03 Report Badami F

Incredible !
ndia 1
Government of India Ministry of Tourism (Market Research Division)
Report on
Infrastructure Gaps in Tourism Sector in Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka
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 BADAMI-PATTADAKAL-AIHOLE, KARNATAKA
JUNE, 2010
Acknowledgements
The study on Infrastructure Gaps in Tourism Sector in Badami Pattadakal Aihole, Karnataka, 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 K. Jothiramalingam , Principal Secretary (Tourism) , Govt. of Karnataka, for facilitating the data collection and providing all supports needed by our field teams. Last but not the least, credit goes to 117 foreign tourists and 416 domestic tourists who spent their time and responded to the questions with tremendous patience.
GfK MODE Pvt. Ltd. June, 2010
JUNE, 2010
CONTENTS Page No. Acknowledgements EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.I-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 TOURISTS........................................................................... 9 3.1 Profile of tourists in Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka ................................................ 9 3.1.1 Foreign tourist .................................................................................................... 9 3.1.2 Domestic tourist.................................................................................................12 CHAPTER IV: IMPORTANCE-SATISFACTION GAPS IN TOURISM INFRASTRUCTURE .. 15 4.1 Choice of indicator of importance tourists assign to different facilities/ components of the facility........................................................................................................................15 4.2 Ranking of 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 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 scores................................................................ 33 Annexure: 2: Questionnaire ........................................................................................... 43
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 Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka to identify such gaps. Objectives The objective of this study was to ascertain infrastructure gaps in Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka so that these gaps can be filled and volume of tourists can be increased. Data for this study was collected in the months of September-October, 2009. 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 sites tourists consider as important and then assess the level of satisfaction with the existing infrastructure at the tourist sites. 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. A sample of 500 tourists, 250 Indians and 250 foreigners, was to be taken for the study. But only 117 foreign tourists could be covered even with about three visits to the site. A number of 416 Indian tourists was also covered. All the important tourist sites in BadamiPattadakal-Aihole, were covered to get the desired sample, particularly to get the required sample of foreign tourists. In making selection of the tourists from the site, it was assured that (i) sample is a random sample by random time allocating 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, (ii) sample is spread over seven days of a week, (iii) It is spread over mornings and evenings, and (iv) both, male and female tourists are 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 category 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 (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 18 percent were in younger ages of 25 years or below and 9 percent were older, ages above 55 years (Table 3.1).
For about 64 percent, it was their first visit to India. Ninety three percent reported that their visit was only for tourism, without any other purpose, followed by business (3%). Majority of the tourists to this site had come from France and Italy (about 54%). The next largest group was from USA and Germany (about 10%) and all other European countries (14.5%) [Figure 1].
JUNE, 2010
iii
Figure 1: Percentage distribution of foreign tourists by country of residence, Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka
1.7 15.4
5.1
2.6 5.1 China Germany UK USA Italy France SAARC Countries Other European countries Others
15.4 14.5
1.7
38.5
Tourism related information on tourists Table 2 (in the report) reports some information on aspects related to tourism. Seventy seven percent were visiting the tourist site for the first time23 percent were making repeat visit. Most of them had entered India from Mumbai (46.9%), Bangalore (22.5%) and Delhi (20.7%). Percent distribution of the tourists by number of days they took to get visa is shown in table below: Italy France Other European countries Total Number of days (n=18) (n=45) (n=17) (n=117) < 3 days 5.6 4.4 5.9 10.3 3 7 days 44.4 44.4 41.2 41.9 8 14 days 27.8 22.2 29.4 14.5 15 days or over 22.2 28.9 23.5 33.3 Average days 8.2 8.6 8.4 8.5 It takes about eight days to get visa. Only about 5 percent get visa in one or two days.
JUNE, 2010
iv
Figure 2: Percentage distribution of foreign tourists by number of days taken to get visa, Badami-Paddakal-Aihole, Karnataka
All
10.3
41.9
14.5
33.3
Avg. days- 8.5
Other European 5.9 countries
41.2
29.4
23.5
Avg. days- 8.1
France 4.4
44.4
22.2
28.9
Avg. days- 8.4
Italy 5.6
44.4
27.8
22.2
Avg. days- 7.9
20
40
Percent
60
80
100
< 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. Almost 70 percent of the foreign tourists from the above listed countries reported to have known the Indian tourism office in their country. (This percentage for France and Italy were 78 and 67 respectively). But only 28 percent of them (20 percent in France and 58 percent in Italy) contacted the Indian tourism office. Eighty three percent out of them (similar percentage for France and Italy) were satisfied and 17 percent stated that response of tourist office was just O.K.
Indian tourists
Demographic background Table 3 (in the report) gives distribution of tourists by their background characteristics. About three-fourths of the tourists were in the age group of 18-25 years (44%) or 26-35 years (31%). Only 5 percent of them had crossed 55 years. Majority of them (85%) were from Karnataka itself, followed by those who came from the neighbouring state of Maharashtra (8%) [Figure 3].
JUNE, 2010
Figure 3: Percentage distribution of Indian tourists by state of residence
6.4
8.2
Maharashtra Karnataka Others
84.9
Tourism related information All the tourists were asked different questions related to their visit to the tourist site BadamiPaddakal-Aihole Karnataka. Table 3.4 (In the report) provides information on these aspects. About 76 percent of the tourists came first time to the tourist site. About three fourths of them either used their personal car (39%) or public bus (36%) to reach the tourist site. The main sources through which they came to know about the tourist site were: own efforts because of interest in seeing tourist places (42%) and friends / relatives (35%). More than 80 percent (83%) reported their visit as part of their general tourism trip. About 62 percent came with friends and onethird came with their family member. Eighty percent reported that they would stay at this place for a day Only 5 percent reported that they came here in a group organized by some travel agents. The tourists in Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka were asked about their stay arrangements at the venue. Only about one-third of them were staying in some commercial place, another one fourth hired a place on rent and 21 percent were staying with their friends / relatives (Figure 4).
JUNE, 2010
vi
Figure 4: Percentage distribution of Domestic tourists by place of stay at tourist destination
22.0 32.2
Commercial Rented own place Staying with friends and relatives Others
21.2
24.5
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 importancesatisfaction 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 78.9 9 73.1 9 Road connectivity 86.3 5 93.5 2 Rail connectivity 85.5 6 83.4 5 Civic administration 87.7 3 85.3 4 Traffic and transport management 80.1 8 74.5 7 Tourist facilities 87.0 4 77.6 6 Taxes/permits 70.1 10 73.3 8 Maintenance and management of 90.0 2 90.8 3 monuments/tourist attraction Other services 92.3 1 94.4 1 Power supply situation 94.9 94.0 Telephone/mobile services 89.7 94.7 Visa, immigration and customs 84.9 7 NA NA
N.A: Not Applicable.
There is great deal of similarity in ranking the facilities in Importance between Foreign and domestic tourists. Top important facilities are: other services (Power supply and telephone/mobile services), maintenance and management of monument, road connectivity etc. 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 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 satisfactoryour 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 (See 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, 10 to 15 percent reported score of 3. Forty percent or higher reported score 4. Twenty to forty percent reported score 5. In the case of questions on satisfaction level, the largest percent reported score of 3 (average); percent for scores of 2 (unsatisfactory) and 4 (good) were similar. Very small percent tourists reported score of 5 (excellent). On a few components, like Civic administration and Traffic and transport management, 10 to 20 percent even 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. They even reported on air connectivity which may not apply to them. But the response, in this case was mostly average. In the case of importance of the facilities/components, there was hardly any response for codes 1 or 2. Ten to 30 percent reported code 3 (not so important) for items like Civic administration, rail connectivity, traffic and transport management and taxes/permits. Most of the responses were with codes 4 or 5. In the case of questions on the level of satisfaction, largest percentage reported code 3 (average satisfaction). There was hardly any answer coded 5 (excellent).
Indicator of gap in Importance-Satisfaction for the components/facilities Two indicators on the gap in the importance-satisfaction facilities/components have been taken up here: 1. level for the tourism
2.
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 (X-axis is importance axis and Y axis in satisfaction axis). This is indicator I1. Larger the gap between importance and satisfaction, higher will be the priority of the component. 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).
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.
JUNE, 2010
ix
They are 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 ImportanceSatisfaction 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. Garbage disposal 2. Sewerage and drainage system 3. Quality of the roads 4. Conditions of city roads 5. Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas 6. Drinking water supply 7. Public conveniences along roads/streets 8. Power supply situation 9. Conditions of signages within the monument/ tourist attraction 10. Telephone/mobile services 11. Condition of railway station serving the destination/ circuit Domestic tourists Components in the fourth quadrant 1. Level of knowledge of officials at the reception office 2. Behavior of the officials available at tourist reception office 3. Availability of tourist guidance/reception centers 4. Power supply situation 5. Availability of mass transit system 6. Quality of way side amenities available on this road 7. Parking facility at the monument/tourist attraction 8. Traffic management 9. Conditions of city roads 10. Conditions of street lighting
