280
D. Gambhir et al.
(Shanthakumari 2017). The UN World Tourism Organization (WTO) has defined
Tourism Carrying Capacity as ‘the maximum number of persons which could visit
a location within a given period, such that local environmental, physical, economic,
and socio-cultural characteristics are not compromised, and without reducing tourist
satisfaction’ (WTO 1999). The UN WTO has specified five parameters for tourism
carrying capacity, and there has been a proposal to study it for planning infrastructure development in Uttarakhand (Sinha 2015). Wang et al. (2020) recommend that
carrying capacity management should include a focus on environmental and tourism
management policies as well. The study and management of carrying capacity would
also help in solving the peak season overload at the popular attractions (Jin and Liu
2017). Even the religious circuits should be promoted as a hub and spoke model,
encouraging visitors to sites in the vicinity that have lower footfall (Kapur 2018).
Sridhar et al. (2016) suggest that the assessment of carrying capacity can be used as
an input into the regular planning process and can be used to promote ‘high valuelow volume, eco-friendly, and environmentally sustainable tourism’. However, the
measurement of carrying capacity is dependent on subjective judgements and needs
to be used cautiously. In addition to the volume of tourists, the capacity in terms of
tourism types and activities should be evaluated (Kennell 2016).
Introducing a tourism fee: At least forty countries around the world charge a
tourism tax in some manner to mitigate the effect of over tourism (Featherstone
2019). Recently, Bhutan, a neighbouring hill country of India, has proposed under
its new tourism policy to levy a Sustainable Development Fee (SDF) for tourists in
sensitive sites where the footfall exceeds the carrying capacity to control the number
of visitors. The idea is to provide better facilities as well as preserve the environment
and local population (Haider 2020). However, there have been reservations on the
effectiveness of such policies in solving environmental problems. The benefits must
be shared between locals and authorities to maximise the socio-economic benefits in
the long-term (Nepal and Nepal 2019). It is equally important to study the willingness
of tourists to pay and the appropriate threshold and quanta of allocation of the funds.
There is less resistance to such fees if they lead to enhanced experiences for the
visitors (Cetin et al. 2017).
Training local community and skill development: Tourism should ‘be sensitive
to local environmental and cultural norms and beliefs for it to be accepted by local
people’ and be sustainable (Farooquee et al. 2008). The residents of the area must
have a sense of satisfaction and acceptance towards visitors; otherwise they may
have a negative impact on the visitor experience. It is necessary to promote a positive
attitude and involvement of the local community (Griffiths and Wiltshier 2019).
‘Landscape fragility and vulnerability needs to be kept in mind while promoting
technology and techniques’ (Sati 2015). If the local stakeholders follow prescribed
norms and rules, adverse impacts can be curbed (Farooquee et al. 2008; Loda and
Macrì 2017). ‘Educational campaigns for awareness of the public regarding suitable
use of water bodies without impairing the water quality are also required’ (Bhatnagar
et al. 2016). The ‘educational institutions and professional bodies’ should be at the
forefront of creating awareness and taking community action (Basak et al. 2015).
Apart from enhancing the sensitivity of tourists, the responsible behaviour of locals
D. Gambhir et al.
(Shanthakumari 2017). The UN World Tourism Organization (WTO) has defined
Tourism Carrying Capacity as ‘the maximum number of persons which could visit
a location within a given period, such that local environmental, physical, economic,
and socio-cultural characteristics are not compromised, and without reducing tourist
satisfaction’ (WTO 1999). The UN WTO has specified five parameters for tourism
carrying capacity, and there has been a proposal to study it for planning infrastructure development in Uttarakhand (Sinha 2015). Wang et al. (2020) recommend that
carrying capacity management should include a focus on environmental and tourism
management policies as well. The study and management of carrying capacity would
also help in solving the peak season overload at the popular attractions (Jin and Liu
2017). Even the religious circuits should be promoted as a hub and spoke model,
encouraging visitors to sites in the vicinity that have lower footfall (Kapur 2018).
Sridhar et al. (2016) suggest that the assessment of carrying capacity can be used as
an input into the regular planning process and can be used to promote ‘high valuelow volume, eco-friendly, and environmentally sustainable tourism’. However, the
measurement of carrying capacity is dependent on subjective judgements and needs
to be used cautiously. In addition to the volume of tourists, the capacity in terms of
tourism types and activities should be evaluated (Kennell 2016).
Introducing a tourism fee: At least forty countries around the world charge a
tourism tax in some manner to mitigate the effect of over tourism (Featherstone
2019). Recently, Bhutan, a neighbouring hill country of India, has proposed under
its new tourism policy to levy a Sustainable Development Fee (SDF) for tourists in
sensitive sites where the footfall exceeds the carrying capacity to control the number
of visitors. The idea is to provide better facilities as well as preserve the environment
and local population (Haider 2020). However, there have been reservations on the
effectiveness of such policies in solving environmental problems. The benefits must
be shared between locals and authorities to maximise the socio-economic benefits in
the long-term (Nepal and Nepal 2019). It is equally important to study the willingness
of tourists to pay and the appropriate threshold and quanta of allocation of the funds.
There is less resistance to such fees if they lead to enhanced experiences for the
visitors (Cetin et al. 2017).
Training local community and skill development: Tourism should ‘be sensitive
to local environmental and cultural norms and beliefs for it to be accepted by local
people’ and be sustainable (Farooquee et al. 2008). The residents of the area must
have a sense of satisfaction and acceptance towards visitors; otherwise they may
have a negative impact on the visitor experience. It is necessary to promote a positive
attitude and involvement of the local community (Griffiths and Wiltshier 2019).
‘Landscape fragility and vulnerability needs to be kept in mind while promoting
technology and techniques’ (Sati 2015). If the local stakeholders follow prescribed
norms and rules, adverse impacts can be curbed (Farooquee et al. 2008; Loda and
Macrì 2017). ‘Educational campaigns for awareness of the public regarding suitable
use of water bodies without impairing the water quality are also required’ (Bhatnagar
et al. 2016). The ‘educational institutions and professional bodies’ should be at the
forefront of creating awareness and taking community action (Basak et al. 2015).
Apart from enhancing the sensitivity of tourists, the responsible behaviour of locals