See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/361481264

Tourism Governance: India

Chapter · June 2022

CITATIONS READS

0 79

1 author:

Priyanka Ghosh
VIT-AP University
18 PUBLICATIONS   72 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Rural land Use Inventory, Fayette County, KY View project

Book Project: Sustainable Development Goals: Science, Policy, and Practice in India View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Priyanka Ghosh on 23 June 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Priyanka Ghosh
6 India
6.1 Introduction
In the past two decades, tourism has emerged as a strong sector of India’s economy.
Globally it is also the fastest growing industry (Goodwin & Chaudhary, 2017). Tourism
can be defined as movement of people to places where they stay for a temporary pe-
riod of time (Goodwin & Chaudhary, 2017). The meaning of tourism could be different
to different people. Travel, relaxation, recreation, and exploring different cultural tra-
ditions all can fall under the purview of tourism (Bhatia 1985). World Tourism Organi-
zation (WTO), a United Nations specialized agency, defines tourism as activities of
visitors “traveling to and staying in places outside their usual environment not more
than one year for leisure, business, and other purposes” (UNWTO, 2019).
For developing countries, tourism industry has already proved to be a significant
source of foreign exchange (Wunder, 2000). The growth of India’s tourism sector is re-
lated to the emergence of a growing urban middle class who can afford to visit India’s
varied landscape, cultural, and religious heritage. In 2013, there were 1.14 billion of do-
mestic tourists in India as compared to 270 million domestic visitors in 2002 (Draft Na-
tional Tourism Policy, 2015). Being a labor-intensive industry, tourism has immense
opportunity to create direct employment for 23 million people in India (Draft National
Tourism Policy, 2015). As per the Travel and Tourism Competitive Index (TTCI), India is
ranked 34th among the world’s 140 most attractive countries for tourism (Business Stan-
dard, 2019). According to the TTCI report 2019, India scores well in terms of having natu-
ral resources (14th) as well as cultural resources (8th) (Calderwood and Soshkin, 2019).
Tourism sector in India contributed to 12.38% of total jobs in 2017–2018 out of
which 5.40% was direct employment (Ministry of Tourism, Annual Report, 2018–2019).
Despite such possibility of expansion and growth, India’s tourism sector does not play
a major role in world tourism (Travel and Tourism Competitive Report, 2011). Consider-
ing India’s limited role in the global tourism industry, the Ministry of Tourism has de-
veloped a new policy in 2015 in which the government wants to promote India as
“Must EXPERIENCE” and “Must REVISIT” destination. This new draft policy also
highlighted several objectives of government to strengthen tourism sector which in-
cludes increasing India’s share in arrival of world tourists from current 0.68% to 1% by
2020 and to 2% by 2025 (Draft National Tourism Policy 2015). However, this goal has
been set prior to COVID-19 pandemic situation and in the first quarter of 2020 (January
to March) Asia and the Pacific region of the world had experienced a 35% decrease in
tourist arrival due to travel restrictions (UNWTO May 2020). Against this backdrop, this
chapter examines how tourism in India is shaped by its governance system. Addition-
ally, it describes tourism policies in India and the diversity of tourism products India
can offer to its domestic and international visitors.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110638141-006
86 Priyanka Ghosh

