International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 8 (2020) 185–193

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks

journal homepage: http://www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/
international-journal-of-geoheritage-and-parks/

Sustainable ecotourism development using SWOT and QSPM

approach: A study on Rameswaram, Tamil Nadu
Suraj Kumar Mallick, Somnath Rudra ⁎, Riya Samanta
Department of Geography, Vidyasagar University, Midnapore, West Bengal, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Promoting religious tourism in Rameswaram has considered its rich and historic footprint and
Received 2 April 2020 easing tourism infrastructure along the coastal belt of southern most corner state, Tamil Nadu.
Received in revised form 5 May 2020 The prime objective of this study is to offer some strategies for sustainable ecotourism devel-
Accepted 10 June 2020
opment. The study was based on different empirical analysis including questionnaire and inter-
Available online 13 June 2020
view surveying of local people, shop-keepers, hotels, and domestic as well foreign visitors. To
this end, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats (SWOT) and based on results a quanti-
Keywords: tative strategic planning matrix (QSPM) approach were used to manage the proper sustainabil-
Tourism infrastructure
ity of ecotourism. Result showed that Rameswaram was facing so many difficulties regarding
Rameswaram
visitor's satisfaction level on unique food habit, lodging and services including pollution. So,
SWOT
QSPM the current management strategies were explicated that Rameswaram should conduct unsus-
Sustainable ecotourism tainable ecotourism. If the local government wants to promote sustainable ecotourism develop-
ment through some proper or concrete strategies then they must have to work on weaknesses
and opportunities that will reduce the environmental effects as well as provide quality of ser-
vices and make the place strategically tourism hotspot.
Copyright © 2020 Beijing Normal University. Publishing Services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of
KeAi Communications Co. Ltd.

1. Introduction

According to the United Nation World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), “tourism comprises the activities of persons travelling
to and staying in place outside their usual environment for not more than one consecutive year for leisure, business and other
purposes.” In case of world tourism, it is one of the key economic sectors with a direct contribution to the GDP and provides em-
ployment to the local people. Moreover, tourism promotes and develops the peace, prosperity, national and international relation-
ship with the sustainable development goals (UNWTO, 2017). The year of 2017 had been celebrated as the international year of
sustainable tourism development. Ecotourism development is an emergent concern in the global tourism industry. Basically, eco-
tourism is defined as a nature-oriented tourism activity (Fennell, 2008a) that offers a significant positive assistance to the envi-
ronment, society and economic well-being of the destination. Thus, ecotourism is worked as a business and economic
developmental tool to maintain the sustainability of the destination including protecting the environment (Palmer &
Chuamuangphan, 2018). So, the conservation of the natural environment is better represented in the more recent definitions of
ecotourism (Donohoe & Needham, 2006; Fennell, 2008b).

⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Geography, Vidyasagar University, Midnapore, West Bengal Pin-721102, India.
E-mail address: rudra347@rediffmail.com. (S. Rudra).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2020.06.001
2577-4441/Copyright © 2020 Beijing Normal University. Publishing Services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd.
186 S.K. Mallick et al. / International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 8 (2020) 185–193

