CHAPTER IV : ANALYSIS and FINDINGS Maharashtra Has Almost

Home , Ajanta Caves, Ellora Caves, Mhaismal, Paithan, Paithani, Panchakki

CHAPTER IV : ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Maharashtra has almost 1200 caves spread over various parts of the state, of which 900 belong to Buddhism (ASI,2011).Along with Buddhism, these caves are also closely associated with other religions such as Hinduism and Jainism. Some of these Buddhist caves in Maharashtra are Ajanta, Ellora, Junnar, Karle, Kanheri and Bhaja. Of all the Buddhist caves in Maharashtra, Ajanta and Ellora caves are most famous and World heritage sites as they represent one of the masterpieces of sculpture and paintings. This chapter discusses the case of Ellora in detail through archival research and secondary resources.

4.1 ABOUT AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA

According to ASI (2012), Aurangabad region was inhibited since long and shows traces of Upper Palaeolithic (around 10,000 to 20,000 years ago), Mesolithic (less than 10,000 years ago) and Chalcolithic remains (2500-1000 BC) as well. Aurangabad is meeting point of North and South of India, leading tosocial, cultural and political development in Aurangabad which ispan-Indian in ethos, though one notices distinct identity of the place ( Dhongde and Ranade, 2010).According to Dhongde and Ranade (2010), Ajanta and Ellora ,both are a social document displaying cultural ethos of the contemporary society through buildings, environment, attire, customs and daily life. Islamic period which came later added a new vocabulary in architecture and landscape ,through various typologies like the land fort of Daulatabad, also known as Deogiri fort, Tombs, Mosques and Masjids like the Aurangzeb tomb, Malik Amber tomb, Mughal style gardens and Structures in Khuldabad and Aurangabad like the Bibi ka maqbara ,Bani Begum Bagh, Pariyon ka talab, Suneheri Mahal, Hamams and the Sarais( MTDC,2010). This was later followed by Maratha empire, its major architectural pieces being the Ghrushneshwar temple and the Ahilyabai kund in Ellora, Ghrushneshwar being twelthof the 12 jyotirlingas , latest additions being Lakshyavinayak temple, Janardan Swami Mandir ( MTDC,2010). Culture therefore in this region became composite with cross-cultural exchanges echoed in its architecture , finer details and technology ( Dhongde and Ranade, 2010) , displaying development of this region- its political, social and cultural dimensions pan Indian in ethos ,however local in detail. Apart from rich Cultural heritage , Aurangabad has in its close proximity Pithalkhora caves built 2000 years ago andPaithan with 200 year old wadas.

Perspective District Development Plan Vision 2020 (2011) mentions geographical area of Aurangabad district as 10,100 sq.km.of which 141.1 sq.kms, (1.4%) is urban area with population of 37.5% of the district, whereas remaining 99,587 sq.km. (98.6%) is rural area. Aurangabad is declared recently as tourism capital of Maharashtra and Ellora which is close to Aurangabad , is the most important place on tourist map of India ( Pandit, 2013) , Aurangabad district has 2 World Heritage sites – Ajanta and Ellora caves ,having nominated and added to the World Heritage list in 1983 along with Taj Mahal , Agra. Ellora especially has evolved over a long period of time and displays cultural diversity from Satavahana period till Islamic influence. Ellora region displays cultures of 4 major religions of Asia – Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism, as well as Islam .

Despite the fact that these are World heritage sites of universal value, there seems to be a big gap in attaining this status of Outstanding Universal value ( MTDC,2010). Though tourism development aims at empowering people, boosting economy of the place and alleviate poverty; it is seen that the economic benefits are central to Aurangabad ,rather than Ellora and Khuldabad village ( MTDC,2010). The Vision Report of MTDC ( 2010) mentions tourism not being looked as alternate source boosting the economy of Aurangabad.

Vision of Aurangabad as mentioned in Aurangabad District Perspective plan of MTDC (2010) is

‘To produce a world class Visitor experience for the Tourists to Aurangabad district leading to their prolonged stay thus developing the local economy and community and ensure the safety, security and comfort of the visitor without degrading the cultural, environmental and social values of the populace.’

4.2 ELLORA CAVES: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Literature review of books written by architectural historians like Percy Brown, Fergusson, Bannister Fletcher, Tadgel, Satish Grover focus more on Ellora cave’s Art and Architecture, its spatial character and sculptures.

Buddhism rose in other parts of India during the reign of Ashoka (Morvanchikar, 1985), and spread in Maharashtra through large scale caves especially Pitalkhora, Ajanta, Karle, Nasik etc; realised the spiritual needs of the society , believed in social equity ( Dhongde and Ranade,2010) and harmonious relationship between man and nature ( Buddhist ecology) received patronage of Satvahanas which further resulted in Monument of Ellora.

Ellora was a special and popular religious centre of India, being evolved as a Sacred site because of its location on the ancient northern route which joins Paithan ( Pratisthan) , a major trade centre ; with Aurangabad and continues further north to Maheshwar , previously known as Mahismati and Ujjain in MP, both being regional political and religious centres. The richness and variations in the motifs, figures and architectural vocabulary, shows influence of indigenous and foreign sources (Malandra, 1996) .

The caves are total 100 in numbers , of which 34 are made accessible to tourists which include Buddhist Caves 1 to 12 , Hindu/ Brahmanical Caves 13 to 29 and Jain Caves 30 to 34 ( Asi.ac.in,2011). Two more groups of caves – Jogeshwari caves and Ganesh caves are located on upper terraces close to the waterfall. Caves 1 to 10 and Rameshwara Cave no 21 were constructed by the Kalachuris of Mahismati; later remaining Buddhist caves and Hindu caves were constructed by the Rashtrakutas ,patrons of learning and education, (Asi.ac.in,2011),who ruled from 8th century- 10th century AD ( Dhongde and Ranade,2010), who came after Kalachuris and Jain caves are Post- Rashtrakutas (ASI ,2011;Dhongde and Fig No 4.1 Map displayed at the entrance of Ellora caves Ranade,2010), patronaged by Yadavas. Source : Map displayed for public at the Ellora caves precinct The site was developed in 3 phases, mainly entrance the Hindu phase from 550 -600 AD, Buddhist phase from 600-730 AD and last phase 730-950 AD which comprised of Hindu and Jain excavations sponsored by Rashtrakuta kings (Malandra, 1996)

The known traveler from Baghdad, Al Masudi who visited this place between 8th-10th century, describes Ellora emphasizing the popularity of Ellora as a pilgrimage place, a sacred landscape, a ‘Tirtha’..

‘The great temple named Aladra ( Ellora) ,where Indians come for pilgrimage from the farthest regions. The temple has an entire city to its support, and it is surrounded by thousands of cells, where the devotees consecrated to the worship of the idol dwell’ (Malandra, 1996) Later addition of Marathas and Islam, makes the place more complex and displays greatest collection of religions at a single place, all co-existing with each other, showing harmony and religious tolerance (ASI,2011). Kailas temple built by Krishna I in 750 AD who later also built Ghrushneshwar temple , represents ultimate version of the Hindu temple , of Dravidian style, of culmination of Hindu rock cut architecture ( Dhongde and Ranade,2010) ASI (2011) mentions ownership of Holkars and Nizams of Hyderabad in the later stages ; of which Nizams carried extensive repairs of these caves. Caves are now under Archeological Survey of India and maintained by them (UNESCO,2003).

4.3 LANDSCAPE AND ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT

Landscape in and around Ellora caves

These caves in Ellora were carved in volcanic Deccan trap basalt in the western side of the hills which formed part of the Sahyadri range of the Deccan; Deccan also known as Dandakaranya ( Morvanchikar,1985),where many streams flow, prominent among them being Yelganga,which drains into Shiv, a stream of Godavari river system (ASI,2011). The water forms a very big waterfall near Sita-ki-Nahani, cave no. 29.Dhongde and Ranade (2010) mentions caves’ surroundings to be a deciduous forest .

The landscape of Ellora as depicted in various paintings below shows hilly and rugged terrain, rocky outline ,waterfalls and vegetation as important features of the landscape.

Photo No 4.1 Painting of the mountain of Ellora, by Thomas Daniell (1803). The Mountain of Ellora, 3rd view, plate III from Part 5 of 'Oriental Scenery', engraved by Thomas Daniell (1749- 1840) pub. 1803 Source : ourworldheritages.com, www.1st-art-gallery.com

Photo No 4.2 "Ingres del Kailasa," by Giulio Ferrario, from 'Il Costume Antico e Moderno', Florence, an edition of 3194 Source : ourworldheritages.com, www.1st-art-gallery.com

Photo No 4.3Kailas temple Source : http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00routesdata/0700_0799/kailashn ath/drawings/drawings.html

Cave Layout

History of civilization shows that cultural development and spirituality growsduring the period of economic prosperity ,political stability and when primary needs of subsistence are met (Morvanchikar, 1985). These religious centres are also crucial points of economic and social arrangements; also a halt point on the trade route linking east and west coasts of India ( Pandit ,2013).

Ellora shows range of stylistic variations, patronage of various kings where each group marks significant leap in architecture and iconography of that faith ( Dhongde and Ranade, 2010). According to Dhongde and Ranade (2010), the caves were located at the base of the hill , were surrounded with deciduous forest, shows 3 faiths influencing each other , a place which saw Buddhism fading, Hinduism developing and Jainism finding good base in this region.

Sculptures

Rock cutting and building in rock was popular art due to availability of rock . The highlight of various caves are Chaitya cave no 2, Sankatmochan Panel in cave no 3, Maitreya Bodhistava in cave no 4, Big hall with long benches for group recitals in cave 5, horseshoe shaped window and ribbed barrel vault in cave no 10( Dhongde and Ranade, 2010), Don tal and teen tal in cave no 11,12 respectively, Cave no 16-Kailas temple , Cave no 29 finest Brahmanical cave also called Sita ki Nahani or Dhumar caves with Lions at the entrance and

courtyards bringing skylight; Cave no 32 of the Jain caves shows Indrasabha ( Dhongde and Ranade, 2010). Sculptures show use of animals – Elephants, Deer, Lions, Horses, birds – Swans, ducks, peacocks , creepers, leaves, flowers and fruits along with female figures in the form of gods, doorkeepers, dancers , celestial beings, demons, personified animals, rivers, trees, mountains.

Building Typology

Ellora seems to be a link between iconography illustrations from Ajanta, Kanheri and Aurangabad to later Buddhist schools of North Buddhism ( Pandit,2013). The caves of Ellora is the tangible link between the intangible beliefs and the tangible reality, reflects unique use of local materials, building technology, local cultures and settings, the client who got it commissioned and the builder who built it( Crouch,1995),making it distinctive.

In medieval era , Daulatabad fort, and a town in 12th century AD, symbolizing the end of Hindu rule in this part of Maharashtra and rise of Islam ( Dhongde and Ranade, 2010). Khuldabad got developed close to Ellora caves, a town with high fortification and gates, one with 1400 graves and tombs of important personalities like Malik Amber, Aurangzeb etc ,on the upper side, amidst the garden and lakes ( Dhongde and Ranade, 2010).

Apart from the caves, Rashtrakuta king also built Ghrushneshwar ,which was later renovated by Maloji Bhosale in 1599; further addition being renovation of Ghrushneshwar temple complex and addition of Shivalaytirtha or Ahilyabai Holkar Kund in 1769( Michell and Johar,2012).There is a strong connection between Guheshwara, Linga ,worshipped by Rashtrakuta King Dantidurga at Elapura / Ellora and structural temple of Jyotirlinga- the Ghrishneshwara , through the transfer of local cult known successively as Guheshvara, Ghrishma and Ghrishneshvara from previous to the latter ( Michell and Johar,2012) . Also located in the village of Verul / Ellora are 3 Samadhis built in sultanate architectural style ,clustered around Ghrushneshwar ,Mahadev temple and ghats ,Gadhi, Gateways to Verul village ,Chakreshwar temple, gundeshwar temple, Sambhaji Wada all belonging to Bhonsales and Holkars built in 16th -17th century ( Michell and Johar,2012). Michell and Johar (2012) mentions influence of sultanate style reflected in some of the architectural pieces of Maratha architecture, it being close to Khuldabad and Daulatabad, regional centres of their powers in 14th century.

Fig No 4.2 Plan showing Ellora caves, Ghrushneshwar , Shivtirtha and Ellora village

Source : The Maratha Complex at Ellora,George Michell & Sugandha Johar

4.4 EFFORTS OF CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION OF THE HERITAGE

Ellora caves received World Heritage site status in 1983 in the same year as the Ajanta caves and Taj Mahal; the reason for its nomination being co-existence of 3 different religions –Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism ,in the form of 34 caves which are cut across length of 2 km in a Basaltic rock cliff, with mentions of cave no 10,15,16, and Jain caves 30- 34 ( ICOMOS,1983). ICOMOS (1983) mentions its Outstanding Universal Value under 3 criterias, criteria I being Kailas representing creative genius and technological exploit , with sculptures of high plasticity and paintings, without any equals; Criteria III being representation of a civilization which thrived for a period of 400 years ( 600-1000) and Criteria VI being representative of spirit of tolerance which was ancient India. World Heritage Committee Report (2002), mentions the demarcation of zones to be adequate, no change in authenticity and integrity, in future no foreseeable changes, sufficient legal protection, existing laws to be sufficient, periodic and long term management plan ,sources of funding from central government and international assistance through JBIC funding for Ajanta –Ellora Conservation and tourism development programme,communication of World Heritage values through brochures and awareness programmes of ASI.The WHC Report (2002) however mentions lack of staff training, absence of advanced technologies in conservation like the GIS , cartography,GPS, computer applications, lack of emergency and public use plan,

The WHC report (2003) mentions role of inscription of Ellora caves as World Heritage to extend the awareness to increasing number of visitors and need of intensive

research. The factors identified in this report affecting the caves include development pressures threatening the authenticity, water seepages and leakages and deterioration of caves, vegetation control, appropriateness of species, control of soil erosion, presence of bats and insects in the caves affecting the sculptures and the paintings ; vandalism by the visitors ,impacts of natural factors and visitors ,though same is said to be decreasing at the site.

Fig No 4.3Ellora caves and its prohibited and regulated areas Source : WHC Report of 2003

Ellora caves being a Buddhist site of World Level importance, received Japanese funding for conservation and development. Phase I and II of Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) funding ,with loan sanction in 1992 and final disbursement in 2002 , has 2 broad objectives of conservation and protection of the caves and the natural resources of Ajanta and Ellora region and infrastructure improvement for increasing number of tourists for better experience through facilities and services (Pantawane ,2008). This project is the first Overseas Development Authority (ODA) loan project in India aiming for not only the restoration of the World Heritage site, but also improving the surrounding environment ; the larger goal being economic development through tourism resources – the cultural heritage / World Heritage Sites. ( JBIC,2007) .

Ellora is the first project with a special characteristic of economic upliftment of local people through conservation of the World heritage site for tourism promotion ( JBIC,2007) .

Addressing these objectives the project components included conservation of monuments, upgradation of infrastructure- water supply ,electricity, communications, improvement in accessibility through road, rail and air, environment management through afforestation, removing encroachments, low pollution through transportation, visitor management system through improved circulation, landscape, lighting, signage and tourism

amenities and media and publicity ( MTDC,2010). To achieve this development, JICA is working in sync with ASI,MTDC, AAI and many other state agencies for operationizing the project ( JICA,2009). Ellora Visitors centre has been designed for not only the interpretation of the heritage site through an auditorium designed for audio-visual presentations on Buddhism for conveying the significance of WHS and history ;but also includes amphitheatres, spaces for exhibitions and events, retail shops, 3 restaurants ,games for e- learning ,parking facility of 142 cars, 41 buses and 199 two-wheelers ( TOI,2013). Environmental upgradation includes afforestation of 237 hectares around Ellora caves, landscaping in front of cave no 16-Kailas temple and other caves, internal roads, parking area in Ellora caves precinct ,electricity and water supply for Ellora caves, directional signages /road signages, signages inside the site. Phase II of AEDP loan sanctioned in 2003 to the tune of 300 crores included not only the restoration work in Ajanta- Ellora but extended it to other monuments in the state like Elephanta caves, Lonar Crater near Aurangabad, monuments in Aurangabad like Bibi-ka-Maqbara, Soneri Mahal, Delhi Gate, Makai Gate, Bhadkal Gate; and Pitalkhora caves, Daulatabad Fort ;scope of work being restoration and preservation, upgradation of environment, training of staff and visitor management system (MTDC,2010)

Following has been the review of the conservation and development of Ellora caves , through various committees of experts and reports - 1. ICOMOS Report ( 2003) mentions need to control the visitors to Ellora caves for preservation of sculptures and paintings and better tourism management plan. 2. Protection at national level not possible if there is lack of scientific, economic and technological know-how and dearth of resources ( ICOMOS,2008) 3. The upgradation work of Ajanta –Ellora heritage circuit got appreciation from UNESCO and Japanese government (Pantawane, 2008) 4. The Thematic Evaluation Report of JBIC (2007) based on the premise that cultural heritage that uses heritage as a tourism resource leads to destruction of the resource, affects local culture and values , mentions – a. Participation of local communities in tourism development, b. No harm to local culture and the community, c. High quality of historic site conservation, d. Improvement of surrounding environment through landscape e. Infrastructure development and tourism management system, f. Advancement of women and disadvantaged class .

5. It further mentions authenticity compromised and preference given to safety and infrastructure services development . Loss of Authenticity is also mentioned due to the lawn garden done in front of the Kailas caves. 6. Contrary to JBIC Report ( 2007), concerns raised by the consultants include disconnection of local communities from the heritage site, isolation of local communities, local communities needs not addressed, significance does not recognize local and regional significance (Rai, 2009). 7. The Performance Audit done in 2013 by the Government of India ,shows poor performance of most of the World Heritage sites. It also mentions CCMP/IMP/SMP, prepared in 2012 ,however not executed.

All the above further reinforces Ellora as a case for study and research.

4.5 OBSERVATIONS AT ELLORA Perceptions of landscape relates to various senses of sight, touch, smell, movement and experience( Deming,2011).In social research observation is widely used to understand biophysical features and its condition, human activities, social life and events , cultural meanings and values ; to better understand the place ,as also open up new areas of investigation about which little is known. ( Deming,2011). This non-participant approach may range from visual survey to detailed survey (Walliman,2005)

One of the tools of the research has been Direct observations in and around the Ellora caves. The observations were done during various times of the day – morning ,afternoon and evening to understand the activities, movement patterns, patterns of usage and associations and environmental degradation. The observations are categorized in themes like tourism infrastructure, physical condition and environment of the caves and activities

1. Tourism infrastructure

Photo No 4.4 Good road connectivity Photo No 4.5 Hapazard and inadequate Photo No 4.6 Pathway toKailas temple from Aurangabad to Ellora caveswith parking inside Ellora caves precinct in basalt difficult to walk for old people Plantation by Forest department and disabled people

Photo No 4.7 Ramps for disabled and Photo No 4.8 Information boards in Photo No 4.9 Signages indicating cave old people without handrail, less in Hindi and English language, with glossy numbers in English only width and high degree of slope surface making it less legible

Photo No 4.10 Lawn area in front of Photo No 4.11 Seating area extensively Photo No 4.12 Restaurant inside Ellora Kailas used around trees for visitors, used caves .not harmonious to the context

Photo No 4.13 Garbage bins in front of Photo No 4.14 Police security temporary Photo No 4.15 Special security Kailas temple, not user-friendly structure, located near the main gate personnel for Ajanta and Ellora

2. Physical condition and environment of the caves

Photo No 4.16 Mounds with Photo No 4.17 Conservation work Photo No 4.18 Dark spaces inside the unmaintained lawn areas showing additional pillars in RCC caves

Photo No 4.19 School childrensitting on Photo No 4.20 Parking area near Photo No 4.21 Encroachments at the exposed tarred surface which gets hot Ghrushneshwar with garbage dumps at Ghrushneshwar, in summer places

3 Activities: Visitors

Photo No 4.24 School children Photo No 4.22 Seeing the sculptures Photo No 4.23 Watching Kailas from top visiting Ellora caves to understand .Seating and resting inside the caves of the hill, with protection only at some the heritage points

Photo No 4.26 Seating areas provided for Photo No 4.25 Monkey feeding Photo No 4.27 Seating on the edges visitors,also used for eating food of pathwayblocks visitors’ movement.

