See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/366976232

SUSTAINABLE HERITAGE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA: A CASE OF DELHI

HERITAGE TOURISM

Article · August 2021

CITATIONS READS

0 407

2 authors, including:

Venugopalan Thottekat
Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Khalsa College (University of Delhi)
25 PUBLICATIONS 30 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Venugopalan Thottekat on 09 January 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 SUSTAINABLE HERITAGE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA: A CASE OF DELHI HERITAGE
TOURISM

Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry (TOJQI)

Volume 12, Issue 9, August 2021: 2190-2209

Research Article

SUSTAINABLE HERITAGE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA: A CASE OF

DELHI HERITAGE TOURISM
Dr. Venugopalan T, Dr. Sukhvir Singh
1

Abstract
This research paper explores the economic, environmental, and socio-cultural sustainability of
Delhi heritage tourism development from the perspective of tourists. Primary research was
conductedamong the touristsbased on a structured questionnaire survey executed at various
tourist places across Delhi.This research paper used exploratory factor analysis (EFA),
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and structural equation modelling (SEM) for exploring the
sustainability of Delhi heritage tourism.The research findingson environmental pressure confirm
that tourism activities are inflicting pressure on the environment.The environment management
mechanisms implemented by the government have notbeen successfulin mitigating the adverse
impact of tourism and accomplishing environmental sustainability.The findings on economic and
cultural empowerment demonstrate that tourism ensures economic sustainability. However, the
research findings on socio-cultural pressure reveal that tourism is exerting adverse impact on
society and culture.Thus, the heritage tourism development inDelhi has not been
encouragingeconomic and social sustainability. Therefore, the government of Delhi should
initiate appropriate policies and programmes to mitigate the adverse environmental and social
impacts.
Key Words: Heritage tourism, sustainable development, tangible heritage, intangible heritage,
acculturation.
1. INTRODUCTION

Heritage is an important element of contemporary tourism. Heritage tourism is defined as

“travelling to experience the place, artefacts, and activities that authentically represent the stories
of the people of the past, and it can include visitation to cultural, historical and natural
resources,” NTHP (2014). Heritage tourism integrates physical heritage, cultural heritage, and
intangible heritage which together make as major drivers of tourism interest and development
activity, Brooks (2011).Heritage tourism is an engine of inclusive socio-economic development
of many developing and underdeveloped nations which are bestowed with natural, historical-
cultural heritages. (Andereck et al. (2005), Ko and Stewart (2000), Venugopalan and Kumar
(2017))It binds people from all over the world together, understand the culture and traditions of
each other’s and teaches mutual respect and tolerance, and fosters universal brotherhood, Brooks
(2011). However, uncontrolled mass tourism and the concentration of tourism activities in

1
Associate Professor, Department of Commerce, Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Khalsa College, University of Delhi,
Delhi-110007
2
Associate Professor, Department of Commerce Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Khalsa College
University of Delhi, Delhi-110007

2190
 Dr. Venugopalan T, Dr. Sukhvir Singh

heritage destinations have inflicted disastrous and irretrievable damages to the environment,
economy, and society of tourist destinations. Growing concerns against environmental, economic,
and socio-cultural consequences of mass tourism have compelled the tourism industry to integrate
sustainable tourism as the core ofits mission. Venugopalan et al. (2018).

Globally, sustainable tourism has been recognized as the most comprehensive approach to
accomplish sustainable development. Sustainable tourism is defined as “tourism development that
meets the needs of present tourists and host regions while protecting and enhancing opportunities
for the future. It is envisaged as leading to management of all resources in such a way that
economic, social and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity, essential
ecological processes, andbiological diversity and life support systems,” UNWTO(1998).However,
achieving sustainable tourism is a continuous process. It requires relentlessassessment and
monitoring of impacts, and pre-emptive and counteractive measures have to be adopted whenever
necessary. (Mowforth and Mount (2009), Hall and Richards (2003))Sustainable heritage tourism
requires that all stakeholders of tourism should contribute to the survival, protection,
conservation, and management of the wide spectrum of heritage, culture, and traditions, Brooks
(2011).

The Government of India and State Governments have recognized sustainability as the basic
philosophy of the development process and implemented various programmes for achieving the
environmental, economic, and socio-cultural sustainability of heritage tourist destinations. The
National Tourism Policy 2012, Incredible India campaign, Incredible India campaign 2.0,
Millennium Development Goals (MDG), Bharat Darshan and Atithi Devo Bhava
campaigns,Swadesh Darshan, PRASAD, Ecotourism Guidelines, and Sustainable Tourism
Criteria for India (STCI) are important policies implemented for achieving sustainable tourism
development in India,Venugopalan et al. (2018). The government of India and the tourism
industry have adopted various strategies to realize sustainable tourism development. However,
there isa limited number of research undertaken to evaluate the success of these strategies to
accomplish sustainable tourism development. Thus, there is a wide gap between the theoretical
literature and empirical understanding of sustainable heritage tourism development. This study
intends to bridge the gap between the theoretical knowledge and empirical evidence on sustainable
heritage tourism development in India through the case study of Delhi heritage tourism.

Delhi has been identified as the model of sustainable heritage tourism in India. Delhi is famous
for its amusing historical, cultural,and natural heritage, and living traditions, which are
manifested in antique monuments, fascinating museums, architectural wonders, art galleries,
famous eateries, and live markets. Its rich and diverse ancient cultural heritage and living
traditions draw millions of tourists from across the world. The UNESCO World Heritage Sites
Humayun’s Tomb and Qutub Minar, India Gate, Hauz Khas Fort, Jama Masjid, Tughlaqabad
Fort, Jantar Mantar, etc.are some of the famous historical monuments.The Lodhi Garden, Garden
of Five Senses, Deer Park, Buddha Jayanti Park, Indraprastha park are world-famous natural
heritages. The Chandni Chowk, Paharganj, Karol Bagh, Connaught Place are some of the market
places, where tourists enjoy shopping. Delhi is also famous for various festivals such as Lohri,
Holi, Id-Ul-Fitr, Muharram, Janmashtami, Durga Puja, Dussehra, Deepavali, Guru Purab, and
Christmas. Delhi is also the embodiment of every religion.

