Residents' Perceptions towards Sustainable Tourism Development in Manali Region
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
SAJTH, January 2012, Vol. 5, No. 1
Residents’ Perceptions towards Sustainable
Tourism Development in Manali Region
MOHINDER CHAND* and VIVEK**
*Mohinder Chand, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Tourism
and Hotel Management, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, (HR)
INDIA
**Vivek, Assistant Professor, Department of Tourism, University
College, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, (HR) INDIA
ABSTRACT
With the expansion in tourism sector in recent times, there has been
the tendency for stakeholders such as local people, government
functionaries, and practitioners in the industry to focus more on the
sector’s performance on the both micro and macro-economic front
while playing down its consequences at the grassroots level. Thus,
indicators which frequently make the headlines include tourism’s
contribution to foreign-exchange earnings, gross domestic product,
tax revenues, employment creation, development of local industries
and income generation. Thus, this paper examines the residents’
perception towards sustainable tourism development and to
investigate the associate of these perceptions with resident’s
demographic characteristics. Based on 459 respondents interviewed,
the majority are male, young and married. Even though local people
strongly support tourism development, however, they are involved
little with the promotion &development of tourism in the region. The
study suggests that for the sustainability of tourism development,
future planning should consider the inclusion of local people.
KEYWORDS: Perceptions, Resident, Sustainable, Tourism, India.
© South Asian Journal of Tourism and Heritage158 MOHINDER CHAND and VIVEK
Introduction
During the recent years sustainable tourism has emerged a
lucrative form of tourism both for tourists and destination
communities. Thus, since 1987 sustainable concept has been purified
many times to enhance its practical application in the economic
development of a nation. Sustainable development is a pattern of
resource use that aims to meet human needs while preserving the
environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present,
but also for future generations (Pearce et al, 1991). Sustainable
tourism may be thought of as "tourism which is in a form which can
maintain its viability in an area for an indefinite period of time"
(Butler, 1993). According to Butler sustainable tourism development
involves management of all resources in such a way that "economic,
social and aesthetic needs are fulfilled while maintaining cultural
integrity, essential ecological processes, and biological diversity and
life support systems”. Further, Butler (1993) believed that a working
definition of sustainable development in the context of tourism could
be taken as tourism which remains viable over an indefinite period
and does not degrade or alter the environment (human and physical)
in which it exists to such a degree that it prohibits the successful
development and well-being of other activities and processes”.
Moreover, sustainable development embodies the interdependencies
among environmental, social, and economic issues and policies. These
interdependencies should be taken into consideration for sustainable
tourism development to be successful. Thus, sustainable tourism
development should be considered one part of a planning process that
integrates tourism with other economic development initiatives in
attempting to achieve sustainable development it is tourism that truly
benefits those who are on the receiving end, and that does not
degrade the environment in which they live.
In the past years a number of studies have examined perceptions
of host residents' towards sustainable tourism development. The
studies demonstrated that many local communities recognize that
tourism can stimulate change in social, cultural, environmental andSUSTAINABLE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN MANALI REGION 159
economic dimensions, where tourism activities have had a close
connection with the local communities (Beeton, 2006; Richards &
Hall, 2000).many authors have pointed out that understanding and
assessing tourism impacts in local communities is important in order
to maintain sustainability and long-term success of the tourism
industry (Diedrich & Garcı´a-Buades, 2008; Beeton, 2006 ;Jensen
,2010; Nunkoo, et.al.,2010). A major reason for rising interest in the
area has been the evidences that tourism leads not only to be positive,
but also has the prospective for negative, outcomes at the local level
(Jensen, 2010; Lankford & Howard, 1994). Thus, it is recognised that
community perceptions toward sustainable tourism development are
likely to be an important planning and policy consideration for
successful tourism development.
Today, tourism is appreciated as an economic giant not only for
developing nations but also for the developed countries globally.