So many researchers worked in this field and put their contribution towards the environmental sustainability and nature-
oriented tourism development (Blamey, 2001; Fennell, 2008a; Reihanian, Noor Zalina Binti, Kahrom, & Hin, 2012; Ghorbani,
Raufirad, & Jafarian, 2015; Palmer & Chuamuangphan, 2018). The bridge between natural heritage and tourism has amalgamated
the ecotourism concept. But, the ecotourism concept depends on individual thinking over the nature and exploration of activities
that makes the difference in the definition of ecotourism. For example, beach tourism development always promotes some recre-
ation places for the tourist. However, sustainable ecological tourism has been criticized by some researchers (Buckley, 2012; Ceron
& Dubois, 2003; Liu, 2003; Mika, 2015; Ross & Wall, 1999) because sometime tourism development changes the land uses and
thus, sustainability has become a myth. Moreover, ecotourism concept has experienced through various cultural and political in-
terferences when several local authorities have been introduced some strategic planning to improve the ecotourism structure.
Although, ecotourism is vast concept but, sustainable ecotourism is just a speculation of the brief summary in the name of
tourism development and GDP generation. Sometime, human interference has changed the dimension of ecotourism and hamper-
ing the environment so rigidly. Consequently, the destination should have created a threat by itself and destroy the whole system.
Therefore, the World Ecotourism Summit (2002) includes five distinct criteria that was ‘nature-based product’, ‘minimal impact
management’, ‘environmental education’, ‘contribution to conservation’ and ‘contribution to community’ Where the ‘minimal im-
pact management’ has replaced with ethics and sustainability.
Sustainable ecotourism-based urban development is seen various part of world. India is a very beautiful destination for tourism
especially for the foreign tourists. Rameswaram is one of the coastal tourism spots in South India. But it has some management
and infrastructural problems. Here, authors tried to introduce strength, weakness, opportunity and threat (SWOT) approach over
the Rameswaram for the analysis of sustainability of tourism activities. SWOT has been significantly applied in various manage-
ment fields like urban solid waste management (Srivastava, Kulshreshtha, Mohanty, Pushpangadan, & Singh, 2005), sustainable
energy development through national strategy (Markovska, Taseska, & Pop-Jordanov, 2009), human settlement development at
the valley (Buta, 2007), sustainable business management (Lee & Ko, 2000), strategic rural development (Ommani, 2001), sustain-
able tourism development (Reihanian et al., 2012) etc. So, SWOT is applied for the analysis of locational advantages, services, lo-
cational importance including various risk factors that is responsible for the environmental threat. But, if we have to check the
environmental threat then, we must have to incorporate with the problem-based strategic planning. Therefore, authors used a
decision-making technique namely quantitative strategic planning matrix (QSPM) approach to prevent the threat. The amalgam-
ation of SWOT and QSPM approach are very useful to deliver a comprehensive sustainable strategy for the potential ecotourism
development of a destination (Ghorbani et al., 2015). Here, authors have given emphasis on coastal-based potential ecotourism
development and the prime objective of this study is to offer some inclusive strategies for sustainable ecotourism development
at Rameswaram using SWOT and QSPM approach.

Fig. 1. Location map of the study area.

 S.K. Mallick et al. / International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 8 (2020) 185–193 187

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Study area

Rameswaram Island is located on the eastern part of Ramanathapuram district of Tamil Nadu, bounded by 9°8′55″N to 9°19′N
latitude and 79°12′30″E to 79°27′30″E longitude (Fig. 1). It is located in the Pamban Island separated from the mainland India by
the Pamban channel. Pamban Island is also known as Rameswaram Island that is connected to mainland of India by the Pamban
Bridge. The island is spread over an area of 61.8 km2, out of them Rameswaram municipality has covered 53 km2 with the aver-
age elevation of 10 m from mean sea level. It is not so remarkable world tourism spot when compared to Kanyakumari but, it is a
significant spot for the domestic pilgrims and tourists due to the Ramnathswamy temple at the centre of the municipality.
Dhanuskodi has a mythological significance and some tourists are mainly come to visit this place very often. So, it is not so far,
Rameswaram will be an important place with some interesting recreation spots and makes this area as a significant tourist
hotspot zone in national and international scale.

2.2. Sample study

The population for sampling regarding tourism activities constituted the tourists, local people, hoteliers and experts of the
Rameswaram. The sample size was calculated using following formula (Eq. (1)):

nE;T;Lp;H ¼ NE;T;Lp;H  n=N ð1Þ

where, n represents the total sample size (160), N denotes total number of Experts (E), Tourists (T), Local people (Lp) and Ho-
teliers (H) in the study area (44,856). nE, T, Lp, H indicates the total sample size of the surveyed population (6 experts, 81 tourists,
55 local people and 18 hoteliers) and NE, T, Lp, H represents total number of population of each selected group (151 experts, 14,128
tourists, 29,000 local peoples those who are directly or indirectly related to the tourism and 84 hoteliers).

2.3. Data collection method

This study has been conducted by tourist survey (primary survey) using questionnaires as well as office survey (municipality
and hotel survey) techniques for the collection of data regarding tourism and tourism-based developmental activities. Moreover,
Google Earth Pro and ArcMap 10.3 have been used as a secondary method to prepare the locational map of the study area.
The data collection method of the present study has been carried out by stratified random sampling techniques. Therefore, we
have selected sea beach sites, Ramnathswamy temple, Dhanuskodi and temple-surrounded market. These spots are highly tourist
visited places all the times. We have surveyed face-to-face interview of 9 different foreign tourists and recorded their opinions in
our cell phones. Also authors used questionnaire survey for 72 domestic tourists of the different places in India, 18 hotels (includ-
ing 2 Dharmasalas) and 55 households for this study. Household has been categorized into four strata at the post-filed season by
their age of staying. That helps to understand their observations and experiences regarding the study area. The internal factors
and external factors have been given the effectiveness scores by the 6 experts (Professor, Lawyer, Civil Service Officer, Engineer,
Priest and School teacher) and local people directly on the questionnaires during the survey and applied the average value of the