2191
 SUSTAINABLE HERITAGE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA: A CASE OF DELHI HERITAGE
TOURISM

Akshardham Temple, Lotus Temple, Gurdwara Bangla Sahib, Jama Masjid, Cathedral Church of
the Redemption, Hasrat Hishammuddin Dargah, Gurdwara Sri Nanak Piao Sahib, Kalkaji
Mandir are some of the pilgrimage centres. (Krishnaswami and Mohan (2003)) The world-
famous Dilli Hat provides glimpses of the magical world of Indian art and heritage through the
enthralling landscape of craft, cuisine, and cultural activities. (www.delhitourism.gov.in)

Delhi has achieved the fourth largest position in India in terms of foreign tourist arrival (FTA)
and the 13th position in terms of domestic tourist arrival. Delhi recorded approximately 30.74
lakh (9.50% of total tourist arrival in India) foreign tourist arrival during the period 2018-19 as
compared to 29.83 in 2019-2020. The domestic tourists who arrived in Delhi were approximately
364.68 lakhs (1.57% of total domestic arrivals) as compared to 291.144 Lakh in 2018-19. (India
Tourism Statistics, 2020) The Department of Tourism of the Government of NCT of Delhi
introduces various plans and programmes for developing tourism in Delhi. The Delhi Tourism
and Transportation Department Corporation (DTTDC) is the nodal agency for maintaining,
promoting, and marketing tourism infrastructure and tourism activities in Delhi.
((www.delhitourism.gov.in)) The tourism industry is one of the major segments of the economy
of Delhiand the government has integrated sustainable tourism as the developmental strategy for
achieving inclusive growth. This research paper intends to examine the sustainability of Delhi
heritage tourism through primary research based on a questionnaire survey conducted at various
tourist places across Delhi during the period December 2019.

The main objective of the research paper isto study the economic, environmental, and social
impactsof tourismfrom the perspective of tourists. It also evaluates how far the heritage tourism
plans and programmes are successful in achieving the economic, environmental, and socio-
cultural sustainability of Delhi. This research paper has used exploratory factor analysis (EFA),
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and structural equation modelling (SEM) for examining and
analysing the economic, environmental, and socio-cultural sustainability of Delhi Tourism.

This paper is structured as follows. Section 2 gives a brief review of previous researches on
heritage tourism.Section 3, research methodology explains the nature and characteristics of the
sample, andthe research methods used for measuring variables. Section 4, Data analysis,
examines the validity and reliability of constructs and testing and verifying the empirical
research hypothesis utilizing descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory
factor analysis, and structural equation modelling. Section 5, discussion of findings, explains the
significance of the research findings. Section 6, Conclusion, concludes the research paper and
provides guidance to future research on sustainable heritage tourism.

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Impacts of Tourism
Tourism brings about both positive and negative impacts on the economy, environment, and
society. The government and the tourism industry strive to achieve maximize the benefits of
tourism by striking an optimum between the positive and negative impacts of tourism. (Kreag
(2001), Rasoolimanesh et al. (2015), Venugopalan and Kumar (2017)) Tourism contributes
towards the overall socio-economic development of the nation through the accelerated growth of
the economy by generating employment, improving living standards, eradicating mass poverty,

2192
 Dr. Venugopalan T, Dr. Sukhvir Singh

improvement of infrastructure and recreational facilities, boosting domestic and foreign

investments, conservation and restoration of natural, cultural, and historical heritage resources.
(Ismail and Turner (2008), Muresan et al. (2016))Tourism is also responsible for increasing the
cost of living, inflating general prices of goods and services, increasing taxes, appreciatingof cost
of land and housing, seasonal unemployment, and underemployment. Andereck et al. (2005),
Ministry of Tourism, GOI (2015), Harcombe (2000), Stynes (1999), Rasoolimanesh et al. (2015),
Venugopalan (2018)

The concentration of tourism activities and the uncontrolled infrastructure development led to the
degradation of the natural environment and the destruction of the surrounding heritage resources.
(Sharply (2006), Pakdeepinit (2007)) The littering and accumulation of garbage, degradation of
water resources, pressure on land resources, destruction of natural vegetation and wildlife,
encroachment of public properties, illegal acquisition of land belonging to local communities,
etc. damage the environment of heritage destinations. Mathieson and Wall (1982), Pakdeepinit
(2007), Venugopalan and Kumar (2017).

Tourism facilitates improvement in the basic infrastructure, protection, and preservation of

natural heritage, and historical and cultural heritages. ((Brook 2011), Jaafar et al.
(2017))Environmental sustainability can be maintained by adopting efficient environmental
management systems for mitigating environmental pollution, water pollution, depletion of
groundwater, land degradation and misuse of land, pressure on transportation infrastructure, and
loss of natural vegetation and wildlife. (Kreag (2001), Ko and Stewart (2002), Venugopalan et al.
(2018), Rasoolimanesh et al. (2017)). The Government and tourism industry along with the
community should implement the conservation and preservation measures for making tourism
environmentally sustainable.
Tourism supports the conservation and preservation of historical and revival of cultural heritage
for attracting tourists. (Harcombe (2000), Zhang (2020)) Heritage tourism helps to reinvent
people of their cultural roots, consolidates people’s interest in history and culture, and
encouraging them to conserve cultural heritage attractions of the region. (Toliina, and Vesselin
(2011)) Tourism helps to comprehend the cultural identity and encourages the host community to
take pride in their culture. The physical presence of the tourists who hail from different cultures
can influence the attitude and behaviour, the value system of families and family relationships
life, quality of life, social structure, and organisations of the host communities. (Mbaiwa and
Stronza (2010), Brook (2011), Jaafer et al. (2015)) The adverse socio-cultural impacts of tourism
are demonstration effects, acculturalization, displacement of communities, commercialization
and commodification of culture, loss of authenticity and purity of culture, and increase antisocial
activities such as sex tourism, drug abuse, alcoholism, health hazards, etc. (Sharpley (2003),
Harcombe (2000), Mathieson and Wall (1982), Jaafar et al. (2015), Venugopalan et al. (2018))
The sustainable tourism mitigates the adverse social impacts and warrants socio-economic
development of the host communities and other stakeholders.

“Sustainable heritage tourism is primarily directed towards the development, management, and
delivery of quality destination experiences to the tourists without impairing the natural and
cultural values and traditions of the host destinations. It also embraces all the stakeholders of
tourism in recognition of a common concern for the enduring protection and conservation of

2193
 SUSTAINABLE HERITAGE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA: A CASE OF DELHI HERITAGE
TOURISM

natural and cultural heritage destinations and tourist places while achieving their specific
objectives,” World Heritage Committee (2010).

Tourism development is expected to maximize the benefits of tourism while minimizing the
adverse environmental, economic, and socio-cultural impacts including quality of life. The
tourism developers should design generally acceptable community sustainable goals based on the
environmental, economic, socio-cultural dimensions of sustainable tourism development.
Heritage tourism development should integrate all the stakeholders through effective
partnerships to maximizes the conservation and presentation while minimizing the adverse
impacts of tourism. (WHC (2010)) When managed sustainably, the heritage properties can
materialize economic benefits and help in understanding, conserving, and protecting the original
universal values of heritage properties without leading to the commercialization of heritage.
Zhag (2017)

Research in Heritage Tourism:

According to Aydin and Alvarez (2020), the protection of socio-cultural and environmental is
considered the most critical attribute of a sustainable tourist destination. The destination
attributes such as the preservation of historical and cultural resources and protection of natural
heritage and the architectural character of the location surrounding the cultural destinations are
directly influencing the tourism experience. The magnitude of the attractiveness of the tourist
destination is directly related to stronger environmentally responsible behaviour, Chenga et al.
(2013). When the tourists are attracted and attached to heritage destinations, they are more likely
to show environmentally responsible behaviour. If the overall impacts of tourism development
are greater than the costs of tourism, the host community will support additional tourism
development.

