From the desk of Editor

Journal of Tourism is pleased to come up with yet another interesting issue for its respected and valuable readers. Tourism sector is experiencing rapid changes, enabling the researchers to work upon. Sometimes, it becomes very difficult to understand the ongoing trends and demands of the prospective tourists. However, it is the research community, who work continuously to learn the changes and developments with regard to demand, supply, new product development, challenges in the service delivery, which in turn provides useful inputs to the stakeholders involved in policy frameworks. This issue of Journal of Tourism again attempted to identify the research results of the aforesaid areas across tourism researchers. The Journal has received 15 research papers of varying interests and was subjected to review. At last, the reviewing team has given a go ahead sign only to 4 research papers to consider for publication. And those papers are presented below for your reading. The fourth paper in this issue is specially added on the specific reason to record the findings and to act as literature for future research of the study area.

The first paper titled “A study of the servuction model for accommodation providers based on guests' perception” authored by DenishPegu, Panchanan Barman and Sinmoy Goswami shares the application of Servuction model for the hospitality sector based on the guest perceptions on 39 parameters, which remarkably reflect the image and quality of the accommodation outlets. Also, those parameters are hypothetical leading to different perception level among the users. The Authors studied the parameters with different guests and presented the findings in this research paper and opine that out of 39 parameters, 33 have high impact among the guest leaving 6 behind. This research paper in particular, paves way to understand the relationship between perception- satisfaction and the scale of importance perceived by the guests of various aspects of the hotel. In the changing dynamics of hotel business, this paper serves as an eye opener for the hospitality players giving functional inputs for the betterment of the sector besides providing memorable services to the guests.

The second paper titled “A Sustainable Approach to Community based waste management in the Backwaters of South Kerala” by Emilda K Joseph, Tomy K Kallarackal and Bindi Varghese discusses the very important issue experienced by the prime backwater destinations of Kerala state. The authors carry the research paper with the active support of community members, without whom the sustainability approach will never take shape. The intense of having community members on board in assuring waste management serves as a positive indication of the Appreciative Participatory Planning and Action (APPA) model and highlights its significance and necessity. The paper addresses the perceived benefits and costs of community, community support and involvement as major variables and its associated factors with the representations from stakeholders. The findings of the paper show a positive sign towards witnessing sustainable tourism through community support and involvement, thereby ensuring community-based waste management success.

The third paper titled “Examining the factors influencing community participation in destination development” by Zaffar Iqbal & Neetu Andotra shares the findings about the pertinent factors motivates community members in destination building and development in Poonch district of Jammu & Kashmir state. It is accepted that, community members are the prime stakeholder ensuring the success of any tourist destination and authors have rightly understood the significance. This paper provides inputs on the extent and impact of community participation is judged upon certain factors namely economic, social and tourism development. Local community benefits from an economic perspective besides other two factors as stated above. Also, community members reveal about their sick representation in policy framing team. Suitable recommendations have been made by researchers to promote Poonch district as a purposeful tourist destination.

The fourth paper titled “Benefits of Protected Area Network Status: Pilot study at Bieszscady National Park, Poland” authored by Stuart P.Cottrell and Jana Raadik Cottrell examines the underlying impacts of parks in the protected area network (PAN) on community members and tourism intriguingly. Authors have used both qualitative and quantitative techniques to learn the benefits and overall results of the parks existence to the aforementioned stakeholders. Various stakeholders representing Local Pan Park Group (LPPG) were formed to partner on ensuring sustainable practices in the park through tourism. Further the authors opine that there is a strong evidence that the park has driven tangible socio-cultural sustainability. However, based on the quantitative results, only 50% of the respondents were not happy with the quality of tourism development in the region. Further the authors demanded the use of mixed research methods in sustainable tourism research.

At last, it is my humble duty to record my sincere thanks to the reviewers, who have devoted their valuable time in reviewing the papers besides their academic assignments. Also, I am elated to extend my sincere gratitude and appreciation to our beloved readers and subscribers for their support and motivation.

S.C.Bagri Journal of Tourism An International Research Journal on Travel and Tourism Vol. XX, No.2, 2019 ISSN:0972-7310

Contents S.No Research Paper Author Pag e Editorial Note 1 A Study of the Servuction model, Dinesh Pegu, 1-20 accommodation providers, service Panchanan Barman, experience, satisfaction, hygiene and Sinmoy Goswami atmosphere

2 A Sustainable Approach to Emilda K Joseph, 21-37 Community Based Waste Management in the Backwaters of South Kerala Tomy K Kallarackal, Bindi Varghese 3 Examining the Factors Influencing Zafar Iqbal, 39-56 Community Participation In Neetu Andotra Destination Development 4 Benefits of Protected Area Network Stuart P. Cottrell, 57-71 Status: Pilot study at Bieszscady Jana Raadik Cottrell National Park, Poland All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means- electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the written permission of the publisher. K e yW o r d s AStudyofTheServuctionModel forAccommodationProviders BasedOnGuests'Perception Servuctionmodel, DENISHPEGU accommodationproviders, DoctoralStudent, AssamInstituteofManagement(AIM),Guwahati serviceexperience, satisfaction,hygiene PANCHANANBARMAN andatmosphere. AssistantProfessor,GauhatiCommerceCollege,R.G.BaruahRoad,Guwahati. SINMOYGOSWAMI AssistantProfessor,AssamInstituteofManagement(AIM)Guwahati. ,

Abstract INTRODUCTION Accommodation providers, an essential component of the The Servuction Model of tourism and hospitality industry, include all types of Service Marketing highlights establishments that offer overnight accommodation on a the impact of servicescape, “commercial or quasi-commercial basis to all types of contact personnel, fellow tourists” (Sharma, 2004; Jha, 2015). The different types of guests, and invisible organizations and systems on these establishments are shown in Table-1( along with guests' overall service various sources). experience in any service Considering the importance of the aforementioned based firm. This paper accommodation providers in the above industry, this paper explores to study the aims to delve into the Servuction Model based on guests' Servuction Model for (customers') perception in terms of their satisfaction in such different types of entities. This model (propounded by Langeard, Bateson, accommodation providers Lovelock and Eiglier (1981)) helps to assess the impact of (like hotels, resorts, lodges four factors on customers' (guests') service experience in any etc. in the tourism and hospitality industry) based on service based firm including the above accommodation guests' perception in terms of providers (Fitzsimmons, 2003; Roday et al., 2009; their satisfaction. Findings of Fitzsimmons, Fitzsimmons & Bordoloi, 2018). These four this study has indicated factors include “servicescape” (i.e., physical evidence), significant parameters falling “contact personnel”, and “other fellow customers (guests)” under the above four aspects which are visible to customers (guests), and “organizations of the aforesaid model that and systems” which are not visible to them in any such firms. have impact on guests' satisfaction in such entities. These findings may be emphasized in marketing strategies of these firms for satisfying their guests.

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 1 Table-1:DifferentTypesofAccommodationProviders Sr. No. Types Sr. No. Types 1 Hotels 2 Caravans and camping sites i) Boutique hotels 3 Guest houses ii) Commercial hotels 4 Lodges iii) Floating hotels 5 Motels iv) Heritage hotels 6 Pensions v) International hotels 7 Rest houses vi) Residential/ Apartment hotels 8 Time-share and Resort Condominiums vii)Resort hotels/ Resorts 9 Tourist Holiday villages 10 Youth hostels

(Sources: Sharma, 2004; Taylor & Young, 2005; Roday, Biwal & Joshi, 2009; Yang, Huang, Song & Liang, 2009; Huang, Song & Zhang, 2010; Hills & Cairncross, 2011; Grotte, 2013; Jha, 2015; Gössling & Lane, 2015; Dutta, Bhattacharya & Guin, 2017; Johnson & Neuhofer, 2017; Mody, Suess & Xinran, 2017) LITERATURE REVIEW: (2000), Groenenboom and Jones (2003), The following common parameters of Poon and Low (2005), and Mohsin and services in hospitality enterprises (including Lockyer (2010) in Table-2. These different types of accommodation parameters may be summarized under the providers) have been identified by Choi and above mentioned two factors, Chu (2000), Heung (2000), Tsang and Qu “Servicescape” and “Contact personnel” of the Servuction Model as: Table2:ParametersofServicescapeandContactPersonnelinVariousTypesof AccommodationProviders- Sr. No. ParametersofServicescape Sr. No. ParametersofContactPersonnel 1 Foodandbeveragequality 1 Roomservice 2 Availabilityoffoodandbeveragevariety 2 Helpfulpre-transactioninformation 3 Hygieneoffoodandbeverage 3 Convenientandreliablereservationsystem 4 Foodandbeverageatreasonableprice 4 Friendlinessandhelpfulnessofthestaff 5 Qualityoftherestaurant 5 Availabilityofstafftoprovidepromptservice 6 Location 6 Courtesy ofthestaff 7 Physicalappearance 7 Specialattention 8 Viewofthesurroundingareas 8 Languageproficiencyofthestaff 9 Welcomingatmosphere 9 Neatappearanceofstaff 10 Roomfurnishingsandappearance 10 Convenientpaymentmethod 11 Quietnessoftheroom 11 Efficientcheck-inandcheck-out 12 Overallcleanlinessandtidiness 12 Availabilityofreliablewake-upcall Availability ofstafffortransportation 13 Comfortofbeds/mattresses/pillows 13 arrangements 14 Qualityofin-roomtemperaturecontrol 14 Availabilityofmeetingfacilities 15 In-roomentertainmentincludingtelevision/video/ 15 Availabilityofconvenientparkingfacilities 16 Internetconnectionaudio 16 Securityofbelongingsincludingvaluables 17 Reasonablepricefortheroom 17 Availabilityofefficientlaundryservice (Sources: Choi & Chu, 2000;Heung, 2000;Tsang & Qu, 2000;Groenenboom & Jones, 2003;Poon & Low, 2005; Mohsin & Lockyer, 2010) An earlier study by Barman, Goswami and four key parameters falling under the Sarma (2015) has established the impact of aforementioned third factor, invisible the above parameters in Table-2 on guests' “organizations and systems” of the overall service experience in terms of their Servuction Model in such entities on the satisfaction in case of hotels. Besides, this aforementioned guests' satisfaction. These study has also highlighted the impact of four parameters are “prevailing rules

2 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 applicable to guests”, “other prevailing dissatisfaction affects their perception of rules”, “prevailing service delivery service experience. Torres-Moraga, processes”, and “information forms to be Vásquez-Parraga and Zamora-González completed (like guest relationship form, (2008) have mentioned customer feedback form, guest information form satisfaction as an important aspect of etc.)”. Barman et al. (2015) has also noted “customers' responses to a company's the impact of the above mentioned fourth offerings”. Based on these studies, it may factor, fellow guests (i.e. “other be pertinent to note that guests' (customers') customers”) (of the Servuction model), on satisfaction is the primary measure of their the aforesaid guests' satisfaction in hotels. service experience in hospitality enterprises So, there were a total of 39 parameters including accommodation providers. This falling under the aforementioned four view has been supported by World Tourism factors of the Servuction Model as shown Organization (WTO) (1985), Reis, Pena and in Table-A-5 in the Annexure. The above Lopes (2003), and Kumar, Reddy and observations may also be applicable in Surender (2008). other types of accommodation providers As per Parker and Mathews (2001), like lodges, resorts etc. other than hotels in customer satisfaction is related with the tourism and hospitality industry. This customers' happiness which results in repeat present study is a step in this regard. purchase behaviour. This corroborates with In line with the above discussion, it is the views of Vanhoof, Pauwels, Dombi, prudent to highlight the importance of Brijs and Wets (2005), and Lam (2007) customer satisfaction for success of any which have also linked customer business endeavour (Mittal & Kamakura, satisfaction with repeat purchase behaviour 2001). Oliver (1980) has described as well as customer retention. Customers' customer satisfaction through the “repurchase decision” is a measure of their Expectancy Disconfirmation Theory. As per loyalty with respect to products and this theory, whenever outcome from a services of a firm (Chiu, Wang, Fang & product or service matches customers' Huang, 2014; King, Schilhavy, Chowa & expectations, confirmation occurs. Chin, 2016). Similar opinion has been Whenever the above outcome exceeds stated by Pizam and Ellis (1999) for customer expectations, positive hospitality enterprises that also includes disconfirmation occurs. Customer different types of accommodation providers satisfaction is caused by confirmation as like hotels, resorts, lodges etc. in the well as positive disconfirmation. Pizam and tourism and hospitality industry. Mey and Ellis (1999) have mentioned guests' Mohamed (2009), and Solanki (2011) have (customers') satisfaction as the “leading also stated similar opinion in the overall criterion” for determining quality of overall context of tourism. Bhote (1996), and services in case of hospitality enterprises. Heskett, Sasser Jr. and Schlesinger (1997) Meuter, Ostrom, Roundtree and Bitner have established customer satisfaction as (2000), and Jamal and Naser (2002) have one of the important antecedents of noted customer satisfaction as an customer loyalty. Yu and Dean (2001), and “important theoretical as well as practical Baksi and Parida (2013) have also issue for most marketers and consumer established the existence of positive researchers”. Wirtz (2001), and Andaleeb relationship between customer satisfaction and Conway (2006) have mentioned and loyalty. The above observations further customer satisfaction as an important aspect validate customers' (guests') satisfaction as of service quality of any firm. Zeithaml the chief measure of their service (2000), and Hensley and Sulek (2007) have experience in various firms including mentioned that customers' satisfaction or various accommodation providers as

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 3 mentioned above. This is also because such satisfaction may result in their loyalty through repeat visits in any such firms. These views are specifically endorsed by Heung (2000), Torres and Kline (2006), and Crotts, Pan and Raschid (2008). Need for the study: The discussions in the earlier section clearly highlights the importance of guests' (tourists' (customers')) satisfaction in various accommodation providers in the tourism and hospitality industry. In this Figure-2:ForeignTourist Arrivalin Assam context, it is also relevant to emphasize the (Source: ATDC,2019) views of Oliver (1980) who has stated that present, the tourism and hospitality industry customer satisfaction is one of the most is witnessing a worldwide rapid pace of important factors that may lead to growth owing to increases in disposable “experience based attitude change” among income, accessibility of international travel them. Westbrook and Oliver (1991) have for all classes of people, stress and strain of established a link between satisfaction and routine work, human desire to travel to emotion of such customers (guests/tourists). different parts of the world, and awareness Malhotra (2005) has opined that about travel and tourism through different development of tourism (and hospitality) is media (Malhotra, 2005; Roday et al., 2009). highly essential for “increased income and According to WTO (2019), the total employment” in any place. The same international tourist arrival in the year 2018 scholar has noted that the most important was 1.4 billion and total receipts (in tourist economic benefit of tourism (and destinations) from international tourism hospitality) is earning of foreign exchange. stood at US$1.5 trillion. This indicated 5% Another economic benefit from tourism is and 11% increase respectively over the the overall development of a particular same parameter in the year 2017. This destination (Malhotra, 2005; Roday et al., report also stated that worldwide tourism 2009). In addition, tourism also fosters contributed towards 29% of global services “interactions between cultural customs” of exports. The total estimated foreign tourist visitors and local host population, and arrival (FTA) in India in the year 2018 was increased promotion of “creative talents” 17,427,000 which represented a 12.12% and “special relationship” between visitors increase over the previous year (WTO, and host population (Bhatta, 2006; Roday et 2019). As per the same report, the total al., 2009; Shrestha and Jeong, 2016). At estimated receipts from tourism in case of India stood at US$28,568 million in the year 2018. Similar increase in domestic and foreign tourist arrivals was noticed upto the year 2018 in case of the state (province) of Assam in North East India which has immense tourism potential (refer to Figure- 1 and Figure-2). The above discussion throws light upon the increasing importance of the tourism and hospitality industry in Assam in particular, and India and the world in Figure-1:DomesticTourist Arrivalin Assam (Source: ATDC,2019) general. As explained earlier,

4 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 accommodation is one of the most significant research gap as far as tourism important components of this industry. and hospitality industry is concerned. The Bilbao and Valdés (2016) have established significance of these two districts stems the importance of proper quality from the fact that their geographical accommodation in case of rural tourism in territory includes the city of Guwahati, their study. Similar views have also been Lokpriya Gopinath Bordoloi International expressed by Grotte (2013). As per Jha airport, Guwahati railway station and other (2015), accommodation in case of the important railway stations, Rupnath Brahma aforementioned industry revolves around Inter-State Bus Terminal (ISBT), important issues like “security, quality and accommodation providers (including star economical services”. In fact, type of category hotels, resorts etc.), and important accommodation provided immensely affects tourist destinations (refer to Table-A-1 and the “behaviour of tourists/guests” (Jha, Table-A-2 respectively in the Annexure) 2015). (Maps of India, 2012a; Maps of India, As discussed in the earlier section, 2012b; FHRAI, 2019). In fact, Guwahati satisfaction of guests (tourists) in case of city happens to be the largest city and overall services of accommodation gateway to all other tourist destinations of providers can lead to repeat visits to the Assam as well as entire North East India same accommodation providers in future (IITG, n.d.; ITDC, 2018). Based on the (Ball, Simões-Coelho & Machás, 2004; above discussion, this present study Lindroth, Ritalahti & Soisalon-Soininen, attempts to fill the aforementioned gaps. 2007; Türkilmaz & Özkan, 2007; Torres- Objective of the Study: Moragaet al. , 2008; Ha, Janda & Muthaly, The objective of this paper is to study 2010). This will definitely ensure the Servuction Model for different types of uninterrupted cash flows and profitability of accommodation providers based on guests' such entities in the coming years (Ha et al., perception in terms of their satisfaction. 2010). This is highly important for the Research Methodology: success of such entities in the tourism and This study was carried out in order to hospitality industry (Glancey & Pettigrew, fulfil its stated objectives. For this purpose, 1997). Therefore, appropriate attention on a structured questionnaire was used and the core aspects of consumer behaviour is administered among 350 potential highly important in the above entities respondents through a survey within (Lindroth et al., 2007). This is also true in Kamrup (Metropolitan) and Kamrup (Rural) case of Assam due to reasons noted earlier. districts of Assam. These respondents were This paper, therefore, attempts to study the guests in various accommodation providers Servuction Model for different types of which were in the form of hotels, resorts, accommodation providers based on guests' heritage hotels, lodges, guest houses, and perception in terms of their satisfaction as rest houses in the above state (as noted explained in the earlier section. It is to be through proper observation and interviews noted that till date Barman et al. (2015) of the aforementioned respondents). Due to have conducted a study involving this unavailability of any proper sampling frame model only in case of hotels. However, for the population from which data was there is dearth of such studies involving collected, probabilistic sampling procedure other types of accommodation providers could not be used in this study. As such, like resorts, lodges etc. This represents an the aforesaid respondents were selected important research gap. Further, there is a through convenience sampling from the serious lack of similar studies involving study population owing to time and Kamrup (Metropolitan) and Kamrup (Rural) resource constraints. However, only 224 out districts of Assam. This denotes another of the above 350 respondents responded by

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 5 providing all their responses to the level was taken as the dependent variable, questions included in the aforesaid and levels of their perception regarding the questionnaire. As such, the sample size for above impact of aforesaid identified this study can be taken as 224 respondents. parameters were taken as the independent This survey was carried out within a time variable. It is to be noted that Independent frame of six months (from 1st November, sample t-test and One-way ANOVA were 2018 to 30th April, 2019). The main sources used in the above regard whenever there of secondary data were books, journals etc. were only two groups, and more than two The aforementioned questionnaire consisted groups respectively of the independent of questions for identifying the respondents' variable. It was then tried to find out those perception of the impact of earlier parameters (among these identified discussed 39 parameters falling under parameters) wherein the above mentioned servicescape (physical evidence), contact mean was highest in case of “high impact” personnel, invisible organizations and and gradually reduced in a linear manner systems, and other guests (of the Servuction towards lower levels of impact from “above Model) in the above entities. This impact average impact” to “least impact” or was measured on a 5-point scale ranging whichever is applicable. In other words, it from “High impact”, “Above Average was tried to find out such parameters impact”, “Average impact”, “Below wherein the above impact exhibited linear Average impact” to “Least impact”. The positive relationship with the aforesaid questionnaire also tried to aforementioned dependent variable. The determine respondents' satisfaction level on validity of the Servuction Model with a 5-point scale ranging from “High respect to such guests' perception in terms satisfaction”, “Above Average satisfaction”, of their satisfaction was tried to be checked “Average satisfaction”, “Below Average through this process. For further satisfaction” to “Least satisfaction”. The verification of the aforementioned impact of above questionnaire exhibited high these identified main parameters on reliability coefficient (Cronbach's respondents' overall service experience (in α=0.899)). Thereafter, it was tried to find terms of their satisfaction) in different out the main parameters falling under the accommodation providers, Discriminant above mentioned four factors of the Analysis was used. Here, the above Servuction Model that have significant respondent guests' satisfaction level was impact on respondents' overall service taken as the grouping variable (dependent experience (in terms of their satisfaction) in variable) and the above impact of aforesaid various accommodation providers. This was main parameters were taken as the done by identifying such parameters where independent (predictor) variable. Based on this impact was mostlyhigh or above responses obtained, the dependent variable average. For additional verification of this was grouped into two groups, namely, impact, a series of Independent sample t- “High Satisfaction” (denoted as Group test and One-way ANOVA at a significance “1”) and “Above Average Satisfaction” level of 5% (α =0.05) were carried out (denoted as Group “0”) as mentioned in (Chawla & Sondhi, 2011; Malhotra & Table-A-7 (in the Annexure). Here, the Dash, 2016). These statistical tools were probabilities for group membership of the used to find out if the means of guests' dependent variable were noted in case of satisfaction in various accommodation the aforementioned independent variable. In providers varied significantly across their this manner, it was tried to find out the perception regarding this impact of the above identified main parameters wherein above identified parameters. For this aforesaid probability of the above impact purpose, the respondent guests' satisfaction was mostly “high” in case of “high

6 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 satisfaction” of the respondent guests, and 2009). mostly “above average” or “average” or Limitations of the study: lower (depending on responses obtained) As noted above, this study involved relating to their “above average convenience sampling with its inherent satisfaction”. The above identified limitations. Besides, this study involved parameters whose impact on respondent only two districts of Assam, i.e., Kamrup guests' satisfaction were validated through (Metropolitan) and Kamrup (Rural) Independent sample t-test or One-way districts. As such, the outcome of this study ANOVA, and Discriminant Analysis (as may not be generalized. discussed above) require higher emphasis Analysis and Findings: on the part of the management of various It was observed from Table-A-3 (in the types of accommodation providers for Annexure) that among the different types of satisfying their guests. However, those accommodation providers, most of the parameters wherein above such impact were respondent guests stayed in hotels (64.73%) validated only through Independent sample and a significant number of them stayed in t-test or One-way ANOVA but not through resorts (25.89%). It was also noticed that Discriminant Analysis (as explained earlier) most of these respondents were males require moderate emphasis for satisfying (74.11%), married (85.27%), and graduates such guests. In the above manner, it was (70.98%) (refer to Table-A-4 in the tried to fulfil the stated objectives of this Annexure). Besides, most of them were study. residing inside North East India (90.63%), Discriminant Analysis was employed were graduates (70.98%), between 41 to 50 due to its following advantages as far as years in age (50.00%), employed in the this study was concerned (Hair, Black, public sector (25.00%), and with monthly Babin & Anderson, 2013; Malhotra & income between Rs.25,000 to Rs.40,000 Dash, 2016): (49.55%). Further, most of them visited and i) It helped in finding out the stayed in the various aforementioned Discriminant function that can discriminate entities for both official and leisure between the categories of the dependent purposes (49.55%). (criterion) variable. Next, it was found that most ii) It helped in identifying the presence of respondent guests' perceived that altogether significant differences among groups in 33 parameters (out of 39 parameters) falling terms of the independent (predictor) under servicescape, contact personnel, variables. invisible organizations and systems, and iii) It aided in classification of cases on the other guests had significant impact (i.e., basis of the values of independent mostly high or above average impact) on (predictor) variable. their overall service experience in terms of iv) Besides, it also helped in finding out their satisfaction in various accommodation the accuracy of the classification. providers (refer to Research Methodology, In the above context, it may be noted and Table-A-5 in the Annexure). However, that an attempt was made to employ no such impact was seen in case of six Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) for parameters due to which they were left out creating a path diagram for confirmation of from further analyses. These six parameters the aforementioned Servuction Model. But, included view of surrounding areas (A8 ), this could not be used because of the comfort of beds/ mattresses/ pillows (A),13 presence of substantial missing data in this helpful pre-transaction information (A),19 study which led to failure of model fit special attention (A),24 efficient check-in using SEM (Valluzzi, Larson and Miller, and check-out (A), and security of 2003; Kleyman and McVean, 2008; Wu, 28 belongings including valuables (A)33 in case

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 7 of the above entities. (less thanα = 0.05). This indicated that the Thereafter, results of One-way ANOVA data differed significantly from the indicated that the null hypothesis that there multivariate normal (Hair et al., 2013). is equality of means of guests' satisfaction Similar findings were noted in case of the in various accommodation providers across above impact of additional two parameters, their perception regarding the impact of namely, availability of food and beverage food and beverage quality (A1 ) can be variety (A2 ), and food and beverage at α rejected (p-value less than = 0.05) (refer reasonable price (A4 ) on guests' satisfaction to Table-A-5 (Sr. No.1) in the Annexure). in aforesaid entities through same analyses. This implied that the means of guests' Here too, Games-Howell Post Hoc tests satisfaction varied significantly across their conducted (due to same reasons) yielded perception regarding the impact of almost similar results as in case of parameter A1 . It was noticed that the above parameter A1 (refer to Table-A-6 in the mean was highest whenever they exhibited Annexure).