6.2 Tourism Administration and India’s

Tourism Policies
After independence, India only had few hotels in large cities and at hill stations
which provided accommodation to visitors. Also, there were few travel agencies
who could cater to the needs of the tourists. Since 1956, India focused on develop-
ing tourist facilities which also coincided with the Second Five Year Plan (National
Tourism Policy, 1982). The ministry of tourism was established in 1958 (Hannam,
2010). India formulated its first tourism policy in 1982. The tourism development by
Indian government passed through different phases from isolated planning to inte-
grated area development during fifth and sixth Five Year Plans (Hannam, 2010).
During the sixth Five Year Plan, the government emphasized the value of domestic
tourism and different states were involved to develop domestic tourism sector
(Ahuja, 1999).
India’s tourism sector is primarily governed by the Ministry of Tourism which is a
nodal agency that formulates policies and programs and promote tourism development
in the country (Figure 6.1). The ministry also coordinates among various central gov-
ernment agencies, state governments and union territories, and representatives of pri-
vate sectors. Secretary (Tourism) is the administrative head of the Ministry of Tourism
who is also the Director General (DG) tourism. The office of the secretary and the office
of the DG are now combined to implement various plans and programs (Ministry of
Tourism, 2019). Currently, the ministry has 20 field offices within the country, eight of-
fices overseas, and one sub-ordinate office/project i.e. Indian Institute of Skiing and
Mountaineering (IISM) or Gulmarg Winter Sports Project (GWSP) (Ministry of Tourism,
2019). The field offices within the country provide valuable information to the visitors
and monitor ongoing field projects. The IISM now offers various ski and other courses
in the valley of Jammu and Kashmir. The overseas offices are responsible for marketing
and promotion of various tourism products (Ministry of Tourism, 2019). Under the Min-
istry of Tourism, there is one government undertaking named India Tourism Develop-
ment Corporation (ITDC) which was established in 1966. The ITDC runs hotels and
restaurants in various places of India and also responsible for production and dissemi-
nation of tourist publicity literature (Ministry of Tourism, 2019). ITDC directly reports to
the Ministry of Tourism and mostly engaged in building large scale tourism projects
(Hannam, 2004). Besides ITDC, there are several autonomous institutions which fall
under the Ministry of Tourism: Indian Institute of Tourism and Travel Management
(IITTM), National Institute of Water Sports (NIWS), National Council for Hotel Manage-
ment and Catering Technology (NCHMCT), the Institutes of Hotel Management, and In-
dian Culinary Institute (Hannam, 2010; Ministry of Tourism, Annual Report 2018–2019).
In the first tourism policy of 1982, the government mentioned its several objec-
tives, including providing socio-economic benefits to local communities, job creation,
and earning of foreign exchange (National Tourism Policy, 1982). In the first tourism
 6 India 87

Institutes of Hotel
Management
(autonomous)
Indian Institute of
Tourism & Travel
National Council for Management
Hotel Management & Ministry of Tourism
(autonomous)
Catering Technology
(autonomous)
National Institute of
Indian Culinary
Secretary Tourism/Director General Water Sports
Institute (DG) (autonomous)
(autonomous)

8 Overseas 20 Field India Tourism Indian Institute of Skiing

offices Offices Development and Mountaineering (IISM)
Corporation

Figure 6.1: Structure of Tourism Governance in India.

policy, the government outlined a plan of action that emphasized involvement of

youth in national integration. The policy also paid attention to social tourism (Na-
tional Tourism Policy, 1982). The tourism policy of 1982 focused on development of
selected travel circuits, change the tendency of concentration in few urban centers,
diversify attractions for tourists, and opening up economically lagging areas which
can attract visitors such as archaeological sites, places with scenic beauty, and places
which can attract tourists for its art and craft (National Tourism Policy, 1982). The
travel circuits catered to the needs of domestic tourists as compared to the interna-
tional ones (Hannam, 2004).
In the 1990s, economic liberalization in the country led to special emphasis on
tourism as a sector of economic investment (Hannam, 2010). In 1992, a National Ac-
tion Plan was declared with an aim of improving tourism infrastructure and bringing
more foreign tourists in the country. In 2002, the Ministry of Tourism introduced its
new national tourism policy which is considered a very important stepping stone for
development of India’s tourism sector. The new tourism policy in 2002 recognized
tourism as an important sector for country’s economic growth and put emphasis on
domestic tourism. The objectives of 2002 tourism policy were to position tourism as a
national priority, enhance and maintain India’s competitiveness in world tourism
market, improve existing tourism products, and expand these products according to
market demand. In order to expand tourism products, the policy focused on develop-
ing sustainable beach and coastal tourism resort products, especially along the west-
ern coast of India. Also, it focused on developing Kochi and Andaman and Nicobar
Islands as international cruise destinations. The 2002 policy put an emphasis on eco-
tourism, which would eradicate poverty, create new jobs, protect biodiversity and
cultural heritage of a place (National Tourism Policy, 2002). The aims of the new pol-
icy were to develop world class infrastructure and effective marketing strategies. One
of the salient features of this tourism policy was that it acknowledges the important
88 Priyanka Ghosh

