

Fig. 4. About 23 % people were involved in both agriculture and tourism. Total respon-

dents involved in agriculture were 64.5 % which was less than national level according to

CBS (2011). During plantation and harvesting time, people were involved in agriculture

and in other time they were involved in tourism business. Tourism entrepreneurs were

giving more priority to tourism than their other associated occupation in the tourism season

from September–October and April–May. But the main source of income in Samagaon for

all people was harvesting of Yarshagumba during April and May month of the year. The

households owned 3.15 ropani of land on an average as shown in Fig. 5 which was very

less comparison to the study done in Dhading district by Rana (2008). People having more

land had opportunity to take part in tourism activities for camping, building lodges and

resorts. It was giving them opportunity to increase the capacity for lodging facilities, horse

rearing and for growing some seasonal vegetables.

Average livestock per HH in this study was 6.95 which were more than that observed by

Rana (2008). People involved in tourism were keeping horse for transport of their goods

while other non-participants were keeping more yaks. It was easier for the tourism-

involved people to carry their goods as well as the tourist for enhancing their tourism

business. Also, the male yak was used as the source of meat by local people for fulfilling

the requirement of tourist.

From the correlation analysis between tourism participation and socioeconomic vari-

ables in Table 1, it can be seen that per capita household consumption, productive human

capital, education ratio of household, per capita income, landholding status and gender are

Fig. 2 Number of family members


123

positively correlated with weak relationship with tourism participation. But number of

livestock and age of respondents are negatively correlated with weak relationship with

tourism participation.

Respondents of focus group discussion and key informant interview felt that socio-

economic variables such as marital status, size of household, education and landholding

status had positive effect on tourism participation while livestock-holding status and

occupation of the HH had negative effect on tourism participation.

Almost all respondents during household survey, focus group discussion and key

informant interview felt that number of tourist is increasing in MCA in the recent years.

The number of visitors visiting MCA increases from 1995 to 2001 but decreases from 2001

to 2006 and again increased from 2007 onwards as shown in Fig. 6. After the establishment

of MCAP by NTNC in 1998, the visitors were increased as there were more facilities

Fig. 3 Education of therespondents

Fig. 4 Major occupation of thehousehold


123

available for the tourist. Even more tourism-related information is available these days.

The MCAP information center played pivotal role on it. Despite the change in climate and

the shift in tourism seasons in Annapurna Conservation Area, 62.9 % said that the number

of tourists has been increasing (Rayamajhi 2012). Dhakal (2005) observed that trekking

tourism has declined in recent years from a normal level of over 25–18 % of overall

national tourists in 2004. A total of 69 % of the lodge owners and guides of Annapurna

trekking trial said that there have been changes in the tourism season (Rayamajhi 2012).

Subedi and Chapagain’s (2011) study on Upper Manang found that from 2002 to 2006, the

number of tourists visiting the Manang valley decreased and started increasing from 2007.

The second column of Table 2 shows that regression model is fit and significant (p \ 0.01)

with F test value 4.26 but with weak and poor performance of variables as R2 value is 0.36.

Physical capital and square of physical capital are significant (p \ 0.1) with household

consumption. Land was considered as the physical capital in the study. Household having

more land had opportunity to use their land in tourism activities such as camping, recre-

ational activities and adventurous activities for tourist. Also, they can grow more crops

than others. Farooq et al.’s (2012) study on Galliyat, Abbottabad, also found that household

consumption is dependent on physical capital.

Fig. 5 Landholding status of household

Table 1 Correlation analysis oftourism participation with socio-economic variables

Significance of correlationcoefficient: *** p \ 0.01;** p \ 0.05; * p \ 0.1

Independent variables Correlationcoefficients

Dependent variable: tourism participation

Per capita HH consumption 0.389***

Productive human capital 0.142

Education ratio of HH 0.118*

Landholding status of HH 0.012

Livestock number -0.378***

Per capita income 0.238**

Age (years) -0.168*

Gender 0.026


123

Fig. 6 Number of visitors visiting MCA. Source NTNC (2012)

Table 2 Regression analysisrelated to livelihood, tourism andclimate change

SEs in parentheses:*** p \ 0.01; ** p \ 0.05;* p \ 0.1

Independent variables Coefficients (b)(SE)

Dependent variable: per capita household consumption

Productive human capital -614.10(3,346.25)

Size of household -11,797.55(28,173.68)

Square of size of household 804.62(4,644.89)

Education -861.16(2,680.88)

Physical capital -15,198.14*(8,388.79)

Square of physical capital 1,508.83*(900.25)

Livestock 0.01(0.01)

Tourism participation 26,944.40***(9009.35)

Income 0.08***(0.02)

Constant 92,124.43**(41533.64)

Observations 76

R2 0.36

F test statistic 4.26***


123

Tourism participation is positive and significant (p \ 0.01) with household consump-

tion. Tourism participation means involvement of people in tourism-related activities such

as keeping small tea shops, shops, providing lodging, fodding and camping facilities,

keeping horse for transport of goods and working as porters. By participating in tourism

activities, people are able to generate more income and are increasing their household

consumption. Guha and Ghosh’s (2007) study in Indian Sundarbans found that households

entering into tourism-related occupations have significantly raised their living standard

compared to other non-participating households. Farooq et al.’s (2012) study on Galliyat,

Abbotabad, found that per capita household consumption is more in household who par-

ticipate in tourism-related activities than those who do not participate. Tourism had also

been the source of learning and sharing experience for the local people of MCA as they are

getting chance to interact with visitors having expertise and experience in different sectors.