There is only one component, namely, Power supply situation common in the reporting on importance between Indian and foreign tourists. Several other components like connectivity with the tourist site and quality of infrastructure around the tourist site like roads and public conveniences are also similar--reported as gaps by both groups of tourists. Major differences between Indian and foreign tourists can be listed in the following fashion: Indian tourists have problems with services of the reception offices. They have complained about mobility around the tourist sitegoing from one site to the other in the destination/area. Indian tourists have also reported problem of parking around the site. Foreign tourist have problems with monuments/tourist sitescondition of the signages, general cleanliness and public utilities at the sites. Foreign tourists have complained about the poor conditions of the railway stations. Foreign tourists have complained about sewerage and drainage system.
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 access signanges, cleanliness there and the facilities around the sites. They would like to see more order in and around the sites. Indian tourists, on the other hand, assign greater importance to the help they need to get information and see the sites and movement from one sight to the other. 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. Summary and recommendations This section 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 Most (92%) of the tourists interviewed had come to India for tourism purposes. Two-thirds of them were younger, in ages of 26-45 years. Sixty four percent reported it as their first visit to India. Repeat visit to India for tourism is low More than 50 percent of them came from France and Italy. Seventy seven reported visit to this tourist site as their first visit. Repeat visit is very low. It takes, on an average, eight days to get visa. Only about 5 percent get visa in one or two days. Almost 70 percent of the foreign tourists reported to have known the Indian tourism office in their country. (This percentage for France and Italy were 78 and 67 respectively). But only 28 percent of them (20 percent in France and 58 percent in Italy) contacted the Indian tourism office. Eighty three percent out of them (similar percentage for France and Italy) were satisfied and 17 percent stated that response of tourist office was just O.K.
Profile of domestic tourists Domestic tourists were relatively of younger age groups, about 75% in the ages 18-35 years. Most of them (76%) were visiting this tourist site for the first time. They came by bus or personal car; 62 percent came with friends and and 33 percent with family members. They planned to stay in Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole for a day; mostly in commercial place. Only 2% 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.
Matrix of importance-satisfaction gapforeign tourists More importance-satisfaction gap was reported on 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 it. Conditions of signages within the destination need to be improved so that tourist can get enough guidance and information about the site.
JUNE, 2010
xi
Infrastructure on the approach road to the tourist site is important but is not in good shape and needs improvement. Included in this broad category are infrastructure like condition of railway station, roads, public conveniences, hygienic conditions of the restaurants/dhabas, drinking water, telephone/mobile services and power situation. Not much complaint was made about visa, immigration and custom services, perhaps because these experiences were in past and time is the best healer.
Indian tourists The domestic tourists were more concerned about the guidance and help at the tourist sites so that they can make best use of their visit. Their concern was better and greater services regarding information on the tourist site and other places of tourism in the neighbourhood. For this purpose, they recommended better equipped and better informed tourist offices at the site. They also saw gap in the mobility around the tourist site for visiting other places in the neighbourhood. Most of them were not using services of the organized tours because either they were not available or they did not know about them. Greater support from organizers of tourists will be useful for better tourism in the country. They also expressed need for better infrastructure at the tourist site and on its approach roads.
Though above-given is a list of gaps reported, we, in this report, have suggested 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
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 Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka tourist destinations. This study, after competitive bidding, had been assigned to GfK MODE, India. This report presents findings of the study on infrastructure gaps in Badami-PattadakalAihole, Karnataka tourist location.
1.2
Objectives of the study The objective of this study was to ascertain infrastructure gaps in Badami-PattadakalAihole (Karnataka) tourists destinations.
1.3
Time period Data for the study in Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole was collected in the months of AugustSeptember, 2009.
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 tourist also needs 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 completion of study in different time periods). 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, can be found. 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 , higher the priority to improve. This approach will be able to assess gaps in the infrastructure which needs to be strengthened to help the tourist destinations achieve their 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, and 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. Thus it was a sort of exit interviews Tourists were at the site and were about to leave the site when interview was conducted. Sample size The client had suggested a minimum sample size of 250 domestic and 250 foreign tourists at each tourist destination/circuit/location under study. The total sample size for the destinations/locations suggested and actually covered is shown in the Table below: Sl. Tourist No destination/ circuit/location 1. BadamiPattadakalAihole, Karnataka Foreign tourists Domestic tourists Total tourists Suggested Actually Sugge Actually Suggest Actually covered sted covered ed covered 250 117* 250 416 500 533
* 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 allocating 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 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 study tourist destination. This was done either by (i) searching the websites of the destination, (ii) making a quick visit to the tourist destination and forming our own impression during the visit to at the destination, (iii) talking to the officials of the Tourist Department, and (iv) talking to the local tourist agencies. The sample of 250 domestic and 250 foreign tourists each was equally divided between different important tourist spots in a 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 spot, 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 tourist assigns 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).
INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN BADAMI-PATTADAKAL-AIHOLE, KARNATAKA JUNE, 2010
Ten broad category 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 languages if the site was in non-Hindi speaking area).
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 assures that the field investigator is placed at the right spots for interviewing the tourists at the randomly allocated time. He also scrutinizes 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 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 were collected in two rounds. Timings of these two rounds are shown in the table below: Sl. No Tourist destination/circuit /location 1 Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka Time periods Second visit
First visit
August 12-18, 2009 September 15-21, 2009
JUNE, 2010
2.5.5 Tabulation plan The researcher associated with this study prepared the 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 Manger/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 done in two time periodsAugust-September, 2009, report was prepared in October.
JUNE, 2010
CHAPTER - III PROFILE OF TOURISTS
This chapter attempts to present a demographic profile of tourists, both foreigners and Indian for the tourist destination. 3.1 Profile of tourists in Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka 3.1.1 Foreign tourist Demographic background Table 3.1 gives the background characteristics of foreign tourists. Most of the tourists were of middle aged, 26-55 years. Only about 18 percent were in younger ages of 25 years or below and 9 percent were older, ages above 55 years (Table 3.1). For about 64 percent, it was their first visit to India. Ninety three percent reported that their visit was only for tourism, without any other purpose; only seven 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, Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka Background characteristics Percent Background characteristics Percent 1. Age in years 4. Country of residence Below 18 France 38.5 1.7 18 25 Italy 15.4 15.4 26 35 USA 5.1 23.9 36 45 Germany 5.1 31.6 46 55 Other European countries 14.5 17.9 Above 55 UK 9.4 2.6 2. It was their first visit to India 63.5 China 1.7 3. Main purpose of visit to India SAARC Countries 1.7 Business 2.7 Others 15.4 Tourism 91.9 Social 0.9 Others 2.7 Total number of foreign tourists interviewed = 117 Majority of the tourists to this site had come from France and Italy (about 54%). The next largest group was from USA and Germany (10.2%) and all other European countries (14.5%) [Table 3.1 & Figure 3.1].
JUNE, 2010
10
Figure 3.1: Percentage distribution of foreign tourists by country of residence, Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka
15.4
1.7 5.1
2.6 5.1 China Germany UK USA Italy France SAARC Countries Other European countries Others
14.5
15.4
1.7
38.5
Tourism related information on tourists Table 3.2 reports some information on aspects related to tourism. Seventy seven percent were visiting the tourist site for the first time23 percent were making repeat visit. Most of them had entered India from Mumbai (46.9%), Bangalore (22.5%) and Delhi (20.7%). Percent distribution of the tourists by number of days they took to get visa is shown in table below: Italy (n=18) 5.6 44.4 27.8 22.2 8.2 France (n=45) 4.4 44.4 22.2 28.9 8.6 Other European countries (n=17) 5.9 41.2 29.4 23.5 8.4 Total (n=117) 10.3 41.9 14.5 33.3 8.5
Number of days < 3 days 3 7 days 8 14 days 15 days or over Average days
JUNE, 2010
11
Figure 3.2: Percentage distribution of foreign tourists by number of days taken to get visa, Badami-Paddakal-Aihole, Karnataka
All
10.3
41.9
14.5
33.3
Avg. days- 8.5 Avg. days- 8.1 Avg. days- 8.4
Other European 5.9 countries France 4.4
41.2
29.4
23.5
44.4
22.2
28.9
Italy 5.6
44.4
27.8
22.2
Avg. days- 7.9

