TOURISM DESTINATION COMPETITIVENESS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN INDIA AND CHINA

Dr. Samit

Chowdhury

INTRODUCTION

Tourism is seen now as a “sunshine” sector all over the world. While the last few

decades have seen a spurt in the tourism activity across various continents due to

several contributing factors, which thus lead the economic importance of the

tourism sector on the rise. The data released by different global bodies including

the United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) indicate significant

contribution from tourism to countries’ GDP and foreign exchange reserves. Tourism

has been accorded the status of an industry in many countries of the world due to

its emergence as a pivotal driver of a country’s economy as because tourism is

considered to be next in importance only to information technology in the services

sector. However, in the Asian context both India and China has emerged as a

dominant player in trade, industry and commerce and having its footprint in the

global scale. Though both the countries are having an age old civilization, ethos,

cultural bondage and above all culminate into a vast tourism resource which are

identical in nature to a greater extent.

TOURISM IN INDIA

India’s rich cultural and geographic diversity provides the basis of a wide range of

tourist products and experiences, which include among others - leisure, culture,

adventure, spirituality, eco-tourism and wellness & health etc. The ‘Incredible India’

campaign which was launched in the decade had the aim of enabling India as a

destination to penetrate global market and reach the consumers through electronic,

print and internet media. On account of the surge that India has witnessed in tourist

arrivals in the recent times and given the unique and immense potential the

country, The World Travel and Tourism Council has identified India as one of the

foremost tourism growth centers in the world, in the coming decade.

Indian culture and its age old history is a massively powerful brand on which

tourism industry can grow. It generated $11747 million revenue in 2008, but it is

considered to be a low figure, both in terms of tourist arrivals and the money they

spent in India as compared to other neighboring destinations. The destination like

Thailand with coast overlooking Bay of Bengal had a higher external tourist count,

Egypt had an astronomical rise in tourist inflow and vis-à-vis revenue. Europeans

and Americans go to see the Pyramids in Egypt. In the process they sustain the

Egyptian economy. China has used the Great Wall of China as a main sales brand in

its drive to attract tourists. Both Egypt and China have not much to offer as hardly

anyone speaks English or the European languages in both the places. In Egypt one

has to endure sand storms and terror attacks to see the Pyramids. In China

communist control over the travel outside the market area, thereby restricts option.

The greatest advantage of India is its rich cultural heritage, history, exotic places,

rich architectural legacy with classy monuments, sublime temples and four-season

weather. India is a veritable treasure trove of natural endowments like snow

covered Himalayas, golden beaches, 483 enchanting sanctuaries, 89national parks,

vast stretch of coast lines and a fascinating mélange of culture and life styles. It is

also a respiratory of various art forms that prospered from ancient periods, from

paintings, carvings, sculptures in stone and metal, caves, to its traditional

handicrafts. The most recent trend in tourism is the Medical Tourism. Medical

tourism can be broadly defined as provision of cost effective medical care in

collaboration with various blends of tourism, i.e. service, comfort and recreation.

Medical tourism is the most visible face of the increasing global trade in health care

services. The key “selling point” of the medical tourism industry are its “cost

effectiveness” and its combination with the attraction of tourism. The Slogan, thus

is “First World Treatment at Third World Prices”.

TOURISM IN CHINA

China is home to one of the world's four great civilizations. A history of 7000 years

has left behind great numbers of cultural relics and places of historical interest

spread across the vast country. The Chinese civilization has nurtured a brilliant

culture and art, music, dances, opera, martial arts, calligraphy, painting, engraving,

silk-weaving, porcelain-making, cuisine, architecture etc. China is a big family of 56

ethnic groups and the culture and ethnic minorities are treasure stores of tourism

resources. China encompasses a great diversity of landscapes and a corresponding

variety of natural resources and climate types. Over the past five decades since the

founding of the People's Republic, the Chinese government has devoted its efforts

to the protection and development of natural landscapes and cultural remains.

