a structural equation model_ india 's intern atonal tourism demand for tourist destination...

8/14/2019 A Structural Equation Model_ India 's Intern Atonal Tourism Demand for Tourist Destination E-journal2008 1

1/33

1

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com
http://www.pdffactory.com/http://www.pdffactory.com/


2/33

2



3/33

3



4/33

4

Development Project (2002)).Global, regional and sub regional tourism trends continueto be a fast growing, and powerful industry. This is an industry which makes rapid, deep,and wide contributions to socio-economic development, especially contributes to povertyreduction (ADB Draft Final Report for GMS Tourism Sector Strategy (2005)). More,tourism is an important part of the economy in many developing countries. According tothe world Trade Organization (WTO), India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and Thailand

combined make up 3% of the worlds tourism market, and Asia Pacific was the worldsfastest growing tourism region in 2004 (Crey, 2005 and Pimtong et. al, 2007). Therefore,tourism significantly contributes to economic growth and remains one of the bestopportunities to generate income and empowerment for countries at various stages ofdevelopment (Indian Institute of Tourism &Travel Management, 2007).

According to the Annual Report 2004-05 prepared by the Ministry of Tourism, the year2005 saw tourism in India emerging as a major sector of the Indian economy.International tourist arrivals grew at 13.2 percent over that of the previous year, with realboom taking place in the first half of the year (Indian tourism statistics department, 2005).The estimated foreign exchange earnings during the year touched the level of US $5,731million during 2005 against US $ 4,769 million during 2004 a growth of about US $960million in one year. In absolute rupee terms, the increase in foreign exchange earningsduring the year was to the tune of Rs.3,570 crores (Reserve Bank of India, 2006). Anotherimportant feature of India tourism during 2005 was the per tourist earnings in India. Itwas observed that on an average, per tourist foreign exchange earnings in India was aboutUS $1462 against the estimated world average of US $844. Even when the averageearnings per tourists are compared with those of the top world tourist generating countriesor with countries in India's neighborhood, it was highest in India with an exception ofUSA (World Tourism Organization, 2005)

From above information showed that international tourism industry would be moreimportance impact on Indias Economy as well as if the number of international touristarrivals to India increase every year then the earning of international tourism industry alsowill increase.

In this research design the tourist destination must consist of tree parts: 1) tourismproduct, 2 tourism product attribute, and 3) tourism product management (Prasert,Chukiat, Rangaswamy, Siriporn, 2007). If these three parts are continually developedfollowing international tourist demand then not only will international tourist revisit Indiabut also the number of international tourists traveling to India will increase (Yau andChan (1990), Rittichainuwat et all. (2001), Pimtong, Qu and Ryan(2007), Siriporn andWang, 2007)). Therefore, this study focuses on Indias international tourism demand fortourist destination in India based on a structural equation model approach (LISREL 8).



5/33

5

2. Research Aim and Objective

This research has the aim and objective of seeking to know and develop a structuralequation mode of Indias international tourism demand as well as to use this model toexplain international tourist behavior in India.

3. Scope of the Research

The scope of this research is the period 2007(Q2)-2007(Q4) and mostly the data wasprimary data. This data was colleted from international tourist arrivals to India in thisperiod by survey and the totally number of questionnaires used for this method was 100.The countries used for analysis in this research were the major countries for theinternational tourism industry of India, namely England, America, Canada, France,Germany, Japan, Malaysia, Australia, Singapore and Korea. Almost all of them had aninfluence on the income of the international tourism industry of India in the same period(source: Indias tourism organization). The areas used to collect data were Karnataka (Bangalore),Goa (Panaji) and Maharashtra (Mumbai).

4. Literature Review

4.1 The Concept Background of the International Tourism Demand Model

The concept of the theory has been used in international tourist demand since 1950 butthe estimation in international tourist demand by econometric method was used for thefirst time by Artus (1972). After that a lot of research about international tourist demandfunction used the econometric method. The researcher studied research such as Archer(1976), Crouch (1994), Walsh (1996), Lim (1997), Inclair (1998), Lise & Tol (2002),McAleer (2001,2003) Resina and Aruna (2004). Growth in international tourism isclosely aligned to economic variables, which at a microeconomic level influence theconsumers decision to undertake overseas travel. Empirical research on internationaltourism demand has overwhelmingly been based on aggregate time series data whichpermits estimation of income and price elasticity on inbound tourism (see Lim, 1997 andMcAleer (2001, 2003)). A simple origin-destination demand model for internationaltourism can be written as: (equation number (1A) )

Dt= f ( Y

tTC

tP

t) -------------------------- (1A)

Definitions:

Dt = is a measure of travel demand at time t ;Yt = is a measure of income of the tourist-generating or origin

country at time t ;TCt = is a measure of transportation costs from the origin to

destination country at time t ;Pt = is a measure of tourism price of goods and services at time t in

destination country;

And assume that ( + Yt ), (-TCt ), (- Pt ) and explain that when income at time t isincreasing then the demand for international tourism is increasing simultaneously. When



6/33

6

the measure of transportation costs from the origin to destination country at time t isincreasing then the demand for international tourism decreases. And when the measure oftourism price of goods and services is increasing then the demand for internationaltourism is decreasing. Moreover in term of (- Pt) explain that when the measure oftourism price of goods and service is decreasing then the satisfaction of tourist for goodsand service is increasing (Yi, 1990) (see more detail in topic of Customer Satisfaction).

Based on a review of the literature above in terms of international tourism demandmodel, all of them have already been referred to again from Chukiat et al(2006). Thisresearch also expect higher travel cost satisfaction status to have a positive impact ontotal expenditure due to preference for tourism product or tourism destination.

4.2 Customer Satisfaction and Travel Cost Satisfaction

It is indicated that those factor such as personality, expectation, motivation, decisionmaking, accommodation, and activities influence tourists behavior and determine thelevel of satisfaction (Jafar Jafari, 2000). Customer satisfaction is a central concept inmarketing because it is crucial to meeting the needs and wants of customers (Spreng etal., 1996; Yi,1990). Firms deliver a product as well as satisfaction to customer, andobtain profits in return (Yi, 1990). While customer satisfaction has been defined in manyways, researchers generally agree that an evaluation process is an essential elementunderlying customer satisfaction (Yi, 1990). Hunt (1997) defined satisfaction as anevaluation rendered that the consumption experience was at least as good as it wassupposed to be (p.459). Based on previous theoretical and empirical evidence, Engel andBlackwell (1982) conceptualized satisfaction as an evaluation that the chosen alternativeis consistent with prior beliefs with respect to that alternative (p. 501). In term ofeconomics cost can be regarded as monetary service price and service time during whicha service is provide (Murphy and Enis, 1986). The effect of price is called pricesensitivity, which is similar to price elasticity, which influence customers purchaseintention and behavior (Dodds et al., 1991 ; Monroe, 1990; Zeithaml, 1988). Based on thecomparison among benefits and costs, if the cost is higher than the benefit, customersmay lose their purchasing intention and shift from the present service firm to another(Lee & Cunningham, 2001). According to a review of the literature above the travel costsatisfaction of tourists is higher when the cost of travel is lower. On the other hand, if thetravel cost satisfaction of tourist is lower then it is depict that the cost of tourist travel ishigher. One again this research also expected higher travel cost satisfaction status to havea positive impact on total expenditure due to preference for tourism product or tourismdestination.



