04 Report Nanded F

1 Incredible !
ndia
Government of India Ministry of Tourism (Market Research Division)
Report on
Infrastructure Gaps in Tourism Sector in Nanded, Maharashtra
Prepared By:
GfK MODE Pvt. Ltd. K-12, Ground Floor, Green Park Extn. New Delhi-110 016 June, 2010
INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA
JUNE , 2010
Acknowledgements
The study on Infrastructure Gaps in Tourism Sector in Nanded, Maharashtra, 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 Shri Jayant Gaikwad , Secretary and M.D (Tourism) , Govt. of Maharashtra, for facilitating the data collection and providing all supports needed by our field teams. Last but not the least, credit goes to 51 foreign tourists and 487 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 SUMMARYI-XI 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................................................................................................................. 4 2.5 Field implementation of the study ................................................................................. 5 2.5.1 Selection of field teams........................................................................................ 5 2.5.2 Training of field teams......................................................................................... 6 2.5.3 Quality control assurance..................................................................................... 6 2.5.4 Data collection plan............................................................................................. 6 2.5.5 Tabulation plan .................................................................................................. 7 2.5.6 Data processing................................................................................................. 7 2.5.7 Tabulation and report writing ............................................................................... 7 CHAPTER III: PROFILE OF TOURIST............................................................................. 9 3.1 Profile of tourists in Nanded, Maharashtra...................................................................... 9 3.1.1 Foreign tourist.................................................................................................... 9 3.1.2 Domestic tourist ................................................................................................11 CHAPTER IV: IMPORTANCE-SATISFACTION GAPS IN TOURISM INFRASTRUCTURE.. 15 4.1 Choice of the indicator for importance tourists assign to different facilities/ components of the facility.................................................................................................................15 4.2 Ranking of ten facilities reported as important by foreign and domestic tourists ................16 4.3 Indicator of satisfaction with the existing facility/component of the facility.....................17 4.4 Distribution of scores, 1 to 5 reported on importance and satisfaction.........................17 4.5 Indicator of gap in importance-satisfaction for the components of the facilities .................18 4.5.1 Results of analysis of importance-satisfaction gaps by indicator I1...........................19 4.5.2 Results of analysis of importance-satisfaction gaps by indicator I2...........................22 CHAPTER V: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STRENGTHENING TOURIST INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................................... 31 Annexure: 1: Tables on distribution of score................................................................. 33 Annexure: 2: Questionnaire ........................................................................................... 41
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. A good deal of publicity of tourism is being carried out in India and abroad. The Ministry is also conducting studies to identify the infrastructure gaps in various important tourist sites. One such study has been conducted in Nanded, Maharashtra to identify such gaps. This report is for this tourist destination. Objectives The objective of this study was to ascertain infrastructure gaps in Nanded, Maharashtra so that these gaps can be filled and volume of tourists can be increased. Data for this study was collected in two phases, once in the month of August 2009 and second in the month of December 2009-January 2010. Approach to the study The approach to this study is based on Importance-Satisfaction model. That is, the study will, first, find out what infrastructure at tourist site, tourists consider as important and then assess the level of satisfaction with the existing infrastructure at the tourist site. This approach will be able to assess importance-satisfaction matrix which categorizes the facilities which tourists view as important but were not found satisfactory (by tourists) currently. Facilities classified in this category are those, which are high on importance and low on satisfaction. This approach basically, is 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 250 Indians and 250 foreign tourists. But only 51 foreign tourists could be covered even by sending field investigator teams three visits to the site. For domestic tourists, number of 487 Indian tourists were covered. All the important tourist sites in the destination Nanded, Maharashtra, 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. 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).
JUNE , 2010
ii
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 were of middle aged, 26-55 years. Only about 10 percent were in younger ages of 25 years or below and 8 percent were older, ages above 55 years. For about 20 percent, it was their first visit to India. Forty seven percent reported that their visit was only for social and 34.7 percent only for tourism, followed by for business (6.1%). Majority of the tourists to this site had come from USA and Canada (59.2%). The next largest group was from UK, Germany, France, and Italy (32.6%) and Australia (4.1%) respectively [Figure 1].
Several components within each of these categories can be seen in the questionnaire attached.
JUNE , 2010
iii
Figure 1: Percentage distribution of foreign tourists by country of residence, Nanded, Maharashtra
4.1 6.1
4.0
34.7 6.1
USA Canada UK Germany Italy France Australia Others
6.1
14.3
24.5
Tourism related information on tourists Table 3.2 (in chapter 3 of the report) reports some information on aspects related to tourism. About 66.7 percent were visiting the tourist site for the first time - 33.3 percent were making repeat visit. Most of them had entered India from Delhi (79.6%), Amritsar (10.2%), and Mumbai and Hyderabad (8.2%). Percent distribution of the tourists by number of days they took to get visa is shown in table below: Number of days < 3 days 3 7 days 8 14 days 15 days or over Average days USA (n=17) 17.6 23.5 35.3 23.5 8.4 Canada (n=12) 16.7 25.0 16.7 41.7 9.3 Total (n=51) 21.6 19.6 17.6 41.2 9.1
It took them about nine days to get visa. Only about 17 percent got visa in one or two days.
JUNE , 2010
iv
Figure 2: Percentage distribution of foreign tourists by number of days taken to get visa, Nanded, Maharashtra
All
21.6
19.6
17.6
41.2
Avg. days- 9.1
Canada
16.7
25.0
16.7
41.7
Avg. days- 9.3
USA
17.6
23.5
35.3
23.5
Avg. days- 8.4
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
Percent
< 3 days 3-7 days 8-14 days > 15 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 52.3 percent of the foreign tourists from the countries where tourist offices are set up, reported to have known the Indian tourism office in their country. (This percentage for Canada and USA were 50 and 47 respectively). But only 9 percent of them contacted the Indian tourism office for any information.
Indian tourists
Demographic background Table 3.3 (in the report) gives distribution of tourists by their background characteristics. About 53.2 percent of the tourists were in the age group of 18-25 years (22.4%) or 26-35 years (30.8%). Only 9 percent of them had crossed the age of 55 years. Majority of them (66.1%) were from Maharashtra itself, followed by those who came from Punjab (17.5%) [Figure 3].
JUNE , 2010
Figure 3: Percentage distribution of Indian tourists by state of residence
16.4
Maharashtra
17.5
Punjab Others
66.1
Tourism related information All the tourists were asked different questions related to their visit to the tourist site Nanded, Maharashtra. Table 3.4 (in the report) provides information on these aspects. About 48 percent of the tourists came to the tourist site first time. About 47 percent of them either used public bus (30.4%) or their personal car (16.4%) to reach the tourist site. The main sources through which they came to know about the tourist site were: friends / relatives (83.4%), followed by own efforts because of interest in seeing tourist places (12.1%). About half of the tourist (52.4%) reported their visit as part of their general tourism trip. About 50.1 percent came with their family members and more than two-fifths came with friends and relatives. About 58.1 percent reported that they would stay at this place for more than one day. Only 4 percent reported that they came here in a group organized by some travel agents. The tourists in Nanded, Maharashtra were asked about their stay arrangements at the venue. About half of them were staying in some commercial place, another onefourth of them were with their friends / relatives, and 21.8 percent hired a place on rent (Figure 4).
JUNE , 2010
vi
Figure 4: Percentage distribution of domestic tourists by place of stay at tourist destination
3.0
25.9
49.3
Commercial Rented own place Staying with friends and relatives Others
21.8
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
JUNE , 2010
vii
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 and domestic tourists are shown below: Ranking of facilities by their importance (percent tourists reporting score 4 or 5) Foreign tourists Domestic tourists Facilities Percent Rank Percent Rank Air connectivity 95.4 10 74.6 7 Road connectivity 93.1 5 82.9 1 Rail connectivity 79.1 6 78.2 4 Civic administration 87.9 9 79.8 3 Traffic and transport management 79.4 2 70.8 8 Tourist facilities 84.5 3 78.1 5 Taxes/permits 79.7 4 68.6 9 Maintenance and management of 85.1 8 76.1 6 monuments/tourist attraction Other services 90.2 7 82.2 2
Power supply situation Telephone/mobile services

