{"id":23688,"date":"2026-01-07T10:37:24","date_gmt":"2026-01-07T05:07:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/?p=23688"},"modified":"2026-01-07T10:37:24","modified_gmt":"2026-01-07T05:07:24","slug":"an-anova-based-comparison-of-students-ratings-for-tourism-locations-in-india","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/?p=23688","title":{"rendered":"An ANOVA-Based Comparison of Students Ratings for Tourism Locations in India"},"content":{"rendered":"

Author: Sahil Naresh Phonde<\/b><\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n

Introduction:<\/b><\/p>\n

India is one of the most diverse tourism destinations in the world, offering a wide range of cultural, natural, historical, and recreational attractions. For this study, four major regions of India\u2014North, South, East, and West<\/b>\u2014were selected to understand consumer preferences related to tourism. These regions were chosen due to their distinct geographical features, cultural heritage, and popularity among domestic tourists. The study aims to compare consumer perceptions and ratings of these regions based on tourism attractiveness. Analyzing preferences among these locations will help identify whether tourists perceive significant differences among regions when choosing travel destinations in India.<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n

Objective:<\/b><\/p>\n

To understand and compare consumer ratings for different tourism locations (North, South, East, and West India).<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n

Literature Review:<\/b><\/p>\n

1) Tourism development and regional attractiveness in India<\/b><\/p>\n

Sharma (2014) stated that tourism in India is influenced by multiple factors such as infrastructure, accessibility, cultural diversity, and safety. Prior studies highlighted that regional tourism growth varies significantly due to differences in government support, marketing strategies, and availability of tourist amenities. The literature suggests that understanding tourist perception is crucial for balanced regional tourism development and policy formulation.<\/p>\n

2) Factors influencing destination choice among domestic tourists<\/b><\/p>\n

Kumar and Singh (2020) found that destination choice is affected by perceived value, previous travel experiences, social influence, and affordability. The reviewed studies indicate that although India offers diverse tourism options across regions, tourists often rate destinations similarly when basic facilities and experiences meet expectations. The literature supports the use of statistical tools such as ANOVA to compare regional tourism preferences.<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n

Data Collection:<\/b><\/p>\n

To understand consumer ratings for tourism locations in India, primary data<\/b> was collected using a Google Form<\/b>. Respondents were asked to rate four regions\u2014North, South, East, and West India<\/b>\u2014on a scale of 1 to 10<\/b> based on their tourism attractiveness. A total of 40 students from ITM<\/b> participated in the survey. The collected data was downloaded in Excel format<\/b>, and a Single-Factor ANOVA test<\/b> was applied to analyze the differences in mean ratings.<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n

Data Analysis:<\/b><\/p>\n

ANOVA: Single Factor<\/b><\/p>\n

Summary Table:<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Groups<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Count<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Sum<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Average<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Variance<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n

\n

East<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

40<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

222<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.55<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.51<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

West<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

40<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

207<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8.15<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

North<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

40<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

221<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.53<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8.10<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

South<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

40<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

205<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8.52<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

ANOVA Table:<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Source of Variation<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

SS<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

df<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

MS<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

P-value<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F crit<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n

\n

Between Groups<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6.07<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.02<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.276<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.842<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.663<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Within Groups<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1142.03<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

156<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7.32<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Total<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1148.09<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

159<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
\n
<\/div>\n

Hypothesis:<\/b><\/p>\n