|
Prof. Ashok Singh Director Department of Tourism & Hotel Management M L Sukhadia Univerity, Udaipur, India Contact No.- +91-9414174747 Email: profasinghudr@gmail.com |
Ranjana Tiwari Research Scholar Department of Tourism & Hotel Management M L Sukhadia Univerity, Udaipur, India Address: Flat No. 508, Sri Ram Apartment, 100 Ft Road, Sec-14, Udaipur, Rajasthan, 313001 Contact No.- +91-7093404021 Email:ranjanatiw88@gmail.com |
This research paper explores how destination attributes serve as incentives to promote an emerging destination, Udaipur, Rajasthan. Based on the responses of 321 tourists visiting Udaipur, the analyses revealed that destination attributes were composed of nine dimensions or factors. These include cultural factors, natural factors, recreational activities, accessibility, infrastructure, reception, services at tourist spot, services at hotel/restaurants, and value of money. Based on the survey sample, the results indicate that the services offered by the hotels/restaurants, and accessibility were the most important attribute for tourist satisfaction whereas, the recreational activities was the least important attribute. The findings also suggest the significant differences in the satisfaction level of the tourists with respect to their demographic profile. The demographic variables that effect the overall satisfaction were gender, age, education level and employment. Further, the implications for theory and practice are delineated in the article.
Key Words: Destination Attributes, Tourism Promotion, Udaipur, Demographic Characteristics
India has a unique place on the global tourist map. The United States has no well-known documented history, Europe has a rich history but no wildlife, Africa has wildlife but any forts and palaces. For a tourist, who wants to relive civilisation, witness the rich heritage, get indulge in the spirituality or else to explore the beauty of nature, India comes as a complete package. India has a glorifying history, an attractive present and immense opportunities for the future. In this great country, India, Udaipur has a place of its own. Its kaleidoscope of fairy-tale palaces, lakes, temples, gardens and narrow lanes scattered with stalls, carry the flavour of heroic past, epitomizing valour and chivalry, offers almost everything to the tourists. Udaipur is also known for its Rajput-era in addition to its history, culture and scenic locations. Popularly, the place often called as the “Venice of the East” or “City of Lakes”.
Named after its builder Maharana Udai Singh, the city itself has a long history. It was founded by Maharana Udai Singh in 1559 A.D. as the first ever capital of Mewar. The royal residence of the Rajput rulers, city palace has its own charm. Perched on Bansdara hill, Sajjangarh palace also called ‘Monsoon Palace’ provides the tourist a panoramic view of the area. There are azure lakes in the city itself namely Pichola, Swaroop Sagar and Fateh Sagar in addition to several big and small water bodies in the vicinity. There is no dearth of haveli, which are samples of equisetic architectural beauty. There are large numbers of ancient temples of all sects, mesmerizing churches, mosques and gurudwara, which can be visited by the tourist for their artistry or just to see a few museums that highlight the rich cultural heritage and ancient civilization of the region.The market and the streets have a large variety of unique items of dresses like ‘bandhej’, a Rajasthan’s speciality, ‘mojidis’, a comfortable and reasonably priced footwear for men, women and children; antique silver and gold ornaments. It is quite difficult for the foodies to resist the temptation to savour special dishes like ‘daal’, ‘baati’ and ‘churma’.
Rajasthan is still lagging behind in the race from other competitive destinations resting at the 10th position in share of top 10 states/UTs of India in number of domestic tourist visits in 2014 with 33076491(2.6% share) after states like Tamil Nadu (25.6%), Uttar Pradesh (14.3), Madhya Pradesh (5.0%) and others. however, in Foreign tourists arrival Rajasthan is at 5th position with 1525574 (6.8%) after Tamil Nadu (20.6%), Maharashtra (19.4%), Uttar Pradesh (12.9%), and Delhi (10.3%). Rajasthan lacks the specificity in designing an appropriate marketing and positioning strategy and the stakeholders should be concerned about tourist satisfaction. Further, Udaipur is not a new baby in international tourism market. Udaipur is already a known destination among tourists of different tastes, and has a great potential for further touristic development. However, Udaipur has seen a very nominal growth in tourist arrival from past years, whether it is domestic tourist arrival or foreign tourist arrival. In 2011, Udaipur has seen 753143 tourists (575444 domestic and177699 foreign), in 2012, the tourist arrival grew to 777666 tourists (588293 domestic and 189373 foreign), in 2013, this number further rose up to 875754 tourists (662112 domestic and 183642 foreign). Until May 2014, the total tourist arrival was 323202 tourists, which includes 243264 domestic and 79938 foreign tourists. Its natural resources, historic and cultural values, heritage, pleasant weather and other destination attributes play a vital role in attracting tourists to visit Udaipur frequently. While considering the competitive tourism market, no destination can succeed without putting some extra efforts. Tourist satisfaction is so imperative to successful destination marketing and it influences the choice of destination, the consumption of the products, services and the decision to return to the destination. Therefore, the identification of Udaipur’s important attributes and a wide-ranging evaluation of these attributes in the terms of their effectiveness in affecting the international tourists in their decision when choosing their potential.