100
20
40
60
80
Percent
< 3 days
3-7 days
8-14 days
> 15 days
The tourists were asked about the place where they got visa. The distribution of the place where they got visa is shown in Figure 3.3. Since most of the tourists in this site had come from France, they got visa from Paris, followed by those from Madrid. 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. Almost 70 percent of the foreign tourists from the above listed countries reported to have known the Indian tourism office in their country. (This percentage for France and Italy were 78 and 67 respectively). But only 28 percent of them (20 percent in France and 58 percent in Italy) contacted the Indian tourism office. Eighty three percent out of them (similar percentage for France and Italy) were satisfied and 17 percent stated that response of tourist office was just O.K. Table 3.2: Percentage distribution of foreign tourists by information related to tourism and awareness of office tourism, Karnataka Information on Tourism Percent Awareness of office of Percent related aspects tourism 1. Visiting tourist site first time 76.9 3. Knows where tourism office in the country exists (n=91) 4. Contacted tourism office for information on tourism (n=64) 5. Impression about response from tourism office (n=18 ) Satisfactory Just O.K. 70.3
2. Port of arrival
28.1
Bangalore
22.5 Chennai 4.5 Delhi 20.7 Mumbai 45.9 Others 7.2 Total number of foreign tourists interviewed = 117
83.3 16.7
JUNE, 2010
12
3.1.2 Domestic tourist Demographic background Table 3.3 gives distribution of tourists by their background characteristics. About threefourths of the tourists were in the age group of 18-25 years (44%) or 26-35 years (31%). Only 5 percent of them had crossed 55 years. Majority of the tourists were males (94%) and only 6 percent were females. Table 3.3: Percentage distribution of domestic tourists by background characteristics, Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka Background characteristics 1. Age in years Below 18 18 25 26 35 36 45 46 55 Above 55 Total number of Indian tourists interviewed = 416 Majority of them (85%) were from Karnataka itself, followed by those who came from the neighbouring state of Maharashtra (8%) [Figure 3.3]. Figure 3.3: Percentage distribution of domestic tourists by state of residence 0.5 44.2 31.3 12.3 6.7 5.0 Percent
6.4
8.2
Maharashtra Karnataka Others
84.9
JUNE, 2010
13
Tourism related information All the tourists were asked different questions related to their visit to the tourist about Badami-Paddakal-Aihole Karnataka. Table 3.4 provides information on these aspects. About 76 percent of the tourists came first time to the tourist site. About three fourths of them either used their personal car (39%) or public bus (36%) to reach the tourist site. The main sources through which they came to know about the tourist site were: own efforts because of interest in seeing tourist places (42%) and friends / relatives (35%). More than 80 percent (83%) reported their visit as part of their general tourism trip. About 62 percent came with friends and onethird came with their family member. Eighty percent reported that they would stay at this place for a day Only 5 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, Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka Information related to Percent Information related to Percent tourism tourism 1. Visiting the site first 75.7 4. It is part of trip to other time tourist places 82.7 2. Mode of travel to 5. Came in organized tour 5.0 reach the destination Bus 35.6 6. Whether came alone, friends or relatives Train 13.5 Alone 6.0 Personal car 38.9 With friends 61.5 Any two-wheeler 4.3 With family members 32.5 Others 7.6 7. Number of days of stay 3. Source of One day 82.0 information on the tourist destination Travel agent 1.9 More than one day 13.0 Friends/relative 34.6 Uncertain 4.1 Personal effort in 42.3 tourism Others 21.7 Total number of Indian tourists = 416 The tourists in Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka were asked about their stay arrangements at the venue. Only about one-third of them were staying in some commercial place, another onefourth hired a place on rent and 21 percent were staying with their friends / relatives (Figure 3.4).
JUNE, 2010
14
Figure 3.4: Percentage distribution of domestic tourists by place of stay at tourist destination
22.0 32.2
Commercial Rented own place Staying with friends and relatives Others
21.2
24.5
JUNE, 2010
15
CHAPTER IV IMPORTANCE-SATISFACTION GAPS IN TOURISM INFRASTRUCTURE The tourists were asked to assign scores on the scale of 1 to 5 on the degree of importance they assign to different facilities/components of the facility at a tourist destination. They were also asked to assign 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 these tourist sites to other tourists. This process will improve flow of tourists to the monument/ tourist site. 4.1 Choice of indicator of importance tourists assign to different facilities/ components of the facility As stated earlier, each tourist interviewed was asked to score each component of the tourist facility. Scores to be assigned were as follows: Score assigned was 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 facility1
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 Badami-PattadakalAihole, Karnataka.
Other three scores indicate that tourists do not care much for the facility/component under consideration.
JUNE, 2010
16
Sl. Facility No
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 4.0 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.1 4.2 3.9 4.3
Ranking 9 4 6 3 8 7 10 2
Percent tourists reporting score as 4 (very important) or 5 (most important) Percent Ranking 78.9 9 86.3 5 85.5 6 87.7 3 80.1 8 87.0 70.1 90.0 4 10 2
4.5 4.3
1 6
92.3 84.9
1 7
The ranking of the facilities (or their components) were very 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 analysis2 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 Air connectivity Road connectivity Rail connectivity Civic administration Traffic and transport management Tourist facilities Taxes/permits Maintenance and management of monuments/tourist attraction Other services Visa, Immigration and customs
N.A: Not Applicable.
Percent 78.9 86.3 85.5 87.7 80.1 87.0 70.1 90.0 92.3 84.9
Rank 9 5 6 3 8 4 10 2 1 7
Percent 73.1 93.5 83.4 85.3 74.5 77.6 73.3 90.8 94.4 NA
Rank 9 2 5 4 7 6 8 3 1 NA
There is a great deal of similarity in the rankings of the facilities between foreign and domestic tourists.
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 done3; it was found out 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; 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 observations were made: 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, 10 to 15 percent reported score of 3. Forty percent or higher reported score 4. Twenty to forty percent reported score 5. In the case of questions on satisfaction level, the largest percent reported score of 3 (average); percent for scores of 2 (unsatisfactory) and 4 (good) were similar. Very small percent tourists reported score of 5 (excellent). On a few components, like Civic administration and Traffic and transport management, 10 to 20 percent even reported score of 1 (poor).
We compared ranks of the components by both these indicators. They matched very closelySpearmens rank correlation coefficient was found to be 0.92 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. They even reported on air connectivity which may not apply to them. But the response, in this case was mostly average. In the case of Importance of the facilities/components, there was hardly any response for codes 1 or 2. Ten to 30 percent reported code 3 (Not so important) for items like Civic administration, Rail connectivity, Traffic and transport management and Taxes/permits. Most of the responses were with codes 4 or 5. In the case of questions on the level of satisfaction, largest percentage reported code 3 (Average satisfaction). There was hardly any answer coded 5 (Excellent).
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 most of the 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 gap between the importancesatisfaction level 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 importance and lower the 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 importance-satisfaction levels. Advantage of indicator I2 is that all the facilities/components could be ranked; the Department of Tourism can take up improvement in a phased fashion. Therefore, we propose to identify importance-satisfaction gaps by using both these indicators. 4.5.1 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. 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. Garbage disposal 2. Sewerage and drainage system 3. Quality of the roads 4. Conditions of city roads 5. Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas 6. Drinking water supply 7. Public conveniences along roads/streets Indian tourists Components in the fourth quadrant 1. Level of knowledge of officials at the reception office 2. Behavior of the officials available at tourist reception office 3. Availability of tourist guidance/reception centers 4. Power supply situation 5. Availability of mass transit system 6. Quality of way side amenities available on this road 7. Parking facility at the monument/tourist attraction 8. Traffic management