“high” impact of A1 . The same mean was In case of the impact of quality of the lowest whenever guests' experienced restaurant (A5 ) on guests' satisfaction,

“average” impact of A1 . This indicated a Independent sample t-test was conducted as linear positive relationship between levels there were responses in only two levels of of guests' satisfaction and levels of their this impact, namely, “high” impact and perception regarding the impact of food and “above average” impact. The results beverage quality in their respective indicated that the null hypothesis that there accommodation providers. This meant that is equality of means of guests' satisfaction those who felt that this impact was high in various accommodation providers across might experience high satisfaction. their perception regarding the impact of A5 However, those who perceived that this can be rejected (p-value less thanα = 0.05) impact was above average and average (refer to Table-A-5 (Sr. No.5) in the might experience above average Annexure). This meant that the means of satisfaction. Games-Howell Post Hoc test guests' satisfaction varied significantly was conducted because the presence of across their perception regarding the impact equal variances could not be assumed in of parameter A5 . It was noticed that the this case. The results indicated that above mean was highest whenever they significant pairwise differences existed experienced “high” impact of A5 , and among the above means of guests' lowest whenever they perceived “above satisfaction with respect to “high” impact, average” impact of A . As such, a linear “above average” impact, and “average” 5 positive relationship existed between levels impact of parameter A in different 1 of guests' satisfaction and their perception accommodation providers (refer to Table- regarding the impact of A in their A-6 in the Annexure). These analyses 5 respective accommodation providers. This ascertained that positive impact of implied that those who felt that this impact parameter A may result in guests' 1 was high might experience high satisfaction in such entities. Further, in the satisfaction. Yet, those who perceived that above case, Discriminant Analysis could this impact was above average might not be conducted for validating the impact experience above average satisfaction. Here of parameter A on respondent guests' 1 also, Discriminant Analysis could not be overall service experience in terms of their conducted as the p-value of Box's M was satisfaction. This was because the p-value 0.01 (less thanα = 0.05) (as described of Box's M (for assessing the equality of earlier). covariance matrices) was found to be 0.001 The above analyses ascertained that positive

8 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 impact of four parameters, namely, food “highly” satisfied (refer to Table-A-7 in the and beverage quality, availability of food Annexure). On the other hand, those guests and beverage variety, food and beverage at who experienced “above average” impact reasonable price, and quality of the and “average” impact of the aforesaid restaurant may result in increasing guests' parameter in such accommodation providers satisfaction in various accommodation exhibited “above average” satisfaction. This providers. As mentioned in the Research verified that the guests' perceived impact of

Methodology, it may be stated that the A3 had linear positive relationship with their management of any accommodation satisfaction level. provider may put moderate emphasis on From similar analyses as noted in case of these four parameters in order to satisfy parameter A3 above, it was found that linear their guests. positive relationship existed between levels Again, results of One-way ANOVA of guests' satisfaction and their perception indicated that positive impact of hygiene of regarding the impact of welcoming food and beverage (A ) may lead to 3 atmosphere (A9 ) in their respective increase in guests' satisfaction in their accommodation providers (refer to Table- respective accommodation providers (p- A-5 (Sr. No.9) in the Annexure). The value less thanα = 0.05) (refer to Table-A-5 results of Discriminant Analysis indicated (Sr. No.3) in the Annexure) as noted in the following Discriminant function case of food and beverage quality (A1 ) involving respondent guests' satisfaction above. This was further reaffirmed through with the perceived impact of A9 as follows Games-Howell Post Hoc tests that were (p-value of Box's M= 0.444 (greater than conducted owing to similar reasons as α= 0.05) and 69.6% of the grouped cases explained above with similar results as in being correctly classified): case of parameter A (refer to Table-A-6 in 1 D9 =(-8.060)+(1.954)A9 the Annexure). Discriminant Analysis was ………………(ii) carried out to assess the impact of hygiene Equation (ii) indicated that the impact of of food and beverage (A3 ) on respondent welcoming atmosphere had linear positive guests' overall service experience in terms relation with guests' satisfaction level as in of their satisfaction. This was because p- case of parameter A3 (explained above). value of Box's M was found to be 0.705 From the above findings, it may be opined (greater thanα = 0.05) in this case implying that the management of any accommodation that the data do not differ significantly from provider may put high emphasis on hygiene the multivariate normal (refer to Table-A-7 of food and beverage, and welcoming in the Annexure) (Hair et al., 2013). Further atmosphere in order to satisfy their guests results of this analysis are shown in Table- (as per Research Methodology). A-7. It also indicated that 88.4% of the In case of respondents' perception regarding grouped cases are correctly classified. the impact of room furnishings and

Based on the Canonical Discriminant appearance (A),10 and quietness of the room

Function Coefficients, the Discriminant (A)11 in various types of accommodation function involving respondent guests' providers, it was seen that there was no satisfaction with the perceived impact of A3 response regarding “high” impact in this was derived as: case (refer to Table-A-5 (Sr. Nos.10 and

D3 =(-8.554)+(2.134)A3 11) in the Annexure). As such, no further ………………(i) analysis was carried out in both these cases From equation (i) it was found that those as it was meaningless to do so (although guests who experienced “high” impact of such responses were noticed in case of hygiene of food and beverage (A3 ) in their other levels of the aforesaid impact). respective accommodation providers were Therefore, these parameters may not be

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 9 emphasized on part of the management of providers. Discriminant Analysis could not any accommodation provider while framing be carried out in case of each of the above marketing strategies for satisfying their three parameters due to absence of adequate guests. This finding is also applicable for non-empty groups in case of the dependent five parameters in case of contact personnel variable, i.e., guests' satisfaction level (Hair for satisfying guests in any of the above et al., 2013). Therefore, the management of entities due to same reasons. These five any accommodation provider may put parameters included convenient and reliable moderate emphasis on these three reservation system (A),20 friendliness and parameters in order to satisfy their guests helpfulness of the staff (A),21 availability of (as per Research Methodology). In a similar manner using One-way staff to provide prompt service (A),22 ANOVA, linear positive relationship was courtesy of the staff (A),23 and neat observed between levels of guests' appearance of staff (A).26 Similar linear positive relationship was satisfaction and their perception regarding noticed between levels of guests' the impact of four parameters in case of satisfaction and their perception regarding invisible organizations and systems in their the impact of three parameters, i.e., respective accommodation providers (refer language proficiency of the staff (A), to Table-A-5 (Sr. Nos.36, 37, 38 and 39) in 25 the Annexure). These four parameters availability of reliable wake-up call (A), 29 included prevailing rules applicable to and availability of staff for transportation guests (A), other prevailing rules (A), arrangements (A) in case of contact 35 36 30 prevailing service delivery processes (A), personnel in their respective 37 and information forms to be completed accommodation providers using One-way (like guest relationship form, feedback ANOVA (refer to Table-A-5 (Sr. Nos.25, form, guest information form etc.) (A). 29 and 30) in the Annexure). These 38 findings were similar as noted in case of Results of Games-Howell Post Hoc tests food and beverage quality (A ). Games- (conducted for similar reasons as mentioned 1 earlier) indicated that positive impact of the Howell Post Hoc tests (conducted for above three parameters A, A and A may similar reasons as explained above) 35 36 37 indicated that positive impact of parameters lead to guests' satisfaction in various A and A may lead to guests' satisfaction accommodation providers as in case of food 25 30 and beverage quality (A ) as explained in such entities as in case of A (refer to 1 1 above (refer to Table-A-9 in the Annexure). Table-A-8 in the Annexure). With respect In case of information forms to be to parameter A, similar Post Hoc test 29 completed (A), results of Post Hoc tests results indicated that there were no 38 indicated that there were no significant significant pairwise differences between the pairwise differences between the above above means regarding “average” impact means regarding “average” impact and and “below average” impact of parameter “below average” impact of parameter A as A. Therefore, these two levels of impact 38 29 in the case parameter A described above. of A may be treated as being equivalent. 29 29 As such, these two levels of impact of A However, such significant pairwise 38 differences were noticed between the may be treated as being equal. Likewise, as in case of parameters A and A explained aforesaid means relating to all other levels 1 29 of the above impact as in case of parameter earlier, significant pairwise differences A explained earlier. Still, it may be noted existed between the above means regarding 1 other levels of impact of parameter A. that from these analyses that positive 38 impact of A may result in guests' Still, these analyses ascertain that positive 29 impact of parameter A may result in satisfaction in various accommodation 38

10 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 guests' satisfaction in various the Annexure. accommodation providers. With respect to Discussion: each of the above four parameters, A,35 A, 36 The above findings of this study

A37 and A, 38 Discriminant Analysis could indicated and verified that parameters, not be conducted due to similar reasons as hygiene of food and beverage, and welcoming atmosphere, falling under in the case of parameters A,25 A 29 and A 30 as explained earlier. Hence, moderate servicescape needed high focus on the part emphasis may be accorded on these four of the management of various parameters for satisfying guests in the accommodation providers in order to satisfy above entities (as noted in the Research their guests. Besides, moderate emphasis Methodology). may be given on four parameters, namely, Likewise, linear positive relationship food and beverage quality, availability of was found to exist between levels of guests' food and beverage variety, food and satisfaction and their perception regarding beverage at reasonable price, and quality of the restaurant (in case of servicescape) for the impact of fellow guests (A)39 in their respective accommodation providers using satisfying guests in the above entities. One-way ANOVA (refer to Table-A-5 (Sr. Likewise, three parameters falling under No.40) in the Annexure). The results of contact personnel, language proficiency of Games-Howell Post Hoc tests (conducted the staff, availability of reliable wake-up because of same reasons as noted above) call, and availability of staff for indicated absence of significant pairwise transportation arrangements may be differences between the above means moderately stressed upon for satisfying regarding “high” impact and “average” guests in above such firms. Similar findings have been also observed with respect to impact of A.39 As such, these two levels of impact of A may be treated as being prevailing rules applicable to guests, other 39 prevailing rules, prevailing service delivery equivalent (refer to Table-A-10 in the processes, and information forms to be Annexure). However, such pairwise completed under invisible organizations and differences existed between the above systems for satisfying guests in various means regarding other levels of impact of accommodation providers. Same findings A as in case of parameters A and A 39 1 29 have been noted in case of the impact of mentioned above. Still, it may be noted that fellow guests for satisfying guests in the positive impact of parameter A may result 39 aforementioned entities. The above findings in guests' satisfaction in various thereby provide a significant understanding accommodation providers. Here too, regarding guests' perception in terms of Discriminant Analysis was not conducted their satisfaction with respect to the for same reasons as in the case of Servuction Model of service delivery in parameters A, A and A. So, moderate 25 29 30 various types of accommodation providers. importance may be accorded on the impact As explained earlier, satisfied guests' may of fellow guests for satisfying guests in the undertake repeat visits to the same aforementioned entities. accommodation providers in future. This Based on the above analyses, a would guarantee continuous cash flows and Servuction Model based on guests' profitability of such entities in the coming perception of the impact of aforementioned years. Thereby, these findings may help in different identified important parameters of filling the significant research gaps (as services in various accommodation mentioned in the section Need for the providers and their overall experience in Study) as far as tourism and hospitality terms of their satisfaction has been industry is concerned. In addition, the conceptualized as shown in Figure-A-1 in aforementioned findings have demonstrated

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 11 the applicability of the above Servuction Conclusion: Model in other types of accommodation The views, as propounded by the providers other than hotels within the Servuction Model of service delivery are sphere of this industry. This would indeed significant in order to arrive at proper contribute towards valuable expansion of understanding of guests' perception as far as the existing body of knowledge for this their satisfaction is concerned in case of industry globally and for the Kamrup different types of establishments in the (Metropolitan) and Kamrup (Rural) districts tourism and hospitality industry. As noted of Assam in particular. earlier, the findings of this study have Scope for future Research: illustrated the utility of the aforesaid The findings of this study are expected Servuction Model in different types of to aid in exploring other major research accommodation providers including hotels, gaps and unearthing additional valuable resorts, guest houses, rest houses etc. It is findings in the tourism and hospitality expected that proper emphasis on this industry. Similar studies may be conducted model may help in augmenting guests' in the future involving a much larger satisfaction that may increase chances of sample size covering more aspects of their repeat visits to the same different types of accommodation providers accommodation provider(s) with falling under the aforementioned industry. consequent benefits in future. This is also Such studies may also be carried out in true for such firms in the state of Assam in other parts of India and the world in India and the districts of Kamrup general. (Metropolitan) and Kamrup (Rural) in particular.

REFERENCES Enterprises in Kamrup (Metropolitan) and Andaleeb, S.S., & Conway, C. (2006). Customer Kamrup (Rural) Districts of Assam (India). satisfaction in the restaurant industry: An In S. Misra, D. Awasthi & G. Batthini examination of the transaction-specific (Eds), Proceedings of Eleventh Biennial model. Journal of Services Marketing, Conference on Entrepreneurship, 20(1), 3-11. Entrepreneurship Development Institute Assam Tourism Development Corporation (EDI) (pp. 1295-1306). Ahmedabad: EDI. (ATDC) (2019). Arrival of Tourists. Bhatta, R.N. (2006). Evaluating Ecotourism in Retrieved October 15, 2019, from Mountain Areas: A Study of Three https://tourismcorporation.assam.gov.in/abo Himalayan Destinations. International ut-us/detail/arrival-of-tourists. Review for Environmental Strategies, 6(1), Baksi, A.K., & Parida, B.B. (2013). 41 62. Development and validation of Tourism Bhote, K.R. (1996). Beyond Customer Relationship Management (TRM) Satisfaction to Customer Loyalty: The Key framework and assessing its impact on to Greater Profitability. American tourism service quality, tourist satisfaction Management Association. and destination loyalty in perspective of Bilbao, C., & Valdés, L. (2016). Evaluation of Santiniketan, West Bengal, India. Journal of the profitability of quality labels in rural Tourism, 14(2), 1-22. tourism accommodation: A hedonic Ball, D., Simões-Coelho, P., & Machás, A. approach using propensity score matching. (2004). The role of communication and Applied Economics, 48(34), 32533263. trust in explaining customer loyalty: An Chawla, D., & Sondhi, N. (2011). Research extension of the ESCI model. European Methodology. Noida: Vikas Publishing Journal of Marketing, 38(9/10), 12721293. House Private Limited, 303-311. Barman, P., Goswami, S., & Sarmah, S. (2015). Chiu, C., Wang, E.T.G., Fang, Y., & Huang, H. Insights from Servuction Model based (2014). Understanding customers' repeat Customer Perspectives: A Study in Tourism purchase intentions in B2C e-commerce: the roles of utilitarian value, hedonic value

12 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 and perceived risk. Information Systems Education, 245. Journal, 24, 85114. Hensley, R.L., & Sulek, J. (2007). Customer Choi, T.Y., & Chu, R. (2000). Levels of satisfaction with waits in multi-stage satisfaction among Asian and Western services. Managing Service Quality, 17(2), travelers. International Journal of Quality 152-173. and Reliability Management, 17(2), 116- Heskett, J.L., Sasser Jr., W.E., & Schlesinger, 131. L.A. (1997). The Service Profit Chain: How Crotts, J.C., Pan, B., & Raschid, A.E. (2008). A Leading Companies link Profit and Growth survey method for identifying key drivers to Loyalty, Satisfaction and Value. New of guest delight. International Journal of York: The Free Press, 83. Contemporary Hospitality Management, Heung, V.C.S. (2000). Satisfaction levels of 20(4), 462-470. mainland Chinese travelers with Hong Dutta, S., Bhattacharya, S., & Guin, K.K. Kong hotel services. International Journal (2017). Segmentation and Classification of of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Indian Domestic Tourists - A Tourism 12(5), 308-315. Stakeholder Perspective. Journal of Hills, J.R., & Cairncross, G. (2011). Small Management & Training for Industries, accommodation providers and UGC web 4(1), 1-24. sites: perceptions and practices. Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations International Journal of Contemporary of India (FHRAI) (2019). Membership. Hospitality Management, 23(1), 26-43. Retrieved January 10, 2019, from Huang, G.Q., Song, H., & Zhang, X. (2010). A https://www.fhrai.com/Search_member.aspx comparative analysis of quantity and price ?stType= Hotel. competitions in tourism supply chain Fitzsimmons, J.A. (2003). It the Future of networks for package holidays. Service Services Self-Service? Managing Service Industries Journal, 30(10), 1593-1606. Quality, 13(6), 443-444. Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati (IITG) Fitzsimmons, J.A., Fitzsimmons, M.J., & (n.d.). Travelling in North East India. Bordoloi (2018). Service Management: Guwahati: IITG. Operations, Strategy, Information India Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC) Technology. Chennai: McGraw Hill (2018). Traveller's Companion: India's Education, 5-6, 21, 93-94, 219. North East Paradise Unexplored. New Glancey, K., & Pettigrew, M. (1997). Delhi: ITDC, 52-57. Entrepreneurship in the small hotel sector. Jamal, A., & Naser, K. (2002). Customer International Journal of Contemporary satisfaction and retail banking: An Hospitality Management, 9(1), 21-24. assessment of some of the key antecedents Groenenboom, K., & Jones, P. (2003). Issues of of customer satisfaction in retail banking. security in hotels. International Journal of International Journal of Bank Marketing, Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(4), 146-160. 15(1), 14-19. Jha, S.M. (2015). Tourism Marketing (2nd Grotte, J. (2013). Budget Tourism- Transition edition). Mumbai: Himalaya Publishing Economy. International Journal of Business House, pp.204-205, 365-367. Insights & Transformation, 6(2), 104109. Johnson, A., & Neuhofer, B. (2017). Airbnb- An Gössling, S., & Lane, B. (2015). Rural tourism exploration of value co-creation experiences and the development of Internet-based in Jamaica. International Journal of accommodation booking platforms: a study Contemporary Hospitality Management, in the advantages, dangers and implications 29(9), 2361-2376. of innovation. Journal of Sustainable King, R.C., Schilhavy, R.A.M., Chowa, C., & Tourism, 23(8/9), 1386-1403. Chin, W.W. (2016). Do Customers Identify Ha, H., Janda, S., & Muthaly, S.K. (2010). A with Our Website? The Effects of Website new understanding of satisfaction model in Identification on Repeat Purchase Intention e-re-purchase situation. European Journal of International Journal of Electronic Marketing, 44(7/8), 997-1016. Commerce, 20(3), 319354. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, Kleyman, K., & McVean, A. (2008). Structural R.E., & Tatham, R.L. (2013). Multivariate Equation Modeling. Center for Research Data Analysis. New Delhi: Pearson

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 13 Design and Analysis and the Contemporary Hospitality Management. Interdisciplinary Ph. D. Program in Social 29(9), 2377-2404. Psychology. Reno, Nevada, USA: Mohsin, A., & Lockyer, T. (2010). Customer University of Nevada, 1-64. perceptions of service quality in luxury Kumar, R.R., Reddy, V.B., & Surender, P. hotels in New Delhi, India: An exploratory (2008). Customer Satisfaction and study. International Journal of Discontentment vis-à-vis BSNL Landline Contemporary Hospitality Management, Service: A Study. The Icfai Journal of 22(2), 160-173. Consumer Behaviour, 3(1), 24-35. Oliver, R.L. (1980). A Cognitive Model of the Lam, D. (2007). Cultural Influence on Proneness Antecedents and Consequences of to Brand Loyalty. Journal of International Satisfaction Decisions. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 19(3), 7-21. Marketing Research, 17(November), 460- Langeard, E., Bateson, J., Lovelock, C., & 469. Eiglier, P. (1981). Marketing of Services: Parker, C., & Mathews, B.P. (2001). Customer New Insights from Consumers and satisfaction: Contrasting academic and Managers, Report No.81-104, Cambridge, consumers' interpretations. Marketing MA: Marketing Sciences Institute. Intelligence & Planning, 19(1), 38-44. Lindroth, K., Ritalahti, J., & Soisalon-Soininen, Pizam, A., & Ellis, T. (1999). Customer T. (2007). Creative tourism in destination Satisfaction and its Measurement in development. Tourism Review, 62(3 & 4), Hospitality Enterprises. International 53-58. Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Malhotra, R.K. (2005). Economic Dimensions of Management, 11(7), 326-339. Tourism. New Delhi: Anmol Publication Poon, W., & Low, K.L. (2005). Are travelers Private Limited, 4-5, 9-13. satisfied with Malaysian hotels? Malhotra, N.K., & Dash, S. (2016). Marketing International Journal of Contemporary Research: An Applied Orientation (7th Hospitality Management, 17(3), 217-227. edition). New Delhi: Pearson Education, Roday, S., Biwal, A., & Joshi, V. (2009). 338-360, 470-505, 564-576, 702-731. Tourism Operations and Management (1st Maps of India (2012a). Kamrup District Map. edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press, Retrieved January 19, 2019, from 3-5, 76-82, 360. https://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/ Reis, D., Pena, L., & Lopes, P.A. (2003). assam/districts/kamrup.htm. Customer satisfaction: The historical Maps of India (2012b). Kamrup Metropolitan perspective. Journal of Management District Map. Retrieved January 19, 2019, History, 41(2), 195-198. fromhttps://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/ Sharma, Y.K. (2004). Hotel Management: assam/districts/kamrup-metropolitan.html. Educational and Environmental Aspects (1st Meuter, M.L., Ostrom, A.L., Roundtree, R.I., & edition). New Delhi: Kanishka Publishers, Bitner, M.J. (2000). (2003). Self-service Distributors, 8-11. technologies: Understanding customer Shrestha, D., & Jeong, S.R. (2016). An ICT satisfaction with technology-based service Framework for Tourism Industry of Nepal: encounters. Journal of Marketing, 64(3), Prospect and Challenges. Journal of Internet 50-64. Computing and Services (JICS), 17(6), 113- Mey, L.P., & Mohamed, B. (2009). Measuring 122. Service Quality, Visitor Satisfaction and Solanki, S.S. (2011). Tourist Motivation to Behavioral Intentions of Museums in Some Selected Destinations in Al Dakhiliya Malaysia. Journal of Tourism, 10(2), 45-66. Region in Sultanate of Oman. Journal of Mittal, V., & Kamakura, W. (2001). Satisfaction, Tourism, 12(2), 103-119. repurchase intent, and repurchase behavior: Taylor, S.L., & Young, M. (2005). A investigating the moderating effect of Preliminary Investigation of NFL Games customer characteristics. Journal of and Self-Drive Tourism: Marketing Marketing Research, 38, 131-42. Opportunities for Accommodation Mody, M., Suess, C., & Xinran L. (2017). The Providers. International Journal of accommodation experiencescape: A Hospitality & Tourism Administration, comparative assessment of hotels and 6(3), 47-63. Airbnb. International Journal of