Photo No 4.28 Sitting on the heated rock Photo No 4.29 Children climbing on rock Photo No 4.30Inaccessible areas surfaces during summers is risky used by international tourists.

Activities : Local Communities

Photo No 4.33Local people carrying Photo No 4.31 Wood stacks in houses, Photo No 4.32 Water problem in some water from the cistern close to the used as fuel in Ellora village parts of Ellora village cave.

Photo No 4.34Ghrushneshwar temple – Photo No 4.35Festival in Ellora village Photo No 4.36Shantigiri Maharaj

pilgrims ,unorganised spaces and activities Yatra ,litter problem

Photo No 4.37Selling religious goods Photo No 4.38Selling locally made Photo No 4.39 House in Ellora sculptures and handicrafts village

Photo No 4.40Shadilbaba Dargah in Photo no 4.41 Old entrance gate of Ellora Photo no 4.42 Old wada in Ellora Ellora village village village in dilapidated condition

4.6 FINDINGS FROM OBSERVATIONS

4.6.1 Tourism Infrastructure

1. Road connectivity from Aurangabad to Ellora caves is good with plantation along road. 2. Hawkers are seen inside the Ellora caves precinct selling information books, guide books, beadwork, running autos, doing photography ,selling eatables as business. 3. The paved pathway to Kailas temple has visitors sitting and resting on the sides shows inadequate seating and resting places. Seating areas around trees were seen used by the visitors to rest and relax. 4. The ramps for disabled are provided ,however has steep slope, no hand railing and wooden planks making it uncomfortable for physically challenged people. 5. Structures like restaurant building , Police security not harmonious to the context. 6. The security scanner is unfunctional. Special security squad – 8 in numbers is seen in the campus at different locations. 7. The parking area is inadequate with haphazard parking and parking in non-designated areas. 8. The information boards are glossy making them illegible. 9. Signages on the road connecting the caves are in English only 10. Garbage bins seen only in front of Kailas temple, inappropriate in terms of its location and design

4.6.2 Physical condition and environment of the caves

1. Unmaintained landscape spaces 2. Basalt block paving heats up during day time making it uncomfortable to walk especially for elderly people 3. Less tree cover along pathways makes walking unbearable. 4. Unsympathetic conservation work with inappropriate material and design 5. Most of the caves are dark and insecure. 6. Presence of bats create foul smells inside the caves. 7. Some parts in Kailas temple unsafe due to cracks in the cave rocks above , 8. Insufficient seating areas forcing the visitors to use tar surfaces and lawn areas for seating and resting. 9. In the Buffer zonesaround Ellora caves and Ghrushneshwar, encroachments are seen 10. Garbage observed near the parking area designated close to Ghrushneshwar and in the dry river basin.

4.6.3 Activities

1. Kailas temple is the most frequented cave with many visitors seen during peak periods like the national holidays , during festivals and vacation time. 2. In Kailas temple, many visitors are seen watching the sculptures and paintings, seating and resting at some places of the temple features, throwing garbage inside the bins placed outside the Kailas temple, climbing on the sculptures and rock surfaces and clicking photos standing on the sculptures. 3. Chemical conservation by ASI seen under process in some caves 4. There are many Hindu pilgrims who offer prayers at Shiva temple in Kailas and some Buddhist pilgrims offer prayers in Buddhist caves. 5. Some couples and old visitors are seen resting and relaxing at the seating areas and in some places on the rocks where seating provision is not made. Some couples are seen near the edges, close to compound wall of the forest. 6. Monkey menace is seen especially disturbing the visitors who are resting or having lunch. 7. Local residents are seen carrying water from the water cisterns near cave group 30-34. 8. In the Buffer zone close to Ghrushneshwar local communities are seen selling religious goods. Some stalls sell local products like the statues of deities made in plaster of Paris.

9. Shantigiri Ashram ,through its religious activities, adds to the religious and spiritual ethos of the Ellora village.

4.6.4 Conclusions

Ellora is visited by tourists and pilgrims , both. Multiple activities of visitors visiting Ellora caves and Ghrushneshwar are observed , some of them leading to environmental and ecological degradation of the caves. Tourism infrastructure provisions are unsympathetic and inadequate. Poor quality of Conservation work of the Ellora caves , Poor landscape development and maintenance.

Activities like carrying the water from the caves’ cisterns, tree felling for fuel , show dependency of local communities on Ellora caves as a resource. Village of Ellora and Khuldabad are architecturally rich in built heritage and reflects vibrant culture through celebration of festivals and events.

Observations at the site has also contributed to formulation of the interview schedule to understand visitors and local communities’ perceptions related to it.

QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS

4.7 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS : VISITORS

In many research studies related to tourism and heritage, descriptive and exploratory research is adopted. Though direct observation is one of the techniques used to gather information of the environments, not all information can be sought through this method. One has to therefore resort to other techniques like primary surveys asking information through instruments like questionnaires or interviews based on formal , structured set of questions

( Deming,2011). Descriptive statistics help quantification ,express in numbers what possibly we cannot through words (Leedy& Ormrod, 2005) and know the characteristics of the data , its centre and know relationship of one aspect of data with its other aspect ;however does not extend beyond it( Walliman,2005).

Since descriptive can’t go beyond summary of observations, inferential statistics help establish nature of relationships ( Deming,2011); draw inferences of larger population ; examine co-relation between variables ( Walliman,2005); help measure strength and level of significance to relationships in variables( Babbie,2013). Descriptive statistics is used for sample profile and some questions related to trip characteristics. Frequency and mean (

central tendencies) are employed as tools for data analysis. Frequencies and percentile values obtained are represented using bar charts and pie-charts . Inferential statistics is used for remaining questions. For data analysis , statistical software IBM SPSS 22 is used.

Questions which are multiple response questions like reason of visit, other caves seen, reasons of not seeing caves, striking features, activities, feelings ,multiple response analysis option is chosen in IBM SPSS. For questions pertaining to Heritage components and development preferences ,Friedman Chi-square test for contingency is used. Place attachment and sense of community is understood through Friedman chi-square test for contingency (Cui and Ryan,2011) . Chi Square is used to understand the statistical association of relations in nominal or ordinal data ( Babbie,2013). Factor analysis is performed for state of tourism infrastructure. Factor analysis is used to analyzevisitors experiences ( Poria, Butler and Airey,2003, Elands,2012), perceptions of impact of tourism ( Tatoglu et al,1998, Cui and Ryan,2011) ,mapping of Community values (Pfueller et al,2009), dimensions of visitor behaviors ( Teoa et al, 2014). Factor analysis is a multivariate technique which allows investigation of a complex matrix of inter related variables , seeking causal relationships among a whole set of inter-relationships. (Deming,2011) or a complex algebraic method for determining the general dimensions or factors that exist within a set of concrete observations ( Babbie,2013). Table with variables and tests are attached in Appendix III.

4.7.1 Sample profile

Observations and findings

4.7.1.1 Gender The sample comprised of 54.23% men and 45.77% women

Chart 4.1 Gender

4.7.1.2 Age of the visitors It is found that almost half of the respondents (43.85%) are majorly in the range of 25-45 years ; 18-25 year younger visitors are 38.49% ;whereas those who are 45-60 years age are 13.25 and 60 years and above are 4.42 %, which is almost 1/5th of the respondents.

Chart No 4.2 Age 4.7.1.3 Religion It is found that Hindus werepre-dominant visitors (67.51%)followed by Christians (14.83%) and remaining 17.66% belong to other religions like others, Buddhism and neo- Buddhism ,Islam and Jainism

Chart No 4.3 Religion

4.7.1.4 Place of Residency It is found that almost 46.54% respondents are majorly from other cities of Maharashtra , followed by those from outside Maharashtra (23.58%). International Visitors are 14.47%. The site is also visited by residents of

Aurangabad and surrounding areas which Chart 4.4 Place of Residency accounts to 15.41%. 4.7.1.5 Education It is found that more than 60.32 % visitors are graduate followed by one third of them being post-graduate (29.21%). almost 6.03% have education upto 10th standard and 0.63% and 3.17% are those who have education upto 5th standard or can only read and write or no

Chart No 4.5 Education formal education respectively. Those who are

well-educated account to 89.53% 4.7.1.6 Occupation It is found that those coming from education sector amount to 1/3rd of respondents – 29.25% , who are students and into education which is the highest , followed by those in other occupations (28.62%) and business (23.58%). Those who mentioned as other occupations were the ones who are employed in private jobs

Chart No 4.6 Occupation /companies and some of them are

professionals. Remaining others who are into tourism, government jobs, hotel industry, jobless or household work are upto 18.55%. 4.7.1.7 Income It is found that More than half of the respondents (50.0%) have income more than 40,000 followed by one –third of the visitors in the range of 20,000-40,000 (32.5%) and 8.57% in the range of 10000-20,000. This shows

spending capacity of the visitors Chart No 4.7 Monthly Income

4.7.1.8 Conclusion Visitors , more than half of them interviewed fall into the age category of 25-45 followed by 18-25, younger ones, mostly are from other cities of Maharashtra , followed by those from outside Maharashtra. International visitors account to 15% since Ellora is a World Heritage site.

It is found that almost two-third of the visitors are graduate followed by one third of them being post-graduate , with only few who are poorly educated. Level of education may affect their understanding of history and culture of the place , as also their intent of visit.

Hindus are pre-dominant visitors followed by Christians and those of other religions like Islam, Buddhism and Neo-buddhism.There are visitors of major religions of India - Hinduism,Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism visiting the site.

100

Regarding occupation, half of the visitors are connected with education sector, either as teachers or students, followed by one –fourth of them in business. Half of the respondents have income more than 40,000 followed by one –third of the visitors in the range of 20,000-40,000, shows their spending capacity.

All these factors are likely toaffect their perceptions of heritage sites.

4.7.2 Trip Characteristics

To understand the Trip Characteristics of visitors, questions pertaining to the source of information of heritage site, frequency of visit, accompanying persons, time spent at the heritage site, motivation or intent of the visit, places of visit and reasons for not seeing some places were asked.

4.7.2.1 Previous knowledge 1. Source of Information

It is found that 46.84 % know Ellora caves through books and magazines, 27.85% have learnt about Ellora caves from their relatives , 15.82% from website and internet media, 7.28% from other media and 2.22 % from the programmes conducted by ASI, forest Chart No 4.8 Source of Information department and MTDC authorities.Books and

guides are major source of information as also the newer information technology media like websites and other social medias. 2. Prior visit

It is found that 24.84% have visited Ellora caves several times; almost3/4th of the visitors (75.16%) are visiting the site for the first time, may not be aware of the physical environments of the caves;. Those who have visited before ,are the ones who would be able to give insight into the state of heritage

buildings and help understand changes that Chart No 4.9 Prior visit have happened in and around the caves over a 101

period of time.

4.7.2.2 Accompanying people

It is found that 43.32% have come with family members, followed by 46.71% with friends. 4.70% are students while 4.7% have come alone and 1.57% with others. It is found that almost 90% of the visitors are visiting the place with family members or friends. Though small in number, this World Heritage Chart No 4.10 Accompanying people site is also a destination visited by students. 4.7.2.3 Time spent It is found that more than half of the visitors (56.11%) spend 2-4 hours at the heritage site and 25.08 % spend upto 2 hours , 14.42 % visitors spend 4-6 hours and4.39% spend 6 hours and above. It can be concluded that most of the visitors spend predominantly 2-4 hours at Ellora caves.

Chart No 4.11Time spent Table No. 4.1 Frequencies of‘reason of visit’ 4.7.2.4 Reason / Intent of visit Responses %of From Table no 4.1, it is found that REASON FOR VISIT N Percent Cases 1 To see the caves and other predominant reason for visit is seeing the 252 39.4% 79.2% historical buildings caves followed by knowing more about the 2 Enjoy Nature 101 15.8% 31.8% 5 To know more about the historic historic place, followed by visiting this 88 13.8% 27.7% place destination to enjoy nature and family outing 3 With family for weekend outing 83 13.0% 26.1% ,recreation and recreation purpose. More than one –third 4 Adventure 46 7.2% 14.5% of the visitors ,i.e. 36.2% (27.7% + 8.5%) 7 Religious purpose 34 5.3% 10.7% 6 Study and research purpose 27 4.2% 8.5% visitors are serious visitors visiting the caves 8 Other. Please specify 8 1.3% 2.5% to know more about the caves, study or Total 639 100.0% 200.9% research. 4.7.2.5 Places of visit Based on the motivation /reason or intention of visit, visitors visit and see the heritage site and surrounding places, perform certain activities and develop perceptions of the Heritage and heritage sites. To understand whether all caves are seen by the visitors or chosen few, the

102

visitors were asked 2 questions. One pertaining to their visit to Kailas temple in specific and other which enquired about visit to other caves in the precinct. Other caves meaning all caves other than Kailas caves. It also includes those which are lesser known, inaccessible, not listed and not part of World Heritage site. Those who did not visit other caves, are asked another question which enquired about the reasons for not seeing or visiting them. Visitors are also enquired about other places of visit apart from World Heritage site of Ellora caves, since it is observed through literature review that visit to heritage site is part of larger plan of travel. 1. Visit to Kailas temple It is found that 94.95% visitors have visited Kailas temple.It can be concluded that Kailas temple is most frequented cave of the Ellora caves complex, by both- National and International visitors

Chart No 4.12Kailas temple seen OTHER CAVES VISITED : REASONS FOR NOT SEEING OTHER CAVES

Table No. 4.2 Frequencies for ‘Other caves visited’ Table No. 4.3 Frequencies for Responses Percent of ‘reason for not seeing other caves’ N Percent Cases Responses 3. Too far off to walk on foot CAVES SEEN N Percent Percent of Cases 104 36.6% 45.0% 1. 1-12 Buddhist 250 28.6% 83.1% caves 10. Other reason 72 25.4% 31.2%

2. 13,14,15 Hindu 1. Not aware of other caves 47 16.5% 20.3% 231 26.4% 76.7% Caves 2. No good access Road 22 7.7% 9.5% 3. 17-18 Hindu 4. Difficult to climb and reach 21 7.4% 9.1% 135 15.4% 44.9% Caves 7. I didn’t feel like visiting and 6 2.1% 2.6% 4. 29 Dhumar caves 126 14.4% 41.9% knowing more about the caves 5. 30-34 Jain caves 91 10.4% 30.2% 6. Afraid of monkeys , bats or other 5 1.8% 2.2% 7. None 23 2.6% 7.6% wild animals from the forest 6. Other non listed 5. Not very safe due to surrounding 18 2.1% 6.0% 3 1.1% 1.3% caves forest Total 874 100.0% 290.4% 9. I am not allowed inside the Ellora 3 1.1% 1.3% caves site 8. I am too busy 1 0.4% 0.4% Total 284 100.0% 122.9%

2. Other caves visited From Table no 4.2, it is found that apart from Kailas cave ; Buddhist and 13,14, 15 Hindu caves are the most frequented caves followed by other Hindu caves ,Dhumar cave , and Jain

103

caves . Though small in percentage, some visitors have also seen non-listed caves and some did not visit a single one. 3. Reasons for not visiting the caves From Table no 4.3, it is found that 31% felt time as a constraint to see other caves, 45% felt that it was too far to walk on foot, almost 20.3% were not aware of other caves and 9.5% said no good access road, whereas 9.1% felt difficulty in climbing and reaching the caves

Other places of visit It is found that almost 2/3rd of the respondents (59.04% ) have visited places other than Ellora caves. Most of the visitors visited nearby places of visit like the Daulatabad Fort or Deogiri Fort, Bhadra Maruti, Khuldabad- Aurangzebs Tomb, Lakshya Vinayak, Vishwakarma Temple, Jain Temple, Mhaismal- for enjoying nature ,

Janardan Swami Temple at Mhaismal

Chart No 4.13Other places of visit Some of them also visited places in Aurangabad - Bibi ka Maqbara and Panchakki, Some foreign nationality visitors visited acanthi caves, Some visited many Buddhist pilgrimage site – Bodhgaya, Nalanda, Kalinga, Nepal, Kapilavastu, Shravasti ( 3 weeks ), Some visited Badami and some visited Shanishingnapur, Pandharpur, pilgrimage places in Maharashtra. This indicates that the World Heritage site is part of a larger travel plan and therefore needs to be seen as part of larger circuit and designed and connected accordingly.

4.7.2.6 Conclusions

It can be concluded that predominant reason for visit is seeing the caves followed by knowing more about the historic place, followed by visiting to enjoy nature and family outing and recreation purpose. Reasons / intent of visit to heritage site of Ellora reflect the value visitors hold towards the heritage site. It can be concluded that the site has high Cultural , 104

Architectural and Archaeological value along with Education and Research value ; followed by Recreation and Adventure value ; and Nature &Scenic value as well as Religious value.

Of the caves, Kailas cave is most frequented cave, followed by Buddhist and Hindu, those ones which are close and easily accessible. One of the major reasons for not visiting the caves apart from time constraint are distances and travel time needed / Accessibility as well as awareness regarding the caves and its layout.

4.7.3 Heritage components

To the common man, meaning of Heritage sites are two – one which involves history and other where it involves history along with culture ( Coeterier,2002) ,where historic sites and buildings are all about form and detailing , though to experts who are well-informed , they are basically holding knowledge and information value; though to both of them heritage contributes to environmental quality. Through interview with key informants and experts, focused group discussions, direct observations , and literature, following were listed as heritage components. They were asked to rank the 7 components with 1 being ‘least important’ and 7 being ‘most important’; and were enquired reason for the rank. Statistical test – Friedman chi-square test was used . Respondents were presented with 7 heritage components .

H0 : there is no difference in importance respondents attach to various heritage components

H1: there is significant difference in importance respondents attach to various heritage components

Level of significance : ‘α= 0.05’

Observations

Table No. 4.4 Friedman Chi-Square test for Heritage Components Ranks Friedman Test Mean N 273 Rank Chi-Square 502.745 Kailas temple 5.52 df 6 Painting and Sculptures of Ellora Asymp. Sig. .000 4.84 caves

Other caves 4.37 Table No. 4.5 Mean values and Mean ranks of Heritage Ghrushneshwar, other temple, Components 4.19 Dargahs Descriptive Statistics Forest and surroundings 3.83 Heritage components N Mean values Waterfall, ponds, lakes 3.15 Kailas temple 314 6.23

105

Painting and Sculptures of Ellora caves 309 5.57 Verul/ Ellora village 2.10 Other caves 308 5.22

Ghrushneshwar, other temple, Dargahs 303 5.12 Forest and surroundings 311 4.73 Waterfall, ponds, lakes 302 4.13 Verul/ Ellora village 291 2.87

Findings : Since the p value (0.000) is less than level of significance 0.05 , the null hypothesis is rejected. Hence it is found that there is significant difference in importance respondents attach to various heritage components. To find out, where the difference lies, we refer to ranks Table no 4.4.From the rank table it can be seen that Kailas, Paintings, sculptures of Ellora caves , other caves are top 3 heritage components have highest mean ranks. Least important are forest and natural surrounds, waterfalls , ponds , lakes etc and Verul/ Ellora village according to the visitors.

Along with the ranking, the visitors were also asked to state the reasons for the level of importance.

