RM Final Report

A STUDY ON THE KEY FACTORS INFLUENCING THE CHOICE
OF TOURIST DESTINATIONS OF DHAKA CITY RESIDENTS

A STUDY ON THE KEY FACTORS INFLUENCING THE CHOICE
OF TOURIST DESTINATIONS OF DHAKA CITY RESIDENTS

Submitted to:
Dr. S.M. Rafiul Haque
Course Instructor
Research Methodology
BBA Program

Submitted by:
Anika Marium (782)
Sara Tarannum (781)
Tanjib Mahmud(2291)
Dewan Khaled Saleehen(2293)
Md. Saidur Rahman(792)
(Team Troglodytes)

Institute of Business Administration
Jahangirnagar University

September 08, 2014

September 08, 2014
Dr. S.M. Rafiul Haque
Institute of Business Administration
Jahangirnagar Univeersity

Dear Sir:
Subject: Submission of Term Paper Titled A Study on the Key Factors Influencing the
Choice of Tourist Destinations of Dhaka City Residents
We are pleased to submit the term-end research paper assigned by you. Our topic of interest
is A Study on the Key Factors Influencing the Choice of Tourist Destinations of Dhaka City
Residents. The report includes an overview of the key factors influencing the choice of
tourist destination from the viewpoint of the Dhaka city residents, followed by a research
conducted on this topic. Some recommendations have also been provided, which are based on
the research findings. We have tried to incorporate all the necessary steps you have
mentioned in our Research Methodology course for carrying out this study and also, the
feedback you have given us on our proposal.
We appreciate the opportunity to prepare a research paper that you have given us, which has
been a unique learning experience and the knowledge we have acquired will be of great
importance to us, both for our future academic purposes and professional lives.

Therefore, we request you to accept our report. We hope that youll find it in order. We are
eagerly expecting your feedback.

Yours sincerely,
Tanjib Mahmud
ID: 2291, 20
th
Batch,
Institute of Busainess Administration
Jahangirnagar University

On Behalf of Team Troglogytes

Acknowledgement
First of all, we would like to thank the Almighty for we have completed the research in its
entirety. In the course of conducting the research and subsequently, writing the report, we
have had the privilege to come in touch with many wonderful individuals whose inputs
helped us tremendously. The foremost contributor and the person to whom we owe our most
sincere gratitude is Dr. Dr. S.M. Rafiul Haque. He repeatedly made time to sit with our group
to go over the details of the research and report processes and helped as greatly with different
data analysis techniques. His teachings throughout the Research Methodology course helped
us constantly in the course of performing the research. We would also like to express our
gratitude towards Dr. Syed Saad Andaleeb for taking time out of his busy schedule in his visit
to Dhaka and giving an informative and enormously helpful lecture on the finer details of the
research methods and data analysis. His inputs as a veteran researcher will surely help us in
the future as it has done throughout the research.
Next, we would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank all the interviewees for giving
us their time and attention and selflessly helping us for the report and trusting us with their
personal details which has been an integral part of the research.
Finally, we would like to state that we appreciate the inputs from everyone who helped us
during the research with advices, resources, and their time.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. viii
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 11
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 11
1.2 Research Question ................................................................................................................ 12
1.3 Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 12
1.3.1 Broad Objective ............................................................................................................ 12
1.3.2 Specific Objectives ....................................................................................................... 12
1.4 Hypotheses ............................................................................................................................ 12
1.5 Rationale ............................................................................................................................... 14
1.6 Scope ..................................................................................................................................... 15
1.7 Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 15
2 Literature Review .......................................................................................................................... 16
3 Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 18
3.1 Data Collection ..................................................................................................................... 19
3.1.1 Secondary Data ............................................................................................................. 19
3.1.2 Primary Data ................................................................................................................. 19
3.2 Sample Size Determination ................................................................................................... 19
3.3 Sample frame ........................................................................................................................ 20
3.4 Questionnaire Development .................................................................................................. 20
3.4.1 Co-ordination Schema ................................................................................................... 21
3.5 Demographics of the Respondents ........................................................................................ 23
3.6 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 28
3.7 Research Design .................................................................................................................... 29
3.7.1 Variables for Measuring the Level of Consideration of the Factors ............................. 29
3.7.2 Demographic Variables ................................................................................................. 30
4 Report Findings and Analysis ....................................................................................................... 30
4.1 Reliability Test ...................................................................................................................... 30
4.2 Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................................. 30
4.3 One Sample t test for Testing Hypotheses ............................................................................ 33
4.4 Independent Sample t Test: ................................................................................................... 36
4.5 Non-parametric Test (Kruskal-Wallis Test).......................................................................... 40
4.5.1 Occupation: ................................................................................................................... 40
4.5.2 Income ........................................................................................................................... 44
4.5.3 Age Group ..................................................................................................................... 46
4.6 Confirmatory Factor Analysis ............................................................................................... 47
5 Summary of the Research Findings .............................................................................................. 50

6 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 52
7 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 53
8 References ..................................................................................................................................... 55
9 Appendix- A .................................................................................................................................. 56
9.1 Survey Questionnaire ............................................................................................................ 56
10 Appendix-B ................................................................................................................................... 59
10.1 Statistical Test Results .......................................................................................................... 59
10.1.1 Reliability Test .............................................................................................................. 59
10.1.2 Frequency and Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................ 62
10.1.3 One Sample t-test for Hypotheses Testing .................................................................... 80
10.1.4 Independent Sample t-test For Male and Female .......................................................... 84
10.1.5 Kruskal-Wallis Test for Occupation ............................................................................. 91
10.1.6 Kruskal-Wallis Test for Income Group......................................................................... 93
10.1.7 Kruskal-Wallis Test for Age Groups ............................................................................ 95
10.1.8 Factor Analysis ............................................................................................................. 97

List of tables
Table 1: Co-ordination Schema ......................................................................................................... 22
Table 2: Gender of the respondents .................................................................................................. 23
Table 3: Age group of the respondents ............................................................................................. 25
Table 4: Occupation of the respondents ........................................................................................... 27
Table 5: Most important variables based on mean value ................................................................ 31
Table 6: Important Variables based on mean values ...................................................................... 32
Table 7: Least important variables based on mean value ............................................................... 33
Table 8: t-test statistics for variables with mean score greater than 3 ........................................... 35
Table 9: t-test statistics for variables with mean value less than 3 ................................................. 36
Table 10: Group statistics for male & female on variables with significance differences between
groups ................................................................................................................................................... 39
Table 11: Independent Sample t-test for male & female ................................................................. 40
Table 12: Krukal-Wallis test for Occupation on variables Sig. value less than .05 ...................... 42
Table 13: Kruskal-Wallis test for Occupation on variable Sig. value greater than .05 ................ 44
Table 14: Krukal-Wallis test for Income on variables with sig. level less than .05 ....................... 45

List of figures
Figure 1: Gender of the respondents ................................................................................................. 23
Figure 2: Age group of the respondents ............................................................................................ 24
Figure 3: Occupation of the respondents .......................................................................................... 26
Figure 4: Income of the respondents ................................................................................................. 27
Figure 5: Income of the respondents ................................................................................................. 28

viii | P a g e

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Bangladesh with all its physical beauty, cultural diversity and available human resource has
the prospective of an ideal tourist destination, if its high-potential attributes are properly
employed. According to the current scenario, local tourists hold the major share of the
tourism industry in Bangladesh. Thus the investigation of travelling habit and factor analysis
is essential to comprehend the current scenario so developments can take place in the near
future. Tourism is generally referred to as travelling for any purpose that is done without the
intention to gain money. Often purposes of travelling are recreational, educational and
religious. The worlds tourism industry is a trillion dollar industry

making up 5% of the direct
global GDP and providing employment for more than 235 million people worldwide
.

Tourism in Bangladesh is still in a growing stage, though by just size it ranks as the worlds
80
th
largest tourist industry. However when it is measured by percentage contribution to
GDP, the rank is 169
th
which is shamefully lower than then the rank its potential suggests.
The industry employs around 1.2 million of the countrys work-force. (World Travel and
Tourism Council, 2013) The foremost tourist attractions of Bangladesh include Coxs Bazar
(the longest sea-beach in the world), the Sundarbans (largest single block of tidal halophytic
mangrove forest in the world), Kuakata sea beach, Hill-tracks in the south-east region of the
country. Apart from these there are many historical sites that interest tourists locally and
globally. For a developing country like Bangladesh, International Tourism is very important
as through this the country can not only earn foreign currency but can also attract foreign
investors and donors. Domestic Tourism usually provides the base for sector development.
Foreign tourists are likely to visit places with good reputation and established infrastructure
which can be brought about only when the places are frequented by local tourists. For
domestic tourism, urban population is very important because of the higher disposable
income and the consequential interest in travelling for pleasure. Dhaka is the countrys largest
city by far and thus, has the largest pool of potential tourists and can be expected to represent
all other cities tourists.
Apart from the problem of under-utilization of the countrys resources and inept
infrastructural problems, the Tourism industrys development is also hampered by the lack of
reliable and cyclic information about domestic tourism. Adding to that, the fact that very few
academic researches have been carried out on the choices of the domestic tourists does not
help in problem identification and correction. Therefore this report endeavours to support
potential investors and policy makers and implementers in this sector through relevant
information and unique recommendations to solve the problems.
This research reports main objective was to find the key factors influencing the choice of
tourist destination of Dhaka residents. The specific objectives considered were
accommodation facilities, transport & communication, security issues, nature of destination
(historical, religious and more) and the demographic diversities. The report aimed to find the
association between the variables under each specific objective and the choices made by
urban tourists.

ix | P a g e

The sample size analyzed was 184 and the questionnaire was designed such that subject
opinion was not required for this report. The targeted interviewees were mainly middle-class
and above as study upon the lower class would require a different angle of perspective. The
opinion of more than one individual of the same family has been avoided to eliminate
recurring patterns in the data collected. The questionnaire was based on a total of twenty-nine
variables which are related to the specific objectives mentioned and hypotheses were formed
with the variables.
Various statistical tools such as descriptive statistics, one and two sample t-tests,
confirmatory factor analysis and Kruskal-Wallis Test were used to critically analyze the data.
We have used the software SPSS to aid us in the analysis. Cronbach's alpha is a coefficient of
reliability. The Alpha value for the survey data of this research was found to be .898, and
hence it can be considered quite reliable (1 being the most reliable and 0 being not reliable.)
We have calculated the mean value of each variable and grouped them according to level of
agreement.
Cost of accommodation, Safety at transportation, Natural beauty were found to be strongly
considered by Dhaka residents in choosing a tourist location whereas factors like Presence of
air route, Availability of internet, Availability of land phones, Religious importance and
Educational importance were not of much consideration. The rest of the variables were of
moderate consideration. Availability of standard hotels, cost of accommodation, cost of
transportation, and safety at transportation, perceived crime rate, natural beauty and
recreational facilities were the seven variables that influenced the choice of tourist
destinations the most. Independent sample t-test revealed that factors such as Proximity of
hotels, Mobile network strength, Availability of land phones, Cost of transportation has
different level of importance to male & female. Apart from these we can conclude that there
is a statistically significant difference in the perceived importance of these 2 variables Travel
time, Cost of transportation across the five groups of income. The remaining 27 variables
have not any association with different income groups. Kruskal-Wallis Test also found
differences between the age groups and gender groups for certain variables. Factor analysis
grouped the 29 variables into 8 factors that explained 64.417% of the total cumulative
variance. The newly formed eight factors are safety and security, ease at transportation,
nature of destinations, food quality and availability, connectivity, availability of
transportation, facilities available and cost.
Thus it can be concluded that the factors that peoples considered strongly or that resulted in
variance mostly should be focused on by the government bodies and other private
organizations, to ensure correction, improvement and maintenance. This can make
Bangladeshs tourist sites more attractive to not only the local tourists but also the
international ones. Since the basic wants and needs of all travellers and tourists are similar.
We have also included a set of recommendations for other researchers and people interested
in Tourism. The recommendations in brief are;

For further studies:
Finding out more on overall types of travelers ( not only business travelers)
Doing a longitudinal research on all the parts of the travel
Encompassing travelers to the Capital
Encompassing a sample size of more than 1000
x | P a g e

Take into account the mode of transport
Take into account time of travel
More
For Interested investors and government bodies:
researches should be done to keep track of the state of the tourism industry
The factors that were found to influence the decision of tourists more should be
given special attention in terms of renovation, development and maintenance.
Private-Public Partnerships should be formed to work effectively on tourism
sector.

11 | P a g e

1 INTRODUCTION
This research paper on "A Study on the Key Factors Influencing the Choice of Tourist
Destination to Dhaka City Residents has been prepared as a requirement for the course
Research Methodology under the supervision of our respected course instructor Dr.
S.M.Rafiul Haque, Institute of Business Administration, Jahangirnagar University.
1.1 BACKGROUND
Tourism is normally referred to as travelling for recreational, educational and religious
purposes. In essence, any travel that is done without thinking of gaining economic benefit of
some sort can be called tourism. Formal definition of tourism varies substantially among
different sources. In one of the most widely accepted definitions, tourism is labeled as The
temporary movement of people to destinations outside their normal places of work and
residence, the activities undertaken during their stay in those destinations, and the facilities
created to cater to their needs. (McIntosh & Goeldner, 1986) The worlds tourism industry is
a trillion dollar industry
1
; making up 5% of the direct global GDP and providing employment
for more than 235 million people worldwide
2
.
Bangladesh is a South-Asian country with a population close to 150 million. Dhaka, the
capital of the country, has a population of 18,305,671 (as of Census 2012 revised figures) in
1463.6 square kilometers. In Bangladesh, the tourism industry is still on the growth phase
with the worlds 80
th
largest tourist industry by absolute size, but the industry is a meager
169
th
by dint of percentage contribution to GDP. The industry employs around 1.2 million of
the countrys work-force. (World Travel and Tourism Council, 2013) The foremost tourist
attractions of Bangladesh include Coxs Bazar (the longest sea-beach in the world), the
Sundarbans (largest single block of tidal halophytic mangrove forest in the world), Kuakata
sea beach, Hill-tracks in the south-east region of the country.
The tourism industry of Bangladesh is a growing one and is of very high growth potential.
The World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) predicts that the Bangladesh tourism industry
can achieve 12
th
largest growth in the next ten years (World Travel and Tourism Council,
2013). International tourism is very important for developing countries like Bangladesh as a
source of foreign currency. But domestic tourism usually provides the base for sector
development. Foreign tourists are likely to visit the places with a good reputation and
established infrastructure. If a place is not frequented by the domestic tourists, its unlikely to
attract much attention from tourists abroad. In Bangladeshs case, all these are very much
applicable. For the countrys industry to reach its potential, domestic tourism has to provide
the initial demand that is needed for the entrepreneurs to be interested to invest in a certain
tourist location. For domestic tourism, urban population is very important because of the
higher disposable income. Dhaka is the countrys largest city by far and thus, has the largest
pool of potential tourists.

