1 Introduction

The growing concern of environmentalism raised the issue of sustainability. Ecotourism emerged as a tool of sustainability of tourism where sustainability indicates the management of human activity based on ecological and cultural element (Dowling 1995a, b; Blamey 1995a, b, 1997; Sano 1997) and also contribute to environmental conservation and development (Ross and Wall 1999a, b; Tsaur et al. 2006). Sustainability of tourism exemplifies the relationship between ecotourism and sustainable development (Bansal and Kumar 2011) where sustainability included three systems, i.e. environmental, socio-cultural and economic (Wall 1997). The growing popularity and conservation potential of ecotourism offers unique opportunities for integrating rural development, tourism resource management and protected area management in many sites around the world (Hvenegaard 1994). Ecotourism can play an important role in attracting support, in both fields of political and financial, to preserve threatened natural areas (Boo 1990; Dixon et al. 1993; Western 1993; Burton 1997; Honey 1999).

Tourism in protected areas emerged as a strategy for development, and ecotourism, in particular, has been identified as a viable option for sustainable development (Obua 1997). Ecotourism development in National parks has immense importance due to its legal protection and sustainable management framework (Wallace and Pierce 1996). Farver (2002) forecasted that the protected area concept in future could be congested. Therefore, protected areas worldwide needed to demonstrate their economic value to the wider community (Dudly et al. 1999). Ecotourism can produce tangible financial benefits for protected areas, in which many ecotourism activities occur. Entrance fees can substantially offset park management cost and control visitation (Lindberg 1991) and provide critical foreign exchange (Edward 1991; Aveling and Wilson 1992).

First step for the identification of potential ecotourism is to evaluate criteria and indicators (Kalogirou 2002; Malczewski 2004; Gillenwatera et al. 2006). To identify potential ecotourism sites in a particular spatial unit, geospatial technology, i.e. remote sensing, GIS and GPS are widely used in the recent decade (Page and Dowling 2002; Boyd and Butler 1996; Arrowsmith and Inbakaran 2002; Lillesand and Kiefer 2004). GIS-based land suitability has been applied using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) (Saaty 1980) and MCDA method through modeling and overlay analysis (Carver 1991; Banai 1993; Malczewski 1999). Armstrong (1994) applied remote sensing, GIS and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) method for the identification of the nature-based tourism potential sites based on socioeconomic and environmental indicators. Among different MCDA methods, AHP was widely used due to its capability to analyze data according to its relative importance and hierarchical ordering. Boyd and Butler (1996) applied GIS to identify suitable ecotourism areas in Northern Ontario, Canada. Kumari et al. (2010) included five indicators to identify potential ecotourism sites such as wildlife distribution index, ecological value index, ecotourism attractivity index, environmental resiliency index and ecotourism diversity index, whereas Akbarzadeh et al. (2011) applied landscape ecological components to identify potential ecotourism sites. Bunruamkaew and Murayama (2011a) used landscape, wildlife, topography, accessibility and community characteristics to evaluate site suitability of ecotourism. Gourabi and Rad (2013) applied the indicators, i.e. number of sunny days, average daily relative humidity, slope, water use, vegetation density and soil texture to evaluate potentiality of ecotourism in wetland.

Ecotourism in present day is one of the most sensitive issues and a tool towards sustainable tourism development in both developed and developing countries around the world. To develop proper planning for ecotourism, the primary task is the selection of site for ecotourism development. The selection of site is controlled by different elements belonging to physical, socio-cultural, environmental and infrastructural factors which vary place to place and situation to situation. Himalayan mountainous region is considered as one of the most attractive regions to the tourist around the world. The study area, Great Himalayan National Park and Conservation area (GHNPCA), is considered as the most suitable region for ecotourism development due to its natural and cultural diversity. Several past works have been carried out on biodiversity conservation, land use and land cover mapping and community-based ecotourism in this protected area (Pandey 2008; Naithani and Mathur 1998) but no attempt has been made on ecotourism site selection. Ecotourism has been taken into consideration for regional development policy but there is no implementable plan and policy is not yet established. This research attempts to make spatial decision for ecotourism site selection based on multiple criteria decision analysis in GIS environment. This present work attempts to identify potential ecotourism sites in protected area of GHNPCA in Himachal Pradesh, India, based on different physical, socio-cultural, environmental and infrastructural elements using AHP and GIS. From this site selection point of view, this paper is the pioneering work for the protected area management and also an ideal blueprint for the decision-maker to develop strategies for the development of ecotourism sites in study area.