Table 1
Internal factor estimate matrix (IFEM) table.(Source: Field Survey)

Internal factors Weights Effectiveness score Final score

Strengths 1.85
Locational beauty 0.2 4 0.8
Favourable environment 0.08 4 0.32
Religious importance 0.1 4 0.4
Large island with proper urban facilities 0.06 3 0.18
Transport accessibility with railway and roadway 0.05 3 0.15
Weaknesses 1.42
Poorly developed infrastructure 0.04 4 0.16
Insufficient tourism facilities 0.1 3 0.3
Insufficient drinking water 0.04 3 0.12
Week economic basis 0.09 4 0.36
Limitation in spatial development 0.04 2 0.08
Inadequate urban developmental planning 0.2 2 0.4

Note: The factors are given as coefficient between 0 and 1; it stands for how much it will be important to measure the actual strength or weakness. This coefficient
represents the significance of the factor, despite the factors are considered an internal strength or weakness. Each factor is the score in between values 1 and 4.
Value 1 stands for fundamental weakness, 2 for minor weakness, 3 for strength and 4 for greater strength. To determine each final score, each weight was mul-
tiplied by its score. If the value is b1.5, it means strengths are less than weakness; if it is N1.5 strengths then it will be more than weakness (Monavari, Karbasi, &
Mogooee, 2007).
188 S.K. Mallick et al. / International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 8 (2020) 185–193

total given scores. Similarly, authors have given weights to the each of the internal and external factors based on their field ob-
servations and experiences. Thus, the collected samples and data have validated.

2.4. The SWOT analysis

A SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunities and threats) analysis is also known as SWOT matrix in advance research to an-
alyse some key factors of particular activity like business and natural resources management (Schmoldt, Kangas, Mendoza, &
Pesonen, 2001). This is a kind of strategic developmental planning (Buta, 2007) popularised in the fields of sustainable resources
management (NOAA, 2011).
This method is constructed on two different factors which encompasses the SWOT analysis:

I. Firstly, the internal factors are introduced to analyse the issues of strengths and weaknesses.
II. Secondly, the external factors are introduced to explain the opportunities and threats.

Scanning the internal and external factors is an important part of a strategic development planning process which is turned as
a component analysis for sustainable livelihood and environmental development (Reihanian et al., 2012). Hence, the SWOT anal-
ysis aims to identify the internal and external factors as key factors and it has been categorized into two tiers that are Internal
Factor Estimate Matrix (IFEM) and External Factor Estimate Matrix (EFEM). Then, these factors are weighted and scored by the
expert based on field experiences and previous work. The first step of overall strategic management analysis (SWOT matrix anal-
ysis) helps to identify the key strategic factors. This strategic factor is done with the help of the internal and external matrix. The
matrix is a strategic management tool for analysis or evaluating major strengths and weaknesses in the selected area and the
method is used for assessment of current conditions. The IFEM together with the EFEM is a kind of strategy formulation tool
that has been utilized to analyse how an organization is performing with regard to its identified internal strengths and weakness
(Ommani, 2001). After identifying and analysing the data, key strategic management analysis can be formulated by the QSPM ap-
proach. This QSPM approach is needed to systematically evaluate the internal and external factors. Although, the left column of
QSPM consists of internal and external key factors and these factors are obtained directly from the IFEM and EFEM table. The
top row comprises of possible alternative strategies resulting from the SWOT analysis (Table 1). However, the first column con-
sists of the factors that are assigned to the weights. Now, keep the view on SWOT analysis and its related strategies are
established that should have to generalize by following guidelines of Weihrich (1982).

2.4.1. Strength (S)

Strength determines the strong point of eco-tourism development. It should be worked with both i.e. internal and external
factors. In this study, strength implementing through the following questions

• Have there any unique or distinct advantages that make the spot to find in the crowd of the national or global tourist ground?
• What do make the tourists to choose this kind of places?
• What are the services available here especially for the tourists?