7/33

7

4.3 Tourism Product, Tourism Product Attributes and Tourism Product

Management

The tourism product is the synergistically perceived experience of an attraction,facilitated by a number of heterogeneous services. Apart from the attraction, the keyservices are transport, accommodation and hospitality (Gnoth, 2005). The tourism

product such as support services and attraction and tourist resources with one days returntravel time (WTO, 2002). Brass (1997) suggests that tourism products can be classifiedinto two main components: attractions and facilities. Attractions are those natural andhuman-made features and events that stimulate people to visit a destination. Together,the mix of destination attractions and facilities create a set of intangible subjectiveexperiences for tourists known as a tourism product (Tourism Research Group, 1992).The tourism product includes physical goods, services, experiences, events, persons,places, properties, organizations, information and ideas contribute to the satisfaction oftravelers. (Smith, 2001; Kother, 2001). The tourism products from the industry stance canbe apprehended on two levels: a) The total tourism product, consisting of a combinationof all the service elements consumed by the tourist from the time he/she sets off fromhome, to the time of return. This product can be an idea, an expectation, or a frame ofmind, at the point of sale. b) The explicit products such as attractions, accommodation,transport and other facilities, are elements of the total tourist product. The productattributes refer to the various characteristics of product that influence a customersdecision to purchase or not to purchase the product (Swanson and Horridge, 2004). Alsobased on the definition of the product attributes above in term of tourism productattributes is the various characteristics of tourism product that influence a touristssdecision to purchase or not to purchase the tourism product. The various characteristicsof tourism product such as cleanliness, beauty, safety and environmentally friendly. Thetourism product management or the tourism destination management (Ritchie(2003)),consists of three part:1) destination competitiveness is the competitiveness of onedestination relative to other destinations. 2) destination performance such as economicmeasures, sustainability measures, visitor satisfaction measures, quality of managementaction measures. 3) successful goal achievement with respect to goals set by destinationstakeholders. The destination management or tourism product management can bedefined as a system of managerial skills and activities used for coordinated planning andorganizing of tourism for a particular destination (Jane kov & Vatkov 1999). Thedestination management or tourism product management must address: a) Attractions:the motivators for the visit: (built (e.g. cathedrals/monuments), cultural (e.g. museums)and emotional or experiential triggers. b) Amenities: basic infrastructure such as utilitiesand roads direct services, accommodation, visitor information, catering and shoppingfacilities. c) Accessibility, d) Image and c) Price: (the cost of transport to and from thedestination, accommodation, attractions, food and tour services) (Carter and Fabricius,2007). The destination management or tourism product management is creatingcompetitive advantage for your destination in long term also is advancing sustainabledevelopment of competitive tourism in your destination (Lengyel, 2007). In this researchfocus on the destination management or tourism product management is the attraction ofthe tourism product, the amenities of the tourism product, the accessibility to the tourism

product, the image of the tourism product, the price of the tourism product and thecompetitiveness of the tourism product. This research also expected both higher travelcost satisfaction and tourist demographics status to have a positive impact on total



8/33

8

expenditure due to preference for tourism destination (tourism product, tourism productattributes and tourism product management).

5. Conceptual Framework

Based on the literature review and research model (see Figure 1), this research sought the

relationship among travel cost satisfaction, tourism product, tourism product attributesand tourism product management in a structure equation model of Indias internationaltourism demand for tourist destination. The one hypotheses tested in this research arepresented below:

Hypothesis 1 : Travel cost satisfaction will have a positive influence ontourism destination (tourism product, tourism productattributes and tourism product management)

Figure 1. Hypothesized relationships between independent variables (Travel Cost Satisfaction)

and dependent variables (Tourism Product, Tourism Product Attributes andTourism Product Management)

Source from: Chukiat, Prasert and N. Rangaswamy (2007)

Travel Cost

Satisfaction

Tourism

ProductManagement

Tourism

ProductAttributes

Tourism

Productx1

x2

y8

y7

y6

y5

y4

y3

y2

y1

x7

x6

y12

y11

y10

y9

x5

x4

x3



9/33

9

6. Research Methodology

Jreskog and Srbom (1982) developed the LISREL Model Approach for creatingstructural equation models with confirmatory factor analysis (Jreskog & Srbom,1989).This approach is also very famous for use for data analysis in both social research andeconomics research (Nongrak,1992). The LISREL model (Jreskog, Karl and Srbom

,2001), in its most general form, consists of a set of linear structural equations. Variablesin the equation system may be either directly observed variables or unmeasured latent(theoretical) variables that are not observed but relate to observed variables. It is assumedin the model that there is a causal structure among a set of latent variables, and that theobserved variables are indicators of the latent variables. The model consists of two parts,the measurement model and the structural equation model:

The measurement model specifies how latent variables or hypotheticalconstructs depend upon or are indicated by the observed variables. Itdescribes the measurement properties (reliabilities and validities) of theobserved variables.

The structural equation model specifies the causal relationships among thelatent variables, describes the causal effects, and assigns the explained andunexplained variance.

The LISREL method estimates the unknown coefficients of the set of linearstructural equations. It is particularly designed to accommodate models thatinclude latent variables, measurement errors in both dependent andindependent variables, reciprocal causation, simultaneity, andinterdependence.

The method includes as special cases such procedures as

Confirmatory factor analysis,

Multiple regression analysis,

Path analysis,

Economic models for time-dependent data,

Recursive and non-recursive models for cross-sectional / longitudinaldata,

Covariance structure models and

Multi-sample analysis.

Description of the Model

The full LISREL model for single samples is defined, for deviations about the means, bythe following three equations.