1
International tourism receipts surpass US$ 1 trillion in 2011" (Press release). UNWTO. 7 May 2012.
2
UNWTO Annual Report 2012

12 | P a g e

There is lack of dependable and periodic information about the domestic tourism, and also,
few academic researches have been done on the preferences of the domestic tourists. The
Dhaka residents are a significant portion of the urban population and the population of the
whole country. The choices, trends and issues of the Dhaka residents regarding tourism can
be a suitable starting point for analyzing the aspects of domestic tourism. This research is
aimed to fill a part of the research gap in the tourism sector of Bangladesh by providing
insights about the factors which help the Dhaka residents decide on tourism destination.
1.2 RESEARCH QUESTION
What are the key factors influencing the choice of tourist destinations of Dhaka city
residents?
1.3 OBJECTIVES
1.3.1 Broad Objective
To find out the key factors which influence the choice of a Bangladeshi tourist destination by
Dhaka city residents.
1.3.2 Specific Objectives
1. To find out if accommodation facilities have influence on the choice of a tourist spot
2. To find out if transport and communication infrastructure influence the choice of a
tourist spot by the people of Dhaka city
3. To find out the effect of security issues on the selection of a tourist spot of by the
Dhaka city resident
4. To find out if the nature of the destination (religious, archeological etc.) have
influence on the selection of a tourist spot
5. To find out if there is any association between the demographic characteristics of the
Dhaka city residents and the influence of different factors on their choice of tourism
destinations.
1.4 HYPOTHESES
Hypotheses under each specific objective are as following:
Specific objective- 1: To find out if accommodation facilities have influence on the
choice of a tourist spot

Hypothesis: The following factors related with accommodation facilities influence the
choice of a Bangladeshi tourist destination by Dhaka city residents.
Availability of hotels
Cost of hotels
Proximity of hotels
Cost of food
Quality of food
Availability of food

13 | P a g e

Specific objective- 2: To find out if transport and communication infrastructure influence
the choice of a tourist spot by the people of Dhaka city

Hypothesis: The following factors related with transport and communication
infrastructure influence the choice of a Bangladeshi tourist destination by Dhaka city
residents.
Presence of air route
Medium of transport
Travel time
Cost of transportation
Availability of tickets
Safety
Comfort
Quality of roads
Traffic jam
Mobile Network
Internet coverage
Land phones

Specific objective- 3: To find out the effect of security issues on the selection of a tourist
spot of by the Dhaka city resident

Hypothesis: The following security issues influence the choice of a Bangladeshi
tourist destination by Dhaka city residents.
Presence of lifeguard
Quality of weather forecast
Number of road accidents
Strength of local law enforcement agency
Crime rate
Political environment

Specific objective- 4: To find out if the nature of the destination (religious, archeological
etc.) have influence on the selection of a tourist spot

Hypothesis: The following natures of destinations influence the choice of a
Bangladeshi tourist destination by Dhaka city residents.
Religious
Historical
Educational
Natural beauty
Recreational

14 | P a g e

Specific Objective 5: To find out if there is any association between the demographic
characteristics of the Dhaka city residents and the influence of different factors on their
choice of tourism destinations.

Hypothesis: There is association between the following demographic characteristics
of the Dhaka city residents and the influence of different factors on their choice of
tourism destinations.
Gender
Age
Occupation
Household income
1.5 RATIONALE
Bangladesh has many places that attract both the international and domestic tourists. Where
international tourism is the most important for the economic development of the country,
domestic tourism has also a role that is not negligible. Domestic tourists spend a lot when
they go for a tour in their vacation and that boosts the development of the regions with tourist
attractions. It also has positive impact on the social, cultural and economic development of
the country in most of the cases. So it the domestic tourism of the country flourishes it will be
beneficiary for all of us.
This study is an attempt to find out the key factors that influence the choice of the potential
tourist destinations of the country. Though this study will be based on the people of Dhaka
city only, it can be presumed that it will present an overall picture of the choices and
preferences of the tourists of Bangladesh. The findings of our study will provide an analysis
of the current situation of the domestic tourism from the tourists point of view. It will also
point out the factors that need proper attention. We hope that these findings will help the
following individuals, organizations and institutions to contribute and manage the tourism
sector of Bangladesh better:
Government organizations and ministries such as Bangladesh Parjatan
Corporation (BPC), Ministry of Civil Aviation and Tourism can gain a deeper
insight into the expectations and priorities of the local tourists and use this new found
knowledge to take corrective and measures where necessary. Authorities of the
tourist spots will also be benefitted from the findings.
The current and potential Tourism Agencies, Local Businesses and Hotel and
Resort owners and Transport Companies are expected to find this study useful for
their planning and development programs as it will educate them more about their
customers needs, preferences and priorities for making tourism decisions.
Another important stakeholder will be the Foreign Donors. If this research paper is
presented to them, interested foreign donors will come to understand the needs and
potentials of Bangladeshi industry better. This will help in generation of funds to
build better infrastructure such as roads and transportations facility, accommodation
facilities and more which will benefit the tourism industry on a big scale.
15 | P a g e

As research on this topic has not been carried out frequently the Educational Institutions of
Tourism and Hospitality and their students will benefit a lot from the research findings and
also this will provide as base for future researches on related topic.
1.6 SCOPE
The focus of this research paper is the tourism sector and urban people as most local tourists are
from cities in Bangladesh. The sample was collected only from the Dhaka city dwellers. Dhaka is
the capital city and one of the main industrial cities thus people of myriad social, economic and
occupational clusters and strata lives in Dhaka. So in this report the sample is to reflect the total
urban population of the country in terms of the aspects of tourism affecting the choices made by
the urban society. Mostly the methods and statistical tools that were taught in Research
Methodology course was applied but our data type did not match all the tools that were taught for
e.g. the data could not support regression and correlation analysis. However various new
statistical analysis was done, which more than made up for the statistical tools that could not be
applied. This topic has not been researched on much in a Bangladeshi context, though it is an
industry with excellent potential so it is expected that the unique outcome and recommendations
that the paper has resulted in will pave the way for further research on Tourism in Bangladesh
and create scoped for future development. This research report will hopefully help correct,
improvise and nurture the latent potential that Bangladesh has, which will then bloom to boost the
countrys GDP growth.
1.7 LIMITATIONS
The inability to research on a large sample has, however, in no way impacted the findings or
the results of the research. Although the sample was small, it was very carefully selected. The
researcher ensured that no validity threats arise and made efforts to gain as much knowledge
through the surveys and literature review. The dissertation is a result of tremendous hard
work. In fact, the smaller sample helped to narrow the scope of the report which aided in
producing a good quality, well-focused report.
Sampling Method The sampling for data collection was done by non-
probabilistic sampling methods (quota & convenience sampling). This leaves a
possibility that a portion of the population may be under-represented or, a portion
may have too many respondents from it.
Lack of available and/or reliable data -- a lack of data or of reliable data has
required us to limit the scope of our analysis, the size of our sample and it has
been a significant obstacle in finding a trend and a meaningful relationship.
Lack of prior research studies on the topic There was a lack of proper
literature on Bangladeshi internal tourists. We had to resort to using various other
countries reports to review our literature. There is a need of more research on this
subject.
Longitudinal Effect: We could not devote out maximum time and money for the
research, hence we have a limitation. Also, our area of research comprised in areas
mainly where we live, so we concentrated in areas such as Uttara, Farmgate,
University of Dhaka, Central Road, Chawkbazaar and Bashundhara Residential
area.
16 | P a g e

Language Barrier: The questionnaire was made in English. Some of the fields
were incomplete, so we assume some people had difficulty understanding the
question.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Tourism has the potential to bring about great changes to a countrys economy, particularly in
less developed regions, where it can drive growth. Tourism also tends to have important
impacts on the environment and society at large.
Many researchers have examined the consequences of tourism, but fewer have looked at the
other side of the coin: the way economic, social and environmental factors can drive tourism
or hold it back. We wanted to look at this topic more deeply what key factors contribute to
the success of tourism industry. To do that, before we can attract foreign tourists we have to
find out what effects the Dhaka residents tourism decisions and preferences. So the subjects
of this report are mostly Dhaka residents.
The economy does have a direct, positive effect on both infrastructure and society and these
two factors, in turn, affect tourism. This is in line with the findings of earlier researchers, who
found that better infrastructure encourages tourism. . In Bangladesh, insufficient
infrastructural development at various tourist spots, lack of proper facilities for the tourists,
lack of security and political stability, scarcity of skilled and professional tour service
providers and poor promotional programs are responsible for the lower response from the
foreign tourists.
The role of destination image, during the destination selection process, is of great
significance. Most of the destination image researches have been aimed at western
destinations; research on low profile destinations like Bangladesh has been limited. The
importance of a favourable image for a destination to attract tourists is undoubtedly of highest
value as a positive image has more chance to be considered in the destination selection
process than a negative image (Beerli, 2004). Jenkins (1999, cited in Pike, 2004) emphasizes
on the term image that is used in a number of different contexts, i.e. individuals perception
about the destination, stereotypes held by groups and images projected by destination
marketers etc. According to Milman and Pizam (1995) destination image consists of three
main components; firstly, the product, for example, the quality of attraction; the attitude of
the destination hosts and the environment; secondly the weather or climate and lastly the
facilities available in the destination.
Hall and OSullivan (1996, cited in Seddighi, 2001) suggests three elements which allows a
destination a long term survival on the demand curve: 1) word-of-mouth reporting of
returning tourists, 2) image making of media and 3) policies and interest of destination
government
Bangladeshs image worldwide is seen more as a nation with poverty, corruption, and victim
of natural calamities than a tourist destination (Islam, 2009). Hall and Page (2000, cited in
Tuhin, 2011) states that, the major problems of tourism in Bangladesh are over population,
natural disaster, unemployment and underdeveloped economic structure. In reality the image
17 | P a g e

of Bangladesh is not as devastating as it is perceived internationally.
Bangladesh has a logo (sea and sun) with a slogan, beautiful Bangladesh, (covert induced-1,
traditional advertising and overt induced 1, advertising in television and press ads). These
promotional activities have a clear focus on archaeological sites, wild life, sea beaches, hills
and culture of Bangladesh. The reach of these insignificant promotional activities is
alarmingly limited worldwide. Bangladesh gets maximum exposure when hit hard by natural
calamities or political turbulence (Autonomous- news on mass media) all that further affect
Bangladeshs image negatively. There is some private and public partnership to promote
tourism of Bangladesh (overt induced 2 information received from tour operators) through
some brochures; very little effort was seen to appear as an unbiased travel magazine article
worldwide Safety and security are vital to providing quality in tourism finally affect in
tourists destination selection .Safety and security reasons have changed the world travel &
tourism environment. The terrorist attack at September 11, 2001 in USA makes devastating
impacts on world tourism industry.
Lepp and Gibson (2003) find out four key risk factors seriously harmful for the destination
tourism growth: Political violence, crime, health concerns and terrorism. Bangladesh is a
beautiful tourist destination and it holding potential prospects on tourism sector. The country
has significant attraction to catch the attention of world tourism. But in term of world tourism
the present condition of this country is not enough for tourism distributions; where the
political violences is the core issue which seriously affects its tourism Islam and Islam
(2006).
Successful rural tourism communities have created the right mix of businesses for tourism,
including adequate lodging, restaurants, shops where tourists can spend money locally, and a
group of attractions that draw tourism. The development of a complete tourism package will
not only attract tourists, but will encourage visitors to stay, spend money, and most
importantly come back.
Bangladesh has a unique cultural heritage with numerous historical and archaeological sites.
Bangladesh has the longest natural unbroken sea beach in the world with five world heritage
sites (Hossain, 2006, cited in Islam, 2009). Among the five world heritage sites, the most
famous are the eighty-one domed Shat Gombuj Mosque in Bagherhat, made by great Muslim
saint Khan Jahan Ali in the 15th century, and worlds largest mangrove forest, Sunderbans,
which is the home of the world famous Royal Bengal tiger.
Nowadays internet is becoming a distribution channel for most of service oriented company
that helps to accomplish the tasks of traditional intermediaries for the travel agents and tour
operators. During the last few years there has been an increased use of the internet by tourists,
travel agencies all over the world. Moreover, travel agents in a country like Bangladesh must
have positive attitudes towards internet applications and should believe that they can take
advantage of the internet technology to retain and attracting current and future tourists.
According to Leisen and Vance (2001) service quality helped to create the necessary
competitive advantage by being an effective differentiating factor. Service quality is essential
and important for a service provider company to ensure the quality service for establishing
and maintaining loyal and profitable customer. Chheang (2011) examines tourist perceptions
and experiences and argues that tourist perception in Bangladesh is positive and their
experiences are beyond expectations based on cultural enrichment and local people
18 | P a g e

friendliness plus local hospitality facilities.
Attractiveness of the spot, historical aspects and entertainment facilities are also major actors
for tour attractions. It is required to provide a basket of services in all those fields in order to
satisfy customers (Neal, 2003). Bangladesh has the longest sea beach of the world at Coxes
Bazar, the largest mangrove forest, the Sundarbans, attractive hilly areas in Hill.
Accommodations create temporary living, quarters for guests through a variety of sources,
including bed and breakfasts, condominium properties, timeshares, conference centres,
hotels, motels recreational vehicle parks, and campground. Accommodation is a crucial
factor.
Shopping may be part of the travel experience or it may be the primary focus of travel.
Shopping is an activity that crosses all market segments. While some visitors simply pickup
necessities or a souvenir as a reminder of their travels, others may travel to specific locations
for the primary purpose of shopping.
Customer satisfaction is a key factor for retaining tourist. Bangladesh has got the top ten
ranked as the Best Value Destination in the world for 2011by worlds leading travel
guidebooks Lonely Planet; which is owned by BBC worldwide. Having learned the
preferences complains and reasons which drive the local residents tourism choice, we can
get an idea about what our tourism sector lacks mostly. Only then can we start building a
better tourism sector in Bangladesh which will eventually start attracting more foreign
tourists
3 METHODOLOGY
The primary purpose of this study is to provide a basic analysis of the key factors influencing
the attractiveness of tourism destinations to the local tourists of Bangladesh. The study is
focused on the decision making process of the tourists and how they think of the factors that
appear to influence their decision. Some variables have been identified to measure the
perceived importance of the factors. For this research, mainly primary data has been used.
The primary data was collected by conducting a survey among a sample chosen from the
population of our research area which is the potential tourists of Dhaka city.
The respondents were directly asked to rate the perceived importance of the factors. A sample
of the questionnaire, that was used, has been included in the annexure section. The
information collected from the primary sources was analyzed for drawing any conclusion to
the hypotheses that were formed. For the analyses, statistical software-- IBM SPSS was
predominantly used. . We have attempted to divide the variables into factors and conduct
factor analyses. Independent sample test, chi square and one sample t test were also used.
To fulfill the main objectives of the report and for successful analyses we also have to collect
data from some secondary sources.

