Content uploaded by Babu George
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Babu George on Jan 04, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
A study of visitor impact management practices and visitor
satisfaction at Eravikulam National Park, India
Sivakami Velmurugan
a
, Bindu Vazhakkatte Thazhathethil
b
, Babu George
c,
⁎
a
Department of Tourism Management, Avinashilingam Institute for Home Science and HigherEducation for Women, Coimbatore, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore 641 043,
Tamil Nadu, India
b
Department of Tourism Management, Avinashilingam Institute for Home Science and Higher Education for Women, Coimbatore, MettupalayamRoad, Coimbatore 641043,
Tamil Nadu, India
c
School of Business, Christian Brothers University, 650 E Pkwy S, Memphis,TN 38104, USA
article info abstract
Article history:
Received 23 May 2021
Received in revised form 12 November 2021
Accepted 14 November 2021
Available online 19 November 2021
Protected areas (PAs) achieve recognition and enhanced protection when a sufficient number
of tourists visit and appreciate them and influence policy to assure their survival. Despite the
growing importance, little attention has been paid to visitor satisfaction in PAs. Visitor experi-
ence and satisfaction may be influenced by many attributes of PAs. The present study is an at-
tempt to examine the effect of visitor impact management (VIM) practices on visitor
experience and satisfaction concerning eco and wildlife tourism at Eravikulam National Park
(ENP). VIM is a component of PA management and is required to ensure a high level of visitor
experience, education, facilities, and services. For this purpose, researchers have measured the
socio-economic profile of visitors and various attributes viz. tourism activities (TA), environ-
mental impacts (ENI), socio-cultural impacts (SCI), visitor impact management (VIM), visitor
education (VE), and overall satisfaction of visitors (OSA).
The results of the study show that VIM is significantly and positively correlated with VE, OSA of
visitors. (VIM, TA, ENI, SCI, VE) explained partial variation in the criterion variable viz., OSA.
© 2021 Beijing Normal University. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi
Communications Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Keywords:
Protected areas
Visitor satisfaction
National Park
Visitor education
Sociocultural impact
Visitor impact management
1. Introduction
Protected Areas (PAs) are areas where biological diversity combined with natural and cultural resources are protected, main-
tained, and managed through legal and administrative measures. PAs are believed to be the major tourism assets for developing
countries because they can provide sustainable benefits to the local communities while funding the safeguarding and rehabilita-
tion of the PAs (Pananjay, Tawari, Shashi, Tawari, & Tawari, 2011). Tourists visit PAs to fulfill their desires and satisfy their specific
needs. The quality of the environment, both natural and man-made, is essential for tourism in PAs. PA managers are under grow-
ing pressure to provide meaningful and educational visitor experiences and revenue for conservation management, while not
allowing tourism to compromise the ecological integrity and associated conservation values of PAs (Yu Fai et al., 2018). The im-
portance of a visitor impact management (VIM) as a tool lies in minimizing the negative effects resulting from visitor activities
and maximizing the positive effects. Developing a better understanding of visitor perceptions and satisfaction is integral to gaining
insights into the pressures that lead to both over-tourism and the under-utilization of tourist attractions, including natural areas.
For a development to be sustainable, visitor satisfaction is important since it influences their future intentions, in terms of
revisiting a destination, which benefits various stakeholders of the national park (NP). Thus, it is very important to identify and
International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 9 (2021) 463–479
⁎Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bgeorge@cbu.edu (B. George).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2021.11.006
2577-4441/© 2021 Beijing Normal University. Publishing services by ElsevierB.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd.This is an open access articleunder the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks
journal homepage: http://www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/
international-journal-of-geoheritage-and-parks/
measure visitor satisfaction with each attribute of a destination, because visitor satisfaction/dissatisfaction with one of the compo-
nents may lead to satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the overall destination (Kozak & Rimmington, 2000). Hence this study aims to
analyze the effects of VIM practices on visitor experience and satisfaction. This study focused on Eravikulam National Park (ENP)
located in Munnar, managed under the Munnar wildlife division, which attracts lakhs of visitors every year. It is considered for its
biological richness, abundance of wildlife, and landscape beauty. In this regard, the study was confined to PA tourism with an ob-
jective to focus primarily on the demographic characteristics of the visitors, their experiences, and overall satisfaction on various
factors that contribute to VIM at ENP. Deng and Bender (2007) argue tourists can identify what the local community cannot and
their perception of tourism development can be different. Some past investigations analyzed resident fulfillment with dimensions
of sustainable tourism development (Cottrell, Vaske, & Roemer, 2013;Cottrell, Vaske, Shen, & Ritter, 2007;Hussain, Ali, Ragavan,
&Manhas,2015) while tourist point of view remains an understudied issue. Hence the study was undertaken from the viewpoint
of visitors and the results of this study may allow the park management to focus on specific site attributes and to make appro-
priate use of funds for improving park services to increase visitation and levels of satisfaction with their experiences.
2. Literature review
The literature review of the current study is divided into two areas: first, Tourism in PAs and VIM practices at ENP; Secondly
about the importance of Visitor satisfaction at the destination.
Tourism and Protected PAs are a key approach to global environmental conservation efforts and are recognized as the most
important way to protect species in their natural habitats (Chape, Harrison, Spalding, & Lysenko, 2005;Leverington, Costa,
Pavese, Lisle, & Hockings, 2010;Watson et al., 2015). PA's serve dual mandates of conserving biodiversity and providing outdoor
recreation and tourism opportunities (Leung, Spenceley, Hvenegaard, & Buckley, 2018). The attributes of NP's are categorized into
the natural, socio-cultural and managerial factors (Tonge & Moore, 2007;Tonge, Moore, & Taplin, 2011). NP's are a fraction of
nature-based tourism and they are also a component of the PA (Butler, 2000). NP was set up to prevent the exploitation of wild-
life and the environment, for recreation, and as a means of scientificstudy(Fennell, 2001). NP allows the visitor to relax and en-
tertain nature with ensuring biodiversity. While traditionally established to protect our most valuable biodiversity and cultural
traditions, protected areas can also generate many other benefits (often measured through natural capital or ecosystem service
assessments) (IUCN, 2006). Natural protected areas face the challenge of reconciling natural attractions with the satisfaction of
different stakeholders without compromising their resources. Appropriate management and marketing can play an important
role in sustainable activities. These attributes of protected areas are known to affect the experiences and contribute to visitor sat-
isfaction (Tonge, Moore, & Taplin, 2011;Zhang & Chan, 2016;Ziegler, Dearden, & Rollins, 2012). Tourists assume a key role in
promoting sustainability. Hence, tourism managers need to comprehend tourist perceptions beyond market segmentation, satis-
faction, and expenditure patterns (Nicholas & Thapa, 2010;Swarbrooke, 1999;Thapa, 2013;Weaver & Lawton, 2004). Even
though tourists as important agents of sustainable tourism are noticed in the literature (Pulido-Fernandez & Lopez-Sanchez,
2016;Raymond & Brown, 2007;Weaver & Lawton, 2004), there is a paucity of research inspecting visitor perception towards
tourism development in general and sustainable tourism development in particular (Raymond & Brown, 2007;Weaver &
Lawton, 2004).
PA's have a strong appeal to visitors seeking experience in natural settings. A park experience could include learning, discov-
ery, social dimensions, adventure, and physical challenge, among others. These experiences can be measured qualitatively and
quantitatively as suggested by a variety of studies (Glaspell & Puttkammer, 2001;Patterson, Watson, Williams, & Roggenbuck,
1998;Ryan, 2000). Understanding visitor experiences is essential if park managers are to facilitate beneficial outcomes for both
individuals and society (Wolf et al., 2015). Experiences can be influenced by certain aspects of protected areas such as the pres-
ence of charismatic species, the uniqueness, and attractiveness of the landscape, quality of the facilities, security, accessibility, be-
havior of and quality service by the staff (Vespestad & Lindberg, 2011;Zhang & Chan, 2016). These aspects constitute the
attributes of protected areas that generally affect the experiences and contribute to visitor satisfaction (Ziegler et al., 2012).