Following are the reasons –

 Forest and Natural surroundings of Ellora – Visitors prefer natural surroundings with greenery, fresh air, .Forest cover secures our future , helps curb global warming, adds to environmental protection. Forest makes surroundings pleasant. Forest is also important for nature excursion , to learn more about it.  Waterfalls – Visitors did not feel them impressive. However important for leisure. Water bodies were not in good condition. They felt it was not the highlight of Ellora and therefore not so important and part of heritage.May be because the survey was conducted in November when the waterfalls do not have water.  Kailas temple – It is a marvelous piece, difficult to construct .They were eager to know more about it.  Sculpture and paintings – Since they were unique ,done using natural color, reflects hard work of those who constructed the caves . They were significant part of Ellora caves. Some wanted to know more about it.  Ghrushneshwar and others –Ghrushneshwar is one of the 12 jyotirlingas, important religious place of Shiva.  Verul village– Though the village appeared poor in appearance , however few of themfelt the place has identity because of village 106

Conclusions The ranking in a way reflect the value people hold towards the heritage and what they term as ‘heritage’. It can be concluded that top 3 heritage components are Kailas Temple, Paintings and Sculptures at Ellora caves ; and Other caves according to visitors . Lesserimportant are waterfalls , ponds , lakes etc and Verul/ Ellora village according to the visitors. It can be concluded that based on the perceptions of visitors related to the heritage components , Forest and Natural surroundings of Ellora has ecological ,educational and recreational value, waterfalls have Ecological value , recreational value, Kailas temple and other caves have historic value, archeological and architectural value and educational value, Sculptures and paintings of Ellora has historic value, archeological and architectural value, educational value ,Ghrushneshwar has religious value and Verul village has no value according to visitors. 4.7.4 Striking features Apart from the heritage of the place, there may be some striking features of the environment which the visitors may find important and distinctive to the place. To those who visit the heritage places, the quality and condition of the environment is of prime importance ( Masberg , 1996). From the interview with key informants and experts, focusedgroup discussions, direct observations , and literature, following were listed as striking features . Visitors were presented with 15 options with the 15th option being open ended and were asked to choose from given options. Hence the question was a multiple response question which resulted in multiple responses. Data was analyzed using ‘Multiple Response Analysis ’ option in IBM SPSS. Observations Table No. 4.6 Frequencies of ‘ Striking features’

Responses STRIKING FEATURES N Percent Percent of Cases 6. Kailas temple 253 14.5% 79.6%

5. Art, Paintings and sculptures 226 13.0% 71.1%

4. Peaceful environments of Ellora caves 205 11.8% 64.5%

3. Fresh and clean air 185 10.6% 58.2%

1. Nature of Ellora forest- trees, birds, Animals etc 180 10.3% 56.6% 7. Other caves of Ellora 162 9.3% 50.9% 8. Ghrushneshwar temple, Ahilyabai kund 149 8.5% 46.9% 10. Cleanliness and maintenance 97 5.6% 30.5% 2. Rural Character of Ellora Village 75 4.3% 23.6% 9. Dargahs of verul and Khuldabad 62 3.6% 19.5% 14. Local Art and Handicrafts like Himroo , Paithani, Stones etc 51 2.9% 16.0% 107

11. View of the caves from the Restaurants inside Ellora caves site 36 2.1% 11.3% 12. Ellora visitors centre 36 2.1% 11.3% 13. Local food 26 1.5% 8.2% 15. Any other 1 0.1% 0.3% Total 1744 100.0% 548.4%

Findings It is found that Kailas temple,Art, Paintings and sculptures, Peaceful environments of Ellora caves, Fresh and clean air,Nature of Ellora forest- trees, birds, Animals etcare top 5 striking features of Ellora caves and its surrounds . Out of 1744 responses, 149 responsesare also for Ghrushneshwar temple and Ahilyabai kund.

Conclusions It can be concluded that apart fromEllora caves - Architectural and archaeological elements as heritage components , other intangible aspects of the environment like peaceful environments, fresh and clean air are felt as striking.The carrying capacity of the heritage site is also dependent on these 2 intangible aspects like peaceful environments and fresh and clean air. It also talks about their preference for green cover / ecology and noiseless zone.

Lesser important are Dargahs of Veruland Khuldabad, Local Art and Handicrafts like Himroo , Paithani, Stones etc,View of the caves from the Restaurants inside Ellora caves site,Ellora visitors centre,and Local food. It can be concluded that local art and craft , local cuisine and local monuments are not felt important by the visitors.

4.7.5 Activities Based on the direct observations during pilot survey, 9 activities were enlisted as predominant activities performed by the visitors inside the heritage site. These activities performed are related to their motivation or intent of visit and these activities may affect the heritage site or give clues for design interventions at such heritage sites. Visitors were presented with 9 options with 9th option being open ended. Question being multiple response question, data was analyzed using ‘Multiple Response Analysis’ option

Observations

Table No. 4.7 Frequencies for ‘ Activities’

Responses ACTIVITIES N Percent Percent of Cases 1.Seeing/observing the sculptures 309 28.9% 98.1% 7. Relaxing 194 18.1% 61.6%

108

6. Pausing and resting for some time 173 16.2% 54.9% 2. Going to the top and watching Kailas from above 162 15.1% 51.4% 3. Exploring other lesser known caves /other spots on site 84 7.9% 26.7% 4. Eating 70 6.5% 22.2% 8. Playing 38 3.6% 12.1% 5. Feeding the monkeys banana, nuts etc 31 2.9% 9.8%

9. Other activities 9 0.8% 2.9% Total 1070 100.0% 339.7%

Findings

It is found that seeing and observing sculptures, relaxing ,pausing and resting for some time, going on the top and watching Kailas from above, and exploring other lesser known caves /other spots on the site are top 5 activities which are performed by the respondents.

Other activities apart from those included in interview schedule include Photography, Meditation, Romantic time, painting, sketching, watching trees and birds , watching the waterfalls.

Conclusion

Seeing and observing sculptures, relaxing ,pausing and resting for some time, going on the top and watching Kailas from above, and exploring other lesser known caves /other spots on the site are top 5 activities which are performed by the respondents. It can be concluded that though the primary intent of visit may be one or two, there are multiple other activities performed at the site, emphasizing the need to design the environments to support and perform those activities effectively. It can be also concluded that there are some visitors alsoexploring lesser known caves or other spots on the site, which are not part of the World Heritage Site.Safe access needs to be provided to such areas which are part of the heritage , however not part of the World Heritage Site demarcation.

4.7.6 Feelings

Feelings are associated with experiences and expectations from the heritage sites (Tung and Ritchie,2011). From the popular ‘Navarasas’, or the nine moods, where ‘Rasa’ is about human state of mind , an emotion, a feeling (Patowary et al, 2016)10 options were given, where the 10th one is ‘no feeling’.

109

319 respondents were presented with 10 options and were asked to choose from given options. Hence the question was a multiple response question which resulted in multiple responses. Data was analyzed using ‘Multiple Response Analysis’ option in IBM SPSS.They were also asked to mention reason for getting that feeling.

Observations

Responses Reasons given

Percent of FEELINGS N Percent Cases 1. Peaceful feeling Pureness in architecture, cool and shade inside the caves, less crowd, beautiful nature, 240 27.6% 75.9% more silence, spiritual atmosphere

8. Proud feeling Rare caves in the world. Impossible to build. Proud that it exists in India. Proud that they have opportunity to visit an important site and see the culture. Many foreigners/ 196 22.5% 62.0% International visitors from distant places visiting the place makes them feel proud.

2. Cheerful feeling Environment and cleanliness, friendly people Environment and cleanliness, friendly 158 18.1% 50.0% people 7. Surprised feeling Technology , big area of caves, admiration of technical skills, more to see than 135 15.5% 42.7% expected, surprised how the beautiful sculptures have got damaged 9. Romantic feeling 52 6.0% 16.5% Due to greenery, sculptures and the environment 4. Compassionate Due to sculptures 31 3.6% 9.8% feeling 3. Disturbed feeling Darkness , garbage, broken sculptures, deterioration of the caves, lot of people, 29 3.3% 9.2% disturbing peace, bats and monkeys, unclean, no maintenance of caves, nagging hawkers inside the Ellora caves precinct 6. Horrified feeling had seen these sculptures in childhood and now seeing it degraded, climbing and taking 15 1.7% 4.7% photos, spitting inside the caves and waste litter

5. Disgust feeling 10 1.1% 3.2% Smell of bats, smell of caves 10. No feeling 5 0.6% 1.6%

Total 871 100.0% 275.6%

Table No. 4.8 Frequencies of ‘ Feelings’

Findings

Peaceful, Proud, cheerful , surprised and romantic are 5 top feelings related to Ellora caves.

Conclusions

It can be concluded that peaceful feeling, proud feeling, cheerful feeling , surprised feeling and romantic feeling are 5 strong feelings that were aroused in the mind of the respondents. It is seen that the proud feeling and the surprised feeling is related to the architecture and technology employed in construction of the caves; the cheerful and romantic 110

feeling relates to architecture , environment and local people and their friendly behaviour. Peaceful feeling which is the strongest feeling is attributed to the architecture and archaeology of the heritage site ,the nature, cool and shaded spaces, which reinforces the spiritual qualities of the environment.

Though the feeling of being disturbed ,horrified and disgust are less in percentage, the reasons for these feelings need to be taken into consideration. The feeling of disgust, horrified and disturbance is related to the state of the heritage, the unsympathetic behaviour of the tourists and vandalism, the degraded environment, the waste and litter around , the darkness and smells inside the caves. Unsympathetic behaviour of the tourists and vandalism is related to tourism management while state of the heritage buildings, darkness and smell inside the caves, degraded environment , waste and litter around concerns with Heritage conservation and site management.

4.7.7 State of Tourism Infrastructure and Development Based on the case specific literature, direct observations and pilot survey, following were enlisted as components of tourism infrastructure. Perception related to the state of these components of tourism infrastructure was understood using 5 point Likert scale where

1= below average and 5=excellent

Table No. 4.9 Mean, Standard Deviation, Skewness and Kurtosis for ‘State of Tourism Infrastructure’

State of Tourism Infrastructure Mean Std. Skewness Kurtosis Result Deviation Overall quality of Site and its infrastructure 3.34 .924 -.158 .254 Overall Quality of the site is average Movement Path connecting the Ellora cave 3.29 .914 -.038 .227 Movement Path connecting the Ellora caves is average Landscape development 3.28 1.053 -.316 -.006 Landscape development is average Maintenance of the caves and surrounds 3.24 1.080 -.208 -.073 Maintenance of the caves and surrounds is average Safety at Ellora and its surrounds 3.16 1.172 -.458 .179 Safety at Ellora and its surrounds is average Cleanliness at the Ellora caves and its surrounds 3.13 1.170 -.188 -.418 Cleanliness at the Ellora caves and its surrounds is average Road leading from highway to Ellora caves 3.05 1.051 -.281 .234 Road leading from highway to Ellora caves is average Parking facility at the Ellora caves site 2.85 1.191 -.334 .264 Parking facility at the Ellora caves site is average Signage and information boards 2.73 1.213 .115 -.521 Signage and information boards is average Restaurants facility/service 2.29 1.194 .085 -.162 Restaurants facility/service is below average Lighting arrangements in and around Ellora 2.21 1.129 .348 -.098 Lighting arrangements in and around Ellora caves is caves below average Adequacy of Public conveniences like toilets, 1.93 1.127 .506 -.145 Adequacy of Public conveniences like toilets, drinking water drinking water is below average Information at Ellora visitors centre 1.93 1.857 .270 -1.465 Information at Ellora visitors centre is below average

111

Factor Analysis :Factor analysis is a multivariate technique which allows investigation of a complex matrix of inter related variables , seeking causal relationships among a whole set of inter-relationships. (Deming,2011) or factors that exist within a set of concrete observations

( Babbie,2013). An exploratory factor analysis isconducted on 13 items related to State of heritage buildings and tourism infrastructure. Visitors were asked to comment on 13 factors related to state of heritage buildings and tourism infrastructure.

Table No. 4.10 KMO Bartlett test for ‘State of Tourism Infrastructure’

KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure The Kaiser Meyer- Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.799 indicating that the data .799 of Sampling Adequacy. was suitable for principle component analysis. Barlett’s test of Sphericity was significant ( p< Bartlett's Test Approx. 0.001) , indicating sufficient correlation between variables to proceed with the analysis. 845.723 of Sphericity Chi-Square A total of 4 factors having Eigen values > 1, cumulatively accounting for 54.025 variance df 78 Sig. .000

Table No. 4.11 Principal Component Analysis for ‘State of Tourism Infrastructure’

Total Variance Explained Initial Eigen values Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 4.213 32.407 32.407 2.736 21.047 21.047 2 1.543 11.868 44.275 2.395 18.420 39.466 3 1.267 9.750 54.025 1.893 14.558 54.025 4 1.014 7.801 61.825

5 .849 6.527 68.353

6 .775 5.965 74.318

7 .661 5.086 79.403

8 .626 4.817 84.220

9 .554 4.260 88.480

10 .495 3.810 92.290

11 .401 3.085 95.375

12 .347 2.666 98.042

13 .255 1.958 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

In order to find out which variables are loaded onto which factor, we refer to Rotated Component Matrix.

112

Table No. 4.12 Rotated Component Matrix for ‘State of Tourism Infrastructure’ Rotated Component Matrix

Component

1 2 3 1 Road leading from highway to Ellora caves .048 -.031 .813 2 Signage and information boards .163 .394 .591 3 Information at Ellora visitors centre -.020 .658 .281 4 Adequacy of Public conveniences like toilets, drinking water .095 .813 .072 5 Restaurants facility/service .210 .771 -.089 6 Parking facility at the Ellora caves site .211 .313 .206 7 Lighting arrangements in and around Ellora caves .234 .498 .268 8 Cleanliness at the Ellora caves and its surrounds .772 .285 .035 9 Maintenance of the caves and surrounds .797 .242 .106 10 Landscape development .798 .012 .133 11 Safety at Ellora and its surrounds .367 .068 .439 12 Movement Path connecting the Ellora caves .148 .230 .624 13 Overall quality of Site and its infrastructure .729 .087 .254 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. Rotation converged in 4 iterations. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Findings : From the Rotated component matrix, it can be seen that Cleanliness at the Ellora caves and its surrounds, Maintenance of the caves and surrounds, Landscapedevelopment, Overall quality of Site and its infrastructure have loaded on factor 1. Contents of 4 factors indicate the factor to be ‘Quality of site environment’ From the Rotated component matrix, it can be seen that Information at Ellora visitors centre, Adequacy of Public conveniences like toilets, drinking water; Restaurants facility/service, Parking facility at the Ellora caves site ,Lighting arrangements in and around Ellora caves have strongly loaded on factor 2. Contents of 5 factors indicate the factor to be ‘Tourist facilities’. From the Rotated component matrix, it can be seen that Road leading from highway to Ellora caves, Signage and information boards, Safety at Ellora and its surrounds, Movement Path connecting the Ellora caves have loaded on Factor 3. Contents of 4 factors indicate the factor to be ‘Safety and Ease of movement ’.

Conclusion : Of the various components of state of infrastructure, 5 important infrastructure components include Overall quality of Site and its infrastructure, Movement Path connecting the Ellora caves, Landscape development, Maintenance of the caves and surrounds, Safety at Ellora and its surrounds. Tourism infrastructure components below average are Restaurants

113

facility/service, Lighting arrangements in and around Ellora caves, Adequacy of Public conveniences like toilets, drinking water,Lighting arrangements in and around Ellora caves,Adequacy of Public conveniences like toilets, drinking water ,Information at Ellora visitors centre.

The 13 components are reduced to 3 under themes – Quality of Site environment, Tourist facilities and Safety and Ease of Movement.

4.7.8 Physical Changes observed

Visitors who are frequent visitors of the site or those who have visited Ellora caves before were asked if there was any change they observed between the prior visit and the current visit. They were also asked to mention the changes observed in and around Ellora caves. This question was an open-ended question asked to 79 of them who have visited Ellora more than once out of total number of 319.

It is found that 79.56% respondents did not answer. Out of remaining 20.44% (16 nos) who visited Ellora caves before, 13.84% noticed change (11 nos) ,where as 6.6% ( 5 nos) did not notice any change

Chart No 4.14 Physical changes observed

Those visitors who had visited Ellora before , noticed both – good and bad changes as enumerated below.

Physical condition of Ellora caves and its landscapes

1. Sculptures deteriorated and sad state of buildings 2. Forest cover has decreased 3. Surroundings are more degraded 4. There is increase in gardens ,however not accessible 5. Garden in front of Kailas is new addition 6. Garden in front of Kailas is good for resting but not allowed 114

Tourism infrastructure development

7. Roads are widened , were narrow before 8. Roads network well-developed Addition of toilets at entry point 9. Parking facility has improved 10. No development seen in village

Maintenance and Management

Ellora caves environs are more clean than before

Conclusion

First three show deterioration of the environment and rest show good changes enhancing the environs of the Ellora caves. Degradation includes deterioration of the sculpture and caves , decrease in forest cover in the Ellora caves precinct, Degradation in the surrounding areas and no development in Ellora village. Good changes include landscape development, addition of toilets and parking facility, development of road and movement network. It can be concluded that the changes that were observed by visitors are both –good and bad.

4.7.9 Aspects in Ellora caves and its surrounds adversely affecting perceptions Impact assessment contains positive and negative elements ( Kala,2008). Getting rid of negative elements is bringing order or organizing the environment ( Yatmo,2007). There are some elements in the landscape and environment which may be disliked by the visitors and /or felt inappropriate, which affects their perceptions of the heritage site and memorable experience. This was an open ended question and visitors were asked to enlist spontaneously their opinion related to the inappropriate features which can be broadly categorized under heads –conservation of the caves, tourism infrastructure, Ellora caves environment, Behavioural aspects and Maintenance, management and security.

1. Conservation of caves

 Broken and degraded sculptures  Poor restoration work  Deterioration of the structure and sculptures over a period of time  Disappearance of paintings

2. Tourism Infrastructure

 No proper information boards and not much information regarding caves

115

 No drinking water facility  Toilets in bad condition  Less facilities and those provided are poor and below standards of Whs  No cheap hotels for good stay and food  Food facilities poor  Roads and infrastructure is extremely poor

3. Ellora caves Environment

 Garden stands in strong contrast with the caves  Poor landscape by MTDC . Front garden disliked  Caves difficult to climb and access  Too far to access on foot  Too much Crowded  Unclean areas , garbage at entrance and some other places  Village unclean  Smell of bats excreta  Darkness inside the caves makes it unsafe

4. Behavioural aspects

 Smoking and spitting inside the temple  Aggressive hawkers selling trinkets , Hawkers behaviour nagging  Auto drivers are nagging.  People climbing on the sculptures and taking photos  Need to change the mindset of visitors. visit to archeological site and not a garden or picnic spot. Need to respect art  People climbing on sculptures, yelling and disturbing the peaceful environment  Staff is non-cooperative

5. Maintenance , Management and security

 Poor Maintenance  Less security as compared to its WHS status and visit to the monument by International visitors  Too much crowd at a time making it difficult to manage  Monkeys create problems and make the place unsafe .afraid of monkey bite

116

 Caves should not be closed on Tuesday

Conclusion

Aspects in Ellora caves and its surrounds which negatively affect perceptions arecategorized under ‘conservation’, where the work is seen to be of poor quality showing degradation of the caves, ‘Ellora caves environment’ which is poor state and of average quality, ‘visitors behaviour’ which is harming the caves and deteriorating the environments ;and ‘maintenance, management and security’ of low standards and insufficient.

4.7.10 Development Preferences Items for Visitors Preferences for development are derived from literature and interviews with key informants and experts. Mean values and mean ranks are seen and Friedman chi- square test is performed to check if there is difference in preferences within various items of development.

Table No. 4.13 Friedman Chi-Square test for Development Preferences of visitors

Test Statistics Observation : χ2 (σ ) = 1703.890, p = .000 , µ = 245

N 245 Since the p value ( 0.000) is less than level of

Chi-Square 1703.890 significance 0.05 , the null hypothesis is rejected.

df 18 Hence it is found that there is significant difference

Asymp. Sig. .000 in developmental preferences of the respondents

related to Ellora caves and its surrounds.

