Summary Report On Infrastructure Gaps in Tourism Sector

Incredible
!ndia
1
Government of India
Ministry of Tourism
(Market Research Division)
Summary Report on
Infrastructure Gaps in Tourism Sector

at Five Tourist Destinations in India Based on
Perception of Tourists
Prepared By:
GfK MODE Pvt. Ltd.

K-12, Ground Floor, Green Park Extn.
New Delhi-110 016
June, 2010
INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR AT FIVE TOURIST DESTINATIONS IN INDIA
JUNE ,2010
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 different
stages of the survey. We would like to thank everyone who was involved in the survey and made
it a success.
First of all, we are grateful to the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India, New Delhi for its
overall guidance and support during the study. We would like to offer special thanks to Kumari
Selja, Minister of Tourism, Govt. of India for taking keen interest in this study. Shri Sujit
Banerjee, 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 India
deserve special thanks. They initiated the project and designated GfK MODE Pvt. Ltd to conduct
this study. We also thank Mr. S.K Mohanta, DPA GR B (MR), Ministry of Tourism for extending
his 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 and
providing 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 spent
their time and responded to the questions with tremendous patience.
GfK MODE Pvt. Ltd.

June, 2010
JUNE ,2010
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
CHAPTERV : SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION FOR STRENGTHENING TOURISTS
INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................................................. 27
Annexure 1: Tables for individual tourist destinations.................................................... 31
Annexure 2: Questionnaire .............................................................................................. 37
JUNE ,2010
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) improving
tourists facilities in the tourist destinations so as to make them more attractive. The latter may
even have greater role in increasing flow of tourists because the 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 tourist site. One such study had identified need
for determining infrastructure gaps in five tourism destinations like Kullu-Manali, Himachal
Pradesh; Guwahati including Kaziranga, Assam; Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka; Nanded,
Maharashtra; Chitrakoot, and Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. The GfK MODE had conducted
studies 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 hat
these 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 of
their satisfaction. Differences in the importance and the degree of satisfaction with the
existing infrastructure became a gap, importance-Satisfaction gap; larger the gap in a particular
facility/infrastructure for tourists, higher was the priority to be given for improvement. This
approach was used to assess gaps in the infrastructure which needed to be strengthened to make
the destination more attractive to tourists and would help the tourist destination to achieve its
tourist 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 were
about to leave the site. It was planned to study the importance and satisfaction with the tourist
site by taking a sample of 1250 Indians and 1250 foreign tourists. But only 634 foreign tourists
could be covered even by sending field investigator teams three visits to the site. For domestic
tourists, number of 1953 Indian tourists were covered. All the important tourist sites in five tourist
destination in Kullu-Manali, Himachal Pradesh; Guwahati including Kaziranga, Assam; BadamiPattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka; Nanded, Maharashtra; and Chitrakoot, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya
Pradesh, were covered to get the desired sample.
In making selection of the tourists from the site, it was assured that (i) sample is a random
sample by random time allocation of the sample of the tourists; they were to be interviewed at
11:00 AM, 12:00 Noon, 1:00, 3:00 PM, 4:00 PM and 5:00 PM each day, (ii) sample was spread
over seven days of a week, (iii) It was spread over mornings and evenings, and (iv) both, male
and female tourists were covered.
JUNE ,2010
ii
Study tools
A study tool with Importance-Satisfaction questions relevant to the tourism sector was obtained
from the Ministry of tourism. This questionnaire has two sections; one to assess importance tourist
assigns to different facilities and the other to assess his/her satisfaction level with the existing level
of the facility. Within each broad category of facility, there were two or more components (shown
in the questionnaire attached at Annexure-2).
Ten broad categories of facilities studied were1:
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 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
Answer
Score assigned
Least important
1
Somewhat important
2
Not so important
3
Very important
4
Most important
5
Satisfaction
Answer
Score assigned
Poor
1
Unsatisfactory
2
Average
3
Good
4
Excellent
5
Besides these questions on Importance-Satisfaction, data was collected on general background

information 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
Table 3.1 (in chapter 3 of the report) gives the background characteristics of foreign tourists. Most
of the tourists belonged to ages 26-55 years except in Kullu- Manali which was found to be
popular among younger tourists of the ages 18-25 years.
Several components within each of these categories can be seen in the questionnaire attached.
JUNE ,2010
iii
Fifty percent came to India for the first time. Almost 60 percent tourists in Nanded came from
North 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 the
purpose 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
25.6
14.5
France
UK
Germany
Italy
Other European countries
USA
Canada
Australia
Other foreign countries
5.0
4.1
7.7
12.4
8.5
6.3
Number of days taken to get visa

Foreign tourists were asked about the number of days they took to get their visa. The
distribution for different countries is shown below.
No. of
days
< 3 days
3 7 days
8 14 days
15 days
and over
Average
no. of
days
France
(n=101)
UK
Italy
Australia Germany
(n=92) (n=40) (n=32)
(n=49)
3.0
42.6
24.8
6.5
45.7
26.1
5.0
37.5
27.5
0.0
34.4
15.6
14.3
26.5
18.4
Other
European
countries
(n=54)
9.2
40.8
22.2
29.7
21.7
30.0
50.0
40.8
8.9
8.0
9.0
10.6
9.4
USA
Canada
(n=79) (n=26)
Total
(n=634)
12.7
27.9
36.7
15.4
34.6
30.8
9.6
38.2
22.6
27.8
22.8
19.2
29.6
8.4
8.5
7.8
8.6
Note: n represents the sample size of tourists covered in our sample respondents in four destinations.
JUNE ,2010
iv
Most of the countries reported taking 8 to 9 days to get visa except Australia where it took
almost 11 days.
Since Indian tourism offices are located in a few important cities in some countries, the tourists
from these countries were asked about their experiences with the tourist office. 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 79 percent for them were satisfied with the
information they received.
It may be noted that tourists in Germany have reported lower awareness (less than 50%) than
other 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 yearsmore in the ages 26-35
years.
Age groups are similar in all the five destinations except in Nanded where more have ages 36-45
years and 46-55 years.
State of residence
Figure shows the states of residence of tourists in the five destinations under study. Such data
for 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
14.4
18.0
5.6
6.2
18.0
7.9
Maharastra
Karnataka
UP
MP
Delhi
Assam
West Bengal
Punjab
Other
8.4
6.0
15.6
JUNE ,2010
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. For
instance, in the case of Kullu Manali, one third of the tourists came from Delhi, about
9 to 10 percent from each Uttar Pradesh and Punjab and 11 percent from West
Bengal.
In the case of Guwahati/Kaziranga, 39 percent tourist were from Assam, 19 percent
from West Bengal and 5 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 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 (in
the 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 own
personal efforts. In the case of Nanded, most important source of information was
friends/relatives. In the case of Kullu Manali, about 7 percent tourists got information from travel
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.
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 stay
during 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 (1819%).
Figure 3: Percentage distribution of domestic tourists by place of stay at
tourist destination
9.6
18.3
52.5
Commercial
Rented own place
Staying with friends and relatives
Others
19.5
JUNE ,2010
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 they
assign to different facilities/components of the facility. They were also asked to assign score to the
current level of satisfaction with the facility/component. (Questions on different components of
tourism infrastructure 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). This section
discusses the degree of gaps which exist between the Importance - Satisfaction scale of different
facilities/ 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 tourist
facility. Scores to be assigned were as follows:
Score assigned was
5
4
3
2
1
If importance of the component considered was

Most important
Very important
Not so important
Somewhat important
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 the
facility/component. Obviously, higher the percentage, higher will be importance of the
facility/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 reporting
scores 4 or 5) by foreign tourists
Facilities
Ranking of facilities
Average rank
Overall
( as reported in four
(given in four
rank
destinations)
destinations)
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
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
8.5
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
Maintenance and management of
monuments/tourist attraction
KM=8; G=6; B=2; N=6
5.5
6
Other services (including Power
supply 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
2
KM = Kullu-Manali; G= Guwahati including Kaziranga; B = Badami-PattadakalAihole; N = Nanded, Maharashtra
JUNE ,2010
vii
Though Visa, Immigration and Customs has been ranked two in importance in overall
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 BadamiPattadakal-Aihole had ranked Visa, Immigration and 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 and
telephone/mobile connections) has been ranked very high by all foreign tourists. Third
ranking facility is Civic administration.
Table 2: Ranking of nine facilities by importance (percent tourists reporting
scores 4 or 5) by domestic tourists (Excluding Visa, Immigration and Customs)
Average rank
Facilities
Overall
Ranking of facilities ( as
(given in five
reported in five destinations)
rank
destinations)
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
Rail connectivity
KM=7; G=5; B=5; N=4; C=5
5.2
KM=2; G=2; B=4; N=3; C=1
2.4

management
KM=5; G=4; B=7; N=8; C=7
6.2
Tourist facilities
KM=4; G=7; B=6; N=5; C=6
5.6
Taxes/permits
KM=9; G=9; B=8; N=9; C=9
8.8
Maintenance and
management of
monuments/tourist
attraction
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 = BadamiPattadakal-Aihole; N = Nanded; C=Chitrakoot
Facilities coming under Other services (including power supply and telephone/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.
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 as
follows:
Score assigned was
5
4
3
2
1
If satisfaction reported was

