218 Int. J. Services Technology and Management, Vol. 13, Nos.

3/4, 2010

Measuring the service quality of Indian tourism

destinations: an application of SERVQUAL model

Mohinder Chand
Department of Tourism and Hotel Management,
Kurukshetra University,
Kurukshetra – 136 119, Haryana, India
Fax: 91-01744 238297
E-mail: mohinderchand@rediffmail.com

Abstract: The issues surrounding the measurement and provision of service

quality at tourist destinations are becoming increasingly important to both
academicians and tourism planners. This research study applies the
SERVQUAL measurement instrument to evaluate the tourism services at ten
Indian tourist destinations visited by foreign tourists and provide evidence of
where specific service improvements were needed to enhance the
competitiveness of the destination(s). The research sample consists of 1,855
visitors. The 22-item SERVQUAL standard questionnaire has been used, with
each item classified based on five quality-assessment dimensions. Tourists’
expectations of service were obtained on first attendance at the destination.
Tourists’ perceptions of service received were obtained on completion of visit.
Perceptions and expectations are then compared to identify where the largest
service gaps exist. The study indicates that SERVQUAL instrument has a
useful diagnostic role to play in assessing and monitoring service quality in
tourist destinations, enabling tourism planners to identify where improvements
are needed from the tourists’ perspective.

Keywords: SERVQUAL dimensions; tourist destinations; tourism services;

service quality; India.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Chand, M. (2010)

‘Measuring the service quality of Indian tourism destinations: an application of
SERVQUAL model’, Int. J. Services Technology and Management, Vol. 13,
Nos. 3/4, pp.218–233.

Biographical notes: Mohinder Chand is a Reader at Department of Tourism

and Hotel Management, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, India. He
obtained his PhD from HP University, Shimla, India. He has developed and
taught a variety of courses such as BIHBM, BHM&CT, BTM, MTM, MHM,
and P.G. Diploma in Tourism and Hotel Management and MBA Hospitality
Management at the university level. His longstanding teaching and research
interests include hospitality quality management, HRM, travel agency
management and tourism management

1 Introduction

Destinations are amalgams of tourism products, offering an integrated experience to

tourists (Buhalis, 2000). According to Leiper (1995) destinations offer a combination of

Copyright © 2010 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 Measuring the service quality of Indian tourism destinations 219

tourism products and services, which are consumed under the brand name of the
destination. Cooper et al. (1998) define destinations as the focus of facilities and services
designed to meet the needs of the tourists. Traditionally, destinations are regarded as
well-defined geographical areas, such as a country, an island or a town (Murphy et al.,
2000). In fact, tourist destinations are amalgams of individually produced tourism
amenities and services (accommodation, transportation, catering, entertainment, etc.) and
a wide range of public goods such as landscape, scenery, sea, lakes, socio-cultural
surroundings, atmosphere, etc. All these elements are branded together under the name of
the destination. The ubiquity of the destination concept effectively means that the tourism
product/service for each prospective traveller is very subjective and depends heavily on
their image and expectations of the place (Weiermair and Matthias, 1999). Nevertheless,
the tourism product/service for a region consists of the entire range of facilities and
services offered locally, plus all facilitating, supportive and augmented products for each
target market. It is of paramount importance for destination marketing. The augmented
environment will include intangible elements such as interaction and customer
participation as well as accessibility and physical environment (Kotler et al., 1996).
Today, it is increasingly recognised that a destination can be a perceptual concept
which can be interpreted subjectively by tourists, depending on their tour itinerary,
cultural background, and purpose of visit, educational level and past experience. In the
present context, destinations are considered to be a defined geographical region which is
understood by its visitors as a unique entity, with a political and legislative framework for
tourism marketing and planning. Consumer behaviour studies indicate that a wide range
of criteria is used to select tourism products/services. These criteria are altered according
to the purpose and features of the trip, elements of the external environment, the
characteristics of the traveller and the particularities and attributes of destinations.
Several analysts have examined tourism consumer behaviour in detail (Gilbert, 1991,
1993; Swarbrooke and Horner, 1999; Goodall, 1988, 1991; Robledo,2001; Mansfeld,
1995; Mayo and Jarvis, 1981; Swan and Bowers,1998; Mazanec and Zins, 1994;
Moutinho, 1987; Ryan, 1997; Woodside and Lysonski, 1989; Jones, 2005).
The complexity and globalisation of today’s competitive business environments have
made quality one of the most important sources of competitive advantage for the tourism
business enterprise/destination. Many leading quality organisations have started to exploit
opportunities to face this situation and recognised the importance to have systematic
processes to manage quality to gain and maintain this competitive position (Jones, 2005).
Each business management is aware of the fierce competition in every sector and of
customer expectations which have never been greater. It is no longer sufficient just to
maintain a business; it is necessary to move forward if a business wants to achieve a
sustainable future (Woodside and Lysonski, 1989). Customer care, improvements in
efficiency, effective marketing, benchmarking, staff training and development are all
vital for survival and competitiveness in a changeable business environment (Ryan,
1997).
Over the past two decades, the concept of service quality has been widely applied and
explored by scholars, among which, the most widely cited was the service quality scale
(SERVQUAL) developed by Parasuraman et al. (1988). SERVQUAL was applied to
different industries but some scholars proposed that service quality scales should be
modified according to industry differences (Dabholkar et al., 1996; Saleh and Ryan,
1991; Babakus and Ho, 1998).
220 M. Chand