According to Ministry of Tourism (2011) the tourism sector witnessed
substantial growth as compared to 2009. The foreign tourist arrivals
(FTA) in India during 2010 were 5.58 million as compared to the
FTA,s of 5.17 million during 2009, showing a growth of 8.1%. Further,
Many states in India have achieved a tremendous target in tourist
arrival and receipt such as Himachal Pradesh , Rajasthan ,Kerala , Goa
etc. Tourism Industry in Himachal Pradesh has been given very high
priority and the Government has developed an appropriate
infrastructure for its development which includes provision of public
utility services, roads, communication network, airports, transport
facilities, water supply and civil amenities, etc. The State Government
is poised to transform the State into "A Destination for All Seasons and
All Reasons". The State has a rich treasure of places of pilgrimage and
Hot water springs, historic forts, natural and man-made lakes,
shepherds grazing their flock are sources of immense pleasure and joy
to the tourist. Therefore, recently the State Government has aiming at
promoting sustainable tourism, encouraging private sector to develop
tourism related infrastructure in the State without disturbing the
existing ecology and environment. Infect, addressing the challenges of160 MOHINDER CHAND and VIVEK
tourism development in the Manali region, it require a strong co-
operation among all parties, including those operating within and
outside area boundaries, as well as those that can promote effective
management of protected areas by ensuring that the appropriate
planning and management tools are adopted. Although, the goals of
different stakeholders can be quite varied, tourism activities can only
be sustainable if implemented with a common understanding and
consensus-based approach to development. Stakeholders play a
central role in the tourism industry. As intermediaries between
tourists and tourism service suppliers’ stakeholders can influence the
choices of consumers, the practices of suppliers and the development
patterns of destinations. This unique role means that stakeholder can
make an important contribution to furthering the goals of sustainable
tourism development and protecting the environmental and cultural
resources on which the tourism industry depends for its survival and
growth. Till date, little has been done to develop sustainable tourism
in Manali Region (H.P.). Despite, this region has marvelous tourist
appeal to attract both the tourists international and domestic.
Thus, the concept of community participation is widely discussed
within sustainable tourism (Mowforth & Munt, 2003). Hall (2000)
adds that for tourism planning to be successful, the involvement and
the participation of the residents in the area is pertinent. Residents’
attitude to tourism development is, however, often subject to
conditions. Cooke (1982) argues that residents view tourism more
favorably when they perceive themselves as being able to influence
decisions and outcomes related to development. Mowforth and Munt,
(2003) elaborate, with vast evidence, how local communities in Third
World countries being exploited. Little control is in their hands to
steer the direction of tourism development in their regions. Their
views are rarely heard and their opportunities to nurture their low
budget entrepreneurial tourism businesses are frequently frustrated
by the bigger external investors. It is proposed that listening to the
voices of local people is the starting point to embarking in sustainable
tourism development in a region. This has motivated to examine theSUSTAINABLE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN MANALI REGION 161
residents’ perception towards sustainable tourism development in
Manali region.
Review of literature and Hypothesis Development
Through out the literature a numerous views have been emerged
about the community’s perception towards sustainable tourism
development. Ekrem Tatoglu et. al,(2000) identified the perceived
impacts of tourism by residents in a community, Kuşadas, located on
the Western Turkish coast. The most strong and favourable
perceptions toward tourism impacts are found to be associated with
economic and social and cultural aspects of tourism. The study also
identified whether there exist any significant differences between
demographic variables and residents’ attitudes toward tourism by the
analysis of variance. Similarly, Fariborz and Ma’rof (2009) explored
the relationship between the community leaders’ perceptions toward
tourism impacts and their effort in building the capacity for tourism
development in local communities of Shiraz, Iran.
The study suggested most significant relationship with the level of
community capacity building towards that those leaders who
perceived the tourism activities could bring economic benefits would
have the higher tendency to be actively involved in building the
capacity of their communities in relation to the development of
tourism, whereas those who perceived tourism could bring negative
impact to the environment, would put less effort in the capacity
building. Rich (2003) investigated if tourism to Himachal is of a
concentrated type and also to view the pattern of concentration and
dispersal over a period of time. Nature based tourism in the Great
Himalayan National Park in the state has been reviewed for its current
status and potential to see if it is a viable alternate form of tourism in
the state.Singh and Mishra (2004) examined the social, economic and
environmental dimensions of the green tourism with particular
reference to village tourism development programme in Himalaya.
Such programme also minimizes biophysical and human vulnerability162 MOHINDER CHAND and VIVEK
and risks in mountain regions. The environmental Consciousness
campaign and introduction of code through multi- purpose Tourist
Resource Centres are gaining currency in above context
Kibicho (2008) focused on to the successful community-based
tourism development in Kimana Wildlife Sanctuary in Kenya.
Hierarchical cluster analysis demonstrates a simultaneous presence of
three different segments within the local community, revealing that
’operatives’ are interested in participation in the project’s activities,
’opinion leaders’ are concerned with the community’s benefits from
the project while ’official leaders’ value the success of the project.