Similarly, income has positive significant impact (p \ 0.01) on per capita household

consumption. People having more income from tourism and other activities are easily

consuming food and necessary basic needs. It was also helping them for sending their

family members for higher level education in Kathmandu and other cities in abroad. The

study done by Adhikari and Fisher (2008) in Ghandruk VDC of Kaski district found that

there is a trade-off between economic benefit and environmental and sociocultural costs.

Generation of income from tourism is also helping entrepreneurs to enhance their business

in ecotourism sector as they are investing money in making the environment clean, green

and clear. They are also working in the trade of local products from animal and plant origin

such as handicraft and bamboo baskets. It is creating more employment opportunities for

the local people to generate income for living a good quality life. So, tourism had direct

effect on livelihood of people in MCA.

4 Conclusions

Socioeconomic variables such as marital status, size of household, education and land-

holding status had positive effect on tourism participation while livestock-holding status

and occupation of the HH had negative effect on tourism participation. Number of visitors

is increasing in MCA in recent years, and tourism participation is helping local people to

earn more money and improve their living standard. So, awareness and education pro-

grammes related to tourism, gender empowerment of women, advertisement and publicity

on tourism promotion in national and international level, adequate subsidy and training on

ecotourism and skill development trainings on handicraft are recommended.

Acknowledgments We would like to acknowledge National Academy of Science and Technology-NCCKMC, Dr. Dinesh Raj Bhuju and Mr. Pawan Neupane for their technical and financial help to conductthis study.

References

Adhikari, Y. P., & Fischer, A. (2008). Tourism: Boon for forest conservation, livelihood, and communitydevelopment in Ghandruk VDC, Western Nepal. SUFFREC (p. 11).

Ashley, C., Goodwin, H., & Roe, D. (2001). Pro-poor tourism strategies: Expanding opportunities for thepoor. Pro-poor tourism briefing. UK.

Beniston, M. (2003). Climatic change in mountain regions: A review of possible impacts. Climatic Change,59, 5–31.


123

Bigano, A., Bosello, F., Roson, R., & Tol, R. S. J. (2008). Economy-wide impacts of climate change: A jointanalysis for sea level rise and tourism. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 13(8),765–791.

Bigano, A., Goria, A., Hamilton, J., & Tol, R. S. J. (2005). The effect of climate change and extreme weatherevents on tourism Nota di Lavoro. Milano, Italy: Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.

Blersch, D. M., & Kangas, P. C. (2013). A modeling analysis of the sustainability of ecotourism in belize.Environment, Development and Sustainability, 15, 67–80. doi:10.1007/s10668-012-9374-4.

Burakowski, E., & Magnusson, M. (2012). Climate impacts on the winter tourism economy in the UnitedStates. In A. Kennaugh (Ed.). University of New Hampshire.

CBS. (2011). Nepal Living Standards Survey 2010/11 (Vol. 2). Kathmandu, Nepal: Central Bureau ofStatistics.

CBS. (2012). National Population and Housing Census 2011 (Vol. 01). Kathmandu, Nepal: Central Bureauof Statistics.

Dhakal, D. P. (2005). Sustainable rural tourism for improved livelihood of local communities (Policy Paper4). Singha Durbar, Kathmandu, Nepal: Nepal Tourism Board (NTB).

Dwyer, L., & Spurr, R. (2011). Tourism economics summary. QLD 4222 Australia: STCRC Centre forEconomics and Policy, Gold Coast Campus, Griffith University.

Erdmann, G. (1997). The impact of tourism on coastal areas. GeoJournal, 42, 39–54.Farooq, S. U., Khan, Z., Ullah, Z., & Shahid, S. M. (2012). The impact of tourism on local livelihood: A

case study of Galliyat, District Abbotabad. European Journal of Scientific Research, 68(1), 10.Gossling, S. (2003). Market integration and ecosystem degradation: Is sustainable tourism development in

rural communities a contradiction in terms? Environment, Development and Sustainability, 5, 383–400.Guha, I., & Ghosh, S. (2007). Does tourism contribute to local livelihoods? A case study of tourism, poverty

and conservation in the Indian Sundarbans. ISSN 1893-1891; 2007—WP 26) ISBN: 978-9937-8015-2-2, vol. 26-07. SANDEE (Ed.).

Hamilton, J. M., Maddison, D. J., & Tol, R. S. J. (2005). Climate change and international tourism: Asimulation study. Global Environmental Change, 15, 253–266.

Hamilton, J. M., & Tol, R. S. J. (2004). The impact of climate change on tourism and recreation. In Workingpaper FNU (Vol. 52). Hamsburg: Centre for Marine and Climate Research, Hamburg University.