The local community is an important stakeholder of the tourism sector and has become a key
element in developing future tourism strategies, Muresan et al. (2016). The active involvement
and participation of residents in the tourism decision-making mechanism are required for
maximizing the economic benefits of tourism. Tourism development based on the economic,
environmental, and social sustainability principles is essential for the future existence of tourist
destinations,Cevirgen et al. (2012).Sustainable heritage tourism requires the strengthening of
communication between local governments, public institutions, and local communities,
conducting surveys among the local communities, and formulating long-term strategies for the
promotion of heritage tourism among the local communities, Aleksandra et al. (2019).

The role of community-based tourism performance in deriving travellers' post-purchase decision-

making process for sustainable destination products was studied by Han et al. (2019). The
community-based tourism performance significantly affects the formation of travellers' post-
purchase intentions.Successful sustainable destination development requires boosting the
visitors’ favourable post-purchase decisions or behaviours under the competitive market
environment. According to Holly (2012), sustainable heritage marketing requires the additional
upfront cost to understand the market and its impact on the natural, cultural and economic
environments through the environmental analysis, market segmentation, and market research,
which will help to understand the operational realities and provide long-term benefits. The

2194
 Dr. Venugopalan T, Dr. Sukhvir Singh

development of research agenda to monitor outcomes and partnerships are required for
monitoring the environmental, socio-cultural, and economic impacts of heritage tourism.

Tourists demand authentic natural and cultural resources which are fundamentally unique in
destinations attractiveness. Integration of authenticity in the tourism marketing concept and
destination marketing strategies may help to enhance the destination competency in the tourism
markets, Ramkissoon and Muzaffer (2010). Cultural identity has a direct positive influence on
the consumption intention of intangible cultural heritage. Zhang et al. (2020) contend that
intangible cultural heritage tourism provides cultural value content for product development and
marketing of tourism destinations. The cultural identity has a direct impact on consumption
intention in heritage tourism activities that can promote the consumption intentions of tourists.
The behavioural attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control of tourists have
direct impacts on the consumption intentions that help to achieve long-term sustainable heritage
tourism development, Buonincontri, et al. (2017).

Pandey and Rajendra (2020) empirically examine the relationship between service quality in
heritage tourism, destination attachment, and electronic word-of-mouth intention. The heritage
service quality has a significant direct effect on destination attachment and word-of-mouth
intentions. Service quality influences indirectly electronic word of mouth intention through
destination attachments. Ngoc Su, et al., (2020) found that heritage destination image is the best
predictor of visitors’ satisfaction towards a heritage destination as compared to the visitor
engagement and visitor experience. The highly positive image of a heritage destination could
result in a higher level of tourist satisfaction. Meghna and Punyabeet (2019) find a direct linear
relationship between the perceived service quality and tourist satisfaction, which establishes that
tourists derive satisfaction from the service quality. The motivated tourists who have a positive
perception of the service availability at Kumbh Mela in Ujjain experience greater satisfaction
and consequently add loyalty to the destination.

Steen and Richards (2021) establish that resident support cultural tourism is the direct influence
of perceived benefits and perceived cost of tourism development. The perceived benefits and
costs are associated with the levels of community attachment, community concern, resource
utilization, and cultural and ethnic identity. A cohesive and involved local community can
support the cultural heritage tourist destination. Rasoolimanesh and Jaffar (2016) find that
community participation in the World Heritage Site management facilitates the host communities
to achieve economic development and consequent improvement in their quality of life. However,
due to political reasons, the involvement of the local community is limited to economic activities
rather than participation in the decision-making process. The identification of a tourism site as a
World Heritage Site can enhance not only the destination’s international popularity but also
facilitates the economic empowerment of local communities through tourism development.

The recent empirical literature on sustainable heritage tourism development has examined the
sustainability issues attributed to community participation, destination management, tourists’
satisfaction and behaviour, product development, and marketing of tourist destinations. We could not
find many research papers that comprehensively examine the environmental, economic, and social,
and cultural impacts on the sustainability of heritage destinations. Hence, this paper has attempted to
address the environmental, economic, and socio-cultural impacts on sustainable tourism

2195
 SUSTAINABLE HERITAGE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA: A CASE OF DELHI HERITAGE
TOURISM

development, using the indicators adapted from the “Guide for Policy Makers for Making Tourism
More Sustainable,” UNWTO (2005).

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Hypothesis

This research paper explores the environmental, economic, and socio-cultural impact of heritage
tourism development in Delhi. This study also examines how heritage tourism contributes to the
sustainable development of Delhi. This research paper has formulated four alternative
hypotheses from the literature survey for empirically testing the environmental, economic, and
socio-cultural sustainability of Delhi heritage tourism. These four alternative hypotheses are
given below:

• H:1 Environmental Pressure (EP) is negatively associated with sustainable heritage

tourism development (SHTD).
• H2: Environmental Management (EM) is directly associated with sustainable heritage
tourism development (SHTD).
• H:3 Economic and Social Empowerment (EE)isdirectly associatedwith sustainable
heritage tourism development (SHTD).
• H4: Socio-cultural Pressure (HSP)negatively contributes to sustainable heritage tourism
development (SHTD).

Figure I: Testing Hypothesis - Sustainable Heritage Tourism Development Model for Delhi

3.2Scale Development for Sustainable Delhi Heritage Tourism

We have conducted an extensive review of the literature to find an appropriate model of
sustainable heritage tourism development. However, there have been scant research papers that
provide a comprehensive model for establishing the relationship between environmental,
economic, and socio-cultural sustainability of heritage tourism. Based on the UNWTO (2005)
Guide for Policy Makers for Making Tourism More Sustainable, astructuredquestionnaire was
designed for measuring the environmental, economic, and socio-cultural sustainability of heritage
tourism in Delhi.(Rasoolimanesh, et al. (2017), Asmelash, et al. (2019), Venugopalan
(2018),Rasoolimanesh, et al. (2019)) This research paper has developed a scale composed of 10

2196
 Dr. Venugopalan T, Dr. Sukhvir Singh

indicators measuring the environmental sustainability, economic sustainability was measured using
4variables, 8 variables are identified for socio-cultural sustainability of heritage tourism
development.Thus, a questionnaire with 34 statements was developed for measuring the economic,
environmental, socio-cultural sustainabilityof tourism development. The questionnaire was
examined and validated by two professors who are specialized in tourism and two eminent persons
from the tourism industry for establishing content validity.