The structural equation model:

h = Bh + G x + z



10/33

10

The measurement model for y:

y = Ly h + e

The measurement model for x:

x = Lx x + d

The terms in these models are defined as follows:

h is a m x 1 random vector of latent dependent, or endogenous, variables

x is a n x 1 random vector of latent independent, or exogenous, variables

y is ap x1 vector of observed indicators of the dependent latent variables h

x is a q x 1vector of observed indicators of the independent latent variables x

e is ap x 1 vector of measurement errors in y

d is a q x 1 vector of measurement errors in x

Lyisapxmmatrix of coefficients of the regression ofy on h Lxis aqxnmatrix of coefficients of the regression ofx on x G is a m x n matrix of coefficients of the x-variables in the structural

relationship

B is a m x m matrix of coefficients of the h-variables in the structuralrelationship. (B has zeros in the diagonal, and I - B is required to be non-singular)

z is a m x 1 vector of equation errors (random disturbances) in the structuralrelationship between h and x

Assumptions

The random components in the LISREL model are assumed to satisfy the followingminimal assumptions:

e is uncorrelated with h

d is uncorrelated with x

z is uncorrelated with x

z is uncorrelated with e and d .

Covariance Matrices

Cov (x) = F( n x n)

Cov (e) = Qe(p xp)

Cov (z) = Y( m x m)

Cov (d) = Qd( q x q)



11/33

11

Implied Covariance Matrix

The assumptions in the previous section imply the following form for the covariancematrix of the observed variables:

where A is inverse(I - B).

Fixed, Free and Constrained Parameters

The general LISREL model is specialized by fixing and constraining the parameters thatcompromise the elements in Ly , Lx , B, G, Y, F and Qd. The elements are of three kinds:

Fixed parameters - assigned specific values

Constrained parameters - unknown but equal to a function of one or moreother unknown parameters

Free parameters - unknown and not constrained to be equal to otherparameters

7. The Results of the Research

7.1 International Tourist Profile Based on Surveying Method

A survey was conducted among international tourists to India in the tourist areas ofKarnataka (Bangalore), Goa (Panaji) and Maharashtra (Mumbai). These states arefamous for international tourist arrivals to India (Source: India's Tourism Organization).

Table 1 (see more detail in appendix A) shows descriptive statistics of India'sinternational tourists in terms of both their socio-economics and their demographics. Out

of the 100 respondents, 56% were male, 54% were female. About 49% were between theages of 21 to 30, 16% were between the ages of 31 to 40, 11% were between the ages of41 to 50, 8% were over 50, 5% were under 20 and 19% did not sate their age.

About 70% were single, 30% were married. About 37% held a bachelor's degree, 16%held a diploma degree, 36% held a degree higher than a bachelor's degree, 11% had notcompleted grade 12 high school. About 7% of respondents were company officers, 43%were students, 11% were general employees, 9% were involved in commerce or privatebusinesses, 6% were in the government service or staff of state enterprises, 2% werehousewives/husbands, 21% were otherwise and 1% did not sate their occupation or

profession.



12/33

12

About 36% of respondents reported an average income per month under $1,000, 19% ofrespondents reported an average income per month between $2,001-$3,000, 13% between$1,001-$2,000, 7% between $3,001-$4,000, 12% over $4,000 and 13% did not reportedtheir average income per month.

About 36% of respondents reported average total spending per visit to India of between

$501-$1,000, 14% over $2,000, 17% of respondents reported average total spending pervisit to India under $500, 20% of respondents reported average total spending per visit toIndia between $1,001-$1,500, 7% between $1,501-$2,000 and 6% did not sate theiraverage total spending per visit to India.

About 19% of respondents reported that no body came with them to India, 28% ofrespondents reported that only one person, 10% of respondents reported two people, 43%of respondents reported three or more people that came with them to India.

In terms of the purposes of international tourists' visits to India, the survey showed thatabout 27% came for relaxation, 37% to find out about the culture/traditions, 3% forseminars, 25% did not state their purpose, 13% for personal business, 5% to visitrelatives, 12% to see heritage buildings, 27% for their education and 2% for sport.

Table 2 (see more details in appendix A) shows descriptive statistics of India'sinternational tourists in term of their travel behavior. About 49% of respondents reportedthat they came to India because of word of mouth, 42% of respondents reported thatguide books influenced them, 38% of respondents reported internet advertisements, 20%of respondents reported magazines, 14% of respondents reported newspapers, 19% ofrespondents reported television programs, 5% of respondents reported brochures by tour-operators, 6% of respondents reported television advertisements and 18% of respondentsreported none of the above influenced them to come to India.

About 33% of respondents reported that they are likely to come back to India again, 23%of respondents reported that they are very likely to come back to India again, 20% ofrespondents reported that they will certainly come back to India again, 19% ofrespondents reported that they are somewhat likely to come to India again, 4% ofrespondents reported that they are unlikely to come back to India again and 1% did notstate whether they will come to India again or not.

About 23% of respondents reported that pre-trip planning is important when coming toIndia, 35% of respondents reported that it is somewhat important, 21% of respondentsreported that it is very important, 15% of respondents reported that it is not important and6% of respondents reported that it is extremely important.

About 19% of respondents reported that they stayed in India over 10 days, 11% ofrespondents reported 7-10 days, 9% of respondents reported 4-6 days and 2% ofrespondents reported 1-3 days.



13/33

13

About 56% of respondents reported that they were visiting India for the first time, 19% ofrespondents reported that they had visited more two times, 18% of respondents reportedthat they were visiting for the second time and 7% of respondents reported that they werevisiting for the third time.

About 58% of respondents reported their travel arrangements for this trip as individual

tour, 20% of respondents reported an organized group tour and 22% of respondentsreported other travel arrangements for this trip. About 26% of respondents reported thatthe total cost of their travel to India was not expensive, 38% of respondents reported thatit was somewhat expensive, 24% of respondents reported that that it was expensive, 11%of respondents reported that it was very expensive and 1% of respondents reported that itwas high very expensive.

About 22% of respondents reported that the cost of air travel in India was not expensive,39% of respondents reported that it was somewhat expensive, 26% of respondentsreported that it was expensive, 8% of respondents reported that it was very expensive, 3%of respondents reported that it was high very expensive and 2% did not state that cost ofair travel in India was expensive or not.

About 45% of respondents reported that the shipping cost of their travel in India was notexpensive, 28% of respondents reported that it was somewhat expensive, 10% ofrespondents reported that it was expensive, 2% of respondents reported that it was veryexpensive and 15% did not state that cost of their travel in India was expensive or not.

About 70% of respondents reported that the cost of public service vehicles on their travelsin India was not expensive, 20% of respondents reported that it was somewhat expensive,4% of respondents reported that it was expensive, 3% of respondents reported that it wasvery expensive, 1% of respondents reported that it was high very expensive and 2% didnot state that cost of public service vehicles on their travel in India was expensive or not.

About 48% of respondents reported that the cost of hotels and guesthouses on their trip toIndia was not expensive, 33% of respondents reported that it was somewhat expensive,11% of respondents reported that it was expensive, 3% of respondents reported that it wasvery expensive , 4% of respondents reported that it was high very expensive and 1% didnot state that cost of hotels and guesthouses on their trip to India was expensive or not.

