04 report nanded f

8/2/2019 04 Report Nanded F

1/59

1

Government of India

Ministry of Tourism(Market Research Division)

Report on

Infrastructure Gaps in Tourism Sector inNanded, Maharashtra

Prepared By:

Incredible !ndia


2/59

2

Acknowledgements

The study on Infrastructure Gaps in Tourism Sector in Nanded, Maharashtra, was successfullycompleted due to the efforts and involvement of various personnel at different stages of thesurvey. 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 itsoverall guidance and support during the study. We would like to offer special thanks to KumariSelja, Minister of Tourism, Govt. of India for taking keen interest in this study. Shri SujitBanerjee, the Secretary; Dr R.N. Pandey, Addl. Director General (MR); Shri Ajay K. Gupta , Addl.Director General and Shri K.K. Nath , Dy. Director (MR), Ministry of Tourism , Govt. of India

deserve special thanks. They initiated the project and designated GfK MODE Pvt. Ltd to conductthis study. We also thank Mr. S.K Mohanta, DPA GR B (MR), Ministry of Tourism for extendinghis support from time to time to carry out this study.

Special thanks go to 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 spenttheir time and responded to the questions with tremendous patience.

GfK MODE Pvt. Ltd.

June, 2010


3/59

3

CONTENTS

Page No.

Acknowledgements

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYI-XI

CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION........................................................................................ 1

1.1 Genesis .................................................................................................................... 11.2 Objectives of the study................................................................................................ 11.3 Time period................................................................................................................ 11.4 Chapterization of the report ......................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER II: METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION ................................................ 32.1 Considerations in deciding the methodology................................................................... 32.2 Approach to the study ................................................................................................. 32.3 Study design .............................................................................................................. 42.4 Study tools................................................................................................................. 42.5 Field implementation of the study................................................................................. 5

2.5.1Selection of field teams........................................................................................ 52.5.2Training of field teams......................................................................................... 62.5.3 Quality control assurance..................................................................................... 62.5.4 Data collection plan............................................................................................. 62.5.5 Tabulation plan .................................................................................................. 72.5.6 Data processing................................................................................................. 72.5.7 Tabulation and report writing............................................................................... 7

CHAPTER III: PROFILE OF TOURIST............................................................................. 93.1 Profile of tourists in Nanded, Maharashtra...................................................................... 9

3.1.1 Foreign tourist.................................................................................................... 93.1.2 Domestic tourist ................................................................................................11

CHAPTER IV: IMPORTANCE-SATISFACTION GAPS IN TOURISM INFRASTRUCTURE..154.1 Choice of the indicator for importance tourists assign to different facilities/ components of

the facility.................................................................................................................154.2 Ranking of ten facilities reported as important by foreign and domestic tourists................164.3 Indicator of satisfaction with the existing facility/component of the facility.....................174.4 Distribution of scores, 1 to 5 reported on importance and satisfaction.........................174.5 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...........................194.5.2 Results of analysis of importance-satisfaction gaps by indicator I2...........................22


4/59

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Genesis

The Ministry of Tourism, Government of India, has decided to increase flow of tourists in India by(i) marketing tourism in India by their publicity campaign of Incredible India, and (ii) improvingtourists facilities in the tourist destinations so as to make them more attractive. A good deal ofpublicity of tourism is being carried out in India and abroad. The Ministry is also conductingstudies to identify the infrastructure gaps in various important tourist sites. One such study hasbeen 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 thatthese 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 inthe 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 assessthe level of satisfaction with the existing infrastructure at the tourist site. This approach will beable to assess importance-satisfaction matrix which categorizes the facilities which tourists viewas important but were not found satisfactory (by tourists) currently. Facilities classified in thiscategory 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 wereabout to leave the site. It was planned to study the importance and satisfaction with the touristsite by taking a sample of 250 Indians and 250 foreign tourists. But only 51 foreign tourists couldbe 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 randomsample by random time allocation of the sample of the tourists; they were to be interviewed at11:00 AM, 12:00 Noon, 1:00, 3:00 PM, 4:00 PM and 5:00 PM each day, (ii) sample was spreadover seven days of a week, (iii) It was spread over mornings and evenings, and (iv) both, maleand female tourists were covered.


5/59

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 of1 to 5, for both importance of infrastructure and that on the level of satisfaction as per theirassessment of the facility/component (shown below).

Importance SatisfactionAnswer Score assigned Answer Score assigned

Least important 1 Poor 1

Somewhat important 2 Unsatisfactory 2

Not so important 3 Average 3

Very important 4 Good 4

Most important 5 Excellent 5

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

information of the tourists --demographic as well as profile of tourist being interviewed (a randomsample 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. Mostof the tourists were of middle aged, 26-55 years. Only about 10 percent were in younger ages of25 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 visitwas only for social and 34.7 percent only for tourism, followed by for business (6.1%).


6/59

iii

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

6.1

4.1 4.0

6.1

6.1

14.3

24.5

34.7

USA

Canada

UK

Germany

Italy

France

Australia

Others

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 makingrepeat visit.

Most of them had entered India from Delhi (79.6%), Amritsar (10.2%), and Mumbai andHyderabad (8.2%).

Percent distribution of the tourists by number of days they took to get visa is shown in tablebelow:

Number of days USA(n=17)

Canada(n=12)

Total(n=51)

< 3 days 17.6 16.7 21.6


7/59

iv

Figure 2: Percentage distribution of foreign tourists by number of days taken toget visa, Nanded, Maharashtra

17.6

16.7

21.6

23.5

25.0

19.6

35.3

16.7

17.6

23.5

41.7

41.2

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

USA

Canada

All

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 touristsfrom these countries were asked about their experiences with the tourist office. About 52.3percent of the foreign tourists from the countries where tourist offices are set up, reported to haveknown the Indian tourism office in their country. (This percentage for Canada and USA were 50and 47 respectively). But only 9 percent of them contacted the Indian tourism office for anyinformation.

Indian tourists


Table 3.3 (in the report) gives distribution of tourists by their background characteristics. About53.2 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.

Avg. days- 9.1

Avg. days- 9.3

Avg. days- 8.4


8/59


9/59

vi

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

49.3

3.0

25.9

21.8

Commercial

Rented own place

Staying with friends and relatives

Others

Importance - Satisfaction gaps in tourism infrastructure

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

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

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

Score assigned was If importance of the component considered was5 Most important

4 Very important


10/59

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 thefacility/component. Obviously, higher the percentage, higher will be importance of thefacility/component.

Ranks of ten tourist facilities reported as important by foreign and domestic tourists are shownbelow:

Ranking of facilities by their importance (percent tourists reporting score 4 or 5)

Foreign tourists Domestic touristsFacilitiesPercent 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 ofmonuments/tourist attraction 85.1 8 76.1 6

Other servicesPower supply situationTelephone/mobile services

90.290.290.2

7 82.284.679.9

2

Visa, immigration and customs 90.2 1 NA NAN.A: Not Applicable.