19 | P a g e

3.1 DATA COLLECTION
As our research is about the factors influencing choice of the tourism destinations of the
tourists of Dhaka city we have collected feedback from tourists from different demographic
profile about their perception. The data we collected are of two types:
1) Primary data,
2) Secondary data.
3.1.1 Secondary Data
To analyze the current situation in tourism sector of Bangladesh and to have a primary
understanding of the current scenario in tourism marketing, data has been collected from
secondary sources. These sources include Ministry of Civil Aviation and Tourism,
Bangladesh Parjatan Corporation (BPC), UNWTO and WTTC papers, previous research
papers in this fields etc. Secondary data as well as subjective judgment have been used to
derive the factors considered to be important in influencing the choice of domestic tourist.
3.1.2 Primary Data
We collected the primary data i.e. feedback by questionnaire. We selected some variables to
examine the factors that affect decisions of tourists. A questionnaire was developed for
measuring those variables and response were collected in papers and over online from the
sample. Our questionnaire had rating scale based questions about those variables. We used
sampling for collecting the necessary data from the Dhaka residents. As the population is not
well defined we have used non-probability sampling specifically convenient sampling.
3.2 SAMPLE SIZE DETERMINATION
We followed non-probabilistic sampling method specifically convenience sampling for this
research.
For determining the sample size of our research, we have used the following formula:

Or,

Where,

n = Sample size
N= Population size
z = Cut-off value for desired confidence level
p = Proportion of Dhaka city residents who think a certain factor affects their attraction to a
tourist spot
q = 1-p
d
o
= Precision
20 | P a g e

We wanted a confidence level of 95% of which the corresponding Z value is 1.96. The
desired precision level in this research is 7.5%.The values of p and q have been taken as 0.5
because we want equal representation of the population.
Our research population is the Dhaka city people who have willingness and ability to travel to
tourist spots within Bangladesh. Dhaka city corporation has a population of 53,27,306
(Statistical Year Book of Bangladesh, 2011). The population size of this research is very
large and hence we can assume that z
2
pq/N will be of a negligible value. So our sample size
is calculated as follows:
n = z
2
pq/d
o
2

=> n= 1.96
2
*0.5*0.5/ .075
2
= 170.73 171
=> n= 171
Our sample size was 171 but we have collected 184 responses in total. That has decreased the
precision level from 7.5% to 7.2%.
3.3 SAMPLE FRAME
The appropriate sample frame for the research is all the Dhaka residents who are willing to
travel to tourist spots. There is no particular database for this and so, the sample frame cannot
be defined. For the research, we have selected respondents over fifteen years old, because we
regarded it unlikely to get a reliable response from someone below that age.
Since sample frame is very difficult to find out, probabilistic sampling methods could not be
utilized. While collecting data, in some cases, purposive and quota sampling were done to
have respondents from different ages and income groups. After making sure of the
representation of people from varied backgrounds, convenient sampling was done to
complete the necessary number of samples.
3.4 QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT
The questionnaire mainly prioritized the information required to fulfil the objectives of the
study and prove the hypothesis. The questions were designed such that it can validate the
features of tourism that were to be examined and also easily inter-relate the factors
influencing choice of tourist destination to Dhaka residents. The questionnaire focused
appropriately on areas of interest of hotels & resort owners, travel agencies, transport
companies and most importantly, BPC and ministries responsible for Tourism sector in
Bangladesh, that are going to be benefitted as per the rationale of this research.
For the purpose of collecting primary data, a standardized questionnaire was developed
which asked for agreements on predefined variables (5-Point Likert Scale; where 1 =
Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree) and demographic characteristics (multichotomous
questions) from the respondents. A total of 29 variables were identified, for which
respondents were asked their relative level of agreement. The full questionnaire used in this
research is included in the Appendix.
To confirm the validity of the study, respondents were asked to provide their names and
contact details.
21 | P a g e

3.4.1 Co-ordination Schema
Parameter

Complex variable Simple variable Value Q no
Factors affecting the
choice of a tourist
destination
Accommodation
Availability Likert scale 1
Cost Likert scale 2
Proximity Likert scale 3
Food
Cost Likert scale 4
Quality Likert scale 5
Availability Likert scale 6
Transportation
Presence of air
route
Likert scale 7
Medium of
transport
Likert scale 8
Time
consumption
Likert scale 9
Cost Likert scale 10
Availability of
tickets
Likert scale 11
Safety Likert scale 12
Comfort Likert scale 13
Quality of roads Likert scale 14
Traffic jam Likert scale 15
Communication
Mobile Network Likert Scale 16
Internet coverage Likert Scale 17
22 | P a g e

Parameter

Complex variable Simple variable Value Q no
Land phones Likert Scale 18
Security
Presence of
lifeguard
Likert scale 20
Quality of
weather forecast
Likert scale 19
Number of road
accidents
Likert scale 21
Strength of local
law enforcement
agency
Likert scale 22
Crime rate Likert scale 23
Political
environment
Likert scale 24
Types of
destination
Religious Likert scale 25
Historical Likert scale 26
Educational Likert scale 27
Natural beauty Likert Scale 28
Recreational Likert Scale 29
Table 1: Co-ordination Schema

23 | P a g e

3.5 DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE RESPONDENTS
This paper considered four demographic features as required by the study designed to
determine the relation between different age, gender, occupation and household income
groups and the different key factors influencing tourist location choice. This study has been
conducted only on Dhaka residents, thus the demographics reflect that of the Dhaka society.
Gender:

Figure 1: Gender of the respondents
The gender of the respondent was required for this research to find out if their gender has any
relation to the choice of tourist location and if so, which features are considered more by male or
female. A majority of the respondents were male.

Gender

Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Male 128 69.6 69.6 69.6
Female 56 30.4 30.4 100.0
Total 184 100.0 100.0

Table 2: Gender of the respondents

24 | P a g e

Age:

Figure 2: Age group of the respondents
The interviewees for this questionnaire belonged to four different age groups. This purpose
of this paper did not require exact ages of the respondents. The four age groups presented are
teenagers& young adults (15-25), Young people (26-35), middle aged people (36-45) and
seniors (46 + ). It was assessed through the categorized age groups if different age groups
were affected differently by the different key factors influencing the attractiveness of the
tourist location. Different age groups introduced inevitable differences in the responses
collected which allowed more investigation of the key factors considered by the report.

Age Group
25 | P a g e

Cumulative
Percent
Valid 15-25 years 106 57.6 57.6 57.6
26-35 years 47 25.5 25.5 83.2
36-45 years 13 7.1 7.1 90.2
46 years and above 18 9.8 9.8 100.0
Total 184 100.0 100.0

Table 3: Age group of the respondents

26 | P a g e

Occupation:

Figure 3: Occupation of the respondents
The respondents for this questionnaire belonged to mainly six occupation groups. Five of
them were specified as they were of significant number; the occupations are Students,
Service-holders, Homemakers, Business personnel and Teachers. The sixth group is formed
of respondents of other professions, but each profession did not have sufficient numbers to
support statistical tests so they were grouped as Others.
Occupation

Cumulative
Percent
Valid Student 96 52.2 52.2 52.2
Service 33 17.9 17.9 70.1
Business 7 3.8 3.8 73.9
27 | P a g e

Teacher 14 7.6 7.6 81.5
Homemaker 8 4.3 4.3 85.9
Others 26 14.1 14.1 100.0
Total 184 100.0 100.0

Table 4: Occupation of the respondents
Household Income:

Figure 4: Income of the respondents
The interviewees of this research belonged to five different groups of quite similar
proportions for this important demographic element. Tourism of any sort or for any purpose
requires substantial amount of money and thus income is generally expected to have relation
to the topic being researched on. Exact income was not necessary for this study rather
incomes groups served the goal better. This income grouping was compulsory to ascertain the
relation between the key factors influencing preference of tourist destination and economic
condition of the urban people. The five groups were (0-20 000BDT), (20 000-40 000 BDT),
(40 000-60 000 BDT), (60 000-100 00BDT) and (100 000 + BDT). This paper considered
household income rather than individual income considering that many of the respondents are
young and might be spending their parents or household money to travel.

28 | P a g e

Income

Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0-20,000 BDT 49 26.6 27.1 27.1
20,000-40,000 BDT 35 19.0 19.3 46.4
40,000-60,000 BDT 33 17.9 18.2 64.6
60,000-1,00000 BDT 28 15.2 15.5 80.1
Above 1,00000 36 19.6 19.9 100.0
Total 181 98.4 100.0

Missing 99 3 1.6

Total 184 100.0

Figure 5: Income of the respondents

3.6 DATA ANALYSIS
Data analyses were done using a number of statistical tools. Different tests were required to draw
inferences from the primary data and to test the hypotheses. The statistical tools and methods used for
data analysis are:
Descriptive Statistics: These were used to determine which variables affect most and
affect least the choice of tourist destinations of Dhaka city residents.

One-sample and two-sample t-tests: These tests were used to compare the level of
consideration of each of the factors affecting the choice of tourist spots.
Chi-Square tests: This test was used to determine whether or not any association existed
between various demographic factors (i.e. gender, occupation, income) of the
respondents and their level of consideration of each of the factors affecting the choice of
tourist spots.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA): This analysis was used to identify the variables
which basically measured the same thing. Based on this analysis, the variables were
grouped under their underlying factors and then these factors were compared with the
predefined grouping structure of the variables.
29 | P a g e

3.7 RESEARCH DESIGN
3.7.1 Variables for Measuring the Level of Consideration of the Factors
A total of 29 variables were identified to find out the level of consideration of the factors
affecting the choice of tourist destinations by Dhaka city residents.
The variables are listed below. All of these are independent variables.
Availability of Standard Hotels
Cost of accommodation
Proximity of hotels
Cost of food
Quality of foods
Availability of different kinds of food
Medium of transport
Travel time
Safety at transportation
Comfort at transportation
Quality of roads
Level of traffic jam
Mobile network strength
Availability of internet
Availability of land phones
Weather forecast quality
Presence of tour guides
No of accidents
Law enforcement agencies strength
Perceived crime rate
Political instability
Religious importance
Historical importance
Educational importance
Natural beauty
Recreational facilities

30 | P a g e

3.7.2 Demographic Variables
The demographic variables were required to test if there is any association between the
Dhaka city residents level of consideration of each of the factors affecting the choice of
tourist destinations and various demographic factors. The demographic variables were-
Gender
Age
Occupation
Household income
4 REPORT FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
4.1 RELIABILITY TEST
Cronbach's alpha is a coefficient of reliability. It is commonly used as a measure of the
internal consistency or reliability of a psychometric test score for a sample of examinees.
Theoretically, alpha varies from zero to 1, since it is the ratio of two variances- 1 being the
most reliable. The Alpha value for the survey data of this research was found to be .898, and
hence it can be considered quite reliable. The detailed calculation of this reliability test is
shown in the appendix.

4.2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
In this research, 5-point Likert scale has been used to measure the level of consideration of
each of the factors affecting the choice of tourist destinations by Dhaka city residents. In the
scale we assigned the following values to the five options.
Strongly Disagree = 1
Disagree = 2
Indifferent = 3
Agree = 4
Strongly Agree = 5
We have calculated the mean value of each variable. The following 3 variables have a mean
value of greater than 4.00. Dhaka city residents strongly consider these factors while
choosing a tourist spot.
Natural beauty
31 | P a g e

Variables (>4.00)
N Mean Std. Deviation
Cost of accommodation 184 4.18 .800
Safety at transportation 184 4.08 .926
Natural beauty 184 4.40 .862
Valid N (list wise) 184

Table 5: Most important variables based on mean value

21 variables have a mean value of greater than 3.00 and less than 4.00. These factors are of
considerable importance to the residents of Dhaka city in choosing a tourist destination.

Proximity of hotels
Cost of food
Quality of foods
Medium of transport
Travel time
Quality of roads
No of accidents
32 | P a g e

(3<)Variables (<4) N Mean Std. Deviation
Availability of Standard
Hotels
184 3.80 1.053
Proximity of hotels 184 3.49 1.081
Cost of food 183 3.38 1.014
Quality of foods 183 3.47 1.133
Availability of different
kinds of food
184 3.09 1.139
Medium of transport 184 3.71 1.024
Travel time 184 3.68 1.025
Cost of transportation 184 3.72 .972
Availability of tickets 183 3.69 .941
Comfort at transportation 184 3.53 1.002
Quality of roads 183 3.45 1.083
Level of traffic jam 183 3.52 1.113
Mobile network strength 182 3.13 1.270
Weather forecast quality 183 3.33 1.159
Presence of tour guides 184 3.15 1.069
No of accidents 184 3.51 1.136
Law enforcement agencies
strength
184 3.66 1.033
Perceived crime rate 184 3.82 1.000
Politically instability 183 3.72 1.165
Historical importance 184 3.40 1.051
Natural beauty 184 4.40 .862
Recreational facilities 184 3.88 .996
Valid N (listwise) 178
Table 6: Important Variables based on mean values

33 | P a g e

The following 5 variables have a mean value of less than 3.00. These factors are not of much
importance to the Dhaka city residents for choosing a tourist spot.