3.3 Sample, Sample Design and Research Methods

The evaluation of the sustainability of heritage tourism was based on the primary research executed
through a structured questionnaire survey at various heritage places of Delhi. The convenient
sampling method was used while executing the questionnaire survey. The database was generated
by compiling the responses of 224 tourists on the sustainability of Delhi heritage tourism. A five-
point Likert scale is used to evaluate each variable based on the following scale: 1=strongly
disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree. For examining the sustainability
dimensions and empirically validating the research hypothesis, this research paper has utilized
descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), Confirmatory Factor analysis (CFA), and
Structural Equation Modelling (SEM). We have used software such as MS-excel, SPSS 26, and
AMOS 23 for recording, processing, and interpreting the primary data.

4. DATA ANALYSIS
The database created for examining the sustainability of heritage tourism was composed of the
perception of 224 tourists, which consisted of 65% males and 35% females. The survey was
executed among tourists from all age groups ranging from 18 years to senior citizens. The tourist
falling in the age group of 15-25 represented 22%, age group of 25-40 composed 24% and age
group of 40-60 represented 24%, and above 60 age group represented 30% of total respondents.
The tourists in the sample were comprised of 36% undergraduates, 42% graduates, and 22%
postgraduates. The data also exhibits the economic backgrounds of the tourists. The respondents
with income levels above Rs. 0-10,00,000 represent 23%, income between Rs. 10,00,000-
20,00,000 represent 55% and income above Rs. 20,00,000 represent 22% of the total tourists.
The composition of domestic and foreign tourists who were participated in the questionnaire
survey was 80% and 20% respectively in the sample.The fulfilment of the normality assumption
of data had checked by using the skewness and kurtosis before performing data analysis.The
normality assumptionwas established and the data fall within the acceptable range of skewness -
1 and +1 and kurtosis 3. The sample size used for performing the analysis was 224, which is
acceptablefor the model complexity, where the number of dimensions is larger than six. Hair, et
al. (2019)

4.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is performed for determining the dimensions of
sustainable heritage tourism using principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation.
The sampling adequacy and normality of the distribution were established through the Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin measure (0.712) and Bartlett’s test (1674.330, df 171, p 0.00). Five dimensions
were extracted based on the eigenvalue (eigen-value>1) and these dimensions explain 68% of the
total variance. These dimensions were named, environmental pressure (EP), environment
management (EM), environmental and cultural empowerment (EE), socio-cultural pressure (CP),
and sustainable heritagetourism development (SHTD).

2197
 SUSTAINABLE HERITAGE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA: A CASE OF DELHI HERITAGE
TOURISM

This research paper has recognizedsustainableheritage tourism development (SHTD) as the

dependent variable which is composed of the measured variables such as Friendly attitude of
Local Community, Safety and Security of tourists, Managed Parks, Tourism protects maintains
heritages, Tourism Promotes Locally Made products, and Local Community management of the
environment. The independent variables are environmental pressure (EP), environment
management (EM), economic and social empowerment (EE), and sociocultural pressure
(SP).The convergent validity and discriminant validity of the measurement model was examined
by performing confirmatory factor analysis. The measurement model integrates sustainable
heritage tourism as an exogenous variable and endogenous variables as the environmental
pressure (EP), environment management (EM), economic and social empowerment (EE), and
sociocultural pressure (SP). Figure: II exhibits the Model of Sustainability of Tourism
Development in Delhi based on the constructs derived from Exploratory Factor Analysis.

Figure: II Model of Sustainable Delhi Heritage Tourism Development

4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

The convergent validity and discriminant validity of the structural equation measurement
modelwas established through the confirmatory analysis. Figure: II shows the primary model of
sustainable heritage tourism, which is designed by incorporating the dimensions derived from the
exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The reliability of measured variables and the internal
consistency of the constructs of the measurement model is verified using the factor loadings,
Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE),andmaximum
shared variance (MSV).Table Ipresents the descriptive statistics, factor loadings, and Cronbach’s
alpha.

Table I: Descriptive Statistics, Factor Loadings, Cronbach’s alpha

Measured Variables and Constructs Mean Standard Factor Cronbach
Deviation Loading Alpha (α)
Environmental Pressure (EP) 0.924
EP:1Tourism Puts Pressure on 2.3347 0.95953 0.88

2198
 Dr. Venugopalan T, Dr. Sukhvir Singh

Transportation
EP:2 Pressure on Land Resources 2.4215 1.04948 0.93
EP:3 Increases Environmental Pollution 2.3554 1.04948 0.92
Environment Management (EM) 0.923
EM:1 Management of Transportation
3.4628 0.98150 0.96
Facilities
EM:2 Management of Land Resources 3.3926 0.99731 0.87
EM:3 Controlling Environmental Air
3.3884 1.00515 0.90
Pollution
Economic and Cultural Empowerment 0.928
(EE)
EE:1 Tourism Generates Employment
3.4215 1.50105 0.90
Opportunities
EE:2 Tourism Improves Living Standards 3.6983 1.45611 0.94
EE:3Tourism Promotes Culture and Folklore 3.7025 1.38842 0.92
Socio-Cultural Pressure (SP) 0.815
SP:1 Tourism Development Leads Loss of
2.6942 1.24469 0.74
Habitats of Local Community
SP:2 Adverse Impact on Children and
2.8306 1.27870 0.75
Juvenal
SP:3 Tourism Results in Acculturation 2.5248 1.07083 0.67
Sustainable Heritage Tourism Development 0.705
(SHTD)
SHTD:1 Promotion of Locally Made
3.5744 1.11390 0.79
Products
SHTD:2 Tourism Protects and Promote
2.8884 1.11196 0.78
Heritage
SHTD:3 Tourism Protects and Promotes
2.8719 1.11390 0.82
Parks
SHTD:4 Good Behaviour of Local
3.5207 1.29217 0.72
Community
Source: Results Derived from Primary Data

4. 3 Descriptive statistics

Table I presents the mean scores and standard deviation of 16measured variables, which form the
constructs, environmental pressure (EP), environmental management (EM), economic and
cultural empowerment (EE), socio-cultural pressure (SP), and sustainable heritage tourism
development (STD).

The mean and standard deviation of Tourism Puts Pressure on Transportation (EP:1), Pressure on
Land Resources (EP:2),and Tourism Increase Environmental Pollution (EP:3) have recorded
mean values of 2.3347 (0.95953), 2.4215 (1.04948), and 2.3554 (1.04948) respectively, conclude
that tourism development is causing adverse impact on the environment of Delhi.The mean
values of Management of Transportation Facilities(EM:1), Management of Land Resources
(EP:2), and Controlling Environmental Pollution (EP3) are 3.4628, 3.3926, and 3.3884,with

2199
 SUSTAINABLE HERITAGE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA: A CASE OF DELHI HERITAGE
TOURISM

standard deviations of 0.98150, 0.99731, 1.00515respectively, which reveal that environment

management system is successful in maintaining the purity and integrity of environment of
Delhi.