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 byboth 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 If satisfaction reported was

5 Excellent

4 Good

3 Average

2 Unsatisfactory

1 Poor

The indicator on satisfaction with the tourism facilities/components was taken as percent tourists


11/59

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 variousfacilities/components on importance and satisfaction matrix (Annexure-1: Tables F.1 and D.1). Thefollowing were the observations.

In the case of responses offoreign 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) wererelatively 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 non-

response.

In the case of importance of the facilities/components, there was hardly any response forcodes 1 or 2; less than 24 percent reported code 3 (not so important). Most of the responseswere 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/componentshave been taken up here:

1. Those components of the facility which show high importance but low satisfaction. Thatis, they fall in the higher importance and lower satisfaction quadrant of the X-Y axis (X-axis is importance axis and Y axis in satisfaction axis). This is indicator I1 in our

analysis. Larger the gap between importance and satisfaction, higher will be the priorityof the component within the fourth quadrant.

2. Ranking in the difference in percentages of importance (percent tourists reporting scores4 or 5) and satisfaction (percent tourists reporting scores 3, 4 or 5). Advantage of thisindicator is that all the facilities/components could be ranked; the Department of Tourismcan take up improvement in the facilities in a phased fashion; number of


12/59

ix

The analysis of I1 is shown in the chapter 4 of the report. As stated earlier, indicator I1 (fromTables 4F.1 and 4D.1) gives the components of the facilities in the fourth quadrant ofImportance-Satisfaction matrix (high importance-low satisfaction levels). These components forforeign and Indian tourists are shown in the table below in priority order (priority has been definedas higher the difference between index of importance and satisfaction, higher is the priority).

Foreign tourists Domestic tourists

Components in the fourth quadrant Components in the fourth quadrant

1. International connectivity of destination/circuit 1. Garbage disposal2. Condition of airport serving the destination/

circuit 2. Sewerage and drainage system

3. Garbage disposal3. Hygiene at wayside restaurants and

dhabas

4. Conditions of city roads 4. Traffic signals

5. Sewerage and drainage system 5. Availability of budget hotels

6. Quality of the roads 6. Traffic management

7. Quality of way side amenities available on thisroad

7. Public conveniences alongroads/streets

8. Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas 8. General cleanliness ofmonument/tourist attraction and areaaround it

9. Connectivity of the destination/ circuit withmajor Indian cities 9. General upkeep of the hotel rooms

10. General cleanliness of monument/tourist

attraction and area around it

10. Public utilities at the

monument/tourist attraction

11. Power supply situation 11. Availability of luxury hotels

12. Availability of luxury hotels

13. Behavior of the guides at themonument/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 areaaround it, and availability of hotels-budget for Indians and Luxury for foreigners, which arecommon for domestic and foreign tourists. Both groups of tourists report they are important andneed improvement. The foreigners have also pointed out the need for better connectivity of thedestination and need for availability of trained tourist guides.

R l f l i f i i f i b i di I2


13/59

x

One main difference which emerges in these rankings on indicator I2 is that the foreign touristsassign more importance to tourist site like general cleanliness there and the facilities around thesites. 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 guidesat the monument/tourist attraction.

Summary and recommendations

This chapter is presented in two parts. The first part gives profile of foreign and domestic touristsand the second part shows the gaps in facilities/components of the facilities between importanceand satisfaction.

Profile of foreign tourists

About 34.7 percent of the tourists interviewed had come to India for tourism purposes. Halfof them were younger ages of 26-45 years.

Twenty percent reported it as their first visit to India. Repeat visit to India by these touristsis 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 only9 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 18-35years.

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 orrelatives. 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


14/59

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 thedestination/circuit.

The foreign tourists had reported poor cleanliness in and around the tourist site. Since poorconditions around the site leave a bad impression about the site and the country, there isneed to improve them.

Infrastructure on the approach road to the tourist site is important but, presently, is not ingood shape and needs improvement. Included in this broad category are infrastructure likegarbage disposal, condition of city roads, quality of roads, sewerage and drainage system,quality of wayside amenities available on this road, hygienic conditions of therestaurants/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 bestuse of their visit.

Not much complaint was made about visa, immigration and custom services, perhapsbecause 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 ninedays to get visa.

Indian tourists

More gaps were reported by domestic tourist on garbage disposal, sewage and drainagesystem, and hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas.

They saw gaps in the traffic signals, availability of budget hotels for stay, trafficmanagement, and conveniences along roads/streets.

They were also concerned about general cleanliness of monuments/tourist attraction andarea around it, general upkeep of the hotels rooms, and public utilities at themonument/tourist attraction.

Though above-given is a list of gaps reported, we, in this report, have suggested (Tables 4F.2 and4D.2) need to prioritize all components of tourism infrastructure.


15/59

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Genesis

The Ministry of Tourism, Government of India, has decided to increase flow of tourists inIndia by (i) marketing tourism in India by their publicity campaign of Incredible India,and (ii) improving tourists facilities in the tourist destinations so as to make them moreattractive. The latter may even have greater role in increasing flow of tourists because theword of mouth spreads faster and has greater impact. Satisfied tourist will, generally, givegreater 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 inimportant tourist destinations in the country. They all relate to various aspects of tourismwith a goal of increasing volume of tourist traffic in India. One such area of study is tostrengthen infrastructure at the tourist destinations; it is important to identify the

infrastructure gaps in tourist locations so that suitable action is taken to provide adequateinfrastructure for attracting the tourists. One such study had identified need fordetermining infrastructure gaps in Nanded, in Maharashtra.

This report presents findings of the study on infrastructure gaps in Nanded, (inMaharashtra) tourist destination.

1.2 Objectives of the study

The objective of this study was to ascertain infrastructure gaps in Nanded, Maharashtratourists 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


16/59

3

CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION

2.1 Considerations in deciding the methodology

The following considerations were made in deciding the methodology:

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

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

Since foreign tourists also need to be covered in the study, months/seasons oftheir (foreigner tourists) visits were to be taken into account for deciding period ofcollection of data. (That is the reason for collection of data from this destination inDecember as most of the NRI Indians come to this place during Christmasseason).

Two visits were to be made to each of the tourist destination, one in the month ofAugust 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 importantof them need to be covered to get required sample size.

Sample of tourists should be a probability sample so as to be representativesample.

