A Pilgrimage Mobility Circuit for Haridwar and Rishikesh: A Case-Cum-Research Study of Integrated Transport, Visitor Accessibility, Local Livelihoods and Sustainable Tourism

 

A Pilgrimage Mobility Circuit for Haridwar and Rishikesh: A Case-Cum-Research Study of Integrated Transport, Visitor Accessibility, Local Livelihoods and Sustainable Tourism

Abstract       

Haridwar and Rishikesh are important pilgrimage and tourism destinations in Uttarakhand. Visitors may wish to combine temple visits, asthi visarjan, the evening Ganga Aarti and visits to religious and cultural sites in Rishikesh within a single itinerary. However, coordinating local transport, schedules, meals, accessibility and return journeys can create practical difficulties, particularly for older people, families and visitors unfamiliar with the region.

This case-cum-research paper proposes a government-enabled Haridwar–Rishikesh Pilgrimage Mobility Circuit integrating scheduled buses, railway and airport connections, verified pilgrimage stops, accessible transport, trained staff and designated local food outlets. It examines the proposal through a structured research framework incorporating descriptive statistics, hypothesis testing, passenger satisfaction measurement, regression analysis and before-and-after evaluation.

Because no completed passenger survey or verified operational dataset was supplied, the study does not claim measured improvements in travel time, visitor satisfaction, employment or revenue. Instead, it develops a replicable empirical research design, identifies measurable performance indicators and presents an illustrative statistical framework for evaluating a six-month pilot. The proposed model seeks to balance visitor convenience with local livelihoods, road safety, religious sensitivity, environmental sustainability and carrying-capacity management.

Keywords: Pilgrimage tourism, Haridwar, Rishikesh, mobility management, public transport, visitor satisfaction, accessibility, local economic development, sustainable tourism, statistical analysis.

1. Introduction

Pilgrimage tourism involves more than reaching a religious destination. Visitors may need to coordinate transport, accommodation, rituals, meals, temple visits and time-sensitive events. When these services are fragmented across different providers, the journey can become difficult to organize.

Haridwar provides access to major pilgrimage locations, including Har Ki Pauri, while Rishikesh offers additional religious, cultural and riverfront attractions. A visitor may arrive by train, stay at an ashram or hotel, participate in religious activities and subsequently travel to Rishikesh before returning to Haridwar.

The proposed mobility circuit treats these journeys as a connected visitor-service system rather than a collection of independent trips.

The central research proposition is that a properly designed scheduled transport service may reduce journey-planning difficulties and improve accessibility. However, these benefits must be measured rather than assumed. Additional buses could also increase traffic, operating costs, congestion and waste if demand and route capacity are not assessed adequately.

1.1 Background of the case

The underlying case identifies several potential service requirements:

Reliable transport between railway and bus terminals, accommodation and selected pilgrimage destinations.

Convenient travel for older visitors and people with disabilities.

Verified information about routes, timings, religious events and operational restrictions.

Access to safe drinking water, toilets and meal facilities.

Participation of local food vendors, guides and small businesses.

Coordination between tourism authorities, transport operators and local administrations.

The proposed circuit would connect with existing rail and air gateways rather than replace them. Its precise route, operating frequency, fares and stops would be determined through consultation and a pilot study.

1.2 Statement of the research problem

The principal problem is the potential mismatch between the visitor's need for a coordinated pilgrimage itinerary and the availability of dependable, accessible and clearly communicated local transport services.

The magnitude of this problem remains unquantified because the source material does not contain primary survey observations, passenger counts, audited operating costs or measured travel-time comparisons. Establishing this baseline is therefore an essential first stage of the research.

2. Research Objectives

The study has six objectives:

To identify the transport and journey-planning difficulties experienced by pilgrims and tourists travelling between Haridwar and Rishikesh.

To evaluate the potential relationship between integrated transport services and visitor satisfaction.

To assess the importance of accessibility, sanitation, punctuality, safety and transparent fares.

To develop a statistical framework for evaluating a six-month mobility-circuit pilot.

To identify ways of involving local food vendors, guides and small businesses in the tourism value chain.

To develop policy recommendations that balance tourism development with environmental sustainability, traffic management and religious sensitivity.

3. Research Questions

RQ1: What transport and itinerary-coordination problems do visitors encounter?