Visa, immigration and customs
N.A: Not Applicable.
90.2 90.2
90.2 1
84.6 79.9
NA NA
Foreign tourists feel that rules related to visa, immigration, and customs are very important for the tourists. After this facility, road connectivity and other services categories are ranked high by both groups of 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
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.
JUNE , 2010
viii
Distribution of scores, 1 to 5 reported on importance and satisfaction Responses of tourists were analyzed in terms of their scores of 1 to 5 on various facilities/components on importance and satisfaction matrix (Annexure-1: Tables F.1 and D.1). The following were the observations. In the case of responses of foreign tourists, the following observations were made: Almost every body reported on all the facilities/components; there was no non-response. In the case of questions on importance, there was hardly any response with score 1 or 2, less than 20 percent reported score of 3. Most of the responses were coded 4 or 5. In the case of questions on satisfaction level, the largest percent reported score of 3 (average) and 4 (good). Percentages for scores of 2 (unsatisfactory) and 5 (excellent) were relatively similar. Very small percent tourists reported score of 1 (poor).
In the case of responses of the domestic tourists, the following were the observations: Almost everybody reported on all the questions on facilities/components; there was no nonresponse. In the case of importance of the facilities/components, there was hardly any response for codes 1 or 2; less than 24 percent reported code 3 (not so important). Most of the responses were codes 4 or 5. In the case of questions on the level of satisfaction, largest percentage reported code 3 (average), and code 4 (good). There was hardly any answer coded 1 (poor) and coded 5 (excellent).
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. 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).
2.
Results of analysis of importance-satisfaction gaps by I1 Two sets of tables are given. Table 4F.1 (for foreigners on indicator I1) and Table 4F.2 (for foreigners on indicator I2) and Table 4D.1 (for domestic tourists on indicator I1) and Table 4D.2 (for domestic tourists on indicator I2) give indicator values for two indicators, I1 and I2.
JUNE , 2010
ix
The analysis of I1 is shown in the chapter 4 of the report. As stated earlier, indicator I1 (from Tables 4F.1 and 4D.1) gives the components of the facilities in the fourth quadrant of Importance-Satisfaction matrix (high importance-low satisfaction levels). These components for foreign and Indian tourists are shown in the table below in priority order (priority has been defined as higher the difference between index of importance and satisfaction, higher is the priority). Foreign tourists Components in the fourth quadrant 1. International connectivity of destination/circuit 2. Condition of airport serving the destination/ circuit 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Garbage disposal Conditions of city roads Sewerage and drainage system Quality of the roads Quality of way side amenities available on this road 8. Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas Domestic tourists Components in the fourth quadrant 1. Garbage disposal 2. Sewerage and drainage system 3. Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas 4. Traffic signals 5. Availability of budget hotels 6. Traffic management 7. Public conveniences along roads/streets 8. General cleanliness of monument/tourist attraction and area around it 9. General upkeep of the hotel rooms 10. Public utilities at the monument/tourist attraction 11. Availability of luxury hotels
9. Connectivity of the destination/ circuit with major Indian cities 10. General cleanliness of monument/tourist attraction and area around it 11. Power supply situation 12. Availability of luxury hotels 13. Behavior of the guides at the monument/tourist attraction 14. Availability of trained tourist guides
There are six components, namely, Garbage disposal, Sewerage and drainage system, Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas,, General cleanliness of monument/tourist attraction and area around it, and availability of hotels-budget for Indians and Luxury for foreigners, which are common for domestic and foreign tourists. Both groups of tourists report they are important and need improvement. The foreigners have also pointed out the need for better connectivity of the destination and need for availability of trained tourist guides. Results of analysis of importance-satisfaction gaps by indicator I2 Tables 4F.2 and 4D.2 show the rankings of differences between importance-satisfaction levels for all the facilities/components. This forms our defined indicator I2. Since all the facilities / components have been ranked, infrastructure improvement could be taken in a phased fashion higher priority areas could be taken up earlier than lower priority areas.
JUNE , 2010
One main difference which emerges in these rankings on indicator I2 is that the foreign tourists assign more importance to tourist site like general cleanliness there and the facilities around the sites. Indian tourists, on the other hand, assign greater importance to tourist site like cleanliness, public utilities at the monument/tourist attraction, availability of tourist guidance/reception centers, availability of A/C tourist coaches, tariff structure of the hotels rooms, and behaviour of the guides at the monument/tourist attraction. Summary and recommendations This chapter is presented in two parts. The first part gives profile of foreign and domestic tourists and the second part shows the gaps in facilities/components of the facilities between importance and satisfaction. Profile of foreign tourists About 34.7 percent of the tourists interviewed had come to India for tourism purposes. Half of them were younger ages of 26-45 years. Twenty percent reported it as their first visit to India. Repeat visit to India by these tourists is high. About three-fifths (59.2%) of them came from USA and Canada. Sixty seven per cent reported visit to this tourist site as their first visit. It takes, on an average, nine days to get visa. Only about 17 percent get visa in one or two days. Almost 52 percent of the foreign tourists reported to have known the Indian tourism office in their country. (This percentage for Canada and USA were 50 and 47 respectively). But only 9 percent of them contacted the Indian tourism office for any information.
Profile of domestic tourists Domestic tourists were relatively of younger age groups, about 53.2% in the ages 18-35 years. Nearly about half of them (48%) were visiting this tourist site for the first time. Forty seven percent of them came by public bus or their personal car; 50 percent came with family members and 42.3 percent with friends. More than 58 percent of Indian tourists had planned to stay in Nanded for more than one day; almost 50 percent in commercial place (49.3%). Only 25.9% stayed with friends or relatives. Only 5 percent came with organized tour. There is a need to encourage tour operators to be more aggressive in organization of tours.
Importance assigned to various facilities at the site Foreign tourists The foreign tourists give highest importance to visa, immigration and customs rules. They need to be simplified and made tourist-friendly. They assign more importance to traffic and transport management and tourist facilities at the tourist spots.
JUNE , 2010
xi
Domestic tourists Domestic tourists assign most importance to road connectivity to the tourist site According to them other important facilities will be other services like power situation and telephone/mobile services, and civic administration.
Matrix of Importance-Satisfaction Gap Foreign tourists More gap was reported in international connectivity and condition of airport serving the destination/circuit. 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. Included in this broad category are infrastructure like garbage disposal, condition of city roads, quality of roads, sewerage and drainage system, quality of wayside amenities available on this road, hygienic conditions of the restaurants/dhabas, and power situation. They also reported gap in the connection of the destination circuit with major Indian cities. The foreign tourists were concerned about the behaviour of the guides at the monument/tourist attraction and availability of trained tourist guides so that they make best use of their visit. Not much complaint was made about visa, immigration and custom services, perhaps because these experiences were in past and time is the best healer. But they all pointed out need to streamline this system of visa and customs procedures. It took them almost nine days to get visa.
Indian tourists More gaps were reported by domestic tourist on garbage disposal, sewage and drainage system, and hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas. They saw gaps in the traffic signals, availability of budget hotels for stay, traffic management, and conveniences along roads/streets. They were also concerned about general cleanliness of monuments/tourist attraction and area around it, general upkeep of the hotels rooms, and public utilities at the monument/tourist attraction.
Though above-given is a list of gaps reported, we, in this report, have suggested (Tables 4F.2 and 4D.2) need to prioritize all components of tourism infrastructure.
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 Nanded, in Maharashtra. This report presents findings of the study on infrastructure gaps in Nanded, (in Maharashtra) tourist destination. 1.2 Objectives of the study The objective of this study was to ascertain infrastructure gaps in Nanded, Maharashtra tourists destination. 1.3 Time period Data for the study was collected in the months of August 2009 and December 2009 January, 2010. 1.4 Chapterization of the report The report consists of the following chapters: Introduction Methodology and data collection Profile of tourists - domestic and foreigners Importance-Satisfaction gaps in tourism infrastructure Summary and recommendations for strengthening the tourism Infrastructure
In addition, a chapter on Executive Summary has been added in the front.
JUNE , 2010
CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION 2.1 Considerations in deciding the methodology The following considerations were made in deciding the methodology: There may be differences in the profile of tourists visiting the tourist site 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 for collection of data from this destination in December as most of the NRI Indians come to this place during Christmas season). Two visits were to be made to each of the tourist destination, one in the month of August and the second during the period when the required sample of tourists, particularly foreign tourists, could be found, which was Christmas. There may be several tourist sites at the destinations under study. The important of them need to be covered to get required sample size. Sample of tourists should be a probability sample so as to be representative sample.
2.2
Approach to the study The approach to this study is based on Importance-Satisfaction model. That is, the study will, first, find out what infrastructure tourists consider as important and, then, assess the level of satisfaction with the existing infrastructure at the tourist site. Differences in the importance and the degree of satisfaction with the existing infrastructure becomes a gap, importance-Satisfaction gap; larger the gap in a particular facility/infrastructure for tourists, higher is the priority to be given for improvement. This approach will be able to assess gaps in the infrastructure which needs to be strengthened to make the destination more attractive to tourists and will help the tourist destination to achieve itsr tourist potential. This approach basically, is a Service Quality Approach. In other words, the important elements of this approach are: Importance (of the facilities at the tourist sites) analysis (how important tourists view different facilities at the tourist sites, Satisfaction analysis of the tourists with the existing facilities, and building of Importance-Satisfaction Matrix which essentially categorizes the facilities which tourists view as important but were not found satisfactory (by tourists) currently
It is these facilities (which were viewed as important but their current status was not satisfactory) which concerns the policy makers and would/should be the focus for improvement of the tourist destination. Facilities classified in this category, which are high on importance and low on satisfaction, are the real infrastructure and service related gaps that the Government has 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: Sl. No Tourist destination/ circuit/location 1. Nanded, Maharashtra Foreign tourists Suggested Actually covered 250 51* Domestic Total tourists tourists Sugge Actually Suggested Actually sted covered covered 250 487 500 538
* 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. It only suggests that the number of foreign tourists visiting the tourist destination is a small.
Sample selection In making selection of the tourists from tourist site, it was assured that Sample is 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 is spread over seven days of a week It is spread over mornings and evenings, and Both, male and female tourists are covered 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 impression 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 has 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).
JUNE , 2010
Ten broad categories of facilities were: Air connectivity Road connectivity Rail connectivity Civic administration Traffic and transport management Tourists facilities Taxes/permits Maintenance and management of monuments/tourist attractions Other services, and Visa, immigration and customs (for foreign tourists)
The tourists were asked about each facility/component of infrastructure to score it on 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, general background information of the tourists was also added to get a profile of tourist being interviewed (a random sample of tourists). 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) was based on the pre-test 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 Selection of field teams
2.5.1
Since only about 125 domestic and 125 foreign tourists were to be covered in each visit (as stated earlier, the study was conducted in two phases), 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).
INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA JUNE , 2010
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. 2.5.3 Quality control assurance Some of the steps taken to assure quality of data were as follows: Teams at each destination had full time supervisor with the team. He assured 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. 2.5.4 Data collection plan As stated above, data was collected in two rounds. Timings of these three rounds are shown in the table below: Sl. No 1. Tourist destination /circuit/location Nanded, Maharashtra Time periods First visit Third visit August 12-18, 2009 December 25, 2009 January 9, 2010
JUNE , 2010
2.5.5 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. 2.5.6 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 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. 2.5.7 Tabulation and report writing A detailed chapterization plan was prepared, with sections and sub-sections and tables where they will fall. The draft report 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. Since data collection work was completed in January, data analysis was done and report was prepared in the first week of February 2010.
JUNE , 2010
CHAPTER - III PROFILE OF TOURISTS
This chapter attempts to present a demographic profile of tourists, both foreigners and domestic, for the tourist destination. 3.1 Profile of tourists in Nanded, Maharashtra 3.1.1 Foreign tourist Demographic background Table 3.1 gives the background characteristics of foreign tourists. Most of the tourists were of middle ages, 26-55 years. Only about 10 percent were in younger ages of 25 years or below and 8 percent were older, ages above 55 years (Table 3.1). For about 20 percent, it was their first visit to India. It suggests that foreign tourists come to India repeatedly. Forty seven percent tourists reported that they had visited India for social interaction; 34.7 percent reported that their visit to India was only for tourism. Only 12 percent had come to India for some other purposes and took opportunity to visit the tourist site. Table 3.1: Percentage distribution of foreign tourists by background characteristics, Nanded, Maharashtra Background characteristics Percent Background characteristics Percent 1. Age in years 4. Country of residence Below 18 USA 34.7 3.9 18 25 Canada 24.5 5.9 26 35 UK 14.3 19.6 36 45 Germany 6.1 31.4 46 55 France 6.1 31.4 Above 55 Italy 7.8 6.1 2. It was their first visit to India 20.4 Australia 4.1 3. Main purpose of visit to India Others 4.0 Business 6.1 Tourism 34.7 Social 46.9 Others 12.2 Total number of foreign tourists interviewed = 51 Majority of the tourists to this site had come from USA and Canada (59.2%). The next largest group was from UK, Germany, France, and Italy (combined 32.6%) and Australia (4.1%) [Table 3.1 & Figure 3.1].
JUNE , 2010
10
Figure 1: Percentage distribution of foreign tourists by country of residence, Nanded, Maharashtra
4.1 4.0 6.1 34.7 6.1 6.1
USA Canada UK Germany Italy France Australia Others
14.3
24.5
Tourism related information on tourists Table 3.2 reports some information on aspects related to tourism. About sixty seven percent were visiting the tourist site for the first time - 33 percent were making repeat visit. Most of them had entered India from Delhi (79.6%), Amritsar (10.2%) and Mumbai and Hyderabad (8.2%). Percent distribution of the tourists by number of days they took to get visa is shown in table below: Number of days < 3 days 3 7 days 8 14 days 15 days or over Average days USA (n=17) 17.6 23.5 35.3 23.5 8.4 Canada (n=12) 16.7 25.0 16.7 41.7 9.3 Total (n=51) 21.6 19.6 17.6 41.2 9.1
JUNE , 2010
11
Figure 3.2: Percentage distribution of foreign tourists by number of days taken to get visa, Nanded, Maharashtra
All
21.6
19.6
17.6
41.2
Avg. days- 9.1
Canada
16.7
25.0
16.7
41.7
Avg. days- 9.3
USA 0.0
17.6 20.0
23.5 40.0
35.3 60.0
Percent
23.5 80.0 100.0
Avg. days- 8.4
< 3 days
3-7 days
8-14 days
> 15 days
Since Indian tourism offices are located in a few countries, the tourists from these countries were asked about their experiences with the tourist office. About 52.3 percent of the foreign tourists from the countries with tourism office reported to have known the Indian tourism office in their country. (This percentage for Canada and USA were 50 and 47 respectively). But only 9 percent of them contacted the Indian tourism office. Table 3.2: Percentage distribution of foreign tourists by information related to tourism and awareness of office tourism, Nanded, Maharashtra Information on Tourism Percent Awareness of office of Percent related aspects tourism
1. Visiting tourist site first time
66.7
2. Port of arrival
3. Knows where tourism office in the country exists (n=44) 4. Contacted tourism office for information on tourism (n=23)
52.3
8.7
Delhi 79.6 Amritsar 10.2 Mumbai 4.1 Hyderabad 4.1 Others 2.0 Total number of foreign tourists interviewed = 51 3.1.2 Domestic tourist Demographic background Table 3.3 gives distribution of tourists by their background characteristics. About 53.2 percent of the tourists were in the age group of 18-25 years (22.4%) or 26-35 years (30.8%). Only 9 percent of them had crossed 55 years
12
Table 3.3: Percentage distribution of domestic tourists by background characteristics, Nanded, Maharashtra Background characteristics Percent 1. Age in years Below 18 2.5 18 25 22.4 26 35 30.8 36 45 21.6 46 55 13.8 Above 55 8.8 Total number of Indian tourists interviewed = 487 Majority of them (66.1%) were from Maharashtra itself, followed by those who came from Punjab (17.5%) [Figure 3.3]. Figure 3.3: Percentage distribution of domestic tourists by state of residence
16.4
Maharashtra Punjab
17.5
Others
66.1
Tourism related information All the tourists were asked different questions related to their visit to Nanded, Maharashtra. Table 3.4 provides information on these aspects. About 48 percent of the tourists came first time to the tourist site. Main source of travel was found to be rail (46%). Another 47 percent of them used public bus (30.4%). About 16.4% used their personal car to reach the tourist site. The main sources through which they came to know about the tourist site was: friends / relatives (83.4%), followed by own efforts because of interest in seeing tourist places (12.1%). About half of the tourist (52.4%) reported their visit as part of their general tourism trip.
JUNE , 2010
13
About 50.1 percent came with their family members and more than two-fifths came with friends and relatives. About 58.1 percent reported that they would stay at this place for more than one day. Only 4 percent reported that they came here in a group organized by some travel agents. Table 3.4: Percentage distribution of Indian tourists by information related to tourism, Nanded, Maharashtra Information related to tourism 1. Visiting the site first time 2. Mode of travel to reach the destination
Bus Train Personal car Any two-wheeler Others 3. Source of information on the tourist destination Travel agent 1.8 Friends/relative 83.4 Personal effort in tourism 12.1 Others 2.7 Total number of Indian tourists = 487
Percent Information related to tourism 48.0 4. It is part of trip to other tourist places 5. Came in organized tour 6. Whether came alone, 30.4 friends or relatives 46.0 Alone 16.4 With friends 4.7 With family members 1.4 7. No. of days of stay
One day More than one day Uncertain Not mentioned
Percent
52.4 3.9
7.6 42.3 50.1
34.5 58.1 6.6 0.8
The tourists in Nanded, Maharashtra were asked about their stay arrangements at the venue. About half of them were staying in some commercial place, another onefourth of them were staying with their friends / relatives, and 21.8 percent had hired a place on rent (Figure 3.4). Figure 3.4: Percentage distribution of domestic tourists by place of stay at tourist destination
3.0
25.9
Commercial
49.3
Rented own place Staying with friends and relatives Others
21.8
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 the tourist destination. They were also asked to assign score 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 this tourist site to other tourists. This process will improve flow of tourists to the tourist site. 4.1 Choice of the indicator for 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
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 facility2 .
Such scores were computed for all the components within the facility; they are shown for ten facilities below from the responses of foreign tourist in destination Nanded, Maharashtra.
Other three scores indicate that tourists do not care much for the facility/component under consideration.
JUNE , 2010
16
Sl. No
Facility
Scores
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
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 Visa, immigration and customs
Mean 4.7 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.1 4.3 4.2 4.4 4.4 4.7
Ranking 1 3 6 7 10 8 9 4 5 2
Percent tourists reporting score as 4 (very important) or 5 (most important) Percent Ranking 95.4 1 93.1 2 79.1 10 87.9 5 79.4 9 84.5 7 79.7 8 85.1 90.2 90.2 6 4 3
The ranking of the facilities (or their components) were relatively similar on both these score indicators. Therefore, percent tourists reporting scores 4 (very important) or 5 (most important) has been taken as an indicator of score of importance tourists assign to a facility/component for our further analysis3 of importance tourists assign to a facility/component. Obviously, higher the percentage, higher will be importance tourists assign to the facility/component. 4.2 Ranking of ten facilities reported as important by foreign and domestic tourists Ranking of facilities by their importance (percent tourists reporting score 4 or 5) Facilities Foreign tourists Domestic tourists Percent Rank Percent Rank Air connectivity 95.4 1 74.6 7 Road connectivity 93.1 2 82.9 1 Rail connectivity 79.1 10 78.2 4 Civic administration 87.9 5 79.8 3 Traffic and transport management 79.4 9 70.8 8 Tourist facilities 84.5 7 78.1 5 Taxes/permits 79.7 8 68.6 9 Maintenance and management of monuments/tourist attraction 85.1 6 76.1 6 Other services (Power supply and 90.2 4 82.2 2 Telephone/mobile services) Visa, immigration and customs 90.2 3 NA NA N.A: Not Applicable. The foreign tourists assign high importance to rules related to visa, immigration, and customs. But connectivity has bee ranked as most important, air by foreigners and road by domestic. Both groups assign great importance to power supply and telephone/mobile connectivity.
Lower variations in the Mean scores compared to the percent tourists reporting score of 4 or 5 also suggested that the latter indicator will be better choice.
17
4.3
Indicator of satisfaction with the existing facility/component of the facility In the case of data on current level of the satisfaction with the existing situation of the facility, the tourists were asked to score according to the following five point scale: Score assigned was 5 4 3 2 1 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 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).
In order to decide the choice of an indicator from these two possible indicators, some statistical analysis was done4; it was found that there is very high correlation when the facilities/components were ranked by both these indicators. In addition, it was also noticed that a small percentage of respondents had scored 5 (excellent) on satisfaction to any facility; the largest frequency was of those who reported score of 3 (average). Therefore, we decided to use the second indicator; namely, percent of tourists who scored the facility/component 3 (average), 4 (good) or 5 (excellent). Besides giving similar ranks, logical reasoning also suggested this as the right choice of the indicator as a tourist saying that the existing level of component/infrastructure was average means that the tourist is not dissatisfied with the existing level of infrastructure. With limited resources, India needs to build tourist infrastructure which tourist feel as satisfactory. 4.4 Distribution of scores, 1 to 5 reported on importance and satisfaction Responses of tourists were analyzed in terms of their scores of 1 to 5 on various facilities/components on importance and satisfaction matrix (Annexure-1: Tables F.1 and D.1). The following were the observations. In the case of responses of foreign tourists, the following are the observations: Almost every body reported on all the facilities/components; there was no nonresponse. In the case of questions on importance, there was hardly any response with score 1 or 2, less than 20 percent reported score of 3. Most of them reported scores of 4 or 5. In the case of questions on satisfaction level, the largest percent reported score of 3 (average) or 4 (good); very few reported scores of 2 or 5. There were a few facilities where score of even 1 (poor) was quite high (see Table F.1).
We compared ranks of the components by both these indicators. They matched very closelySpearmens rank correlation coefficient was found to be 0.85 and Wilcoxon-Signed-Rank-test showed that ranks were similar.
18
In the case of responses of the domestic tourists, the following were the observations: Almost everybody reported on all the questions on facilities/components; there was no non-response. In the case of importance of the facilities/components, there was hardly any response for codes 1 or 2; less than 24 percent reported code 3 (not so important). Most of the responses were with codes 4 or 5. In the case of questions on the level of satisfaction, largest percentage reported coded 3 (average), or coded 2 (unsatisfactory). Very small percentages had reported scores of 4 or 5. 4. 5 Indicator of gap in importance-satisfaction for the components of the facilities A look at the scatter diagram (Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2) of importance and satisfaction with the facilities/components clearly shows that quite a large number of facilities/components have higher indicator values on importance and lower 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 gaps 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 lower 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