Lise, W., & Tol, R. S. J. (2002). Impact of climate on tourism demand. Climate Change, 55(4), 439–449.Maddison, D. (2001). In search of warmer climates? The impact of climate change on flows of british

tourists. Climate Change, 49, 193–208.Manu, I., & Kuuder, C.-J. W. (2012). Community-based ecotourism and livelihood enhancement in Sirigu,

Ghana. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(18), 97–108.Moreno, A., & Becken, S. (2009). A climate change vulnerability assessment methodology for coastal

tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(4), 16.NCVST. (2009). Vulnerability through the eyes of vulnerable: climate change induced uncertainties and

nepal’s development predicaments. Institute for Social and Environmental Transition-Nepal (ISET-N,Kathmandu) and Institute for Social and Environmental Transition (ISET, Boulder, Colorado).

Nicholas, L., & Thapa, B. (2010). Visitor perspectives on sustainable tourism development in the pitonsmanagement area world heritage site St. Lucia. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 12,839–857. doi:10.1007/s10668-009-9227-y.

NTNC. (2012). Manaslu conservation area project. www.ntnc.org.np/project/manaslu-conservation-area-project.

NTNC. (2013). Manaslu conservation area project. www.ntnc.org.np/project/manaslu-conservation-area-project. Accessed 15 Sept 2013.

Page, S. J. (2009). Current issue in tourism: The evolution of travel medicine research: A new researchagenda for tourism? Tourism Management, 149–157, 149–157.

Pandey, R. N., Chettri, P., Kunwar, R. R., & Ghimire, G. (1995). Case study on the effects of tourism onculture and the environment in Nepal. Bangkok, Thailand: UNESCO Principal Regional Office forAsia and the Pacific.

Ramasamy, R., & Swamy, A. (2012). Global warming, climate change and tourism: A review of literature.Culture Special Issue: Sustainability, Tourism and Environment in The Shift of A Millennium: APeripheral View, 6(3), 72–98.

Rana, E. (2008). An option for carbon finance and its impacts on livelihoods of forest users in nepal: A casestudy from a community forest in Dhading, Nepal. Freising, Germany: Master thesis submitted toSchool of Forest Science and Resource Management, Technische Universitat, Munichen.

Rayamajhi, S. (2012). Linkage between tourism and climate change: A study of the perceptions of stake-holders along the Annapurna trekking trail. Nepal Tourism and Development Review, 16, 60–86.


123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-012-9374-4

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-009-9227-y

http://www.ntnc.org.np/project/manaslu-conservation-area-project




Roe, D., Ashley, C., Page, S., & Meyer, D. (2004). Tourism and the poor: Analysing and interpretingtourism statistics from a poverty perspective. Pro poor tourism working series 16. London: Economicand Social Research Unit (ESCOR) of the UK Department for International Development (DFID).

Roson, R., & Sartori, M. (2012). Climate change impacts on tourism in the mediterranean Draft—April2012. Milan, Italy.

Sanchez, A. M. (2010). Climate change and tourism, impacts and vulnerability in coastal Europe. Degree ofDoctor, Maastricht University.

Shah, K., & Gupta, V. (2000). In C. Boyd (Ed.), Tourism, the poor, and other stakeholders: Asian expe-rience. London, UK: ODI.

Sherpa, Y. (2006). Mountain tourism: A boon or a bane? Impacts of tourism on Himalayan women.Kathmandu, Nepal: Federation of Women Entrepreneurs association Of Nepal.

Simpson, M. C. (2007). An integrated approach to assess the impacts of tourism on community developmentand sustainable livelihoods. Community Development Journal, 1–23. doi:10.1093/cdj/bsm048.

Simpson, M. C., Gossling, S., Scott, D., Hall, C. M., & Gladin, E. (2008). Climate change adaptation andmitigation in the tourism sector: frameworks, tools and practices. (p. 152). Paris, France: UNEP,University of Oxford, UNWTO, WMO.

Skanavis, C., & Sakellari, M. (2011). International tourism, domestic tourism and environmental change:Environmental education can find the balance. Tourismos: An International Multidisciplinary Journalof Tourism, 6(1), 233–249.

Subedi, B. P., & Chapagain, P. S. (2011). Tourism development in Upper Manang valley of Annapurnaregion. Nepal Tourism and Development Review, 1(1), 56–68.

Sung, T. P., Bagul, H. B. P., Sentian, J., & Dambul, R. (2012). Developing and promoting a highlandcommunity livelihood for sustainable tourism: The case of Kg. Bundutuhan, Ranau, Sabah. MalaysiaJournal of Society and Space, 8(5), 94–99.

UNWTO. (2007). Tourism will contribute to solutions for global climate change and poverty challenges.Berlin, Madrid: United Nation World Trade Organisation Press and Communications Department.

Wood, K. (2005). Pro-poor tourism as a means of sustainable development in the Uctubamba valley,Northern Peru. Master, University of Greenwich, Peru.

WTTC. (2010). Tourism Economic Research 2010. London: World Travel and Tourism Council.


123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsm048

Documents

Tourism and its impact on livelihood in Manaslu conservation area, Nepal