A Study of Natural Disaster 2013 and Tourism Business of Uttarakhand

Tourism industry is one of the fastest growing sectors which is helpful in job creation, foreign exchange earnings and contribute to the GDP of the country. Uttarakhand‘s economy is based on tourism and agriculture (mainly fruits) and natural disasters affects both the sector. The state Uttarakhand is situated in the lap of Himalaya; there are more chances of natural disasters due to the geophysical location. The number of tourists visiting Uttarakhand has consistently increased from around 11 Million in 2000 to 28 Million in 2012. But in the year 2013, the State was washed away by devastating floods and landslides that resulted in significant 30% decline in tourist visits. In 2014, the State regained its momentum and witnessed 10% growth in total tourist visits. A natural disaster is a geophysical, atmospheric or hydrological event (e.g., earthquake, landslide, tsunami, windstorm, flood or drought) that has the potential to cause harm or loss, while a natural disaster is the occurrence of an extreme hazardous event that impacts on communities causing damage, disruption and casualties, and leaving the affected communities unable to function normally without outside assistance (Twigg, 2007). The natural disaster in Uttarakhand has caused millions of losses in economy, livelihood and natural resorces. The Rudraprayag district where Kedarnath is located has already faced the problem of natural disasters 8 times for last 34 years. During 1953-1980, 764.48 million peoples have suffered mainly due to flood and natural disaster (Sharma, Mishra, & Tyagi, 2013). Massive floods and landslides in June 2013 led to what most believe to be Uttarakhand‗s worst disaster in living memory. The devastation was state wide, with estimates of anticipated revenue losses in the tourism sector alone being over Rs. 120 billion for 2013–14 rising to Rs. 200 billion in 2014–15 and an estimated Rs. 250 billion in 2015–16 (Sharma etal. 2013.

Tourist destinations in every corner of the world face a disaster of one form at some point in their history (Faulkner, 2001). The exposure of tourism to natural calamity is related with the attractiveness of many high-risk exotic locations, where events such as hurricanes, landslide, avalanches and volcanic activity are common (Murphy & Bayley 1989). Tourism is highly prone to disaster. The increased volume of international tourist movement has combined with the attractiveness of high-risk exotic destinations to expose tourists to greater level of risk (Drabek, 1995)3, (Murphy, 1989)4. Tourists are more vulnerable than locals in disaster situation because they are less familiar with local hazard situation and the available resources that can be relied on to avoid risk, and they are dependent on the service provider (Burby & Wagner, 1996)5; (Drabek, 1994). Tourism business operator hope to construct accommodation and other facilities close to scenic areas, which provide them special geography, are often nearby to the mountains or the ocean. Unfortunately these are also the sites that most repeatedly experience natural disasters. During the

Tourism industry is immune to natural disaster that is reflected in annual data. Further high development of the tourism sector therefore offers some opportunity to reduce the economy's vulnerability to disasters. However, any upper limits imposed by natural disasters on the potential degree of expansion of the industry, from the perspective of both potential investors and visitors, should be investigated. Tourist should be protected from the event of disaster and damaging publicity must be avoided (Benson, 1997). Nott (2006) studied that Floods are the most costly and wide reaching of all natural hazards. They are responsible for up to 50,000 deaths and adversely affect some 75 million people on average worldwide every year. Disease outbreak is common especially in less developed countries. Disease like Malaria and Typhoid are also common in tropical countries after floods. It has been estimated that in India and Bangladesh 300 million people live in areas that are affected by floods. The floods destroyed tourism infrastructure like hotels, lodges and restaurants and abruptly ended the main annual tourist season. Scores of hotel buildings and residential houses collapsed into the swirling flood waters in Uttarakashi, Rudraprayag and Chamoli districts. GMVN, the state-owned corporation, lost popular tourist rest houses at Syalsaur, Chandrapuri, Birahi and Kaudiyala among other sites. The devastation was state wide, with estimates of anticipated revenue losses in the tourism sector alone being over Rs. 120 billion for 2013–14 rising to Rs. 200 billion in 2014–15 and an estimated Rs. 250 billion in 2015–16 (PHD Research Bureau, 2013). Patra (2013) found that this being the time of the year when tens of thousands of pilgrims and tourists flock to Uttarakhand for the Char Dham Yatra (the most revered Hindu pilgrimage of Journey of Four Holy Shrines of Gangotri, Yamunotri, Kedarnath and Badrinath), the losses are far too higher. There number has dramatically increased in recent years; from 362,757 in 1990 to 925,998 in 2012. And, going by the trend, it has been projected to cross more than one million in 2013. Tourism accounts for between 25-30% of the state‗s gross state domestic product. A recent report on tourism in India said that in spite of hosting 4% of India‗s tourists, Uttarakhand spends only 1.5% of its budget on tourism (Live-mint, 2013).