Variables (<3) N Mean Std. Deviation
Presence of air route 184 2.45 1.149
Availability of internet 184 2.74 1.153
Availability of land phones 182 2.31 1.154
Religious importance 184 2.57 1.048
Educational importance 184 2.79 1.281
Valid N (listwise) 182
Table 7: Least important variables based on mean value

4.3 ONE SAMPLE T TEST FOR TESTING HYPOTHESES
We want to test whether the variables for which data has been collected from the sample
affect the choice of tourist destinations by the residents of Dhaka city. We have used 5-point
likert scale where respondents were asked to provide their agreements on the influence of
each of the variables in their choice of tourist destinations. In the scale we assigned the
following values to the five options: Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Indifferent = 3,
Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5. So, our cut-off point to measure whether a variable affects the
choice of tourist destinations is 3. For each of our variables, we can set our hypotheses as
below:
Null hypothesis, H
0
: 3
Alternative hypothesis, H
A
: > 3
We have used one sample t test for testing this hypothesis. We have calculated the t statistics
for each of our 29 variables and then compared it to the critical value of t.
Our sample size was 184. Excluding the missing values the degrees of freedom for different
variables were 181, 182 and 183. At significance level of 5% the critical values of t at these
df are almost the same. This critical value of t is 1.653 (= 0.05)
After running t test for all the variables, we have found 22 variables for which the calculated t
values are greater than 1.653. So, the null hypotheses for these variables have been rejected.
34 | P a g e

That means these variables affect the choice of tourist destinations by the residents of Dhaka
citythe research population. These 22 variables are:

Proximity of hotels
Cost of food
Quality of foods
Medium of transport
Travel time
Quality of roads
No of accidents
Politically instability
Natural beauty

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 3
t df Mean Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Hotels
10.360 183 .804 .65 .96
Cost of accommodation 20.000 183 1.179 1.06 1.30
Proximity of hotels 6.136 183 .489 .33 .65
Cost of food 5.032 182 .377 .23 .52
Quality of foods 5.612 182 .470 .30 .64
Medium of transport 9.435 183 .712 .56 .86
Travel time 8.995 183 .679 .53 .83
Cost of transportation 10.088 183 .723 .58 .86
Availability of tickets 9.895 182 .689 .55 .83
35 | P a g e

Safety at transportation 15.762 183 1.076 .94 1.21
Comfort at transportation 7.209 183 .533 .39 .68
Quality of roads 5.667 182 .454 .30 .61
Level of traffic jam 6.373 182 .525 .36 .69
Weather forecast quality 3.828 182 .328 .16 .50
Presence of tour guides 1.862 183 .147 -.01 .30
No of accidents 6.103 183 .511 .35 .68
strength
8.710 183 .663 .51 .81
Perceived crime rate 11.129 183 .821 .68 .97
Politically instability 8.309 182 .716 .55 .89
Historical importance 5.189 183 .402 .25 .56
Natural beauty 21.975 183 1.397 1.27 1.52
Recreational facilities 11.996 183 .880 .74 1.03
Table 8: t-test statistics for variables with mean score greater than 3

Among these 22 variables, availability of standard hotels, cost of accommodation, cost of
transportation, safety at transportation, perceived crime rate, natural beauty and recreational
facilities have highest mean differences. These 7 variables are of most importance in
influencing the choice of tourist destinations.

The following 7 variables have t statistics less than 1.653 (t
critical
). So for these variables we
cannot reject null hypotheses. The choice of tourist destinations of the research population is
not affected by these variables.

36 | P a g e

One-Sample Test
Test Value = 3
t df Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Availability of different
kinds of food
1.100 183 .092 -.07 .26
Presence of air route -6.546 183 -.554 -.72 -.39
Mobile network strength 1.342 181 .126 -.06 .31
Availability of internet -3.068 183 -.261 -.43 -.09
Availability of land phones -8.027 181 -.687 -.86 -.52
Religious importance -5.556 183 -.429 -.58 -.28
Educational importance -2.187 183 -.207 -.39 -.02
Table 9: t-test statistics for variables with mean value less than 3

4.4 INDEPENDENT SAMPLE T TEST:

Independent-sample t-test is used when we want to compare the mean scores of two different
groups of people or conditions. For nominal variable with two possible values, independent
sample t-tests has been used in order to find out whether there is any significant difference in
the perceived importance of each of the twenty nine factors between male and female.
We wanted to see if there is a significant difference in the mean score of each of the relevant
factors for males and females.
Weave two variables here:
One categorical, independent variable (gender: male & female)
One continuous, dependent variable (each of the twenty nine factors: availability of standard
hotels, cost of accommodation, proximity of hotels, cost of food, quality of foods, availability
of different kinds of food, presence of air route, medium of transport, travel time, cost of
transportation, availability of tickets, safety at transportation, comfort at transportation,
quality of roads, level of traffic jam, mobile network strength, availability of internet,
availability of land phones, weather forecast quality, presence of tour guides, no of accidents,
law enforcement agencies strength, perceived crime rate, politically instability, recreational
facilities, historical importance, educational importance, natural beauty, religious importance)

37 | P a g e

Interpretation of results:
Independent sample t-test has been used at 5% significance level to see if there is any relation
between gender and the perceived importance of each of these factors.
If the significance level of Levens test is larger than .05, we should use the first line in the
table, which refers to Equal variances assumed. If the Significance level of Levens test is
p=.05 or less, this means that the variances for the two groups are not the same.
If the value in the Sig. (2-tailed) column is equal or less than .05, then there is significance
difference. If the value is above .05, there is no significant difference between two groups
Hypotheses:
H
O
: Mean Scores of the perceived importance of each of the twenty nine factors are equal for
male and female.
H
A
: Mean Scores of the perceived importance of each of the twenty nine factors are not equal
for male and female.

Procedure:
For the following factors, since the significance level of Levens test is larger than .05, we
used the first line in the table, which refers to equal variances assumed and then looked at its
significance value for 2-tailed test.
Natural beauty
No of accidents
Quality of roads
Travel time
38 | P a g e

Quality of foods
Cost of food
Proximity of hotels

Only for the following factors, the Significance level of Levens test is p=.05 or less, this
means that the variances for the two groups are not the same. We used the second line in the
table, which refers to equal variances not assumed and then looked at its 2 sig value.

Medium of transport

Findings:
For the following factors:
Availability of tickets, safety at transportation, availability of standard hotels, cost of
accommodation comfort at transportation, quality of roads, level of traffic jam, cost of food,
quality of foods, availability of different kinds of food, presence of air route, medium of
transport, travel time, recreational facilities, historical importance, educational importance,
natural beauty, religious importance, availability of internet ,weather forecast quality
,presence of tour guides ,no of accidents, law enforcement agencies strength, perceived crime
rate, political instability the value in the Sig. (2-tailed) column is above .05, which means
there is no significant difference between two groups (male & female) in their perceived
importance of each of these factors. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected and it can be
concluded that mean scores of the perceived importance of each of these factors for male and
female are similar. Each of the above four factors, therefore have same level of importance to
male & female. (Details result is shown in the appendix).

For the following factors,
Proximity of hotels
39 | P a g e

The value in the Sig. (2-tailed) column is less than .05, the null hypothesis is rejected and it
can be concluded that mean scores of the perceived importance of each of these factors for
male and female are different. Each of the above four factors, therefore have different level of
importance to male & female.
This means there is significant difference between two groups (male & female) in their
perceived importance of each of these factors.

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means
t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Proximity of hotels Equal variances assumed -2.034 182 .043
Equal variances not
assumed
-2.133 117.716 .035
Cost of transportation Equal variances assumed -1.744 182 .083
Equal variances not
assumed
-2.076 160.303 .039
Mobile network strength Equal variances assumed -2.218 180 .028
Equal variances not
assumed
-2.268 104.991 .025

Group Statistics

Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Proximity of hotels Male 128 3.38 1.109 .098
Female 56 3.73 .981 .131
Cost of transportation Male 128 3.64 1.070 .095
Female 56 3.91 .668 .089
Mobile network strength Male 128 2.99 1.277 .113
Female 54 3.44 1.208 .164
Availability of land phones Male 128 2.16 1.146 .101
Female 54 2.69 1.096 .149
Table 10: Group statistics for male & female on variables with significance differences between groups

40 | P a g e

Availability of land phones Equal variances assumed -2.880 180 .004
Equal variances not
assumed
-2.934 103.976 .004
Table 11: I ndependent Sample t-test for male & female

4.5 NON-PARAMETRIC TEST (KRUSKAL-WALLIS TEST)
We decided to check the perceived importance of each of the factors affecting tourism choice
to the respondents according to the different demographic strata they were from. In other
words, we wanted to see if there is an association between the occupation, household income
and age groups of the respondents and the perceived importance of the identified factors.
Kruskal-Wallis allows comparing the scores on some continuous variable for three or more
groups. This is a between groups analysis, so different people must be in each of the
different groups.

4.5.1 Occupation:
We wanted to see if the perceived importance of each of the factors is similar or different
across the six different strata of occupation. These strata were defined according to student,
service, business, teacher, homemaker, others.
For the occupation strata, we have six groups. The continuous variable is each of the twenty
nine different factors (Availability of Standard Hotels, Cost of accommodation, Proximity of
hotels, Cost of food, Quality of foods, Availability of different kinds of food, Presence of air
route, Medium of transport, Travel time, Cost of transportation, Availability of tickets,
Safety at transportation, Comfort at transportation, Quality of roads, Level of traffic jam,
Mobile network strength, Availability of internet, Availability of land phones, Weather
forecast quality ,Presence of tour guides ,No of accidents, Law enforcement agencies
strength, Perceived crime rate, Politically instability, Recreational facilities, Historical
importance, Educational importance, Natural beauty, Religious importance.)
H
0:
The perceived importance of each of the variables is similar across the six different strata
of occupation
H:student= service= business = teacher= homemaker= others

H
A:
The perceived importance of each of these factors is different across the six different
strata of occupation
H
A
:student service business teacher homemaker other

We have taken a level of significance of 5%.

41 | P a g e

Interpretation:
If the significance value is less than .05 we can conclude that there is a statistically significant
difference in the mean score across the six groups.
Findings:
For the following 18 variables, the significance value is less than 0.05. So, the null
hypotheses have been rejected for these variables. We can conclude that there is a statistically
significant difference in the perceived importance of these variables across the six groups of
occupation.
Proximity of hotels
Quality of foods
Medium of transport
Travel time
Quality of roads
No of accidents

Test Statistics
a,b

Availability of
Standard
Hotels
Proximity of
hotels
Quality of
foods
Availability of
different kinds
of food
Medium of
transport
Chi-Square 16.109 13.059 14.060 11.494 14.050
df 5 5 5 5 5
Asymp. Sig. .007 .023 .015 .042 .015

42 | P a g e

Test Statistics
a,b

Travel time
Safety at
transportation
Comfort at
transportation
Quality of
roads
Level of traffic
jam
Chi-Square 14.769 11.277 19.187 11.724 15.280
df 5 5 5 5 5
Asymp. Sig. .011 .046 .002 .039 .009

Test Statistics
a,b

Mobile
network
strength
Availability of
land phones
Weather
forecast quality
Presence of
tour guides
No of
accidents
Chi-Square 20.897 16.820 19.935 25.546 25.358
df 5 5 5 5 5
Asymp. Sig. .001 .005 .001 .000 .000

Test Statistics
a,b

Law
enforcement
agencies
strength
Historical
importance
Educational
importance
Chi-Square 27.048 15.579 28.550
df 5 5 5
Asymp. Sig. .000 .008 .000
Table 12: Krukal-Wallis test for Occupation on variables Sig. value less than .05
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Occupation

43 | P a g e

The remaining 11 variables have significance value greater than .05. For these variables the
null hypothesis cannot be rejected. There is not statistically significant difference in the
perceived importance of these variables across the six groups of occupation.
Cost of food
Natural beauty

Test Statistics
a,b

Cost of
accommodatio
n Cost of food
Presence of air
route
Cost of
transportation
Availability of
tickets
Chi-Square 5.419 4.722 3.115 2.406 9.922
df 5 5 5 5 5
Asymp. Sig. .367 .451 .682 .791 .077

Test Statistics
a,b

Availability of
internet
Perceived
crime rate
Politically
instability
Religious
importance
Chi-Square 8.903 6.959 6.453 9.096
df 5 5 5 5
Asymp. Sig. .113 .224 .265 .105

44 | P a g e

Test Statistics
a,b

Natural beauty
Recreational
facilities
Chi-Square 5.562 9.625
df 5 5
Asymp. Sig. .351 .087
Table 13: Kruskal-Wallis test for Occupation on variable Sig. value greater than .05

4.5.2 Income
We decided to check the perceived importance of each of these factors to the respondents
according to the tier of income group they were from. We wanted to see if the perceived
importance of each of these factors is similar or different across the five different strata of
income. These strata were defined according to income level:
0-20,000 BDT
20,000-40,000 BDT
40,000-60,000 BDT
60,000-1, 00000 BDT
Above 1, 00000
Hypotheses are as below:
H
0:
The perceived importance of each of these factors is similar across the five different
strata of income
H: 0-20,000 = 20,000-40,000 = 40,000-60,000 = 60,000-1,00000 = Above
1,00000
H
A:
The perceived importance of each of these factors is different across the five different
strata of income
H
A
: 0-20,000 20,000-40,000 40,000-60,000 60,000-1,00000 Above 1,00000

We have taken a level of significance of 5%.
Interpretation:
If the significance level in the table is a value less than .05 we can conclude that there is a
statistically significant difference in the continuous variable across the five groups.

45 | P a g e

Findings:
For only these 2 variables, the significance value is less than 0.05. So, the null hypotheses
have been rejected for these variables. We can conclude that there is a statistically significant
difference in the perceived importance of these 2 variables across the five groups of income.
Travel time

Test Statistics
a,b

Travel time Cost of
transportation
Chi-Square 10.425 10.165
df 4 4
Asymp. Sig. .034 .038

Table 14: Krukal-Wallis test for I ncome on variables with sig. level less than .05
b. Grouping Variable: Income
The remaining 27 variables have not any association with different income groups. They have
a significance value greater than 0.05 and we cannot reject the null hypothesis.

Proximity of hotels
Cost of food
Quality of foods
Medium of transport
Quality of roads
46 | P a g e

No of accidents
Natural beauty

The detailed result with tables with asymptotic significance is provided in the appendix.

4.5.3 Age Group
The population of this research belonged to four different age groups. The four age groups
presented are teenagers& young adults (15-25), Young people (26-35), middle aged people
(36-45) and seniors (46 + ). Kruskal Wallis test was performed to determine if different age
groups were affected differently by the different key factors influencing the choice of the
tourist destination.
The null hypothesis for this test is that there is no association between age groups of the
population and how different factors affect their choice of tourist destination.
The alternative hypothesis is that there is association between those two variables.
Comparing the significance value of each of the 29 variables with our level of significance of
0.05 we have found out the following results:
13 variables have a significance value less than 0.05. We can conclude that different age
groups are affected differently by these 13 key factors in their choice of tourist destinations.
Proximity of hotels
Travel time
Quality of roads
No of accidents
47 | P a g e


The remaining 16 variables have the same level of influence on all age groups. The null
hypotheses for these key factors cannot be rejected.
Cost of food
Quality of foods
Medium of transport
Natural beauty
The detailed result with tables of mean rank and asymptotic significance is shown in the
appendix.
4.6 CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) seeks to determine if the number of factors and the
loadings of measured (indicator) variables on them conform to what is expected on the basis
of pre-established theory. The researcher's a priori assumption is that each factor (the number
and labels of which may be specified previously) is associated with a specified subset of
indicator variables.
Factor Analysis was performed on the data to select grouping of variables under common
premise. The result from Principal Axis Factoring and Varimaxrotated component matrix
with Kaiser Normalisation grouped the 29 variables into 8 factors that explained 64.417% of
the total cumulative variance. The K-M-O score was 0.820. (The detailed results of factor
analysis are shown in the appendix).
The variables under each of the factors obtained by the factor analysis are listed below. The
newly formed factors have been labelled here based on the variables under them.