Since the State Council examined and publicized the first list of national-level scenic

resorts in 1982, China has formed a complete network integrating national with

provincial and municipal (county) scenic resorts. By 1998 the State Council

publicized 119 national scenic resorts on three lists; and China's scenic resorts at

various levels totaled 512, covering about 96,000 square kilometers. China acceded

to the Convention Concerning the Protection of the Cultural and Natural Heritage on

December 12, 1985. The Chinese government has made constant progress in

applying for world heritage to the UNESCO since 1986. By the end of 2001, 28

scenic resorts including Mount Huangshan and the Great Wall were listed as the

world cultural and/or natural heritage by the United Nations Educational, Scientific

and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY

As narrated above, regarding the tourism resources and avenues of both India and

China, it is now pertinent enough to unearth the Tourism Destination

Competitiveness Variables (TDCV). The destination competitiveness variables of

both the country would enable us to draw a clearer depiction of the current state of

affairs as incepting in the tourism sector of the said countries.

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

i) to identify and compare the specific destination competitiveness

variables (of India and China) and;

ii) to identify the areas of priority of Indian tourism sector which requires

attention at the policy making level.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Traditionally, the concept of competitiveness has been adopted from economic

theory and applied to a general firm or company. The hallmark of the earlier

literature on the subject is that these were generally guided by the concept of

comparative advantage lying at the heart of theories of international trade. More

recently, the focus of the literature has noticeably shifted particularly under the

influence of the contemporary works by Michael Porter (Porter 1980, 1985); and the

framework for measurement of competitiveness as adopted by the World Economic

Forum for compilation of its Global Competitiveness Report.

Despite the discussions on competitiveness, however, no universally accepted

definition or model of competitiveness has yet been developed. It has proved to be

a broad and relatively complex area that defy attempts by researchers to

summarize it in universally applicable terms. It is a complex concept because a

whole range of factors account for it. Competitiveness is both relative (i.e.

compared to what?) and multi-dimensional (i.e. what are the salient attributes or

qualities of competitiveness?) (Spence & Hazard 1988: 3-16). Tourism

competitiveness would appear to be linked to the relative ability of a destination to

meet visitor needs on various aspects of the tourism experience (Ritchie & Crouch

1993: 137-152).

Crouch and Ritchie (1999) argued that a country’s natural resources are important

source of comparative advantage in tourism. They emphasized that potential

resources can be most usefully categorized as financial, physical, legal, human,

organisational and informational. Therefore, resources could translate into a

position of competitive advantage in a market place.

DESTINATION COMPETITIVENESS

Given the complexities associated with defining the concept of competitiveness, it

seems only natural that views on destination competitiveness would widely differ.

The following stances taken by some of the leading researchers in the field may be

considered in this connection:

Pearce (1979: 175-182), described destination competitiveness as destination

evaluation techniques and methods that can systematically analyze and compare

the diverse attributes of competing destinations within a planning context.

Ritchie and Crouch (1999: 137-152) defined competitiveness as “the ability of a

country to create added value and thus increases national wealth by managing

assets and processes, attractiveness, and aggressiveness, and proximity, and by

integrating these relationship into an economic and social model”.

Hassan (2000: 234-245) defined destination competitiveness as “destinations

ability to create and integrate added value products that sustain its resources while

maintaining market position relative to competitors”

Mihalic (2000: 65-78), described destination competitiveness from environmental

perspectives that can be related to natural and man-made tourism components, as

well as social and cultural environments.

d’Hartserre (2000: 300-307), defined destination competitiveness as “the

ability of a destination to maintain its market position and share and/or to

improve upon them through time”.

Bahar & Kozak, (2007: 61-71), defined destination competitiveness “the

most competitive destination in the long term is that the one which creates

well-being for its residents.”

FRAMEWORK FOR MEASURING DESTINATION COMPETITIVENESS

Since early 1990’s, a good deal of research attempts have gone into exploring an

acceptable analytical framework that can be used for assessing the competitiveness

of a destination.

