1. University of Rajshahi, Bangladesh; mdhHarisl2010@gmail.com
2. University of Rajshahi, Bangladesh; saifFaisal7@gmail.com

*             Correspondence: mdhHarisl2010@gmail.com

Keywords: eco-tourism, socio-cultural, local culture, Everest region

1. INTRODUCTION

A number of developing nations have made tourism development a priority in order to spur economic expansion through the sustainable utilization of their natural and cultural resources. Indigenous peoples who live in areas that are popular tourist destinations are frequently drawn to tourism development for the express purpose of reaping the industry’s associated socioeconomic benefits. It is expected that sustainable tourism will not only make a contribution to economic development, but will also bring about changes in the environmental and sociocultural characteristics of the communities that it visits (Duffy, 2021). The mountain region of Nepal is the most popular tourist destination in the country, particularly for mountaineering, trekking, and the exploration of the country’s diverse indigenous culture and wildlife. The growth of tourism has had a significant impact, especially on the communities that are located in mountainous regions. The Everest trail, which is considered to be the most well-known hiking path in the world, can be found in Sagarmatha National Park (SNP), which is situated in the High Himalayas. Due to the extremely high numbers a significant number of indigenous people live within or close to protected areas; the rapid growth of tourism has had an impact on their way of life as well as their culture, architecture, heritage, economy, and environment. There have been significant socio-cultural, architectural, economic, and environmental changes in several settlements around the Everest Trail in the High Himalayan region as a result of tourism development over the course of more than six decades (Bhatta, 2019). This has occurred in addition to changes in land use, shape and size. In light of this, the purpose of this paper is to conduct an in-depth analysis of the effects that tourism has on the local culture, architecture, and heritage from the perspective of the local community, as well as to investigate potential strategies for the preservation of cultural heritage and architecture in the context of the communities that are located near the Everest Trail in Sagarmatha National Park in Nepal. It focuses on the socio-cultural effects of ecotourism and critically examines the question of whether or not local culture, architecture, and heritage have been preserved or have suffered as a result of an increase in tourism (Nepal, 2003).