48 | P a g e

Safety and Security:
No of accidents
Ease at transportation:
Quality of roads
Nature of Destinations:
Food Quality and Availability:
Quality of foods
Proximity of hotels
Connectivity:

Availability of Transportation:
Medium of transport
Travel time

Facilities available:
Natural beauty
49 | P a g e

Cost:
Cost of food

Most of these factors are similar to the previously identified 6 factors. There are 2 additional
factors found from factor analysis. The variables under the previous transportation factor
have been divided into two groups creating two separate factors. The variables cost of food
and cost of transportation have joined under a new factor labelled cost.
The newly formed eight factors are safety and security, ease at transportation, nature of
destinations, food quality and availability, connectivity, availability of transportation,
facilities available and cost. Most of the factors have remained same as previous but there is
a slight difference in the distribution of variables under them.
Safety and security includes perceived crime rate, law enforcement agencies strength, no of
accidents, political instability, safety at transportation, weather forecast quality and presence
of tour guides and lifeguards. All the variables under the security factor are here in addition
with the variablesafety at transportation that was previously under the factor
transportation.
Ease at transportation includes quality of roads, level of traffic jam and comfort at
transportation. These variables, along with six other variables, were previously grouped under
the factortransportation. People perceive these variables to measure the level of ease while
travelling.
Nature of destinations has 3 variables under itself. These are historical importance,
educational importance and religious importance. Places with natural beauty and recreational
facilities have fallen under new factor.
Food quality and availability include quality of foods, proximity of hotels and availability of
different kinds of food. This factor has included proximity of hotels and excluded cost of
food from the earlier factorfood.
Connectivity includes availability of internet, presence of air route, availability of land phones
and mobile network strength. All the variables from the previously identified factor
communication, are here. Presence of air route which was under transportation earlier now
falls under this factor.
Availability of transportations consisted of medium of transport, travel time and availability
of tickets. Other variables under transportation have been redistributed among other factors.
Facilities available include natural beauty, cost of accommodation, recreational facilities and
availability of standard hotels. Cost of accommodation and availability of standard hotels
were previously under the factoraccommodation. Recreational facilities and natural beauty
50 | P a g e

which were previously under nature of destinations have been added here. Respondents tend
to think these variables as a measure of the facilities available at the tourist spots.
Cost, the last factor, includes cost of food and cost of transportation. These two cost
measuring variables were previously under the factorsfood and transportation respectively.

5 SUMMARY OF THE RESEARCH FINDINGS

This report tries to illustrate an analysis regarding the key factors influencing the choice of
tourist destination by Dhaka city residents. While preparing the report, only the Dhaka city
residents (i.e. Tourists) perspective has been taken into account.
Various statistical tools such as descriptive statistics, one and two sample t-tests,
confirmatory factor analysis and Kruskal-Wallis Test were used to critically analyze the data.
We have used the software SPSS to aid us in the analysis.
Cronbach's alpha is a coefficient of reliability. The Alpha value for the survey data of this
research was found to be .898, and hence it can be considered quite reliable (1 being the most
reliable and 0 being not reliable.)
We have calculated the mean value of each variable and grouped them according to level of
agreement.
Cost of accommodation, Safety at transportation, Natural beauty has a mean value of greater
than 4.00. Dhaka city residents strongly consider these factors while choosing a tourist spot.

The following 5 variables have a mean value of less than 3.00. These factors are not of much
importance to the Dhaka city residents for choosing a tourist spot.
Presence of air route, Availability of internet, Availability of land phones, Religious
importance, Educational importance
The rest 21 variables have a mean value of greater than 3.00 and less than 4.00. These factors
are of considerable/ moderate importance to the residents of Dhaka city in choosing a tourist
destination.
We have used 5-point likert scale where respondents were asked to provide their agreements
on the influence of each of the variable, so our cut-off point to measure whether a variable
affects the choice of tourist destinations is 3, where 3 represents indifferent.
We have used one sample t test for testing these hypotheses. These variables affect the
choice of tourist destinations by the residents of Dhaka citythe research population.
Availability of standard hotels, cost of accommodation, cost of transportation, safety at
transportation, perceived crime rate, natural beauty and recreational facilities have highest
51 | P a g e

mean differences. These 7 variables are of most importance in influencing the choice of
tourist destinations.
The choice of tourist destinations of the research population is not affected by these variables.

Independent sample t-test has been used at 5% significance level to see if there is any
relation between gender and the perceived importance of each of these factors. For
Availability of tickets, safety at transportation, availability of standard hotels, cost of
accommodation comfort at transportation, quality of roads, level of traffic jam, cost of food,
quality of foods, availability of different kinds of food, presence of air route, medium of
transport, travel time, recreational facilities, historical importance, educational importance,
natural beauty, religious importance, availability of internet ,weather forecast quality
,presence of tour guides ,no of accidents, law enforcement agencies strength, perceived crime
rate, politically instability there is no significant difference between two groups (male &
female) in their perceived importance of each of these factors.
Each of these factors: Proximity of hotels, Mobile network strength, Availability of land
phones, Cost of transportation has different level of importance to male & female.
Kruskal-Wallis test was used to see if there is an association between the occupation,
household income and age groups of the respondents and the perceived importance of the
identified factors.

52 | P a g e

6 RECOMMENDATIONS
We did not do a research model with cross-sectional data. This practice is not atypical for
tourism research since it is difficult to collect data during each phase of the travel experience.
Future research that the authors recommend includes the collection of longitudinal data,
particularly during each phase of the travel experience.
Collecting travel data in this fashion is difficult at best but not impossible. We surmise that
data collected in this manner will only strengthen the results.
Another limitation of the study is that the focus was directed only to leisure travellers and
their most recent domestic and international vacation travel experiences. This means that only
the leisure travellers satisfaction during various stages of their most recent domestic tourism
experience was addressed. This study also did not include travellers who make their travel
decision based on their previous experiences or based on recommendations from their family
and friends without using any pre-trip services.
If the survey was expanded to include all travellers, those who travel for other purposes
(business, convention and meeting, etc.), those who make their decision without using any
pre-trip services and those who travel to domestic destinations, direction and magnitude of
the examined relationships may have been different. In addition, mode of transportation used
may also influence the level of satisfaction with en route services. However, this study failed
to take into account the modes of transportation used. Therefore, future studies should
include more types of traveller; separate domestic trips from international trips and take into
account the modes of transportation.
This study proposed that the travellers overall satisfaction or dissatisfaction with travel and
tourism services is the result of their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with pre-trip services,
satisfaction or dissatisfaction at the destination and satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the
return trip services.
Findings suggest that travellers satisfaction or dissatisfaction at different phases of hybrid
travel experience is likely to influence their overall satisfaction or dissatisfaction with travel
and tourism services.
The critical factors show that the nature of Tourism is such that, it requires the attention,
planning and support of both Public and private organizations to actually work as a strong
industry. The infrastructural and human resource requirement of this industry is such that the
PPP (Public-Private Partnership) is vital for this industry.

53 | P a g e

This result implies that,
Finally, the recommendations for future studies will be
Finding out more on overall types of travelers ( not only business travelers)
Doing a longitudinal research on all the parts of the travel
Encompassing travelers to the Capital
Encompassing a sample size of more than 1000
Take into account the mode of transport
Take into account time of travel
Recommendations for Interested investors and Government organizations
More researches should be done to keep track of the state of tourism industry
The factors that were found to influence the decision of tourists more should be
given special attention in terms of renovation, development and maintenance.
Private-Public Partnerships should be formed to work effectively on tourism
sector.

7 CONCLUSION
The research based report confirms that the Tourism Industry of Bangladesh has excellent
potentials, at least when only the local tourists are considered. A quite high number of people
were interested in travelling domestically as the number of respondents and their responses
show. However in this era of multiple options, just natural beauty, resources and diversity are
not enough to give Bangladesh competitive edge in the Global tourism market. So to attract
International tourists and earn foreign currency, the tourism sector must first prove to be
attractive to the local customers. This research revealed which of the factors of Tourism
sector has significant influence on the urban peoples choices. It also discovered how these
factors vary in level of influence across the different demographic groups.
Various Statistical tests were run on the collected set of data and meaningful conclusions
were derived. Some of the key ones include; Cost of accommodation, Safety at
transportation, Natural beauty were found to be strongly considered by Dhaka residents in
choosing a tourist location whereas factors like Presence of air route, Availability of internet,
Availability of land phones, Religious importance and Educational importance were not of
much consideration. The rest of the variables were of moderate consideration. Availability of
standard hotels, cost of accommodation, cost of transportation, and safety at transportation,
perceived crime rate, natural beauty and recreational facilities were the seven variables that
influenced the choice of tourist destinations the most. Factors such as Proximity of hotels,
Mobile network strength, Availability of land phones, Cost of transportation has different
level of importance to male & female. Apart from these we can conclude that there is a
statistically significant difference in the perceived importance of these 2 variables Travel
time, Cost of transportation across the five groups of income. The remaining 27 variables
54 | P a g e

have not any association with different income groups. Safety and security, ease at
transportation, nature of destinations, food quality and availability, connectivity, availability
of transportation, facilities available and cost were the eight variables that factor analysis
derived to be contributing 64.417% of variance.
In a nutshell, for the development of the tourism sector, it is crucial that growing number of
Bangladeshi, especially the urban population be interested and into seeing and experiencing
Bangladesh. Hence it is imperative to ensure that the key factors or variables that the people
consider important be established and maintained well. The existing facilities have to be
renovated and the necessary infrastructural development has to be initiated now. Given this
researchs new found information and recommendations are used to actually bring about
changes alongside raising awareness and promoting Bangladesh to the Global world more
positively, this will actually contribute in making Bangladesh an ideal tourist destination for
all the citizens of Bangladesh especially the urban population and eventually also attract
International tourists and acclamation, that Bangladesh originally deserved for its God-gifted
beauty.

55 | P a g e

8 REFERENCES

Barkin, D. (1996). Ecotourism: A tool for sustainable development in an era of international
integration? In J.A. Miller and E. Malek-Zadeh (Eds), The Ecotourism Equation:
Measuring the Impacts (pp. 263272). New Haven, CT: Yale University.
Besculides, A., Lee, M.E., and McCormick, P.J. (2002). Residents perceptions of the
cultural benefits of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (2), 303319.
Bramwell, B. (1998). User satisfaction and product development in urban tourism. Tourism
Management, Vol. 19, No.1, pp.35-47.

Echtner, C. & Ritchie, J. (2003). The Meaning and Measurement of Destination Image, The
Journal of Tourism Studies, Vol. 3 (No. 2), December, pp. 1-30.

Hossain, M.A. & Nazmin, S., (2006). Development of Tourism Industry in Bangladesh- an
empirical study on its problems and prospects. Centre for Tourism and Hotel
management Research, Ga-1, RashedulHasanBhaban, University of Dhaka.
Hsu, T., Tsai, Y. & Wu, H. (2009).The preference analysis for tourist choice of destination: A
case study of Taiwan. Tourism Management, 30, 288-297.

Mohamed, G.A. (2008). Egypt's image as a tourist destination - a perspective of foreign
tourists. Tourismos, Vol. 3, No.1, pp.36-65.
Pestana, B., Laurent, B., Nicolas, P., Elisabeth, R., Bernardin, S. & Assaf, A.
(2011).Performance of French Destination: Tourism attraction perspectives. Tourism
Management, 32, 141-146.

Siddiqi, R. (2006). Tourism in Bangladesh suffers: Policy makers lack understanding,
government lacks strong intention. The Independent March 16th, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Travel and Tourism Yearly Report. (2004).Dhaka: Ministry of Civil Aviation and Tourism,
Bangladesh.

56 | P a g e

9 APPENDIX- A
9.1 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Survey on the Factors Influencing the Choice of Tourist
Spots

Name:
.....................
Address:
....

Contact No.: .......... Date:
Time...

We, a group of BBA students from Institute of Business Administration (IBA), University of Dhaka,
have undertaken a research on Key Factors Influencing the Choice of a Tourist Destination by
Dhaka City Residents for our Research Method course. This survey will be used as a primary tool
for collecting data on the research topic. The information provided by you will solely be used for
academic purposes. We would very much appreciate your cooperation in spending a few minutes in
filling this questionnaire.

A. Please give your agreement regarding the following statements on a scale of
1(Strongly Disagree) to 5(Strongly Agree). You may circle your answers.
Strongly Disagree=1 Disagree=2 Indifferent=3 Agree=4 Strongly Agree=5

S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y

D
i
s
a
g
r
e
e

D
i
s
a
g
r
e
e

I
n
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t

A
g
r
e
e

S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y

A
g
r
e
e

1. I consider the availability of standard hotels while choosing
a tourist spot
1 2 3 4 5
2. The cost of accommodation is an important factor to me
while choosing a tourist spot
1 2 3 4 5
3. The proximity of hotels to the main attraction of a place is
important to me while choosing a tourist spot
1 2 3 4 5
4. I consider the cost of food while choosing a tourist spot 1 2 3 4 5
5. Quality of the foods is important to me while choosing a
tourist spot
1 2 3 4 5
57 | P a g e

6. The availability of different kinds of food is important to
me while choosing a tourist spot
1 2 3 4 5
7. I consider the presence of air route while choosing a tourist
spot
1 2 3 4 5
8. Medium of transport (planes, buses, train or boats) is
important to me while choosing a tourist spot
1 2 3 4 5
9. The amount of time needed to travel is important to me while
choosing a tourist spot
1 2 3 4 5
10. The cost of transportation is important to me while choosing
a tourist spot
1 2 3 4 5
11. I consider the availability of tickets while choosing a tourist
spot
1 2 3 4 5
12. Safety at the transportation is important to me while
1 2 3 4 5
13. Level of comfort at transportation is important to me while
1 2 3 4 5
14. Quality of roads on the journey is important t to me while
1 2 3 4 5
15. I consider the level of traffic jam on the route while choosing
a tourist spot
1 2 3 4 5
16. The strength of network of different mobile phone operators
is important to me while choosing a tourist spot
1 2 3 4 5
17. I consider the availability of internet while choosing a tourist
spot
1 2 3 4 5
18. I consider the availability of land phones while choosing a
tourist spot
1 2 3 4 5
19. I consider the weather forecast quality at the place while
1 2 3 4 5
20. Presence of tour guides or lifeguards is important to
me while choosing a tourist spot
1 2 3 4 5
21. I am more likely to travel to a tourist spot where I think the
number of accidents are low
1 2 3 4 5
22. I am more likely to travel to a tourist spot where I think the
local law enforcement agencies are strong
1 2 3 4 5
23. I am more likely to travel to a tourist spot where I perceive
the crime rate to be low
1 2 3 4 5
24. I am less likely to travel to a place with politically instability 1 2 3 4 5
25. I travel mostly to places with religious importance 1 2 3 4 5
26. I travel mostly to places with historical importance 1 2 3 4 5
58 | P a g e

27. I travel mostly to places with educational importance 1 2 3 4 5
28. I travel mostly to places with natural beauty 1 2 3 4 5
29. I travel mostly to places with recreational facilities 1 2 3 4 5

B. Please provide the following information about you.

1. Gender:
Male
Female

2. Age (in years):

3. Occupation:

4. Monthly household income:
0-20,000 BDT
20,001-40,000 BDT
40,001-60,000 BDT
60,001-1,00,000 BDT
Above 1,00,000 BDT

59 | P a g e

10 APPENDIX-B
10.1 STATISTICAL TEST RESULTS
10.1.1 Reliability Test

Scale: ALL VARIABLES
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid 177 96.2
Excluded
a
7 3.8
Total 184 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the
procedure.