role of private sector along with the government in tourism development (National
Tourism Policy, 2002).
Since 2002, India’s tourism governance adopted a strategy of destination brand-
ing which has become important for wider economic development (Hannam, 2010).
Destination branding helps in creating a unique identity of a place which provides
it a competence in the global tourism market (Hannam, 2004). In case of India, the
destination branding occurred through the campaign of “Incredible India,” which
portrayed diversity and exoticness of India. This campaign changed India’s image
as a country of poverty to a country of modern values to be explored by the tourists
(Kant, 2009). According to Bandyopadhyay and Morais (2005), the incredible India
focused on following themes: personal enlightenment and wellness, cultural diver-
sity reflected in the geographical diversity, cultural richness, natural beauty, exotic
wildlife, and royal treatment along with comfort.
Then, in 2005, the Ministry of Tourism launched “Atithi Devo Bhava” to com-
plement the “Incredible India” campaign. The purpose was to sensitize local people
towards preserving India’s cultural heritage as well as to create a sense of responsi-
bility towards domestic and international visitors (Indian Institute of Tourism and
Travel Management, 2011). In September 2018, the Ministry of Tourism launched
“Incredible India” mobile application with respect to growing influence of internet
in disseminating information related to tourism service providers such as domestic
tour operators, adventure tour operators, travel agents, and guides (Ministry of
Tourism, Annual Report 2018–2019). Besides destination branding, other important
factors which boosted India’s tourism sector are deregulation in airline industry,
sustained economic growth, and online marketing of tourism activities (Hannam,
2010).

6.3 Tourism Governance in India

India’s geographical and cultural diversity provides various opportunities of tour-
ism activities. On the basis of tourism products, tourism in India can be classified
into cultural tourism, beach and coastal tourism, adventure tourism, ecotourism,
wildlife tourism, medical tourism, ayurveda tourism, and village tourism (National
Tourism Policy, 2002). Recently, the Indian government identified several other
tourism products for development and promotion such as cruise tourism (both river
and ocean cruise), wellness tourism, golf tourism, polo tourism, and film tourism
(Ministry of Tourism, Annual Report 2018–2019). Although the Ministry of Tourism
acts as a nodal agency in India, every state in India has their own tourism policy
(Hannam, 2010).
 6 India 89