2. LITEATURE REVIEW

Tourism is a change agent (Wall, 1996), and the impacts of tourism are revealed in the changes that it causes. These impacts are typically measured in terms of how positively (beneficially) or negatively (damagingly) tourism affects an area. According to Mathieson and Wall (1982), the impacts are the result of the intricate interrelationships that exist between the natural environments, the communities that are hospitable to tourists, and the host communities. Several academics, such as Bhatta (2019), Bhatta and Chan (2013), Boo (1993), Nyaupane and Thapa (2004), Stone and Wall (2003), and Weaver (1998), have conducted research on the potential effects that tourism could have on the communities that are visited. The quality of the attraction, the degree of accessibility, the regulations, the management, and a myriad of other factors all play a role in the wide range of impacts. Extensive research has shown that tourism not only brings enormous socio-cultural impacts, but also plays an important role in the economic development of a region (Hall & Lew, 1998; Lindberg et.al., 2001; Pizam & Milman, 1984; Smith 1989). These findings have been confirmed by academics. According to Pizam and Milman (1984), socio-cultural impacts can be defined as “the ways in which tourism is contributing to changes in value systems, individual behavior, family relationships, collective lifestyles, moral conduct, creative expressions, traditional ceremonies and organizations.” It demonstrates that the changes that have occurred in communities may be structural in nature, such as shifts in means of subsistence and increases in population, as well as shifts in intangible heritages. Many other academics, such as Fox (1977), Honey (1999), Nepal (2003), and Bhatta (2019), have proposed definitions that are very similar to this one. The interaction between a host and a guest, as well as the differences in their fundamental values and logic systems, religious beliefs, traditions, customs, way of life, behavioral patterns, dress codes, sense of time budgeting, and attitudes towards strangers, are what bring about the socio-cultural changes or impacts in local communities (Inskeep, 1991). These changes can be seen in both the host and the guest. The extent of the socio-cultural impacts is partially determined not only by the activities that tourists partake in but also by the length of time they spend interacting with the communities that they visit. Scholars such as Cater (1987), Butler (1990), and Wearing (2001) have strongly argued that the longer the duration of a tourist’s stay in the destination, the more the tourist will understand of the host community, and also accelerate the changes on the socio-cultural pattern of the host. This is because the longer the duration of a tourist’s stay, the more time the tourist has to become immersed in the culture of the host community. It demonstrates that the host-guest interaction can either lead to an improved reputation and visibility of the host community among Eco tourists or it can also be excessively intrusive and harmful, despite the fact that tourists may have the best intentions possible (Wearing, 2001). An increase in the number of tourists and their interaction with the communities that host them can bring about a variety of positive changes on the ground, including the following: new services and facilities become available to the host populations, which are actually developed to cater to an increasing number of tourists; local businesses and economies benefit from increased tourism. According to Diamantis (2004), when arts, traditions, and cultural activities are revitalized and preserved as a tourism product, the attitudes of both locals and tourists towards one another have the potential to improve. In addition to this, the tourism industry has created new employment opportunities for women and young people, which has contributed to their economic autonomy and integration into society. Alternately, in some instances, cultural attractions become overtly commercialized in nature as a result of commoditization. This satisfies the needs of visitors, but the attractions lose all of their meaning and significance for the communities in which they are located (Wearing, 2001). In addition, scholars have reported something called the “demonstration effect,” which is the opposite of cultural revival. This effect occurs when local people imitate the behavior and way of life of tourists in order to become more westernized like tourists (de Kadt, 1979; Mathieson & Wall, 1982).According to deKadt (1979), this impact is supposedly caused in large part by perceived power differentials between visitors and locals in the community. Furthermore, according to Wall and Mathieson (2006), the cultural issues that arise from interactions between tourists and local communities can also be understood in terms of assimilation, acculturation, and cultural drift. In many instances, tourism is to blame for the emergence of social issues in the local communities. For instance, Campbell (1999) found that tourism had a negative impact on Costa Rica, including increased rates of drug use, disorder, prostitution, crime, foreign land ownership, and over-development. The influx of tourists and other outsiders, such as businesspeople and laborers, also makes the overcrowding situation worse. This can cause locals to be pushed to the outskirts of the area where tourism activities are taking place, and it can also cause tensions between locals and outsiders who are competing for the same tourism opportunities. Physical displacement may also reduce the local access to the PA resources and the local benefits from ecotourism. It may also contribute to power differentials between tourists and local people, which can further lead to separation and antagonistic relations between the two groups. These socio-cultural impacts of ecotourism on the host communities can be evaluated through proper judgement on changes in the population structure, transformations of types of occupations, transformations of values, influence on traditional ways of life, and modifications on consumption patterns of local people (Wearing, 2001). The identification and analysis of impacts, on the other hand, are dependent on value judgements (Eagles, 2001), and the person or group that makes the judgement is an essential part of the decision-making process. This is an essential point to keep in mind. To this end, it is essential to promote long-term sustainability through an appreciation of local communities, as well as their various customs and traditions, as a means of fostering mutual respect and an understanding between various societies. There is no question that there is a range of opinions concerning the effects that ecotourism has on the communities that it visits. Scholars have pointed out that the development of ecotourism has, in some instances, been met with organized protests from local communities who want to make certain that the projects are not implemented in their respective areas. On the other hand, the growing dependence of communities on ecotourism as a source of economic revenues and benefits renders them unable to oppose the development of ecotourism. In this regard, the questions of who gets benefits, and to what extent, are an essential concern specifically for maintaining the growth of ecotourism at the destinations. It is a widely held belief that once communities start reaping more benefits from tourism development, they will maintain their support for the industry’s expansion. Therefore, the perspectives and reactions of local communities towards the development of ecotourism are essential for achieving superior outcomes and ensuring the industry’s continued viability over the long term. According to Bhatta (2014), the interaction that locals have with tourists and the potential repercussions of tourism play a significant role in shaping both the locals’ perceptions of tourism and their attitudes towards it. According to Murphy (1985, page 120), attitudes are both complex and personal; however, in terms of community attitudes, there are three primary determinants. The first thing to consider is the manner in which residents and guests interact with one another. The second factor is the individual’s and the community’s relative level of importance to the industry, and the third factor is a threshold for acceptable levels of risk. The reaction of local communities to tourism has been the subject of investigation using a variety of different models. One of the first models was called the “Irritation Index,” and it was proposed by Doxey (1976). Doxey believed that community attitudes towards tourism passed through a series of stages, including euphoria, apathy, irritation, and antagonism, with the final stage being when a community was undermined and the destination lost its appeal (Telfer & Sharpley, 2008). It indicates that local perceptions of tourism impacts are linked with the stages of development. For instance, positive attitudes are found at less developed destinations or at the initial stage of tourism; however, as the number of tourist’s increases, they may perceive negative impacts and become opposed to the tourism development (Bhatta, 2014). Dogan (1989) evaluated the response of local communities towards tourism from resistance to adoption of western culture. He proposed four categories of local responses, such as resistance, retreats, boundary maintenance, and adoption, based on his findings from a cross-cultural study of European tourists vacationing in Turkey. The social exchange theory, which was proposed by Ap (1992) to explain local attitudes towards tourism development, is the primary theoretical foundation for these studies, despite the fact that several models have been used to examine community perceptions and responses. According to this line of thinking, people’s perspectives are shaped by their understandings of the advantages (or positive impacts) that come with the expansion of tourism. (Lee & Back, 2006) found that local residents evaluate tourism in terms of the expected benefits and costs obtained in return for their services, which is social exchange. According to Telfer and Sharpley (2008), residents who view themselves as benefiting from tourism are more likely to have a favorable attitude towards the industry, whereas residents who view themselves as incurring costs due to tourism are more likely to have an unfavorable attitude. In spite of this, ever since Ap’s (1992) research, social exchange theory has seen widespread application in assessing local attitudes and perceptions regarding tourism. Studies that link positive attitudes towards tourism development with economic benefits (Lee & Back, 2006; Walpole & Goodwin, 2001) are the ones that have provided the most consistent evidence that this theory is correct. Nevertheless, gaining an understanding of local attitudes is not as simple as comparing the perceived benefits and drawbacks of a situation. Local attitudes and perceptions are influenced by a number of other factors in addition to the stage of tourism development. One such factor is demographic variables, which influence attitudes indirectly through values (Lindberg & Johnson, 1997). Another factor is the stage of tourism development. Attitudes are also related with individual’s characteristics such as level of contact with tourists, length of residence at destination, ethnicity (Liu & Var, 1986), economic dependency (Milman & Pizam, 1988), education, and many other aspects of an individual’s life. People in the community may continue to support ecotourism development if they believe the perceived benefits of ecotourism will outweigh the costs in the future.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study employs a qualitative approach with descriptive and explanatory methods. The high Himalayan settlements located around the Sagarmatha National Park (SNP) are selected for detailed investigation. Multiple methods of data collection such as questionnaire survey with households (n=195), semi-structured interview with key informants (n=8), participant observation, informal discussion and documentation analysis have been used. The set of questionnaires were designed with open and close ended questions that provided respondents an opportunity to express their opinions and suggestions. A 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5) has been used in evaluating perceived socio-cultural impacts of tourism. Besides impacts, the scale varies according to set of questions and its objectives. Documentation consisted of collection of written documents from the official records, relevant publications, reports, photographs and videos. Extensive discussion and field notes were carried out through in-depth interviews, participant observation, and informal discussion. A primary field survey was conducted during February 2012 to understand local context of the study area, and an in-depth field survey was conducted during September to November 2012, the peak seasons for tourists in the Everest region. The author visited the Everest region twice again on September 2015 and 2019 to explore new architectural development and perceived impacts in the settlements. The stratification criteria such as location of households, type of enterprise, use of the building and the household activities were used during the selection of survey unit. Considering the spatial context, households were selected from the Major Trail (MT) i.e. major streets in the settlements as well as from off-the trail (OT) i.e. secondary or branch streets in the settlements. These were selected as survey units through stratified random sampling. The approximate distance of a peripheral household from main trail is supposed to be 500 meters (maximum). Households representing both the locations were selected specially to understand the perceptions and attitudes of households towards tourism impacts on local culture, heritage and architecture. In addition, the type of use of the building and the engagement of households in specific activities were considered as criteria for selecting the households as a survey unit. Local perceptions towards significance of local culture and heritage, and socio-cultural impacts in their life are examined. The perceived socio-cultural impacts are examined with regard to: (i) Local values, customs and identity (i.e. change in traditional values and customs; and change in family relationship and cohesiveness) (ii) Local art, craft, and heritage conservation (i.e. appreciation and revival of traditional art and crafts; conservation of local architecture, heritage and overall built environment; and codes of conduct) (iii) Cultural exchange and appreciation (i.e. interaction, intercultural appreciation and harmony between tourists and local community; education, and interpretation facilities) (iv) Crime and vandalism (i.e. use of drug, sexual harassment, vandalism and other crimes) and (v) Quality of life (i.e. social services and facilities).