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.898 29

Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Hotels
3.82 1.043 177
Cost of accommodation 4.18 .782 177
Proximity of hotels 3.48 1.093 177
Cost of food 3.36 1.008 177
Quality of foods 3.49 1.129 177
Availability of different kinds
of food
3.10 1.139 177
Presence of air route 2.46 1.148 177
60 | P a g e

Medium of transport 3.71 1.013 177
Travel time 3.69 1.011 177
Cost of transportation 3.71 .979 177
Availability of tickets 3.71 .938 177
Safety at transportation 4.08 .922 177
Comfort at transportation 3.55 1.000 177
Quality of roads 3.46 1.071 177
Level of traffic jam 3.51 1.108 177
Mobile network strength 3.11 1.272 177
Availability of internet 2.73 1.170 177
Availability of land phones 2.30 1.161 177
Weather forecast quality 3.31 1.158 177
Presence of tour guides 3.14 1.059 177
No of accidents 3.53 1.108 177
strength
3.66 1.038 177
Perceived crime rate 3.81 1.004 177
Politically instability 3.73 1.159 177
Religious importance 2.58 1.047 177
Historical importance 3.40 1.035 177
Educational importance 2.79 1.260 177
Natural beauty 4.40 .854 177
Recreational facilities 3.88 .996 177

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected Item-
Total Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha
if Item Deleted
Hotels
95.84 234.100 .347 .896
Cost of accommodation 95.49 237.070 .357 .896
61 | P a g e

Proximity of hotels 96.19 229.016 .486 .894
Cost of food 96.31 232.940 .400 .895
Quality of foods 96.18 228.649 .479 .894
of food
96.56 229.418 .451 .894
Presence of air route 97.20 233.833 .317 .897
Medium of transport 95.96 231.459 .447 .894
Travel time 95.98 231.568 .445 .895
Cost of transportation 95.96 233.652 .390 .896
Availability of tickets 95.96 234.220 .390 .896
Safety at transportation 95.58 230.392 .537 .893
Comfort at transportation 96.12 227.935 .575 .892
Quality of roads 96.21 224.598 .640 .891
Level of traffic jam 96.16 226.475 .557 .892
Mobile network strength 96.56 221.362 .615 .891
Availability of internet 96.94 227.195 .502 .893
Availability of land phones 97.37 228.711 .462 .894
Weather forecast quality 96.36 225.492 .559 .892
Presence of tour guides 96.53 226.637 .581 .892
No of accidents 96.14 225.940 .574 .892
strength
96.01 225.722 .625 .891
Perceived crime rate 95.86 228.736 .544 .893
Politically instability 95.93 231.609 .378 .896
Religious importance 97.08 235.112 .314 .897
Historical importance 96.27 237.560 .240 .898
Educational importance 96.88 230.723 .365 .897
Natural beauty 95.27 238.494 .268 .897
Recreational facilities 95.79 233.795 .377 .896

62 | P a g e

Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
99.67 246.280 15.693 29

10.1.2 Frequency and Descriptive Statistics

Statistics

Availability of
Standard Hotels
Cost of
accommodation
Proximity of
hotels Cost of food Quality of foods
N Valid 184 184 184 183 183
Missing 0 0 0 1 1
Mean 3.80 4.18 3.49 3.38 3.47
Mode 4 4 4 4 4
Std. Deviation 1.053 .800 1.081 1.014 1.133
Variance 1.109 .640 1.169 1.027 1.283

Statistics

Availability of
different kinds
of food
Presence of air
route
Medium of
transport Travel time
Cost of
transportation
N Valid 184 184 184 184 184
Missing 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 3.09 2.45 3.71 3.68 3.72
Mode 3 2 4 4 4
Std. Deviation 1.139 1.149 1.024 1.025 .972
Variance 1.297 1.319 1.048 1.050 .945

63 | P a g e

Statistics

Availability of
tickets
Safety at
transportation
Comfort at
transportation Quality of roads
N Valid 183 184 184 183
Missing 1 0 0 1
Mean 3.69 4.08 3.53 3.45
Mode 4 4 4 4
Std. Deviation .941 .926 1.002 1.083
Variance .886 .858 1.004 1.172

Statistics

Level of traffic
jam
Mobile network
strength
Availability of
internet
Availability of
land phones
N Valid 183 182 184 182
Missing 1 2 0 2
Mean 3.52 3.13 2.74 2.31
Mode 4 4 3 2
Std. Deviation 1.113 1.270 1.153 1.154
Variance 1.240 1.614 1.330 1.332

64 | P a g e

Statistics

Weather
forecast quality
Presence of tour
guides No of accidents
Law
enforcement
agencies
strength
N Valid 183 184 184 184
Missing 1 0 0 0
Mean 3.33 3.15 3.51 3.66
Mode 4 3 4 4
Std. Deviation 1.159 1.069 1.136 1.033
Variance 1.342 1.142 1.289 1.066

Statistics

Perceived crime
rate
Politically
instability
Religious
importance
Historical
importance
N Valid 184 183 184 184
Missing 0 1 0 0
Mean 3.82 3.72 2.57 3.40
Mode 4 4 3 4
Std. Deviation 1.000 1.165 1.048 1.051
Variance 1.000 1.358 1.099 1.105

65 | P a g e

Statistics

Educational
importance Natural beauty
Recreational
facilities
N Valid 184 184 184
Missing 0 0 0
Mean 2.79 4.40 3.88
Mode 3 5 4
Std. Deviation 1.281 .862 .996
Variance 1.640 .743 .991

Frequency Table

Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 11 6.0 6.0 6.0
Disagree 13 7.1 7.1 13.0
Indifferent 18 9.8 9.8 22.8
Agree 101 54.9 54.9 77.7
Strongly Agree 41 22.3 22.3 100.0
Total 184 100.0 100.0

66 | P a g e


Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 1 .5 .5 .5
Disagree 8 4.3 4.3 4.9
Agree 93 50.5 50.5 63.6
Strongly Agree 67 36.4 36.4 100.0
Total 184 100.0 100.0

Proximity of hotels

Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 21 11.4 11.4 17.9
Indifferent 43 23.4 23.4 41.3
Agree 81 44.0 44.0 85.3
Strongly Agree 27 14.7 14.7 100.0
Total 184 100.0 100.0

Cost of food

Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 25 13.6 13.7 18.6
67 | P a g e

Indifferent 57 31.0 31.1 49.7
Agree 72 39.1 39.3 89.1
Strongly Agree 20 10.9 10.9 100.0
Total 183 99.5 100.0

Missing 99 1 .5

Total 184 100.0

Quality of foods

Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 24 13.0 13.1 19.7
Indifferent 47 25.5 25.7 45.4
Agree 66 35.9 36.1 81.4
Strongly Agree 34 18.5 18.6 100.0
Total 183 99.5 100.0

Missing 99 1 .5

Total 184 100.0


Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 38 20.7 20.7 30.4
Indifferent 56 30.4 30.4 60.9
68 | P a g e

Agree 53 28.8 28.8 89.7
Strongly Agree 19 10.3 10.3 100.0
Total 184 100.0 100.0


Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 55 29.9 29.9 54.3
Indifferent 51 27.7 27.7 82.1
Agree 23 12.5 12.5 94.6
Strongly Agree 10 5.4 5.4 100.0
Total 184 100.0 100.0

Medium of transport

Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 22 12.0 12.0 15.8
Indifferent 22 12.0 12.0 27.7
Agree 99 53.8 53.8 81.5
Strongly Agree 34 18.5 18.5 100.0
Total 184 100.0 100.0

69 | P a g e

Travel time

Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 23 12.5 12.5 15.8
Indifferent 30 16.3 16.3 32.1
Agree 90 48.9 48.9 81.0
Strongly Agree 35 19.0 19.0 100.0
Total 184 100.0 100.0


Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 20 10.9 10.9 13.6
Indifferent 29 15.8 15.8 29.3
Agree 97 52.7 52.7 82.1
Strongly Agree 33 17.9 17.9 100.0
Total 184 100.0 100.0


Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 19 10.3 10.4 13.1
70 | P a g e

Indifferent 31 16.8 16.9 30.1
Agree 101 54.9 55.2 85.2
Strongly Agree 27 14.7 14.8 100.0
Total 183 99.5 100.0

Missing 99 1 .5

Total 184 100.0


Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 13 7.1 7.1 8.7
Agree 89 48.4 48.4 65.2
Strongly Agree 64 34.8 34.8 100.0
Total 184 100.0 100.0


Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 14 7.6 7.6 13.6
Indifferent 47 25.5 25.5 39.1
Agree 90 48.9 48.9 88.0
Strongly Agree 22 12.0 12.0 100.0
71 | P a g e


Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 14 7.6 7.6 13.6
Indifferent 47 25.5 25.5 39.1
Agree 90 48.9 48.9 88.0
Strongly Agree 22 12.0 12.0 100.0
Total 184 100.0 100.0

Quality of roads

Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 26 14.1 14.2 20.2
Indifferent 40 21.7 21.9 42.1
Agree 81 44.0 44.3 86.3
Strongly Agree 25 13.6 13.7 100.0
Total 183 99.5 100.0

Missing 99 1 .5

Total 184 100.0

72 | P a g e


Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 23 12.5 12.6 18.6
Indifferent 42 22.8 23.0 41.5
Agree 73 39.7 39.9 81.4
Strongly Agree 34 18.5 18.6 100.0
Total 183 99.5 100.0

Missing 99 1 .5

Total 184 100.0


Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 36 19.6 19.8 33.0
Indifferent 43 23.4 23.6 56.6
Agree 51 27.7 28.0 84.6
Strongly Agree 28 15.2 15.4 100.0
Total 182 98.9 100.0

Missing 99 2 1.1

Total 184 100.0

73 | P a g e


Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 49 26.6 26.6 42.9
Indifferent 57 31.0 31.0 73.9
Agree 35 19.0 19.0 92.9
Total 184 100.0 100.0


Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 62 33.7 34.1 62.6
Indifferent 35 19.0 19.2 81.9
Agree 25 13.6 13.7 95.6
Total 182 98.9 100.0

Missing 99 2 1.1

Total 184 100.0

74 | P a g e


Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 38 20.7 20.8 27.3
Indifferent 39 21.2 21.3 48.6
Agree 66 35.9 36.1 84.7
Strongly Agree 28 15.2 15.3 100.0
Total 183 99.5 100.0

Missing 99 1 .5

Total 184 100.0


Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 40 21.7 21.7 28.3
Indifferent 58 31.5 31.5 59.8
Agree 57 31.0 31.0 90.8
Total 184 100.0 100.0

75 | P a g e

No of accidents

Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 18 9.8 9.8 17.9
Indifferent 41 22.3 22.3 40.2
Agree 78 42.4 42.4 82.6
Strongly Agree 32 17.4 17.4 100.0
Total 184 100.0 100.0


Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 19 10.3 10.3 14.1
Indifferent 40 21.7 21.7 35.9
Agree 81 44.0 44.0 79.9
Strongly Agree 37 20.1 20.1 100.0
Total 184 100.0 100.0

76 | P a g e


Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 16 8.7 8.7 10.9
Indifferent 39 21.2 21.2 32.1
Agree 75 40.8 40.8 72.8
Strongly Agree 50 27.2 27.2 100.0
Total 184 100.0 100.0


Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 17 9.2 9.3 15.8
Indifferent 34 18.5 18.6 34.4
Agree 68 37.0 37.2 71.6
Strongly Agree 52 28.3 28.4 100.0
Total 183 99.5 100.0

Missing 99 1 .5

Total 184 100.0

77 | P a g e


Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 58 31.5 31.5 48.4
Indifferent 60 32.6 32.6 81.0
Agree 29 15.8 15.8 96.7
Total 184 100.0 100.0


Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 20 10.9 10.9 16.8
Indifferent 63 34.2 34.2 51.1
Agree 64 34.8 34.8 85.9
Strongly Agree 26 14.1 14.1 100.0
Total 184 100.0 100.0

78 | P a g e


Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 35 19.0 19.0 40.2
Indifferent 56 30.4 30.4 70.7
Agree 33 17.9 17.9 88.6
Strongly Agree 21 11.4 11.4 100.0
Total 184 100.0 100.0

Natural beauty

Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 6 3.3 3.3 5.4
Agree 69 37.5 37.5 45.1
Strongly Agree 101 54.9 54.9 100.0
Total 184 100.0 100.0

79 | P a g e


Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 13 7.1 7.1 9.2
Indifferent 40 21.7 21.7 31.0
Agree 71 38.6 38.6 69.6
Strongly Agree 56 30.4 30.4 100.0
Total 184 100.0 100.0

80 | P a g e

10.1.3 One Sample t-test for Hypotheses Testing

One-Sample Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Hotels
184 3.80 1.053 .078
Cost of accommodation 184 4.18 .800 .059
Proximity of hotels 184 3.49 1.081 .080
Cost of food 183 3.38 1.014 .075
Quality of foods 183 3.47 1.133 .084
of food
184 3.09 1.139 .084
Presence of air route 184 2.45 1.149 .085
Medium of transport 184 3.71 1.024 .075
Travel time 184 3.68 1.025 .076
Cost of transportation 184 3.72 .972 .072
Availability of tickets 183 3.69 .941 .070
Safety at transportation 184 4.08 .926 .068
Comfort at transportation 184 3.53 1.002 .074
Quality of roads 183 3.45 1.083 .080
Level of traffic jam 183 3.52 1.113 .082
Mobile network strength 182 3.13 1.270 .094
Availability of internet 184 2.74 1.153 .085
Availability of land phones 182 2.31 1.154 .086
Weather forecast quality 183 3.33 1.159 .086
Presence of tour guides 184 3.15 1.069 .079
No of accidents 184 3.51 1.136 .084
strength
184 3.66 1.033 .076
Perceived crime rate 184 3.82 1.000 .074
81 | P a g e

Politically instability 183 3.72 1.165 .086
Religious importance 184 2.57 1.048 .077
Historical importance 184 3.40 1.051 .077
Educational importance 184 2.79 1.281 .094
Natural beauty 184 4.40 .862 .064
Recreational facilities 184 3.88 .996 .073

