Portonova Vellar Estuaries:Testing of New Inclusive Innovative

Eco-Tourism Development in the Bay of Bengal, South India

Dr. Mutharasu A Selvarasu Professor & Dr.Manivannan Kaliyaperumal, Director

(Academic Affairs) Annamalai University,Tamilnadu,India.

Tourism

Attributes

Attributes

Need for the Study

Vellar Estuaries is a potential area for development of ecotourism as it is naturally gifted with mangrove forest, beaches and Islands.

The local communities fishing related activities have been constrained after the intervention of power projects and other industrial initiatives.

Research Problem

❖ The tourism at Vellar Estuaries is partially promoted Tamilnadu Tourism Development Corporation (TTDC) in the form of Mangrove Boating Tourism (MBT)

❖ There are two more tourism potential available and they are Estuaries Mouth Tourism(EMT) and Small Island Tourism (SIT).

❖ The alternatives of Tourist product have not been educated to tourist who come for the pleasure of boating.

Objectives

1. To rank the single and combo ecotourist product and services among tourist visiting Pichavaram tourism destination.

2. To analyse the preparedness of tourist towards the strength and opportunity available in Vellar Estuary keeping aside its weakness and threats.

Research MethodologyResearch Design: The design of the research is concept testing by ranking tourist products and services

Sample Design: Data collected from 35 students at post graduate , doctoral level and from 35 tourist respondents who visited the destination.

Operational Design: Data collected by using 16 pictorial profiles and focussed depth interview .

Statistical Design: Conjoint Analysis is used to ascertain utility score and SWOT Analysis was used to analyse the preparedness of tourist towards cooperative ecotourism.

Hypothesis

H01: Tourist prefer multiple pleasure experience more than single form eco tourist product and service

H02: The tourist are prepared to opt for multiple tourism choices in the strength and opportunities in the existing tourism destination

Tour package profiles 1-8 card ID Tour Package Price Time Boating Tourist Food

1 SIT-SINGLE Low Long Rowing Group Yes

2 MBT-SIT-COMBO High Short Motor Group Yes

3 SIT-EMT-COMBO High Short Rowing Individual Yes

4 MBT-SINGLE Low Short Motor Group Yes

5 EMT-SINGLE High Long Motor Individual Yes

6 MBT-SINGLE High Long Rowing Individual No

7 MBT-EMT-COMBO Low Short Motor Individual No

8 MBT-EMT-COMBO High Long Rowing Group Yes

Pictorial profile 1-4

Pictorial profile 5-8

Tour Package Profiles 9-16Card ID Tour Package Price Time Boating Tourist Food

9 MBT-SINGLE High Long Motor Group No

10 MBT-SIT-EMT-COMBO High Short Rowing Group No

11 MBT-SIT-COMBO Low Long Rowing Individual No

12 EMT-SINGLE Low Short Rowing Group No

13 MBT-SINGLE Low Short Rowing Individual Yes

14 SIT-SINGLE High Short Motor Individual No

15 SIT-SMT-COMBO Low Long Motor Group No

16 MBT-SIT-EMT-COMBO Low Long Motor Individual Yes

Pictorial Profile 9-12

Pictorial Profile 13-16

Conjoint AnalysisProfile of Tourist Product Utilities

Profile of Tourist Product Utility Estimate Std.Error

Tour package MBT-SINGLE -.434 .776

SIT-SINGLE -.425 1.020

EMT-SINGLE -.147 1.020

MBT-SIT -COMBO 1.298 1.020

SIT-EMT-COMBO -.110 1.020

MBT-EMT-COMBO .872 1.020

MBT-SIT-EMT-COMBO

-1.054 1.020

Boat Row boat .093 .392

Motor boat -.093 .392

Profile of the Tourist product

Utility Estimate

Std.Error

Tourist individual -.542 .392

group .542 .392

Seafood Yes .472 .392

No -.472 .392

Price low -1.250 .784

High -2.500 1.568

Time Short duration .676 .784

Long duration 1.352 1.568

(Constant) 9.415 1.712

Conjoint Analysis Estimates

Averaged Importance Score Values

Tourpackage 42.826

Boat 8.183

Tourist 12.670

Seafood 11.731

Price 15.950

Time 8.640

Coefficient B coefficient Estimate

Price -1.250

Time .676

Correlationsa

Value Sig.