The mean and standard deviation of Tourism Generates Employment (EE:1), Tourism
PromotesLocally Made Products EE:(2), and Tourism Promotes Culture and Folklore (EE:3) are
3.4215 (1.50105), 3.6983 (1.45611), and 3.7025 (1.38842). The low mean scores fail to
substantiate that tourism is contributing to the economic empowerment of local people.The mean
and standard deviation of the Tourism Development Leads to Loss of Habitats of Local
Community (SP:1), Adverse Impact on Children and Juvenal (SP:2), and Tourism Results in
Acculturation (SP:3)are 2.6942 (1.24469), 2.8306 (1.27870), and 2.9050 (1.17181). The low
mean scores prove that tourism causes an adverse impact on the society and culture of Delhi.

The mean value and standard deviations3.5744 (1.11390) of Tourism Promotes Locally Made
Products (SHTD:1) discloses that tourism promotes and markets locally made products, which
increases the earnings of the local community.The averages and standard deviations of Tourism
Protects, Maintains and Promotes Heritages (SHTD:2) and Maintains and Promotes Parks
(SHTD:3), are 3.1612 (1.21350), 3.5289 (1.22610), which prove that tourism helps to protects
and maintain the natural and cultural heritage. The mean values of Good Behaviour of Local
Community (SHTD:4) are3.5207(1.29217)which prove that good behaviour of local community
with tourist enhance the popularity of tourism in Delhi. Thus, the descriptive statistics prove that
heritage tourism in Delhi is adversely affecting the environment and society. However, heritage
tourism is positively contributing to the economy of Delhi.

4.4 Convergent Validity and Discriminant Validity:

The Cronbach alpha (α) is commonly used the reliability of a scale to examine the truthfulness,
consistency, and stability of indicators under examination. A higher Cronbach α value indicates a
greater degree of convergence of the measured variable under a single construct, which reflects
higher reliability of the measured variable to represent the specific construct. The Cronbach’s
alpha (α)values for the constructsare environmental pressure (EP) 0.924, environmental
management (EM) 0.923, economic and cultural empowerment (EE) 0.928, sociocultural
pressure (SP) 0. 0.815, and sustainable heritage tourism development (SHTD) 0.705. The
Cronbach’s alpha (α) values prove that the indicators are having unidimensionality, relatively
high internal consistency and explain reasonably the variance of constructs.

The initial measurement model was unsuccessful in fulfilling the reliability test requirements for
the indicator variables and dimensions or constructs. Hence, some indicators are deleted from the
analysis. The model was reformulated retaining sixteen initial indicators for maintaining the
convergent and discriminant validity of measured variables as well as the internal consistency of
constructs. Thus, the final structural equation model was framed by integrating the sustainable
heritage tourism development (SHTD) as a dependant variable and the independent variable as
environmental pressure (EP), environmental management (EM), economic and cultural
empowerment (EE), and socio-cultural pressure (SP).

Table 4: CFA Model – Reliability and Validity

2200
 Dr. Venugopalan T, Dr. Sukhvir Singh

CONSTRUCTS CR AVE MSV MaxR(H) EP EM EE SP

EP 0.855 0.586 0.333 0.937 0.765

EM 0.814 0.584 0.128 0.914 -0.069*** 0.764
EE 0.933 0.779 0.401 0.947 -0.474** 0.272*** 0.883
-
SP 0.700 0.500 0.401 0.818 0.577*** -0.165* 0.696
0.633***
Note: Constructs are EP: Environmental Pressure, EM: Environment Management, ES:
Economic and Cultural Empowerment (EE), SP: Socio-cultural Pressure (SP), CR: Construct
Reliability, AVE: Average Variance Extracted (AVE), MSV: Maximum Shared Variance,
MaxR(H): McDonald construct reliability, Bold numbers are the square root of AVE and below
that are interconstruct correlation coefficient in each column. Significant level of correlation:
***p<0.001.

Source: Generated from Primary Data

The composite reliability (CR) and McDonald construct reliability (MaxRH) are the alternative
multidimensional reliability coefficients that show how well the measured variables can reflect
the construct, which is being measured, Margono (2015). The composite reliability measure is
the most suitable indicator of reliability than Cronbach alpha (α). Table II shows the composite
reliability (CR) indices for environmental pressure (EP) 0.855, environmental management (EM)
0.814, economic and social empowerment (EE) 0.933, and socio-cultural pressure (SP) 0.700,
which are lying above the minimumthreshold level (≥0.70), Hair, et al, (2019).

The McDonald construct reliability coefficients (MaxRH) establish the extent of relative
association between indicators and constructs. It describes the size of indicators’ proportion in
explaining the respective constructs, Hancock & Muller (2001). Table II shows that the Max(H)
coeffects for all the constructs such as environmental pressure (EP) 0.937, environmental
management (EM) 0.914, economic and social empowerment (EE) 0.947, and socio-cultural
pressure (SP) 0.818, are higher than the minimum coefficient level of 0.70. Thus, the Composite
relatability (CR) and McDonald construct reliability coefficients (MaxRH) unequivocally
establish the reliability of measured variables in explaining theconstructs.

The average variance extracted (AVE) is utilized for examining the convergent validity, which is
more conservative than the composite reliability (CR), Haier et al. (2019). The ability of a
specific construct to explain the variance of the measured variable can be captured by the
average variance extracted.Table III shows the average variance extracted (AVE) for the
constructs such as the environmental pressure (EP) 0.586, environmental management (EM)
0.584, economic and social Empowerment (EE) 0.779, and socio-cultural pressure (SP) 0.500,
which establish the convergent validity of constructs. The average variance extracted (AVE)
coefficients are greater than the cut-off value of 0.50 (AVE ≥0.50), which signifies the capacity
of constructs to explain the 50% of the variance of respective measured variables that composed
in the respective constructs, Haier et al., (2019). Moreover, Table I indicates that the

2201
 SUSTAINABLE HERITAGE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA: A CASE OF DELHI HERITAGE
TOURISM

standardized factors loadings (FL) of measured variables exceed the cut-off value of 0.70 that
suggests the presence of strong convergent validity. Hair et al. (2019)

The discriminant validity establishes the extent of distinction of one construct from another
construct. The discriminant validity indicates that a construct is unique and captures some
phenomena that other measures do not, Haier et al. (2019). The discriminant validity can be
established through the comparison of average variance extracted (AVE), maximum shared
variance (MSV), and interconstruct correlation coefficients. (Fornell&Larcker (1981)) Table III
displays that the AVE is greater than MSV for all constructs, which revealsthat the constructs
explain more of the variance in their measured variables that these share with other constructs,
Haier et al. (2019). Similarly, the square root of the AVE of each construct that is shown on the
diagonals in bold numbers is greater than the rest of the inter-construct correlation coefficients
given in each column. These results give a robustindication of discriminant validity among the
four constructs. Besides these, the standardized factor loadings of each measured variable exceed
the minimum threshold limit of 0.70, which also signifies the presence of strong convergent
validity.