Table No. 4.14 Mean values and mean ranks for Development Preferences of visitors

Descriptive Statistics Mean Developmental Activities N values 1. Conservation and restoration of Ellora caves 315 4.89 2. Conservation and Restoration of Paintings and Sculptures in Ellora caves 313 4.86 3. Toilets and drinking water facility 309 4.53 4. Garbage disposal facility and Waste management 306 4.42 5. Accessibility features for disabled such as ramps, hand railing, Braille script etc 290 4.28 6. Planting more trees 301 4.28 7. Improvement in roads quality 305 4.19 8. Lighting for seeing the caves 309 4.11 9. Seating facility along the movement path 304 4.06 10. Guided tours inside Ellora , Ellora village and other important buildings 297 3.86 11. Space and Facilities for Art and Cultural festival like Ellora festival , in Ellora 303 3.75 12. Increase in parking facility 302 3.62 13. State Highway Road to be widened and shifted away from the Ellora caves 300 3.53 14. Space and Facilities for Religious festivals like Mahashivratri, Urus etc 304 3.36 117

15. Space for Shops of local handicrafts 298 2.98 16. Home stays for tourists in homes of local people/ residents 293 2.96 17. More Hotels in Ellora 295 2.85 18. Space for Shops selling flowers, fruits related to puja and other Religious activities 298 2.57 19. Airport Near Ellora caves for easy access 299 2.27

Mean Developmental activities Rank 1. Conservation and restoration of Ellora caves 15.10 2. Conservation and Restoration of Paintings and Sculptures in Ellora caves 14.80 3. Toilets and drinking water facility 13.40 4. Garbage disposal facility and Waste management 13.04 5. Accessibility features for disabled such as ramps, hand railing, Braille script etc 12.19 6. Planting more trees 12.04 7. Improvement in roads quality 11.57 8. Lighting for seeing the caves 11.44 9. Seating facility along the movement path 11.10 10. Guided tours inside Ellora , Ellora village and other important buildings 10.33 11. Space and Facilities for Art and Cultural festival like Ellora festival , in Ellora 9.68 12. State Highway Road to be widened and shifted away from the Ellora caves 8.99 13. Increase in parking facility 8.80 14. Space and Facilities for Religious festivals like Mahashivratri, Urus etc 8.23 15. Space for Shops of local handicrafts 6.68 16. Home stays for tourists in homes of local people/ residents 6.66 17. More Hotels in Ellora 5.94 18. Space for Shops selling flowers, fruits related to puja and other Religious activities 5.14 19. Airport Near Ellora caves for easy access 4.85

Findings:

To find out, where the difference in development preferences of respondents lie, we refer to mean ranks Table no 4.13

Conservation and restoration of Ellora caves, Conservation and Restoration of Paintings and Sculptures in Ellora caves, Toilets and drinking water facility, Garbage disposal facility and Waste management, Accessibility features for disabled such as ramps, hand railing, Braille script etc; Planting more trees.

Lesser important are Space and Facilities for Religious festivals like Mahashivratri, Urus etc, Space for Shops of local handicrafts, Home stays for tourists in homes of local people/ residents, More Hotels in Ellora, Space for Shops selling flowers, fruits related to puja and other Religious activities, Airport Near Ellora caves for easy access.

118

Conclusion

It is concluded that Conservation and restoration is top priority for the visitors as also Conservation and restoration of the paintings and sculptures. Garbage and waste management and public facilities are also of top priority to the visitors. Space and facilities for festivals, handicrafts and selling religious goods are not at all important to visitors. ‘No Airport near caves’ for easy access shows their priority for the safety of the Ellora caves over their comfort. Homestays are least important to them as also the hotels in Ellora. One of the reasons being the time spent in Ellora by the visitors is not more than 6 hours. It is also noted that space and facilities for Art and cultural festival is preferred over space and facilities for religious festivals, reflect their cultural ethos over religious ethos.

4.7.11 Visual Preferences for Architectural and Landscape development

The common man’sunderstanding of heritage and its evaluation through their understanding and preferences is done through content analysis based on photo-elicitation of landscapes through interviews of residents and non-residents (Coeterier,2002).To understand the preferences of landscape settings and architectural development in Ellora caves, 319 respondents were presented with photo options based on 4 themes –

1. Landscape Setting

2. Architectural vocabulary for buildings

3. Lighting inside Ellora Caves

4. Material for street furniture

These 4 themes are also related to the authenticity and integrity of the site through various developments that happen in the site like landscape development, architectural vocabulary of tourism infrastructure buildings ,material for street furniture , as also the lighting of the heritage. Report of JICA ( 2007)mentions authenticity hampered due to the lawn in front of Kailas temple. Therefore landscape setting chosen for photo survey was one in front of Kailas.

In case of the landscape setting in front of Kailas caves, respondents were given 2 options, first being the existing lawn and flowering shrubs and second being forest with winding pathway to reach to Kailas caves. The second setting resembles the original forest setting of the Ellora caves.

119

4.7.11.1Landscape Setting

Photo No 4.43 Existing Lawn in front of Kailas temple Photo No 4.44 Proposed forest in front of Kailas temple and a pathway through it leading to Kailas temple

Landscape setting in front of Kailas caves It is found that majority of visitor’s preference for the setting in front of Kailas as forest (75.47%) over existing lawn (24.53%)

Chart No 4.15 landscape setting in front of Kailas caves

The visitors were asked to state the reasons for the choices made. Following reasons were given –

Forest - More trees before 1998, need to restore jungle effect as existed before. Restore original landscape, Forest will attract wild life, trees will give more shadow and reduce heat Lawn- open foreground, children will feel afraid of forest, lawn would be better for them to play

4.7.11.2 Architectural Vocabulary :Restaurant building

Existing restaurant building close to Kailas caves ,easily seen and accessed is chosen for the photo survey. In case of restaurant building, Respondents were given 2 options, one

120

being the current restaurant which is modern building. In the same location, the respondents were presented with a photo of restaurant in stone material and same architectural vocabulary as the Ellora caves , architectural style which is congruous and contextual.

Photo No 4.45Existing Architecture vocabulary - Photo No 4.46Proposed Architecture vocabulary - restaurant restaurantbuilding building Architectural vocabulary for buildings It is found that majority of visitorsprefer old style than the modern style of architectural vocabulary. Reason given for their choice of Old style was unified look and resemblance with caves’ natural character.

Chart No 4.16 Preferences for Architectural vocabulary

4.7.11.3 Lighting inside the Caves

The photo selected for lighting is the cave, popularly known as the Carpenters hut. This cave like other caves is deep, however unlike other caves is little narrow and with exquisite architectural features. To understand the preferences for lighting inside the caves, 319 respondents were given 4 options. The first option was the existing natural lighting inside the caves, second option was LED lighting inside the caves, third option was blue tinted lighting inside the caves and fourth option was 3 spot lights inside the caves, highlighting the statue of Buddha and cave architecture.

121

Photo No 4.47 Exisiting lighting (14.15%) Photo No 4.48Proposed LED lighting (79.87%)

Photo No 4.49 Proposed Blue lighting (1.89%) Photo No 4.50Proposed Spot lighting (4.09 %)

Lighting inside the caves It is found that most of the visitors / tourists prefer LED lighting for its resemblance withnatural lighting , uniform lighting of the sculptures making them more legible.

Chart No 4.17 Preferences for lighting inside caves

122

4.7.11.4 Material for Street Furniture

Many visitors are observed sitting on the edges of the pathway leading to Kailas temple. Kailas cave which is also the most frequented site, is selected and various options of street furniture are presented to the respondents. The choice of material given was based on study related to authenticity and integrity ; and second was pilot survey. The existing materials which have been inspirational in design of the caves – stone and wood has been given as choices and high-tech material which could be used to meet international standing of the site.

Respondents were presented with 4 options; first being the existing material for paving in front of Kailas cave with no street furniture, second option being benches, dustbin and lamp-post in wood, third being in steel and fourth option being stone material.

Photo Photo No 4.51Existing ‘No’ street furniture Near Kailas temple No 4.52Proposed Wooden Street Furniture near Kailas temple cave cave (11.60%) (60.50%)

Photo No 4.54Proposed Stone Street Furniture near Kailas temple Photo No 4.53Proposed Steel Street Furniture near Kailas temple cave (26.65%) cave (1.25%) Material for street furniture It is found that preference for wooden furniture is the highest followed by existing situation without any street furniture. The reasons for preference of wood mentioned by visitors were it being complimentaryto the site in terms of its

texture and color, its property of notgetting Chart No 4.18 Preferences for Street furniture material 123

heated up due to solar radiation, though most of them also understood the problem of longetivity of the material,but felt it a user- friendly material. ‘No street furniture ‘ was given as second option which most felt was relevant to preserve the authentic character of a World Heritage site. 4.7.12 Willingness to pay The visitors were enquired whether they would be willing to pay more entry fees. This question was dichotomous (yes/no) variable. They were asked the reason for their willingness to pay, which is enumerated in detail in the next question which was an open ended question asking their suggestions for improvement of this World Heritage site.

Observation and findings

It is found that almost 3/4th of the visitors are ready to pay more for the ticket. The visitors were willing to pay more provided there was upgradation in the site as mentioned in the suggestions for improvement of the heritage site.

Chart No 4.19 Willing to pay

4.7.13 Experience about the past and understanding of history

Observation and findings It is found that 46.86% understood and experienced past history whereas 53.14% could not understand and experience past history. On enquiring about the reason it was foundthat those who understood history, understood it majorly through the sculptures and paintings, information from books and friends ,information given by hired

124

Chart No 4.20Experience and understanding of guides who were either local or from Aurangabad . history Conclusions

It can be concluded that there are noefforts to

communicate the history and give an experience to

visualize and understand the past – the social life,

culture.

4.7.14 Experience of local culture From the table and the pie chart it can be concluded that 87.63% did not get the knowledge of local culture - about local people’s lifestyle, festivals, food, dress, houses, clothing, culture,12.37% said they got knowledge of the local culture.

Findings: It is found that almost 2/3rd of the visitors did not

get knowledge of the local culture , people’s Chart No 4.21 Experience of local culture lifestyle, festivals, food, dressing, houses, clothing.

4.7.15 Memorable experience Four major factors which make experiences memorable are expectations, affect, consequentiality and ability to recollect (Tung and Ritchie,2011). This questionprobes into understanding the elements / reasons which made the experience memorable to the visitors . It is an open-ended question and following is the list along with number of responses enumerated below –

Cultural and Natural heritage

1. Caves in rock and carvings ,Art, stonework, Cave architecture…………………….81 2. Kailas temple and 1-10 caves . And Jain caves………………………………………97 3. Cave 10- magical and quiet…………………………………………………………...3 125

4. Cave with biggest Buddha inside…………………………………………………… 9 5. Shiv temple inside Kailas temple……………………………………………………...5 6. Remarkable scale and detail………………………………………………………….10 7. Technology used for constructing the Ellora caves…………………………………..11 8. Interconnectness of people and cross-cultural influences and togetherness of three religions……………………………………………………………………….2 9. Natural environment and its beauty…………………………………………………..11 10. Peaceful natural surroundings ,a good get away from everyday busy routine………...9 11. Cave 10 waterfall………………………………………………………………………4 12. Sacredness , religious feeling due to religious sculptures……………………………..3 13. Sunset at Kailas temple………………………………………………………………..3 14. View from top………………………………………………………………………..11 15. Natural rock texture…………………………………………………………………..2 16. Hanuman temple at Khuldabad ……………………………………………………….1 17. Ghrushneshwar temple ………………………………………………………………1

Tourist Infrastructure and Facilities

1. Good picnic spot, nested amidst nature………………………………………………..3 2. Homestay in the village of Ellora……………………………………………………2 3. Seating spaces in front of caves giving view of the caves…………………………….1 4. No railing or bars to monuments allows exploration and visual accessibility………1

Maintenance and Management

1. Cleanliness…………………………………………………………………………….2 2. Bad restoration work…………………………………………………………………..2 3. No safety and security…………………………………………………………………1

4.7.16 Suggestions for improvement

They are categorizedinto conservation of cultural and natural heritage and its presentation , tourist infrastructure and facilities, maintenance and management.Following were the suggestions made.

Conservation of Cultural and Natural heritage and presentation

1. Conservation and restoration , preservation is priority 2. Light and sound show,

126

3. Quality of landscape to be improved ,make surroundings more natural 4. Afforestation - planting more trees 5. Need of ecological upgradation 6. Removal of restaurant from that place in Ellora caves

Tourist Infrastructure and Facilities

7. Signage and information for guiding the tourists 8. Water availability and drinking water facility 9. Good and adequate number of toilets 10. Stay facility inside the campus 11. Good restaurant with good quality food 12. Better play areas and other provision for kids 13. Audio-visual screens and LCD displays 14. Demarcation of Route to move around in Ellora caves site 15. More resting and pausing points 16. Facilities for elderly people and Senior citizens helpdesk 17. Caves to be more accessible for elderly and disabled people 18. Street furniture - Benches, dustbins, lighting using solar panels 19. Seating underneath trees to avoid heat and sunlight 20. Railing and safety measures on top of Kailas temple

Maintenanceand Management

21. Better maintenance of caves 22. Number of visitors restricted to avoid overcrowding and degradation 23. Crowd management 24. Declaration as Sanctuary with no hotels within the distance of 5-10 km 25. More cleaner environment 26. More peaceful environment with less crowd 27. Reduce air pollution - No vehicles to be allowed. Vehicles could be Battery operated to make pollution free area 28. Waste management 29. Rules to be enforced by security 30. It should become a friendly place , free of hawkers 31. Visitors should be encouraged to see visitors centre 32. Protection from monkeys and bats

127

33. Protection from monkeys and bats,Verul village – language, lifestyle, houses, clothing, food –all are distinct 34. Not to make the placetouristic

Conclusions

There are no opportunities created for the tourists to get plunged into local culture, local customs and traditions, local lifestyle, local craft and art, for learning and involving themselves. Memorable experiences are both positive and negative. Those positive are related to cultural and natural heritage and tourism infrastructure. Those negative are related to bad conservation and restoration work and lack of safety and security .Suggestions for improvement are related to conservation of cultural and natural heritage and its presentation , tourist infrastructure and facilities, maintenance and management.

4.8 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS : LOCAL COMMUNITIES

The analysis of the data is done under 7 broad headings –

1. Sample Profile 2. Place attachment and Place dependency 3. Local Communities’ Awareness about Ellora Caves and surrounds 4. Heritage components and Striking features of Ellora 5. Social Impacts and Other impacts of tourism development and World Heritage site status 6. State of tourism infrastructure and development 7. Development Preferences and visual preferences As discussed earlier in 3.13, the sample size for local communities is 141. 4.8.1 Sample Profile Observations and findings 4.8.1.1 Gender

Sample profile of local communities interviewed comprised of 80.1% men and 19.9% women.The ones interviewed in shops / work areas were mostly men.

Chart No 4.22 Gender 128

4.8.1.2 Age

It is foundthat half of the respondents are in the range of 25-45 years (56.7%) followed by those who are youth of age 18-25 years (22.7%). There is very less percent of respondents who are 45-60 ( 17.7%) and 60

years and above (2.8%) Chart No 4.23 Age 4.8.1.3 Religion It is found that more than half of the respondents are Hindus (56.1%) followed by 1/4th of the respondents being Muslims (25.2%) and 10.1% Buddhists and 1.4% Jains. Neo- Buddhist and other religion people are also staying in vicinity of Ellora caves shows many religions continuing to exist at one single place, as seen through the history. Chart No 4.24 Religion 4.8.1.4 Number of members in family It is found that most of the respondents are having 3-5 members in family (54.4%), 36.9% respondents have 6-8 members in the family and 8.7% respondents have 9-26 members.

Chart No 4.25 Number of members in Family 4.8.1.5 Number of dependents It is found that 18.8% have 1-2 dependent members in the family, more than 2/3rd of the respondents ( 70%) are having 3-5 dependent members in family, however 11.2% respondents have 6-11 dependent members which means more dependency onto the

Chart No 4.26 Number of dependents in family 129

respondents for earning and livelihood. 4.8.1.6 Education It is found that almost 1/4th of the respondents are illiterate i.e. either no formal education or can only read and write ( 26.43%),51.7% have education maximum upto 10th Standard,13.6% are graduate and of the respondents are poorly educated with only only 16.5% graduate and 2.9% are post- graduate respondents. Chart No 4.27 Education 4.8.1.7 Occupation It is found that half of local communities are directly dependent on tourism (55%) including government jobs as their occupation. Those in business and hotel industry are 31.42%. So 86.42% of local communities dependent on tourism. only 3.6% doing agriculture.

Chart No 4.28 Occupation 4.8.1.8 Family income It is found that 74.45% of local communities (2/3rd) have income less than 10,000. only 9.49% ,are earning in range of 20,000- 40,000.

Chart No 4.29 Monthly Income

130

4.8.1.9 Findings from Local Communities’ sample profile

Almost 50% respondents have more than 5 members in the family, upto 26 members. Those having many members in the family, show joint family structure as mentioned by some of the respondents with bigger families. 2/3rd of the respondents ( 70%) are having 3-5 dependent members in family, however 11.2% respondents have 6-11 dependent members which means more dependency on the respondents for earning and livelihood. Hindus are pre-dominant in this area followed by Muslims and then Buddhists and Jains. Neo- Buddhist and people from other religions are also staying in vicinity of Ellora caves indicating multi- ethnicity in Ellora Almost 2/3rd of the respondents are poorly educated with only 16.5% graduate and post-graduate respondents.

It can be concluded that the level of education in and around the World Heritage site is very low which is going to affect the perception and understanding of the heritage and its importance.Sustainable tourism is ensured with the involvement of local communities ,however in developing countries it is observed that low level of education affects their understanding of needs , rights and responsibilities ( Lansing and Vries,2007). Lansing and Vries (2007) also mentions possibility of economic leakages in such situations. It is seen that almost 75% of local communities have income less than 10,000. From the focused group discussions and interviews with key-informants it is seen that those who are earning higher income of 30,000-40,000 are ones who have home stay facility and ones who run hotels and restaurants. It is observed that those running bigger hotels and restaurants are from outside verul, from Aurangabad. It can be concluded that though tourism has boosted the local economy, there are no major economic benefits to the local communities, and those who are benefitting are ones who are from other places, shows economic leakages.

It is observed that higher number of local communities are dependent on tourism as their occupation. Those in business and hotel and restaurant industry as well as those in government sector are the ones supporting tourism indirectly. In total 87% of local communities are dependent on tourism. From the focused group discussion and interview with key informants, it is also seen that there are some who have left agriculture and shifted to tourism for better economic prospects and some are doing both, simultaneously. Through the literature it is noted that there is increased level of pride and culture ; also decline / change of traditional activities is seen from agriculture and forestry to tourism in favour of tourism related jobs ( Jimura,2011). Change in these activities may affect the social and ecological sustainability of the place ( Oviedo and Puschkarsky,2012).

131

Table No. 4.15 Pearson Chi-Square test for ‘Occupation’ and ‘Income’

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 207.895 40 .000

Likelihood Ratio 65.932 40 .006

Linear-by-Linear Association .200 1 .654

N of Valid Cases 137

Table No. 4.16 Cross –tabulation of ‘Occupation’ and ‘Income’

Family monthly income no 1 - 10001- 20001- 30,000- 40001and income 10,000 20000 30000 40,000 above Total Occupation Agriculture 0 1 3 0 1 0 5 Tourism 0 60 5 3 1 0 69 Government 0 4 1 2 0 1 8 business 0 22 5 1 0 0 28 student 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 hotel 0 7 3 2 1 1 14 jobless 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 homemaker 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 other 0 5 1 0 0 0 6 Total 2 102 18 10 3 2 137

From the cross –tabulation of income and occupationas seen in Table no 4.18, Pearson Chi-square value of 0.000 shows that there is significant relation between income and occupation. Of the 137 responses 102 are for income group 1-10000, 18 being for category 20,000-30000. Those who are earning in the range of 1-10,000 are majorly from tourism , followed by hotel, government, others and business. ‘Other’s category include private jobs or service. Those who are earning income ranging 10,000-20,000 are into tourism and business followed by agriculture and hotel. Those who are earning 40,000 and above are into government jobs and hotels. It can be concluded that half of the sample population are into tourism activities and majority of them are earning upto 10,000.

Local communities approach to tourism is affected by factors like place and length of residency, occupation, proximity to heritage site, age, gender, ethnicity and sense of attachment (Gu and Ryan,2008). According to Gu and Ryan (2008), these not only impact their income levels ,but also their daily lives and behaviours. It is observed through the

132

literature that those who are dependent on tourism for livelihood, staying in close proximity to heritage sites, of middle age have different perception towards tourism.