Destination Attributes, Tourist Satisfaction & Tourism Promotion: What Is The Connection?
Destination attributes are the ‘pull factors’. The ‘pull factors’ can lead an individual traveller to select one destination over another once the decision to travel has been made. Tourists, firstly, are pushed by their needs, wants to make a decision of ‘whether to go’, and then are pulled by destination’s attributes to make a decision of ‘where to go’. Therefore, the destination’s attributes are very important for a destination to be successful in attracting more tourists (Dann, 1977). Moreover, tourist satisfaction is a person’s feelings of pleasure or disappointment resulting from comparing a product are perceived performance (or outcome) in relation to his or her expectations (Kotler, 2000). Satisfaction is an essential element for maintaining long-term relationships with customers (Khuong, Ngoc, 2014) and it depends upon the expectations and perceptions (Kumaran, Kannan, Milton, 2013). Further, satisfaction is the comparison of expectations with experiences in terms of performance, is reasonably well accepted and is particularly relevant when the focus is on destinations rather than individual service providers (Cadotte, Woodruff and Jenkine, 1982).
Tourist satisfaction has been identified as an important concept in establishing the performance of different destinations. Given the increasing level of competitiveness, it is essential for tourism management authorities to understand the main factors causing satisfaction/dissatisfaction for the tourist (Masarrat, 2012). One of the crucial elements of successful destination marketing is tourist satisfaction, which influence as the choice of destination and the decision to return (Yoon & Usyal, 2005). For the successful execution of marketing strategies or for translating the purposes, it is essential to have a detailed knowledge of the changing behaviours of the users of services in order to satisfy them. In the recent years, tourists have become more demanding and discriminating. To keep pace with the changing tourists’ needs and wants, marketers need to identify ways to improve their products in order to satisfy the customers who are the king of the market (Batra & Chawla, 1995).
However, destination attractions are the primary determinants of the destination attractiveness. They are the primary reason why people visit certain destination (Vengesayi, 2008). A tourist destination is an amalgam of tourist products, services and public goods consumed under the same brand name, hence offers an integrated experience to the tourists (Buhalis, 2000; Leiper, 1995). Whereas, tourism products are the sum of the physical and psychological satisfaction they give to the tourists while travelling to their destination. The tourist product focuses on the facilities and services designed to meet the needs of the tourists. It can be seen as a composite product, as the sum total of a destination’s, tourist attractions, transport, accommodations and of entertainment which results in customer satisfaction (Dixit & Sheela, 2001)
Furthermore, a destination consists of a combination of tangible (eg. Ecotourism activities) and intangible attributes (eg. hospitality of the locals) (Echtner & Ritchie, 1993). The tangible elements are more influential on the overall customer satisfaction, which can easily modifiable or renewable than intangibles (Albayrak, Caber & Aksoy, 2010). Other attributes such as the destination’s natural environment, local culture and climate also affect tourist satisfaction (Pizam, Neumann & Reichel, 1978). Moreover, many reasons cause tourists to be satisfied with their trip or journey, including the quality of the services provided, such as infrastructure, security, cleanliness, natural situation, and consumer protection (Handszuh, 1995). The overall satisfaction is then the result or the sum of the relative importance and the level of satisfaction experienced of all the single attributes (Azen & Fishbein, 1980). Tourism-destination-image studies investigated diverse components of travel destinations such as hotels, restaurants, shopping outlets, attractions, activities, etc. Each component had a set of attributes such as cleanliness, security, quality, etc (Valentina Della Corte, 2015). Moreover, after tourists visit a certain destination, the satisfaction level with each of the destinations important attributes will lead to new perceptions of the destinations important attributes (Zhou, 2005).
The overall satisfaction level with their trip in the destination; and the new overall image of the destination (Pearce, 1982 & Chon, 1991), in turn affects the tourist’s future decision on decision selection or even the decision to return to that destination. The success of destination marketing depends on tourist satisfaction because it affects the selection of the destination, the use of products and services and the decision to return (Kozak and Remington, 2000). Thus, destination managers should establish a high level of visitor satisfaction after purchase to create positive behavior among tourists for improving and maintaining competitive destinations (Yoon and Uysal, 2005). If tourism is to survive by generating satisfaction among interacting tourists and hosts, it must adopt societal marketing strategies. This involves carefully monitoring tourist satisfaction levels and using these as part of the criteria for developing promotional strategies.
The research questions of the study are:
1. Which destination attributes of Udaipur satisfy the tourists?
2. Is there any relationship between destination attributes of Udaipur and the overall tourist satisfaction?
3. Are there any differences in the satisfaction level of the tourists with respect to gender, age, education and employment status?
The following hypotheses are constructed to identify the factors affecting the tourist’s satisfaction –
Hypothesis 1
H10: There is no significant relationship between the destination attributes and overall tourist’s satisfaction.
H11: Overall tourist’s satisfaction is influenced by the destination attributes.