Jensen (2010) supported local sustainable development by enhanced
local involvement. In similar vain, Nunkoo, et.al.(2010) examined the
some pertinent issues in relation to tourism development and
community attitudes in small islands, and it develops and presents a
conceptual framework based on social exchange theory and identity
theory.
These include occupational identity, environmental identity and
gender identity. Based on these, five propositions are developed. This
study shows that inclusion of identity variables in behavioral models
could increase their predictive power in explaining attitudes to
tourism and consequent support for the industry. Richa (2007)
evaluated the concepts of sustainable development with respect to
tourism. Case studies were done three tourist states of India Kerala,
Sikkim, and Himachal Pradesh. She discussed the concept of
congestion of tourism like nature based tourism and evaluates the
status and scopes of nature based tourism and draw a comparison
between these states. Bansal and Gautam (2007) suggested the role of
eco-tourism for sustainable development at wetlands and taken an
example of three RAMSAR sites of Himachal Pradesh.
They suggested that tourism is the best way for the development
and conservation of the locale. Hwansuk et.al. (2010) demonstared a
range of variables involved in determining resident attitudes toward
tourism development and the adoption of sustainable tourism. TheySUSTAINABLE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN MANALI REGION 163
suggested three major components of sustainable tourism, namely
long-term planning, full community participation and environmental
sustainability within tourism. Marlies and Breda (2000) focused on to
develop an approach to assessing the potential for sustainable
tourism development that can be used by protected areas and
communities. Further, he suggested a three step process such as an
inventory of tourism resources, assessing tourism potential, and
assessing carrying capacity.
Matarrita-Cascante et. al. (2010) they evaluated that how
economic, social and environmentally sustainable practices were
made possible through community agency, the construction of local
relationships that increase the adaptive capacity of people within a
common locality. Further they suggested that to enable community
agency are strong intra- and extra-community interactions, open
communication, participation, distributive justice and tolerance
examined local social interaction elements necessary for the
achievement of sustainable tourism practices. Ko and Stewart (2002)
used the structural equation model between residents’ perceived
tourism impacts and attitudes toward host community. The model
consisted of five latent constructs and nine path hypotheses .this was
shows that residents’ ‘community satisfaction’ was closely related to
‘perceived positive’ and ‘perceived negative’ tourism impacts. These
constructs were directly causing ‘attitudes toward additional tourism
development’. But the hypothesized path relationships between
‘personal benefits from tourism development’ and the constructs of
‘perceived negative tourism impacts’ and ‘overall community
satisfaction’ were rejected. The study suggested that community
satisfaction was influenced by perception of tourism impacts, and may
be useful in planning for additional tourism development. Further,
Mohammed (2007) measured the effect of tourism development on
the standard of living of the Egyptian people. The study shows that
local people have positive attitudes towards tourism development
indicators and there are some negative socio-cultural impacts of
tourism development on local communities in Egypt. Keske, Catherine164 MOHINDER CHAND and VIVEK
and Smutko, Steve (2010) described how Audience response system
(ARS) works and how it can also be used in research to assess
community preferences for tourism development. Evaluation of the
use of ARS technology showed high levels of participant satisfaction
with both the technology and the situation assessment procedures,
and the emergence of potential tourism development actions.
Further, Lepp Andrew (2008) evaluated the residents’ attitudes
towards initial tourism development in the small, rural village of
Bigodi, Uganda. This study shows that residents’ attitudes were
dependent on events which happened long before the introduction of
tourism. This suggests that conceptualizing tourism as a complex
system is helpful for recognizing the multitude of factors which can
potentially influence residents’ attitudes and Implications for
sustainable tourism development are discussed. Further, Choi and
Murray (2010) Revealed that three major components of sustainable
tourism, namely long-term planning, full community participation and
environmental sustainability within tourism, are critically related to
support for tourism and to the positive and negative impacts of
tourism. The paper uses the findings to suggest critical implications
that local governments need to consider when developing tourism.
Many studies on community residents’ perceptions of sustainable
tourism development have been conducted (Cole, 2006; Saarinen,
2006; Wall, 1997, Okazaki, 2008; Andereck et al., 2005; Choi &
Sirakaya, 2005; Johnson et al., 1994; Liu et al., 1987; Liu & Var1986;
Pizam, 1978; Ritchie, 1993; Robson & Robson, 1996; Sirakaya et al.,
2001; Teye et al., 2002; Upchurch & Teivane, 2000). All these studies
are performed by Western researchers.
