Summary Report on Infrastructure Gaps in Tourism Sector

8/17/2019 Summary Report on Infrastructure Gaps in Tourism Sector

1/56

1

Government of IndiaMinistry of Tourism

(Market Research Division)

Summary Report on

Infrastructure Gaps in Tourism Sector

at Five Tourist Destinations in India Based onPerception of Tourists

Prepared By:

Incredible !ndia


2/56

2

Acknowledgements

The study on Infrastructure Gaps in Tourism Sector at five tourist destinations in India (Badami –Pattadakal – Aihole, Kullu – Manali, Chitrakoot, Nanded and Guwahati including Kaziranga) was

successfully completed due to the efforts and involvement of various personnel at differentstages of the survey. We would like to thank everyone who was involved in the survey and madeit a success.

First of all, we are grateful to the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India, New Delhi for itsoverall guidance and support during the study. We would like to offer special thanks to KumariSelja, Minister of Tourism, Govt. of India for taking keen interest in this study. Shri SujitBanerjee, the Secretary; Dr R.N. Pandey, Addl. Director General (MR); Shri Ajay K. Gupta , Addl.Director General and Shri K.K. Nath , Dy. Director (MR), Ministry of Tourism , Govt. of Indiadeserve special thanks. They initiated the project and designated GfK MODE Pvt. Ltd to conductthis study. We also thank Mr. S.K Mohanta, DPA GR “B” (MR), Ministry of Tourism for extendinghis support from time to time to carry out this study.

Special thanks go to the local officials in the study states for facilitating the data collection andproviding all supports needed by our field teams. These officials are:

1. Shri Awanish Kumar Awasthi; Principal Secretary & D.G (Tourism), Govt. of Uttar Pradesh

2. Shri Iqbal Singh Bains , Principal Secretary (Tourism), Govt. of Madhya Pradesh

3. Shri Himangshu Shekhar Das, Commissioner – Cum-Secretary (Tourism), Govt. of Assam

4. Shri K. Jothiramalingam , Principal Secretary (Tourism) , Govt. of Karnataka

5. Shri Jayant Gaikwad , Secretary and M.D (Tourism) , Govt. of Maharashtra

6. Smt . Manisha Nanda , Principal Secretary (Tourism), Govt. of Himachal Pradesh

Last but not the least, credit goes to 634 foreign tourists and 1953 domestic tourists who spenttheir time and responded to the questions with tremendous patience.


3/56

3

CONTENTS

Page No.

Acknowledgements

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ………………………………………………………………………………………………..I-XIII

CHAPTER – I: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 1.1 Genesis.........................................................................................................................1 1.2 Objectives of the study...................................................................................................1 1.3 Time period...................................................................................................................1 1.4 Chapterization of the report.............................................................................................1

CHAPTER – II: METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION .................................................. 3 2.1 Considerations in deciding the methodology......................................................................3 2.2 Approach to the study ....................................................................................................3 2.3 Study design..................................................................................................................4 2.4 Study tools ....................................................................................................................5 2.5 Field implementation of the study ....................................................................................6

2.5.1 Selection of field teams...........................................................................................6 2.5.2 Training of field teams............................................................................................6 2.5.3 Quality control assurance........................................................................................7

2.6 Tabulation plan.............................................................................................................7 2.7 Data processing ............................................................................................................7

2.8 Tabulation and report writing .........................................................................................7

CHAPTER - III: PROFILE OF TOURISTS ............................................................................. 9 3.1 Profile of tourists in five tourist destinations, India .............................................................9

3.1.1 Foreign tourist ......................................................................................................9 3.1.2 Domestic tourist..................................................................................................12

CHAPTER –IV : IMPORTANCE-SATISFACTION GAPS IN TOURISM INFRASTRUCTURE... 15 4.1 Choice of indicator of “importance” tourists assign to different facilities/ components of the

facility ........................................................................................................................15 4.2 Ranking of facilities reported by “importance” by foreign and domestic tourists ...................16 4.3 Indicator of “satisfaction” with the existing facility/component of the facility .......................17 4.4 Indicator of gap in Importance-satisfaction of a tourist facility...........................................18

4.4.1 Results of analysis of importance-satisfaction gaps by I1.........................................19 4.4.2 Results of analysis of importance-satisfaction gaps by indicator I2 .............................22


4/56

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Genesis

The Ministry of Tourism, Government of India, has decided to increase flow of tourists in India by(i) marketing tourism in India by their publicity campaign of “Incredible India”, and (ii) improvingtourists’ facilities in the tourist destinations so as to make them more attractive. The latter mayeven have greater role in increasing flow of tourists because the word of mouth spreads fasterand has greater impact. Satisfied tourist will, generally, give greater publicity to tourism by

publicizing happy experiences of their visit to a tourist site. One such study had identified needfor determining infrastructure gaps in five tourism destinations like Kullu-Manali, HimachalPradesh; Guwahati including Kaziranga, Assam; Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka; Nanded,Maharashtra; Chitrakoot, and Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. The GfK MODE had conductedstudies in all these five destinations in India.

Objectives

The objective of this study was to ascertain infrastructure gaps in five tourist destinations in

Kullu-Manali, Himachal Pradesh; Guwahati including Kaziranga, Assam; Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole,Karnataka; Nanded, Maharashtra; and Chitrakoot, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh so hatthese gaps can be filled and volume of tourists can be increased.

Data for the study was collected in the months of August 2009 to January 2010.

Approach to the study

The approach to this study is based on “Importance-Satisfaction” model. That is, the study, first,

found out what infrastructure tourists considered as “important” and, then, assessed the level oftheir “satisfaction”. Differences in the “importance” and the degree of “satisfaction” with theexisting infrastructure became a gap, “importance-Satisfaction gap”; larger the gap in a particularfacility/infrastructure for tourists, higher was the priority to be given for improvement. Thisapproach was used to assess gaps in the infrastructure which needed to be strengthened to makethe destination more attractive to tourists and would help the tourist destination to achieve itstourist potential. This approach basically, was a “Service Quality Approach”.

Study design

The study design was an exit interview where tourists were interviewed at the time they wereabout to leave the site. It was planned to study the importance and satisfaction with the touristsite by taking a sample of 1250 Indians and 1250 foreign tourists. But only 634 foreign touristscould be covered even by sending field investigator teams three visits to the site. For domestictourists, number of 1953 Indian tourists were covered. All the important tourist sites in five touristdestination in Kullu-Manali Himachal Pradesh; Guwahati including Kaziranga Assam; Badami-


5/56

ii

Study tools

A study tool with “Importance-Satisfaction” questions relevant to the tourism sector was obtainedfrom the Ministry of tourism. This questionnaire has two sections; one to assess importance touristassigns to different facilities and the other to assess his/her satisfaction level with the existing levelof the facility. Within each broad category of facility, there were two or more components (shownin the questionnaire attached at Annexure-2).

Ten broad categories of facilities studied were

1

:

• Air connectivity• Road connectivity•

Rail connectivity• Civic administration• Traffic and transport management•

Tourists’ facilities• Taxes/permits•

Maintenance and management of monuments/tourist attractions•

Other services, and• Visa, immigration and customs (for foreign tourists)

The tourists were asked about each facility/component of infrastructure to score it on the scale of1 to 5, for both “importance” of infrastructure and that on the level of “satisfaction” as per theirassessment of the facility/component (shown below).

Importance Satisfaction

Answer Score assigned Answer Score assignedLeast important 1 Poor 1

Somewhat important 2 Unsatisfactory 2

Not so important 3 Average 3 Very important 4 Good 4

Most important 5 Excellent 5

Besides these questions on “Importance-Satisfaction”, data was collected on general backgroundinformation of the tourists --demographic as well as profile of tourist being interviewed (a random

sample of tourists). The questionnaire, thus prepared, was pre-tested.

Profile of tourists

Foreign tourist

Demographic background


6/56

iii

Fifty percent came to India for the first time. Almost 60 percent tourists in Nanded came fromNorth America (USA and Canada). About 40 percent tourists to Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole,Karnataka came from France. Almost 50 percent tourists to Kaziranga came from UK and USA.

Most of the tourists are coming from European countries and USA (Figure 1). Tourism is thepurpose for which they came to India except in Nanded where it was combined with social visit.

Figure 1: Percentage distribution of foreign tourists by country of residence

in four tourist destinations, India

15.9

14.5

7.7

6.38.5

25.6

5.0

4.1

12.4

FranceUK GermanyItalyOther European count riesUSA Canada

AustraliaOther foreign countries

Number of days taken to get visa

Foreign tourists were asked about the number of days they took to get their visa. Thedistribution for different countries is shown below.

No. ofdays

France(n=101)

UK(n=92)

Italy(n=40)

Australia(n=32)

Germany(n=49)

OtherEuropean

countries(n=54)

USA(n=79)

Canada(n=26)

Total(n=634)

< 3 days 3.0 6.5 5.0 0.0 14.3 9.2 12.7 15.4 9.6

3 – 7 days 42.6 45.7 37.5 34.4 26.5 40.8 27.9 34.6 38.2

8 14 days 24.8 26.1 27.5 15.6 18.4 22.2 36.7 30.8 22.6

15 days


7/56

iv

Most of the countries reported taking 8 to 9 days to get visa except Australia where it tookalmost 11 days.