Given the popularity of protected areas and the potential impacts of visitor use, protected area managers are often required to
document and demonstrate if specific activities and levels of use are sustainable and if management actions are required to min-
imize impacts (Hadwen, Hill, & Pickering, 2007,Hadwen, Hill, & Pickering, 2008;Monz, Cole, Leung, & Marion, 2010;Newsome,
Moore, & Dowling, 2012). Gordon (2018) outlines the range of connections between geo heritage and cultural heritage within an
ecosystem services framework which is now widely adopted within the environmental science and policy communities; second,
considers the changing cultural values, both historical and modern, placed on the physical landscape and geological features, and
the lessons they provide for geotourism; and third, evaluates how the interpretation of cultural links can enhance the visitor ex-
perience and at the same time promote sound geo-ethical values.
Various studies highlight the importance of measuring the magnitude of the environmental impact that tourists are aware of
and understand when traveling Dahal, Anup, & Sapkota, 2020). Stojanovićet al. (2021) investigated the major impacts of tourism
development to natural resources of protected areas according to the experts in the field of nature protection. The study also
stressed on identifying the major impacts and mitigating them in early stages of tourism development would have major contri-
bution to achievement of sustainable development. The visibility of environmental issues has led to increased research into the
environmental problems caused by tourism and how visitors view the impacts they produce (Shashni & Sundriyal, 2017).
Dowling & Newsome, 2017 surveyed visitor impacts and site management at geological sites which are geotourism destinations.
They described geotourism as an engine driving the core activities of conservation, education and sustainable development in ge-
oparks. They also outline some lessons learned from management in dealing with visitor impacts at a heavily visited geopark in
S. Velmurugan, B. Vazhakkatte Thazhathethil and B. George International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 9 (2021) 463–479
464
Taiwan, a volcano in Indonesia, and a coastal World Heritage site in England. The importance of education is emphasized for geo-
climbing in Spain and all-terrain vehicles in Poland. A number of site management approaches were noted in the study, including
the importance of guiding as a management strategy as well as the value of a positive involvement by the local community. VIM
considers different issues such as tourist facilities, gateways and orientation, transport routes and visitor flows, guiding, and inter-
pretation. VIM and measurement are directly linked to the satisfaction and the consequences of the latter process. VIM at ENP is
done by managing environmental and socio-cultural impacts. The understanding of visitors' perception of environmental impacts
is an essential part constituent to the management and quality of recreation services provided in a national park (Cressford,
2000). The development of tourism destinations was normally accompanied by considerable environmental deterioration.
Sharpley (2006) believes that the environment is a basic element of the tourists' experience where the tourists look for attractive
natural resources, different and special, allowing specific tourism activities. Maryam Khan (2003) in his study revealed that eco-
tourists tend to expect businesses to be environmentally friendly and prefer services that are courteous, informative, and trust-
worthy. In addition, physical facilities that were environmentally appropriate and equipment that minimizes environmental
degradation were found more important to the ecotourists. A study by Manning, Lawson, Newman, Hallo, & Monz (2014) empha-
sized that transportation is more than a means of access to national parks. It can be a form of recreation itself, offering most vis-
itors their primary opportunities to experience and appreciate the natural and cultural landscapes embodied by national parks.
Most studies address the relationship between transportation and the environment and the quality of the visitor experience. Al-
ternative transportation systems (ATS) are one of the most promising manifestations of sustainable transportation in the national
parks which use ferries, trains, vans, historic vehicles, and other conveyances. Many of these ATS vehicles use an alternative, less-
polluting fuels. Of course, ATSs can mean pedestrian and bicycle travel as well. Properly planned and managed, ATSs can reduce
many of the environmental impacts of private automobiles while maintaining and even enhancing the quality of the visitor expe-
rience. Pulido-Fernandez & Lopez-Sanchez, 2016 uncover that tourists are developing familiarity with the environmental, social,
and cultural impacts that tourism activity can generate. The above authors argue that tourists who encourage and get through
sustainable tourism are responsive to the impacts that this activity can generate and therefore try to protect the attraction
sites. Diverse findings were gotten in an examination did in China. Ecological sustainability was discovered most grounded pre-
dictor of tourist satisfaction, trailed by social and cultural sustainability (Fan, Zhong, & Zhang, 2012). Nillahut (2010) identifies
positive effects of socio-cultural impact such as improvement in the quality of life, positive change in values and customs, promo-
tion of cultural exchange with other cultures to build harmony with one another, greater tolerance of social differences, and in-
creasing facilities for visitors. Cajee (2014) in the case study of village tourism at Darap in West Sikkim, has discussed eco-cultural
tourism as a concept where both ecological and cultural aspects of a landscape are combined together creating a tourist paradise.
Long treks, nature walks, adventure sports with activities such as fishing, rafting, mountaineering includes as part of their eco-
cultural tourism activity depending on the choice of the tourist. The evenings are normally sitting around a bonfire relaxing
with traditional drinks and beverages and being entertained through folk songs and dances. Storytelling in the form of folk
tales and teaching the local language/dialect is also an added feature during the stay. Knowledge of traditional values, taboos, in-
digenous knowledge, etc. is often been related during interactions and discussions. Therefore, it is found that blending of both the
local environmental setting and culture forms a perfect cultural landscape of value-based tourism. Socio-cultural impacts include
changes to individual behavior, value systems, cultural practices, and community organizations (Andereck, Valentine, Knopf, &
Vogt, 2005). Tourism can enhance ethnic identity, increase understanding between cultures, challenge stereotypes and percep-
tions and revitalize cultural values and traditions (Telfer & Sharpley, 2007), including the use of natural resources.
The quality of natural attraction and the facilities offered were also characteristics measured by Akama & Kieti (2003),toas-
sess the satisfaction of tourists with two East African domestic parks. The destination features perceived as high in satisfaction
were factors such as transportation, shopping centers, and cultural activities. Since recreational activities, recognized as social be-
havior, that naturally suggest that data on visitors' attitudes and preferences towards facilities and services would be desirable for
better destination management (Junus, Hambali, Iman, Abas, & Hassin, 2020). Safety and security, cost-effectiveness, cleanliness,
signage, and family-oriented attractions and people's hospitality were seen as low in contentment (Ranasinghe, Kumudulali, &
Ranaweera, 2020). Kozak and Rimmington (2000), in their research on tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, the attractiveness
of destinations, tourist attractions, and amenities, as well as facilities and services at the airport location, were described as impor-
tant variables influencing satisfaction levels. Existing Park facilities such as in-park road conditions, facilities at picnic areas, avail-
ability of park souvenirs & restrooms, and conditions of safari vehicles also impact visitor satisfaction at NP. They are willing to
pay more are for products and services provided by environmentally conscious suppliers. They show sensitivity to environmen-
tally friendly conservation efforts to preserve natural resources and show an interest and appreciation for local customs and con-
ditions. They are also interested in more active and participatory learning experiences (Manning, 1999). Public support for parks
has been correlated with visitation, as increased frequency is directly linked to societal support (Eagles & McCool, 2002). Also,
more visits contribute to regional development along with economic, environmental, and social sustainability, which consequently
influences support for NPs. (Hall & Frost, 2009). Since park-based tourism is a major factor that creates multiple linkages within
and adjacent to PAs, it is important for managers to enhance and augment visitor education (VE) (Mulholland & Eagles, 2002).
Visiting a PA is an information-intensive activity. In addition to attracting visitors, PAs provide opportunities to educate visitors
through experiences, study, interpretation, visitor centres and publications. Nature-based tourism provides a specific way for peo-
ple to come into direct contact with nature and protected area tourism offers significant opportunities to educate visitors about
the value (Bushell & Bricker, 2017). A general problem that occurs in many PAs is the lack of professional communication and
interpretation. Local guides often lack knowledge on effective communication with guests. Frequently their language skills need
strengthening, as well as their ability to convey scientific messages in a simple and interesting way that matches the educational
S. Velmurugan, B. Vazhakkatte Thazhathethil and B. George International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 9 (2021) 463–479
465
and interest level of the visitors. The individual visitor experience is further shaped by a number of factors such as purpose of
visit, services, and facilities (IUCN, 2006). Kozak and Rimmington (2000) in their study of tourist satisfaction with Mallorca,
Spain, found the significant factors impacting levels of satisfaction to be: destination attractiveness, tourist attractions and facili-
ties, and the facilities and services at the destination airport. Maikhuri, Rana, Rao, Nautiyal, & Saxena, 2000 in their study insisted
on an urgent need to develop effective educational extension materials related to biodiversity conservation for trekkers/visitors
that can be distributed from the information centers. Hwang, Lee, & Chen, 2005 argue that interpretation in a natural park setting
plays an important role in visitors' perception of service quality and thus satisfaction. Using the interpretation services of five
NPs in Taiwan, the researchers examined the relationship between tourist involvement, place attachment, and interpretation
satisfaction.