Thus, the significance of the findings in the Manali perspective
may not be appropriate. To date, very little research has examined
residents’ perception toward the sustainable tourism development in
the Manali Region. In point of case, local communities in the Manali
Region, Himachal have never been studied of such. Thus, there is
limited understanding of residents’ perceptions of sustainableSUSTAINABLE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN MANALI REGION 165
tourism development toward local communities and also very few
research has been done here. Hence the purpose of this study is to
examine the perception of residents towards sustainable tourism
development in the region
This study provides two hypotheses in order to assess the
perceptions of local residents’ towards sustainable tourism
development in the study area.
Hypothesis 1: There is positive association of Residents’ perceptions
towards sustainable tourism development in Manali region.
Hypothesis 2: There is a positive relationship between sustainable
tourism development dimensions and residents’ specific
demographic characteristics.
Research Methodology
Study area
The study was conducted in the Manali region, which consisted
Rohtang, Rahala, Kothi, Palchan, Nehru Kund, Vashisht Hot Spring,
Brighu lake, Solang Valley, Prini village, Jagatsukh, Kalath, Nagar etc
areas.
Research instrument
A structured questionnaire was developed consisting of various
questions such as demographic profile of respondents, and
Sustainable tourism development variables based on past studies.
Further, previous researches were reviewed to identify possible
survey instrument and specific sustainable tourism development
factors that should be tested. Thus, this study was based on the scale
and methodology developed by various authors in the review of
literature (Matarrita-Cascante et. al. ,2010; Nunkoo, et.al.,2010, ;Singh
and Mishra,2004, and, Choi & Sirakaya, 2005; Johnson et al., 1994,
Ritchie, 1993; Robson & Robson, 1996; Sirakaya et al., 2001; Teye et166 MOHINDER CHAND and VIVEK
al., 2002; Upchurch & Teivane, 2000). Initially, 60 items were
emerged but after survey only 43 items were found significant. Likert-
type scale values assigned 1 to “strongly agree”, 2 to “agree”, 3 to
“neither agree nor disagree,” 4 to “disagree” and 5 to “strongly
disagree”. Respondents were asked to give their level of agreement
that mostly closely corresponded with their perception of these
statements.
Sampling and data collection
Sample respondents were identified from the highly respected
directory of the local, Govt. Kullu (Manali) of Himachal Pradesh. To
initiate the sample 850 residents were contacted directly, only
459(54%) residents all of which were sampled. A survey methodology
was chosen because it was deemed to be the most efficient way of
reaching a large number of respondents. Data were analysed by
applying factor analysis.
Results and Discussion
Table 1 presents the distribution of sample respondents with
respect to the demographics used in the study. From this distribution
it is seen that there are 365 (79.53%) male and 94(20.47%) female
amongst the respondents. The main age group is younger then 30
years representing 46% of the respondents, (30-40 group with 33%;
50 and less group with 18%). Majority of the respondents (44%) have
attended high school, 35% respondents have bachelor while 20%
respondents have post graduation. Most of the respondents were self-
employed (30%), followed by 25% service, 14 % housewives and only
10% were the professional.SUSTAINABLE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN MANALI REGION 167
Table 1 : Demographic Profile of Respondents (N= 459)
Demographic Number of Number of
Characteristics Respondents Respondents
Age
20-30 212 46.18
30-40 153 33.33
40-50 81 17.64
50 above 13 2.83
Sex
Male 365 79.52
Female 94 20.47
0ccupation
Service 117 25.49
Professional 45 9.80
Self-employed 139 30.28
Students 90 19.60
Housewives 68 14.81
Marital status
Single 167 36.38
Married 292 63.61
Education
High school or less 203 44.22
College 162 35.29
University 94 20.47168 MOHINDER CHAND and VIVEK
In order to assess the perceptions of resident’s towards
sustainable tourism development determinants in the Manali Region,
or in other words to be able to test H1, a factor analysis with varimax
rotation on the 43 sustainable tourism development determinants
was performed categorised into the three groups of “environment
impacts”, “Socio-cultural impacts”, “economic impacts”. The Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin test of sphericity and the Bartlett’s test of adequacy
provided support for the factor analysis. Furthermore, the
requirements followed in this study were the following: Eigen values
> 1, cut-off points > 0.40, cross-loadings > 0.10, and Cronbach’s alpha
> 0.70.