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 3
t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean
Difference
Hotels
10.360 183 .000 .804
Cost of accommodation 20.000 183 .000 1.179
Proximity of hotels 6.136 183 .000 .489
Cost of food 5.032 182 .000 .377
Quality of foods 5.612 182 .000 .470
of food
1.100 183 .273 .092
Presence of air route -6.546 183 .000 -.554
Medium of transport 9.435 183 .000 .712
Travel time 8.995 183 .000 .679
Cost of transportation 10.088 183 .000 .723
Availability of tickets 9.895 182 .000 .689
Safety at transportation 15.762 183 .000 1.076
Comfort at transportation 7.209 183 .000 .533
Quality of roads 5.667 182 .000 .454
Level of traffic jam 6.373 182 .000 .525
82 | P a g e

Mobile network strength 1.342 181 .181 .126
Availability of internet -3.068 183 .002 -.261
Availability of land phones -8.027 181 .000 -.687
Weather forecast quality 3.828 182 .000 .328
Presence of tour guides 1.862 183 .064 .147
No of accidents 6.103 183 .000 .511
strength
8.710 183 .000 .663
Perceived crime rate 11.129 183 .000 .821
Politically instability 8.309 182 .000 .716
Religious importance -5.556 183 .000 -.429
Historical importance 5.189 183 .000 .402
Educational importance -2.187 183 .030 -.207
Natural beauty 21.975 183 .000 1.397
Recreational facilities 11.996 183 .000 .880

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 3
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Hotels
.65 .96
Cost of accommodation 1.06 1.30
Proximity of hotels .33 .65
Cost of food .23 .52
Quality of foods .30 .64
of food
-.07 .26
Presence of air route -.72 -.39
83 | P a g e

Medium of transport .56 .86
Travel time .53 .83
Cost of transportation .58 .86
Availability of tickets .55 .83
Safety at transportation .94 1.21
Comfort at transportation .39 .68
Quality of roads .30 .61
Level of traffic jam .36 .69
Mobile network strength -.06 .31
Availability of internet -.43 -.09
Availability of land phones -.86 -.52
Weather forecast quality .16 .50
Presence of tour guides -.01 .30
No of accidents .35 .68
strength
.51 .81
Perceived crime rate .68 .97
Politically instability .55 .89
Religious importance -.58 -.28
Historical importance .25 .56
Educational importance -.39 -.02
Natural beauty 1.27 1.52
Recreational facilities .74 1.03

84 | P a g e

10.1.4 Independent Sample t-test For Male and Female

Group Statistics

Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Hotels
Male 128 3.72 1.086 .096
Female 56 4.00 .953 .127
Cost of accommodation Male 128 4.13 .832 .074
Female 56 4.30 .711 .095
Proximity of hotels Male 128 3.38 1.109 .098
Female 56 3.73 .981 .131
Cost of food Male 128 3.34 .984 .087
Female 55 3.45 1.086 .146
Quality of foods Male 127 3.43 1.205 .107
Female 56 3.57 .951 .127
of food
Male 128 3.14 1.169 .103
Female 56 2.98 1.070 .143
Presence of air route Male 128 2.49 1.242 .110
Female 56 2.34 .900 .120
Medium of transport Male 128 3.65 1.105 .098
Female 56 3.86 .796 .106
Travel time Male 128 3.72 1.064 .094
Female 56 3.59 .930 .124
Cost of transportation Male 128 3.64 1.070 .095
Female 56 3.91 .668 .089
Availability of tickets Male 128 3.75 .947 .084
Female 55 3.55 .919 .124
Safety at transportation Male 128 4.01 1.000 .088
Female 56 4.23 .713 .095
85 | P a g e

Comfort at transportation Male 128 3.48 1.057 .093
Female 56 3.64 .862 .115
Quality of roads Male 127 3.36 1.117 .099
Female 56 3.66 .978 .131
Level of traffic jam Male 128 3.45 1.142 .101
Female 55 3.69 1.034 .139
Mobile network strength Male 128 2.99 1.277 .113
Female 54 3.44 1.208 .164
Availability of internet Male 128 2.70 1.193 .105
Female 56 2.82 1.064 .142
Availability of land phones Male 128 2.16 1.146 .101
Female 54 2.69 1.096 .149
Weather forecast quality Male 127 3.26 1.149 .102
Female 56 3.48 1.175 .157
Presence of tour guides Male 128 3.06 1.107 .098
Female 56 3.34 .959 .128
No of accidents Male 128 3.42 1.084 .096
Female 56 3.71 1.232 .165
strength
Male 128 3.65 .985 .087
Female 56 3.70 1.143 .153
Perceived crime rate Male 128 3.80 .942 .083
Female 56 3.88 1.129 .151
Politically instability Male 127 3.77 1.100 .098
Female 56 3.59 1.304 .174
Religious importance Male 128 2.53 1.049 .093
Female 56 2.66 1.049 .140
Historical importance Male 128 3.37 1.093 .097
86 | P a g e

Female 56 3.48 .953 .127
Educational importance Male 128 2.68 1.177 .104
Female 56 3.05 1.470 .196
Natural beauty Male 128 4.40 .854 .076
Female 56 4.39 .888 .119
Recreational facilities Male 128 3.80 1.045 .092
Female 56 4.07 .850 .114

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for
Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Differen
ce
Std.
Error
Differen
ce
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Availability of
Standard
Hotels
Equal
variances
assumed
5.595 .019 -
1.67
5
182 .096 -.281 .168 -.613 .050
Equal
variances not
assumed

-
1.76
3
118.
640
.080 -.281 .160 -.597 .035
Cost of
accommodatio
n
Equal
variances
assumed
.120 .729 -
1.39
7
182 .164 -.179 .128 -.431 .074
Equal
variances not
assumed

-
1.48
5
121.
703
.140 -.179 .120 -.417 .059
Proximity of
hotels
Equal
variances
assumed
3.344 .069 -
2.03
4
182 .043 -.349 .172 -.688 -.010
87 | P a g e

Equal
variances not
assumed

-
2.13
3
117.
716
.035 -.349 .164 -.674 -.025
Cost of food Equal
variances
assumed
.484 .488 -.677 181 .499 -.111 .164 -.434 .212
Equal
variances not
assumed

-.651 93.8
54
.517 -.111 .170 -.449 .227
Quality of
foods
Equal
variances
assumed
6.669 .011 -.804 181 .423 -.146 .182 -.505 .213
Equal
variances not
assumed

-.881 131.
703
.380 -.146 .166 -.475 .182
Availability of
different kinds
of food
Equal
variances
assumed
1.991 .160 .868 182 .387 .158 .183 -.202 .519
Equal
variances not
assumed

.898 113.
943
.371 .158 .176 -.191 .508
Presence of
air route
Equal
variances
assumed
9.666 .002 .830 182 .408 .153 .184 -.211 .516
Equal
variances not
assumed

.939 142.
130
.349 .153 .163 -.169 .475
Medium of
transport
Equal
variances
assumed
13.452 .000 -
1.27
5
182 .204 -.209 .164 -.532 .114
Equal
variances not
assumed

-
1.44
5
142.
888
.151 -.209 .144 -.494 .077
Travel time Equal
variances
assumed
1.374 .243 .788 182 .432 .129 .164 -.195 .454
88 | P a g e

Equal
variances not
assumed

.831 119.
171
.408 .129 .156 -.179 .438
Cost of
transportation
Equal
variances
assumed
24.856 .000 -
1.74
4
182 .083 -.270 .155 -.576 .035
Equal
variances not
assumed

-
2.07
6
160.
303
.039 -.270 .130 -.527 -.013
Availability of
tickets
Equal
variances
assumed
.052 .820 1.35
1
181 .178 .205 .151 -.094 .503
Equal
variances not
assumed

1.36
7
105.
219
.174 .205 .150 -.092 .501
Safety at
transportation
Equal
variances
assumed
1.612 .206 -
1.51
7
182 .131 -.224 .148 -.516 .067
Equal
variances not
assumed

-
1.72
6
144.
108
.087 -.224 .130 -.481 .033
Comfort at
transportation
Equal
variances
assumed
4.428 .037 -.987 182 .325 -.158 .161 -.475 .158
Equal
variances not
assumed

-
1.06
9
127.
353
.287 -.158 .148 -.452 .135
Quality of
roads
Equal
variances
assumed
3.413 .066 -
1.72
8
181 .086 -.299 .173 -.639 .042
Equal
variances not
assumed

-
1.82
0
119.
351
.071 -.299 .164 -.623 .026
Level of traffic
jam
Equal
variances
assumed
2.010 .158 -
1.32
7
181 .186 -.238 .179 -.591 .116
89 | P a g e

Equal
variances not
assumed

-
1.38
1
112.
340
.170 -.238 .172 -.579 .103
Mobile
network
strength
Equal
variances
assumed
.216 .643 -
2.21
8
180 .028 -.452 .204 -.855 -.050
Equal
variances not
assumed

-
2.26
8
104.
991
.025 -.452 .199 -.848 -.057
Availability of
internet
Equal
variances
assumed
3.387 .067 -.639 182 .524 -.118 .185 -.484 .247
Equal
variances not
assumed

-.669 116.
869
.505 -.118 .177 -.469 .232
Availability of
land phones
Equal
variances
assumed
.076 .783 -
2.88
0
180 .004 -.529 .184 -.891 -.167
Equal
variances not
assumed

-
2.93
4
103.
976
.004 -.529 .180 -.886 -.171
Weather
forecast
quality
Equal
variances
assumed
.027 .869 -
1.19
8
181 .233 -.222 .186 -.589 .144
Equal
variances not
assumed

-
1.18
7
103.
147
.238 -.222 .187 -.594 .149
Presence of
tour guides
Equal
variances
assumed
.534 .466 -
1.62
4
182 .106 -.277 .170 -.613 .060
Equal
variances not
assumed

-
1.71
7
120.
119
.089 -.277 .161 -.596 .042
No of
accidents
Equal
variances
assumed
.551 .459 -
1.61
4
182 .108 -.292 .181 -.650 .065
90 | P a g e

Equal
variances not
assumed

-
1.53
5
93.9
22
.128 -.292 .190 -.671 .086
Law
enforcement
agencies
strength
Equal
variances
assumed
1.860 .174 -.289 182 .773 -.048 .166 -.375 .279
Equal
variances not
assumed

-.273 92.3
21
.785 -.048 .176 -.397 .301
Perceived
crime rate
Equal
variances
assumed
1.092 .298 -.486 182 .627 -.078 .161 -.395 .239
Equal
variances not
assumed

-.453 89.9
87
.651 -.078 .172 -.421 .264
Politically
instability
Equal
variances
assumed
3.802 .053 .975 181 .331 .182 .187 -.187 .551
Equal
variances not
assumed

.913 90.9
87
.364 .182 .200 -.214 .579
Religious
importance
Equal
variances
assumed
.037 .849 -.770 182 .442 -.129 .168 -.461 .202
Equal
variances not
assumed

-.770 104.
970
.443 -.129 .168 -.463 .204
Historical
importance
Equal
variances
assumed
1.293 .257 -.682 182 .496 -.115 .169 -.448 .218
Equal
variances not
assumed

-.719 119.
367
.474 -.115 .160 -.432 .202
Educational
importance
Equal
variances
assumed
3.795 .053 -
1.83
4
182 .068 -.374 .204 -.776 .028
91 | P a g e

Equal
variances not
assumed

-
1.68
2
87.1
98
.096 -.374 .222 -.816 .068
Natural beauty Equal
variances
assumed
.264 .608 .040 182 .968 .006 .139 -.268 .279
Equal
variances not
assumed

.040 101.
371
.968 .006 .141 -.273 .285
Recreational
facilities
Equal
variances
assumed
3.109 .080 -
1.73
1
182 .085 -.275 .159 -.588 .038
Equal
variances not
assumed

-
1.87
6
127.
671
.063 -.275 .146 -.564 .015

10.1.5 Kruskal-Wallis Test for Occupation

Test Statistics
a,b

Availability of
Standard Hotels
Cost of
accommodation
Proximity of
Chi-Square 16.109 5.419 13.059 4.722 14.060
df 5 5 5 5 5
Asymp. Sig. .007 .367 .023 .451 .015

Test Statistics
a,b

Availability of
different kinds
of food
Presence of air
route
Medium of
Cost of
transportation
Chi-Square 11.494 3.115 14.050 14.769 2.406
df 5 5 5 5 5
Asymp. Sig. .042 .682 .015 .011 .791
92 | P a g e

Test Statistics
a,b

Availability of
tickets
Safety at
transportation
Comfort at
Level of traffic
jam
Chi-Square 9.922 11.277 19.187 11.724 15.280
df 5 5 5 5 5
Asymp. Sig. .077 .046 .002 .039 .009

Test Statistics
a,b

Mobile network
strength
Availability of
internet
Availability of
land phones
Weather
forecast quality
Presence of
tour guides
Chi-Square 20.897 8.903 16.820 19.935 25.546
df 5 5 5 5 5
Asymp. Sig. .001 .113 .005 .001 .000

Test Statistics
a,b

No of accidents
Law
enforcement
agencies
strength
Perceived crime
rate
Politically
instability
Religious
importance
Chi-Square 25.358 27.048 6.959 6.453 9.096
df 5 5 5 5 5
Asymp. Sig. .000 .000 .224 .265 .105

Test Statistics
a,b

Historical
importance
Educational
Recreational
facilities
Chi-Square 15.579 28.550 5.562 9.625
df 5 5 5 5
Asymp. Sig. .008 .000 .351 .087

93 | P a g e

b. Grouping Variable: Occupation

10.1.6 Kruskal-Wallis Test for Income Group

Test Statistics
a,b

Availability of
Standard Hotels
Cost of
accommodation
Proximity of
Chi-Square 1.864 .286 1.889 5.839 2.813
df 4 4 4 4 4
Asymp. Sig. .761 .991 .756 .211 .590

Test Statistics
a,b

Availability of
different kinds
of food
Presence of air
route
Medium of
Cost of
transportation
Chi-Square .360 2.257 2.819 10.425 10.165
df 4 4 4 4 4
Asymp. Sig. .986 .689 .589 .034 .038

Test Statistics
a,b

Availability of
tickets
Safety at
transportation
Comfort at
Level of traffic
jam
Chi-Square 8.467 3.793 5.132 2.885 4.147
df 4 4 4 4 4
Asymp. Sig. .076 .435 .274 .577 .387

Test Statistics
a,b

94 | P a g e

Mobile network
strength
Availability of
internet
Availability of
land phones
Weather
forecast quality
Presence of
tour guides
Chi-Square 3.598 6.294 1.553 4.910 3.603
df 4 4 4 4 4
Asymp. Sig. .463 .178 .817 .297 .462