Hypothesis 2
H20: There is no significant influence of demographic characteristics on the relationship between destination attributes and overall tourist’s satisfaction.
H21: Tourist’s demographic characteristics influence the relationship between destination attributes and overall tourist’s satisfaction
Study area
The research area for this study was Udaipur city (Rajasthan, India). Udaipur has been called as the ‘City of Lakes’. Furthermore, it is one of Rajasthan’s most popular vacation destinations. Although famous throughout India, Udaipur is still a ‘small town’. Due to its varied, year-round attractions, it is one of the popular visit destinations. Therefore, the study selected Udaipur as the study area in order to accomplish the objectives of the study.
Sample Population & Size
The primary data was collected through structured questionnaire. The sample population for this research was composed of the international tourists who visited Udaipur in September and October 2014. The survey was conducted over three week’s period at different tourists spots which are frequently visited in Udaipur. Although a random sampling is the best method to make a sample representative to the population but it is difficult to sample international tourists randomly. A convenient sampling method was applied in the various tourist spots of Udaipur. Respondents were informed about the purpose of the research before they were received the questionnaire. The distribution of the questionnaire was carried out only during daytime from 8 A.M to 5 P.M. a total sample size of 350 was attained.
Secondary Data
Secondary data is source information and has been collected through various types of written literature and websites. In the secondary literature, number of books, journals and e-journals available in the different library were used. The information brochure and bulletins released by the Ministry of Tourism at the Central & State levels, the State Tourism Development were also utilized. The annual reports of United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO), World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC), and Indian Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC) along with Department of Tourism (DOT) were used as sources of secondary collection.
Pilot Study
With the through study of the available literature, different set of variables were identified and categorized according to the need of the research objectives of the study. The questionnaire used in this study consisted of three sections. The first section of the survey instrument gathered the data regarding the demographic and travel behaviour characteristics of the respondents. Age was taken as a categorical variable. The categories ranged from ’16-25’ to ‘above 60’. Monthly income level was also taken as a categorical variable. The categories ranged from ‘less than 25000’ to ‘1, 50,001 or more’. The second part of the questionnaire consists Question II used to evaluate the satisfaction level from Udaipur’s important attributes.
The survey instrument was revised and to strengthen its validity, the questionnaire was circulated to 25 Post-Graduate students in the Tourism & Hotel Management Program at Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur. Based on their pointers, the survey instrument was modified. Then, the questionnaire was tested through convenience sample consisting of tourists (N=30) in Udaipur by on the spot interview. Supported by their feedback, the questionnaire was modified and a final questionnaire was redeveloped. Further, the data was coded after sorting out the invalid questionnaire. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS 22.0) and SYSTAT 13 software was used for analysis of the coded data.
To test the reliability of the survey instrument, the Cronbach’s alpha was estimated for each of the nine factors in the study. The results show that the alpha coefficients ranged from 0.511 to 0.813 for the nine factors. Since 0.50 is the minimum value of accepting, therefore, the results are considered to be reliable. The reliability results are given in Table 1.
Table - 1 Label and Reliability Coefficient of the Nine Dimensions
| Label | No. of Item | Reliability Coefficient |
| Cultural Factor | 6 | .603 |
| Services at Tourist Spot | 9 | .670 |
| Services at Hotel/ Restaurants | 9 | .749 |
| Recreational Activities | 7 | .808 |
| Natural Factors | 4 | .524 |
| Infrastructure | 2 | .564 |
| Reception | 3 | .600 |
| Accessibility | 2 | .813 |
| Cost/ Price | 3 | .511 |
Reliability of entire scale = .879
The demographic characteristics of the respondents are shown in the different tables mentioned below. As per the Table 2, with 57.3%, the gender distribution was slightly on the side of the female respondents whereas male respondents were registered with 42.7%. The sample had 26 to 35 year group (37.4%) as the dominant group followed by 16-25 year group (29.64%), 36-45 years group (16.8%), and 46-55 year group (12.5%), while, the age-group 56 years and above was the smallest group with only 3.7% of the respondents. To talk about the employment status of the respondents, 34.9% of the respondents were Students or unemployed, rest 43% were employed by some company or organisation, 17.1% were self-employed and the remaining 5% of the respondents were retired. As far as the education level of the respondents was concerned, no respondent was found at the primary level or below, hence the results show high level of educational attainment by the respondents. 25.5% of the respondents said to have attended University for Post-Graduation, while 5% attained professional degrees; 47% of the respondents said that they went to the college and 22.4% said to attain the secondary school education.
