Unregulated Wildlife Tourism: Myth or reality?
- ..
- Nov 4
- 12 min read
There are 58 tiger reserves in India, along with numerous other protected forests, national parks, and wildlife sanctuaries. Many of these forests are regularly visited by tourists who come to observe wildlife and enjoy the beauty of nature. However, a section of people — including some authorities — believe that such tourism disrupts wildlife conservation and harms forest ecosystems. This has led to debates across various platforms. But what do the actual facts and ground realities suggest? Is this form of tourism truly damaging the forests, or does it, in fact, indirectly support conservation efforts? How can this system be made smoother and more environmentally sustainable?
Discussed here by noted wildlife expert and researcher Dharmendra Khandal.
We often hear that unregulated tourism is a significant challenge for conservation. But before diving into this debate, let us first ask ourselves: Is tourism truly unregulated?
The forests and wildlife reserves of the country are under the sole management of the Forest Departments of the states and an elite All India Service in the form of Indian Forest Service. So it appears that the term ‘unregulated’ is used rather loosely. The Forest Acts and the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 provide for rigorous regulations for entry into forest and wildlife areas. So when it comes to so called unregulated tourism the facts tell a different story:
1. Tourism is limited to a small portion of national parks. Only 20% of park areas are open to tourism, while the remaining 80% are off-limits.
2. Restricted hours. Tourism is confined to 6-7 hours a day, which constitutes just 25% of a 24-hour cycle.
3. Seasonal closures. Parks are closed to tourism for three months during the monsoon season, leaving only 75% of the year available for visits.
4. Fixed routes. Tourism occurs on designated routes within the parks, with no deviations allowed.
5. Controlled access. Only registered vehicle owners, drivers, and guides are authorized to take visitors into parks. Private vehicles are strictly prohibited, and any rule violations can lead to deregistration.
6. Limited vehicle numbers. The number of vehicles per route is restricted based on outdated carrying capacity models from the 1990s, originally developed for African parks. Despite decades of implementation, there has been no scientific study to assess tourism's actual impact on Indian wildlife.
7. No commercial activity allowed. National parks strictly prohibit any form of commercial operations within their boundaries.
These points clearly indicate that tourism in India’s national parks is highly regulated, not unregulated. So why is the narrative of “unregulated tourism” being propagated by authorities and media?
Unpacking the Narrative
This perception appears to be a convenient scapegoat for park management inefficiencies. By portraying tourism as a threat, park directors deflect attention from deeper conservation challenges such as habitat destruction, conflict with local communities, prey depletion, revenge killing of wild animals by local people and poaching. It is a clever coverup on part of the government to divert the attention of public towards a softer and harmless issue. More often than not, those who talk about ‘unregulated’ tourism are the elites of the society, who want to have exclusive rights to wildlife recreation.
The common image used to support this narrative—a tiger surrounded by tourist jeeps—fails to consider the reality: tigers are not tied down. As the late Mr. Fateh Singh Rathore, one of India’s foremost tiger conservationists, said:
“If the tiger feels disturbed, he will simply walk away. The tiger is the king; visitors are mere guests.”
Mr. Rathore believed that the presence of tourists did not harm tigers. In fact, regulated tourism provides vital monitoring and protection for wildlife. Guides and drivers, acting as unofficial patrollers, contribute to the safety of tourist-zone tigers. Data from Ranthambhore even shows that a significant number of tiger cubs are born in high-tourism areas, while those in non-tourist zones often disappear due to poaching or habitat threats.
The Importance of Tourism
Tourists and wildlife-related businesses have the strongest positive vested interest in conservation after the government. Their survival depends on it. Instead of blaming tourism, it is time to recognize its potential as a conservation tool. Properly regulated tourism can:
Educate the public about the importance of wildlife conservation.
Generate revenue for conservation efforts and local employment.
Foster a lifelong appreciation for nature among visitors, especially young people.
Rethinking Tourism Policy
India’s first national park, modeled after Yellowstone in the USA, was established “for the enjoyment and benefit of the people.” Over time, however, we seem to have moved away from this goal. Current policies emphasize protection at the cost of public engagement, often leading to poorly conceived regulations that harm visitor experiences without benefiting wildlife.
To strike a balance, we must:
1. Define clear goals for national parks. Are they only for habitat protection, or should they also aim to educate the public and generate sustainable revenue?
2. Develop evidence-based regulations. Tourism policies should be informed by scientific studies and created in collaboration with stakeholders, including conservationists, local communities, and tour operators.