The SERVQUAL instrument developed by Parasuraman et al. (1988, 1991a) has

proved popular, being used in many studies of service quality. This is because it has a
generic service application and has a practical approach to the area. A number of
researchers have applied the SERVQUAL model to measure service quality in the
hospitality industry, with modified constructs to suit specific hospitality situations (Saleh
and Ryan, 1991; Bojanic and Rosen, 1994; Yu et al., 2005). In the present context, tourist
destination is used as a comprehensive term, i.e., accommodation, local culture,
transportation and other services as a part of inclusive tour package. Therefore, the
present exploratory study uses an adapted version of the SERVQUAL instrument to
assess the quality of destination services in India.
Considering the above, it seems unlikely that one set of service quality research will
work equally well no matter what the context is. However, more research is needed in the
tourism sector and in different contexts. To fill this gap and to further examine the
existence of the relationship between service quality and tourist destination, it is
important to conduct research in non-US/European contexts. This research study aims to
apply the SERVQUAL measurement instrument to evaluate the tourism services at ten
Indian tourist destinations visited by foreign tourists and provide evidence of where
specific service improvements were needed to enhance the competitiveness of the tourist
destinations.
The tourism industry is the largest and rapidly growing industry in India, employing
over 15 million people, accounting for 8.5% of the total workforce, and generating
over 4% of GNP. There is visible evidence of growing competitiveness of tourist
destinations at the global level and India is no exception in this context. However, the
Indian tourism industry is confronted with considerable challenges imposed by the
turbulent and rapidly changing external environment that it operates in. Moreover, many
nations (Singapore, Thailand, China and others) are receiving more tourists than India
despite her long and prestigious history and culture, i.e., tourism resources. Thus, in order
for the success to continue, the industry requires to develop tourist-oriented
products/services. Since the success of a tourist destination is dependent upon the
quality of the visitors’ experience, it is imperative for destination service providers to
understand how the elements of their service delivery are evaluated by visitors. Thus, a
professional approach to develop product/service is needed, particularly in the area of
inbound tourism. Such an approach is crucial, considering the marketing problems the
industry is currently experiencing. Significant difficulties in attracting and new and repeat
tourists result in a very low inbound tourist share (0.49) in India (Ministry of Tourism,
2007).
The structure of the paper is as follows. The next section discusses selected literature
on the service quality link in the tourism destination and the hypothesis to be tested. The
third section discusses the research methodology used. The results are presented in the
fourth section. The paper concludes with practical implications, and future research
directions are also suggested.

2 Service quality research in tourism and hypotheses development

Managers in tourism strive to improve the quality of their services and the level of
customer satisfaction in the belief that this effort will create loyal visitors. Loyal visitors
will return to the destination and recommend it to others (Tian-Cole and Cromption,
 Measuring the service quality of Indian tourism destinations 221

2003). Pawitra and Tan (2003) used SERVQUAL in order to analyse the image of
Singapore from the perspective of tourists from Indonesia. The authors noted that the use
of SERVQUAL in measuring a destination image requires that it be modified in order to
ensure that the data reflect the unique attributes provided by the destination. Tourist
satisfaction can be obtained by assessing the gap between predicted and perceived
service. The destination image can be determined by analysing tourist perceptions
(Chaudhary, 2000; Julta, 2000).
Siu and Cheung, (2001) defined service quality as a global judgment or attitude
relating to the overall excellence or superiority of the service. In fact, service quality
has a direct impact on customer satisfaction (Caruana and Berthon, 2000). Wyllie
(2000) pointed out that the quality of service in tourism plays an important role in the
process of delivery and is the standard used to assess the effectiveness of a particular
leisure service agency, including the tourism service sector. Thus, service quality is an
intangible, but crucial, area of interest to tourism service providers. As described
above, the major service evaluation tool is the SERVQUAL model, and Parasuraman et
al. (1988) stated that this model could be applied to various service contexts.
Many tourism researchers use this model to evaluate the quality of services provided in
tourism and tourism-related sectors (Baker and Fesenmaier, 1997; Childress and
Crompton, 1997; Fick and Ritchie, 1991; Ostrowski et al., 1993; Vogt and Fesenmaier,
1995).
Further, Bigne et al. (2003) also employed SERVQUAL to test the quality of service
received from travel agencies, and they found that it is a valid and reliable model to
evaluate the service quality provided by travel agencies. Thus, the discussion of service
quality has become popular in tourism businesses such as the tourist destination, travel
industry, restaurants, hotels, airlines and travel locations (Hudson and Shephard, 1998;
Fick and Ritchie, 1991; Lee and Hing, 1995; Saleh and Ryan, 1991; Ryan and Cliff,
1997; Heung and Wong, 1997; Lee and Hing, 1995).
Backman and Veldkamp (1995) stated that quality of service is an essential factor
involved in a service provider’s ability to attract more customers. Unlike the quality of
goods, which may be measured objectively by such indicators as durability and number
of defects, service quality is an elusive construct that is difficult to measure (Crosby
1979). Mackay and Crompton (1990) opined that service quality is “the relationship
between what customer’s desire from a service and what they perceive that they receive”.
Additionally, service quality is also a way of thinking about how to satisfy customers so
that they hold positive attitudes toward the service they have received (Ostrowski et al.,
1993).
Over the last two decades, a growing body of literature has emerged on customer
expectations and perceptions of service quality (Kilbourne et al., 2004; Llosa et al., 1998;
Furrer et al., 2000; Babakus and Boller, 1992; Brysland and Curry, 2001; Carman, 1990).
Atilgan et al. (2003) suggested that cultural characteristics have an effect on perceptions
of service quality in tourism. They found that different cultural groups can have different
levels of expectations and perceptions in terms of service-quality dimensions. Mattila
(1999) found that customers from Western cultural backgrounds are more likely to rely
on tangible cues from the physical environment to evaluate service quality compared to
customers from Asia. Furrer et al. (2000) concluded that customers from different
cultures assigned different importance weights to the five SERVQUAL dimensions,
which, in turn, is reflected in their perceptions of service quality.
222 M. Chand