About 52% of respondents reported that the cost of goods and services purchased in Indiaon their trip were not expensive, 33% of respondents reported that they were somewhatexpensive, 8% of respondents reported that they were expensive, 4% of respondentsreported that they were very expensive, 1% of respondents reported that they were highvery expensive and 2% did not state that cost of goods and services purchased in Indiawas expensive or not..About 29% of respondents reported that the total cost of their trip to India was notexpensive, 44% of respondents reported that it was somewhat expensive, 20% of

respondents reported that it was expensive, 6% of respondents reported that it was veryexpensive and 1% of respondents reported that it was high very expensive.



14/33

14

Table 3 (see more detail in appendix A) shows descriptive statistics of India'sinternational tourists in term of their opinions on tourism products or tourist destinationsin India. About 41.9% of respondents reported that they agreed with the quality of touristdestinations (Mountain or Eco-tourism), 40.9% of respondents reported that they neitheragreed nor disagreed with the quality of tourist destinations, 7.5% of respondents reportedthat they strongly agreed with the quality of tourist destinations, 8.6% of respondents

reported that they disagreed with the quality of tourist destinations and 1.1% ofrespondents reported that they strongly disagreed with the quality of tourist destinations.

About 48% of respondents reported that they agreed with the quality of touristdestinations (Cities, Hotels, Guesthouses, Department stores, Market place andRestaurants), 25% of respondents reported that they neither agreed nor disagreed with thequality of tourist destinations, 4% of respondents reported that they strongly agreed withthe quality of tourist destinations, 18% of respondents reported that they disagreed withthe quality of tourist destinations and 5% of respondents reported that they stronglydisagreed with the quality of tourist destinations.

About 41.1% of respondents reported that they agreed with the quality of touristdestinations(Rural areas, Resorts in rural areas and Home stays), 40.2% of respondentsreported that they neither agreed nor disagreed with the quality of tourist destinations,6.2% of respondents reported that they disagreed with the quality of tourist destinations,10.3% of respondents reported that they strongly agreed with the quality of touristdestinations and 2.1% of respondents reported that they strongly disagreed with thequality of tourist destinations.

About 39.6% of respondents reported that they agreed with the quality of touristdestinations (Sea, Beaches, Resorts on beaches and Islands), 31.3% of respondentsreported that they neither agreed nor disagreed with the quality of tourist destinations,8.3% of respondents reported that they strongly agreed with the quality of touristdestinations, 17.7% of respondents reported that they disagreed with the quality of touristdestinations and 3.1% of respondents reported that they strongly disagreed with thequality of tourist destinations.

About 53% of respondents reported that they agreed with the quality of touristdestinations (Culture, traditions, India lifestyle and India service), 16% of respondentsreported that they strongly agreed with the quality of tourist destinations, 18% ofrespondents reported that they neither agreed nor disagreed with the quality of touristdestinations, 11% of respondents reported that they disagreed with the quality of touristdestinations and 2% of respondents reported that they strongly disagreed with the qualityof tourist destinations.

About 50% of respondents reported that they agreed with the quality of touristdestinations (India food, India souvenirs and India Health or Medical tourism), 18% ofrespondents reported that they neither agreed nor disagreed with the quality of touristdestinations, 16% of respondents reported that they disagreed with the quality of tourist

destinations, 2% of respondents reported that they strongly disagreed with the quality oftourist destinations and 14% of respondents reported that they strongly agreed with thequality of tourist destinations.



15/33

15

About 51.5% of respondents reported that they agreed with the quality of touristdestinations(Heritage buildings or Traditional buildings), 27.3% of respondents reportedthat they neither agreed nor disagreed with the quality of tourist destinations, 16.2% ofrespondents reported that they strongly agreed with the quality of tourist destinations, 3%of respondents reported that they disagreed with the quality of tourist destinations and 2%

of respondents reported that they strongly disagreed with the quality of touristdestinations.

About 56% of respondents reported that they agreed with the quality of the touristdestinations and that they would come back to those tourist destinations again, 23%reported that they strongly agreed with the quality of the tourist destinations and that theywould come back to those tourist destinations again, 14% reported that they neitheragreed nor disagreed with the quality of the tourist destinations and maybe they wouldcome back to those tourist destinations again, 3% reported that they strongly disagreedwith the quality of the tourist destinations and that they would not come back to thosetourist destination again and 4% reported that they disagreed with the quality of thetourist destinations as well as that they did not want to come back to those touristdestinations again.

Table 4 (see more detail in appendix A) shows descriptive statistics of India'sinternational tourists in term of their opinions on tourism products attributes or touristdestinations attributes in India. About 28.7% of respondents reported that they agreedwith the attributes of tourist destinations (Mountain or Eco-tourism: Clean, Beautiful,Safe and not destroying the environment), 40.4% of respondents reported that theyneither agreed nor disagreed with the attributes of tourist destinations, 8.5% ofrespondents reported that they strongly agreed with the attributes of tourist destinations,13.8% of respondents reported that they disagreed with the attributes of touristdestinations and 8.5% of respondents reported that they strongly disagreed with theattributes of tourist destinations.

About 37% of respondents reported that they agreed with the attributes of touristdestinations(Cities, Hotels, Guesthouses, Department stores, Market places andRestaurants: Clean, Beautiful, Safe and Not destroying the environment), 30% ofrespondents reported that they neither agreed nor disagreed with the attributes of touristdestinations, 19% of respondents reported that they disagreed with the attributes of touristdestinations, 5% of respondents reported that they strongly agreed with the attributes oftourist destinations and 9% of respondents reported that they strongly disagreed with theattributes of tourist destinations.

About 40.8% of respondents reported that they agreed with the attributes of touristdestinations(Rural areas, Resorts in rural areas and Home stays: Clean, Beautiful, Safeand Not destroying the environment), 33.7% of respondents reported that they neitheragreed nor disagreed with the attributes of tourist destinations, 20.4% of respondentsreported that they disagreed with the attributes of tourist destinations, 3.1% of

respondents reported that they strongly agreed with the attributes of tourist destinationsand 2% of respondents reported that they strongly disagreed with the attributes of touristdestinations.



16/33

16

About 25% of respondents reported that they agreed with the attributes of touristdestinations(Sea, Beaches, Resorts on beaches and Islands: Clean, Beautiful, Safe andNot destroying the environment), 38.5% of respondents reported that they neither agreednor disagreed with the attributes of tourist destinations, 7.3% of respondents reported thatthey strongly agreed with the attributes of tourist destinations, 19.8% of respondents

reported that they disagreed with the attributes of tourist destinations and 9.4% ofrespondents reported that they strongly disagreed with the attributes of touristdestinations.