Since Indian tourism offices are located in a few important cities in some countries, the touristsfrom these countries were asked about their experiences with the tourist office. About 65 percentforeign tourists reported knowing the tourism office in their country of residence; but only 44percent of them sought information on tourism and 79 percent for them were satisfied with theinformation they received.

It may be noted that tourists in Germany have reported lower awareness (less than 50%) thanother countries. Contact with the office of Indian tourism is still quite poor.

Domestic tourist

Demographic characteristics

Table 3.5 (in the report) gives age distribution of tourists in all the five destinations. Their

distribution in each destination is shown in Table A3.1 in annexure 1.

Most of the domestic tourists have ages between 18 and 55 years—more in the ages 26-35years.

Age groups are similar in all the five destinations except in Nanded where more have ages 36-45years and 46-55 years.

State of residence

Figure shows the states of residence of tourists in the five destinations under study. Such datafor individual destination is shown in Table A3.5 in annexure 1 (in the report).

Figure 2: Percentage distribution of domestic tourists by state of residence

18.0

18.0

7 9

6.2

5.6

14.4

MaharastraKarnataka

UPMPDelhi

AssamWest Bengal


8/56

v

• The overall distribution of the states from where domestic tourists came is misleadingsince most of the tourist in a destination came from the neighbouring states. Forinstance, in the case of Kullu Manali, one third of the tourists came from Delhi, about9 to 10 percent from each Uttar Pradesh and Punjab and 11 percent from WestBengal.

• In the case of Guwahati/Kaziranga, 39 percent tourist were from Assam, 19 percentfrom West Bengal and 5 to 6 percent from each of the states of UP, Delhi andMaharashtra.

• In case of Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka, 85 percent tourist were from

Karnataka itself.•

For Nanded, two-thirds of the tourists came from Maharashtra; another 18 percentfrom Punjab.

• In the case of Chitrakoot, 87 percent tourist came from UP and MP.

Other information related to domestic tourists

All the tourists were asked different questions related to their visit to the tourist site. Table 3.6 (inthe report) provides information on these aspects. Mode of travel varies in different destinations—

more bus users for Kullu Manali and more train users for Kaziranga, Nanded and Chitrakoot.

Most of the tourists got information about the destination from friends/relatives by their ownpersonal efforts. In the case of Nanded, most important source of information wasfriends/relatives. In the case of Kullu Manali, about 7 percent tourists got information from travelagents compared to 1 to 2 percent in other destinations.

Most of the tourists go along with their family members, followed by those who travel with friends.Most of the tourists to Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole go for a day. In the case of Kullu Manali, Nanded

and Chitrakoot, touriosts go for more than a day. Distribution of tourist by their place of stayduring their tourism related visits shown in Figure 3.

Majority of tourists stay in commercial places, followed by those who rent their own places. Almost equal percent of tourists stay with their friends and relatives or rent their own places (18-19%).

Figure 3: Percentage distribution of domestic tourists by place of stay attourist destination

18.3

9.6

52.5

Commercial


9/56

vi

Importance - Satisfaction gaps in tourism infrastructure

The tourists were asked to assign scores on the scale of 1 to 5 on the degree of “importance” theyassign to different facilities/components of the facility. They were also asked to assign score to thecurrent level of “satisfaction” with the facility/component. (Questions on different components oftourism infrastructure have been grouped into ten broad facilities with two or more componentswithin each facility. They can be seen in the questionnaire attached in Annexure-2). This sectiondiscusses the degree of gaps which exist between the “Importance - Satisfaction” scale of differentfacilities/ components.

Indicator of “importance” tourists assign to different facilities/ components of the facility

As stated earlier, each tourist interviewed was asked to score each component of the touristfacility. Scores to be assigned were as follows:

Score assigned was If ‘importance” of the component considered was

5 Most important

4 Very important3 Not so important

2 Somewhat important

1 Least important

After due analysis, the “Percent tourists reporting scores 4 (very important) or 5 (most important)”had been taken as an indicator of the score tourist assigned to “importance” to thefacility/component. Obviously, higher the percentage, higher will be importance of thefacility/component.

Ranks of ten tourist facilities reported as important by foreign tourists are shown below:

Table 1: Ranking of ten facilities by “importance” (percent tourists reportingscores 4 or 5) by foreign tourists

Facilities Ranking of facilities( as reported in four

destinations)

Average rank(given in fourdestinations)

Overallrank

Air connectivity KM=9; G=5; B=9; N=1 6.0 7

Road connectivity KM=4; G=8; B=5; N=2 4.8 4.5Rail connectivity KM=6; G=9; B=6; N=10 7.8 8.5

Civic administration KM=3; G=2; B=3; N=5 3.3 3

Traffic and transportmanagement KM=7; G=7; B=8; N=9 7.8 8.5

Tourist facilities KM=5; G=3; B=4; N=7 4.8 4.5

Taxes/permits KM=10; G=10; B=10; N=8 9 5 10


10/56

vii

Though Visa, Immigration and Customs has been ranked two in importance in overallranking but it may be noted that it ranked first in two destinations, ranked three in thethird destination and seven in fourth destination. Surprisingly, tourists in Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole had ranked Visa, Immigration and Customs as seven. Most of thetourists at this destination were European, quite a large percentage of them wereFrench. The category of facility “Other services” (including power supply andtelephone/mobile connections) has been ranked very high by all foreign tourists. Thirdranking facility is “Civic administration”.

Table 2: Ranking of nine facilities by “importance” (percent tourists reportingscores 4 or 5) by domestic tourists (Excluding Visa, Immigration and Customs)

Facilities Ranking of facilities ( asreported in five destinations)

Average rank(given in fivedestinations)

Overallrank

Air connectivity KM=8; G=6; B=9; N=7; C=8 7.6 8

Road connectivity KM=1; G=3; B=2; N=1; C=3 2.0 2

Rail connectivity KM=7; G=5; B=5; N=4; C=5 5.2 4Civic administration KM=2; G=2; B=4; N=3; C=1 2.4 3

Traffic and transportmanagement KM=5; G=4; B=7; N=8; C=7 6.2 7

Tourist facilities KM=4; G=7; B=6; N=5; C=6 5.6 6

Taxes/permits KM=9; G=9; B=8; N=9; C=9 8.8 9

Maintenance and

management ofmonuments/touristattraction KM=6; G=8; B=3; N=6; C=4 5.4 5

Other services KM=3; G=1; B=1; N=2; C=2 1.8 1

KM = Kullu-Manali; G= Guwahati Including Kaziranga; B = Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole; N = Nanded; C=Chitrakoot

Facilities coming under “Other services” (including power supply and telephone/mobilecommunication) ranked first, followed by “Road connectivity” and “Civic administration”.

Rail or road connectivity was ranked high by domestic tourists. It may be noted thatrankings assigned by domestic tourists were quite similar to assigned by foreign tourists.

Indicator of “satisfaction” with the existing facility/component of the facility

In the case of data on “satisfaction”, scores assigned on the five point scale were asf ll


11/56

viii

The indicator on satisfaction with the tourism facilities/components was taken as “percent touristsreporting scores 3 (average), 4 (good) or 5 (excellent)”. The following considerations led to thischoice: Statistical analysis suggests that there is very high correlation between two indicators: “percent tourists reporting score 4 or 5” or “percent tourists reporting score 3, 4 or 5”. Logically,this (the latter one) seemed to be better choice as most of the tourists are reporting the currentlevel of satisfaction as average (scoring 3); very few reported score 5 (excellent). Also, an “average” satisfaction, in the case of India where resources are limited, should be taken assatisfactory (code 3) - our concern should be that tourism infrastructure should not bedissatisfactory.

Indicator of gap in Importance-Satisfaction for the components/facilities:

Two indicators on the gap in the importance-satisfaction level for the tourism facilities/componentshave been taken up here:

1.

Those components of the facility which show high “importance” but low “satisfaction”. Thatis, they fall in the higher “importance” and lower “satisfaction” quadrant of the X-Y axis (X-axis is “importance” axis and Y axis in “satisfaction” axis). This is indicator I1 in ouranalysis. Larger the gap between “importance” and “satisfaction”, higher will be the priorityof the component within the fourth quadrant.

2.

Ranking in the difference in percentages of “importance” (percent tourists reporting scores4 or 5) and “satisfaction” (percent tourists reporting scores 3, 4 or 5). Advantage of thisindicator is that all the facilities/components could be ranked; the Department of Tourism

can take up improvement in the facilities in a phased fashion; number offacilities/components chosen in particular year would be made on the basis of availableresources (indicator I2 in our analysis).

Results of analysis of importance-satisfaction gaps by I1

Two tables 4.3 (for foreigners on indicator I1) and 4.4 (for domestic tourists on indicator I1)show the facilities/components by the number of destinations where they have been reported as

falling in the fourth quadrant of “Importance-Satisfaction” matrix (high importance-lowsatisfaction levels). That is, in the case of foreign tourists, Table 3 shows thecomponents/facilities which have been reported as falling in the fourth quadrant by tourists in allthe four tourist destinations (covered in the study), three destinations, two destinations or onlyone destination.

