See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/335060811

KAZIRANGA NATIONAL PARK OF INDIA: SOME WILDLIFE AND TOURISM

MANAGEMENT RELATED PRESSING ISSUES

Article · June 2019

CITATIONS READS

2 25,150

3 authors, including:

Pradeep Chaudhry
Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal, India
90 PUBLICATIONS 819 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Pradeep Chaudhry on 09 August 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Jharkhand Journal of Development and Management Studies
XISS, Ranchi, Vol. 17, No.2, June 2019, pp. 8127-8141
KAZIRANGA NATIONAL PARK OF INDIA: SOME WILDLIFE
AND TOURISM MANAGEMENT RELATED PRESSING ISSUES
N. K. Dheerendra Patnaik1, Kunal Sharma2 &
Pradeep Chaudhry3

Kaziranga National Park (KNP) is a world heritage site inhabited

by the world’s largest population of one-horned rhinoceroses. In
addition, it also supports population no tigers, elephants, panthers,
bears, and thousands of birds. As result of sustained conservation
efforts, the estimated number of rhinoceros has increased from 40
in 1911 to more than 2400 in 2018. Floods are regular annual feature
of the park which is spread over Nagaon, Golaghat & Sonitpur
districts of Assam and covers an area of little more than a thousand
square kilometres (482 km2 of core zone and 548 km2 of buffer
zone). Due to chronic flood problem in Brahmaputra river every
year, the park’s management faces an uphill task on one hand,
while poachers and heavy traffic on adjoining national highway
tak e he avy toll of wild animals on the other . Be sides the se,
unregulated tourism in the park has the potential to create problems
in conservation of the wildlife just like other National Parks of the
country. Kaziranga National Park is facing these problems in recent
times and Government of Assam must consider promoting and
publicizing other protected areas of the state to augment their
tourism potential and relieving tourists’ pressure on the park. Some
urgent steps needed for sustainable management of this natural
asset have been discussed in the present article.

Keywords : Natural resource management, protected areas, financial

sustainability, wildlife conservation, sustainable tourism, wildlife
management, Illegal Natural Resource Extractors, Man-Animal
Conflict

Introduction
Kaziranga National Park (KNP) (26°35'–26°45’N and 93°05'–93°40’E)is
located in the floodplain of the Brahmaputra river in the Nagaon,
Golaghat and Sonitpur districts of Assam, India, covering an area of
1030 km² and is the largest protected area on the southern bank of the
Brahmaputra river (Figure1). The terrain of the park is flat (55-75 m
above msl) with an east to west incline. Being in the floodplain of the
Brahmaputra river, the soil of the park is rich in alluvial deposits (Barua
& Sharma, 1999). The park, also declared as a tiger reserve by
Government of India, derives its name from the Karbi language in

1
Indian Institute of Forest Management, Nehru Nagar, Bhopal (MP) – 462003.
E-mail: Dpatnaik20@[Link]
2
Indian Institute of Forest Management, Nehru Nagar, Bhopal (MP) – 462003.
E-mail: Ksharma20@[Link]
3
Indian Institute of Forest Management, Nehru Nagar, Bhopal (MP) – 462003.
E-mail: pradeep@[Link]

8127
8128 Patnaik, Sharma & Chaudhry

which the word ‘Kazi’ means ‘Goat’ or ‘Deer’ and ‘Rangai’ means ‘Red’,
thus meaning ‘the land of red goats or deer’. The Park rests in the
ecologically rich Indo-Malayan Biogeographic realm, complexing the
elements of both the Indian and Malayan origins, giving it a distinct
landscape ranging from woodland–hilly area, woodland- grassland,
grassland-water bodies to river islands. A large number of small rivers
and channels flow through the park from east to west, mostly originating
from the Karbi Anglong hills to the south, run northwards and
ultimately drain into Brahmaputra River, adding to its catchment area.

Figure–1. Locational map of Kaziranga National Park

(adopted from Verma et al., 2015)

The conservation efforts at Kaziranga began in 1908, when it

was notified as a ‘Reserve Forest’, with the primary aim of protecting
the Indian Rhinoceros Rhinoceros unicornis and its habitat (Lahan &
Sonowal, 1973). It was subsequently declared as a ‘Game Reserve’ in
1916, made into a ‘Wildlife Sanctuary’ in 1950 and, finally, declared as
a ‘National Park’ on January 1, 1974. It was also proclaimed as a
UNESCO ‘World Heritage Site’ in 1985 (Figure 2) (Barua & Sharma,
1999).

