Title of Research Project

“Tourism Development and Economic

Research Project Proposal

Submitted To

Institute of Hotel Management, Hajipur

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD

Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.)

By
Kishu Kumar
NC Roll No.-2041111086

Institute of Hotel Management, Hajipur (Vaishali)

Tourism development results in both positive as well as negative impacts in the host region
involving economic, social, cultural and environmental ones. Tourism literature is replete
with numerous studies concerning the economic, social, cultural and environmental impact
of tourism in the host environment concomitant with the host populations’ attitude towards
tourism development in the host region. Host populations are likely to support tourism
development as long as the perceived benefits of tourism exceed the perceived costs of the
same (Ap, 1990, 1992; Dyer et al., 2007; Gursoy et al., 2002; Gursoy and Rutherford, 2004;
Jurowski et al., 1997; Lindberg and Johnson, 1997; Perdue et al., 1990; Yoon et al., 2001). The
support of the local residents for tourism development is based on social exchange theory
(Turner, 1986), which proclaims that the residents are likely to participate in an exchange
with tourists if they feel that they are likely to gain benefits without incurring unacceptable
costs. However, if they perceive that tourism development would have more costs than
benefits, they are likely to oppose tourism development. Without the support and
knowledge of local residents, the success of any tourism development project is threatened.
Therefore, it is of utmost importance to know the impact of tourism development in a region
and consequently the perception of the host community towards tourism impacts before
undertaking any tourism development project.

Studies have revealed that tourism creates new employment opportunities (Belisle and Hoy,
1980; Davis et al., 1988; Gursoy et al., 2002; Gursoy and Rutherford, 2004; Nyaupane et al.,
2006; Ritchie, 1988; Pagdin, 1995; Yoon et al., 2001), generates revenues and increased
economic activities and benefits to the local people (Davis et al., 1988; Jurowski et al., 1997;
Nyaupane et al., 2006; Yoon et al., 2001), attracts investment in tourism-related business (Lee
et al., 2003; Yoon et al., 2001), etc. However, certain costs of tourism are borne by the host
community while tourism development or touristic activity takes place in the host region
(Jurowski et al., 1997; Ritchie, 1988; Sheldon and Var, 1984).

Findings of different researchers present mixed and contradictory results regarding the
economic, social, cultural and environmental impacts of tourism. Some researchers have
shown that residents tend to perceive the economic impacts of tourism positively and the
social, cultural and environmental impacts negatively (Jurowski et al., 1997; Perdue et al.,
1987; Prentice, 1993). On the contrary, some other researchers have demonstrated that the
host community views tourism as providing various social, cultural and environmental
benefits to them (McCool and Martin, 1994; Mathieson and Wall, 1982).
Literature Review
Allen, L.R., Long, P.T., Perdue, R.R. and Kieselbach, S. (1988)
Researchers have taken into consideration a large number of factors, for example, state of tourism
development in the destination, economic reliance on tourism industry, community satisfaction with
tourism, residents with distinct opinion groups, socio-cultural impacts, environmental impacts,
distance from the tourist zone, etc. to explain the attitude of the host community towards tourism.
Most of the studies indicate that the researchers have concentrated on more than one factor to
explain the residents’ perception. The main factors considered in the literature are described below
in brief.

Allen, L.R., Hafer, H.R., Long, P.T. and Perdue, R.R. (1993)
Many researchers (Allen et al., 1988, 1993; Belisle and Hoy, 1980; Gursoy et al., 2002; Gursoy and
Rutherford, 2004; Perdue et al., 1990; Smith and Krannich, 1998) have evaluated the relationship
between the level of tourism development and residents’ attitude towards it. Results indicate that
the residents prefer lower to moderate level of tourism development in the host region as higher
level of development is associated with lower level of general community satisfaction. However, the
research findings of Andriotis (2002, 2004) with reference to Crete reveal that although Crete is a
mature tourist destination, its residents are not averse to higher level of tourism development.
Rather, they are satisfied with the benefits accruing from tourism and hold positive views towards
the same.

Andriotis, K. (2004)
Some researchers (Andriotis, 2005; Andriotis and Vaughan, 2003; Perez and Nadal, 2005; Williams
and Lawson, 2001) have mentioned that the host community is not homogeneous in their
perception of tourism development. Rather, they hold divergent views on tourism, which is clearly
evident from the formation of distinct opinion groups among themselves. Andriotis and Vaughan
(2003) have shown three distinct groups of residents in Crete namely Advocates, Socially and
Environmentally Concerned (SEC) and Economic sceptics. The advocates are highly supportive of
economic impacts of tourism, SECs are characterized by the most negative views of social and
environmental impacts of tourism while the Economic skeptics are likely to be negative about the
economic impacts. Andriotis (2005) further made a comparative study among the three Cretan
community groups: tourism business people, residents reliant on tourism and non-reliant residents
with regard to their preferences for tourism development. Perez and Nadal (2005) have analysed the
perception of the residents towards tourism by segmenting them into five different opinion groups.
At one end of the continuum lies one group known as ‘Development Supporters’, which perceives
tourism to have generated economic opportunities while at the other end lies another group known
as ‘Protectionists’, which perceives tourism to have destroyed natural environment.
Research Problem Statement
Tourism development is associated with both positive and negative impacts as revealed in numerous
studies including the present one. This study demonstrates how far tourism development has given
rise to positive impacts in the destination in conformity with the expectation of the host community.
It also reveals how the host community perceives tourism to have generated significant negative
impacts on the host region. The implications of unfulfilled positive impacts and significant negative
impacts have been thoroughly discussed, which demand serious attention on the part of tourism
planners and developers. The study has also identified four most important tourism impacts that
would shape the future scenario of tourism at Varanasi. These valuable inputs help tourism planners
and developers in allocating scarce resources to the touristic activities. This also helps in maximizing
the positive impacts and minimizing the negative ones and ultimately creates the possibility of
making the future tourism scenario in the host region bright.

Objectives of Research

The present study has certain research objectives. They are as follows:
 To identify the major pilgrimage spots of Varanasi which have enough potentiality for
development.
 To identify the factors which create hindrance in the sustainable development of
tourism in the study area.

 To suggest recommendations which develop the tourism in Varanasi in a more

Scope and Research Significance

Every attempt was made to secure responses from all 120 people through personal interview along
with the questionnaire. Eighty-four (84) of them responded, out of which 4 were found to be
incomplete. Thus, the total number of valid response came out to be 80. The highest number of
responses was received from the souvenir shop-owners followed by travel agent and tour operators
and the least number was received from the culturally skilled professionals. The demographic
information of the responding host community (the above 80 people) with regard to their gender,
age, qualification and occupation was sought through personal interview and questionnaire and
presented.

Proposed Research Methodology

 Study Area:
This study has been carried out in Varanasi, a tourist destination situated in Uttar Pradesh
(UP), India. Varanasi, often referred to as one of the oldest surviving cities in the globe
 (Information Bulletin, Varanasi, U.P. Tourism, 2002; Varanasi city guide, Times group
publications, 2004), embodies the essence of Indian spiritualism and mysticism. Also known
as the city of lights.
 Sampling Design:
The state of tourism development at Varanasi suggests that it is neither at nascent stage,
nor has it reached the threshold limit. It has immense scope for further investment in
touristic activities.

 Sample Size:
100

 Questionnaire:
This will be framed by literature review.

 Data Collection Methods:

 Research Tool:
Collected data has been edited, classified, tabulated, and finally analyzed by using graphs and pi-
chart and trend analysis has been done.

Limitations of Research

For the sustainable development of the tourism in the study region, local government and/or other
concern authorities maintain the records of the tourists visited to that place, it is beneficial for the
planning and policy formulation as well as emphasis should be given on the research and different
projects related to sustainable development of tourism.

Proposed Chapter
Chapter 1 : Introduction
Chapter 2 : Objective
Chapter 3 : Review of Literature
Chapter 4 : Research Methodology
Chapter 5 : Data Analysis and Interpretation
Chapter 6 : Conclusion and Recommendation
Reference
Allen, L.R., Long, P.T., Perdue, R.R. and Kieselbach, S. (1988) ‘Impact of tourism development on
residents’ perceptions of community life’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp.16–21.

Allen, L.R., Hafer, H.R., Long, P.T. and Perdue, R.R. (1993) ‘Rural residents’ attitudes towards
recreation and tourism development’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp.27–33.

Andriotis, K. (2004) ‘The perceived impact of tourism development by the Cretan residents’, Tourism
and Hospitality Planning and Development, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.123–44.

Andriotis, K. and Vaughan, R.D. (2003) ‘Urban residents’ attitudes toward tourism development: the
case of Crete’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 42, pp.172–185.

Andriotis, K. (2005) ‘Community groups’ perceptions and preferences to tourism development.

Andriotis, K. (2002) ‘Residents’ satisfaction or dissatisfaction with public sector governance. The
Cretan case’, Tourism and Hospitality Research: The Surrey Quarterly Review, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.53–
68.

Ap, J. (1990) ‘‘Residents’ perceptions research on the social impacts of tourism’, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp.610–616.

Ap, J. (1992) ‘‘Residents’ perceptions on tourism impacts’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 19, No.
4, pp.665–690. Baum, T. (1999) ‘Seasonality in tourism: understanding the challenges’, Tourism
Economics, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.5–8.