Within each category of facilities, say, the category of facilities which have been reported by all


12/56

ix

Table 3: Rankings of the facilities/components reported by foreign tourists, falling in thefourth quadrant of Importance-Satisfaction Matrix, by number of destinations where

facility was reported

S. No. Facility/ComponentRanking assigned by

destination Average

rank

Overall rank(Within thecategory)

Reported Importance-Satisfaction gap in all the four destinations

1 Garbage disposal KM=2; G=2; B=1; N=3 2.0 1

2 Quality of the roads KM=3; G=7; B=3; N=6 4.8 2

3 Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas KM=7; G=4; B=5; N=8 6.0 34 Conditions of city roads KM=10; G=9; B=4; N=4 6.8 4

Reported Importance-Satisfaction gap in three destinations

5 Sewerage and drainage system KM=5; B=2; N=5 4.0 1

6 Public conveniences along roads/streets KM=8; G=6; B=7 7.0 2

7 Drinking water supply KM=6; G=10; B=6 7.3 3

Reported Importance-Satisfaction gap in two destinations

8Conditions of signages within the monument/

tourist attractionG=1; B=9 5.0 1

9 Public utilities at the monument/touristattraction

KM=4; G=8 6.0 2

10 Conditions of signages KM=12; G=3 7.5 3

11Quality of way side amenities available on thisroad

KM=11; N=7 9.0 4

12 Power supply situation B=8; N=11 9.5 5

13General cleanliness of monument/touristattraction and area around it

G=11; N=10 10.5 6

14 Quality of help provided by the reception office KM=14; G=13 13.5 7

Reported Importance-Satisfaction gap in one destination

15Rail connectivity of destination/ circuit with

major Indian citiesKM=1 1.5 1

16 International connectivity of destination/circuit N=1 1.5 2

17Conditions of airport serving thedestination/circuit

N=2 3.0 3

18 Conservation of heritage sites/ monuments G=5 4.0 4

19 Conditions of street lighting KM=9 5.5 5

20Connectivity of the destination/circuit withmajor Indian cities

N=9 5.5 6

21 Telephone/mobile services B=10 7.0 7

22Condition of railway station serving thedestination/ circuit

B=11 8.0 8

23Behaviour of service personnel at waysiderestaurants and dhabas

G=12 9.5 9

24 Availability of luxury hotels N=12 9.5 10

25Level of knowledge of officials at the reception

officeKM=13 11.5 11


13/56

x

Facilities like garbage disposal, quality of roads, hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas andconditions of city roads were reported in the fourth quadrant of X-Y axix in all the fourdestinations under study.

Similarly listing of the facilities reported as falling in the fourth quadrant of X-Y axis in three, twoand one destinations are shown.

Table 4: Rankings of the facilities/components reported by domestic tourists, falling inthe fourth quadrant of Importance-Satisfaction Matrix, by number of destinations

where facility was reported

S. No. Facility/ComponentRanking assigned bydestination

Averagerank

Overall rank (Withinthe category)

Reported importance-satisfaction gap in four destinations

1 Garbage disposal KM=4;G=1; N=1; C=3 2.3 1

Reported importance-satisfaction gap in three destinations

2 Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas G=3; N=3; C=2 2.7 1

3Behavior of the officials available at touristreception office

KM=6; B=2; C=5 4.3 2

4 Public conveniences along roads/streets KM=2; G=5; N=7 4.7 3

5 Traffic management G=6; B=8; N=6 6.7 4

Reported importance-satisfaction gap in two destinations

6 Sewerage and drainage system G=2; N=2 2.0 1

7 Parking facility at the monument/tourist attraction B=7; C=1 4.0 2

8 Quality of the roads KM=3; G=8 5.5 4

9 Quality of way side amenities available on this road KM=5; B=6 5.5 4

10 Public utilities at the monument/tourist attraction KM=1; N=10 5.5 4

11 Traffic signals G=11; N=4 7.5 612 Conditions of city roads G=9; B=9 9.0 7

Reported importance-satisfaction gap in one destination

13Level of knowledge of officials at the receptionoffice

B=1 1.0 1

14 Availability of tourist guidance/reception centers B=3 3.0 2

15 Drinking water supply G=4 4.0 4

16 Power supply situation B=4 4.0 4

17 Illumination of monuments C=4 4.0 4

18 Availability of mass transit system B=5 5.0 6.5

19 Availability of budget hotels N=5 5.0 6.5

20 Quality of help provided by the reception office KM=7 7.0 8.5

21 Behavior of the taxi drivers G=7 7.0 8.5

22General cleanliness of monument/tourist attractionand area around it

N=8 8.0 10


14/56

xi

• No facility was reported falling in fourth quadrant is all the five facilities.• Among domestic tourists, only Garbage disposal was reported as falling in fourth quadrant in

four destinations.

It may also be noted that there is a large similarity in the facilities reported by domestic andforeign tourists except that foreign tourists tend to assign more importance to cleanliness andinfrastructure in and around the destination. The domestic tourists, on the other hand, tend toassign greater priority to the problems of traffic management, traffic signals and interactionbetween the tourists and the staff of tourism office.

Results of analysis of importance-satisfaction gaps by indicator I2

Two Tables 4.5 (for foreigners on indicator I2) and 4.6 (for domestic tourists on indicator I2)show the facilities/components by their overall ranking. It also shows (col. 2) their rankingassigned in different destinations; rankings have been assigned by priority [priority has beendecided on the basis of differences in the indicator values of “importance” and “satisfaction”(Importance – Satisfaction = Gap)]. Similar distribution for domestic tourists has been shownin Table 4.6 (in the report).

This table shows rankings of all the facilities/components; top ranking gaps are related to thecleanliness and reasonable infrastructure around the destinations.

Though there is overall similarity in the gaps reported between foreign and domestic tourists, stillthe foreign tourists assign more importance to cleanliness of and infrastructure around thetourist sites. The Indian tourists assign more importance to access to the site and amenities at

the tourist sites like traffic management, Signages and help at the reception office.

Summary and recommendations

This section is presented in two parts. The first part gives profiles of foreign and domestic tourists.The second part gives importance assigned to various facilities and the third part shows the gapsin facilities/components of the facilities between “Importance” and Satisfaction”.

Profile of tourists

Foreign tourists

• In all the four destinations, one-fourth of foreign tourists in the age group of 26-35 years. Young tourists are more likely to visit Kullu-Manali. More than two-fifths of foreign tourists inthe age group of 55 years and above visits Kaziranga.

• Most of the tourists are coming from European counties and USA. In the case of Nanded,


15/56

xii

•

About 65 percent foreign tourists reported knowing the tourism office in their country ofresidence; but only 44 percent of them sought information on tourism and 79 percent forthem were satisfied with the information they received.

• Tourists in Germany have reported lower awareness (46.9 percent) than other counties.• Contract with the office of India tourism is quite poor except in Australia.

Domestic tourists

• In all the five destinations, about three-fifths of domestic tourists in the age group of lessthan 35 years. Age groups are similar in all the five destinations except in Nanded.

• The overall distribution of the states from where domestic tourists came is misleading sincemost of the tourist in a destination came from the neighbouring states. For instance, in thecase of Kullu Manali, one third of the tourists came from Delhi, about 9 to 10 percent fromeach Uttar Pradesh and Punjab and 11 percent from West Bengal. In the case ofGuwahati/Kaziranga, 39 percent tourists were from Assam, 19 percent from West Bengal and5 to 6 percent from each of the states of UP, Delhi and Maharashtra. In case of Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka, 85 percent tourist were from Karnataka itself. For Nanded, two-thirds of the tourists came from Maharashtra; another 18 percent from Punjab. In the case ofChitrakoot, 87 percent tourist came from UP and MP.

• Mode of travel varies in different destinations—more bus users for Kullu Manali and moretrain users for Kaziranga, Nanded and Chitrakoot.

• Most of the tourists got information about the destination from friends/relatives by their ownpersonal efforts. In the case of Nanded, most important source of information wasfriends/relatives. In the case of Kullu Manali, about 7 percent tourists got information fromtravel agents compared to 1 to 2 percent in other destinations.

• Most of the tourists go along with their family members, followed by those who travel with

friends.• In overall, about 44.7 percent of tourists go for a day. Most of the tourists to Badami-

Pattadakal-Aihole go for a day. In the case of Kullu Manali, Nanded and Chitrakoot, touriostsgo for more than a day.

• Majority of Indian tourists stay in commercial places.

Importance assigned to various facilities at the site

Foreign tourists

• Among ten facilities of in all the destinations, other services including power supply andtelephone/mobile connection was ranked first, followed by visa, immigration and customs,civic administration, road connectivity, and tourist facilities by all foreign tourists.

• The visa, immigration and customs has been ranked first in both tourist destinations Kullu-manali and Guwahati including Kaziranga. Therefore, they need to be simplified and madetourist-friendly.


16/56

xiii

Matrix of importance-satisfaction gap-Foreign tourists

Foreign tourists

• Overall the foreign tourists were more concerned about infrastructure. In all the fourdestinations, the garbage disposal was reported rank first as falling in fourth quadrantfollowed by quality of the roads, hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas, and conditionsof city roads.

