TREN PENELITIAN PENDIDIKAN IPA

Prof. Dr. Agus Ramdani, M.Sc

TOPIK DISERTASI:

Pengembangan Bahan Ajar Pembelajaran IPA Konstekstual Berbasis

Ekowisata Untuk Meningkatkan Kemampuan Literasi Sains Melalui Model
Pembelajaran INoSiT (Integrated Nature of Science in Inquiry with
Tehnology) Pada Siswa SMP Sekitar Kawasan Kek Mandalika Pulau
Lombok

JUDUL KAJIAN (JURNAL SCOPUS)

1. Development strategy for ecotourism management based on feasibility analysis of

tourist attraction objects and perception of visitors and local communities
2. Analysis of suitability and carrying capacity of mangrove ecosystem for ecotourism
in Lembar Village, West Lombok District, Indonesia
3. Environment carrying capacity and willingness to pay for bird-watching ecotourism
in Kerandangan Natural Park, Lombok, Indonesia
4. Ecotourism in Indonesia: Local Community Involvement and The Affecting Factors
5. Ecotourism Policy Research Trends in Indonesia, Japan, and Australia
6. Model Development of A Synergistic Sustainable Marine Ecotourism—A Case Study
in Pangandaran Region, West Java Province, Indonesia
7. Ecotourism as a Resource Sharing Strategy: Case Study of Community-Based
Ecotourism at the Tangkahan Buffer Zone of Leuser National Park, Langkat District,
North Sumatra, Indonesia
8. Ecotourism as a Resource Sharing Strategy: Case Study of Community-Based
Ecotourism at the Tangkahan Buffer Zone of Leuser National Park, Langkat District,
North Sumatra, Indonesia
9. Ecotourism as a Resource Sharing Strategy: Case Study of Community-Based
Ecotourism at the Tangkahan Buffer Zone of Leuser National Park, Langkat District,
North Sumatra, Indonesia
10. A Longitudinal Study of the Local Community Perspective on Ecotourism
Development in Lombok, Indonesia
B I OD IV E R S ITA S ISSN: 1412-033X
Volume 21, Number 2, February 2020 E-ISSN: 2085-4722
Pages: 689-698 DOI: 10.13057/biodiv/d210235

Development strategy for ecotourism management based on feasibility

analysis of tourist attraction objects and perception of visitors and local
communities

SUGENG P. HARIANTO, NISKAN WALID MASRURI, GUNARDI DJOKO WINARNO,

MACHYA KARTIKA TSANI, TRIO SANTOSO
Department of Forestry, Faculty of Agriculture, Universitas Lampung. Jl. Soemantri Brodjonegoro No. 1, Bandar Lampung 35144, Lampung, Indonesia.
Tel./fax.: +62-721-770347.  email: niskanoke@gmail.com

Manuscript received: 16 October 2019. Revision accepted: 22 January 2020.

Abstract. Harianto SP, Masruri NW, Winarno GD, Tsani MK, Santoso T. 2020. Development strategy for ecotourism management
based on feasibility analysis of tourist attraction objects and perception of visitors and local communities. Biodiversitas 21: 689-698.
Liwa Botanic Gardens (LBG), Lampung, Indonesia ecotourism development must be carried out as an effort to develop nature tourism
with the most careful consideration in its management, without temporary benefits orientation, and the doers must have benchmarks in
the process of sustainable development so that the next generation can utilize it in their time. This study aims to determine the
management conditions and potential of Tourist Attraction Object (TAO) that have been operating — knowing the perceptions of
tourists and local people. The method used is (i) scoring; (ii) assessing the perception of satisfaction of tourists and local people; (iii)
doing intensive interviews with area managers and community leaders; (iv) identifying problems using the SWOT matrix; (v)
constructing a development strategy. Data collection techniques with accidental sampling method with a total of 130 respondents based
on tourist visits at the time of the study. The management of the LBG was previously managed by the Forestry Service until 2016, and
in 2017 the management was handed over to the West Lampung Research and Development Agency (Balitbang). The results showed
that overall, TAO gets a feasibility rating to be developed. The perception of tourists is quite satisfied with the attractions offered and
the services of the manager. The community is satisfied with the ongoing management. The community wants are always to be involved
in the development process. Researchers give advice on the examination of the management and marketing system in introducing the
LBG to increase local and foreign tourist visitors.