To help service providers identify their strengths and weaknesses, Parasuraman et al.
(1988) developed the SERVQUAL model, a diagnostic tool including 22 items to
appraise five key service factors: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and
empathy. Parasuraman et al. (1988, 1991a, 1991b) found that the five-dimensional format
of SERVQUAL allows researchers to assess the level of service quality along each
dimension, as well as overall.
The SERVQUAL instrument consists of 22 statements for assessing consumer
perceptions and expectations regarding the quality of a service. Respondent are asked to
rate their level of agreement or disagreement with the given statements on a seven-point
Likert scale. Consumers’ perceptions are based on the actual service they receive, while
consumers’ expectations are based on past experiences and information received. The
statements represent the determinants or dimensions of service quality. Refinement of
this work reduced the original service dimensions used by consumers to judge the quality
of a service from ten to five. The five key dimensions (Parasuraman et al., 1991a) that
were identified are as follows:

• Reliability: the ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately.

• Tangibles: the appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel and

communications materials.

• Responsiveness: the willingness to help consumers and to provide prompt service.

• Assurance: the knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to convey
trust and confidence.

• Empathy: the provision of caring, individualised attention to consumers.

The purpose of this model is to serve as a diagnostic method for uncovering broad areas
of weaknesses and strengths in the quality of service a company delivers. A lot of
service-related researchers have used the SERVQUAL model, and they have revealed
similar results as Parasuraman et al. (1988, 1991a) suggested. Thus, the SERVQUAL
model has been used to measure service quality in different industries over the last 20
years.
It is clear from the review that tourism service requires the input of many people
in different industries such as hotel, airline, restaurant, and transportation, to complete
the task. Also, little has been done to examine the applicability of SERVQUAL
model to the service quality of tourist destination(s) in developing countries, especially
India.
The study provides two hypotheses in order to analyse the relationship between
tourism destination service quality attributes and tourists’ satisfaction, and to understand
the difference in derived factors in relation to their demographic characteristics.

H1: There are no significant differences in SERVQUAL scores in association with

socio-economic and demographic characteristics of tourists, such as gender, age,
nationality, education level, and total house incomes.

H2: The quality of the tourism service is positively associated with customer satisfaction,
and negatively associated with customer complaints.
 Measuring the service quality of Indian tourism destinations 223

3 Research methodology

3.1 Sample
The selected sample was made up of ten tourist destinations within India such as Goa,
Mumbai, Jaipur, Kerala, Manali, Srinagar, Shimla, Delhi, Pushkar and Bangalore. These
destinations were selected as study areas due to huge foreign tourist traffic (UK, USA,
Canada and France) during the last five years (2001–2006). Furthermore, the reason for
choosing a wide range of different destinations was to gain valuable information, which
could be used to achieve a reliable and valid research results. The sample unit used in the
survey was foreign tourists, both male and female, above the age of 18. A total of 3,000
questionnaires were distributed to tourists in the selected destinations. The sample size
was limited to a quota of 300 respondents per each selected destination, and a
convenience sampling approach could have been used for this study. The administered
questionnaire was distributed to the sampling unit, and it was collected immediately after
its completion. Of 3,000, only 1,855 (61.80%) respondents completed the questionnaires
and were valid. In the collection of questionnaires, the author depended on the tourist
guides at each destination.