2.1. Significance of visitor satisfaction
It is unthinkable to search for sustainable tourism development without ensuring tourist satisfaction (UNEP/WTO, 2004;
Bernini, Urbinati, & Vici, 2015). Tourists' satisfaction related to the visited region is crucial for the tourism industry and its eco-
nomic development (Petrick, 2003). This is important for protected areas, increasingly dependent on the development of sustain-
able tourism. A high level of satisfaction translates into a higher probability that the tourist will be more likely to return to a
region that brings positive associations (Tsiotsou & Vasioti, 2006).Considering the tourist's socio-demographic and visitation char-
acteristics, motivation and satisfaction are essential to facilitate the implementation of tourism management plans (Lee &
Abrahams, 2018;Lyngdoh, Mathur, & Sinha, 2017). Tourist satisfaction and sustainable tourism development are considered to
be two sides of the same coin as noted in previous studies (Bernini et al., 2015;Kozak & Rimmington, 2000;Rajesh, 2013). As
recommended by Weaver & Lawton, 2004, tourist satisfaction is very important to guarantee economic, ecological, and social sus-
tainability. With the increase in demand for accountability, it is becoming increasingly important to document the progress to-
wards the achievement of this goal of visitor satisfaction (Glover, 1999). Visitor Satisfaction is viewed as a measure of the
quality of a visitor's experience (Moore, Rodger, & Taplin, 2015). In satisfying visitors, managers need to understand their expec-
tations and the experiences as a basis for providing a satisfactory experience for them (Agyeman, Aboagye, & Ashie, 2019). Pro-
viding satisfactory experience facilitates financial performance, loyalty, and repeat visits to protected areas (Deng & Bender, 2007;
Moore, Rodger, & Taplin, 2015), visitors' evaluation of the quality of attributes of a protected area would help identify areas that
need improvement to enhance visitor experience and satisfaction. The results would also be of interest to scholars seeking to un-
derstand what constitutes visitor satisfaction within and between protected areas and contribute to between visitor the literature
on visitor satisfaction in general. There is usually a positive association between satisfaction and the destination's long-term eco-
nomic success and competitiveness (Coghlan, 2012). In order to enhance visitors' satisfaction levels, basic facilities within the
sanctuary need improvement besides developing interpretations component, such that the intrinsic nature and quality of
nature-based ecotourism destination is achieved (Bhalla & Bhattacharya, 2019). Overall satisfaction is influenced by situational
variables including resource settings, social settings, and management settings, and these influences are further mediated by
the subjective evaluations of individual visitors according to their socioeconomic characteristics, cultural characteristics, experi-
ence, norms, attitudes, and preferences (Whisman & Hollenhorst, 1998). In a study on Australia's Great Barrier Reef, Coghlan
(2012) points out that it is possible to conserve natural resources at the same time as creating tourist satisfaction through provid-
ing experiences of the natural environment and provision of high-quality services. To provide high-quality and satisfactory expe-
riences, tourism managers and marketers need to first understand the nature of the tourism or leisure experience. According to
Widawski, Oleśniewicz, Rozenkiewicz, Zaręba, and Jandová (2020) Among the positive opinions indicated in the survey, regarding
the satisfaction of tourists at geopark, the following advantages appeared most often: sights, panoramas, varied trails, tranquillity,
low traffic, favourable density of the trails, and interesting cultural and natural assets. Among the negative ones there were mud,
lack of signposting and land development, insufficient care for tidiness on trails.
The theory of the present study was identified based on the adopted model from the study by Guo & Chung, 2017 and Chan
and Bhatta (2013).
3. Materials and methods
3.1. Description of the study area
Kerala hosts several popular wildlife sanctuaries and NPs covering bizarre and rare species of flora and fauna. Fourteen wildlife
sanctuaries and two tiger reserves are located in the intricate forest of the majestic Western Ghats or Sahyadri ranges of Kerala.
The Gods Own Country also claims endangered and endemic species like the Indian Sloth-Bear, Lion-Tailed Macaque, Indian Bison,
Bengal Tiger, Nilgiri Tahr, etc., in its PAs. Among the NPs of Kerala, ENP Located in Munnar, was selected as the study area. With a
widespread area of 97 Km2, ENP is renowned for the threatened inhabitant - the Nilgiri Tahr which is found in high density due
to their habitat. Visitors also flock to ENP which is located (Fig. 1) in the Devikulam taluk of Idukki district, to view the special
Neelakurinji flowers (Strobilanthes kunthianam) that bloom once every12 year. Anamudi (2695 m), the highest peak of Southern
India is also located in its southern area. Exotic Nilgiri Tahr (Nilgiritragus hylocrius) can be viewed at the close quarters from the
Rajamalai region, the tourism zone of the area which is open to the public. Whereas the core and buffer area are not open to the
public. Tourism activities in the national park include Trekking, Wildlife Safari, Jungle camps, Flora, Fauna and Waterfalls sightsee-
ing, and Eco shop (Eravikulam.org).
S. Velmurugan, B. Vazhakkatte Thazhathethil and B. George International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 9 (2021) 463–479
466
3.1.1. Biodiversity of the NP
ENP offers plenty of academic prospects for learning the biodiversity of montane vegetation and the ecological riddles associ-
ated with the ecosystem as it is the only enduring feasible Island of shola grassland complex.
3.1.1.1. Fauna
The NP is home to a total of 85 species of Butterflies, 81 species of Birds (45 confined to Shola forest and 16 migratory) 21
species of Mammals, 22 species of Amphibians and 33 species of Reptiles are reported (Balakrishnan M, Surendrananthan Asari
P·K, 2002).Among the mammals There are 48 species of Mammals recorded from the park (Fauna of Eravikulam National Park,
Zoological Survey of India, Faunal Conservation Series 13, 2002 and management plan of Eravikulam National Park 2002 to
2011) of which 17 are endemic to the Western Ghats.
3.1.1.2. Flora
High elevations of the Western Ghats are considered botanically rich areas in India. Three major types of plant communities
are found within the park: –Grasslands, Shrub lands and Shola Forests. The terrain above 2000 m is covered primarily by Grass-
lands. However, there are numerous small patches of forests in hollows and gullies in these areas.
The study on land cover in Eravikulam National Park reveals that the Grasslands constitutes 60% of the land cover, Shola For-
ests constitute about 20% of the land area and the remaining area is occupied by Southern Tropical Hill Forests, Scrubs and Rocky
cliffs (Balakrishnan M, Surendrananthan Asari P·K, 2002).
The Park is floristically rich due to its characteristic climatic condition. 803 taxa (76 Pteridophytes and 727 Angiosperms) were
collected and described from the park. An area of 200 ha marked as Medicinal Plant Conservation Area (MPCA) between Anamudi
and Eravikulam, earmarked for the conservation of medicinal plants is maintained as such. This area has been protected from fire
incidents every year for its protection and conservation.
3.1.1.3. Climate
The sharp bluffs and cliffs on all sides make ENP a remote tableland and accountable for the exceptional microclimate. The in-
appropriateness of soil for agriculture, remoteness, and extreme climate has facilitated the area to remain free from the onslaught
Fig. 1. Location map of Eravikulam National Park.
Source:Nameer, Nameer, Sreekumar, Nikhil, & Ajay, 2018. Diversity and endemism of butterflies of montane forests of Eravikulam National Park in the Western
Ghats, India.
S. Velmurugan, B. Vazhakkatte Thazhathethil and B. George International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 9 (2021) 463–479
467
of human development. Even though the range of the park falls latitudinally in the tropics, ENP displays an extratropical climate
due to the altitudinal influence. ENP is locally significant as a catchment area for both east (tributaries of River Pambar) and west
(tributaries of River Periyar and Chalakkudy) flowing Rivers. Regionally, it is vital for sustaining the climate, providing drinking
water to the nearby estates, and for irrigation in parts of Aanjanad Valley.
3.1.1.4. Local community
ENP is substantial to the local and indigenous people, exclusively the Muthuvans who reside at the borders of the park and
have traditionally been related with the high country. ENP is an instance of institutionalized joint management as the long-
established links with the high range Wildlife and Environment Preservation Association (HRWEPA), who were formerly manag-
ing the park as a game reserve.
