By Benjamin Lyngdoh
Tourism is primarily a travel for leisure. Although other facets are also associated with it, the ‘leisure’ component trumps over all others. At the heart of this leisure-orientation, the attractiveness of a particular destination from the perspective of aesthetics and ambience plays an important role. As such, tourism marketing campaigns, promotion and advertisement factor attractiveness as its unique selling proposition (USP), thereby conforming to the age old adage, ‘seeing is believing’. Hence, tourism attractiveness can be simply and plainly viewed only from the perspective of beauty and aesthetics. It can be viewed from the prism of pictures, videos, commentaries and so forth. However, in the true sense of the term ‘tourism attractiveness’ is not a qualitative concept; rather, it is a quantitative representation of the tourism elements thereby assessing the status and shortcomings of tourism development percolating into derivation of growth (and development) strategies. Subsequently, one may wonder as to the tourism attractiveness of Meghalaya (in its true sense). Accordingly, I place the following pointers –
Firstly, what is this construct called ‘tourism attractiveness?’ To start with, it is a key factor in destination marketing and it generally refers to ‘the feelings, beliefs and opinions that an individual has about a destination’s perceived ability to provide satisfaction in relation to his/her special vacation needs’. It predominantly assesses ‘what a destination can offer to a tourist?’ Accordingly, tourism attractiveness is aptly defined as ‘the interaction between tourism supply and tourism demand, which in turn depends on the relationship between the availability of existing attractions and the perceived importance of such attractions’. Here, tourism supply includes ‘what a destination has to offer’ (covering natural resources, culture and events, recreation and entertainment, infrastructure, security and safety, hospitality, etc) and tourism services as an existent component of the supply. On the other hand, tourism demand includes tourist arrivals (domestic and foreign), number of overnights, average stay duration, tourist spending and so forth. This interaction (between tourism supply and tourism demand) acts as an important indicator of tourism attractiveness and the growth of the tourism sector. Moreover, it can be used as a decision-making tool in planning, marketing and developing appropriate resource allocation strategies.
Secondly, let us look at Meghalaya as a tourism destination. Let us do this in simple language without involving any strategic construct whatsoever. In general, we will find that our hills and valleys are endowed with breathtaking beauty which resonates of a vibrant tourism potential and fantastic business opportunities. In addition, we must realize that there is latent tourism potential as well; these are the ones that will drive our competitive advantage. There are pictures/videos on Meghalaya which present an enticing prospect for travel by the leisure seekers. All of these represent the inherent ‘tourism supply’ of Meghalaya. However, tourism supply also includes services (like accommodation, food, transportation, infrastructure, etc). It is when we add these services that our tourism takes a hit. This is more so in the context of infrastructure (roads, road-side basic sanitary and health services, overall IT connectivity, etc). The end result is that all these issues impact upon ‘tourism demand’ primarily seen in the context of tourist arrivals. Ideally speaking, our ‘tourism carrying capacity’ can be a lot more today if we take care of the supply related issues by ensuring a holistic tourism development in the entire state (and not just focus too much on East Khasi Hills District alone). To add to this, if we can scale and improve upon our services, then the tourism demand is bound to be more robust with vast possibilities of further impacting upon livelihoods.
Thirdly, as stated above, tourism attractiveness is all about the ‘interaction’ between ‘tourism supply’ and ‘tourism demand’. The point to be noted here is that this interaction works both ways. Tourism supply influences tourism demand and vice versa and the cycle continues to perpetuity. However, the million dollar question is: where is the starting point? Does supply influence demand first or is it the other way round? Globally, experiences have shown that at the start-up point, supply influences the demand. This is in keeping with the conceptualization of tourism; that we deal with tourism ‘products’ and market them to the prospective clients (albeit tourism is a service sector). Subsequently, as the process goes on the demand will influence the supply; whereby there will be a demand for certain services by the tourist which will have to be provided for by the host community. Bed and Breakfast and home-stay services of Sohra are a good example of this. This is the crux of how tourism grows and develops in any setting. It is indeed a very simple construct. Hence, the earlier we factor this, the better.
In our context, it is time to revisit our tourism supply related issues. Although, tourism has been operational for years, from the context of a strategic pull, we need to go back to the drawing board and devise a ‘sustainable tourism development model’. In failing to do so, we will be in continued deprivation of the real socio-economic benefits from tourism and the sector will continue to grow in an unsustainable manner.
Fourthly, a talk on tourism is incomplete without factoring in the ‘sustainable/unsustainable’ issues. It is important that we view tourism as ‘a source of bread and livelihood’ and not some source of stop-gap, short-term windfall gain(s). Unless we have this perception, our initiative of tourism development will be bereft of encompassing practices and processes which evoke a degree of sustainability (or even responsibility). As a case in point, look at Shillong in the weekends (and extended holidays). Gradually, our city is turning into a Chandigarh of the Northeast; whereby hoards of people from the nearby states come in to party and pop a merry time with no inclination of being responsible tourists. Alas, this is not the form of tourism development we need. Disturbingly, this trend is emerging in other parts of the state as well. Of course, inebriation is a personal choice; however, this choice must not be exercised to the limit that it starts to define the tourism of a particular place. This trend is to be nipped in the bud before it starts to excessively impact upon the general face of Meghalaya tourism. Clearly, the construct of ‘tourism attractiveness of Meghalaya’ is faced with challenging times.
Lastly, although tourism has progressed commendably over the years, it must also be noted that tourism is not a panacea. Moreover, the tourism sector is closely related (if you like, dependent) on other developmental departments of the state machinery (the most important being infrastructure). Therefore, any effort towards tourism attractiveness shall require a coordination and synergy across the stakeholders. Well, one might be as blunt in saying; ‘either we ship together or we sink together!’
(The Author teaches at NEHU)Benjamin Lyngdoh NEHU Campus Shillong – 793022