8. Power supply situation 9. Conditions of signages within the monument/ 9. Conditions of city roads tourist attraction 10. Telephone/mobile services 10. Conditions of street lighting 11. Condition of railway station serving the destination/ circuit
JUNE, 2010
20
Figure 4.1: Percent of foreign tourists reported important and satisfaction level- Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka
100.0
W W WW W W W W W W W W W W W W W8 W W
90.0
% reporting satisfaction
Median value of satisfaction (71.0)
80.0
W W
70.0
W
WW W W
W W
W W
W 10 W 11 W9
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
Garbage disposal Sewerage and drainage system Quality of roads Conditions of city roads Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas Drinking water supply Public conveniences along roads/streets Power supply situation Conditions of signages within the monument Telephone/mobile services Condition of railway station serving destination/circuit
the
60.0
W W W W W
W W
W7
W6 W5
50.0
W W4 W
40.0
W2 W1
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).
30.0 30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
% reporting importance
Median value of importance (86.3)
JUNE, 2010
21
Figure 4.2: Percent of domestic tourists reported important and satisfaction level- Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka 100.0
W W W W W W W
80.0
W W W W W 9W W 7 6 WW W WW W W
Median value of satisfaction (63.7)
W W W W
% reporting satisfaction
W W W W 10
60.0
W W W W W W W
W8 W5 W3
W4
1. Level of knowledge of officials at the reception office 2. Behavior of the officials available at tourist reception office 3. Availability of tourist guidance/reception centers 4. Power supply situation 5. Availability of mass transit system 6. Quality of way side amenities available on this road 7. Parking facility at the monument/tourist attraction 8. Traffic management 9. Conditions of city roads 10. Conditions of street lighting
40.0
W W2 W1
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).
20.0
W W W
0.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
% reporting importance
Median value of importance (80.8)
JUNE, 2010
22
There is only one component, namely, Power supply situation common in the reporting on importance between Indian and foreign tourists. Several other components like connectivity with the tourist site and quality of infrastructure around the tourist site like roads and public conveniences are also similar-reported as gaps by both groups of tourists. Major differences between Indian and foreign tourists can be listed in the following fashion: Indian tourists have problems with services of the reception offices. They have complained about mobility around the tourist sitegoing from one site to the other in the destination/area. Indian tourists have also reported problem of parking around the site. Foreign tourist have problems with monuments/tourist sitescondition of the signages, general cleanliness and public utilities at the sites. Foreign tourists have complained about the poor conditions of the railway stations. Foreign tourists have complained about sewerage and drainage system.
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. One main difference which emerges in these rankings on indicator I2 is that the foreign tourists assign more importance to tourist site like access signanges, cleanliness there and the facilities around the sites. They would like to see more order in and around the sites. Indian tourists, on the other hand, assign greater importance to the help they need to get information and see the sites and movement from one sight to the other. 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 BadamiPattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka
Importance level (very important or most important) Percent Rank reported (lowest to highest ) 65.8 66.7 69.2 72.6 73.5 74.4 75.2 77.8 77.8 77.8 78.6 78.6 78.6 80.3 81.2 81.2 82.1 82.1 82.9 82.9 83.8 83.8 84.6 84.6 85.5 85.5 85.5 86.3 86.3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 8 12 13 11 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 27 26 25 29 28 Satisfaction level (average, good or excellent) Percent Rank reported (lowest to highest) 65.9 57.2 69.3 87.2 65.0 71.0 56.4 49.5 59.8 80.3 54.7 56.4 87.2 72.6 70.1 93.2 61.5 72.6 67.5 87.2 57.3 65.0 56.4 94.0 70.9 77.8 88.1 46.2 66.7 20 11 25 46 17 28 8 5 15 39 6 9 47 30 26 54 16 31 22 48 12 18 10 55 27 35 49 4 21
Component of facility
234 Levels of road/transport taxes on vehicles (tax rates) 233 Levels of luxury taxes ( tax rates) 222 Availability of authorized tour operators 202 International connectivity of destination/ circuit 223 Availability of luxury hotels 221 Availability of A/C tourist coaches 219 Availability of metered taxi 217 Traffic management 235 Administration of the road taxes on (barriers, delays, harassments etc) 208 Behavior of the porters at the railway station 216 Traffic signals 219a Behavior of the taxi drivers 203 Condition of airport serving the destination/ circuit 220 Availability of other commercial transportations 244 Illumination of monuments 253 Behavior of the custom officials at the port of arrival in India 205 Quality of way side amenities available on this road 220a Behavior of the drivers of other commercial transportations 241 Availability of trained tourist guides 250 Behavior of the immigration official at the port of arrival in India 214 Conditions of street lighting 215 Conditions of signages 218 Availability of mass transit system 252 Promptness of custom checking procedure at the port of arrival in India 239 Parking facility at the monument/tourist attraction 224 Availability of budget hotels 201 Connectivity of the destination/ circuit with major Indian cities 212 Conditions of city roads 207 Condition of railway station serving the destination/ circuit
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 BadamiPattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka (Contd)
Importance level (very important or most important) Percent Rank reported (lowest to highest ) 86.3 86.3 86.3 88.0 88.0 88.9 88.9 88.9 88.9 89.7 89.7 90.6 90.6 90.6 91.5 91.5 92.3 92.3 94.0 94.0 94.9 94.9 96.6 96.6 97.4 98.3 32 31 30 33 34 36 35 38 37 40 39 41 42 43 45 44 47 46 49 48 51 50 52 53 54 55 Satisfaction level (average, good or excellent) Percent Rank reported (lowest to highest) 82.0 88.9 89.7 57.3 89.7 32.4 35.1 65.0 86.3 68.4 74.3 43.6 58.1 79.5 71.8 80.3 73.5 76.0 55.5 83.8 67.5 81.2 77.8 82.9 77.8 88.9 42 50 52 13 53 1 2 19 45 24 33 3 14 38 29 40 32 34 7 44 23 41 36 43 37 51
251 General ambience of the immigration zone 248 Promptness in getting Indian visa 245 Promptness at the ticketing window of the monument/tourist attraction 209 Public conveniences along roads/streets 249 Promptness in the Immigration procedure at the port of arrival in India 211 Garbage disposal 210 Sewerage and drainage system 238 Conditions of signages within the monument/ tourist attraction 225 Behavior of the officials available at tourist reception office 247 Telephone/mobile services 240 Availability of tourist guidance/reception centers 204 Quality of the roads 213 Drinking Water supply 229 Tariff structure of the hotel rooms 232 Behaviour of service personnel at wayside restaurants and dhabas 228 Behavior of service staff at the hotel 230 General upkeep of the hotel rooms 206 Rail connectivity of destination/ circuit with major Indian cities 231 Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas 227 Quality of help provided by the reception office 246 Power supply situation 242 Behavior of the guides at the monument/tourist attraction 237 Public utilities at the monument/tourist attraction 243 Conservation of heritage sites/ monuments 236 General cleanliness of monument/tourist attraction and area around it 226 Level of knowledge of officials at the reception office
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 86.3 (median value of the indicator importance) and less than 71.0 (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 Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka
Importance level (very important or most important) Component of facility Percent reported Rank (highest to lowest) Satisfaction Difference in percentages level (average, good or excellent) Percent Difference or Rank reported 0 if (highest to difference is lowest) negative 32.4 56.5 1 35.1 53.8 2 43.6 47 3 46.2 40.1 4 55.5 58.1 57.3 49.5 56.4 67.5 57.3 65 54.7 56.4 68.4 61.5 71.8 38.5 32.5 30.7 28.3 28.2 27.4 26.5 23.9 23.9 22.2 21.3 20.6 19.7 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
211 210 204 212 231