Fig. 2. SWOT-QSPM based planning diagram for sustainable ecotourism development.

 S.K. Mallick et al. / International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 8 (2020) 185–193 189

2.4.2. Weakness (W)

According to Weihrich, concept of weakness is not only from an organization point of view but also more important to focus
on external factors. Although it may not be taught to recognize the weaknesses and strength, but it is best to control the enhanced
reality without adjournment. In that case, the following questions are,

• What are the preventions or avoidances for tourists and the tourism industry?
• What are the problems tourists facing and needs to be strengthened?
• What are the limitations or still absences in planning for the tourism development and management in the study area?

2.4.3. Opportunities (O)

Another important major factor of SWOT is to govern how tourism activity can help to grow nearby market over
Rameswaram. After all, the opportunities have everywhere but, it may become through changes in technology, social status, gov-
ernmental policy and others. In that purposes, questions may arise

• Where and what do the attractive opportunities grow up for the tourism market?
• Does there any new invention or emerging trends available into this activity?
• What does this activity predict future trends or any enhance new opportunities?

2.4.4. Threats (T)

No one bothers about the threats, but still, we are facing a lot of them. The fact is that the factors are beyond our control if the
factors are related to the external factors. So, the only thing we have that is in our own controls.

• What are the impacts of natural calamities like cyclonic storm, disaster strike on coastal-based tourism development?
• Are there any new inventions or changes in technology dissolving the tourism market position?
• Are there any negative environmental or physical impacts on ecotourism development as a whole?

The assemble items within these internal and external factors will create some strategies which are implemented for sustain-
able ecotourism development (Fig. 2).

2.5. QSPM approach

The quantitative strategic planning matrix (QSPM) provides an analytical method for comparing feasible alternative actions.
QSPM is mostly used for making the decision or problem-solving process easier. Most attempts are selected for best strategy
using input from other management techniques and easy components.
This analysis is introduced to identify some required management strategies to improve the quality of tourism and environ-
ment which was enlisted below with some effective or quantitative measurements. The sum of total attractiveness scores
(STAS) is performed to find out the relative attractiveness of each key factor and its associated individual strategy.

3. Results

3.1. Internal factor estimate matrix (IFEM)

Regarding strengths and weakness, 5 factors were identified for strengths and 6 factors were identified for weakness for the
analysis of internal factor estimate matrix (IFEM). The weights were allocated for strength factors amounted between 0.04 and
1.0 and the effectiveness score was ranged between 3 and 4. In case of weakness factors, the effective scores stand between 2
and 4 and weights were allocated in between 0.04 and 0.2. Locational beauty and religious importance were shared the highest
weight that was 0.2 and 0.1 respectively in the strength categories. Insufficient tourism facilities and poorly urban infrastructure
facilities got the lowest weight in the categories of weakness that estimate the IFEM. So, the final score stands 1.85 for strength
and 1.42 for weakness (Table 1). So, the value of internal factors was denoted to well strength which was dominated over the
weakness.

3.2. External factor estimate matrix (EFEM)

There were 7 factors pertaining to opportunities and 6 factors were identified for threats in the external factor estimate matrix
(EFEM). Regarding opportunities and threats, both were shared weights in between 0.03 and 0.1 having the effectiveness score in
between 2 and 4. Employment generation, medical and banking facilities and ecotourism development including traditional
homestay have been allocated the highest weights (0.1) while large fish processing zone was given 0.15 regarding the opportu-
nity factors. Land conversion and harsh economic activities, lack of private sector participation and lack of safeguard were shared
the maximum weights regarding threat factors. Organic fish farming, the great avian ecosystem as opportunity factors and disas-
ter strike as a threat factor had shared the lowest weight that was 0.03. So, the final score stands 1.98 for opportunities and 1.08
in the threat categories (Table 2). It was explicated that if the threat has been resisted then it cannot be able to persist the op-
portunities for the development of tourism activities over the Rameswaram.
190 S.K. Mallick et al. / International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 8 (2020) 185–193

Table 2
Internal factor estimate matrix (IFEM) table.(Source: Field Survey)