Table – 2 Demographic Profile of the Respondents
| Gender Distribution | ||
| Gender | Frequency | Percentage |
| Female | 184 | 57.3 |
| Male | 137 | 42.7 |
| Total | 321 | 100.0 |
| Age Distribution | ||
| Age Groups | Frequency | Percentage |
| 16-25 | 95 | 29.6 |
| 26-35 | 120 | 37.4 |
| 36-45 | 54 | 16.8 |
| 46-55 | 40 | 12.5 |
| 56 and above | 12 | 3.7 |
| Total | 321 | 100.0 |
| Employment Status Distribution | ||
| Employment Status | Frequency | Percentage |
| Employed | 138 | 43.0 |
| Retired | 16 | 5.0 |
| Self-employed | 55 | 17.1 |
| Student | 112 | 34.9 |
| Total | 321 | 100.0 |
| Education Level Distribution | ||
| Education Level | Frequency | Percentage |
| College | 151 | 47.0 |
| High School | 72 | 22.4 |
| Post-graduation Degree | 82 | 25.5 |
| Professional Degree | 16 | 5.0 |
| Total | 321 | 100.0 |
To test the hypothesis of this study, the tourist satisfaction is measured using one sample t-test analysis. Satisfaction is measured by using the five point Likert Scale, ranging from 1(very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied). The result of one sample t-test analysis show that the tourists, who visited Udaipur during the study, were satisfied with 26 out of 44 attributes. The study also identified 13 dissatisfactory attributes and 5 indifferent attributes. (Refer Table 3 for the Result of the One Sample T-Test)
Table – 3 Satisfaction Level of The Tourists With The Destination Attributes Of Udaipur
| One-Sample Test | ||||||
| T | Df | Sig. (2-tailed) | Mean Difference | Satisfactory Attribute | ||
| 1 | Architecture | 160.442 | 320 | .000 | 4.40810 | Satisfactory |
| 2 | Ancient Ruins | 100.218 | 320 | .000 | 3.84112 | Satisfactory |
| 3 | Fair & Festivals | 124.767 | 320 | .000 | 3.48598 | Satisfactory |
| 4 | Local Features | 89.606 | 320 | .000 | 3.76636 | Satisfactory |
| 5 | Religion Attractiveness | 191.049 | 320 | .000 | 4.19003 | Satisfactory |
| 6 | Heritage Properties | 138.782 | 320 | .000 | 4.05919 | Satisfactory |
| 7 | Modern Amenities (T.S) | 98.304 | 320 | .000 | 3.54517 | Satisfactory |
| 8 | Cleanliness (T.S) | 151.511 | 320 | .000 | 3.16822 | Indifferent |
| 9 | Banks/ATMs | 125.907 | 320 | .000 | 3.51713 | Satisfactory |
| 10 | Medical Facilities (T.S) | 129.082 | 320 | .000 | 2.81308 | Dissatisfactory |
| 11 | Safety & Security | 165.842 | 320 | .000 | 3.78816 | Satisfactory |
| 12 | Communication Sys. T.S) | 124.956 | 320 | .000 | 3.49221 | Satisfactory |
| 13 | Traffic Conditions | 88.318 | 320 | .000 | 2.46106 | Dissatisfactory |
| 14 | Cleanli. in Transport Md. | 80.591 | 320 | .000 | 2.77570 | Dissatisfactory |
| 15 | Parking Facility (T.S) | 165.923 | 320 | .000 | 2.89097 | Dissatisfactory |
| 16 | Phy. Appearance (Hotel) | 190.009 | 320 | .000 | 4.19315 | Satisfactory |
| 17 | Cleanliness of Rooms | 111.962 | 320 | .000 | 3.98131 | Satisfactory |
| 18 | Food Quality (Hotel) | 124.412 | 320 | .000 | 3.38629 | Satisfactory |
| 19 | Knowledge of Hotel Staff | 131.284 | 320 | .000 | 3.59813 | Satisfactory |
| 20 | Hygiene at Hotel | 124.566 | 320 | .000 | 3.38006 | Satisfactory |
| 21 | Food Variety (Restaurant) | 126.371 | 320 | .000 | 3.90343 | Satisfactory |
| 22 | Food Quality (Restaurant) | 164.092 | 320 | .000 | 4.02492 | Satisfactory |
| 23 | Staff Knowledge (Rest.) | 125.771 | 320 | .000 | 3.51402 | Satisfactory |
| 24 | Hygiene at Restaurant | 144.599 | 320 | .000 | 3.70093 | Satisfactory |
| 25 | Adventure Sports | 64.920 | 320 | .000 | 2.16511 | Dissatisfactory |
| 26 | Local Tours | 122.366 | 320 | .000 | 2.97819 | Dissatisfactory |
| 27 | Activities for Children | 198.772 | 320 | .000 | 3.08411 | Indifferent |
| 28 | Nightlife | 91.003 | 320 | .000 | 2.27726 | Dissatisfactory |
| 29 | International Stores | 102.287 | 320 | .000 | 2.67601 | Dissatisfactory |
| 31 | Malls | 67.887 | 320 | .000 | 2.44548 | Dissatisfactory |
| 31 | Electronic Products | 91.398 | 320 | .000 | 2.27103 | Dissatisfactory |
| 32 | Climatic Conditions | 83.851 | 320 | .000 | 3.89097 | Satisfactory |
| 33 | Water Resources | 129.232 | 320 | .000 | 3.57321 | Satisfactory |
| 34 | Wildlife | 83.840 | 320 | .000 | 2.98131 | Dissatisfactory |
| 35 | Vegetation | 70.276 | 320 | .000 | 2.94081 | Dissatisfactory |
| 36 | Accommodation Facility | 98.673 | 320 | .000 | 3.55452 | Satisfactory |
| 37 | Transportation Facility | 198.772 | 320 | .000 | 3.08411 | Indifferent |
| 38 | Information Provided | 82.865 | 320 | .000 | 3.54206 | Satisfactory |
| 39 | Signposts | 75.242 | 320 | .000 | 2.64798 | Dissatisfactory |
| 40 | Communal Attitude | 95.208 | 320 | .000 | 3.35826 | Satisfactory |
| 41 | Accessibility | 104.082 | 320 | .000 | 3.65421 | Satisfactory |
| 42 | Connectivity | 140.987 | 320 | .000 | 3.67913 | Satisfactory |
| 43 | Value for Shopping | 198.772 | 320 | .000 | 3.08411 | Indifferent |
| 44 | Vl. for Accommodation | 130.735 | 320 | .000 | 3.59190 | Satisfactory |