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Scholars are increasingly concerned about the rapid development of tourism and its socio-cultural sequences on the lives of indigenous people (Pizam & Milman, 1984; Hall & Lew, 1998; Lindberg et.al., 2001). Assumed to be a benign idea, ecotourism maximize social benefits while minimizing socio-cultural costs. The impacts of tourism development on the local culture, heritage, architecture and other socio-cultural aspects of community are discussed critically with reference to the views and perceptions of local communities in the Everest region.

3.1 Significance of Local Culture and Heritage

Indigenous culture, heritage and social attributes play an important role in the promotion of ecotourism development in the rural destinations (Chan & Bhatta, 2019). Rural destinations provide tourists a unique and authentic experience of indigenous culture and heritage. In case of settlements of Everest region, majority of respondents acknowledged that Sherpa culture, tradition, and heritage are crucial for promoting ecotourism development. Survey findings demonstrated that about 81.1% respondents in ET believed their culture and tradition significant in attracting tourists in their settlements. Comparatively, higher proportion of respondents in MT (86.1%) perceived their culture and tradition crucial in promoting tourism development than that of OT (69%). Local residents also perceived their built heritage and archaeological sites as important attributes for tourism development in the region. The survey results revealed that majority of respondents in ET (81%) perceived their architectural heritage significant in attracting tourists. Relatively, higher proportion of respondents in MT perceived built heritage more crucial for attracting tourists and promoting ecotourism development than that of OT. Majority of Sherpa residents considered their culture and architectural heritage crucial assets for promoting ecotourism and sustainable development in their settlements.