2.
Ranking in the difference 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). This we call as indicator I2. Higher the difference, higher is the gap between importance and satisfaction.
JUNE , 2010
19
(Only drawback of this indicator is that lower difference may not always mean high satisfaction as lower difference can be obtained by higher importance and higher satisfaction or lower importance and lower satisfaction. Since our interest is to find those facilities which have high score on importance and low on satisfaction; we will not be interested in those facilities/components which have low importance. Therefore, drawback of the indicator (stated above) does not affect our interpretation. 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 according to their gap (between importance and 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 propose to identify importance-satisfaction gaps by using both these indicators. 4.5.1 Results of analysis of importance-satisfaction gaps by indicator I1 Two sets of tables, Table 4F.1 (for foreigners on indicator I1) and Table 4F.2 (for foreigners on indicator I2) and Table 4D.1 (for domestic tourists on indicator I1) and Table 4D.2 (for domestic tourists on indicator I2), give indicator values for two indicators. As stated earlier, indicator I1 (from Tables 4F.1 and 4D.1) gives the components of the facilities in the fourth quadrant of Importance-Satisfaction matrix (high importance-low satisfaction levels). These components for foreign and Indian tourists are shown in the table below and Figures 4.1 and 4.2; they have been arranged according to their priority (higher to lower). This priority has been decided on the basis of differences in the indicator values of importance and satisfaction (Importance Satisfaction = Gap).
Foreign tourists Components in the fourth quadrant 1. International connectivity of destination 2. Condition of airport serving the destination/ circuit Domestic tourists Components in the fourth quadrant 1. Garbage disposal 2. Sewerage and drainage system 3. Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas 4. Traffic signals 5. Availability of budget hotels 6. Traffic management
3. Garbage disposal 4. Conditions of city roads 5. Sewerage and drainage system 6. Quality of the roads 7. Quality of way side amenities available on this road 7. Public conveniences along roads/streets 8. Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas 8. General cleanliness of monument/tourist attraction and area around it 9. Connectivity of the destination/ circuit with major Indian cities 9. General upkeep of the hotel rooms 10. General cleanliness of monument/tourist 10. Public utilities at the monument/tourist attraction and area around it attraction 11. Power supply situation 11. Availability of luxury hotels 12. Availability of luxury hotels 13. Behaviour of the guides at the monument/tourist attraction 14. Availability of trained tourist guides
20
Figure 4.1: Percent of foreign tourists reported important and satisfaction level- Nanded, Maharashtra
100.0
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
90.0
Median value of satisfaction (74.5)
% reporting satisfaction
80.0
W W W W W W
W W W
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
70.0
11 W W 10 14 W WW 12 W 13 W 8 W W 7 W W W W W W
W9
11. 12. 13. 14.
International connectivity of destination/circuit Condition of airport serving the destination/ circuit Garbage disposal Conditions of city roads Sewerage and drainage system Quality of the roads Quality of way side amenities available on this road Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas Connectivity of the destination/ circuit with major Indian cities General cleanliness of monument/tourist attraction and area around it Power supply situation Availability of luxury hotels Behavior of the guides at the monument/tourist attraction Availability of trained tourist guides
60.0
W
W W3
Note: These numbers have been given according to their priority (high to low). This priority has been decided on the basis of differences in the indicator values of Importance and Satisfaction (Importance Satisfaction = Gap).
50.0 50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Median value of importance (84.4) % reporting importance