4.8.2 Place attachment and Place dependency

From the literature it is seen that place attachment and place dependency affect local communities’ perceptions . Place attachment and place dependency is affected by factors like place associations , length of residency proximity to heritage site, economic dependency seen through time spent in and around the heritage site, and through source of livelihood (Williams et al, 1995,Gu and Ryan,2008, Brown and Raymond,2006)

Observations and findings

4.8.2.1Place of residency It is found that majority of respondents are from closeby village of Verul/ Ellora ( 76.6%) followed by another nearby village of Khuldabad (16.3%), with 7% percent from nearby areas like Aurangabad ,Daulatabad and other villages within 80 km distance.

Chart No 4.30 Place of Residency 4.8.2.2Length of residency It is found that 81.4 % respondents are residing for more than 15 years in and around Ellora caves. 9.3% are staying for a period in between 10-15 years , 4.3% are staying for a period in between 1-5 years , 3.6% are staying for 5-10 years period and 1.4% are staying for less than 1 year.

Chart No 4.31 Length of Residency

133

4.8.2.3 Migration to Ellora It is found that 86.5 % of the respondents have given ‘no’ responses ,which means they have not migrated, while 13.5% of the respondents have given ‘yes’ responses, which means ,they have migrated to the place.

Chart No 4.32Migration to Ellora 4.8.2.4Time spent at Ellora caves and its surrounds It is found that half of the respondents (51.1%) spend 9 hrs and above in and around Ellora caves, 22.7% spend 6 - 9 hours , 2.13% spend 3-6 hours, 2.84% spend 1-3 hours, 11.30 % spend 0-1 hours and 9.9% are not connected with the place. This shows that almost 75% respondents spend 6-9 hours and more in and around Ellora Chart No 4.33Time spent in and around Ellora caves caves, shows high dependency on Ellora caves. Table No. 4.17Frequencies for ‘Association with Ellora’ 4.8.2.5Association with Ellora

Associations with Ellora Responses Percent From the direct observations and interview of with Key informants and experts, 9 N Percent Cases predominant associations were listed. 141 Several generations of my 1 96 26.3% 68.1% respondents were presented with 9 options family staying here with the 9th option – ‘Any other’ being an 2 I come here to worship 79 21.6% 56.0% open ended question.Multiple response I am involved in tourism 3 63 17.3% 44.7% question was asked to the respondents to related activities understand their association with Ellora. I spend evening time with my 4 50 13.7% 35.5% community people here Hence data was analyzed using ‘Multiple Response Analysis’ option in IBM SPSS.

134

I own farm land/orchards in 5 27 7.4% 19.1% or around Verul

6 Other 18 4.9% 12.8%

I am involved in daily 7 maintenance of Ellora caves 15 4.1% 10.6% site

I am part of Government 8 authorities like ASI,MTDC, 14 3.8% 9.9% Forest dept

I am dependent on forest 9 3 0.8% 2.1% resources

Total 365 100.0% 258.9%

4.8.2.6 Source of livelihood : Livelihood options related on tourism From the observations , interview with Key informants and pilot survey, sources of livelihood, other sources of livelihood were listed. The first question enquired about their dependency on tourism . The respondents were asked to further mention the source of livelihood, if they are dependent on tourism. They are also presented with other livelihood options . Both these questions are multiple response question, with the last question being ‘any other’ open ended question. Those with ‘Yes’ responses arepresented with further 4 options to understand the ways they are dependent on tourism ,of which the 4th option was an open ended one. Since the question was multiple response question, which resulted in multiple response , data was analyzed using ‘Multiple Response Analysis’ option in IBM SPSS. It is found that out of 141 respondents , 75.9% gave ‘yes’ responses, indicating that they are dependent on tourism related activities in Ellora and remaining 24.1% gave ‘ no’ response , indicating that they are not dependent on it.

Chart No 4.34 Source of Livelihood

135

Table No. 4.18 Frequencies for ‘Livelihood From the frequency for livelihood options Options related to Tourism ‘ related to tourism, it is found that 61.2% Livelihood Options Frequencies Responses Percent accounted for working as service provider N Percent of Cases

Yes, I am working as service 74 58.3% 61.2% for tourist companies, parking, ticketing, Yes,provider I own for atourist shop compani which sellses , 30 23.6% 24.8% eateries, bus services, hawkers etc, 24.8% goodsparking, for ticketing, visitors eateries, and/or local bus Yes, I am permanently employed 16 12.6% 13.2% own a shop which sells goods for visitors communitiesservices, hawkers Otherby ASI, reason MTDC, Forest Dept,etc 7 5.5% 5.8% and / or local communities, 13.2% are Total 127 100.0% 105.0%

permanently employed by ASI, MTDC, Forest Department etc and 5.8% accounted for reasons other than mentioned above. Table No. 4.19 Frequencies for ‘Other livelihood options 4.8.2.7 Other livelihood sources

$Other Options Frequencies Those who were not dependent on tourism or partially dependent on tourism, were Responses Percento

N Percent f Cases asked further some questions to I do farming 13 39.4% 40.6% understand other means of employment other jobs 5 15.2% 15.6% $OtherOptionsa and earning. Go Outside Ellora for 2 6.1% 6.2% From the frequencies for other livelihood Otherwork work 13 39.4% 40.6%

Total 33 100.0% 103.1% options, it is found that 40.6% accounted for farming activities and 40.6% for other work, 6.2% were involved in other jobs and 6.2% travelled outside Ellora for work purpose.

4.8.2.8 Conclusions

Local communities interviewed are more than 75% from closeby village of Verul/ Ellora followed by around 16% from another nearby village of Khuldabad, with very less percent from nearby areas like Aurangabad ,Daulatabad and other villages within 80 km distance. It can be concluded that most of the respondents are those who are in proximity to the heritage site.

Majority of local communities are living for more than 15 years and only few less than 10 years. There is more than 13% migration seen from surrounding villages to Ellora.

136

From the cross tab of Migration and occupation it is observed that of the total ‘yes’ responses of140, 20 respondents have migrated to Ellora.

Table No. 4.20 Cross tabulation of Migration and Occupation of Local communities

Cross tabulation of Migration and Occupation Occupation Agriculture Tourism Government education business student hotel jobless homemaker other Total If migrated Yes 1 7 0 0 7 0 3 0 1 1 20 No 4 62 8 1 22 2 12 2 2 5 120 Total 5 69 8 1 29 2 15 2 3 6 140

The cross-tabulation of migration and occupationin Table no. 4.20 , shows that of the 20 migrated respondents, 7 are into business, 7 are into tourism, 3 are employed in hotels, 1 is doing other jobs, 1 is a homemaker and 1 is into agriculture. It is observed that of the 20 who have migrated out of 141 respondents , 17 are into occupations related to tourism . Major reason for migration is good economic opportunities. Tourism therefore is a driver for migration from nearby villages to Ellora. It also implies that there is growing pressure of migrating population on the Ellora caves ,since tourism is the major means of livelihood.From the length of residency ,the migration table and cross-tabulation seen together, it can be concluded that though most of the local communities are residing there since long, there has been some amount of migration happening in the vicinity of Ellora caves. Local communities response to tourism will differ depending upto their length of residency and the sources which make them feel attached to the place (Williams, McDonalds and Usyal,1995).Local communities associations with the place affect their perceptions related to it. It is observed that local people feel associated with Ellora primarily due to the fact that their ancestors have been living in the place since long shows the associational value. Second reason is their association with Ghrushneshwar temple and Khuldabad dargah, religious places, shows high religious value of the local community. Third major reason of association is the economic dependency, since most of them are dependent on Ellora caves and the tourism associated with it, showseconomic value. Fourth major reason is the community life and community bonding, where people spend time with each other during evenings, show social value. Fifth reason of association is the farmlands and orchards which they own in Ellora. Though there is a small percent of local communities, this needs to be understood that the association is also because of the dependency on forest resources. Both the farmlands and farming activity , orchards and dependency on forest resources show life- sustaining values and natural resource value .

137

Community values dictate conservation and development of the place (Pfueller et al, 2009). Community values in case of Ellora are predominantly associational value, religious value, economic value, social value, life-sustaining value and natural resource value. The time spent by local communities in and around the Ellora caves show 73.8% respondents spending 6-12 hours. This shows high economic dependency and strong place attachment due to economic benefits. From the above 3 tables related to time spent , livelihood in tourism and other livelihood options , it can be concluded that most of the respondents who are local residents are majorly dependenton tourism related activities, of which most of them are working as service providers , followed by owning their own shops catering to local communities and visitors. Of the non-dependent activities, farming is the predominant source of earning and livelihood to the local community respondents. This reconfirms the fact that most of the respondents are majorly dependent on World Heritage site and tourism associated with it and secondly agriculture .

To understand whether there is difference in ‘Other caves seen’ between those whose livelihood is dependent on tourism and non-dependent ones, Friedman chi-square test for contingency is performed. It is observed that Pearson chi-square value is less than 0.05 level of significance for 1-12 Buddhist caves , 13,14,15 Hindu Caves , 17-18 Hindu Caves , 29 Dhumar caves , Other non listed caves. The level of significance is above 0.05 for ‘none’ caves seen and ‘Jain caves’.

From Table no . 4.21, it can be concluded that those who are dependent on tourism are aware of all the caves. They are aware of the non-listed caves as well.

Table No. 4.21 Pearson Chi-square test and % of responses of those dependent on tourism for ‘caves seen’

Pearson % of yes responses within Chi-sq livelihood dependents- value those dependent on Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (1-sided) tourism

1-12 Buddhist caves 4.737 .030 .049 .033 88.8%

13,14,15 Hindu Caves 9.386 .002 .005 .004 89.6%

17-18 Hindu Caves 8.394 .004 .007 .005 84.9%

29 Dhumar caves 10.322 001 .002 .002 82.1%

30-34 Jain caves 3.183 .074 .093 .064 82.1%

Other non listed caves 3.662 .056 .073 .042 48.1%

None .625 .429 6.5% .680 .383

138

According to Gu and Ryan (2008), place attachment is based on social and physical attributes. Long residency of local communities , social bonding and community life, proximity to heritage site, economic dependency on tourism ,value systems indicates strong sense of attachment of local communities ( Gu and Ryan,2008) with heritage site. Tourism has the power to affect cultural change (Mirbabayev and Shagazatova ,2006) and the degree of change will depend upto these factors of place attachment, place dependency and place identity.

4.8.3 Local Communities’ Awareness about Ellora Caves and surrounds

1. Kailas Temple

Local communities were asked if they have seen Kailas temple cave . From the above table and pie chart it can be seen that 96.5% of the respondents said ‘yes’ , while 3.5% of the respondents said ‘no’

Chart No 4.35 Kailas temple seen 2. Caves other than Kailas temple cave

Multiple response question was asked to the respondents to understand the caves visited by the local communities .Local communities were presented with 7 options and were asked to choose whichever applicable. The options given are based on the grouping of caves based on religion and spatial configuration. Hence the question is a Multiple Response Question which resulted in multiple responses. Data was analyzed using ‘Multiple Response Analysis’ option in IBM SPSS.

Table No. 4.22 Frequencies of ‘Other caves seen’ by local communities

Other caves Responses Percent of Cases

N Percent

1 1-12 Buddhist caves 120 19.0% 92.3%

2 13,14,15 Hindu Caves 118 18.6% 90.8%

139

3 17-28 Hindu Caves 111 17.5% 85.4%

4 30-34 Jain caves 110 17.4% 84.6%

5 29 Dhumar caves 105 16.6% 80.8%

6 Other non listed caves 61 9.6% 46.9%

7 None 8 1.3% 6.2%

Total 633 100.0% 486.9%

To understand whether there is perceptional difference in ‘Kailas seen’ by those dependent and non-dependent on tourism, Friedman chi-square test for contingency is performed. From the results it is seen that there is no significant difference between values and higher percentage above 90%, show that for both non-dependent and dependent, Kailas is seen and felt important. It is one which gives them place identity and that place dependency is not affecting place identity with reference to main cave of Kailas temple.

3. Reasons for not seeing the caves or other caves

Those who have not seen the other caves at all, were asked this question. Multiple response question was asked to understand the reason for not visiting the Kailas temple or other caves. Local communitieswere presented with 10 options and were asked to choose whichever applicable. 9 options given are based on the observations and pilot survey and tenth one is any other reason apart from the nine enlisted. Hence the question is a Multiple Response Question which resulted in multiple responses.

Observations

Table No. 4.23 Frequencies of ‘Reason for not seeing the caves ’ by local communities

Reason for not seeing the caves Responses Percent of Cases N Percent

1. I am too busy with my job/ earning livelihood 18 39.1% 48.6%

2. Too far off to walk on foot 9 19.6% 24.3%

3. I didn’t feel like visiting and knowing more about the caves 8 17.4% 21.6%

4. No good access Road 3 6.5% 8.1%

5. Not aware of other caves 2 4.3% 5.4%

6. Difficult to climb and reach 2 4.3% 5.4%

7. Other reason 2 4.3% 5.4%

8. Afraid of monkeys , bats or other wild animals from the forest 1 2.2% 2.7%

9. I am not allowed inside the Ellora caves site 1 2.2% 2.7%

Total 46 100.0% 124.3%

140

Findings

It is found that more than 95% local people have visited Kailas temple and other caves. Amongst other caves, majority have seen Buddhist caves, followed by Hindu caves and Jain caves. Those caves which are lesser known and not listed are also known to the local communities. From the focused group discussion, it is seen that the local communities have good knowledge of the place and its history, though the literacy level is low in Ellora. Only 6% local people have not visited the caves. The predominant reason for not visiting the caves was due to the fact that most of them are busy earning their livelihood followed by the reason that the caves are too far to reach on foot; and their reluctance to visit and know more about the caves.

4.8.4 Heritage components To understand the components important to local communities as part of their heritage, a list of 7 heritage components are given and asked to rank . The components enlisted are those which are important heritage buildings or elements, religious buildings and important landscape components of the place derived through literature. They are also asked to mention reasons for the ranking order. Each component was measured on 7 point scale, 1 being ‘least important’ and 7 being ‘most important’. To understand importance respondents attach to various heritage components, Friedman Chi-square test is used.

H0 : there is no difference in importance respondents attach to various heritage components

H1: there is significant difference in importance respondents attach to various heritage components

Level of significance : α = 0.05

Observations

Table No. 4.24 Friedman Chi-Square of Heritage Components Test Statistics Observation : χ2 (σ) = 250.187 , p = 0.000, µ = 123

N 123 Since the p value ( 0.000) is less than level of significance 0.05 , the null hypothesis is rejected. Hence it is concluded that there is significant difference in importance Chi-Square 250.187 respondents attach to various heritage components. df 6

Asymp. Sig. .000

141

Table No. 4.25 Mean Ranks and Mean values of Heritage Heritage components Mean Rank Components Kailas temple 5.50 Heritage components N Mean value

1. Kailas temple 137 6.74 Ghrushneshwar, other temple, Dargahs 4.94 2. Ghrushneshwar, other temple, 138 6.35 Dargahs Other caves 4.52 3. Other caves 137 6.00 Painting and Sculptures of Ellora caves 4.13 4. Painting and Sculptures of Ellora 133 5.65 caves Verul/ Ellora village 3.60 5. Verul/ Ellora village 134 5.31 6. Waterfall, ponds, lakes 131 4.67 Forest and surroundings 2.69 7. Forest and surroundings 134 4.60 Waterfall, ponds, lakes 2.62

Findings

To find out, where the difference lies, we refer to ranks Table no 4.26 From the Rank table it can be seen that Kailas temple ; Ghrushneshwar, other temples and dargahs; and other caves have highest mean ranks. Verul Village ranks fourth rank. Water features like waterfalls, lakes etc and Forest and surroundings have least mean rank. The respondents were also asked to mention the reason for their ranking.

Table No. 4.26 Heritage Components ,Mean Ranks and reasons for the Ranking

Heritage components Mean Reasons cited Rank

Unique and popular global destination. Pride of village. The tourism in Ellora is because of the caves. Kailas temple , paintings and sculptures are the main attraction and the 5.50 1. Kailas temple Buddhist caves too to most of the foreign visitors. Place has identity due to sculptures and Ellora caves

Local people are very religious, most of them visit Ghrushneshwar temple on daily basis 2. Ghrushneshwar, other 4.94 and some visit it every Monday. Ghrushneshwar also important since livelihood of many temple, Dargahs dependent on it.

Unique and popular global destination. Pride of village. The tourism in Ellora is because of the caves. Kailas temple , paintings and sculptures are the main attraction and the 4.52 3. Other caves Buddhist caves too to most of the foreign visitors. Place has identity due to sculptures and Ellora caves

Unique and popular global destination. Pride of village. The tourism in Ellora is because of the caves. Kailas temple , paintings and sculptures are the main attraction and the 4. Painting and Sculptures of 4.13 Buddhist caves too to most of the foreign visitors. Place has identity due to sculptures Ellora caves and Ellora caves

142

Important because Local people can provide stay facility for visitors. It is also grand place of ruler of Maratha Empire , Shivaji Bhonsale and this town has long association 3.60 5. Verul/ Ellora village with Bhosale rulers. Local people feel strongly that tourists should visit the village so that the village develops too.

Chosen for its natural beauty and the importance of greenery for tourism. Forest also provide medicines and fruits to the local people. It provides pure air ,good ground water 2.69 6. Forest and surroundings level and rains. Rains to local people are important since water is a problem in this area which has mostly low water table.

Increase mosquitoes and pollution, hence not so preferred . Water quality is bad. Cave 2.62 however has big storage tanks with good potable water. Need rains and water since the 7. Waterfall, ponds, lakes water table is low in this region

To understand whether there is a difference in the way local communities dependent on tourism and non-dependent look at heritage components, Anova test was performed. Table No. 4.27 Anova test for within groups comparison for Heritage Components

ANOVA TEST

Heritage components Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Forest and surroundings Between Groups .208 1 .208 .048 .827

Within Groups 576.031 132 4.364

Waterfall, ponds, lakes Between Groups 2.081 1 2.081 .606 .438

Within Groups 442.804 129 3.433

Kailas temple Between Groups .000 1 .000 .000 .985

Within Groups 66.540 135 .493

Other caves Between Groups 3.169 1 3.169 1.270 .262

Within Groups 336.831 135 2.495

Ghrushneshwar, other temple, Dargahs Between Groups 6.773 1 6.773 4.835 .030

Within Groups 190.531 136 1.401

Verul/ Ellora village Between Groups 2.351 1 2.351 .808 .370

Within Groups 384.104 132 2.910

Painting and Sculptures of Ellora caves Between Groups 5.048 1 5.048 1.664 .199

Within Groups 397.343 131 3.033

143

Anova test shows level of significance <0.05 for one item - Ghrushneshwar, other temple, Dargahs . On observing the mean values it is found that those whose livelihood is not dependent on tourism are showing high mean value of 6.74. They are the ones selling flowers, fruits and other religious goods. Conclusion

It is found that top heritage components are Kailas temple ; Ghrushneshwar, other temple and dargahs; other caves, paintings and sculptures of Ellora caves and Verulaccording to local communities. Among the heritage components some of them also mentioned Khuldabad village as an important heritage component. Forest and surroundings have least mean rank, shows that they are not looked at as heritage component ,but an important natural resource. From the reasons mentioned , it can be concluded that forest has Natural value and ecological value ,Ghrushneshwar temple has Religious value and economic value , Kailas temple, other caves , paintings and sculptures have archeological and architectural value and economic value, waterfalls and water features has ecological value and functional value ,verul village has Historic value , economic value

4.8.5 Striking features of Ellora Apart from the heritage components, there may be some elements /features which are distinctive characteristic of the place/ region. Based on the literature and observations , Local communities were presented with 15 options of striking features and were asked to choose whichever applicable. The last option was an open ended option and the respondent was allowed to state any other option besides the ones listed. Hence the question was multiple response question, which resulted in multiple responses.