About 43% of respondents reported that they agreed with the attributes of touristdestinations(Heritage building or Traditional building : Clean, Beautiful, Safety and Notdestroying the environment), 28% of respondents reported that they neither agreed nordisagreed with the attributes of tourist destinations, 9% of respondents reported that theystrongly agreed with the attributes of tourist destinations, 17% of respondents reportedthat they disagreed with the attributes of tourist destinations and 3% of respondentsreported that they strongly disagreed with the attributes of tourist destinations.

From table 5(see more detail in appendix A) give descriptive statistics of India'sinternational tourists in term of their opinions on tourism products management or touristdestinations management in India. About 37.6% of respondents reported that they agreedwith the management of tourist destinations (Mountain or Eco-tourism), 40.9% ofrespondents reported that they neither agreed nor disagreed with the management oftourist destinations, 3.2% of respondents reported that they strongly agreed with themanagement of tourist destinations, 15.1% of respondents reported that they disagreedwith the management of tourist destinations and 3.2% of respondents reported that theystrongly disagreed with the management of tourist destinations.

About 48% of respondents reported that they agreed with the management of touristdestination(Cities, Hotels, Guesthouses, Department stores, Market place andRestaurants), 25% of respondents reported that they neither agreed nor disagreed with themanagement of tourist destinations, 5% of respondents reported that they strongly agreedwith the management of tourist destinations, 3% of respondents reported that theydisagreed with the management of tourist destinations and 19% of respondents reportedthat they strongly disagreed with the management of tourist destinations.

About 37.4% of respondents reported that they agreed with the management of touristdestinations (Rural areas, Resorts in rural areas, Home stays), 40.4% of respondentsreported that they neither agreed nor disagreed with the management of touristdestinations, 2% of respondents reported that they strongly agreed with the managementof tourist destinations, 18.2% of respondents reported that they disagreed with themanagement of tourist destinations and 2% of respondents reported that they stronglydisagreed with the management of tourist destinations.



17/33

17

About 33.3% of respondents reported that they agreed with the management of touristdestinations(Sea, Beaches, Resorts on beaches and Islands), 39.6% of respondentsreported that they neither agreed nor disagreed with the management of touristdestinations, 6.3% of respondents reported that they strongly agreed with the managementof tourist destinations, 15.6% of respondents reported that they disagreed with themanagement of tourist destinations and 5.2% of respondents reported that they strongly

disagreed with the management of tourist destinations.

About 36.7% of respondents reported that they agreed with the management of the Indiatourism industry, 34.7% of respondents reported that they neither agreed nor disagreedwith the management of the India tourism industry, 2% of respondents reported that theystrongly agreed with the management of the India tourism industry, 23.5% of respondentsreported that they disagreed with the management of the India tourism industry and 3.1%of respondents reported that they strongly disagreed with the management of the Indiatourism industry.

About 39.4% of respondents reported that they agreed with the management of heritagebuildings in India, 36.4% of respondents reported that they neither agreed nor disagreedwith the management of heritage buildings in India, 4% of respondents reported that theystrongly agreed with the management of heritage buildings in India, 2% of respondentsreported that they strongly disagreed with the management of heritage buildings in Indiaand 18.2% of respondents reported that they disagreed with the management of heritagebuildings in India.

About 33.3% of respondents reported that they agreed with the management of privatecompany's impact on India's tourism industry, 41.4% of respondents reported that theyneither agreed nor disagreed with the management of private company's impact on India'stourism industry, 2% of respondents reported that they strongly agreed with themanagement of private company's impact on India's tourism industry, 20.2% ofrespondents reported that they have disagreed with the management of private company'simpact on India's tourism industry and 3% of respondents reported that they stronglydisagreed with the management of privet company's impact on India's tourism industry.

About 35.4% of respondents reported that they agreed with the management of the Indiagovernment's impact on India's tourism industry, 40.4% of respondents reported that theyneither agreed nor disagreed with the management of the India government's impact onIndia's tourism industry, 2% of respondents reported that they strongly agreed with themanagement of the India government's impact on India's tourism industry, 18.2% ofrespondents reported that they have disagreed with the management of the Indiagovernment's impact on India's tourism industry and 4% of respondents reported that theystrongly disagreed with the management of the India government's impact on India'stourism industry.



18/33

18

7.2 Results of a Structural Equation Model for India's International Tourism

Demand for Tourist Destinations Based on the LISREL Model Approach

Each of the observable variables was measured by several questions and the items foreach variable were checked for construct validity and reliability using SPSS (see moredetails in Appendix B, Table 6 and Table 7). Construct validity was established by

checking the result of the factor analysis, with all the items representing one factoraccounting for about at least 44% of variance. Reliability refers to the degree of stabilityof the scale (Jackson et al., 1997). Reliability of the construct is demonstrated bychecking the Cronbach alpha for the items for each construct and the correlation amongthe items for the construct. Typically, a scale is said to be reliable if alpha is 0.70 orhigher (Sim, Mak and Jone,2006). Table 7 gives the validity and reliability indices for thequestionnaire items for each variable. All the items had reliability coefficients higher than0.70 except the items of tourism product had reliability coefficients lower 0.70.

To test hypotheses 1 for causal relationships, the LISREL 8 program was used (for detailsconcerning LISREL 8.53, see Jreskog and Srbom 2001). The LISREL model consistsof a measurement model and a structural model (Jreskog and Srbom 2001). Figure 1illustrates how latent variables-tourism products, tourism product attributes, tourismproduct management and travel cost satisfaction were measured (the measurement model)and how the latent variables were proposed to relate among one another (the structuralequation model). According to Diamantopoulos and Siguaw (2000), the measurementmodel (1) specifies how the latent variables are measured in terms of the observedvariables and (2) describes measurement properties (validities and reliabilities) of theobserved variables. The structural equation model (1) specifies the causal relationshipsamong the latent variables and (2) describes the causal effects and amount of unexplainedvariances (Diamantopoulos and Siguaw 2000; Jreskog and Srbom 2001, Prasert,Chukiat, Siriporn 2007).