Pearson’s R 0.846 .000

Kendall’s tau 0.588 .001

a. Correlations between observed and estimated preferences

SWOT Analysis Favourable Unfavourable

Internal: Strengthi. Preferred destination: Natural surroundings (17.14%), Boating services (22.86%), Mangrove forest (40.00%), Islands (14.29%), Eco park awareness center (5.71%)ii. Group Tourism: Family(31.43%) and friends(40.00%)iii. Coordination: support from local fishing community (88.57%)iv. Tourist attraction: offer double boating service opportunity (77.14%)v. Access ability :Availability of Transport facilities (68.57%)vi. Uniqueness :Mangrove forest are unique (60.00%) ecotourism, Professionalism by Tourist guides (42.86%)

Internal: Weaknessi. Rules and regulations: Strict enforcement 45.71%).ii. Scope: Areas need to be explored (40.00%)iii. Specialized Services : Sensitive local people (37.14%)iv. Accommodation : Lack of good accommodation (31.43%)v. Waste: Lack of improvement (20.00%)

External: Opportunitiesi. Foreign tourist: Attraction campaign (71.43%)ii. Seasonality: Vocational (65.71%)iii. Mass tourism: development: Promote beach tourism (62.86%)iv. Local product and sea food: Increase in sales (60.00%)v. Cooperative tourism: Existing fisher can initiate a.Cooperative Ecotourism (54.29%), b.development of hotels and restaurants (51.43%)vi. Local people participation as home guard workforce to improve security (54.29%)vii. Revenue Leads to development: (51.43%)

External: Threati. Threat to life among tourist due to poor security force(80.00%).ii. Support: lack of involvement from workforce (37.14%)iii. Competition: Unhealthy competition (20.00%)

Findings1. MBT-SIT combo has higher utility value indicating greater preference followed by MBT-EMT combo

2. Least preference are given for single tour packages like MBT, SIT and EMT.

3. MBT-SIT-EMT combo was also less preferred and has negative utility value of -1.054.

4. There is inverse relationship between price and utility with high price corresponding to lower utility score

5. Group tourism, Long duration and provision for seafood has higher utility as expected.

6. Row boat has more utility value than Motor boat.

7. The linear Regression coefficient for Price and Time are -1.250 and 0.676 respectively.

8. Tour package has most influence on overall preference followed by Price. Boat type was given least preference

9. Pearson’s R correlation coefficient value is 0.846 which is greater than 0.7 indicating strong positive relationship

between observed and estimated preference and this supports Hypothesis1.

Findings10. Kendall’s tau coefficient value is 0.588 which shows positive towards degree of concordance between observed and estimated preference.

11. Preference of Tourist are highly influenced by the tour packages offered.

12. Tourist would like to travel in groups, prefer combo of any two combination using rowboat for long duration and less price with provision for seafood

13. The presence of Mangrove forest, boating service, group tourism and coordination of local people add strength ( 42.38%) even though there are some Weakness(34.86%) related to strict rules & regulations, Lack of good communication & Waste management practices.

14. The existing threat (40.71%) is due to poor security force, lack of involvement of workforce and unhealthy competition but it can be compensated by available opportunities (58.93%) like participation of local people as home guard to improve security, development of cooperative tourism, sale of local products and increase in revenue. Since percentage of opportunity is more than the threat it supports hypothesis2.

15. The internal factor contribute to 38.62% while the external factors contribute to 49.82% for attaining the objectives.

Suggestions and Recommendations❖ There is possibility for developing floating market at Porto Nova combining all three Tourism.

❖ Implementation of cooperative ecotourism with innovation will contribute to Economic Growth.

❖ Government should support these activities Through

- New policy formulation

- Provision for Incentives

- Providing Business licence

- Offering loan facilities for operating Tourism projects .

House Boat

House Boat Type 2

Conclusion❖ Tourism is a Global leisure activity and is a major source of income for many countries

❖ An attempt is made to study the awareness, preference for alternative tourist packages and Preparedness for cooperative ecotourism.

❖ Data was collected by using pictorial profile , interview schedule and are analyzed through conjoint analysis and SWOt analysis.

❖ It is found that tourist would like to travel in groups, prefer combo of any two combination using rowboat for long duration and less price with provision for seafood.

❖ SWOT analysis revealed that mangrove forest , boating services and coordination oby fishing community are main strength of the study area.

❖ Strict enforcement of rules and sensitiveness of local community are found as the weakness of this area.

❖ There is opportunity for developing cooperative ecotourism. Involvement of local people and their participation as home guards, can overcome the prevailing Threat due to poor security force.

❖ Floating market contribute a lot to Thailand’s economy. similarly implementation of cooperative ecotourism with innovations at PortoNova, together with the support of Government and localites will contribute to economic growth.

GOOD THOUGHTS,GOOD INNOVATIVE IDEAS WILL ALWAYS GIVE GOOD RESULTS

THANKYOU