3.2 Community perceptions towards socio-cultural changes in their life

Research findings reported that majority of respondent perceived tourism as an agent of socio-cultural changes. Survey results reveal most of the respondents (89.2%) acknowledged that tourism has changed their socio-cultural life, however in a varying degree. Only 6.2% believed there was no change in their socio-cultural attributes, while 4.6% didn’t know about it. Comparatively, higher proportion of respondents in MT (41.6%) perceived significant (‘a lot’) changes in their socio-cultural attributes than that of OT (13.8%). However, slightly higher proportion of respondents in OT (58.6%) perceived these changes minor than that of MT (54.7%). Overall, it is explicit that tourism has changed socio-cultural life of local communities in MT and OT in a varying degree (from ‘a little’ to ‘a lot’). Households were also asked how they view tourism-induced socio-cultural changes. It is found that most of them perceived the changes positively (78.2%), and rest perceived mixed views both ‘good and bad’ (21.3%), and ‘very bad’ (0.6%). Higher proportion of respondents in OT perceived these changes positively (88.1%) than that of MT (74.6%). The positive changes are reported as increase in social facilities and services; inter-cultural interaction and appreciation; awareness of local culture and heritage; and exposure and understanding of foreign culture (Bhatta, 2014). On the other hand, negative changes include loss of traditional socio-cultural activities, gatherings and interaction among local residents. Akin to socio-cultural changes in the life of individual households, majority of respondents (95.9%) also acknowledged that tourism has changed their community as well. Over half of the respondents (59.5%) rated these changes as major (‘a lot’) while 36.4% viewed as minor (‘a little’). Those respondents who replied on the socio-cultural changes in their community (n=186) were further asked how they viewed such changes. Overall, only 37.1% respondents perceived the impacts positively; majority (61.3%) had mixed views (‘good and bad’); and rest (1.6%) perceived negatively. Comparatively, respondents in OT (48.3%) are more likely positive with the changes than that of MT (29.9%). On the other hand, percentage of respondents perceiving changes both ‘good and bad’ is comparatively higher in MT (67.2%) than that of OT (37.9%). Tourism has indeed brought significant socio-cultural changes in the community, and majority of respondents perceived them both positively and negatively (‘good and bad’). It is true that tourism in MT has induced both positive and negative impacts on the residents and community; however the level of tourism impacts on socio-cultural aspects is comparatively less in OT than MT.

3.3 Impacts on Local Culture, Traditions, and Architectural Heritage

It is widely recognized that appropriate planning of ecotourism support revival of indigenous culture, traditions, and architectural heritage specifically through education, awareness, skill development, and financial contribution (Chan & Bhatta, 2013). With regard to settlements along the Everest trail, survey results revealed that most of the respondents perceived tourism both positively and negatively specifically for its contribution in the preservation of local culture, traditions, and architectural heritage. Acknowledging the widespread impacts of tourism on the local communities including the cultural heritage, Sherpas have become increasingly aware of their indigenous culture, traditions, and heritage. Majority of households (90.3%) perceived that their feeling of pride and respect towards their culture and traditions has increased because of tourism development. However, with regard to the revival of cultural heritage, only 15.9% respondents believed that indigenous arts, crafts, customs and heritage have been revived, while majority (65.1%) disagreed and rest (19%) were unsure. There also exist difference in the perceptions of residents in MT and OT. For example, about 20.4% respondents in MT agreed with the revival of local culture, heritage, and arts and crafts through tourism development, while in OT only 5.2% did so. Majority of households in both areas (OT: 69%, & MT: 63.5%) also disagreed with the statement. The difference in the perception of residents could be because of their different levels of involvement and integration in tourism industry. Economic benefit of tourism is also one of the key factors determining the resident’s perceptions intermural destinations. Since residents along MT generally receive higher economic benefit from tourism than residents in OT (or peripheral region); they perceived tourism development more positively than that of OT. It also suggests that cash income from tourism and influence (dominance) of tourists has affected the Sherpas’ way of living and socio-cultural process in the Everest. Belonging to a Nyingmapa sect of Tibetan Buddhism, local Sherpas exhibit rich Buddhist traditions, ritual processes, and socio-cultural activities. Rapid growth of tourism has affected the continuity of local cultural activities; traditional dances, songs, and ceremonies are not frequently celebrated by the Sherpas. Although Sherpas consists unique folk dance, songs, dresses, and cultural activities; these are not yet developed as a tourism product. There seems a decreasing trend of Sherpas participating in the celebration of local festivals and ceremonies, essentially because of their involvement in tourism activities. Local Sherpas being the mountaineering professionals, stay out of their family most of the time, sometimes over 10 months, which has brought problems in Sherpa families and their community lifestyle. The increasing involvement of Sherpas including youths into tourism industry has pushed them towards western culture, lifestyle, and behavior which have essentially threatened sense of cultural continuity, authenticity and ethnicity of the Everest Sherpas. With increase in economic benefits from tourism, some Sherpas specifically youths have adopted tourist’s way of life spending huge amount of money in the bars and pubs. The development in the Everest region is largely tourist-centric with no attention towards Sherpa way of life, indigenous cultural activities, and authenticity. This is one of the key examples demonstrating changes in indigenous communities and their cultural identity brought by the influence of tourism and globalization. There is indeed a decreasing trend of Sherpas to participate in their cultural activities. With growing influence of western culture, indigenous culture has been increasingly neglected by Sherpa youths who involve in tourism or live in Kathmandu or abroad. Similar to Butler’s life cycle (1980), research findings also suggest that the authenticity of Sherpa culture and heritage would be lost with rapid increase in tourism and growing influence of tourists, if proper planning interventions are not taken on time. Stressing on the need of educational awareness among local youths, one of the executive members of Youth Club in Namche, who is also a tourism entrepreneur, commented that:

“There is indeed a growing trend of adopting tourist culture while neglecting the local traditions and customs specifically by the Sherpa youths. To educate and aware local youths about the significance of our identity and culture, Youth Club and other local organizations have started awareness campaigns for the youths. We have also asked all the Sherpas to wear traditional dress in the major cultural activities such as Dumje, and Mani Rimdu. We have also started promoting Sherpa culture as tourism products by organizing cultural activities for tourists, mostly in low tourist seasons”

This statement clearly signifies that Sherpas have been attracted towards tourist culture. It is further validated from the findings of the households’ survey such as majority of respondents in (97.4%) agreed with statement “locals are inclined towards tourist culture”. As deKadt (1979) and Mathieson and Wall (1982) pointed that copying of tourist way of life, habits and culture to become more westernized like tourists by the indigenous people is the ‘demonstration effect of tourism’; which is also observed in the Sherpa community. The changes in socio-cultural values and culture of Sherpas, although, would have been partly by the introduction of radio, televisions, newspaper and migratory patterns of locals to the cities such as Kathmandu and foreign countries; tourism is the key factor accelerating the change in their socio-cultural values and attributes (Bhatta, 2014). Certainly, local Sherpas have been increasingly motivated towards financial benefits of tourism with less attention towards family life, cohesiveness and kinship among locals. The strong family cohesion and communal life existed in the past is being changed into individualistic life. About 40.5% respondents agreed that tourism has increased negative changes in family relationship and their cohesiveness. Similar percentage of respondents was unsure (neutral) and rest (19%) fully disagreed. Besides changes in family cohesiveness and communal life, another substantial change brought by tourism development is the transformation of built structure, space, and the physical environment along the trail. Rapid growth of tourism has significantly transformed the shape, size, functional characteristics, and architecture of the settlements. The hotels, lodges, restaurants, and residences along the trail have been designed and constructed in an alien architectural style, building materials and technology. These buildings have neither addressed the features of local Sherpa architecture nor considered socio-cultural essence of Sherpa villages and communal life (Bhatta, 2014). On the contrary, interview with tourists revealed that majority of tourists prefer to experience genuine features of Sherpa culture and traditions including local foods, architecture, and cultural activities. One of the members of the BZMC commented that:

“Almost all the lodges, hotels and other buildings in the MT are constructed largely in non-local architectural style but equipped with modern facilities. Despite more flexible space and rooms, most of these buildings have lost vernacular identity of Sherpa architecture, culture, and society. They have introduced RCC technology, asbestos sheets, and glasses in the buildings to show their appearance more like western (modern) type. These buildings, in fact, are not climate responsive as they are too cold and consume high amountofenergy to warm the rooms as compared to traditional Sherpa houses. Moreover, Sherpas have invested large amount of money to construct these buildings as the new materials need to be transported from outside the Everest region specifically from Kathmandu via helicopter or pottering. The average cost for the construction of a lodge or hotel in the Everest region is usually 50-60 million NRS. The competition to secure high status in the society encouraged many Sherpas to invest high amount in the construction of lodge with modern facilities. One of the key reasons is that most of the entrepreneurs believe tourists prefer to live in quality hotels and lodges rather than traditional Sherpa house”.