Keywords: Ecotourism, LBG, Liwa Botanic Gardens, Tourist Attraction Object

INTRODUCTION At present, the community around the LBG area is not

As one of the provinces with high tourism potential,
Lampung Tourism Department has also determined seven
regions that are Lampung Tourism Strategic Leading
Areas. The seven regions consist of Bandar Lampung City,
Way Kambas National Park, Krui and Tanjung Setia
Beach, Kiluan Bay, Bakauheni and Siger Tower, Krakatau
Mountain and Sebesi Island, and Bukit Barisan Selatan
National Park (TNBBS). One of the attractions in the Bukit
Barisan mountains is Liwa Botanic Gardens (LBG).
LBG is located in Kubu Perahu village, Balik Bukit
Sub-district, West Lampung District. LBG has an area of
86 ha, which was inaugurated in 2017 with the theme of
Indonesian Ornamental Plants. As a new tourist attraction,
LBG has many aspects that need to be developed. The
development of tourism destinations can be seen from a
number of major issues, namely: (i) climate change and
natural disasters, (ii) availability of connectivity and
infrastructure that are not optimal yet; (iii) community
readiness around tourism destinations that is not optimal;
and (iv) ease of investment that is still not optimal yet
(Kemenpar 2015). In terms of the problems in the LBG
area, it still has to be developed in infrastructure,
surrounding communities and investment in tourist areas.
directly involved in its management. However, a
persuasive approach is still taken to provide an
understanding of the importance of the presence of LBG in
this region. There is still a need for collaboration with
several scientific disciplines (such as the private sector and
the community around the area) to realize a focused and
integrated development concept, especially which is
oriented to the potential characteristics of the region and
the ability to develop the region.
The development result of LBG tourism seems quite
attractive to tourists. This is can be seen from tourists
visiting number from 2017 (10,064 people) to 2018 (63,321
people). The increasing number of tourist arrivals in the
LBG makes it a lively tourist attraction, especially by those
who are interested in nature and photography.
Consequently, it is necessary to do a comprehensive
assessment with the aim to examine the potential of tourist
attraction objects (TAO) that need to be further developed.
Later, the values obtained from the valuation can be used
as valuable assets to collaborate with the private sector that
supports the development of LBGTAO.
The development of the attractiveness and extent of the
ecotourism area must be followed by consideration and or
fulfilling the demand from visitors or tourists. This is in
690 B I O D I V E R S ITA S 21 (2): 689-698, February 2020
line with the opinion of Suwarjdoko and Warpani (2007)
that the development of ecotourism must be really carried
out and must be more careful in its management, not
trapped or not prioritizing profits in a short time, but must
have a benchmark in the process of sustainable
development. In other words, the regeneration of the
nation's successors can benefit from the same natural
resources. Therefore, visitors' perceptions, especially
criticisms and suggestions as well as satisfaction levels are
also needed in strengthening the development of
ecotourism areas. Later, the data obtained will be used to
set the strategy in developing LBG TAO.
In addition, the development of the LBG tourist area is
inseparable from its location on the ridge of the Bukit
Barisan mountain range. This area has the potential of
natural resources both biological and non-biological which
is quite high, and has complete ecosystem conditions
including coastal ecosystems, rain forest lowlands to the
mountainous rain forest. So, a special strategy is needed for
the development of tourism in the surrounding area without
disturbing the ecosystem and forest sustainability in the
Bukit Barisan region.
The development of tourism is increasingly needed in
every tourist area, especially new tourist areas such as LBG
and it shows their existence and raises the level of
attractiveness that will attract tourist interest. In addition,
LBG's status as a botanical garden has a function as an ex-
situ conservation area with the theme of Indonesian
ornamental plants and is a representation of TNBBS
vegetation, which makes it a challenge for developing
strategies to evolve LBG tourism areas (Solihah 2015).
LBG must be able to develop strategies that are able to
accommodate the needs of tourists through facilities and
management of tourist areas and also the needs of the
surrounding community for the involvement in
management. In addition, the availability of the LBG must
not disturb the ecosystem around the forest.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This research takes place in the ecotourism area of Liwa
Botanic Gardens (LBG), West Lampung, Indonesia from
July to September 2019. The research method in this study
is a qualitative method with a case study approach. Using
this type of case of study research, this research intends to
provide a description of the development strategy of the
existence of the LBG ecotourism.
The research process includes several stages, from
preparation, field observation, investigation, and data
collection, data analysis, to compile the final report. While
the validity of the data using source triangulation,
triangulation of sources was carried out by comparing
observations obtained in the field with the results of
interviews, then the results of interviews were compared
with related documents according to the research field, so
that using triangulation of sources will direct researchers to
collect required data using various data sources available.
The research method in this study is the assessment of
tourist objects based on the Analysis of the Operating
Area-Natural Tourist Attraction Objects (AOA-NTAO)
Book (Sekartjakrarini and Soehartini 2003). The other
method interviews. In accordance with the opinion of
Meleong (2014) that the interview is a conversation with a
particular intention to get data that is consistent with the
reality in the field. The conversation is done by asking
questions called interviewers, and those who provide
answers to questions given by interviewers are called
(interviewees) (Moleong 2014). The interview was
conducted by giving several questions to the informants to
obtain a direct explanation and more accurate information
from the parties about the development strategy of
ecotourism management. To limit the answer from the
informant, the Likert scale is used. A Likert scale is a
psychometric scale commonly involved in research that
employs questionnaires. It is the most widely used
approach to scaling responses in survey research, such that
the term (or more accurately the Likert-type scale) is often
used interchangeably with rating scale, although there are
other types of rating scales.
Questionnaires were given to tourists and local
communities, aiming to find out their respective
perceptions of TAO and LBG management that are
currently underway. Total respondents were 130
respondents (tourists) based on data from the last five
months' visit (January-June 2019). Respondents were
interviewed and ask using accidental sampling. The
respondent was interview was actually obtained by chance
(Hendriyani 2018). Sampling is taken every day (except
Wednesday and Friday) at 8: 00 a.m.-10: 00 p.m. and 3: 00
p.m.-6: 00 p.m. for three months from July to September
2019. The timing of the data collection is based on the
average number of visits in the morning and evening.
Overall, the number of visits on a weekday is far less than
the number of visits on the weekend. This can be seen from
the number of managers in tourist sites. On a weekday, the
division of working hours (shift) is carried out, but on
weekend, all the managers are on standby at the tourist site.
The next step is to establish a strategy for developing
the TAO and the region as a whole by using a SWOT
analysis based on previously obtained data. A SWOT
analysis examines the existing internal factors (strengths,
weaknesses) and external (opportunities, threats). By
understanding the strengths, weaknesses, open
opportunities, and threats, development strategies that
include predetermined goals can be arranged. One model
used in compiling strategic factors is the SWOT matrix.
For more details, the SWOT matrix model can be seen in
Table 1. The results of the SWOT analysis can provide
strategic policies that can be done by local governments in
developing tourist attractions.
The collected data includes the potential, natural
beauty, and types of natural resources that are superior in
the tourism object of the LBG. Researchers obtained data
by observing/assessing directly in the field. Other criteria
observed by researchers are recreational activities,
environmental cleanliness, safety and comfort of the
location as well as the quality of management and services
of the staff of LBG tourism object. All of which the
researchers successfully obtained by conducting open
 HARIANTO et al. – Development strategy for ecotourism management
interviews with the manager of the object, the visitors of
the object tourism, related institutions, and the community
around tourism objects.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Management and Assessment of Attraction Objects of
Liwa Botanic Gardens (LBG) using AOA-NTAO
Development strategy for Liwa Botanic Gardens management
West Lampung has one of an excellent tourist
destination, namely the LBG, which is visited by many
tourists. The tourism object of the LBG, from the
beginning, was designated as a tourist attraction and
opened for the public. The visiting tourists are increasing
significantly from year to year. Various efforts have been
made by the management of the tourism area to increase
the number of tourists and to introduce the natural beauty
offered by LBG to the public. Some of the efforts that have
been carried out are improving current facilities and adding
more supporting facilities (attributes), providing excellent
services, and providing a web that contains information on
tourist destination objects, including profiles, history,
potential tourists, and images.
At present, the surrounding community is less directly
involved in its management. This is because the current
management has been arranged and determined by the
government and the parties concerned, so it is not easy to
recruit. There are only a few surrounding communities that
can benefit directly from the presence of this LBG, such as
selling food and drinks or as technical personnel in the
nursery. This is in accordance with the opinion of Jamal
and Stronza (2009), assert that involving the local
communities in tourism development within and around
protected areas is crucial in bridging the gap between
governance and use of the resources in a tourist destination.
Human Resources are all people who are directly
involved by giving ideas, energy, and thoughts to all the
potential found in the tourism business in order to achieve
welfare of life in a balanced and sustainable order. The
local community is tourist destination stakeholders who can be
empowered to form tourism awareness group (Pokdarwis)
so that all activities of tourists will be more directed in
carrying out development activities and preserving the
environment of attractions.
Assessment of attraction objects of Liwa Botanic Gardens
using AOA-NTAO Book
To assess the LBG TAO value, an analysis based on
ecotourism criteria and indicators is implemented using a
scoring method in accordance with a predetermined score
from each criterion. Later, the obtained data will be
analyzed using a SWOT analysis, which will be used to
develop strategies in developing LBG area management.
According to Karsudi et al. (2010), after comparison,
the feasibility index will be obtained in %. The TAO
eligibility index is as follows: (i) Feasibility level> 66.6%:
Eligible to be developed. (ii) Feasibility level 33.3%-
691
66.6%: Not yet feasible to be developed. (iii) Feasibility
level <33.3%: Not suitable to be developed.
Perception of tourist visitors and communities
Tourist perception
Perception is a person's process of determining,
organizing, and sharing information with the aim of
creating a meaningful world image (Rangkuti 2009).
The results of distributing questionnaires to tourists
were some collected data, then they were put together in
the form of tables and graphs. The data in question is the
tourist perceptions on the management of the area and the
attraction of LBG attractions. For more details, you can see
in table 3.
Local community perception
The perception of local communities towards
ecotourism destinations is needed for further development.
This is based on the ecotourism basis that the community
needs to be involved in the management process (planning,
monitoring, and evaluation). At its inception, the local
community was not interested in participating in the
management of attractions. However, by conducting a
persuasive approach, the local community began to
understand and support the LBG as a tourist destination. At
present, management always updates with the latest
information about developments and future plans in every
meeting with traditional leaders and surrounding
communities.
The local community considers that the LBG is indeed
a potential ecotourism destination, because of its beauty
and atmosphere. The community has begun to benefit from
tourist destinations such as selling food and drink that can
increase income to improve the community's economy. The
public wants to know more about the process of managing
the tourist area, including planning the development of
management strategies that will be carried out for the sake
of ecotourism preservation, which will be held regularly.
LBG zone management development strategy
Planning for the development of the LBG is based on a
TAO analysis. The results were obtained from the AOA-
NTAO book analysis survey and interviews with local
communities affiliated with the LBG and management.
Internal factors are Strengths and Weaknesses, while
external factors are Opportunities and Threats. The strength
analysis in question is the superiority of the LBG tourism
area in aspects of land use, eco-tourism potential, and the
policies and role of institutions. The weaknesses in
question are the conditions of management and policy,
environmental, and socio-economic aspects, which are seen
as hampering the LBG management program. The
opportunity in question is an external condition that can
bring benefits if it can take advantage of it.
Based on the identification of internal factors and
external factors, a SWOT matrix is developed. The SWOT
matrix for ecotourism development in LBG can be seen in
Table 1.
692 B I O D I V E R S ITA S 21 (2): 689-698, February 2020

Table. 1. SWOT matrix (Rangkuti 2014)

Internal factors
Strengths (S) Determine Internal
Strength Factors
External factors
Opportunities S (O) Determine External Strategi S-O Create strategies that use
opportunity factors power to take advantage of opportunities
Threats (T) Determine the threat factor Strategi S-T Create strategies that use
power to overcome threats
Weakness (W) Determine the Internal
Weakness factor
Strategi W-O Create strategies that
minimize weaknesses by exploiting
opportunities
Strategi W-T Create strategies to
minimize weaknesses and avoid threats

Table 2. Final results of evaluation of all aspects of Liwa Botanic Gardens TAO development, Lampung, Indonesia

Maximum
Criteria Score Weight Total score Index (%)
score
LBG Attraction 135 6 810 1080 75
LBG Market Potential 40 5 200 300 66.67
LBG Relations / Accessibility Levels 65 5 325 600 54.16
Conditions Around LBG 160 5 800 1050 76.19
LBG Management and Services 65 4 260 360 72.22
LBG climate 100 4 400 480 83.33
LBG Accommodation 20 3 60 90 66.67
LBG Visitor Facilities and Infrastructure 55 3 165 180 91.67
LBG Clean Water Availability 130 6 780 900 86.67
Relationship with Attractions Around the LBG 85 6 510 900 56.67
LBG Security 105 5 525 600 87.50
Carrying Capacity of LBG Regions 100 3 300 450 66.67
LBG Visitor Settings 20 3 60 90 66.67
LBG Marketing 15 3 45 90 50
LBG Market Share 70 3 210 270 77.78
Amount 1165 5450 7440 71.86

Min 15.00 45.00 90.00 50.00

Max 160.00 810.00 1080.00 91.67
Mean 77.67 363.33 496.00 71.86
SD 44.31489054 267.7730027 348.5439099 12.48243692
Sqrt 3.872983346 3.872983346 3.872983346 3.872983346
11.44205554 69.13869199 89.99365057 3.222951354
Average 77.67±11.44 363.33±69.14 496 ± 90 71.86 ± 3.22