Table 2 presents all the necessary information about the three
factors explaining between 83.12 and 79.70 per cent of the total
variation that are above the generally accepted level of 50 per cent. All
items pass the eigenvalue (more than 1.00), the cut-off points (factor
loading not less than 0.40). The Cronbach alphas of the three factors
are very high (ranging from 0.87 to 0.81), and are above the generally
accepted level of 0.70.
Table 2 : Factor analysis results for the perceptions of
community towards sustainable tourism development items
Factor Factor Factor ASTDF
1 2 3
Explained variation (per cent) 83.12 83.50 80.10 79.70
Eigen values 2.70 2.47 2.49 1.76
1. Environment impacts
Overcrowding .401
Water shortages .508
Disruption of wildlife breeding
.443
cycles & behavior’sSUSTAINABLE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN MANALI REGION 169
Factor Factor Factor ASTDF
1 2 3
Damage natural environment .516
and landscape
Destroy local ecosystem .480
Introduction of exotic species .480
Nature-based development .455
Loss of open space .425
The diversity of nature valued .493
and Protected
Improves living utilities .428
infrastructure supply of water,
electric & Telephone, etc.
2. Socio-cultural impacts
Rise in criminal & antisocial .611
activities
Increases alcoholism, .433
prostitution, & sexual
permissiveness
Increases exploitation of local .467
natives
Increases robberies .426
Encourages cultural activities .428
Provides convenient transport .601
Benefits to local people and
.418
small business
Positive impacts on the cultural
.442
identity of our community
Deflation of local culture .425
Increases traffic accidents .471170 MOHINDER CHAND and VIVEK
Factor Factor Factor ASTDF
1 2 3
positive attitudes towards
.415
creative & Innovative work
Local residents have suffered
from living in tourism .451
destination areas
3. Economic Impacts
Unfairly increased real estate
.701
cost and property taxes
Increases cost of living .773
Increases price of goods and
.754
services
Increases potential for
.617
imported labour
Increases price of land and
.647
housing
Cost for additional
infrastructure (Water, sewer, .413
power, fuel, medical, etc.)
Improves local economy .406
Increases employment
.543
opportunities
Improves investment and
.503
development
Increases opportunities for
.462
shopping
Seasonal tourism creates high-
risk under- or unemployment .488
issues
Profits may be exported by .407SUSTAINABLE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN MANALI REGION 171
Factor Factor Factor ASTDF
1 2 3
non-local Owners
Jobs may pay low wages .490
Economic impact is widespread
.444
in the
Improves transport
.419
infrastructure
Creates new business
.415
opportunities
Competition for land with other
.455
(higher value)economic uses
Cronbach alpha 0.84 0.87 0.80 0.81
As shown in Table 2, Factor 1, environmental impacts (EI) includes
overcrowding, water shortages, disruption of wildlife breeding cycles
& behavior’s, damage natural environment and landscape, destroy
local ecosystem, introduction of exotic species, nature-based
development, loss of open space, diversity of nature valued and
protected, improves living utilities infrastructure supply of water,
electric & telephone, etc items. The item damage natural environment
and landscape with highest loading (.516).
Factor 2, socio-cultural impacts (SI) includes rise in criminal &
antisocial activities, increases alcoholism, and prostitution, & sexual
permissiveness, increases exploitation of local natives, increases
robberies, encourages cultural activities, provides convenient
transport, benefits to local people and small business, positive
impacts on the cultural identity of our community, positive impacts on
the cultural identity of our community, deflation of local culture,
increases traffic accidents, positive attitudes towards creative &
innovative work, local residents have suffered from living in tourism
destination areas. The item Rise in criminal & antisocial activities with
highest loading (.611).172 MOHINDER CHAND and VIVEK
Factor 3, Economic impacts ( Eco.I) unfairly increased real estate
cost and property taxes, increases cost of living, increases price of
goods and services, increases potential for imported labour, increases
price of land and housing, cost for additional infrastructure (Water,
sewer, power, fuel, medical, etc.), improves local economy, increases
employment opportunities, improves investment and development,
increases opportunities for shopping, seasonal tourism creates high-
risk under- or unemployment issues, profits may be exported by non-
local owners, jobs may pay low wages, economic impact is widespread
in the, improves transport infrastructure, creates new business
opportunities, competition for land with other economic uses. The
item Increases cost of living with highest loading (.773).