3.2 Research instrument

The main aim of the research is to measure service quality of ten Indian tourist
destinations towards foreign tourists using the SERVQUAL model developed by
Parasuraman et al. (1988, 1991a). A convenience sampling method was applied to collect
the data from foreign tourists (UK, USA, Canada and France) and the study was
conducted during the period April–October 2006, completing 1,855 questionnaires. The
questionnaire used in the study is comprised of four parts. Part 1 contains a demographic
profile of respondents including gender, age group, marital status, education, nationality
and income. Part 2 includes expectations of respondents using a seven-point Likert scale
ranging from ‘strongly disagree = 1’ to ‘strongly agree = 7’ to measure the 22 items.
More specifically, a total of 22 items have been examined and distributed across five
different model dimensions:
1 tangibles
2 reliability
3 responsiveness
4 assurance
5 empathy.
In part 3, respondents are required to rate explanations of five service quality dimensions
to come to a total of 100. Similar to part 2, part 4 contains perceptions of respondents to
measure the service quality of destinations for 22 items. The data are analysed with the
statistical package program for social sciences (SPSS 12 for Windows). The basic
analysis and tests utilised in the study include frequency and percentage analysis,
‘one-sample t-test’, ‘independent-samples t-tests’, ‘paired-samples t-tests’, ‘one-way
ANOVA test’ and ‘reliability analysis’.
224 M. Chand

4 Results and discussion

4.1 Demographic findings

Table 1 Demographic findings

Factor Category Percentage

Gender Male 60
Female 40
Age group 25 and below 18
26–35 33
36–45 29
46 and above 20
Marital status Single 28
Married 70
Widow 2
Education Primary school 2
Secondary school 10
High school 45
University and Master degree 40
Doctorate 3
Total incomes (USD) 9,999 or less 5
10,000–29,999 12
30,000–49,999 20
50,000–69,999 18
70,000 or above 45
Length of stay 1 day 04
2–4 days 58
5–7 days 24
8 or more 14
Nationality UK 32
USA 28
Canada 25
France 15

The demographic characteristics of tourists in the survey are given in Table 1. As can be
seen in the table, the sample of foreign tourists assessing the service quality of Indian
tourist destinations included 60% males and 40% females. The majority of them were
between the ages 26–35 (33%), the main occupation of the majority of respondents was
service. With regard to respondents’ annual household income, the largest group included
those with an annual household income of US $70,000 or above (45%), followed by US
$30,000 to US $49,999 (20%), US $50,000 to US $69,999 (18%) and US $10,000 to US
$29,999 (12%). Only 5% of the respondents had an annual household income of US
$9,999 or below. This implies that half of the tourists were budget class. In the category
 Measuring the service quality of Indian tourism destinations 225

of length of stay, 58% of the respondents stayed for two to four days in the destination(s),
followed by five to seven days (24%), and eight days or above (14%). Only 4% of the
respondents stayed for one day. Most of the respondents were from UK (32%) followed
by other nations.
According to the visitor assessment survey, there are great differences between the
examined tourist destinations; Goa has the highest total mean attitude value (23.16). On
the other hand, Mumbai has the lowest total mean attitude value (16.90). As far as the
SERVQUAL dimensions are concerned, Jaipur has achieved the highest score in the
assurance dimension (4.95), while Mumbai presents the lowest score in the reliability
dimension (3.00). It is worth pointing out the variances in Kerala, while its score in
tangibles is quite high (4.76), it appears to fall short in other factors. From the
comparison between the mean values of SERVQUAL dimensions and their respective
average importance values shown in Table 2, we need to consider the following points.
Tangibles are evaluated in the first attributes column according to the average importance
classification criterion, as well as in the fourth column based on the mean value of
dimensions classification criterion. Due to the importance of the tangibles attribute,
improvements need to be carried out on Indian tourism destinations, including
accommodation, transportation facilities, cleaning surrounding areas and safety and
security.
Table 2 Mean values of SERVQUAL dimensions sample tourist destinations

Object Attributes (SERVQUAL dimensions)

Tourist destinations Tangibles Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy
Goa 4.44 4.42 4.75 4.91 4.64
Kerala 4.76 4.38 4.42 4.74 4.55
Manali 4.60 4.40 4.62 4.63 4.55
Jaipur 4.00 4.36 4.63 4.95 4.56
Srinagar 3.14 3.23 3.51 3.73 3.56
Shimla 4.20 4.00 4.10 4.30 4.10
Delhi 4.00 3.70 3.80 3.90 3.70
Pushkar 4.10 3.30 3.60 3.80 3.60
Bangalore 3.18 3.29 3.67 3.92 3.67
Mumbai 3.10 3.00 3.60 3.70 3.50
Mean value of 3.95 3.83 4.11 4.32 4.02
SERVQUAL
dimensions
Importance of 0.23 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.18
service dimensions

4.2 SERVQUAL scores of tourist expectations and perceptions

Respondents’ expectations and perception of service quality are exhibited in Table 3.
As shown in the table SERVQUAL scores, all items bear negative signs meaning
that expectations are greater than performance, so that perceived quality is less
than satisfactory and a service quality gap materialises. Even though the SERVQUAL
226 M. Chand

score for item 4 is negative, according to ‘paired samples t-test’, means of perception
and expectation do not differ significantly at the p < .05 (.950 (p) > .05). In
other words, for 21 out of 22 items, Indian tourist destinations fall short of
expectations.
Table 3 shows SERVQUAL scores presented on five dimensions. These dimensions
include tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy. Empathy has the
highest negative SERVQUAL scores. In other words, compared with other factors,
satisfaction with empathetic behaviour is lowest. It indicates that the behavioural aspect
of tourism services at the sample destinations does not meet the expectations of the
tourists.
Table 3 Average SERVQUAL scores of respondent expectations and perceptions about Indian
tourist destinations
Dimensions