Garbage disposal Sewerage and drainage system Quality of the roads Conditions of city roads Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas 213 Drinking Water supply 209 Public conveniences along roads/streets 217 Traffic management 218 Availability of mass transit system 246 Power supply situation 214 Conditions of street lighting 238 Conditions of signages within the monument/ tourist attraction 216 Traffic signals 219a Behavior of the taxi drivers 247 Telephone/mobile services 205 Quality of way side amenities available on this road 232 Behaviour of service personnel at wayside restaurants and dhabas 236 General cleanliness of monument/tourist attraction and area around it 207 Condition of railway station serving the destination/ circuit 237 Public utilities at the monument/tourist attraction 230 General upkeep of the hotel rooms 215 Conditions of signages 219 Availability of metered taxi 235 Administration of the road taxes on (barriers, delays, harassments etc) 206 Rail connectivity of destination/ circuit with major Indian cities 240 Availability of tourist guidance/reception centers 241 Availability of trained tourist guides
88.9 88.9 90.6 86.3 94 90.6 88 77.8 84.6 94.9 83.8 88.9 78.6 78.6 89.7 82.1 91.5
19 18 13 25 8 14 22 47 32 6 34 21 44 45 17 38 12
97.4 86.3 96.6 92.3 83.8 75.2
2 24 3 10 35 49
77.8 66.7 77.8 73.5 65 56.4
19.6 19.6 18.8 18.8 18.8 18.8
18 19 20 21 22 23
77.8 92.3 89.7 82.9
48 9 16 36
59.8 76 74.3 67.5
18 16.3 15.4 15.4
24 25 26 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 Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka (cond)
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 14.6 13.7 13.7 11.2 11.1 11.1 10.2 9.5 9.5 9.4 8.5 7.7 7.7 4.3 3.4 2.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rank (Highest to lowest)
239 Parking facility at the monument/tourist attraction 243 Conservation of heritage sites/ monuments 242 Behavior of the guides at the monument/tourist attraction 228 Behavior of service staff at the hotel 229 Tariff structure of the hotel rooms 244 Illumination of monuments 227 Quality of help provided by the reception office 220a Behavior of the drivers of other commercial transportations 233 Levels of luxury taxes ( tax rates) 226 Level of knowledge of officials at the reception office 223 Availability of luxury hotels 220 Availability of other commercial transportations 224 Availability of budget hotels 251 General ambience of the immigration zone 221 Availability of A/C tourist coaches 225 Behavior of the officials available at tourist reception office 222 Availability of authorized tour operators 234 Levels of road/transport taxes on vehicles (tax rates) 249 Promptness in the Immigration procedure at the port of arrival in India 208 Behavior of the porters at the railway station 201 Connectivity of the destination/ circuit with major Indian cities 248 Promptness in getting Indian visa 245 Promptness at the ticketing window of the monument/tourist attraction 250 Behavior of the immigration official at the port of arrival in India 203 Condition of airport serving the destination/ circuit 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 202 International connectivity of destination/ circuit
85.5 96.6 94.9 91.5 90.6 81.2 94 82.1 66.7 98.3 73.5 80.3 85.5 86.3 74.4 88.9 69.2 65.8 88 77.8 85.5 86.3 86.3 82.9 78.6 84.6 81.2 72.6
31 4 5 11 15 40 7 39 54 1 51 42 30 28 50 20 53 55 23 46 29 27 26 37 43 33 41 52
70.9 82.9 81.2 80.3 79.5 70.1 83.8 72.6 57.2 88.9 65 72.6 77.8 82 71 86.3 69.3 65.9 89.7 80.3 88.1 88.9 89.7 87.2 87.2 94 93.2 87.2
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 BadamiPattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka
Importance level (very important or most important) Percent Rank reported (lowest to highest) 62.0 63.2 64.4 66.3 68.5 69.0 69.2 69.5 70.4 71.4 71.9 72.1 72.6 73.3 75.2 75.7 76.4 76.7 76.9 77.6 78.4 79.1 80.3 80.3 80.8 81.7 82.9 83.2 84.9 86.3 1 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 Satisfaction level (average, good or excellent) Percent Rank reported (lowest to highest) 12.6 2 64.2 6.5 29.0 39.2 21.4 61.8 99.7 68.3 55.3 68.1 38.2 57.2 99.8 55.3 58.2 99.7 54.3 69.8 65.1 70.2 55.1 15.6 57.2 65.4 64.9 69.2 61.8 57.5 46.6 26 1 7 9 5 21 47 34 14 32 8 17 49 15 20 48 12 38 29 39 13 3 18 30 27 36 22 19 10
219a Behavior of the taxi drivers 220a Behavior of the drivers of other commercial transportations 219 Availability of metered taxi 233 Levels of luxury taxes ( tax rates) 222 Availability of authorized tour operators 221 Availability of A/C tourist coaches 228 Behavior of service staff at the hotel 203 Condition of airport serving the destination/ circuit 208 Behavior of the porters at the railway station 230 General upkeep of the hotel rooms 232 Behaviour of service personnel at wayside restaurants and dhabas 223 Availability of luxury hotels 234 Levels of road/transport taxes on vehicles (tax rates) 202 International connectivity of destination/ circuit 210 Sewerage and drainage system 216 Traffic signals 201 Connectivity of the destination/ circuit with major Indian cities 211 Garbage disposal 242 Behavior of the guides at the monument/tourist attraction 244 Illumination of monuments 215 Conditions of signages 229 Tariff structure of the hotel rooms 227 Quality of help provided by the reception office 220 Availability of other commercial transportations 235 Administration of the road taxes on (barriers, delays, harassments etc) 231 Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas 224 Availability of budget hotels 214 Conditions of street lighting 217 Traffic management 240 Availability of tourist guidance/reception centers
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 BadamiPattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka (contd)
Importance level (very important or most important) Percent Rank reported (lowest to highest) 86.8 31 87.0 87.7 89.4 90.1 90.4 90.9 90.9 91.1 92.8 93.0 93.0 93.8 94.0 94.0 94.7 95.2 95.7 96.6 32 33 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) 69.7 37 73.1 51.9 67.5 63.7 61.8 63.0 95.4 23.8 72.9 16.8 74.3 64.9 57.0 88.4 69.0 81.4 87.3 68.2 41 11 31 25 23 24 46 6 40 4 42 28 16 45 35 43 44 33
207 Condition of railway station serving the destination/ circuit 238 Conditions of signages within the monument/ tourist attraction 218 Availability of mass transit system 241 Availability of trained tourist guides 212 Conditions of city roads 205 Quality of way side amenities available on this road 239 Parking facility at the monument/tourist attraction 245 Promptness at the ticketing window of the monument/tourist attraction 225 Behavior of the officials available at tourist reception office 209 Public conveniences along roads/streets 226 Level of knowledge of officials at the reception office 206 Rail connectivity of destination/ circuit with major Indian cities 213 Drinking Water supply 246 Power supply situation 243 Conservation of heritage sites/ monuments 247 Telephone/mobile services 237 Public utilities at the monument/tourist attraction 236 General cleanliness of monument/tourist attraction and area around it 204 Quality of the roads
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 86.3 (median value of the indicator importance) and less than 71.0 (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 Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka
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 76.2
Rank (highest to lowest)
226 Level of knowledge of officials at the reception office 225 Behavior of the officials available at tourist reception office 227 Quality of help provided by the reception office 219 Availability of metered taxi 219a Behavior of the taxi drivers 221 Availability of A/C tourist coaches 240 Availability of tourist guidance/reception centers 233 Levels of luxury taxes ( tax rates) 246 Power supply situation 218 Availability of mass transit system 223 Availability of luxury hotels 222 Availability of authorized tour operators 213 Drinking Water supply 205 Quality of way side amenities available on this road 204 Quality of the roads 239 Parking facility at the monument/tourist attraction 217 Traffic management 212 Conditions of city roads 247 Telephone/mobile services 229 Tariff structure of the hotel rooms 220 Availability of other commercial transportations 211 Garbage disposal 241 Availability of trained tourist guides 214 Conditions of street lighting 209 Public conveniences along roads/streets
93
16.8
91.1 80.3 64.4 62 69 86.3 66.3 94 87.7 72.1 68.5 93.8 90.4 96.6 90.9 84.9 90.1 94.7 79.1 80.3 76.7 89.4 83.2 92.8
11 26 47 49 44 20 46 5 17 38 45 7 14 1 12 21 15 4 28 27 32 16 22 10
23.8 15.6 6.5 12.6 21.4 46.6 29 57 51.9 38.2 39.2 64.9 61.8 68.2 63 57.5 63.7 69 55.1 57.2 54.3 67.5 61.8 72.9
67.3 64.7 57.9 49.4 47.6 39.7 37.3 37 35.8 33.9 29.3 28.9 28.6 28.4 27.9 27.4 26.4 25.7 24 23.1 22.4 21.9 21.4 19.9
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
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 Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka (condt)
Importance level (very important or most important) Component of facility Percent reported Rank (highest to lowest) Satisfactio n level (average, good or excellent) Percent reported Difference in percentages