21
Figure 4.2: Percent of domestic tourists reported important and satisfaction level- Nanded, Maharashtra
100.0
W W W
90.0
W W W W W W
Median value of satisfaction (69.1)
80.0
W W
W W W W
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
% reporting satisfaction
70.0
WW W W 11 W W W W10 W W W8 W W W W W 9 W W W7 W W W 6 W W W W4 W2
W W W5 W3
Garbage disposal Sewerage and drainage system Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas Traffic signals Availability of budget hotels Traffic management Public conveniences along roads/streets General cleanliness of monument/tourist attraction and area around it 9. General upkeep of the hotel rooms 10. Public utilities at the monument/tourist attraction 11. Availability of luxury hotels
: These numbers have been given according to their priority (high to low). This priority has been decided on the basis of differences in the indicator values of Importance and Satisfaction (Importance Satisfaction = Gap).
60.0
W1
50.0 50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Median value of importance (77.4) % reporting importance

22
There are six components, namely, Garbage disposal, Sewerage and drainage system, Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas,, General cleanliness of monument/tourist attraction and area around it, and availability of hotels-budget for Indians and Luxury for foreigners, which are common for domestic and foreign tourists. Both groups of tourists report they are important and need improvement. The foreigners have also pointed out the need for better connectivity of the destination and need for availability of trained tourist guides. 4.5.2 Results of analysis of importance-satisfaction gaps by indicator I2 Tables 4F.2 and 4D.2 show the rankings of differences between importance-satisfaction levels for all the facilities/components. This forms our defined indicator I2. Since all the facilities / components have been ranked, infrastructure improvement could be taken in a phased fashion higher priority areas could be taken up earlier than lower priority areas. The requirements seem to be similar or all the tourists, be they be foreign or domestic. Only difference is that foreign tourists also want greater international connectivity and better facilities at the airports. It may be noted that Ministry/Department of tourism can initiate several actions, on their own, to fill the gap reported at the tourist sites.
JUNE , 2010
23
Table 4F.1: Percent foreign tourists reported facility as important (very important or most important) and currently satisfactory (average, good and excellent) in Nanded, Maharashtra
Importance level (very important or most important) Percent Rank reported (lowest to highest ) 62.7 1 74.5 2 74.5 76.5 76.5 76.5 76.5 78.4 78.4 78.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 82.3 82.3 82.3 82.4 82.4 82.4 82.4 84.0 84.3 84.3 84.3 84.3 84.3 84.4 84.4 86.3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Satisfaction level (average, good or excellent) Percent Rank reported (lowest to highest) 68.6 12 74.5 24 78.5 70.7 72.5 74.5 78.5 56.9 60.7 86.3 64.8 70.6 78.4 66.6 84.4 86.3 62.8 68.5 74.5 78.5 92.0 70.7 82.4 84.3 92.1 94.1 72.5 72.5 82.3 31 17 19 25 32 4 5 44 9 16 29 10 43 45 8 11 26 33 52 18 39 42 54 55 20 21 37
Component of facility
215 Conditions of signages 219a Behavior of the taxi drivers 234 Levels of road/transport taxes on vehicles (tax rates) 238 Conditions of signages within the monument/ tourist attraction 208 Behavior of the porters at the railway station 222 Availability of authorized tour operators 221 Availability of A/C tourist coaches 216 Traffic signals 207 Condition of railway station serving the destination/ circuit 224 Availability of budget hotels 219 Availability of metered taxi 214 Conditions of street lighting 235 Administration of the road taxes on (barriers, delays, harassments etc) 220a Behavior of the drivers of other commercial transportations 228 Behavior of service staff at the hotel 245 Promptness at the ticketing window of the monument/tourist attraction 217 Traffic management 206 Rail connectivity of destination/ circuit with major Indian cities 240 Availability of tourist guidance/reception centers 218 Availability of mass transit system 251 General ambience of the immigration zone 209 Public conveniences along roads/streets 233 Levels of luxury taxes ( tax rates) 230 General upkeep of the hotel rooms 229 Tariff structure of the hotel rooms 244 Illumination of monuments 241 Availability of trained tourist guides 242 Behavior of the guides at the monument/tourist attraction 232 Behaviour of service personnel at wayside restaurants and dhabas
JUNE , 2010
24
Table 4F.1: Percent foreign tourists reported facility as important (very important or most important) and currently satisfactory (average, good and excellent) in Nanded, Maharashtra (Contd)
Importance level (very important or most important) Percent Rank reported (lowest to highest ) 86.3 86.3 88.2 88.2 88.3 90.2 90.2 90.2 90.2 90.2 90.2 90.2 90.2 92.0 92.0 92.1 92.1 92.2 92.2 94.0 94.0 94.1 96.0 96.0 96.1 96.1 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Satisfaction level (average, good or excellent) Percent Rank reported (lowest to highest) 82.3 90.2 60.7 72.6 78.4 51.0 68.6 68.6 74.5 82.4 86.3 86.3 88.3 80.0 92.0 60.8 74.4 80.4 80.5 87.6 87.7 29.5 52.9 84.0 68.7 74.5 38 51 6 22 30 2 13 14 27 40 46 47 50 34 53 7 23 35 36 48 49 1 3 41 15 28
239 Parking facility at the monument/tourist attraction 227 Quality of help provided by the reception office 210 Sewerage and drainage system 223 Availability of luxury hotels 237 Public utilities at the monument/tourist attraction 211 Garbage disposal 205 Quality of way side amenities available on this road 231 Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas 246 Power supply situation 243 Conservation of heritage sites/ monuments 225 Behavior of the officials available at tourist reception office 226 Level of knowledge of officials at the reception office 247 Telephone/mobile services 250 Behavior of the immigration official at the port of arrival in India 252 Promptness of custom checking procedure at the port of arrival in India 212 Conditions of city roads 236 General cleanliness of monument/tourist attraction and area around it 220 Availability of other commercial transportations 213 Drinking Water supply 248 Promptness in getting Indian visa 249 Promptness in the Immigration procedure at the port of arrival in India 202 International connectivity of destination/ circuit 203 Condition of airport serving the destination/ circuit 253 Behavior of the custom officials at the port of arrival in India 204 Quality of the roads 201 Connectivity of the destination/ circuit with major Indian cities
Note 2; Last two columns show the ranking of the components on the basis of satisfaction Note 3: All combinations with importance level of more than 84.4 (median value of the indicator importance) and less than 74.5 (median value of the indicator of satisfaction) fall in the fourth quadrant of X Y Axis. This is our indicator I1.
JUNE , 2010
25
Table 4F.2: Percent foreign tourists reported facility as important (very important or most important), currently satisfactory (average, good and excellent), and difference in percentages in Nanded, Maharashtra Importance level (very Satisfaction Difference in percentages important or most level (average, important) good or excellent) Component of facility Difference or Percent Rank (highest Percent Rank reported to lowest) reported 0 if (highest to difference is lowest) negative 202 International connectivity of 94.1 5 29.5 64.6 1 destination/ circuit 203 Condition of airport serving the destination/ circuit 96.0 3 52.9 43.1 2 211 Garbage disposal 90.2 14 51.0 39.2 3 212 Conditions of city roads 92.1 10 60.8 31.3 4 210 Sewerage and drainage system 88.2 23 60.7 27.5 5 204 Quality of the roads 96.1 1 68.7 27.4 6 205 Quality of way side amenities available on this road 90.2 15 68.6 21.6 7 231 Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas 90.2 16 68.6 21.6 8 201 Connectivity of the destination/ circuit with major Indian cities 96.1 2 74.5 21.6 9 216 Traffic signals 78.4 46 56.9 21.5 10 217 Traffic management 82.4 36 62.8 19.6 11 207 Condition of railway station 78.4 47 60.7 17.7 12 serving the destination/ circuit 236 General cleanliness of monument/tourist attraction and area around it 92.1 11 74.4 17.7 13 246 Power supply situation 90.2 17 74.5 15.7 14 220a Behavior of the drivers of other 82.3 40 66.6 15.7 15 commercial transportations 223 Availability of luxury hotels 88.2 24 72.6 15.6 16 219 Availability of metered taxi 80.4 43 64.8 15.6 17 206 Rail connectivity of destination/ circuit with major Indian cities 82.4 37 68.5 13.9 18 209 Public conveniences along 84.3 30 70.7 13.6 19 roads/streets 253 Behavior of the custom officials at the port of arrival in India 96.0 4 84.0 12.0 20 250 Behavior of the immigration official at the port of arrival in India 92.0 12 80.0 12.0 21 241 Availability of trained tourist 84.4 28 72.5 11.9 22 guides 242 Behavior of the guides at the monument/tourist attraction 84.4 29 72.5 11.9 23 220 Availability of other commercial transportations 92.2 8 80.4 11.8 24 213 Drinking Water supply 92.2 9 80.5 11.7 25 237 Public utilities at the monument/tourist attraction 88.3 22 78.4 9.9 26 214 Conditions of street lighting 80.4 44 70.6 9.8 27
JUNE , 2010
26
Table 4F.2: Percent foreign tourists reported facility as important (very important or most important), currently satisfactory (average, good and excellent), and difference in percentages in Nanded, Maharashtra (contd)
Importance level (very important or most important) Component of facility Percent Rank (Highest reported to lowest) Satisfaction level (Average, good or excellent) Percent reported Difference in percentages
Difference or 0 if difference is negative