4.5 Goodness of Fit of Structural Equation Model

The structural equation modelling (SEM) approach is designed for simultaneously investigating
the structural relationship prevailing among the constructs (dependent variable and independent
variables), and verifying the hypothesis using the maximum likelihood estimation (MLE)
technique, Anderson and Gerbring (1998).The overall model fit is determined by examining the
Chi-square statistic (χ2) along with the associated p-value. However, the rejection of a model is
based on the inadequacy of the Chi-square value (χ2),which is statistically influenced by sample
size and model complexity, Hair et al. (2011). Hence, model fit indices like GFI, AGFI,
RMSEA, SRMR, NFI, TLI,and CFI can also be utilized for evaluating the model fit.Table II
presents the various Goodness of Fit Indices (GFI) for the measurement model of Delhi heritage
tourism.
Table II: Goodness of Fit Indices (GFI)
Chi-square (χ2) CMIN 178.588
(p .000) (df93)
(CMIN/DF) 1.920
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) 0.917
Adjusted Goodness Fit Index (AGFI) 0.880
Root Mean Square Error Approximation (RMSEA) 0.062
StandardizedRoot Mean Residual (SRMR) 0.052
Normed Fit Index (NFI) (Delta 1) 0.941
Tucker Lewis index (TLI) (rho2) 0.962
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 0.971
Source: Result from Primary Data

Table IIdemonstrates the fitness of the measurement model through the goodness of fit indices
(GFI).The Chi-square (χ2) statistic is the conventional measure for assessingthe magnitude of
discrepancy between the sample and fitted covariance matrices or establishing overall model
fit.The Chi-square test discloses the badness of fit or lack of fit. A good model fit provides a
result at a 0.05 level of significance. (Hooper et al. (2008)) The Chi-square (χ2) statistic of the

2202
 Dr. Venugopalan T, Dr. Sukhvir Singh

CFA model proves that the dimensions of sustainable heritage tourism development are
statistically significant (χ2 178.588), (p .000), (DF 93).The chi-square value to degrees of
freedom (CMIN/DF)is 1.920 (χ2 /df = 1.968) which falls below the threshold value of 3, Hairet
al. (2010).

The alternative to the Chi-Square test, the goodness of fit statistic (GFI) estimates the proportion
of variance that is accounted for by the estimated population covariance, Tabachnic, and Fidell
(2007). Table II shows that the goodness of fit index (GFI) is 0.917, which lies between the
threshold limits of 0.90 to 1.00. however, the adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) is 0.880,
which is below the cut-off rate. The square root of the difference between the residuals of the
sample covariance matrix and the hypothesized covariance model is measure by standardized
root mean residual (SRMR). The SRMR value is 0.052, which is below the conservative upper
limit of 0.08, Bentler and Hu (1999).The root means square error approximation (RMSEA)
examines the model fit with the unknown but optimally chosen parameter estimates with the
population covariance matrix. The RMSEA of the proposed model is 0.062, which lies within the
rigorousthreshold value of 0.06 and 0.07, Hooper et al.(2008).

The normed fit index (NFI) is an incremental or comparative fit index that compares the chi-
square value to a baseline model, which examines the null hypothesis that all variables are
uncorrelated, McDonald and Ho (2002). The normed fit index (NFI) recorded a moderate model
fit with a value of 0.941, which is higher than the acceptable value of 0.90. However, the normed
fit index (NFI) is very sensitive to small-size samples. The non-normed fit index (NNFI) or
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) corrects the small sample sensitivity of the normed fit index (NFI).
The Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) value recorded 0.962, which is above the acceptable value
(>0.90) as proposed by Bentler and Hu (1999).

The comparative fit index (CFI) is a modified procedure of the Normed Fit Index (NFI), which
compares the sample covariance matrix with the null model. It considers the small size of the
sample and assumes that all constructs are uncorrelated. The goodness of fit of the model is
established through the comparative fit index (CFI) is 0.971, which lies between the critical
values of 0.90-1.00.(Hu and Bentler (1999), Hooper et al. (2008)) Thus, all the goodness of fit
(GOF) indices establish that the structural equation model(SEM) fits well with the empirical
data.

4.5 Structural Equation Model (SEM) and Hypothesis Testing

Structural equation modelling has been extensively utilized by researchers for verifying the
empirical research hypotheses through the relationship paths of model constructs. This research
paper has used exogenous construct as sustainable heritage tourism development (SHTG) and
endogenous constructs as environmental pressure (EP), environmental management (EM),
economic and cultural empowerment (EE), and socio-cultural pressure (SP) in the structural
equation model for validating the hypotheses. Figure III displaysthe structural model
onsustainable heritage tourism development of Delhi and also shows the standardized maximum
likelihood parameter estimates.

2203
 SUSTAINABLE HERITAGE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA: A CASE OF DELHI HERITAGE
TOURISM

Figure III. Model of Sustainability of Tourism Development in Delhi

Table III: Standardised Maximum Likelihood Parameter Estimates from Structural

Equation Model (SEM)
P-value Support
Standardize
Hypothese SE CR for
Path d Coefficient
s Hypothesi
(β)
s
Sustainable Heritage
Tourism Development Accepted
.07
H1 (SHTD) → .173 -2.608 .000**
4
Environmental
Pressure (EP) (-)
H2 Sustainable Heritage Rejected
Tourism Development
(SHTD) → .03
-.026 -.654 .513
Environment 9
Management (EM)
(+)
H3 Sustainable Heritage
Tourism Development Accepted
(SHTD) → Economic .04 11.99 0.00**
.834
and 9 8 *
CulturalSustainabilit
y (EE) (+)
H4 Sustainable Heritage
Tourism Development .08 0.00** Accepted
-.363 -4.261
(SHTD) → Socio- 0 *
cultural Pressure (SP)

2204
 Dr. Venugopalan T, Dr. Sukhvir Singh

(-)
Note: Regression path coefficients, standard errors, critical ratios,and p-values are reported in
the parentheses below parameter estimates: p<0.10* p<0.05, ** p<0.01***

Source: Result from Primary Data

Figure III and Table III show the regression path coefficients and test statistics, which prove that
3 out of 4 hypotheses have verified the estimated structural model testing. The regression
coefficient on environmental pressure (EP) is significant and negative (β = 0.173SE=0.074, CR -
2.608***) which is consistent with the empirical hypothesis, H1that environmental pressure is
inversely related to sustainable heritage tourism development (SHTD). The significance of the
path coefficient reveals that the tourism development in Delhi has been putting a huge adverse
impact on the environment of Delhi.The regression path coefficient on environment management
(EM) is insignificant and positive (β = -0.26 SE=0.039, CR -0.654), which rejects the empirical
hypothesis H2, that environmental management directly contributes to sustainable heritage
tourism development (SHTD).