6.3.1 Regional Tourism Governance: Central versus State

In terms of tourism governance in India and creating positive image in the global
tourism economy, Kerala presents a successful case study. Kerala-which is branded
as “God’s Own Country” first initiated its tourism development by establishing a
beach resort at Kovalam in 1976 and the state government of Kerala declared tour-
ism as an industry in 1986. Since then Kerala created its own brand in global tour-
ism market especially market in Europe (Kerala Tourism Policy, 2012; Thimm, 2017).
Recently, the state has put more emphasis on attracting domestic tourists as eco-
nomic recession in Europe has affected the share of foreign tourists (Kerala Tourism
Policy, 2012). Kerala receives 12% of India’s international tourists arrival. The major
countries from which Kerala receives bulk of its international tourists are UK, USA,
France, Germany, and Australia (Kerala Tourism Policy, 2012; Thimm, 2017). This
section discusses regional tourism governance in India’s southern state of Kerala
and addresses the discord between Central and State government of India’s while
implementing environmental legislations in the tourism sector.
The discord between state and central governments on tourism development is
often visible through the implementation of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ), an im-
portant environmental legislation which was first introduced in 1991 (Figure 6.2). In
1996, the Supreme Court of India urged its strict implementation. The entire coastal
areas of India are divided into four coastal zones from the high tide line (HTL) to
500 meters inland (Sreekumar & Parayil, 2002). Zone I extends from the HTL to 500
meters inland and includes ecologically sensitive areas such as national parks, re-
serve forests, wildlife habitats, marine reserves, coral reefs, heritage areas, and
breeding and spawning ground of fish. Zone II is the developed urban areas where
industrial activities are prohibited. Developed and undeveloped rural areas fall
under zone III. In the zone III, rural areas which fall under the HTL to 200 meters
inland are considered as the ‘No Development Zone’ (NDZ). Most of the economic
activities are prohibited in the NDZ (Sreekumar &Parayil, 2002). The CRZ notifica-
tion, 1991 has been amended 34 times after its introduction and as per the 2011 noti-
fication CRZ I also includes the ecologically sensitive areas where tourism activities
and infrastructure development are prohibited (Kukreti 2019).
However, the violation of CRZ can be clearly visible if we trace the historical
development of coastal tourism in Kerala. For instance, in 1998, more than 28% of
coastal violations in Kerala occurred due to tourism activities and more than 26% of
these violations occurred in the NDZ (Sreekumar &Parayil, 2002). Nevertheless, the
state government argued for a relaxation of CRZ regulations irrespective of the fact
that the large NGOs like Kerala Sasthra Sahithya Parishad (KSSP) asked for strict im-
plementation of CRZ. The decision-making process in Kerala’s tourism sector is still
influenced by political elites. Tourism sector in Kerala is largely controlled by the
state government that does not share power to local bodies (Sreekumar & Parayil,
90 Priyanka Ghosh

Figure 6.2: Different Zones of Coastal Regulation, 1991.

2002). The violation of CRZ regulations can also be drawn from the Sundarbans re-
gion of India.
Several federal and state government departments manage the Sundarbans re-
gion of India. For example, the Project Tiger which was launched in India in 1973 in
the Sundarbans is under direct supervision of Prime Minister (Ghosh, 2018). CRZ reg-
ulation is applicable for the entire Sundarban Biosphere Reserve and in the recent
past National Green Tribunal (NGT) has ordered to demolish all hotels, resorts, and
lodges. The violation of CRZ notification also included expansion and remodeling of
Sajnekhali Tourist Lodge located in Sajnekhali Wildlife Sanctuary without obtaining
a “Consent to Operate” certificate from the West Bengal Pollution Control Board
(WBPCB). The lodge falls under the CRZ 1 which is the eco-sensitive zone (Gupta,
2015). The state government appealed to the Ministry of Environment, Government of
India, for an amendment of CRZ Notification 2011 and remove the word “biosphere”
from the section 7.i.A(e) of CRZ notification. This would save all the constructions
from demolition in this coastal wetland ecosystem (Bandyopadhyay, 2015).
The centralization of power and decision making by the state government in
Kerala can explicitly be found from the case of Kumarakaran Bird Sanctuary in
which hotels and resorts were built without considering the objections raised by
the local panchayat and environmental activists (Sreekumar & Parayil, 2002). How-
ever, in Kerala Tourism Policy of 2012, the state government of Kerala has recog-
nized the role of local self-governments by stating that:
 6 India 91

In planning and development of tourism in destinations, the local self-governments can play a
decisive role. Tourism development programmes will be integrated with other developmental
activities of local self-governments. We will encourage and assist local bodies to form Tourism
Working Group in places of tourism importance. (Kerala Tourism Policy, 2012, p. 12)

Recently, a new Coastal Regulation Zone Notification 2018 has been proposed which
would open more coastal areas for commercial activities thus leading to economic
growth (Kukreti, 2019). Conservationist and Environmental Activists have argued that
risk would be far greater than benefits as ecology and coastal communities will be
vulnerable to rising sea level and natural hazards (Kukreti, 2019).