3. Address inconsistencies. Unregulated activities, such as pilgrimages in certain parks, highlight contradictions in current policies. Addressing these inconsistencies is essential for fairness and conservation effectiveness.
A Call to Action
Rather than discouraging tourism, park directors should focus on creating better visitor experiences while ensuring wildlife protection. This includes proactive measures like regulating vehicle behaviour near tigers instead of imposing blanket bans. The goal should be to provide opportunities for meaningful interactions with nature while fostering a culture of conservation.
Ultimately, conservation is not just about protecting wildlife—it is about connecting people to it. By embracing responsible tourism, we can ensure that future generations experience the awe and inspiration of India’s wilderness, fulfilling the true purpose of our national parks.
Diversity of Parks and Inflexible Policies: Indian parks differ widely in their geography, biodiversity, and surrounding buffer zones. Some parks feature dense forests, while others have open landscapes. Similarly, certain parks are rich in species diversity, such as birds and wetlands, whereas others host fewer species. Buffer areas also vary, with some parks having ample cushion forest around and others being directly adjacent to human settlements.
Despite this diversity, a “one-size-fits-all” approach is often adopted in policy-making. This mismatch between intent and execution frequently leads to misinterpretation of court orders and counterproductive outcomes. For instance, symbolic restrictions consume significant departmental resources without yielding meaningful conservation results. Additionally, poorly designed policies can harm local communities while simultaneously undermining the potential of sustainable tourism.
Why Tourism?
The purpose of tourism is straightforward: to achieve a balance between conservation, education, and livelihood. National parks and wildlife sanctuaries in India serve dual roles—safeguarding wildlife and their habitats while fostering awareness and educating future generations about the importance of nature.
However, existing policies often struggle to align these objectives effectively. Conservation and sustainable tourism should complement one another, but the lack of a cohesive strategy frequently creates friction between these goals. This imbalance not only undermines ecological preservation but also jeopardizes the long-term economic and educational benefits that responsible tourism can provide.
Impacts of Tourism
Tourism exerts both direct and indirect impacts on protected areas and their surroundings, necessitating careful management.
1.Impacts Within Tourism Areas
Unlike the open landscapes of the African savannah, Indian forests—often referred to as jungles—are dense and provide abundant hiding spots for wildlife. Indian animals have adapted to rely on camouflage and concealment as key survival strategies. When disturbed, they may choose to move away, but often, they simply walk alongside vehicles or even navigate through a rally of multiple vehicles.
While vehicle congestion in Indian forests may appear problematic, its actual impact is frequently overstated. In Africa, the openness of the savannah makes vehicle activity seem less intrusive. However, in India’s dense forests, these scenes can appear more chaotic. The situation worsens when impatient tourists create noise in their eagerness to spot a tiger, further disrupting the natural environment.
Guidelines recommending a distance of 50–100 meters from animals or maintaining large gaps between vehicles are often impractical in Indian forests. Unlike the wide, open savannahs of Africa, Indian forests do not allow such distances. Tourists come to observe wildlife, and if they are required to stay 50 meters or more away, it would often mean moving out of sight of the animals altogether, rendering wildlife viewing nearly impossible. Furthermore, when a tiger decides to approach vehicles, it is not feasible to reverse or maintain such distances in real-time.
Many tourism zones in Indian forests are small, with some as short as 10 kilometres in length. Within these zones, tiger sightings are often concentrated in limited areas due to factors such as water availability or open terrain. Expecting vehicles to maintain a 100–500 meter gap in such settings is neither realistic nor practical.
These guidelines, though well-intentioned and designed with conservation in mind, fail to consider the practical realities of India’s dense forests and the behavioural patterns of its wildlife. A more effective approach to managing tourism would involve limiting the number of vehicles and ensuring better regulation, rather than imposing impractical guidelines that do little to address the actual challenges on the ground.
Current Tourism Management Strategies
To reduce vehicle congestion, parks in India typically employ three strategies:
1. Zoning: Parks are divided into multiple routes or zones to distribute tourist traffic. For instance, Ranthambhore has 10 zones.
2. Limited Vehicles: A fixed number of vehicles are allowed in each zone. In Ranthambhore, this includes 7 small gypsies and 7 larger canters per zone.
3. Restricted Access: Only a small portion of the park—usually less than 20% of the Critical Tiger Habitat (CTH)—is opened for tourism, with the rest designated as no-access zones. For example, in Ranthambhore, only about 16% of the park’s area is accessible to tourists.