RQ2: Is the availability of a coordinated transport service associated with higher visitor satisfaction?

RQ3: Which service characteristics are most strongly associated with visitor satisfaction and willingness to reuse the service?

RQ4: Can scheduled transport improve accessibility without creating excessive congestion or additional environmental pressure?

RQ5: How can local businesses participate in the circuit, and how should their economic contribution be measured?

4. Research Hypotheses

The following hypotheses are proposed for empirical testing. They are not reported findings.

Code	Null hypothesis
H01	Integrated transport availability is not associated with overall visitor satisfaction.
H02	There is no significant difference in visitor satisfaction before and after introduction of the pilot.
H03	Accessibility requirements are not associated with visitor satisfaction.
H04	Punctuality, safety perceptions, sanitation and fare transparency have no statistically significant relationship with overall satisfaction.
H05	Pilot introduction produces no measurable improvement in journey-planning convenience relative to a suitable comparison group.

The alternative hypotheses would test for the relevant association or difference. Directional hypotheses may be specified in advance if the final research protocol justifies them.

5. Review of the Case and Conceptual Framework

5.1 Integrated pilgrimage mobility

The source case proposes a scheduled circuit linking selected transport gateways, accommodation locations, religious destinations and Rishikesh attractions. The service would offer an organized alternative to planning every journey independently.

The main theoretical proposition is that service integration can reduce the coordination burden faced by visitors. Whether it actually does so depends on route coverage, frequency, reliability, affordability and the quality of passenger information.

5.2 Accessibility and service quality

The proposed service includes low-step or lift-equipped vehicles where feasible, priority seating, space for mobility aids, clear route information, trained staff and emergency procedures.

These characteristics can be converted into measurable variables, including boarding difficulty, perceived safety, punctuality, comfort, satisfaction and intention to reuse the service.

5.3 Local economic participation

Designated meal stops and transparent vendor-selection procedures could create business opportunities for restaurants, small food outlets, guides and self-help groups. Economic benefits should be assessed using actual transactions, local procurement, paid working hours and business participation rather than assumed from passenger numbers alone.

5.4 Sustainability and carrying capacity

The source case emphasizes that a transport service should not simply maximize passenger volume. It must account for traffic, crowding at sensitive religious sites, sanitation, waste and the environmental consequences of additional vehicle journeys.

The conceptual framework is:

Transport integration, service reliability, accessibility, safety, sanitation and fare transparency → visitor convenience and satisfaction → possible repeat use and local economic activity.

Traffic congestion, operating cost, weather, seasonal demand and crowd-management restrictions may influence these relationships.

6. Research Methodology

6.1 Research design

The study adopts a proposed mixed-method case-study design combining:

A structured visitor survey.

Interviews with tourism and transport stakeholders.

Operational records from the pilot.

Economic data from participating local businesses.

Environmental and accessibility audits.

Before-and-after comparisons, supported by a comparison route or group where feasible.

The design is prospective: data must be collected after approval and implementation of the pilot.

6.2 Study area

The proposed geographical scope includes selected locations in Haridwar and Rishikesh, subject to permission and feasibility:

Haridwar railway station or designated bus terminal.

Selected accommodation and spiritual centres, including Shantikunj where appropriate.

Approved temple and ghat locations.

Har Ki Pauri, subject to local crowd-management and access arrangements.

Selected Rishikesh religious and cultural locations.

Confirmed operational return points.

The exact locations and stopping arrangements must be finalized with local authorities. The operating status of bridges and other attractions must be checked before advertising any route.

6.3 Population and sampling

The target population consists of adult pilgrims and tourists visiting the study area, along with relevant transport, tourism, accommodation and local-business stakeholders.

For planning purposes, a visitor survey target of approximately 400 completed responses is proposed. This is a research target, not an existing sample.

A conventional large-population sample-size calculation at 95% confidence, 5% absolute precision and an assumed proportion of 0.50 gives:

n = Z² × p × (1 − p) / e²

Where:

Z = 1.96

p = 0.50

e = 0.05

The calculated sample is approximately 384 respondents. A target of 400 usable responses provides a modest allowance for planning, although it does not guarantee representativeness. The final design should account for non-response, clustering by location and time, seasonal variation and subgroup analysis.