7.9 7.8 6.4 6.3 5.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.9 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Rank (Highest to lowest)
240 Availability of tourist guidance/reception centers 243 Conservation of heritage sites/ monuments 248 Promptness in getting Indian visa 249 Promptness in the Immigration procedure at the port of arrival in India 238 Conditions of signages within the monument/ tourist attraction 232 Behaviour of service personnel at wayside restaurants and dhabas 239 Parking facility at the monument/tourist attraction 208 Behavior of the porters at the railway station 225 Behavior of the officials available at tourist reception office 226 Level of knowledge of officials at the reception office 218 Availability of mass transit system 235 Administration of the road taxes on (barriers, delays, harassments etc) 222 Availability of authorized tour operators 247 Telephone/mobile services 233 Levels of luxury taxes ( tax rates) 252 Promptness of custom checking procedure at the port of arrival in India 230 General upkeep of the hotel rooms 219a Behavior of the taxi drivers 221 Availability of A/C tourist coaches 228 Behavior of service staff at the hotel 227 Quality of help provided by the reception office 245 Promptness at the ticketing window of the monument/tourist attraction 234 Levels of road/transport taxes on vehicles (tax rates) 215 Conditions of signages 229 Tariff structure of the hotel rooms 224 Availability of budget hotels 251 General ambience of the immigration zone
244 Illumination of monuments
82.4 90.2 94.0 94.0 76.5 86.3 86.3 76.5 90.2 90.2 82.4 80.4 76.5 90.2 84.3 92.0 84.3 74.5 76.5 82.3 86.3 82.3 74.5 62.7 84.3 78.4 84.0 84.3
38 18 6 7 49 25 26 50 19 20 39 45 51 21 31 13 32 53 52 41 27 42 54 55 33 48 35 34
74.5 82.4 87.6 87.7 70.7 82.3 82.3 72.5 86.3 86.3 78.5 78.4 74.5 88.3 82.4 92.0 84.3 74.5 78.5 84.4 90.2 86.3 78.5 68.6 92.1 86.3 92.0 94.1
28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
JUNE , 2010
27
Table 4D.1: Percent domestic tourists reported facility as important (very important or most important) and currently satisfactory (average, good and excellent) in Nanded, Maharashtra
Importance level (very Satisfaction level important or most (average, good or important) excellent) Percent Rank Percent Rank reported (lowest to reported (lowest highest) to highest) 66.6 1 68.8 24
67.1 67.3 67.4 67.4 67.5 67.6 68.8 69.0 69.0 69.2 69.2 69.2 70.9 71.3 71.7 72.8 74.1 74.5 76.0 76.0 76.8 76.8 77.2 77.4 77.6 78.3 78.6 78.6 78.7 78.9 79.2 79.4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 67.6 80.8 57.1 64.3 63.7 95.7 74.1 62.4 77.2 61.2 66.3 70.9 68.7 63.1 65.9 65.9 66.7 71.0 69.6 71.1 70.0 96.9 67.0 55.9 69.1 66.3 62.8 68.0 54.0 66.5 62.7 96.7 21 43 4 12 11 47 34 7 36 5 15 28 23 10 13 14 19 29 26 30 27 49 20 3 25 16 9 22 1 17 8 48
215 Conditions of signages 238 Conditions of signages within the monument/ tourist attraction 208 Behavior of the porters at the railway station 219 Availability of metered taxi 234 Levels of road/transport taxes on vehicles (tax rates) 235 Administration of the road taxes on (barriers, delays, harassments etc) 202 International connectivity of destination/ circuit 220a Behavior of the drivers of other commercial transportations 222 Availability of authorized tour operators 220 Availability of other commercial transportations 221 Availability of A/C tourist coaches 218 Availability of mass transit system 219a Behavior of the taxi drivers 233 Levels of luxury taxes ( tax rates) 240 Availability of tourist guidance/reception centers 241 Availability of trained tourist guides 242 Behavior of the guides at the monument/tourist attraction 229 Tariff structure of the hotel rooms 245 Promptness at the ticketing window of the monument/tourist attraction 214 Conditions of street lighting 228 Behavior of service staff at the hotel 239 Parking facility at the monument/tourist attraction 203 Condition of airport serving the destination/ circuit 212 Conditions of city roads 216 Traffic signals 223 Availability of luxury hotels 230 General upkeep of the hotel rooms 209 Public conveniences along roads/streets 237 Public utilities at the monument/tourist attraction 210 Sewerage and drainage system 236 General cleanliness of monument/tourist attraction and area around it 217 Traffic management 201 Connectivity of the destination/ circuit with major Indian cities
JUNE , 2010
28
Table 4D.1: Percent domestic tourists reported facility as important (very important or most important) and currently satisfactory (average, good and excellent) in Nanded, Maharashtra (contd)
Importance level (very important or most important) Percent Rank reported (lowest to highest)
79.7 79.9 79.9 80.7 80.7 81.5 83.6 83.6 83.8 84.0 84.6 84.6 84.8 85.0 85.3 86.7 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Satisfaction level (average, good or excellent) Percent Rank reported (lowest to highest) 78.4 71.9 77.6 80.5 86.0 76.6 61.8 77.6 66.6 55.6 71.8 73.3 81.7 79.6 78.5 84.4 39 32 38 42 46 35 6 37 18 2 31 33 44 41 40 45
226 Level of knowledge of officials at the reception office 232 Behaviour of service personnel at wayside restaurants and dhabas 247 Telephone/mobile services 205 Quality of way side amenities available on this road 207 Condition of railway station serving the destination/ circuit 227 Quality of help provided by the reception office 231 Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas 243 Conservation of heritage sites/ monuments 224 Availability of budget hotels 211 Garbage disposal 213 Drinking Water supply 246 Power supply situation 225 Behavior of the officials available at tourist reception office 204 Quality of the roads 244 Illumination of monuments 206 Rail connectivity of destination/ circuit with major Indian cities
Note 1: First two columns show the ranking of the components (of facilities) on the basis of importance. Note 2; Last two columns show the ranking of the components on the basis of satisfaction Note 3: All combinations with importance level of more than 77.4 (median value of the indicator importance) and less than 69.1 (median value of the indicator of satisfaction) fall in the fourth quadrant of X Y Axis. This is our indicator I1.
JUNE , 2010
29
Table 4D.2: Percent domestic tourists reported facility as important (very important or most important), currently satisfactory (average, good and excellent), and difference in percentages in Nanded, Maharashtra
Importance level (very important or most important) Component of facility Percent reported Rank (highest to lowest) 7 20 9 25 8 18 21 5 Satisfaction level (average, good or excellent) Percent reported Difference in percentages
211 Garbage disposal 210 Sewerage and drainage system 231 Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas 216 Traffic signals 224 Availability of budget hotels 217 Traffic management 209 Public conveniences along roads/streets 213 Drinking Water supply 236 General cleanliness of monument/tourist attraction and area around it 230 General upkeep of the hotel rooms 246 Power supply situation 237 Public utilities at the monument/tourist attraction 219 Availability of metered taxi 212 Conditions of city roads 223 Availability of luxury hotels 240 Availability of tourist guidance/reception centers 232 Behaviour of service personnel at wayside restaurants and dhabas 221 Availability of A/C tourist coaches 229 Tariff structure of the hotel rooms 242 Behavior of the guides at the monument/tourist attraction 244 Illumination of monuments 239 Parking facility at the monument/tourist attraction 222 Availability of authorized tour operators 214 Conditions of street lighting 243 Conservation of heritage sites/ monuments 241 Availability of trained tourist guides 204 Quality of the roads
84.0 78.7 83.6 77.4 83.8 79.2 78.6 84.6
55.6 54.0 61.8 55.9 66.6 62.7 62.8 71.8
Difference Rank or 0 if (highest to difference lowest) is negative 28.4 1 24.7 2