210 Sewerage and drainage system 206 Rail connectivity of destination/ circuit with major Indian cities 216 Traffic signals 207 Condition of railway station serving the destination/ circuit 231 Hygiene at wayside restaurants and dhabas 230 General upkeep of the hotel rooms 235 Administration of the road taxes on (barriers, delays, harassments etc) 234 Levels of road/transport taxes on vehicles (tax rates) 238 Conditions of signages within the monument/ tourist attraction 237 Public utilities at the monument/tourist attraction 224 Availability of budget hotels 244 Illumination of monuments 236 General cleanliness of monument/tourist attraction and area around it 215 Conditions of signages 228 Behavior of service staff at the hotel 242 Behavior of the guides at the monument/tourist attraction 243 Conservation of heritage sites/ monuments 232 Behaviour of service personnel at wayside restaurants and dhabas 208 Behavior of the porters at the railway station 220a Behavior of the drivers of other commercial transportations 245 Promptness at the ticketing window of the monument/tourist attraction 201 Connectivity of the destination/ circuit with major Indian cities 202 International connectivity of destination/ circuit 203 Condition of airport serving the destination/ circuit
75.2 93 75.7 86.8 81.7 71.4 80.8 72.6 87 95.2 82.9 77.6
35 9 34 19 24 40 25 37 18 3 23 30
55.3 74.3 58.2 69.7 64.9 55.3 65.4 57.2 73.1 81.4 69.2 65.1
Difference or 0 if difference is negative 19.9 18.7 17.5 17.1 16.8 16.1 15.4 15.4 13.9 13.8 13.7 12.5
Rank (highest to lowest)
26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
95.7 78.4 69.2 76.9 94 71.9 70.4 63.2 90.9 76.4 73.3 69.5
2 29 43 31 6 39 41 48 13 33 36 42
87.3 70.2 61.8 69.8 88.4 68.1 68.3 64.2 95.4 99.7 99.8 99.7
8.4 8.2 7.4 7.1 5.6 3.8 2.1 0 0 0 0 0
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 Most (92%) of the tourists interviewed had come to India for tourism purposes. Their gender distribution was 58 percent males and 42 percent females. Two-thirds of them were younger ages of 26-45 years. Sixty four percent reported it as their first visit to India. Repeat visit to India for tourism is low More than 50 percent of them came from France and Italy. Seventy seven reported visit to this tourist site as their first visit. Repeat visit is very low. It takes, on an average, eight days to get visa. Only about 5 percent get visa in one or two days. Almost 70 percent of the foreign tourists reported to have known the Indian tourism office in their country. (This percentage for France and Italy were 78 and 67 respectively). But only 28 percent of them (20 percent in France and 58 percent in Italy) contacted the Indian tourism office. Eighty three percent out of them (similar percentage for France and Italy) were satisfied and 17 percent stated that response of tourist office was just O.K.
Profile of domestic tourists Domestic tourists were relatively of younger age groups, about 75% in the ages 1835 years. Most of them were males (94%). Most of them (76%) were visiting this tourist site for the first time. They came by bus or personal car; 62 percent came with friends and and 33 percent with family members. They planned to stay in Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole for a day; mostly in commercial place. Only 2% 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.
Matrix of Importance-Satisfaction gapforeign tourists More gap was reported on 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 it. Conditions of signages within the destination need to be improved so that tourist can get enough guidance and information about the site.
JUNE, 2010
32
Infrastructure on the approach road to the tourist site is important but is not in good shape and needs improvement. Included in this broad category are infrastructure like condition of railway station, roads, public conveniences, hygienic conditions of the restaurants/dhabas, drinking water, telephone/mobile services and power situation. Not much complaint was made about visa, immigration and custom services, perhaps because these experiences were in past and time is the best healer.
Indian tourists The domestic tourists were more concerned about the guidance and help at the tourist sites so that they can make best use of their visit. Their concern was better and greater services regarding information on the tourist site and other places of tourism in the neighbourhood. For this purpose, they recommended better equipped and better informed tourist offices at the site. They also saw gap in the mobility around the tourist site for visiting other places in the neighbourhood. Most of them were not using services of the organized tours because either they were not available or they did not know about them. Greater support from organizers of tourists will be useful for better tourism in the country. They also expressed need for better infrastructure at the tourist site and on its approach roads.
Though above-given is a list of gaps reported, we, in this report, have suggested 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, Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka
Importance Component of facility Least important (1) Somewhat important (2) Not so important (3) Very important (4) Most important (5) NA (8) Poor (1) Unsatisfactory (2) Satisfaction Average (3) Good (4) Excellent (5) NA (8)
201 Connectivity of the destination/ circuit with major Indian cities 202 International connectivity of destination/ circuit 203 Condition of airport serving the destination/ circuit Overall Air Connectivity 204 Quality of the roads 205 Quality of way side amenities available on this road Overall Road Connectivity 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 Overall Rail Connectivity 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
4.3 6.0 5.1 5.1 1.7 0.0 0.9 1.7 0.0 2.6 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0
2.6 6.8 6.0 5.1 0.9 3.4 2.1 0.9 3.4 3.4 2.6 1.7 2.6 1.7 0.9 0.9 5.1
7.7 14.5 10.3 10.8 6.8 14.5 10.7 5.1 10.3 16.2 10.5 10.3 8.5 9.4 12.8 7.7 11.1
52.1 35.9 41.9 43.3 38.5 42.7 40.6 53.0 50.4 47.9 50.4 54.7 51.3 38.5 45.3 37.6 49.6
33.3 36.8 36.8 35.6 52.1 39.3 45.7 39.3 35.9 29.9 35.0 33.3 37.6 50.4 41.0 53.0 34.2
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 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3.4 2.6 2.6 2.8 23.1 17.1 20.1 4.3 6.0 0.0 3.4 14.5 27.4 35.0 21.4 14.5 10.3
8.5 10.3 10.3 9.7 33.3 21.4 27.4 19.7 26.5 18.8 21.7 27.4 37.6 31.6 32.5 27.4 30.8
29.1 47.9 43.6 40.2 34.2 44.4 39.3 42.7 35.0 54.7 44.2 42.7 27.4 26.5 32.5 35.0 45.3
55.6 37.6 41.0 44.7 8.5 16.2 12.4 31.6 31.6 25.6 29.6 15.4 6.0 6.0 12.0 23.1 12.0
3.4 1.7 2.6 2.6 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.7 0.9 0.9 1.1 0.0 1.7 0.9 1.7 0.0 1.7
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 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
JUNE, 2010
36
Table F.1: Percent distribution of foreign tourists by scores on importance and satisfaction according to facility, Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka (contd)
Importance Component of facility Least important (1) 0.1 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.0 2.6 1.7 0.9 1.7 1.2 2.6 1.7 4.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Somewhat important (2) 2.1 0.9 2.6 1.7 1.7 5.1 2.6 0.9 1.7 2.1 8.5 5.1 6.0 3.4 1.7 0.0 1.7 Not so important (3) 10.0 14.5 17.9 19.7 13.7 17.1 17.1 17.9 14.5 16.6 14.5 23.9 16.2 10.3 9.4 1.7 4.3 Very important (4) 46.2 41.0 51.3 52.1 41.9 45.3 46.2 51.3 47.0 47.0 41.9 38.5 47.9 51.3 49.6 59.0 53.0 Most important (5) 41.6 42.7 27.4 25.6 42.7 29.9 32.5 29.1 35.0 33.1 32.5 30.8 25.6 34.2 39.3 39.3 41.0 NA (8) Poor (1) Unsatisfactory (2) Satisfaction Average (3) Good (4) Excellent (5) NA (8)
Overall Civic Administration 215 Conditions of signages 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 Overall Traffic and transport management 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
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 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
20.5 6.8 13.7 23.1 13.7 17.9 10.3 5.1 6.0 12.1 8.5 5.1 8.5 3.4 1.7 2.6 0.9
31.2 28.2 29.1 26.5 29.1 23.1 29.1 19.7 20.5 25.6 16.2 22.2 24.8 16.2 11.1 6.8 13.7
34.9 38.5 47.0 35.9 41.0 35.9 36.8 43.6 38.5 39.6 42.7 51.3 35.9 40.2 43.6 47.0 41.9
12.4 23.1 9.4 13.7 15.4 21.4 22.2 29.9 31.6 20.8 29.1 17.1 29.9 36.8 37.6 40.2 40.2
1.0 3.4 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.7 1.7 1.7 3.4 1.8 3.4 4.3 0.9 3.4 6.0 3.4 3.4
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 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
JUNE, 2010
37
Importance Component of facility Least important (1) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.9 6.0 3.4 1.7 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.0 1.7 Somewhat important (2) 0.9 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 2.5 7.7 7.7 4.3 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.9 4.3 1.7 1.7 Not so important (3) 7.7 9.4 7.7 2.6 8.5 9.7 19.7 23.1 16.2 19.7 2.6 3.4 9.4 9.4 8.5 13.7 Very important (4) 49.6 52.1 52.1 44.4 53.8 49.4 34.2 47.0 39.3 40.2 34.2 51.3 40.2 51.3 53.8 47.9 Most important (5) 41.9 38.5 40.2 49.6 37.6 37.5 32.5 18.8 38.5 29.9 63.2 45.3 48.7 34.2 35.9 35.0 NA (8) Poor (1) Unsatisfactory (2) Satisfaction Average (3) Good (4) Excellent (5) NA (8)