1.1 Study area

Great Himalayan National Park and Conservation Area (GHNPCA) is located in the central part of Himachal Pradesh and lies in between 31°33′00″–31°56′56″ North latitude and 77°17′15″–77°52′51″ East longitude covering an area about 1171 square km (km2) (Fig. 1). In terms of its physiographic characteristics, the study area is broadly divided into two major watersheds of Sainj and Tirthan rivers and elevation ranges between 1300 and 6100 m above mean sea level. The study area is bounded by Greater Himalayan mountain range in the east and Dhauladhar range in the west. GHNPCA by its local administration has been divided into four broad divisions, i.e. Great Himalayan National Park, Tirthan Wildlife Sanctuary, Sainj Wildlife Sanctuary and eco-development zone. Eco-development zone is the only inhabited part of the study area and permanently settled by 2400 people belonging to 160 hamlets within twelve Panchayats. The existence of snow clad mountain, landscape and climatic beauty, National Park and Wildlife Sanctuaries, rich biodiversity, ethnic and socio-cultural diversity, pilgrimage and sacred sites and adventure tourism activities attracts tourists of both national and international origin. The development of ecotourism should meet the needs of basic conservation principles and the participation of local community ensures the management of natural and cultural resources in a better manner without hampering the ecological stability within study area and provides economic opportunities of local community.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Location of Himachal Pradesh in India (a), Kullu District within Himachal Pradesh (b), GHNPCA within Kullu District (c) and GHNPCA division boundary (d)

Full size image

1.2 Database

To fulfill the research objective, required spatial, non-spatial data and available maps have been collected from both primary and secondary sources. To collect primary data related to expert’s opinion regarding the selection of elements for ecotourism site identification, questionnaire has been distributed and collected. Location information was collected using handheld GPS. Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) digital elevation model (DEM) having 30 ms spatial resolution has been used to analyze topographic aspects such as slope and Topographic Roughness Index. Groundwater-related spatial information has been collected from district planning map of Kullu District, National Atlas and Thematic Mapping Organization. Habitat suitability map of Western Tragopan and Musk deer, climatic map made available from GHNPCA official website. The information regarding vegetation has been collected through the calculation of normalized differential vegetation index (NDVI) using Landsat 8 satellite imagery having 30 m spatial resolution. Other information such as drainage networks, lakes, rural settlements and trekking routes was extracted through digitization in GIS software using GHNPCA official map. To collect the information regarding snow clad mountain peak visibility, view shed analysis was carried out using SRTM DEM data and absolute location of snow clad peak.

2 Methodology

2.1 Selection of thematic layer

Potential ecotourism site selection or prediction consists of three steps: (1) geospatial data base generation, (2) application of AHP for normalization of weight of each criterion and preparation of ecotourism site, and (3) validation and interpretation of result (Razandi et al. 2015). To assess ecotourism potential site identification, slope, topography roughness, vegetation, drainage, visibility, accessibility, rural settlement, habitat, elevation, climate, ground water and lake proximity elements have been taken into consideration (Fig. 2a, b). The elements for ecotourism potentiality in Great Himalayan National Park and Conservation Area have been taken into consideration based on expert’s opinion and relative importance of elements (Kumari et al. 2010; Mahdavi and Niknejad 2014; Gul et al. 2006; Bunruamkaew and Murayama 2011b).

Fig. 2
figure 2

a, b Criteria maps for ecotourism potentiality assessment

Full size image

2.2 Geospatial data base generation

2.2.1 Slope

To generate ecotourism potential site, slope of land has immense importance (Kumari et al. 2010; Dashti et al. 2013; Bunruamkaew and Murayama 2011a; Bozorgnia et al. 2010). The construction of ecotourism sites needs low slope of land and increasing slope decreases possibilities to develop ecotourism site. Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission (SRTM) DEM is used to generate slope. Based on percentage rise method, slope layer was generated using SRTM DEM having 30 m spatial resolution:

$${\text{Slope}}\, ( {\text{percent)}} = \frac{{\text{rise}}}{{\text{run}}} \times 100.$$
(1)

Slope layer was further reclassified into five suitability classes, i.e. very high, high, moderate, low and very low and they cover 242 km2, 368 km2, 347 km2, 176 km2 and 38 km2 area, respectively. The preferences were assigned according to the relative importance of each class, where higher value of slope indicates lesser possibilities to develop potential ecotourism site and vice versa.