21.8 21.5 17.2 16.5 15.8 12.8 3 4 5 6 7 8
78.9 78.3 84.6 78.6 67.4 77.2 77.6 71.3 79.9 69.2 74.1 72.8 85.3 76.8 69.0 76.0 83.6 71.7 85.0
19 23 6 22 45 26 24 35 14 37 32 33 2 27 40 29 10 34 3
66.5 66.3 73.3 68.0 57.1 67.0 69.1 63.1 71.9 61.2 66.7 65.9 78.5 70.0 62.4 69.6 77.6 65.9 79.6
12.4 12.0 11.3 10.6 10.3 10.2 8.5 8.2 8.0 8.0 7.4 6.9 6.8 6.8 6.6 6.4 6.0 5.8 5.4
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
JUNE , 2010
30
Table 4D.2: Percent domestic tourists reported facility as important (very important or most important), currently satisfactory (average, good and excellent), and difference in percentages in Nanded, Maharashtra (condt)
Importance level (very important or most important) Component of facility Percent reported Rank (highest to lowest)
Satisfaction level (average, good or excellent) Percent reported
Difference in percentages
Difference or 0 if difference is negative 4.9 4.9
Rank (highest to lowest)
227 Quality of help provided by the reception office 228 Behavior of service staff at the hotel 235 Administration of the road taxes on (barriers, delays, harassments etc) 245 Promptness at the ticketing window of the monument/tourist attraction 234 Levels of road/transport taxes on vehicles (tax rates) 225 Behavior of the officials available at tourist reception office 218 Availability of mass transit system 247 Telephone/mobile services 206 Rail connectivity of destination/ circuit with major Indian cities 233 Levels of luxury taxes ( tax rates) 226 Level of knowledge of officials at the reception office 205 Quality of way side amenities available on this road 238 Conditions of signages within the monument/ tourist attraction 219a Behavior of the taxi drivers 215 Conditions of signages 207 Condition of railway station serving the destination/ circuit 220a Behavior of the drivers of other commercial transportations 220 Availability of other commercial transportations 208 Behavior of the porters at the railway station 201 Connectivity of the destination/ circuit with major Indian cities 203 Condition of airport serving the destination/ circuit 202 International connectivity of destination/ circuit
81.5 76.0
11 30
76.6 71.1
28 29
67.5
44
63.7
3.8
30
74.5 67.4 84.8 69.2 79.9 86.7 70.9 79.7 80.7 67.1 69.2 66.6 80.7 68.8 69.0 67.3 79.4 76.8 67.6
31 46 4 38 15 1 36 16 12 48 39 49 13 42 41 47 17 28 43
71.0 64.3 81.7 66.3 77.6 84.4 68.7 78.4 80.5 67.6 70.9 68.8 86.0 74.1 77.2 80.8 96.7 96.9 95.7
3.5 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.3 2.3 2.2 1.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
JUNE , 2010
31
CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STRENGTHENING TOURIST INFRASTRUCTURE This chapter is presented in two parts. The first part gives profile of foreign and domestic tourists and the second part shows the gaps in facilities/components of the facilities between importance and satisfaction. Profile of foreign tourists About 34.7 percent of the tourists interviewed had come to India for tourism purposes. Half of them were younger ages of 26-45 years. Twenty percent reported it as their first visit to India. Repeat visit to India by these tourists is high. About three-fifths (59.2%) of them came from USA and Canada. Sixty seven per cent reported visit to this tourist site as their first visit. It takes, on an average, nine days to get visa. Only about 17 percent get visa in one or two days. Almost 52 percent of the foreign tourists reported to have known the Indian tourism office in their country. (This percentage for Canada and USA were 50 and 47 respectively). But only 9 percent of them contacted the Indian tourism office for any information.
Profile of domestic tourists Domestic tourists were relatively of younger age groups, about 53.2% in the ages 1835 years. Nearly about half of them (48%) were visiting this tourist site for the first time. Forty seven percent of them came by public bus or their personal car; 50 percent came with family members and 42.3 percent with friends. More than 58 percent of Indian tourists had planned to stay in Nanded for more than one day; almost 50 percent in commercial place (49.3%). Only 25.9% stayed with friends or relatives. Only 5 percent came with organized tour. There is a need to encourage tour operators to be more aggressive in organization of tours.
Importance assigned to various facilities at the site Foreign tourists The foreign tourists give highest importance to visa, immigration and customs rules. They need to be simplified and made tourist-friendly. They assign more importance to traffic and transport management and tourist facilities at the tourist spots.
Domestic tourists Domestic tourists assign most importance to road connectivity to the tourist site According to them other important facilities will be other services like power situation and telephone/mobile services, and civic administration.
JUNE , 2010
32
Matrix of Importance-Satisfaction Gap Foreign tourists More gap was reported in international connectivity and condition of airport serving the destination/circuit. 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. Included in this broad category are infrastructure like garbage disposal, condition of city roads, quality of roads, sewerage and drainage system, quality of wayside amenities available on this road, hygienic conditions of the restaurants/dhabas, and power situation. They also reported gap in the connection of the destination circuit with major Indian cities. The foreign tourists were concerned about the behaviour of the guides at the monument/tourist attraction and availability of trained tourist guides so that they make best use of their visit. Not much complaint was made about visa, immigration and custom services, perhaps because these experiences were in past and time is the best healer. But they all pointed out need to streamline this system of visa and customs procedures. It took them almost nine days to get visa.
Indian tourists More gaps were reported by domestic tourist on garbage disposal, sewage and drainage system, and hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas. They saw gaps in the traffic signals, availability of budget hotels for stay, traffic management, and conveniences along roads/streets. They were also concerned about general cleanliness of monuments/tourist attraction and area around it, general upkeep of the hotels rooms, and public utilities at the monument/tourist attraction.
Though above-given is a list of gaps reported, we, in this report, have suggested (Tables 4F.2 and 4D.2) need to prioritize 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 visits more satisfying and a happy experience.
JUNE , 2010
33
Annexure: 1 Tables on distribution of scores
JUNE , 2010
35
Table F.1: Percent distribution of foreign tourists by scores on importance and satisfaction according to facility, Nanded, Maharashtra
Importance Component of facility Least important (1) Somewhat important (2) Not so Very important important (3) (4) Most important (5) Poor (1) Satisfaction Unsatisfactory (2) Average (3) Good (4) Excellent (5)
201 Connectivity of the destination/ circuit with major Indian cities 202 International connectivity of destination/ circuit 203 Condition of airport serving the destination/ circuit 204 Quality of the roads 205 Quality of way side amenities available on this road 206 Rail connectivity of destination/ circuit with major Indian cities 207 Condition of railway station serving the destination/ circuit 208 Behavior of the porters at the railway station 209 Public conveniences along roads/streets 210 Sewerage and drainage system 211 Garbage disposal 212 Conditions of city roads 213 Drinking Water supply 214 Conditions of street lighting 215 Conditions of signages 216 Traffic signals 217 Traffic management
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 5.9 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 3.9 17.6 5.9 0.0
3.9 5.9 3.9 3.9 5.9 13.7 17.6 19.6 7.8 7.8 7.8 5.9 7.8 15.7 19.6 13.7 17.6
19.6 13.7 23.5 39.2 35.3 25.5 23.5 21.6 33.3 33.3 35.3 39.2 45.1 41.2 33.3 45.1 31.4
76.5 80.4 72.5 56.9 54.9 56.9 54.9 54.9 51.0 54.9 54.9 52.9 47.1 39.2 29.4 33.3 51.0
2.0 47.1 9.8 0.0 3.9 3.9 5.9 5.9 3.9 3.9 19.6 2.0 3.9 7.8 9.8 9.8 19.6
23.5 23.5 37.3 31.4 27.5 27.5 33.3 21.6 25.5 35.3 29.4 37.3 15.7 21.6 21.6 33.3 17.6
39.2 11.8 35.3 37.3 41.2 52.9 33.3 51.0 31.4 29.4 21.6 29.4 37.3 19.6 35.3 23.5 27.5
33.3 11.8 13.7 29.4 23.5 7.8 19.6 13.7 27.5 17.6 19.6 21.6 31.4 27.5 19.6 27.5 25.5
2.0 5.9 3.9 2.0 3.9 7.8 7.8 7.8 11.8 13.7 9.8 9.8 11.8 23.5 13.7 5.9 9.8
JUNE , 2010
36
Table F.1: Percent distribution of foreign tourists by scores on importance and satisfaction according to facility, Nanded, Maharashtra (contd)
Importance Component of facility Least important (1) Somewhat important (2) Not so Very important important (3) (4) Most important (5) Poor (1) Satisfaction Unsatisfactory (2)
Average (3)
Good (4)
Excellent (5)
218 Availability of mass transit system 219 Availability of metered taxi 219a Behavior of the taxi drivers 220 Availability of other commercial transportations 220a Behavior of the drivers of other commercial transportations 221 Availability of A/C tourist coaches 222 Availability of authorized tour operators 223 Availability of luxury hotels 224 Availability of budget hotels 225 Behavior of the officials available at tourist reception office 226 Level of knowledge of officials at the reception office 227 Quality of help provided by the reception office 228 Behavior of service staff at the hotel 229 Tariff structure of the hotel rooms 230 General upkeep of the hotel rooms 231 Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas 232 Behaviour of service personnel at wayside restaurants and dhabas
0.0 2.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0
5.9 3.9 2.0 3.9 3.9 9.8 7.8 3.9 7.8 0.0 0.0 9.8 11.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.9
11.8 13.7 19.6 3.9 13.7 13.7 15.7 5.9 13.7 9.8 9.8 2.0 5.9 11.8 13.7 7.8 7.8
47.1 33.3 35.3 45.1 49.0 35.3 35.3 45.1 33.3 29.4 15.7 21.6 19.6 21.6 31.4 29.4 35.3
35.3 47.1 39.2 47.1 33.3 41.2 41.2 43.1 45.1 60.8 74.5 64.7 62.7 62.7 52.9 60.8 51.0
3.9 11.8 3.9 2.0 3.9 3.9 5.9 5.9 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 9.8 5.9
17.6 23.5 21.6 17.6 29.4 17.6 19.6 21.6 13.7 11.8 11.8 9.8 15.7 7.8 13.7 21.6 11.8
27.5 25.5 37.3 31.4 29.4 39.2 21.6 25.5 35.3 35.3 33.3 39.2 37.3 39.2 33.3 35.3 43.1
35.3 27.5 17.6 33.3 19.6 27.5 33.3 27.5 37.3 19.6 27.5 31.4 27.5 29.4 27.5 19.6 23.5
15.7 11.8 19.6 15.7 17.6 11.8 19.6 19.6 13.7 31.4 25.5 19.6 19.6 23.5 23.5 13.7 15.7
JUNE , 2010
37
Table F.1: Percent distribution of foreign tourists by scores on importance and satisfaction according to facility, Nanded, Maharashtra (contd..)
Importance Component of facility Least important (1) 3.9 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 5.9 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Somewhat important (2) 3.9 9.8 7.8 2.0 2.0 11.8 0.0 11.8 2.0 2.0 0.0 3.9 3.9 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 4.0 2.0 Not so Very important important (3) (4) 7.8 13.7 9.8 5.9 9.8 9.8 13.7 5.9 11.8 13.7 7.8 11.8 11.8 3.9 5.9 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 35.3 25.5 27.5 33.3 31.4 35.3 39.2 27.5 27.5 27.5 15.7 23.5 13.7 27.5 33.3 8.0 12.0 18.0 14.0 18.0 12.0 Most important (5) 49.0 49.0 52.9 58.8 56.9 41.2 47.1 54.9 56.9 56.9 74.5 60.8 68.6 62.7 56.9 86.0 82.0 74.0 70.0 74.0 84.0 Poor (1) 3.9 3.9 0.0 5.9 5.9 5.9 2.0 5.9 7.8 5.9 5.9 0.0 3.9 7.8 2.0 2.1 2.0 8.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 Unsatisfac tory (2) 13.7 17.6 21.6 19.6 15.7 23.5 15.7 19.6 19.6 21.6 11.8 5.9 9.8 17.6 9.8 10.4 10.2 12.0 6.0 4.0 10.0 Satisfaction Average (3) 35.3 31.4 37.3 33.3 35.3 31.4 39.2 25.5 29.4 23.5 31.4 33.3 35.3 19.6 13.7 37.5 34.7 18.0 32.0 32.0 24.0 Good (4) 25.5 27.5 23.5 17.6 19.6 27.5 29.4 33.3 19.6 39.2 27.5 29.4 25.5 21.6 27.5 31.3 26.5 38.0 32.0 40.0 30.0
Excellent (5)
21.6 19.6 17.6 23.5 23.5 11.8 13.7 15.7 23.5 9.8 23.5 31.4 25.5 33.3 47.1 18.8 26.5 24.0 28.0 20.0 30.0
233 Levels of luxury taxes ( tax rates) 234 Levels of road/transport taxes on vehicles (tax rates) 235 Administration of the road taxes on (barriers, delays, harassments etc) 236 General cleanliness of monument/tourist attraction and area around it 237 Public utilities at the monument/tourist attraction 238 Conditions of signages within the monument/ tourist attraction 239 Parking facility at the monument/tourist attraction 240 Availability of tourist guidance/reception centers 241 Availability of trained tourist guides 242 Behavior of the guides at the monument/tourist attraction 243 Conservation of heritage sites/ monuments 244 Illumination of monuments 245 Promptness at the ticketing window of the monument/tourist attraction 246 Power supply situation 247 Telephone/mobile services 248 Promptness in getting Indian visa 249 Promptness in the Immigration procedure at the port of arrival in India 250 Behavior of the immigration official at the port of arrival in India 251 General ambience of the immigration zone 252 Promptness of custom checking procedure at the port of arrival in India 253 Behavior of the custom officials at the port of arrival in India