•

Among three destinations, more gaps were reported on sewerage and drainage system,followed by public conveniences along roads/streets, and drinking water supply. The foreigntourists had reported poor cleanliness in and around the tourist site. Since poor conditionsaround the site leave a bad impression about the site and the country, there is need toimprove them. Infrastructure on the approach road to the tourist site is important but,presently, is not in good shape and needs improvement.

•

Among two destinations, the foreign tourists were reported on conditions of signages withinthe monument/tourist attraction, public utilities at the monument/tourists attraction,conditions of signages, quality of wayside amenities available on this road, power supplysituation, general cleanliness of monument/tourist attraction and area around it, and qualityof help provided by the reception office.

•

The foreign tourists were reported more gaps in rail connectivity of destination/circuit withmajor Indian cities, international connectivity of destinations/circuit, and conditions of airportserving the destination/circuit.

Domestic tourists

•

No facility was reported falling in fourth quadrant is all the five destinations.• Among domestic tourists, only Garbage disposal was reported as falling in fourth quadrant in

four destinations.•

Among three destinations, the domestics tourists was reported more gap on hygiene atwayside restaurants and dhabas, followed by behavior of the officials available at touristreception office, public conveniences along roads/streets, and traffic management.

•

Among two destinations, more gaps were reported on sewerage and drainage system,parking facility at the monument/tourist attraction, quality of the roads, quality of waysideamenities available on this road, public utilities at the monument/tourist attraction, and traffic

signals Conditions of city roads.

Though above-given is a list of gaps reported, we, in this report, have suggested need toprioritized all components of tourism infrastructure. It may be noticed that actions of the Ministryof Tourism can itself help in improving the volume of tourism as it will make their visit moresatisfying.


17/56

1

CHAPTER – I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Genesis

The Ministry of Tourism, Government of India, has decided to increase flow of tourists inIndia by (i) marketing tourism in India by their publicity campaign of “Incredible India”,and (ii) improving tourists’ facilities in the tourist destinations so as to make them moreattractive. The latter may even have greater role in increasing flow of tourists becausethe word of mouth spreads faster and has greater impact. Satisfied tourist will, generally,give greater publicity to tourism by publicizing happy experiences of their visit to a touristsite.

With this conviction and resolve, the Ministry of Tourism is undertaking several studies inimportant tourist destinations in the country. They all relate to various aspects of tourismwith a goal of increasing volume of tourist traffic in India. One such area of study is tostrengthen infrastructure at the tourist destinations; it is important to identify the

infrastructure gaps in tourist locations so that suitable action is taken to provideadequate infrastructure for attracting the tourists. One such study had identified need fordetermining infrastructure gaps in five tourism destinations like Kullu-Manali, HimachalPradesh; Guwahati including Kaziranga, Assam; Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka;Nanded, Maharashtra; Chitrakoot, and Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. The GfKMODE had conducted studies in all these five destinations in India.

This is a summary report based on the infrastructure gaps for tourism found in theindividual destinations. In other words, this report presents findings of the infrastructure

gaps found/ reported in five tourist destinations of Kullu-Manali, Himachal Pradesh;Guwahati including Kaziranga, Assam; Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka; Nanded,Maharashtra; and Chitrakoot, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh.

1.2 Objectives of the study

The objective of this study was to ascertain infrastructure gaps in five tourist destinationsin Kullu-Manali, Himachal Pradesh; Guwahati including Kaziranga, Assam; Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka; Nanded, Maharashtra; and Chitrakoot, Uttar Pradesh and

Madhya Pradesh.

1.3 Time period

Data for the study was collected in the months of August 2009 to January 2010.

1 4 Chapterization of the report


18/56

3

CHAPTER – II

METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION

2.1 Considerations in deciding the methodology

The following considerations were made in deciding the methodology:

• There may be differences in the profile of tourists visiting the tourist site ondifferent days of the week.

• There may be differences in the profile of tourists visiting sites in the morningsand afternoons.

• Since foreign tourists also need to be covered in the study, months/seasons oftheir (foreigner tourists) visits were to be taken into account for deciding periodof collection of data. That is the reason that the period of data collectionextended to five months—August to January.

•

Two visits were to be made to each of the tourist destination, one in the monthof August and the second during the period December-January• There may be several tourist sites at the destinations under study. The important

of them were covered to get the required sample size.•

Sample of tourists was a probability sample so as to be representative sample.

2.2 Approach to the study

The approach to this study is based on “Importance-Satisfaction” model. That is, the

study, first, found out what infrastructure tourists considered as “important” and, then,assessed the level of their “satisfaction”. Differences in the “importance” and the degreeof “satisfaction” with the existing infrastructure became a gap, “importance-Satisfactiongap”; larger the gap in a particular facility/infrastructure for tourists, higher was thepriority to be given for improvement. This approach was used to assess gaps in theinfrastructure which needed to be strengthened to make the destination more attractiveto tourists and would help the tourist destination to achieve its tourist potential. Thisapproach basically, was a “Service Quality Approach”. In other words, the importantelements of this approach were:

• Importance (of the facilities at the tourist sites) analysis (how important touristsviewed different facilities at the tourist sites,

•

Satisfaction analysis of the tourists with the existing facilities, and building of• Importance-Satisfaction Matrix which essentially categorized the facilities which

tourists viewed as important but were not found satisfactory (by tourists)currently


19/56

4

2.3 Study design

Study type

The tourists were interviewed at the tourist site. Tourists were at the site and were aboutto leave the site when interview was conducted. Thus it was a sort of exit interviews.

Sample size

The client had suggested a minimum sample size of 250 domestic and 250 foreigntourists at the tourist destination/circuit/location under study. The total sample size forthe destination/location suggested and actually covered is shown in the Table below:

Foreign tourists Domestictourists

Total touristsS.No

Touristdestination/

circuit/location uggested Actuallycovered

Suggested

Actuallycovered

Sugges-ted

Actuallcovered

1 Kullu-Manali,Himachal Pradesh

250 252 250 255 500 507

2 GuwahatiincludingKaziranga, Assam

250 214* 250 291 500 505

3 Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole,Karnataka

250 117** 250 416 500 533

4 Chitrakoot,

Uttar Pradesh andMadhya Pradesh

250 0*** 250 504 500 504

5 Nanded,Maharashtra

250 51**** 250 487 500 538

Total 1250 634 1250 1953 2500 2587* Field survey teams had to be sent to the field three times to cover the required sample size of 250 foreigntourists. Still the required sample size could not be covered.

** Sample size could not be covered even in three visits. It only suggests that the number of foreign touristsvisiting the tourist destination is a small.*** Foreign tourists do not visit this place as this site is mainly a religious site. Therefore, sample size allocated

to foreign tourists was assigned to domestic tourists.**** The required sample size could not be covered even in three visits. It only suggests that the number of

foreign tourists visiting this tourist destination is small.

Sample selection

In making selection of the tourists from tourist site it was assured that


20/56

5

With the above as our selection pattern, our first effort was to find out important touristspots in the tourist destination. This was done by (i) searching the websites of thedestination, (ii) making a quick visit to the tourist destination and forming our ownimpressions during the first visit to the destination, (iii) talking to the officials of theTourist Department, and (iv) talking to the local tourist agencies.

The sample design of the study divided the sample of 250 domestic and 250 foreigntourists equally between different important tourist spots in the location. We decided toallocate equal numbers to all the important tourist spots at the destination, because

this study should be able to assess deficiencies in each of the important spots, besidesgeneral infrastructure which is relevant for all the spots in the tourist destination.

2.4 Study tools

The client had given a study tool with “Importance-Satisfaction” questions relevant to thetourism sector. The questionnaire had two sections; one to assess importance touristsassign to different facilities and its components and the other to assess his/hersatisfaction level with the existing facilities. Within each broad category of facility, therewere two or more components (shown in the questionnaire attached at Annexure - 2).

Ten broad categories of facilities were:

• Air connectivity•

Road connectivity• Rail connectivity• Civic administration• Traffic and transport management•

Tourists’ facilities• Taxes/Permits•

Maintenance and management of monuments/tourist attractions• Other services, and• Visa, Immigration and customs (for foreign tourists)

The tourists were asked about each facility/component of infrastructure to score it on thescale of 1 to 5, for both “importance” of infrastructure and that on the level of

“satisfaction” as per their assessment of the facility/component (shown below).

Importance Satisfaction

Answer Score assigned Answer Score assigned

Least important 1 Poor 1

Somewhat important 2 Unsatisfactory 2

Not so important 3 Average 3


21/56

6

The questionnaire, thus prepared, was pre-tested. Our experienced fieldinvestigators/supervisors were sent for the pre-test. Comments came on the format ofthe questionnaire. Thus this final format (attached at annexure 1) was based on the pre-test results.

Once the questionnaire was finalized, a manual was developed for training of the fieldstaff and as a handy tool for data collection. This Manual was given to the teamsupervisors so that they could use it for better clarity, in case of need.