3.2. Methodology
For the study, primary data was collected from visitors to the ENP, Munnar. A descriptive research design was used, where the
structured questionnaire with a five-point Likert scale (Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree ranging from
Five to One.) was circulated among the respondents to gather information systematically. For a better understanding, concerning
the behavioral styles of the respondents, analytical research is also utilized for the study where the hypothetical relationship be-
tween the variables could be recognized. The survey for visitors has been separated into five aspects to accomplish the objectives
of the study. The first section focused on the demographic characteristics of visitors, the second section focused on tourism activ-
ities (TA), the third section on environmental impacts (ENI)-nine items, SCI-six items at Eravikulam National Park (ENP). The
fourth section identified the overall satisfaction of visitors (OSA) of tourists by measuring the available facilities (AF) -eight
items and human evironment (HE) six items at ENP. The fifth section captured visitor education (VE) three items and visitor im-
pact management (VIM) thirteen items at ENP. Simple random sampling was adopted to pick the sample respondents. The re-
spondents were selected based on their interest in a specificfield and willingness to participate in the interview. To calculate
the sample population, average visitors arrival data from the year 2015 to 2018 was calculated and was ascertained to be
5,40,000 visitors. Thus, the final sample collected was 576. Incomplete questionnaires were rejected and 540 completed Question-
naires were considered for the study. The questionnaires were analyzed by SPSS - 21. All collected data were later analyzed using
a descriptive analysis approach. Percentage analysis was used to measure the Socio-Economic Profile of the visitors to the ENP.
Mean Scores were calculated to identify the satisfaction of visitors on VIM practices at ENP. The influence of socio-economic fac-
tors on VIM practices at ENP was measured using ANOVA and the correlation among the variables were measured using Pearson
Correlation. Also, the OSA of visitors was examined using multiple regression analyses to identify significant influences of the
independent variables on the dependent variable.
4. Analysis and results
4.1. Reliability analysis
The reliability coefficients are Cronbach's Alpha, the stability coefficient, and the coefficient of equivalence. The value of
Cronbach's Alpha ranges from a minimum of 0.731 to 0.906 (all are close to unity).
4.2. Socio economic profile of visitors
The needs, wants and priorities in terms of the choosing the destinations /spots can be determined by the socio-economic pro-
file of the visitors. The socio-economic factors like gender, type of visitors, age, education, occupation, income, and marital status
were elucidated in socio economic profile of visitors (Table 1).
The distribution of visitors based on gender revealed that the majority of the visitors were male with 70.7% in comparison to
female visitors' 29.3% and maybe understood that more male visitors were motivated to visit the ENP than female visitors. Various
factors that contribute to visitor impact management were studied based on the experience and understanding of visitors, which
may generally differ for males from that of female visitors owing to the differences in tastes and likes on different aspects. The
majority of visitors were domestic with 93.7% and foreigners with 6.3%. The data relating to the annual visitor arrivals to the
ENP, collected by ENP of Munnar Wildlife Division also clearly shows that domestic tourists have outnumbered the foreign visitors
at ENP. The distribution of the number of domestic and foreign visitors indicates that both positive and negative impacts from
domestic tourists seem to be more as it is apparent from the stable arrival of domestic visitors to the ENP. Different places attract
tourists from different age groups with different backgrounds. The age of the respondents is an autonomous factor that influences
the choices of the visitors to visit a specific destination. With the connection to visitors of ENP, the age distribution of visitors re-
veals that the majority of the respondents were from the age group between 25 and 35 years with 40.9% and the remaining vis-
itors were from the age group of 18–24 years who represents 32.6%, followed by 36–49 years with 17.6%, less than 18 years of age
with 3.9%, 50–64 years with 3.5% and above 65 years with 1.5%. The results show that the destination attracts visitors within the
age group of 25–35 in the majority to spend their leisure time at special interest nature-based tourism destinations. Though ed-
ucational qualification is not a prerequisite to visit a particular destination, it may be required to have a minimum level of
S. Velmurugan, B. Vazhakkatte Thazhathethil and B. George International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 9 (2021) 463–479
468
awareness and understanding of the significance of the destination. In this regard, education is the parameter that influences the
desire for travel and the choice of destination of a visitor. educational qualification data of ENP explains that the majority of the
visitors were graduates with 41.7%, followed by diploma education with 20.4%, secondary education with 18.9%, school education
with 9.6, and post-graduation with 9.4%. Type of occupation is the main factor that influences the visitors to spend some time in
leisure activities and the ability to pay for a holiday at favorite destinations with friends or family. From the distribution, it is in-
ferred that the majority of the Visitors were private employees with 44.8% which indicates that the growing income of the people
working in the private sector along with the leisure time, weekend and festive holidays, may contribute significantly to explore
undisturbed nature-based tourism areas like national parks and hill stations. Visitors who may be students or homemakers fall
under the ‘other’category, contribute 16.7%, self-employed with 15.2%, Business with 14.6%, retired with 0.9%, and government
employees with 7.8%. The income of the family is a vital factor of the socio-economic background of visitors which presumes
the ability to spend at the destination for leisure. From the analysis, it is inferred that maximum visitors were earning between
one lakh one to two lakh with 32.4% which indicates that the ENP attracts more average income tourists, followed by below
fifty thousand with 28.1%, fifty thousand and one to one lakh with 18.3%, two lakh one to five lakh with 15.7% and above five
lakh one with 5.4%. Concerning the marital status, the majority of the visitors were married with 57% followed by 43% unmarried
or single.
Table 2 shows the highest and lowest mean values of factors perceived in the study. Mean values of variables tourism activities
(TA) (4. 26), envirionmental impacts (ENI) (4.59), socio-cultural impacts (SCI) (4.24, visitor impact management (VIM) (4.12)
and visitor education (VE) (4.13) denotes that VIM practices are satisfactory at ENP are ranging above mean value 4–4.5.
Variations in demographics between VIM practices were identified with respect to gender, and type of visitors from Table 3.
The study identified that male respondents have high satisfaction for FA and VE than female respondents which expresses
identical results from (Ozturk & Hancer, 2008) where male tourists were significantly more satisfied than female tourists, and
rated destination factors significantly higher than females did. On the other hand, the average score of foreign and domestic
Table 2
Mean scores of VIM practices.
VIM practices Highest mean value Lowest mean value
TA 4.26 3.79
ENI 4.59 4.15
SCI 4.24 4.04
VIM 4.12 3.68
VE 4.13 3.94
Source: Primary data.
Table 1
Socio economic profile of visitors.
Demographic factors Particulars Percent
Gender Male 70.7
Female 29.3
Type of visitor Foreign 6.3
Domestic 93.7
Age Less than 18 3.9
18–24 32.6
25–35 40.9
36–49 17.6
50–64 3.5
65+ 1.5
Education School 9.6
Secondary 18.9
Diploma 20.4
Graduation 41.7
Post-Graduation 9.4
Occupation Self-Employment 15.2
Government 7.8
Private 44.8
Business 14.6
Retired 0.9
Others 16.7
Annual income Below 50,000 28.1
50,001–1,00,000 18.3
1,00,001–2,00,000 32.4
2,00,001–5,00,000 15.7
5,00,001 and above 5.4
Marital status Single 43
Married 57
Source: Primary data.
S. Velmurugan, B. Vazhakkatte Thazhathethil and B. George International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 9 (2021) 463–479
469
respondents implies that SCI, VE, and VIM factors are important, but foreigners give a higher level of satisfaction than domestic
visitors. Fig. 2 represents the graphical view on the influence of socio -economic factors on VIM practices.
Influence of socio-economic factors on VIM practices was drawn from Table 4.
The study on Iron Gates Natural Park (Ciocanea, Sorescu, Ianoşi, & Vasile, 2016) revealed a significant association between
level of information towards PAs and age, occupation, and education, confirms the research finding that different age group differs
significantly with VE provided at ENP.
The level of education of visitors significantly influences TA undertaken, ENI, and SCI at the national park. In the context of
education, the increased knowledge of an individual regarding the environment will lead to increased awareness and positive be-
havior towards the environment. Studies also have shown a positive link between the realization of tourist activities, resource im-
pacts, and an individual's educational level (Parker, 1976;D'Antonio, Monz, Newman, Lawson, & Taff, 2012;Manning et al., 2004).