JUNE , 2010
38
Table D.1: Percent distribution of domestic tourists by scores on importance and satisfaction according to facility, Nanded, Maharashtra
Importance Component of facility Least important (1) Somewhat important (2) Not so important (3) Very importan t (4) Most important (5) Poor (1) Unsatisfac tory (2) Satisfaction Average (3) Good (4) Excellent (5)
201 Connectivity of the destination/ circuit with major Indian cities 202 International connectivity of destination/ circuit 203 Condition of airport serving the destination/ circuit 204 Quality of the roads 205 Quality of way side amenities available on this road 206 Rail connectivity of destination/ circuit with major Indian cities 207 Condition of railway station serving the destination/ circuit 208 Behavior of the porters at the railway station 209 Public conveniences along roads/streets 210 Sewerage and drainage system 211 Garbage disposal 212 Conditions of city roads 213 Drinking Water supply 214 Conditions of street lighting 215 Conditions of signages
1.4 6.8 3.9 0.4 1.2 0.4 0.2 2.9 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.0 1.4 3.9
9.4 3.5 7.4 3.1 5.5 2.3 7.4 10.5 7.2 6.0 4.7 7.4 3.5 4.1 8.8
9.7 22.2 11.9 11.5 12.5 10.7 11.7 19.3 13.3 14.4 10.5 14.4 11.9 18.5 20.7
39.6 45.8 42.7 50.1 42.1 49.9 45.6 39.8 46.0 53.0 39.4 42.1 33.9 46.0 33.1
39.8 21.8 34.1 34.9 38.6 36.8 35.1 27.5 32.6 25.7 44.6 35.1 50.7 30.0 33.5
1.4 1.2 1.0 7.8 7.8 5.1 4.9 6.0 9.7 15.4 19.3 8.6 12.9 9.0 9.4
1.8 3.1 2.1 12.5 11.7 10.5 9.0 13.1 27.5 30.6 25.1 24.4 15.2 21.4 21.8
83.6 84.4 84.8 24.2 34.5 40.5 43.3 50.9 32.0 27.5 30.6 34.7 33.9 31.4 40.7
9.0 8.0 8.4 39.8 29.6 32.0 31.6 21.1 22.0 23.0 17.2 25.3 24.6 29.4 20.7
4.1 3.3 3.7 15.6 16.4 11.9 11.1 8.8 8.8 3.5 7.8 7.0 13.3 8.8 7.4
JUNE , 2010
39
Table D.1: Percent distribution of domestic tourists by scores on importance and satisfaction according to facility, Nanded, Maharashtra (contd)
Importance Component of facility Least important (1) 0.6 0.2 0.6 5.5 2.9 1.2 2.1 3.5 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.6 0.4 2.7 2.3 1.4 0.8 Somewhat important (2) 7.0 4.5 6.2 7.2 9.0 8.0 6.6 9.2 8.0 5.1 4.1 4.1 4.3 4.7 4.7 6.2 6.2 2.5 Not so important (3) 15.0 16.0 24.0 19.9 18.9 21.8 22.6 18.1 21.4 16.2 11.1 9.9 15.4 13.3 16.6 17.5 14.2 13.1 Very important (4) 52.6 40.0 47.2 34.5 46.4 42.9 49.5 43.9 43.1 48.0 37.8 47.6 53.8 42.9 53.8 39.6 52.6 40.7 Most important (5) 24.8 39.2 22.0 32.9 22.8 26.1 19.3 25.3 25.9 29.6 46.0 37.2 25.9 38.6 22.2 34.5 25.7 42.9 Poor (1) Unsatisfac tory (2) Satisfaction Average (3) Good (4) Excellent (5)
216 Traffic signals 217 Traffic management 218 Availability of mass transit system 219 Availability of metered taxi 219a Behavior of the taxi drivers 220 Availability of other commercial transportations 220a Behavior of the drivers of other commercial transportations 221 Availability of A/C tourist coaches 222 Availability of authorized tour operators 223 Availability of luxury hotels 224 Availability of budget hotels 225 Behavior of the officials available at tourist reception office 226 Level of knowledge of officials at the reception office 227 Quality of help provided by the reception office 228 Behavior of service staff at the hotel 229 Tariff structure of the hotel rooms 230 General upkeep of the hotel rooms 231 Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas
12.3 16.0 10.5 17.9 7.2 6.8 5.7 13.8 11.7 12.5 10.3 3.5 5.7 7.8 7.6 8.6 11.5 13.3
31.8 21.4 23.2 25.1 22.0 16.0 20.1 25.1 25.9 18.5 23.2 14.8 15.8 15.6 21.4 24.6 22.2 24.8
30.8 35.1 42.5 45.6 45.4 51.3 45.2 50.3 36.8 33.9 25.1 37.4 40.2 36.6 32.9 35.7 31.8 28.1
18.9 21.6 20.1 9.7 21.4 19.3 23.2 7.0 20.3 25.5 20.1 32.6 29.2 26.9 30.2 21.1 25.3 22.0
6.2 6.0 3.7 1.8 4.1 6.6 5.7 3.9 5.3 9.7 21.4 11.7 9.0 13.1 8.0 9.9 9.2 11.7
JUNE , 2010
40
Table D.1: Percent distribution of domestic tourists by scores on importance and satisfaction according to facility, Nanded, Maharashtra (contd)
Importance Component of facility Least important (1) Somewhat important (2) Not so important (3) Very important (4) Most important (5) Poor (1) Unsatisfac tory (2) Satisfaction Average (3) Good (4) Excellent (5)
232 Behaviour of service personnel at wayside restaurants and dhabas 233 Levels of luxury taxes ( tax rates) 234 Levels of road/transport taxes on vehicles (tax rates) 235 Administration of the road taxes on (barriers, delays, harassments etc) 236 General cleanliness of monument/tourist attraction and area around it 237 Public utilities at the monument/tourist attraction 238 Conditions of signages within the monument/ tourist attraction 239 Parking facility at the monument/tourist attraction 240 Availability of tourist guidance/reception centers 241 Availability of trained tourist guides 242 Behavior of the guides at the monument/tourist attraction 243 Conservation of heritage sites/ monuments 244 Illumination of monuments 245 Promptness at the ticketing window of the monument/tourist attraction 246 Power supply situation 247 Telephone/mobile services
0.8 5.3 4.5 4.9 1.0 0.4 3.3 2.9 3.1 2.9 2.7 0.2 0.6 4.1 0.4 1.4
5.5 6.4 8.8 10.7 6.8 4.1 7.6 6.0 7.0 7.8 6.6 3.5 6.4 5.1 4.9 5.3
13.8 17.5 19.3 16.8 13.3 16.8 22.0 14.4 18.7 17.7 17.9 12.7 7.8 16.2 10.1 13.3
49.7 45.2 48.9 35.9 49.3 40.0 42.9 37.2 46.0 41.5 48.0 40.7 48.3 53.6 35.7 47.0
30.2 25.7 18.5 31.6 29.6 38.6 24.2 39.6 25.3 30.2 24.8 42.9 37.0 20.9 48.9 32.9
9.4 7.0 7.0 10.3 11.5 6.2 9.0 7.2 14.0 13.8 10.3 7.8 3.5 6.2 10.5 5.7
18.7 24.2 28.7 26.1 22.0 25.9 23.4 22.8 23.0 20.3 23.8 14.6 18.1 22.8 16.2 16.6
37.8 48.0 41.3 38.4 28.7 28.1 36.6 32.2 37.4 41.5 38.2 24.2 29.8 35.9 29.0 26.9
22.8 16.0 19.7 18.9 26.3 26.1 24.2 23.6 17.5 15.2 20.9 34.9 29.4 26.7 28.1 27.7
11.3 4.7 3.3 6.4 11.5 13.8 6.8 14.2 8.2 9.2 6.8 18.5 19.3 8.4 16.2 23.0
JUNE , 2010
41
Annexure: 2 Questionnaire
JUNE , 2010
42
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 3 4 5 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. 3. 4. 5. 6. Address of Respondent: ___________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ Phone::_________________________________________________________ Tourist category: i. Indian ii. Foreigner
Time slot when interviewed:__________________________________ Language of the interview: ___________________________________
FIELD CONTROL INFORMATION Investigators Details Interviewers name _______________________ Date: _________ Supervisors name ________________________ Verified by : __________________________ Date: _________ 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
43
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND PROFILE Q.NO. 101 Age QUESTIONS CODING CATEGORIES SKIP TO 2 3 4 5 6 1 2
102 103 104
Sex Whether visiting the tourist site (Destination) for the first time ? Country of residence
Less than 18 years 1 18-25 yrs 26-35 yrs 36-45 yrs 46-55 yrs Above 55 yrs Male Female
Yes..1 No..........2 India Holland China UAE Germany Japan South africa UK USA Italy Canada France Singapore Australia Other SAARC countries Other European countries Latin American countries Other Oceania countries Other foreign countries
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Go to Q 113
If tourist belongs to India, then ask questions 105 to 112, otherwise skip to Q 113. Which state of India you belong to? 105 ----------------------------------What was the mode of travel to reach this place? Bus 106 Train Plane Personal car Any two wheeler Others (specify) How did you come to know about this tourist site? Through travel agent 107 Through friends/relatives My own effort because of interest in seeing different places Others (specify) Whether you came in a group organized by travel agent or Travel agent arranged group 108 on your own? On my own Whether came alone, with friends or with family? Alone 109 With friends With family /relatives Whether you are staying in commercial place, rented Commercial 110 your own place or with friends/relative? Rented own place Staying with friends/relatives Others (specify) How many days you propose to stay here? Only one day 111 More than one day Uncertain/depends Is this a part of your trip to other places of tourism? Yes 112 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
Go to Sec 2
JUNE , 2010
44
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 115 116 117 Port of arrival _______________________________________ Office where Indian visa was applied for (name of place) __________________________ Number of days in getting Indian visa (approx) _____________________days
1 2 3 4 8 1 2
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? Did you contact the India Tourism office for tourism related information? How do you rate the response from tourism office as satisfactory/ Just O.K/ Not satisfactory Yes No Yes No Satisfactory Just O.K Not satisfactory 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 Go to sec.2 Go to Sec 2.
JUNE , 2010
45
Type of facilities
Type of facilities
Unsatisfactory
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 Kindly circle the appropriate column Somewhat Important Not so Important Very Important Most Important
Q.NO.
Facility
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 Kindly circle the appropriate column Any Remark Excellent 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Least Important
Average
Any Remark
1 What importance you assign to : Road Air ConnectiConnectiv -vity ity 201 202 203 204 205 Connectivity of the destination/ circuit with major Indian cities International connectivity of destination/ circuit Condition of airport serving the destination/ circuit Quality of the roads Quality of way side amenities available on this road 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
Road Air Connecti- Connectiv -vity ity
1 2 3 4 5 How do you rate the level of satisfaction with its current status* 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4
206 207 Rail Connectivity
208
Behavior of the porters at the railway station
Rail Connectivity
Rail connectivity of destination/ circuit with major Indian cities Condition of railway station serving the destination/ circuit
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
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
Good
Poor
46
Civic Administration
Traffic and transport management
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
Traffic and transport management
209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 219a 220
Public conveniences along roads/streets Sewerage and drainage system Garbage disposal Conditions of city roads Drinking Water supply Conditions of street lighting Conditions of signages Traffic signals Traffic management Availability of mass transit system Availability of metered taxi Behavior of the taxi drivers Availability of other commercial transportations Behavior of the drivers of other commercial transportations Availability of A/C tourist coaches Availability of authorized tour operators Availability of luxury hotels Availability of budget hotels Behavior of the officials available at tourist 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 General upkeep of the hotel rooms Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas Behaviour of service personnel at wayside restaurants and dhabas
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
Civic Administration
1 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 2
3 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 4
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Tourists facilities
Tourists facilities
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
JUNE , 2010
47
Taxes/ permits etc
233 234 235
Levels of luxury taxes ( tax rates) Levels of road/transport taxes on vehicles (tax rates) Administration of the road taxes on (barriers, delays, harassments etc) General cleanliness of monument/tourist attraction and area around it Public utilities at the monument/tourist attraction Conditions of signages within the monument/ tourist attraction Parking facility at the monument/tourist attraction Availability of tourist guidance/reception centers Availability of trained tourist guides Behavior of the guides at the monument/tourist attraction Conservation of heritage sites/ monuments Illumination of monuments Promptness at the ticketing window of the monument/tourist attraction Power supply situation Telephone/mobile services
1 1 1
2 2 2
3 3 3
4 4 4
5 5 5
Taxes/ permits etc
1 1 1
2 2 2
3 3 3
4 4 4
5 5 5
Maintenance and management of Monuments/ tourist attraction
236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Maintenance and management of Monuments/ tourist attraction
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Other Services
JUNE , 2010
Other Services
48
Type of facilities
Type of facilities
Q.NO.
Facility
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
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
Kindly circle the appropriate column