Discussion so that the surrounding community can feel the benefits

Management and Assessment of Attraction Objects of
Liwa Botanic Gardens (LBG) using AOA-NTAO
Development strategy for Liwa Botanic Gardens management
The strategy for developing the management of the
LBG must-have benefits and they are for the surrounding
community. By involving the community to play an active
role in developing the management of the LBG directly, the
community can receive benefits, namely creating
community development funds, creating jobs in the tourism
sector, increasing community income, distributing profits
from the results of the LBG which are fairly divided. This
is in accordance with Dodds et al. (2016) research that
tourism business which involves the community if properly
developed can be one of the mechanisms to reduce poverty
and improve quality of life. Community participates can
promote the conservation of natural resources and increase
local benefits through participation in tourism activities
(Sebele 2010).In other words, the community must be
involved in the development strategy of managing the LBG
directly.
In the strategy of developing the management of the
LBG, it is necessary to take the right steps. This is in
accordance with the opinion of Godfrey and Clarke (2000)
that there are 3 steps that need to be done, namely (i).
Identify opportunities and constraints that occurred in the
LBG since it has been proclaimed as a tourist attraction. By
identifying various opportunities and constraints, it can be
used as an evaluation material to determine the next steps
and strategies to be taken to increase local and foreign
tourist visitors. (ii). Establish development goals and
objectives by addressing issues that require attention in the
short, medium, and long term. The manager of the LBG
must create goals, and targets that will be achieved both in
the short, medium, and long term. With certain goals to be
achieved, it can motivate the LBG's stakeholders to
improve this asset to be a better destination to visit. (iii).
Determine the steps and actions that will be taken to
achieve goals and objectives.
 HARIANTO et al. – Development strategy for ecotourism management 693

Table 3. Perception (satisfaction) of Liwa Botanic Gardens visitors, Lampung, Indonesia

Perception
Statement
0 VD NS FS P VS
A security post availability 0 2 21 82 13 12
Parking space availability 0 0 1 76 43 10
Road signs and directions availability 0 2 16 71 19 22
Regular placement of tourist facilities and infrastructure 1 7 15 24 81 2
Information and service center availability 2 2 3 46 69 8
Cleanliness and the physical condition of tourist facilities 0 0 2 58 61 9
Availability of sanitation facilities such as latrines and trash 3 17 38 52 15 5
The condition of the road network to attractions 2 14 28 38 41 7
Availability of transportation modes to tourist attractions 1 18 31 45 24 11
Availability of accommodation facilities such as hotels and inns 5 12 47 42 19 5
Easiness of reaching attraction places 6 25 19 68 9 3
Places to eat and drink 0 6 11 78 18 17
Availability of utilities such as electricity networks. clean water and communication 2 6 15 27 56 24
Affordable ticket costs 0 0 2 36 51 41
The beauty of natural attractions 1 19 43 62 5 0
The beauty of artificial attractions 1 8 29 34 41 17
A feeling of pleasure and at home feeling 3 7 9 61 34 16
Suitability for a gathering place with family or friends 1 4 3 35 55 32
The diversity of tourist attractions offered 2 22 47 43 15 1
The authenticity of natural attractions 2 23 34 55 16 0
The existence of distinctive regional art and cultural attractions 5 51 67 7 0 0
The existence of regional foods and drinks 1 7 15 37 49 21
The existence of unique souvenirs or the region typical souvenirs 2 11 29 59 18 11
Amount 40 263 525 1136 752 274
Percentage 1.34 8.80 17.56 37.99 25.15 9.16
Min 0.00 0.00 1.00 7.00 0.00 0.00
Max 6.00 51.00 67.00 82.00 81.00 41.00
Mean 1.74 11.43 22.83 49.39 32.70 11.91
SD 1.71 11.63 17.53 18.92 22.27 10.70
Sqrt 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80
0.36 2.43 3.66 3.95 4.64 2.23
Average 1.74±0.36 11.43±2.43 22.83±3.66 49.39±3.95 32.70±4.64 11.91±2.23
Note: Not Responding (0); Very Dissatisfied (VD); Not Satisfied (NS); Fairly Satisfied (FS); Satisfied (P); Very Satisfied (VS)

An ecotourism destination needs to be continuously
developed to increase the potential of tourism objects in it.
Therefore, it is necessary to plan the development of the
LBG tour so that it can be better than before. Three main
principles of sustainability development (McIntyre 1993):
(i) Ecological Sustainability, namely ensuring that
development is carried out in accordance with the
ecological, biological, and diversity of existing ecological
resources. (ii) Social and Cultural Sustainability, namely,
ensuring that the carried out development has a positive
impact on the lives of surrounding communities and is in
accordance with the culture and values practiced by the
community. (iii). Economic Sustainability, namely
ensuring that the carried out development is economically
efficient and that the resources can last for future needs. In
accordance with Pradika's explanation (2013), the strategy
for the development of management of the LBG as a tourist
attraction and as a tourist destination needs to be improved
and developed, namely a timely and appropriate strategy by
formulating a strategy for developing tourism objects by
using a SWOT analysis.
Assessment of attraction objects of Liwa Botanic Gardens
using AOA-NTAO Book
Based on information from Table 2, the feasibility
index for TAO LBG is 71.86%. The score indicates that
LBG is classified into ecotourism destinations that are
feasible to be developed. This can be a valuable asset that it
can get cooperation with the government and the private
sector in developing it into a full tourism destination. In
accordance with the statement of the Directorate General of
Tourism (1990), that tourism potential is a natural resource
that has a special attraction, naturally or artificially, for
every visitor both local tourists and foreign tourists, such as
cultivation. Another opinion, Attractions can be dramatic
natural wonders, quaint or bustling cities, pristine beaches,
historic landmarks or vibrant community festivals.
Destination attractions epitomize the essence of a place,
highlight its primary nature and identity, and are the core
determinants of destination's appeal, economic prosperity,
and competitiveness (Vengesayi et al. 2009).
694 B I O D I V E R S ITA S 21 (2): 689-698, February 2020

Table 4. SWOT factors

No. Opportunities No. Threats

Internal factors
External factors
No. Strengths
1 The high ecological and aesthetic 1. Maximize the promotion again through the
value of the region
2 Facilities and infrastructure that
are good enough to make it easy
for tourists.
3 Licensing mechanism and event 2. Empowering the stakeholders for the
registration can be done via the
internet, i.e., can be via e-mail
manager, an ecotourism blog
area, and contact person
management. Making it easier for
groups who want to carry out
activities in LBG.
No. Weakness
1 Variations in types of tourism
activities are limited so it can
make tourists saturated.
2 The intensive cooperation with
partners related to the promotion
and development of the region is
not maximal yet.
3 Signposts/signs are not enough.
This makes the first-time visitors
come to the LBG area confused.
4 Limited accessibility to the
region.
5 The location of the LBG is far
from the provincial capital and
the international airport.
1 The high interest of the general public to
travel nature. At present many urban
communities, in particular, are getting
bored with mass tourism activities.
2 The rapid development of various print
and electronic media is a great
opportunity to promote the LBG more
widely to the general public.
3 With the development of the LBG,
business opportunities are increasingly
available to reduce unemployment for the
surrounding community.
4 With access to the freeway (Toll), which
continues to be expanded by the
government, the access to the LBG is
easier
Strategi S-O
growing electronic media, such as by
showing the tourist attraction that is
available and clearer, as well as the tour
packages offered.
development of ecotourism and
environmental preservation
Strategi W-O
1. The development of types of tourism
activities can be drawn from the idea of
tourists and people who are increasingly
interested in developing the region.
2. The natural mountainous conditions can be
utilized by increasing the number of
managers in the security sector by
optimizing the existing local human
resources.
3. Adding signposts to the ecotourism area in
line with the raise of public interest in
ecotourism
4. By optimizing the promotion of the
tourism potential of the LBG, as the
general public interest in ecotourism gets
higher.
1 Lack of public or visitor awareness
in terms of cleanliness or improper
disposal of the rubbish.
2 Environmental degradation with the
increasing number of visitors
3 Safety and safety factors of visitors
with an increasing number of
visitors.
4 Liwa is famous for areas that are
vulnerable or frequently hit by
earthquakes.
Strategi S-T
1. Assuring the manager to provide
guidance and advice for visitors who
will enter the ecotourism area so they
will not litter, and a lot of trash bins are
available along the road.
2. Land use in accordance with the
potential of ecotourism to increase
economic contributions for managers
and the community.
3. Providing more maximum supervision,
especially to visitors who are in groups
and or there are many children or
women.
Strategi W-T
1. We are adding warning signs in the
area, regarding the importance of
maintaining cleanliness, plus facilities
such as adding trash bins in the
ecotourism area/path.
2. Improve road safety on the road
leading to tourist attraction so that it is
safer for visitors, especially children,
for example, by repairing muddy and
slippery roads.