The annual income of the visitors significantly influences TA undertaken at the national park has been reinforced from the
study of Samdin et al., (2010) that income had a significant influence on visitor willingness to pay for activities at Taman Negara
NP. The finding on influence of visitors companion on ENI, and VE provided at the national park is alike with the findings of Chen,
Wang, & Prebensen, 2016 and Choo and Petrick (2015) that travel companions critically influence the overall quality of the travel
experience, because they influence the activity preferences and plans to visit particular tourist destinations.
Fig. 2. Influence of socio-economic factors on VIM practices.
Source: Primary data.
Table 4
Influence of socio-economic factors on VIM practices.
Factors VIM practices F Sig.
Age VE 4.384 0.001
Education TA 2.850 0.023
ENI 5.413 0.000
SCI 3.053 0.017
Annual income TA 4.548 0.001
Visitor companion
ENI 2.257 0.048
VE 2.794 0.040
Mode of transport TA 4.263 0.002
VE 3.774 0.005
VIM 2.306 0.033
VE 5.618 0.000
Source: Primary data.
Table 3
Influence of socio-economic factors on VIM practices.
Socio economic factors VIM practices F value Significance
Gender AF 1.120 0.008
VE 0.399 0.051
Type of visitors VE 0.470 0.014
SCI 1.650 0.008
VIM 0.920 0.012
Source: Primary data.
S. Velmurugan, B. Vazhakkatte Thazhathethil and B. George International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 9 (2021) 463–479
470
The mode of transport used to arrive at the national park influences TA undertaken, VIM, and VE at the national park. The
study by Diem-Trinh (2015) examined tourists' choice of transport mode and areas visited in the Munich region and revealed
that tourists' choice of transport mode and areas visited are closely related to each other which supports the findings of the
study. According to Manning, Lawson, Newman, Hallo, & Monz, 2014, Transportation can be even more than this: it is also a po-
tentially powerful tool for managing the national parks. The transportation networks and linkages in parks help determine where
park visitors travel (and where they don't) and can be used by park managers to help deliver the “right”number of visitors to the
“right”places at the “right”times (Manning, 2007;Lawson, Newman, Choi, Pettebone, & Meldrum, 2009;Manning, 2009). In this
way, transportation can be used to manage national parks in a sustainable way by protecting park resources and the quality of the
visitor experience. Fig. 3 represents the graphical view on the influence of socio -economic factors on VIM practices.
In this study, the empirical relationship between the factors TA, ENI, SCI, VIM, VE, and overall satisfaction of visitors (OSA) of
visitors was identified. Table 5 on the Empirical relationship between the study factors shows the correlations between all the
constructs under study.
Tourism Activities (TA), Environmental Impacts (ENI), Socio Cultural Impacts (SCI), Visitor Impact Management (VIM), Visitor
Education (VE), Overall Satisfaction of Visitors (OSA).
TA at the national park were significantly and positively correlated with ENI (0.104), positively correlated with SCI and VIM.
On other hand the factor negatively correlates with OSA which states that TA at the national park has to be improved without
compromising on the quality of the environment on which PA tourism is based on. In the study of six PAs of the Northern Tourist
Circuit of Tanzania, 86% of tourists were willing to repeat their visit and were attracted mainly to wildlife viewing but 81% equally
indicated that non-wildlife attractions enhanced their tourist experience. The high level of satisfaction has equally influenced the
decision by tourists to repeat their visit and invite other persons in order to enjoy game view and for future research (Okello &
Yerian, 2009). Thus, in order to sustain the development of ENP, there is a need to improvise existing TA and equally introduce
additional facilities and activities which are compatible with PA based tourism.
Fig. 3. Influence of socio-economic factors on VIM practices.
Table 5
Empirical relationship between the study factors.
Correlation
TA ENI SCI VIM VE OSA of visitors
TA Pearson correlation 1 0.104(⁎) 0.026 0.006 −0.040 −0.006
ENI Pearson correlation 1 0.487(⁎⁎) 0.237(⁎⁎) 0.161(⁎⁎) 0.207(⁎⁎)
SCI Pearson correlation 1 0.308(⁎⁎) 0.160(⁎⁎) 0.361(⁎⁎)
VIM Pearson correlation 1 0.742(⁎⁎) 0.676(⁎⁎ )
VE Pearson correlation 1 0.657(⁎⁎)
OSA of visitors Pearson correlation 1
Source: Primary data.
⁎Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
⁎⁎ Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
S. Velmurugan, B. Vazhakkatte Thazhathethil and B. George International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 9 (2021) 463–479
471
ENI are significantly and positively correlated with SCI (0.487), VIM (0.237), VE (161), OSA of visitors (0.207). Fig. 4 represents
the graphical view of empirical relationship between the study factors.
SCI are significantly and positively correlated with VIM (0.308), VE (160), OSA (0.361).
VIM is significantly and positively correlated with VE (0.742), OSA (0.676) and also has the highest correlation among all
variables.
VE is significantly and positively correlated with OSA of visitors (0.657).
Fig. 4 represents the graphical view on the empirical relationship between the study factors.
Regression technique was used to identify the linear relationship between independent variables VIM, TA, ENI, SCI, VE and
dependent variable OSA.
The standard multiple regression model summary in Table 6 with R
2
value of 0.547 infers that the five predictor variables
explained 54.7% of the variation in the criterion variable viz., OSA.
The significance level 0.000 in the Table 7 on visitor's overall satisfaction on the independent variables (VIM, TA, ENI, SCI and
VE) ensures that the factors are significant.
Coefficient effect of TA, ENI, SCI, VE and VIM factors are calculated from the formula.
Y¼aþb1X1 þb2X2 þb3X3 þb4X4 þb5X5 ð1Þ
Y = 12.932 + 0.009(TA) - 0.065(ENI) +0.458 (SCI) + 0.361 (VE) +0.338(VIM)-
The coefficient of X1(0.009), X2(−0.065), X3(0.458), X4(0.361), X5(0.338) represents the partial effect of TA, ENI, SCI, VE on
OSA of visitors, holding other variables constant. OSA of visitors increases one unit when there is an increase in SCI by 0.458, VE
by 0.361, VIM by 0.338, TA by 0.009 and decreases by 0.065 for ENI. Based on standardized coefficient, SCI is the most important
factor followed by VE, VIM and TA with positive effect shows that the impact of study variables is high on OSA of visitors.
Hence, from Table 8, we conclude that the visitors are overall satisfied with the VIM practices followed at ENP. Fig. 5 repre-
sents the graphical view of OSA of visitors.
Fig. 4. Empirical relationship between the study factors.
Table 6
Standard multiple regression model summary.
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 0.739(a) 0.547 0.542 5.20856
Source: Primary data
S. Velmurugan, B. Vazhakkatte Thazhathethil and B. George International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 9 (2021) 463–479
472
5. Discussion
The current study has focused on evaluating the VIM practices at ENP, Munnar. Based on the findings of the field study, many
recommendations can be suggested which would increase the quality of visitor management, and enhance the site services and
essential facilities that play a primary role in enriching the visitor experience. These changes would in turn enhance the level
of visitor satisfaction as well as magnify and strengthen visitor loyalty to the ENP. These recommendations are as follows:
1. In addition to the existing TA, visit to the tribal village of Muthuvans, Cultural shows of Muthuvans can be conducted at the
Tourism Zone of ENP, which helps in showcasing the culture of the local community and economic growth of the locals.
2. Visitors are transferred from 5th mile (entrance of ENP) to Rajamala (tourism zone of ENP) in the department vehicles that
uses gasoline. Many visitors view the use of department vehicles as a major factor that impacts the national park environment.
Hence the researchers have suggested to provide an alternative transport system (ATS) like hiking, Bicycling, Battery vehicles,
Cable cars to be employed at ENP. Provision of ATS, on the choice of visitor may allow nature lovers to take a break enroute for
bird watching, animal watching, wildlife and nature photography, etc. These TAs enable visitors to spend more time and en-
hance their experience of visitation to ENP.
3. Trained interpreters on-site include their ability to attract the attention of visitors, to answer questions, provide social interac-
tion, and tailor the information given to visitors to match what the animals are doing at the time. During the field visit, it was
observed that there is a communication gap among the visitors and EDC's (Drivers and watchers) who comes in direct contact
with visitors since EDC's interpret and educate about the ENP. EDC's are trained with regional languages (Tamil and Malaya-
lam) only and so training on communication (English), Visitor handling, etiquettes may be imparted at a skilled and semi-
skilled level to improve visitor education and experience at ENP.