6.3.2 Influential Forest Management over Tourism

The state executive power in India lies with the Prime Minister and his cabinet
whereas the bureaucratic power in India lies in the hands of Indian Administrative
Service (Hannam, 2004). Below this hierarchy is the Ministry of Home Affairs which
is responsible for the internal security and depends on its own state apparatus
known as the Indian Police Service (IPS) (Hannam, 2004). The Ministry of Environ-
ment and Forest lies below in terms of hierarchy in the state apparatus and controls
over one third of India’s territory in the sense that one third of the India’s total land
area should be under forest cover (National Forest Policy, 1988). Nature-based tour-
ism and wildlife tourism can take place in this one-third forest land which include
all the national parks and sanctuaries (Hannam, 2004). Forest cover in India also
falls under three categories: Protection forests, national forests, and village forests
(Kumar Sanjay, 2002a). National parks fall under the category of Protection forests
(Hannam, 2004). Ministry of Environment and Forests deploys its power over one-
third of forest land through its own civil service called Indian Forest Service (IFS).
However, this is an elite institution with a complex hierarchical bureaucratic struc-
ture which mostly remained same since the colonial period (Hannam, 1999; 2004).
The Ministry of Tourism in India does not have a similar civil service like the IFS of
the Forest Department (Hannam, 2004).
Tourism development in different states of India often face conflicts with the for-
est management especially in the case of nature-based tourism activities or ecotour-
ism. The Department of Tourism and the Department of Forest often come into
conflicts in terms of building accommodation facilities and other related infrastruc-
ture development. There are more than 800 protected areas (PAs) in India including
national parks and sanctuaries (Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
Annual Report 2018–19). These protected areas are smaller in size because increasing
population pressure and existing land use do not allow creation of large, protected
areas in India (Kumar Suhas, 2002b). The size of protected areas in India on average
is less than 300 sq. km. (Karanth & DeFries, 2010). However, the smaller PAs are not
ecologically viable unless PAs are connected to nearby PAs (Kumar, 2002). Certain
92 Priyanka Ghosh

national parks in India are designated to protect certain animal such as tiger based
on the Project Tiger launched in 1973 (Ghosh, 2014; Hannam, 2005). The Project Tiger
was originally launched in nine tiger reserves in India with an objective to protect
and maintain tiger population for ecological, scientific, cultural, and aesthetic value.
The second objective of such a conservation project was to preserve such land for
tourism and recreation. However, this second objective was not received much impor-
tance (Ghosh, 2014; Hannam, 2005). Project Tiger also prohibited hunting within the
boundary of tiger reserve as well as human habitation (Hannam, 2004).
The park managers of tiger reserves in India often see tourism as obstacle rather
than an opportunity (Hannam, 2004; 2005). In other words, tourism has been as subor-
dinated to wildlife conservation, even a major environmental issue in PAs (Hannam,
2004). Even the eco-development projects which were launched around national parks
only cater to reduce biotic pressure by providing livelihood to people living on the
boundary of protected areas. Tourism development is not an important goal of such
eco-development projects and mostly used as an incentive to relocate rural people out-
side the boundaries of national park (Hannam, 2005). Thus, the Ministry of Environ-
ment and Forest is dominant over the tourism department when it comes to tourism
activities in a protected area such as a national park or biosphere reserve.
The dominant role of the Forest Department can be understood through differ-
ent aspects of park management, such as allowing certain number of tourists, ve-
hicles to park entry fee. For example, the Forest Department daily regulates the
number of private vehicles within the boundary of Ranthambore National Park
(Karanth & Defries, 2010). In the Sundarbans Tiger Reserve (STR), number of visi-
tors are regulated through park entry fee of Rs. 40 (US $0.74) per individual (Ghosh,
2014). The number of tourists’ boat is also regulated by the Forest Department, which
also need to pay the park entry (Ghosh, 2014).In some protected areas such as Na-
garahole and Mudumalai, the Forest Department provides bus services for the visitors
(Karanth & Defries, 2010). Most of India’s national parks follow a dual pricing system
in terms of park entry fee. In other words, park entry fee is higher in case of foreign
tourists which is often resented by reducing the duration of stay (Hannam, 2005).
Foreign nationals also pay higher price when it comes to hiring a tour guide (Ghosh,
2014). For instance, in 2012–13 tourist season, the foreign tourists paid Rs. 600
(US $11.05) for hiring a tour guide as compared to Indian nationals who paid Rs. 300
(US $5.53) (Ghosh, 2014). The park managers in India sometimes acknowledge this
dual pricing system and accept it in a positive note that it helps to regulate number
of tourists within the park boundary. Additionally, this dual pricing policy has not
economically benefitted local communities living on the edge of the parks (Ghosh,
2014). The Forest Department manages the tourism revenue in majority of the pro-
tected areas in India except Periyar where 56% of revenues are given to Periyar Foun-
dation for ecodevelopment (Karanth & Defries, 2010).
The influential forest management over tourism also becomes prominent how the
protected area managers in India view the role of tourism in conservation. Tourism is
 6 India 93