2.2 Approach to the study

The approach to this study is based on Importance-Satisfaction model. That is, the studywill, first, find out what infrastructure tourists consider as important and, then, assessthe level of satisfaction with the existing infrastructure at the tourist site. Differences inthe importance and the degree of satisfaction with the existing infrastructure becomesa gap, importance-Satisfaction gap; larger the gap in a particular facility/infrastructurefor tourists, higher is the priority to be given for improvement. This approach will be ableto assess gaps in the infrastructure which needs to be strengthened to make thedestination 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 touristsview 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


17/59

4

2.3 Study design

Study type

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

Sample size

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

Foreigntourists

Domestictourists

Totaltourists

Sl. No Touristdestination/circuit/location Suggested Actually

coveredSuggested

Actuallycovered

Suggested Actuallycovered

1. Nanded,

Maharashtra

250 51* 250 487 500 538

* Field survey teams had to be sent to the field three times to cover the required sample size of 250 foreigntourists. Still the required sample size could not be covered. It only suggests that the number of foreign touristsvisiting 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 touristspots in the tourist destination. This was done by (i) searching the websites of thedestination, (ii) making a quick visit to the tourist destination and forming our ownimpression during the first visit to the destination, (iii) talking to the officials of the TouristDepartment, and (iv) talking to the local tourist agencies.

The sample design of the study divided the sample of 250 domestic and 250 foreigntourists equally between different important tourist spots in the location. We decided toallocate equal numbers to all the important tourist spots at the destination, because thisstudy should be able to assess deficiencies in each of the important spots, besides general


18/59

5

Ten broad categories of facilities were:

Air connectivity Road connectivity Rail connectivity Civic administration Traffic and transport management Tourists facilities Taxes/permits Maintenance and management of monuments/tourist attractions Other services, and Visa, immigration and customs (for foreign tourists)

The tourists were asked about each facility/component of infrastructure to score it on thescale of 1 to 5, for both importance of infrastructure and that on the level ofsatisfaction as per their assessment of the facility/component (shown below).

Importance Satisfaction

Answer Score assigned Answer Score assignedLeast important 1 Poor 1

Somewhat important 2 Unsatisfactory 2

Not so important 3 Average 3

Very important 4 Good 4

Most important 5 Excellent 5

Besides these questions on Importance-Satisfaction, general background information ofthe 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 fieldinvestigators/supervisors were sent for the pre-test. Comments came on the format of thequestionnaire. 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 fieldstaff and as a handy tool for data collection. This manual was given to the teamsupervisors so that they could use it for better clarity, in case of need.

2.5 Field implementation of the study

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

Selection of the field teams


19/59

6

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

2.5.2 Training of field teams

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

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

In addition to the field teams of investigators and supervisors, one Field Executive at thestate 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 atthe randomly allocated time. He also scrutinized the questionnaires for completenessand consistency of the information.

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

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

Our researcher at the HQ scrutinized the work completed in the first week of 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. Oneperson, in the Data Processing Division at HQ had responsibility for such continuousscrutiny.

2.5.4 Data collection plan


20/59

7

2.5.5 Tabulation plan

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

2.5.6 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-housesenior staff of the Analysis Division. The data was fully validated before the tables wereframed. 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 anyinconsistency.

2.5.7 Tabulation and report writing

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

The draft report was prepared as per decided format by the professionals at GfK MODEand finalized by the Project Manager/Team Leader of the project. This report was sent tothe 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 reportwas prepared in the first week of February 2010.


21/59

9

CHAPTER - III

PROFILE OF TOURISTS

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

3.1 Profile of tourists in Nanded, Maharashtra

3.1.1 Foreign tourist


Table 3.1 gives the background characteristics of foreign tourists. Most of the touristswere of middle ages, 26-55 years. Only about 10 percent were in younger ages of 25years 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 cometo India repeatedly. Forty seven percent tourists reported that they had visited India forsocial interaction; 34.7 percent reported that their visit to India was only for tourism. Only12 percent had come to India for some other purposes and took opportunity to visit thetourist 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 3.9 USA 34.7

18 25 5.9 Canada 24.5

26 35 19.6 UK 14.3

36 45 31.4 Germany 6.1

46 55 31.4 France 6.1

Above 55 7.8 Italy 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


22/59

10

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

6.1

4.1 4.0

6.1

6.1

14.3

24.5

34.7

USA

Canada

UK

Germany

Italy

France

Australia

Others

Tourism related information on tourists

Table 3.2 reports some information on aspects related to tourism. About sixty sevenpercent were visiting the tourist site for the first time - 33 percent were making repeatvisit.

Most of them had entered India from Delhi (79.6%), Amritsar (10.2%) and Mumbai andHyderabad (8.2%).

Percent distribution of the tourists by number of days they took to get visa is shown intable below:

Number of days USA(n=17)

Canada(n=12)

Total(n=51)

< 3 days 17.6 16.7 21.6

3 7 days 23.5 25.0 19.6

8 14 days 35.3 16.7 17.6


23/59

11

Figure 3.2: Percentage distribution of foreign tourists by number of days taken

to get visa, Nanded, Maharashtra

17.6

16.7

21.6

23.5

25.0

19.6

35.3

16.7

17.6

23.5

41.7

41.2

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

USA

Canada

All

Percent

< 3 days 3-7 days 8-14 days > 15 days

Since Indian tourism offices are located in a few countries, the tourists from thesecountries were asked about their experiences with the tourist office. About 52.3 percentof the foreign tourists from the countries with tourism office reported to have known theIndian tourism office in their country.

(This percentage for Canada and USA were 50 and 47 respectively). But only 9 percentof them contacted the Indian tourism office.

Table 3.2: Percentage distribution of foreign tourists by information related totourism and awareness of office tourism, Nanded, Maharashtra

Information on Tourismrelated aspects

Percent Awareness of office oftourism

Percent

1. Visiting tourist site first time 66.7 3. Knows where tourismoffice in the countryexists (n=44)

52.3

2. Port of arrival 4. Contacted tourism

office for informationon tourism (n=23)

8.7

Delhi 79.6

Amritsar 10.2

Mumbai 4.1

Hyderabad 4.1

Avg. days- 9.1

Avg. days- 9.3

Avg. days- 8.4


24/59

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 fromPunjab (17.5%) [Figure 3.3].

Figure 3.3: Percentage distribution of domestic tourists by state ofresidence

66.1

17.5

16.4

Maharashtra

Punjab

Others

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.


25/59

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 totourism, Nanded, Maharashtra

Information related totourism

Percen Information related totourism

Percent

1. Visiting the site first time 48.0 4. It is part of trip toother tourist places 52.4

2. Mode of travel to reachthe destination

5. Came in organizedtour 3.9

Bus 30.46. Whether came alone,

friends or relatives

Train 46.0 Alone 7.6

Personal car 16.4 With friends 42.3

Any two-wheeler 4.7 With family members 50.1

Others 1.4 7. No. of days of stay

3. Source of information onthe tourist destination One day 34.5

Travel agent 1.8 More than one day 58.1

Friends/relative 83.4 Uncertain 6.6

Personal effort in tourism 12.1 Not mentioned 0.8

Others 2.7Total number of Indian tourists = 487

The tourists in Nanded, Maharashtra were asked about their stay arrangements at thevenue. About half of them were staying in some commercial place, another onefourthof them were staying with their friends / relatives, and 21.8 percent had hired a place onrent (Figure 3.4).