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 Overall Tourists facilities 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) Overall Taxes/permits 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
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 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.9 0.9 3.4 11.1 4.3 4.3 1.7 4.3 12.0 6.0 6.8 4.3 6.0 6.0 1.7 6.8
17.9 18.8 20.5 32.5 23.1 18.7 13.7 16.2 18.8 16.2 13.7 17.9 29.1 23.1 23.9 22.2
43.6 51.3 46.2 32.5 44.4 43.4 69.2 59.0 51.3 59.8 30.8 40.2 26.5 45.3 39.3 31.6
35.0 29.1 25.6 23.9 26.5 30.9 14.5 17.1 17.1 16.2 41.9 35.9 29.9 21.4 32.5 35.0
2.6 0.0 4.3 0.0 1.7 2.8 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.9 6.0 1.7 8.5 4.3 2.6 4.3
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
JUNE, 2010
38
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 Overall Maintenance and management of Monuments/tourist attraction 246 Power supply situation 247 Telephone/mobile services Overall Other 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 Overall Visa, Immigration and customs
1.7 0.0 1.7 0.9 0.8 0.0 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.4
1.7 0.9 2.6 1.7 1.5 0.0 1.7 0.9 2.6 0.9 0.9 1.7 1.7 2.6 1.7
1.7 2.6 14.5 11.1 7.7 5.1 7.7 6.4 9.4 10.3 13.7 9.4 12.0 14.5 11.5
53.8 26.5 35.0 40.2 43.4 38.5 23.1 30.8 35.9 39.3 51.3 38.5 44.4 41.9 41.9
41.0 70.1 46.2 46.2 46.6 56.4 66.7 61.5 50.4 48.7 31.6 47.9 40.2 39.3 43.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 2.6 0.9 1.7 1.7 1.4
0.0 2.6 5.1 0.0 3.9 15.4 8.5 12.0 2.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.3
12.0 14.5 22.2 9.4 18.8 12.8 18.8 15.8 6.0 8.5 11.1 14.5 6.0 4.3 8.4
45.3 21.4 42.7 24.8 34.8 43.6 38.5 41.0 40.2 20.5 35.9 32.5 28.2 37.6 32.5
33.3 35.9 23.1 47.0 33.6 25.6 27.4 26.5 34.2 57.3 32.5 36.8 42.7 41.0 40.7
9.4 25.6 6.8 18.8 8.8 2.6 6.8 4.7 15.4 12.0 18.8 13.7 23.1 16.2 16.5
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.9 0.6
JUNE, 2010
39
Table D.1: Percent distribution of domestic tourists by scores on importance and satisfaction according to facility, Badami-PattadakalAihole, Karnataka
201 Connectivity of the destination/ circuit with major Indian cities 202 International connectivity of destination/ circuit 203 Condition of airport serving the destination/ circuit Overall Air Connectivity 204 Quality of the roads 205 Quality of way side amenities available on this road Overall Road Connectivity 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 Overall Rail Connectivity 209 Public conveniences along roads/streets 210 Sewerage and drainage system 211 Garbage disposal 212 Conditions of city roads 213 Drinking Water supply
2.4 1.9 0.7 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
4.8 5.0 2.4 4.1 0.5 1.7 1.1
16.3 19.7 27.4 21.2 2.9 7.9 5.4
55.8 45.4 49.3 50.2 36.8 54.1 45.4
20.7 27.9 20.2 22.9 59.9 36.3 48.1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 17.3 17.8 17.5
0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 14.4 20.4 17.4
98.3 98.6 99.0 98.6 50.7 44.7 47.7
1.2 1.2 0.7 1.0 16.8 15.4 16.1
0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 1.7 1.2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.7 0.5 1.7 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2
1.0 0.7 2.4 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.0 0.5 1.2
5.3 12.0 25.5 14.3 5.5 22.8 22.1 8.9 4.8
55.5 53.4 39.4 49.4 62.5 35.1 43.5 40.6 41.3
37.5 33.4 31.0 34.0 30.3 40.1 33.2 49.5 52.4
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4.8 7.7 6.7 6.4 11.3 20.9 19.2 15.6 15.4
8.4 10.6 12.5 10.5 15.4 23.1 24.3 17.5 19.0
48.3 54.1 47.1 49.8 59.9 38.0 29.6 44.0 33.9
36.5 23.8 29.8 30.0 12.7 16.6 23.1 21.6 29.1
1.9 3.8 3.8 3.2 0.7 1.4 3.8 1.2 2.6
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
JUNE, 2010
40
Table D.1: Percent distribution of domestic tourists by scores on importance and satisfaction according to facility, BadamiPattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka (Contd)
Importance Component of facility Least important (1) 0.0 0.2 0.2 2.9 0.0 0.2 1.9 2.6 0.7 Somewhat important (2) 1.7 1.2 1.9 1.4 2.9 2.9 5.0 3.8 2.9 Not so important (3) 15.1 13.2 19.5 20.0 12.3 9.1 28.6 31.5 16.1 Very important (4) 52.6 46.0 34.4 47.8 50.2 44.7 41.8 34.6 52.4 Most important (5) 30.5 39.3 44.0 27.9 34.6 43.0 22.6 27.4 27.9 NA (8) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Poor (1) 8.4 15.1 10.8 17.8 19.0 24.5 4.3 3.6 12.7 Unsatisfactory (2) 21.6 20.2 18.0 21.4 22.1 22.4 3.8 3.1 9.6 Satisfaction Average (3) 46.6 42.0 35.6 37.0 41.8 35.1 89.9 87.0 57.9 Good (4) 19.7 20.5 29.8 22.4 14.9 15.1 1.9 5.5 18.0 Excellent (5) 3.6 2.2 5.8 1.4 2.2 2.9 0.0 0.7 1.7 NA (8) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
214 Conditions of street lighting Overall Civic Administration 215 Conditions of signages 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 Overall Traffic and transport management 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
1.0 1.2 3.4 0.5 2.2 0.2 0.0 0.5
3.1 3.0 4.3 5.0 5.5 1.0 1.2 0.7
32.7 21.2 23.3 26.0 20.2 15.9 7.7 5.8
43.0 43.6 40.4 44.7 42.5 40.6 53.8 61.1
20.2 30.9 28.6 23.8 29.6 42.3 37.3 32.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5.5 12.3 20.7 8.2 16.6 9.4 1.0 0.5
11.1 13.9 14.4 15.9 18.8 13.2 0.7 1.0
54.8 54.9 57.9 63.5 55.8 49.3 81.5 88.5
26.7 16.8 6.3 11.1 7.7 25.5 14.9 9.4
1.9 2.1 0.7 1.4 1.2 2.6 1.9 0.7
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
JUNE, 2010
41
Table D.1: Percent distribution of domestic tourists by scores on importance and satisfaction according to facility, BadamiPattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka (Contd)
Importance Component of facility Least important (1) 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.7 1.7 Somewhat important (2) 1.4 0.5 1.2 3.1 2.6 Not so important (3) 17.5 30.0 19.0 24.8 13.9 Very important (4) 49.8 38.9 49.5 42.8 36.3 Most important (5) 30.5 30.3 29.6 28.6 45.4 NA (8) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Poor (1) 1.2 4.6 5.8 4.1 15.6 Unsatisfactory (2) 1.2 5.3 10.6 12.5 15.9 Satisfaction Average (3) 87.0 64.7 58.2 59.9 44.0 Good (4) 10.1 24.0 24.5 23.3 22.4 Excellent (5) 0.5 1.4 1.0 0.2 2.2 NA (8) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
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 Overall Tourists facilities 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) Overall Taxes/permits 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
2.6 1.1 1.9 0.2 0.5 0.9
3.6 2.5 9.1 5.5 2.9 5.8
21.9 18.8 22.6 21.6 15.9 20.0
46.2 45.6 46.2 49.0 46.6 47.3
25.7 32.0 20.2 23.6 34.1 26.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
11.5 8.3 3.4 1.9 10.8 5.4
17.3 10.6 8.7 10.6 13.2 10.8
39.9 62.5 72.8 54.8 45.7 57.8
28.8 17.3 14.7 29.8 25.2 23.2
2.4 1.4 0.5 2.9 5.0 2.8
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
0.7 0.7 1.4 0.7 1.2
3.4 4.1 11.3 8.4 12.5
45.0 55.0 42.5 45.9 52.9
50.7 40.1 44.5 45.0 33.4
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6.3 8.4 13.7 15.6 8.4
4.8 9.6 12.7 20.0 7.9
26.0 54.3 30.8 37.7 64.4
53.6 26.2 35.1 23.1 17.3
9.4 1.4 7.7 3.6 1.9
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
JUNE, 2010
42
Table D.1: Percent distribution of domestic tourists by scores on importance and satisfaction according to facility, Badami-PattadakalAihole, Karnataka (Contd)
Importance Component of facility Least important (1) 0.2 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Somewhat important (2) 1.4 1.0 0.2 3.4 1.2 1.2 0.7 0.2 0.5 Not so important (3) 8.9 21.9 5.8 18.0 7.9 10.2 5.0 4.8 4.9 Very important (4) 51.0 42.1 21.2 45.7 50.7 45.2 48.8 36.5 42.7 Most important (5) 38.5 34.9 72.8 32.0 40.1 43.2 45.2 58.2 51.7 NA (8) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Poor (1) 7.0 1.7 5.0 14.9 1.2 8.2 14.7 19.2 16.9 Unsatis factory (2) 6.7 6.5 4.6 14.9 3.4 9.1 11.8 11.8 11.8 Satisfaction Average (3) 46.4 42.1 33.7 42.5 20.2 39.8 58.2 33.9 46.0 Good (4) 33.4 42.3 44.2 23.8 59.1 35.8 13.7 24.5 19.1 Excellent (5) 6.5 7.5 12.5 3.8 16.1 7.0 1.7 10.6 6.1 NA (8) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
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 Overall Maintenance and management of Monuments/tourist attraction 246 Power supply situation 247 Telephone/mobile services Overall Other Services
JUNE, 2010
43
Annexure: 2 Questionnaire
JUNE, 2010
44
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
45
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
46
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
47
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
48
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
49
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
50
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
51
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