4. From the findings, it was identified that female visitors are less satisfied with the facilities available at the national park. Inter-
preting the facilities provided at ENP and their limitations may help the Visitors, especially female visitors may help in better
understanding the need for Sustainable development at the destination. Education and Interpretation components that include
methods used include interpretive signs, models, brochures, guides, demonstrations and shows, video, audio commentary,
computers, and books that provide better nature and wildlife tourism experience through the learning experience. After
experiencing an interpretation program almost 90% of the visitors understood that the restrictions were necessary and 88%
felt the restrictions either had no negative effect or facilitated their experience (Frost & Mc Cool, 1988)
5. From the analysis, it was found that among the facilities provided at ENP, visitors prefer more Shelters and Pavilions which
helps them to safeguard themselves from different weather conditions.
Table 7
Visitor's overall satisfaction on independent variables.
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 17,464.416 5 3492.883 128.751 0.000 (a)
Residual 14,486.918 534 27.129
Total 31,951.333 539
Source: Primary data.
(a) Predictors: (constant), VIM, TA, ENI, SCI, VE
(b) Dependent variable: OSA
Table 8
OSA of visitors.
Model Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients t Sig.
B Std. error Beta
1 (Constant) 12.932 2.3–22 5.569 0.000
TA 0.009 0.050 0.006 0.190 0.849
ENI −0.065 0.056 −0.039 −1.166 0.244
SCI 0.458 0.073 0.215 6.242 0.000
VE 0.361 0.158 0.377 8.603 0.000
VIM 0.338 0.045 0.339 7.464 0.000
Source: Primary data.
a. Dependent variable: OSA
S. Velmurugan, B. Vazhakkatte Thazhathethil and B. George International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 9 (2021) 463–479
473
6. Conclusion
ENP was selected for the research which is well known for its biological richness, abundance of wildlife, and landscape beauty
and has potential to attract lakhs of visitor every year. PA based tourism are highly activity based and also educate visitors on the
need of conservation of such destinations for sustainable development. The study was undertaken from the viewpoint of visitors
to identify the satisfaction of visitors on VIM practices at ENP. Findings of the study revealed that visitors are satisfied with
existing VIM practices at ENP and suggested measures that enhance visitor experience and satisfaction which in turn leads to Sus-
tainable development at ENP. The results of this study may allow the park management to focus on specificsiteattributesandto
make appropriate use of funds for improving park facilities and services to increase visitation and levels of satisfaction with their
experiences. The revenue generated from visitation will not only help the ENP authorities in the conservation and management of
nature and wildlife, but also the local community who solely depends on the tourism in ENP.
This study has implications on the nature of visitor experiences and the ways in which they can be most effectively monitored
for better park management, resource allocation decisions, and planning processes. Well managed, visitation can result in socio-
cultural and environmental conservation, and economic benefits to the region and nation. It explores many dimensions of visitor
Experience and most importantly VE and VIM which plays a vital role in OSA which ultimately leads to revisit intention and sus-
tainable development at ENP.
Also, the research work has some limitations since the data gathered make inferences about the population of interest at a de-
fined time only. Many factors contribute to the satisfaction of visitors to the NP. The present study has identified the factors that
contribute only 54.7% to the satisfaction level on VIM practices at ENP. The other factors that contribute to the OSA of visitors
need to identified. Also, the study has been confined only to visitors, hence the future study can focus on local people and
National Park authorities. A comparative study of Visitor Impact Management with other Ecotourism Destinations or Protected
Areas may also be formulated.
Credit author statement
Sivakami V: Conceptualization, data collection, analysis, first draft of the paper.
Bindu VT: Methodology, day to day mentoring, literature review.
Babu George: Overall supervision, guidance on data analysis, final checks.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A. Questionnaire
Part A - Demographic profile
Fig. 5. OSA of visitors.
S. Velmurugan, B. Vazhakkatte Thazhathethil and B. George International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 9 (2021) 463–479
474
1.Name:
2.Gender: (a) Male (b)Female
3.Type of Visitors (a) Foreigner (b) Domestic
4.Age Group : (a) Less than 18 (b) 18-24 (c) 25-35
(d) 36-49 (e) 50-64 (f) 65+
5.Level of Education:
(a) School (b) Secondary (c) Diploma
(d) Graduation (e) Post Graduation
6.Occupation:
(a) Self-employment (b) Government (c) Private
(d) Business (e) Retired f) Others
7.Annual Income:
(a) Below 50,000
(b) 50,001 to 1,00,000
(c) 1,00,001 to 2,00,000
(d) 2,00,001 to 5,00,000
(e) 5,00,001 and above
8.Marital Status: (a) Single (b) Married
9.Who accompanies you in this visit?
(a) None (b) Spouse (c) Family & children
(d) Friends & colleagues
10.How did you come to know about the Eravikulam national park as a place of tourist
interest?
(a) Brochures (b) Tour operator (c) Hotel
(d) KTDC ( (e) Friends & relatives (f) Website/ Blog
(g) Newspapers
11.Which is the mode of your transport?
(a) Four-wheeler (b) Govt bus (c) Tourist Bus
(d) Luxury Taxi (e) Shared Taxi
S. Velmurugan, B. Vazhakkatte Thazhathethil and B. George International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 9 (2021) 463–479
475
Part B
12. What are the ecotourism activities that you are interested to carry out in Eravikulam National Park?
5-Very Important 4- Important 3-Neutral 2-Less Important 1-Least Important.
Part C
On a scale of 1 to 5 kindly rate the your experience.
(5 –Strongly agree, 4-Agree, 3- Neither agree nor disagree, 2- Disagree, 1- Strongly Disagree)
Part D
From the experience on the visit to national park, Kindly rate your experience on the below given attributes.
(5 -Highly satisfied, 4-Satisfied, 3-Moderately satisfied, 2-Dissatisfied, 1- Highly).
Tourism activities Very important
(5)
Important
(4)
Neutral
(3)
Less important
(2)
Least important
(1)
TA1 Jeep Safari
Strongly agree
(5)
Agree
(4)
Neither agree nor disagree
(3)
Disagree
(2)
Strongly disagree
(1)
Environmental impacts
ENI1 Environmental pollution is controlled
ENI2 Noise level has reduced
ENI3 Entry of visitors are regulated
ENI4 Level of traffic congestion is reduced
ENI5 Low impact transportation is used
ENI 6 Solid waste reduction/recycling method is followed
ENI7 Usage of plastics are banned in the region
ENI8 Measures are taken to prevent forest fire
ENI9 Measures are taken for protection of flora and fauna
Socio cultural impacts
SCI1 Cultural activities/entertainment is good at destination
SCI2 Availability of recreational Facilities
SCI3 Opportunity to meet people from other cultures
SCI4 Community spirit among local residents
SCI5 Quality of public services (police, fire, etc.)
SCI6 Crime level is controllable
Highly satisfied
(5)
Satisfied
(4)
Moderately satisfied
(3)
Dissatisfied
(2)
Highly dissatisfied
(1)
Facilities
FA1 Convenience of transportation and parking
FA2 Footpaths and hiking trails
FA3 Directional signs/Information panels
FA4 Restaurants/shops
FA5 Leisure/recreational Equipment
FA6 Shelters and pavilions
FA7 Litter bins and garbage handling
FA8 The production of Indigenous /Geo products
Human environment (HUMENV)
HE1 Facility design (Ramps for differently abled, Toilets)
HE2 Security and safety for visitors
HE3 Cleanliness/tidiness maintained
HE4 Tourist behavior are monitored
HE5 Geopark ranger/warden service
HE6 Communication with the local people
S. Velmurugan, B. Vazhakkatte Thazhathethil and B. George International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 9 (2021) 463–479
476
Part E
From the experience on the visit to national park, Kindly rate your experience on the below given attributes.
(5 –Very High, 4-High, 3- Medium, 2- Low, 1- very Low).
References
Agyeman, Y., Aboagye, O., & Ashie, E. (2019). Visitor satisfaction at Kakum National Park in Ghana. Tourism Rec reation R esearch,44,1–12.
Akama, J. S., & Kieti, D. M. (2003). Measuring tourist satisfaction with Kenya's wildlife safari: A case study of Tsavo West National Park. Tourism management,24(1),
73–81.
Andereck, K. L., Valentine, K. M., Knopf, R. C., & Vogt, C. A. (2005). Residents’perceptions of community tourism impacts. Annalsof Tourism Research,32(4),1056–1076.