Certainly, construction of modern hotels and lodges with new scale and appearance has changed the built environment of the Sherpa settlements along the trail. Many Sherpas are aware of preservation of their culture, traditions, and customs; however they have not followed these norms in practice. It is because of the different forces of tourism market, influence of globalization, change in their socio-economic status and lack of knowledge in marketing local heritage as a tourism product. Introduction of bars, pubs, massage, and other modern facilities in these remote settlements are the result of these forces. Another significant reason is the economic benefits from tourism, such as most of the entrepreneurs provide western cuisine which is comparatively expensive and more profitable than local foods. Key informants also suggested that local culture, architecture and environment have been severely affected by tourism development. Lack of proper regulations, architectural control, and awareness are also the key reasons accelerating degradation of local culture and architecture. It is arguably concluded that local architecture, built heritage and traditional identity of Sherpa ethnicity have been threatened by the uncontrolled and unplanned growth of tourism. The increasing tendency of Sherpa youths and tourism entrepreneurs to abandon their tradition, customs, values and heritage and to copy tourist attire, behavior and culture clearly indicate that tourism has adversely affected cultural heritage.

Figure 01: Namche Bazaar

Figure 02: Construction of a House at Namche

Figure 03: Monastery at Tengboche

Figure 04: Chorten along the Everest Trail

Figure 05: Traditional Sherpa House at Namch

Figure 06: Traditional Skills and Households Activiti

 Unlike cultural degradation caused by mass tourism, ecotourism is considered supportive to promote inter-cultural appreciation and protection of cultural heritage. Interaction among host (residents) and guest (tourists) is therefore inevitable to foster cultural continuity and identity of the local residents. The indigenous communities thus need to be considered as an integral part of the national park, not merely an anthropological museum of pieces but as living centers. Research findings revealed most of respondents in ET (62.6%) agreed that interaction between tourists and local community has increased cultural exchange and respect to each other, whereas 9.2% disagreed and rest (28.2%) were unsure. Comparatively, higher proportion of respondents in MT (64.9%) agreed with the statement than that of OT (56.9%). Since, the respondents in OT are also adjacent to MT, most of them participated in tourism activities and got exposure to tourist’s culture. As highlighted by scholars such as Butler (1990) and Wearing (2001), more the duration of interaction between host and guest, more will be the understanding of local culture, and thereby respect each other and appreciate socio-cultural values. Eco tourists are usually assumed to perform responsible and purposeful visit to protected areas, and also expected to appreciate local culture and heritage of the indigenous communities. In case of ET, most of the respondents (67.7%) agreed that tourist’s stay in their communities has increased the appreciation of local culture and heritage. Similarly, about 68.7% in MT, and 65.7% in OT perceived tourism positively in appreciating Sherpa ethnic culture and traditions. With regard to overall satisfaction of residents towards tourist’s behavior, findings revealed that majority of respondents (73.3%) are satisfied with tourist behavior. Respondents in MT (78.8%) seem more likely positive with tourist behavior than that of OT (60.3%). It seems that respondents did not perceive tourist’s behavior so negatively. It is because most of the respondents depend largely on trekking and mountaineering activities, and economic benefits from tourism might have outweighed its cultural impacts. Key informants and some local entrepreneurs were more conscious about negative impacts of tourism in the indigenous culture and traditions. It’s ironic that while tourists respect local culture, traditions and heritage of Sherpas; increasing number of residents specifically youths are neglecting their culture but adopting tourists’ culture and their way of life. It is therefore essential to educate, aware, and encourage local youths to respect, preserve, and practice their local culture, spiritual values and traditions to sustain cultural continuity.

3.4 Education and Awareness Activities

Education and awareness activities are the fundamentals of ecotourism development for promoting sustainability. Ross and Wall (1999a, b) asserted that these activities are the backbone of ecotourism development enhancing mutual understanding between tourists and locals, and thereby increase respect towards indigenous culture, traditions and heritage. Indigenous communities should be able to properly communicate and interact with tourists specifically to aware them about local lifestyle, culture and indigenous identity (Bhatta, 2014). With more than half century’s association with westernization, and opportunities to travel abroad, the local Sherpas have learned many western and oriental languages, and acquired new tastes. It is common for a Sherpa guide to speak 6-9 languages and to be able to prepare a variety of dishes uncommon to the Everest region (Sherpa, 1985). It is, however, not the case for other Sherpas specifically farmers and non-entrepreneurs. Findings of household’s survey revealed that only 37.4% respondents agreed with the statement “local people can easily interpret their culture and social activities to tourists”, while 36.4% disagreed, and rest (26.2%) were unsure. Comparatively, higher proportion of respondents in MT (41.6%) agreed with the statement than that of OT (27.6%). It could be because tourism entrepreneurs and trekking and mountaineering professionals mostly live along MT and frequently interact with tourists than the residents in OT. In addition, most of the residents seem positive towards tourists’ behavior and culture and commented that tourism has provided opportunities to explore foreign culture in their own villages. It is true that Sherpas have learnt many positive things from tourists such as cleanness, mutual respect, hospitality, respect to local culture and traditions and foreign languages (Bhatta, 2014). Sherpas are, in fact, well-connected to rest of the world and also aware of new issues arising at national and global tourism industry. They interact with the most educated tourists such as professors, scientists, researchers, doctors, engineers, and many others from different part of the globe; tourism has provided them numerous learning opportunities. More specifically, Sherpa life in the Everest actually revolves around tourism, and tourism development would not be possible without the support of Sherpas. Local culture, architecture and lifestyle have been strongly portrayed in the tourist information Centre as well as private cultural museum at Namche. These two centers have become key tourist attractions in Namche. Some lodges and hotels have also prepared brochures and maps to inform tourists about Sherpa culture, heritage, and traditions along with natural resources. The survey result showed only 18.5% respondents perceived that the educational facilities such as museum, maps and information are well established in the ET, whereas majority (63.1%) disagreed, and rests (18.5%) were unsure. Nearly similar proportions of respondents in both areas agreed (MT: 19%, & OT: 17.2%), and disagreed (MT: 62.8%, & OT: 63.7%) with the statement. It arguably suggests that there is a need for implementing more effective information and educational awareness programs about local culture, traditions, heritage, arts and crafts, and socio-cultural life of Sherpa people (Bhatta, 2014).

