Boat Caps and Revenue Leakage at a Chilika Wetland Village
The newly formed Mangalajodi Eco-Tourism Committee, a village body near Chilika Lake, earned ₹16.8 lakh from tourism in 2023–24. It received 9,600 visitors, almost all between November and February. Boat rides earn ₹1,200 per boat carrying four persons; the entry fee is ₹50 per person. Of the total revenue, ₹10.1 lakh goes to outside boat owners, online booking platforms and a Bhubaneswar tour operator; only ₹6.7 lakh stays in the village. Fourteen of 60 households earn something from tourism. In peak weeks, 40–50 boats operate daily, and villagers report more bird disturbance and plastic waste. The committee has a ₹4 lakh district grant. One group wants to build 20 concrete cottages and hold a ‘Chilika mega festival’ to double footfall. Another wants a daily cap of 20 boats, a village-run booking desk, and paid guided birdwalks. The block development officer asks you, a tourism student volunteer, for advice.
1. Using the revenue and visitor figures, identify the main leakage and carrying-capacity problems. Which of the two proposals is more consistent with sustainable community tourism, and why?
Read the worked answer
Leakage. The village keeps only ₹6.7 lakh of ₹16.8 lakh, so leakage is about 60% (10.1 ÷ 16.8). This is not just a marketing problem: outside boat owners, OTAs and the Bhubaneswar operator capture most of the visitor spend. Only 14 of 60 households earn from tourism, so benefits are narrow. Any plan should therefore change who captures the fee, not only how many visitors arrive.
Carrying capacity. Peak operation of 40–50 boats daily, combined with 9,600 visitors in roughly four months, creates concentrated pressure. The symptoms - bird disturbance and plastic waste - suggest ecological and social limits are already being approached. A simple annual average understates the problem because demand is seasonal.
Judgement. The cap-and-local-booking proposal is more consistent with sustainable community tourism. It reduces pressure at the sensitive site and redirects revenue to village guides and a booking desk. The cottage-and-festival proposal would increase footfall and likely increase leakage, waste and disturbance; the ₹4 lakh grant would not fund 20 cottages adequately, and a ‘mega festival’ in peak season would worsen congestion.
However, a cap is only sustainable if it is paired with higher yield per visitor - guiding fees, birdwalk packages, local food - otherwise village income may fall. The recommendation should be a capped, higher-value model, not a cap alone.
2. Prepare a 12-month action plan that uses the ₹4 lakh grant, with at least three interventions and one measurable indicator for each.
Read the worked answer
1. Village booking desk and digital payments - ₹1.2 lakh. Train 6–8 young people in bookings, basic English, safety briefing and receipting. Set up a WhatsApp/UPI desk and a simple roster for boats. Indicator: at least 70% of boat bookings routed through the village desk by month 6, with monthly receipts reconciled.
2. Waste and plastic reduction - ₹80,000. Place segregated bins at jetty and entry, ban thin plastic bags in the boat zone, brief boat crews, and link clean-up to a small user fee. Indicator: weekly waste audit showing less than 5 kg of plastic collected per peak week by month 9.
3. Guide training and birdwalk package - ₹1 lakh. Train 10 local guides, buy 4 pairs of binoculars and 2 spotting scopes, and price a 90-minute birdwalk at ₹300 per person. Indicator: 300 paid guided walkers in the first season and at least 60% of package revenue retained in the village.
4. Off-season and school/college market - ₹60,000. Prepare a monsoon/early winter leaflet for colleges and nature clubs; negotiate with two Bhubaneswar colleges. Indicator: 500 visitors in the low season.
5. Monitoring and signboards - ₹40,000. Keep a visitor register, boat log and complaint book; install interpretation boards. Indicator: monthly report to the committee with visitor numbers, revenue retained and complaints.
The grant is one-time, so the committee must agree a small user fee or guide surcharge for maintenance after year one.
3. The cottage faction argues that doubling footfall will double village income. Test that claim with a simple calculation or reasoning, stating any assumptions.
Read the worked answer
Do not accept the claim automatically. At present the village retains ₹6.7 lakh from 9,600 visitors, or about ₹70 per visitor (6.7 lakh ÷ 9,600). If footfall doubled to 19,200 and the retention rate stayed at 60%, village income would be about ₹13.4 lakh - but only if leakage, spend per visitor and costs stayed the same.
Those assumptions are unlikely. Building cottages and running a festival would probably increase outside investment and leakage. If the local share fell to 50%, doubling footfall would yield only ₹16.8 lakh × 2 × 0.5 = ₹16.8 lakh, before extra waste, security and maintenance costs. Peak-season capacity is already stretched at 40–50 boats, so doubling would either breach the ecological limit or require heavy off-season promotion.
The honest answer is: doubling footfall might raise gross village income, but not necessarily net income, and it would increase ecological risk. A capped model that raises spend per visitor - guiding, food, crafts - is more defensible. State the assumptions clearly and recommend a monitored trial rather than a permanent cottage build.