| 45 | Vl. for Transportation | 146.236 | 320 | .000 | 3.18692 | Indifferent |
Mean difference Value 3 = neutral, less than 3 = Dissatisfaction, More than 3 = satisfaction
In the present study, “satisfying” is defined as those attributes with satisfaction scores more than 3 after mean differences and with a t-value significant at the 0.5 level (Significant value ≤ .05). As per the results, (Refer to the Table No. 5.7 for the satisfaction level of the tourists with the destination attributes of Udaipur) the tourists were satisfied with 27 attributes of Udaipur as a tourist destination, which included (1) Architecture (2) Ancient Ruins (3) Fair & Festivals (4) Local Features (5) Religion Attractiveness (6) Heritage Properties (7) Modern Amenities (T.S) (8) Banks/ATMs (9) Safety & Security (10) Communication System (11) Physical Appearance (Hotel) (12) Cleanliness of Rooms (13) Food Quality (Hotel) (14) Knowledge of Hotel Staff (15) Hygiene at Hotel (16) Food Variety at Restaurant (17) Food Quality at Restaurant (18) Staff Knowledge (Rest.) (19) Hygiene at Restaurant (20) Climatic Conditions (21) Water Resources (22) Accommodation Facility (23) Information Provided (24) Communal Attitude (25) Accessibility (26) Connectivity (27) Value for Accommodation. Indifferent attributes are defined as those attributes with mean difference value 3, with significant t-value (Sig. <0.05). Attributes, such as (1) Cleanliness (T.S) (2) Activities for Children (3) Transportation Facility (4) Value for Shopping (5) Value for Transportation included in the group of indifferent attributes. The results show that tourists had neutral feelings or indifference, i.e. in relation to those attributes. Further, dissatisfying attributes were defined as those attributes, which scored less that 3 mean difference, regardless of the t value at the significance level .05 or below (Sig. ≤ .05). Attributes, (1) Medical Facilities (T.S) (2) Traffic Conditions (3) Cleanliness in Transport Md. (4) Parking Facility (T.S) (5) Adventure Sports (6) Local Tours (7) Nightlife (8) International Stores (9) Malls (10) Electronic Products (11) Wildlife (12) Vegetation (13) Signposts were found as dissatisfactory attributes.
A factor analysis of the attributes was done, before the before hypothesis testing to obtain the destination attribute scale. After factor analysis nine factors were surfaced, which were utilised as the independent variables during the testing of multiple regression analysis. The factors were extracted through varimax rotated factor matrix with Eigen value more than 1, explain 46% of the total variance. The nine factors were defined by the forty-four variables which loaded mostly heavily on them (loading > 0.5). Based on that criterion, five items were eliminated as performing arts, water, clothing/handicrafts, water/energy, and local guides. This resulted in the final factor structure with 44 items out of 61 initially. For these 44 items, nine interpretable factors were extracted
Hypothesis one is established in order to achieve the first objective. The objective stated, “To identify the relationship between the attributes of Udaipur and overall tourist satisfaction.” Correlation analysis was used to investigate relationship between attributes (nine factors derived by factor analysis) and overall tourist satisfaction. Multiple Regression analysis was done to further support the results driven out from correlation analysis. The nine factors that surfaced through factor analysis were utilised as the independent variables during the testing of multiple regression analysis. The Table 4 shows the correlation matrix of the destination attributes and overall tourist satisfaction. The correlation results are significant and show significant relationships between the two variables. According to the results, Factors 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 showed high level association with correlation coefficients 0.738, 0.776, 0.829, 0.715, and 0.754 respectively. Factors F2, F4, and F8 demonstrated moderate correlation with correlation coefficients 0.654, 0.610 and 0.664 respectively, while the least but still considerable association between F9 and overall Satisfaction with ‘0.458’ correlation coefficient. Further, to support the correlation test of association between the factors and overall tourist satisfaction, multiple regression analysis was done amongst the factors. The overall tourist satisfaction was used as dependent variable and the nine attributes factors used as independent variables. The equation for tourist’s overall satisfaction is expressed in the following equation –
Y=a + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3
Where,
Y = value for overall tourist satisfaction with the destination
A = constant
b1 – b9 = Beta Coefficient (regression coefficient) for X1 – X9 (Factor 1- Factor 9)