Excellent
Good
Average
Unsatisfactory
Poor
JUNE ,2010
viii
The indicator on satisfaction with the tourism facilities/components was taken as percent tourists
reporting scores 3 (average), 4 (good) or 5 (excellent). The following considerations led to this
choice: 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 current
level 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 as
satisfactory (code 3) - our concern should be that tourism infrastructure should not be
dissatisfactory.
Indicator of gap in Importance-Satisfaction for the components/facilities:

Two indicators on the gap in the importance-satisfaction level for the tourism facilities/components
have been taken up here:
1.
Those components of the facility which show high importance but low satisfaction. That
is, they fall in the higher importance and lower satisfaction quadrant of the X-Y axis (Xaxis is importance axis and Y axis in satisfaction axis). This is indicator I1 in our
analysis. Larger the gap between importance and satisfaction, higher will be the priority
of the component within the fourth quadrant.
2.
Ranking in the difference in percentages of importance (percent tourists reporting scores

4 or 5) and satisfaction (percent tourists reporting scores 3, 4 or 5). Advantage of this
indicator 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 of
facilities/components chosen in particular year would be made on the basis of available
resources (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-low
satisfaction levels). That is, in the case of foreign tourists, Table 3 shows the
components/facilities which have been reported as falling in the fourth quadrant by tourists in all
the four tourist destinations (covered in the study), three destinations, two destinations or only
one destination.
Within each category of facilities, say, the category of facilities which have been reported by 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 distribution for domestic tourists has been shown
in Table 4.
JUNE ,2010
ix
Table 3: Rankings of the facilities/components reported by foreign tourists,

falling in the
fourth quadrant of Importance-Satisfaction Matrix, by number of
destinations where
facility was reported
S. No.
Facility/Component
Ranking assigned by
destination
Average
rank
Overall rank
(Within the
category)
Reported Importance-Satisfaction gap in all the four destinations

1
Garbage disposal
KM=2; G=2; B=1; N=3
2.0
Quality of the roads
KM=3; G=7; B=3; N=6
4.8
Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas
KM=7; G=4; B=5; N=8
6.0
Conditions of city roads
KM=10; G=9; B=4; N=4
6.8
Reported Importance-Satisfaction gap in three destinations

5
Sewerage and drainage system
KM=5; B=2; N=5
4.0
Public conveniences along roads/streets
KM=8; G=6; B=7
7.0
Drinking water supply
KM=6; G=10; B=6
7.3
5.0
6.0
7.5
9.0
9.5
G=11; N=10
10.5
KM=14; G=13
13.5
1.5
1.5
3.0
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Reported Importance-Satisfaction gap in two destinations

Conditions of signages within the monument/
G=1; B=9
tourist attraction
Public utilities at the monument/tourist
KM=4; G=8
attraction
Conditions of signages
KM=12; G=3
Quality of way side amenities available on this
KM=11; N=7
road
Power supply situation
B=8; N=11
General cleanliness of monument/tourist
attraction and area around it
Quality of help provided by the reception office
Reported Importance-Satisfaction gap in one destination

Rail connectivity of destination/ circuit with
15
KM=1
major Indian cities
16
International connectivity of destination/circuit
N=1
Conditions of airport serving the
17
N=2
destination/circuit
18
Conservation of heritage sites/ monuments
G=5
19
27
Conditions of street lighting

Connectivity of the destination/circuit with
major Indian cities
Telephone/mobile services
Condition of railway station serving the
destination/ circuit
Behaviour of service personnel at wayside
restaurants and dhabas
Availability of luxury hotels
Level of knowledge of officials at the reception
office
Behaviour of the guides at the
monument/tourist attraction
Behavior of the taxi drivers
28
Availability of trained tourist guides
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4.0
KM=9
5.5
N=9
5.5
B=10
7.0
B=11
8.0
G=12
9.5
N=12
9.5
10
KM=13
11.5
11
N=13
11.5
12
G=14
13.5
13
N=14
13.5
14
KM = Kullu-Manali; G= Guwahati including Kaziranga; B = Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole; N = Nanded
JUNE ,2010
Facilities like garbage disposal, quality of roads, hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas and
conditions of city roads were reported in the fourth quadrant of X-Y axix in all the four
destinations under study.
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: Rankings of the facilities/components reported by domestic
tourists, falling in
the fourth quadrant of Importance-Satisfaction
Matrix, by
number of destinations
where facility was reported
S. No.
Ranking assigned by
destination
Facility/Component
Average
rank
Overall rank (Within

the category)
Reported importance-satisfaction gap in four destinations

1
Garbage disposal
KM=4;G=1; N=1; C=3
2.3
G=3; N=3; C=2
2.7
Behavior of the officials available at tourist

reception office
KM=6; B=2; C=5
4.3
KM=2; G=5; N=7
4.7
Traffic management
G=6; B=8; N=6
6.7
Parking facility at the monument/tourist attraction
Reported importance-satisfaction gap in three destinations
Reported importance-satisfaction gap in two destinations
Quality of way side amenities available on this road
10
Public utilities at the monument/tourist attraction
11
Traffic signals
12
13

office
14
15
G=2; N=2
2.0
B=7; C=1
4.0
KM=3; G=8
5.5
KM=5; B=6
5.5
KM=1; N=10
5.5
G=11; N=4
7.5
G=9; B=9
9.0
Reported importance-satisfaction gap in one destination

B=1
1.0
Availability of tourist guidance/reception centers
B=3
3.0
G=4
4.0
16
B=4
4.0
17
Illumination of monuments
C=4
4.0
18
Availability of mass transit system
B=5
5.0
6.5
19
Availability of budget hotels
N=5
5.0
6.5
20
KM=7
7.0
8.5
21
G=7
7.0
8.5
22
General cleanliness of monument/tourist attraction

and area around it
N=8
8.0
10
23
General upkeep of the hotel rooms
N=9
9.0
11
24
G=10
10.0
12.5
25
B=10
10.0
12.5
26

N=11
11.0
14
G=12
12.0
15
27
KM = Kullu-Manali; G= Guwahati including Kaziranga; B = Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole; N = Nanded; C = Chitrakoot
JUNE ,2010
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 and
foreign tourists except that foreign tourists tend to assign more importance to cleanliness and
infrastructure in and around the destination. The domestic tourists, on the 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.
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 ranking
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 distribution for domestic tourists has been shown
in Table 4.6 (in the report).
This table shows rankings of all the facilities/components; top ranking gaps are related to the
cleanliness and reasonable infrastructure around the destinations.
Though there is overall similarity in the gaps reported between foreign and domestic tourists, still
the foreign tourists assign more importance to cleanliness of and
infrastructure around the
tourist 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 gaps
in 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 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).In case of Kaziranga,
almost 50 percent tourist came from UK and USA. In case of Badami-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.
JUNE ,2010
xii
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 79 percent for
them 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 less
than 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 since
most of the tourist in a destination came from the neighbouring states. For instance, in the
case of Kullu Manali, one third of the tourists came from Delhi, about 9 to 10 percent from
each Uttar Pradesh and Punjab and 11 percent from West Bengal. In the case of
Guwahati/Kaziranga, 39 percent tourists were from Assam, 19 percent from West Bengal and
5 to 6 percent from each of the states of UP, Delhi and Maharashtra. In case of BadamiPattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka, 85 percent tourist were from Karnataka itself. For Nanded, twothirds of the tourists came from Maharashtra; another 18 percent from Punjab. In the case of
Chitrakoot, 87 percent tourist came from UP and MP.
Mode of travel varies in different destinationsmore 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 own
personal efforts. In the case of Nanded, most important source of information was
friends/relatives. In the case of Kullu Manali, about 7 percent tourists got information from
travel 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 BadamiPattadakal-Aihole go for a day. In the case of Kullu Manali, Nanded and Chitrakoot, touriosts
go 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 and
telephone/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 Kullumanali and Guwahati including Kaziranga. Therefore, they need to be simplified and made
tourist-friendly.
Domestic tourists
For domestic tourists with nine facilities, facilities coming under Other services (including
power supply and telephone/mobile communication) ranked first, followed by road
connectivity, civic administration, and rail connectivity and maintenance and management of
monuments/tourist attraction.
JUNE ,2010
xiii
Matrix of importance-satisfaction gap-Foreign tourists