External factors Weights Effectiveness score Final score

Opportunities 1.98
Employment generation 0.1 4 0.4
World class knowledge centre 0.03 2 0.06
Large fish processing industries 0.15 4 0.60
High potential for eco-tourism 0.1 3 0.30
Scope on Research and Development 0.03 4 0.12
Opportunity for helipad development for tourist attraction 0.05 4 0.20
Improvement of medical and banking facilities 0.1 3 0.3
Threats 1.08
Lack of safeguard 0.08 3 0.24
Disaster strike 0.03 2 0.06
Violet CRZ rules 0.06 4 0.24
Land conversion and harsh economic activities 0.1 4 0.4
Problem of fund allocation for infrastructure development 0.07 2 0.14
Lack of private sector participation 0.1 4 0.4

3.3. SWOT model validation

The SWOT analysis was used effectively after the selection and evaluation of the most important internal and external factors
for sustainable ecotourism development. Therefore, two types of strategies were developed through sustainable tourism for iden-
tification of the relationship between internal and external features.
The SWOT model analysis was shown by pairwise matrix of S-O, S-T, W-O and W-T that determined the SWOT model valida-
tion for management of tourism over the study area (Table 3). The calculation of the matrix was purely followed by logarithmic
regression analysis (P-value b 0.001). The calculation result S-O regression (R) value was 0.240 at the significance level of 0.001,
indicating the strong relationship between strengths and opportunities. For instance, the strong relationship between strength and
opportunities (S-O) could represent the suitable condition of tourism and but still needs to follow aggressive strategies. W-O re-
gression value was 0.337 that indicated the opportunities remain dominant over the weaknesses. On the other hand, S-T value
was 0.042 that indicated dominating strength over the external threats but not so attractive. Weaknesses and threats (W-T)
both were having a positive relationship. The strong relationship could be considered as a possible warning but needs to be
used defensive strategies.

3.4. Future prospects of eco-tourism development

According to the results, tourism activities are still now under threatened for environmental sustainability and there will be an
urgent need for proper governance on the basis of weaknesses and threats (WT). Although, it has some future scope to modify
and maintain the quality of the environment adjusted with its better livelihood. Therefore, authors used strategic planning
based SWOT model that helps to reduce the threats over weakness such as

WT-1: Promotion of religious as well as cultural tourism to a large extent on Rameswaram

WT-2: Landscaping and beautification along the sea sites
WT-3: Development of green transport and vocational skills
WT-4: Introduction of traditional and commercial blue homestay
WT-5: Strengthening the Island economy, marine bio-diversity and fishing industries
WT-6: Potential drinking water facilities
WT-7: Improvement of green health and banking facilities
WT-8: Improvement of drainage, garbage disposal and waste management

Table 3
SWOT analysis using Logarithmic Regression method.

SWOT factors Regression Equation R R2 P-value

S-O y = −0.021ln(x) + 0.033 0.240 0.0576 b0.001

S-T y = −0.002ln(x) + 0.0637 0.042 0.0018 b0.001
W-O y = −0.037ln(x)-0.0235 0.337 0.1136 b0.001
W-T y = −0.01ln(x) + 0.0397 0.181 0.0326 b0.001
 S.K. Mallick et al. / International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 8 (2020) 185–193 191

Table 4
Quantitative strategic planning matrix (QSPM) table.