It indicates that there is a set of sustainable tourism development
variables which are considered more significant by the respondents
(confirms HI).
Table 3 displays the bivariate correlation coefficients between all
the variables used in the study. We observe strong, positive and
significant correlations between all the sustainable tourism
development criteria such as environmental impacts (EI), socio-
cultural impacts (SI), Economic impacts (Eco.I) and all sustainable
tourism development (ASTDF). These results indicate that the all
determinants for sustainable tourism development positively
associated with demographic variables. Further, with respect to the
characteristics of the education we see in Table 3 that there is a strong
and positive association between age, occupation and education, and
most variables of the sustainable tourism development criteria, giving
thus partial support for hypothesis H2. On the contrary, we see in
Table 3 that there is a strong and negative association between sex
and marital status, and most systems of the sustainable tourism
development criteria, giving thus partial support for hypothesis H2.
These results indicate that the age of respondents and occupation and
education are, rated the systems of the sustainable tourism
development higher, on the contrary other rated as lower.SUSTAINABLE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN MANALI REGION 173
Table 3: Bivariate correlations for the variables used in analysis
Marital
Age Sex Occupation education EI SCI EcoI ASTDI
Status
Age 1.000
Sex -
1.000
0.822**
Occupation 0.792** 0.812** 1.000
Marital -
0.463** -0.370** 1.000
status 0.359**
education 0.125 0.138 0.164 0.080 1.000
EI 0.565** 0.539** 0.492** -0.314** 0.427** 1.000
SCI 0.497** 0.406** 0.476** -0.207** -0.523** 0.503** 1.000
EcoI -
0.405** 0.412** 0.474** -0.309** -0.423** 0.316** 1.000
0.510**
ASTDI - - 1.000
0.170 0.281 -0.205* -0.206 -0.651**
0.525**
0.562** 0.401**
** Significant at 0.01 level ; * Significant at 0.05 level; EI= environmental
Impact; SCI= socio-cultural impacts and EcoI =Economic impacts; ASTDI= all
sustainable tourism development impacts
Conclusion
The scope of this paper was twofold: first, examines the residents’
perception towards sustainable tourism development and to
investigate the associate of these perceptions with resident’s
demographic characteristics. The major finding with respect to the
second objective may be summarised as follows, the results of this
study indicate that the residents perceived the economic impacts
most favorably followed by supporting environmental impacts and
socio-cultural impacts. As expected, residents had negative
perceptions about the socio-cultural impacts. The dichotomy in
responses in all questions proves that even though sustainable
tourism development in India is said to be community driven, but
there are still some residents within the community that remains
unsatisfied. It can be noted that the existing parameters for
sustainable tourism development respond less needs of the
communities. In addition, the findings suggest that there was a high174 MOHINDER CHAND and VIVEK
degree of negative evaluation by local residents with regard to
supporting socio-cultural impacts. Such inclusion has a profound
impact on the development of sustainable tourism in any region
especially Manali. The major finding with respect to the second
objective may be summarised as follows, there is a strong and positive
association between age, occupation and education, and while there is
a strong and negative association between sex and marital status,
most variables of the sustainable tourism development criteria . Thus,
significant differences are found between demographic variables and
resident’s perceptions towards the sustainable tourism development.
These findings can be useful to the planners and industry
professionals in formulating strategies to enhance community
involvement in tourism planning and policy.
Moreover, this study makes a modest attempt to add information
to the very little empirical knowledge available referring to residents’
perception towards sustainable tourism development in India. The
findings of this study are limited by the nature of the sample. In
essence, these findings cannot be generalized to the population at
large in India, since residents differ with respect to perceptions
toward sustainable tourism development. Given the fact, more studies
especially comparative would be conducted to cover wider industrial
perspectives. Thus, before any gainful tourism development, an
analysis of perceived influence of community should be studied from
a longitudinal perspective. This entails an appropriate methodology
that will monitor and examine long-term development and will help
to cope with changing requirements of the tourism industry.
REFERENCES
Andereck, K. L., Valentine, K. M., Knopf, R. C., & .Vogt, C. A. (2005).
Residents' Perceptions of Community Tourism Impacts. Annals of
Tourism Research, 32, 1056-1076.