While these measures appear effective on paper and help regulate tourism to some extent, they fail to address critical issues like unregulated vehicle movement within zones. The real challenge is not the regular, regulated tourism but the influx of VIP tourists and unauthorized government vehicles that exceed the pre-approved capacity. These vehicles are often dispatched to accommodate influential individuals or are used unofficially, disrupting the carefully planned tourism management framework across the country.
Additionally, the method of calculating the restricted and open area is questionable. Authorities often calculate the "open" area by connecting the outer points of the zones to form a large polygon, but this calculation ignores the inaccessibility of significant portions of the park. Unlike the open savannahs of Africa, Indian forests are dense, and many areas are impossible for tourists to reach. This makes the claim of 16% accessibility highly debatable and highlights the need for a more transparent and realistic approach to area assessment and tourism management.
Balancing Tourism and Conservation
Opening only a small portion of a park for tourism has its benefits, but it can inadvertently lead to overcrowding in those limited areas. This congestion can increase stress on wildlife and detract from the overall visitor experience. Expanding the areas available for tourism may help alleviate this issue. However, the effectiveness of this approach depends on:
The unchecked activities of VIP tourists and unauthorized vehicles undermine the effectiveness of tourism management strategies. Without decisive action to curb these disruptions, even the most well-intentioned conservation efforts risk being compromised, threatening the delicate balance between sustainable tourism and wildlife protection.
2. Impacts Outside Tourism Areas
Tourism-related infrastructure, such as hotels and transport facilities, can have a detrimental effect on ecosystems surrounding protected areas. Problems like excessive water consumption, cement-based construction, garbage generation, and light pollution contribute to ecological degradation. Although Ecologically Sensitive Zone (ESZ) guidelines are designed to mitigate these impacts, their implementation faces substantial challenges.
!!(Practical lessons: the areas occupied by tourism resorts are cleaner and ecologically better than other areas)
Problem: Ineffective Ecologically Sensitive Zone (ESZ) Guidelines
The proliferation of large-scale hotels and their expansive operations pose a greater threat to sustainable tourism than their proximity to park boundaries. Current ESZ guidelines, such as banning hotels within a 1-kilometer radius of protected areas, are both inadequate and counterproductive.
Large hotels situated just outside the 1-kilometer boundary often continue to receive government support, while smaller, eco-friendly establishments closer to park edges face excessive restrictions. For example, in Ranthambhore, the government has approved massive hotels that host weddings, parties, and other disruptive events, undermining the ecological purpose of the area and the principles of eco-tourism.
The 1-kilometer restriction is largely symbolic and fails to address the actual issues. Visitors staying as far as 10 kilometres or more can easily access the parks. Meanwhile, large hotels, to sustain profitability, engage in harmful practices such as hosting loud events with DJs, which disrupt the tranquillity of the region and harm its ecological balance. Villagers use more DJs than hotels. Hotels are soft targets that can be shut down but not the villagers. !!
Another overlooked issue is the growing ecological damage from agricultural practices near park boundaries. Modern agriculture, with its extensive use of pesticides, plastic mulching, and barbed or electric fencing, creates significant harm to wildlife and the environment. In comparison, small, eco-friendly accommodations near park edges are a lesser threat and can serve as a better alternative when properly regulated.
Solution: Regulating Hotel Numbers, Size, and Design
The most effective approach is to establish clear and enforceable regulations on the number, size, and type of hotels near protected areas, rather than relying on arbitrary distance-based restrictions. A well-thought-out framework could prioritize sustainability and promote harmony with the local ecosystem. Proposed measures include:
Eco-friendly Construction: Prohibit the use of RCC (reinforced cement concrete) roofs and mandate eco-friendly building materials that blend with the natural surroundings.
Green Space Mandate: Require a minimum percentage of green or open space within hotel premises to preserve the natural habitat.
Capacity Limits: Impose restrictions on the number of rooms and the overall capacity of hotels to prevent overburdening the area with tourists.
Encourage Small-Scale Accommodations: Promote small, eco-friendly lodges and homestays near park boundaries, as they are better suited to align with conservation and community goals.
Eco-friendly accommodations not only foster sustainable tourism but also provide a viable alternative to large-scale hotel projects that harm the environment. By implementing strict guidelines on design and scale, authorities can ensure that tourism remains a tool for conservation, education, and local livelihood without compromising the region's ecological integrity.
Solution: Regulating Hotel Numbers, Size, and Design
Background
The regulation of tourism facilities near national parks is not a new concern. It stems from recommendations made during an investigation into missing tigers in 1993, which led to the Honourable Supreme Court’s suggestion that construction within 500 meters of national park boundaries must be regulated. The intent was to avoid unregulated construction, as seen along the Ramganga River in Corbett, from impacting Ranthambhore.