2.5 Field implementation of the study

This section includes steps taken before the study was implemented in the field for datacollection. It covers:

• Selection of the field teams• Training• Supervision/monitoring the field work, scrutiny and quality assurance

2.5.1 Selection of field teams

Since only about 125 domestic and 125 foreign tourists were to be covered in each visit(It was decided that the study will be conducted in two phases—first in the month of August and then in the month when foreign tourists could be available), two teams ofthree investigators and a supervisor were formed for each destination. One teamcomprised of local language speaking interviewers and the other who could interviewforeign tourists in English and Hindi language to tourists from other states).

The supervisor in the team was from the pool of field personnel retained by GfK MODE toensure accountability in the quality of data.

2.5.2 Training of field teams

Training is very important for the quality of data and therefore, we at GfKMODE Services gave great importance to the training. We deputed our twoexperienced researchers for this task, who not only trained the field teams but observed

them in actual field while collecting actual data, beyond the training period.

Two-tier training was organized. In the first tier, it was training of the trainers (TOT); thiswas held in Delhi on July 7-8, 2009. It was composed of classroom training, mockinterviews in classroom, going to the field for filling a few questionnaires for practice,their scrutiny to identify problems and then re-training the teams for the problemsobserved in the field.


22/56

7

2.5.3 Quality control assurance

Some of the steps taken to assure quality of data were as follows:

• Teams at each destination had full time supervisor with the team. He assured thatthe field investigators were placed at the right spots for interviewing the tourists atthe randomly allocated time. He also scrutinized the questionnaires forcompleteness and consistency of the information.

• Our supervisors are very experienced and have retainership arrangements with GfKMODE Services. This makes them accountable for the quality of data.

•

Our Field Executive also visited the field to make sure that field work was going onaccording to the plans.

• Our researcher at the HQ scrutinized the work completed in the first week of thefield work to identify whether there was any gap and problem with the data.

• Data were received at HQ on regular basis for scrutiny and data entry. Datareceived, was again carefully scrutinized before it was passed on for data entry.One person, in the Data Processing Division at HQ had responsibility for suchcontinuous scrutiny.

2.6 Tabulation plan

The researcher associated with this study prepared tabulation plan so as to analyze dataas per “Importance-Satisfaction” model approach. This was shared with the client andfinalized after discussion with them.

2.7 Data processing

All the filled-in questionnaires of the first visit were received at the analysis office in Delhi. After their thorough scrutiny, data was entered in tailor--made software prepared by ourin-house senior staff of the Analysis Division. The data was fully validated before thetables were framed. This data entry program has most of the in-built checks for dataquality control.

The tables received were scrutinized carefully to ensure that data did not show anyinconsistency.

2.8 Tabulation and report writing

A detailed chapterization plan was prepared, with sections and sub-sections and tableswhere they belong.

The draft report for each destination was prepared as per decided format by theprofessionals at GfK MODE and finalized by the Project Manager/Team Leader of the


23/56

9

CHAPTER –III

PROFILE OF TOURISTS

This chapter attempts to present a demographic profile of tourists, both foreigners andIndian for the tourist destinations.

3.1 Profile of tourists in five tourist destinations, India

3.1.1 Foreign tourist

Demographic background

Table 3.1 gives the background characteristics of foreign tourists in four destinations2.(For individual destinations see the Tables A3.1, A3.2 and A3.3 in annexure -1).

Table 3.1: Percentage distribution of foreign tourists by backgroundcharacteristics in five tourist destinations, India

Background characteristics Percent Background characteristics Percent

1. Age in years 4. Country of residence

Below 18 1.9 France 15.9

18 – 25 14.1 UK 14.5

26 – 35 25.1 Germany 7.7

36 – 45 22.9 Italy 6.3

46 – 55 19.3 Other European countries 8.5

Above 55 16.6 USA 12.42. It was their first visit to India 50.0 Canada 4.1

3. Main purpose of visit to India Australia 5.0

Business 3.6 Other foreign countries 25.6

Tourism 78.6

Social 12.9

Others 4.9

Total number of foreign tourists interviewed = 634

•

Most of the tourists belonged to ages 26-55 years except in Kullu- Manali which wasfound to be popular among younger tourists of the ages 18-25 years.

• Most of the tourists are coming from European countries and USA. Tourism is thepurpose for which they came to India except in Nanded where it was combined withsocial visit.

• Fifty percent came to India for the first time.


24/56

10

Figure 3.1: Percentage distribution of foreign tourists by countryof residence in four tourist destinations, India

15.9

14.5

7.7

6.38.5

25.6

5.0

4.1

12.4

FranceUK

GermanyItalyOther European countriesUSA Canada

AustraliaOther foreign countries

Number of days taken to get visa

Foreign tourists were asked about the number of days they took to get their visa. Thedistribution for different countries is shown below (Table 3.2).

Table 3.2: Number of days taken to get the visa

No. ofdays

France(n=101)

UK(n=92)

Italy(n=40)

Australia(n=32)

Germany(n=49)

OtherEuropeancountries(n=54)

USA(n=79)

Canada(n=26)

Total(n=634)

< 3 days 3.0 6.5 5.0 0.0 14.3 9.2 12.7 15.4 9.6

3 – 7 days 42.6 45.7 37.5 34.4 26.5 40.8 27.9 34.6 38.2

8 14 days 24.8 26.1 27.5 15.6 18.4 22.2 36.7 30.8 22.6

15 daysand over 29.7 21.7 30.0 50.0 40.8 27.8 22.8 19.2 29.6

Averageno. ofdays 8.9 8.0 9.0 10.6 9.4 8.4 8.5 7.8 8.6Note: “n” represents the sample size of tourists covered in our sample respondents in four destinations.


25/56

11

Table 3.3: Percentage distribution of foreign tourists (in four to destinations) bytheir awareness of the Indian tourism office in their country

Information on Tourism related aspects Percent

1. Knows where tourism office in the country exists 64.7

2. Contacted tourism office for information on tourism 43.5

3. Impression about response from tourism office

Satisfactory 78.6

Just O.K. 19.1Not satisfactory 1.5

Not mentioned 0.8

Total number of foreign tourists interviewed = 634

• About 65 percent foreign tourists reported knowing the tourism office in their countryof residence; but only 44 percent of them sought information on tourism and 79percent for them were satisfied with the information they received.

•

Distribution of this information by specific country is shown in table given in Table A3.4.• Country – wise awareness and utilization of the office of tourism is shown in Table

3.4.

Table 3.4: Percentage of tourists reported awareness and contact with theoffice of tourism by country

Countries No. of

tourists

Awareness of

Indian tourismoffice

Contacted

tourism office forinformation ontourism in India*

Satisfied with

the contactwith Indiantourismoffice**

Holland 18 61.1 36.4 50.0

Germany 49 46.9 43.5 60.0

UK 92 73.9 45.6 77.4

USA 79 57.0 40.0 77.8

Italy 40 65.0 50.0 92.3

Canada 26 50.0 23.1 66.7

France 101 69.3 34.3 75.0

Australia 32 78.1 68.0 94.1

Total 464 64.7 43.5 78.6* among those aware of Indian tourism office.** among those who contacted Indian tourism office for information


26/56

12

3.1.2 Domestic tourist

Demographic characteristics

Table 3.5 gives age distribution of tourists in all the five destinations. Their distribution ineach destination is shown in Table A3.1 in annexure 1.

Table 3.5: Percentage distribution of domestic tourists by age groupings

Background characteristics Percent

1. Age in yearsBelow 18 1.5

18 – 25 25.5

26 – 35 32.8

36 – 45 19.8

46 – 55 11.5

Above 55 8.7

Not mentioned 0.7

Total number of Indian tourists interviewed = 1953

• Most of the domestic tourists have ages between 18 and 55 years—more in the ages26-35 years.

• Age groups are similar in all the five destinations except in Nanded where more haveages 36-45 years and 46-55 years.

State of residence

Figure 3.2 shows the states of residence of tourists in the five destinations under study.Such data for individual destination is shown in Table A3.5 .

Figure 3.2: Percentage distribution of domestic tourists by state ofresidence

18.0

18.0

6.2

5.6

14.4

MaharastraKarnataka

UPMPDelhi

Assam

13


27/56

13

• The overall distribution of the states from where domestic tourists came is misleading

since most of the tourist in a destination came from the neighbouring states. Forinstance, in the case of Kullu Manali, one third of the tourists came from Delhi, about9 to 10 percent from each Uttar Pradesh and Punjab and 11 percent from WestBengal.

• In the case of Guwahati/Kaziranga, 39 percent tourist were from Assam, 19 percentfrom West Bengal and 5 to 6 percent from each of the states of UP, Delhi andMaharashtra.

• In case of Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka, 85 percent tourist were fromKarnataka itself.

•

For Nanded, two-thirds of the tourists came from Maharashtra; another 18 percentfrom Punjab.

• In the case of Chitrakoot, 87 percent tourist came from UP and MP.

Other information related to domestic tourists

Table 3.6 gives other relevant information related to the domestic tourists in all the fivedestinations. Such information for individual destinations in shown in Table A3.6.