Observations

Table No. 4.28 Frequencies of Striking features for local communities

Frequencies

Striking features Responses Percent of Cases

N Percent

1. Kailas temple 136 10.6% 97.1%

2. Ghrushneshwar temple, Ahilyabai kund 132 10.3% 94.3%

3. Other caves of Ellora 129 10.1% 92.1%

4. Art, Paintings and sculptures 124 9.7% 88.6%

5. Dargahs of verul and Khuldabad 123 9.6% 87.9%

6. Fresh and clean air 108 8.4% 77.1%

144

7. Peaceful environments of Ellora caves 104 8.1% 74.3%

8. Local Art and Handicrafts like Himroo , Paithani, Stones etc 79 6.2% 56.4%

9. Nature of Ellora forest- trees, birds, Animals etc 75 5.9% 53.6%

10. Rural Character of Ellora Village 68 5.3% 48.6%

11. Ellora Visitors Centre 53 4.1% 37.9%

12. Local food 51 4.0% 36.4%

13. Cleanliness and maintenance 48 3.8% 34.3%

14. View of the caves from the Restaurants inside Ellora caves site 48 3.8% 34.3%

15. Any other 2 0.2% 1.4%

Total 1280 100.0% 914.3%

Findings

It is found that the most important striking feature of Ellora for the respondents are Kailas temple, Ghrushneshwar temple and Ahilyabai kund, Other caves of Ellora , Art , Paintings and sculptures, Dargahs of Verul and Khuldabad. Apart from these ,which are also identified as heritage components by local people, Fresh and clean air, Peaceful environments of Ellora caves, Local Art and Handicrafts like Himroo , Paithani, Stones etc. Nature of Ellora forest- trees, birds, Animals etc,Rural Character of Ellora Village are also described as striking features of Ellora. These are the distinctive characteristics of Ellora according to local communities.

Apart from the items mentioned in the Interview schedule the Local people feel that the rural character of the place is important. Verul has ghrushneshwar temple, ahilyabai kund, lakshya vinayak temple, bhadra maruti, important dargahs like shadilbaba dargah, Aurangzeb tomb, jain temple , many old buildings related to Shivaji Bhosale family, the ruler of Maratha empire which are important. Another striking feature is the water from Mhaismal flowing onto the 7 kunds to create a waterfall at Sita nahani. This water later flows into Yelganga. Traditional customs /rituals performed at Ghrushneshwar temple are also mentioned characteristic of the place. Shantigiriashram and shadilbaba dargah visited by many people along with bhadra marutideity mentioned popular and unique feature of the place.

To understand perceptional differences between local communities dependent on tourism and non-dependents , regarding striking features, chi-square test for contingency was performed. Level of significance <0.05 was identified for 3 items –

1. Nature of Ellora forest- trees, birds, Animals etc 145

2. Peaceful environments of Ellora caves 3. Art, Paintings and sculptures

Table No. 4.29 Pearson’schi-square test for contingency and responses of those dependent and non-dependent on tourism ,for heritage components Heritage Components Pearson % of yes responses % of yes responses Chi-sq within livelihood within livelihood value Asymp. Exact Exact dependents-those dependents-those not Sig. (2- Sig. (2- Sig. (1- dependent on dependent on sided) sided) sided) tourism tourism

Nature of Ellora forest- trees, birds, Animals etc 7.814 .005 .006 .005 59.8% 32.4%

Peaceful environments of Ellora caves 3.080 .079 .116 .050 70.1% 85.3%

Art, Paintings and sculptures 5.235 .022 .022 .013 85.8% 100.0%

From the percentage within dependent and non-dependent, it is observed that the values for ‘Nature of Ellora forest- trees, birds, Animals etc‘ is higher for those who are dependent on tourism activities. For rest 2 –‘Peaceful environments of Ellora caves’and ‘Art, Paintings and sculptures of Ellora caves ’, values of those non-dependent are higher showing more concern for peaceful environs and art , paintings and sculptures by those who are non- dependent on tourism. 4.8.6 Social Impact of tourism development and World Heritage site status

Through the literature it is seen that though Tourism brings economic gains, there are social impacts of tourism and development. Social impacts positive or negative affect the perceptions of the place, its tourism and development. 141 respondents are asked about their opinion regarding changes in life of local people to understand the social impact of tourism and development at Ellora caves. The local communities were firstly asked whether tourism and development and World Heritage site status has affected or changed their lives. Those who answered positively, were asked further questions related to social impacts.

146

From the pie chart , it is found 93.4% admitted that there has been changes in life of local people due to tourism and development at Ellora and the World Heritage Site status, 5.8% felt that there has been no changes and 0.7 % were unaware of the changes

Chart No 4.36 Changes in local people’s life due to tourism

From the interview with Key informants, Literature review and direct observations, following list of impacts are listed. The question being a multiple response question which resulted in multiple responses, data was analyzed using ‘ Multiple Response Analysis’ option in IBM SPSS.

Observations

Table No. 4.30 Frequencies for social changes

Social Changes Responses Percent of Cases

N Percent

1. Local people are more well-mannered and well- behaved now 110 26.2% 85.9%

2. Improvement in literacy level 104 24.8% 81.2%

3. Now they own their own house / renovated /rebuilt their existing house 87 20.7% 68.0%

4. Now they have other assets like land, car, high tech TV etc 66 15.7% 51.6%

5. More alcohol consumption and anti-social activities like gambling, drugs etc 46 11.0% 35.9%

6. More thefts happening 5 1.2% 3.9%

7. Any other 2 0.5% 1.6%

Total 420 100.0% 328.1%

147

Findings

It is found that almost 86% have improved in their behaviour and manners, 82% have improved in their education, 68% have their own house or have renovated the existing one, 52% are now possessing assets, which are positive changes increasing the quality of life of local communities.

However negative social impacts include 36% of local communities consuming alcohol and indulging into anti-social activities, 4% in thefts and 2% into other kind of social issues. It can be concluded that positive and negative changes are seen.

Apart from this the other social impacts mentioned are increase in income, good employment opportunities, start small business like hawking activities, upgraded lifestyle.

Conclusions :

Social changes that have happened are related to good behaviour of local people, followed by improvement in literacy level, owning their own houses or renovating existing one and owning other assets like land etc. Negative changes are increase in alcohol consumption and anti-social activities including thefts.

It can be therefore concluded that tourism and development has both , positive and negative impact on local people, however positive impacts are pre-dominant. It is definitely increasing the level of literacy and pleasant behaviour and manners, conducive to not only tourism development but also increasing the standard of living of local communities. It is observed that tourism brings economic gains but it is at the cost of social loss, i.e. negative social impacts ( Smith and Krannich, 1998) . Negative social impacts include increase in alcohol consumption, anti-social activities, thefts , other social issues, which are rampant majorly at World Heritage sites (INTACH, 2010)

4.8.7 Other Impacts of Tourism development at the World Heritage Site From the interview with Key informants, Literature review and direct observations, following list of 21 items due to impacts of tourism and development of Ellora as a World Heritage Site are listed. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on 21 items related to changes due to tourism and development at World Heritage Site. 141 respondents were asked to rate on 1 to 5 scale for 21 items related to impact of tourism and development of Ellora as World Heritage Site.

148

Table No. 4.31 Mean and Std Deviation for ‘Other impacts of tourism development’ according to Local communities

Descriptive Statistics Std. Analysis Impacts of Tourism Development Mean Deviation N 1. Provision of Amenities like schools, hospitals ,post-office, clinics , ATMs etc 4.26 .747 106 2. Increase in land/house prices 4.20 .844 106 3. Increase in number of tourists and popularity of Ellora 4.17 .941 106 4. Ellora was better before - more peaceful and less busy place 4.08 .967 106 5. Migration of people from outside villages to Verul/ Ellora . 3.86 1.108 106 6. Increase in land pollution like waste ,plastic bottles, paper and other garbage dumps, 3.83 1.207 106 soil erosion etc 7. Now there is beautification and good greenery in and around Ellora caves 3.75 1.122 106 8. Increase in Waste generated by the tourist / visitors / hotels 3.70 1.311 106 9. Increase in Air pollution like more smoke, dust ,fowl smells and gases etc 3.53 1.259 106 10. Increase in water pollution like dirt, chemicals etc 3.37 1.229 106 11. Loss of Land / Property due to development/tourist infrastructure 3.36 1.303 106 12. Loss of community spaces / Public spaces 3.32 1.223 106 13. Strict Rules for building activities 3.30 1.360 106 14. Increase in economic opportunities /jobs 3.30 1.303 106 15. Increase in Encroachments 3.16 1.402 106 16. Restriction in developmental activities related to land like digging wells/ bore wells, 3.05 1.396 106 planting trees, constructing compound wall etc 17. Increase in water supply 2.93 1.347 106 18. Control of access to Forest resources 2.90 1.359 106 19. Promotion of local arts and crafts activities 2.89 1.326 106 20. Increase in electricity supply 2.85 1.186 106 21. Tree cutting for development, infrastructural development 2.68 1.342 106

Findings

Five topmost impacts of tourism and development are Provision of Amenities like schools, hospitals ,post-office, clinics , ATMs etc ,Increase in land/house prices, Increase in number of tourists and popularity of Ellora ,Ellora was better before - more peaceful and less busy place ,Migration of people from outside villages to Verul/ Ellora .

It is found that there are both positive and negative impacts of development. Positive impacts include social, ecological and economic impacts in terms of increase in public amenities like schools, hospitals ,post-office, clinics , ATMs etc ; increase in land/house prices; increase in popularity and number of visitors ;and beautification and greenery in and around Ellora caves.

149

Negative impacts include environmental / ecological and economic impacts which include Ellora being more peaceful place before and now more noisy due to increase in visitors ; increase in migration of people from outside villages to Verul/ Ellora , increase in Land pollution, like waste ,plastic bottles, paper and other garbage dumps, soil erosion etc;Increase in Waste generation by the tourist / visitors / hotels;Increase in Air pollution like more smoke, dust ,fowl smells and gases etc.

Least impacts are increase in water supply , control of access to Forest resources, promotion of local arts and crafts activities, Increase in electricity supply, Tree cutting for development, infrastructural development; shows no increase in water supply with water for local communities on every third day, no control on access of forest resources , no promotion of arts and crafts of the place, no increase in electricity supply with load shading happening in both the villages of Khuldabad and Ellora.

Summarily, though Ellora caves is declared as World heritage site, there is not much control over access to forest resources making it easy for local people to derive benefits in terms of forest resources like wood for fuel, grazing grounds for their livestock , extract of flowers, fruits etc from the forest. This activity will negatively impact the ecology and environment and harm its authenticity and integrity. It has least promoted the local art and craft of Ellora.There is no increase in water supply, neither increase inelectricity. Water and electricity is a major problem, especially for Khulbadad which is placed at higher elevation. Each factor was measured on 5 point Likert scale.

1 – strongly disagree ; 2- disagree ; 3 – neither agree nor disagree ; 4- agree ; 5- strongly agree

Table No. 4.32 KMO and Bartlett’s test

KMO and Bartlett's Test The Kaiser Meyer- Olkin measure of sampling adequacy

was 0.679 indicating that the data was suitable for principle component analysis. Barlett’s test of sphericity Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of .679 Sampling Adequacy. was significant ( p<0.001) , indicating sufficient Approx. Chi- 649.910 Bartlett's Test of Square correlation between variables to proceed with the Sphericity df 136 analysis Sig. .000

150

Table No. 4.33 Principal Component Analysis for ‘Other Impacts of Tourism Development

Total Variance Explained

Component Initial Eigen values Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %

1 4.456 26.213 26.213 4.456 26.213 26.213 2.860 16.822 16.822

2 2.032 11.952 38.165 2.032 11.952 38.165 2.478 14.576 31.398

3 1.560 9.178 47.343 1.560 9.178 47.343 1.863 10.961 42.360

4 1.436 8.445 55.789 1.436 8.445 55.789 1.728 10.165 52.525

5 1.133 6.662 62.451 1.133 6.662 62.451 1.687 9.926 62.451

6 .998 5.872 68.323

7 .981 5.773 74.096

8 .849 4.994 79.090

9 .716 4.211 83.301

10 .688 4.049 87.350

11 .473 2.783 90.133

12 .440 2.586 92.719

13 .334 1.963 94.682

14 .288 1.695 96.377

15 .240 1.409 97.786

16 .219 1.289 99.075

17 .157 .925 100.000

A total of 5 factors having Eigen values > 1, cumulatively accounting for 62.451 variance . In order to find out which variables are loaded onto which factor, we refer to rotated component matrix.

151

Table No. 4.34 Rotated Component Matrix for ‘Other Impacts of Tourism Development

Component

1 2 3 4 5

1. Increase in Air pollution like more smoke, dust ,fowl smells and gases .862 etc 2. Increase in water pollution like dirt, chemicals etc .824

3. Increase in land pollution like waste ,plastic bottles, paper and other .812 garbage dumps, soil erosion 4. Increase in Waste generated by the tourist / visitors / hotels .665

5. Migration of people from outside villages to Verul/ Ellora . .678

6. Promotion of local arts and crafts activities .627

7. Provision of Amenities like schools, hospitals ,post-office, clinics , .607 ATMs etc 8. Increase in land/house prices .598

9. Now there is beautification and good greenery in and around Ellora .495 caves 10. Increase in number of tourists and popularity of Ellora .470

11. Tree cutting for development, infrastructural development .765

12. Increase in Encroachments .707

13. Strict Rules for building activities .545

14. Loss of community spaces / Public spaces .872

15. Loss of Land / Property due to development/tourist infrastructure .797

16. Increase in water supply .850

17. Increase in electricity supply .725

Extraction Method: Rotated Component Matrix a. Rotation converged in 10 iterations.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

From the rotated component matrix in Table no 4.34, it is observed that there is increase in Air pollution like more smoke, dust ,fowl smells and gases etc , Increase in water pollution like dirt, chemicals etc ;Increase in land pollution like waste ,plastic bottles, paper and other garbage dumps, soil erosion etc and Increase in Waste generated by the tourist / visitors / hotels are loaded onto factor 1. Contents of 4 variables indicate the factor to be ‘Rise inEnvironmental Pollution’

From the rotated component matrix, it is observed that there is migration of people from outside villages to Verul/ Ellora, Promotion of local arts and crafts activities ,Provision of Amenities like schools, hospitals ,post-office, clinics , ATMs etc ,Increase in land/house prices , Now there is beautification and good greenery in and around Ellora caves ,Increase in

152

number of tourists and popularity of Ellora are loaded onto factor 2. Contents of 6 variables indicate the factor to be ‘Economic development’

From the rotated component matrix, it can be seen that Tree cutting for development, infrastructural development, Increase in Encroachments, Strict Rules for building activities are loaded onto factor 3. Contents of 3 variables indicate the factor to be ‘Encroachments’

From the Rotated component matrix, it is observed that there is loss of community spaces / Public spaces , Loss of Land / Property due to development/tourist infrastructure are loaded onto factor 4. Contents of 2 variables indicate the factor to be ‘Loss of private lands and community spaces’

From the rotated component matrix, it is observed that there is increase in water supply ,Increase in electricity supply are loaded onto factor 5. Contents of 2 variables indicate the factor to be ‘Improved services’

Findings :

Factor analysis was carried out and five factors emerged on which various variables loaded strongly. These factors were named as - a) Rise in Environmental Pollution, b) Economic Development, c) Encroachments, d) Loss of private lands and community spaces and e) Improved Services.

Conclusions

It can be concluded that there are benefits and ills of development. The impacts of tourism and development are both positive as well as negative ; in some ways positive , namely Improved Services and economic value and partly negative, namely Rise in Environmental Pollution, Encroachments and Loss of private lands and community spaces.

One way Anova test was performed to understand the perceptional differences with reference to tourism impacts for those who are dependent on tourism and not dependent.

Table No. 4.35 Anova test for within group comparison for ‘Other Impacts of Tourism Development’

ANOVA

Sum of Mean

Squares Df Square F Sig.

1 Migration of people from outside villages to Verul/ Ellora Between Groups 5.204 1 5.204 4.074 .045

153

Within Groups 174.983 137 1.277

2 Loss of community spaces / Public spaces Between Groups 1.867 1 1.867 1.234 .269

Within Groups 204.352 135 1.514

3 Loss of Land / Property due to development/tourist infrastructure Between Groups .021 1 .021 .013 .910

Within Groups 211.576 127 1.666

4 Control of access to Forest resources Between Groups 3.624 1 3.624 2.009 .159

Within Groups 230.868 128 1.804

5 Promotion of local arts and crafts activities Between Groups 2.476 1 2.476 1.469 .228

Within Groups 214.005 127 1.685

6 Provision of Amenities like schools, hospitals ,post-office, clinics , atm etc Between Groups .808 1 .808 1.102 .296

Within Groups 99.771 136 .734

7 Increase in land/house prices Between Groups 1.922 1 1.922 2.266 .135

Within Groups 113.608 134 .848

8 Strict Rules for building activities Between Groups 2.183 1 2.183 1.209 .274

Within Groups 240.232 133 1.806

9 Increase in number of tourists and popularity of Ellora Between Groups .551 1 .551 .597 .441

Within Groups 123.853 134 .924

10 Increase in economic opportunities /jobs Between Groups .137 1 .137 .088 .767

Within Groups 202.811 131 1.548

Total 202.947 132

11 Restriction in developmental activities related to land like digging wells/ Between Groups .039 1 .039 .021 .885

bore wells, planting trees, constructing compound wall etc Within Groups 243.842 132 1.847

12 Increase in Encroachments Between Groups 6.542 1 6.542 3.475 .064

Within Groups 252.274 134 1.883

13 Tree cutting for development, infrastructural development Between Groups 2.076 1 2.076 1.200 .275

Within Groups 233.515 135 1.730

14 Increase in Air pollution like more smoke, dust ,fowl smells and gases etc Between Groups .735 1 .735 .435 .511

154

Within Groups 228.140 135 1.690

15 Increase in water pollution like dirt, chemicals etc Between Groups .365 1 .365 .235 .629

Within Groups 208.568 134 1.556

16 Increase in land pollution like waste ,plastic bottles, paper and other Between Groups .260 1 .260 .154 .695

garbage dumps, soil erosion etc Within Groups 228.733 136 1.682

17 Increase in Waste generated by the tourist / visitors / hotels Between Groups .567 1 .567 .348 .556

Within Groups 221.839 136 1.631

18 Ellora was better before - more peaceful and less busy place Between Groups 5.633 1 5.633 6.267 .013

Within Groups 122.251 136 .899

19 Increase in water supply Between Groups 2.462 1 2.462 1.409 .237

Within Groups 237.683 136 1.748

20 Increase in electricity supply Between Groups 1.147 1 1.147 .815 .368

Within Groups 191.346 136 1.407

21 Now there is beautification and good greenery in and around Ellora Between Groups 5.301 1 5.301 4.342 .039

caves Within Groups 161.155 132 1.221

Findings

Level of significance <0.05 for 3 items -

1. Migration of people from outside villages to Verul/ Ellora 2. Ellora was better before - more peaceful and less busy place 3. Now there is beautification and good greenery in and around Ellora caves Mean values show that those who are depending on tourism are showing high mean value for 'Now there is beautification and good greenery in and around Ellora caves' (3.81).

Mean values are high for those who are not depending on tourism for 2 items - 1. Migration of people from outside villages to Verul/ Ellora (4.09)

2. Ellora was better before - more peaceful and less busy place (4.38)

Conclusion

Those who are dependent on tourism feel that there is increase in the green cover than before ,in the Ellora caves site environs. Concern for migration is shown by those who are not

155

dependent on tourism as also the peaceful quality of the environment which is not existing due to increased tourism and increased population in Ellora. Additional information given by local communities is as follows –

1. There has been increase in land prices from last 2 years 2. There is loss of space to Tourism Authorities for development 3. Some tribal communities relocated in and around Ellora caves , cut wood and sell it off at the rate of Rs 150-200 /bundle of wood 4. There is no control on building activity and forest resources 5. There is increased water pollution due to garbage dumped in the river 6. Increase in encroachments. No organised hawking spaces. Shops outside temple hide the important landmark –Ghrushneshwar temple 7. Village is very simple and better, however changed due to migration 8. Many trees are cut down for development leading to decrease in forest cover

4.8.8 State of tourism infrastructure and development This question is common for both local communities and visitors. To understand the perceptions related to State of Tourism infrastructure, list of 13 components is provided to local communities. They are asked to rank on 1 to 5 scale where 1 is very bad and 5 is excellent. Factor analysis is done.