Foreign tourists
Overall the foreign tourists were more concerned about infrastructure. In all the four
destinations, the garbage disposal was reported rank first as falling in fourth quadrant
followed by quality of the roads, hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas, and conditions
of 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 foreign
tourists had reported poor cleanliness in and around the tourist site. Since poor conditions
around the site leave a bad impression about the site and the country, there is need to
improve 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 within
the monument/tourist attraction, public utilities at the monument/tourists attraction,
conditions of signages, quality of wayside amenities available on this road, power supply
situation, general cleanliness of monument/tourist attraction and area around it, and quality
of help provided by the reception office.
The foreign tourists were reported more gaps in rail connectivity of destination/circuit with
major Indian cities, international connectivity of destinations/circuit, and conditions of airport
serving 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 at
wayside restaurants and dhabas, followed by behavior of the officials available at tourist
reception 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 wayside
amenities 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 to
prioritized all components of tourism infrastructure. It may be noticed that actions of the Ministry
of Tourism can itself help in improving the volume of tourism as it will make their visit more
satisfying.
JUNE ,2010
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1
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) improving tourists facilities in the tourist destinations so as to make them more
attractive. The latter may even have greater role in increasing flow of tourists because
the 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 tourist
site.
With this conviction and resolve, the Ministry of Tourism is undertaking several studies in
important tourist destinations in the country. They all relate to various aspects of tourism
with a goal of increasing volume of tourist traffic in India. One such area of study is to
strengthen infrastructure at the tourist destinations; it is important to identify the
infrastructure gaps in tourist locations so that suitable action is taken to provide
adequate infrastructure for attracting the tourists. One such study had identified need for
determining infrastructure gaps in five tourism destinations like Kullu-Manali, Himachal
Pradesh; Guwahati including Kaziranga, Assam; Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka;
Nanded, Maharashtra; Chitrakoot, and Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. The GfK
MODE had conducted studies in all these five destinations in India.
This is a summary report based on the infrastructure gaps for tourism found in the
individual 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 destinations
in Kullu-Manali, Himachal Pradesh; Guwahati including Kaziranga, Assam; BadamiPattadakal-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

The report is presented in the following five chapters:
Introduction
Methodology and data collection
Profile of tourists domestic and foreigners
Importance-Satisfaction gaps in tourism infrastructure
JUNE, 2010
CHAPTER II
METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION
2.1
Considerations in deciding the methodology

The following considerations were made in deciding the methodology:
2.2
There may be differences in the profile of tourists visiting the tourist site on
different days of the week.
There may be differences in the profile of tourists visiting sites in the mornings
and afternoons.
Since foreign tourists also need to be covered in the study, months/seasons of
their (foreigner tourists) visits were to be taken into account for deciding period
of collection of data. That is the reason that the period of data collection
extended to five monthsAugust to January.
Two visits were to be made to each of the tourist destination, one in the month
of 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.
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 degree
of satisfaction with the existing infrastructure became a gap, importance-Satisfaction
gap; larger the gap in a particular facility/infrastructure for tourists, higher was the
priority to be given for improvement. This approach was used to assess gaps in the
infrastructure which needed to be strengthened to make the destination more attractive
to tourists and would help the tourist destination to achieve its tourist potential. This
approach basically, was a Service Quality Approach. In other words, the important
elements of this approach were:
Importance (of the facilities at the tourist sites) analysis (how important tourists
viewed 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
It was these facilities (which were viewed as important but their current status was not
satisfactoryor large importance-satisfaction gap) which concerns the policy makers and
would/should be the focus for improvement of the tourist destination. Facilities classified
in this category, which were high on importance and low on satisfaction, were the real
infrastructure and service related gaps that the Government had to address in order to
make the destination serve the tourist in a better way and according to their
expectations.
JUNE, 2010
2.3
Study design
Study type
The tourists were interviewed at the tourist site. Tourists were at the site and were about
to 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 foreign
tourists at the tourist destination/circuit/location under study. The total sample size for
the destination/location suggested and actually covered is shown in the Table below:
S.
No
1
2
Tourist
Foreign tourists
Domestic
Total tourists
destination/
tourists
circuit/location Suggested Actually Sugge Actually Sugges- Actually
covered
covered sted
covered
ted
Kullu-Manali,
250
252
250
255
500
507
Himachal Pradesh
Guwahati
250
214*
250
291
500
505
including
Kaziranga, Assam
Badami250
117**
250
416
500
533
Pattadakal-Aihole,
Karnataka
Chitrakoot,
250
0***
250
504
500
504
Uttar Pradesh and
Madhya Pradesh
Nanded,
250
51****
250
487
500
538
Maharashtra
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 foreign
tourists. 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 tourists
visiting 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
Sample was a random sample by random time allocation to the sample of the
tourists they were interviewed at 11:00 AM, 12:00 Noon, 1:00, 3:00 PM, 4:00 PM
and 5:00 PM
Sample was spread over seven days of a week
It was spread over mornings and evenings, and
Both, male and female tourists were covered
JUNE, 2010
With the above as our selection pattern, our first effort was to find out important tourist
spots in the tourist destination. This was done by (i) searching the websites of the
destination, (ii) making a quick visit to the tourist destination and forming our own
impressions during the first visit to the destination, (iii) talking to the officials of the
Tourist Department, and (iv) talking to the local tourist agencies.
The sample design of the study divided the sample of 250 domestic and 250 foreign
tourists equally between different important tourist spots in the location. We decided to
allocate 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, besides
general 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 the
tourism sector. The questionnaire had two sections; one to assess importance tourists
assign to different facilities and its components and the other to assess his/her
satisfaction level with the existing facilities. Within each broad category of facility, there
were two or more components (shown in the questionnaire attached at Annexure - 2).
Ten broad categories of facilities were:
Air connectivity
Road connectivity
Rail connectivity
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 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
Score assigned
Answer
Least important
1
Somewhat important
2
Not so important
3
Very important
4
Most important
5
Satisfaction
Answer
Score assigned
Poor
1
Unsatisfactory
2
Average
3
Good
4
Excellent
5
Besides these questions on Importance-Satisfaction, general background information of

the tourists was also added to get a profile of tourist being interviewed (a random
sample of tourists).
JUNE, 2010
The questionnaire, thus prepared, was pre-tested. Our experienced field

investigators/supervisors were sent for the pre-test. Comments came on the format of
the questionnaire. Thus this final format (attached at annexure 1) was based on the pretest results.
Once the questionnaire was finalized, a manual was developed for training of the field
staff and as a handy tool for data collection. This Manual was given to the team
supervisors 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 data
collection. 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 phasesfirst in the month of
August and then in the month when foreign tourists could be available), two teams of
three investigators and a supervisor were formed for each destination. One team
comprised of local language speaking interviewers and the other who could interview
foreign 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 to
ensure 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 GfK
MODE Services gave great importance to the training. We deputed our two
experienced 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); this
was held in Delhi on July 7-8, 2009. It was composed of classroom training, mock
interviews 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 problems
observed in the field.
These trainers trained their state field teams for two days, using the same curriculum.
They were also told about the role of supervisors who were to scrutinize all the filled-in
questionnaires.
In addition to the field teams of investigators and supervisors, one Field Executive at the
state level was also trained; he/she had overall responsibility for the field work.
JUNE, 2010
2.5.3 Quality control assurance

Some of the steps taken to assure quality of data were as follows:
2.6
Teams at each destination had full time supervisor with the team. He assured that
the field investigators were placed at the right spots for interviewing the tourists at
the randomly allocated time. He also scrutinized the questionnaires for
completeness and consistency of the information.
Our supervisors are very experienced and have retainership arrangements with GfK
MODE 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 on
according to the plans.
Our researcher at the HQ scrutinized the work completed in the first week of the
field 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. Data
received, was again carefully scrutinized before it was passed on for data entry.
One person, in the Data Processing Division at HQ had responsibility for such
continuous scrutiny.
Tabulation plan
The researcher associated with this study prepared tabulation plan so as to analyze data
as per Importance-Satisfaction model approach. This was shared with the client and
finalized 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 our
in-house senior staff of the Analysis Division. The data was fully validated before the
tables were framed. This data entry program has most of the in-built checks for data
quality control.
The tables received were scrutinized carefully to ensure that data did not show any
inconsistency.
2.8
Tabulation and report writing

A detailed chapterization plan was prepared, with sections and sub-sections and tables
where they belong.
The draft report for each destination was prepared as per decided format by the
professionals at GfK MODE and finalized by the Project Manager/Team Leader of the
project. This report was sent to the client for their comments. Based on the comments,
this report was finalized. This process was repeated for the five reports for five
destinations. The last report for Nanded was submitted in the month of February, 2010
because its data were collected in the month of January.
After all the five reports for five tourist destinations were submitted and accepted by the
client, this Summary report was prepared and submitted in the last month of February.
JUNE, 2010
CHAPTER III
PROFILE OF TOURISTS
This chapter attempts to present a demographic profile of tourists, both foreigners and
Indian 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 background
characteristics 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
8.5
Above 55
16.6
USA
12.4
2. 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
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 was
found 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 the
purpose for which they came to India except in Nanded where it was combined with
social visit.
Fifty percent came to India for the first time.
Almost 60 percent tourists in Nanded came from North 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.
Out of five tourist destinations under study, data from foreign tourists could be collected from only four destinations.
Data from Chitrakoot could not be collected from foreign tourists as they do not visit the site.
JUNE, 2010
10
Figure 3.1: Percentage distribution of foreign tourists by country

of residence in four tourist destinations, India
15.9
25.6
14.5
France
UK
Germany
Italy
USA
Canada
Australia
5.0
4.1
7.7
12.4
6.3
8.5
Number of days taken to get visa