Key factors Weight WT1 WT2 WT3 WT4 WT5 WT6 WT7 WT8

AS* TAS* AS* TAS* AS* TAS* AS* TAS* AS* TAS* AS* TAS* AS* TAS* AS* TAS*

S1 0.2 1 0.2 1 0.2 3 0.6 2 0.4 3 0.6 3 0.6 2 0.4 3 0.6

S2 0.08 1 0.08 2 0.16 3 0.24 3 0.24 3 0.24 3 0.24 3 0.24 3 0.24
S3 0.1 3 0.3 3 0.3 3 0.3 2 0.2 3 0.3 4 0.4 3 0.3 4 0.4
S4 0.06 1 0.06 1 0.06 3 0.18 3 0.18 3 0.18 3 0.18 1 0.06 1 0.06
S5 0.05 3 0.15 3 0.15 1 0.05 3 0.15 2 0.1 3 0.15 4 0.2 3 0.15
W1 0.04 2 0.08 3 0.12 2 0.08 1 0.04 3 0.12 2 0.08 3 0.12 2 0.08
W2 0.1 2 0.2 3 0.3 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 3 0.3 2 0.2 3 0.3
W3 0.04 1 0.04 2 0.08 1 0.04 2 0.08 1 0.04 3 0.12 3 0.12 2 0.08
W4 0.09 1 0.09 3 0.27 1 0.09 3 0.27 1 0.09 3 0.27 3 0.27 3 0.27
W5 0.04 2 0.08 3 0.12 1 0.04 2 0.08 1 0.04 3 0.12 2 0.08 2 0.08
W6 0.2 3 0.6 3 0.6 2 0.4 3 0.6 1 0.2 3 0.6 3 0.6 3 0.6
O1 0.1 2 0.2 2 0.2 1 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.2 3 0.3 3 0.3 3 0.3
O2 0.03 3 0.09 3 0.09 2 0.06 3 0.09 3 0.09 4 0.12 2 0.06 3 0.09
O3 0.15 2 0.3 2 0.3 1 0.15 2 0.3 2 0.3 4 0.6 3 0.45 3 0.45
O4 0.1 2 0.2 2 0.2 1 0.1 2 0.2 2 0.2 3 0.3 3 0.3 2 0.2
O5 0.03 1 0.03 3 0.09 3 0.09 4 0.12 3 0.09 4 0.12 3 0.09 2 0.06
O6 0.05 3 0.15 3 0.15 3 0.15 3 0.15 1 0.05 4 0.2 3 0.15 3 0.15
O7 0.1 2 0.2 3 0.3 1 0.1 2 0.2 1 0.1 3 0.3 2 0.2 2 0.2
T1 0.08 2 0.16 4 0.32 2 0.16 3 0.24 1 0.08 4 0.32 3 0.24 2 0.16
T2 0.03 1 0.03 3 0.09 2 0.06 3 0.09 1 0.03 3 0.09 3 0.09 1 0.03
T3 0.06 2 0.12 3 0.18 1 0.06 3 0.18 1 0.06 3 0.18 3 0.18 1 0.06
T4 0.1 1 0.1 3 0.3 1 0.1 3 0.3 1 0.1 3 0.3 2 0.2 1 0.1
T5 0.07 1 0.07 3 0.21 2 0.14 3 0.21 1 0.07 3 0.21 2 0.14 1 0.07
T6 0.1 2 0.2 3 0.3 2 0.2 3 0.3 2 0.2 3 0.3 3 0.3 1 0.1
Priority index 3.73 5.09 3.59 4.82 3.58 6.4 5.29 4.83

Note: * Attractiveness score (AS), *Total Attractiveness scores (TAS) in the QSPM comprise how each factor is attractive regarding each alternative strategy. The
range of attractive scores (AS) 1 = not attractive, 2 = less attractive, 3 = attractive, 4 = reasonably attractive, 5 and above = highly attractive.

3.5. Quantitative strategic planning matrix (QSPM)

QSPM strategy was formulated on the basis of Weaknesses and Threats (WT) and governed by the SWOT matrix method. It
was calculated by adding up the total attractiveness scores in each category (column-wise) of the QSPM (Table 4). The calculated
STAS scores indicate which score will be the most attractive one considering all the external and internal factors.
Sustainable developmental strategies were classified according to their priorities and the strategic weights of the SWOT matrix
and attractiveness score was helped to perform the QSPM approach. The QSPM of total attractiveness scores were calculated 6.4,
5.29, 5.09, 4.83, 4.82 3.79, 3.59, 3.58 for potential drinking water facilities, improvement of green health and banking facilities,
landscaping and beautification along the sea sites including physical and social infrastructure, improvement of drainage, garbage
disposal and waste management, introduction of traditional and commercial blue homestay, development of green transport and
vocational skills, strengthening the island economy, marine bio-diversity and fishing industries and Rameswaram aspires to be a
national centre for religious as well as cultural tourism respectively. Although all these strategies were noticeable, strategies WT-6,
WT-7, WT-2 and WT-4 which obtained the highest total attractiveness score could be the best strategies for sustainable tourism
development. Moreover, the rest of the strategies were attractive but needed more feasibility to achieve the sustainability goal in
the field of future tourism development.