2.2.2 Topographic roughness

Topographic Roughness Index is used to represent topographic characteristics of a region (Riley et al. 1999; Jenness 2004). Topographic roughness has inverse relationship with ecotourism and is widely used for ecotourism potentiality (Kumari et al. 2010). High roughness of land surface indicates lesser possibilities to develop ecotourism site and low roughness of land is suitable for ecotourism site development. SRTM DEM data are used to calculate topographic roughness index. Topographic Roughness Index (TRI) was calculated based on relative topographic position index which is a terrain ruggedness matrix and local elevation index:

$${\text{TRI}} = \frac{{{\text{SD}} - {\text{MinDEM}}}}{{{\text{MaxDEM}} - {\text{MinDEM}}}},$$
(2)

where TRI means Topographic Roughness Index, SD indicates smoothed DEM of DN value of 10 × 10 pixel, max DEM means maximum DN (digital number) value of 10 × 10 pixel, and min DEM indicates minimum DN value of 10 × 10 pixel. Topographic roughness value (TRI) is further divided into four classes, i.e. very high, high, moderate and low, where each zone covers 345 km2, 403 km2, 310 km2, and 113 km2 areas, respectively. The region with higher topographic roughness indicates lower suitability for ecotourism and vice versa.

2.2.3 Vegetation

There exists positive relationship of ecotourism and vegetation density. Ecotourism involves abiotic, biotic and cultural attraction. Among them biotic features, i.e. biodiversity, wildlife and natural areas are considered as the most important aspect for ecotourism site development.

Landsat 8 imagery of NASA was used to calculate normalized differential vegetation index (NDVI):

$${\text{NDVI}} = \frac{{{\text{NIR}} - {\text{R}}}}{{{\text{NIR}} + {\text{R}}}},$$
(3)

where NIR indicates DN value from near-infrared band and R indicated DN value from red band of satellite imagery and the result of NDVI value data has been further categorized into five classes where higher value indicates the region having higher suitability for ecotourism development and vice versa. The area has been categorized into very high, high, moderate, low and very low suitability classes and they cover 317 km2, 201 km2, 168 km2, 192 km2 and 293 km2, respectively.

2.2.4 Visibility

Visibility of snow clad mountain is the most important aspect for ecotourism development (Bunruamkaew and Murayama 2011b). For suitability analysis of ecotourism site development, snow clad mountain visibility is taken into consideration and it positively related to tourist attraction as well as tourist arrival. Tourists basically prefer to stay in places where from snow clad mountain is visible. The spatial analysis of visibility carried out using viewshed analysis is based on elevation and location of snow clad peak data. The visible part of snow clad mountain was extracted and results were further reclassified into four classes such as very high, high, moderate and low suitability based on the nature of visibility. As per the result, 5.2 km2 area belongs to very high suitability class and 28 km2, 110 km2 and 321 km2 to high, moderate and low suitability, respectively.

2.2.5 Proximity to rural areas

The nature and diversity of host culture in GHNPCA also attract responsible tourist to a great extent. Eco-tourist basically prefers to stay in places where cultural interaction with local people is possible. There exists positive relation between the culture of local community and ecotourism. The unique cultural characteristics of any region attract tourist from different parts of the country and abroad. The study region has unique cultural characteristics in terms of its traditional value, social custom, language, dress pattern, dietary habits, religion, etc. The core of ecotourism is the conservation of culture of local community. Thus, selection of rural areas has been given priority for the location of ecotourism site in GHNPCA. For this analysis, five buffer zones of rural settlements such as 800 m, 1600 m, 2400 m, 3200 m and 4000 m have been created and they cover 238, 149, 118, 97 and 42 square kilometer areas, respectively. The zone nearer to the village is given priority for the selection of ecotourism site and suitability decreases with increasing distance.