Foreign tourists were asked about the number of days they took to get their visa. The
distribution for different countries is shown below (Table 3.2).
Table 3.2: Number of days taken to get the visa
No. of
days
France
(n=101)
< 3 days
3 7 days
8 14 days
15 days
and over
Average
no. of
days
UK
Italy
Australia Germany
(n=92) (n=40) (n=32)
(n=49)
3.0
42.6
24.8
6.5
45.7
26.1
5.0
37.5
27.5
0.0
34.4
15.6
14.3
26.5
18.4
Other
European
countries
(n=54)
9.2
40.8
22.2
29.7
21.7
30.0
50.0
40.8
8.9
8.0
9.0
10.6
9.4
USA
Canada
(n=79) (n=26)
12.7
27.9
36.7
15.4
34.6
30.8
9.6
38.2
22.6
27.8
22.8
19.2
29.6
8.4
8.5
7.8
8.6
Note: n represents the sample size of tourists covered in our sample respondents in four destinations.
Most of the countries reported taking 8 to 9 days to get visa except Australia where it
took almost 11 days.
Total
(n=634)
JUNE, 2010
11
Table 3.3: Percentage distribution of foreign tourists (in four to destinations) by

their awareness of the Indian tourism office in their country
Information on Tourism related aspects
Percent
1. Knows where tourism office in the country exists

2. Contacted tourism office for information on tourism
3. Impression about response from tourism office
Satisfactory
Just O.K.
Not satisfactory
Not mentioned
Total number of foreign tourists interviewed = 634
64.7
43.5
78.6
19.1
1.5
0.8
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 79
percent 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 the
office of tourism by country
Countries
Holland
Germany
UK
USA
Italy
Canada
France
Australia
Total
No. of
tourists
Awareness of
Indian tourism
office
Contacted
tourism office for
information on
tourism in India*
18
49
92
79
40
26
101
32
464
61.1
46.9
73.9
57.0
65.0
50.0
69.3
78.1
64.7
36.4
43.5
45.6
40.0
50.0
23.1
34.3
68.0
43.5
Satisfied with
the contact
with Indian
tourism
office**
50.0
60.0
77.4
77.8
92.3
66.7
75.0
94.1
78.6
* among those aware of Indian tourism office.

** among those who contacted Indian tourism office for information
It may be noted that tourists in Germany have reported lower awareness (less than
50%) than other countries.
Contact with the office of Indian tourism is still quite poor.
JUNE, 2010
12
3.1.2 Domestic tourist

Demographic characteristics
Table 3.5 gives age distribution of tourists in all the five destinations. Their distribution in
each destination is shown in Table A3.1 in annexure 1.
Table 3.5: Percentage distribution of domestic tourists by age groupings
Background characteristics
1. Age in years
Below 18
18 25
26 35
36 45
46 55
Above 55
Not mentioned
Total number of Indian tourists interviewed = 1953
Percent
1.5
25.5
32.8
19.8
11.5
8.7
0.7
Most of the domestic tourists have ages between 18 and 55 yearsmore in the ages
26-35 years.
Age groups are similar in all the five destinations except in Nanded where more have
ages 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 of
residence
14.4
18.0
5.6
6.2
18.0
7.9
Maharastra
Karnataka
UP
MP
Delhi
Assam
West Bengal
Punjab
Other
8.4
6.0
15.6
JUNE, 2010
13
Bengal.
In the case of Guwahati/Kaziranga, 39 percent tourist were from Assam, 19 percent
from West Bengal and 5 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 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 five
destinations. Such information for individual destinations in shown in Table A3.6.
Table 3.6: Percentage distribution of domestic tourists by information related
to tourism in five tourist destinations, India
Information related to
tourism
1. Mode of travel to reach
the destination
Bus
Train
Percent
32.7
33.3
Information related
to tourism
3. Whether came alone,
friends or relatives
Alone
With friends
Plane
4.0
With family members
Personal car
24.1
4. Number of days of stay
Others
5.9
One day
2. Source of information on
More than one day
the tourist destination
Travel agent
3.0
Uncertain/depends
Friends/relative
52.3
Not mentioned
Personal effort in
tourism
36.4
Internet
0.3
Others
8.0
Total number of Indian tourists = 1953
Percent
6.7
39.5
53.7
44.7
42.7
6.0
6.6
Mode of travel varies in different destinationsmore 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 own personal efforts. In the case of Nanded, most important source of
information was friends/relatives.
JUNE, 2010
14
In the case of Kullu Manali, about 7 percent tourists got information from travel
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.
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 stay during their tourism related visits shown in
Figure 3.3.
Figure 3.3: Percentage distribution of domestic tourists by place of stay at
tourist destination
9.6
52.5
18.3
Commercial
Rented own place
Staying with friends and relatives
Others
19.5
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%).
JUNE, 2010
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 tourist
destination. They were also asked to assign scores to the existing current level of
satisfaction with the facility/component. (Questions on different components of tourism
infrastructure 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). This
chapter discusses the degree of gaps which currently exist between the importancesatisfaction scale of different facilities/ components. That is, this chapter attempts to
identify facilities/components which are considered important by the tourists but their
present situation is not satisfactory. The idea is that the facilities/components which
have large gaps between importance and satisfaction needs to be identified so
that by improving them, satisfaction of the tourist could be increased to make their visit
more satisfying. This will help to encourage tourism in the monument/tourist site as
satisfied 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 the
tourist facility. Scores to be assigned were as follows:
Score assigned was
If importance of the component considered was
Most important
Very important
Not so important
Somewhat important
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 .
Analysis was done on both these types of scores. It was decided that the latter one,
Percentage of tourists who assign scores of 4 or 5 was a better indicator (Analysis is
given in the individual reports). Obviously, higher the percentage, higher will be
importance tourists assign to the facility/component.
Other three scores indicate that tourists do not care much for the facility/component under consideration.
JUNE, 2010
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 reporting
scores 4 or 5) by foreign tourists
Facilities
Ranking of facilities
( as reported in four
destinations)
Average rank
(given in four
destinations)
Over
all
rank
Air connectivity
KM=9; G=5; B=9; N=1
6.0
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
KM=3; G=2; B=3; N=5
3.3

management
KM=7; G=7; B=8; N=9
7.8
8.5
KM=5; G=3; B=4; N=7

KM=10; G=10; B=10;
N=8
4.8
4.5
9.5
10
Maintenance and management

of monuments/tourist attraction
KM=8; G=6; B=2; N=6
5.5
Other services (including Power

supply and Telephone/mobile
connection)
KM=2; G=4; B=1; N=4
2.8
Visa, Immigration and customs
KM=1; G=1; B=7; N=3
3.0
Tourist facilities
Taxes/permits
KM = Kullu-Manali; G= Guwahati including Kaziranga; B = Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole;

N = Nanded, Maharashtra
Though Visa, Immigration and Customs has been ranked two in importance in
overall 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, Immigration
and 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 and
telephone/mobile connections) has been ranked very high by all foreign tourists.
Third ranking facility is Civic administration.
JUNE, 2010
17
Table 4.2: Ranking of nine facilities by importance (percent tourists reporting

scores 4 or 5) by domestic tourists (Excluding Visa, Immigration and Customs)
Average rank
Overall
(given in five
rank
destinations)
Facilities
Ranking of facilities ( as
reported in five destinations)
Air connectivity
KM=8; G=6; B=9; N=7; C=8
7.6
Road connectivity
KM=1; G=3; B=2; N=1; C=3
2.0
Rail connectivity
KM=7; G=5; B=5; N=4; C=5
5.2
KM=2; G=2; B=4; N=3; C=1
2.4

management
KM=5; G=4; B=7; N=8; C=7
6.2
Tourist facilities
KM=4; G=7; B=6; N=5; C=6
5.6
Taxes/permits
KM=9; G=9; B=8; N=9; C=9
8.8
Maintenance and
management of
monuments/tourist
attraction
KM=6; G=8; B=3; N=6; C=4
5.4
Other services
KM=3; G=1; B=1; N=2; C=2
1.8
KM = Kullu-Manali; G= Guwahati Including Kaziranga; B = Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole;

N = Nanded; C=Chitrakoot
4.3
Facilities coming under Other services (including power supply and

telephone/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.
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 the
facility, the tourists were asked to score according to the following five point scale:
Score assigned was
If satisfaction reported was
Excellent
Good
Average
Unsatisfactory
Poor
In the case of this scale, one could think of an indicator percent tourist reporting
satisfaction (as was the case of Importance discussed above) by taking .
JUNE, 2010
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 report
facility/component as Excellent (score 5), Good (score 4) or Fair (score 3). Details
of 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 the
facilities/components (in individual reports) clearly showed that quite a large number of
components 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 the
tourism infrastructure. But we have to assign priorities to those facilities whose
importance is high and satisfaction is low. For this purpose, one can think of two
indicators 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 we
call Indicator I1):
Median value of satisfaction
Satisfaction
High Importance
(Higher than median)
Low Satisfaction
(Lower than median)
Median value of importance
Importance
JUNE, 2010
19
2.
Differences (Gaps) in percentages of importance (percent tourists reporting scores

