Extent, Incidence and Nature of Domestic Tourism in India

 

Ms. Ravneet Chauhan¹, Dr. Sumit Kumar²

¹Research Scholar, Department of Economics, Sri Guru Granth Sahib World University,

Fathehgarh Sahib, India.

²Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Sri Guru Granth Sahib World University,

Fathehgarh Sahib, India

 

ABSTRACT:

Tourism is crucial for a diverse country like India as it can generate revenues and can also give hands-on experience to travellers and can also trigger new ideas and solutions. Nevertheless, extent, incidence, and nature of domestic trips has received little attention in empirical literature related to India. The present study utilises NSSO’s 72^nd round’s data on domestic tourism. Overnight trips in the last 365 days for the leading purpose of holidaying, leisure and recreation, health and medical, and shopping are analysed. It is observed that only nineteen percent of the households performed overnight trips in the last 365 days. Later on, these nineteen percent trips were further analysed and it was observed thattravel frequency is also low among the households as only 2 to 3 percent of the households performed two or more than two trips in the 365 days. Among the states and zones, where extent of tourism is higher the travel frequency is also little higher as compared to other states and zones. There are wide inter-state and inter-zone variations in extent and incidence of domestic tourism. Among the large households, socially and economically well-off households the proportion of travellers is more as compared to others. Among the self-employed and regular wage earners the proportion of households performing overnight trips is also higher than others. The domestic tourism in India cannot be improved by only adopting the different marketing strategies. By enhancing the income capacity and capability of the people and improving the infrastructure especially in north-eastern states domestic tourism can be strengthened. With rising tourism, the income generation capacity can also be strengthened as tourism and economic activity have bi-directional relationship.

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

Tourism is one of the fastest growing industries and one of the most influential in the service sector. It is one of the key driving forces of growth and development coming from the service sector. According to (World Tourism Organization, 2016), international tourist arrivals have increased from 25 million in 1950, to 278 million in 1980, 527 million in 1995 and to 1133 million in 2014.

 

International tourism receipts from worldwide destinations have increased from 2 billion US dollars in 1950, to 104 US dollars in 1980, to 415 billion in 1995 and 1245 billion US dollars in 2014.

 

Tourism can be of various kinds-adventure tourism, pilgrimage tourism, wellness tourism, medical/health tourism, wildlife tourism, eco-tourism, and culture tourism (World Tourism Organization, 2016). Therefore, tourism not only has economic advantages but also social advantages like cultural exchange, recreation, health and wellness, etc. Tourism can be domestic or international. Whereas domestic tourism contributes only to the GDP of the country, international tourism contributes to the BOP of the country of origin as well as the country of destination.

Tourism contributes to the economic development of a country in a number of ways. Firstly, it contributes to the GDP. Secondly, tourism earns foreign exchange earnings since tourism services are classified as exports. Thirdly, tourism generates employment not only in the tourism industry, but also in other allied industries through forward and backward linkages. Fourthly, investment in tourism can lead to a multiplier effect in the economy as well (World Tourism Organization, 2018). The importance of tourism withstanding, tourism as an interest of research is fairly recent. It is only after 1980’s that tourism found its place as a focus of economic development. Most of empirical literature stresses that economic development and tourism have bidirectional relationship. The various areas of research in tourism include analysis on tourist experience, tourist satisfaction, nature of the tourist, training and education needs, social, environment and economic impact of tourism, demand and supply of tourism etc. However, to increase tourism and to design appropriate tourism policies, it is imperative to study the extent, incidence, and nature of tourism from time-to-time. The present paper is an attempt in this direction.