4. Discussion

Rameswaram is one of the important tourist destinations in south India. This Coastal tourism destination has been combined
by a unique resource combination with land and three seas (Bay of Bengal, Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean). Here, authors tried to
establish the suitable strategies for the development of ecotourism. The results showed that this coastal area is still not famous as
destination as Kanyakumari has bloomed so far. It has been carried out some characteristics like lack of waste disposal manage-
ment, lack of drinking water facilities, unplanned drainage system and trafficking. Although, Rameswaram has created island-
based tourism and urbanization development so, intensive developmental activities should have to be restricted for this study
area.
The SWOT analysis results envisaged that tourism development affected the current scenario of Rameswaram municipality. It
implies that this area still have greater strength with proper opportunity like scenic beauty, island-based destination, religious im-
portance etc. to develop the tourism in a national as well as international scale. But, some sort of threats and weaknesses like ur-
banization trends, disaster strike and low resistance lithosphere always tried to think about the defensive strategies for the
development over Rameswaram. Tourist and overpopulation is causing severe environmental damage to the islands, coastal
zones (Embaby, 2014). So, development should be projected in a proper way that can be balanced between the environmental
stewardship and the tourism activities. Moreover, improvement of transport communication system through green transport,
192 S.K. Mallick et al. / International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 8 (2020) 185–193

beautification along the sea site areas and road network development will be a great strength for tourism development in the
study area. Similar findings are found in the literature of Moosavi, Safania, and Gholami (2013). Still, this area has facing greater
challenges to develop the ecotourism in a comprehensive manner. Government and tourism department at Rameswaram has
taken some initiatives through introduction of traditional and commercial homestay that can generate local economy. Moreover,
they can use the results of SWOT-QSPM analysis in more serious way for the ecotourism development for their Green Resilience
Rameswaram action plan-2025. Our outcomes are lined with some global study where local people and government including
tourism department have played an important role with greater flexibility for the coastal-based sustainable tourism development
(Fennell, 2008a, 2008b), island economy through marine biodiversity and fishery development (Costa-Pierce, 2010), community-
based ecotourism development (Palmer & Chuamuangphan, 2018) etc. In the same way, our field opinions have confirmed the
results of both the techniques that we have used in this study.

5. Conclusions

This study revealed strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) and quantitative strategic planning matrix
(QSPM) approach related to the sustainable ecotourism development and management on Rameswaram, Tamil Nadu. The existing
scenario and the possibilities were measured or quantified by SWOT analysis and validated the result using SWOT logarithmic re-
gression analysis. Quantitative strategic planning matrix (QSPM) helped to analyse the future scope and management process
based on weaknesses and threats over the tourism activity and study area specifically. Final result has been explicated that the
study area is offering the opportunities to do the tourism development along the coastal belt of Rameswaram at a large extent.
But, findings of this study have envisaged the poor urban infrastructural development, lack of medical and banking facilities,
poor drainage system and drinking water. Even, total number of visitors' data in last few years is not available to the municipality
or Rameswaram tourism department for a long time. Moreover, previous planning reports and communication problem of the
local people are the major constrains for social and questionnaire-based study. These are the limitations regarding ecotourism de-
velopment and management in this study area that indicated unmanageable way of tourism development. In this context, tourist,
local people, urban planner, tourism department and policymakers both have to convey the total issues using opportunities and
strengths factors and need adequate strategic based planning for sustainable environment for tourism development and employ-
ment generation over the study area. Accordingly, this paper provides a clear indication regarding SWOT analysis and QSPM ap-
proach and also found some indicators to control or hold the sustainability. These results may be helpful for the upcoming
researchers to do intensive and in depth study on ecotourism development and Green Resilience Rameswaram action plan-
2025 to promote the sustainable potential ecotourism environment to a broad extent.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Suraj Kumar Mallick: Data curation, Methodology, Formal Analysis, Writing-original draft. Somnath Rudra: Data curation,
Methodology, Formal Analysis, Writing-original draft. Riya Samanta: Data curation, Methodology, Formal Analysis, Writing-
original draft.

Declaration of competing interest

Authors declare that there is no potential conflict of interest in this paper.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to express their sincere thanks to University Grants Commission for providing fund and DST-FIST to
conduct the research. The authors would also like to thank Rameswaram Municipality and finally the students who have provided
their contribution during the field survey. Authors also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for providing their valuable com-
ments to improve the manuscript greatly.