considered a mere tool in broader conservation framework rather than an avenue of

gaining revenue for the local people living around the protected areas (Hannam, 2005).
The conflict between the forest management and tourism development is clearly visible
how local communities living around a protected area perceive tourism (Ghosh, 2018).
In general, perception of tourism among people living surrounding a protected area
varies in South Asia (Ghosh & Ghosh, 2018; Karanth & Nepal, 2012;). Local people liv-
ing around Kanha and Ranthambore National Parks perceived that people who do not
live there benefitted most from the tourism and highlighted the negative impacts of
tourism on local culture (Ghosh & Ghosh, 2018). The leakage of tourism revenue either
to private tourism operators, hotels and lodge owners, or to the government led people
perceive tourism in negative light in India (Banerjee, 2007). This negative perception
about tourism occurs due to inefficient management by the Forest Department who
lack any formal training in managing ecotourism or nature-based tourism in and
around protected areas (Ghosh & Ghosh, 2018). Less than 5% of revenue that is re-
ceived from park entry fee in India reach to local communities living on the boundary
of the protected areas (Banerjee, 2012).
As tourism development is not a priority of the park managers in India, they try to
regulate tourism behavior by prescribing certain code of conduct. In protected areas of
India, these codes of conduct instruct people not to carry any polythene, not to pollute
any pristine habitat, not to enter tiger reserve without a permit from the Forest Depart-
ment, not to disturb animals, not to stay in tiger reserve areas, not to make noise, etc.
(Ghosh, 2014). The managing of visitors’ behavior through such code of conduct is part
of the “soft” visitor management in order to reduce the visitors’ impacts on the pro-
tected areas (Mason, 2005). Nevertheless, such regulations have been mostly ineffective
in case of Indian protected areas due to lack of proper implementation (Reeve & Ed-
wards, 2002; Hannam, 2005). Instead of modifying tourists’ behavior through some
specific code of conduct within the park boundaries, attention can be given to improv-
ing overall visitor’s experience. According to Mason (2005), this can be achieved
through education which would involve interpretation and dissemination of informa-
tion about a particular site. Interpretation is an important educational process which
can help visitors to be more mindful towards environment by transforming their think-
ing and behavior (Moscardo, 1996; Mason, 2005). Many of India’s national parks such
as The Rajiv Gandhi National Park, also known as Nagarahole National Park, do not
have effective interpretation programs (Hannam, 2005).