Test Statistics
a,b

No of accidents
Law
enforcement
agencies
strength
Perceived crime
rate
Politically
instability
Religious
importance
Chi-Square 2.417 5.493 8.737 8.697 4.775
df 4 4 4 4 4
Asymp. Sig. .660 .240 .068 .069 .311

Test Statistics
a,b

Historical
importance
Educational
Recreational
facilities
Chi-Square 22.309 15.707 8.421 1.424
df 4 4 4 4
Asymp. Sig. .000 .003 .077 .840

b. Grouping Variable: Income

95 | P a g e

10.1.7 Kruskal-Wallis Test for Age Groups

Test Statistics
a,b

Availability of
Standard Hotels
Cost of
accommodation
Proximity of
Chi-Square 9.020 4.736 10.302 2.592 7.417
df 3 3 3 3 3
Asymp. Sig. .029 .192 .016 .459 .060

Test Statistics
a,b

Availability of
different kinds
of food
Presence of air
route
Medium of
Cost of
transportation
Chi-Square 3.346 5.810 5.352 9.340 2.983
df 3 3 3 3 3
Asymp. Sig. .341 .121 .148 .025 .394

Test Statistics
a,b

Availability of
tickets
Safety at
transportation
Comfort at
Level of traffic
jam
Chi-Square 4.430 11.246 6.202 8.861 10.667
df 3 3 3 3 3
Asymp. Sig. .219 .010 .102 .031 .014

Test Statistics
a,b

Mobile network
strength
Availability of
internet
Availability of
land phones
Weather
forecast quality
Presence of
tour guides
Chi-Square 9.126 .879 7.975 17.507 8.044
df 3 3 3 3 3
96 | P a g e

Test Statistics
a,b

Mobile network
strength
Availability of
internet
Availability of
land phones
Weather
forecast quality
Presence of
tour guides
Chi-Square 9.126 .879 7.975 17.507 8.044
df 3 3 3 3 3
Asymp. Sig. .028 .830 .047 .001 .045

Test Statistics
a,b

No of accidents
Law
enforcement
agencies
strength
Perceived crime
rate
Politically
instability
Religious
importance
Chi-Square 19.560 22.347 6.680 3.263 .648
df 3 3 3 3 3
Asymp. Sig. .000 .000 .083 .353 .885

Test Statistics
a,b

Historical
importance
Educational
Recreational
facilities
Chi-Square 9.310 7.513 4.903 2.303
df 3 3 3 3
Asymp. Sig. .025 .057 .179 .512

b. Grouping Variable: Age_Group

97 | P a g e

10.1.8 Factor Analysis

KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .820
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 2074.274
df 406
Sig. .000

Communalities

Initial Extraction
Hotels
1.000 .662
Cost of accommodation 1.000 .650
Proximity of hotels 1.000 .667
Cost of food 1.000 .792
Quality of foods 1.000 .628
of food
1.000 .610
Presence of air route 1.000 .598
Medium of transport 1.000 .573
Travel time 1.000 .565
Cost of transportation 1.000 .734
Availability of tickets 1.000 .526
Safety at transportation 1.000 .623
Comfort at transportation 1.000 .630
Quality of roads 1.000 .742
Level of traffic jam 1.000 .559
Mobile network strength 1.000 .691
Availability of internet 1.000 .626
98 | P a g e

Availability of land phones 1.000 .613
Weather forecast quality 1.000 .574
Presence of tour guides 1.000 .609
No of accidents 1.000 .661
strength
1.000 .695
Perceived crime rate 1.000 .657
Politically instability 1.000 .525
Religious importance 1.000 .663
Historical importance 1.000 .774
Educational importance 1.000 .728
Natural beauty 1.000 .708
Recreational facilities 1.000 .598
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Total Variance Explained
Component
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 7.848 27.062 27.062 7.848 27.062 27.062
2 2.531 8.729 35.790 2.531 8.729 35.790
3 1.972 6.800 42.590 1.972 6.800 42.590
4 1.583 5.459 48.049 1.583 5.459 48.049
5 1.362 4.695 52.744 1.362 4.695 52.744
99 | P a g e

6 1.248 4.302 57.046 1.248 4.302 57.046
7 1.091 3.763 60.809 1.091 3.763 60.809
8 1.046 3.608 64.417 1.046 3.608 64.417
9 .947 3.265 67.682

10 .866 2.986 70.667

11 .844 2.911 73.578

12 .737 2.540 76.118

13 .690 2.380 78.498

14 .626 2.158 80.657

15 .611 2.106 82.763

16 .532 1.834 84.597

17 .516 1.779 86.376

18 .489 1.685 88.061

19 .463 1.596 89.657

20 .448 1.544 91.202

21 .420 1.450 92.651

22 .379 1.308 93.960

23 .343 1.181 95.141

24 .327 1.128 96.269

25 .263 .908 97.178

26 .232 .801 97.979

27 .220 .759 98.738

28 .198 .683 99.421

29 .168 .579 100.000

100 | P a g e

Total Variance Explained
Component
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 3.713 12.802 12.802
2 2.422 8.352 21.154
3 2.372 8.180 29.334
4 2.220 7.657 36.991
5 2.145 7.396 44.388
6 1.993 6.873 51.261
7 1.991 6.865 58.126
8 1.825 6.291 64.417
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

101 | P a g e

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29


Component Matrix
a

Component
1 2 3 4 5 6
Quality of roads .703 .058 -.217 -.150 -.045 -.203
strength
.695 -.266 .064 -.319 -.046 -.131
Mobile network strength .676 .162 -.142 -.009 -.339 -.104
No of accidents .659 -.117 -.108 -.332 -.223 -.196
Comfort at transportation .644 -.019 -.297 .044 .048 -.119
Level of traffic jam .625 -.027 -.205 .056 -.222 -.169
Presence of tour guides .623 .258 .092 -.314 .038 .009
Safety at transportation .615 -.392 .037 -.204 .039 .070
Weather forecast quality .615 -.073 .176 -.110 .009 .189
102 | P a g e

Perceived crime rate .611 -.243 .143 -.368 .087 -.059
Availability of internet .545 .283 -.138 .104 -.074 .032
Proximity of hotels .542 -.065 -.130 .332 .229 -.229
Quality of foods .534 .079 -.323 .236 .211 -.198
of food
.491 .273 -.291 .159 .308 -.171
Medium of transport .490 .041 -.055 .061 .160 .485
Politically instability .458 -.453 -.010 -.265 .070 .049
Availability of tickets .457 -.123 -.117 -.046 -.280 .294
Recreational facilities .417 -.067 .144 .315 -.112 -.171
Religious importance .320 .635 .253 -.015 -.025 -.041
Educational importance .375 .558 .471 -.014 .175 -.110
Availability of land phones .492 .501 .058 -.001 -.117 .210
Historical importance .247 .330 .579 -.213 .444 -.037
Natural beauty .304 -.476 .505 .071 .278 -.152
Cost of transportation .433 -.129 .497 .256 -.424 .192
Presence of air route .353 .335 -.373 .041 .219 .345
Cost of accommodation .400 -.399 .281 .481 .037 .113
Cost of food .436 .133 .247 .476 -.303 -.181
Hotels
.406 -.363 -.166 .312 .412 .075
Travel time .492 -.034 -.030 .066 .043 .538

103 | P a g e

Component Matrix
a

Component
7 8
Quality of roads .362 -.010
strength
-.098 .082
No of accidents -.008 -.049
Comfort at transportation .303 -.128
Presence of tour guides -.160 -.144
Safety at transportation .117 -.166
Weather forecast quality -.293 -.160
Perceived crime rate -.224 .087
Availability of internet -.168 .430
Proximity of hotels .153 -.339
Quality of foods -.184 -.242
of food
-.242 .046
Medium of transport .117 -.222
Politically instability -.024 .178
Availability of tickets .213 -.276
Recreational facilities .316 .398
Religious importance .294 .062
Educational importance .100 .029
Availability of land phones -.238 .045
Historical importance .120 -.098
Natural beauty .031 .166
Cost of transportation -.030 -.010
104 | P a g e

Presence of air route .047 .228
Cost of accommodation .053 .056
Cost of food -.293 -.294
Hotels
-.192 .170
Travel time .125 .099

a. 8 components extracted.

Rotated Component Matrix
a

Component
1 2 3 4 5 6
Perceived crime rate .770 .043 .113 .093 .127 .053
strength
.752 .264 .056 .094 .128 .054
No of accidents .635 .445 .017 .112 .117 .044
Politically instability .612 .132 -.138 -.007 .048 .145
Safety at transportation .597 .271 -.006 .135 -.153 .337
Weather forecast quality .544 -.075 .146 .186 .134 .316
Presence of tour guides .510 .100 .394 .203 .212 .186
Quality of roads .349 .695 .181 .236 .133 .168
Level of traffic jam .263 .594 -.025 .167 .263 .091
Comfort at transportation .225 .586 .055 .394 .067 .266
Historical importance .184 -.136 .826 .058 -.118 .061
Educational importance .038 .074 .809 .072 .189 .000
105 | P a g e

Religious importance -.118 .301 .683 -.044 .252 .086
Quality of foods .157 .181 .002 .719 .164 .094
Proximity of hotels .080 .358 .105 .643 -.126 .170
of food
.125 .083 .143 .620 .426 .006
Availability of internet .165 .197 .112 .128 .713 .064
Presence of air route -.046 .102 .093 .215 .533 .417
Availability of land phones .143 .005 .345 .103 .529 .247
Mobile network strength .373 .370 .022 .142 .526 .035
Medium of transport .139 .061 .137 .211 .069 .690
Travel time .165 .099 .045 -.009 .267 .642
Availability of tickets .229 .355 -.090 .000 -.058 .523
Natural beauty .386 -.045 .168 .019 -.194 -.080
Cost of accommodation .091 .074 -.057 .124 -.032 .241
Recreational facilities .000 .476 .120 -.042 .246 -.035
Hotels
.215 -.084 -.210 .466 .195 .186
Cost of food .026 .085 .126 .328 .102 -.027
Cost of transportation .186 .106 .113 -.226 .069 .238

Rotated Component Matrix
a

Component
7 8
Perceived crime rate .144 .031
strength
.146 .086
No of accidents -.104 .140
Politically instability .275 -.123
Safety at transportation .187 .054
106 | P a g e

Weather forecast quality .055 .310
Quality of roads -.005 -.050
Comfort at transportation .051 -.019
Educational importance .058 .148
Religious importance -.091 .101
Quality of foods -.015 .130
of food
.000 -.032
Availability of internet .106 .090
Presence of air route -.056 -.264
Medium of transport .047 .052
Travel time .205 .017
Availability of tickets -.090 .233
Natural beauty .695 .042
Recreational facilities .528 .122
Hotels
.515 -.103
Cost of food .092 .801

107 | P a g e

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 16 iterations.

Component Transformation Matrix
Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 .568 .421 .231 .353 .326 .339 .199 .247
2 -.398 .017 .624 .073 .443 -.023 -.498 .049
3 .124 -.292 .600 -.392 -.263 -.107 .395 .386
4 -.633 .019 -.162 .362 .115 .059 .499 .421
5 .008 -.368 .325 .519 -.121 .079 .292 -.619
6 -.085 -.358 -.103 -.310 .165 .854 -.015 -.033
7 -.310 .686 .227 -.251 -.349 .251 .164 -.327
8 .005 .046 -.059 -.396 .672 -.267 .442 -.347

Component Score Coefficient Matrix

Component
1 2 3 4 5 6
Hotels
.004 -.199 -.117 .230 .142 .030
Cost of accommodation -.105 -.023 -.043 .013 -.025 .101
Proximity of hotels -.119 .137 .051 .361 -.264 .021
Cost of food -.072 -.070 -.029 .192 -.049 -.112
108 | P a g e

Quality of foods -.023 -.047 -.045 .408 -.046 -.055
of food
-.007 -.112 .011 .322 .176 -.126
Presence of air route -.101 -.042 -.004 .010 .283 .235
Medium of transport -.065 -.083 .036 .046 -.091 .451
Travel time -.058 -.052 -.024 -.141 .114 .399
Cost of transportation -.027 -.008 -.017 -.223 .014 .105
Availability of tickets -.020 .154 -.079 -.095 -.172 .330
Safety at transportation .152 .058 -.009 -.004 -.201 .140
Comfort at transportation -.065 .285 .011 .124 -.133 .070
Quality of roads -.001 .366 .066 -.004 -.088 -.019
Level of traffic jam -.025 .290 -.065 -.045 .064 -.075
Mobile network strength .077 .069 -.103 -.060 .255 -.140
Availability of internet -.008 -.023 -.046 -.076 .439 -.098
Availability of land phones .014 -.155 .059 -.034 .244 .084
Weather forecast quality .181 -.243 -.001 .050 -.003 .117
Presence of tour guides .180 -.102 .125 .049 -.008 .016
No of accidents .206 .156 -.044 -.044 -.038 -.113
strength
.260 .014 -.018 -.055 .022 -.119
Perceived crime rate .307 -.138 .013 -.026 .049 -.102
Politically instability .215 -.020 -.077 -.098 .044 .001
Religious importance -.136 .191 .299 -.111 .032 .016
Historical importance .058 -.111 .426 .045 -.171 .021
Educational importance -.045 .002 .363 -.004 .006 -.064
Natural beauty .104 -.066 .114 -.010 -.081 -.131
Recreational facilities -.153 .300 .039 -.163 .151 -.129

109 | P a g e

Component Score Coefficient Matrix

Component
7 8
Hotels
.277 -.132
Cost of food -.047 .519
Quality of foods -.075 .062
of food
.002 -.072
Presence of air route .027 -.242
Medium of transport -.035 -.025
Travel time .097 -.077
Availability of tickets -.151 .124
Safety at transportation -.009 -.035
Comfort at transportation -.023 -.094
Quality of roads -.042 -.138
Availability of internet .104 -.036
Weather forecast quality -.081 .155
No of accidents -.154 .034
strength
-.006 -.029
110 | P a g e

Perceived crime rate -.002 -.055
Politically instability .101 -.151
Religious importance -.005 -.028
Educational importance .056 -.005
Natural beauty .361 -.069
Recreational facilities .345 -.047

Component Scores.

Component Score Covariance Matrix
Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 1.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
2 .000 1.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
3 .000 .000 1.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
4 .000 .000 .000 1.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
5 .000 .000 .000 .000 1.000 .000 .000 .000
6 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 1.000 .000 .000
7 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 1.000 .000
8 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 1.000
Component Scores.

111 | P a g e

RM Final Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RM Final Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A STUDY ON THE KEY FACTORS INFLUENCING THE CHOICE

OF TOURIST DESTINATIONS OF DHAKA CITY RESIDENTS

You might also like