A stratified sampling plan should cover different visitor types, age groups, travel modes and trip purposes. Stakeholder interviews could initially target 20–30 participants, with the final number determined by coverage and the adequacy of qualitative evidence.

6.4 Data sources

Data category	Required evidence
Primary visitor data	Travel mode, journey time, transport expenditure, satisfaction and accessibility experience
Operational data	Departures, arrivals, passenger counts, occupancy, cancellations and complaints
Business data	Participating vendors, verified sales, local procurement and paid employment
Environmental data	Fuel or energy consumption, waste per trip and vehicle-kilometres
Policy and administrative data	Approved routes, access restrictions, tourism policies and applicable funding rules

Secondary information should be cited with its original publication, issuing organization and date. No unverified national export, tourism-revenue or passenger-demand figures should be introduced as study results.

6.5 Survey instrument

A five-point Likert scale is proposed for satisfaction measures:

1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neither agree nor disagree
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly agree

Example items include:

The route information is easy to understand.

The service is punctual.

The fare is transparent and affordable.

Boarding and alighting are convenient.

The service feels safe.

Sanitation facilities are adequate.

The itinerary makes it easier to combine Haridwar and Rishikesh visits.

I would consider using the service again.

Respondents should also be asked about their actual travel experience. Non-users must not be asked to evaluate service performance as though they had used the service.

7. Statistical Analysis Framework

7.1 Descriptive statistics

Frequencies, percentages, means, medians and standard deviations should describe visitor profiles, transport modes, trip duration, expenditure and satisfaction.

For a categorical indicator:

Percentage = (Number in category / Total valid responses) × 100

For example, if 160 of 400 respondents report using a designated circuit bus, the observed share would be 40%. This is only an illustration of the calculation, not a forecast or a result from this study.

7.2 Reliability analysis

Where several questionnaire items measure the same construct, internal consistency may be examined using Cronbach's alpha:

α = [k / (k − 1)] × [1 − (sum of item variances / variance of the total score)]

Here, k is the number of items in the scale.

Alpha should be interpreted alongside item quality and dimensionality. A high alpha alone does not establish that the questionnaire measures a valid or single construct.

7.3 Hypothesis-testing methods

Research question	Proposed statistical method	Main result
Is integrated transport associated with satisfaction?	Chi-square test for categorical measures; regression where appropriate	Association and significance
Does satisfaction change after introduction?	Paired t-test for the same respondents; otherwise independent-sample or adjusted analysis	Mean change and confidence interval
Which service factors explain satisfaction?	Multiple linear regression or ordinal logistic regression, depending on outcome measurement	Coefficients and uncertainty
Does the pilot outperform a comparison route?	Difference-in-differences, if its assumptions are credible	Estimated relative change
Are satisfaction scales internally consistent?	Cronbach's alpha, followed by factor analysis if justified	Scale reliability and structure
Do outcomes vary by visitor group?	ANOVA or an appropriate non-parametric alternative	Differences between groups

A p-value should not be treated as a measure of practical importance. Report effect sizes, confidence intervals, sample sizes and assumptions alongside significance tests. The analysis plan should be finalized before examining the results.

7.4 Multiple regression model

A proposed model for an overall satisfaction score is:

Satisfaction = β₀ + β₁(Punctuality) + β₂(Accessibility) + β₃(Safety) + β₄(Sanitation) + β₅(Fare transparency) + β₆(Information quality) + β₇(Visitor characteristics) + ε

The dependent variable and estimator must match the scale used. If satisfaction is treated as an ordinal outcome, ordinal logistic regression may be more appropriate than ordinary least squares. Diagnostics should examine multicollinearity, residual behavior and model fit where relevant.

Regression coefficients indicate adjusted associations; they do not, by themselves, prove that a service feature caused higher satisfaction.

8. Proposed Pilot Performance Indicators

The following table provides an operational measurement framework. Baselines and numerical targets should be established after preliminary data collection and stakeholder consultation.