One that tourists are looking from ecotourism attraction
is for unwinding with nature, sharing experiences,
knowledge experiences and real-life experience (Habibah
et al. 2012). The most important elements as a reference
that will be used as an attraction for an ecotourism area are
while Lee et al. (2010) identify four dimensions: tourist
attractions (natural resources, cultural assets), accessibility
(external access, internal access), amenities (lodging and
catering, recreation facilities), and complimentary services
(information services, safety, and sanitation).
The assessment of the potential objects and the
attractiveness of LBG Tourism is done by direct
observation after identifying the objects. Objects
considered potential will be recorded. The components
assessed from the LBG Tourism are the attractiveness of
the tourist sites, accessibility to reach the location, and
supporting facilities and infrastructure that support the
development of tourist sites. For more details on the
assessment of the object of ecotourism attractions are as
follows:
 HARIANTO et al. – Development strategy for ecotourism management
Attraction. The attractiveness of a tourist area location
is the main reason for visitors to visit tourist sites in order
to carry out tourism activities. The attraction of the LBG
attraction is interesting enough to attract the interest of
local and foreign visitors. The attraction can be in the form
of the uniqueness of prominent natural resources such as
the attraction of cleanliness, and comfort of tourist sites.
Each of these attractions has its respective values , and
these values indicate how strong an attraction can attract
the interest of visitors.
As one of the tourist destinations that offer the concept
of ecotourism, LBG plays an important role for nature-
based education and conservation. This is what makes
ecotourism different and gives its own charm compared to
other types of tourism (Aziz et al. 2017). In addition, the
same thing is stated by Cooper et al. (1998) who said that
there are several components of tourist attractions that can
attract tourist to come, namely, tourist attractions in the
form of nature, artificial (human work), culinary tourism or
the event of something that will attract the attention of
visitors.
Accessibility. Accessibility is an important factor that
must be considered to increase visitors’ number to LBG
tourist attraction. If there is no transportation network
access on a tourist attraction, visitors are not interested and
cannot visit to enjoy the natural tourist attraction. Good
transportation infrastructure and tourism development are
highly interrelated that without transportation tourism
planning and destination management are unthinkable
(Tamrat 2016). Whereas if a tourist attraction is difficult to
reach, tourists will not have an interest in visiting it
(WIseza 2017). Accessibility discusses distance, road
conditions, travel time from the city center and
transportation. LBG is located right in the center of the
capital city of West Lampung District. This is one of the
benefits of LBG, which is located right in the middle of the
city so that it is easy to find.
An assessment of the accessibility component results in
a dissatisfied value (Table 3). It is composed of the
elements of the condition of the road, the distance from the
city to the tourist attractions, the type of road, and the
duration of travel time. Access from the Capital City of
Lampung Province to West Lampung can cover a distance
of + 238 km with a travel time of about 4-5 hours. The
length of the trip is one of the obstacles causing the low
value of tourist satisfaction with accessibility, especially
distance from the city and duration of travel time.
However, for transportation, it can be considered sufficient
for tourists to visit the LBG. Transportation available from
Bandar Lampung to LBG is public transportation such as
buses or travel cars, or the visitors can use their own
motorcycle or cars to visit LBG.
Socio-economic environmental conditions. An
assessment of socio-economic and environmental
conditions is needed to support the potential market value.
Because environmental conditions make visitors
comfortable so they can enjoy the beauty of nature. The
results of the assessment of the socio-economic,
environmental conditions are quite satisfying, because
spatial planning is neat, comfortable, and safe. This proves
695
that the socio-economic, environmental conditions around
the LBG Tourism object have met the criteria of the
National Scale Standard Operating Procedures.
Tourism development cannot be separated from the
social environmental conditions around the tourist
environment. The tourism activities do not only have an
impact on the benefits of the local government, but the
surrounding community will also feel the impact. The
impact given by tourism activities is expected to have a
positive effect so that it can improve economic welfare and
reduce unemployment. The development of the tourist area
must be planned and directed to improve or enhance the
facilities, accessibility, and attractions of existing tourist
objects in a better and more beneficial direction so it will
increase the number of visiting tourists. In addition, there
should be attractions that are able to provide a benefit for
the surrounding community and local government
(Weidenfeld et al. 2010; Ram et al. 2016; Zorpas et al.
2018).
Communities can take advantage of the LBG
ecotourism by opening a business of trading, such as
selling local food crops, selling accessories, selling clothes
that are made as tourist attraction icons, and providing
services for tourists. The community will feel happy if the
Tourism object of the LBG can attract many tourists to visit
from all directions so that the welfare of the surrounding
community will also increase. Therefore, it is necessary to
do empowerment to the community with a local economic
empowerment program facilitated by the local government,
for example, by holding training for the community on
food processing or handicrafts making. Thus, it can create
new jobs and reduce the number of unemployed. The
existence of a tourist attraction has a significant positive
effect on labor (Guimarães et al. 2016; Li et al. 2016; Porto
and Espinola 2019), especially the community around a
tourist attraction.
Accommodation. Accommodation is one of the
infrastructure facilities that contribute to the tourist
attraction factor that is needed by visitors in tourist
locations, especially for visitors who are far from the
Tourism object of the LBG (2015). The elements assessed
by visitors are the number of lodgings and the number of
rooms within a 15 km radius of the LBG attraction. Field
observations and information obtained from community
leaders showed that accommodations on the surrounding
community are already inadequate. There are also those
who choose to set up a tent in the tourism object area of the
LBG or stay at a resident's home. The importance of this
accommodation stated by Medina-Muñoz et al. (2016) that
tourism accommodation is a basic element of the offer
given by a tourist destination. the existence of
accommodations contributes to the desire of tourists to
visit. the existence of accommodations in tourist
destinations has a positive effect on the sustainability of
these tourist destinations.
Supporting infrastructure. Infrastructure, according
to Rosadi (2015), is a tool or facility that can support to
facilitate and provide comfort for tourists who are enjoying
the natural beauty of the LBG ecotourism. The supporting
facilities and infrastructure that are around the tourist
696 B I O D I V E R S ITA S 21 (2): 689-698, February 2020
attraction of the LBG are considered within the range of 10
km square. Infrastructure facilities include the post office,
telephone network, health center, electricity network, and
drinking water network. Supporting facilities assessed are
restaurants, shopping centers/markets, banks, souvenir/
souvenir shops, and public transportation, so they need to
be provided by the local government. Means are one of the
factors that play an important role in attracting visitors and
supporting factors to facilitate visitors enjoying the
attraction of the LBG.
Availability of clean water. Clean water is a factor that
must be available in the development of a tourist site both
for management and services. The volume (adequacy) of
water at the location of the LBG is considered quite a lot.
In general, LBG water can be consumed directly, but a
simple treatment, such as boiling, is needed and the water
is always available throughout the year even during
drought. The distance of the water source to the location of
the object is very close (<1 km) and is very easy to flow. As a
human, tourist has a very important need for the existence
of clean water. Tourists will need clean water in their
tourism activities. The availability of clean water is very
much needed to support management facilities and tourism
services (Ariefianda et al. 2019; Khalifa and Bidaisee 2018).
Perception of tourist visitors and communities
The results revealed that in general, there were no
significant differences in the gender level of visitors (50%
male and 50% female). That's because the characteristics of
the LBG are good for male and female visitors, especially
young people. Table 2 shows the perception (satisfaction) of
visitors to the LBG. It reached the highest rate of 37.99%.
This score shows that the management of the tourism area
has been going well. However, some efforts to improve
facilities and quality in and around the area are still needed.
The following are the attributes or statements that get
the highest score based on the choice of respondents:
security post; regularity of placement of tourist facilities
and infrastructure; a place to eat and drink (stalls); vehicle
parking; and other statements that give a feeling of
satisfaction to visitors. However, there are several
statements from the table that are considered unsatisfactory
and need to be further developed, including typical cultural
arts attractions, diversity of tourist attractions offered; the
availability of accommodation facilities such as hotels or
inns; and the beauty of natural attractions.
Ecotourism will be better if it is enriched with artificial
attractions such as local cultural and cultural performances.
Because this addition will entertain visitors, visitors can
learn one form of Indonesian cultural diversity.
Furthermore, this show is a promotion of the government
program on the LBG, namely "Pesona Indonesia." Pesona
Indonesia is destinations advertisement from the
Indonesian Tourism Ministry. The purpose of this
advertisement is to promote domestic tourist destinations
that are very rich and beautiful. Indonesia has many
choices of tourist destinations like art and cultural tourism,
natural tourism, history to modern tourism in Indonesia
(Dzulyana et al. 2019). So, this step will also be
appropriate to attract the interest of tourists to enjoy natural
and cultural tourism in the LBG.
There are some visitors, especially those from afar, who
are a little disappointed with the tourist attractions
displayed by the LBG. The manager stated that currently
there are only a few attractions offered to tourists, but
based on the strategic plan of the LBG that the construction
of the LBG is still ongoing, some of which is the
construction of some artificial attractions such as ponds and
some children's playgrounds. So that in the foreseeable
future, there will be several new rides that will add the
diversity of tourist attractions as a whole. Then, another
statement that disappoints visitors is the beauty of its
natural attractions. Natural attractions that can be enjoyed
by visitors at this time are only the scenery and the
beautiful mountain atmosphere, whilst there are not many
big trees in the LBG. This is because the existing plants are
young plants, so they do not have a large and tall canopy.
LBG zone management development strategy
The development of tourist attractions is gradually
playing a crucial role in tourism economy, regional
economy and national economy (Luo 2014). The
formulation strategies that will be used to develop LBG
was done using the SWOT method based on the results of
data obtained from the AOA-TAO results that have been
carried out previously. The analysis was performed with
various LBG stakeholders' involvement, namely the
management, local communities, and researchers. Input
from local communities and management is needed so that
researchers could get the current condition of the LBG
from another perspective. Community involvement is also
intended to ensure the continuity of the existence of LBG