Figure 3.4: Percentage distribution of domestic tourists by place of stay at

tourist destination

3.0


26/59

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 ofimportance they assign to different facilities/components of the facility at the touristdestination. They were also asked to assign score to the existing current level ofsatisfaction with the facility/component. (Questions on different components of tourism

infrastructure have been grouped into ten broad facilities with two or more componentswithin each facility. They can be seen in the questionnaire attached in Annexure-2). Thischapter discusses the degree of gaps which currently exist between the importance-satisfaction scale of different facilities/ components. That is, this chapter attempts toidentify facilities/components which are considered important by the tourists but theirpresent situation is not satisfactory. The idea is that the facilities/components whichhave large gaps betweenimportance and satisfactionneeds to be identified sothat by improving them, satisfaction of the tourist could be increased to make their visitmore satisfying. This will help to encourage tourism in the monument/tourist site as

satisfied visitors may recommend this tourist site to other tourists. This process willimprove 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 thetourist facility. Scores to be assigned were as follows:

Score assigned was If importance of the component considered was5 Most important

4 Very important

3 Not so important

2 Somewhat important

1 Least important

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

assigned to each facility/component.

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

to the tourist facility2 .

Such scores were computed for all the components within the facility; they are shown for

16


27/59

16

Scores Percent touristsreporting score as 4(very important) or5 (most important)

Sl.No

Facility

Mean Ranking Percent Ranking

1 Air connectivity 4.7 1 95.4 1

2 Road connectivity 4.5 3 93.1 2

3 Rail connectivity 4.3 6 79.1 10

4 Civic administration 4.3 7 87.9 5

5 Traffic and transport managemen 4.1 10 79.4 9

6 Tourists facilities 4.3 8 84.5 7

7 Taxes/permits 4.2 9 79.7 8

8 Maintenance and management ofmonuments/tourist attractions

4.4 4 85.1 6

9 Other services 4.4 5 90.2 4

10 Visa, immigration and customs 4.7 2 90.2 3

The ranking of the facilities (or their components) were relatively similar on both these scoreindicators. Therefore, percent tourists reporting scores 4 (very important) or 5 (mostimportant) has been taken as an indicator of score of importance tourists assign to afacility/component for our further analysis3 of importance tourists assign to afacility/component. Obviously, higher the percentage, higher will be importance touristsassign 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)Foreign tourists Domestic touristsFacilities

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 ofmonuments/tourist attraction 85.1 6 76.1 6

Other services (Power supply andTelephone/mobile services) 90.2 4 82.2 2

Visa immigration and customs 90 2 3 NA NA

17


28/59

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 thefacility, the tourists were asked to score according to the following five point scale:

Score assigned was If satisfaction reported was

5 Excellent

4 Good

3 Average

2 Unsatisfactory1 Poor

In the case of this scale, one could think of an indicator percent tourist reportingsatisfaction (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 (score4), or even average (score 3).

In order to decide the choice of an indicator from these two possible indicators, somestatistical analysis was done4; it was found that there is very high correlation when thefacilities/components were ranked by both these indicators. In addition, it was also noticedthat a small percentage of respondents had scored 5 (excellent) on satisfaction to anyfacility; 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 sayingthat the existing level of component/infrastructure was average means that the tourist isnot dissatisfied with the existing level of infrastructure. With limited resources, India needsto 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 andD.1). The following were the observations.

In the case of responses offoreign tourists, the following are the observations:

Almost every body reported on all the facilities/components; there was no non-response

18


29/59

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 wasno non-response.

In the case of importance of the facilities/components, there was hardly anyresponse 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 reportedcoded 3 (average), or coded 2 (unsatisfactory). Very small percentages had reportedscores 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 andsatisfaction with the facilities/components clearly shows that quite a large number offacilities/components have higher indicator values on importance and lower scores onsatisfaction. That is, overall there is need to improve the tourism infrastructure.

But we have to assign priorities to those facilities whose importance is high andsatisfaction 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 onimportance (higher than median value of importance) but low on satisfaction(lower than median value of satisfaction). That is, they fall in the higher importanceand lower satisfaction quadrant of the X-Y axis as shown in the figure below (Thiswe call Indicator I1):

Satisfac

tion

y

Medianvalueofsatisfaction

High Importance(Higher than median)Low Satisfaction(Lower than median)

19


30/59

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 highersatisfaction or lower importance and lower satisfaction. Since our interest is to findthose facilities which have high score on importance and low on satisfaction; we willnot be interested in those facilities/components which have low importance.Therefore, drawback of the indicator (stated above) does not affect ourinterpretation.

Though identification of the components of infrastructure which fall in the fourth quadrantis 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 ofranking all the components of facilities according to their gap (between importance andsatisfaction levels). Advantage of indicator I2 is that all the facilities/components could beranked; the Department of Tourism can take up improvement in a phased fashion.

Therefore, we propose to identify importance-satisfaction gaps by using both theseindicators.

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 (forforeigners on indicator I2) and Table 4D.1 (for domestic tourists on indicator I1) and Table4D.2 (for domestic tourists on indicator I2), give indicator values for two indicators. Asstated earlier, indicator I1 (from Tables 4F.1 and 4D.1) gives the components of thefacilities in the fourth quadrant of Importance-Satisfaction matrix (high importance-lowsatisfaction levels). These components for foreign and Indian tourists are shown in thetable 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 Domestic tourists

Components in the fourth quadrant Components in the fourth quadrant

1. International connectivity of destination 1. Garbage disposal

2. Condition of airport serving the destination/circuit 2. Sewerage and drainage system

3. Garbage disposal3. Hygiene at wayside restaurants and

dhabas

4. Conditions of city roads 4. Traffic signals5. Sewerage and drainage system 5. Availability of budget hotels6. Quality of the roads 6. Traffic management

7. Quality of way side amenities available on thisroad 7. Public conveniences along roads/streets

8. Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas 8. General cleanliness of monument/tourist

20


31/59

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN NANDED, MAHARASHTRA JUNE , 2010

20

Figure 4.1: Percent of foreign tourists reported important and satisfaction level- Nanded, Maharashtra

50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

WW

WW

W

W

W

W

W

WW

W

W

WW

W

W

W

W

W

WW

WW

W

W

W

W

13

5

12

3

7

8

11

4

10

2

6

9

Medianvalue

ofsatisfaction(74.5

)

Median value of importance (84.4)

% reporting importance

W14

W1

1. International connectivity of destination/circuit2. Condition of airport serving the destination/ circuit

3.

Garbage disposal4. Conditions of city roads5. Sewerage and drainage system6. Quality of the roads7. Quality of way side amenities available on this road8. Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas9. Connectivity of the destination/ circuit with major

Indian cities10.General cleanliness of monument/tourist attraction

and area around it

11.Power supply situation12.Availability of luxury hotels

13.Behavior of the guides at the monument/touristattraction

14.Availability of trained tourist guides

Note: These numbers have been given according to theirpriority (high to low). This priority has been decided on the

basis of differences in the indicator values of Importanceand Satisfaction (Importance Satisfaction = Gap).