Indicator	Measurement	Evaluation purpose
Passenger occupancy	Passenger trips / Available passenger capacity	Assess demand and utilization
On-time performance	Departures within the defined tolerance / Total scheduled departures	Measure reliability
Average journey time	Actual recorded minutes per route	Compare travel efficiency
Visitor satisfaction	Mean score and response distribution	Assess perceived service quality
Accessibility compliance	Requirements passed / Requirements audited	Check inclusive design
Complaint rate	Valid complaints per 1,000 passenger trips	Monitor service issues
Toilet availability	Operational inspection hours / Scheduled service hours	Assess sanitation reliability
Local vendor participation	Number of verified active vendors	Measure participation
Local economic benefit	Verified local sales, procurement and paid work	Assess economic contribution
Waste intensity	Kilograms of waste per passenger trip	Track environmental pressure
Vehicle energy intensity	Fuel or energy consumed per passenger-kilometre	Assess operational efficiency
Modal shift	Change in private-vehicle trip share against baseline or comparison	Assess whether the service replaces or adds trips

No numerical outcome should be reported until the relevant denominator, observation period and data source are documented.

9. Six-Month Pilot Evaluation Plan

Phase	Activities	Output
Month 1	Stakeholder consultation, route validation, safety checks and baseline design	Approved operating and research plan
Month 2	Baseline visitor survey and initial business and traffic measurements	Baseline dataset
Months 3–4	Pilot operation and routine performance monitoring	Interim operational dataset
Month 5	Follow-up survey, accessibility audit and vendor assessment	Follow-up dataset
Month 6	Statistical analysis, stakeholder review and reporting	Pilot evaluation and scale-up decision

The pilot should publish a report covering passenger experience, operational reliability, costs, local business participation, accessibility and environmental outcomes. A comparison route or a comparable non-pilot group should be used where feasible to distinguish the service's effect from seasonal or wider changes in tourism.

10. Governance and Implementation

The proposed governance model involves Uttarakhand tourism and transport authorities, local administrations, relevant religious-site authorities and selected professional or cooperative operators.

Government participation would not necessarily require direct operation of every bus. Operators could be selected through transparent contracts that specify vehicle standards, fare disclosure, passenger safety, cleaning, accessibility, complaints handling and performance reporting.

The Government of India's PRASHAD scheme is identified in the source case as a possible policy context for pilgrimage infrastructure. However, eligibility, current scheme provisions and approval for this particular circuit must be verified before any funding is assumed.

A phased implementation is preferable:

Validate demand and approved stops.

Conduct safety, traffic and carrying-capacity assessments.

Establish route schedules, fare arrangements and vendor-selection criteria.

Procure or contract suitable vehicles.

Run the pilot and independently evaluate the results.

Expand only if measured benefits justify the cost and risks.

11. Risk Analysis

Risk	Potential consequence	Proposed mitigation
Low passenger demand	Operating losses and underused vehicles	Start with a limited timetable and adjust using actual demand
Traffic congestion	Longer journeys and local disruption	Coordinate stops, dispatch and peak-day operations
Poor toilet maintenance	Hygiene problems and passenger dissatisfaction	Fund cleaning, servicing and waste disposal explicitly
Religious-site overcrowding	Safety concerns and disruption of rituals	Coordinate with site authorities and limit stopping times
Exclusion of local operators	Reduced livelihood opportunities and resistance	Use transparent participation and consultation procedures
Inaccurate schedules	Missed connections and complaints	Provide verified updates and avoid guaranteed train or flight connections
Environmental damage	More emissions, traffic and waste	Measure vehicle-kilometres, modal shift, energy use and waste
Inadequate accessibility	Exclusion of older people and disabled visitors	Conduct accessibility audits and involve affected users in testing

12. Discussion

The case suggests that the principal innovation is not simply the introduction of a bus equipped with additional facilities. It is the coordination of transport, passenger information, religious-site access, sanitation, accessibility and local business participation within a measurable service framework.

The proposal's value depends on three conditions. First, there must be sufficient demand for a scheduled circuit. Second, operational design must accommodate local traffic, crowd management and religious practices. Third, measurable improvements in passenger experience and local economic participation must justify the financial and environmental costs.

The proposed statistical framework makes these conditions testable. Descriptive analysis establishes the baseline, reliability analysis assesses survey scales, regression identifies relevant service-quality associations, and before-and-after or comparison-group analysis examines changes following implementation.

Until such evidence is collected, the circuit should be regarded as a policy proposal with a testable research design, rather than an established successful intervention.

13. Conclusion

The proposed Haridwar–Rishikesh Pilgrimage Mobility Circuit offers a framework for coordinating rail and air arrivals with selected religious destinations, accessible buses, verified visitor information and local food services.