References

Blamey, R. K. (2001). Principles of ecotourism. In D. B. Weaver (Ed.), The encyclopaedia of ecotourism (pp. 4–22). Wallingford: CAB International.
Buckley, R. (2012). Sustainable tourism: Research and reality. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 528–546.
Buta, R. (2007). The SWOT analysis in the geographical research, with applicability in the study of the human settlements from Moldova valley. Present Environment
and Sustainable Development, 1, 239–248.
Ceron, J., & Dubois, G. (2003). Tourism and sustainable development indicators: The gap between theoretical demands and practical achievements. Current Issues in
Tourism, 6(1), 54–75.
Costa-Pierce, B. A. (2010). Sustainable ecological aquaculture systems: The need for a new social contract for aquaculture development. Marine Technology Society
Journal, 44(3), 88–112.
Donohoe, H. M., & Needham, R. D. (2006). Ecotourism: The evolving contemporary definition. Journal of Ecotourism, 5(3), 192–210https://doi.org/10.2167/joe152.0.
Embaby, M. (2014). Towards an ecotourism development & planning in the Red Sea coastal zones. Conference paper, 1–12. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
280948763.
Fennell, D. (2008a). Ecotourism (3rd ed.)Vol. 3. (pp. 1–303). . New York: Routledge, 1–303.
Fennell, D. (2008b). Ecotourism and the myth of indigenous stewardship. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(2), 129–149.
 S.K. Mallick et al. / International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 8 (2020) 185–193 193

Ghorbani, A., Raufirad, V., & Jafarian, Z. (2015). Ecotourism sustainable development strategies using SWOT and QSPM model: A case study of Kaji Namakzar Wetland,
South Khorasan Province, Iran. Tourism Management Perspectives, 16, 290–297https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2015.09.005.
Lee, S. F., & Ko, A. S. O. (2000). Building balanced scorecard with SWOT analysis, and implementing “Sun Tzu’s The Art of Business Management Strategies” on QFD
methodology. Managerial Auditing Journal, 15(1), 68–76http://www.emerald-library.com.
Liu, Z. (2003). Sustainable tourism development: a critique. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(6), 459–475.
Markovska, N., Taseska, V., & Pop-Jordanov, J. (2009). SWOT analyses of the national energy sector for sustainable energy development. Energy, 34, 752–756. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2009.02.006.
Mika, M. (2015). Sustainable tourism: A critique of the academic feasibility of the concept. Tourism, 25(1), 9–17.
Monavari, M., Karbasi, A., & Mogooee, R. (2007). Environmental strategic management. Tehran: Kavoush Qalam, Iran.
Moosavi, S. J., Safania, A. M., & Gholami, S. (2013). Feasibility athletic abilities nature (ecotourism, sports) West Mazandaran using SWOT analysis. International
Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 5(10), 1238–1244.
NOAA (2011). Assessment of sustainable tourism. Available at: http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/management/international/pdfs/day2_assessment_manual.pdf(Accessed
November 2018). .
Ommani, A. R. (2001). Strategies of rural development in Shoushtar Township of Iran (applying SWOT method). Journal of American Science, 7(1), 969–972http://
www.americanscience.org.
Palmer, N. J., & Chuamuangphan, N. (2018). Governance and local participation in ecotourism: Community-level ecotourism stakeholders in Chiang Rai province,
Thailand. Journal of Ecotourism, 3, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2018.1502248.
Reihanian, A., Noor Zalina Binti, M., Kahrom, E., & Hin, T. W. (2012). Sustainable tourism development strategy by SWOT analysis: Boujagh National Park, Iran. Tourism
Management Perspectives, 4, 223–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2012.08.005.
Ross, S., & Wall, G. (1999). Ecotourism: Towards congruence between theory and practice. Tourism Management, 20(6), 123–132.
Schmoldt, D., Kangas, J., Mendoza, G., & Pesonen, M. (2001). The analytic hierarchy process in natural resource and environmental decision making. The Netherlands:
Springer.
Srivastava, P. K., Kulshreshtha, K., Mohanty, C. S., Pushpangadan, P., & Singh, A. (2005). Stakeholder-based SWOT analysis for successful municipal solid waste man-
agement in Lucknow, India. Waste Management, 25, 531–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2004.08.01.
The World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) (2017). Harnessing tourism’s benefits will be critical to achieving the sustainable development goals and implementing the
post-2015 development agenda: Tourism in the 2030 Agenda. Madrid, Spain: World Tourism Organizationhttp://www.unwto.org.
Weihrich, H. (1982). The SWOT matrix - A tool for situational analysis. Journal of Long Range Planning, 15(2).
World Ecotourism Summit (2002). Final report/the world ecotourism summit. Quebec City, Canada, Madrid, Spain: World Tourism Organization and United Nations En-
vironment Programme.