Figure–2, A country-made wooden sign board at the entry gate

Kaziranga National Park of India 8129

Review of literature
KNP went through three distinct phases of evolution, broadly arranged
into the pre-1930s, 1930s to 1970s and post-1970s, before reaching the
present status of a world renowned National park. While the
conservation mechanisms common to these three phases remain often
overlapped, what became typical of these three phases were their
distinguishing ideological contours of conservation (Saikia, 2009). During
first phase the park conservation story begin with both fauna
conservation and joyful game playing (by the Britishers and local rulers)
a collective role in shaping the growth of KNP. Between 1871 and 1907
Maharaj Nripendra Narayan shot dead more than 370 tigers, 208
rhinoceroses, 430 buffaloes, and 324 barasingha deer (Thapar, 2003).
In 1924, a large number of peasants, in a petition signed by several
hundred from the neighbourhood of the sanctuary, strongly protested
against the very idea of creating a reserve exclusively meant for animals,
and demanded that they be allowed land for cultivation. The second
phase integrated it with a larger science of conservation and continued
to emphasize on the policy of exclusion of local community in
conservation. A conservation framework with the background of some
local wildlife laws and acts based on safeguarding a complex habitat
eco-system could hardly find space in the ideological imperative. The
last and present phase is more driven by larger nationalistic political
compulsions, when various international conservation organizations
exhorted Government of India and state government to protect the rhino.
Over the years the ideological paradigm of wildlife conservation in the
Kaziranga National Park had changed significantly (Saikia, 2009).
As far as biodiversity of park is concerned, the vegetation of the
park may be broadly classified into four categories: (1) Eastern wet
alluvial grasslands; (2) Eastern Dillenia swamp forest; (3) Riparian
fringing forest; and (4) Assam alluvial plains semi-evergreen forest
(Champion & Seth, 1968). According to Kushwaha (1997), wetlands in
the park cover 7%, grasslands cover 57%, sand cover 7%, and woodland
cover 29% of the total area. The vegetation of the water bodies includes
aquatic plants like Andropogon species, Ipomoea reptans, Enhydra
fluctuans, Pistia stratiotes, Lemna paucicostata, and
Eichhorniacrassipes. In the alluvial grasslands the prominent species
of grass are: Phragmiteskarka, Arundodonax, Imperatacylindrica,
Saccharumelephantinus and Erianthusravennae. Short grasses such
as Hemarthriacompressa, Microstegiumciliatum, Cynodondactylon
and Cenchrusciliaris are found around the beels (or shallow lakes, as
called locally). Tree species include Bombax ceiba, Dilleniapentagyna,
Careyaarborea, Trewianudiflora, Tetramelesnudiflora, Lagerstroemia
parviflora, Albiziaprocera, Albizialucida, Phyllanthus officinalis,
Ficusspp, Zizyphus jujuba, and Barringtoniaacutangula
8130 Patnaik, Sharma & Chaudhry

The Kaziranga Tiger Reserve/National Park presents a unique

ecosystem where prescribed burning is used to maintain the vegetation
structure by arresting the seral stage of grassland and preventing
invasion of tree forest. This is done to ensure adequate quantity and
nutritional value of food supply (i.e. grass) to the large population of
various herbivores (Verma et al., 2015). The Kaziranga Tiger Reserve
(or the erstwhile Kaziranga National Park) is known for the charismatic
‘BIGFIVE’. These include Great Indian One Horned Rhinoceros
(Rhinoceros unicornis), Asiatic Wild Buffalo (Bubalus bubalis), Asiatic
Elephant (Elephas maximus), Swamp Deer (Cervus duvauvceli
ranjitsinghi), and Royal Bengal Tiger (Panthera tigris). The Kaziranga
National Park (KNP) is home to about 35 mammal species out of which
15 are threatened and listed under Schedule I of Wildlife (Protection)
Act, 1972. The latest estimates by the forest department peg the numbers
of few species of wild animals as – 2413 One-horned Rhinos (Figure3)
1089 Elephants and 1148 Swamp Deers. The park is full of myriad
species of different insects including butterfly and moths.