4 or 5 on importance) and satisfaction (percent tourists reporting scores 3, 4 or 5
on satisfaction). Higher the difference, higher is the gap between importance and
satisfaction. This we call as Indicator I2. Though identification of the components of
infrastructure which fall in the fourth quadrant is good enough as a starting point for
strengthening the tourism infrastructure at the tourist destination (based on indicator
I1), it is felt that I2 will have added benefit of ranking all the components of facilities
related to tourism according to their importance-satisfaction levels. Advantage of
indicator 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 used
both 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 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-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 fourth
quadrant by tourists in all the four tourist destinations (covered in the study), three
destinations, two destinations or only one destination.
Within each category of facilities, say, the category of facilities which have been reported
by 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 distribution
for domestic tourists has been shown in Table 4.4
JUNE, 2010
20
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 where
facility was reported
S. No.
Facility/Component
Ranking assigned by
destination
Average
rank
Overall rank
(Within the
category)
Reported Importance-Satisfaction gap in all the four destinations

1
Garbage disposal
KM=2; G=2; B=1; N=3
2.0
KM=3; G=7; B=3; N=6
4.8
1
2
KM=7; G=4; B=5; N=8
6.0
KM=10; G=9; B=4; N=4
6.8
Reported Importance-Satisfaction gap in three destinations

5
KM=5; B=2; N=5
4.0
KM=8; G=6; B=7
7.0
KM=6; G=10; B=6
7.3
5.0
6.0
7.5
KM=11; N=7
9.0
B=8; N=11
9.5
G=11; N=10
10.5
KM=14; G=13
13.5
1.5
1.5
3.0
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Reported Importance-Satisfaction gap in two destinations

Conditions of signages within the monument/
G=1; B=9
tourist attraction
KM=4; G=8
attraction
KM=12; G=3
road
Reported Importance-Satisfaction gap in one destination

Rail connectivity of destination/ circuit with
15
KM=1
major Indian cities
16
International connectivity of destination/circuit
N=1
Conditions of airport serving the
17
N=2
destination/circuit
18
Conservation of heritage sites/ monuments
G=5
19
27

Connectivity of the destination/circuit with
major Indian cities
Condition of railway station serving the
office
Behaviour of the guides at the
28
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4.0
KM=9
5.5
N=9
5.5
B=10
7.0
B=11
8.0
G=12
9.5
N=12
9.5
10
KM=13
11.5
11
N=13
11.5
12
G=14
13.5
13
N=14
13.5
14
KM = Kullu-Manali; G= Guwahati including Kaziranga; B = Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole; N = Nanded
Facilities like garbage disposal, quality of roads, hygiene at wayside restaurants and
dhabas and conditions of city roads were reported in the fourth quadrant of X-Y axix
in all the four destinations under study.
JUNE, 2010
21
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 in

the fourth quadrant of Importance-Satisfaction
Matrix, by
number of destinations
where facility was reported
S.
No.
Ranking assigned by
destination
Facility/Component
Average
rank
Overall rank (Within

the category)
Reported importance-satisfaction gap in four destinations

1
Garbage disposal
KM=4;G=1; N=1; C=3
2.3
Reported importance-satisfaction gap in three destinations

2
G=3; N=3; C=2
2.7

reception office
KM=6; B=2; C=5
4.3
KM=2; G=5; N=7
4.7
Traffic management
G=6; B=8; N=6
6.7
Reported importance-satisfaction gap in two destinations

6
G=2; N=2
2.0
Parking facility at the monument/tourist

attraction
B=7; C=1
4.0
KM=3; G=8
5.5
KM=5; B=6
5.5
KM=1; N=10
5.5
G=11; N=4
7.5
G=9; B=9
9.0
8
9
10

road
attraction
11
Traffic signals
12
Reported importance-satisfaction gap in one destination

13

office
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

B=1
1.0
Availability of tourist guidance/reception centers
B=3
3.0
G=4
4.0
B=4
4.0
C=4
4.0
B=5
5.0
6.5
N=5
5.0
6.5
KM=7
7.0
8.5
G=7
7.0
8.5
N=8
8.0
10
23
N=9
9.0
11
24
G=10
10.0
12.5
25
B=10
10.0
12.5
26

N=11
11.0
14
27
G=12
12.0
15
KM = Kullu-Manali; G= Guwahati including Kaziranga; B = Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole; N = Nanded;
C = Chitrakoot
JUNE, 2010
22
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
and foreign tourists except that foreign tourists tend to assign more importance to
cleanliness and infrastructure in and around the destination. The domestic tourists, on
the 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 indicator
I2) show the facilities/components by their overall ranking. It also shows (col. 2) their
ranking 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 distribution
for domestic tourists has been shown in Table 4.6
JUNE, 2010
23
Ranking of all the facilities by foreign tourists
Table 4.5 : Ranking of the gaps in importance and satisfaction reported by

foreign tourist in all the four tourist destinations, India
KM=1;G=2; B=1; N=3
Average rank
in four
destinations
1.8
210 Sewerage and drainage system
KM=4; G=6; B=2; N=5
4.3
204 Quality of the roads

231 Hygiene at wayside restaurants and
dhabas
212 Conditions of city roads
KM=2; G=9; B=3; N=6
5.0
KM=7; G=5; B=5; N=8
6.3
KM=11; G=12; B=4; N=4
7.8
KM=12; G=4; B=13; N=10
9.8
KM=9; G=8; B=7; N=19
10.8
7.5
KM=13; G=11; B=8; N=11
10.8
7.5
KM=6; G=13; B=6; N=25
12.5
KM=3; G=10; B=20; N=26
14.8
10
KM=17; G=1; B=12; N=32
15.5
11
KM=18; G=14; B=18; N=13
15.8
12
Component / facility
211 Garbage disposal
216 Traffic signals

209 Public conveniences along
roads/streets
217 Traffic management
213 Drinking Water supply
237 Public utilities at the
238 Conditions of signages within the
monument/ tourist attraction
236 General cleanliness of
monument/tourist attraction and
area around it
214 Conditions of street lighting
246 Power supply situation
205 Quality of way side amenities
available on this road
219 Availability of metered taxi
215 Conditions of signages
207 Condition of railway station serving
the destination/ circuit
243 Conservation of heritage sites/
monuments
206 Rail connectivity of destination/
circuit with major Indian cities
232 Behaviour of service personnel at
wayside restaurants and dhabas
230 General upkeep of the hotel rooms
Ranks assigned to the gap in

different destinations
Overall rank
1
KM=10; G=18; B=11; N=27
16.5
13
KM=19; G=24; B=10; N=14
16.8
14
KM=14; G=43; B=16; N=7
20.0
15
KM=5; G=40; B=23; N=17
21.3
16
KM=15; G=3; B=22; N=51
22.8
17
KM=16; G=47; B=19; N=12
23.5
18
KM=30; G=7; B=29; N=29
23.8
19
KM=8; G=46; B=25; N=18
24.3
20
KM=35; G=15; B=17; N=33
25.0
21
22
KM=25; G=20; B=21; N=44
27.5
218 Availability of mass transit system
KM=43; G=23; B=9; N=38
28.3
23
247 Telephone/mobile services

226 Level of knowledge of officials at the
reception office
249 Promptness in the Immigration
procedure at the port of arrival in
India
248 Promptness in getting Indian visa
239 Parking facility at the
250 Behavior of the immigration official
at the port of arrival in India
240 Availability of tourist
guidance/reception centers
KM=24; G=34; B=15; N=41
28.5
24
KM=26; G=17; B=37; N=37
29.3
25
KM=22; G=19; B=46; N=31
29.5
26
KM=21; G=21; B=49; N=30
30.3
27
KM=23; G=37; B=28; N=34
30.5
28.5
KM=28; G=22; B=51; N=21
30.5
28.5
KM=44; G=25; B=26; N=28
30.8
30
JUNE, 2010
24
Table 4.5: Ranking of the gaps in importance and satisfaction reported by

foreign tourist in all the four tourist destinations, India (Contd)
202 International connectivity of
219a Behavior of the taxi drivers
227 Quality of help provided by the
reception office
241 Availability of trained tourist guides
242 Behavior of the guides at the
253 Behavior of the custom officials at
the port of arrival in India
220a Behavior of the drivers of other
commercial transportations
225 Behavior of the officials available at
tourist reception office
203 Condition of airport serving the
201 Connectivity of the destination/
circuit with major Indian cities
208 Behavior of the porters at the
railway station
228 Behavior of service staff at the hotel
220 Availability of other commercial
transportations
252 Promptness of custom checking
procedure at the port of arrival in
India
224 Availability of budget hotels
Average rank
in four
destinations
Overall
rank
KM=36; G=32; B=55; N=1
31.0
31
KM=39; G=27; B=14; N=45
31.3
32
KM=29; G=16; B=34; N=48
31.8
33.2
KM=50; G=28; B=27; N=22
31.8
33.2
KM=41; G=35; B=30; N=23
32.3
35
KM=31; G=29; B=54; N=20
33.5
36
KM=47; G=38; B=35; N=15
33.8
37
KM=34; G=26; B=43; N=36
34.8
38
KM=46; G=41; B=52; N=2
35.3
39
KM=51; G=36; B=48; N=9
36.0
40
KM=20; G=44; B=47; N=35
36.5
41
KM=38; G=31; B=31; N=47
36.8
42
KM=45; G=48; B=39; N=24
39.0
43
KM=32; G=30; B=53; N=43
39.5
44
KM=33; G=33; B=40; N=53
Ranks assigned to the gap in

different destinations
39.8
45
223 Availability of luxury hotels

235 Administration of the road taxes on
(barriers, delays, harassments etc)
229 Tariff structure of the hotel rooms
KM=53; G=54; B=38; N=16
40.3
46.5
KM=48; G=50; B=24; N=39
40.3
46.5
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
KM=37; G=39; B=41; N=54
42.8
50
KM=42; G=51; B=42; N=46
45.3
51
KM=54; G=52; B=36; N=42
46.0
52
251 General ambience of the

immigration zone
221 Availability of A/C tourist coaches
233 Levels of luxury taxes ( tax rates)
222 Availability of authorized tour