Bernini, C., Urbinati, E., & Vici, L. (2015). Visitor expectations and perceptions of sustainability in a mass tourism destination. Paper presented at the 3rd International Sci-
entific Conference Tourism in Southern and Eastern Europe. Abstract retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2637237.
Bhalla, P., & Bhattacharya, P. (2019). Visitors’satisfaction from ecotourism in the protected area of the Indian Himalayan region using importance–performance anal-
ysis. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science,29(2), 162–179.
Bushell, R., & Bricker, K. (2017). Tourism in protected areas: Developing meaningful standards. Tourism and Hospitality Research,17(1), 106–120.
Butler,R.W.(2000).Tourism and national parks issue and implications. West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
Cajee, L. (2014). Eco-cultural tourism: A tool for environmental, cultural and economic sustainability (A case study of Darap Village, West Sikkim). SHS Web of
Conferences,12,1–9.
Chan, R., & Bhatta, K. (2013). Ecotourism planning and sustainable community development: Theoretical perspectives for Nepal. South Asian Journal of Tourism and
Heritage,6(1), 69–96.
Chape, S., Harrison, J., Spalding, M., & Lysenko,I. (2005). Measuring the extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity tar-
gets. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B,360,443–455.
Chen, J. S., Wang, W., & Prebensen, N. K. (2016). Travel companions and activity preferences of nature-based tourists. Tourism Review,71(1), 45–56.
Choo, H., & Petrick, J. (2015). The importance of travel companionship and we intentions at tourism service encounters. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and
Tourism,16,1–23.
Ciocanea,C. M., Sorescu, C.,Ianoşi, M., & Vasile, B. (2016).Assessing public perception on protected areas in Iron Gates NaturalPark. Procedia EnvironmentalSciences,32,
70–79.
Coghlan, A. (2012). Linking natural resource management to tourist satisfaction: A study of Australia's Great Barrier Reef. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,20(1), 41–58.
Cottrell, S. P., Vaske, J. J., & Roemer, J. M. (2013). Resident satisfaction with sustainable tourism: The case of Frankenwald Nature Park, Germany. Tourism Management
Perspectives,8,42–48.
Cottrell, S. P., Vaske,J. J., Shen, F., & Ritter, P. (2007). Resident perceptions of sustainable tourism in Chongdugou, China. Society and Natural Resources,20(6), 511–525.
Cressford,G. R. (2000). Identifying research needs for improved management of social impacts with wilderness recreation. InS. F. McCool, W. T. Borrie, & J. O’Loughlin
(Eds.), Proceedings–Wilderness science in a time of change conference (pp. 231–238). Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Dahal, B., Anup, K. C., & Sapkota, R. P. (2020). Environmental impacts of community-based home stay ecotourism in Nepal. The Gaze Journal of Tourism and Hospitality,
11(1), 60–80.
D’Antonio, A., Monz, C., Newman, P., Lawson, S., & Taff, D. (2012). The effects of local ecological knowledge, minimum-impact knowledge, and prior experience on
visitor perceptions of the ecological impacts of backcountry recreation. Environmental Management,50(4), 542–554.
Deng, J., & Bender, M. Y. (2007). Visitors’perceptions of tourism development in West Virginia. Proceedings of Proceedings of the 2007 Northeastern Recreation Research
Symposium (pp. 181–188) GTR-NRS-P-23.
Dowling, R. K., & Newsome, D. (2017). Geotourism destinations –Visitor impacts and site management considerations. Czech Journal of Tourism,6(2), 111–129.
Eagles, P., & McCool, S. (2002). Tourism in national parks and protected areas: Planning and management. Wallingford: CABI.
Fan, Z., Z hong, S., & Zha ng, W. (2012). Harmonious tourism environment and tourist perception: An empirical study of mountain-type world cultural heritage sites in
China. Journal of Service Science and Management,5(1), 95–100.
Fennell, D. (2001). A content analysis of ecotourism definitions. Current Issues in Tourism,4,403–421.
Frost, J. E., & Mc Cool, S. F. (1988). Can visitor regulations enhance recreational experiences? Environmental Management,12(1), 5–9.
Glaspell, B., & Puttkammer, A. (2001). Linking wilderness research and management—Defining, managing, and monitoring wilderness visitor experiences: An annotated
reading listGen. Tech. Rep.,General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-79- volume 2. (pp. 29). Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Moun-
tain Research Station, 29.
Very high
(5)
High
(4)
Medium
(3)
Low
(2)
Very low
(1)
Visitor education
VE1 Promote appropriate behavior by visitors at site
VE2 Encourage and discourage certain types of use(Plucking of leaves grass, hurting and feeding animals)
VE3 Information regarding usage condition provided
Existing visitor impact management
VM1 Limit on using land by visitors
VM2 Area closure during calving season
VM3 Restriction in the use of site
VM4 Limits in length of stay
VM5 Restriction in group characteristics
VM6 Protection of main attraction in the destination
VM7 Reservation for entry
VM8 Preventing exploitation by visitors
VM9 Crisis & emergency pre potent arrangements
VM10 Differential pricing for visitors
VM11 Queuing for entry of visitors
VM12 Pre assignment of recreation site
VM13 Site hardening(hard surfacing materials used to reduce erosion on trails, hard topping of roads)
S. Velmurugan, B. Vazhakkatte Thazhathethil and B. George International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 9 (2021) 463–479
477
Glover,T.D.(1999).Municipa l Park and recreat ion agencies unite! A single case analysis of an inter-municipal partnership. Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration,17(1), 73–90.
Gordon, J. E. (2018). Geoheritage, geotourism and the cultural landscape: Enhancing the visitor experience and promoting geo conservation. Geosciences.,8(4), 136.
Guo, W., & Chung, S. (2017). Using tourism carrying capacity to strengthen UNESCO Global Geopark management in Hong Kong. Geoheritage,11(1), 193–205.
Hadwen, W. L., Hill, W., & Pickering, C. M. (2007). Icons under threat: Why monitoring visitors and their ecological impacts in protected areas matters. Ecological
Management and Restoration,8,177–181.
Hadwen, W. L., Hill, W., & Pickering, C. M. (2008). Linking visitor impact research to visitor impact monitoring in protected areas. Journal of Ecotourism,7,87–93.
Hall,C.M.,&Frost,W.(2009).Introduction: The making of the national parks concept. In W. Frost, & C. M. Hall (Eds.), Tourism and national parks: International per-
spectives on development, histories and change. Abingdon: Routledge.
Hussain, K., Ali, F., Ragavan, N. A., & Manhas, P. S. (2015). Sustainable tourism and resulting resident satisfaction at Jammu and Kashmir, India. Worldwide Hospitality
and Tourism Themes,7(5), 486–499.
Hwang, S. N., Lee, C., & Chen, H. J. (2005). The relationship among tourists’involvement, place attachment and interpretation satisfaction in Taiwan’s national parks.
Tourism Management,26(2), 143–156.
IUCN (2006). The visitor experience challenge. Parks,16(2), 1–68.
Junus, S. Z.,Hambali, K. A., Iman, A. H.M., Abas, M. A., & Hassin, N.H. (2020). Visitor’s perception and attitude towardthe ecotourism resourcesat Taman Negara Kuala
Koh, Kelantan. IOP conference series: Earth and Environmental Science. 549.. Malaysia: IOP Publishing Ltd.
Khan, M. (2003). Ecotourists’quality expecta tions. Annals of Tourism Research,30(1), 109–124.
Kozak, M., & Rimmington, M. (2000). Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an off-season holiday destination. Journal of Travel Research,38,260–269.
Lawson, S., Newman, P., Choi, J., Pettebone, D., & Meldrum, B. (2009). The numbers game: Integrated transportation and user capacity research in Yosemite National
Park （transportation research cecord）.Journal of the Transportation Research Board,2119(1), 83–91.
Lee, A. K. Y., & Abrahams, R. A. (2018). Naturalizing people, ethnicizing landscape: Promoting tourism in China’s rural periphery. Asian Geographer,35(2), 177–196.
Leung, Y. F., Spenceley, A., Hvenegaard, G., & Buckley, R. (2018). Tourism and visitor management in protected areas: Guidelines for sustainability. Gland, Switzerland:
IUCN.
Leverington, F., Costa, K. L., Pavese, H., Lisle, A., & Hockings, M. (2010). A global analysis of protected area management effectiveness. Environmental Management,46,
685–698.