Despite these guidelines, enforcement has been inconsistent. While district and forest officials zealously regulate construction in Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs), there is no publicly available map marking the boundaries clearly. This lack of transparency has led to arbitrary implementation, raising concerns about potential corruption in granting No Objection Certificates (NOCs). A high-level probe into these practices is long overdue.
The Supreme Court's 1994 recommendation likely aimed to encourage the formulation of policies for construction near national parks, focusing on sustainable development. Some key principles that should guide these regulations include:
Key Recommendations
1. Hotel Room Cap and Design Guidelines
o Limit the number of rooms per hotel in ESZs.
o Restrict building height and specify eco-friendly architectural designs.
o To integrate the local communities with wildlife conservation promote small eco-tourism units and home-stays in the ESZ.
2. Land Usage and Habitat Creation
o Mandate a minimum land size for construction.
o Restrict construction to less than 5% of the land, converting the rest into natural habitat with native plant species to enhance the buffer zone.
3. Renewable Energy Integration
o Ensure at least 25% of energy requirements are met through renewable sources.
4. Water Conservation
o Mandate rainwater harvesting and water recycling systems for all facilities.
5. Light and Noise Regulations
o Prohibit bright lights and loud sounds that disturb wildlife.
o Strictly regulate decibel levels for music in marriage gardens and party venues, with licenses revoked for violations.
6. Wildlife Movement Corridors
o Ensure fencing designs allow unhindered wildlife movement through properties.
7. Community-Friendly Development
o Construction bans should not apply universally outside forest boundaries. Local communities must retain the ability to build homes, schools, and businesses, provided they follow sustainable practices.
8. Cap on New Hotel Size
o Prohibit the construction of new hotels with more than 20 rooms in ESZs, limiting their potential to cater to large parties or weddings.
Improving Park Management and Monitoring
9. Open Access to Tourism Zones
o Avoid closing large portions of parks to tourism. Independent access allows external verification of park conditions, ensuring transparency. Past experiences, such as the denial of tiger poaching in Sariska and Ranthambhore, highlight the importance of independent oversight.
10. Regular Reporting
o Mandate six-monthly reports on park conditions, including tiger population estimates from camera traps and data from tourist vehicles.
11. Transparent Patrolling Records
o Equip all park vehicles with GPS to monitor patrolling activities.
o Maintain detailed records of government vehicles used for VIP tourism, including visitor names and budget details. Publish a legal definition of “VIP” for clarity.
12. Tourism Ranger Deployment
o Assign dedicated tourism rangers during park hours to monitor tourist movement and minimize disturbance to wildlife.
13. Strict Visitor Guidelines
o Display clear rules at park gates and in tourist vehicles.
o Impose penalties on rule violators, including blacklisting habitual offenders from park entry for a year, similar to airline “no-fly lists.”
14. Mobile Phone Restrictions
o Ban mobile phone use inside parks to discourage unsafe behavior, such as attempting close-up selfies with wildlife.
o Encourage visitors to use proper cameras, maintaining a safe distance from animals.
By adopting these measures, we can strike a balance between promoting sustainable tourism and conserving the natural ecosystem, ensuring both wildlife and local communities thrive.
End Note
One important focus area that demands attention from authorities is religious tourism. In Ranthambhore alone, there are 426 temples spread across 600 square kilometers, and their number continues to grow. Despite this, the courts seem to overlook the increasing impact of religious tourism, while the easy target remains regular tourism.
Tourism serves three essential purposes: conservation, livelihood, and education. It plays a vital role in supporting local communities and raising awareness about wildlife conservation. Yet, it is often unfairly singled out for criticism and regulation. Authorities should address the unchecked expansion of religious tourism and its potential ecological impact rather than disproportionately targeting tourism, which contributes significantly to both people and nature.
The emphasis should be to involve the local communities in eco-tourism and therefore government should promote small eco-tourism units, home-stays and farm/rural tourism.
Author’s Bio:
Dharmendra Khandal is a renowned Indian environmentalist and wildlife conservationist. He has been actively involved in wildlife conservation at Rajasthan’s Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve for many years and serves as the Conservation Biologist and Scientific Coordinator of Tiger Watch, a voluntary organization. His work primarily focuses on combating poaching and illegal wildlife trade, as well as mitigating human–wildlife conflicts. He is also the co-author, along with Ishan Dhar, of a well-documented book on the Caracal.
Comments