03 Report Badami F

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

03 Report Badami F

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Incredible !

Government of India Ministry of Tourism (Market Research Division)

Infrastructure Gaps in Tourism Sector in Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN BADAMI-PATTADAKAL-AIHOLE, KARNATAKA

GfK MODE Pvt. Ltd. June, 2010

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN BADAMI-PATTADAKAL-AIHOLE, KARNATAKA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN BADAMI-PATTADAKAL-AIHOLE, KARNATAKA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN BADAMI-PATTADAKAL-AIHOLE, KARNATAKA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN BADAMI-PATTADAKAL-AIHOLE, KARNATAKA

Figure 1: Percentage distribution of foreign tourists by country of residence, Badami-Pattadakal-Aihole, Karnataka

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN BADAMI-PATTADAKAL-AIHOLE, KARNATAKA

Avg. days- 8.5

Other European 5.9 countries

Avg. days- 8.1

Avg. days- 8.4

Avg. days- 7.9

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN BADAMI-PATTADAKAL-AIHOLE, KARNATAKA

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

Maharashtra Karnataka Others

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN BADAMI-PATTADAKAL-AIHOLE, KARNATAKA

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

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN BADAMI-PATTADAKAL-AIHOLE, KARNATAKA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN BADAMI-PATTADAKAL-AIHOLE, KARNATAKA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN BADAMI-PATTADAKAL-AIHOLE, KARNATAKA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN BADAMI-PATTADAKAL-AIHOLE, KARNATAKA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN BADAMI-PATTADAKAL-AIHOLE, KARNATAKA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN BADAMI-PATTADAKAL-AIHOLE, KARNATAKA

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

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN BADAMI-PATTADAKAL-AIHOLE, KARNATAKA

CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN BADAMI-PATTADAKAL-AIHOLE, KARNATAKA

August 12-18, 2009 September 15-21, 2009

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN BADAMI-PATTADAKAL-AIHOLE, KARNATAKA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN BADAMI-PATTADAKAL-AIHOLE, KARNATAKA

CHAPTER - III PROFILE OF TOURISTS

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN BADAMI-PATTADAKAL-AIHOLE, KARNATAKA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN BADAMI-PATTADAKAL-AIHOLE, KARNATAKA

Avg. days- 8.5 Avg. days- 8.1 Avg. days- 8.4

Other European 5.9 countries France 4.4

Avg. days- 7.9

Maharashtra Karnataka Others

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN BADAMI-PATTADAKAL-AIHOLE, KARNATAKA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN BADAMI-PATTADAKAL-AIHOLE, KARNATAKA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN BADAMI-PATTADAKAL-AIHOLE, KARNATAKA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN BADAMI-PATTADAKAL-AIHOLE, KARNATAKA

Mean 4.0 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.1 4.2 3.9 4.3

Median value of satisfaction

Median value of importance Importance

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN BADAMI-PATTADAKAL-AIHOLE, KARNATAKA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN BADAMI-PATTADAKAL-AIHOLE, KARNATAKA

Median value of satisfaction (71.0)

Median value of importance (86.3)

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN BADAMI-PATTADAKAL-AIHOLE, KARNATAKA

Median value of satisfaction (63.7)

0.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Median value of importance (80.8)

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN BADAMI-PATTADAKAL-AIHOLE, KARNATAKA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN BADAMI-PATTADAKAL-AIHOLE, KARNATAKA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN BADAMI-PATTADAKAL-AIHOLE, KARNATAKA

INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN TOURISM SECTOR IN BADAMI-PATTADAKAL-AIHOLE, KARNATAKA

211 210 204 212 231

97.4 86.3 96.6 92.3 83.8 75.2

77.8 66.7 77.8 73.5 65 56.4