%r

eportingsatisfaction

21


32/59


21

50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

WW

W

WW

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

WWW

WW

WW

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

WW

W

WW

W

4

11

9

7

10

2

8

6 3

5

1

Medianvalueofsatisfaction

69.1

Median value of importance (77.4)

% reporting importance

%r

eportingsatisfaction

Figure 4.2: Percent of domestic tourists reported important and satisfaction level- Nanded, Maharashtra

1. Garbage disposal2. Sewerage and drainage system3. Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas

4. Traffic signals5. Availability of budget hotels6. Traffic management7. Public conveniences along roads/streets8. General cleanliness of monument/tourist attraction

and area around it9. General upkeep of the hotel rooms10.Public utilities at the monument/tourist attraction11.Availability of luxury hotels

: These numbers have been given according to their priority

(high to low). This priority has been decided on the basisof differences in the indicator values of Importance andSatisfaction (Importance Satisfaction = Gap).

22


33/59

There are six components, namely, Garbage disposal, Sewerage and drainage system,Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas,, General cleanliness of monument/touristattraction and area around it, and availability of hotels-budget for Indians and Luxury forforeigners, which are common for domestic and foreign tourists. Both groups of touristsreport they are important and need improvement. The foreigners have also pointed outthe need for better connectivity of the destination and need for availability of trainedtourist 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-satisfactionlevels for all the facilities/components. This forms our defined indicator I2. Since all thefacilities / components have been ranked, infrastructure improvement could be taken in aphased 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 andbetter facilities at the airports.

It may be noted that Ministry/Department of tourism can initiate several actions, on theirown, to fill the gap reported at the tourist sites.

23


34/59

Table 4F.1: Percent foreign tourists reported facility as important (very important ormost important) and currently satisfactory (average, good and excellent) in Nanded,

MaharashtraImportance level (very

important or mostimportant)

Satisfaction level(average, good or

excellent)Component of facility Percent

reportedRank

(lowest tohighest )

Percentreported

Rank(lowest tohighest)

215 Conditions of signages 62.7 1 68.6 12

219a Behavior of the taxi drivers 74.5 2 74.5 24

234 Levels of road/transport taxes on vehicles(tax rates) 74.5 3 78.5 31

238 Conditions of signages within the monument/tourist attraction 76.5 4 70.7 17

208 Behavior of the porters at the railway station 76.5 5 72.5 19

222 Availability of authorized tour operators 76.5 6 74.5 25

221 Availability of A/C tourist coaches 76.5 7 78.5 32

216 Traffic signals 78.4 8 56.9 4

207 Condition of railway station serving thedestination/ circuit 78.4 9 60.7 5

224 Availability of budget hotels 78.4 10 86.3 44

219 Availability of metered taxi 80.4 11 64.8 9

214 Conditions of street lighting 80.4 12 70.6 16

235 Administration of the road taxes on (barriers,delays, harassments etc) 80.4 13 78.4 29

220a Behavior of the drivers of other commercialtransportations 82.3 14 66.6 10

228 Behavior of service staff at the hotel 82.3 15 84.4 43

245 Promptness at the ticketing window of themonument/tourist attraction 82.3 16 86.3 45

217 Traffic management 82.4 17 62.8 8

206 Rail connectivity of destination/ circuit withmajor Indian cities 82.4 18 68.5 11

240 Availability of tourist guidance/receptioncenters 82.4 19 74.5 26

218 Availability of mass transit system 82.4 20 78.5 33

251 General ambience of the immigration zone 84.0 21 92.0 52

209 Public conveniences along roads/streets 84.3 22 70.7 18233 Levels of luxury taxes ( tax rates) 84.3 23 82.4 39

230 General upkeep of the hotel rooms 84.3 24 84.3 42

229 Tariff structure of the hotel rooms 84.3 25 92.1 54

244 Illumination of monuments 84.3 26 94.1 55

241 Availability of trained tourist guides 84.4 27 72.5 20

242 Behavior of the guides at the

24


35/59

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 (veryimportant or most

important)



reportedRank

(lowest tohighest )

Percentreported


239 Parking facility at the monument/tourist

attraction 86.3 30 82.3 38227 Quality of help provided by the reception

office 86.3 31 90.2 51

210 Sewerage and drainage system 88.2 32 60.7 6

223 Availability of luxury hotels 88.2 33 72.6 22

237 Public utilities at the monument/touristattraction 88.3 34 78.4 30

211 Garbage disposal 90.2 35 51.0 2

205 Quality of way side amenities available onthis road 90.2 36 68.6 13

231 Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas 90.2 37 68.6 14246 Power supply situation 90.2 38 74.5 27

243 Conservation of heritage sites/ monuments 90.2 39 82.4 40

225 Behavior of the officials available at touristreception office 90.2 40 86.3 46

226 Level of knowledge of officials at thereception office 90.2 41 86.3 47

247 Telephone/mobile services 90.2 42 88.3 50

250 Behavior of the immigration official at the

port of arrival in India 92.0 43 80.0 34252 Promptness of custom checking procedureat the port of arrival in India 92.0 44 92.0 53

212 Conditions of city roads 92.1 45 60.8 7

236 General cleanliness of monument/touristattraction and area around it 92.1 46 74.4 23

220 Availability of other commercialtransportations 92.2 47 80.4 35

213 Drinking Water supply 92.2 48 80.5 36

248 Promptness in getting Indian visa 94.0 49 87.6 48

249 Promptness in the Immigration procedureat the port of arrival in India 94.0 50 87.7 49

202 International connectivity of destination/circuit 94.1 51 29.5 1

203 Condition of airport serving the destination/circuit 96.0 52 52.9 3

253 Behavior of the custom officials at the port

25


36/59

Table 4F.2: Percent foreign tourists reported facility as important (very important or mostimportant), currently satisfactory (average, good and excellent), and difference in percentages

in Nanded, Maharashtra


important)

Satisfactionlevel (average,

good orexcellent)

Difference in percentages

Component of facility Percentreported

Rank (highestto lowest)

Percentreported

Difference or0 if

difference isnegative

Rank(highest to

lowest)

202 International connectivity of

destination/ circuit 94.1 5 29.5 64.6 1203 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 amenitiesavailable 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 8201 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 stationserving the destination/ circuit 78.4 47 60.7 17.7 12

236 General cleanliness ofmonument/tourist attractionand 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 othercommercial transportations 82.3 40 66.6 15.7 15

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 alongroads/streets 84.3 30 70.7 13.6 19

253 Behavior of the custom officialsat the port of arrival in India 96.0 4 84.0 12.0 20

250 Behavior of the immigrationofficial at the port of arrival inIndia 92.0 12 80.0 12.0 21

241 Availability of trained touristguides 84 4 28 72 5 11 9 22

26


37/59

Table 4F.2: Percent foreign tourists reported facility as important (very important ormost important), currently satisfactory (average, good and excellent), and difference

in percentages in Nanded, Maharashtra (contd)Importance level (very

important or mostimportant)