Poon (1997: 58-62) suggested four key principals which destinations must follow if

they are to be competitive; namely, (1) put the environment, (2) make tourism a

lead sector, (3) strengthen the distribution channels in the market place, and (4)

build a dynamic private sector

Dwyer and Kim (2003: 369-414) also undertook to contribute to the development of

a general model of destination competitiveness. Their model considers national and

firm competitiveness theory as well as the main elements of destination

competitiveness as proposed by tourism researchers and many of the variables and

category headings identified by Crouch and Ritchie. The primary elements of the

model include resources comprising endowed natural and heritage resources,

created resources, and supporting resources (such as general infrastructure,

accessibility, service quality, etc.).

Tourism destination competitiveness is becoming an area of growing interest

among tourism researchers (Crouch & Ritchie, 1999; Hassan 2000; d’Hauteserre,

2000). A number of studies have introduced and applied the concept of

competitiveness in the area of tourism destinations (Buhalis 2000; Crouch & Ritchie,

1999; d’Hauteserre 2000; Dwyer & Kim 2003; Ritchie & Crouch 1993). The major

interest of the prior studies has been to investigate how destination

competitiveness can be sustained as well as enhanced while maintaining a market

position among other destination competitors. Destination competitiveness

research has addressed a variety of other issues including destination positioning

(Chacko 1998), destination management systems (Baker, Hayzelden, and

Sussmann 1996: 1-13), quality management (Go and Govers 2000: 79-88),

destination marketing (Buhalis 2000: 97-116), and price competitiveness (Dwyer,

Forsyth, and Rao, 2000: 328-333).

A study by Buhalis (2000: 97-116) lists six major components of tourism attractions

and resources that most of the tourism literature commonly includes in assessing

and evaluating the elements of tourism destinations. These components are as

follows:

i. Attractions: natural, man-made, artificial, purpose-built, heritage, special

Events,

ii. Accessibility: entire transportation system comprised of routes,

terminals and vehicles,

iii. Amenities: accommodations, catering facilities, retailing, other tourist

Services,

iv. Available packages: prearranged packages by intermediaries and

principals,

v. Activities: all activities available at the destination and what consumers

will do during their visit,

vi. Ancillary services: services used by tourists such as banks,

telecommunications, newsagents, hospitals.

ADOPTED INDICATORS FOR MEASURING COMPETITIVENESS OF

DESTINATION-COUNTRY

Tourism and physical environments are inseparable companions, as most

destinations are based on the natural resources. The natural resources of a

destination define the environmental framework within which the visitor enjoys the

destination. They include physiographic, climate, flora and fauna, scenery and other

physical assets. While Porter and others have emphasised ‘factor creation’ as a

source of competitive advantage Buckley (1994: 661-669); Dunn& Iso-Ahola, (1991:

226-237) stated that a destination’s endowment of natural resources is crucial for

many forms of tourism and visitor satisfaction

Cohen (1988: 371-386); Murphy et al (2000: 43-52); are of the opinion that the

heritage and culture of a destination, i.e. history, institutions, customs, architectural

features, cuisine, traditions artwork, music, handicrafts, dance etc., provides a basic

and powerful attracting force for the prospective visitor. As Ritchie, Crouch and

Hudson (2000) point out in an example, merely counting of museums and historic

sites, while of some help in measuring a destination’s heritage endowment, may

well mask the quality of these attractions.

Cavelek (2002: 478-496) observes that safety and security are primary

requirements for growth, attractiveness and competitiveness of tourism

destinations. Without safety, destinations cannot successfully compete on the

generating markets as potential tourists do not want to visit a place that they

perceive as unsafe. Chiang (2000: 45-52) observes that safety and security has

been identified as one of the five global forces that would drive the tourism industry

in the years to come and is an important consideration in tourist destination choice.

From the literature on comparative advantage and price competitiveness comes the

recognition of the potential importance of destination price competitiveness in

influencing visitor flows. Lee et al (1996: 527-542) in their study indicates that the

tourists are sensitive to price. Price competitiveness is an essential component in

the overall tourism comparativeness of a country or a destination. There is widely

accepted evidence that prices are one of the most important factors in decision

about whether, and where, to undertake trips. In destination choice decision,

tourists consider the price at the destination relative to the cost of living at the

origin and the substitute destinations. According to Buhalis (2000: 97-116), tourists

incur costs within the destination that they visit that includes accommodation, food,

tours and shopping. They compare prices at the destinations with those in their

home country or region, deciding whether or not to visit that destination depending

on the relative cost of living between the two areas.