14 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 Torres, E.N., & Kline, S. (2006). From of Consumer Research, 18(1), 84-91. Satisfaction to Delight: A model for the Wirtz, J. (2001). Improving measurement of hotel industry. International Journal of customer satisfaction: A test of three Contemporary Hospitality Management, methods to reduce halo. Managing Service 18(4), 290-301. Quality, 11(2), 99-111. Torres-Moraga, E., Vásquez-Parraga, A.Z., & World Tourism Organization (WTO) (1985). Zamora-González, J. (2008). Customer Identification and Evaluation of those satisfaction and loyalty: Start with the Components of Tourism Services which product, culminate with the brand. Journal have a Bearing on Tourist Satisfaction and of Consumer Marketing, 25(5), 302313. which can be Regulated, and State Tsang, N., & Qu, H. (2000). Service quality in Measures to Ensure Adequate Quality of China's hotel industry: A perspective from Tourism Services. Madrid, Spain: World tourists and hotel managers. International Tourism Organization (WTO). Journal of Contemporary Hospitality World Tourism Organization (WTO) (2019). Management, 12(2), 316-326. UNWTO Tourism Highlights (2019 Türkilmaz, A., & Özkan, C. (2007). Edition). New York: UNWTO Publications Development of a customer satisfaction Department, 2-19. index model. Industrial Management and Wu, H. (2009). Introduction to Structural Data Systems, 107(5), 672-687. Equation Modeling. CFDR Workshop Valluzzi, J.L., Larson, S.L., & Miller, G.E. Series, Centre for Family and Demographic (2003). Indications and Limitations of Research, 33. Structural Equation Modeling in Complex Yang, S., Huang, G.Q., Song, H., & Liang, L. Surveys: Implications for an Application in (2009). Game-Theoretic Approach to the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Competition Dynamics in Tourism Supply (MEPS). Joint Statistical Meetings - Section Chains. Journal of Travel Research, 47(4), on Survey Research Methods, Agency for 425-439. Healthcare Research and Quality (pp. 4345- Yu, Y., & Dean, A. (2001). The contribution of 4352). Rockville, Maryland, USA. emotional satisfaction to consumer loyalty. Vanhoof, K., Pauwels, P., Dombi, J., Brijs, T., International Journal of Service Industry & Wets, G. (2005). Penalty-Reward Management, 12(3), 234-50. Analysis with Uninorms: A Study of Zeithaml, V.A. (2000). Service quality, Customer (Dis)Satisfaction. Studies in profitability, and the economic worth of Computational Intelligence (SCI), 5, customers: What we know and what we 237252. need to learn. Journal of the Academy of Westbrook, R.A., & Oliver, R.L. (1991). The Marketing Science, 28(1), 67-85. Dimensionality of Consumption Emotion Patterns and Consumer Satisfaction. Journal

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 15 ANNEXURE

Table-A-1:Important AccommodationProviders withinKamrup(Metropolitan)andKamrup(Rural)districtsof Assam (StarCategoryisapplicableaspresent duringtheperiodofstudy) Sr.No. NameoftheHotel Star Category Source Sr. No. NameoftheHotel Star Category Source 1 AirportGuestHouse NC FHRAI 14 HotelNandan NC FHRAI 2 BrahmaputraJungleResort 3Star OFS 15 HotelNakshatra 3Star OFS 3 Hotel Ambarish NC OFS 16 HotelNovotelGuwahati 5Star# FHRAI 4 Hotel AmbarishGrandRegency NC OFS 17 HotelParamountPalacio NC FHRAI 5 Hotel AgneedeepContinental NC OFS 18 HotelPragContinental NC FHRAI 6 Hotel Atithi NC OFS 19 HotelRajmahal 4Star OFS 7 HotelBrahmaputraResidency NC FHRAI 20 HotelRituraj 2Star OFS 8 Hotel Dynasty 4Star OFS 21 KiranshreePortico (Hotel) 3Star OFS 9 HotelGinger 3Star OFS 22 RadissonBluHotelGuwahati 4Star# FHRAI 10 HotelGrandStarline 4Star OFS 23 TheLilyHotelGuwahati 4Star OFS 11 HotelKuberInternational NC OFS 24 ViswaratnaHotel NC FHRAI 12 HotelMaruti NC FHRAI 25 VivantaGuwahati (Hotel) 5StarDeluxe FHRAI 13 HotelMillennium 3Star OFS Note: # with Alcohol; Abbreviations: NC-NoClassification, FHRAI-FederationofHotelsandRestaurants AssociationofIndia, OFS-On theFieldSource; Sources: FHRAI,2019; Onthefieldsource

Table-A-2:ImportantTouristDestinationswithinKamrup(Metropolitan)andKamrup(Rural)districtsof Assam Sr.No. TouristDestinations Sr.No. TouristDestinations 1 Accoland(ThemePark) 13 GuwahatiPlanetarium 2 AssamStateMuseum 14 HayagrivaMadhava Temple 3 AssamStateZoocumBotanicalGarden 15 Janardana Temple 4 Ashvaklanta Temple 16 Kamakhya Temple 5 Balaji Temple 17 MadanKamdev Temple 6 Basistha Ashram Temple 18 Nabagraha Temple 7 BrahmaputraRiver(forcruising) 19 PowaMecca 8 ChandubiLake 20 RegionalScienceMuseum 9 ChristChurch 21 ShrimantaSankardevaKalakshetra 10 DiporBilBirdSanctuary 22 Sualkuchi 11 Dirgheshwari Temple 23 Ugratara Temple 12 Dreamland AmusementPark 24 Umananda Temple Sources: IITG,n.d.;MapsofIndia,2012a;MapsofIndia,2012b;ITDC,2018; Onthefieldsource

Table-A-3:Typesof AccommodationProviderswhereintheRespondentsstayed Typesof AccommodationProviders Hotels Resorts HeritageHotels Lodges GuestHouses RestHousesTotal Frequency 145 58 3 3 8 7 224 Percent 64.73 25.89 1.34 1.34 3.57 3.13 100

Table-A-4:ProfileoftheRespondents Particulars Frequency Percent Particulars Frequency Percent Particulars Frequency Percent Gender Placeofresidence Sectorofemployment Male 166 74.11 InsideNorthEastIndia 203 90.63 Privatesector 48 21.43 Female 58 25.89 OutsideNorthEast 21 9.38 Publicsector 56 25.00 Total 224 100.00 Total 224 100.00 Entrepreneur 51 22.77 Maritalstatus Purposeofvisit Self-employed/Professional 16 7.14 Married 191 85.27 Official 21 9.38 Others 53 23.66 Unmarried 33 14.73 Leisure 73 32.59 Total 224 100.00 Total 224 100.00 Bothofficialandleisure 111 49.55 Monthlyincome EducationalQualification Others 19 8.48 BelowRs.10,000 45 20.09 12thBoard Total 224 100.00 BetweenRs.10,000 1 0.45 23 10.27 Passed Age to Rs.25,000 Graduate 159 70.98 Below20years 2 0.89 BetweenRs.25,000 111 49.55 Post Between20to30years 32 14.29 to Rs.40,000 64 28.57 Graduate Between31to40years 44 19.64 BetweenRs.40,000 42 18.75 Total 224 100.00 Between41to50years 112 50.00 to Rs.1,00,000 Between51to60years 20 8.93 BetweenRs.1,00,000 3 1.34 Above60years 14 6.25 to Rs.1,50,000 Total 224 100.00 Total 224 100.00

16 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 Table-A-5:ResultsofOne-Way ANOVA andIndependentSamplet -test- ImpactofDifferentParametersunderVarious FactorsoftheServuctionModel (IV) onRespondentGuests’ SatisfactionLevel (DV) ResultsofOne-Way ANOVA Parameters

on

)

0 (Abbreviationsused: ANOVA- One-Way Analysisof Total

DV

(H

Null Sr.No. Impact Impact

andIV Variance, IST- IndependentSamplet-test, DV- Dependent Linear

p-value

HighImpact Positive

Impact

LeastImpact

Hypothesis

Decisionon Presenceof Variable, IV- IndependentVariable) Belowaverage

Above Average

AverageImpact

Presenceof betweenDV

Relationship Factor:Servicescape Foodandbeveragequality Frequency 109 94 21 0 0 224 0.000 Rejected Present Present 1 ANOVA (A1) Mean 4.44 4.28 4.00 Availabilityoffoodand Frequency 69 135 20 0 0 224 0.003 Rejected Present Present 2 ANOVA beveragevariety(A2) Mean 4.39 4.35 4.00 Hygieneoffoodandbeverage Frequency 48 130 46 0 0 224 0.000 Rejected Present Present 3 ANOVA (A3) Mean 5.00 4.20 4.00 Foodandbeverageat Frequency 43 121 60 0 0 224 0.000 Rejected Present Present 4 ANOVA reasonableprice(A4) Mean 4.49 4.44 4.00 Frequency 74 150 0 0 0 224 0.000 Rejected Present Present 5 Qualityoftherestaurant(A ) IST 5 Mean 4.72 4.14 Frequency 74 81 69 0 0 224 0.000 Rejected Present Present 6 Location(A ) ANOVA 6 Mean 4.72 4.00 4.30 Frequency 42 135 47 0 0 224 0.000 Rejected Present Absent 7 Physicalappearance(A ) ANOVA 7 Mean 4.00 4.55 4.00 Viewofsurroundingareas Frequency 69 47 108 0 0 224 No furtheranalysescarriedout 8 (A8) Mean Frequency 48 156 20 0 0 224 0.000 Rejected Present Present 9 Welcomingatmosphere(A ) ANOVA 9 Mean 4.56 4.30 4.00 Roomfurnishingsand Frequency 0 205 19 0 0 224 Nofurtheranalysescarriedout 10 appearance(A10) Mean Frequency 0 135 89 0 0 224 Nofurtheranalysescarriedout 11 Quietnessoftheroom(A ) 11 Mean Overallcleanlinessand Frequency 26 133 65 0 0 224 0.001 Rejected Present Absent 12 ANOVA tidiness(A12) Mean 4.00 4.36 4.40 Comfortofbeds/mattresses/ Frequency 21 91 112 0 0 224 Nofurtheranalysescarriedout 13 pillows(A13) Mean Qualityofin-room Frequency 26 114 84 0 0 224 0.000 Rejected Present Absent 14 ANOVA temperaturecontrol(A14) Mean 4.00 4.46 4.25 In-roomentertainmentincluding Frequency 21 136 67 0 0 224 0.003 Rejected Present Absent 15 ANOVA television/video/audio(A15) Mean 4.00 4.39 4.31 Frequency 67 43 47 47 20 224 0.000 Rejected Present Absent 16 Internetconnection(A ) ANOVA 16 Mean 4.40 4.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 Reasonablepricefortheroom Frequency 21 115 88 0 0 224 0.000 Rejected Present Absent 17 ANOVA (A17) Mean 4.00 4.46 4.24 Factor:ContactPersonnel Frequency 27 132 65 0 0 224 0.000 Rejected Present Absent 18 Roomservice(A ) ANOVA 18 Mean 5.00 4.16 4.40 Helpfulpre-transaction Frequency 19 95 110 0 0 224 Nofurtheranalysescarriedout 19 information(A19) Mean Convenientandreliable Frequency 0 183 41 0 0 224 Nofurtheranalysescarriedout 20 reservationsystem(A20) Mean Friendlinessandhelpfulness Frequency 0 112 112 0 0 224 Nofurtheranalysescarriedout 21 ofthestaff(A21) Mean Availabilityofstafftoprovide Frequency 0 111 86 27 0 224 Nofurtheranalysescarriedout 22 prompt service(A22) Mean Frequency 0 178 46 0 0 224 Nofurtheranalysescarriedout 23 Courtesyofthestaff(A ) 23 Mean Frequency 27 68 109 20 0 224 Nofurtheranalysescarriedout 24 Specialattention(A ) 24 Mean Languageproficiencyofthe Frequency 69 114 41 0 0 224 0.000 Rejected Present Present 25 ANOVA staff (A25) Mean 4.70 4.23 4.00 Frequency 0 182 42 0 0 224 Nofurtheranalysescarriedout 26 Neatappearanceofstaff(A ) 26 Mean Convenientpaymentmethod Frequency 21 115 88 0 0 224 0.000 Rejected Present Absent 27 ANOVA (A27) Mean 5.00 4.23 4.30 Efficientcheck-inandcheck- Frequency 21 95 108 0 0 224 Nofurtheranalysescarriedout 28 out(A28) Mean Availabilityofreliablewake-up Frequency 27 128 48 21 0 224 0.000 Rejected Present Present 29 ANOVA call(A29) Mean 5.00 4.37 4.00 4.00 Availabilityofstafffor Frequency 48 113 63 0 0 224 0.000 Rejected Present Present 30 ANOVA transportationarrangements (A30) Mean 4.56 4.42 4.00 Availabilityofmeeting Frequency 47 109 68 0 0 224 0.000 Rejected Present Absent 31 ANOVA facilities(A31) Mean 4.00 4.44 4.38 Availabilityofconvenient Frequency 68 114 22 20 0 224 0.000 Rejected Present Absent 32 ANOVA parkingfacilities(A32) Mean 4.31 4.46 4.00 4.00 Securityofbelongings Frequency 69 69 86 0 0 224 Nofurtheranalysescarriedout 33 includingvaluables(A33) Mean Availabilityofefficientlaundry Frequency 21 141 62 0 0 224 0.000 Rejected Present Absent 34 ANOVA service(A34) Mean 4.00 4.52 4.00 Factor: InvisibleOrganizationsandSystems Prevailingrulesapplicableto Frequency 27 177 20 0 0 224 0.000 Rejected Present Present 35 ANOVA guests(A35) Mean 5.00 4.27 4.00 Frequency 48 135 41 0 0 224 0.000 Rejected Present Present 36 Otherprevailingrules(A ) ANOVA 36 Mean 5.00 4.19 4.00 Prevailingservicedelivery Frequency 21 114 89 0 0 224 0.000 Rejected Present Present 37 ANOVA processes(A37) Mean 5.00 4.46 4.00 Informationformstobe Frequency 68 115 21 20 0 224 0.000 Rejected Present Present 38 ANOVA completed(A38) Mean 4.69 4.23 4.00 4.00 Factor:Fellowguests Frequency 27 177 20 0 0 224 0.000 Rejected Present Present 39 Fellowguests(A ) ANOVA 39 Mean 5.00 4.27 4.00

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 17 Table-A-6:ResultsofGames-HowellPostHocTestsforDependentVariable,RespondentGuests'SatisfactionLevelin caseofDifferentParametersofServicescape IndependentVariable- Impactoffoodand IndependentVariable- Impactofavailability IndependentVariable- Impactofhygiene beveragequality(IV1) offoodandbeveragevariety(IV2) offoodandbeverage(IV3)

(I)IV1 (J)IV1 MD(I-J) (I)IV2 (J)IV2 MD(I-J) (I)IV3 (J)IV3 MD(I-J) Average Aboveaverageimpact -0.28* Average Aboveaverageimpact -0.35* Average Aboveaverageimpact -0.20* impact Highimpact -0.44*impact Highimpact -0.39*impact Highimpact -1.00* Above Averageimpact 0.28* Above Averageimpact 0.35* Above Averageimpact 0.20* average average average impact Highimpact -0.16*impact Highimpact -0.04*impact Highimpact -0.80* High Averageimpact 0.44* High Averageimpact 0.39* High Averageimpact 1.00* impact Aboveaverageimpact 0.16*impact Aboveaverageimpact 0.04*impact Aboveaverageimpact 0.80* IndependentVariable- Impactoffoodand IndependentVariable- Impactofwelcoming beverageatreasonableprice(IV4) atmosphere(IV9)

(I)IV4 (J)IV4 MD(I-J) (I)IV9 (J)IV9 MD(I-J) Average Aboveaverageimpact -0.44* Average Aboveaverageimpact 0.30* impact Highimpact -0.49*impact Highimpact -0.41* Above Averageimpact 0.44* Above Averageimpact -0.30* * Themeandifferenceissignificant average average impact Highimpact -0.05*impact Highimpact -0.72* atthe0.05level. High Averageimpact 0.49* High Averageimpact 0.41* impact Aboveaverageimpact 0.05*impact Aboveaverageimpact 0.72* Note: MDdenotesMeanDifference

Table-A-7:ResultsofDiscriminant Analysis- ImpactofDifferent Parameters ofServicescapeonRespondent Guests' SatisfactionLevel Parameters ResultsofDiscriminant Analysis

of (Note:DV indicates DependentVariable,and (df)

(s) of “HighSatisfaction” isdenotedas “Group1”, Average

Wilk's and “Above AverageSatisfaction” isdenoted Impact Impact Impact

p-value

Average

Box'sM

Lambda

Equation

p-value

ChiSquare

Correlation as “Group0”) HighImpact Cannonical

EigenValue

%ofcorrect

classification

LeastImpact

Below

Degree

Discriminant

Above Average

Freedom

)

Hygieneof Codes 5 4 3 2 1 0.7050.928 0.694 0.52 145.36 1 0.000 88.4 3 foodand DiscriminantScore(D3) 5.12 2.98 0.85 beverage Groupfor A3 1 0 0

(A3) 0.68 0.99 = (-8.554 ProbabilitiesforGroup Group0 0.03 +2.134A

3

MembershipforDV Group1 0.97 0.32 0.01 D

)

Welcoming Codes 5 4 3 2 1 0.444 0.110 0.314 0.90 22.99 1 0.000 69.6 9 atmosphere DiscriminantScore(D9) 1.71 -0.24 -2.20 (A9) Groupfor A9 1 0 0

= (-8.060 ProbabilitiesforGroup Group0 0.25 0.56 0.84 +1.954A

9

MembershipforDV Group1 0.75 0.44 0.16 D

Table-A-8:ResultsofGames-HowellPostHocTestsforDependentVariable,Guests' SatisfactionLevelincase of DifferentParametersof ContactPersonnel IndependentVariable- Impactoflanguage IndependentVariable- Impactof availabilityof proficiencyavailabilityofthestaff(IV25) stafffortransportationarrangements (IV30)

(I)IV25 (J)IV25 MD(I-J) (I)IV30 (J)IV30 MD(I-J) Aboveaverageimpact -0.23* Aboveaverageimpact -0.42* Averageimpact Averageimpact Highimpact -0.70* Highimpact -0.56* Aboveaverage Averageimpact 0.23* Aboveaverage Averageimpact 0.42* impact Highimpact -0.47*impact Highimpact -0.15* Averageimpact 0.70* Averageimpact 0.56* Highimpact Highimpact Aboveaverageimpact 0.47* Aboveaverageimpact 0.15*

IndependentVariable- Impactofavailabilityofreliablewake-upcall(IV29)

(I)IV29 (J)IV29 MD(I-J) (I)IV29 (J)IV29 MD(I-J) Averageimpact 0 Belowaverageimpact 0.37 Belowaverage Aboveaverage Aboveaverageimpact -0.37* Averageimpact 0.37* impact impact Highimpact -1.00* Highimpact -0.63* Belowaverageimpact 0 Belowaverageimpact 1.00* Averageimpact Aboveaverageimpact -0.37*Highimpact Averageimpact 1.00* Highimpact -1.00* Aboveaverageimpact 0.63* *Themeandifferenceissignificantatthe0.05level. Note: MDdenotesMeanDifference

18 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 Table-A-9:ResultsofGames-HowellPostHocTestsforDependentVariable, Respondent Guests'SatisfactionLevel ofDifferentParametersof InvisibleOrganizationsandSystems IndependentVariable- Impactofprevailing IndependentVariable- Impactofother IndependentVariable- Impactofprevailing rulesapplicabletoguests(IV35) prevailingrules(IV36) servicedeliveryprocesses(IV37)

(I)IV35 (J)IV35 MD(I-J) (I)IV36 (J)IV36 MD(I-J) (I)IV37 (J)IV37 MD(I-J) Average Aboveaverageimpact -0.27* Average Aboveaverageimpact -0.19* Average Aboveaverageimpact -0.46* impact Highimpact -1.00*impact Highimpact -1.00*impact Highimpact -1.00* Above Averageimpact 0.27* Above Averageimpact 0.19* Above Averageimpact 0.46* average average average impact Highimpact -0.73*impact Highimpact -0.81*impact Highimpact -0.54* High Averageimpact 1.00* High Averageimpact 1.00* High Averageimpact 1.00* impact Aboveaverageimpact 0.73*impact Aboveaverageimpact 0.81*impact Aboveaverageimpact 0.54*

IndependentVariable- Impactofinformationformstobecompleted(IV38) *Themeandifferenceissignificant (I)IV38 (J)IV38 MD(I-J) (I)IV38 (J)IV38 MD(I-J) Below Averageimpact 0 Above Belowaverageimpact 0.23* average Aboveaverageimpact -0.23* average Averageimpact 0.23* impact Highimpact -0.69* impact Highimpact -0.46* Belowaverageimpact 0 Belowaverage impact 0.69* Average High Aboveaverageimpact -0.23* Averageimpact 0.69* impact impact Highimpact -0.69* Aboveaverageimpact 0.46*

Table-A-10:ResultsofGames-HowellPostHocTestsforDependentVariable,RespondentGuests'Satisfaction Levelincaseof OtherFellowGuests

IndependentVariable- Impactoffellowguests(IV39)

(I)IV39 (J)IV39 MD(I-J) (I)IV39 (J)IV39 MD(I-J) (I)IV39 (J)IV39 MD(I-J) Average Aboveaverageimpact -0.27* Aboveaverage Averageimpact 0.27* High Averageimpact 1.00 impact Highimpact -1.00impact Highimpact -0.73*impact Aboveaverage 0.73* * Themeandifferenceissignificantatthe0.05level. Note: MDdenotesMeanDifference

ASPR Language proficiency of the staff members Food and beverage quality (A1) ASPR (A25) Availability of food and beverage ASPR Availability of reliable wake-up call (A ) variety (A2) ASPR 29 Contact

Availability of staff for transportation Providers Hygiene of food and beverage (A3) ASPR ASPR Personnel in

arrangements (A ) Parameters of 30 case of Various Food and beverage at reasonable D3=(-8.554)+2.134A3 Accommodation price (A4) ASPR ASPR Prevailing rules applicable to guests (A36)

in case of Various Quality of the restaurant (A5) ASPR ASPR ASPR Other prevailing rules (A37) Accommodation Providers

Parameters of Servicescape Welcoming atmosphere (A9) D9=(-8.060)+1.954A9 ASPR Prevailing service delivery processes (A38) Invisible Providers

Fellow Guests in case of Various ASPR ASPR Information forms to be completed (A ) Parameters of Organizations and Systems in Fellow guests (A ) 39 case of Various 40 Accommodation

Accommodation Providers Guests' Overall Service Experience (in terms of their Satisfaction) in their respective Accommodation Providers

Legendss High emphasis Moderate emphasis D3 and D9: Discriminant Scores ASPR: One-way ANOVA Significant with Positive Relationship between Dependent Variable and Independent Variable.

Figure-A-1:ServuctionModelbasedonGuests'PerceptionbetweenDifferentParametersofServicesin VariousAccommodationProvidersandtheirOverallExperienceinTermsoftheirSatisfaction

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 19 About the Authors Denish Pegu is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Tourism and Travel, Assam Women's University, Rowriah, Jorhat-785004, Assam, India and Doctoral Student in Assam Institute of Management (AIM) (under Assam Science and Technology University (ASTU)), Bigyan Path, Paschim Boragaon, Guwahati-781035, Assam, India, [email protected]

Panchanan Barman is an Assistant Professor in Gauhati Commerce College, R.G. Baruah Road, Guwahati. He has published articles in national and international journals, and in edited books. His major areas of interest are in tourism and hospitality management, and entrepreneurship. [email protected],

Sinmoy Goswami is an Assistant Professor in Assam Institute of Management (AIM), Guwahati, Assam (India). He has obtained PhD degree and passed MBA course from Tezpur University, Tezpur, Assam, and BE (Mechanical Engineering) from Assam Engineering College under Gauhati University, Guwahati, Assam. He has teaching experience of around eleven years and industry experience of one year. He has published many research articles in national and international journals, and in edited books. His major interests are in the areas of consumer behavior, service marketing, and tourism and hospitality marketing. [email protected], [email protected]

20 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 K e yW o r d s ASustainableApproachto Communitybasedwastemanagement intheBackwatersofSouthKerala communitysupport; EMILDAKJOSEPH communityinvolvement; ResearchScholar,Departmentof TourismStudies,CHRIST (DeemedtobeUniversity), perceivedbenefits; Bangalore,India perceivedcosts;community TOMYKKALLARACKAL basedwastemanagement; AssociateDeanofCommerceandManagementatCHRIST (DeemedtobeUniversity), sustainabletourism Bangalore,India development BINDIVARGHESE AssociateProfessorwithSchoolofBusinessStudiesandSocialSciencesatCHRIST (DeemedtobeUniversity),Bangalore,India. Abstract INTRODUCTION Over the last few decades, Backwater Tourism Destinations The article is intended to of Kerala have developed considerably well, attracting both comprehend the influence of foreign and domestic tourists. This unique destination offers community support, tourists a wonderful experience to enjoy the natural beauty of Community involvement, Perceived benefits and the backwaters. Thus tourism has become an important Perceived costs of economic activity benefitting the local communities and has Community based waste been able to create a good number of employment management on Sustainable opportunities in and around the Backwater Destinations of tourism development in the South Kerala (Narayanan, 2014). Despite this phenomenal Backwater Regions of Kerala, growth, negative impacts on the destination have been India. The researcher gathered inevitable. Solid waste is a commonly identified and ever data through census survey increasing negative impact of Backwater Tourism that were conducted in major Destinations. It has also led to direct as well as indirect three backwater destinations of South Kerala, India i.e. impacts on the social, economic and environmental aspects of Kottayam, Alappuzha and sustainability as studied by Ezeah, Fazakerley, and Byrne Kollam. In total, 277 usable (2015). questionnaires were collected As a solution to sustainability challenges of backwater from the survey. SEM tourism, it is vital to integrate all stakeholders of the analysis was used to interpret destinations to mitigate the problems of waste management. the data collected. The results Therefore, community based waste management could be a suggest that community practical solution to alleviate the intricacies of waste support and Community management related to Backwater tourism, as this plan involvement in Community based waste management are integrates all the stakeholders of the respective destination. essential for Sustainable The stakeholders get the opportunity to take charge of all the tourism development. Local activities and programs related to this task. There are Community involvement and different groups of stakeholders in backwater tourism, from support are always intervened houseboat owners to resort owners, government officials to with Perceived benefits and host communities. Their active support and involvement is Perceived costs. Perceived mandatory to ensure social, economic and environmental benefits positively support sustainability. and involve the Local In the light of this thought, the study intended to comprehend Community whereas Perceived costs negatively the impact of Community Based Waste Management on support and involve the Local Sustainable tourism development in the Backwater Regions of Community. South Kerala.