SERVQUAL
Items Perception Expectation Sig.(p)
Score

1 Services were 4.86 5.60 –.742 000

comprehensive and of
high quality
2 An excellent physical 5.00 5.60 –.595 000
facilities are visually
Tangibles

appealing
3 Services were basically 4.90 5.48. –.599 000
problem-free
4 The quality of the 5.53 5.58 –.013 .950
services was visually
appealing
5 The quality of service 5.50 6.00 –.492 000
was excellent
6 Provide promised 5.40 6.02 –.621 000
service
Reliability

7 Staff showed genuine 5.43 6.14 –.690 .000

interest in solving the
problems
8 Perform the service right 5.33 6.13 –.695 .000
the first time
9 Insist error free service 5.60 6.25 –.654 .000

10 Tell you when to 5.43 5.92 –.513 .000

perform service
Responsiveness

11 Give prompt service 5.21 5.80 –.591 .000

12 Always ready to help 5.04 5.62 –.691 000
13 Never too busy to 5.04 5.53 –.420 .002
respond
 Measuring the service quality of Indian tourism destinations 227

Table 3 Average SERVQUAL scores of respondent expectations and perceptions about Indian
tourist destinations (continued)
Dimensions

SERVQUAL
Items Perception Expectation Sig.(p)
Score

14 Confidence in service 5.24 5.86 –.626 .000

delivery
15 Consistently courteous 5.04 5.60 –.573 .000
Assurance

with tourists
16 Staff have knowledge 5.05 5.19 –.599 000
to answer
17 Feel safe to delivery 5.20 5.90 –.692 000
service
18 Give you individual 4.85 5.72 –.847 .000
attention
19 Understand your 4.42 5.18 –.703 .000
Empathy

specific needs
20 Get close to my spouse 4.46 5.42 –.920 000
21 Emphatic behaviour 4.53 5.43 –.870 000
22 Serve you by heart 4.52 5.36 –.810 .000

Respondents’ ratings of the quality dimensions are also shown in Table 4. The dimension
to which the highest rating (20.76%) assigned is reliability. This dimension is followed
by assurance and responsiveness. These results suggest that the Indian tourist destinations
were performing fairly well on the most important dimension, reliability, while
improvements are needed on other most important dimensions (empathy and tangibles).
The weighted SERVQUAL score of all service quality dimensions of Indian tourist
destinations are found negative. However, empathy has the highest negative SERVQUAL
score and is the least important dimension, whereas tangibles has the lowest negative
SERQUAL score indicating more importance than other dimensions. When these relative
importances of quality dimensions as weights are considered, the highest negative
SERVQUAL score passed from empathy to reliability. Furthermore, the difference
between total weighted SERVQUAL score (–0.665) and total un-weighted SERVQUAL
score (–.647) do not seem noteworthy. This suggests that destination service providers
should provide a high quality of products/services aimed at different visitor segments.
Table 5 shows cultural service quality differences in means among visitor’s segments
from four different countries (UK, USA, Canada and France) using an ANOVA. The
ANOVA reveals that all service quality dimensions were significantly different among
the visitor segments from the four countries. Results indicated that customer expectations
and perceptions varied by nationality in an international environment. Service quality
ratings of UK tourists were significantly higher as compared to those of USA tourists.
Cross cultural comparison between US and French consumers revealed that French
tourists had poorer perceptions of service quality in comparison to their US counterparts
on the evaluation of products and services in general. Service quality has been shown to
lead to different behavioural intentions with respect to customers from different cultures.
228 M. Chand

These results support hypothesis 2 which indicates that there is a significant

relationship between the quality of the tourism service and customer satisfaction, and a
negative association with customer complaints.
Table 4 SERVQUAL scores of quality dimensions

N SERVQUAL Sig. (p) Relative importance Weighted

scores (weights) of quality SERVQUAL
Dimension
(average) dimensions stated by score
tourists (%)
Tangibles 3 –.630* .006 15.987* –0.115*
Reliability 5 –.620* .000 20.765* –0.181*
Responsiveness 4 –.550* .001 18.218* –0.119*
Assurance 4 –.638* .000 18.897* –0.125*
Empathy 5 –.797* .000 15.541* –0.127*
Total un-weighted –.647
SERVQUAL score
Total weighted SERVQUAL score –0.665*
Note: * All figures are rounded up for convenience.
Table 5 Cross-cultural (nationality) service quality difference among tourists using ANOVA
(mean values)

Service quality UK USA Canada France F-value Significance

dimensions (N=635) (N=545) (N=355) (N=320) (prob>F)
Tangibles 4.15 3.90 3.70 3.52 22.40 0.00
Reliability 3.44 3.20 2.50 2.86 17.32 0.00
Responsiveness 3.40 3.50 2.70 3.10 16.73 0.00
Assurance 3.79 3.62 3.40 3.44 18.56 0.00
Empathy 3.65 3.59 3.16 2.67 21.64 0.00

