Carrying Capacity at the Manas Homestay Cluster
In villages on the southern fringe of Manas National Park, twelve homestays with 34 rooms were built between 2019 and 2023 with a state grant of ₹18 lakh. Peak season runs October to April, when occupancy averages 62%; in the monsoon it falls to about 11%. Three problems surfaced in a single season. Plastic and glass waste from guests rose sharply, and four homestays now release greywater into a seasonal stream that feeds the Beki river. An elephant corridor crosses the back plots of two properties, and the forest department recorded more night driving and honking on the 3-km approach road. One owner runs loud DJ nights twice a week, and complaints have reached the village council. Around 70% of bookings arrive through a single online travel agency charging 18% commission, and most of that money leaves the village. The council has called a meeting to decide whether to cap rooms and impose rules before the next season.
1. Using a limits-of-acceptable-change approach, identify which parts of the tourism system are under stress and propose four measurable actions the council can adopt this season.
Read the worked answer
Frame it as a system, not a list of complaints. Tourism here has five interacting parts: demand (visitors), supply (34 rooms and services), the host community, the environment, and governance (council, forest department, grant agency). Limits of acceptable change means the council first decides what standard is acceptable, then sets indicators and monitors them - it does not wait for a crisis.
Where the stress sits
- Environmental: solid waste and greywater exceed what the village can absorb; the stream is the visible symptom.
- Ecological: night driving and noise in an elephant corridor is a safety issue for animals and people, and a legal risk under wildlife rules.
- Social: unregulated DJ nights transfer the cost of tourism onto non-benefiting households.
- Economic: 18% commission on 70% of bookings is a leakage that weakens local benefit and makes the grant investment look poor.
Four actions with a number attached
- Waste: mandatory two-bin segregation at every homestay, a ₹50 per room-night waste levy into a village fund, weekly weighing, and a target of under 0.5 kg of non-biodegradable waste per guest-night by March. Tie the final grant instalment to compliance.
- Greywater: soak pits or a small constructed wetland for the four offending properties within 60 days; no new rooms approved until a soak pit is inspected.
- Zoning and quiet hours: no tourist vehicles on the approach road 20:00–05:00, no amplified music after 21:00, and a 30 m no-construction buffer along the corridor. The forest department should sign off on the map.
- Benefit capture: a village booking desk and WhatsApp/Google Business listings to shift 20% of bookings direct within one season, plus a 5% community levy on room tariff.
Why this order: the actions that are cheap, visible and enforceable come first; monitoring monthly with the council minutes as the record is what turns rules into a system.
2. The owner of the largest homestay wants to add eight rooms before the next peak season to capture demand. Advise the council and the owner, giving at least three reasons and the conditions under which you would approve.
Read the worked answer
First, test the demand claim. Cluster occupancy of 62% in peak does not mean every property is full every night. Ask for the owner's own register: nights sold, average rate, and nights refused. If the property is turning away guests on more than 20 peak nights, there is real unmet demand; if the 62% is an average across a cluster with two strong properties, adding rooms simply spreads the same guests thinner and pushes everyone's rate down.
Three reasons to be cautious
- Seasonality: 11% monsoon occupancy means eight more rooms sit empty for five months while still needing cleaning, maintenance and staff - the cost is annual, the revenue is not.
- Infrastructure: the stream and the waste system are already over-loaded. Eight rooms means roughly 16 more guests a night at peak and the corresponding water, sewage and plastic. Approving rooms before the soak pit exists is approving the problem.
- Corridor risk: building on the back plot of a property that adjoins an elephant corridor invites both an ecological problem and a forest-department stop order that would strand the investment.
What I would advise instead: raise the rate on the existing rooms in peak rather than add capacity, add paid experiences (guided bird walk, village meal, weaving demo) that earn per guest without new beds, and extend the shoulder season with monsoon-specific products.
Conditions for approval: a functioning soak pit and water test, no construction within the corridor buffer, staff trained in waste segregation, and a two-year monitoring agreement with a review at the end of the second season. Approve a phased four rooms, not eight, so the infrastructure can be tested before it is doubled.