X1 – X9 = the nine independent factors which explain variance in Y (overall tourist satisfaction with the destination)
Table – 4 Correlation Matrix
| Pearson Correlation Matrix | |||||||||
| Factor | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F6 | F7 | F8 | F9 |
| Pearson Correlation Coefficient | 0.738 | 0.654 | 0.776 | 0.610 | 0.829 | 0.715 | 0.754 | 0.664 | 0.458 |
At significance level α ≤ .05
In the regression analysis, the beta coefficients can be used to explain the relative importance of the eight factors, (subsidising in the model fit) independent variables in contributing to the variance in tourists’ overall satisfaction (dependent variable). As far as the relative importance is concerned, Factor 3 (B3 = 0.257, Sig = 0.000) carried the heaviest weight for tourists’ overall satisfaction, followed by Factor 8 (B 8 = 0.176, Sig = 0.000), Factor 1 (B1 = 0.168, Sig = 0.000), Factor 7 (B7 = 0.138, Sig = 0.000), Factor 2 (B2 = 0.108, Sig = 0.000), Factor 5 (B5 = 0.079, Sig = 0.000), Factor 6 (B6 = 0.023, Sig = 0.000), and Factor 4 (B4 = -0.39, Sig = 0.000). (See Table 5)
Table - 5 Multiple Regression Coefficient Analysis
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficient | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | |
| B | Standard Error | Beta | |||
| (Constant) | .355 | .011 | 31.253 | .000 | |
| Recreational Activities | .079 | .002 | .191 | 48.475 | .000 |
| Services at Hotel/Restaurant | .257 | .003 | .407 | 101.609 | .000 |
| Cultural factors | .168 | .002 | .230 | 68.264 | .000 |
| Accessibility | .176 | .002 | .215 | 70.887 | .000 |
| Services at Tourist Spots | .108 | .002 | .229 | 71.945 | .000 |
| Reception | .138 | .003 | .167 | 50.402 | .000 |
| Natural Factor | -.039 | .002 | -.071 | -19.199 | .000 |
| Infrastructure | .023 | .001 | .055 | 16.074 | .000 |
In conclusion, all the underlying dimensions are significant. Thus, the results of multiple regression analysis reject hypothesis H0, which said that there is no relationship between the selected destination attributes and the overall tourist satisfaction.
To determine the effect of demographic characteristics on the relationship of the destination attributes and tourist satisfaction, four sets of within-subjects multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) were conducted. The nine factors of the destination attributes served as the dependent variable and the demographic variables - age, gender, employment status and education level each served as the independent variable for each of the four analyses. In case of significant effect, the univariate F ratio for each dependent variable were examined to indicate which individual dependent variable contributed to the significant multivariate effect. A Bonferroni-type adjustment was done to account for the inflation of Type I error. Hence, for the post-hoc analyses, the adjusted alpha was set at (0.05/9=0.005). The results indicate that there is no significant difference in the overall satisfaction of the respondents with respect to their education level. (Refer to Table 6 for the MANOVA Results Displaying the Effect of Gender)
The results reveal that there is no significant difference in the overall satisfaction of the respondents with respect to their employment status. However, the significant differences in the overall satisfaction of the respondents are found in gender (F=3.8, Sig. = 0.020), age (F=4.34, Sig. = 0.009) and education level (F = 15.54, Sig. = 0.001). As far as gender was concerned, the significant differences were found for factors – cultural factors, services at hotel/restaurants, reception and accessibility and no significant differences for other factors. According to the analysis, for variables “Cultural factors” and “Services at Hotel/ Restaurant” females were more satisfied than the males while for the variables “Reception” and “Accessibility” males were more satisfied than the female tourists. Also, with respect to the variable age, significant differences were found for the variables “Natural Factors”, “Infrastructure” and “Services at Tourists spots”. Moreover, young tourists of 18-25 and 36-45 age groups were more satisfied than other age groups for the dimension “Services at Tourist Spots”. For “Natural Factors”, the young tourists (18-25 age groups) were found more satisfied than other age groups. Furthermore, the tourists in the age groups 36-45 and 46-55 were found more satisfied in comparison to other age groups for the dimension “Infrastructure”. With respect to education level, the findings illustrate significant differences in the means for the dimensions, “Services at Tourist Spots”, “Natural Factor”, “Infrastructure” and “Reception”. The study revealed that the tourists with higher education level were more likely to get satisfied with the dimensions “Services at Tourist Spots”, “Natural Factor”, “Infrastructure” and “Reception”.