This research tested the model in Figure 1. and the final model is given in Figure 2 (seemore detail at appendix c). Significant relationships in the model are indicated by solidarrows and insignificant relationships are indicated by doted arrows. The chi-squarestatistic test whether the observed data fit the hypothesis if the proposed model, and asmaller chi-square value indicates a better fit (Sim, Mak and Jone,2006). However, for asmall sample size that might have slightly departed from normality, the chi-squares arenot good model fit indicators (Sim, Mak and Jone,2006). The chi-value in Figure 2 issignificant (X2 with 149 degree of freedom = 323.77(p< 0.05)). Other measures of fitinclude the goodness of fit index (GFI) and normed fit index (NFI). Both the GFI andNFI are always between zero and one, with one indicating a perfect fit while any valueabove 0.9 suggesting a good fit (Bentler & Bonett, 1990). The model has a GFI of 0.75and a NFI of 0.50. This shows a good fit and the adjusted goodness of fit (AGFI) is 0.70 also this again shows a good fit. Similarly, the non-normed fit index (NNFI) and thecomparative fit index (CFI) are two additional measures ranging from 0 to 1, wherevalues close to or greater than 0.9 represent a reasonable mode fit (Sim, Mak andJone,2006). The NNFI and CFI for the model are0.60 and 0.60, respectively and finally,

the root-mean squared residual (RMSR) shows the proportion of the variance notexplained by the model. In general, a root mean squared residual of 0.08 or belowindicates a reasonable model fit (Sim, Mak and Jone,2006) . The model has a RMSR of



19/33


20/33

20

If the tourist destinations in India are maintained good management of touristdestinations in India. Such as maintaining the amenities of the tourism products, keepinggood accessibility to the tourism products, keep a good image of tourism products,keeping the right price of tourism products and keeping the competitiveness of tourismproducts. Then not only will international tourist revisit India but also the numbers of

tourists traveling to India will increase.

9. Limitations and Future Research

Firstly, this study collected data from 100 international tourist during the period2007(Q1) to 2007(Q4). This number of respondents may not be sufficient to ascertain theoverall trends of tourist. Future research should collect data from a sample of at least1,000 people.

Secondly, this study collected data from tourist areas in some state only, namelyKarnataka (Bangalore), Goa (Panaji) and Maharashtra (Mumbai). However, may be notenough to accurately represent the image of all tourist destinations in India. Futureresearch should extent the data collection area to state such as Kerala, Gujarat, Tamilnaduand Delhi.

And thirdly, this study investigated destination image perception only from aninternational tourist's perspective. Future research should examine the point of view oftravel agents and tour operators. These groups have an influence on the perceived imageof a particular destination because they create the tour packaging and marketingcampaigns (Balogu & Mangaloglu, 2001) and (Prasert, Chukiat, and Siriporn, 2007).



21/33

21

Bibliography

1. Ahire, S., Golhar, D. Y. & Waller, M. A. (1996). Development and validation of TQMimplementation constructs.Decision Sciences, 27(1), 23-56

2. Brass, Jane L. (ed.). 1997. Community Tourism Assessment Handbook. Western Rural

Development Centre, Utah State University. Available: http://www.google.com/search?q=user+satisfaction+and+product+development+bramwell (June, 2001).

3. Bentler, P. M. & Bonett, D. G. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models.Psychological Bulletin. 107 (2) , 238-246

4. Brent Ritchie (2003). Invited Presentation to Universidad de las Amricas Puebla,Mexico Fifth International Congress Reto Negocios , World Tourism Education & Research Centre, University of Calgary and World Tourism Organization, Tourism

Education Council

5. Cruey,G.(2005, April5).Tsunami Recovery. Asia for Visitors. Retrieved June18, 2006from http://goasia.about.com/od/India/a/tsunamirecovery.htm

6. Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B. and Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of Price, Brand, and StoreInformation on Buyers Product Evaluations.Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 307-319.

7. Diamantopoulos, Adamantios, and Judy A. Siguaw (2000). Introducing LISREL.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

8. Engle, J.F. and Blackwell, R.D. (1982). Consumer behavior. The Dryden Press, NewYork, NY.

9. Foreign Office The Government Public Relations Department of India (2005).

10.Hunt, H. K. (1997). CS/D-overview and future research directions. In Hunt, K. H.(Eds), Conceptualization and measurement of consumer satisfaction and dissatisfaction,Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA, pp. 455-488

11.Hui, M.K., Dube, L. and Chebat, J. (1997). The impact of music on consumers reaction

to waiting for services.Journal of Retailing, 73, 87-104.

12.Jeonghwa Pan and Gregory E. Dunn.(2007). Service cost and relationship qualitybetween customers and travel intermediaries. presented at 5th Asia Pacific CHRIE &13

thAsia Pacific Tourism Association joint Conference. Beijing, China.

13.Juergen Gnoth.(2005). Strengthening Tourism SME Brands Department ofMarketing, University of Otago, New Zealand.

14.Jafari, J. (2000). ENCYCLOPEDIA OF TOURISM, P.364.

http://www.google.com/http://goasia.about.com/od/India/a/tsunamirecovery.htmhttp://www.pdffactory.com/http://www.pdffactory.com/http://goasia.about.com/od/India/a/tsunamirecovery.htmhttp://www.google.com/


22/33

22

15.Jreskog , Karl G., and Dag Srbom (2001).LISREL VIII: Users Guide. Lincolnwood,IL: Scientific Software International.

16.Jackson, C. M., Chow, S. & Leitch, R. A. (1997). Toward an understanding of thebehavioral intention to use and information system. Decision Sciences, 28(2), pp.357-389

17.Janet Sim, Breda Mak and David Jones, (2006). A Model of Customer Satisfaction andRetention for Hotels, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, Vol.7(3),pp.1-23

18.Jreskog , Karl G., and Dag Srbom (1989). LISREL 7 : Users Reference Guide.Chicago: Scientific Software International, Inc.

19.Jreskog , Karl G., and Dag Srbom (1982). Recent Development in StructuralEquation Modeling,Journal of Marketing Research.4: 404-416.

20.Jane kov, L. & Vatkov, M. 1999. Marketing mest a obc. Grada, Praha. 178 p.

21.Kisang Ryu and Heesup Han.(2007). The roles of the physical environment, priceperception, and customer satisfaction in determining customer loyalty in the restaurantindustry, presented at 5thAsia Pacific CHRIE & 13th Asia Pacific Tourism Associationjoint Conference. Beijing, China.

22.Kim Cherie Smith (2001) Tourism product development : A case study of wildlifeviewing in the Squamish valley . B.A. (Geography), Simon Fraser University.

23.Kotler, Philip. 2001. A Framework for Marketing Management. Prentice-Hall, NewJersey.

24.Kristen K. Swanson and Patricia E. Horridge (2004), A Structural Model for SourvnirConsumption, Travel Activities, and Tourist Demographics. Journal of TravelResearch, Vol. 42. pp. 372-380.

25.Lee, Moonkyu and Cunningham, Lawrence F. (2001). A cost/benefit approach tounderstanding service loyalty.Journal of Services Marketing, 15(2): 113-130.

26.Murphy, P.E. and Enis, B.M.(1986). Classifying Products Strategically. Journal ofMarketing, 50, 24-42.

27.Marton Lengyel (2007). Destination Management Conceptual Framework and thecase of Hungary , Heller Farkas College of Economics and Tourism, Budapest,Hungary.