Satisfactionlevel

(Average,good or

excellent)

Difference inpercentages

Component of facility

Percentreported

Rank (Highestto lowest)

Percentreported

Differenceor 0 if

differenceis negative

Rank(Highest to

lowest)

240 Availability of tourist guidance/receptioncenters 82.4 38 74.5 7.9 28

243 Conservation of heritage sites/monuments 90.2 18 82.4 7.8 29

248 Promptness in getting Indian visa 94.0 6 87.6 6.4 30249 Promptness in the Immigration

procedure at the port of arrival in India 94.0 7 87.7 6.3 31

238 Conditions of signages within the

monument/ tourist attraction 76.5 49 70.7 5.8 32232 Behaviour of service personnel at

wayside restaurants and dhabas 86.3 25 82.3 4.0 33

239 Parking facility at the monument/touristattraction 86.3 26 82.3 4.0 34

208 Behavior of the porters at the railwaystation 76.5 50 72.5 4.0 35

225 Behavior of the officials available attourist reception office 90.2 19 86.3 3.9 36

226 Level of knowledge of officials at thereception office 90.2 20 86.3 3.9 37

218 Availability of mass transit system 82.4 39 78.5 3.9 38235 Administration of the road taxes on

(barriers, delays, harassments etc) 80.4 45 78.4 2.0 39222 Availability of authorized tour operators 76.5 51 74.5 2.0 40

247 Telephone/mobile services 90.2 21 88.3 1.9 41233 Levels of luxury taxes ( tax rates) 84.3 31 82.4 1.9 42

252 Promptness of custom checkingprocedure at the port of arrival in India 92.0 13 92.0 0.0 43

230 General upkeep of the hotel rooms 84.3 32 84.3 0.0 44219a Behavior of the taxi drivers 74.5 53 74.5 0.0 45

221 Availability of A/C tourist coaches 76.5 52 78.5 0.0 46228 Behavior of service staff at the hotel 82.3 41 84.4 0.0 47

227 Quality of help provided by the receptionoffice 86.3 27 90.2 0.0 48

245 Promptness at the ticketing window of

27


38/59

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


important)



reportedRank

(lowest tohighest)

Percentreported

Rank(lowest

tohighest)

215 Conditions of signages 66.6 1 68.8 24

238 Conditions of signages within the monument/tourist attraction 67.1 2 67.6 21

208 Behavior of the porters at the railway station 67.3 3 80.8 43

219 Availability of metered taxi 67.4 4 57.1 4

234 Levels of road/transport taxes on vehicles (taxrates) 67.4 5 64.3 12

235 Administration of the road taxes on (barriers,delays, harassments etc) 67.5 6 63.7 11

202 International connectivity of destination/ circuit 67.6 7 95.7 47

220a Behavior of the drivers of other commercialtransportations 68.8 8 74.1 34

222 Availability of authorized tour operators 69.0 9 62.4 7

220 Availability of other commercial transportations 69.0 10 77.2 36

221 Availability of A/C tourist coaches 69.2 11 61.2 5

218 Availability of mass transit system 69.2 12 66.3 15

219a Behavior of the taxi drivers 69.2 13 70.9 28

233 Levels of luxury taxes ( tax rates) 70.9 14 68.7 23

240 Availability of tourist guidance/reception centers 71.3 15 63.1 10

241 Availability of trained tourist guides 71.7 16 65.9 13

242 Behavior of the guides at the monument/touristattraction 72.8 17 65.9 14

229 Tariff structure of the hotel rooms 74.1 18 66.7 19

245 Promptness at the ticketing window of themonument/tourist attraction 74.5 19 71.0 29

214 Conditions of street lighting 76.0 20 69.6 26

228 Behavior of service staff at the hotel 76.0 21 71.1 30

239 Parking facility at the monument/tourist attraction 76.8 22 70.0 27

203 Condition of airport serving the destination/ circuit 76.8 23 96.9 49

212 Conditions of city roads 77.2 24 67.0 20

216 Traffic signals 77.4 25 55.9 3

223 Availability of luxury hotels 77.6 26 69.1 25

230 General upkeep of the hotel rooms 78.3 27 66.3 16

209 Public conveniences along roads/streets 78.6 28 62.8 9

237 Public utilities at the monument/tourist attraction 78.6 29 68.0 22

210 Sewerage and drainage system 78 7 30 54 0 1

28


39/59

Table 4D.1: Percent domestic tourists reported facility as important (very important ormost important) and currently satisfactory (average, good and excellent) in Nanded,Maharashtra (contd)


important)

Satisfaction level(average, good orexcellent)

Component of facility Percentreported


Percentreported


226 Level of knowledge of officials at the reception

office 79.7 34 78.4 39232 Behaviour of service personnel at wayside

restaurants and dhabas 79.9 35 71.9 32

247 Telephone/mobile services 79.9 36 77.6 38

205 Quality of way side amenities available on this road 80.7 37 80.5 42

207 Condition of railway station serving the destination/circuit 80.7 38 86.0 46

227 Quality of help provided by the reception office 81.5 39 76.6 35

231 Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas 83.6 40 61.8 6

243 Conservation of heritage sites/ monuments 83.6 41 77.6 37224 Availability of budget hotels 83.8 42 66.6 18

211 Garbage disposal 84.0 43 55.6 2

213 Drinking Water supply 84.6 44 71.8 31

246 Power supply situation 84.6 45 73.3 33

225 Behavior of the officials available at touristreception office 84.8 46 81.7 44

204 Quality of the roads 85.0 47 79.6 41

244 Illumination of monuments 85.3 48 78.5 40

206 Rail connectivity of destination/ circuit with major

Indian cities 86.7 49 84.4 45Note 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 indicatorimportance) and less than 69.1 (median value of the indicator of satisfaction) fall in the fourth quadrant ofX Y Axis. This is our indicator I1.