KM=52; G=49; B=44; N=40
46.3
operators
234 Levels of road/transport taxes on
KM=49; G=53; B=45; N=50
49.3
vehicles (tax rates)
245 Promptness at the ticketing window
KM=55; G=45; B=50; N=49
49.8
of the monument/tourist attraction
53
54
55
This table shows rankings of all the facilities/components; top ranking gaps are
related to the cleanliness and reasonable infrastructure around the destinations.
JUNE, 2010
25
Ranking of all the facilities by domestic tourists

domestic tourists in all the four tourist destinations, India
Average rank
in four
destinations
5.4
Ranks assigned to the gap in different

destinations
219 Availability of metered taxi
KM=4; G=1; B=4; N=13; C=5
211 Garbage disposal
KM=8; G=2; B=22; N=1; C=11
8.8
213 Drinking Water supply
KM=15; G=5; B=13; N=8; C=20
12.2
217 Traffic management

210 Sewerage and drainage
system
231 Hygiene at wayside
209 Public conveniences along
roads/streets
216 Traffic signals
240 Availability of tourist
guidance/reception centers
212 Conditions of city roads
KM=22; G=7; B=17; N=6; C=12
12.8
KM=16; G=3; B=26; N=2; C=18
13.0
KM=20; G=4; B=30; N=3; C=10
13.4
KM=6; G=6; B=25; N=7; C=26
14.0
KM=18; G=12; B=28; N=4; C=14
15.2
KM=23; G=24; B=7; N=16; C=9
15.8
219a Behavior of the taxi drivers

241 Availability of trained tourist
guides
221 Availability of A/C tourist
coaches
204 Quality of the roads
214 Conditions of street lighting
225 Behavior of the officials
available at tourist reception
office
218 Availability of mass transit
system
233 Levels of luxury taxes ( tax
rates)
237 Public utilities at the
227 Quality of help provided by
the reception office
239 Parking facility at the
224 Availability of budget hotels
246 Power supply situation
206 Rail connectivity of
destination/ circuit with
major Indian cities
205 Quality of way side
amenities available on this
road
223 Availability of luxury hotels
242 Behavior of the guides at
the monument/tourist
attraction
207 Condition of railway station
serving the destination/
circuit
Overall
rank
1
2
KM=21; G=10; B=18; N=14; C=31
18.8
10
KM=11; G=8; B=5; N=41; C=33
19.6
11.5
KM=25; G=18; B=23; N=26; C=6
19.6
11.5
KM=34; G=39; B=6; N=18; C=8
21.0
13
KM=7; G=9; B=15; N=27; C=48
21.2
14.5
KM=14; G=16; B=24; N=24; C=28
21.2
14.5
KM=13; G=37; B=2; N=33; C=24
21.8
16
KM=27; G=23; B=10; N=34; C=17
22.2
18
KM=12; G=47; B=8; N=37; C=7
22.2
18
KM=5; G=20; B=35; N=12; C=39
22.2
18
KM=17; G=31; B=3; N=28; C=35
22.8
20
KM=32; G=44; B=16; N=22; C=4
23.6
21
KM=37; G=25; B=36; N=5; C=23
25.2
22.5
KM=43; G=26; B=9; N=11; C=37
25.2
22.5
KM=2; G=17; B=27; N=36; C=47
25.8
24
KM=9; G=27; B=14; N=39; C=44
26.6
25.5
KM=45; G=49; B=11; N=15; C=13
26.6
25.5
KM=28; G=30; B=41; N=20; C=16
27.0
27
KM=1; G=19; B=29; N=43; C=45
27.4
28.5
JUNE, 2010
26

domestic tourists in all the four tourist destinations, India (Contd)
Ranks assigned to the gap in different

destinations
KM=24; G=13; B=39; N=42; C=19
Average rank
in four
destinations
27.4
247 Telephone/mobile services

KM=29; G=11; B=19; N=35; C=46
28.0
226 Level of knowledge of
KM=26; G=40; B=1; N=38; C=36
28.2
officials at the reception
office
236 General cleanliness of
KM=35; G=22; B=38; N=9; C=38
28.4
and area around it
232 Behaviour of service
personnel at wayside
KM=40; G=14; B=43; N=17; C=30
28.8
230 General upkeep of the hotel
KM=36; G=36; B=31; N=10; C=34
29.4
rooms
within the monument/
KM=31; G=15; B=34; N=40; C=29
29.8
tourist attraction
244 Illumination of monuments
KM=33; G=43; B=37; N=21; C=15
29.8
243 Conservation of heritage
KM=42; G=21; B=42; N=25; C=22
30.4
sites/ monuments
222 Availability of authorized
KM=39; G=41; B=12; N=23; C=41
31.2
tour operators
229 Tariff structure of the hotel
KM=46; G=42; B=20; N=19; C=32
31.8
rooms
235 Administration of the road
taxes on (barriers, delays,
KM=30; G=46; B=32; N=30; C=21
31.8
harassments etc)
234 Levels of road/transport
KM=10; G=45; B=33; N=32; C=40
32.0
taxes on vehicles (tax rates)
220 Availability of other
KM=41; G=35; B=21; N=45; C=25
33.4
commercial transportations
201 Connectivity of the
destination/ circuit with
KM=47; G=32; B=47; N=47; C=1
34.8
major Indian cities
208 Behavior of the porters at
KM=3; G=33; B=44; N=46; C=49
35.0
the railway station
202 International connectivity of
KM=48; G=29; B=48; N=49; C=2
35.2
220a Behavior of the drivers of
other commercial
KM=38; G=28; B=45; N=44; C=27
36.4
transportations
203 Condition of airport serving
KM=49; G=38; B=49; N=48; C=3
37.4
the destination/ circuit
245 Promptness at the ticketing
window of the
KM=19; G=48; B=46; N=31; C=43
37.4
228 Behavior of service staff at
KM=44; G=34; B=40; N=29; C=42
37.8
the hotel
Overall
rank
28.5
30
31
32
33
34
35.5
35.5
37
38
39.5
39.5
41
42
43
44
45
46
47.5
47.5
49
Though there is overall similarity in the gaps reported between foreign and domestic
tourists, still the foreign tourists assign more importance to cleanliness of and
infrastructure around the tourist
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.
JUNE, 2010
27
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION FOR STRENGTHENING TOURISTS
INFRASTRUCTURE
This chapter 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 gaps in 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 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).In
case of Kaziranga, almost 50 percent tourist came from UK and USA. In case of
Badami-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 79
percent for them 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
less than 35 years. Age groups are similar in all the five destinations except in
Nanded.
Bengal. In the case of Guwahati/Kaziranga, 39 percent tourists were from Assam, 19
percent from West Bengal and 5 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 of Chitrakoot, 87 percent tourist came
from UP and MP.
Mode of travel varies in different destinationsmore bus users for Kullu Manali and
more train users for Kaziranga, Nanded and Chitrakoot.
JUNE, 2010
28
Most of the tourists got information about the destination from friends/relatives by
their own personal efforts. In the case of Nanded, most important source of
information was friends/relatives. In the case of Kullu Manali, about 7 percent tourists
got information from travel 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 BadamiPattadakal-Aihole go for a day. In the case of Kullu Manali, Nanded and Chitrakoot,
touriosts go 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
and telephone/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 made tourist-friendly.
Domestic tourists
For domestic tourists with nine facilities, facilities coming under Other services
(including power supply and telephone/mobile communication) ranked first, followed
by road connectivity, civic administration, and rail connectivity and maintenance and
management of monuments/tourist attraction.
Matrix of importance-satisfaction gap-Foreign tourists