3.5 Impacts on Quality of life of Local Communities

Significant proportion of respondents believed that tourism has significantly improved social facilities and overall quality of life in the Everest region. Since the first successful ascent of Mt Everest, the local Sherpas have received widespread recognition from the tourists specifically the westerners. Trekking and mountaineering activities thus brought a momentum for the development of local communities and the region. In cooperation with local and national government, several international organizations have implemented different development projects both for the ease of tourists as well as the local communities. The collaborative efforts of several I/NGOs, PA authority, and local communities along with international tourists have played crucial role to develop social facilities such as school, health post, electricity, drinking water, and other services. Survey findings in the ET revealed that majority of respondents (99%) agreed with the statement “tourism has brought significant improvement in the social facilities and infrastructure (education, health, and telecommunication) for locals”. About 98.5% respondents in MT and all from OT (100%) agreed with this statement. Undoubtedly, it is one of the most crucial changes that tourism has brought to the local communities. Additionally, majority of respondents in ET (overall: 86.9%); MT (87.6%) and OT (84.5%) perceived that tourism has increased their happiness and quality of life. However, on the other hand, despite its significant benefits to local communities, tourism has also been perceived as an agent to increase crime, and use of alcohol and drug in the villages. Significant proportion of respondents (ET: 34.3%; MT, 33.5%; & OT, 36.2%) agreed with this statement. Several residents acknowledged that alcoholism and addiction of drug is not only increased among tourists but also significant number of trek guides, porters, and local youths has been involved. Almost every hotel, lodge, restaurants and grocery shop sell alcohol. The operation of pubs and bars along the trail justify the increasing influence of tourist’s culture (negative impacts) on local communities and their way of life.

4. CONCLUSIONS

According to the findings of a recent study, tourism in the Everest region, which is home to settlements located high in the Himalayas, has had both positive and negative effects on the architecture, heritage, and socio-cultural characteristics of the area’s inhabitants. The enhancements have been made to the various social facilities and infrastructure, such as the school, the health post, the drinking water, the telecommunications, the electricity, the trekking trails, and the information. However, on the other hand, the rapid growth of tourism poses a significant risk to the originality and significance of the local culture, traditions, and architectural heritage. This is especially the case in some countries. To be more specific, the Sherpas’ cultural identity as well as their authenticity is in jeopardy. The lack of comprehensive policies on sustainable ecotourism and the preservation of cultural heritage (both tangible and intangible) is one of the primary reasons for this situation. The current state of affairs in the Everest region can be attributed to the unplanned and uncontrolled growth of tourism, as well as a lack of education and awareness regarding the preservation of cultural heritage among local residents and those involved in the tourism industry. Sherpa communities are facing a crisis of cultural identity and authenticity due, in no uncertain terms, to a lack of proper by-laws and control on the construction of private buildings, as well as no specific attention towards continuing the vernacular architecture and cultural practices. However, the conservation of biodiversity is given the highest priority, and less attention is paid to continuing socio-cultural attributes, preserving the authenticity of Sherpa culture, and the management of tourism in a sustainable way. These activities hasten the erosion of the socio-cultural characteristics of the people who live in the area. It is important to note that the better the implementation of conservation policies of local culture and heritage, the better the tourism situation will be in the Everest region, which would eventually benefit local communities and promote their sustainability. This is something that is worth noting. As a result of this, it is recommended that there is a requirement of formulating and implementing a comprehensive policy of conservation of local cultural heritage and sustainable tourism, as well as adopting an inclusive planning approach, in order to promote sustainable community development in the Himalayas.