and to ensure the continued support from the surrounding
community on the development of LBG.
SWOT analysis is considered as the most appropriate
method chosen to determine the LBG development strategy
because this method has ability to determine the strengths
and weaknesses of the object of research (Khoiriyah et al.
2012). SWOT method is based on two tiers of analysis.
First step is to analyze the internal factors and the second
step is to analyze the external factors (Reihanian et al.
2012)with the assumption that an effective strategy will
maximize strengths and opportunities, while minimizing
weaknesses and threats (Rangkuti 2014). Internal factors
are Strengths and Weaknesses, while external factors are
Opportunities and Threats.
Strengths referred to the advantages possessed by the
LBG tourism area in the aspects of land use, ecotourism
potential and the policies and role of the institution. While
weaknesses are aspects of policies, environmental
conditions and socio-economic conditions that are seen as
hampering the LBG management program. Opportunity is
an external condition that can bring benefits if it can be
utilized. While threat is an external condition that can bring
harm if not managed properly. LBG development strategy
could be determined based on SFAS (Strategic Factors
Analysis Summary). The SFAS matrix summarizes
strategic factors by combining the external factors and the
internal factors from the EFAS Table (Abdul Rauf 2014).
 HARIANTO et al. – Development strategy for ecotourism management
Table 5. IFAS Matrix and EFAS LBG Development Strategy
EF
Strength Weaknesses
IF
Strategy (SO) Strategy (WO)
Opportunity
1.59+1.72 = 3.31 1.81+1.72 = 3.53
Strategy (ST) Strategy (WT)
Threat
1.59+1.43 = 3.02 1.81+1.43 = 3.24
The calculation results show that Strength has a score of
1.59 and Weaknesses has a score of 1.81. While external
factors such as Opportunity have a score of 1.72 and Threat
have a score of 1.43. Strategy determination is explained in
the IFAS and EFAS matrices (Table 5).
Results show that the score acquisition on the S-O
Strategy (Strength-Opportunities) of 3.31 while W-O
(Weaknesses-Opportunities) strategy of 3.53. The S-T
Strategy (Strength-Threats) is 3.02 and the W-T
(Weaknesses-Threats) Strategy is 3.24. The W-O
(Weaknesses-Opportunities) strategy is a strategy with the
highest scoring value so that the strategies that must be
taken are to minimize the weaknesses of LBG by
continuing to take advantage of the opportunities that exist.
The W-O strategy based on the analysis of the assumptions
of the previous strategy has been outlined below: (i) The
development of types of tourism activities can be drawn
from the idea of tourists and people who are increasingly
interested in the development of the area (WO1). (ii) The
natural conditions in the form of mountainous landscapes
can be utilized by increasing the number of managers in the
security sector by optimizing surrounding human resources
(WO2). (iii) Adding signposts to the LBG area along with
the higher public interest in ecotourism (WO3).
Optimizing the promotion of the tourism potential of
the LBG so that the general public's interest in ecotourism
is higher, so the LBG is far more attractive for tourists to
visit (WO4).
In conclusion, LBG is managed by the West Lampung
Research and Development Agency (Balitbang). Currently,
the community is not much involved in its management
directly, but persuasive approaches are still taken to
provide an understanding of the importance of the presence
of LBG in this area. A number of development efforts have
been made, one of which is to provide adequate facilities
such as toilets, rest areas, parking lots and etc. Based on the
Analysis of Operational Areas-Nature Tourism Attraction
Object (AOA-TAO), the feasibility index of TAO from the
LBG is as much as 71.86%. This score shows that the LBG
TAO deserves to be developed comprehensively.
Perception of tourists in relation to management and LBG
TAO are: 9.16% of visitors reported that they were very
satisfied, 25.15% of respondents reported that they were
satisfied, 37.99% of respondents were quite satisfied,
17.56% of respondents were slightly dissatisfied, and
8.80% of respondents were not satisfied. While the people
around the tourism object fully support the LBG TAO
development activities. The community hopes that the
management or manager will always socialize the progress
of LBG.
697
The implications of this study are as follows: (i).
Strategies for developing the management of the LBG
Attraction can be carried out with several stages of
activities such as sustainable planning, control, monitoring,
and evaluation, as well as intensive activities. In the
implementation of the plan, it is recommended to involve
other parties such as the government, the private sector and
the local community in terms of the availability of
sanitation facilities such as toilets and trash bins, the
condition of the road network to tourism objects, the
availability of modes of transportation to tourism objects,
the availability of accommodation facilities such as hotels
and lodging. The regional government is expected to play a
more important role in managing, developing, and
preserving the LBG as a tourist attraction. (ii).
Communities around the LBG continue to preserve and still
maintain the tourism potential contained in the LBG
attractions such as the beauty of natural attractions, the
diversity of tourist attractions offered, the existence of
distinctive regional art and cultural attractions. (iii). For
further researchers, it needs more active communication
and deeper interview with the manager of the LBG in order
to get more accurate data such as hygiene and sanitation of
local food and beverages, to empower in terms of making
unique local souvenirs/souvenirs. (iv). Researching the
management and marketing system in introducing the LBG
to increase visitors, both local and foreign tourists.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author thanks the Research Scholarship Grant
Professor of the University of Lampung, Indonesia in fiscal
year 2019, who has funded this research. Thank you to
Sukimin, Head of LBG, West Lampung, for giving the
author permission to carry out this research. Thank you to
all staff of the LBG for their assistance during this
research. Thank you to students who have been involved in
this research as well as the tourists as respondents.
REFERENCES
Abdul Rauf FH. 2014. Environmental strategic factor analysis of the
tourism industry in the South Coastal Part of Sri Lanka. J Emerg
Trends Econ Manag Sci 5 (5): 426-434.
Ariefianda R, Hidayat JW, Maryono E. 2019. Assessment of Tourism
Suitability in Natural Tourism Object of Lengkuas Island, Sijuk
District, Belitung Regency, Bangka Belitung Province. E3S Web of
Conferences 125: 1-5. DOI: 10.1051/e3sconf/201912501011
Aziz A, Idris NH, Jamaludin M, Mariapan M, Samdin Z. 2017. The
attractiveness of Bukit Nanas recreational forest as an ecotourism
destination as perceived by foreign visitors. Intl J Asian Soc Sci 7 (7):
546-556. DOI: 10.18488/journal.1.2017.77.546.556
Clarke J, Godfrey K. 2000. The Tourism Development Handbook: A
Practical Approach to Planning and Marketing. Continuum, London.
Cooper C, Fletcher J, Gilbert D, Wanhill S, Shepherd R. 1998. Tourism:
Principles and Practice. 2nd ed. Pearson Education Limited. England
Directorate General of Tourism. 1990. Manual of Objects and Nature
Tourism Attractions. Directorate General of Tourism, Bogor.
[Indonesian]
Dodds R, Ali A, Galaski K. 2016. Mobilizing knowledge: determining
key elements for success and pitfalls in developing community-based
tourism. Curr Issues Tourism 21 (13): 1547-1568. DOI:
10.1080/13683500.2016.11502
698 B I O D I V E R S ITA S 21 (2): 689-698, February 2020
Dzulyana MA, Irawan EP, Saragih N. 2019. Semiotic analysis of the
message of meaning on Pesona Indonesia Advertisement of Pesona
Indonesia 2017 Destination Version. Intl J Innov Sci Res Technol 4
(10): 476-484.
Guimarães CRFF, Silva JR. 2016. Pay gap by gender in the tourism
industry of Brazil. Tourism Manag 52: 440-450.
Habibah A, Mushrifah I, Hamzah J, et al. 2012. Assessing natural capitals
for sustainable ecotourism in Tasik Chini Biosphere Reserve. Adv
Nat Appl Sci 6 (1): 1-9.
Hendriyani IGAD. 2018. The importance of physical environment for
guest at restaurants in Bali. J Tourism Hospitality Manag 6 (3): 130-
141. DOI: 10.17265/2328-2169/2018.06.004.
Hijriyati E, Mardiana R. 2014. The effect of community-based ecotourism
on changes in ecological, social, and economic conditions in
Batusuhunan Village, Sukabumi. J Rural Sociol 2 (3): 146-159.
[Indonesian]
Jamal T, Stronza A. 2009. Collaboration theory and tourism practice in
protected areas: Stakeholders, structuring and sustainability. J Sustain
Tourism 17: 169-189.
Karsudi, Soekmadi, Rinekso, Kartodihardjo, Hariadi. 2010. Ecotourism
development strategy in the Yapen Islands, Papua Province. J Tropic
Forest Manag 16 (3): 148-154. [Indonesian]
Kemenpar. 2015. the Tourism Ministry's Strategic Plan 2015-2019.
Jakarta. [Indonesian]
Khalifa M, Bidaisee S. 2018. The importance of clean water. Scholar J
Appl Sci Res 1 (7): 17-20. DOI: 10.1891/1933-3196.2.2.74
Khoiriyah NR, Ariyani AHM, Fauziyah E. 2012. Strategy for developing
terasi crackers agro-industry (Case Study in Plosobuden Village,
Deket, Lamongan). J Agrieconomika 1 (2): 135-148. [Indonesian]
Lee CF, Huang HI, Yeh HR. 2010. Developing an evaluation model for
destination attractiveness: sustainable forest recreation tourism In
Taiwan. J Sustain Tourism 18 (6): 811-828.
Li H, Chen JL, Li G, Goh C. 2016. Tourism and regional income
inequality: Evidence from China. Ann Tourism Res 58: 81-99.
Liwa Botanic Gardens. 2017. Books Profile of Liwa Botanic Gardens,
Book. Liwa Botanic Gardens, Liwa. [Indonesian]
Luo Yy, Jin MZ, Ren PY, Liao ZX, Zhu ZF. 2014. Simulation and
prediction of decarbonated development in tourist attractions
associated with low-carbon economy. Sustainability 6 (4): 2320-2337.
Medina-Muñoz DR, Medina-Muñoz RD, Sánchez-Medina AJ. 2016.
Renovation strategies for accommodation at mature destinations: A
tourist demand-based approach. Intl J Hospitality Manag 54: 127-138.
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.01.013
Moleong L. 2014. Qualitative Research Methodology. Revised Edition.
PT Remaja Rosdakarya, Bandung.
Porto N, Espinola N. 2019. Labor income inequalities and tourism
development in Argentina: A regional approach. Tourism Econ 25
(8): 1265-1285.
Ram Y, Björk P, Weidenfeld A. 2016. Authenticity and place attachment
of major visitor attractions. Tourism Manag 52: 110-122. DOI:
10.1016/j.tourman.2015.06.010.
Rangkuti F. 2009. Creative Promotion Strategies and Case Analysis for
Integrated Marketing Communication. Jakarta: PT Gramedia Pustaka
Utama. [Indonesian]
Rangkuti F. 2014. SWOT Analysis: Techniques for Dissecting Business
Cases. Publisher: Gramedia Pustaka Utama. Jakarta. [Indonesian]
Reihanian A, Mahmood NZB, Kahrom E, Hin TW. 2012. Sustainable
tourism development strategy by SWOT analysis: Boujagh National
Park, Iran. Tourism Manag Perspect 4: 223-228. DOI:
10.1016/j.tmp.2012.08.005
Rowley J. 2012. Conducting research interviews. Manag Res Rev 35
(3/4): 260-271. DOI: 10.1108/01409171211210154.
Sebele LS. 2010. Community-based tourism ventures, benefits and
challenges: Khama Rhino Sanctuary Trust, Central District,
Botswana. Tourism Manag 31 (1): 136-146. DOI:
10.1016/j.tourman.2009.01.005
Sekartjakrarini, Soehartini. 2003. Guidelines for Regional Analysis of
TAO Operations. Department of Forestry, Bogor. [Indonesian]
Sekartjakrarini, Soehartini. 2009. Indonesian Ecotourism Criteria and
Indicators. IdeA-Innovative Development for Eco Awareness, Bogor.
[Indonesian]
Solihah SM. 2015. Collection, Status and Potential of Orchid in Liwa
Botanic Gardens. Botanical Garden News, 13 (1): 15-23. [Indonesian]
Tamrat B. 2016. Impact of Transportation Infrastructure in Tourism
Management in Ethiopia: Lake Tana region in focus. 9th International
Conference On African Development, May 27-28, 2016.
Vengesayi S, Mavondo F, Reisinger Y. 2009. Tourism destination
attractiveness: Attractions, facilities, and people as predictors.
Tourism Anal 14 (5): 621-636. DOI:
10.3727/108354209X12597959359211
Weidenfeld A, Williams AM, Butler RW. 2010. Knowledge transfer and
innovation among attractions. Ann Tourism Res 37: 604-626. DOI:
10.1016/j.annals.2009.12.001.
Zorpas AA, Voukkali I, Pedreño JN. 2018. Tourist area metabolism and
its potential to change through a proposed strategic plan in the
framework of sustainable development. J Cleaner Prod 172: 3609-
3620.
B I OD IV E R S ITA S ISSN: 1412-033X
Volume 21, Number 2, February 2020 E-ISSN: 2085-4722
Pages: 596-604 DOI: 10.13057/biodiv/d210222