To study natural disaster and its relation with tourism business

H1: there is no relation between natural disaster and tourism business H2: In context of tourism businesses/tourism professionals, there is a significant difference in terms of impacts, before and after natural disaster. For this research four natural disaster affected sites (Gangotri, Yamunotri, Kedarnath and Badrinath) have been selected. Both secondary and primary source were used for data collection. Secondary data collected from research journals, thesis, reports, newspapers etc. Primary data collected through structured questionnaire. Tourism professionals were selected for the primary data and filled 120 questionnaires. For analysis and interpretation paired sample‗t‘ test was used by researcher.

Tourism professionals can provide proper information regarding impacts of natural disaster on tourism. Below given table depicts demographic profile of respondents who were working in tourism

were just 9%. In terms of age group 6.7% respondents belong to 18 to 25, 35% were belongs to 26 to 40. In the age group of 41 to 60 respondents were 47.5% and 10.8% were from 61 and above. Most of the respondents were married (72.5%), 15.8% were single whereas 11.7% belongs to other category. 33.4% respondents were educated up to 10th class, 10+2 were 23.3%. Graduate respondents were 13.3% and 10% were with post graduation. Professional qualification respondents were just 6.7% and 13.3% were with other which are not mentioned in categorisation. In terms of income 15.8% respondents were belongs to less than 1 lakh rupees and 45% from between 1 to 2 lakh rupees. 26% respondents have income of rupees 2 to 3 lakh rupees and only 12.5% were belongs to 3 lakh and above rupees. Most of respondents 63.3% were born in study area while 26.7% were migrated from lower districts. Just 10% respondents were migrated from other states.

To test the hypothesis that the pre disaster impacts (M, S.D) and post disaster impacts means (M, S.D) were equal, a dependent/paired sample t-test was performed. Prior to conducting the analysis, the assumption of normality distribution difference scores was examined. The assumption was considered satisfied, as the skew and kurtosis level were estimated, which is less than the maximum allowable values for a t-test (i.e., Skew<|2.0| and kurtosis< |9.0|); postern 1984). It will also be noted that the dependent sample t-test is appropriate in this case. The null hypothesis of equal impact was rejected, t (n-1) =, p<.001.

The above table indicate acceptance and rejection of hypothesis ―In context of tourism businesses/tourism professionals, there is a significant difference in terms of impacts, before and after natural disaster”. The data depicts that variable serial number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 were accepted and another 6, 7, 8 variables were rejected, that mean natural disaster affects tourism business in Uttarakhand.

Uttarakhand faced a number of disasters throughout history but natural disaster 2013 was worst of them. Tourism is the main source of income for locals and professionals. Researcher found that natural disaster affects tourism business and tourist flow decreased after the disaster. Sustainable approach is required for the development of tourism in the area.

Benson, C. (1997). The Economic impact of natural disasters. London: Overseas Development Institute Portland House Stag Place. Burby, R. J., & Wagner, F. (1996). Protecting tourists from death and injury in coastal storm. Disasters, 20 (1), pp. 49-60.

Live-mint. (2013, June 30). Uttarakhand: a state caught unprepared. Retrieved from Live Mint: http://www.livemint.com /Opinion/bqf8R3mRLr50kJyUspc0IJ /Uttarakhand-a-state-caught-unprepared.html

Sharma, M., Mishra, S. K., & Tyagi, S. (2013). The impact of torrential rainfall in kedarnath, uttarakhand, india during june. International Research Journal of Environment Sciences, Vol. 2(9), pp. 34-37. Sharma, V. K., & Kaushik, A. D. (2012, March). Natural Disaster Management in India, Disaster Management. YOJANA , pp. 30-36. Tsai, C. H., & Chen, C. W. (2011). The establishment of a rapid natural disaster risk assessment model for the tourism industry. Tourism Management, 32, pp. 158-171. Twigg, J. (2007). Tools for Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction, Social Impact Assessment. Retrieved 2014, from International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies prevention Consortium.: Http://www.proventionconsortium.org /mainstreaming _tools