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 21 Literature review for different circumstances. This Sustainable tourism development encompasses principles, policies, methods, Recent developments in the field of and prescriptions that will help to protect technology and the sophisticated life of tourism development for the future. human beings have led to an increased According to Hunter (1997), Sustainable interest in tourism. Mearns (2012) Tourism is an important component of emphasizes that this has led to an increase tourism and its acceptance will solve many in the amount of waste generated in tourism issues that negatively impact tourism destinations. Therefore, it is imperative for industry as a whole. Angelevska, Najdeska, the tourism industry to sustain its basic and Rakicevik (2012) also state that elements for the development of tourist planning sustainable development will help destinations in three dimensions, namely to overcome the challenges of tourism social, economic and environmental. industry. Various studies highlight the fact that every In a study by Cristian et al. (2015) concept that has the potential to reduce the sustainable tourism development has been complexities of waste management related recognized as the main tool for to tourism industry can be considered as development of the human society and it 'Sustainable tourism development'. plays an important role in resources Butler (1999) in his article “Sustainable conservation in many parts of the world. Tourism: A State of the Art Review” Ross and Wall (1999) also mention that it clearly defines the origin and development strikes a fine balance between of the concept of Sustainable tourism environmental conservation and community development. He refers to the original development as it includes the factors of definition of Sustainable Development that environmental protection, local community was given by the Brundland Commission of consideration and economic development, 1987 in “Our Common Future”: as also studied by Janusz and Bajdor “Sustainable tourism development is the (2013). However, simply adopting the development that meets the needs of the concept will not ensure success. present without compromising the ability of As a solution, Community based waste future generations to meet their own management has been identified as an needs”. effective tool for improving solid waste A good number of the present studies management sustainably in tourism relating to Sustainable tourism destinations. development, focus mainly on the Community based waste management descriptive aspects with emphasis on the Many researchers including Chengula idea, history and principles of the concept. (2015) suggested that Community based However, Cristian, Maria, Artene, and waste management is the practical solution Duran, (2015) suggest that Sustainable for sustainable tourism especially tourism development takes into overcoming waste management problems consideration the long term needs of natural that can therefore benefit the host environment and the social needs of local community, protect the natural resources community. “Therefore sustainable tourism and bring about economic development. is not a form of tourism, but rather a Gotame (2012) defines Community based standard or set of principles suitable for waste management as the activities and good practice in tourism” as also studied by programmes that are undertaken by the Guerrero, Diaz, and Martinez (2017).Hunter stakeholders of the destination in order to (1997) states that it is not a rigid solve waste management issues. The core framework but an adaptive paradigm that group members for Community based waste explains the different approaches suitable management include all the stakeholders'

22 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 public, private and non-governmental communities decrease local support for organizations. The main objective of initiatives for sustainable tourism as Community based waste management is to explained by Rastegar (2018). empower local communities in every aspect According to Shinwari (2000), Community of waste management in tourism, and to involvement offers a general and broad emphasize on the environmental, social and understanding of community action in economic sustainability. tourism activities. In a study by John The views of local communities regarding (1998) it can be regarded as the tourism impacts were important because stakeholder's participation in various they influenced the involvement of the tourism activities and it also explains the communities in the projects as said by stakeholder's involvement in various issues Bansal and Kansal (2018).In the study by relating to waste management and how Candido and Cabrido (2006) there are much they support sustainable tourism different strategies to improve Community development, according to Lee (2013). based waste management such as training Gursoy, Jurowski, and Uysal (2002) studied the general public, campaigning, that Community involvement is necessary distributing useful guidelines, assigning and the degree of willingness by the roles and responsibilities, educating local community to support tourism can also communities, making evaluations and influence the waste management issues of monitoring. In addition to this, Cebu (2012) the destination. Lee (2013) defines also includes partnership with women SHG 'Community support' as the support of the (Self Help Group), household associations, community for tourism development within local Non-Governmental organizations, the communities that they live in. Studies academic institutions, private ventures that have also found that local residents' support can strengthen the Community based waste is required for tourism to thrive in the management process. destinations, as explained by John Hence, Community based waste (1998).Community support and Community management is the collective responsibility involvement for waste management in a of stakeholders and local community destination are influenced by the Perceived members as studied by Gracia and benefits and Perceived costs. Perceived Mendoza (2006). It will also include benefits talk about the stakeholder's various elements like community perception of benefits from Community involvement, community support, Perceived based waste management, whereas benefits, and Perceived costs. Perceived costs are about the cost of Community involvement, Community Community based waste management support, Perceived benefits and practices (Gursoy et al., 2002). Perceived costs Research studies in the past two decades According to Lee (2013), Community have shown that tourism involves both support and Community involvement are costs as well as benefits, and that the essential for the development of Sustainable Perceived Cost is negatively related to Tourism in any tourist destination. Nunkoo stakeholders' reactions to development, and Ramkissoon (2011) studied that it is while Perceived benefits are positively required to measure the role of the related to stakeholders' reactions. The community in tourism development in any relationship between the attitude of destination, and Gursoy and Dyer (2010) residents towards tourism impacts and the had earlier studied that the local community satisfaction of the community, resulting in always decide whether to go for benefits or the positive attitude of residents towards costs of the tourism activities. Due to tourism growth” as studied by Singh conflicts, negative attitudes within local (2017). Therefore, Perceived benefits and

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 23 Perceived costs have significant roles to tourism development play in determining the sustainable H6 :Perceived costs have an inverse and development in tourism activities. significant influence on Sustainable Economic Benefits have been identified as tourism development the main Perceived Benefit for the Methodology community to get involved in the tourism Study Context sector, while legal, social and The Backwater Regions of South Kerala in environmental factors are identified to be India were chosen as the geographical area Perceived costs as researched by Sook, for the study. This was mainly because of May, Songan, and Nair (2014). the fact that Backwater Tourism has met Lee (2013) states that if the local with great success in the tourism sector of community perceives benefits from waste Kerala, which has led to tremendous growth management activities than costs, then the of tourism facilities like houseboats, home- community is likely to support Community stays and resorts on the shores of the based waste management initiatives. Backwaters. Backwaters are nothing but However, if the local community perceives wetlands which are places where rivers costs rather than benefits, then the meet the sea or where freshwater mixes community is likely to oppose Community with sea water & where tides occur. based waste management actions. Similarly, The Backwater Region of Kerala stretches if the Perceived benefits are more from any over a total expanse of 1500 kms across the destination, the stakeholders would like to districts of Alappuzha, Kottayam, support and involve themselves in Trivandrum, Kollam, Kozhikode, Community based waste management Kasaragod and Ernakulum of Kerala, India. initiatives as already substantiated by Out of them, Kumarakom Backwaters, Jurowski, Gursoy, and Uysal (1997). Kollam Backwaters and Alappuzha Therefore, understanding Community Backwaters are prominent on the tourist support and Community involvement trail for Backwater Tourism (Figure 1, 2, 3, towards Perceived benefits and Perceived 4). The study area encompasses these costs is necessary to understand their prominent Backwater Destinations. support towards Sustainable tourism The area offers important attractions to development. At the same time, tourists, both domestic and international as understanding Perceived benefits and there are 29 major lakes on the Backwaters Perceived costs of Backwater Tourism of which, seven drains into the sea, and the Destinations is also necessary to understand area has a network of 44 rivers, lagoons their impacts on Sustainable tourism and lakes from north to south. It lie development. To compensate for this between 09˚00' -10˚40'N and 76˚00'- research gap, the study identifies and 77˚30'E. Kochi and Thiruvananthapuram explains the following research hypotheses: airports are situated just 90 km from H1 :Community support has a negative and Alappuzha and Kottayam districts. significant influence on Perceived costs .Alappuzha Town and Kottayam Junction H2 :Community support has a positive and are main railway stations in the Indian significant influence on Perceived benefits Railway Network, for all trains connected

H3 :Community involvement has a negative to South Kerala, where it is necessary to and significant influence on Perceived costs conform to Alappuzha Backwaters and

H4 :Community involvement has a positive Kumarakom backwaters respectively. and significant influence on Perceived Kollam Junction is a main railway station benefits situated in the core of Kollam Town where

H5 :Perceived benefits have a positive and it is possible to achieve Ashtamudi- significant influence on Sustainable backwater tourism. Similarly, most of the

24 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 backwater areas are interconnected each yachts or by light cruisers. The major other with national highways and state livelihood activities of the host community highways. Regular cruises also call the port in the backwater region include agriculture, of Kochi from where visitors can reach tourism, fishing, inland navigation etc. Vembanad Lake either by vehicle or by

Figure 1. Prominent tourist trail for Backwater Tourism. Dark red colour highlighted with black letters denote Kottayam district, Dark brown colour highlighted with blue letters denoteAlappuzha district and Dark blue colour highlighted with black letters denote Kollam district in Map of Kerala. Adapted from “Kerala Tourism Information Brochure” by Kerala Tourism.

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 25 Figure 2.Map of Kumarakom Backwaters. Thick orange line denotes the National Highway, Brown colour line denotes the state highway, Blue colour shows Rivers and Backwaters, and the red spot denotes tourist attractions. Adapted from “Kerala Tourism Information Brochure” by Kerala Tourism

Figure3.MapofKollamBackwaters.ThickorangelinedenotestheNationalHighway,Brown colourlinedenotesthestatehighway,BluecolourshowsRiversandBackwaters,andthered spotdenotestouristattractions.Adaptedfrom “KeralaTourismInformationBrochure” byKerala Tourism.

26 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 Figure 4.Map of Alappuzha Backwaters. Thick orange line denotes the National Highway, Brown colour line denotes the state highway, Blue colour shows Rivers and Backwaters, and the red spot denotes tourist attractions. Adapted from “Kerala Tourism Information Brochure” by Kerala Tourism. Sampling and Surveying each community was determined through a In the first stage of the study, three major Census Survey and through Convenience destinations that were located within the Sampling Strategy. Backwater Region of Kerala and that were The list and the information on various involved in Backwater Tourism were stakeholders were collected from the Office stratified for the study: those are Kottayam, of the District Tourism Promotion Council Alappuzha and Kollam. Then, the study (DTPC) and from the Department of clustered the stakeholders in the Backwater Tourism (DOT of the respective Backwater Region into Public and Private, namely as destinations. Houseboat Officials, Hotels and Resorts Houseboats that were registered under the Officials, Local Community and concerned District Tourism Promotion Government Officials. The sample size for Councils (DTPC) were selected as samples

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 27 for the Houseboat Stakeholders. There were encouraged to state their own personal 99 Houseboat Operators registered under opinions as truthfully as possible. In total, the different DTPCs (Kollam: 24; 277 usable questionnaires were collected Kumarakom: 44; Alappuzha: 31). from the survey. The Hotels or Resorts which were located Research Instrument on/close to the Backwater Regions were On the basis of review of literature, the selected as samples for the Hotels and research gaps were identified. From the Resorts Stakeholders. There are 68 famous research gaps, the items that measured Hotels and Resorts (Kollam: 23; Community involvement, Community Kumarakom: 21; Alappuzha: 24) located support, Perceived benefits, Perceived costs on/close to the Backwater Regions. and Sustainable Tourism were selected for The Local Community included the the development of the questionnaire. members of the Clean Destination The Items coded under Community Campaign in the Backwater Region under involvement were based on the findings of the District Tourism Promotion Council. Mongkolnchaiarunya (2005), Furqan and Clean Destination Campaign staff members Umum (2013), Nicholas, Thapa, and, Ko are the local people and the members of the (2009), Malik et al. (2015), and Nair and SHG Groups around the Backwater Ramachandran (2013). Regions. Their role is to ensure that the For Community support, the findings Backwater Environments are neatly presented by Lee (2012), and Muresan et al. maintained. The researcher has collected (2016) were modified. Items on Perceived the list and the information of the Clean benefits were based on the findings of Destination Staff Members from the office Jamal (2016) and Muresan et al. (2016), of the District Tourism Promotion Council, and items for Perceived costs were based concerned with each destination. Twelve on the findings of Dangi and Jamal (2016) Government Officials were also considered and Muresan et al. (2016). for the study from the respective Backwater Along with them, minimum demographic Destinations. information was also included in the Thirdly, one local resident from each questionnaire. Prior to the actual data selected Community was hired to act as a collection, a pilot study was conducted. In Guide to search for and to identify the total, 277 samples were collected. The target Stakeholders so as to conduct the questionnaire used a 5 Point Likert Scale questionnaire surveys. and the reliability of the tool was assessed The questionnaire was administered at three by examining the Cronbach's Alpha Score. of the sites under the study using the direct The findings of the Reliability Test face-to-face survey methodology because of revealed that most of the constructs the strength of this method in achieving displayed a score that were higher than the high response rates. The researcher spent required Reliability Score, with Cronbach's around 10 to 15 minutes at the site Alpha of Sustainable tourism development providing a brief explanation of the study to at 0.805, Community involvement at 0.714, the respondents who were willing to answer Community support at 0.777. Perceived the questionnaires and waited at the site benefits had a Cronbach's Alpha Score of until the task was completed by all 0.826 and Perceived costs had a score of participating respondents. To minimize the 0.788. possible bias that could arise due to the Data Analysis researcher-participant interactions, it was The items on Community based waste communicated to the respondents that their management which involved Community participation was purely voluntary and involvement, Community support, would remain anonymous, and they were Perceived benefits, and Perceived Cost

28 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 were added to the SPSS Software. (18.4%) and 20-29 years (14.8%). Descriptive Analysis was then used to Stakeholders were from different understand the basic characteristics of the educational backgrounds. Approximately respondents of the Backwater Destinations. 35% of the stakeholders had an educational CFA (Confirmatory Factor Analysis) and degree, followed by High School (27.8%), SEM (Structural Equation Modelling) were Primary School (21.3%), Master's Degree then analysed using the AMOS Software, (9.4%) and 5.8% of the stakeholders had Version IBM 20. This was done in order to not gone to school. Of the stakeholders, assess the effectiveness and so as to ensure 35.7% of the stakeholders were Houseboat the quality of the Measurement Model. Officials followed by the members of the Findings and Results Local Community (35.4%), Resort / Hotel Profile of the Respondents Officials (24.5%) and Government Officials The profile of the stakeholders are (4.3%). presented in Figure 3. The survey With respect to the Stakeholders' Regions, stakeholders included 59.9% males and 36.1% of the stakeholders belonged to the 40.1% females. Most of the stakeholders Kottayam Backwater Region, followed by (35%) were aged 30-39 years old, followed 33.6% from the Alappuzha Backwater by 40-49 years (31.8%), 50-59 years Region and 30.3% from the Kollam Backwater Region.

Figure3. DemographicprofileoftheStakeholders

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 29 Table 1 displays the factors of community Stakeholders in the Backwater Region based waste management on a Five-Point considered Innovative Waste Treatment Likert Scale for Perceived benefits, Methods(M = 4.54, SD = 0.724) as the Perceived Cost, Community involvement most important factor under Community and Community support in the Backwater support followed by Submission of Plans Regions of Kerala. for Waste Disposal(M = 4.53, SD = 0.673), From Table 1, it is clear that the Local Community Empowerment(M = respondents considered Income (M = 4.57, 4.46,SD = 0.654), Local Government SD = 0.659) as the most important Support(M = 4.44, SD = 0.723), Perceived Benefit of Community based Requirement of a Coordinator(M = 4.17, waste management initiatives in the SD= 1.184), and Regulatory Initiatives (M Backwater Region; followed by = 4.10,SD = 1.184). Opportunities for Women(M = 4.55, SD = Environmental Protection(M = 4.61, SD = 0.656), Employment Opportunities(M = 0.577) was the most important factor 4.53,SD = 0.689), Opportunities to preferred under Community involvement by Preserve the Natural Environment(M = 4.48,SD = 0.673), Community stakeholders in the Backwater Region, Participation in Waste Management(M = followed by Value of Waste Materials(M = 4.48,SD = 0.635), Increase in 4.36,SD = 0.876), Promotion of Reusable Environmental Awareness(M = 4.46, SD = Materials(M = 4.13, SD = 0.817), 0.651) and Significance of Local Reducing and Recycling of Waste Products Community Participation. With respect to Perceived costs, (M= 4.08, SD = 0.892), Environmentally respondents considered the Threat of Poorly Friendly Products(M = 3.99, SD = 1.148), Managed Waste(M = 4.40, SD = 0.813) as Use of Public Litter Bins(M = 3.96, SD = the most important Perceived Cost in the 0.999), Reduction of Paper(M = 3.51, SD = Backwater Region followed by the 1.293), Development of Waste Segregation Explosive Growth of Tourism(M = 3.14, Mechanisms(M =3.34, SD = 1.484), SD= 0.935), Water Pollution (M = 2.81, SD = 1.292), Large Quantity of Solid Waste Environmental Impact Assessment(M = Products(M = 2.63, SD = 1.085), and 2.80,SD = 1.542), and Practicing finally Tourist Littering(M = 2.15, SD = Environmental Impact Assessment(M = 1.197). 1.95,SD = 1.333). Table1:FactorsofCommunitybasedwastemanagement Variables Code Factorsof Communitybasedwaste Mean Std.Deviation management Perceived PB1 CommunityParticipation 4.41 .814 benefits PB2 CommunityParticipationinSWM 4.48 .635 PB3 Income 4.57 .659 PB4 EmploymentOpportunities 4.53 .689 PB5 FacilitatetoPreserve 4.48 .673 PB6 EnvironmentAwareness 4.46 .651 PB7 OpportunitiesforWomen 4.55 .656 Perceivedcosts PC1 WaterPollution 2.81 1.293 PC2 TourismProduceSolidWasteProducts 2.63 1.085 PC3 TouristsLittering 2.15 1.197 PC4 ExplosiveGrowth 3.14 .935 PC5 PoorlyManagedWaste 4.40 .813 Community CS1 LocalGovernmentSupport 4.44 .723 support CS2 RegulatoryInitiatives 4.10 1.184 CS3 LocalCommunityEmpowerment 4.46 .656

30 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 CS4 WasteTreatmentMethod 4.54 .724 CS5 SubmitPlans 4.53 .673 CS6 Coordinator 4.17 1.184 Community CI1 PromoteReusableMaterials 4.13 .817 involvement CI2 ReduceandRecycle 4.08 .892 CI3 Wastesegregatemechanism 3.34 1.484 CI4 ReducePaper 3.51 1.293 CI5 PublicLitterBins 3.96 .999 CI6 EnvironmentFriendly Products 3.99 1.148 CI7 Waste has Value 4.36 .876 CI8 EnvironmentImpactAssessment 2.80 1.542 CI9 UndergoneEIA 1.95 1.333 CI10 ImproveEnvironmentalProtection 4.61 .577

Measurement Model Fit Index (GFI) that was 0.875 as against Table 2 depicts the Goodness-of-fit and the the recommended value of above 0.90; The Incremental Indices of Measurement Model Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) for Community involvement, Community was 0.844 as against the recommended support, Perceived costs, Perceived benefits value of above 0.80; The Normed Fit Index and Sustainable tourism development (NFI), Relative Fit Index (RFI) and Dimensions. From the results, it was Comparative Fit Index (CFI) were 0.871, clearly observed that the Composite 0.839 and 0.861 respectively as against the Reliability and AVE Values exceeded the recommended value of above 0.90. RMSEA threshold limits, thereby demonstrating a was 0.065 and it was well below the high level of internal consistency, recommended limit of 0.10. Hence, the convergent and discriminant validity. The model exhibited an overall acceptable fit other Model Fit Indices used for the study and it could be considered as an were Chi-Square/df (χ 2/d f) that was 2.149 overidentified model. (which is less than 3) and the Goodness of Table2:FactorLoading,AverageVarianceExtractedandCompositeReliabilityofthe MeasurementModel Standardized Composite Cronbac AverageVariance LatentVariable Items Loadings Reliability hAlpha Extracted(AVE) CI_1 0.717 CI_2 0.712 Community CI_3 0.639 0.694 0.714 0.333 involvement (CI) CI_4 0.364 CI_5 0.321 CS_1 0.602 CS_2 0.319 Communitysupport CS_3 0.739 0.768 0.777 0.367 (CS) CS_4 0.604 CS_5 0.659 CS_6 0.625 PC_1 0.686 PC_2 0.787 Perceivedcosts PC_3 0.723 0.780 0.788 0.426 (PC) PC_4 0.603 PC_5 0.391 PB_1 0.556 PB_2 0.675

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 31 Perceivedbenefits PB_3 0.595 0.824 0.826 0.441 (PB) PB_4 0.787 PB_5 0.724 PB_6 0.619 STD_1 0.463 STD_2 0.323 STD_3 0.532 Sustainabletourism STD_4 0.467 development STD_5 0.374 0.729 0.737 0.237 (STD) STD_6 0.429 STD_7 0.626 STD_8 0.633 STD_9 0.446 Figure4displaysthePathCoefficientsoftheSEMModelandtheConsolidatedDiagramofthe SEMResult.