Table 3.6: Percentage distribution of domestic tourists by information relatedto tourism in five tourist destinations, India

Information related totourism

Percent Information related

to tourism

Percent

1. Mode of travel to reachthe destination

3. Whether came alone,friends or relatives

Bus 32.7 Alone 6.7

Train 33.3 With friends 39.5

Plane 4.0 With family members 53.7

Personal car 24.1 4. Number of days of stay

Others 5.9 One day 44.7

2. Source of information onthe tourist destination

More than one day42.7

Travel agent 3.0 Uncertain/depends 6.0

Friends/relative 52.3 Not mentioned 6.6Personal effort in

tourism 36.4

Internet 0.3

Others 8.0

14


28/56

14

•

In the case of Kullu Manali, about 7 percent tourists got information from travelagents compared to 1 to 2 percent in other destinations.

• Most of the tourists go along with their family members, followed by those who travelwith friends.

• Most of the tourists to Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole go for a day. In the case of KulluManali, Nanded and Chitrakoot, touriosts go for more than a day.

•

Distribution of tourist by their place of stay during their tourism related visits shown inFigure 3.3.

Figure 3.3: Percentage distribution of domestic tourists by place of stay attourist destination

19.5

18.3

9.6

52.5

Commercial

Rented own place

Staying with friends and relatives

Others

• Majority of tourists stay in commercial places, followed by those who rent theirown places.

• Almost equal percent of tourists stay with their friends and relatives or rent theirown places (18-19%).

15


29/56

15

CHAPTER –IV

IMPORTANCE-SATISFACTION GAPS IN TOURISM INFRASTRUCTURE

The tourists were asked to assign scores on the scale of 1 to 5 on the degree of “importance” they assign to different facilities/components of the facility at a touristdestination. They were also asked to assign scores to the existing current level of “satisfaction” with the facility/component. (Questions on different components of tourisminfrastructure have been grouped into ten broad facilities with two or more components

within each facility. They can be seen in the questionnaire attached in Annexure-2). Thischapter discusses the degree of gaps which currently exist between the “importance-satisfaction” scale of different facilities/ components. That is, this chapter attempts toidentify facilities/components which are considered “important” by the tourists but theirpresent situation is not “satisfactory”. The idea is that the facilities/components whichhave large gaps between “importance” and “satisfaction” needs to be identified sothat by improving them, satisfaction of the tourist could be increased to make their visitmore satisfying. This will help to encourage tourism in the monument/tourist site assatisfied visitors may recommend these tourist sites to other tourists. This process will

improve flow of tourists to the monument/ tourist site.

4.1 Choice of indicator of “importance” tourists assign to different facilities/components of the facility

As stated earlier, each tourist interviewed was asked to score each component of thetourist facility. Scores to be assigned were as follows:

Score assigned was If ‘importance” of the component considered was

5 Most important

4 Very important

3 Not so important

2 Somewhat important

1 Least important

Two types of indicators of “importance” could be derived from this set of data on scores

assigned to each facility/component.

• Mean score assigned to the facility (by computing average from this data), and• Percentage of tourists who assign score of 4 (very important) or 5 (most

important) to the tourist facility3 .

16


30/56

16

4.2 Ranking of facilities reported by “importance” by foreign and domestic tourists

Table 4.1: Ranking of ten facilities by “importance” (percent tourists reportingscores 4 or 5) by foreign tourists

Facilities Ranking of facilities

( as reported in fourdestinations)

Average rank

(given in fourdestinations)

Over

allrank

Air connectivity KM=9; G=5; B=9; N=1 6.0 7

Road connectivity KM=4; G=8; B=5; N=2 4.8 4.5

Rail connectivity KM=6; G=9; B=6; N=10 7.8 8.5

Civic administration KM=3; G=2; B=3; N=5 3.3 3

Traffic and transport

management KM=7; G=7; B=8; N=9 7.8 8.5Tourist facilities KM=5; G=3; B=4; N=7 4.8 4.5

Taxes/permits KM=10; G=10; B=10;N=8 9.5 10

Maintenance and managementof monuments/tourist attraction KM=8; G=6; B=2; N=6 5.5 6

Other services (including Powersupply and Telephone/mobile

connection) KM=2; G=4; B=1; N=4 2.8 1

Visa, Immigration and customs KM=1; G=1; B=7; N=3 3.0 2KM = Kullu-Manali; G= Guwahati including Kaziranga; B = Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole;

N = Nanded, Maharashtra

•

Though Visa, Immigration and Customs has been ranked two in importance inoverall ranking but it may be noted that it ranked first in two destinations,

ranked three in the third destination and seven in fourth destination.•

Surprisingly, tourists in Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole had ranked Visa, Immigrationand Customs as seven. Most of the tourists at this destination were European,quite a large percentage of them were French.

•

The category of facility “Other services” (including power supply andtelephone/mobile connections) has been ranked very high by all foreign tourists.

• Third ranking facility is “Civic administration”

17


31/56

17

Table 4.2: Ranking of nine facilities by “importance” (percent tourists reportingscores 4 or 5) by domestic tourists (Excluding Visa, Immigration and Customs)

Facilities Ranking of facilities ( asreported in five destinations)

Average rank(given in fivedestinations)

Overallrank

Air connectivity KM=8; G=6; B=9; N=7; C=8 7.6 8

Road connectivity KM=1; G=3; B=2; N=1; C=3 2.0 2

Rail connectivity KM=7; G=5; B=5; N=4; C=5 5.2 4

Civic administration KM=2; G=2; B=4; N=3; C=1 2.4 3

Traffic and transportmanagement KM=5; G=4; B=7; N=8; C=7 6.2 7

Tourist facilities KM=4; G=7; B=6; N=5; C=6 5.6 6

Taxes/permits KM=9; G=9; B=8; N=9; C=9 8.8 9

Maintenance and

management ofmonuments/touristattraction KM=6; G=8; B=3; N=6; C=4 5.4 5

Other services KM=3; G=1; B=1; N=2; C=2 1.8 1KM = Kullu-Manali; G= Guwahati Including Kaziranga; B = Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole;

N = Nanded; C=Chitrakoot

•

Facilities coming under “Other services” (including power supply andtelephone/mobile communication) ranked first, followed by “Road connectivity”

and “Civic administration”.•

Rail or road connectivity was ranked high by domestic tourists.• It may be noted that rankings assigned by domestic tourists were quite similar to

assigned by foreign tourists.

4.3 Indicator of “satisfaction” with the existing facility/component of the facility

In the case of data on current level of the “satisfaction” with the existing situation of thefacility, the tourists were asked to score according to the following five point scale:

Score assigned was If satisfaction reported was

5 Excellent

4 Good

18


32/56

18

•

Percent tourist who report facility/component as “Excellent” (score 5), or “Good”(score 4) , Or

• Percent tourists who report facility/component as “Excellent” (score 5), “Good”(score 4), or even “Average”(score 3).

After analysis, it was decided to use the second indicator “Percent tourists who reportfacility/component as “Excellent” (score 5), “Good” (score 4) or “Fair” (score 3)”. Detailsof the analysis have been shown in the individual reports.

4. 4 Indicator of gap in Importance-satisfaction of a tourist facility

A look at the scatter diagrams of “importance” and “satisfaction” with thefacilities/components (in individual reports) clearly showed that quite a large number ofcomponents had higher (than median value) indicator values on “importance” and lower(than median value) scores on “satisfaction”. That is, overall there is need to improve thetourism infrastructure. But we have to assign priorities to those facilities whoseimportance is high and satisfaction is low. For this purpose, one can think of twoindicators to identify such gap between the importance-satisfaction levels for the

facilities/components:

1.

Those components of the facility/infrastructure which show high value on “importance” (higher than median value of importance) but low on “satisfaction”(lower than median value of satisfaction). That is, they fall in the higher “importance’and low “satisfaction” quadrant of the X-Y axis as shown in the figure below (This wecall Indicator I1):

M e d i a n v a l u e o f s a t i s f a c t i o n

S a t i s f a c t

i o n

Y

High – Importance(Higher than median)

19


33/56

2.

Differences (Gaps) in percentages of “importance” (percent tourists reporting scores4 or 5 on importance) and “satisfaction” (percent tourists reporting scores 3, 4 or 5on satisfaction). Higher the difference, higher is the gap between importance andsatisfaction. This we call as Indicator I2. Though identification of the components ofinfrastructure which fall in the fourth quadrant is good enough as a starting point forstrengthening the tourism infrastructure at the tourist destination (based on indicatorI1), it is felt that I2 will have added benefit of ranking all the components of facilitiesrelated to tourism according to their importance-satisfaction levels. Advantage ofindicator I2 is that all the facilities/components could be ranked; the Department of

Tourism can take up improvement in a phased fashion. Therefore, we have usedboth these indicators to identify importance-satisfaction gaps.

4.4.1 Results of analysis of importance-satisfaction gaps by I1

Two tables 4.3 (for foreigners on indicator I1) and 4.4 (for domestic tourists on indicatorI1) show the facilities/components by the number of destinations where they have beenreported as falling in the fourth quadrant of “Importance-Satisfaction” matrix (highimportance-low satisfaction levels). That is, in the case of foreign tourists, Table 4.3

shows the components/facilities which have been reported as falling in the fourthquadrant by tourists in all the four tourist destinations (covered in the study), threedestinations, two destinations or only one destination.