On the contrary, the regression coefficient on economic and cultural empowerment (EE) is
significant and positive (β = 0.834, SE=0.049, CR= 11.998***). The significant path coefficient
strongly supportsthe research hypothesis H3 that economic and cultural empowerment(EE) is
directly contributing to sustainableheritage tourism development (SHTD).The regression
coefficient on the socio-cultural pressure(SP) is significant but positive as against the direction of
research hypothesis H4, that socio-cultural pressure is inversely related to sustainable tourism
development (β = 0.363, SE=0.080, CR -4.261***). The research findings on socio-cultural
pressure do not give conclusive evidence to establish the empirical hypothesis that tourism is
exerting adverse impact on the society and culture of Delhi.

5. DISCUSSION

Mass tourism, indiscriminate exploitation of natural resources, and heritage resources have
damaged to purity and authenticity of heritages. The research findings on environmental pressure
(EP) unambiguously establishes that tourism development is exerting an adverse effect on the
quality of the air, land resources, and transportation facilities. The negative impacts of tourism
are adversely affecting both the sustainability and competitiveness of the destinations and the
very existence of human life. A sustainable environmental management system can enhance the
physical integrity and purity of the ecology. However, the findings on environmental
management (EM) prove that the environmental management system adopted by the government
and the tourism industry is not conducive for mitigative adverse environmental impacts.
Therefore, the government and tourism industry must implement appropriate programmes and
policies for the conservation of the environment of Delhi.

Tourism is an engine of economic growth and immensely contributes tothe socio-economic

development of tourist destinations by generating employment, improving the standard of living,
promoting locally made products, and promotes local culture and traditions. The findings on
economic and cultural empowerment (EE) validate that heritage tourism is making a substantial
contributionto the economic and social empowerment of the local community.The indiscriminate

2205
 SUSTAINABLE HERITAGE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA: A CASE OF DELHI HERITAGE
TOURISM

heritage tourism hasaugmentedthe competition for scarce resources, which causedadverse social
and cultural impacts such as acculturation, bad influence on children, anti-social activities, and
loss of habitats to the local community. However, the research findings on Socio-cultural
pressure (SP) unequivocally establish that tourism development in Delhi has not been inflicted
much adverse impact on the society and culture of Delhi.Tourism has facilitated the conservation
and maintenance of both historical and cultural heritages.

6. CONCLUSION

This research paper attempts to study the environmental, economic, and socio-cultural
sustainability of heritage tourism development in Delhi using exploratory factor analysis (EFA),
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and structural equation modelling (SEM). The research
findings on environmental pressure (EP) establish that tourism is exerting tremendous pressure
on the environment of Delhi. The results on the economic and cultural empowerment (EE), and
the socio-cultural Pressure (SP) prove that heritage tourism development in Delhi is
economically and socio-culturally sustainable. However, the findings on environment
management (EM) prove that the environmental management system has failed to mitigate the
adverse impact on the environment of Delhi.The research leads to the conclusion that the plans
and programmes of the government have not been able to deliver the desired result in mitigating
the adverse impacts of tourism in Delhi.Hence, the Central and State government must
proactively implement suitable plans and programmes for making Delhi heritage tourism more
sustainable.

Limitations of the Research and Future Directions for Research: This research paper has
comprehensively examined the environmental, economic, and socio-cultural sustainability of
Delhi heritage tourism. Hence, the research findings can be helpful in the government agencies
and tourism industry while designing and implementing tourism plans. The major limitation of
the research was that it could only integrate the perceptions of tourists about the sustainability of
heritage tourism because of the paucity of time and health risks caused by the pandemic.
Therefore, an important extension of this research would be to studythe sustainability of heritage
tourism in the new normal situation from the perspective of the local community, tourism
business operators, government officials,and NGOs.

Acknowledgement: This research paper is the outcome of the ICSSR-IMPRESS (Indian

Council of Social Science Research, Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD))
funded Project Titled “Sustainable Tourism Development in India – A Case Study of Uttar
Pradesh Heritage Tourism.”

7. REFERENCES

1. Aleksandra Terzić, Ana JovičićNataša, &Simeunović-Bajić (2014). Community role in

heritage management and sustainable tourism development: a case study of the Danube
Region in Serbia. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, Special Issue, pp. 183-
201.

2206
 Dr. Venugopalan T, Dr. Sukhvir Singh

2. Andereck, K., K. Valentine, R. Knopf, & C. Vogt. (2005). Residents’ Perceptions of

Community Tourism Impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 32 (4), pp. 1056–76.
3. Anderson J, &Gerbin, D.W. (1998). Structural Equation Modelling in Practice: A Review
and Recommended Two-step Approach. Psychological Bulletin. 103 (3), pp. 411-423.
4. Asmelash GebreegziabherAtsbha& Kumar Satinder (2019), The Structural Relationship
Between Tourist Satisfaction and Sustainable Heritage Tourism Development in Tigrai,
Ethiopia. Heliyon 5, pp.1-31.
5. Aydin Cevirgen, Furkan Baltaci, &Onur Oku. (2012). Residents’ Perceptions towards
Sustainable Tourism Development: The Case of Alanya. 3rd International Symposium on
Sustainable Development. (May 31 - June 01), Sarajevo.International Burch University.
6. Aydin, Begum, & Alvarez, Maria D. (2020). Understanding the Tourists’ Perspective of
Sustainability in Cultural Tourist Destinations. Sustainability, 12, pp.1-17.
7. Brookes, Graham. (2014). Heritage as a Driver for Development: Its Contribution to
Sustainable Tourism in Contemporary Society. International Cultural Tourism Committee
(ICOMOS), pp. 496-505. [email protected]
8. Buonincontri Piera, Marasco Alessandra, & Ramkissoon Haywantee. (2017). Visitors’
Experience, Place Attachment, and Sustainable Behaviour at Cultural Heritage Sites: A
Conceptual Framework. Sustainability, 9, pp.1-19.
9. Delhi Tourism. www.delhitourism.gov.in
10. Diep Ngoc Su, Nguyen An Ngoc Nguyen, Quynh NhuThi Nguyen, and Thao Phuong Tran.
(2020). The link between travel motivation and satisfaction towards a heritage destination:
The role of visitor engagement, visitor experience, and heritage destination image. Tourism
Management Perspective, 34, pp.1-11.
11. Fornell, C., &Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with
Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, (18:1), pp.
39-50.
12. Hall, D., & Richards, G. (2003). Tourism and Sustainable Community Development.
Routledge, London, and New York.
13. Han Heesup, EomTaeyeon, Al-Ansi Amr, Bobby Ryu Hyungseo, and Kim Wansoo. (2019).
Community-Based Tourism as a Sustainable Direction in Destination Development: An
Empirical Examination of Visitor Behaviors. Sustainability, 11, pp.1-14.
14. Heritage Tourism. (2014). National Trust for Historic Preservation. www.savingplace.org.
15. Holly M. Donohoe. (2012). Sustainable heritage tourism marketing and Canada's Rideau
Canal world heritage site.Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20 (1), pp. 121-142.
16. Hooper, D., Joseph, C., & Michael R. M. (2008). Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines
for Determining Model Fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6 (1), pp. 53-
60.
17. Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P.M. (1999), Cut-off Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure
Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives, Structural Equation Modelling. 6
(1), pp.1-55.
18. India Tourism Statistics at a glance-2020. (2020). https://tourism.gov.in/
19. Jaafar Mastura, Rasoolimanesh Mostafa S., & Ismail Safura. (2015). Perceived sociocultural
impacts of tourism and community participation: A case study of Langkawi Island. Tourism
and Hospitality Research, 0(0), pp.1-12.
20. Ko, D., & W. Stewart. (2002). A Structural Equation Model of Residents’ Attitudes for
Tourism Development. Tourism Management, 23 (5), pp. 521–30.