4.3 Significance of relationship between demographic variables and

SERVQUAL scores
By referring to demographic characteristics of tourists in Table 1 and SERVQUAL scores
in Table 3 ‘independent-samples t-test’ and ‘one-way ANOVA test’ have been conducted
in order to examine the significance of relationships between them.
According to Levene’s test for equality of variances, the equal variance assumption is
used to check the significance of mean difference since all of the significance values for
F are greater than .05 (Table 6). The t-test for equality of means shows that the
hypothesis above is rejected for items 5, 6, 7 and 17 because means for male and females
differ significantly at the p < .05. As can be seen in Table 4, SERVQUAL scores of
females are lower for these four items. This shows that meeting female expectations
relative to those of males is more difficult. Furthermore, it should also be noted that three
out of four of these items belongs to the reliability quality dimension.
 Measuring the service quality of Indian tourism destinations 229

Table 6 t-test for equality of gender SERVQUAL scores

(Levene’s test t-test for

for equality of equality
Std. Mean variances) of means
Gender N Mean
deviation difference
F Sig. Sig. (2-
tailed)

Item 5 Female 742 –.790 1.935 –.526 .576 .454 .041

Male 1113 –.293 1.870
Item 6 Female 742 –.941 1.882 –.490 2.98 .069 .035
2
Male 1113 –.486 1.620
Item 7 Female 742 –1.10 1.703 –.491 .431 .519 .025

Male 1113 –.490 1.589

Item 17 Female 742 –1.01 2.160 –.508 3.10 .069 .041
1
Male 1113 –.534 1.594

Note: * Significantly at the p < .05.

The results indicate that no significant difference in the overall satisfaction of the
respondents was found by age, nationality, education level and total household income.
However, significant difference in the overall satisfaction of the respondents was found
only for gender (p < 0.05). The results explained that female respondents were more
satisfied with the tourism services at Indian tourist destinations than male respondents.
Thus, hypothesis 1 can be rejected only for gender.

4.4 Reliability of SERVQUAL model

A model is generally considered reliable if items used in it produce similar results.

Cronbach’s alpha is used to measure internal consistency of all items within the
SERVQUAL model. Alpha is measured on the same scale as a Pearson r (correlation
coefficient) and typically varies between 0 and 1. The closer the alpha is to 1.0, the
greater the internal consistency of items in the model being assessed. The minimum
acceptable value of alpha for the reliability of the model is 0.5. Reliability of the research
designed to measure service quality of Indian tourist destinations towards foreign tourists
can be separately calculated for the overall model or for separate quality dimensions as
shown in Table 7.
According to alpha coefficients, overall model reliability is increased to 0.920 from
0.910 if item 4 is deleted from the scale. The reliability of tangibles is increased to 0.829
from 0.647 if item 4 is deleted from the scale. The reliability and responsiveness are
0.806 and .793, respectively. The reliability of empathy is increased to 0.792 from 0.775
if item 18 is deleted from the scale.
The results above show that both the overall model and quality dimensions can be
considered to have high reliability.
230 M. Chand

Table 7 Reliability of overall model and quality dimensions

Service quality dimensions Cronbach’s alpha

Tangibles .829
Reliability .806
Responsiveness .793
Assurance .784
Empathy .792
Overall model reliability .920

5 Conclusions and implications

The scope of this paper was two-fold. First, to investigate if some specific characteristics
of tourists such as age, marital status, educational level, and income level affect the
assessment of service quality in Indian tourist destinations and second, to examine if the
quality of the tourism services affects tourists’ experiences. Service quality was measured
by using the SERVQUAL method. The findings of study indicate that national
differences can play a part in determining customers’ perceptions of the importance of
various quality dimensions. Tourism managers should therefore make every attempt to
recognise and satisfy the culturally determined needs of different groups of tourists.
Further, it is clear that not all needs can be elicited simply by asking tourists. Therefore,
tourism service providers should create an experience that fulfils, or preferably exceeds,
the needs and expectations of the tourists at the tourist destination(s).
According to demographic findings, the majority of respondents has intellectual
capacity, being university graduates and has services occupation. The results revealed
that the expectations of tourists on service quality items, except for one item, were higher
than perceptions. When quality dimensions are considered, the largest discrepancy
between expectations and perceptions was in terms of the ‘empathy’ dimension. In other
words, perceived quality is less than satisfactory and a service quality gap materialises.
Results also revealed that highest and lowest relative importance assigned to quality
dimensions belong to ‘reliability’ and ‘empathy’ respectively. However, when the
weights assigned to quality dimensions are considered, the highest negative SERVQUAL
score is carried by reliability. When the relationship between demographic characteristics
and SERVQUAL items are examined, gender differences created significant results for
four out of 22 items, whereas SERVQUAL scores do not differ according to other
demographic features. Some quality dimensions might be important to potential tourists
when they are considering a tourist destination, whereas other dimensions might be more
important when assessing the experience afterwards.
This study has shown that the SERVQUAL instrument is a reliable measure of
service quality in Indian tourist destinations, and serves as a useful method for tourism
planners to identify differences in terms of expectations and perceptions. As a conclusive
remark, it should be pointed out that even though SERVQUAL score can theoretically
reach up to –0.7, the scores found as less than –1 show that tourist destination service
providers can easily fill the gap and meet service expectations of tourist by only
increasing their client-orientation.
 Measuring the service quality of Indian tourism destinations 231