Figure–3. One Horned Rhino spotted during safari at Kaziranga

Kaziranga is situated in the Indo-Australian mega fly way of

birds and has at least 479 different avifauna species visiting the tiger
reserve (Barua & Sharma, 1999). The inventory contains 25 species of
global importance of which 23 are critically endangered, endangered or
vulnerable. The park also acts as the roosting and nesting ground for
migratory and indigenous water birds. Vulture population is declining
in India drastically due to various reasons but the population of vultures
in KNP which contains critically endangered long-billed and slender-
billed vultures, has been growing up in recent times (Vasu, 2013).
Objectives of the study
Certain challenges and wildlife management issues of the park have
been discussed in the article. We have discussed about a series of steps
needed for sustainable management of the park.
Kaziranga National Park of India 8131

Methodology and sources of data

The review article is based on literature review, professional experience,
knowledge, field visits and discussion with park officials (mostly during
current year and during last ten years) enabling the authors to compare
park status over last ten years with present one. Certain chronic issues
are presented in below given paras to highlight main challenges faced
by the park authorities.
Observations and findings
There are 733 protected areas in India presently, spreading over an
area of 160901.77 sq km, covering about 4.89% of the country’s area
(Maan & Chaudhry, 2019). These protected areas cover various National
Parks, wildlife sanctuaries, conservation reserves and community
reserves. Kaziranga National Park is one of these protected areas of
the country. This spot is a world heritage site inhabited by the world’s
largest population of one-horned rhinoceroses. In view of the high density
tiger presence in the area and reportedly the only viable population of
tigers in any of the north east India tiger landscapes, the Government
of India approved the constitution of Kaziranga Tiger Reserve in August
2006 (Verma et al., 2015). There are about 60 rivers and small water
channels and about 200 water-bodies in the core area of KNP. Flooding
is an integral part of the ecological system of the tiger reserve. It not
only helps in the maintenance of vegetation status, flooding also
contributes to the process of silt deposition and soil formation. These
river ecosystems are responsible for other challenges discussed in
ensuing paras. Also, the ongoing efforts by various stakeholders are
mentioned towards the end.
The Major Challenges
Flooding and erosion
The Kaziranga National Park is replete with water bodies and gets
inundated by the flood waters every year, due to incessant rains and
upwelling of the water streams (Figure 4). The northern and eastern
parts of the park are generally the most affected as these regions are
dotted by the mighty Brahmaputra. Soil erosion is a serious problem
during every year’s summer floods. As per the records, from 1912 to
the Present, KNP has lost a staggering amount of 149.98 sq Km of
land in all. However, the area gained due to accretion is only 60.85 sq
Km. Floods occur every year, sometimes many times during the year,
submerging 80-90 % of the park area very often, affecting wildlife
considerably. Also, the concern is that while crucial Rhino habitat is
lost to floods and erosion year by year, it takes considerable time to
come to a point when it can support large numbers of the wildlife
population. The point that needs to be noted here is that the larger
8132 Patnaik, Sharma & Chaudhry

threat that looms over the wild animals is not due to sinking in the
floodwaters, but being vulnerable to poaching or being hit by speeding
vehicles as animals cross the National Highway (NH) 37, to seek safe
higher reaches of the Karbi-Anglong Hills during floods. Das, Ahmed,
Lahkar and Sharma (2007) recorded 68 instances of road kills of reptiles
belonging to 21 species and 7 families. Most affected reptiles were snakes
followed by lizards.

Figure–4. A panoramic view of a water body inside park

Road development
Plans are underway to convert the existing NH-37 to a six lane
expressway. If this happens, this linear development may cause a
permanent barrier effect and also increase wild animal mortality. There
is an urgent need to conduct a comprehensive Environmental Impact
Assessment study and develop appropriate mitigation options (Mathur
et al., 2005).
Poaching of rhinos
The killing of rhinos by poachers for the alleged aphrodisiac qualities
and uses in traditional medicines of rhino horn is a serious issue relating
to the survival of this animal in the park (Kushwaha, Roy, Azeem,
Boruah, & Lahan, 2000). In April 2016, poachers killed a rhino just a
few hours after Kaziranga received a visit from Prince William and his
wife the Duchess of Cambridge. The royal couple had visited the park
to bring attention to the importance of protecting endangered species
from poachers and wildlife trafficking (Waggoner, 2016).The poaching
issue also figured in India’s parliament time to time (Javadekar, 2014).
Main challenges and issues in rhino poaching include, recent high
demand for rhino horn in China and Southeast Asian countries,
Insufficient intelligence gathering and field-based action for tracing the
Kaziranga National Park of India 8133

poachers’ networks, permeability of the protected area boundaries and

insufficient anti- poaching camps and patrolling at the border areas,
lack of mechanism for monitoring and protection of straying rhinos
outside the protected areas, low rate of conviction of the suspects due to
improper legal procedures and lack of proper evidence- gathering
mechanism, poor coordination of the forest department with residents,
local organisations and other government agencies in generating support
for conservation and protection and finally delay in release of funds to
the protected areas by the government. Assam forest department has
not recruited sufficient number of rangers and forest guards to strengthen
the field staff in the park. This has resulted in a top-heavy departmental
structure where officers out- number the trained personnel adept at
carrying out conservation duty. There is a need to form armed protection
squads trained by the army along the lines adopted in South Africa,
Namibia and Botswana with modern armaments, electronic surveillance
and vehicles for protection and anti-poaching actions both outside and
inside protected areas.
Encroachment and grazing issues
Encroachment of the park area by growing human population in the
park vicinity is also a major issue. Demand for agricultural land, grazing
and settlement has increased to a manifold. Grazing by domestic cattle
also constitutes a serious threat to wild animals due to possible spreading
of diseases like anthrax, foot & mouth diseases among park animals
(Pathak, 1978; Kushwaha, Roy, Azeem, Boruah, & Lahan 2000).
Construction of dams
According to local news (personal communication), Assam government
is thinking to build big dams over river Bharmaputra in near future.
Dams are considered to bring several advantages including power, better
irrigation and a reduction in the surges of water that cause flooding.
However, from a conservation perspective, reduction in flooding would
have enormous impacts on the ecology of Kaziranga. Many of these
impacts would be detrimental to an ecology that has adapted over
millennia to regular flooding (Mathur et al., 2005).
Urbanization in the area
Urbanization trend in the area of rhino habitat, along the side of NH-
37 is tremendous. Settlements are increasing every year and pose
challenge as they may lead to other harmful activities like expansion
of agriculture, more demand for fodder and firewood, construction of
roads, markets etc. in future (Kushwaha, Roy, Azeem, Boruah, &
Lahan, 2000).There are 23 villages surrounding the park along with
four tea gardens. Another 30 villages are located in the vicinity. The
total human population in the immediate surroundings of the park is
8134 Patnaik, Sharma & Chaudhry

about 70,000 according to the 2001 census report. The tea gardens
located near the park boundaries also create a threat to the preservation
of wild life through pesticide run-off. Hathikuli Tea Estate is a typical
example. During the last 50 years large scale habitat changes in the
Karbi plateau include expansion of tea gardens, human settlement,
logging and shifting agriculture cultivation (Bharali & Mazumdar,
2012).
Invasive weeds and shrinking grasslands
The Kaziranga National Park is a distinct grassland ecosystem, as
such the invasion of tree species like Bombax Ceiba (Semal Tree) is a
serious concern, especially in the grasslands of Central and Western
Ranges. Also, invasive weeds like Ipomoea Carnea and Water Hyacinth
have spread in several water bodies and slowly spreading to the core
areas. These deteriorate the water quality and are detrimental to the
health of the fish. One way the park management deals with this problem
is uprooting the trees and burning them down routinely as part of
Habitat Management. On enquiring as to why the uprooted weeds are
just burnt down instead of being channelized towards any economic
use, the prime reason shared by the officials there was the stringent
provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act (WLPA), 1972 which strictly
restricts the transportation of any forest resource from the precincts of
a protected area to outside the jurisdiction of the protected area.
However, such a measure to protect wildlife runs the risk of improper
and non-judicious use of crucial forest resources. For example, the
Bombax Ceiba species which has multiple uses ranging from extraction
of cotton for making pillows and mattresses to the extraction of plant
parts for the cure of complications like sexual debility, Acid Reflux,
Acne, Arthritis, etc. Now if an uprooted Bombax Ceiba tree is burnt
down rather than utilizing it productively, then the tree’s inherent
value will be lost forever.

Tourist’s pressure
Till the early 1930, the spot (game sanctuary at that time) was hardly
visited by any tourist and completely left to itself by the forest
department. The park got a facelift during the energetic leadership of
A. Milroy, forest conservator of that period, who opened it up for the
visitors in 1938. During the financial year of 1938-1939, the game
sanctuary collected Rs. 305 in the form of rent for hired elephants and
view permits (Saikia, 2009). Presently, revenue collected is more than
Rs. 26 million (Table 1) while tourist population reached 177,431 during
2017-18.
Tourists come from various parts of the world for viewing the
unique wildlife and biodiversity of the National Park. In 2005-06, the
Kaziranga National Park of India 8135

total tourists flow was 54,326, which increased to 1,09,606 in 2009-10

and to 177,431 in 2017-18. On an average 5 percent of the tourists are
foreigners.
The information on the average annual tourist influx of the past
six years (2008-09 to2013-14) is as shown in Table-1 (adopted from Verma
et al., 2015). As revealed from the Table-1, revenue from gate fees is
constantly increasing.
Table–1. Number of tourists and corresponding revenue at KNP

Year Annual influx of tourists Revenue from gate fees

(Rs. million)
2008-09 106151 11.22
2009-10 112844 12.16
2010-11 119839 13.67
2011-12 124932 14.94
2012-13 101165 20.57
2013-14 128435 26.86

The Kaziranga National Park (KNP) has been suffering from

over-exposure in recent years as is evident from the data above. In the
southern part of the Kaziranga National Park, almost seventy private
and public hotels and lodges (there are only four Government lodges)
have been constructed providing hospitality services to the visitors
(Bharali & Mazumdar, 2012).
Man animal conflict
The prominent cases of wild carnivores preying upon domesticated cattle
and animals, which are common in other protected areas of the country
are rare in Kaziranga National Park because of the huge prey base (the
numerous deer and other herbivores) within the park. However, cases
of human elephant conflict are common. The elephant’s natural habitat
in Assam is rapidly diminishing because of increased land clearance
for agriculture and industrial use. Human encroachment has forced
elephants to forage in non-protected areas, thus augmenting the
likelihood of disturbing local people (Talukdar & Barman, 2004). The
increased opportunity for human-elephant encounters has resulted in
many elephants being killed both accidentally ([Link] road accidents or
electrocution) and purposely (i.e. through poisoning), causing the
population in Golaghat district of Assam to decline from 500 individuals
in 1973 to between 160 and 190 in 2006 (Talukdar, Baruah & Lahkar,
2005). Di Fonzo (2007) highlighted the negative association between
proportion of reported house damage and forest cover, thus providing
an incentive for further analyses concerning the elephant’s preferred
food types. In her doctoral study the research scholar further
recommended Joint Forest Management as an alternative income
generation activity to compensate losses in such conflicts. Her study
8136 Patnaik, Sharma & Chaudhry

also showed that human elephant conflict did not lessen with increasing
distance from the park boundary, indicating that additional research
must be carried out on a larger spatial scale to encompass the elephant’s
entire range. She detected intense respect towards elephants by local
Assamese people, which is of considerable importance to their
conservation.
The ongoing efforts
Despite numerous issues and challenges faced by the park authorities
as mentioned above, the Kaziranga National Park is a thriving example
of effective conservation efforts to protect wildlife, and the same can be
seen from the steady rise in the numbers of One- horned Rhinos from
75 in 1905 to more than 2400 in 2018. Moreover, this is commendable
considering the grave challenges of incessant flooding the park faces
almost every year. In fact, the last one hundred years have seen major
conservation successes in Kaziranga National Park, with populations
of many endangered species, including rhino, elephant and tiger rising
and the ecological integrity of the area being maintained, despite high
biotic pressures and stochastic perturbations in the landscape (Mathur
et al., 2005).
To mitigate the situation, considerable efforts have been taken
by the local forest department from time to time. Some of the measures
include pressing speed boats into the service, several rounds of awareness
drives among the fringe villagers, seeking their cooperation and support,
repairing the highlands inside the park so that these can provide shelter
to animals during flood, heightened anti-poaching vigilance through
floating camps and deployment of over 1200 staff members on duty.
The local Forest Department is working rigorously to combat the
problem of Man-Animal Conflict. The forest department boasts of 24×7
patrolling of the park through various modes like Foot, Vehicles, Boats,
Elephants, etc. The department is also deploying drones for monitoring
and surveillance (KNP, 2018). The various Non-Governmental
Organisations are also playing a key role in checking Man- Animal
Conflict. For Example, The Corbett Foundation has taken up the cause
of building solar and bio fences around fields. They also catch up reptiles
that have sneaked into human habitations and release them safely in
the wild. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) is working to create
awareness among the people in fringe villages and supports them through
compensation in case of damage to life and property. The Panthera
Foundation has deployed its own team of spirited guards with
sophisticated equipment to track and arrest the Illegal Natural Resource
Extractors (INREs). Based on this it has even developed a database of
offenders which it shares with other agencies including the forest
department. The Aaranyak Foundation is also working towards
Kaziranga National Park of India 8137

channelizing people in the fringe areas of the park towards alternative

sources of employment. It also maintains a superior and robust Dog
squad to catch offenders of wildlife crime.

Discussion
In light of the wildlife and tourism management related pressing issues
and the various ongoing efforts as mentioned above, the following
additional solutions must be considered and proactively implemented
for effective maintenance of the KNP.
There’s a need to explore and exploit the potential of Joint Forest
Management to resolve the Man-Animal Conflict problem. Also there’s
need to promote Eco-tourism avenues so as to provide alternate
livelihoods to the poachers and their families. Though the avenue of
eco-tourism has started to sprout in and around KNP, the park can try
to emulate initiatives like the ‘Manas Maozigendri Initiative’ which
had played a pivotal role in getting the Manas National Park off the list
of ‘World Heritage Sites in Danger’ in 2011 by leveraging and mobilising
the painstaking efforts by the Bodo community and others in and around
the Park.
For mitigating the problem of Flooding and Erosion, further
measures that could be considered are construction of Swales (linear,
shallow, vegetated drainage features that convey and store surface water
and provide the opportunity for infiltration and water treatment by
encouraging settlement), Planting and Managing Hedgerows at
appropriate places in the park and putting in place a multi-disciplinary
approach eliciting support from experts and other departments to restore
floodplains by way of restoring meanders, setting back of flood banks,
creation of wetlands, habitats for winter species, etc. (YDNPA, 2017).
Also, as suggested by the officials there during our visit, an immediate
measure to save wild animals from poaching and road accidents could
be enforcement of ban on assembly of more than five persons (Section
144 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. PC)) in areas within the park and
its adjoining areas during floods by the district administrations of
Golaghat & Nagaon districts where the park is spanned across. The
District administration could also keep a check on the speed limit of
vehicles plying on NH 37 (Borah, 2015).
There is also a need to re-look at the habitat management practices
of the KNP so that such resources which may not be needed for effective
management of the flora and fauna of the park but are productive
otherwise may be suitably diverted for judicious use. To begin with, a
pan-India enumeration exercise needs to be undertaken across all the
protected areas of the country, to build an inventory of such forest
resources which have productive economic uses but are not utilized
8138 Patnaik, Sharma & Chaudhry

within the precincts of the protected areas. Later, such an inventory

may be appended to the WLPA, 1972 as an Appendix, with the
corresponding amendment made to the Act to effect the utilisation of
such unwanted forest resources outside the precincts of the Protected
Areas, with suitable procedural safeguards built in so as to avoid
exploitation and misuse of such resources. Doing so would help reap
the huge inherent untapped potential of such forest resources which
are otherwise cleared and burnt down for habitat management.
The enormous footfall of tourists in the park (as shown under
Table 1 above) has resulted in several problems which impede pursuance
of the main objectives of establishment of the Kaziranga National Park
– namely conservation of biodiversity. Assam has five National Parks,
viz. Kaziranga National Park, Manas National Park, Orang National
Park, Dibru-Saikhowa National Park, Nameri National Park and
eighteen wildlife sanctuaries. But the tourist inflow pressure is much
higher in Kaziranga National Park as compared to the other National
Parks and Sanctuaries in Assam (modified from Bharali & Mazumdar,
2012). According to the authors there was an urgent need for a strategic
shift of policy on the part of the Tourism and Forest departments so
that a segment of the tourist inflow can be diverted towards other parks
and sanctuaries to lessen the pressure on Kaziranga National Park.
The study used travel cost method and found that the consumer surplus,
which is the difference between the price which one is willing to pay
and the price one actually pays for an average tourist visiting Kaziranga
National Park was equal to Rs. 187 per visit. The authors advocated an
increase in the gate fee to Rs. 187 per visitor from present level to
maximize the revenue collection. By introducing the revenue
maximizing entry fee on the visitors of, the park authorities can solve
two major problems relating to the park, that is, lack of funds for park
conservation/protection and tourist inflow pressure. This is in sync with
the recognition of ‘Tourist Pressure’ as one of the many challenges
mentioned above in this article and we are of the view that the tourism
at KNP needs to be regulated to aid its conservation.

Conclusion
Kaziranga National Park is a unique protected area not only in India,
but perhaps in the whole of Asia (Kushwaha et al., 2000). Therefore, in
order to maintain and govern this natural asset on sustainable basis,
more attention is needed on part of the state and central governments
as discussed in preceding paras. Government of Assam must consider
promoting and publicizing other protected areas of the state to augment
their tourism potential and relieving tourists’ pressure on the park.
The continued survival of Kaziranga National Park over the next years
and consolidation of the conservation successes achieved in the last one
Kaziranga National Park of India 8139

hundred years will therefore depend to a large extent on what happens

beyond the park’s boundaries and in the surrounding landscape. Need
of the hour is to carry out a landscape level strategic environment
assessment so that environmental issues are taken care of properly.

Recommendations
Due to its unique geographical position in India in general and north
east India in particular, Indian Institute of Forest Management (IIFM)
Bhopal conducted an economic valuation study of the park upon the
request of National Tiger Conservation Authority, Government of India,
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. The flow benefits
(mainly carbon sequestration, water provisioning, water purification,
sediment regulation/retention, nutrient cycling/ retention, biological
control, moderation of extreme events, pollination, nursery function,
recreation and gene pool protection) from the park are immense i.e. Rs.
9.76 billion/year as estimated by Verma et al., (2015). According to
authors, during the year 2014-15, overall management costs incurred
in park’s administration was Rs. 48.88 million. Thus, for every rupee
spent on management costs in Kaziranga National Park, flow benefits
of Rs. 200 were realized within and outside the park.
Given such a huge multiplier effect, the ongoing efforts by the
forest department and other Civil Society Organizations must be further
augmented by a strategic shift towards landscape management of the
entire area rather than just the area enclosed within the boundaries of
the park. There’s a need to re-look at few of the development initiatives
which may adversely affect the integrity of the landscape and learn
from the past experiences through the various phases of evolution as
mentioned above as also to adopt best practices from other places to
further the cause of conservation.
The bulk of tourists interested in wild-life tourism, mainly visit
Kaziranga but no other National Parks and sanctuaries in Assam. If a
well-crafted publicity campaign is conducted for the promotion of these
other parks and sanctuaries, besides introducing the revenue
maximization entry fee in Kaziranga National Park, then a large chunk
of visitors would be forced to think beyond Kaziranga National Park
and visit other parks and sanctuaries of Assam.
Secondly, there is an urgent need to carry out a landscape level
strategic environment assessment as envisaged by Mathur et al. (2005)
involving competent national and international agencies to review the
development scenarios which are expected to occur around KNP in near
future like road expansion, dam construction & urbanization of the
region and to ensure that conservation concerns are fully integrated in
the development trajectories.
8140 Patnaik, Sharma & Chaudhry

REFERENCES

Barua, M., & Sharma, P. (1999). Birds of Kaziranga National Park, India. Forktail,
15, 47-60.
Bharali, A., & Mazumdar, R. (2012). Application of travel cost method to assess the
pricing policy of public parks: The case of Kaziranga National Park. Journal
of Regional Development and Planning, 1(1), 44-52.
Borah, A. (2015). Flood threatens Kaziranga. Down to Earth. Retrieved from https:/
/[Link]/news/flood-threatens-kaziranga-41580
Champion, H. G., & Seth, S. K. (1968). A revised survey of the forest type of India.
New Delhi: Government of India publication.
Das, A., Ahmed, M. F., Lahkar, B.P., & Sharma, P. (2007). A preliminary report of
reptilian mortality on road due to vehicular movements near KNP, Assam,
India. Zoo’s Print Journal, 22(7), 2722-2744.
Di Fonzo, M. M. I .(2007. Determining correlates of human-elephant conflict reports
within fringe villages of KNP, Assam. In the thesis submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Research of the
University of London and the diploma of Imperial College. Retrieved from
[Link]
Javadekar, P. (2014). Government to take steps to stop poaching of one horned
rhino. The Ec onomic Time s. Retr ieved from https://
[Link]/news/politics-and- nation/government-to-
take-steps-to-stop-poaching-of-one-horned-rhino/articleshow/[Link]
Kaziranga National Park .(2018).The year of 2017 for Kaziranga National Park.
Retrieved from [Link]
kaziranga-national-park/
Kushwaha, S. P. S. (1997). Remote sensing and GIS in wildlife habitat management.
Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, Dehradun, India.
Kushwaha, S. P. S., Roy, P. S., Azeem, A., Boruah, P., & Lahan, P. (2000). Land
area change and rhino habitat suitability analysis in KNP, Assam. Tigerpaper,
XXVII (2), 09-17.
Lahan, P., & Sonowal, R. N. (1973). Kaziranga wildlife sanctuary, Assam. Journal
of Bombay Natural Historical Society, 7(1), 245-278.
Maan, J. S., & Chaudhry, P. (2019). People and protected areas: Some issues from
India. Animal and Biodiversity conservation, 42(1), 79-90.
Mathur, V. B., Verma, A., Dudly, N., Stolton, S., Hockings, M., & James, R. (2005).
Opportunities and challenges for KNP, Assam over the next fifty years.
Retrieved from [Link]/doi=[Link].8204
Pathak, B. N. (1978). Kaziranga Natioanl park-1978 census report (p.546).
Government of Assam, Department of Forests.
Talukdar, B., & Barman, R. (2004). Current state of man-elephant conflictin Assam:
Solution still elusive. In J. Jayewardene (Ed.), Endangered Elephant, past,
present and future (p. 228). Proceedings of the Symposium on Human
Elephant Relationships and Conflic ts, Sri Lank a, Septe mber 2003.
Biodiversity and Elephant Conservation Trust, Colombo.
Talukdar, B., Baruah. J., & Lahkar, B. (2005). Human– elephant conflict in Assam:
Quest for feasible solution. Guwahati, Assam: Aaranyak.
Saikia, A. (2009). The Kaziranga national park: Dynamics of social and political
history. Conservation and Society, 7(2), 113-129.
Thapar, V. (Ed.). (2003). Battling for survivals: India’s wilderness over two centuries.
Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Vasu, N. K. (2013). Kaziranga Tiger reserve conservation plan (2013-14 to 2022-
23).
Verma, M., Negandhi, D., Khanna, C., Edgaonkar, A., David, A., Kadekodi, G.,
Costanza, R., & Singh, R. (2015). Economic valuation of Tiger reserves in
India: A value+ approach. Indian Institute of Forest Management Bhopal,
 Kaziranga National Park of India 8141

India. A report submitted to National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA),

Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Government of
India.
Waggoner, J .(2016). Assam state in India takes new steps to stop rhino poaching.
In Good Nature Travel. Retrieved from [Link]
state-in-india-takes-new-steps-to-stop-rhino-poaching/
Yo rkshire Dale s National Park Authority, Britain. (2017). Natural flo od
management measures - A practical guide for farmers. Retrieved from
[Link]
11301_flood_management_guide_WEBx.pdf

View publication stats