2207
 SUSTAINABLE HERITAGE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA: A CASE OF DELHI HERITAGE
TOURISM

21. Kreag, Glenn, (2001) The Impact of Tourism, Seagrant- Minnesota Sea Grant, 1, pp.1-20.
22. Krishnaswamy, J., & Mohan, K. (2003). Twenty Years Tourism Perspective Plan for the
State of Delhi. J.K. and Associates, Tourism and Hotel Consultants.
https://tourism.gov.in/sites/default/files/2020-04/Delhi.pdf
23. Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. (1992). Tourism. Economic, Physical and Social Impacts, Essex:
Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
24. Mbaiwa, Joseph, E., & Amanda, L. Stronza. (2010). The Effects of Tourism Development on
Rural Livelihoods in the Okavango Delta, Botswana, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18 (5),
pp.635-656.
25. Mowforth, M., & Mount, I. (2003). Tourism and Sustainability, New Tourism in the Third
World, Taylor, & Francis e-Library, Routledge. USA and Canada.
26. Pandey Ashutosh & Rajendra Sahu. (2020). Modelling the relationship between service
quality, destination attachment, and eWOM intention in heritage tourism. International
Journal of Tourism Cities, pp.1-16.
27. Rasoolimanesh, S.M., Jafars, M., Ahmed, A.G., &Ramayah, T. (2017). A revised framework
of social exchange theory to investigate the factors influencing residents' perceptions.
Tourism Management, 58, 142-153.
28. Rasoolimanesh, S.M., Noor S.M., & Jaafar M. (2019). Positive and Negative Perceptions of
Residents Towards Tourism Development: Formative or Reflective. In: Resei S. (eds)
quantitative Tourism Research in Asia. Perspectives on Asian Tourism. Springer, Singapore.
29. Robert, Kates W., Thomas M. Parris, & Anthony, A. Leiserowitz. (2005) What Is
Sustainable Development? Goals, Indicators, Values, and Practice. Environment: Science
and Policy for Sustainable Development, 47(3), pp. 8-21.
30. Sharpley, R. (2003). Tourism, Tourists, and Society, Elm Publications, Huntingdon.
31. Stynes J. Daniel (1997), Economic Impacts of Tourism: A Handbook for Tourism
Professionals, Tourism Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois. Urbana-
Champaign.
32. Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (2007), Using Multivariate Statistics (5th ed.). New York:
Allyn and Bacon.
33. Tessa van der Steen &Greg Richards. (2021). Factors affecting resident support for a
hallmark cultural event: the 2018 European Capital of Culture in Valletta, Malta. Journal of
Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events,13(1), pp. 107-123.
34. Tien-Ming Chenga, Homer C. Wub, & Lo-Min Huangc. (2013). The influence of place
attachment on the relationship between destination attractiveness and environmentally
responsible behaviours for island tourism in Penghu, Taiwan. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 21(8), pp.1166–1187.
35. UNEP & UNWTO. (2005). Making Tourism More Sustainable, A Guide for Policy Makers,
http://www.worldtoourism.org
36. Venugopalan, T., & Dharmendra Kumar. (2017). Sustainable Development through
Sustainable Tourism: A Case Study of Kerala Tourism. Asian Journal of Research in
Business Economics and Management, 7(12), pp.10-17.
37. Venugopalan, T., Sushama, & Bharani, G. (2018). Sustainable Tourism Development in
India: Exploratory research on Sustainability of Delhi Tourism. International Journal for
Research in Engineering Application &Management, 1(11), 11-18.
38. Verma, Meghna& Sarangi, Punyabeet. (2019). Modelling attributes of religious tourism: A
study of Kumbh Mela, India. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism,20(4), 1–29.

2208
 Dr. Venugopalan T, Dr. Sukhvir Singh

39. World Heritage Committee, 34th Session, Brazilia, Brazil. 25 July-3 August 2010. UNESCO
World Heritage Centre - 34th session of the World Heritage Committee
40. Yoon Yooshik, Gursoy Dogan & Chen Joseph S. (2001). Validating a tourism development
theory with structural equation modelling. Tourism Management, 22, pp.363-372.
41. Yung, H. K. E., & Chan, H. W. E. (2012). Critical social sustainability factors in urban
conservation: The case of the central police station compound in Hong Kong. Facilities.
30(9/10), 396-416.
42. Zhang, Lin., & Stewart, William. (2017). Sustainable Tourism Development of Landscape
Heritage in a Rural Community: A Case Study of Azheke Village at China Hani Rice
Terraces. Built Heritage, pp.1, 37-51.
43. Iulia C. Muresan, Camelia F. Oroian, Rezhen Harun, Felix H. Arion, AndraPorutiu, Gabriela
O. Chiciudean, AlexandruTodea, & Ramona Lile. (2016). Local Residents’ Attitude toward
Sustainable Rural Tourism Development. Sustainability, 8(100), pp. 1-14.
44. Ismail, F., & Turner, L. (2008). Host and tourist perceptions on small island tourism: A case
study of Perhentian and Redang islands, Malaysia. Paper presented at International
Conference on Applied Economics – ICOAE 2008. Greece.

2209

View publication stats