REFERENCES

• Ap, J. (1992). Residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(4), 665-690.
• Bhatta, K.D. (2019). Exploring socio-cultural impacts of ecotourism in Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Journal of Engineering Technology and Planning, 2(1), 55-74.
• Bhatta, K.D. (2014). Ecotourism planning and sustainable community development in Nepal. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Hong Kong.
• Bhatta, K.D. & Chan, R.C-K. (2013). (Eco)tourism development and community benefits: The study of Dai villages from Xishuangbanna,Yunnan China. In N.K. Chapagain (Ed.), Reflections on Built Environment and Associated Practices,1, 105-131. Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Institute of Engineering, Tribhuvan University, Nepal.
• Boo, E. (1993). Ecotourism planning in protected areas. In K. Lindberg and D. Hawkins (Eds.), Ecotourism: A guide for planners and managers (pp. 15-54). North Bennington: The Ecotourism Society
• Butler, R.W. (1990). Alternative tourism: Pious hope or Trojan horse? Journal of Travel Research, 28(3), 40-45.
• Butler, R.W. (1980).The concept of tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for management of resources. The Canadian Geographer, 24, 5-12.
• Campbell, L.M. (1999). Ecotourism in rural developing countries. Annals of Tourism Research, 26, 531-553
• Cater, E. A. (1987). Tourism in the least developed countries. Annals of Tourism Research, 14, 202-226.
• Chan, R. and Bhatta, K. D. (2013). Ecotourism planning and sustainable community development: Theoretical perspective for Nepal. South Asian Journal of Tourism and Heritage, 6(1), 69-96.
• de Kadt, E. (1979). Tourism: Passport to development? Perspectives on the social and cultural effects of tourism in developing countries. Oxford University Press.
• Diamantis, D. (2004). Ecotourism: Management and assessment. Thomson.
• Dogan, H. (1989). Forms of adjustment: Sociocultural impacts of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 16 (2), 216-236.
• Duffy, R. (2002). A trip too far: Ecotourism, politics and exploitation. Earthscan Publications Ltd.
• Eagles, P. F. J. (2001). Ecotourism impacts. In D.B. Weaver (Ed.), The encyclopedia of ecotourism (pp.359-362). CABI Publishing.
• Hall, C. M., and Lew, A. A. (Eds.). (1998). Sustainable tourism: a geographical perspective. Addison Wesley Longman Limited
• Inskeep, E. (1991). Tourism planning: An integrated and sustainable development approach. Van Nostrand Reinhold.
• Lee, C-K, and Back, K-J. (2006). Examining structural relationships among perceived impact, benefit, and support for casino development based on 4 year longitudinal data. Tourism Management, 27 (3), 466-480.
• Lindberg, K., Anderson, T.D., and Dellaert, B.G.C. (2001). Tourism development: Assessing social gains and losses. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(4), 1010-1030
• Lindberg, K. and Johnson, R. L. (1997). The economic values of tourism’s social impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 24 (1), 90-116.
• Liu, J. and Var, T. (1986). Resident attitudes toward tourism impacts in Hawaii. Annals of Tourism Research, 13 (2), 193-214.
• Mathieson, A., and Wall, G. (1982). Tourism: Economic, social and physical impacts. Longman.
• Murphy, P. E. (1985). Tourism: A community approach. Methuen and Co. Ltd.
• Nepal, S. K. (2003). Tourism and the environment: Perspectives from the Nepal Himalaya. Himal Books
• Nyaupane, G. P., and Thapa, B. (2004). Evaluation of ecotourism: A comparative assessment in the Annapurna ConservationArea Project, Nepal. Journal ofEcotourism, 3(1), 20-45.
• Pizam, A. and Milman, A. (1984). The social impacts of tourism. UNEP Industry and Environment, 7(1), 11-14.
• Sherpa, M. N. (1985). Resource budget planning: A strategy for resource self-sufficiency and nature conservation in Sagarmatha National Park. Master of Natural Resources and Management Dissertation, The University of Manitoba.
• Smith, V.L. (1989). Introduction. In V.L. Smith (Ed.), Hosts and guests: The anthropology of tourism (pp.1-17). University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Stone, M., and Wall, G. (2003). Ecotourism and community development: case studies from Hainan, China. Environmental Management, 33(1), 12-24.
• Telfer, D. J., and Sharpley, R. (2008). Tourism and development in the developing world. Taylor and Francis.
• Wall, G. (1996). Ecotourism: change, impacts and opportunities. In E. Malek-Zadeh (Ed.), The ecotourism equation: Measuring the impact (pp. 206-216). Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.
• Wall, G., and Mathieson, A. (2006). Tourism change, impacts and opportunities. Pearson Prentice Hall.
• Walpole, M. J. and Goodwin, H. J. (2001). Local attitudes towards conservation and tourism around Komodo National Park, Indonesia. Environmental Conservation, 28, 160-166.
• Wearing, S. (2001). Exploring socio-cultural impacts on local communities. In D.B. Weaver (Ed.), The encyclopedia of ecotourism (pp. 395-410). CABI Publishing.
• Weaver, D. B. (1998). Ecotourism in less developed world. CAB