Crouch (1991: 643-644) emphasised to pay particular attention to the price

comparativeness of a country’s tourism industry, as compared to that of its

competitors, if the industry is to continue to grow. The price competitiveness of the

touristic products purchased by tourists is exchange rate determined (Dwyer et al

2003: 60-78), the weaker the destination country’s exchange rate against the

source market the more competitive the destination becomes.

A destination’s general infrastructure includes road networks, airports, train system,

bus system, water supply, telecommunications, sewerage, health-care facilities,

sanitation, the electricity generation system, financial services, and computer

services. Tourism infrastructure includes features such as accommodation facilities,

food services, transportation facilities, themed attractions, fast food outlets,

taverns/bars and receptive tourism plant, tour wholesalers, tour operators, travel

agents, car rental firms, local convention and visitor bureaux.

Tourism also relies on the provision of numerous ancillary services. Related services

infrastructure includes retail shopping facilities, food stores, garages (car

maintenance, petrol stations), pharmacies, bookstores /newsagents/kiosks,

laundries, hairdressers, administration offices (police, courts etc.). Mo et al. (1993:

319-335) have argued that destination tourism infrastructure is, after ‘destination

environment’, the most important factor in an international tourist’s experience of

the destination product.

Canestrelli & Costa (1991: 295-335); Machlis & Burch (1983: 666-689), posits that

hospitality relates to the perceived friendliness of the local population and

community attitudes towards tourists. It includes warmth of reception by local

population; willingness of residents to provide information to tourists; attitudes

towards tourists and the tourism industry. Tourist guidance and information,

including good signage, is important to visitors feeling ‘valued’ by residents of a

destination. Resident support for tourism development fosters a competitive

destination.

McKercher (1998: 39-47) demonstrates the link between market access and

destination choice. The accessibility of the destination is governed by a variety of

influences including the frequency, ease and quality of automobile, air, bus, train,

sea access; aviation regulations, entry permits and visa requirements; route

concessions; airport capacities; competition among carriers etc. Visas may be

expensive in terms of monetary outlay and/or inconvenient to procure, thus

deterring visitation. Countries may also impose restrictions on outbound travel by

residents.

Hoyle and Knowles (1998); Page (1994: 46-66), explored the tourist-transport

interface in detail. They are of the opinion that transport provides a major boost in

the tourist’s ability to travel because without transport, most forms of travel and

tourism could not occur. This has been inextricably linked to the development of

international trade, regional integration and expansion of extended metropolitan

regions and related growth triangles. Chew (1987); studied the relationship between

transport and tourism has been built on a continual introduction of new transport

technologies that have enabled travellers to move between origin and destination

either faster, safer or for a lower cost.

Thus, the review of literature reveals that various authors in the recent past tried to

identify the destination competitiveness variable, but so far the most

comprehensive framework has been given by World Economic Forum in the form of

Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index (TTCI).

The adopted framework for measuring the competitive strength of India as a

destination country as identified from the review of literature are shown below in

Table 1:

Table 1: Adopted framework for measuring competitiveness of destination.

Pillar (s) Variables

P1 Tourist Attractions

1. No. of world heritage natural sites.2. Protected areas3. Quality of the natural environment4. Total known species5. No. world heritage cultural sites6. No. of International fairs and exhibitions

P2 Tourism openness and publicity

7. Visa requirements8. Openness of bi-lateral air service9. Effectiveness of marketing and branding to attract tourists10.Tourism openness11.Attitude of population towards foreign

tourists

P3 Safety, security and health

12.Business cost of terrorism13.Reliability of police services14.Business cost of crime and violence15.Road traffic accidents16.Physician density17.Access to improved sanitation18.Access to improved drinking water

P4 Connectivity

19.Quality of air transport infrastructure20.Departure per 1,000 populations21.Airport density22.No. of operating airlines23.International air transport network24.Quality of roads25.Quality of rail road infrastructure26.Quality of domestic transport network

METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

Taking each of the above considerations as broad subsets, a survey of literature as

carried identified the globally used macro variables pertaining to each subset. To

put it otherwise, if “connectivity” is a major consideration/concern for all visiting or

prospective tourists, how can ‘connectivity’ be measured? What are the generally

accepted quantifiable indicators or parameters of connectivity? The survey of

literature enabled us to break-up the four pillars or considerations as mentioned

earlier into a total of 26 parameters/variables. These variables are

operative in the destination-country (i.e. the country supplying tourists to

destinations) and hence may be called the destination variables.

Relevant data were collected to know the relative status of each of the destination

variables in India vis-à-vis China. As the procured data in most cases were only hard

data and hence were not comparable (across variables), to ensure comparability,

we converted the entire data pertaining to the 26 variables into indices after taking

the status of the best-practice-country as the base (i.e., 100) in each case. The raw

data were available for all the 26 parameters from the Travel and Tourism

Competitiveness Report 2011 of the World Economic Forum. Following the

methodology developed by the World Economic Forum, we kept the composite

index unweighted.

COMPARATIVE FINDINGS OF DESTINATION COMPETITIVENESS BETWEEN INDIA AND CHINA (Pillar-wise)

CHART I: Showing the Comparative Index Values of India and China in Tourism Attractions.

13.3 10.255.6 57.8

7.9 15.9

80.0031.89

54.81 66.68100.00

40.99

Tourism AttractionsIndia China

Chart I reveals the destination competitiveness of India and China from the perspective of

“Tourism Attractions” As it is observed from the above chart that China has developed a

considerable competitive advantage in the areas of “No. of world heritage natural sites” with an

Index value of 80.0 and “No. of world heritage cultural sites” with an Index value of 100.0.

However, in regard to “Quality of the natural environment”, it is observed that both India and

China shares more or less an Index value of 55.6 and 54.81 respectively. However, owing to

wide geographical diversity of China the Index Value of China in “Total number of known

Species” and “Protected areas” are 66.68 and 31.89 in comparison to India’s Index Value in the

said variables as 57.8 and 10.2 respectively. It is also observed from the above chart that in

matter of organizing “International fairs and exhibitions”, the Index value of China is 40.99 as

compared to India’s Index value of 15.9. (C.f: Table II, Annexure-I).

CHART II: Showing the Comparative Index Values of India and China in Tourism Openness and Publicity.

1.823.4

69.4

5.3

89.9

3.07 16.32

80.77

5.35

85.51

Tourism Openness and PublicityIndia China

Chart II reveals the destination competitiveness of India and China from the perspective of

“Tourism Openness and Publicity”. As it is observed from the above chart that both India and

China are well below the globally ranked countries in regard to the variables, viz: “Visa

requirements”, “Openness of bi-lateral air service” and “Tourism Openness”. For China, the fact

can be attributed because of a long term communist regime coupled with the protectionist policy

and thereby an isolation from global arena. However, for India the reasons can be put forward in

the light of inactive role of the government in both pre and post liberalization era in emphasizing

the status of tourism as paramount in developing national economy. But, both India and China

realized the importance of marketing and publicity of tourism product, and thus it can be

observed that the Index Values of “Effectiveness of Marketing and Branding to attract Tourists”

for India as 69.4 and 80.77 for China respectively. Further, the high Index Values of India (89.9)

and China (85.51) in respect of the variable “Attitude of population towards foreign tourists”,

can be attributed to the ancient civilization and cultural ethos of both the countries. (C.f: Table

III, Annexure-II).

CHART III: Showing the Comparative Index Values of India and China in Safety, Security and Health.

65.3 63.6 74.9

20.2 10.831

8881.39 69.13 80.51

20.61 26.5455

89

Safety, Security and HealthIndia China

Chart III reveals the destination competitiveness of India and China from the perspective of

“Safety, Security and Health”. As it may be observed that both India and China shares an

extent of uniformity on the variables, viz: “Reliability of police services”, “Business cost of crime

and violence” and “Access to improved drinking water”. However in regard to the index value of

the variable “Physician density” both the countries (India 10.8 and China 26.54) lacks proper

medical facilities/infrastructure as compared to globally best countries in the said variable. (C.f:

Table IV, Annexure-III).

CHART IV: Showing the Comparative Index Values of India and China in Connectivity.

66

0.600000000000001 0.2

42

76.750

67.6 67.763.44

1.51 0.42

56.38 68.23 64.16 64.16 73.6

CONNECTIVITYIndia China

Chart IV reveals the destination competitiveness of India and China from the perspective of

“Connectivity”. As it is observed from the above chart that both India and China are well below

the globally ranked countries in regard to the variables, viz: “Departure per ‘000 populations”

and, “Airport Density”. For both the countries, the fact can be attributed because of the

geographical vastness and diversity. However, in regard to the variable “International air

transport network” both India and China realized the importance of the same and thus it can be

observed that the Index Values for India as 76.7 and 68.28 for China respectively. (C.f: Table V,

Annexure-IV).

CONCLUSION:

In the last and the prescriptive phase, the comparative analysis of 26 variables pertaining to

Tourism Destination Competitiveness of both India and China enabled us to unfold the following

8 areas, where the Index Value of India are relatively less as against China:

i) No. of world heritage natural sites. iv) Tourism openness.

ii) No. of world heritage cultural sites. v) Road traffic and accidents.

iii) Visa requirements. vi) Physician density.

vii) Airport density. viii) Departure per (‘000) population.

Further, the Composite Index Value of both India and China stood at 31.44 and 43.36 respectively. Therefore, indicating the disadvantageous position of India in regard to the composite index value of India as against China.

The paper concluded itself by pointing attention to the aforesaid 8 areas of strategic action where priority attention at the policy making levels is called for.

References:

Bahar, O. & Kozak, M. (2007): “Advancing destination competitiveness research: Comparison between tourists and service providers”. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 22 (2). pp. 61-71.

Buckley, R. (1994): “A framework for ecotourism”, Annals of Tourism Research, 21 (3). pp. 661-669.

Buhalis, Dimitrios (2000): “Marketing the competitive destination of the future,” Tourism Management, 21 (1). pp. 97-116.

Canestrelli, E. and Costa, P. (1991): ‘‘Tourist carrying capacity: A fuzzy approach’’. Annals of Tourism Research 18 (2). pp. 295-335.

Cavelek, Nevenka (2002): “Tour operators and destination safety” Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (2). pp. 478-496.

Chiang, Leong Choon (2000): “Strategies for safety and security in Tourism: A conceptual framework for the Singapore hotel industry,” The Journal of Tourism Studies, 11 (2). pp. 45-52.

Cohen, E. (1988): “Authenticity and commodification in tourism” Annals of Tourism Research, 15 (2). pp. 371-386.

Crouch, G.I. & Ritchie, J.R.B. (1999): “Tourism, competitiveness, and Societal Prosperity” Journal of Business Research, 44 (3). pp. 137-152.

Crouch, G.I. & Ritchie, J.R.B. (1999): “Tourism, competitiveness, and Societal Prosperity” Journal of Business Research, 44 (3). pp. 137-152.

D’Harteserre,A.(2000): “Lessons in Managerial Destination Competitiveness in the case of Foxwoods Casino Resort” Tourism Management, 21 (1). pp. 300-307.

Dunn, R. & Iso-Ahala, S. (1991): “Sightseeing tourists’ motivations and satisfaction”. Annals of Tourism Research 18 (2). pp. 226-237.

Dwyer, L., & C. Kim (2003): “Destination Competitiveness. Determinants and Indicators.” Current Issues in Tourism, 6 (5). pp. 369-414.

Dwyer, Larry, Peter Forsyth & Prasada Rao (2000): “Destination Price Competitiveness: Exchange rate changes versus domestic inflation” Journal of Tourism Research, 40 (2). pp. 328-333

Go, F.M., Grovers, R. (2000): “Integrated Quality management for tourist destinations: A European perspective on achieving competitiveness”. Tourism Management, 21 (1). pp. 79-88.

Hassan, Salah S (2000): “Determinants of market competitiveness in an environmentally sustainable tourism industry,” Journal of Tourism Research, 38 (1). pp. 234-245

Hoyle, B. & Knowles, R. (1988). (eds). Modern Transport Geography, John Wiley and Sons, 2nd edn., Chischester.

Lee, C.K., Var, T. & Blain, T. (1996) “Determinants of inbound tourism expenditures” Annals of Tourism Research 23 (3). pp. 527-542.

Machlis, G. and Burch, W. (1983) “Relations among strangers: Cycles of structuring and meaning in the tourist system”. Sociological Review, 31 (2). pp 669-689.

McKercher, B. (1998) “The effect of market access on destination choice’. Journal of Travel Research, 37 (2). pp 39-47

Mihalic, Tanja (2000), “Environmental management of a tourist destination: A factor of tourism competitiveness,” Tourism Management 21 (1). pp 65-78.

Mo, C., Handy, D. and Havitz, M. (1993) “Testing an international tourist role typology”. Annals of Tourism Research 20 (2). pp 319-335.

Murphy P., M. Pritchard and B. Smith (2000). “The Destination Product and its Impact on Traveller Perceptions”. Tourism Management 21, (1). pp 43-52

Pearce, D.G. 1979 “Toward a geography of tourism” Annals of Tourism Research 6(3) . pp 245-272.

Poon, A (1997), Tourism, Technology and Competitive Strategies: CAB.Tourism Research, Oxon, UK.

Porter, M. E. (1980): Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors.The Free Press, New York.

Porter, Michael (1985): Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. The Free Press, New York.

Ritchie, Brent J R and Geoffery I Crouch (1993), "Competitiveness in International Tourism: A Framework for Understanding and Analysis," in Proceedings of the 43rd congress of the AIEST. San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina. (http://www. www.ucalgary.ca/~britchie/presentations. htm. Accessed on 25-11-2010.).

Spence, A.M., & Hazard, H.A. (Eds) (1988): International Competitiveness. Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge.

World Economic Forum (2011). “Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report”. Geneva. (http://members.weforum.org/pdf/TTCR09/TTCR09_ FullReport. pdf . Accessed on 14-01-2012.

Web Sites:

http://www.incredibleindia.org (Report of Evaluation Study in Selected Overseas Markets. Ministry of Tourism. Government of India)

http://np.china-embassy.org/eng/Tourism/ybxx/t167512.htm (Tourism Resources in China. Embassy of People’s Republic of China)

ANNEXURE I.

Table II: Showing the Comparative Index Values of India and China in Tourism Attractions. (C.f Chart I)

Pillar Indicators/Variables Globally Globally Score Score

Best Ranked Country

Best Country's

Score

and Index Value

of India

and Index Value

of China

Pillar 1: Tourism Attractions.

1. No. of world heritage natural sites. Australia 15 5 12INDEX VALUE 100 13.3 80.002. Protected areas. Venezuela 50.18 5.12 16INDEX VALUE 100 10.2 31.89

3. Quality of the natural environment. Sweden 6.75 3.75 3.7INDEX VALUE 100 55.6 54.81

4. Total known species. Brazil 3172 1834 2115INDEX VALUE 100 57.8 66.685. No. world heritage cultural sites. China 63 5 63INDEX VALUE 100 7.9 100.006. No. of International fairs and exhibitions.

United States 627 100 257

INDEX VALUE 100 15.9 40.99 100 24.58 62.39

Note: 1. For construction of sub-indices, the hard data or WEF measures have been converted into index values for the constituents countries taking the status of the best practice country of the world as the base.

2. Following the methodology adopted by World Economic Forum (2011), the index values has been obtained by averaging (unweighted) the relevant sub-indices.

Source: Calculated on the basis of data released by World Economic Forum: Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report 2011

ANNEXURE II.

Table III: Showing the Comparative Index Values of India and China in Tourism Openness and publicity. (C.f Chart II)

Pillar Indicators/Variables Globally Best

Ranked Country

Globally Best

Country's Score

Score and

Index Value of

India

Score and

Index Value

of China

Pillar 2: Tourism openness and publicity.

1. Visa requirements. Malaysia 163 3 5INDEX VALUE 100 1.8 3.07

2. Openness of bi-lateral air service.El-Salvador 33.7 7.9 5.5

INDEX VALUE 100 23.4 16.323. Effectiveness of marketing and branding to attract tourists. UAE 6.5 4.51 5.25INDEX VALUE 100 69.4 80.774. Tourism openness. Lebanon 31.24 1.65 1.67INDEX VALUE 100 5.3 5.35

5. Attitude of population towards foreign tourists.New Zealand 6.9 6.2 5.9

INDEX VALUE 100 89.9 85.51 37.94 38.20

Note: 1. For construction of sub-indices, the hard data or WEF measures have been converted into index values for the constituents countries taking the status of the best practice country of the world as the base.

2. Following the methodology adopted by World Economic Forum (2011), the index values has been obtained by averaging (unweighted) the relevant sub-indices.

Source: Calculated on the basis of data released by World Economic Forum: Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report 2011

ANNEXURE III.

Table IV: Showing the Comparative Index Values of India and China in Safety, Security and Health. (C.f Chart III)

Pillar Indicators/VariablesGlobally

Best Ranked Country

Globally Best

Country's Score

Score and

Index Value of

India

Score and Index

Value of China

Pillar 3: Safety, security and health.

12. Business cost of terrorism. Uruguay 6.77 4.42 5.51INDEX VALUE 100 65.3 81.3913 Reliability of police services. Finland 6.64 4.22 4.59INDEX VALUE 100 63.6 69.1314. Business cost of crime and violence. Syria 6.62 4.96 5.33INDEX VALUE 100 74.9 80.5115. Road traffic accidents. Malta 3.4 16.8 16.5INDEX VALUE 100 20.2 20.6116. Physician density. Greece 5.35 0.58 1.42INDEX VALUE 100 10.8 26.5417. Access to improved sanitation. Australia 100 31 55INDEX VALUE 100 31 55.00

18. Access to improved drinking water. Australia 100 88 89

INDEX VALUE 100 88 89.00 100 50.55 60.31

Note: 1. For construction of sub-indices, the hard data or WEF measures have been converted into index values for the constituents countries taking the status of the best practice country of the world as the base.

2. Following the methodology adopted by World Economic Forum (2011), the index values has been obtained by averaging (unweighted) the relevant sub-indices.

Source: Calculated on the basis of data released by World Economic Forum: Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report 2011

ANNEXURE IV.

Table V: Showing the Comparative Index Values of India and China in Connectivity. (C.f Chart IV)

Pillar Indicators/Variables Globally Best Ranked

Globally Best

Score and

Score and

CountryCountry's

Score

Index Value of

India

Index Value of

China

Pillar 4: Connectivity.

19. Quality of air transport infrastructure. Hong Kong 6.92 4.57 4.39INDEX VALUE 100 66.0 63.4420. Departure per 1,000 populations. Luxembourg 93 0.52 1.4INDEX VALUE 100 0.6 1.5121. Airport density. Iceland 28.35 0.07 0.12INDEX VALUE 100 0.2 0.42

22. No. of operating airlines.United States 188 79 106

INDEX VALUE 100 42.0 56.3823. International air transport network. Singapore 6.83 5.24 4.66INDEX VALUE 100 76.7 68.2324. Quality of roads. Singapore 6.64 3.32 4.26INDEX VALUE 100 50 64.1625. Quality of rail road infrastructure. Switzerland 6.78 4.58 4.35INDEX VALUE 100 67.6 64.1626. Quality of domestic transport network. switzerland 6.78 4.59 4.99INDEX VALUE 100 67.7 73.60

100 46.4 49.0Note: 1. For construction of sub-indices, the hard data or WEF measures have been converted into index values for the

constituents countries taking the status of the best practice country of the world as the base.2. Following the methodology adopted by World Economic Forum (2011), the index values has been obtained by

averaging (unweighted) the relevant sub-indices.

Source: Calculated on the basis of data released by World Economic Forum: Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report 2011