Table - 6 MANOVA Results Displaying the Effect of Gender on the Relationship of Destination Attributes And Tourists Satisfaction
| Multivariate Test Statistics Statistic Used: Wilk’s Lambda | |||||
| Value | F-Ratio | DF | p- Value | ||
| Gender | Male Female | 0.992 | 3.281 | 9, 311 | 0.020 |
| Age | 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56 and above | 0.951 | 4.34 | 36, 1,155 | 0.009 |
| Employment Status | Employed | 0.934 | 0.794 | 27, 903 | 0.763 |
| Retired | |||||
| Self-employed | |||||
| Student | |||||
| Education Level | College | 0.953 | 15.54 | 27, 903 | 0.001 |
| High School | |||||
| Post-graduation Degree | |||||
| Professional Degree | |||||
Tourism can be regarded as one of the most lucrative and productive industry. Though Indian Government recognised its importance quite late in early 90s, but from then, it did not leave a stone unturned to harness the benefits from the development of the tourism industry. However, when we talk about position of India in Global Tourism Industry, it still has long way to cover. Rajasthan in India is at 5th position in foreign tourist arrival and 10th in domestic tourist arrival after Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, U.P and others. Moreover, the foreign tourist arrival has also declined from 2012, while domestic tourist arrival increased. Therefore, the stakeholders need to focus on increasing international tourist arrival in Udaipur. To increase FTAs (Foreign Tourist Arrival), it becomes imperative for the stakeholders and government to understand which attributes of a destination attract tourists. Therefore, this research was conducted to gain an understanding of destination attributes and their relation with the tourist satisfaction. As there were no sufficient empirical evidences on what constitute destination attributes, therefore, to identify the important destination attributes was also one of the objectives of the study.
The research paper examined the relationships between tourist satisfaction and destination attributes in Udaipur, Rajasthan. Further, the relationship between destination attributes and overall tourist satisfaction is affected by demographic characteristics. Two hypotheses were constructed and appropriate techniques were identified to test the hypotheses. The international tourists were highly satisfied with the cultural features of Udaipur which included architecture, ancient ruins, fair & festivals, local features, religion attractiveness, and heritage properties. The tourists were satisfied with the modern amenities at tourist spots, banks/ATMs, safety & security, and communication system; however, they were dissatisfied with the traffic conditions, cleanliness in the transportation medium, medical and parking facilities at tourist spots and indifferent towards the cleanliness at the tourist spots The services related to the hotel or restaurant at Udaipur like, physical appearance of the hotel, cleanliness of rooms, food quality at hotel, knowledge of hotel staff, hygiene at hotel, food variety at restaurant, food quality at restaurant, staff knowledge at restaurant, and hygiene at restaurant satisfied the tourists. As for the recreational or outdoor activities the tourists had nothing exciting to do in Udaipur. The tourists were neutral with the activities for the children; moreover, they were dissatisfied with the attributes viz. adventure sports, local tours, nightlife, international stores, malls, and electronic products at Udaipur. The tourists are satisfied with the climatic conditions and water resources in Udaipur; however, they were dissatisfied with the wildlife and vegetation of Udaipur. Respondents of this study expressed that they are indifferent towards the transportation facility at Udaipur whereas, the accommodation facility are quite satisfactory. Reception is one of the most important factors in satisfaction measurement. Respondents of this study expressed that they are dissatisfied with information centres, signposts and maps. The lack of appropriate information signs could result in this dissatisfaction. However, they are satisfied with the attitude of local communities and information provided by them. Results of this study show that respondents are satisfied with the money spent on lodging and; but neutral with money spent on transportation and shopping. The tourists felt that Udaipur is well connected and accessible city and were satisfied with the attributes.
The hypothesis testing shows that attributes of Services at Hotel/ Restaurant followed by Accessibility greatly influence tourist’s overall satisfaction. It is followed by Cultural factors, Reception, Value for Money, Services at Tourist Spots, Recreational Activities, and Infrastructure. The weakest factor is the Natural Factor. MANOVA test show that the highest level of satisfaction is linked with the females. However, the age group of 36 years old or older are found more satisfied than other age groups. Further the respondents with higher education and above are more satisfied in comparison to others.
