SAJTH, January 2012, Vol. 5, No. 1 Residents’ Perceptions ...sajth.com/old/2012/Microsoft Word - 014Mohinder Chand.pdfToday, tourism is appreciated as an economic giant not only

SAJTH, January 2012, Vol. 5, No. 1

© South Asian Journal of Tourism and Heritage

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.

158 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 and

SUSTAINABLE 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 of


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 the


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 vulnerability


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. They


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, Catherine


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 sustainable


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 et


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.


Table 1 : Demographic Profile of Respondents (N= 459)

Demographic

Characteristics

Number of

Respondents

Number of

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 20.47


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

1

Factor

2

Factor

3

ASTDF

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 cycles & behavior’s

.443


Factor

1

Factor

2

Factor

3

ASTDF

Damage natural environment and landscape

.516

Destroy local ecosystem .480

Introduction of exotic species .480

Nature-based development .455

Loss of open space .425

The diversity of nature valued and Protected

.493

Improves living utilities infrastructure supply of water, electric & Telephone, etc.

.428

2. Socio-cultural impacts

Rise in criminal & antisocial activities

.611

Increases alcoholism, prostitution, & sexual permissiveness

.433

Increases exploitation of local natives

.467

Increases robberies .426

Encourages cultural activities .428

Provides convenient transport .601

Benefits to local people and small business

.418

Positive impacts on the cultural identity of our community

.442

Deflation of local culture .425

Increases traffic accidents .471


Factor

1

Factor

2

Factor

3

ASTDF

positive attitudes towards creative & Innovative work

.415

Local residents have suffered from living in tourism destination areas

.451

3. Economic Impacts

Unfairly increased real estate cost and property taxes

.701

Increases cost of living .773

Increases price of goods and services

.754

Increases potential for imported labour

.617

Increases price of land and housing

.647

Cost for additional infrastructure (Water, sewer, power, fuel, medical, etc.)

.413

Improves local economy .406

Increases employment opportunities

.543

Improves investment and development

.503

Increases opportunities for shopping

.462

Seasonal tourism creates high-risk under- or unemployment issues

.488

Profits may be exported by .407


Factor

1

Factor

2

Factor

3

ASTDF

non-local Owners

Jobs may pay low wages .490

Economic impact is widespread in the

.444

Improves transport infrastructure

.419

Creates new business opportunities

.415

Competition for land with other (higher value)economic uses

.455

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).


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.


Table 3: Bivariate correlations for the variables used in analysis

Age Sex Occupation Marital Status

education EI SCI EcoI ASTDI

Age 1.000

Sex -0.822**

1.000

Occupation 0.792** 0.812** 1.000

Marital status

-0.359**

0.463** -0.370** 1.000

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**

-0.510**

0.316** 1.000

ASTDI 0.170 0.281 -0.205* -0.206 -0.651**

-0.562**

0.525** -

0.401** 1.000

** 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 high


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– 690


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 Sustainable


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).


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,


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.

Documents

SAJTH, January 2012, Vol. 5, No. 1 Residents’ Perceptions ...sajth.com/old/2012/Microsoft Word - 014Mohinder Chand.pdfToday, tourism is appreciated as an economic giant not only