Further research is being undertaken to validate these results. There are several
opportunities to extend this study. For example, further studies on service quality
measurement must focus on issues related to how different socio-demographic and
cross-cultural variables affect service quality dimensions. Another factor that might have
to be considered in future research is whether the service quality dimensions used in this
study are valid in other tourist destinations. Studies of the remaining gaps identified in
the SERVQUAL model would be instructive and potentially beneficial to tourist
destinations in isolating issues affecting the gap between perceptions and expectations.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers and Guest Editor
Dr. Cheng Li, Associate Professor and Vice-Director, Department of Tourism Culture,
Tourism School, Sichuan University, China, for their thought provoking and helpful
comments in the development of this paper.

References
Atilgan, E., Akinci, S. and Aksoy, S. (2003) ‘Mapping service quality in the tourism industry’,
Managing Service Quality, Vol. 13, No. 5, pp.412–422.
Babakus, E. and Ho, S.K. (1998) ‘Service quality and tourism’, Journal of Travel Research,
Vol. 37, pp.71–75.
Babakus, E. and Boller, G.W. (1992) ‘An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale’, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.253–268.
Backman, S.J. and Veldkamp, C. (1995) ‘Examination of the relationship between service quality
and user loyalty,’ Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp.29–41.
Baker, D.A. and Fesenmaier, D.R. (1997) ‘Effects of service climate on managers’ and employees’
rating of visitors’ service quality expectations’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 36, No. 1,
pp.15–23.
Bigne, J.E., Martinez, C., Miquel, M.J. and Andreu, L. (2003) ‘SERQUAL reliability and validity
in travel agencies’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp.258–262.
Bojanic, D.C. and Rosen, L.D. (1994) ‘Measuring service quality in restaurants: an application of
the SERVQUAL model’, Hospitality Research Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.3–14.
Brysland, A. and Curry, A. (2001) ‘Service improvements in public services using SERVQUAL’,
Managing Service Quality, Vol. 1, No. 6, pp.389–401.
Buhalis, D. (2000) ‘Marketing the competitive destination of the future’, Tourism Management,
Vol. 21, No. 1, pp.97–116.
Carman, J.M. (1990) ‘Consumer perceptions of service quality: an assessment of the SERVQUAL
dimensions’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66, No. 2, pp.27–45.
Caruana, A., Money, A.H. and Berthon, P.R. (2000) ‘Service quality and satisfaction – the
moderating role of value’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34, Nos.11–12.
Chaudhary, M. (2000) ‘India’s image as a tourist destination – a perspectives of foreign tourists’,
Tourism Management, Vol. 21, pp.293–297.
Childress, R.D. and Crompton, J.L. (1997) ‘A comparison of alternative direct and discrepancy
approaches to measuring quality of performance at a festival’, Journal of Tourism Research,
Vol. 36, No. 2, p.43.
Cooper, C., Fletcher, J., Gilbert, D., Shepherd, R. and Wanhill, S. (Eds) (1998) Tourism: Principles
and Practices, 2nd ed., Addison Wesley Longman, England.
232 M. Chand