 

DATA AND METHODOLOGY:

Although the aspects of tourism are vast and yet to be exploredespecially in Indian context. But the present study largely focuses on domestic tourism and is based on household level information collected by the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) during its 72th round of NSSO on domestic tourism from July 2014 to June 2015. During the survey, a detailed information on the choice of tourist destinations, mode of travel, expenditure on travelling and other relates aspects, frequency of travel and duration of stay etc. was collected from all over India by using multi-stage random sampling. Besides this, information on various household characteristics like occupation, caste, religion, size etc. was also collected by NSSO. Information was collected for overnight trips in the last 365 days from the date of survey, overnight trips in the last 30 days from the date of survey, and same day trips in the last 30 days from the date of survey. For the present analysis, the overnight trips in the last 365 days from the date of survey are analyzed. The leading purpose of these overnight trips was a) holidaying, leisure and recreation, b) health and medical, c) and shopping. As per information collected by the NSSO, among the 139688 households, the members performed 71899 overnight trips in the last 365 days from the date of survey. In the beginning, the extent of overnight trips is analysed among the zones andstates of India. For the analysis at zone level, India has been divided into six geographical zones namely Eastern, North-Central, North-Eastern, Northern, Southern, and Western zone. Eastern zone consists of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha, Sikkim, West Bengal, and Union territory Andaman and Nicobar island. North-Central zone comprises Bihar, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand. North-Eastern zone consists of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura states of India. Northern zone comprises of Chandigarh, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, and Rajasthan, while Southern zone comprises of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Lakshadweep, Puducherry, Tamil Nadu, and Telangana states. Western zone consists of union territory Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Goa, Gujarat, and Maharashtra states. Apart from the extent of domestic tourism, the incidence of tourism by analysing the multiple trips performed by the members of households are analysed at zone and states of India. Apart from geographical areas, the socio-economic characteristics of the households can also impact the travel decisions (Brida and Scuderi, 2013; Eugenio-Martin, 2003; Mathew and Kuriakose, 2018; Mishra and Jha, 2013; Wanga and Davidsonb, 2010). To examine the socio-economic characteristics impacting the travel decision a comparison of the households performing the overnight trips and households not performing any overnight trip in last 365 days is carried out by utilizing z-test/t-test. Z-test is performed when the variable is nominal and t-test is performed for continuous variable.

 

RESULT AND DISCUSSION:

Extent of Domestic tourism in India:

The proportion of households with at-least one trip in India is presented in the Table 1. The overnight trips are conducted by around one-fifth of the households only. A large proportion of households (around 81.4 percent) did not perform any overnight trips in 365 days for health and medical, holidaying, leisure and recreation; and for shopping purposes. In a heterogenous society like India and with rapidly developing economy, it seems that households lay less stress on holidaying, leisure and recreation; and for shopping purposes. The same is true for rural and urban households. The table also shows that there are minor variations in extent of domestic tourism amongst the rural and urban households in India.

 

Table 1: Proportion of households with at-least one trip across zones of India: An inter-zone comparison

Zone	Overnight Trips in last 365 days
	Rural	Urban	Overall
Eastern	19.1	23.1	20.2
North-Central	16.1	17.7	16.4
North-Eastern	12.7	18.5	13.7
Northern	21.0	20.1	20.7
Southern	19.9	16.4	18.4
Western	23.2	19.0	21.2
India	18.7	18.5	18.6

Source: Unit level data (National Sample Survey Organisation, 2016)

 

The overall contribution shows that 21.2 per cent of the total households from the western zone travelled within 365 days, followed by northern zone, and eastern zone. From the southern zone only 18.44 per cent of the households had an overnight trip within 365 days. However, from north-central and north-eastern zone the proportion of households with a traveler is less as compared to national proportion. Noticeably most of the travel contribution comes from the western zone, which consists of Goa, Gujarat, Maharashtra, and the UTs of Dadar and Nagar Haveli, and Daman and Diu. The least travel contribution comes from north-eastern zone, which consists of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, and Tripura. Western zone and northern zone consists of states which are relatively economically well-off and have better infrastructure as compared to north-eastern zone states, probably due to these reasons the extent of tourism is high in these zones. The contribution of rural and urban households from various zones is further explored. Interestingly, in the eastern, north-central, and north-eastern zones, more households travelled from the urban sector as compared to the rural sector. In the remaining zones, this trend reversed in the northern, southern, and western zones as rural households travelled more as compared to the urban households. This depicts that apart from variations across the zones, there are variations within the zones themselves. The state wise variation in the travel pattern is further explored in the Table 2 and proportion of households with a traveler of each state is further explored for rural and urban households.

 

 

 

Table 2: Proportion of households reporting at-least one trip across states of India: An inter-state comparison

State	Overnight Trips in last 365 days			Ranking of States
	Rural	Urban	Overall	Rural	Urban	Overall
Andhra Pradesh	16.6	9.2	14.2	24	35	32
Arunachal Pradesh	38.9	40.5	39.2	3	2	3
Assam	9.2	15.1	10.0	35	30	36
Bihar	15.8	15.8	15.8	29	28	30
Chhattisgarh	10.6	14.7	11.5	34	31	35
Delhi	7.2	21.4	21.0	36	12	15
Goa	16.1	17.1	16.7	27	21	25
Gujarat	17.9	17.6	17.7	22	19	22
Haryana	18.6	20.7	19.4	21	14	18
Himachal Pradesh	21.9	16.6	21.2	12	22	13
Jammu and Kashmir	27.6	24.4	26.8	6	7	5
Jharkhand	15.5	24.7	17.7	30	6	23
Karnataka	19.5	15.9	17.9	18	27	21
Kerala	32.4	30.9	31.7	4	4	4
Madhya Pradesh	16.5	18.2	16.9	25	16	24
Maharashtra	26.0	19.7	23.1	8	15	8
Manipur	22.5	23.9	23.0	10	8	9
Meghalaya	17.3	21.1	18.1	23	13	20
Mizoram	26.5	17.4	22.5	7	20	10
Nagaland	14.5	14.3	14.5	31	32	31
Odisha	23.7	27.1	24.3	9	5	6
Punjab	20.0	22.9	21.2	17	10	14
Rajasthan	20.9	17.6	20.1	13	18	16
Sikkim	18.9	8.0	16.1	20	36	28
Tamil Nadu	20.4	16.6	18.5	15	23	19
Telangana	14.3	9.5	12.3	32	34	34
Tripura	22.3	22.7	22.4	11	11	11
Uttar Pradesh	15.9	16.3	16.0	28	26	29
Uttarakhand	20.7	17.8	19.9	14	17	17
West Bengal	20.3	23.3	21.3	16	9	12
Union Territory
Andaman and Nicobar Islands	28.0	16.4	23.3	5	24	7
Chandigarh	12.2	13.1	13.1	33	33	33
Dadarand Nagar Haveli	16.4	16.3	16.3	26	25	26
Daman and Diu	19.3	15.6	16.2	19	29	27
Lakshadweep	53.7	73.1	69.7	1	1	1
Puducherry	46.1	38.7	41.2	2	3	2
India	18.7	18.5	18.6

Source: Unit level data (National Sample Survey Organisation, 2016)

 

 

Furthermore, the behavior of rural and urban households is also examined. It is noteworthy that the states where greater proportion of households are travelling, the same trend continues in rural and urban households with minor variations. In the rural and urban rankings, the states like Lakshadweep, Puducherry, Arunachal Pradesh, Kerala, Jammu and Kashmir, and Odisha perform better than other states. However, there are stark difference in the behavior of rural and urban households in many of the Indian states and union territories. In states and union territories like Andamanand Nicobar Islands, Sikkim, Mizoram, Andhra Pradesh, Puducherry, Maharashtra, Himachal Pradesh, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, and Daman and Diu greater proportion of the rural households are performing overnight trips than their urban counterparts. In states like Lakshadweep, Delhi, Jharkhand, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Meghalaya, Odisha, West Bengal, Punjab, and Haryana greater proportion of urban households perform overnight trips than their rural counterparts. It may be happening due to the fact that apart from geographical location of the households, there may be another socio-economic factor impacting the decision of the households to travel or not.

 

Incidence of Domestic tourism in India:

The incidence of domestic tourism examines the intensity of the overnight trips. The proportion of households that took one trip, two trips and more than two trips in the 365 days is explored in the Table 3.

 

Table 3: Proportion of households with at-least single or multiple trips in India: Seventy-two round of NSSO from July 2014 to June, 2015

Location	Travelled in last 365 days
	One trip	Two trips	More than two trips
Rural	16.07	2.04	0.58
Urban	15.67	2.07	0.76
India	15.94	2.05	0.64

Source: Unit level data (National Sample Survey Organisation, 2016)

 

Out of the 18.6 percent households which performed the overnight trips, only 2.05 percent performed the two overnight trips and a meager 0.64 percent of the households performed more than two trips. Apart from other factors impacting the tourism; it is usually believed that economies/households with better or more resources perform more trips and frequency of trips also increases. In a country like India, with low per capita income and high inequalities, it is not that startling that very few households are performing multiple trips and travel frequency is not high. The pattern of low frequency is true for rural and urban household. Slightly higher proportion of households belonging to urban area performed more multiple trips than their rural counterparts. The behavior of households of various zones of India is further analyzed in the Table 4.

 

Table 4: Proportion of households with at-least single or multiple trips in India: An inter-zone comparison

Zone	Travelled in last 365 days
	One trip	Two trips	More than two trips
Eastern	16.77	2.54	0.84
North-Central	14.83	1.22	0.38
North-Eastern	12.49	0.91	0.30
Northern	17.73	2.11	0.86
Southern	15.40	2.36	0.66
Western	17.62	2.84	0.78
India	15.94	2.05	0.64

Source: Unit level data (National Sample Survey Organisation, 2016)

 

The same trend of low travel frequency is also observed across the zones also. The northern zone travelled maximum in case of one trip, with 17.73 per cent of households, but only 2.11 and 0.86 per cent northern households travelled in case of two trips and more than two trips respectively. Maximum two trips contribution came from the western zone, with 2.84 per cent households performing two trips. The one trip contribution of western zone was the second highest with 17.62 per cent after northern zone. A noteworthy phenomenon is that in the zones where extent of travel is higher like Western, Northern, and Eastern, the travel frequency is slightly higher whereas in the zones like North-Central, North-Eastern, where the extent of tourism is low, the travel frequency is also low.

 

An inter-state comparison is also done to study the travel frequency across the various states (Table 5). In case of one trip, the maximum contribution comes from the UT of Lakshadweep with 51.74 per cent. This meant around more than half of the households performed one trip throughout the year. This was followed by the state of Arunachal Pradesh with 35.04 per cent, after which came in the UT of Puducherry with 28.49 per cent. In case of two trips, maximum contribution came again from the UT of Lakshadweep with 15.19 per cent. After Lakshadweep, Puducherry came in second with 8.78 per cent, followed by Kerala with 5.75 per cent. Thus, south contributed the most in one trip and two trips within 365 days period. In case of more than two trips maximum contribution came from the UT of Puducherry with 3.92 per cent of households performing more than two trips. This was followed by Lakshadweep with 2.75 per cent. Thus, the UTs of Lakshadweep and Puducherry dominated in all the three types.

 

As observed earlier that in the zones where extent of tourism is higher than travel frequency is also high. The same trend continues for states also. The states like Lakshadweep, Puducherry, Arunachal Pradesh, Kerala, Jammu and Kashmir, and Odisha also dominated in the travel frequency. Where as in states like Assam, Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Chandigarh, Andhra Pradesh, Nagaland, Bihar, and Uttar Pradesh where extent of households performing overnight trips is low, the travel frequency is also on the lower side.

Table 5: Proportion of households with at-least single or multiple trips in India: An inter-state comparison

State	Travelled in last 365 days
	One trip	Two trips	More than two trips
Andhra Pradesh	11.74	2.09	0.4
Arunachal Pradesh	35.04	3.31	0.87
Assam	9.72	0.21	0.02
Bihar	14.71	0.69	0.36
Chhattisgarh	10.74	0.71	0.06
Delhi	19.09	1.84	0.08
Goa	15.04	1.59	0.09
Gujarat	15.88	1.63	0.22
Haryana	16.89	2.03	0.51
Himachal Pradesh	18.13	2.52	0.52
Jammu and Kashmir	22.7	3.37	0.72
Jharkhand	13.97	2.12	1.57
Karnataka	16.19	1.35	0.4
Kerala	23.94	5.75	2.05
Madhya Pradesh	14.61	1.87	0.46
Maharashtra	18.55	3.46	1.06
Manipur	21.65	1.27	0.03
Meghalaya	11.1	4.62	2.36
Mizoram	18.45	2.86	1.17
Nagaland	12.73	1.72	0.01
Odisha	18.6	4.49	1.2
Punjab	16.54	3.2	1.5
Rajasthan	17.88	1.4	0.78
Sikkim	13.99	1.99	0.09
Tamil Nadu	15.47	2.39	0.66
Telangana	11.18	1.02	0.07
Tripura	19.98	1.61	0.75
Uttar Pradesh	14.41	1.16	0.4
Uttarakhand	17.98	1.64	0.27
West Bengal	18.36	2.22	0.67
Union Territory
Andaman and Nicobar Islands	19.5	2.84	0.98
Chandigarh	11.78	1.3	0
Dadarand Nagar Haveli	13.86	1.91	0.55
Daman and Diu	13.16	2.95	0.09
Lakshadweep	51.74	15.19	2.75
Puducherry	28.49	8.78	3.92
India	15.94	2.05	0.64

Source: Unit level data (National Sample Survey Organisation, 2016)

 

Nature of domestic tourism in India:

The first part of the table 6 depicts the comparison of rural and urban sectors among the travellers and non-traveller households. In the rural sector, both non-traveller and traveller have the same average number of households. The distribution of non-travellers and travellers is not significantly different both in the rural and urban sector. Amongst the various religious groups, the proportion of traveller and non-traveller is same for Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and Buddhists. It is evident that in these religious group, the nature of travellers and non-travellers does not change much. However, for religious minorities like Sikh, Jain, and Zoroastrians, the proportion of households performing overnight trips is significantly higher. It is also generally believed that these religious minorities are little socially and economically well-off, probably due to these reasons these communities are performing overnight trips for health and medical, holidaying, leisure and recreation; and for shopping purposes.

 

It is also evident from the table that social groups influence the travel decisions. In the first group STs the difference is statistically significant since the p-value is less than 0.10. The same is true for SCs and BCs. Among non-travellers the proportion of these socially backward groups is high as compared to travellers.  For others this trend reverses as among the travellers the proportion of others group is on the higher side. It seems that social group bias continues in the domestic tourism also. These socially backward segment of society lags in performing overnight trips for health and medical, holidaying, leisure and recreation; and for shopping purposes. Furthermore, the non-travellers consumed rupees 8433.83 per month whereas the travellers consumed rupees 10147.03 per month. The difference is statistically significant. Therefore, it can be easily ascertained that economically better-off households travel more as compared to the others. The travellers also have larger household size as compared to the non-travellers. The travellers have a household size of 4.86 whereas the non-travellers have a household size of 4.33. This indicates that higher consumption and larger household size is indicative of travel tendency in the households.

 

Among the rural households, the proportion of households performing overnight trips is statistically higher among the self-employed households in agriculture and non-agriculture. The same is true for salaried earners or regular wage earner households. However, the households with causal labour in agriculture and non-agriculture this trend changes. The proportion of travellers is significantly low for these households. In urban households also, the proportion of households performing overnight trips is higher for self-employed and regular wage earners. The casual labour though had more proportion of non-travellers. It is obvious that economic of the household and regular source of income significantly impact the travel decisions.

 

Table 6: Socio-economic profile and households with at-least one overnight trip during last 365 days: Z-test/t-test

Household Characteristics		Non-Traveller: Household with no trips (mean/proportion)	Traveller: Household with at-least one trip (mean/proportion)	Z-test/t-test
Sector	Rural	0.57	0.57	-1.55(0.12)
	Urban	0.43	0.43	1.55(0.12)
Religion	Hinduism	0.76	0.76	1.47(0.14)
	Islam	0.13	0.12	1.22(0.22)
	Christianity	0.07	0.07	-1.60(0.11)
	Sikhism	0.02	0.02	-2.16(0.03)
	Jainism	0.002	0.004	-4.32(0.00)
	Buddhism	0.01	0.01	0.87(0.38)
	Zoroastrianism	0.002	0.002	1.83(0.07)
	Others	0.008	0.009	-2.11(0.03)
Social Group	Scheduled tribe(ST)	0.14	0.13	1.85(0.06)
	Scheduled caste(SC)	0.17	0.15	6.80(0.00)
	Other backward class(OBC)	0.39	0.38	5.87(0.00)
	Others	0.30	0.33	-12.93(0.00)
Monthly Consumption in Rupees		8433.83	10147.03	-46.51(0.00)
Household Size		4.33	4.86	-34.87(0.00)
Household Type(Rural)	Self-employed in agriculture	0.23	0.24	-3.01(0.00)
	Self-employed in non-agriculture	0.07	0.08	-5.64(0.00)
	Regular wage/salary earning	0.07	0.08	-5.79(0.00)
	Casual labour in agriculture	0.09	0.08	7.64(0.00)
	Casual labour in non-agriculture	0.07	0.07	2.84(0.00)
Household Type(urban)	Self-employed	0.15	0.16	-6.57(0.00)
	Regular wage/salary earning	0.18	0.18	1.07(0.29)
	Casual labour	0.06	0.05	10.58(0.00)

Note: Figure in Bold are continuous variable and t-test is conducted. For others z-test is done. Figures in parenthesis are p-values.

Source: Unit level data (National Sample Survey Organisation, 2016)

 

 

CONCLUSION:

The overnight trips are conducted by around one-fifth of the households only. A large proportion of households (around 81.4 percent) did not perform any overnight trips in 365 days for health and medical, holidaying, leisure and recreation; and for shopping purpose.Among the Western, Northern, and Eastern zone, the proportion of households performing overnight trips is higher. Moreover, in the northern, southern, and western zones; rural households travelled more as compared to the urban households.Among the states and union territories, in Lakshadweep, Arunachal Pradesh, Kerala, Jammu and Kashmir, Odisha, Manipur, and Mizoram the proportion of travelling households is higher than other states. In the rural and urban sectors, these states also perform better than other states on tourism front. There is stark difference in the behavior of rural and urban households in many of the Indian states and union territories. In states and union territories like Andamanand Nicobar Islands, Sikkim, Mizoram, Andhra Pradesh, Puducherry, Maharashtra, Himachal Pradesh, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, and Daman and Diu greater proportion of the rural households are performing overnight trips than their urban counterparts. In states like Lakshadweep, Delhi, Jharkhand, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Meghalaya, Odisha, West Bengal, Punjab, and Haryana greater proportion of urban households perform overnight trips than their rural counterparts. Travel frequency is low among the households as only 2 to 3 percent of the households performed two or more than two trips in the 365 days.Among the states and zones, where extent of tourism is higher the travel frequency is also little higher as compared to other states and zones. Religion, caste, consumption, household size, occupation type is significantly related with travel decisions of households. Among the large households, socially and economically well-off households the proportion of travelers is more as compared to others.Among the self-employed and regular wage earners the proportion of households performing overnight trips is higher than others.The state governments and various stakeholders related with tourism industry all over the India adopt different tourism marketing strategies (Dangi, 2017; Dangi and Kumar Singh, 2014; Dulababu, 2010; Rakesh, Nanda, VishakhaRaghav, and Mehendale, 2018; Shenga and Jha, 2014; Shridhar and Shrivastava, 2018; Shukla and Sharma, 2017; Sinha, 2017) only adopting the different marketing strategies for promotion of tourism among the Indian states, the tourism cannot be improved. It has to be coupled with enhancing the income capacity and capability of the people, improving the infrastructure especially in north-eastern states domestic tourism can be strengthened. With rising tourism, the income generation capacity can also be strengthened as tourism and economic activity have bi-directional relationship.

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

We are thankful to National Sample Survey Office, Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation, Govt. of India, for providing us unit level data of 72^nd round on domestic tourism in India.

 

REFERENCES:

1.        Brida, J. G., and Scuderi, R. (2013). Determinants of tourist expenditure: A review of microeconometric models. Tourism Management Perspectives, 6, 28–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2012.10.006

2.        Dangi, V. (2017). Rural Tourism: Myths and Realities. International Journal of Reviews and Research in Social Sciences, 5 (1), 31–38.

3.        Dangi, V., and Kumar Singh, A. (2014). Marketing Strategies for Rural Tourism in India. International Journal of Advances in Social Sciences, 2 (3), 137–144.

4.        Dulababu, T. (2010). Catapulting of AP Tourism Industry into High Growth Trajectory–A Strategic Approach. Asian Journal of Management, 1 (2), 69–83.

5.        Eugenio-Martin, J. L. (2003). Modelling Determinants of Tourism Demand as a Five-Stage Process: A Discrete Choice Methodological Approach. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4 (4), 341–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/146735840300400407

6.        Mathew, P. V., and Kuriakose, V. (2018). Measurement for Responsible Tourism: Development of a Stakeholder-Based Scale. Asian Journal of Management, 9 (1), 479–489.

7.        Mishra, M., and Jha, A. (2013). Socio-Economic and Ecological Impact Assessment: A Study of Tourism in Sikkim. Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 4 (4), 527–537.

8.        National Sample Survey Organisation. (2016). Domestic Tourism Expenditure: NSS 72nd round, July 2014-June 2015. New Delhi: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MOSPI), Government of India (GOI).

9.        Rakesh, N. S., Nanda, S., VishakhaRaghav, and Mehendale, S. (2018). E-Word of Mouth in Tourism Sector–A Methodological and Thematic Review. Asian Journal of Management, 9 (1), 829–833.

10.     Shenga, S., and Jha, A. (2014). The Sikkim Ecotourism Policy-A Review. International Journal of Advances in Social Sciences, 2 (4), 198–203.

11.     Shridhar, R., and Shrivastava, R. (2018). To Analyse the Role of Advertisement in the Development of Chhattisgarh Tourism. Asian Journal of Management, 9 (1), 709–716.

12.     Shukla, A., and Sharma, S. K. (2017). Revival of the ‘Golden Bird’: A Gap Analysis of Governments Initiatives and Tourist Expectations in Uttar Pradesh using Systems Approach. International Journal of Advances in Social Sciences, 5 (2), 51–60.

13.     Sinha, S. (2017). Cherrapunjee: Wonder of Nature–Scope and Challenges of Tourism Industry in Cherrapunjee, Meghalaya. Asian Journal of Management, 8 (3), 591–598.

14.     Wanga, Y., and Davidsonb, M. C. G. (2010). A review of micro-analyses of tourist expenditure. Current Issues in Tourism, 13(6), 507–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500903406359

15.     World Tourism Organization. (2016). UNWTO Annual Report 2015 (Vol. 15). Madrid. https://doi.org/10.2307/3395557

16.     World Tourism Organization. (2018). UNWTO Annual Report 2017. Madrid.

 

 

Received on 15.06.2018          Modified on 10.07.2018

Accepted on 24.07.2018      ©AandV Publications All right reserved