Any Remark (if tourist is of India) Somewhat Important Not so Important Very Important Most Important
Kindly circle the appropriate column

Unsatisfactory Any Remark (if tourist is of India)
Least Important
Average
1 What importance you assign to : Visa, Immigration and customs 248 249 250 251 252 253
Promptness in getting Indian visa Promptness in the Immigration procedure at the port of arrival in India Behavior of the immigration official at the port of arrival in India General ambience of the immigration zone Promptness of custom checking procedure at the port of arrival in India Behavior of the custom officials at the port of arrival in India
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
Visa, Immigration and customs
1 2 3 4 5 How do you rate the level of satisfaction with its current status* 1 2 3 4 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
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
Excellent
Good
Poor
49
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
Foreign
(Read each category and enumerate what is included in each) Connectivity--air, rail, bus and Pvt. car Civic administration Traffic and transport management 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

04 Report Nanded F

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

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

04 Report Nanded F

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1 Incredible !

Government of India Ministry of Tourism (Market Research Division)

Infrastructure Gaps in Tourism Sector in Nanded, Maharashtra

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA

GfK MODE Pvt. Ltd. June, 2010

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA

Figure 1: Percentage distribution of foreign tourists by country of residence, Nanded, Maharashtra

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA

Avg. days- 9.1

Avg. days- 9.3

Avg. days- 8.4

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA

Figure 3: Percentage distribution of Indian tourists by state of residence

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA

Figure 4: Percentage distribution of domestic tourists by place of stay at tourist destination

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA

Power supply situation Telephone/mobile services

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA

In addition, a chapter on Executive Summary has been added in the front.

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA

CHAPTER - III PROFILE OF TOURISTS

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA

Figure 1: Percentage distribution of foreign tourists by country of residence, Nanded, Maharashtra

4.1 4.0 6.1 34.7 6.1 6.1

USA Canada UK Germany Italy France Australia Others

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA

Avg. days- 9.1

Avg. days- 9.3

23.5 80.0 100.0

Avg. days- 8.4

1. Visiting tourist site first time

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA

7.6 42.3 50.1

34.5 58.1 6.6 0.8

Rented own place Staying with friends and relatives Others

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA

Median value of satisfaction

Median value of importance Importance

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA

11. 12. 13. 14.

Median value of importance (84.4) % reporting importance

Median value of satisfaction (69.1)

Median value of importance (77.4) % reporting importance

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA

Difference or 0 if difference is negative

Rank (Highest to lowest)

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA

Time slot when interviewed: Language of the interview: _