Ap, J. (1992a). Residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts. Annals of
Tourism Research, 19(4), 665– 690SUSTAINABLE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN MANALI REGION 175
Aref, Fariborz(2011) 'Barriers to community capacity building for
tourism development in communities in Shiraz, Iran', Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 19: 3, 347 — 359, Nunkoo, Robin , Gursoy,
Dogan and Juwaheer, Thanika Devi(2010) 'Island residents'
identities and their support for tourism: an integration of two
theories', Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18: 5, 675 — 693
Beeton, S. (2006). community development through tourism. In:
Landlink Press, Australia.
Butler, R.W. (1993). Tourism-an evolutionary perspective. In J.G.
Nelson, R.W. Butler, and G. Wall (Eds.) Tourism and Sustainable
Development Monitoring, Planning, Managing (pp.27-43).
Waterloo, Ontario: Department of Geography, University of
Waterloo.
Choi, H. C., & Sirakaya, E. (2005). Measuring residents’ attitude toward
sustainable tourism: Development of sustainable tourism scale.
Journal of Travel Research, 43, 380-394.
Choi, Hwansuk Chris and Murray, Iain (2010) 'Resident attitudes
toward sustainable community tourism', Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 18: 4, 575 — 594.
COLE, S., 2006: Information and Empowerment: The Keys to
Achieving Sustainable Tourism. J. Sustainable Tour. 14: 629–644.
Cooke, K. (1982). Guidelines for socially appropriate tourism
development in British Columbia. Journal of Travel Research,
21(summer), 22–28.
D Pearce and R K Turner (1991) “Measuring sustainable
development” Earthscan, London, 1991, 240 pp Published by
Elsevier Science Ltd.
D.-W. Ko, W.P. Stewart (2002) “A structural equation model of
residents’ attitudes for tourism development” journal of Tourism
Management 23 (2002) 521–530
Diedrich, A., & Garcı´a-Buades, E. (2008). Local perceptions of tourism
as indicators of destination decline. Tourism Management, 1-10.
Dileep (2003) “Congestion Management and Sustainable Tourism: A
Theoretical Framework for Natural Sites” Tourism Development
Journal- An International Journal for Tourism Research (Annual
Journal), the First Issue of the Journal Vol.1, No.1, 2003
Fariborz Aref and Ma’rof Redzuan (2009) “Community Leaders’
Perceptions toward Tourism Impacts and Level of Community
Capacity Building in Tourism Development” Journal of Sustainable176 MOHINDER CHAND and VIVEK
Tourism, vol 2 issue 3 Nov. 2009
Hall, C.M. (2000). Tourism planning: Policies, processes and
relationships. Harlow, UK: Prentice Hall.
Hernandez, SA., Cohen, J., & Garcia, HI. (1996). Residents attitudes
towards an instant resort enclave. Annals of Tourism Research,
23(4),755–779.
Hwansuk Chris Choi and Iain Murray (2010) “Resident attitudes
toward sustainable community tourism” Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 18: 4, 575 — 594,
Jensen, Øystein(2010) 'Social mediation in remote developing world
tourism locations - the significance of social ties between local
guides and host communities in sustainable tourism development',
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18: 5, 615 — 633,
Johnson, J. D., Snepenger, D. J., & Akis, S. (1994). Resident's
Perceptions of Tourism Development. Annals of Tourism Research
21, 629-642.
Johnson, JD., Snepenger, DJ., & Akis, S. (1994). Residents’ perceptions
of tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), 629–
642.
Keske, Catherine and Smutko, Steve (2010) “Consulting communities:
using audience response system (ARS) technology to assess
community preferences for sustainable recreation and tourism
development” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18: 8, 951 — 970
Kibicho, Wanjohi(2008) 'Community-based Tourism: A Factor-Cluster
Segmentation Approach', Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16: 2,
211 — 231
Lankford, SV. (1994) Attitudes and perceptions toward tourism and
rural regional development. Journal of Travel Research, 32(3), 33–
35.
Lea, S. E. G., Kemp, S., & Willetts, K. (1994). Residents’ concepts of
tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 21, 406–409.
Lepp Andrew (2008) 'Attitudes Towards Initial Tourism Development
in a Community With No Prior Tourism Experience: The Case of
Bigodi, Uganda', Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16: 1, 5 — 22,.
Liu, J. C., & Var, T. (1986). Resident attitudes toward tourism impacts
in Hawaii. Annals of Tourism Research, 13(2), 193-214.