2.2.6 Elevation

Elevation plays an important role in the development of ecotourism site and increasing elevation has a negative relation to ecotourism site development (Ahmadi et al. 2015). Increasing elevation indicates decrease in oxygen level as well as lesser possibilities of human existence. Thus, lower elevation indicates higher possibilities for ecotourism site construction and vice versa. The study area is the part of Great Himalayan mountain range and elevation ranges 1300–6250 m above mean sea level. Based on elevation, the entire region has been categorized into five classes such as very high (above 4200 m), high (3600–4200 m), moderate (3000–3600 m), low (2400–3000 m) and very low (less than 2400 m) and they cover 255 km2, 332 km2, 122 km2, 255 km2 and 200 km2 areas, respectively. The area having lower elevation is suitable for ecotourism site development where increasing elevation decreases the possibility for ecotourism site development.

2.2.7 Surface water accessibility

Water availability and ecotourism site are positively related to each other. Without water availability, human existence should not be possible. The study area belongs to two major watersheds of Sainj and Tirthan rivers. Based on the distance from drainage network, proximity analysis was carried out using buffer of less than 400 m, 400–800 m, 800–1200 m, 1200–1600 m and 1600–2000 m. The region near drainage network indicates high suitability for ecotourism potentiality analysis and possibilities decrease with increasing distance. The proximity zones were further reclassified into five suitability zones, i.e. very high, high, moderate, low and very low suitability and they cover 517 km2, 387 km2, 210 km2, 48 km2 and 9 km2 areas, respectively.

2.2.8 Lake proximity

In terms of surface water accessibility and scenic beauty, lakes have immense importance for ecotourism site development (Mirsanjari et al. 2008). To find out suitability of lakes, five buffer zones of less than 800 m, 800–1600 m, 1600–2400 m, 2400–3200 m and 3200–4000 m have been created and represented as very high, high, moderate, low and very low suitability zones and they cover 30 km2, 51 km2, 64 km2, 77 km2 and 83 km2, respectively.

2.2.9 Groundwater suitability

Not only surface water, but also groundwater availability has a positive relation to ecotourism site identification. As per availability and potentiality of groundwater, the study area is classified into two zones, i.e. aquifer having good groundwater potentiality and limited groundwater potential zone. The information about groundwater was collected from district planning map of National Atlas and thematic mapping organization. The region with good groundwater potential covers 608 km2 area and is given higher weight for ecotourism potential whereas lower weight provides limited ground water potential zone and it covers 563 km2 area.

2.3 Normalized weight for different thematic layers

Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is widely used among different multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) techniques in the field of natural resources and environmental management. AHP is used to determine weights of the thematic layers (Saaty 1980) and used for decision-making in which a problem is divided into various parameters, arranging them in a hierarchical structure making judgment on relative importance of pair of elements and synthesizing the result (Saaty 1999). For this analysis, 12 thematic layers belongs to geomorphic, ecological, socio-cultural and infrastructure parameters i.e. slope, topographic roughness, vegetation, surface water accessibility, groundwater, elevation, visibility of snow peak, proximity to villages, trekking route, climate, habitat and lakes etc. has been taken into consideration. For the selection of elements to identify potential ecotourism site, questionnaire has been prepared and distributed among the experts belonging to different backgrounds such as environmentalist, ecotourism experts, academicians, and protected area management authority who work directly or indirectly on study area. The elements having higher average score were selected for study. To assign the weight of each thematic layer, Saaty’s 1–9 scale has been applied (Saaty 1980). Based on Saaty’s scale, pairwise comparison of different thematic layers was carried out and a comparison matrix was prepared for delineation of potential ecotourism site. The normalized weight of different thematic layers and consistency ratio (CR) was calculated. In AHP method, pairwise comparison of all thematic layers was taken as the input, while the relative weights of thematic layers were the output. The final weightings for the thematic layers are the normalized value of the eigen vectors that are associated with the maximum eigen value of the matrix ratio (Jha et al. 2010; Adiat et al. 2012). The consistency ratio is measured using the following equation:

$${\text{CR}} = \frac{{\text{CI}}}{{\text{RI}}},$$
(4)

where CI indicates consistency ratio, RI means Random Index whose value depends on the order of the matrix, CI indicates Consistency Index which can be expresses as follows:

$${\text{CI}} = ({ \leftthreetimes }\hbox{max} - n)/(n - 1),$$
(5)

where \({ \leftthreetimes }\) indicates the largest eigen value of the matrix (can be calculated from the matrix) and n represents the number of thematic layers for ecotourism potentiality. The result of consistency ratio (CR) is 0.07 which is less than 0.1, it implies that there is reasonable level of consistency in the pairwise comparison and inconsistency is acceptable. According to Saaty (1980) and Malczewski (1999) and Dalalah et al. (2010), consistency ratio must be less than 0.1. The calculation of normalized weight and consistency ratio is represented in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1 Pairwise comparison matrix
Full size table
Table 2 Determining the relative criterion weight
Full size table