Its potential advantages include easier itinerary planning, improved accessibility and new opportunities for participating local businesses. Its potential disadvantages include operating costs, additional traffic, sanitation challenges and pressure on sensitive religious locations.

A carefully governed six-month pilot would provide a practical basis for deciding whether the model should be modified, expanded or discontinued. The decision should rely on documented passenger demand, statistical evidence, transparent costs, community consultation and environmental safeguards.

The principal research conclusion is therefore conditional: an integrated pilgrimage mobility service merits evaluation, but its effectiveness and economic viability must be established through measured outcomes rather than assumed in advance.

References and source documentation

The initial case draft provides the basis for the proposed service model, route considerations, policy framing and pilot-evaluation approach. The final publication should add complete bibliographic details for each source actually consulted.

The following source categories should be verified and documented before submission:

Government of Uttarakhand — applicable Tourism Policy and associated implementation documents.

Ministry of Tourism, Government of India — current PRASHAD scheme guidelines and approved-project information.

Relevant district administration and tourism authorities — official visitor information and site-access restrictions.

Relevant transport and local-government authorities — route, mobility, traffic and safety information.

Primary research dataset — questionnaire, sampling records, codebook and statistical output, once collected.

No completed survey dataset, statistical test output or verified operating-cost dataset was supplied with the initial case. Consequently, this paper does not report empirical significance levels, measured causal effects or actual pilot results.

Appendix A. Proposed visitor questionnaire

Section A: Visitor profile

Age group.

Place of residence.

Purpose of visit.

Group size and travel companions.

Length of stay.

Section B: Journey characteristics

Arrival mode: rail, road, air or other.

Local transport modes used.

Number of planned destinations.

Actual journey duration and transport expenditure.

Difficulties encountered while finding transport.

Section C: Service evaluation

Rate each statement from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree):

Route information is clear.

Travel arrangements are convenient.

Transport is punctual.

Fares are transparent.

The journey feels safe.

Boarding facilities are accessible.

Sanitation arrangements are adequate.

Meal-stop arrangements are convenient.

The service helps coordinate Haridwar and Rishikesh visits.

I would use the service again.

Section D: Open-ended feedback

What is the most difficult part of your journey?

Which facility should be improved first?

What additional safeguards or services would you recommend?

The questionnaire should be piloted for clarity, translated where needed and administered with informed consent. Accessibility-related questions should be optional and designed to protect respondent privacy.

Appendix B. Statistical reporting template

After the survey is completed, the final report should contain:

Respondent profile and valid sample size.

Missing-data assessment.

Frequencies and descriptive statistics for each indicator.

Reliability statistics for multi-item scales.

Cross-tabulations and appropriate hypothesis tests.

Regression coefficients, standard errors, confidence intervals and model diagnostics.

Before-and-after results and, if feasible, comparison-group estimates.

Operational, economic and environmental indicators.

Limitations, reproducible calculation methods and the anonymized dataset where ethical and legal conditions permit.

Appendix C. Statistical Analysis Using Published Tourism Data and the Proposed Haridwar–Rishikesh Mobility Circuit

Study: A Pilgrimage Mobility Circuit for Haridwar and Rishikesh
Author: Dr Mamta Vyas
Data reference period: 2021–2025, with destination-level composition for 2024
Method: Secondary-data analysis, descriptive statistics and year-on-year growth analysis

C1. Tourism demand and visitor characteristics

Table C1A. Recorded tourist visits to Uttarakhand and Haridwar, 2021–2025

Year	Uttarakhand: total visits	Haridwar: total visits	Haridwar share of state total
2021	20,018,115	12,718,441	63.53%
2022	53,981,338	34,259,407	63.47%
2023	59,636,601	37,071,502	62.16%
2024	59,550,277	34,936,724	58.67%
2025	60,321,194	34,249,380	56.78%

Sources: Uttarakhand Tourism Development Board's destination statistics for 2021–2023 and 2024, and the Uttarakhand government's 3 February 2026 tourism announcement for 2025. <Cite refs={["turn165032search23","turn821711view1","turn821711view2"]}/>

Note: The figures represent officially reported tourist visits/arrivals, not necessarily unique individuals. The series is presented as published; differences in reporting and counting methods should be checked before drawing conclusions about long-term changes.

Statistical analysis

The year-on-year growth rate is calculated as:

Growth rate (%) = [(Current-year visits − Previous-year visits) / Previous-year visits] × 100

Year	Haridwar growth	Uttarakhand growth
2022	+169.37%	+169.66%
2023	+8.21%	+10.48%
2024	−5.76%	−0.14%
2025	−1.97%	+1.29%

Interpretation: Reported tourism visits to Haridwar increased sharply between 2021 and 2022, followed by further growth in 2023. They declined in both 2024 and 2025. Meanwhile, the state's total visits recovered slightly in 2025. Haridwar's share of reported state visits decreased from 63.53% in 2021 to 56.78% in 2025.

This pattern provides a reason to investigate changing visitor itineraries, travel modes and seasonal demand. It does not, by itself, demonstrate that transport deficiencies caused the decline or that the proposed bus circuit would reverse it.

Table C1B. Haridwar and Rishikesh visitor composition, 2024

Destination	Indian visits	Foreign visits	Total visits	Foreign share
Haridwar	34,912,520	24,204	34,936,724	0.07%
Rishikesh	964,036	4,857	968,893	0.50%
Combined recorded visits	35,876,556	29,061	35,905,617	—

Source: Uttarakhand Tourism Development Board, Tourist Statistics of Major Tourist Destinations, Year 2024. <Cite refs={["turn821711view1"]}/>

Interpretation: Both destinations recorded substantial domestic tourism, while Rishikesh had a higher foreign-visitor proportion than Haridwar. A coordinated circuit could therefore investigate the information, language and itinerary needs of both domestic and international visitors. The combined total must not be interpreted as unique people because the same traveller may visit both destinations.

The published destination table does not provide the age, gender, length of stay, pilgrimage purpose or individual transport mode of visitors. Those characteristics cannot be calculated from these totals.

C2. Transport experience and journey characteristics

The published tourism totals establish the scale of visitor activity, but they do not provide individual journey records.

Indicator	Actual value available from the cited destination statistics	Research implication
Annual recorded Haridwar visits, 2024	34,936,724	Establishes destination demand
Annual recorded Rishikesh visits, 2024	968,893	Establishes destination demand
Average visitor journey time	Not reported in the cited tables	Collect timed journey observations
Average local transport expenditure	Not reported	Collect passenger expenditure data
Average number of transfers	Not reported	Record each journey leg
Proportion reporting difficulty finding transport	Not reported	Measure through a structured survey
Bus occupancy and punctuality	No proposed-circuit operating records available	Measure during the pilot

Statistical treatment: Once actual passenger observations are collected, report the mean and standard deviation for journey time and expenditure, the median and interquartile range where distributions are skewed, and frequencies for transport modes and reported difficulties.

It would be incorrect to infer journey times, fares or transport difficulties directly from annual tourist-arrival counts.

C3. Service-quality scale and reliability

No completed passenger questionnaire or individual satisfaction responses were supplied for this study. Consequently, actual item means, standard deviations and Cronbach's alpha cannot yet be calculated.

The following table specifies the empirical results to be calculated from the collected survey.

Service-quality variable	Measurement	Actual result
Punctuality	Five-point satisfaction rating	Not available
Fare transparency	Five-point satisfaction rating	Not available
Safety	Five-point satisfaction rating	Not available
Accessibility	Five-point satisfaction rating	Not available
Sanitation	Five-point satisfaction rating	Not available
Route information	Five-point satisfaction rating	Not available
Overall satisfaction	Five-point satisfaction rating	Not available
Scale reliability	Cronbach's alpha	Not calculable without respondent-level data

The tourism statistics in C1 cannot substitute for individual survey responses. Cronbach's alpha requires the response patterns across the relevant questionnaire items for each respondent.

C4. Hypothesis testing

The published destination totals support descriptive trend analysis, but not the original hypotheses about satisfaction, accessibility, service quality or the effects of the proposed circuit.