Analysis of suitability and carrying capacity of mangrove ecosystem for

ecotourism in Lembar Village, West Lombok District, Indonesia

SUKURYADI1,2,♥, NUDDIN HARAHAB3,♥♥, MIMIT PRIMYASTANTO3, BAMBANG SEMEDI3

1Graduate Program, Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science, Universitas Brawijaya. Jl. Veteran, Malang 65145, East Java, Indonesia.
Tel.: +62-341-553512, Fax.: +62-341-556-837, ♥email: syukur_y80@yahoo.com
2 Program of Geography Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Mataram. Jl. KH A. Dahlan, Mataram 83127, West Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia
3Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science, Universitas Brawijaya. Jl. Veteran, Malang 65145, East Java, Indonesia.

Tel.: +62-341-553512, Fax.: +62-341-556-837, ♥♥email: nuddin.harahab@gmil.com

Manuscript received: 18 Novemer 2019. Revision accepted: 17 January 2020.

Abstract. Sukuryadi, Harahab N, Primyastanto M, Semedi B. 2020. Analysis of suitability and carrying capacity of mangrove ecosystem
for ecotourism in Lembar Village, West Lombok District, Indonesia. Biodiversitas 21: 596-604. Mangrove ecosystems in Lembar
Village, West Lombok District, Indonesia has high ecological role and economic potentials, and have been as a pilot area for mangrove
conservation and rehabilitation activities. In 2015 the area was developed into a mangrove ecotourism area as a form of utili zation to
obtain ecological and economic sustainability for the local community. The purpose of this study was to determine the suitability and
carrying capacity of the mangroves area for the development of mangrove ecotourism. Data collection was conducted using field
surveys and direct observation. Data collected were then analyzed to calculate ecotourism suitability index and carrying capacity of the
area. The results of data analysis showed that mangrove ecosystem area in Lembar Village is categorized as suitable to be developed as
mangrove ecotourism at three stations with value of ecotourism suitability index of 77.78%, while at two stations are categorized
conditionally suitable with ecotourism suitability index of 42.22%. Carrying capacity of the area is 2337 people/day with tourist
attractions consisting of mangrove tracking (33 people/day), fishing (137 people/day), picnic (1620 people/day), camping ground (542
people/day) and bird watching (6 people/day). Utilization of area based on suitability and carrying capacity is needed to maintain the
sustainability of mangrove ecosystems and the economy of coastal communities.