2.4 Normalized weight of different features of thematic layer

The thematic layers were classified according to its importance such as very high, high, moderate, low and very low suitability zones for ecotourism site development. The ranks of each feature class of individual thematic layer are assigned and feature normalized weights were extracted and are shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Assigned and normalized weights of different features of twelve thematic layers for ecotourism potential analysis
Full size table

2.4.1 Ecotourism Potentiality Index (EPI)

Ecotourism Potentiality Index (EPI) is a dimensionless quantity that applies to ecotourism potential mapping in an area. The weighted linear combination method used to estimate Ecotourism Potential Index (EPI) is as follows (Malczewski 1999):

$${\text{EPI}} = (W_{i} n_{i} = 1mw = 1 \times Xj),$$
(6)

where Wi is the normalized weight of the j thematic layer, Xj is the rank value of the each class with respect to the j layer, m is the total number of thematic layer and n is the total number of class in a thematic layer. The EPI for each grid was estimated using the following equation:

$$\begin{aligned} {{\rm EPI}} = {{\rm Sl}}_{{\rm w}} {{\rm Sl}}_{{\rm wf}} + {{\rm Tr}}_{{\rm w}} {{\rm Tr}}_{{\rm wf}} + {\rm {Vg}}_{{\rm w}} {{\rm Vg}}_{{\rm wf}} + {{\rm Sw}}_{{\rm w}} {{\rm Sw}}_{{\rm wf}} + {{\rm Alr}}_{{\rm w}} {{\rm Al}}_{{\rm wf}} + {{\rm Va}}_{{\rm w}} {{\rm Va}}_{{\rm wf}} \hfill \\ + {{\rm Ra}}_{{\rm w}} {{\rm Ra}}_{{\rm wf}} + {{\rm T}}_{{\rm w}} {{\rm T}}_{{\rm wf}} + {{\rm Cs}}_{{\rm w}} {{\rm Cs}}_{{\rm wf}} + {{\rm Hs}}_{{\rm w}} {{\rm Hs}}_{{\rm wf}} + {{\rm Lp}}_{{\rm w}} {{\rm Lp}}_{{\rm wf}} + {{\rm Gw}}_{{\rm w}} {{\rm Gw}}_{{\rm wf}} ,\hfill \\ \end{aligned}$$
(7)

where Sl is the slope, Tr is the topographic roughness, Vg is the vegetation characteristics, Sw is the surface water accessibility, Al is the altitude, Va is the visibility analysis, Ra is the proximity to rural areas, T is the trek route, Cs is the climatic suitability, Hs is the habitat suitability, Lp is the lake proximity and Gw is the groundwater suitability and subscripts, i.e. ‘w’ and ‘wf’ indicate normalized weight of theme obtained through AHP and the normalized weight of the individual feature class of a theme, respectively.

3 Results and discussion

Ecotourism potential zone map has been prepared based on AHP in GIS environment. Ecotourism Potential Index (EPI) values are classified into five suitability classes such as very high (0.0825–0.1426), high (0.1467–0.1615), moderate (0.1616–0.1788), low (0.1789–0.1993) and very low (0.1994–0.2923) based on quantile classification method in which each class contains the same number of features (Umar et al. 2014). The suitability zones such as very high, high, moderate, low and very low, respectively, cover 217 km2 (19%), 183 km2 (15%), 189 km2 (16%), 205 km2 (18%) and 377 km2 (32%) areas within GHNPCA (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Ecotourism potentiality zone map based on AHP and GIS