The results of this study offer numerous practical suggestions to destination and the tourism suppliers looking to develop positioning and marketing strategies for Udaipur tourism. There is nothing very unique than the knowledge of the important destination attributes which attract tourists to visit a destination, as unique selling propositions in positioning themselves in an increasingly competitive world of tourism marketing. To plan marketable tourism products and services for any destination, the satisfaction level of the tourists plays crucial role. Therefore, to examine the performance of the destination products or services, the assessment of the tourist satisfaction should be a basic parameter. The results defined the dimensions of destination attributes, and highlighted the role of the varied features of the destination attributes, which contributed to the satisfaction level of the tourists. The result displayed that the attributes like climate, wildlife, nightlife, safety and security, architecture, modern amenities at tourist spots and even beggars all form an integral part of the satisfaction level of the tourists. Additionally, the purpose of measuring and explaining customer satisfaction is to understand how well suppliers at a particular destination recognize and respond to the needs of the visitors and which elements of the tourists’ destination need improvement. Tourists’ comments, complaints and suggestions are a valuable source of ideas for improvements and innovations. The findings highlight that a good plan for related services and facilities could lead to the sustainable growth of tourism industry. Therefore, the measurement of the satisfaction level related to the destination attributes helps to increase the industry performance, as the tourism industry managers could understand the motivations and behavior of the visitors. From the understanding of the relative importance of the destination attributes and its relation to satisfaction, the stakeholders or the destination 242 marketers could segment their market and formulate the effective positioning strategies for different groups. Hence, it will enable the stakeholders to develop and improve the products, services and specific strategies to enhance the visitor satisfaction, repeat visitation and the competitiveness of the destination. To offer quality products in any destination the public and private sector need to work in close cooperation with all the local suppliers. Hence, in order to facilitate and/ or enhance the co-operation, destination’s quality and attractiveness, the task of measuring satisfaction with regard to the tangible and intangible aspects of the destination attributes should be distributed among all supply-side stakeholders (hotels, restaurants, tourist information centres, tourist agencies, etc.) at the destination. The satisfaction level of the tourists from the recreational activities at Udaipur is low. Tourists wanted to indulge in more of the recreational activities in Udaipur but they did not get enough opportunities. The tourism stakeholders can create some activities for the tourists of all age groups where they can experience the culture and heritage of Udaipur, Rajasthan for which the destination is famous.
(2014, September 30). Rajasthan Patrika, epaper. Retrieved from http://epaper.patrika.com/347668/Udaipur/30092014#page/13/2.
Albayrak, T., Caber, M., & Aksoy, Ş. (2010). Relationships of the tangible and intangible elements of tourism products with overall customer satisfaction. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, 1(2), 140-143.
Batra, S., & Chawla, S. (1995). Dynamics of tourism marketing: Emerging trends. Tourism Management- A Global perspective, 1-12.
Buhalis, D. (2000), “Marketing the competitive destination of the future”, Tourism Management, Vol. 21, pp. 97-116.
Cadotte, E. R., Woodruff, R. B., & Jenkins, R. L. (1982). Norm and expectations predictions: How different are the measures? In H. K. Hunt, & R. L. Day (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventh annual conference on consumer satisfaction, dissatisfaction and complaining behaviour. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, School of Business.
Chon (1991)”Tourism destination image modification process: marketing implications” Tourism Management, March: 68-72.
Cooper, C., Fletcher, J., Gilbert, D., Shepherd, R., & Wanhill, S. (ed.). (1998). Tourism: principles and practices, (2nd ed.). England: Addison- Wesley, Longman.
Dann, G. (1977). Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 4, 184-194.
Dann, G. (1981). Tourist motivation: An appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research 8(2), 187-219.
Dixit, M & Sheela, C. (2001). Tourism products. New Royal Book Company. Lucknow. First Edition.
Echtner C. M. & Ritchie J. R. B. (1993). The measurement of destination image: An empirical assessment, Journal of Travel Research 31 (Spring): 3-13.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior, Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Ghazal Masarrat (2012). Tourist’s satisfaction towards tourism products and market: A case study of Uttaranchal. International Journal of Business Information and Technology. 2(1): 16-25.
Handszuh, H.F., (1995). Developing quality in tourism services: A brief review. In Richards, G., Tourism in Central and Eastern Europe: Educating for Quality. The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press, 225-240.
Kotler, P. (2000) Marketing management. 10th ed., New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Kumar, A. (2013). Maharana Udai Singh II – The Founder of Udaipur. Retrieved from The Braves and Smarts: http://www.thebravesandsmarts.com/2013/07/maharana-udai-singh-ii-founder-of.html#.VYo-1vmqqkp
Kumar, A. (2013). Maharana Udai Singh II – The Founder of Udaipur. Retrieved from The Braves and Smarts: http://www.thebravesandsmarts.com/2013/07/maharana-udai-singh-ii-founder-of.html#.VYo-1vmqqkp
Leiper, N. (1995) Tourism Management. TAFE Publications, Collingwood, Vic.
Valentina Della Corte, M. S. (2015). Customer satisfaction in tourist destination: The case of tourism offer in the city of Naples. Journal of Investment and Management, 4, 39-50.
Pearce, P.L. (1982) “Perceived changes in holiday destinations” Annals of Tourism Research, 9: 145-164.
Pizam, A., Neumann, Y. and Reichel, A. (1978). “Dimensions of tourist satisfaction with a destination area.” Annals of Tourism Research, July/September, 314-322.
Udaipur. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://pinkcity.net/rajasthan/udaipur/udaipur.htm.
Udaipur-City of Lakes. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://indiaouting.com/rajasthan/udaipur-city-of-lakes/.
Vengesayi, S. (2003, December 1-3). A conceptual model of Tourism destination: Competetiveness and attractiveness. ANZMAC 2003 Conference Proceedings Adelaide , 637-647.
Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: A structural model. Tourism Management, 26(1): 45-56.
Zhou, L. (2005, November). Destination attributes that attract international tourists to Cape Town.