Keywords: Carrying capacity, ecotourism, mangrove, suitability

INTRODUCTION mangrove areas in the West Lombok District shows a

Mangrove ecosystem is one of productive ecosystems
in coastal areas with varying plant composition, structure
and growth rates. Mangrove forests have a strategic role
both ecologically and economically (Satyanarayana et al.
2012; Hidayatullah and Pujiono 2014; Harahap et al. 2018).
The ecological functions of mangrove forests, among
others, are as nutrient provider, spawning and nursery
ground for certain marine biotas (e.g. fish, shrimp, and
crab), barrier to coastal abrasion, absorbent of wastes, and
shoreline protection to storm, tsunami and sea-level rise
(Jesus 2012; Santos et al. 2014; Purwanti et al. 2018). The
economic functions of mangrove forests include producer
of food from fisheries sources, fuelwood and charcoal,
building materials, medicines and so on (Hijbeek et al.
2013). In addition, mangrove forests can be managed as
attractions for ecotourism activities (Tuwo 2011;
Burhanuddin 2011). Regarding its importance in terms of
ecological and economic aspects, mangrove forest
ecosystems areas should be preserved and maintained both
in terms of quality and quantity.
Mangrove ecosystems in the coastal areas and small
islands of West Lombok District, West Nusa Tenggara
Province, Indonesia are scattered in several coastline
sections. Nonetheless, their existence has been increasingly
critical in terms of area extent as well as the diversity and
population of species contained. Data on the extent of
decreasing trend. According to data from the Marine and
Fisheries Office of West Lombok District, the total extent
of mangrove areas in 1999 was 605.81 ha, decreased to
438.54 ha in 2006, then in 2008 and 2011 it was 425.13 ha
and 307.17 ha respectively, despite it increased to 501.9 ha
in 2015 (DKP Lobar 2016). In general, the condition of the
mangrove ecosystems in this region has been heavily
damaged. Mangroves that are still in relatively good
condition only in areas that have been designated as state
forest areas such as Bangko-Bangko Nature Tourism Park.
The main threats to mangroves that cause their extent
and condition to decrease, among others, include the
conversion of mangrove forests to other land uses (e.g.
settlements and ponds), and various irresponsible and
unsustainable forest exploitation activities (e.g. timber
harvesting for housing purposes and fuelwood) (Bengen
2000; Maiti et al. 2013). High population growth in coastal
areas can also trigger increasing demands for residential
and agricultural lands, resulting in changes in land use and
excessive use of natural resources including in mangroves.
In addition, there is conflicting interest between
conservation and exploitation (including land conversion)
in mangrove forest which creates a dilemma in the
management of coastal areas. This is because both interests
aim to meet the needs of community directly or indirectly
(Suryaperdana 2012).
 SUKURYADI et al. – Mangrove ecosystem for ecotourism in Lembar Village, Indonesia
One area of mangrove ecosystems in West Lombok
District is located in Lembar sub-district. This mangrove
ecosystem plays important ecological role and serves as a
pilot area for mangrove conservation and rehabilitation
activities. Previous studies showed that species of
mangroves in Lembar Village area were dominated by
Rhizophora apiculata and Rhizophora stylosa (Syarifuddin
and Zulharman (2012); Imran and Ismail (2016)). In 2015,
the area was developed into a mangrove ecotourism area
aiming to achieve sustainable management for conservation
and rehabilitation while at the same time encouraging the
economy of local community.
According to Nadiasa et al. (2010) ecotourism is a
tourism activity aimed to integrate economic development
and conservation by generating funding to conserve
ecological elements through presentation of nature as the
main attractions. Ecotourism generally consists of
following aspects: a tourist trip to areas where the natural
environment is still original; it respects cultural and natural
heritage; it supports conservation efforts and does not
produce negative impacts; it provides socio-economic
benefits, and it involves the participation of local residents.
The concept of ecotourism considers the potential of local
resources and prevents changes in land ownership, social
and cultural arrangements of the community. This is
because the community acts as the main actor and
beneficiary, besides that ecotourism also supports efforts to
sustainable economic development because it provides
employment opportunities and is one of the sources of
community income to improve their welfare.
Development and utilization of mangrove ecosystems
for ecotourism are one of the sustainable development
alternatives to overcome destructive utilization problems
Figure 1. Map of study area in Lembar Village, Lembar sub-district, West Lombok District, West Nusa Tenggara Province, Indonesia
597
(Tuwo 2011). However, in the context of Lembar, the
implementation of mangrove ecotourism has not yet been
fully supported by the availability of physical data
particularly information regarding the suitability and
carrying capacity of the region. Thus, there are several
things that need to get attention and a more extensive and
comprehensive assessment is required to investigate the
ability of the mangrove ecosystem to support all the
developed ecotourism activities. This is because the
mangrove ecosystem resources have limitations and are
vulnerable to pressures both internal and external that can
reduce the quality and quantity of the ecosystem.
Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze the
suitability and carrying capacity of mangrove ecosystem
areas for ecotourism development in Lembar Village,
Lembar sub-district, West Lombok District, West Nusa
Tenggara Province. The results of this study were expected
can be used as baseline information for the management of
ecotourism-based mangrove ecosystems that can maintain
the ecosystem and economic sustainability of the coastal
communities in the region.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study area and period
This study was conducted in the area of mangrove
ecosystems in Lembar Village (Figure 1) from July to
August 2019. The mangrove ecosystem in Lembar Village
is one of ecosystems located in the coastal area of Lembar
Bay which is administratively located in Lembar Sub-
district, West Lombok District, West Nusa Tenggara
Province, Indonesia.
B I OD IV E R S ITA S ISSN: 1412-033X
Volume 21, Number 2, February 2020 E-ISSN: 2085-4722
Pages: 596-604 DOI: 10.13057/biodiv/d210222
Data collection area (CCA) approach, namely the maximum number of
Data was collected using field survey method. The visitors that can be physically accommodated in the area
physical data collected included the width and density of provided at any given time without causing disturbance to
mangrove vegetation to reflect the thickness of mangrove nature and humans. Calculations for the analysis of the
forest, name of species of mangrove as well as its measures carrying capacity of the area referred to the formula
on diameter and height, and tidal ranges. Based on the river proposed by Yulianda (2007), Hutabarat et al. (2009),
channel from the sea, the number of observation stations in Muflih et al. (2015) as follows:
this study is 5 stations as in figure 1 with each observation
station consisting of 5 observation plots, thus the total
number of plots in this study is 25 observation plots.
Quadrant line transects were drawn in which sampling
plots were established to record and identify the plant Where: CCA = carrying capacity of the area (person); K
species contained within the plot with size following the = maximum visitors per unit of area (person); Lp = area or
method proposed by several literature (KEMENLH 2004; length of area that can be utilized (m2 or m); Lt = unit area
Sofian et al. 2012) and described as follows: (i) Tree, i.e. for a particular category (m and m2); Wt = Time allocated
plants with stem diameter ≥10 cm and height ≥ 1.5 m, in for tourism activities in one day (hours); Wp = time spent
the sample plot of 10 x10 m2. (ii) Stake, i.e. plants with by visitors for certain activities (hours).
stem diameter <10 cm and plant height ≥ 1.5 m, in the Capacity for visitor was determined by the condition of
sample plot of 5 x 5 m2. (iii) Seedling, i.e. plants with a the resources and the types of activities to be developed.
height of <1.5 m, in the sample plot of 2 x 2 m2. The extent of an area that can be used by visitors took into
account nature's ability to tolerate visitors so that its
Data analysis
Mangrove density analysis authenticity is maintained. Every time doing ecotourism
Mangrove density was determined using the following activities, every visitor will need a large enough space to
equation: do tourism activities, so it is necessary to predict the time
required for each tourist activity. The parameters and
Di = ni/A standards used for activity to determine the carrying
capacity for mangrove ecotourism are presented in Table 2.
Where: Di = the density of mangrove species i (ind/ha); Table 2. Parameters and standards used for activity to determine
ni = total number of stands of mangrove species I; A = total the carrying capacity for mangrove ecotourism
sampling area (number of transects x area of plot per
hectares unit) (Bengen 2002). Type of activity K Lt Wt Wp
Tracking2) 1 50 m 8 2
Analysis of mangrove ecotourism suitability
Fishing1,2) 1 10 m 6 3
Basically, a land-use activity that will be developed Picnic or recreation2) 1 16 m2 8 2
should be suited to the potential of mangrove ecosystem Camping ground1,2) 5 100 m2 24 24
resources and their utilization. Therefore, the suitability Bird watching3) 1 67 m2 8 2
analysis referred to here was an analysis of the suitability Sources: 1) Hutabarat et al. (2009); 2) Yulianda (2007); 3)
of the potential of resources and the environment to be Douglass (2016)
developed as mangrove ecotourism objects. For this reason,
the formula used to analyze the suitability of mangrove Tabel 1. The suitability matrix of mangrove ecotourism
ecotourism referred to Hutabarat et al. (2009) which is
formulated as follows: Parameter
Parameters Weight Score
standards
Mangrove width (m) 3 >200 5
100-200 3
<100 1
Where: ESI = ecotourism suitability index; Ni = Mangrove density (ind./100 m2) 2 >10-25 5
parameter value (weight x score); Nmaks = maximum value 5-10/>25 3
<5 1
of ecotourism categories
Mangrove species 2 >6 5
Determination of suitability was obtained using a 3-6 3
suitability matrix based on the reference of land suitability <3 1
criteria for mangrove ecotourism (Table 1). The suitability Fauna species (e.g. reptiles, 1 > 3 biota 5
area was determined from the level of suitability percentage birds, fish, shrimp, crabs, 2-3 biota 3
obtained by summing the values of all parameters. mollusks and others) 1 biota 1
Tidal range (m) 1 0-1 5
Analysis of carrying capacity of mangrove ecotourism areas >1-2 3
Analysis of ecological carrying capacity was intended >2 1
to analyze the maximum level of use of an ecosystem in the Note: Maximum value/Vmax (weight x score) = 45. Sources:
form of activities and its quantities that can be Hutabarat et al. (2009, where S1 = Suitable/very suitable, with a
accommodated in the area, before an ecological quality value of 66.67-100%; S2 = Conditional suitable, with a value of
deterioration occurs. We used the carrying capacity of the 33.34-66.66 %; S3 = Not suitable, with a value of 0-50%
 SUKURYADI et al. – Mangrove ecosystem for ecotourism in Lembar Village, Indonesia