28.Prasert Chaitip, N. Rangaswamy and Chukiat Chaiboonsri.(2006) ModelingInternational Tourism Demand in India, Working Paper Series 3/2006, LSD Center

Chiang-Mai, Indialand, .



23/33

23

29.Prasert Chaitip, Chukiat Chaiboonsri and Siriporn Mcwel.(2007) A Structural Equation

Model: Thailands International Tourism Demand for Tourist Destination, This paper

prepare for presentation in international conference namely APac-CHRIE & Asia

Pacific Tourism Association JOINT CONFERENCE 2008, Australia.

30.Pimtong Tavitiyaman, Hailin Qu and Bill Ryan.(2007), Destination image of India

after natural disasters.presented at 5th

Asia Pacific CHRIE & 13th

Asia Pacific TourismAssociation Joint Conference. Beijing, China.

31.Ritichainuwat, B. N., Qu, H., and Brown, T.J. (2001). Indias International travel image.Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 82-95

32.Roger Carter and Mike Fabricius,(2007). UNWTO Conference in Topic is Creatingcampetitve advantage for your destination , Budapest, UNWTO Consultants(TEAMtourism Consulting).

33.Spreng, R.A., Machkenzie, S.C. and Olshavsky, S.W. (1996). A reexamination ofminats of consumer satisfaction.Journal of Marketing, 60, 15-52

34.Soocheong Shawn Jang and Mccain Shiang-Lih. (2007) The effect of destinationimage on tourist satisfaction and loyalty, presented at 5thAsia Pacific CHRIE & 13thAsia Pacific Tourism Association joint Conference. Beijing, China.

35.Sung-Soo Yang, Si-Sa Park and Hyang-Jin Huh.(2007) The Chinese tourist decision-making choice criteria and satisfaction of package tour : Focused on inbound Chinesetourist in Jeju, Korea, presented at 5thAsia Pacific CHRIE & 13th Asia Pacific Tourism

Association joint Conference. Beijing, China.

36.Siriporn McDowall and Youcheng Wang,(2007). An analysis of international tourismdevelopment in India: 1994-2006 , presented at 5th Asia Pacific CHRIE & 13th AsiaPacific Tourism Association Joint Conference. Beijing, China.

37.Tourism Research Group. 1992. Tourism In British Columbia: Status Report. ProvinceOf British Columbia, Victoria.

38.WTO (2004) Destination Marketing for the 21th Century and successful destination

management and marketing fundamentals. Moscow, 23 March 2004, EsencanTezibasoglu Coordinator for Destination Management.

39.Yau, O.H.M., and Chan, C.E.(1990). Hong Kong as a travel destination in South-EastAsia: A multidimensional approach. Tourism Management. Vol. June. Pp. 123-32.

40.Yi, Y.(1990). A critical review of consumer satisfaction. In Zeithaml, V. (Eds), Reviewof Marketing, American Marketing Association, Chicago, pp. 68-122.

41.Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A., and Berry, L.L.(1985). Problems and strategies in

services marketingJournal of Marketing, 49, 33-46.



24/33

24

Appendix A

The summary data of tourists international arrival to India by surveying method in

during period 2007 (Q1) 2007(Q4)

Table 1: Demographic Summary of the Research Sample.

Characteristics Categories Respondents (%)Gender Male

Female56.0054.00

Age group Under 20 years21-30 years31-40 years41-50 yearsOver 50 year

19.049.016.011.05.0

Marital status SingleMarried

70.030.0

Education Less than grade 12Diploma or equivalentBachelors degree

Higher than Bachelors degree

11.016.037.0

36.0Occupation or Professional Student

Company officerGovernment service/State enterpriseHouse husband/House wifeGeneral employeeCommerce/Personal businessUnemployedFarmerOtherwiseDid not respond

43.07.06.02.0

11.09.0--

21.01.0

Average income per month (US dollar) Under 1,0001,001-2,000

2,001-3,0003,001-4,000Over 4,000Did not respond

36.013.0

19.07.012.013.0

Average total spending per visit toIndia (US dollar)

Under 500501 - 1,0001,001-1,5001,501-2,000Over 2,000Did not respond

17.036.020.07.0

14.06.0

Totally of people are traveling to Indiawith you

NoneOne personTwo personMore than three persons

19.028.010.043.0

The purpose of your visit to India RelaxationEducationPersonal BusinessSeminarSportVisit relativesGet know culture/traditionTo see heritage buildingOtherwise

27.027.013.03.02.05.0

37.012.025.0From: computed



25/33

25

Table 2: Travel Behavior Summary of the Research Sample

Characteristics Categories Respondents (%)

The Information suggested youcome to India

NewspapersMagazinesTV programsInternet advertisements

TV advertisementsGuide BooksBrochures of tour-operatorsWord of mouthOtherwise

14.020.019.038.0

6.042.05.049.018.0

The chance that you will travel toIndia again

UnlikelySomewhat likelyLikelyVery likelyCertainDid not respond

4.019.033.023.020.01.0

The level of importance was yourpre-trip planning when coming to

India

Not importantSomewhat important

ImportantVery importantExtremely important

15.035.0

23.021.06.0

Your time stay in India in total onthis trip

1-3 days4--6 days7-10 daysOver 10 days

2.09.011.078.0

How many time had you visitedIndia before this trip

NoneOnceTwiceMore than twice

56.018.07.0

19.0

The description of your travelarrangements for this trip

Organized group tourIndividual tour

Otherwise

20.058.0

22.0Total cost of your travel to India Not expensive

Somewhat expensiveExpensiveVery expensiveHigh very expensive

26.038.024.011.01.0

Airline costs in India Not expensiveSomewhat expensiveExpensiveVery expensiveHigh very expensiveDid not respond

22.039.026.08.03.02.0

Shipping costs in India Not expensiveSomewhat expensiveExpensiveVery expensiveHigh very expensiveDid not respond

45.028.010.02.0-

15.0Public service vehicle costs inIndia

Not expensiveSomewhat expensiveExpensiveVery expensiveHigh very expensiveDid not respond

70.020.04.03.01.02.0

From: computed.



26/33

26

Table 2: Travel Behavior Summary of the Research Sample (continued)

Characteristics Categories Respondents (%)Hotel cost and guesthousecosts for your trip

Not expensiveSomewhat expensiveExpensiveVery expensive

High very expensiveDid not respond

48.033.011.03.0

4.01.0

Total cost of good andservice purchased in India

Not expensiveSomewhat expensiveExpensiveVery expensiveHigh very expensiveDid not respond

52.033.08.04.01.02.0

Total cost of your trip inIndia

Not expensiveSomewhat expensiveExpensiveVery expensiveHigh very expensive

29.044.020.06.01.0

From: computed.