6.4 Conclusion
Tourism governance in India is largely shaped by the Ministry of Tourism which is
responsible for formation of national tourism policies. However, every state in India
can formulate its own tourism policy (Hannam, 2010). Various types of tourism
94 Priyanka Ghosh

activities are practiced in India such as nature-based tourism, ecotourism, wildlife

tourism, and medical tourism. As compared to nature-based tourism, wildlife, or eco-
tourism, private stakeholders dominate the sector of medical tourism (Sen Gupta,
2008). Increasingly, India has become a favored destination for foreign medical tou-
rists. In 2005–2006, the value of medical tourism in India was over US $310 million,
and during the same period of time 1 million foreign tourists visited the country (Sen
Gupta, 2008). However, in case of nature-based tourism, wildlife, and ecotourism,
the Forest Department in every state over-powers the Tourism Department in terms of
decision making. Forest Department sees tourism as a nuisance as tourists make
noise while watching wildlife and this is often mentioned by the local tour guides of
the Sundarbans Biosphere Reserve. Also, tourists are blamed for increasing pollution
in and around protected areas in India (Ghosh &Ghosh, 2018). The discord between
the Ministry of Tourism and the Ministry of Environment and Forest suggests the
need for a more cooperative approach towards decision-making involving tourism
around the protected areas of India. There is no one-size-fits-all solution when it
comes to find a middle ground between environmental conservation and tourism de-
velopment. Central and State governments should cooperate with each other through
exchanging dialogs while making decisions regarding tourism development in and
around protected area. Such decisions should consider unique geography, ecology,
and local socio-economic and cultural conditions of a particular region. In other
words, tourism development in and around a protected areas or forested areas should
be dealt with case-by-case basis for an effective governance.

References
Ahuja, O. P. (1999). Domestic tourism and its linkage with international tourism – Indian case
study. In Domestic Tourism in India, Eds. D. S. Bhardwaj, M. Chaudhary, and K. K. Kamra. New
Delhi: Indus Publishing Company.
Bandyopadhyay, K. (2015). CRZ puts Sundarbans in jeopardy. The Times of India, Date accessed:
August 03, 2015. Retrieved from: http://goo.gl/nElOVd.
Bandyopadhyay, R., & Morais, D. (2005). Representative dissonance: India’s self and western
image. Annals of Tourism Research 32(4), 1006–1021.
Banerjee, A. (2007). An evaluation of the potential and limitations of ecotourism as a vehicle for
biodiversity conservation and sustainable developemnt in the protected areas of India
(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database. (UMI
No. 3267150)
Banerjee, A. (2012). Is wildlife tourism benefiting Indian protected areas? A survey. Current Issues
in Tourism, 15(3), 211–227.
Bhatia, A. K. (1985). Tourism Development, Principles and Practices. New Delhi: Sterling Publisher
Pvt. Ltd.
Business Standard. 2019. India ranked 34th on world travel, tourism competitiveness index:
Report. Retrieved from: https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/india-moves-
 6 India 95

up-6-places-to-34th-rank-on-world-travel-tourism-competitiveness-index-wef-report-
119090400693_1.html. Date accessed: September 04, 2019.
Calderwood, L. U. and Soshkin, M. 2019. The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report. Geneva:
World Economic Forum.
Ghosh, A. (2018). Sustainability Conflicts in Coastal India: Hazards, Changing Climate and
Development Discourses in the Sundarbans. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International
Publishing.
Ghosh, P. (2014). Subsistence and biodiversity conservation in the Sundarban Biosphere Reserve,
West Bengal, India. Ph.D. diss., University of Kentucky, Lexington, USA. Retrieved from:
http://uknowledge.uky.edu/geography_etds/26.
Ghosh, P. & Ghosh, A. (2018). Is ecotourism a panacea? Political ecology perspectives from the
Sundarban Biosphere Reserve, India. GeoJournal 83(1), 1–22. DOI 10.1007/s10708-018-9862-7
Government of Kerala. (2012). Kerala Tourism Policy. Department of Tourism: Government of
Kerala.
Goodwin, R. D. & Chaudhary, S. K. (2017). Eco-Tourism Dimensions and Directions in India: An
Empirical Study of Andhra Pradesh. Journal of Commerce & Management Thought, 8(3),
436–451.
Gupta, J. (2015). NGT orders ban on all construction in the Sundarbans. The Times of India, Date
accessed: August 06, 2015. Retrieved from: http://goo.gl/a5A08g
Hannam, K. (1999) Environmental management in India: recent challenges to the Indian forest
service. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 42(2), 221–233.
Hannam, K. (2004). Tourism and forest management in India: The role of the state in limiting
tourism development. Tourism Geographies, 6(3), 331–351.
Hannam, K. (2010). Governing and Promoting Tourism in India. In Tourism and India: a critical
introduction, Eds. A. Diekmann and K. Hannam, (pp. 13–30). New York: Routledge.
Karanth, K.K., & DeFries, R. (2010). Nature-based tourism in Indian protected areas: New
challenges for park management. Conservation Letters 00, 1–13.
Kant, A. (2009). Branding India: An Incredible Story. New Delhi: Harper Collins.
Kukreti, I. (2019). Coastal Regulation Zone Notification: What development are we clearing our
coasts for. Down To Earth, Date accessed: February 04, 2019. Retrieved from:https://www.
downtoearth.org.in/coverage/governance/coastal-regulation-zone-notification-what-
development-are-we-clearing-our-coasts-for-63061
Kumar, S. (2002a). Does ‘participation’ in common pool resource management help the poor? A
social cost-benefit analysis of Joint Forest Management in Jharkhand, India. World
Development, 30(5), 763–782.
Kumar, S. (2002b). Wildlife Tourism in India: Need to Trade with Care. In Indian Wildlife: Threats
and Preservation, Edited by D. Sharma. (pp. 72–94) New Delhi: Anmol Publication.
Mason, P. (2005). Visitor Management in Protected Areas: From ‘Hard’ to ‘Soft’ Approaches?
Current Issues in Tourism, 8 (2–3), 181–194. DOI: 10.1080/13683500508668213
Moscardo G. (1996). Mindful visitors: Heritage and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2),
376–97.
Ministry of Environment and Forests. (1988). National Forest Policy 1988. New Delhi: Ministry of
Environment and Forests. Accessed February 9, 2022. Retrieved from: http://asbb.gov.in/
Downloads/National%20Forest%20Policy.pdf
Ministry of Tourism, Government of India. (1982). National Tourism Policy 1982. New Delhi: Ministry
of Tourism, Government of India. Accessed February 9, 2022. Retrieved from: https://tourism.
gov.in/sites/default/files/2019-10/Tourism%20Policy%201982.pdf.
 96 Priyanka Ghosh

Ministry of Tourism, Government of India. (2002). National Tourism Policy 2002. New Delhi:
Ministry of Tourism, Government of India. Accessed August 28, 2019. Retrieved from: https://
tourism.gov.in/sites/default/files/2019-11/National_tourism_Policy_2002.pdf
Ministry of Tourism, Government of India. (2015). Draft National Tourism Policy 2015. New Delhi:
Ministry of Tourism, Government of India.
Ministry of Tourism, Government of India. (2018–2019). Annual Report. New Delhi: Ministry of
Tourism, Government of India.
Ministry of Tourism, Government of India. (2019). “The Organisation.” Accessed December 8, 2019.
Retrieved from: http://tourism.gov.in/organisation
Reeve, J. & Edwards, V. (2002). Visitor codes in Indian protected areas: Worth the paper they are
written on? Paper presented at the Tourism and the Natural Environment International
Conference, University of Brighton, October.
Sen Gupta, A. (2008). Medical Tourism in India: winners and losers. Indian Journal of Medical
Ethics, 5(1), 4–5.
Sreekumar, T. T., & G. Parayil. (2002). Contentions and Contradictions of Tourism as Development
Option: The Case of Kerala, India. Third World Quarterly, 23(3), 529–548.
Thimm, T. (2017). The Kerala Tourism Model – An Indian State on the Road to Sustainable
Development. Sustainable Development, 25, 77–91.
UNWTO, (2020). UNWTO World Tourism Barometer: Special Focus on the Impact of Covid-19.
Madrid: United Nations World Tourism Organization.
Wunder, S. (2000). Ecotourism and economic Incentives – an empirical approach. Ecological
Economics, 32, 465–479.

View publication stats