Foreign tourists
Overall the foreign tourists were more concerned about infrastructure. In all the four
destinations, the garbage disposal was reported rank first as falling in fourth quadrant
followed by quality of the roads, hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas, and
conditions of 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 foreign tourists had reported poor cleanliness in and around the tourist
site. Since poor conditions around the site leave a bad impression about the site and
the country, there is need to improve 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
within the monument/tourist attraction, public utilities at the monument/tourists
attraction, conditions of signages, quality of wayside amenities available on this road,
power supply situation, general cleanliness of monument/tourist attraction and area
around it, and quality of help provided by the reception office.
JUNE, 2010
29
The foreign tourists were reported more gaps in rail connectivity of destination/circuit
with major Indian cities, international connectivity of destinations/circuit, and
conditions of airport serving 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
at wayside restaurants and dhabas, followed by behavior of the officials available at
tourist reception 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
wayside amenities 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 to
prioritized all components of tourism infrastructure. It may be noticed that actions of the
Ministry of Tourism can itself help in improving the volume of tourism as it will make their
visit more satisfying.
JUNE, 2010
31
Annexure: 1
Tables for individual tourist destinations
JUNE, 2010
33
Table A3.1: Percent distribution of foreign and domestic tourists by age group
Age group
Foreign Tourists
Domestic Tourists
Guwahati Badami Nand- Chitra
Kullu- Guwahati Badami Nanded KulluManali including
Manali including
ed koot
Kaziranga Pattada
Kaziranga Pattada
kalkalAihole
Aihole
Below 18
1.6
0.5
1.7
3.9
2.4
1.4
0.5
2.5
0.6
18-25
27.4
7.5
15.4
5.9
26.7
14.8
44.2
22.4
19.2
26-35
39.7
17.3
23.9
19.6
38.0
32.3
31.3
30.8
29.8
36-45
16.7
11.7
31.6
31.4
17.6
23.0
12.3
21.6
24.4
46-55
8.3
19.6
17.9
31.4
8.2
13.1
6.7
13.8
15.5
Above 55
6.3
43.0
9.4
7.8
4.3
15.1
5.0
8.8
10.3
Total
number of
tourists
interviewed
252
214
117
51
255
291
416
487
504
Table A3. 2: Percentage distribution of foreign tourists by Main purpose of visiting India
Main purpose of visiting India
KulluManali
Business
Tourism
Social
Others
Total number of foreign tourists interviewed
2.3
93.2
2.7
2.0
252
Foreign Tourists
Guwahati BadamiNanded
including Pattadakal
Kaziranga -Aihole
3.3
2.7
6.1
93.9
91.9
34.7
0.5
0.9
46.9
2.4
2.7
12.2
214
117
51
Table A3.3: Percent distribution of foreign tourists by country of residence

Country of residence
Foreign Tourists
KulluGuwahati
BadamiManali
including
PattadakalKaziranga
Aihole
UK
10.6
25.7
2.6
France
9.4
13.6
38.5
USA
7.5
17.3
5.1
Italy
6.3
1.4
15.4
Germany
4.7
13.1
5.1
Canada
2.4
3.3
0.0
SAARC Countries
0.4
1.9
1.7
11.4
3.3
14.5
47.4
21.9
17.1
Total number of foreign tourists interviewed
252
214
117
JUNE, 2010
Nanded
14.3
6.1
34.7
6.1
6.1
24.5
0.0
2.0
6.2
51
34
Table A3. 4: Percent distribution of foreign tourists by awareness and contact with
Office of Tourism in their own country
Awareness and use of Office of Tourism
Foreign Tourists
KulluManali
Guwahati
including
Kaziranga
BadamiPattadakalAihole
Nanded
Aware of the Office
71.7
60.3
70,3
52.3
Contact with the Office*
70.2
34.9
28.1
8.7
* among those aware of Indian tourism office.
Table A3. 5: Percent distribution of domestic tourists by state of residence

State of residence
Domestic Tourist Destinations

Kullu-Manali
Guwahati
including
Kaziranga
Nanded
Chitrakoot
Uttar Pradesh
9.1
6.2
0.5
0.8
61.4
Punjab
9.9
0.3
0.2
17.5
0.0
Himanchal Pradesh
6.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Delhi
32.9
5.2
0.2
2.7
1.0
Maharastra
7.5
5.5
8.2
66.1
2.6
West Bengal
11.1
19.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
Assam
0.0
39.0
0.2
0.0
0.2
Bihar
0.0
4.5
0.5
0.2
1.8
Karnataka
2.4
1.7
84.9
0.8
0.0
Rajasthan
3.2
2.1
0.5
0.0
2.8
Madhya Pradesh
0.8
0.7
0.0
2.9
25.4
Others
17.1
14.8
4.8
9.0
4.0
Total number of
domestics tourist
interviewed
255
291
416
487
504
JUNE, 2010
35
Table A3. 6: Percent distribution of domestic tourists by information related to tourism

Tourism related information
Domestic Tourist Destinations

KulluManali
Guwahati
including
Kaziranga
Nanded
Chitrakoot
Bus
60.3
20.0
35.6
30.4
17.1
Train
11.1
43.8
13.5
46.0
52.1
Plane
3.2
15.5
0.0
1.0
0.2
Personal car
23
16.9
38.9
16.4
25.2
Any two-wheeler
1.2
0.3
4.3
4.7
3.6
Others
6.8
3.4
7.6
1.5
1.8
Travel agent
7.1
2.4
1.9
1.8
2.0
Friends/relative
48.4
57.6
34.6
83.4
37.4
Personal effort in tourism
39.3
31.7
42.3
12.1
56.5
Others
7.6
8.3
21.7
2.7
4.6
Alone
5.6
5.9
6.0
7.6
8.5
With friends
31.3
31.0
61.5
42.3
31.4
With family members
62.7
63.1
32.5
50.1
60.0
One day
5.6
58.3
82.0
34.5
43.1
More than one day
77.4
10.7
13.0
58.1
54.5
Uncertain/depends
16.7
0.3
4.1
6.6
2.2
Commercial
71.0
42.4
32.2
49.3
67.6
Rented own place
18.3
10.7
24.5
21.8
22.3
Staying with friends/relatives
9.5
29.3
21.2
25.9
5.8
Others
1.2
17.6
22.0
3.0
4.4
255
291
416
487
504
1. Mode of travel to reach

the destination
2. Source of information
3. Pattern of travel
4. Duration of stay
5. Place of stay
Total number of domestics

tourist interviewed
JUNE, 2010
37
Annexure: 2
Questionnaire
JUNE, 2010
38
Study to Ascertain the Infrastructure Gaps in Tourism Sector at the Identified Tourist Destinations/
Circuits/ Locations based on the Perceptions of Tourists
Questionnaire
Job No. 2109M009
Sl. N
State
1
Assam...........................1
2
Karnatka........................2
Maharashtra...................3
UP and MP.....................4
Himachal Pradesh...........5
Project: ATITHI
Segments
Place of interview
Guwahati including Kaziranga
1
_____________________
Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole
2
____________________
Nanded
3
____________________
Chitrakoot
4
_____________________
Kullu-Manali
5
____________________
DETAIL OF RESPONDENT
1. Name of Respondent : ___________________________________________
2.
Address of Respondent: ___________________________________________

______________________________________________________________
3.
Phone::_________________________________________________________
4.
Tourist category:
5.
Time slot when interviewed:__________________________________
6.
Language of the interview: ___________________________________
i. Indian
ii. Foreigner
FIELD CONTROL INFORMATION

Investigators Details
Interviewers name _______________________
Date: _________
Supervisors name ________________________
Date: _________
Verified by :
Date:__________
__________________________
Good ...............: I am from GfK MODE, Pvt Ltd. a leading marketing & social research agency
in India. We are currently conducting a survey to Ascertain the Infrastructure Gaps in
Tourism Sector at the few important Tourist Destinations/ Circuits/ Locations etc. Your
views will be very useful in improving the infrastructure and quality of services provided to the
tourists. So, Please spare few minutes to express your views which will be kept confidential.
JUNE, 2010
39
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND PROFILE

Q.NO.
QUESTIONS
CODING CATEGORIES
Less than 18 years 1
18-25 yrs
26-35 yrs
36-45 yrs
46-55 yrs
Above 55 yrs
Male
Female
SKIP TO
101
Age
102
Sex
103
Whether visiting the tourist site (Destination) for the first

time ?
Yes..1
No..........2
104
Country of residence
India
01
Holland
China
UAE
Germany
Japan
South africa
UK
USA
Italy
Canada
France
Singapore
Australia
Other SAARC countries
Latin American countries
Other Oceania countries
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
Go to
Q 113
If tourist belongs to India, then ask questions 105 to 112, otherwise skip to Q 113.
105
Which state of India you belong to?
106
What was the mode of travel to reach this place?
107
How did you come to know about this tourist site?
108
109
110
111
112
Whether you came in a group organized by travel agent or

on your own?
Whether came alone, with friends or with family?
Whether you are staying in commercial place, rented

your own place or with friends/relative?
How many days you propose to stay here?
Is this a part of your trip to other places of tourism?
----------------------------------Bus
Train
Plane
Personal car
Any two wheeler
Others (specify)
Through travel agent
Through friends/relatives
My own effort because of interest in
seeing different places
Others (specify)
Travel agent arranged group
On my own
Alone
With friends
With family /relatives
Commercial
Rented own place
Staying with friends/relatives
Others (specify)
Only one day
More than one day
Uncertain/depends
Yes
No
1
2
3
4
5
8
1
2
3
8
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
1
2
JUNE, 2010
Go to
Sec 2
40
If tourist is a foreigner (Codes 02 to 19 in Q 104) , then ask questions 113-117