Within each category of facilities, say, the category of facilities which have been reportedby all the four destinations, Table 4.3 ranks the facilities according to their priority[priority has been decided on the basis of differences in the indicator values of “importance” and “satisfaction” (Importance – Satisfaction = Gap)]. Similar distributionfor domestic tourists has been shown in Table 4.4

20


34/56

Table 4.3: Rankings of the facilities/components reported by foreign tourists, falling in the

fourth quadrant of Importance-Satisfaction Matrix, by number of destinations wherefacility was reported

S. No. Facility/ComponentRanking assigned by

destination

Average

rank

Overall rank

(Within thecategory)

Reported Importance-Satisfaction gap in all the four destinations

1 Garbage disposal KM=2; G=2; B=1; N=3 2.0 1


3 Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas KM=7; G=4; B=5; N=8 6.0 3

4 Conditions of city roads KM=10; G=9; B=4; N=4 6.8 4

Reported Importance-Satisfaction gap in three destinations

5 Sewerage and drainage system KM=5; B=2; N=5 4.0 1

6 Public conveniences along roads/streets KM=8; G=6; B=7 7.0 2

7 Drinking water supply KM=6; G=10; B=6 7.3 3

Reported Importance-Satisfaction gap in two destinations

8Conditions of signages within the monument/tourist attraction

G=1; B=9 5.0 1

9Public utilities at the monument/touristattraction

KM=4; G=8 6.0 2

10 Conditions of signages KM=12; G=3 7.5 3


KM=11; N=7 9.0 4

12 Power supply situation B=8; N=11 9.5 5

13General cleanliness of monument/tourist

attraction and area around itG=11; N=10 10.5 6

14 Quality of help provided by the reception office KM=14; G=13 13.5 7

Reported Importance-Satisfaction gap in one destination

15Rail connectivity of destination/ circuit with

major Indian citiesKM=1 1.5 1

16 International connectivity of destination/circuit N=1 1.5 2

17Conditions of airport serving thedestination/circuit

N=2 3.0 3

18 Conservation of heritage sites/ monuments G=5 4.0 4

19 Conditions of street lighting KM=9 5.5 5

20Connectivity of the destination/circuit withmajor Indian cities

N=9 5.5 6

21 Telephone/mobile services B=10 7.0 7

22Condition of railway station serving thedestination/ circuit B=11 8.0 8

23Behaviour of service personnel at wayside

restaurants and dhabasG=12 9.5 9

24 Availability of luxury hotels N=12 9.5 10

25Level of knowledge of officials at the receptionoffice

KM=13 11.5 11

B h i f th id t th

21


35/56

• Similarly listing of the facilities reported as falling in the fourth quadrant of X-Y axis in

three, two and one destinations are shown.

Table 4.4: Rankings of the facilities/components reported by domestic tourists, falling inthe fourth quadrant of Importance-Satisfaction Matrix, by number of destinations

where facility was reportedS.

No.Facility/Component

Ranking assigned bydestination

Averagerank

Overall rank (Withinthe category)

Reported importance-satisfaction gap in four destinations

1 Garbage disposal KM=4;G=1; N=1; C=3 2.3 1

Reported importance-satisfaction gap in three destinations

2 Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas G=3; N=3; C=2 2.7 1

3Behavior of the officials available at tourist

reception officeKM=6; B=2; C=5 4.3 2

4 Public conveniences along roads/streets KM=2; G=5; N=7 4.7 3

5 Traffic management G=6; B=8; N=6 6.7 4

Reported importance-satisfaction gap in two destinations

6 Sewerage and drainage system G=2; N=2 2.0 1

7Parking facility at the monument/tourist

attraction B=7; C=1 4.0 2

8 Quality of the roads KM=3; G=8 5.5 4


KM=5; B=6 5.5 4

10Public utilities at the monument/touristattraction

KM=1; N=10 5.5 4

11 Traffic signals G=11; N=4 7.5 6

12 Conditions of city roads G=9; B=9 9.0 7

Reported importance-satisfaction gap in one destination

13 Level of knowledge of officials at the receptionoffice

B=1 1.0 1

14 Availability of tourist guidance/reception centers B=3 3.0 2

15 Drinking water supply G=4 4.0 4

16 Power supply situation B=4 4.0 4

17 Illumination of monuments C=4 4.0 4

18 Availability of mass transit system B=5 5.0 6.5

19 Availability of budget hotels N=5 5.0 6.5

20 Quality of help provided by the reception office KM=7 7.0 8.5

21 Behavior of the taxi drivers G=7 7.0 8.5

22General cleanliness of monument/touristattraction and area around it

N=8 8.0 10

23 General upkeep of the hotel rooms N=9 9.0 11

24 Telephone/mobile services G=10 10.0 12.5

22


36/56

•

No facility was reported falling in fourth quadrant is all the five facilities.• Among domestic tourists, only Garbage disposal was reported as falling in fourth

quadrant in four destinations.

It may also be noted that there is a large similarity in the facilities reported by domesticand foreign tourists except that foreign tourists tend to assign more importance tocleanliness and infrastructure in and around the destination. The domestic tourists, onthe other hand, tend to assign greater priority to the problems of traffic management,traffic signals and interaction between the tourists and the staff of tourism office.

4.4.2 Results of analysis of importance-satisfaction gaps by indicator I2

Two Tables 4.5 (for foreigners on indicator I2) and 4.6 (for domestic tourists on indicatorI2) show the facilities/components by their overall ranking. It also shows (col. 2) theirranking assigned in different destinations; rankings have been assigned by priority[priority has been decided on the basis of differences in the indicator values of “importance” and “satisfaction” (Importance – Satisfaction = Gap)]. Similar distributionfor domestic tourists has been shown in Table 4.6

23


37/56

Ranking of all the facilities by foreign tourists

Table 4.5 : Ranking of the gaps in “importance” and “satisfaction” reported byforeign tourist in all the four tourist destinations, India

Component / facilityRanks assigned to the gap in

different destinations

Average rankin four

destinationsOverall rank

211 Garbage disposal KM=1;G=2; B=1; N=3 1.8 1

210 Sewerage and drainage system KM=4; G=6; B=2; N=5 4.3 2


231 Hygiene at wayside restaurants anddhabas KM=7; G=5; B=5; N=8 6.3 4

212 Conditions of city roads KM=11; G=12; B=4; N=4 7.8 5

216 Traffic signals KM=12; G=4; B=13; N=10 9.8 6

209 Public conveniences alongroads/streets

KM=9; G=8; B=7; N=19 10.8 7.5

217 Traffic management KM=13; G=11; B=8; N=11 10.8 7.5

213 Drinking Water supply KM=6; G=13; B=6; N=25 12.5 9

237 Public utilities at themonument/tourist attraction

KM=3; G=10; B=20; N=26 14.8 10

238 Conditions of signages within themonument/ tourist attraction

KM=17; G=1; B=12; N=32 15.5 11

236 General cleanliness ofmonument/tourist attraction and

area around it

KM=18; G=14; B=18; N=13 15.8 12

214 Conditions of street lighting KM=10; G=18; B=11; N=27 16.5 13

246 Power supply situation KM=19; G=24; B=10; N=14 16.8 14

205 Quality of way side amenities

available on this roadKM=14; G=43; B=16; N=7 20.0 15

219 Availabil ity of metered taxi KM=5; G=40; B=23; N=17 21.3 16

215 Conditions of signages KM=15; G=3; B=22; N=51 22.8 17

207 Condition of railway station serving

the destination/ circuitKM=16; G=47; B=19; N=12 23.5 18

243 Conservation of heritage sites/monuments

KM=30; G=7; B=29; N=29 23.8 19

206 Rail connectivity of destination/

circuit with major Indian citiesKM=8; G=46; B=25; N=18 24.3 20

232 Behaviour of service personnel atwayside restaurants and dhabas

KM=35; G=15; B=17; N=33 25.0 21

230 General upkeep of the hotel rooms KM=25; G=20; B=21; N=44 27.5 22

218 Availabil ity of mass transit system KM=43; G=23; B=9; N=38 28.3 23

247 Telephone/mobile services KM=24; G=34; B=15; N=41 28.5 24

226 Level of knowledge of officials at thereception office

KM=26; G=17; B=37; N=37 29.3 25

249 Promptness in the Immigrationprocedure at the port of arrival inIndia

KM=22; G=19; B=46; N=31 29.5 26

24


38/56

Table 4.5: Ranking of the gaps in “importance” and “satisfaction” reported by

foreign tourist in all the four tourist destinations, India (Contd…)