Corsby, P.B. (1979) ‘Quality is free: the art of making quality certain’, New American Library,
New York.
Dabholkar, P.D., Thorpe, D.I. and Rentz, J.O. (1996) ‘A measure of service quality for retail stores:
scale development and validation’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 24,
No. 1, pp.3–16.
Fick, G.R. and Ritchie, J.R. (1991) ‘Measuring service quality in the travel and tourism industry’,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp.2–9.
Furrer, O., Liu, B.S. and Sudharshan, D. (2000) ‘The relationships between culture and service
quality perceptions: basis for cross-cultural market segmentation and resource allocation’,
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp.355–371.
Gilbert, D. (1991) ‘An examination of the consumer decision process relate to tourism’, in Cooper,
C. (Eds): Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management, Belhaven, London,
Vol. 3.
Gilbert, D. (1993) ‘Consumer behaviour and tourism demand’, in Cooper, C., Fletcher, J., Gilbert,
D. and Wanhill, S. (Eds): Tourism: Principles and Practice, Pitman Publishing, London,
pp.20–31.
Goodall (1988) ‘How tourists choose their holidays: An analytical framework’, in Goodall and
Ashworth (Ed): Marketing in the Tourism Industry: The Promotion of Destination Regions,
Groom Helm, London.
Goodall (1991) ‘Understanding holiday choice’, in Cooper, C. (Eds): Progress in Tourism,
Recreation and Hospitality Management, Belhaven, London, Vol. 3, pp.58–77.
Heung, V.C.S. and Wong, M.Y. (1997) ‘Hotel service quality in Hong Kong: a study of tourists’
expectations’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp.264–271.
Hudson, S. and Shephard, G.W.H. (1998) ‘Measuring service quality at tourist destinations: an
application of importance-performance analysis to an alpine ski resort’, Journal of Travel and
Tourism Marketing, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp.61–77.
Jones, E. (Ed.) (2005) Tourism SMES, Service Quality and Destination Competitiveness, University
of Wales Institute, UK.
Julta, R.S. (2000) ‘Visual image of the city: tourists’ versus residents’ perceptions of Shimla, a hill
station in northern India’, Tourism Geographies, Vol. 2, No. 4 pp.404–420.
Kilbourne, W., Duffy, J.A., Duffy M. and Giarchi, G.G. (2004) ‘The applicability of SERVQUAL
in cross-national measurements of healthcare quality’, Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 18, No. 7, pp.524–33.
Kotler, P., Bowen, J. and Makens, J. (1996) Marketing for Hospitality and Tourism, Prentice Hall,
UK.
Lee, Y.L. and Hing, N. (1995) ‘Measuring quality in restaurant operations: an application of the
SERVQUAL instrument’, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 14, No. 3,
pp.293–310.
Leiper, N. (1995) Tourism Management, RMIT Press, Melbourne.
Llosa, S., Chandon, J.L. and Orsingher, C. (1998) ‘An empirical study of SERVQUAL’s
dimensionality’, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.16–44.
MacKay, K.J. and Crompton, J.L. (1990) ‘Measuring the quality of recreation services’, Journal of
Park and Recreation Administration, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp.47256.
Mansfeld, Y. (1995) ‘The ‘value stretch’ model and its implementation in detecting tourists’ class
differentiated destination choice’, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 4,No. 3,
pp.71–92.
Mattila, A.S. (1999) ‘The role of culture in the service evaluation processes’, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp.250–261.
Mayo E. and Jarvis, L. (1981) The Psychology of Leisure Travel, CBI Publishing, Boston.
Mazanec, J. and Zins, A. (1994) ‘Tourist behaviour and the new European life style typology’, in
Theobold, W. (Ed.): Global Tourism: The Next Decade, Oxford: Heinemann, pp.199–216.
 Measuring the service quality of Indian tourism destinations 233

Ministry of Tourism (2007) Yearbook of Tourism Statistics, New Delhi, Government of India.
Moutinho, L. (1987) ‘Consumer behaviour in tourism’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 21,
No. 10, pp.1–44.
Murphy, P., Pritchard, M.P. and B. Smith (2000) ‘The destination product and its impact on
traveller perceptions’, Tourism Management, Vol. 21, pp.43–52.
Ostrowski, P.L., O’Brien T.V. and Gordon, G.L. (1993) ‘Service quality and customer loyalty in
the commercial airline industry’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.16–24.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. and Zeithaml, V.A (1991a) ‘Refinement and reassessment of the
SERVQUAL scale’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 67, pp.42–50.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. and V. Zeithaml, (1991b) ‘Understanding customer expectations of
service’, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 32, pp.1–11.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L.L. (1988) ‘SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for
measuring customer perceptions of service quality’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64, No. 1,
pp.12–37.
Pawitra, T.A. and Tan, K.C. (2003) ‘Tourist satisfaction in Singapore: a perspective from
Indonesian tourists’, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 13, No. 5, pp.399–411.
Robledo, M.A. (2001) ‘Measuring and managing service quality in the hospitality industry using
the SERVQUAL model’, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.22–31.
Ryan, C. (1997) The Tourist Experience: A new Introduction, Cassell, London.
Ryan, C. and Cliff, A. (1997) ‘Do travel agencies measure up to customer expectations? An
empirical investigation of travel agencies service quality as measured by SERVQUAL’,
Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp.1–32.
Saleh, F. and Ryan, C. (1991) ‘Analysing service quality in the hospitality industry using the
SERVQUAL model’, Service Industries Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.324–343.
Siu, N.Y.M. and Cheung, J.T.H. (2001) ‘A measure of retail service quality’, Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 19, Nos. 2–3, pp.88–96.
Swan, J.E. and Bowers, M.R. (1998) ‘Service quality and satisfaction: the process of people doing
things together’, Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp.59–72.
Swarbrooke, J. and Horner, S. (1999) Consumer Behaviour in Tourism, Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford.
Tian-Cole, S. and Cromption, J.L. (2003) ‘A conceptualization of the relationships between service
quality and visitor satisfaction, and their links to destination selection’, Leisure Studies,
Vol. 22, pp.65–80.
Vogt, C.A. and Fesenmaier, D.R. (1995) ‘Tourist and retailers’ perceptions of services’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp.763–780.
Weiermair, K. and F. Matthias, (1999) ‘Measuring tourist destination competitiveness: conceptual
considerations and empirical findings’, International Journal of Hospitality Management,
Vol. 18, pp.273–28.
Woodside, A. and Lysonski, S. (1989) ‘A general model of traveller destination choice’, Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp.8–14.
Wyllie, R.W. (2000) Tourism and Society, State College, Pa, Venture Publishing.
Yu, A.H-C., Morais, D. and Chick, G. (2005) ‘Service quality in tourism: a case study of the 2001
study tour of Taiwan’, Proceedings of the 2005 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium.