A Study of Amarkantak Region

Introduction
 The world Pro-poor tourism is coined By the
Department for International Development
(DFID) in 1960 by UK government.
 Pro-Poor Tourism is an innovative idea in
tourism sector that has been introduced to
strengthen economic well being of
communities.
 PPT strategies can be at local, regional or
national level, undertaken by communities,
NGOs, governments, businesses, etc., and
may focus on just one part.
Definitions of PPT
 Pro-poor tourism generates net benefits for
the poor (i.e. benefits are greater than costs).
Not only economic benefits are important, but
other components should also taken care –
social, environmental and cultural costs and
benefits also need to be taken into account.
 Pro-poor tourism strategies are concerned
specifically with positive impacts on poor
people, though the non-poor may also
benefited. Strategies focus less on expanding
the overall size of tourism, and more on
unlocking opportunities for specific groups
within it.
6 Strategies for PPT
 Expansion of business opportunities for the
poor: e.g. have small enterprise
development programmes (training/
support /micro credit) been developed or
markets expanded

 Expansion of employment opportunities for

the poor: e.g. are unskilled jobs created
and available to the poor

 Addressing/enhancing the environmental

impacts of tourism that particularly affect
the poor: e.g. any changes in access of the
poor to land and natural resources.
6 Strategies for PPT
 Building a supportive policy and planning
framework: e.g. encouraging government
approaches that support PPT.
 Developing pro-poor processes and institutions:
e.g. decision-making that includes participation
by the poor (whether in government, at local
level, within a resort/enterprise etc).
 Enhancing the positive and addressing the
negative social and cultural impacts of tourism
on the poor (e.g. sexual exploitation, loss of
identity, women’s economic participation,
improved communication, health, schools,
infrastructure, etc.).
Stake holders of PPT
 Non Governmental organizations

 The Tourist

 International Tourist Organizations

 Aid Agencies

 The Private Sector

 All Departments of the Government

 The Poor ( crux)
Statement of the Problem
 The Amarkantak region is bestowed with
excellent Natural Resources , suitable
infrastructure , viable environs, Hospitable
people, known Pilgrimage center, Spiritual
destination, herbal health centre and known
for Social Movements like Narmada Seva
Yatra.
 Mythological this river is having a great value
than ganga.

 Inspite of having all these unique traits the

destination has failed considerable in
attracting good number of tourists.
Statement of the Problem
 This results in lack of development and not able to
contribute for the empowerment of locals.

 The studies on ( Pro0Poor tourism) PPT was

conducted in African continent and some parts of west
and those studies are only limited to conceptualization
of PPT. There has been hardly any systematic study in
India.

 More over the application of PPT elimination of

poverty and social uplifement and inclusive policy to
the effect have almost neglected in India.
 Thus the present study is essential effort which would
summarise the constructs of PPT specific to the
environs of Amarkantak Region
 The selected constructs are going to be tested for their
validity and reliability both statistically and
conceptually.
 Objectives of the study
 Summarize the constructs of PPT relevant to the
study area.
 To analyze the relationship between select
constructs internally within the gourp and
externally within social economic developments
of the region.
 To identify practical strategies that can be
further developed and tested.
 To develop a model for integrated PPT
promotion in Amarkantak
Literature Review
 Caroline Ashley, Charlotte Boyd and Harold
Goodwin ( 2000) in their article “pro-poor
tourism: putting poverty at the heart of the
tourism agenda” discussed the impacts of PPT on
poor.

 Rebecca Torresa, Janet Henshall Momsenb

,(2004) Challenges and potential for linking
tourism and agriculture to achieve pro-poor
tourism objectives, in this article they argued for
the explicit creation of tourism and agriculture
linkages to achieve pro-poor tourism objectives
Background of the study area
 Amarkantak is a famous pilgrimage of Hindus and it is
situated at the meeting point of Vindhya and Satpura
mountain ranges between 22°41' N latitude and 81°46' E
longitude in the Anuppur district of Madhya Pradesh.

 Amarkantak is a place with a unique natural heritage and rich

in biodiversity.

 The Narmada temple is the most important one, which has

been built around the origin point of the river Narmada.

Amarkantak town has a population of 7466 as per the

provisional figures of census 2011. Amarkantak congregates
a large number of religious tourists of about 17 lakhs average
every year. As per available records, the tourist arrival in
Amarkantak in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 was 12.6 lakhs,
15.54 lakhs, 19.95 lakhs and 19.90 lakhs respectively. This in
flow of tourist is maximized during the festive days.
Proposed Methodology
 Summary of varibales would has obtained the factor
analysis.
Expected Outcomes
 It contributes by increasing the existing body
of knowledge and literature for PPT.
 The integrated model for propoor tourism
would help researchers and policy makers
alike in formulating policy in this region, which
would help any other specific actor to create
associations that product the desired effect
(increase net benefit for poor).
References
 Ashley, C., Boyd, C., & Goodwin, H. (2000). Pro-poor tourism:
putting poverty at the heart of the tourism agenda.
 Chok, S., Macbeth, J., & Warren, C. (2007). Tourism as a tool for
poverty alleviation: A critical analysis of ‘pro-poor tourism’and
implications for sustainability. Current issues in Tourism, 10(2-
3), 144-165.
 Torres, R., & Momsen, J. H. (2004). Challenges and potential for
linking tourism and agriculture to achieve pro-poor tourism
objectives. Progress in Development Studies, 4(4), 294-318.
 Goodwin, H. (2009). Reflections on 10 years of Pro‐Poor
Tourism. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and
Events, 1(1), 90-94.
 Michot, T. (2010). Pro-poor tourism in Kumarakom, Kerala,
South India: Policy implementation and impacts. Journal of
Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences, 3, 1-23.