Component / facilityRanks assigned to the gap in

different destinations

Average rankin four

destinations

Overallrank

202 International connectivity of

destination/ circuitKM=36; G=32; B=55; N=1 31.0 31

219a Behavior of the taxi drivers KM=39; G=27; B=14; N=45 31.3 32

227 Quality of help provided by thereception office

KM=29; G=16; B=34; N=48 31.8 33.2

241 Availabil ity of trained tourist guides KM=50; G=28; B=27; N=22 31.8 33.2

242 Behavior of the guides at themonument/tourist attraction

KM=41; G=35; B=30; N=23 32.3 35

253 Behavior of the custom officials at

the port of arrival in IndiaKM=31; G=29; B=54; N=20 33.5 36

220a Behavior of the drivers of othercommercial transportations

KM=47; G=38; B=35; N=15 33.8 37

225 Behavior of the officials available attourist reception office

KM=34; G=26; B=43; N=36 34.8 38

203 Condition of airport serving thedestination/ circuit

KM=46; G=41; B=52; N=2 35.3 39

201 Connectivity of the destination/

circuit with major Indian cities KM=51; G=36; B=48; N=9 36.0 40208 Behavior of the porters at the

railway stationKM=20; G=44; B=47; N=35 36.5 41

228 Behavior of service staff at the hotel KM=38; G=31; B=31; N=47 36.8 42

220 Availabil ity of other commercialtransportations

KM=45; G=48; B=39; N=24 39.0 43

252 Promptness of custom checkingprocedure at the port of arrival inIndia

KM=32; G=30; B=53; N=43 39.5 44

224 Availabil ity of budget hotels KM=33; G=33; B=40; N=53 39.8 45

223 Availabil ity of luxury hotels KM=53; G=54; B=38; N=16 40.3 46.5

235 Administration of the road taxes on(barriers, delays, harassments etc)

KM=48; G=50; B=24; N=39 40.3 46.5

229 Tariff structure of the hotel rooms KM=40; G=42; B=32; N=52 41.5 48

244 Illumination of monuments KM=27; G=55; B=33; N=55 42.5 49

251 General ambience of theimmigration zone

KM=37; G=39; B=41; N=54 42.8 50

221 Availabil ity of A/C tourist coaches KM=42; G=51; B=42; N=46 45.3 51

233 Levels of luxury taxes ( tax rates) KM=54; G=52; B=36; N=42 46.0 52

222 Availabil ity of authorized touroperators

KM=52; G=49; B=44; N=40 46.3 53

234 Levels of road/transport taxes onvehicles (tax rates)

KM=49; G=53; B=45; N=50 49.3 54

245 Promptness at the ticketing windowof the monument/tourist attraction

KM=55; G=45; B=50; N=49 49.8 55

KM = Kullu-Manali; G= Guwahati Including Kaziranga; B = Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole;

N N d d C Chit k t

25


39/56

Ranking of all the facilities by domestic tourists

Table 4.6: Ranking of the gaps in “importance” and “satisfaction” reported bydomestic tourists in all the four tourist destinations, India

Component / facilityRanks assigned to the gap in different

destinations

Average rankin four

destinations

Overallrank

219 Availabil ity of metered taxi KM=4; G=1; B=4; N=13; C=5 5.4 1

211 Garbage disposal KM=8; G=2; B=22; N=1; C=11 8.8 2

213 Drinking Water supply KM=15; G=5; B=13; N=8; C=20 12.2 3

217 Traffic management KM=22; G=7; B=17; N=6; C=12 12.8 4

210 Sewerage and drainage

systemKM=16; G=3; B=26; N=2; C=18 13.0 5

231 Hygiene at waysiderestaurants and dhabas

KM=20; G=4; B=30; N=3; C=10 13.4 6

209 Public conveniences along

roads/streetsKM=6; G=6; B=25; N=7; C=26 14.0 7

216 Traffic signals KM=18; G=12; B=28; N=4; C=14 15.2 8

240 Availabil ity of touristguidance/reception centers

KM=23; G=24; B=7; N=16; C=9 15.8 9

212 Conditions of city roads KM=21; G=10; B=18; N=14; C=31 18.8 10

219a Behavior of the taxi drivers KM=11; G=8; B=5; N=41; C=33 19.6 11.5

241 Availabil ity of trained touristguides

KM=25; G=18; B=23; N=26; C=6 19.6 11.5

221 Availabil ity of A/C touristcoaches

KM=34; G=39; B=6; N=18; C=8 21.0 13

204 Quality of the roads KM=7; G=9; B=15; N=27; C=48 21.2 14.5

214 Conditions of street lighting KM=14; G=16; B=24; N=24; C=28 21.2 14.5

225 Behavior of the officialsavailable at tourist reception

office

KM=13; G=37; B=2; N=33; C=24 21.8 16

218 Availabil ity of mass transitsystem

KM=27; G=23; B=10; N=34; C=17 22.2 18

233 Levels of luxury taxes ( taxrates)

KM=12; G=47; B=8; N=37; C=7 22.2 18

237 Public utilities at themonument/tourist attraction

KM=5; G=20; B=35; N=12; C=39 22.2 18

227 Quality of help provided bythe reception office

KM=17; G=31; B=3; N=28; C=35 22.8 20

239 Parking facility at themonument/tourist attraction

KM=32; G=44; B=16; N=22; C=4 23.6 21

224 Availabil ity of budget hotels KM=37; G=25; B=36; N=5; C=23 25.2 22.5

246 Power supply situation KM=43; G=26; B=9; N=11; C=37 25.2 22.5

206 Rail connectivity ofdestination/ circuit withmajor Indian cities

KM=2; G=17; B=27; N=36; C=47 25.8 24

205 Quality of way side

amenities available on this KM=9; G=27; B=14; N=39; C=44 26 6 25 5

26


40/56

Table 4.6: Ranking of the gaps in “importance” and “satisfaction” reported bydomestic tourists in all the four tourist destinations, India (Contd…)

Component / facilityRanks assigned to the gap in different

destinations Average rank

in four

destinations

Overallrank

215 Conditions of signages KM=24; G=13; B=39; N=42; C=19 27.4 28.5

247 Telephone/mobile services KM=29; G=11; B=19; N=35; C=46 28.0 30

226 Level of knowledge of

officials at the receptionoffice

KM=26; G=40; B=1; N=38; C=36 28.2 31

236 General cleanliness ofmonument/tourist attraction

and area around it

KM=35; G=22; B=38; N=9; C=38 28.4 32

232 Behaviour of servicepersonnel at waysiderestaurants and dhabas

KM=40; G=14; B=43; N=17; C=30 28.8 33

230 General upkeep of the hotelrooms

KM=36; G=36; B=31; N=10; C=34 29.4 34

238 Conditions of signageswithin the monument/

tourist attraction

KM=31; G=15; B=34; N=40; C=29 29.8 35.5

244 Illumination of monuments KM=33; G=43; B=37; N=21; C=15 29.8 35.5

243 Conservation of heritage

sites/ monumentsKM=42; G=21; B=42; N=25; C=22 30.4 37

222 Availabil ity of authorizedtour operators

KM=39; G=41; B=12; N=23; C=41 31.2 38

229 Tariff structure of the hotel

roomsKM=46; G=42; B=20; N=19; C=32 31.8 39.5

235 Administration of the roadtaxes on (barriers, delays,harassments etc)

KM=30; G=46; B=32; N=30; C=21 31.8 39.5

234 Levels of road/transporttaxes on vehicles (tax rates)

KM=10; G=45; B=33; N=32; C=40 32.0 41

220 Availabil ity of other

commercial transportations KM=41; G=35; B=21; N=45; C=25 33.4 42201 Connectivity of the

destination/ circuit withmajor Indian cities

KM=47; G=32; B=47; N=47; C=1 34.8 43

208 Behavior of the porters atthe railway station

KM=3; G=33; B=44; N=46; C=49 35.0 44

202 International connectivity ofdestination/ circuit

KM=48; G=29; B=48; N=49; C=2 35.2 45

220a Behavior of the drivers ofother commercialtransportations

KM=38; G=28; B=45; N=44; C=27 36.4 46

203 Condition of airport servingthe destination/ circuit

KM=49; G=38; B=49; N=48; C=3 37.4 47.5

245 Promptness at the ticketingwindow of themonument/tourist attraction

KM=19; G=48; B=46; N=31; C=43 37.4 47.5

228 Behavior of service staff atthe hotel

KM=44; G=34; B=40; N=29; C=42 37.8 49

27


41/56

CHAPTER – V

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION FOR STRENGTHENING TOURISTSINFRASTRUCTURE

This chapter is presented in two parts. The first part gives profiles of foreign and domestictourists. The second part gives importance assigned to various facilities and the third partshows the gaps in facilities/components of the facilities between “Importance” andSatisfaction”.

Profile of tourists

Foreign tourists

• In all the four destinations, one-fourth of foreign tourists in the age group of 26-35years. Young tourists are more likely to visit Kullu-Manali. More than two-fifths offoreign tourists in the age group of 55 years and above visits Kaziranga.

• Most of the tourists are coming from European counties and USA. In the case of

Nanded, almost 60 percent tourists came from North America (USA and Canada).Incase of Kaziranga, almost 50 percent tourist came from UK and USA. In case ofBadami-Pattadakal-Aihole, about 40 percent tourists came from France.

• Half of the foreign tourists came to India for the first time.• Most of the countries reported taking 8 to 9 days to get visa except Australia where it

took almost 11 days.• About 65 percent foreign tourists reported knowing the tourism office in their country

of residence; but only 44 percent of them sought information on tourism and 79percent for them were satisfied with the information they received.

•

Tourists in Germany have reported lower awareness (46.9 percent) than othercounties.

• Contract with the office of India tourism is quite poor except in Australia.

Domestic tourists

• In all the five destinati

Documents

Summary Report on Infrastructure Gaps in Tourism Sector