Hypothesis	Required data	Result using available data
H01: Integrated transport is not associated with satisfaction	Transport use and satisfaction for individual respondents	Not testable
H02: Satisfaction does not change after the pilot	Comparable baseline and follow-up survey responses	Not testable
H03: Accessibility is not associated with satisfaction	Accessibility measures and satisfaction responses	Not testable
H04: Service-quality factors have no relationship with satisfaction	Individual service-quality ratings and satisfaction	Not testable
H05: The pilot does not improve journey-planning convenience	Before-and-after observations and a suitable comparison group, where feasible	Not testable

No chi-square statistics, t-statistics, degrees of freedom, p-values, effect sizes or confidence intervals are reported because the necessary observations are unavailable.

The year-on-year growth percentages in C1 are valid descriptive calculations from the published counts. They are not hypothesis tests of the proposed circuit's effectiveness.

C5. Regression analysis

The proposed regression model examines whether service characteristics are associated with overall visitor satisfaction.

Satisfaction = β₀ + β₁(Punctuality) + β₂(Accessibility) + β₃(Safety) + β₄(Sanitation) + β₅(Fare transparency) + β₆(Information quality) + ε

Regression output	Status
Dependent-variable observations	Not available
Predictor observations	Not available
Regression coefficients	Not estimable
Standard errors	Not estimable
Confidence intervals	Not estimable
R-squared or pseudo-R-squared	Not estimable
Significance tests	Not available

Interpretation: The annual tourism series cannot estimate these regression coefficients because it contains aggregate destination counts, not passenger-level service-quality variables. The model should be estimated only after the visitor survey has been completed and its data validated.

C6. Pilot performance and before-and-after evaluation

No operational records for an implemented Haridwar–Rishikesh mobility circuit were supplied or identified in the sources used for this appendix. Accordingly, actual pilot improvements cannot be reported.

Performance indicator	Baseline	Follow-up	Estimated change
Average journey time	To be measured	To be measured	Not yet calculable
On-time performance	To be measured	To be measured	Not yet calculable
Passenger occupancy	To be measured	To be measured	Not yet calculable
Overall satisfaction	To be measured	To be measured	Not yet calculable
Complaint rate	To be measured	To be measured	Not yet calculable
Accessibility compliance	To be audited	To be audited	Not yet calculable
Toilet availability	To be recorded	To be recorded	Not yet calculable

The 2024–2025 Haridwar tourism figures should not be used as a substitute for pilot results: they describe destination-level tourism volumes, not outcomes measured before and after a particular transport intervention.

For a credible evaluation, collect baseline data before launch, record operational performance throughout the pilot, and repeat passenger surveys. If a sufficiently comparable route or group is available, consider a difference-in-differences design, subject to its assumptions.

C7. Local economic and environmental outcomes

The published visitor counts do not disclose sales by participating food vendors, local procurement, employment attributable to the circuit, vehicle energy consumption or waste generated by its operations.

Indicator	Data required	Current empirical status
Participating local vendors	Verified vendor register	Not available
Vendor sales	Actual transaction records	Not available
Local procurement	Audited expenditure records	Not available
Paid employment	Verified employment and working-hour records	Not available
Waste per passenger trip	Weighed waste and passenger counts	Not available
Energy per passenger-kilometre	Fuel or electricity consumption and passenger-kilometres	Not available
Change in private-vehicle use	Comparable baseline and follow-up mode-share data	Not available

Economic benefits should be measured through verified transactions and employment records rather than estimated by multiplying visitor totals by an assumed spending amount. Similarly, environmental benefits should be established through actual fuel or energy use, waste records and evidence of whether bus passengers shifted from private vehicles or generated additional journeys.

Overall statistical conclusion

The available official statistics establish that Haridwar is a major tourism destination and that Rishikesh also receives substantial visitor traffic. They provide a factual basis for studying the potential need for better coordination between the two destinations.

However, the available data do not establish the effectiveness, financial viability or passenger-satisfaction impact of the proposed mobility circuit. Those questions require a primary visitor survey and operational data from a properly monitored pilot.

This distinction strengthens the academic credibility of the paper: the destination-level analysis uses published figures, while unmeasured service outcomes are reserved for subsequent empirical testing

Sources for Appendix C

Uttarakhand Tourism Development Board, Tourist Statistics of Major Tourist Destinations, Year 2024. Official 2024 destination statistics.

Uttarakhand Tourism Development Board, Tourist Statistics of Major Tourist Destinations, 2021–2023. Official 2021–2023 destination statistics.

Uttarakhand Information and Public Relations Department, 3 February 2026, tourism statistics for 2025. Official department website.