27/33

27

Table 3: Summary of International Tourists Opinions on Tourism Products orTourist Destinations in India

Characteristics Categories Respondents

(%)

I was satisfied with the quality of touristdestinations: Mountain or Eco-tourism.

Strongly DisagreeDisagree

Neither Agree nor DisagreeAgreeStrongly Agree

1.18.6

40.941.97.5

I was satisfied with the quality of touristdestinations: Cities, Hotels, Guesthouses,Department stores, Market place and Restaurants.

Strongly DisagreeDisagreeNeither Agree nor DisagreeAgreeStrongly Agree

5.018.025.048.04.0

I was satisfied with the quality of touristdestinations: Rural areas, Resorts in rural areas,Home stays.


2.16.240.241.210.3

I was satisfied with the quality of touristdestinations: Sea, Beaches, Resorts on beaches andIslands.


3.117.731.339.68.3

I was satisfied with the quality of touristdestinations: culture, traditions, India peoples lifestyle and India peoples service.


2.011.018.053.016.0

I was satisfied with the quality of touristdestinations: India food, A souvenirs of India andHealth or Medical tourism of India.


2.016.018.050.014.0

I was satisfied with the quality of touristdestinations: Heritage building or Traditionalbuilding.


2.03.0

27.351.516.2

In light of the above, I will come to India again. Strongly DisagreeDisagreeNeither Agree nor DisagreeAgreeStrongly Agree

3.04.0

14.056.023.0

From: computed.



28/33


29/33

29

Table 5: Summary of International Tourists Opinions on Tourism ProductManagement or Tourist Destinations Management in India

Characteristics Categories Respondents

(%)

I was satisfied with the management of touristdestinations: Mountain or Eco-tourism.( Attraction,

Amenities, Accessibility, Image, Price andCompetitive).

Strongly DisagreeDisagree

Neither Agree nor DisagreeAgreeStrongly Agree

3.215.1

40.937.63.2

I was satisfied with the management of touristdestinations: Cities, Hotels, Guesthouses,Department stores, Market place and Restaurants.( Attraction, Amenities, Accessibility, Image, Priceand Competitive).


3.019.025.048.05.0

I was satisfied with the management of touristdestinations: Rural areas, Resorts in rural areas,Home stays.( Attraction, Amenities, Accessibility,Image, Price and Competitive).

Strongly DisagreeDisagreeNeither Agree nor DisagreeAgree

Strongly Agree

2.018.240.437.4

2.0I was satisfied with the management of touristdestinations: Sea, Beaches, Resorts on beaches andIslands.( Attraction, Amenities, Accessibility, Image,Price and Competitive).


5.215.639.633.36.3

I was satisfied with the management of Indiastourism industry.( Attraction, Amenities,Accessibility, Image, Price and Competitive).


3.123.534.736.72.0

I was satisfied with the management of Heritagebuilding in India.( Attraction, Amenities,Accessibility, Image, Price and Competitive).


2.018.236.439.44.0

I was satisfied with the management of privatecompanys impact on Indias tourism industry( Attraction, Amenities, Accessibility, Image, Priceand Competitive).


3.020.241.433.32.0

I was satisfied with the management of Indiagovernments impact on Indias tourism industry( Attraction, Amenities, Accessibility, Image, Price

and Competitive).

Strongly DisagreeDisagreeNeither Agree nor DisagreeAgree

Strongly Agree

4.018.240.435.4

2.0From: computed.



30/33


31/33

31

Table 7: The reliability and validity of the items were used in a structure model

Variable Item Corrected item Factor Loading

Total Correlation

Tourism Product PRODUCT 1 0.35 0.50PRODUCT 2 0.36 0.53

PRODUCT 3 0.43 0.60PRODUCT 4 0.41 0.60

Alpha = 0.61 1 factor 46% of variance

Tourism Product AttributesATTRIBU1 0.47 0.60ATTRIBU2 0.45 0.60ATTRIBU4 0.48 0.62ATTRIBU5 0.45 0.60

Alpha = 0.70 1 factor 51% of variance

Tourism Product managementMANAGE1 0.70 0.50MANAGE2 0.52 0.65MANAGE4 0.50 0.55MANAGE6 0.45 0.50

Alpha = 0.73 1 factor 57% of varianceTravel Cost Satisfaction

COST1 0.37 0.37COST2 0.50 0.57

COST3 0.41 0.47COST4 0.50 0.50COST5 0.62 0.73COST6 0.53 0.64COST7 0.63 0.75

Alpha = 0.78 1 factor 44 % of variance



32/33

32

Appendix C

A Structural Model for Indias International Tourism Demand

Figure 2. Final Model for Relationship Among Travel Cost Satisfaction,Tourism Product, Tourism Product Attributes

And Tourism Product Management*

* Significant relationships are denoted as solid arrow and insignificant relationship re denoted as dotted arrow.

1Travel Cost

Satisfaction

3Tourism

Product

Management

2Tourism

Product

Attributes

1Tourism

Product

y2

y3

y4

y5

y6

y7

y8

y9

y10

y11

11

= 0.33

(t=2.38)

21

= 0.30

(t=2.17)

31

= 0.21

(t=1.69)

x5

y1

x7

x6

y12

x1

x2

x3

x4

Goodness of Fit Measures:1. X2 with 149 degree of freedom = 323.77 (p< 0.05)2. Goodness of fit (GFI) = 0.753. Adjusted Goodness of Fit (AGFI)= 0.704. Normed Fit Index (NFI) = 0.505. Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.606. Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) = 0.607. Root Mean Square Residual = 0.10



33/33

33

Table 8:LISREL estimates for measurement model (Relations of indicator variables to latent variables)

Construct Indicator Path LISRELEstimates

aT-value Residual LISREL

Estimatesa

T-value

1 Tourism Product y1

y2y3y4

11

21

31

41

0.27

0.390.600.67

2.83

3.365.655.51

1

2

3

4

0.57

0.810.340.50

6.66

6.483.343.79

2 Tourism Product

Attributes

y5y6y7y8

52

62

72

82

0.880.570.690.56

5.024.585.544.95

5

6

7

8

1.480.800.650.63

5.325.734.615.39

3 Tourism Product

Management

y9y10y11y12

93

10.3

11.3

12.3

0.750.540.550.52

8.625.575.555.84

9

10

11

12

0.170.590.620.48

2.056.136.155.98

1 Travel Cost x1

x2x3x4x5x6x7

11

21

31

4151

6171

0.35

0.480.410.520.750.550.60

3.32

5.535.086.497.606.376.69

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0.85

0.790.440.370.500.450.47

3.32

4.535.086.497.606.376.69

a = LISREL estimates significant, p< 0.05; t values are in parentheses.b = LISREL estimates insignificant.

a structural equation model_ india 's intern atonal tourism demand for tourist destination...

Documents