Full size image

In the Great Himalayan National Park, 95.8 km2 (13%) area falls under very high suitability zone whereas 92.8 km2 (12%), 112.1 km2 (15%), 138.2 km2 (18%) and 315 km2 (42%) areas, respectively, fall under the high, moderate, low and very low suitable zones (Fig. 4). The western part of this protected area such as lower reaches of river valley such as Jiwa Nala, Sainj river, Tirthan river and Palchan Gad belongs to high to very high ecotourism potential zone, whereas the higher altitudinal region of the Greater Himalayan mountain range dominated by glaciated landscape falls under moderate to very low ecotourism potential zone. Within the very high suitability zone, a total of 35 sites (G1–G35) have been selected as a potential ecotourism site considering nearness of villages, water availability, trekking route and visibility of snow-clad mountains (Table 4). In the Sainj Wildlife Sanctuary, very high, high, moderate, low and very low suitable zones incorporate 16.8 km2 (19%), 15.8 km2 (17%), 17 km2 (19%), 17.2 km2 (19%) and 23.3 km2 (26%) areas (Fig. 5). The northern part of Sainj river is characterized by ideal location for ecotourism site development. The lower elevated zones in Sainj Wildlife Sanctuary basically Sainj river and its tributaries represent high to very high suitability zone for ecotourism site development. The majority of lands in northern and northeastern part of this protected area fall under moderate to very low potentiality zone. From this particular region, 10 ecotourism potential sites (S1–S11) have been marked which fall under very high suitable zone. Those microlevel sites have been selected depending on the nearness of villages, water availability, trekking route and visibility of snow-clad mountains (Table 4). In the Tirthan Wildlife Sanctuary, 19.2 km2 (32%), 12.8 km2 (21%), 11.9 km2 (19%), 10.2 km2 (17%) and 6.9 km2 (11%) area fall under the very high, high, moderate, low and very low suitability zones (Fig. 7). The majority of land in Tirthan Wildlife Sanctuary (53%) belongs to high to very high ecotourism potential zone. Due to harsh environmental condition and high slope of land in the northeastern and eastern parts, this protected area belongs to low ecotourism potentiality zone whereas lower altitudinal regions of Tirthan river and Palchan Gad valley represent high potentiality. Within this protected area, 11 most suitable sites (T1–T11) have been demarcated, respectively (Table 4). Eco-development zone or buffer zone of GHNP is the only inhabited part of GHNPCA which covers 265.6 km2 area and is considered as the most suitable zone for ecotourism site development because of the cultural characteristics concerned. Within this zone, 90.6 km2 (34%), 63.9 km2 (24%), 49.7 km2 (19%), 38.9 km2 (15%) and 22.4 km2 (8%) areas belong to very high, high, moderate, low and very low suitability zones (Figs. 6, 7). The central and eastern parts of this zone represent high to very high potentiality, whereas the majority of land in the western and southwestern parts fall under moderate, low and very low ecotourism potential zone. Finally, nearness of villages, water availability, trekking route and visibility of snow-clad mountains have been taken into consideration for identifying 20 most suitable sites (E1–E20) for ecotourism development (Table 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Ecotourism potential zone map of Great Himalayan National Park

Full size image
Table 4 Areal extent of ecotourism potential zone and location of potential sites of GHNP, Sainj Wildlife Sanctuary, Tirthan Wildlife Sanctuary and eco-development zone
Full size table
Fig. 5
figure 5

Ecotourism potential zone map of Sainj Wildlife Sanctuary

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Ecotourism potential zone map of eco-development zone

Full size image
Fig. 7
figure 7

Ecotourism potential zone map of Tirthan Wildlife Sanctuary

Full size image

4 Conclusion

Assessment of ecotourism potential has become a major issue for the authorities responsible for ecotourism planning and sustainable environment management. In this study, an integrated approach has been adopted. Remote sensing, GIS and MCDA techniques have been successfully used and demonstrated for the evaluation of ecotourism potential zone. Nowadays, MCDA method is widely used in various disciplines and is an effective tool in potentiality analysis in the field of tourism. The novelty of this research lies on the fact that it incorporates multiple physical, socio-cultural, environmental and infrastructural aspects for ecotourism potentiality analysis in GHNPCA. This type of multi-criteria-based holistic assessment is very useful in ecotourism suitability analysis and it has been applied for the first time in this region. The result shows that out of total geographical lands of GHNPCA, 19% of the area belongs to very high ecotourism potential zone and for microlevel spatial decision-making within this zone, a total of 77 sites have been identified for ecotourism site development. Hence, the result of ecotourism potential site can be useful for decision-makers to formulate strategies for ecotourism development and sustainable resource management in this study area.