Liu, J. C., Sheldon, P., & Var, T. (1987). Resident perceptions of the
environmental impact of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,
21(121-139).SUSTAINABLE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN MANALI REGION 177
Matarrita-Cascante, David, Brennan, Mark Anthony and Luloff, A.
E.(2010) 'Community agency and sustainable tourism
development: the case of La Fortuna, Costa Rica', Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 18: 6, 735 — 756
Mohammed I. Eraqi (2007) Local communities attitudes towards
impacts of tourism development in Egypt Tourism Analysis, Vol.
12, pp. 191–200 2007 Cognizant Comm. Corp.
www.cognizantcommunication.com
Mowforth, M., & Munt, I. (2003). Tourism and sustainability:
Development and new tourism in the Third World (2nd ed.).
London: Routledge.
Mundet, Lluís and Coenders, Germà(2010) 'Greenways: a sustainable
leisure experience concept for both communities and tourists',
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18: 5, 657 — 674
Nunkoo, Robin and Ramkissoon, Haywantee(2010) 'Modeling
community support for a proposed integrated resort project',
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18: 2, 257 — 277,
Okazaki, E. (2008). A Community-Based Tourism Model: Its
Conception and Use. Journal of Sustainable Tourism . Vol.3,pp.231-
238.
Pizam, A. (1978). Tourism impacts: the social costs to the destination
community as perceived by its residents Journal of Travel
Research, 16, 8-12.
R. B. Singh and D. K. Mishra (2004) “Green Tourism in Mountain
Regions – Reducing Vulnerability and Promoting People and Place
Centric Development in the Himalayas” Journal of Mountain
Science Vol 1 No 1, pp. 57-64.
Richa (2003) “Manali Resort Development Process: A Case for
Dispersal of Tourism in Himachal Pradesh” Tourism Development
Journal- An International Journal for Tourism Research (Annual
Journal), the First Issue of the Journal Vol.1, No.1.
Richa (2007) Sustainable Nature Based Tourism: A case Study of
Kerala Sikkim and Himachal in Bansal , S.P. Cutting edge research
in tourism emerging issues and challenges (ed), Abhishek
publication p.p. 290 -325.
Richards, G., & Hall, D. (Eds.). (2000). Tourism and sustainable
community development. USA: Routledge.
Ritchie, J. (1993) Crafting a destination vision: putting the concept of
resident-responsive tourism into practice. Tourism Management,178 MOHINDER CHAND and VIVEK
14(5), 379–389.
Robson, J., & Robson, I. (1996). From shareholders to stakeholders:
critical issues for tourism marketers. Tourism Management, 17(7),
533–540.
Ryan, C., & Montgomery, D. (1994). The attitudes of Bakewell
residents to tourism and issues in community responsive tourism.
Tourism Management, 15(5), 358–369.
Ryan, C., Scotland, A., & Montgomery, D. (1998). Resident attitudes of
tourism development—a comparative study between the
Rangitikei, New Zealand and Bakewell, United Kingdom. Progress
in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4, 115–130.
S.P.Bansal and Prashant Kumar Gautam (2007) “Implementing
Sustainable Tourism: A Critical Appraisal of Tourism at wetlands”
cutting edge research in tourism emerging issues and challenges,
Abhishek publication p.p.210-232.
Saarinen, 2006 J. Saarinen, Traditions of Sustainability in Tourism
Studies, Annals of Tourism Research 33 (2006), pp. 1121–1140.
Sirakaya, E., Teye, V., & Sonmez, S. (2001). Understanding residents’
support for tourism development in the central region of Ghana.
Journal of Travel Research, 41, 57–67.
Tatoglu, E., Erdal, F., Ozgur, H., & Azakli, S. (2000). Resident
perception of the impacts of tourism in a Turkish resort town.
Available: http://www.opf.slu.cz/vvr/akce/
turecko/pdf/Tatoglu.pdf ( January 25,2009).
Teye, V., Sirakaya, E., & F. Sönmez, S. (2002). Residents' attitudes
toward tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3),
668-688.
Upchurch, R. S., & Teivane, U. (2000). Resident perceptions of tourism
development in Riga, Latvia. Tourism Management, 21(5), 499-
507.
Wall, G. (1997) Sustainable tourism – unsustainable development. In
S. Wahab and J.J.Pigram (eds) Tourism Development and Growth:
The Challenge of Sustainability (pp. 33–49). London: Routledge.You can also read