29


40/59

Table 4D.2: Percent domestic tourists reported facility as important (very important ormost important), currently satisfactory (average, good and excellent), and difference inpercentages in Nanded, Maharashtra

Importance level(very important ormost important)

Satisfactionlevel

(average,good or

excellent)



Percentreported

Rank(highest

to lowest)

Percentreported

Differenceor 0 if


Rank(highest to

lowest)

211 Garbage disposal 84.0 7 55.6 28.4 1

210 Sewerage and drainage system 78.7 20 54.0 24.7 2

231 Hygiene at wayside restaurantsand dhabas 83.6 9 61.8 21.8 3

216 Traffic signals 77.4 25 55.9 21.5 4

224 Availability of budget hotels 83.8 8 66.6 17.2 5

217 Traffic management 79.2 18 62.7 16.5 6

209 Public conveniences alongroads/streets 78.6 21 62.8 15.8 7

213 Drinking Water supply 84.6 5 71.8 12.8 8

236 General cleanliness ofmonument/tourist attraction andarea around it 78.9 19 66.5 12.4 9

230 General upkeep of the hotel rooms 78.3 23 66.3 12.0 10

246 Power supply situation 84.6 6 73.3 11.3 11

237 Public utilities at themonument/tourist attraction 78.6 22 68.0 10.6 12

219 Availability of metered taxi 67.4 45 57.1 10.3 13212 Conditions of city roads 77.2 26 67.0 10.2 14

223 Availability of luxury hotels 77.6 24 69.1 8.5 15

240 Availability of touristguidance/reception centers 71.3 35 63.1 8.2 16

232 Behaviour of service personnel atwayside restaurants and dhabas 79.9 14 71.9 8.0 17

221 Availability of A/C tourist coaches 69.2 37 61.2 8.0 18

229 Tariff structure of the hotel rooms 74.1 32 66.7 7.4 19

242 Behavior of the guides at themonument/tourist attraction 72.8 33 65.9 6.9 20

244 Illumination of monuments 85.3 2 78.5 6.8 21

239 Parking facility at themonument/tourist attraction 76.8 27 70.0 6.8 22

222 Availability of authorized touroperators 69.0 40 62.4 6.6 23

30


41/59

Table 4D.2: Percent domestic tourists reported facility as important (very important ormost important), currently satisfactory (average, good and excellent), and difference inpercentages in Nanded, Maharashtra (condt)


important)

Satisfactionlevel

(average,good or

excellent)



Percentreported

Rank(highest to

lowest)

Percentreported

Differenceor 0 if


Rank(highest to

lowest)

227 Quality of help provided by thereception office 81.5 11 76.6 4.9 28

228 Behavior of service staff at thehotel 76.0 30 71.1 4.9 29

235 Administration of the road taxeson (barriers, delays,harassments etc) 67.5 44 63.7 3.8 30

245 Promptness at the ticketingwindow of the monument/touristattraction 74.5 31 71.0 3.5 31

234 Levels of road/transport taxes onvehicles (tax rates) 67.4 46 64.3 3.1 32

225 Behavior of the officials availableat tourist reception office 84.8 4 81.7 3.1 33

218 Availability of mass transitsystem 69.2 38 66.3 2.9 34

247 Telephone/mobile services 79.9 15 77.6 2.3 35

206 Rail connectivity of destination/circuit with major Indian cities 86.7 1 84.4 2.3 36

233 Levels of luxury taxes ( tax rates) 70.9 36 68.7 2.2 37

226 Level of knowledge of officials atthe reception office 79.7 16 78.4 1.3 38

205 Quality of way side amenitiesavailable on this road 80.7 12 80.5 0.2 39

238 Conditions of signages within themonument/ tourist attraction 67.1 48 67.6 0.0 40

219a Behavior of the taxi drivers 69.2 39 70.9 0.0 41

215 Conditions of signages 66.6 49 68.8 0.0 42207 Condition of railway station

serving the destination/ circuit 80.7 13 86.0 0.0 43

220a Behavior of the drivers of othercommercial transportations 68.8 42 74.1 0.0 44

220 Availability of other commercial

31


42/59

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STRENGTHENING TOURISTINFRASTRUCTURE

This chapter is presented in two parts. The first part gives profile of foreign and domestictourists and the second part shows the gaps in facilities/components of the facilitiesbetween importance and satisfaction.

Profile of foreign tourists

About 34.7 percent of the tourists interviewed had come to India for tourismpurposes. 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 thesetourists 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 tourismoffice in their country. (This percentage for Canada and USA were 50 and 47respectively). But only 9 percent of them contacted the Indian tourism office for anyinformation.

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 withfriends or relatives.

Only 5 percent came with organized tour. There is a need to encourage tour operatorsto 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.

32


43/59

Matrix of Importance-Satisfaction Gap

Foreign tourists

More gap was reported in international connectivity and condition of airport servingthe destination/circuit.

The foreign tourists had reported poor cleanliness in and around the tourist site. Sincepoor 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 areinfrastructure like garbage disposal, condition of city roads, quality of roads, sewerageand drainage system, quality of wayside amenities available on this road, hygienicconditions of the restaurants/dhabas, and power situation.

They also reported gap in the connection of the destination circuit with major Indiancities.

The foreign tourists were concerned about the behaviour of the guides at the

monument/tourist attraction and availability of trained tourist guides so that theymake best use of their visit.

Not much complaint was made about visa, immigration and custom services, perhapsbecause these experiences were in past and time is the best healer. But they allpointed out need to streamline this system of visa and customs procedures. It tookthem almost nine days to get visa.

Indian tourists

More gaps were reported by domestic tourist on garbage disposal, sewage anddrainage system, and hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas.

They saw gaps in the traffic signals, availability of budget hotels for stay, trafficmanagement, and conveniences along roads/streets.

They were also concerned about general cleanliness of monuments/tourist attractionand area around it, general upkeep of the hotels rooms, and public utilities at themonument/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 benoticed that actions of the Ministry of Tourism can itself help in improving the volume oftourism as it will make their visits more satisfying and a happy experience.

33


44/59

Annexure: 1

Tables on distribution of scores

35


45/59


Table F.1: Percent distribution of foreign tourists by scores on importance and satisfaction according to facility, Nanded, Maharashtra


Component of facility Leastimportant (1)

Somewhatimportant

(2)

Not soimportant

(3)

Veryimportant

(4)

Mostimportant

(5)

Poor(1)

Unsatisfactory(2)

Average(3)

Good(4)

Excellent(5)