Figure4:ConsolidateddiagramdisplayingthePathCoefficientsandtheSquaredMultiple CorrectionsofSustainabletourismdevelopmentthroughCommunitybasedwastemanagement Table3:RegressionResultsoftheoverallSEM Standard RelationshipsbetweenVariables S E C R PValue Estimate Community Perceivedcosts <--- - 0.122 0.160 -1.477 0.140 Involvement Community Perceivedbenefits <--- 0.197 0.183 2.290 0.022* Involvement Community Perceivedcosts <--- - 0.191 0.072 - 2.339 0.019* Support Community Perceivedbenefits <--- 0.368 0.080 4.468 0.000* Support

STD <--- Perceivedbenefits 0.366 0.060 3.962 0.000*

STD <--- Perceivedcosts - 0.213 0.063 - 2.438 0.015*

32 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 The SEM Analysis exhibits a significant Community involvement and Community relationship between Perceived benefits and support significantly influenced Community

Community support (H2 ), Community based waste management towards involvement and Perceived costs (H3 ), Sustainable Tourism. Statistical evidence Community involvement and Perceived concluded that the Perceived benefits of Sustainable tourism development through benefits (H4 ), Perceived benefits and Community based waste management in the Sustainable tourism development (H5 ), and Perceived costs and Sustainable tourism Backwater Destinations were directly development (H ). This indicated that the proportional to Community involvement 6 and Community support The findings were factors of Community based waste able to fill the research gap regarding management could create a positive impact Community based waste management and on Sustainable tourism development of indicate the similarity to the findings from Backwater Tourism Destinations of Kerala. previous studies, which means the influence Moreover, Community support and of Community support and Community Community involvement would enhance involvement in Community based waste Perceived benefits and decrease Perceived management is essential for the costs. Further, Perceived costs can development of Sustainable Tourism as also negatively affect Sustainable tourism identified by Eshliki and Kaboudi (2012). development whereas Perceived benefits Previous studies had found that the Local can positively influence Sustainable tourism Community could be influenced by the development Perceived benefits of tourism in three major Discussion areas, namely social, economic and Backwater tourism offers a wonderful environmental factors. At the same time, experience to the tourists to experience the Perceived costs negatively affected the natural beauty of Backwaters of Kerala. Local Community and their Local Even though it is the sustainable source of Environment as studied by Gursoy et al. income for local community, the present (2002). In essence, there was statistical situation is pathetic and unregulated which evidence to conclude that the higher the cause adverse impact on social, Perceived benefits, the higher would be the environmental and economic aspects. Sustainable tourism development Initiatives Sewage and plastic waste is regularly being through Community based waste dumped into the backwaters. A management in the Backwater Destinations. comprehensive plan with the concerned However the higher the Perceived costs, the people involved in tourism sector is the higher would be the decline towards only plan to overcome this huddle. Sustainable tourism development initiatives Therefore, the study was intended to through Community based waste understand the influence of Community management Practices in the Backwater support and Community involvement and Destinations. Therefore, the study perception on benefits and costs on substantiates that the Local Community Community based waste management involvement and support was always Practices for Sustainable tourism interlinked to the Perceived benefits and to development in the Backwater Regions of the Perceived costs. Perceived benefits Kerala. In the study, Perceived benefits was positively supported and involved the Local a positive variable that supported Community whereas Perceived costs Sustainable tourism development whereas negatively affected and involved the Local the variable, Perceived costs had a negative Community in the Backwater Tourism influence on Sustainable tourism Destinations. development. The findings of the study Limitations confirmed that Perceived benefits, Despite its contribution, this study has

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 33 several limitations that need to be addressed tourism development among the Local in future research. First, this study focused Community of the Backwater Tourism only on registered stakeholders under each Destinations. This can be achieved by DTPC of backwater destination of south developing opportunities through various Kerala. Different other stakeholders of the social, environmental and economic backwater destination might be having activities and initiatives. By increasing the disagreements and different opinions about Perceived benefits, the stakeholders can the development of sustainable tourism. ensure that the Local Community in the Second, only stakeholders involved in Backwater Tourism Destinations would be tourism development are sampled. It would more likely to support Sustainable tourism be interesting to investigate the non- development. stakeholders also. Third, only waste From a sustainable perspective, it can also management aspects of backwater tourism be inferred that by increasing the Perceived were addressed. benefits and by decreasing the Perceived Implications of the Study costs from tourism, the Community In the context of the Backwater Tourism involvement and Support for tourism Destinations of Kerala, factors of development can be enhanced. Community based waste management that The results of the study can be used by include Community involvement, various stakeholders to review and improve Community support, Perceived benefits and policies on Waste Management Proposals. Perceived costs could solve the Waste The action plans can be highlighted in such Management Problems and contribute to a way that the major participation is from Sustainable tourism development. the stakeholders so as to achieve higher Therefore, efforts should be focused on sustainability in Waste Management. The designing a programme that can foster study only focused on the famous Community based waste management Backwater Destinations of South Kerala. among stakeholders. In addition, it is clear Other Backwater Tourism Destinations may from the study that Community hold differing conditions regarding involvement has an important role to play Sustainable tourism development. in increasing the Perceived benefits and in Moreover, only Communities involved in decreasing the Perceived costs. Hence the Tourism Development were sampled. It stake holders of the Backwater Destination would be interesting to survey Communities should also focus on activities and that are not directly involved with the initiatives that can increase the Perceived Tourism Industry. benefits and decrease the Perceived costs Conclusion for Sustainable tourism development To conclude, it is important to understand programmes. the role of Community based waste Furthermore, Community support increases management and its influence on the Perceived benefits of Backwater Sustainable tourism development. The four Tourism Destinations. Therefore, variables of Community based waste stakeholders can foster more programmes to management can be used to measure and to ensure enhanced Community support for check the effectiveness of Sustainable Community based waste management. They tourism development of Backwater Tourist can be involved in planning and Destination with regard to Solid Waste policymaking, which could lead to an Management Issues. This is mainly due to increase in the level of Community support. the major role played by stakeholders in the Stakeholders of Backwater Tourism Tourism Industry, which can lead to Destinations should also focus on activities favourable as well as unfavourable Tourism that can increase the Perceived benefits and Performance in the destination, as inferred reduce the Perceived costs for Sustainable by Tatoglu et al. (2000).

34 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 References in Solid Waste Management Kathmandu Angelevska Najdeska, K., & Rakicevik, G. Community Participation in Solid Waste (2012). Planning of Sustainable tourism Management Kathmandu Manira development,44 , 210220. Gotame. Bergen, Norway, 5. Ashok Singh, N. M. (2017). A practical Gracia, O., & Mendoza. (2006). Community Approach for tourism Development: based solid waste management Project in Moderating Effect of Perceived value of Sitio San Nicolas, 121. Tourism development. Journal of Gursoy, D., Chi, C G., & Dyer, P. (2010). Tourism, XVIII (2), 1929. Local attitudes toward mass and Butler, R. W. (1999). Sustainable tourism: A alternative tourism: the case of Sunshine state‐of‐the‐art review. Tourism Coast, Australia. Journal of Travel Geographies, 1 (1), 725. http://doi. Research, 381-394. org/10.1080/14616689908721291 Gursoy, D., Jurowski, C., & Uysal, M. Candido, A., & Cabrido, J. (2006). (2002). Resident attitudes - A structural Community-based ecological solid waste modeling approach. Annals of Tourism management programme in the Research, 29 (1), 79105. Philippines.1-67. Hunter, C. (1997). Sustainable tourism as an Cebu, M. (2012). Establishment of the adaptive paradigm. Annals of Tourism Community-Based Solid Waste Research, 24 (4), 850867. http://doi.org/ Management System, (February), 111. 10.1016/S0160-7383(97)00036-4. Chengula, A. (2015). Assessing the Janusz, G. K., & Bajdor, P. (2013). Towards Awareness, Knowledge, Attitude and to Sustainable Tourism Framework, Practice of the Community towards Solid Activities and Dimensions. Procedia Waste Disposal and Identifying the Economics and Finance, 6 (13), 523529. Threats and Extent of Bacteria in the John, Crompton, (1998). Developing and Solid Waste Disposal Sites in Morogoro testinga Tourism Impact Scale. Sage Municipality in Tanzania,5 (3), 5466. Publications. Cristian, D., Maria, L., Artene, A., & Duran, Khaliesah, N., Malik, A., Ho, S., & Abd, L. V. (2015). The components of (2015). Community participation on solid sustainable development - a possible waste segregation through recycling approach,26 (15), 806811. programmes in Putrajaya. Procedia Dangi, T. B., & Jamal, T. (2016). An Environmental Sciences, 30 , 1014. integrated approach to “sustainable Lee, T. H. (2013). Influence analysis of community-based tourism.” Sustainability community resident support for (Switzerland), 8 (5). https://doi.org/ sustainable tourism development. 10.3390/su8050475 Tourism Management, 34 , 3746. Eshliki, S. A., & Kaboudi, M. (2012). http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.03. Community Perception of Tourism 007. Impacts and theirParticipation in Tourism Mearns, K. F. (2012). Lessons from the Planning$: A Case Study of Ramsar, application of sustainability indicators to Iran,36 (June 2011), 333341. community-based ecotourism ventures in Ezeah, C., Fazakerley, J., & Byrne, T. (2015). Southern Africa,6 (26), 78517860. Tourism Waste Management in the http://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM11.2581. European Union$: Lessons Learned from Mongkolnchaiarunya, J. (2005). Promoting a Four Popular EU Tourist Destinations, community-based solid-waste (December), 431445. management initiative in local Gonzalez Guerrero, Gonzalez Diaz, Castaneda government: Yala municipality, Thailand. Martinez, V. P. (2017). Techniques for Habitat International, 29 (1), 2740. working with sustainable tourism https://doi.org/10.1016/S0197-3975 indicators at the local level. Journal of (03)00060-2. Tourism, XVIII (1), 119. Muresan, I. C., Oroian, C. F., Harun, R., Gotame, M. (2012). Community Participation Arion, F. H., Porutiu, A., Chiciudean, G.

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 35 O., Lile, R. (2016). Local residents' attitude toward sustainable rural tourism Ross, S., & Wall, G. (1999). Ecotourism$: development. Sustainability towards congruence between theory and (Switzerland), 8 (1), 114. practice,20 , 123132. Nair, S. K., & Jayakumar, C. (2008). A Shinwari, S. (2000). Human Resources Handbook on waste management in rural management and development centers solid tourism areas-a zero waste approach. waste management program. Waste NewDelhi. Concern, 1 (1), 140150. Narayanan, C. K. N. C. (2014). Governance Sook, F., May, L., Songan, P., & Nair, V. Challenges in Linking Environmental (2014). The impact of local communities' Sustainability to Tourism$: involvement and relationship quality on Where is the Houseboat Industry in sustainable rural tourism in the rural area, Kerala, India Headed$ (2013), 145. Sarawak. The moderating impact of self- Nicholas, L. N., Thapa, B., & Ko, Y. J. efficacy. Procedia - Social and (2009). Residents' perspectives of a world Behavioral Sciences, 144 , 6065. heritage site. The Pitons Management https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.2 Area, St. Lucia. Annals of Tourism 74 Research, 36 (3), 390412. https://doi.org/ SP Bansal, Purva Kansal, S. W. (2018). 10.1016/j.annals.2009.03.005 Sustainable development implications of Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H (2011). community based tourism initiatives in Developing a community support model Himachal: An empirical Study. Journal for tourism.Annals of Tourism Research , of Tourism, XIX (1), 5970. 964-988. Tatoğlu, A. P. E., Erdal, A. P. F., Özgür, A. Raymond Rastegar. (2018). Local P. H., & Azakli, A. P. S. (2000). communities and protected areas in Resident Perceptions of the Impact of developing countries, challenges and Tourism in a Turkish Resort Town. opportunities.Journal of Tourism , XX Retrieved February 26, 2013. (2), 4146.

36 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 About the Authors Emilda K Joseph is an Assistant Professor, Christ College, M G University, Kerala, India; Research Scholar, Department of Tourism Studies, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bangalore, India.

Tomy K Kallarackal is an Associate Dean of Commerce and Management at CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bangalore, India. He has 32 years of teaching experience. He received his M Phil from Madurai Kamaraj University and Ph.D from CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bangalore, India.

Bindi Varghese is anAssociate Professor , Christ College with School of Business Studies and Social Sciences at CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bangalore, India. She is a Doctorate in Commerce, specializing in Tourism. As an academician and tourism professional, she has over 15 years of academic and Industrial experience. bindi.varghese@christuniversity.

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 37

K e yW o r d s ExaminingtheFactorsInfluencing CommunityParticipationIn DestinationDevelopment Communityparticipation, destinationdevelopment, ZAFFARIQBAL sustainability ResearchScholar,DepartmentofCommerce,UniversityofJammu. NEETUANDOTRA (Correspondingauthor)Professor,DepartmentofCommerce,UniversityofJammu Abstract INTRODUCTION The role of tourism in economic and social development of For any successful tourist communities around destination is empirically established destination development, a positive attitude & perception of both in developing and under developed countries across local residents' are imperative. globe. Community participation results in locating The present paper examined the development area, procedure to be followed to achieve factors affecting community desired objectives besides creating psychological content participation and its impact on among community members (Khoshnam et al., 2015, Tasci et destination building in the form of al., 2014). Khani (2012) suggested that community economic, social and tourism participation is instrumental to achieve sustainability for development. Data for the study were collected through a tourism through planned destination building. Pin yu et al. questionnaire and administered (2018) found that community participation results in on community members residing conservation of natural resources and restraining over with 500 meters of destination exploitation of resources, thereby preserving environment and and reduced through SPSS and ecology of area. It also promote health of tourism industry analysed using AMOS on the besides promoting cultural transition in the socio-economic effective sample size of 214 life of dependent community (Muganda et al., 2013, Mak et respondents. SEM results revealed that destination building al., 2017). Earlier studies have focused on different factors was highly reflected by the viz. personal economic benefits, community attachment economic development (SRW= (Huong & Lee, 2017), motivation, opportunity, awareness & 0.897) followed by tourism knowledge (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2017), access to development (SRW= 0.743) and information, political will and civic education (Tesha et al., finally by social development 2015), domicile, gender, acknowledgement & duration of stay (SRW= 0.656). It was suggested (Sawee, 2015), social capital, skill & knowledge, training, that effective awareness promotional campaign to create external support, access to utilities & employment (Provia et awareness regarding benefits of al., 2017), economic, social & future support (Hanafiah et al., destination building particularly 2013), social demographic characteristic, level of personal among lower strata of involvement, level of education & accountability (Safari et community, building competency al., 2015), knowledge about tourism, intrinsic motivation, of community members through community attachment, religiosity & socio-cultural cost skill based training, linking public (Meimand et al., 2017), urban issue, community economic policy with other activities like creation of recreational parks, strength, family & personal well being, community well wellness centres, tourist reception being & community awareness (Liang & Hui, 2016), state of centres etc. to make destinations local economic & residents' degree of welcoming tourist attractive for tourists. (Ribeiro et al., 2017), family encouragement, interest, confidence, opportunity & income (Salleh et al., 2016), education, income occupation, land size & demographic variables (Mugizi et al., 2017) and tourism development potential, perceived impacts & sense of palace (Zhu et al.,

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 39 2017) influencing attitude of community destination building as an instrument to members toward tourism development. uplift masses from the present state of Further, few studies have established the underdevelopment and backwardness. relationship between antecedents of II. Tourist Destinations In District community participation and its outcomes Poonch (Liu et al., 2015; Meimand et al., 2017; District Poonch is bestowed with dynamic Rasoolimanesh et al., 2017; Tesha et al., landscapes, rivers, lakes, waterfalls, springs 2015; Kamellah, 2016;). Thus, from the and glaciers. Some of the major tourists extant literature it is evident that antecedent destinations areNoori Chamb: Situated at of community participation and its the distance of 45 Km from district outcome on destination building is still headquarter, the place is named after Noor unexplored. The present paper examined Jahan, wife of famous Mughal emperor the factors influencing community Jahangir. It is famous for picturesque participation and its impact on destination location, scenic beauty & a striking building in terms of economic, waterfall and many inhabitants call it milky environmental and socio-cultural aspects of waterfall due to its white coloured vapors. community residing in district Poonch of Girjan Dhok and Lakes: It is a valley J&K state. with seven lakes located at an altitude of Poonch is one of the 22 districts of the state 12000ft. in the Buffliaz belt. It lies about of J&K and also known as mini Kashmir. It 70 Kms from Poonch.Poonch Fort: Its is bounded by a line of control on the foundation was laid by Raja Adbul Razaq north, west and southern sides. Poonch Khan but the construction was started by valley is separated from the Kashmir valley his son Raja Rustam Khan who was a by the Pir Panjal ranges, specifically its connoisseur of architecture. The place is peer-ki-gali which bifurcate Jammu considered to be one of the historically rich province from Kashmir province. Located castles of Jammu and Kashmir. The at 33.77°N 74.1°E, Poonch has an average architecture of this fort is reflective of a elevation of 981 metres above sea level. Mughal influence and some parts of the fort The district has four tehsils namely, Haveli, also bear Sikh and European architectural Mendhar, Surankote and Mandi. As per the designs.Buddha Amarnath: It is located 2011 census, the Poonch district has a near the confluence of two streams Gagri & population of 4,76,826 and the largest Pulsta and surrounded by steep hills and ethnic group of the area is the Gujjar tribe green meadows. It is about 20 Kms from which makes up 48% of the population. Poonch and is home to the Mandir of The region has great historical significance Swami Buddha Amar Nath which is also being ruled by various foreigner as well as most popular pilgrimage destination of local rulers. The district has remained Shiva devotees. There are four gates to the backward due to its location on Indo-Pak mandir which depict that it's open for all border, distant from state capitals, rugged the four castes of Hindus.Loran: This is a topography resulting in limited area small village located at top of a hill and 35 available for agriculture, negligible Kms away from Poonch on the Pir Panjal industrial structure, limited tourist range. The flowing Loran Nallah makes it infrastructure in terms of hotels, restaurants, more captivating and attract tourists. Upto transport, inadequate tourism policies etc. 1542 AD, Loran was a capital of Hindu Lack of development has manifested in rulers, Loran-Kote and the ruins of the fort mass poverty, unemployment, sustenance can still be seen here.Nandishool: It's a living, migration to towns etc. Along with beautiful waterfall as high as 150 feet and this, scanty research work has been done in located approximately 12 Km away from the field specifically on Poonch tourism & Loran and 6 Km from Sultan pathri, which

40 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 is also famous for green pasture and high is located within the hundred yards of the peaks.Surankote: Surrounded by Peer Ziarat. The place is known as Chottey Shah panjal range and river suran, the place after the famous saint Sakhi Peer Choota offers scenic views of snow capped Shah. The annual three day Urs is mountains, lush green meadows and celebrated here and devotees in large waterfalls and popularly known as number visit this place to pay their respect Pahalgam of Poonch. In Rajtrangi, this to the great saint of the area. Muslims, place is mentioned by the name of Sarvanik Hindus, Sikhs regularly visit this place kot and was historically famous for its throughout the year. Ziarat Sain Illahi musloon tea.Pir-ki-gali: It is a beautiful Bakash Sahib: 37 Kms north of Poonch, attractive site located at the distance of 44 lies the famous shrine of Sain Illahi Baksh Kms from Bufliaz in Surankote tehsil. The sahib. The shrine is located in village place acts as a central point which bifurcate Balakote, the last village having human Kashmir valley from Poonch valley. settlements before LOC. The site offers Dehra-Gali: It is a tourist destination spectacular view of the Peer Panchal range, located at the elevation of 6300ft. and lush green meadows, snow capped bounded by thick forest and high mountains and thick forest cover. mountains. Located at 45 Kms from Gurudwara Nangali Sahib: This Poonch, it provides good climate and Gurudwara is considered as one of the most enchanting view of snow clad peaks and scared Sikh religion centre situated on the dense forests.Ramkund Mandir: It is banks of Drungali Nallah, just 7 Kms from situated approximately 68 Kms from Poonch. It was constructed by Thakur Bhai Poonch and 4 Kms from Mendhar. There Mela Singh in 1803 and attracts devotees of are three springs in temple: Ramkund, all religions every year. Trekking sites: Sitakund and Lakshman kund and legend Poonch is a paradise for trekkers and nature says that Shri Ram during the enroute to lovers because all the important peaks of Kashmir took halt here. On the first bright Pir-Panjal range are found here like Tata half of the month of Chaitra, people visit Kutti (15660), Chor Panchal Peaks (14370), this temple and take holy dips in these Sunset Peaks (15550) and Chandan Peaks Kunds. Shri Dashnami Akhara Mandir: (15200). Due to lack of means of Poonch is also known for the famous Shri communication to this area, locals, visitors, Dashnami Akhara Mandir, which lies in the pilgrims and Europeans often have to trek southern part of the town. As per the these hills to reach Kashmir valley. legends, Swami Jawahar Giriji came to this Wildlife attraction: Poonch district is rich town in 1760 AD and started meditating in wildlife due to the geographical and here. Thereafter, a temple and large climatic conditions. Rare mammals of this complex was constructed where his area include the markhor, musk deer, brown successor Swami Shamaya Nand Ji used to bear, leopard, ghoral etc. Some of the birds deliver sermons and spiritual insights to the which inhabit different parts of this district people of the town. Ziarat Sain Miran include the pheasant, black partridge, Sahib: Sain Miran Sahib was one of the chakurs and snow cock kohlas. Thus, there highly respected saints of the region is immense scope for the development of originally hailed from Pakistan. This place tourism and tourist destinations in district every year is visited by thousands of Poonch. The foremost important reason for devotees. The influx is considerably high highlighting the important tourist during the annual death anniversary also destination in Poonch district is that tourists known as Urs Shareef. Ziarat Chhote are fed up by routinely visiting Ladakh and Shah Sahib: Historically, it is believed that Kashmir province. So this is an opportunity ancient architecture of the city of Pandavas for the tourism industry to develop and

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 41 promote alternate tourist attraction sites so course of tourism development,some people that burden could be shifted to these areas benefi t while others are negatively affected which are bestowed with immense tourism but a positive attitude of host community is potential. Mostly the inhabitants of Poonch considered as a tool to achieve district are engaged in manual labour or sustainability in tourism sector ( Zhu et al., other farming activities for their livelihood. 2016). Community participation besides As there is immense tourism potential in significant contributor towards poverty the pir-panjal range, but unfortunately that alleviation among local community is not yet properly explored and developed (Mrema, 2015), would benefit people whatever development work has been done economically, environmentally and that too is done by the local inhabitants in culturally (Tesha et al., 2016, Hussein the form of hotels, restaurants, guest houses 2017). Rasoolimanesh et al. (2017) found etc. if it's available resources would be benefits accruing to community members in effeciously utilized under a grand master the form of increase in household income, plan with sustainable practices by involving improvement in standards of living and the local community members. This region employment opportunities. For successful can become a role model for rest of the destination development, community word, both in term of sustainable tourism participation be planned by involving all development and resulting economic gain. the key stakeholders (host community, There is vast scope for adventure tourism, tourism entrepreneurs and community pilgrim tourism, spiritual tourism, and leaders). Andriotis & Vaughan (2003) health tourism leaving aside the traditional found positive impact of tourism recreational tourism. So far the tourists development on economy of their region, visiting to these destinations are pilgrimage employment and public revenue. It also tourists and the numbers have gradually provides opportunities to the local increased with the construction of mugal inhabitants to sell their local crafts to the road connecting Poonch valley with the tourist and infrastructural development Kashmir valley. The major influx of tourists (Provia et al., 2017). Within the tourism is generally of pilgrimage nature and there literature some studies conclude that is need to promote the natural landscape at residents who benefits economically from a larger level so that economic conditions tourism tend to hold a more favorable of the local inhabitants can be improved. attitude of the impact then those who Being located on indo-Pak border with receive lesser or no benefits (e.g. Hanafiah rugged topography it's not easy to establish et al., 2013; Khoshnam et al., 2015). The and run any kind of industry except tourism social and environmental impacts from industry. Due to lack of infrastructure tourism signifi cantly affect attitudes of local development this region has not reached community for tourism development. where it need to be and the inhabitants of Jurowski et al. (1997) found “Perceived this region have realized the importance of Social Impact” is an important factor tourism and consequently the local supporting tourism development. community of this regions are getting Community participation helps to create engaged into tourism related activities. more recreational activities and it is the III. Review of Literature and Hypotheses foremost reason of entertainment for the Development local inhabitants. Social development Social exchange theory delineates that begins not with the integration of local resident's perception and attitude for future people but involvement of local people in tourism development largely depends upon formulation of policies and programme the tourism impacts (Afthanorhan et al., related to areas affecting them. It also 2017, Hanafiah et al., 2013)).During the involves cross-cultural exchange and

42 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 understanding of old age traditional culture sustainable growth and development. (Zhu.et.al., 2017). It impels the local Initiatives which were taken up by the community members to provide more government were National Committee on recreational activities, sporting events, Tourism 1988, Himalayan Tourism maintenance of roads and public facilities, Advisory Board (HIMTAB), Tourism restoration of historical buildings & parks, Policy 1982, Kerala Tourism Policy Draft regular supply of portable water etc. 2011 and Tourism Policy Draft 2015 etc. (Munhurrun & Naidoo 2011, Safari et al Based on aforesaid literature review, 2015). It also gives opportunities for better following hypotheses have been set for the understanding of local cultural exchange study. and culture dynamics. Economic Hyp1 : Community participation is positively development is the transformation of low influenced by economic factor income economy to higher income Hyp:2 Community participation is economy and tourism development acts as a influenced by social factors catalyst for the national economy (Mike et Hyp3 : Personal factors significantly al., 2018) Empirically, it has been found influence community participation that tourism development attracted more Hyp:4 Community participation is investment and spending in the region, significantly impacted by environmental create more jobs and improves the factors economic as well as the living standard of Hyp:5 Community participation people (Yoon et al., 2001, Hanafiah et al., significantly contribute toward destination 2013, Mastura.et.al., 2015) and additional building. tax revenue. Safari et al (2015) found Objectivesofthestudy improvement in the standard of living of The study was undertaken with following community members and development three objectives: micro units. Revenue from tourism Obj1 : To explore the factors impacting enhances forex reserves (Mugizi et al., community participation in destination 2017). It has been argued that successful building. tourist destination is totally dependent upon Obj2 :To measure the impact of community the cooperation and willingness of host participation on destination building. community. This is also supported by the Obj3:To identify the impact of community United Nation World Tourism Organisation participation on tourism development, (UNWTO), World Travel and Tourism social development and economic Council (WTTC), The Earth Council, development of local resident Manila Declaration 1980, and Osaka IV.ResearchDesignandMethodology Tourism Forum. There are few national Questionnairedesignandsamplesize level initiatives which have been taken up The primary data for the study were by the government of India their main focus collected from the local communities were upon sustainable tourism residing within the radius of 500 metres of development. It stressed upon that every a specific tourist destination and engaged in corner of a country can accomplish providing some kind of services to the economic goal, maintain good tourists. Respondents were contacted on environmental conditions, increase judgemental basis criteria being some resources and equity simultaneously but service rendered to tourists and willingness there is need to prepare plan for it and that to respond and it was conducted during the plan must be prepared on changing the way month February to march. After we develop and use technology. administering questionnaire on 300 persons, Community participation in tourism the effective response was received from development is imperative for achieving 214. The secondary data were gathered