Lyngdoh, S., Mathur, V. B., & Sinha, B. C. (2017). Tigers, tourists and wildlife: Visitor demographics and experience in three Indian Tiger reserves. Biodiversity and
Conservation,26(9), 2187–2204.
Maikhuri, R. K., Rana, U., Rao, K. S., Nautiyal, S., & Saxena, K. G. (2000). Promoting ecotourism in the buffer zone areas of Nanda Devi biosphere reserve: An option to
resolve people—Policy conflict. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology,7(4), 333–342.
Manning, R., Lawson, S., Newman, P., Hallo, F., & Monz, C. (2014). Principles of sustainable transportation in the national parks. The George Wright Forum,31(3),
345–358.
Manning, R. E. (2007). Parks and carrying capacity: Commons without tragedy. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Manning, R. E. (Ed.). (2009). Parks and people: Management of outdoor recreation at Acadia National Park. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
Manning, R. E., Lawson, S., Newman, P., Budruk, M., Valliere, W., & Bacon, J. (2004). Visitor perceptions of recreation-related resource impacts. In R. Buckley (Ed.), The
environmental impacts of ecotourism (pp. 259–271). London, UK: CABI.
Manning, T. (1999). Indicators of tourism sustainability. Tourism Management,20(2), 179–181.
Monz, C. A., Cole, D. N., Leung, Y. F., & Marion, J. L. (2010). Sustaining visitor use in protected areas: Future opportunities in recreation ecology research based on the
USA experience. Environmental Management,45,551–562.
Moore, S. A., Rodger, K., & Taplin, R. (2015). Moving beyond visitor satisfaction to loyalty in nature-based tourism: A review and research agenda. Current Issues in
Tourism,18(7), 667–683.
Mulholland, G., & Eagles, P. (2002). African parks: Combining fiscal and ecological sustainability. Parks,12(1), 42–49.
Nameer, Nameer, P. O.,Sreekumar, E., Nikhil, S., & Ajay, K.G. (2018). Diversityand endemism of butterflies ofmontane forests of Eravikulam National Park in the West-
ern Ghats, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa,10(9), 12235–12246.
Newsome,D.,Moore,S.A.,&Dowling,R.K.(2012).Natural area tourism: Ecology, impacts and management.NewYork,UnitedStates:ChannelViewPublications.
Nicholas, L., & Thapa, B. (2010). Visitor perspectives on sustainable tourism development in the Pitons Management Area World Heritage Site, St. Lucia. Environment,
Development and Sustainability,12,839–857.
Nillahut, W. (2010). Local resident’s perception towards impacts from tourism development in Phuket. Thailand: Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia.
Okello, M.M., & Yerian, S. (2009).Tourist satisfaction in relation to attractions andimplications for conservation in the protected areasof the northern circuit, Tanzania.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism,17(5), 605–625.
Ozturk, A., & Hancer, M. (2008). Exploring destination satisfaction: A case of Kizkalesi, Turkey. Tourism Analysis,13,473–484.
Pananjay, G. B. G., Tawari, K., Shashi, G. B. G., Tawari, K., & Tawari, S. C. (2011). An overview of potential ecotourism resources and their prospects in valley of flowers
National Park. Uttaranchal, India. Caspian Journal of Environmental Science,9(1), 105–110.
Parker,W.M.(1976).The sociology of leisure. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Patterson, M. E., Watson, A. E., Williams, D. R., & Roggenbuck, J. R. (1998). An hermeneuticapproach to studying thenature of wilderness experiences. Journal of Leisure
Research,30(4), 423–452.
Petrick, J. F. (2003). Measuring cruise passengers perceived value. Annals of Tourism,7,251–258.
Pulido-Fernandez, J. I., & Lopez-Sanchez, Y. (2016). Are tourists really willing to pay more for sustainable destinations? Sustainability,8(12), Article 1240.
Rajesh, R. (2013). Impact of tourist perceptions, destination image and tourist satisfaction on destination loyalty: A conceptual model. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio
Cultural,11,67–78.
Ranasinghe, R., Kumudulali, U.,& Ranaweera, A. K. (2020). The role of park attributesin visitor satisfaction: Evidence fromMinneriya NationalPark in Sri Lanka. Journal
of Sustainable Tourism and Entrepreneurship,1(2), 87–104.
Raymond, C., & Brown, G. (2007). A spatial method for assessing resident and visitor attitudes towards tourism growth and development. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism,15(5), 520–540.
Ryan, C. (2000). Tourist experiences, phenomenographic analysis, post-postivism and neural network software. International Journal of Tourism Research,2,119–131.
Samdin, Z.,Aziz, Y. A., Radam, A.,& Yacob, M. R. (2010). Factors influencing thewillingness to pay forentrance permit: Theevidence from TamanNegara National Park.
Journal of sustainable development,3(3), 212.
Shashni, S., & Sundriyal, R. C. (2017). Assessment of ecotourism activities and its future potential in Corbett Tiger Reserve India. International Journal of Environmental
Sciences,7(1), 37–42.
Stojanović, V., Mijatov, M., Dunjić,J.,Lazić, L., Dragin, A.,Milić,D.,&Obradović,S.(2021).Ecotourism impact assessment on environment in protectedareas of Serbia: A
case study of Gornje Podunavlje Special Nature Reserve. Geographica Pannonica,15(7), 58–98.
Swarbrooke, J. (1999). Sustainable tourism management. United Kingdom: CABI Publishing.
Telfer, D., & Sharpley, R. (2007). Tourism and development in the developing world (1st ). London: Routledge, 1–263.
Thapa, B. (2013). Visitor segments and attitudes toward sustainable tourism in protected areas: A case study in Zambia. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration,
31(2), 50–60.
Tonge, J., & Moore, S. A. (2007). Importance-satisfaction analysis for marine-park hinterlands: A Western Australian case study. Tourism Management,28,768–776.
Tonge, J., Moore, S. A., & Taplin, R. (2011). Visitor satisfaction analysis as a tool for park managers: A review and case study. Annals of Leisure Research,14(4), 289–303.
Tsiotsou, R., & Vasioti, E. (2006). Satisfaction: A segmentation criteria for short term visitors of mountainous destinations. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing,20,
61–73.
UNEP/WTO (2004). Indicators of sustainable development for tourism desinations: A guidebook. Delhi, Ind ia: UNWTO, 507.
Vespestad, M. K., & Lindberg, F. (2011). Understanding nature-based tourist experiences: An ontological analysis. Current Issues in Tourism,14(6), 563–580.
S. Velmurugan, B. Vazhakkatte Thazhathethil and B. George International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 9 (2021) 463–479
478
Watson, J. E. M., Darling, E. S., Venter, O., Maron, M., Walston, J., Possingham,H. P., & Brooks, T. M. (2015). Bolder science needednow for protected areas. Conservation
Biology,30(2), 243–248.
Weaver, D. B., & Lawton, L. J. (2004). Visitor attitudes toward tourism development and product integration in an Australian urban-rural fringe. Journal of Travel
Reserach,42(3), 286–296.
Whisman, S., & Hollenhorst, S. (1998). A path model of whitewater boating satisfaction on the Cheat River of West Virginia. Environmental Management,22,109–117.
Widawski, K., Oleśniewicz, P., Rozenkiewicz, A., Zaręba,A.,&Jandová,S.(2020).Protected areas: Geotourist attractiveness for weekend tourists based on the example
of Gorczański National Park in Poland. Resources,9(4), 35.
Wolff, S., Schulp, C. J. E., & Verburg, P. H. (2015). Mapping ecosystem services demand: A review of current research and future perspectives. Ecological Indicators,55,
159–171.
Yu, J., & Wu, J. (2018). The sustainability of agricultural development in China: The agriculture–environment nexus. Sustainability,10(6), 1776.
Zhang, S., & Chan, C. (2016). Nature-based tourism development in Hong Kong: Importance–performance perceptions of local residents an d tourists. Tourism
Management Perspectives,20,38–46.
Ziegler, J., Dearden, P., & Rollins, R. (2012). But are tourists satisfied? Importance-performance analysis of the whale shark tourism industry on Isla Holbox, Mexico.
Tourism Management,33(3), 692–701.
Websites
https://eravikulam.org/ (Accessed on 31/12/2019)
S. Velmurugan, B. Vazhakkatte Thazhathethil and B. George International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 9 (2021) 463–479
479