Table No. 4.36 Mean, Std Deviation, Kurtosis , Skewness for State of Tourism Infrastructure

Std. N Mean Deviation Skewness Kurtosis State of Tourism Infrastructure Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic 1. Landscape development 141 3.33 1.413 -1.228 .755 2. Safety at Ellora and its surrounds 140 3.21 1.257 -.767 .281 3. Overall quality of Site and its infrastructure 141 3.04 1.200 -1.038 .905 4. Maintenance of the caves and surrounds 141 3.02 1.284 -.943 .458 5. Information at Ellora visitors centre 141 2.99 2.020 -.544 -1.360 6. Movement Path connecting the Ellora caves 141 2.93 1.087 -.705 .623 7. Cleanliness at the Ellora caves and its surrounds 141 2.74 1.291 -.265 -.769 8. Road leading from highway to Ellora caves 141 2.67 1.233 -.234 -.555 9. Restaurants facility/service 140 2.61 1.296 -.300 -.500 10. Signage and information boards 141 2.57 1.249 -.373 -.532 11. Parking facility at the Ellora caves site 141 2.56 1.278 -.313 -.366 12. Lighting arrangements in and around Ellora caves 141 2.43 1.272 .026 -.662 13. Adequacy of Public conveniences like toilets, drinking water 140 1.79 1.109 .869 .763

The Kaiser Meyer- Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.723 indicating that the data was suitable for principle component analysis. Barlett’s test of Sphericity was 156

significant ( p< 0.001) , indicating sufficient correlation between variables to proceed with the analysis.

In order to find out which variables are loaded onto which factor, we refer to Rotated Component Matrix. Table No. 4.37 Rotated Component Matrix for State of Infrastructure

Component State of Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 1. Maintenance of the caves and surrounds .829

2. Landscape development .709

3. Overall quality of Site and its infrastructure .619

4. Cleanliness at the Ellora caves and its surrounds .575

5. Safety at Ellora and surroundings .544

6. Adequacy of Public conveniences like toilets, drinking water .807

7. Restaurants facility/service .793

8. Parking facility at the Ellora caves site .786

9. Road leading from highway to Ellora caves .803

10. Movement Path connecting the Ellora caves .709

11. Signage and information boards .650

12. Information at Ellora visitors centre .828

13. Lighting arrangements in and around Ellora caves -.673

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.

From the Rotated Component Matrix, shown in Table no 4.37, it is observed that maintenance of the caves and surrounds, landscape development, overall quality of site and its infrastructure, cleanliness at the Ellora caves and its surrounds and safety at Ellora and surroundings are loaded onto factor 1. Contents of 4 variables indicate the factor to be ‘Site Development and Management’’.

It is observed that restaurants facility / service, adequacy of public conveniences like toilets , drinking water , parking facility at Ellora caves site are loaded onto factor 2. Contents of 3 variables indicate the factor to be ‘Service infrastructure’.

157

It is observed that road leading from highway to Ellora caves, movement path connecting Ellora caves, signage and information boards are loaded onto factor 3. Contents of 3 variables indicate the factor to be ‘Physical Accessibility’.

It is observed that information at Ellora visitors centre, lighting arrangements in and around Ellora caves are loaded onto factor 4. Negative sign for the factor lighting arrangements in and around Ellora caves indicate negative construction of sentence with reference to other variables in that factor. Contents of 2 variables indicate the factor to be ‘Legibility’.

Conclusion

The 13 variables related to State of Heritage Buildings and Tourism Infrastructure have been successfully reduced to 4 factors which can be described under the themes- Site development and Management, Service infrastructure, Physical Accessibility, Legibility. From the mean values it is found that top 4 infrastructure components are Landscape development,Safety at Ellora and its surrounds, Overall quality of Site and its infrastructure and Maintenance of the caves and surrounds. Those with lowest mean values are Signage and information boards, Parking facility at the Ellora caves site , Lighting arrangements in and around Ellora caves and Adequacy of Public conveniences like toilets, drinking water, shows poor quality of signage and information , parking facility which is badly organised and inadequate, poor lighting arrangements which leads to discomfort in seeing the caves and poor public conveniences facility and inadequate in number too.

4.8.9 Development Preferences Perceptions are not just related to development that has happened, but also one which is preferred by the people and yet to happen. From the literature review, Interview with key informants and experts and pilot survey, Local Communities are provided with 19 development preference options and asked to rate on 5 point scale where is least preferred and 5 is most preferred. Friedman test is used for ordinal scale.

H0 : There is no difference in preferences of tourism development activities at Ellora caves and its surrounds

H1: there is significant difference in preferences of tourism development activities at Ellora caves and its surrounds

Level of Significance : α = 0.05 158

Table No. 4.38 Chi square test for contingency for Development Preferences for local communities

Test Statistics χ2 (σ) =592.603, P = 0.000 , µ = 141

N 141 Since the p value ( 0.000) is less than level of significance 0.05 , the null hypothesis is rejected. Hence it is concluded that there is significant difference in developmental preferences related to Chi-Square 592.603 Developmental activities of Ellora caves and its surrounds.

df 18

Asymp. Sig. .000

To find out, where the difference lies, we refer to ranks table

Table No. 4.39 Mean Ranks for Development Preferences for local communities

Mean Ranks Development Preferences Mean Rank 1. Conservation and restoration of Ellora caves 13.11 2. Conservation and Restoration of Paintings and Sculptures in Ellora caves 12.80 3. Toilets and drinking water facility 12.62 4. Accessibility features for disabled such as ramps, hand railing, Braille script etc 11.54 5. Improvement in roads quality 11.68 6. Planting more trees 11.38 7. Seating facility along the movement path 11.24 8. Garbage disposal facility and Waste management 11.14 9. Guided tours inside Ellora , Ellora village and other important buildings 11.00 10. Space and Facilities for Religious festivals like Mahashivratri, Urus etc 10.40 11. Space and Facilities for Art and Cultural festival like Ellora festival , in Ellora 10.36 12. Lighting for seeing the caves 10.08 13. Increase in parking facility 9.50 14. Space for Shops of local handicrafts 8.90 15. State Highway Road to be widened and shifted away from the Ellora caves 8.56 16. Home stays for tourists in homes of local people/ residents 8.01 17. Space for Shops selling flowers, fruits related to puja and other Religious activities 7.92 18. More Hotels in Ellora 5.03 19. Airport Near Ellora caves for easy access 4.73

Findings

From the above mean rank table it is found that Conservation and restoration of Ellora caves, Conservation and Restoration of Paintings and Sculptures in Ellora caves; Toilets and drinking water facility, Accessibility features for disabled such as ramps, hand railing, Braille script etc; Improvement in roads quality, and Planting more trees are top 6 features which have highest mean ranks.

159

The next 6 important features of development are Seating facility along the movement path , Garbage disposal facility and Waste management, Guided tours inside Ellora , Ellora village and other important buildings, Space and Facilities for Religious festivals like Mahashivratri , Urus etc and , Space and Facilities for Art and Cultural festival like Ellora festival in Ellora, lighting for seeing the caves.

Least important for local communities are increase in parking facility, Space for Shops of local handicrafts, State Highway Road to be widened and shifted away from the Ellora caves, Home stays for tourists in homes of local people/ residents, Space for Shops selling flowers, fruits related to puja and other Religious activities, More Hotels in Ellora, Airport Near Ellora caves for easy access.

It is however observed that home stays in homes of local communities is preferred over increase in number of hotels in Ellora.

Anova test is performed to understand the perceptional differences within the group of local communities; between those dependent on tourism and non-dependents with reference to development preferences.

Observations

Table No. 4.40 Anova test for within group comparison for Development Preferences for local communities

ANOVA TEST Sum of Mean

Development Preferences Squares Df Square F Sig.

Conservation and restoration of Ellora caves, Between Groups .060 1 .060 .637 .426

Within Groups 12.757 135 .094

Total 12.818 136

Conservation and Restoration of Paintings and Sculptures in Ellora caves Between Groups .091 1 .091 .795 .374

Within Groups 15.169 133 .114

Space and Facilities for Art and Cultural festival like Ellora festival , in Ellora Between Groups .551 1 .551 .914 .341

Within Groups 80.853 134 .603

Space and Facilities for Religious festivals like Mahashivratri, Urus etc Between Groups .464 1 .464 .742 .391

Within Groups 83.136 133 .625

Space for Shops selling flowers, fruits related to puja and other Religious Between Groups .711 1 .711 .516 .474

160

activities Within Groups 185.931 135 1.377

More Hotels in Ellora Between Groups 7.364 1 7.364 4.024 .047

Within Groups 237.879 130 1.830

Space for Shops of local handicrafts Between Groups 1.033 1 1.033 .901 .344

Within Groups 151.325 132 1.146

Home stays for tourists in homes of local people/ residents Between Groups .079 1 .079 .037 .849

Within Groups 286.309 132 2.169

Guided tours inside Ellora , Ellora village and other important buildings Between Groups .407 1 .407 .387 .535

Within Groups 133.515 127 1.051

Seating facility along the movement path Between Groups .014 1 .014 .023 .879

Within Groups 77.645 130 .597

Accessibility features for disabled such as ramps, hand railing, Braille script etc Between Groups .427 1 .427 1.024 .314

Within Groups 54.202 130 .417

Lighting for seeing the caves Between 4.382 1 4.382 3.877 .051 Groups

Within Groups 149.207 132 1.130

Toilets and drinking water facility Between Groups .060 1 .060 .183 .669

Within Groups 42.767 131 .326

Improvement in roads quality Between Groups .260 1 .260 .606 .438

Within Groups 57.044 133 .429

Increase in parking facility Between Groups .347 1 .347 .357 .551

Within Groups 127.097 131 .970

Planting more trees Between Groups .366 1 .366 .828 .364

Within Groups 56.527 128 .442

Garbage disposal facility and Waste management Between 1.532 1 1.532 4.116 .044 Groups

Within Groups 49.873 134 .372

Airport Near Ellora caves for easy access Between Groups .353 1 .353 .117 .733

161

Within Groups 403.765 134 3.013

State Highway Road to be widened and shifted away from the Ellora caves Between Groups 2.998 1 2.998 1.625 .205

Within Groups 245.402 133 1.845

Conclusion

It can be concluded that DevelopmentPreferences for Local communities which are felt important are related to Conservation of structures in and around the Ellora caves, followed by infrastructure facilities like Toilets and drinking water facility, External Roads, Accessibility features for disabled, and Planting of more trees.

Also important are development preferences like Garbage disposal facility and Waste management, Seating facility along the movement path, Space and Facilities for Art and Cultural festival like Ellora festival in Ellora, Guided tours inside Ellora , Ellora village and other important buildings, Space and Facilities for Religious festivals like Mahashivratri, Urus etc.

It shows that waste management ,comfort for visitors, space and facilities for art and cultural festival as well as religious festival are preferred ,not just for economic benefits but for sustaining culture of the place and guided tours inside Ellora caves, Ellora village and other important buildings shows their pride in the rural character of the village which has some old historic buildings as well . Conducting guided tours could be their additional source of livelihood.

From the Anova test as seen in Table no. 4.40, Lighting is a concern even to those who are not dependent on tourism. There is also need and concern of those into tourism for garbage generated due to tourism and waste management, since it is primarily generated due to tourism related activities.

4.8.10 Visual Preferences To understand the preferences of landscape settings and architectural development in Ellora caves, 141 respondents were presented with photo options based on 4 aspects –

1. Landscape Setting

2. Architectural vocabulary for buildings

162

3. Lighting inside Ellora Caves

4. Material for street furniture

The set of photographs are common for interview survey of visitors and local communities. The respondents are also asked to give reasons for their preference.

4.8.10.1 Landscape Setting

Observation It is found that 66.67 % respondents prefer existing lawn whereas 33.33 % respondents prefer forest settings. It is found that local communities have strong preference of lawn over forest setting.

Chart No 4.37 Preferences for landscape setting

Findings It is found that the respondents choice of lawn was based on their liking for lawn rather than trees and another reason was visibility of Kailas temple from distance. Another striking reason is that Kailas temple serve asa good backdrop for photography, which istheir business for a few of local communities.Most of the photographers are seen on the pathway which led to Kailas caves. Yet another reason isfeeling of insecurity that may arise due to presence of forest and wild life , making access to the caves difficult. 4.8.10.2 Architectural vocabulary for Buildings

Observation It is found that 72.14% opted for restaurant building in old style and 27.86% opted for existing restaurant building or building in modern style.

Chart No 4.38 Preferences for Architectural vocabulary

163

Findings

It is found that respondents prefer old style than the modern style of architectural vocabulary. They feel that old style bears close resemblance to cave architecture.

4.8.10.3 Lighting inside Ellora Caves

Observation From the pie chart no.4.44, it is found that 95% prefer LED lighting for the caves, 4.3% prefer existing natural lighting for the caves,

0.7% prefer spot lighting.

Chart No 4.39 Preferences for lighting inside the caves

On enquiring about the reason for their choice , they conveyed that artificial lighting rather than natural, willmake the sculptures legible. They are aware of LED being used in Ajanta caves. According to them light will drive away bats from the caves. No torch will be needed in that case which is currently the practice to see the sculptures hidden in darkness. Also good lighting is important to avoid accidents inside the caves which has uneven floor surfaces. 4.8.10.4 Material for Street Furniture

The most important site, the Kailas cave was selected and various options presented to the respondents.

Observation It is found that 68.6 % showed preference for wooden street furniture , 13.6% for steel material , 10% for stone material and 7.9% for existing situation in front of Kailas cave

with no street furniture .

Chart No 4.40 Preferences for Street furniture Material

164

Findings

It is found that preference for wooden furniture is the highest followed by steel material. The reasons for preference of wood is itsnatural character and properties of not getting easily heated due to solar radiation, though most of the local communities also understood the problem of longetivity of the material. Wood is also felt appropriate for old people. However wood as a material cannot withstand impacts of monkeys. Steel was therefore given as another important option due to its durability and because of its high tech look which most felt was appropriate for World Heritage site ofEllora, though some felt it may get heated up in the sun making it uncomfortable for sitting and resting, unless it is shaded by a tree. Steel furniture can be easily repaired and replaced.

Conclusions

Local communities have strong preference of lawn over forest setting. This is because of the economic benefits, visual accessibility and control. With reference to Architectural vocabulary for the buildings, local communities prefer old style than the modern style of architectural vocabulary.

Artificial lighting rather than natural is preferred for lighting of the caves. According to the local communities, LED lighting will make the sculptures legible, hence preference for LED , as used in Ajanta caves, which they are much aware of. Local communities prefer wooden furniture followed by steel material.

4.9 COMPARATIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS : VISITORS AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES

Closed ended questions related to following aspects were asked commonly to both ,visitors and local communities (separate findings already presented in sections above) for 4 variables to understand their agreement and disagreement on the following -

1. Heritage components and Striking features 2. State of tourism infrastructure 3. Development preferences 4. Visual preferences(reflecting their preferences of authenticity , integrity and presentation)

165

4.9.1 Working Hypotheses

Working hypothesis is expressed as ‘Null hypothesis’. It suggests no relationship between variables ( Babbie, 2013). They are derived to fulfill the objectives of the study. These hypotheses are expressed as follows:

H1 : There is no difference in perceptions of local communities and visitors with reference to the Heritage componentsand Striking features in Ellora H2: There is no difference in perceptions of local communities and visitors with reference to State of tourism infrastructure and development of Ellora H3: There is no difference in perceptions of local communities and visitors with reference to Development Preferences of heritage sites of Ellora H4a: There is no difference in perceptions of local communities and visitors with reference to Photo preferences for Landscape settingin and around Ellora caves H4b: there is no difference in perceptions of local communities and visitors with reference to Photo Preferences for Architectural vocabulary of buildings in and around Ellora caves H4c: there is no difference in perceptions of local communities and visitors with reference to Preferences for Lighting inside Ellora caves H4d: there is no difference in perceptions of local communities and visitors with reference to Photo Preferences ofpaving and street furniture

4.9.2 Heritage components and Striking features

Heritage components

Heritage components are rated on 7 point scale where 1-very highly insignificant, 2-highly insignificant,3-insignificant,4-slightly significant, 5-significant, 6-highly significant, 7-very highly significant

Level of significance : α = 0.05

H0 : local communities and visitors do not differ over perceptions related to heritage components

H1: local communities and visitors differ over perceptions related to heritage components

Normality was tested using criteria suggested by George and Mallery. According to George and Mallery, variables with skewness and kurtosis values between +_1 indicates normality.

166

From the below table it can be seen that for heritage components most of the variables have skewness and kurtosis value above threshold range of + and – 1as suggested by George and Mallery. Hence normality is violated. Therefore non-parametric test - Mann-Whitney U test is used.

Findings :

 Rows in which Hypotheses are rejected are highlighted with grey colour  Hypothesis is rejected if the P value <0.05 (Level of significance)

Table No. 4.41Mann-Whitney test for Comparative Analysis of visitors and local communities for Heritage Components Variable Group Mean Median Std Skewness Kurtosis P Result Deviation value Interpretation Heritage components

Forest and Visitors 4.73 5 1.921 -.426 -1.012 0.664 Null Since p value more than surroundings accepted 0.05, lc and v do not Local 4.60 5 2.081 -.363 -1.223 differ on Forest and surroundings

Waterfall, ponds, Visitors 4.13 4 1.959 -.057 -1.192 0.007 Null Since p value less than lakes rejected 0.05, lc and v differ on Local 4.67 5 1.850 -.425 -.937 Waterfall, ponds, lakes

Kailas temple Visitors 6.23 7 1.372 -2.006 3.524 0.000 Null Since p value less than rejected 0.05, lc and v differ on Local 6.74 7 .699 -3.643 17.099 Kailas temple

Other caves Visitors 5.22 6 1.696 -.955 -.034 0.000 Null Since p value less than rejected 0.05, lc and v differ Local 6.00 7 1.581 -1.824 2.500 onOther caves

Ghrushneshwar, Visitors 5.12 6 1.819 -.656 -.739 0.000 Null Since p value less than other temple, rejected 0.05, lc and v differ on Dargahs Local 6.35 7 1.200 -2.424 6.213 Ghrushneshwar, other temple, Dargahs

Verul/ Ellora Visitors 2.87 2 1.970 .787 -.661 0.000 Null Since p value less than village rejected 0.05, lc and v differ on Local 5.31 6 1.705 -.896 -.001 Verul/ Ellora village

Painting and Visitors 5.57 6 1.905 -1.198 .146 0.698 Null Since p value more than Sculptures of Ellora accepted 0.05, lc and v do not caves Local 5.65 7 1.746 -1.030 .029 differ on Painting and Sculptures of Ellora caves

167

Findings

It is found that null is rejected for 5 out of 7 heritage components, namely waterfalls , ponds and lakes, Kailas temple ,Other caves in Verul , Ghrushneshwar, other temples, Dargahs ;and Verul Gaon / village , shows difference in perceptions related to these 5 heritage components.

From the mean values of waterfalls, ponds and lakes, they are slightly significant to visitors ,however significant to local communities. Kailas temple show that Kailas is very highly significant amongst the heritage components, however more to local communities than visitors. Other caves and Ghrushneshwar are highly significant to local communities and significant to visitors. Verul village is not significant to visitors however very significant to local communities.

Null is accepted for 2 heritage components, shows that both local communities and visitors agree on these components. Paintings and sculptures are highly significant to visitors and significant to local communities, rankson second top of the list for both visitors and local communities. Forests and natural surroundings of Ellora are significant heritage component to visitors and local communities.

Striking features

It can be concluded that Architectural elements of World heritage site is a striking feature for both, the visitors and local communities. However other intangible aspects of the environment like peaceful environments, fresh and clean air are felt as striking or distinctive as heritage components to both of them . Though local monuments , local art and craft and local food ,nature of the forest , Rural character of the village are not found distinctive by the visitors , they are much striking or distinctive to local communities. It is also known that culture and identity is not just social ,rather spatial, expressed through the landscapes. Inappropriate landscape development in favour of tourism development can break the links between people – culture- nature, change locally distinctive characteristics and meanings ( Antrop, 2005). Localized values create distinct identity (Stephenson,2008) ,which must be recognised in the development. World Heritage Site status, offers an opportunity of not just conservation and development of itself, but also the locally distinctive characteristics of the place for sustainable social, cultural and ecological health of its people.