201 Connectivity of the destination/ circuit with majorIndian cities 0.0 0.0 3.9 19.6 76.5 2.0 23.5 39.2 33.3 2.0

202 International connectivity of destination/ circuit 0.0 0.0 5.9 13.7 80.4 47.1 23.5 11.8 11.8 5.9

203 Condition of airport serving the destination/

circuit 0.0 0.0 3.9 23.5 72.5 9.8 37.3 35.3 13.7 3.9

204 Quality of the roads 0.0 0.0 3.9 39.2 56.9 0.0 31.4 37.3 29.4 2.0

205 Quality of way side amenities available on thisroad 0.0 3.9 5.9 35.3 54.9 3.9 27.5 41.2 23.5 3.9

206 Rail connectivity of destination/ circuit with majorIndian cities 0.0 3.9 13.7 25.5 56.9 3.9 27.5 52.9 7.8 7.8

207 Condition of railway station serving the

destination/ circuit 0.0 3.9 17.6 23.5 54.9 5.9 33.3 33.3 19.6 7.8

208 Behavior of the porters at the railway station 0.0 3.9 19.6 21.6 54.9 5.9 21.6 51.0 13.7 7.8

209 Public conveniences along roads/streets 2.0 5.9 7.8 33.3 51.0 3.9 25.5 31.4 27.5 11.8

210 Sewerage and drainage system 2.0 2.0 7.8 33.3 54.9 3.9 35.3 29.4 17.6 13.7

211 Garbage disposal 2.0 0.0 7.8 35.3 54.9 19.6 29.4 21.6 19.6 9.8

212 Conditions of city roads 0.0 2.0 5.9 39.2 52.9 2.0 37.3 29.4 21.6 9.8

213 Drinking Water supply 0.0 0.0 7.8 45.1 47.1 3.9 15.7 37.3 31.4 11.8

214 Conditions of street lighting 0.0 3.9 15.7 41.2 39.2 7.8 21.6 19.6 27.5 23.5

215 Conditions of signages 0.0 17.6 19.6 33.3 29.4 9.8 21.6 35.3 19.6 13.7

216 Traffic signals 2.0 5.9 13.7 45.1 33.3 9.8 33.3 23.5 27.5 5.9

217 Traffic management 0.0 0.0 17.6 31.4 51.0 19.6 17.6 27.5 25.5 9.8

36


46/59


Table F.1: Percent distribution of foreign tourists by scores on importance and satisfaction according to facility, Nanded, Maharashtra (contd)


Component of facility Least

important(1)

Somewhat

important(2)

Not so

important(3)

Very

important(4)

Most

important(5)

Poor

(1)

Unsatisfactory

(2)

Average

(3)

Good

(4)

Excellent

(5)

218 Availabil ity of mass transit system 0.0 5.9 11.8 47.1 35.3 3.9 17.6 27.5 35.3 15.7

219 Availabil ity of metered taxi 2.0 3.9 13.7 33.3 47.1 11.8 23.5 25.5 27.5 11.8

219a Behavior of the taxi drivers 3.9 2.0 19.6 35.3 39.2 3.9 21.6 37.3 17.6 19.6

220 Availabil ity of other commercial transportations 0.0 3.9 3.9 45.1 47.1 2.0 17.6 31.4 33.3 15.7

220a Behavior of the drivers of other commercialtransportations 0.0 3.9 13.7 49.0 33.3 3.9 29.4 29.4 19.6 17.6

221 Availabil ity of A/C tourist coaches 0.0 9.8 13.7 35.3 41.2 3.9 17.6 39.2 27.5 11.8

222 Availabil ity of authorized tour operators 0.0 7.8 15.7 35.3 41.2 5.9 19.6 21.6 33.3 19.6

223 Availabil ity of luxury hotels 2.0 3.9 5.9 45.1 43.1 5.9 21.6 25.5 27.5 19.6

224 Availabil ity of budget hotels 0.0 7.8 13.7 33.3 45.1 0.0 13.7 35.3 37.3 13.7

225 Behavior of the officials available at tourist reception

office 0.0 0.0 9.8 29.4 60.8 2.0 11.8 35.3 19.6 31.4

226 Level of knowledge of officials at the reception office 0.0 0.0 9.8 15.7 74.5 2.0 11.8 33.3 27.5 25.5

227 Quality of help provided by the reception office 2.0 9.8 2.0 21.6 64.7 0.0 9.8 39.2 31.4 19.6

228 Behavior of service staff at the hotel 0.0 11.8 5.9 19.6 62.7 0.0 15.7 37.3 27.5 19.6

229 Tariff structure of the hotel rooms 2.0 2.0 11.8 21.6 62.7 0.0 7.8 39.2 29.4 23.5

230 General upkeep of the hotel rooms 0.0 2.0 13.7 31.4 52.9 2.0 13.7 33.3 27.5 23.5

231 Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas 0.0 2.0 7.8 29.4 60.8 9.8 21.6 35.3 19.6 13.7

232 Behaviour of service personnel at wayside restaurants

and dhabas 2.0 3.9 7.8 35.3 51.0 5.9 11.8 43.1 23.5 15.7


47/59


48/59

39


49/59


Table D.1: Percent distribution of domestic tourists by scores on importance and satisfaction according to facility, Nanded, Maharashtra (contd)


Component of facility Leastimportant

(1)

Somewhatimportant

(2)

Not soimportant

(3)

Veryimportant

(4)

Mostimportant

(5)

Poor(1)

Unsatisfactory (2)

Average(3)

Good(4)

Excellent (5)

216 Traffic signals 0.6 7.0 15.0 52.6 24.8 12.3 31.8 30.8 18.9 6.2

217 Traffic management 0.2 4.5 16.0 40.0 39.2 16.0 21.4 35.1 21.6 6.0

218 Availabil ity of mass transit system 0.6 6.2 24.0 47.2 22.0 10.5 23.2 42.5 20.1 3.7

219 Availabil ity of metered taxi 5.5 7.2 19.9 34.5 32.9 17.9 25.1 45.6 9.7 1.8

219a Behavior of the taxi drivers 2.9 9.0 18.9 46.4 22.8 7.2 22.0 45.4 21.4 4.1

220 Availabil ity of other commercial transportations 1.2 8.0 21.8 42.9 26.1 6.8 16.0 51.3 19.3 6.6

220a Behavior of the drivers of other commercialtransportations 2.1 6.6 22.6 49.5 19.3 5.7 20.1 45.2 23.2 5.7

221 Availabil ity of A/C tourist coaches 3.5 9.2 18.1 43.9 25.3 13.8 25.1 50.3 7.0 3.9

222 Availabil ity of authorized tour operators 1.6 8.0 21.4 43.1 25.9 11.7 25.9 36.8 20.3 5.3

223 Availabil ity of luxury hotels 1.0 5.1 16.2 48.0 29.6 12.5 18.5 33.9 25.5 9.7

224 Availabil ity of budget hotels 1.0 4.1 11.1 37.8 46.0 10.3 23.2 25.1 20.1 21.4

225 Behavior of the officials available at tourist reception

office 1.2 4.1 9.9 47.6 37.2 3.5 14.8 37.4 32.6 11.7

226 Level of knowledge of officials at the reception office 0.6 4.3 15.4 53.8 25.9 5.7 15.8 40.2 29.2 9.0

227 Quality of help provided by the reception office 0.4 4.7 13.3 42.9 38.6 7.8 15.6 36.6 26.9 13.1

228 Behavior of service staff at the hotel 2.7 4.7 16.6 53.8 22.2 7.6 21.4 32.9 30.2 8.0

229 Tariff structure of the hotel rooms 2.3 6.2 17.5 39.6 34.5 8.6 24.6 35.7 21.1 9.9

230 General upkeep of the hotel rooms 1.4 6.2 14.2 52.6 25.7 11.5 22.2 31.8 25.3 9.2

231 Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas 0.8 2.5 13.1 40.7 42.9 13.3 24.8 28.1 22.0 11.7

40


50/59


Table D.1: Percent distribution of domestic tourists by scores on importance and satisfaction according to facility, Nanded, Maharashtra (contd)Importance Satisfaction

Component of facility Leastimportant (1)

Somewhatimportant

(2)

Not soimportant

04 report nanded f

Documents