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 43 from various books, journals, reports, items further were modified to fit within the theses, newspapers and internet etc. A self- context of community participation in designed questionnaire was used for destination building of district Poonch. collecting requisite information. It was Data reduction and scale purification divided into three sections. Section A Factor analysis was administrated on seven focused on demographic profile of constructs using SPSS version 20.0 in order respondents and nature of engagement in to minimise the factors and number of tourism related activities. Section-B items therein (Peters et al., 2018). In the comprised of ordinal scale statements present study, principal component analysis influencing community participation in (PCA) along with varimax rotation was destination building. Section C was devoted used to extract the factors from collected to statements of outcomes of destination data from the respondents and is displayed building in the form of economic, social in table 1. Items were reduced on the basis and tourism development. The justification of Eigen values (>1), communalities (>.50) for selecting judgemental sampling and factor loadings (>.50). Items with technique was to entice, segregate and communality below 0.50 were deleted so contact respondents engaged in rendering that the factors explain all the variance. tourism related services only from the KMO and Bartlett's test was used to verify masses. the factor and items pertaining to Generation of scale items community participation in destination The items for measuring economic building and consequences of destination construct were further expanded to 18 items building for the local inhabitants (Table 2). considering researches of Riberio et al. After EFA, the items retained were 12, 11, (2017), Houng & Lee (2017), Hanafiah et 16 and 06 under social construct, economic al. (2013), Khoshnam et al. (2015) and construct, personal construct and Peters et al. (2018). Fourteen items for environmental construct respectively. measuring social construct were extracted Further, the factors extracted through EFA from research work of Liang & Hui (2016), were 3 (social construct), 2 (economic Huong & Lee (2017), Hanafiah et al. construct), 4 (personal construct) and 2 (2013) and Meimand et al. (2017). The ten (environmental construct). The KMO value items for measuring environmental for each dimension arrived was 0.64 in case construct were taken from Liang & Hui of social construct, 0.65 for economic (2016), construct, 0.61 for personal construct and Hanafiah et al. (2013), Pin et al. (2018), 0.60 for environmental construct which Afthanorhan et al. (2017) and Peters et al. were satisfactory for factor analysis (Hair et (2018). Further, the items for measuring al., 2010, Hadi et al., 2016). The personal construct were also extended to 18 relationship between destination building items based on the works of Zhu et al. and its outcomes were also assessed (2017), Liang & Hui (2016), Safari et al. through factor analysis and the items (2015), Huong & Lee ( 2017), Khoshnam et retained were 7 in economic development, al. (2015) and Rasoolimanesh et al. (2017). 7 in social development and finally 8 in The items included in the outcomes of tourism development. Internal consistencies destination building were taken from the for all construct were computed with the literature review of various papers of help of cronbach's alpha and the values Rasoolimanesh et al. (2017), Hussein, were above the benchmark criteria (Ursachi (2017), Garcia et al. (2016), Pin et al. et al., 2015). (2018), Afthanorhan et al. (2017), Huong & Factor confirmation through SEM Lee, (2017), Hanafiah et al. (2013), Riberio Subsequent to EFA, confirmatory factor et al. (2016) and Zhu et al. ( 2017). The analysis (CFA) was applied to confirm the

44 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 fitness, reliability and validity of the RMSEA= 0.072. Composite reliability and various constructs of community average variance explained were used to participation and outcomes of destination assess reliability and validity of the data building (Table 3 & 4). A second order and the value derived were CR= 0.79 and CFA was run on 'social construct' which AVE= 0.84 respectively. Further, same consisted of three factors and the values procedure were followed for other two produced by the model were CMIN/DF= constructs i.e. social development and 1.68, GFI= 0.96, AGFI= 0.91, TLI= 0.90, tourism development. Goodness fit indices CFI= 0.94, RMR= 0.038 & RMSEA= were CMIN/df= 2.99, GFI= 0.946, AGFI= 0.062. Further, the reliability and validity 0.874, TLI= 0.701, CFI= 0.829, RMR= for the same construct was computed 0.062 & RMSEA= 0.096 and AVE and through composite reliability (CR) and composite reliability values were 0.84 and average variances explained (AVE) and 0.79 respectively. The construct tourism were 0.76 and 0.95 respectively. Thereafter, development comprised of two factors and a second order CFA was performed on goodness fit indices were CMIN/df= 1.75, 'economic construct' which consisted of GFI= 0.927, AGFI= 0.870, TLI= 0.776, four factors. The measurement model CFI= 0.851, RMR= 0.072 & RMSEA= produced good fitness as delineated by the 0.084. The model showed excellent validity fitness indices i.e. CMIN/DF= 1.14, GFI= and reliability as evident from the 0.96, AGFI= 0.93, TLI= 0.98, CFI= 0.98, composite reliability CR= 0.48 and RMR= 0.031 and RMSEA= 0.028. This AVE=0.61. measurement model was also found valid Descriptive characteristics of respondents and reliable as delineated by AVE (0.82) The respondents were classified into seven and composite reliability (0.76).Again categories namely, gender, age, marital second order CFA was performed on the status, family size, qualification, occupation `personal construct' which consisted of four and monthly income of the respondents. Of factors and the model produced excellent fit 214 respondents, 98.3% are male and 1.6% indices after deletion of a factor are female. Age-wise, 13.08% fall in age (CMIN/DF= 2.32, GFI= 0.95, AGFI= 0.89, group-I (below 20 years), 56.54% fall in TLI= 0.93, CFI= 0.96, RMR= 0.049 and age group-II (20-30 years), 25.23% fall in RMSEA= 0.060). Validity and reliability age group- III (30-50 years) and rest 5.14% were also found satisfactory as depicted by fall in last age group- IV (above 50 years). AVE (0.85) and composite reliability According to marital status of the (0.76). Finally, second order CFA was respondents, 57.47% respondents are applied on 'environmental construct' which married and rest 42.52% are unmarried. comprised of two factors and the model Monthly income-wise, 8.41% respondents depicted excellent fitness results as all the fall in income group-I (below Rs. 15,000), fit indexes were within set benchmark 50.46% respondents fall in income group-II levels (CMIN/DF= 1.34, GFI= 0.0.98, (Rs. 15,000- Rs. 30,000), 29.90% AGFI= 0.94, TLI= 0.95, CFI= 0.98, RMR= respondents fall in income group III (Rs. 0.025 and RMSEA= 0.044). In addition to 30,000- Rs 40,000) and 10.74% falls in the this, reliability and validity of this construct last income group IV (Rs.40,000 and was confirmed through composite reliability above). The respondents falling in four (0.82) and AVE (0.84). A second order educational sub-groups include 14.95% CFA was run on economic development respondents in group-I (below primary), which consisted of three factors and the 38.31% respondent in group-II (upto results derived of goodness fit were matric), 40.65% respondents in group-III CMIN/df= 1.91, GFI= 0.971, AGFI= 0.918, (graduation) and 6.07% respondent in TLI= 0.928, CFI= 0.966, RMR= 0.034 & group-IV (post-graduation). Further

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 45 according to family size, 19.62% evident from chi-sq/df = 2.75, RMSEA= respondents fall under group- I (2-4 0.067, RMR = 0.059, GFI= 0.93, AGFI = members), 53.27% respondents in group- II 0.86, CFI = 0.93 and TLI = 0.89 from (4-6 members), 22.42% respondents fall personal factor and chi-sq/df = 1.42, under group- III (6-8 members) and rest RMSEA= 0.065, RMR = 0.044, GFI= 0.87, 4.67% falls under group (above 8 AGFI = 0.83, CFI = 0.93 and TLI = 0.88 members). Demarcation according to from environmental factor. The SRW profession, 8.41% respondents fall under values derived from both the hypotheses group- I (govt.job), 5.60% falls under were above the threshold criteria which group- II (private job), 55.60% falls under signify the acceptance of both the group- III (business), and rest 30.37% falls hypotheses. Thus, community participation under group- IV (other professions) is highly predicted by economic factor respectively. The last category is about (SRW= 0. 782) followed by personal factor whether local residents were engaged in (0.702), social factor (SRW= 0.683) and tourism related activities or not, 99% finally environmental factor (SRW= respondents fall under the category of 0.576).The hypothesized model of engagement in tourism related activities. destination building delineate good results V. Data Interpretation and Hypothesis as depicted by the derived values which Testing were as CMIN/df= 2.75, GFI= 0.931, After running EFA and CFA, SEM AGFI= 0.874, TLI= 0.882. The (structural equation modeling) was used to hypothesized model of destination building check the fitness of structural model & to delineate good results as depicted by the verify the proposed hypothesis of this study derived values which were as CMIN/df= and the results are shown in Fig.1 & table 2.75, GFI= 0.931, AGFI= 0.874, TLI= 5. The hypothesized model of economic 0.882, CFI= 0.926, RMR= 0.083 & construct influencing community RMSEA= 0.079. The values derived participation revealed good results as confirmed the acceptance of proposed indicated by the fitness indices i.e. chi-sq/df hypothesis i.e. 'community participation = 2.42, RMSEA= 0.087, RMR = 0.062, significantly contribute toward destination GFI= 0.91, AGFI = 0.86, CFI = 0.84 and building'. Further outcomes of destination TLI = 0.736. The results of SEM delineated building were highly reflected by the the SRW values either close or above the economic development (SRW= 0.897) set limit of 0.5 which confirmed the followed by tourism development (SRW= acceptance of first hypothesis i.e. 0.743) and finally by social development 'Community participation is positively (SRW= 0.656) as delineated by the SEM influenced by economic factors'. Further, results. On the basis ofp value and SRW the second hypothesis i.e. 'Community values, all the hypotheses stands participation is influenced by social factors' accepted. also produced goodness fit indices which were chi-sq/df = 1.98, RMSEA= 0.069, RMR = 0.072, GFI= 0.92, AGFI = 0.86, CFI = 0.91 and TLI = 0.87 and the SRW values derived out of it also stands above the threshold criteria. Similarly for the third and fourth hypotheses i.e. 'Personal factors significantly influence community participation'and 'C ommunity participation is significantly impacted by environmental factors' also produced good results as

46 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 e19. 1 1 e25. e3. SCD 0.622 1 1 0.679 e2. SPI SF. 0.622 1 0.580 LM e13. 1 e1. SOSB ED. 0.649 1 ELS e14. e24. e20. 1 1 e7. OED 1 0.905 0.825 0628. 1 0.648 SC e15. 1 0587 e6. LMRG SD. 0.0.655 1 1 0.591 EF. COC e16. e5. EO 0.587 0.553 1 0.941 e4.. ILS

e21. CP DB 1 1 e10. PPP 0.538 0.648 1 0.538 0.869e23. e9. AK PF. 0.522 1 0.897 1 1 e8. CA e22. 0.612 LRA e17. 1 TD. 0.506 1 1 ID e18. e12. CE 0.0.578 1 0.5381 ENF. e11. PEP

Fig1:Impactofcommunityparticipationondestinationbuilding Note: CP- Community participation, EF- Economic factor, SF- Social factor, ENF- Environmental factor, PF- Personal factor, DB- Destination building, ED- Economic development, SD- Social development, TD- Tourism development, IEA (Improved economic activities), ELS (Employment and living standard), SC (Social capital), COC (Conservation of old culture), LRA (Leisure and recreational activities), ID (Infrastructure development) are the observed variables, e1- e25 are the error terms

VI.DiscussionandStrategic & knowledge (M= 3.65)', 'Get involved Implications with tourism authority (M= 3.07)', 'Aware The present research work validated abouttourismandtourismallied destination building through community development programs (M= 3.74)', 'Service participation i.e. community based tourism. recognition (M= 3.75)','Opportunity to stay The study has contributed towards literature with family (M= 3.75)', 'Reduction in threat by following ways.Firstly , the study has to local environment (M= 3.94)', 'Protection supported the available past literature and of wildlife and forest area (M= 3.98)', has presented more detailed information 'Improvement in living standard and quality regarding economic, personal, social and of life (M= 3.94)' etc. High mean values environmental factors as significant were noticed for most of the statements of predictors of community participation two factors namely, 'Social pride & toward destination building. Secondly, the involvement' and 'Impetus to participatory study has measured the perceived outcomes spirit & belongingness' Statement-wise, expected by local residents from destination values recorded were 'Create a group of building. socially active (M= 4.00)', 'Strong However, slight above mean values were recommendations from others (M= 4.20)', found for the statements 'Increase economic 'Makes people socially responsible (M= activities in other sectors (M= 3.92)', 'Leads 4.21),' 'Induces establishment of new micro to poverty eradication (M= 3.85)', 'Generate units (M= 4.15)', 'Creates market for local revenue for local authority (M= 3.95)',` products (M= 4.29)', 'Creates more Awareness about tourism development employment opportunities (M= 4.46)' and programs (M= 3.63)', 'Improves local skills 'Involvement would promote tourism

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 47 development (M= 4.18)'. Regarding development which would ultimately outcome of community participation on increase living standard and reduction in destination building, slight above mean poverty. District official site must promote values were recorded for the statements tourist destination of district Poonch and 'More recreational activities (M= 3.89)', helpline numbers to attract potential 'Increase in cultural activities (M= 3.64)' tourists. Government through policy must and 'Polarization of traditional culture and link tourism development with other practices (M= 3.89)' falling under the activities like creation of recreational parks, factors social capital and conservation of wellness centers and tourist reception old culture. Similarly, moderate mean centers to make destinations attractive for values were observed for the items tourists. To avoid overcrowding and `Conservation of heritage (M= 3.80)', congestion of destinations, a planned layout 'Growth of micro units' falling under the for each destination must be framed in factors employment opportunity & living advance so that it could be implemented in standard and leisure & recreational phased manner. For the proper development activities. Respondents were found & sustainability of tourism, the surrounding optimistic about economic development of area around the historical monument and the area due to 'Increase in the value of heritage places must be kept for the land (M= 4.20)', 'Creation of market for beautification. During survey, it was found local products (M= 4.17)', 'Generates that there is lack of coordination between revenue for local authority (M= 4.14)', the authorities and local residents. The 'Improvement in employment status (M= authorities should adopt a holistic approach 4.00)', `Enhanced quality of life (M= 4.31)', while designing and promoting a particular 'Increase in social interaction process due to destination. The authorities must focus on destination building (M= 4.00)', 'Need for promoting the local products and resources conservation and reservation of some at the macro level, thereby making it a historical monuments and heritage unique attraction for the tourist. development (M= 4.01)', 'Promotion of Furthermore, the government agencies recreational activities (M= 4.05)' and especially the tourism department should 'Attraction of more investment in tourism look to provide financial assistance through sector (M= 4.40).Tourism development micro credit schemes so that the local through community participation would inhabitants can convert the available make heritage sites well known among opportunities into reality and to empower public in a fast track manner (M= 4.28). the local communities. In order to improve Thoughcommunityparticipationin the performance of tourism industry, destination building is a feasible approach cultural centers should be opened and for overall development of district Poonch, regular interaction meet between the local the benefits from destination building inhabitants and Tourism Association across would not percolate to lower strata of the globe be organised. Destination building community unless it make people socially and its maintenance is expensive and needs secure and contribute to their livelihood. long term policy initiatives. Collaboration Along with tourism promotion, economic with private parties or its outsourcing to activities which guarantee increase in private investors selectively can be seen as income for residents must be explored and an alternative to meet expenses. encouraged. Skill based training for local VII. Conclusion art & craft, ethnic food, tourist guide etc. This study empirically studied factors should be imparted through skill influencing local community participation development initiatives of government of towards destination building and benefits India so that these people aid in tourism accrued from it by the local inhabitants. It

48 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 also tested the relationship of destination community participation is important in building impacts with perceived community delivering the services to the tourists and in participation. As a result it is hoped that the order to enhance community participation findings of this research study has made the local residents need to be trained, valuable contribution to the insights about guided and their ideas and suggestion factors inducing local community members required to be employed more effectively in to get involved in destination building. order to survive and achieve sustainability. Based on the findings, the study concluded Such tactics will not only be effective in that the level of community participation in redressing the grievances, but will also tourism development projects was moderate boost the performance of tourism sector. due to lack of access to information and There are few limitations pertaining to this absence of community representation in study specifically to small sample size and framing policies regarding development limited geographical area. In future, projects. The most influencing factor for research could be expanded to other community participation in tourism districts of J&K state. Further, the actual development is economic factor followed level of participation of local inhabitants by other factors. Accessibility of earlier excluded could be included on the information regarding development projects basis of Arnstein's ladder. Perception of is somehow lacking and its open for only other stake holders and tourists' in terms of government employees and inadequate their expectations from the host community information could lead to misunderstanding, could be researched for improving the mistakes and deviation of public project overall tourist experience. directions. The current study reveal how

REFERENCES Iran.Community Development , 43 (2), 259- Afthanorhan, A., Awang, Z., & Fazella, S. 277. (2017). Perception of tourism impact and Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., & Babin, B. J. (2010). support tourism development in RE Anderson Multivariate data analysis: A Terengganu, Malaysia.Social Sciences , global perspective. New Jersey, Pearson 6(3), 106-17. Prentice Hall Almeida-García, F., Peláez-Fernández, M. Á., Hadi, N. U., Abdullah, N., & Sentosa, I. Balbuena-Vazquez, A., & Cortes-Macias, (2016). An easy approach to exploratory R. (2016). Residents' perceptions of factor analysis: Marketing perspective. tourism development in Benalmádena Journal of Educational and Social (Spain).Tourism Management , 54 , 259- Research, 6 (1), 215-223. 274. Hanafiah, M. H., Jamaluddin, M. R., & Andriotis, K., & Vaughan, R. D. (2003). Urban Zulkifly, M. I. (2013). Local community residents' attitudes toward tourism attitude and support towards tourism development: The case of Crete. Journal development in Tioman Island, Malaysia. of Travel Research, 42 (2), 172-185. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Awang, Z., & Fazella, S. (2017). Perception of 105, 792-800. tourism impact and support tourism Huong, P. M., & Lee, J. H. (2017). Finding development in Terengganu, Malaysia. important factors affecting local residents' Social Sciences, 6 (3), 106-17. support for tourism development in Ba Be DA Tasci, A., Croes, R., & Bartels Villanueva, National Park, Vietnam. Forest Science J. (2014). Rise and fall of community- and Technology, 13 (3), 126-132. based tourismfacilitators, inhibitors and Hussein, M. (2017). Socio-economic factors on outcomes. Worldwide Hospitality and community participation in the Tourism Themes, 6 (3), 261-276. redevelopment planning of Nairobi: A case Dadvar-Khani, F. (2012). Participation of rural of Muthurwa and Kaloleni estates. African community and tourism development in Research Journal of Education and Social

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 49 Sciences, 4 (3), 10-18. making process for sustainable tourism Jaafar, M., Bakri, N. M., & Rasoolimanesh, S. development in rural areas of Hong Kong, M. (2015). Local community and tourism China.Sustainability , 9 (10), 1695-1708. development: A study of rural Meimand, S., Khalifah, Z., Zavadskas, E., mountainous destinations. Modern Applied Mardani, A., Najafipour, A., & Ahmad, U. Science, 9 (8), 407-416. (2017). Residents' attitude toward tourism Jamwal, M. (2015). Managing destination development: A sociocultural perspective. through community participationA case of Sustainability, 9 (7), 1170-1199. Garhwal Uttarakhand, India. Tourism and Mrema, A. A. (2015). Contribution of tourist Hospitality , DOI: 10.13140/ hotels in socio-economic development of RG.2.1.2412.2402. local communities in Monduli District, Jurowski, C., Uysal, M., & Williams, D. R. Northern Tanzania. Journal of Hospitality (1997). A theoretical analysis of host Management and Tourism, 6 (6), 71-79. community resident reactions to tourism. Muganda, M., Sirima, A., & Ezra, P. M. Journal of Travel Research, 36 (2), 3-11. (2013). The role of local communities in Khoshnam, A. M., Jamali, A. A., & Zare, A. tourism development: Grassroots (2015). The effect of individual, social and perspectives from Tanzania. Journal of economic factors on villagers' participation Human Ecology, 41 (1), 53-66. in watershed projects in MianKouh Nair, V., & Lekaota, L. (2015). The importance watershed, Yazd. European Online of rural communities' participation in the Journal of Natural and Social Sciences: management of tourism management. Proceedings, 4 (1 (s)),446-456. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Kocakaya, S., & Kocakaya, F. (2014). A Themes, 7(5), 453-462. structural equation modeling on factors of Pham, L., & Kayat, K. (2011). Residents' how experienced teachers affect the perceptions of tourism impact and their students' science and mathematics support for tourism development: The case achievements. Education Research study of Cuc Phuong National Park, Ninh International, doi.org/10.1155/2014/ Binh province, Vietnam. European 490371. Journal of Tourism Research, 4 (2), 123- Latip, N. A., Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Jaafar, M., 146. Marzuki, A., & Umar, M. U. (2018). Provia, K., Ronald, K., & Michelle, K. (2017). Indigenous residents' perceptions towards Community capacity building, local tourism development: A case of Sabah, community involvement in tourism Malaysia. Journal of Place Management activities and community welfare in and Development, 11 (4), 391-410. Uganda,Journal of Tourism,Hospitality Liang, Z. X., & Hui, T. K. (2016). Residents' and Sports, 27, 15-27. quality of life and attitudes toward tourism Ramseook-Munhurrun, P., & Naidoo, P. development in China. Tourism (2011). Residents' attitudes toward Management, 57 , 56-67. perceived tourism benefits. International Liu, J. C., & Var, T. (1986). Resident attitudes Journal of Management and Marketing toward tourism impacts in Hawaii. Annals Research, 4 (3), 45-56. of Tourism Research, 13 (2), 193-214. Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Ringle, C. M., Jaafar, Liu, Y., Nie, L., Wang, F., & Nies, Z. (2015). M., & Ramayah, T. (2017). Urban vs. rural The impact of tourism development on destinations: Residents' perceptions, local residents in Bama, Guangxi, China. community participation and support for Tourism Economics, 21 (6), 1133-1148. tourism development. Tourism Magigi, W., & Ramadhani, H. (2013). Management, 60 , 147-158. Enhancing tourism industry through Ribeiro, M. A., Pinto, P., Silva, J. A., & community participation: A strategy for Woosnam, K. M. (2017). Residents' poverty reduction in Zanzibar, Tanzania. attitudes and the adoption of pro-tourism Journal of Environmental Protection, behaviours: The case of developing island 4(10), 1108-1122. countries.Tourism Management , 61 , 523- Mak, B., Cheung, L., & Hui, D. (2017). 537. Community participation in the decision-

50 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 Safari, John. (2015). Involvement in tourism projects in Tanzania. International Journal activities and perceived benefits in of Science and Research, 5(10), 1145- communities around Udzungwa mountain 1150. national park in Tanzania. American Yoon, Y., Gursoy, D., & Chen, J. S. (2001). Journal of Environmental Protection,4, Validating a tourism development theory 120. 10.11648/j.ajep.20150403.12. with structural equation modeling. Tourism Salleh, N. H. M., Shukor, M. S., Othman, R., Management, 22 (4), 363-372. Samsudin, M., & Idris, S. H. M. (2016). Yu, C. P., Cole, S., & Chancellor, C. (2018). Factors of local community participation Resident support for tourism development in tourism-related business: Case of in rural midwestern (USA) communities: Langkawi island. International Journal of Perceived tourism impacts and community Social Science and Humanity, 6 (8), 565- quality of life perspective.Sustainability , 571. 10(3), 802-819. Sharma, B., & Dyer, P. (2009). Residents' Zhu, H., Liu, J., Wei, Z., Li, W., & Wang, L. involvement in tourism and their (2017). Residents' attitudes towards perceptions of tourism impacts. sustainable tourism development in a Benchmarking: An International Journal. historical-cultural village: Influence of 16 (3), 351-371 perceived impacts, sense of place and Tesha, H., Mokaya, D.S., & Bakari, S. (2016). tourism development potential. A survey of factors influencing community Sustainability, 9 (1), 61-76.. 4. 120. participation in public development 10.11648/j.ajep.20150403.12.

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 51 Table1:Summaryofresultsobtainedusingrotatedcomponentmethod Constructs&Factor Item Mean S.D Factor Variance C.V loading explained Socialfactor 28.80% F1:Socio -cultural development Sociallymoresecure A16 3.60 1.16 0.78 0.71 Encouragesavarietyof A11 3.92 0.83 0.54 culturalactivities 0.72 Reductioninfamily A14 3.22 0.76 crisis 1.18 0.69 Createagroupof A5 4.00 0.69 sociallyactivepeople 0.70 0.53 Strong 4.20 0.53 recommendationsfrom others A17 0.91 0.86 F2:Socialpride& 16.31% involvement Makespeoplesocially 4.21 0.69 0.61 responsible A7 0.76 Inducepeo pleto 4.02 0.83 0.60 becomesocially responsible A13 0.72 Encouragementfrom 4.09 0.73 0.71 family A15 0.52 Improvementinquality 3.92 0.75 0.73 oflife A6 0.81 Frequentinteraction 3.84 0.75 0.69 amongstakeholders A9 0.70 F3:Impetusto 13.43% participatoryspirit &belongingness Bringssocial 4.21 0.69 0.74 recognition A4 0.81 Induceasenseof 4.09 0.73 0.66 participation A1 0.73 Promotescultural 4.06 0.76 0.73 exchangesand education A12 0.77 Increases 4.20 0.53 0.71 belongingnessamong communitymember A2 0.59 Economicfactors F1:Overall 19.41% economic development Accelerateeconomic 4.09 0.72 0.64 growthofdistrict B2 0.59 Increaseinliving 4.00 0.76 0.70 standard B4 0.77 Inducesestablishment 4.15 0.68 0.60 ofnewmicrounits B7 0.73 Increaseseconomic 3.92 0.90 0.64 activitiesinother sectors B12 0.65 Developmentofbetter 4.02 0.87 0.62 tourisminfrastructure B9 0.57 F2:Localmarket& 17.06% revenuegeneration Createmarketfor 4.29 0.65 0.67 localproducts B5 0.73 Leadstopoverty 3.85 0.85 0.67 eradication B10 0.73 Generatesrevenues forlocalauthority B11 3.95 0.77 0.63 0.55 F3:Employment opportunities 13.46% Increasesoccupational opportunities B3 4.26 0.67 0.76 0.67 Helpsinremoving community backwardness B13 4.10 0.76 0.66 0.63 Createsmore investment opportunities B8 4.09 0.68 0.60 0.55

52 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 F4:Improvementin livingstandard 11.86% Createsmore employment opportunities B1 4.46 0.55 0.69 0.54 Moremonetary incentives B6 4.22 0.68 0.67 0.52 Overalleconomic developmentoflocal families B14 4.07 0.79 0.70 0.65 F1:Positivepersonal perception 28.07 Awarenessabout tourismdevelopment programs C18 3.63 1.01 0.70 0.52 Improvesconfidence levelindecision making C1 3.95 0.85 0.84 0.77 Improveslocalskills &knowledge C7 3.65 0.94 0.69 0.76 Motivatestobepart ofdevelopment schemes C17 4.07 0.77 0.69 Opportunityfor overallpersonal improvement C9 4.00 0.88 0.84 0.61 Tourismaidsin community development C11 4.06 0.66 F2:Awareness& knowledge 18.23 Motivationforactive participation C14 3.92 0.74 0.81 0.69 Awareabouttourism &tourismallied developmentprograms C03 3.74 1.06 0.73 0.70 Togetinvolvedwith tourismauthority C10 3.07 1.24 0.55 0.69 F3:Community attachment 12.06 Motiveformore recognition C15 4.04 0.75 0.81 0.74 Promisesforbright future C12 3.89 0.86 0.70 0.69 F4:Supportfor additionaltourism 11.06 development Feelmoreresponsible C2 4.17 0.62 0.70 0.69 Supportfromtourism authority C5 4.04 0.86 0.77 0.68 Lackofawareness C6 4.15 0.82 0.77 0.68 Servicerecognition C4 3.75 0.89 0.53 0.74 Opportunitytostay withfamily C16 3.75 0.83 0.85 0.75 Enviromentalfactors F1:Conservationof environment 40.22% Protectionofwildlife andforestarea D3 3.98 0.83 0.83 0.72 Conservationoflocal resources D1 4.00 0.69 0.83 0.70 Reductioninthreatto localenvironment D8 3.94 0.69 0.71 0.61 F2:Positive environmental perception 32.81%

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 53 Involvementwould promotetourism development D6 4.18 0.72 0.79 0.66 Localresource utilizationfor development D9 4.00 0.69 0.79 0.65 Improvementinliving standardandquality oflife D7 3.92 0.68 0.95 0.91 Economic Development F1:Improved economicactivities 24.67% Increaseinthevalue ofland E9 4.20 0.71 0.85 0.73 Createmarketfor localproducts E2 4.17 0.69 0.75 0.59 Generatedrevenuefor localauthority E7 4.14 0.81 0.70 0.54 F2:Employment& livingstandard 23.07% Improvedincome statusofcommunity E1 4.01 0.72 0.76 0.66 Enhancedqualityof life E4 4.31 0.74 0.75 0.57 Moreemployment opportunityforlocals E3 4.00 0.73 0.61 0.52 Growthofmicro units E10 3.92 0.97 0.59 0.53 Social development F1:Socialcapital Morerecreational activitiesfortourist F1 3.89 0.75 0.78 37.53% 0.62 Overcrowdingand congestion F6 3.72 1.03 0.71 0.59 Developmentof tourismallied activities F3 3.96 0.70 0.69 0.67 Increaseincultural activities F8 3.64 0.95 0.57 0.57 F2:Conservationof oldculture 27.89% Increasesocial interactionprocess F5 4.00 0.74 0.83 0.71 Promotionof traditionalculture F4 3.45 1.16 0.68 0.65 Polarizationof traditionscultureand practice F10 3.89 0.93 0.84 0.73 F1:Leisure& recreationalactivities 41% Conservationof heritage G11 3.80 1.03 0.83 0.70 Preservationand restorationofhistoric monuments G1 4.01 0.89 0.79 0.66 Promotionof recreationalactivities G8 4.05 0.86 0.57 0.69 Tourismdevelopment F2:Infrastructure development 31% Makesheritagesites wellknownamong public G6 4.28 0.64 0.81 0.78 Helpedinexploring newtouristspots G3 4.31 0.69 0.70 0.68 Attractsmore investmentintourism sector G10 4.40 0.65 0.84 0.79 Increasedtourist inflows G7 4.26 0.66 0.82 0.79 Generationof economicactivitiesin thearea G2 4.15 0.58 0.64 0.62

54 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 Table2:ResultsofKMOandBartlett'stest Kaiser-Meyer-OlkinMeasureofSampling Adequacy. .609

Approx.Chi-Square 14649.728 Bartlett's Tesstof Df 4095 Sphericity Sig. .000

Table3:Fitindicesofmeasurementmodels Dimension/con struct Chi GFI AGFI RMR RMSEA TLI CFI sq/df

Economic construct 1.141 0.96 0.93 0.031 0.028 0.98 0.98

Socialconstruct 1.684 0.96 0.91 0.038 0.062 0.90 0.94

Personal construct 2.328 0.95 0.89 0.049 0.060 0.93 0.96

Environmental construct 1.346 0.98 0.94 0.025 0.044 0.95 0.98

Economic development 1.913 0.97 0.91 0.034 0.072 0.92 0.96

Social development 2.990 0.94 0.87 0.062 0.096 0.70 0.82

Tourism development 1.754 0.92 0.87 0.072 0.084 0.77 0.85

Table4:Reliabilityandvalidityofthescale

Dimension/constructs AVE CR Socialconstruct 0.95 0.76 Economicconstruct 0.82 0.76 Personalconstruct 0.85 0.76 Environmentalconstruct 0.82 0.84 Socialdevelopment 0.84 0.79 Economicdevelopment 0.84 0.79 Tourismdevelopment 0.61 0.48

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 55 Table5:ResultsofhypothesestestingthroughSEM Hypotheses p-value Accepted/Rejected Hyp1:Communityparticipationispositively influencedbyeconomicfactor <0.01 Accepted Hyp2:Communityparticipationisinfluencedby socialfactors <0.01 Accepted Hyp3:Personalfactorssignificantlyinfluence communityparticipation <0.01 Accepted Hyp4:Communityparticipationissignificantly impactedbyenvironmentalfactors <0.01 Accepted Hyp5:Communityparticipationsignificantly contributetowarddestinationbuilding. <0.01 Accepted

TableNo:-6TheNumberOfTouristsWhoVisitedPir-panjalDistrict Years No of tourist in lakhs Growth rate 2013 6.92 … 2014 8.11 17.2 2015 9.35 15.35 2016 12.4 32.4 2017 15.46 24.6 Source:Ministryoftourism2017.

Figure3:PoonchdistrictonthemapofIndia

AboutAuthor's Zaffar Iqbal is a research scholar in the Department of Commerce, University of Jammu and has published a couple of research papers on emerging issues and challenges on Business Management. [email protected] Neetu Andotra (Corresponding author) is Professor in the Department of Commerce, University of Jammu, and has published more than 25 research papers. Her specialization is on Human Resource Management, Organizational theory and Strategic management. [email protected]

56 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 K e yW o r d s BenefitsofProtectedAreaNetwork Status:PilotstudyatBieszscady NationalPark,Poland mixedmethods, STUARTP.COTTRELL sustainabletourism Professor,DepartmentofHumanDimensionsofNaturalResources development,Prismof ColoradoStateUniversity Sustainability,protected JANARAADIKCOTTRELL areas,benefitsofPANParks Faculty,CentreforBlueEconomyof TallinnUniversityof Technology,Estonia UniversityHonorsProgram,ColoradoStateUniversityColoradoStateUniversity,USA (Thisisareprintof2008articleproducedinJOT) Abstract INTRODUCTION This paper examines the Protected areas such as national parks andNatura 2000 sites benefits of Protected Area in Europe can be negatively affected by mass tourism. Natura Network (PAN Park) status 2000 refers to an ecological network of protected areas in the for communities and tourism European Union (EU) and it serves as the center of the EU's development near Bieszscady policy on nature conservation (Berg, Bree, & Cottrell, 2004; National Park (BNP), Poland. Font & Brasser, 2002). The purpose of this network is to The central question was maintain and restore habitats and species at a favorable Does PAN Parks benefit local communities in PAN Park conservation status in their natural range. Tourism has been locations? Thirty-six self- noted as one of the largest and fastest growing industries administered surveys and 18 (Gunn & Var, 2002; Swarbrooke, 1999) and has significant semi-structured interviews environmental, cultural, social, and economic impacts were conducted in November, (Mowforth & Munt, 2003; Sirakaya, Jamal, & Choi, 2001), 2005 among stakeholders which could significantly effectNatura 2000 locations (Font representing BNP staff, local & Brasser, 2002).Natura 2000 will involve 20-25 European authorities, PAN Park countries and it is important to know how tourism will affect business partners, tourism these sites. The Protected Area Network (PAN Parks) project, businesses, and NGOs. Both approaches explored tourism started in 1997 by the World Wide Fund for Nature, was an development, sustainability of initiative listed as one of the two most relevant management tourism in the context of practices forNatura 2000 sites (DG Environment, 2001; Font socio-cultural, economic, & Brasser, 2002) in Europe. PAN Parks was implemented as environmental and a means to encourage synergy between nature conservation institutional capacity building and tourism in Europe's protected areas. and the role of PAN Parks on PAN Parks aims to balance tourism and nature conservation beliefs about sustainable via partnerships with conservation organizations, travel tourism development. PAN agencies, business communities and other groups on a local, Park's sustainable tourism development strategy is national and international level. For PAN Park's verification, viewed as a driving force for a protected area must meet five principles each with specific sustainable development criteria (i.e., nature values, habitat management, visitor combining protected area management, sustainable tourism development strategy, and concern for environmental business partnerships) (Font & Brasser, 2002; PAN Parks, protection with active 2007). There are nine PAN Park locations including Bulgaria, involvement of tourism Georgia, Finland, Sweden, Poland, Romania, Russia, and businesses. Italy with new parks targeted for verification in 2008. A sustainable tourism strategy is necessary to combine tourism's potential and socio-economic development with overall nature conservation goals of protected areas (Cottrell & Cutumisu, 2006).

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 57 PAN Park principles include guidelines to development in the BNP region to be used develop and implement a Sustainable at other PAN Park locations for an ongoing Tourism Development Strategy (STDS), research program. The central question was which is a framework to achieve a balance Does PAN Parks benefit local communities between the conservation goals of certified in PAN Park locations? A local PAN Park PAN Parks and sustainable tourism advisory group developed a sustainable development in the PAN Parks region. tourism development strategy (STDS) to Sustainable tourism development can be a link the park to tourism development in the valuable option for a protected area only if region. The prism of sustainability (Figure net benefits for nature protection and local 1), a holistic framework of sustainability communities can be obtained and if those was used as the theoretical lens to examine benefits stay in the PAN Parks region. The the economic, socio-cultural, environmental PAN Parks Foundation formed a research and institutional aspects of tourism network to develop a research program to development (Eden, Falkheden, & Malbert, monitor the effectiveness of PAN Parks. 2000; Faulkner & Tidswell, 1997; Bieszscady National Park (BNP) in Poland Spangenberg & Valentin, 1999). Secondly, was verified as a PAN Park in 2002 with a mixed methods approach was used which the approval of an STDS in 2005; BNP is not commonly found in the tourism provided an opportunity to conduct a literature. Study outcomes are intended to baseline study to field test the PAN Parks help create a PAN Parks research program monitoring protocol. to monitor the effectiveness of PAN Parks Purpose for park management and nature As a pilot study, the goal was to field test a conservation to apply to all PAN Park protocol to monitor benefits of PAN Park locations in Europe. status for communities and tourism

StakeholdersResidents

Institutionaldimension

Environmental Economical dimension dimension

Socio-cultural dimension

PANPARKS CONCEPT

Figure1.PrismofSustainability(adaptedfromEdenetal.,2000;Spangenberg&Valentin,1999)

58 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 Research Questions sustainable only as long as the amount of To address the central question of the resources utilized to generate welfare is study, secondary research questions were restricted to a size and quality that does not posed to structure the investigation. deplete its sources for future use. The social Secondary questions identify the dimension refers to individuals' skills, stakeholder groups, their degree of dedication, experiences and resulting familiarity with PAN Parks and address behavior. Institutions (such as the PAN perceptions about the benefits of PAN Park Parks network) represent organizations status from a socio-cultural, economic, within a system of rules governing environmental and institutional context. interaction among members (Choi & 1. What is the profile of tourism Sirakaya, 2005; Mitchell & Reid, 2001). stakeholders in the BNP region? The institutional dimension calls for 2. To what extent are tourism stakeholders strengthening people's participation in familiar with the PAN Parks concept? political governance (in this case the 3. What are the benefits of PAN Park institution is PAN Parks with STDS as the status? mechanism) (Gunn & Var, 2002; Speck, 4. Who benefits most from PAN Park 2002; Waldon & Williams, 2002). As status? acceptance of and identification with 5. To what extent are stakeholders satisfied political decisions increase, public with the institutional, economic, socio- participation may be strengthened via cultural and environmental aspects of empowerment and the ability to contribute tourism to the PAN Parks region? to decision-making. 6. To what extent is local participation in As it pertains to PAN Parks, the starting sustainable tourism development point in the PAN Parks Sustainable evident? Tourism concept is environmental 7. Is there a relationship between PAN sustainability which links well with the Parks status of BNP and stakeholder environmental imperative found in the satisfaction with tourism development? prism. Meanwhile, many nature Prism of Sustainability conservation organizations understand that Figure 1 (adapted from Spangenberg & socio-cultural and economic sustainability Valentin, 1999) shows those dimensions in a region with protected areas is important important to a holistic approach to when it comes to nature preservation. Sustainable Tourism Development (STD). Controlled tourism can be an instrument to STD is difficult to obtain without sustainable development and nature consideration of some aspects of the protection, providing 'nature' economical economic, social, environmental, and value and as such incentives for nature institutional dimensions of sustainability protection. Meanwhile, nature protection (Cottrell & Cutumisu,, 2006; Eden et al. can lead to sustained environmental 200;0 Spangenberg et al. , 2002). The integrity thereby providing socio-cultural environmental dimension emphasizes the sustainability benefits (e.g., improving need to reduce pressure on the physical quality of life and maintaining environment (Mowforth & Munt, 2003; natural/cultural heritage). In addition, Spangenberg, Pfahl, & Deller, 2002; careful planning, collective strategy Swarbrooke, 1999: Valentin & formulation, and responsible management Spangenberg, 2000). The economic as part of the institutional mechanisms dimension considers human needs for make it possible to minimize negative yet material welfare (e.g., employment) in a maximize positive impacts of tourism framework that is competitive and stable development (PAN Parks, 2007). (Roberts, 2002; Sirakaya et al., 2001). An Valentin and Spangenberg (2000) suggest economic system is environmentally that the four dimensions can be linked to

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 59 potential indicators (in this case, resident sustainability were used as indicators to beliefs in benefits of PAN Park status). assess beliefs about the benefits of tourism Sustainable tourism indicators developed in to BNP (see Table 3). Eighteen semi- the context of the prism of sustainability structured interviews were completed over a range of studies (Choi & Sirakaya, among stakeholders representing BNP staff, 2005; Cottrell & Cutumisu, 2006, Cottrell local authorities, PAN Park business & Vaske, 2006; Cottrell et al., 2004, 2007; partners, tourism businesses, and NGOs to Shen, 2004; Sirakaya et al., 2001) were represent the PAN Parks region. Interviews applied in this study (see Table 3). explored tourism development, Methods sustainabilityoftourisminthecontextof A mixed methods approach involving a socio-cultural, economic, environmental concurrent nested strategy with quantitative and institutional capacity building and the and qualitative techniques (Creswell, 2003) role of PAN Parks on beliefs about was used in a pilot-study conducted over a sustainable tourism development. 5-day period in November, 2005. Mixed Interviews were conducted and taped in methods were used to confirm, cross- Polish by an interpreter with translations validate, or corroborate findings within a made directly onsite. Study participants as a single study with quantitative and convenience sample were selected by the qualitative methods done simultaneously. local PAN Parks coordinator via telephone The quantitative method was predominant a few days prior to the interview period to with the qualitative method embedded to make an appointment. The researcher, get more details and background coming from the United States, was only information on results from the quantitative available during those five days to conduct phase (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). A the onsite interviews. Criteria for selection five-page self-administered questionnaire were based on sector representation (e.g., with both English and Polish versions was park employee, accommodation, tour administered among 36 stakeholders to operator, local government) and solicit responses about familiarity with availability. Five respondents completed PAN Parks, PAN Parks status of BNP, both the survey and participated in an participation in tourism planning, tourism to interview. BNP, satisfaction with tourism development Study Setting (indicators of sustainability), and socio- Bieszczady National Park (BNP) is situated demographics. Thirty-seven items in the far southeast of Poland on the border representing the four dimensions of with Slovakia and the Ukraine (Figure 2). It

Ukraine

Slovakia

Figure2.MapofBieszczadyNationalParkRegion

60 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 is famous for its unique fauna of rare and participation in tourism planning were threatened animals. BNP began the determined (Table 4). Non parametric tests certification process in 2000 resulting in included Kruskal Wallis tests (non- PAN Park certification in September 2002. parametric equivalent to one-way analysis The draft STDS adopted in April 2005 was of variance) for differences between well supported by the stakeholders and perceived benefit of PAN Park status on presents a good framework for future beliefs in the value of PAN Park status cooperation and activities in the PAN Park's (Table 2) and Mann Whitney U tests (non- region including the municipalities of Cisna parametric equivalent to t-test for and Lutowiska. independent sample means) to examine the The two municipalities that form the PAN relationship between familiarity with PAN Parks Region, Cisna and Lutowiska, view Parks and the various aspects of sustainable nature based sustainable tourism as their tourism. Non-parametric tests were used main development opportunity for the because of the type of ordinal data collected future (Berg et al., 2004). Visitor in this study. Non-parametric tests do not infrastructure is managed by the park and require the data to be normally distributed partner organizations and enables quality and still provides a powerful test for the experience without serious adverse impact comparison of means for small samples on the conservation goals or nature itself. (Fluker & Turner, 2000; Meisel & Cottrell, The park operates two visitor centers 2008). outside the park and 21 information points Semi-structured interviews were transcribed at the entrance of hiking trails inside the verbatim and organized per interview park. Tourist accommodation is provided in question. Open coding was used to establish some small hotels, mountain huts and a themes across the interviews to corroborate growing number of family bed and survey findings. The qualitative findings breakfasts. The number of service providers including summaries and direct quotes are such as tourist agencies, mountain, wildlife given in the results section along with the and horseback guides has increased. The quantitative results to provide more depth park and region have sufficient tourism to understanding stakeholder feelings about potential and carrying capacity for tourism impacts to the region and the sustainable tourism, especially with the benefits of PAN Park status. development of visitor infrastructure in the Limitations buffer zones surrounding the National Park. The most obvious limitation was the small Through the work of the Local Pan Parks sample size (n=36; response rate = 72%) Group (LPPG) and implementation of the taken during a 5-day period. A purposeful STDS, the park has begun to build sample includes mostly those people partnership for sustainable development of involved in tourism directly, LPPG the region with the municipalities, forest members, and park personnel. The sample authorities, NGOs and local business people does not include indirect tourism business active in tourism. This research focused owners such as from the border patrol, primarily on those individuals representing restaurants, and grocery stores. Yet, one the STDS process. aspect of the study was to assess the impact Analysis of PAN Parks on sustainable tourism Following a descriptive profile of development and the concept is still new to stakeholders, percentage of beliefs in the region. Thus, the overall purpose was to benefits of PAN Park status (Table 1), test the methodology and this was best done mean satisfaction scores for the economic, by surveying those people familiar with institutional, social, and environmental PAN Parks, involved in tourism or work aspects of sustainable tourism and PAN with the park. A further limitation was Park status (Table 3), and percentage language. The local translator, who is not a

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 61 professional translator by trade, translated status effect on the value of the tourist the survey from English to Polish. experience, quality of life in the area, However, an item-by-item discussion of the contribution to nature conservation, and survey items was done onsite and several environmental values (Table 1). Forty-eight Polish people completed the survey as a percent of the stakeholders agree that BNP pre-pilot to clarify survey questions. Back status as a PAN Park increases the value of translation by a third party would be the tourist experience while 56% believe it recommended for future use of the survey. will attract more tourists to the area. Fifty Results percent felt that it increases the quality of Stakeholder Profile life in the area while 29% disagreed. A For research question 1, the survey sample majority (85%) agree PAN Park status (n=36) represents an active group with 75% contributes to nature conservation. working in tourism. Mostly residents, 40% Meanwhile, 68% do not feel that tourism is were business owners and 26% members of a threat to nature conservation. One NGOs. Only 14% were PAN Park business interviewee stated that, partners; however, they only recently “As I observe, the mentality of business became PAN Park business partners (i.e., owners is positively changing step by step. legal enterprises committed to the goals of This is due to influence of Pan Parks in this the certified PAN Park and the PAN Parks area, as well the group I represent Foundation, and actively cooperates with 'Bieszczady Park Foundation'. Thus, 'yes' LPPG) with new partners expected in the you can say that Pan Parks has a positive near future. Relatively young and well influence in the region.” educated, this group forms a strong “More locals need to be aware of the PP advocate network for sustainable tourism concept and what it possibly brings to the development as noted from the qualitative park. More partnerships are developing and data. Interviewees implied that STDS has this is attributed to the last few years from brought many of these stakeholders together STDS development and the work of the providing incentive for further collaboration PAN Park contact person.” towards sustainable tourism development. When asked if they benefited directly or For research question 2, a majority (81%) indirectly from PAN Parks, a majority said was familiar with the PAN Park concept no (67%; n = 24) while 22% said indirectly and 89% knew BNP was a certified PAN and 11% directly (Table 2). To assess the Park. effect of perceived benefit of PAN Parks, Benefits of Pan Parks an additional test was run to examine For research questions 3 and 4 concerning differences between those who selected no what and who benefits from PAN Parks, benefit, indirect benefit and direct benefit several questions inquired about PAN Park from PAN Park status (independent

Table1BenefitofPANParks Disagree Neutral Agree %%% a. BNP PAN Park status increases the value of the 19 32 48 tourist experience h. PAN park status of BNP attracts more tourists 13 31 56 b. PAN Park status of BNP increases the quality of 29 21 50 life of the area for locals c. PAN Park status of BNP contributes to protecting 6 9 85 nature conservation d. Tourism to BNP is a threat to environmental 68 9 24 values in the area

62 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 variable) on average scores for each of the has some benefit (direct or indirect) for belief statements about park PAN Park 33% of the sample on beliefs concerning status (see Table 2). Using a nonparametric the more inherent values of PAN Park test (Kruskal Wallis), differences were status on quality of life and nature found on four of five statements. This conservation issues. Further, PAN Park implies that Perceived benefit of PAN status is believed to enhance the quality of Parks has some effect on how stakeholders the tourist experience among those people responded to those questions. Those who who perceive direct or indirect benefit from received indirect and direct benefits agreed PAN Park status. (Average = 4 to 4.3) with the statement that From the interviews, the park is seen as a park PAN Park status increases the value of major contributor to community the tourist experience while those who said development for the region. It creates jobs no were neutral (Average = 3.1). Those (140+) and attracts tourists to the area, thus with direct benefit felt that PAN Park status it is considered the main attraction. The attracts more visitors (statement h). Those PAN Park concept is not very visible to with indirect benefit felt strongly that PAN local residents at the moment due to Park status increases quality of life while awareness and visibility issues. Among the those with no benefit felt it has more or less stakeholders, those most actively involved no effect (statement b). Those with indirect in tourism development are either PAN benefit strongly agree (Average = 5) that Park partners, part of the LPPG or have PAN Park status contributes to nature participated in the STDS process. They see conservation. Those who implied direct the potential of PAN Park's for BNP to benefits had the lowest score of 3.8 which strengthen community development represents slight agreement with the especially if park administration follows the statement. PAN Park principles. PAN Park's visibility Does PAN Parks benefit local is an issue. Overall, benefits of PAN Parks communities? The answer is “to a slight are still too early to assess and further degree for some people. ” PAN Park status visibility and extension of the sustainable

Table2RelationshipbetweenperceivedbenefitofPANParkstatusonthevalue ofPANParkstatus(KruskalWallistest) Beliefs statementsabout PAN Park status1 BenefitfromPP N Average2 a.PANPark status increasesvalueofthetouristexperience No 21 3.1 Yes,Indirectly 7 4.3 Yes, directly 3 4.0 Total 31 3.5 h.PANparkstatusattractsmoretourists No 20 3.6 Yes,Indirectly 8 3.6 Yes,directly 4 4.8 Total 32 3.7 b.PANpark status increaseslifequalityforlocalpopulation No 23 2.9 Yes,Indirectly 7 4.3 Yes,directly 4 3.3 Total 34 3.2 c.PANPark statuscontributestonatureconservation No 23 4.1 Yes,Indirectly 6 5.0 Yes,directly 4 3.8 Total 33 4.2 1Statementmeasuredon5pointagreementscale1-stronglydisagreeto5-stronglyagree 2Scoresrangefrom1to5:Averageof3.3to5isagree;2.8to3.2ismoreneutraland1to 2.7disagree

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 63 tourism network is necessary according the from a low of 2.64 to 4.04. Tourism is interviewees. perceived to create new markets, bring new Satisfaction with various aspects of income, while diversifying the local sustainable tourism economy, and creating new jobs. Tourism To address research question 5, respondents is obviously thought to contribute were asked to rate their level of agreement economically to the community. There was with 37 statements reflecting the four only slight satisfaction with product dimensions of sustainability on a 1 to 5 availability and improvements to local agreement scale (Table 3). In essence, the infrastructure. Tourism does not seem to items represent indicators for sustainable increase the price of local products. tourism development. Items with a score of From the qualitative interviews, the 4 or higher perform well. A 3.5 to 3.9 is economic contribution of BNP is well satisfactory while anything less than a 3.5 known in the form of employment in the is less satisfactory to neutral or less. region. Overall, there was less stress among For the economic dimension, scores ranged respondents on the economic aspects of

Table3 Averageperformance(satisfaction)scoresfor aspectsofsustainabletourism DimensionsofSustainability Economic Mean STD j. TourismtoBNP isastro ngeconomiccontributortocommunity 4.03 1.08 i. TourismtoBNP createsnewmarketsforour localproducts 4.00 0.93 b. TourismtoBNP diversifiesthelocaleconomy 3.94 0.86 a. TourismtoBNP bringsnewincometolocalcommunities 3.94 3.94 c. TourismtoBNP createsjobopportunitiesforlocalpeople. 3.89 1.14 h. Tourismbusinessesshouldhireatleast50%oftheiremployeesfromwithincommunity 3.77 1.11 g.BNP contributestoincreasedvalueoflocalproperty. 3.53 1.23 e.Productsandservices havebecomebetteravailableingeneralfromtourismtoBNP 3.42 0.97 f. ThankstoBNP theregiongainedimportancetothegovernmentresultinginimprovementsto infrastructure(e.g.roads) 3.42 1.30 d.Pricesoflocalproducts(food,medicine)andservices(services)increasedfromtourismtoBNP. 2.64 1.07 Institutional g. Weneedtotake along-termviewwhenplanningfortourismtoBNP 3.81 1.01 h. TourGuidestoBNP arewelltrained 3.78 1.12 a.Communities'residentshaveanopportunitytobe involvedintourismdecisionmaking 3.58 1.32 j.BNP mustmonitorvisitorsatisfaction 3.58 1.16 e.Participationinthedevelopmentoftourismdevelopmentplansisencouragedbylocalauthoritiesdueto BNP. 3.28 1.06 c.Entrepreneurshipintourismto BNP isencouragedbylocalgovernment 3.08 1.34 k. Tourismfacilitiesaredevelopedincoope rationwithlocalbusinessesintheBNP region 3.03 1.03 f.IfeelIcanaccessthedecision-makingprocesstoinfluencetourismdevelopmentintheBNP area. 2.75 1.34 b. Thereisgoodcommunicationamongpartiesinvolvedinpolicy/decisionmakingproces softourismto BNP 2.61 1.10 Social g.Myqualityoflife improved (deteriorated)becauseoftourismtoBNP* 4.44 1.08 b.Morepeoplevisitherebecauseof BNP. 4.42 0.69 d. TourismtoBNP decreases (increased)criminalactivityintheregionaround thepark* 4.33 1.01 j. VisitorstoBNP areencouragedtolearnaboutlocalcultures 4.08 1.02 e.Localtraditionsbecome more (less)importantbecauseoftourismtoBNP* 4.03 1.16 c. TourismtoBNP positively (negatively)influencesnormsandvaluesinthearea* 3.92 1.18 h. Thequalityoftheenvironmentinmycommunity increases (deteriorated)becauseoftourism* 3.69 1.35 a. TherearemoreeducationalopportunitiesforlocalsduetotourismtoBNP 3.50 1.11 f. Womengainmoreeconomicfreedomdu etotourismtoBNP. 3.14 1.17 Environmental h. ThediversityofnatureatBNP mustbevaluedandprotected 4.44 0.69 j.GoodexamplesofenvironmentalprotectionareshownatBNP 4.42 0.69 f.BNP areatourismmustbedevelopedinharmonywiththena turalandculturalenvironment 4.39 0.96

64 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 e. AsaresultofBNP,people'sawarenessofenvironmentalprotectionhasimproved. 4.22 0.83 b.BNP strengthenseffortsforenvironmentalconservation 3.72 1.00 g. TourismactivitytoBNP ischanneledintoareas withsuitablefacilities 3.58 1.13 a. TourismtoBNP doesnot causepollutionofenvironment(water,soilandair).* 3.39 1.25 d.Increasingexhaustionofwaterandenergyresourceswas not causedbytouristactivitiestoBNP * 3.22 1.17 c. Thenumber ofvisitorstoBNP resultsin positive (negative)impactsonplantsandanimals* 3.06 0.95 *Itemswererecodedtoapositivedirectionasreflectedbywordaddedinbold. Performance(satisfaction)measured1=stronglydisagree;2disagree;3=neutral,4=agree;5=stronglyagree tourism as compared to the socio-cultural Overall tourism development is wanted and and environmental aspects. The expectation believed to be helpful to improve the that PAN Parks would bring short term quality of livelihoods for the region. The economic benefits was not as apparent as it only slightly negative result had to do with had been during the 2003 study (Berg et al., economic gains for women receiving the 2004), meaning that local people realize lowest score of 3.1 yet still above the that it will take time and that perhaps too neutral point. The item was noted as an odd rapid growth is not good for the sustainable question for the Polish context where development of the region. PAN Parks was gender equality is not an issue. given some credit for this positive From the qualitative interviews, the socio- perspective. cultural contribution of BNP was also Respondents are only slightly satisfied with strongly noted. It was acknowledged that the institutional aspects of tourism with BNP does a lot for communities in terms of scores ranging from 2.61 to 3.81 and public outreach (environmental education, mostly below the 3.5 mark. The festivals & events, and for developing communication and decision making sustainable tourism responsibly). The direct opportunities with local communities are contributions were unknown for some not satisfactory at present. From the because PAN Parks is a new concept; qualitative interviews, open communication however, hopes were that this would between the park and local communities become more visible in the future. received mixed reports. Respondents Although new billboards have been posted implied that STDS has created a new in key access points to the park, further dialogue about development issues in the visibility is noted as important to inform region associated with the park and tourism. locals about the PAN Parks concept. Park employees feel that they are open for Visibility should be more than the printed public communication; however, some propaganda such as park sponsored guide stakeholders feel improvements can still be training, news clips in the local newspaper, made. Some stakeholders feel this will take and some public forums attended by park time and opinions are hopeful that PAN officials. The post card entrance fee receipt Parks will visibly contribute to this process. which was discontinued due to funding was Responses for the social-cultural aspects noted as an important form of visibility and were more positive overall as noted from should be continued. both the survey and interviews with scores For the environmental dimension, scores ranging between 3.14 and 4.4 (see Table 3). ranged from 3.06 to 4.44. The park protects Many felt that quality of life has improved environmental values and nature and such because of tourism (M = 4.4) with a policies are generally respected among the decrease in criminal activity (M = 4.3). stakeholders. Awareness and local attitudes Local attitudes seem to improve because of about nature protection have improved. tourism and more people visit the area Those questions with negative wording because of BNP. Tourism seems to have received slightly lower scores with a greater led to an improved environment while local degree of variation with standard deviations traditions have become more important. greater than 1. There is a general concern

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 65 that increased visitor numbers will lead to Fifty-eight percent of the stakeholders more negative impacts on the environment believe they have an opportunity to be and natural resources. Tourism according to involved in tourism decision making, yet many stakeholders should be channeled only 31% felt they could actually access more into the buffer zone areas. this process. Only 19% felt that From the qualitative interviews, the communication for policy decision-making environmental contribution of BNP was the was good and 39% believe that local most important among respondents and authorities encourage planning participation general improvements supporting and entrepreneurship. Thirty-six percent environmental conditions in the park area believe that tourism facilities are developed have been made. Reference was made to in cooperation with local businesses in the PAN Park's positive contribution to BNP region. Local participation in tourism environmental protection and hopes were planning, although perceived possible, stressed that local attitudes about nature appears limited overall. This sample conservation would continue to improve represents stakeholders very much involved because of PAN Park status. intourismandtourismplanning;yetdata In sum, environmental protection aspects shows limited perceived opportunity for received the highest scores followed by the participation in planning and decision- social-cultural. Economic aspects were making for tourism development. marginal with signs of improvement. Does PAN Parks influence stakeholder Respondents were not happy overall, with beliefs about participation and the institutional aspects of sustainability. communication in the tourism planning This was also supported by findings from process? A Mann Whitney U test was the semi-structured interviews. conducted to see if those people familiar Participation in tourism planning with PAN Parks were different than those For research question 6, several questions people not familiar on the question explored stakeholder knowledge about concerning ability to participate in decision tourism planning, their wish to become making and access to communication involved in decision making and complaints processes with the park; there were no to authorities. As depicted in Table 4, 53% differences. From the qualitative interviews, (n=19) know of opportunities for park staff felt that BNP is very open in participation in tourism planning while 58% communication and provides a lot of public would like to become involved. Thirty-six outreach. On a personal level, percent have complained about tourism communication with the park is good development to local authorities while 25% among staff and with the public, but on the would like to. Table4Participationintourismplanning

Knowledgeofopportunitiestoparticipatein TP planning n % No 19 53 Yes 17 47 Wishtobecomeinvolvedin TP Planning No 4 11 Perhaps/maybe 11 31 Yes 21 58 Knowledgeofwheretocomplain No 11 31 Yes 25 69 Evercomplainedabouttourismtoauthorities No,notatall 14 39 No,butIwouldliketo 9 25 Yes 13 36

66 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 official level it is not where it should be From the qualitative interviews, when the according to a few respondents. They are question was asked “Do you think that concerned that PAN Parks is only a tourism development in your area is certification and that the ideals behind it are developed according to sustainable ideals?” not supported by park administration. opinions ranged from “not at all Nature conservation is the park's core sustainable” to 'yes it was' on a limited business. The park maintains strict policy basis. Examples such as the Cisna and locals understand these policies; there Community ski lift and the former lake is general approval among stakeholders in project with its associated support those communities that have free access to demonstrate, according to some the park. Attitudes among communities in respondents, that sustainable tourism the buffer zone that do not have free access development (STD) is a long way from are less positive, especially among state being good. Local authority attitudes about forest personnel. Tour guides from Lesko tourism development need to change felt that communication with the park was according to those interviewees located not good. furthest from BNP. Meanwhile, there seems “There is no good communication; actually to be good progress in the last few years in it is really bad…For example there is a lack stakeholder development and the STDS of of education and information: there is a the PAN Park concept seems to have lack of a guide training program and that is started or at least stimulated this process. the responsibility of BNP. There are so Discussion and conclusions many guides and it would be easy for BNP Results of both qualitative and quantitative to organize such a training program.” methods were compiled to assess the A few interviewees felt that STDS has benefits of PAN Parks. For the qualitative enhanced communication among tourism method, a partnership for sustainable stakeholders because of PAN Parks. Yet, it development among stakeholders was is just the beginning, and many evident supporting an overall vision of interviewees feel that communication will sustainable tourism development. PAN continue to improve. Park's primary benefit tends to be Overall Satisfaction with Tourism environmental sustainability, yet there is Development evidence that it contributes to aspects of For research question 7 concerning PAN socio-cultural sustainability as well. Park status and stakeholder satisfaction with Institutional benefits regard the tourism development, respondents were development of a sustainable tourism asked “how would you rate the quality of network via linking park policy and tourism development in the BNP region?” activities to that of local businesses and The average response on a 10-point scale communities. Stakeholders value the PAN was 5.92; scores ranged from a low of 2 to Park concept and this may improve and 9 high on a 10-point scale; 50% were not spread to other stakeholders in the future. satisfied with scores of 5 or less. PAN Park certification contributed most to Approximately 31% were slightly satisfied environmental protection and an improved with scores between 6 and 7. Only 19% community attitude about nature were satisfied with their scores ranging conservation. Socio-cultural aspects for the between 8 and 9. To determine the link community were noted as public outreach, between knowledge about PAN Parks and environmental education, promotion of the opinions about the quality of tourism arts, and sustainable development of the development, those few people who did not region. Open communication between the know about the PAN Parks concept had park and local communities received mixed low opinions about tourism development. reports indicating a need for further

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 67 awareness building among local residents. the value of nature conservation due to It appears that stakeholders are taking the international recognition (Mateev, 2007; initiative for tourism development with van Hal, 2007). BNP can be seen as more relation to the park with a lack of support than simply a national park, rather as supra- from the park authorities. regional (in terms of unifying all regions From the quantitative survey, stakeholders including park area or adjacent to it) familiar with PAN Parks gave higher institution with more power and resources, satisfaction scores for the cultural, a body that not only manages the protected economic and environmental aspects of area, but is responsible for and co-ordinates sustainability than those who did not know environmental protection, tourism about it. Respondents overall were not very development and cultural and social aspects happy with the quality of tourism in the whole region of the national park, not development in the region with more than just inside it. Such a concept alludes to the 50% not satisfied. need to adjust the legal system for protected Does PAN Parks benefit local communities areas and co-management (van Hal, 2007); in PAN Park locations? PAN Parks with its a concept worthy of further research. sustainable tourism development strategy Recommendations for practice and process is viewed as a driving force for further research sustainable development combining local As it pertains to BNP, study results show a concern for environmental protection in need to focus on the institutional aspects of protected areas with active involvement of sustainable tourism development such as local tourism businesses on behalf of PAN enhanced communication processes in the Parks. Although cause effect (PAN Park BNP region, further PAN Park feasibility concept) cannot be claimed, perhaps those efforts beyond printed propaganda, and stakeholders familiar with the ideals training programs for guides and park supported by PAN Parks have a better employees. Training for park ranger visitor understanding of what sustainable tourism assistance is necessary to improve visitor involves; consequently they tend to value contact. Suggestions were to reinstate the the importance of the various aspects of PAN Park postcards as receipts for entrance sustainability more than those people not fees to use as souvenirs and recollection of informed about PAN Parks, a concept visitor experiences at the park. supported in the Bulgarian PAN Park study Considerations should be given to locating (Mateev, 2007). The tourism stakeholder one central visitor center in Ustrzyki Gorne process in the region is strong and greatly community inside the park region to improved as compared to results of the improve visitor communication, enhance 2003 study (Berg et al., 2004) among a visitor management, and improve BNP similar stakeholder group as an indicator of visibility. The community visitor center and the benefit of PAN Park's status. Lutowiska visitor center located within 2 The PAN Parks Foundation continues to kilometers of each other are redundant examine the benefits of PAN Park facilities and a cost sharing of one center is certification with studies at park locations recommended. BNP's environmental in Bulgaria (Mateev, 2007) and Romania in conservation efforts are highly valued and 2006 (van Hal, 2007) and Finland in 2007. this should be continued. Similar results were found at Central As it pertains to other PAN Park locations, Bulkan National Park in Bulgaria and further baseline studies are necessary. A Retezat National Park in Romania implying mixed methodology is proposed for each that PAN Park status enhances resident site, yet with a much more robust sample to involvement in tourism development, include a broader range of stakeholders improved park management and belief in directly and indirectly involved in tourism

68 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 both familiar and not familiar with the PAN understanding phenomenon in the social Park's concept. In addition, a sample of sciences. Mixed methods applied in local residents not involved in tourism yet combination with the prism of sustainability represent potential park visitors is (Valentin & Spangenberg, 2000) as a recommended. The economic benefits of framework to examine the economic, socio- PAN Park status should be assessed which cultural, environmental and institutional was not done in this study. Similarly, a benefits of PAN Parks provides much visitor survey involving similar questions greater understanding of what those benefits would provide some evidence over time entail (Berg et al., 2004; Cottrell & about PAN Park's contribution to the Cutumisu, 2006). Implications for further quality of the visitor experience. research imply the need for mixed methods This study contributes to tourism research in tourism research under the guidance of a via mixed methods not commonly found in holistic framework to obtain some degree the tourism literature. Creswell and Plano of sustainable tourism development (Choi Clark (2007) imply that mixed methods & Sirakaya, 2005; Cottrell & Vaske, 2006; provide a more comprehensive approach to Waldon & Williams, 2002).

References sustainable tourism. Electronic Review of Berg, C. van den, Bree, F. van, & Cottrell, Tourism Research, 4 (4), 74-84. S.P. (June 2004). PAN Parks principles: Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design, 2nd cross-cultural comparison: Edition. Sage Publications, London. Poland/Slovakia. In: Sievänen et al. Creswell, J.W. & Plano Clark, V.L. (2007). (eds.). Proceedings of International Designing and conducting mixed Conference on Monitoring and methods research. Sage Publications, Management of Visitor Flows, p 227234, London. June 1620, 2004, Rovaniemi, Finland. DG Environment. (2001). Sustainable Choi, H. S. & Sirakaya, E. (2005). Measuring Tourism and Natura 2000: Guidelines, residents' attitude toward sustainable initiatives and good practices in Europe. tourism: Development of sustainable European Commission document tourism attitude scale. Journal of Travel resulting from Lisbon Conference 1999. Research, 43, 380-394. Luxembourg: Office of Official Cottrell, S.P., Vaske, J.J., Shen, F. & Ritter, Publications for the European P. (2007). Resident Perceptions of Communities. Sustainable Tourism in Chongdugou, Eden, M., Falkheden, L. & Malbert, B. China, Society & Natural Resources, 20 (2000). Interface. The Built Environment (6), 511 525. and Sustainable Development: Research Cottrell, S.P. & Cutumisu, N. (2006). Meets Practice in a Scandinavian Sustainable tourism development strategy Context. Planning Theory & Practice, 1 in WWF Pan Parks: Comparison between (2), 259-284. a Swedish and Romanian National Park. Faulkner, B. & Tidswell, C. (1997). A Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality & framework for monitoring community Tourism, 6 (2), 150-167. impacts of tourism. Journal of Cottrell, S.P., V/d Duim, Ankersmid, P. & Sustainable Tourism, 5, 3-28. Kelder, L. (2004). Measuring the Font, X., & Brasser, A. (2002). PAN Parks: sustainability of tourism in Manuel WWF's sustainable tourism certification Antonio and Texel: a tourist perspective. programme in Europe's national parks. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12 (5), In: Harris et al. (eds.), Sustainable 409-431. Tourism: A global perspective. Cottrell, S.P., & Vaske, J. J. (2006). A Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. framework for monitoring and modeling Fluker, M.R. & Turner, L.W. (2000). Needs,

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 69 motivations, and expectations of a Spangenberg, J.H. & Valentin, A. (1999). commercial whitewater rafting Indicators for Sustainable Communities. experience. Journal of Travel Research Wuppertal Institute for Climate, 38 (4), 380-389. Environment and Energy. The Prism of Gunn, C. A. & Var, T. (2002). Tourism sustainability. Retrieved April 4, 2003, planning: Basics, concepts and cases, 4th from:http://www.foeeurope.org/sustainabi Edition. Routledge, London. lity/sustain/t-content-prism.htm Mateev, P. (2007). Analysis of the Benefits of Spangenberg, J. H., Pfahl, S., & Deller, K. PAN Parks: Central Balkan National (2002). Towards indicators for Park, Bulgaria. Unpublished Master's institutional sustainability: Lessons from Thesis. Wageningen University, The an analysis of Agenda 21. Ecological Netherlands. Indicators, 42, 1-17. Meisel, C. & Cottrell, S.P. (2008). Speck, E. (2002). The Fairmont Chateau Understanding Motivations and Whistler Resort: Moving towards Expectations of Scuba Divers, Tourism in sustainability. In: Harris et al. (eds.), Marine Environments, 5(1), 1-14. Sustainable Tourism: A global Mitchell, R.E. & Reid, D.G. (2001). perspective. Butterworth-Heinemann, Community integration: Island tourism in Oxford. Peru. Annals of Tourism Research, 28 Swarbrooke, J. (1999). Sustainable tourism (1), 113-139. management. CAB International, Mowforth, M. & Munt, I. (2003). Tourism Wallingford. and sustainability: Development and new Valentin, A., & Spangenberg, J. H. (2000). A tourism in the Third World, 2nd Edition. guide to community sustainability Routledge, London. indicators. Environmental Impact PAN Parks (2007). Retrieved June 15, 2007, Assessment Review, 20, 381-392. from http://www.panparks.org. Van Hal, M. (2007). Evaluation of Co- Roberts, L. (2002). Farm tourism its Management in National Parks: The case contribution to the economic of Retezat National Park, Romania. sustainability of Europe's countryside. In: Unpublished Master's Thesis. Harris et al. (eds.), Sustainable Tourism: Wageningen University, The A global perspective. Butterworth- Netherlands. Heinemann, Oxford. Van Hal, M. (2007). Report 3 of Socio- Shen, F. (2004). Agritourism Sustainability Economic analysis of PAN Parks: in mountain rural areas in China: Retezat National Park, Romania. Report Chongdugou Happy-In-Farmhouse Case submitted to PAN Parks Foundation. Study. Unpublished Master's Thesis. Waldon, D. & Williams, P.W. (2002). Steps Department of Socio-spatial Analysis. towards sustainability monitoring: The Wageningen University, The case of the Resort Municipality of Netherlands. Whistler. In: Harris et al. (eds.), Sirakaya, E., Jamal, T.B., & Choi, H. S. Sustainable Tourism: A global (2001). Developing Indicators for perspective. Butterworth-Heinemann, Destination Sustainability. In: Weaver, D. Oxford. (ed.), The encyclopedia of ecotourism. CAB International, Oxford.

70 JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 About the authors Jana Raadik Cottrell is a faculty of the University Honors Program at Colorado State University (CSU) and a senior lecturer of the Maritime Academy of Tallinn University of Technology in Estonia. Jana is a nature-based tourism specialist with an expertise on island community development via sustainable tourism with an MA in Art Education from Estonia, MS in Leisure and Tourism from the Netherlands and a PhD in Human Dimensions of Natural Resources at CSU. Her research is focused on tourism development, sense of place, perceptions of natural resource issues and sustainable tourism development. [email protected]

Stuart Cottrell is a professor in the Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources at Colorado State University. His research focus includes sustainable tourism development - linking tourism, nature conservation and protected areas; collaborative conservation and protected area management; and perceptions of landscape disturbance - implications for human dimensions of natural resources, recreation and tourism. He has conducted collaborative research projects in Argentina, Colorado, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, Panama, Poland, Romania, Sweden, and Uruguay. These interdisciplinary efforts contribute broadly to the fields of tourism development in natural resources and natural resource management. [email protected]

JournalofTourism,VolXX-2;2019 71 JOURNAL OF TOURISM AnInternationalResearchJournalin Traveland Tourism SUBSCRIPTIONORDERFORM

Institution Individual

NameandDesignation

Organization

Postal Address

MobileNo.

E-mail

EnclosedaCashiersCheque/DDnumber date forRs./US$ drawnon

TowardssubscriptionfortheJournalof Tourismforoneyear.

SignatureandSeal:

Name

Date Email: inquiries with regard to hard copy subscriptions may be made to [email protected]