168

4.9.3 State of tourism Infrastructure

State of tourism infrastructure is rated on 5 point scale where 1 = bad , 2=below average 3= average , 4 = good, 5= excellent

Level of significance : α = 0.05

H0 : local communities and visitors do not differ over perceptions related to heritage buildings and tourism infrastructure components

H1 : local communities and visitors differ over perceptions related to heritage buildings and tourism infrastructure components

Normality is tested using criteria suggested by George and Mallery. According to George and Mallery, variables with skewness and kurtosis values between +_1 indicates normality.

From the below table it can be seen that for state of Tourism infrastructure development most of the variables have skewness and kurtosis value above threshold range of + and – 1as suggested by George and Mallery. Hence normality is violated. So Mann- Whitney test is used.

Table No. 4.42 Mann-Whitney test for Comparative Analysis of visitors and local communities for ‘State of tourism Infrastructure

No Variable Group Mean Median Skewness Kurtosis P value Result

1 Movement Path Visitors 3.29 3 -.038 227 0.003 Null Since p value is less than connecting the rejected 0.05, lc and v differ on Ellora caves Local 2.93 3 -.705 .623 movement path connecting caves

2 Road leading Visitors 3.05 3 -.281 . 0 Null Since p value from highway 2 . rejected is less than to Ellora caves Local 2.67 3 -.234 3 0 0.05, lc and v 4 0 differ on - 3 Road leading . from highway 5 to Ellora caves 5 5 3 Signage and Visitors 2.73 3 .115 -.521 0.453 Null Since p value more than information accepted 0.05, lc and v do not boards Local 2.57 3 -.373 -.532 differ on Signage and information boards 4 Information at Visitors 1.93 2 .270 -1.465 0.000 Null Since p value less than

169

Ellora visitors Local 2.99 4 -.544 -1.360 rejected 0.05, lc and v differ on centre Information at Ellora visitors centre

5 Adequacy of Visitors 1.93 2 .506 -.145 0.168 Null Since p value more than Public accepted 0.05, lc and v do not conveniences Local 1.79 2 .869 .763 differ on Adequacy of like toilets, Public conveniences like drinking water toilets, drinking water

6 Restaurants Visitors 2.29 2 .085 -.162 0.006 Null Since p value less than facility/service rejected 0.05, lc and v differ on Local 2.61 3 -.300 -.500 Restaurants facility/service

7 Parking facility Visitors 2.85 3 -.334 .264 0.035 Null Since p value less than at the Ellora rejected 0.05, lc and v differ on caves site Local 2.56 3 -.313 -.366 Parking facility at the Ellora caves site

8 Lighting Visitors 2.21 2 .348 -.098 0.061 Null Since p value more than arrangements in accepted 0.05, lc and v do not and around Local 2.43 2 .026 -.662 differ on Lighting Ellora caves arrangements in and around Ellora caves

9 Cleanliness at Visitors 3.13 3 -.188 -.418 0.007 Null Since p value less than the Ellora caves rejected 0.05, lc and v differ on and its Local 2.74 3 -.265 -.769 Cleanliness at the Ellora surrounds caves and its surrounds

10 Maintenance of Visitors 3.24 3 -.208 -.073 0.440 Null Since p value more than the caves and accepted 0.05, lc and v do not surrounds Local 3.02 3 -.943 .458 differ on Maintenance of the caves and surrounds

11 Landscape Visitors 3.28 3 -.316 -.006 0.027 Null Since p value less than development rejected 0.05, lc and v differon Local 3.33 4 -1.228 .755 Landscape development

12 Overall quality Visitors 3.34 3 -.158 .254 0.104 Null Since p value more than of Site and its accepted 0.05, lc and v do not infrastructure Local 3.04 3 1.038 .905 differ on Overall quality of Site and its infrastructure

13 Safety at Ellora Visitors 3.16 3 -.458 .179 0.351 Null Since p value more than and its accepted 0.05, lc and v do not surrounds Local 3.21 3 -.767 .281 differ on Safety at Ellora and its surrounds

170

Out of 13 items, null is rejected for following 7 items, shows difference in perceptions related to state of tourism infrastructure and development

1. Movement Path connecting the Ellora caves 2. Road leading from highway to Ellora caves 3. Information at Ellora visitors centre 4. Restaurants facility/service 5. Parking facility at the Ellora caves site 6. Cleanliness at the Ellora caves and its surrounds 7. Landscape development

Based on the Mean values it is found that Movement Path connecting the Ellora caves is average according to visitors, however between average and below average for local communities. Road leading from highway to Ellora caves is average for visitors and below average for local communities. Information at Ellora visitors centre is below average for visitors and average according to local communities. Restaurants facility/service is below average for visitors and average according to local communities. Parking facility at the Ellora caves site is average for visitors and below average for local communities. Cleanliness at the Ellora caves and its surrounds is average according to visitors and between below average and average for local communities. Landscape development is average according to visitors and above average for local communities.

Visitors and local communities agree on 6 components of tourism infrastructure -

1. Signage and information boards 2. Adequacy of Public conveniences like toilets, drinking water 3. Lighting arrangements in and around Ellora caves 4. Maintenance of the caves and surrounds 5. Overall quality of Site and its infrastructure 6. Safety at Ellora and its surrounds

Based on the mean values it is seen that both of them agree on Signage and information boards to be average; Adequacy of Public conveniences like toilets, drinking water to be below average; Lighting arrangements in and around Ellora caves below average ; Maintenance of the caves and surrounds , Overall quality of Site and its infrastructure and Safety at Ellora and its surrounds is average.

171

State of tourism infrastructure according to visitors and local communities is average and below average

4.9.4 Development Preferences

19 Heritage Buildings and Tourism Infrastructure Components are rated on 5 point scale where 1 is not at all important ,5 is very important.

Level of significance : α = 0.05

H0 : local communities and visitors do not differ over perceptions related to development preferences

H1: local communities and visitors differ over perceptions related to development preferences

Normality was tested using criteria suggested by George and Mallery. According to George and Mallery, variables with skewness and kurtosis values between +_1 indicates normality.

From the below table it can be seen that for development preferences most of the variables have skewness and kurtosis value above threshold range of + and – 1as suggested by George and Mallery. Hence normality is violated. So Mann-Whitney test is used.

 Rows in which Hypotheses are rejected are highlighted with grey colour  Hypothesis is rejected if the P value <0.05 (Level of significance) Table No. 4.43 Mann-Whitney test for Comparative Analysis of visitors and local communities for ‘Development Preferences

Variable Group Mean Median Skewness Kurtosis P Result value Conservation and restoration of Ellora Visitors 4.88 5 -5.569 34.326 0.040 Null 1 caves rejected Local 4.96 5

2 Conservation and Restoration of Paintings Visitors 4.86 5 -4.611 25.119 0.212 Null and Sculptures in Ellora caves accepted Local 4.93 5

3 Space and Facilities for Art and Visitors 3.75 4 -.721 -.416 0.000 Null Cultural festival like Ellora festival , in rejected Ellora Local 4.57 5

4 Space and Facilities for Religious Visitors 3.36 3 -.367 -.918 0.000 Null festivals like Mahashivratri, Urus etc rejected Local 4.53 5

5 Space for Shops selling flowers, fruits Visitors 2.57 2 11.562 173.002 0.000 Null

172

related to puja and other Religious Local 4.05 4 rejected activities

6 More Hotels in Ellora Visitors 2.85 3 123 -1.267 0.126 Null accepted Local 3.08

7 Space for Shops of local handicrafts Visitors 2.98 3 -.003 -1.225 0.000 Null rejected Local 4.24 3

8 Home stays for tourists in homes of Visitors 2.96 3 .051 -1.227 0.000 Null local people/ residents rejected Local 3.84 5

9 Guided tours inside Ellora , Ellora Visitors 3.86 4 -.846 -.297 0.000 Null village and other important buildings rejected Local 4.55 4.5

10 Seating facility along the movement Visitors 4.06 4 -1.100 .185 0.000 Null path rejected Local 4.66 5 11 Accessibility features for disabled such Visitors 4.28 5 -1.353 1.321 0.000 Null as ramps, hand railing, Braille script rejected etc Local 4.72 5 Lighting for seeing the caves Visitors 4.11 5 -1.340 .804 0.012 Null 12 rejected Local 4.38 5

Toilets and drinking water facility Visitors 4.53 5 -2.042 4.308 0.000 Null 13 rejected Local 4.87 5

Improvement in roads quality Visitors 4.19 5 -1.236 .821 0.000 Null 14 rejected Local 4.72 5

Increase in parking facility Visitors 3.62 4 -.511 -.596 0.000 Null 15 rejected Local 4.38 5

Planting more trees Visitors 4.28 5 -1.084 .609 0.000 Null 16 rejected Local 4.71 5

Garbage disposal facility and Waste Visitors 4.42 5 -1.767 2.677 0.006 Null 17 management rejected Local 4.68 5

Airport Near Ellora caves for easy Visitors 2.27 2 .787 -.612 0.002 Null 18 access rejected Local 2.88 3

State Highway Road to be widened and Visitors 3.53 4 -.467 -1.241 0.000 Null 19 shifted away from the Ellora caves rejected Local 4.07 5

173

Findings

From the above observations in the table , it is seen that –

1. Out of 19 variables , local communities and visitors differ on 17 variablesnamely, space and facilities for cultural festivals, religious festivals, shops selling flowers, local handicrafts; infrastructure facilities like seating facility, toilets and drinking water, home stays; accessibilityaspects like accessibility features like ramps, etc ; airport, improved roads, parking facility and State Highway Road to be widened and shifted away from the Ellora caves; environmental and ecological aspects like conservation of Ellora caves, planting more trees, guided tours ,lighting inside the caves to enhance experiential quality . The median values show that these are very much preferred by Local communities than visitors, shows their keen interest in the developmental activities in and around the Ellora caves. 2. There is difference in preferences of visitors and local communities with reference to home stays. Difference in means values show higher interest of local communities in providing accommodation for the visitors for more economic benefits. 3. Preference for Space and facilities for Art and Cultural festival like Ellora festival in Ellora and Space and facilities for religious festivals like Mahashivratri, Urus is higher of local communities ; shows not only the economic benefit but also the cultural dimension of the community which is observed to be thriving despite the lack of space and facilities. 4. Guided tours inside Ellora, Ellora village and other religious buildings are more preferred by local communities and quite preferred by visitors though there is significant difference between the mean values. Most of the visitors’ intent of visit is knowing more about the historic place and the historic layers are not just confined to Ellora caves, but extend beyond it and are part of the larger regional canvas including structures in Verul village, Khuldabad and nearby places like Shulibhanjan and Mhaismal. To local communities , higher mean values show their place identity and place attachment due to the heritage inside the Verul village, especially the religious ones. 5. Planting more trees is important to local communities more than visitors because of its resource values. The forest provides them fuel, fodder, ground for grazing their cattle, fruits and other non-timber products . From the focused group discussion it is observed that water is a major problem in Ellora and Khuldabad and that local communities realize that planting more trees will resolve the issue of water. 6. Local communities and visitors do not differ on remaining 2 variables - Conservation and Restoration of Paintings and Sculptures in Ellora caves , More Hotels in Ellora. Both of

174

them agree that conservation and Restoration of paintings and sculptures in Ellora caves is very important for experience of the past history, where as more hotels in Ellora are somewhat important for enhanced stay in Ellora.

Most of the variables related to development were understood as important or very important.

4.9.5 Visual Preferences : Comparison between visitors and local communities’ preferences

4.9.5.1 Landscape Settings

Landscape setting is measured using 2 response options ( existing lawn / proposed forest)

Chi-square test for contingency is used to understand whether they differ on their preferences.

H0: Local Communities and Visitors have same preference for landscape setting

H1: Local Communities and Visitors have different preferences for landscape setting

Level of significance : α = 0.05

Chart No 4.46 Preferences of visitors and local communities for landscape setting

Table No. 4.44 Chi-square test for contingency for Landscape Setting and type of respondents

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 74.029a 1 .000 .000 .000 Computed only for a 2x2 table

Table No. 4.45 Cross –tabulation of Landscape Setting and type of respondents

175

type of respondent local visitor communities Total Photo survey- Landscape Existing lawn Count 78 94 172 Setting in front of Kailas % within Photo survey 45.3% 54.7% 100.0% cave % within type of respondent 24.5% 66.7% 37.5% % of Total 17.0% 20.5% 37.5% Proposed -Forest Count 240 47 287 % within Photo survey 83.6% 16.4% 100.0% % within type of respondent 75.5% 33.3% 62.5% % of Total 52.3% 10.2% 62.5% Total Count 318 141 459 % within Photo survey 69.3% 30.7% 100.0% % within type of respondent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % of Total 69.3% 30.7% 100.0%

Findings

Since p value (0.000) is less than level of significance (0.05), null hypothesis is rejected. Hence it is found that there is significant relation between respondent type and landscape setting. To know more about this relationship, we refer to cross-tabulation in table no. 4.46.

From the cross tabulation, it is found that within type of respondents, that 75.5% visitors prefer forest whereas 66.7% local communities prefer lawn. This shows preference of natural settings by the visitors where as tended settings by local communities.

4.9.5.2 Architectural vocabulary

H0: Local Communities and Visitors have same preference of Architectural style

H1: Local Communities and Visitors differ over preference for Architectural style

Level of significance : α = 0.05

Chart No 4.47 Preferences of visitors and local communities for Architectural vocabulary

176

Observations

Table No. 4.46 Chi-square test for contingency for Architecture vocabulary and type of respondents

Asymp. Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1- Value df sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided) sided) Pearson Chi-Square 26.837a 1 .000 .000 .000 b. Computed only for a 2x2 table

Table No. 4.47 Cross –tabulation of Architecture vocabulary and type of respondents

type of respondent

Crosstab visitor local communities Total Architecture vocabulary Modern material Count 29 39 68 % within Photo survey 42.6% 57.4% 100.0% % within type of respondent 9.1% 27.9% 14.9% % of Total 6.3% 8.5% 14.9% Old style like caves Count 288 101 389 % within Photo survey 74.0% 26.0% 100.0% % within type of respondent 90.9% 72.1% 85.1% % of Total 63.0% 22.1% 85.1% Total Count 317 140 457 % within Photo survey 69.4% 30.6% 100.0% % within type of respondent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % of Total 69.4% 30.6% 100.0%

Findings

Since p value (0.000) is less than level of significance (0.05), null hypothesis is rejected. Hence is found that there is significant relation between respondent type and restaurant building’s architectural style. To know more about this relationship, we refer to cross-tabulation above.

From the cross tabulation as shown in table no 4.48, it is found that within type of respondents, majority i.e. 90.9% visitors prefer old style , whereas only 72.1% local communities prefer same ; Oldstyle for restaurant building. Hence we can conclude that visitors and local communities have common preferences for Architectural vocabulary i.e. old style resembling the cave architecture, however their priorities were different .

4.9.5.3 Lighting inside the Caves

177

Lighting inside the caves is measured using 4 response options ( existing Natural lighting, proposed LED lighting, proposed blue or colored lighting and proposed focused lighting )

H0: Local Communities and Visitors have same preference for lighting

H1: Local Communities and Visitors differ over preference for lighting

Level of significance : α = 0.05

Chart No 4.48Preferences of visitors and local communities for Lighting inside the caves Table No. 4.48 Chi-square test for contingency for lighting inside the caves and type of respondents

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 17.389a 3 .001 Likelihood Ratio 21.715 3 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association .060 1 .807 N of Valid Cases 458

Table No. 4.49 Cross –tabulation of lighting inside the caves and type of respondents

type of respondent local visitor communities Total Photo survey-Lighting Existing Natural lighting Count 45 6 51 inside the caves % within Photo survey 88.2% 11.8% 100.0% % within type of respondent 14.2% 4.3% 11.1% Proposed LED lighting Count 254 133 387 % within Photo survey 65.6% 34.4% 100.0% % within type of respondent 79.9% 95.0% 84.5% Proposed Blue or colored Count 6 0 6 lighting % within Photo survey 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% % within type of respondent 1.9% 0.0% 1.3% Proposed focused lighting Count 13 1 14 % within Photo survey-Lighting 92.9% 7.1% 100.0% inside the caves % within type of respondent 4.1% 0.7% 3.1%

178

Total Count 318 140 458 % within Photo survey 69.4% 30.6% 100.0% % within type of respondent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % of Total 69.4% 30.6% 100.0% Findings :

Since p value (0.001) is less than level of significance (0.05), null hypothesis is rejected. Hence it is found that there is significant relation between respondent type and lighting inside the caves.

To know more about this relationship, we refer to cross-tabulation above.

From the cross tabulation, within type of respondents, it is found that LED lighting is preferred by 95% local communities and 79.9% visitors . It shows that current lighting conditions are not favorable from point of view of safety and security and legibility of sculptures and spaces inside the caves. Second preference of visitors for lighting is natural lighting . Both their preferences show their preference for legibility and natural quality of light as well as safety and security.

4.9.5.4 Material for Street Furniture

Street Furniture is measured using 4 response options ( existing situation with no street furniture / proposed street furniture in wood/ proposed street furniture in steel/ proposed street furniture in wooden)

H0: Local Communities and Visitors have same preference for street furniture

H1: there is significant relationship have different preferences for street furniture

Level of significance : α = 0.05

Chart No 4.48 Preferences of visitors and local communities for Street furniture material

179

Table No. 4.50 Chi-square test for contingency for lighting inside the caves and type of Respondents

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 44.269a 3 .000

Table No. 4.51 Cross –tabulation of Street Furniture and type of respondents Crosstab type of respondent local visitor communities Total % within Photo survey 77.1% 22.9% 100.0% Street Furniture material Existing None % within type of respondent 11.6% 7.9% 10.5% % of Total 8.1% 2.4% 10.5% % within Photo survey 66.8% 33.2% 100.0% Proposed Wooden % within type of respondent 60.5% 68.6% 63.0% % of Total 42.0% 20.9% 63.0% % within Photo survey 17.4% 82.6% 100.0% Proposed steel % within type of respondent 1.3% 13.6% 5.0% % of Total 0.9% 4.1% 5.0% % within Photo survey 85.9% 14.1% 100.0% Proposed Stone % within type of respondent 26.6% 10.0% 21.6% % of Total 18.5% 3.1% 21.6% % within Photo survey 69.5% 30.5% 100.0% Total

Findings

Since p value (0.000) is less than level of significance (0.05), null hypothesis is rejected. Hence it is found that there is significant relation between respondent type and preferences of paving material & street furniture. To know more about this relationship, we refer to cross-tabulation above.From the cross tabulation, it is found that within type of respondents, 60.5% visitors prefer wooden street furniture whereas 68.6% local communities prefer wooden street furniture; shows similar preference for street furniture; wood being natural material which does not heat up easily. Second preference of visitors is stone, which shows that visitors prefer natural materials over modern, where as second preference of local communities is steel , modern material.

4.9.5.5 Summary of Findings

1. Preference of natural settings by the visitors where as tended settings by local communities.

180

2. Visitors and local communities have common preferences for Architectural vocabulary i.e. old style resembling the cave architecture, however their priorities within the given options were different . 3. LED lighting is preferred by local communities and visitors . It shows that current lighting conditions are not favorable from point of view of safety and security and legibility of sculptures and spaces inside the caves. 4. Visitors and local communities show similar preference for street furniture; wood being natural material which does not heat up easily.

Summarily, in this chapter of analysis and findings ,the case of Ellora is studied through archival research and secondary data , on-site observations and interviews. Statistical analysis of visitors and local communities gives qualitative and quantitative findings . Finally, comparison of perceptions is done related to 4 aspects , namely Heritage components and Striking features ,State of tourism infrastructure and development, Development preferences and visual preferences for architectural and landscape development. Conclusions are drawn based on the findings of observations , interview with key informants and experts and interviews of visitors and local communities and presented in the next chapter.

181