113
Main purpose of visiting India
Business
Tourist
Official
Social
Others (specify)
114
Whether visiting India for the first time?
Yes
No
115
Port of arrival
116
Office where Indian visa was applied for
117
Number of days in getting Indian visa

(approx)
1
2
3
4
8
1
2
_______________________________________
(name of place) __________________________
_____________________days
If tourist is from a country having India Tourism Office (Codes 02 to 14 in Q 104), then ask questions 118-120, otherwise go to
Section 2
118
119
120
Do you know that there is an India Tourism

office in your country?
Yes
No
1
2
Go to sec.2
Did you contact the India Tourism office for

tourism related information?
Yes
No
1
2
Go to Sec 2.
How do you rate the response from tourism

office as
satisfactory/ Just O.K/ Not
satisfactory
Satisfactory
Just O.K
Not satisfactory
1
2
3
JUNE, 2010
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
206
Rail connectivity of destination/ circuit with major

Indian cities
Condition of railway station serving the destination/
circuit
Rail Connectivity
207
208
Behavior of the porters at the railway station
Road
Air
Connecti- Connectiv
-vity
ity
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
Rail Connectivity
Road
Air
ConnectiConnectiv
-vity
ity
202
203
204
205
Note :* In case the tourist has availed any facility during the last 6
months, please record that also and write in the remark column
Any Remark
Excellent
Good
Connectivity of the destination/ circuit with major

Indian cities
International connectivity of destination/ circuit
Condition of airport serving the destination/ circuit
Quality of way side amenities available on this road
1
2
3
4
5
How do you rate the level of satisfaction with its current
status*
1
2
3
4
5
What importance you assign to :

201
Average
Kindly circle the appropriate column

Unsatisfactory
SATISFACTION LEVEL WITH THE TOURIST

FACILITIES, SERVICES AND OTHER AMENITIES
Kindly rate the following services, tourist facilities and
other amenities of the destination currently visited on the
scale of 1 to 5 based on the satisfaction levels; 1 for
Poor, 2 for Unsatisfactory, 3 for Average, 4 for Good and
5 for Excellent
Poor
Type of facilities
Very
Important
Any
Remark
Not so
Important
Least
Important
Most
Important
IMPORTANCE GIVEN TO THE FACILITIES,

SERVICES AND OTHER AMENITIES
Kindly rate the importance of you assign to various
services/ tourist facilities and other amenities at the
tourist sites on the scale of 1 to 5; with 1 for least
important, 2 for somewhat important, 3 for not so
important, 4 for very important and 5 for most
important
Somewhat
Important
Facility
Q.NO.
Type of facilities
41
JUNE, 2010
Tourists facilities
220a
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
Civic
Administration

Garbage disposal
Drinking Water supply
Traffic signals
Traffic management
Availability of metered taxi
Availability of other commercial
transportations
Behavior of the drivers of other commercial
transportations
Availability of A/C tourist coaches
Availability of authorized tour operators
reception office
Level of knowledge of officials at the
reception office
Quality of help provided by the reception
office
Behavior of service staff at the hotel
Tariff structure of the hotel rooms
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5

management
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
219a
220
Tourists facilities

management
Civic
Administration
42
JUNE, 2010
242
Behavior of the guides at the

243
Conservation of heritage sites/

monuments
246
Promptness at the ticketing window of the

247
234
Levels of road/transport taxes on vehicles

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

237

attraction
238
Conditions of signages within the

monument/ tourist attraction
Parking facility at the monument/tourist
attraction
Availability of tourist guidance/reception
centers
235
239
240
244
245
JUNE, 2010
Taxes/
permits etc
241
Maintenance and management of Monuments/

tourist attraction
Maintenance and management of Monuments/

tourist attraction
236
Levels of luxury taxes ( tax rates)
Other Services
Taxes/
permits etc
233
Other Services
43
250
251
252
253
Promptness in getting Indian visa

Promptness in the Immigration procedure
Behavior of the immigration official at the
port of arrival in India
General ambience of the immigration zone
Promptness of custom checking procedure
Behavior of the custom officials at the port
of arrival in India
Visa, Immigration and

customs
Visa, Immigration and

customs
249
Any
Remark
(if tourist is of
India)
Excellent
Good
Average
Unsatisfactory
1
2
3
4
5
How do you rate the level of satisfaction with its
current status*
1
2
3
4
5
What importance you assign to :

248
SATISFACTION LEVEL WITH THE TOURIST

FACILITIES, SERVICES AND OTHER AMENITIES
Kindly rate the following services, tourist facilities and
other amenities of the destination currently visited on the
scale of 1 to 5 based on the satisfaction levels; 1 for
Poor, 2 for Unsatisfactory, 3 for Average, 4 for Good and
5 for Excellent
Poor
Any
Remark
(if tourist is of
India)
Most
Important
Very
Important
Not so
Important
Somewhat
Important
Type of facilities
IMPORTANCE GIVEN TO THE FACILITIES, SERVICES

AND OTHER AMENITIES
Kindly rate the importance of you assign to various
services/ tourist facilities and other amenities at the tourist
sites on the scale of 1 to 5; with 1 for least important, 2 for
somewhat important, 3 for not so important, 4 for very
important and 5 for most important
Least
Important
Facility
Q.NO.
Type of facilities
44
Note :* In case the tourist has availed any facility during the last
6 months, please record that also and write in the remark column
JUNE, 2010
45
301
What, according to you, is relative importance of the

following categories of facilities at tourist destinations?
(Give relative rankings1,2 ..7/8)
Category of tourist
Domestic
(Read each category and enumerate what is included in

each)
Connectivity--air, rail, bus and Pvt. car
Tourists facilities
Taxes/Permits
Maintenance and management of tourist attraction
Other services
Visa, immigration and customs
NA
While asking this question, please give examples as to what facilities are covered under each category
(Say Thank You and terminate the interview)
JUNE, 2010
Foreign

Summary Report On Infrastructure Gaps in Tourism Sector

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Summary Report On Infrastructure Gaps in Tourism Sector

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Incredible

Infrastructure Gaps in Tourism Sector

GfK MODE Pvt. Ltd.

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

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

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

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

GfK MODE Pvt. Ltd.

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR AT FIVE TOURIST DESTINATIONS IN INDIA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR AT FIVE TOURIST DESTINATIONS IN INDIA

Besides these questions on Importance-Satisfaction, data was collected on general background

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR AT FIVE TOURIST DESTINATIONS IN INDIA

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

Number of days taken to get visa

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR AT FIVE TOURIST DESTINATIONS IN INDIA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR AT FIVE TOURIST DESTINATIONS IN INDIA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR AT FIVE TOURIST DESTINATIONS IN INDIA

Importance - Satisfaction gaps in tourism infrastructure

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

If importance of the component considered was

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR AT FIVE TOURIST DESTINATIONS IN INDIA

KM=1; G=3; B=2; N=1; C=3

KM=7; G=5; B=5; N=4; C=5

KM=2; G=2; B=4; N=3; C=1

Traffic and transport

KM=5; G=4; B=7; N=8; C=7

KM=4; G=7; B=6; N=5; C=6

KM=9; G=9; B=8; N=9; C=9

KM=6; G=8; B=3; N=6; C=4

If satisfaction reported was

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR AT FIVE TOURIST DESTINATIONS IN INDIA

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

Ranking in the difference in percentages of importance (percent tourists reporting scores

Results of analysis of importance-satisfaction gaps by I1

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR AT FIVE TOURIST DESTINATIONS IN INDIA

Table 3: Rankings of the facilities/components reported by foreign tourists,

Reported Importance-Satisfaction gap in all the four destinations

KM=2; G=2; B=1; N=3

Quality of the roads

KM=3; G=7; B=3; N=6

Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas

KM=7; G=4; B=5; N=8

Conditions of city roads

KM=10; G=9; B=4; N=4

Reported Importance-Satisfaction gap in three destinations

Sewerage and drainage system

KM=5; B=2; N=5

Public conveniences along roads/streets

KM=8; G=6; B=7

Drinking water supply

KM=6; G=10; B=6

Reported Importance-Satisfaction gap in two destinations

Reported Importance-Satisfaction gap in one destination

Conditions of street lighting

Availability of trained tourist guides

KM = Kullu-Manali; G= Guwahati including Kaziranga; B = Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole; N = Nanded

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR AT FIVE TOURIST DESTINATIONS IN INDIA

Overall rank (Within

Reported importance-satisfaction gap in four destinations

KM=4;G=1; N=1; C=3

Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas

G=3; N=3; C=2