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Ecological suitability for mangrove ecotourism activities
Based on observations in the area of mangrove
ecosystems in Lembar Village, West Lombok District
showed that there were 4 mangrove families, namely:
Avicenniaceae, Rhizoporaceae, Sonneratiaceae, Meliaceae
with 9 species of mangroves including Avicennia marina,
Avicennia alba, Rhizophora mucronata, Rhizophora
apiculata, Rhizophora stylosa, Bruguiera gymnorrhiza,
Sonneratia alba, Soneratia caseolaris, and Xylocarpus
granatum, and it was dominated by species of Rhizophora
mucronata. The diversity of mangrove species in the area is
one of the attractions for visitors to conduct tours and
educational activities related to mangrove ecosystem. This
is an added value for the development of ecotourism in
Lembar Village area. According to Susi et al. (2018) that
the diversity of mangrove species in an area becomes an
important value in supporting the management activities of
a tourist area and increasing visitor attraction. Besides that,
according to Sadik et al. (2017), a large number of species
of mangroves also supports the diversity of associated biota
and becomes the main habitat of other biota species.
Mangrove ecotourism can be a choice that will be favored
by tourists, because they can enjoy the beauty of nature and
fresh air, and they can get insight into the environment and
the importance of mangrove ecosystems in the structure of
coastal ecosystems (Sadik et al. 2017).
Based on the river channel, in general, mangrove
ecosystems in Lembar Village were divided into five
observation stations with 5 transects at each observation
station, namely Stations 1 and 2 were close to sea waters,
while Stations 3, 4 and 5 were close to the mainland. The
dominant mangrove species found at each observation
station was Rhizophora mucronata with species density
values at each station being 940 ind/ha, 1000 ind/ha, 800
ind/ha, 780 ind/ha and 220 ind/ha, respectively. Based on
data from the Marine and Fisheries Office of West Lombok
District (2016); Syarifuddin and Zulharman (2012); Imran
and Ismail (2016) show that the dominant mangrove
species in Lembar Village is Rhizophora sp with an
important value index of 78.00%. Rhizophora mucronata is
a species of mangrove whose growth is tolerant of
environmental conditions, especially on sandy mud
substrates, and it has widespread seeds with the seeds that
can germinate while still in parent trees (Usman et al. 2013;
Iswahyudi et al. 2019).
The results in Table 3 shows that the mangrove in each
observation station has different density level. According to
Susi et al. (2018), the differences in mangrove density are
influenced by adaptation patterns and human involvement
in mangrove ecosystems. The highest level of mangrove
vegetation density for tree category was found at Station 1
with tree density of 1440 ind/ha. This is because the station
was located quite far from the residential and fishpond
areas so that the mangrove ecosystem in this area had a
relatively low utilization intensity by the local community.
Mangrove condition at Station 1 had sandy and muddy
substrate characteristics. For the stake category, the highest
level of vegetation density was at Station 2 with density of
599
3200 ind/ha, and for the seedling category, the highest
density was at Station 1 with density of 18,000 ind/ha. The
highest density level in each category and each station was
dominated by species of Rhizophora mucronata. According
to Halidah (2010), Rhizophora mucronata is mangroves
which easily sown naturally, easy to adapt to the highest
tide and lowest ebb conditions, and can grow with mud
sand substrate.
Based on the results of observations show that the
widest stretch of mangroves vegetation was found at
Station 1 with average wide of 292.52 m, while at Stations
2, 3, 4 and 5 had an average width of 171.24 m, 259.74 m,
97.984 m, and 143.44 m, respectively. This shows that
there are differences in the width of mangrove vegetation at
each observation station which might have impacts on the
ecological aspects of the substrates and coastal biotas since
large mangrove vegetation cover will affect organic matter
and high abundance of macrobenthos and plankton (Susi et
al. 2018). Based on this, it will affect the existence of
species of biota that live in mangrove areas. According to
Agussalim and Hartoni (2014), the number of species of
biota with habitats in a mangrove area are also potentials to
be used as an object of ecotourism attraction.
Mangrove ecosystem is a vegetation community along
the tropical coast and is dominated by several species of
mangroves that can grow and develop in areas that have
tides and muddy soils (Bengen 2001). According to
Komiyama et al. (2008) and Nagelkerken et al. (2008)
habitats existed in mangrove forests that can be said to be
very productive because they support various biotas such as
birds, vertebrates, and invertebrates. According to
Hadinoto et al. (2012), the presence of bird species has
strong relationship with the variety of plant species existed.
This includes the condition of the plant community in
terms of disturbance, structure, and composition of
mangrove vegetation.
The results of the study showed that fauna species
found at the mangrove areas in Lembar Village were little
egret (Egretta garzetta), green-backed heron (Butorides
striatus), mudskipper fish (Periophthalmus sp), milkfish
(Chanos chanos), shrimp (Uca dumumeri), mangrove crab
(Scylla serrata), small crab (Portunus pelagicus), tree-
climbing crab (Episesarma sp.), hermit crab (Clibanarius
ambonensis), molluscs (scallops and oysters), and reptiles
(snakes, lizards and monitor lizards). All of these species
were found at each observation station except at Station 5
in which only three species were found, namely tree-
climbing crabs, hermit crabs and mudskipper fish, this is
because the mangrove conditions at this station had the
lowest density in the trees category with density values at
280 ind/ha.
Table 3. Mangrove density at each observation station
Mangrove density in each observation station
Category (ind./ha)
1 2 3 4 5
Tree 1440 1300 1100 840 280
Stake 3040 3200 2720 3120 2560
Seedling 18000 15500 15000 16000 16000
600 B I OD I V E R S ITA S 21 (2): 596-604, February 2020
Mudskipper fish, tree-climbing crab, and hermit crab
were found at all observation stations. According to
Muhtadi (2016) mudskipper fish is one of marine biota that
lives in the mangrove ecosystem area which is unique and
able to adapt to muddy areas and has protruding eyes
shapes like frogs. Mudskipper fish can walk on mud and is
able to adapt by making holes in the mud and use it as
house. Tree climbing crab and hermit crab are species of
biota belong to crustaceans. The group of crabs found in
the area was dominated by juvenile or young-aged crabs
that are able to adapt to relatively waterlogged substrates
by forming holes in soft or moist soil and use it as shelter.
Hermit crabs (Clibanarius ambonensis) is a species of biota
that lives on mangrove soil that is relatively dry or moist.
The existence of various species of plants and fauna
found at the mangrove area in Lembar Village is a potential
attraction for ecotourism which can be developed as a pilot
program to showcase conservation and rehabilitation.
Based on field observations, tourist attractions ran by the
community were in the form of bird watching, fishing,
picnic or recreation, camping ground, and mangrove
tracking. However, based on observations, some of those
activities were not carried out sustainably due to the limited
infrastructure condition, especially in the mangrove
tracking area that had not met standards, besides the weak
community capacity.
The development of mangrove ecotourism in an area
requires an analysis of the suitability and carrying capacity.
This is done as a basis for sustainable management of
nature-based tourism. Tourism activities developed need to
be adjusted to the condition of natural resources and their
utilization. The ecotourism suitability index is used as an
approach to identify an ecosystem as a tourist destination.
Determination of the suitability of mangrove ecotourism
development areas is done by considering limiting factors
consisting of the width of vegetation cover and density of
mangroves, the number of mangrove species, mangrove
biota objects and tidal ranges (Yulianda 2007; Hutabarat et
al. 2009). Based on the analysis of ecological suitability,
the mangrove forests in Lembar Village were suitable for
ecotourism with some areas that were suitable while others
were conditionally suitable (Tables 4). This result suggests
that there is a need for further and intensive management
actions to make the Lembar mangrove forest as a natural
tourist destination.
Table 4 shows that the suitability levels of ecotourism
at Stations 1, 2 and 3 are classified as suitable or very
suitable with ecotourism suitability index value (ESI) of
Table 5. The daily carrying capacity of mangrove tourism areas in Lembar Village, Lembar sub-district, West Lombok District
Tourism attraction K Lp Lt
Tracking 1 409 50 m
Fishing 1 686.136 10 m
Picnic 1 6480.55 16 m2
Camping ground 5 10815.7 100 m2
Bird watching 1 100 67 m2
Total
77.78%, while those at Stations 4 and 5 are categorized as
conditional suitable with ecotourism suitability index of
42.22%. As such, overall, the area of mangrove forest in
Lembar Village can be categorized suitable for the
development of ecotourism if it refers to the parameters of
vegetation width, density, diversity of mangrove species,
objects of biota and tidal ranges. The spatial distribution of
the suitability level of mangrove ecotourism potential is
presented in Figure 2.
Based on the analysis of ecological suitability at five
observation stations, three stations were in suitable or very
suitable category while two stations were in conditionally
suitable category. The suitable category indicates that the
condition of mangrove ecosystems in Lembar Village area
is suitable to be developed as an object of mangrove
ecotourism. Therefore, further management is needed so
that the potential that exists in the mangrove ecosystem in
this area can be developed into a sustainable tourism area.
The conditionally suitable category suggests that to make
this location a mangrove ecotourism location, it is
necessary to protect and rehabilitate mangroves by the
community, government and other institutions such as
replanting mangrove species and maintaining existing
mangrove ecosystems in the area.
In general, the ecological potentials of the mangrove
area in Lembar Village, West Lombok District can be
developed as sustainable mangrove ecotourism to maintain
the mangrove forest ecosystem and improve the welfare of
the local community. Mangrove ecotourism activities will
be achieved well if there is a large enough space in the
mangrove ecosystem. Ecotourism management will be able
to run well if it aims to support sustainable tourism
development based on the principle of ecotourism that is
aligning between environmental management, ecosystem
management, and mangrove ecotourism development.
Thus, good management and attention to the balance of
mangrove ecosystems can overcome mangrove forest
degradation and conflicts between the utilization of
mangrove resources. According to Salam et al. (2000),
ecotourism is one of economic activities that have
relatively small detrimental impact, and if properly
managed it will be suitable for biodiversity conservation
and increase economic value. Community involvement in
the management of mangrove ecotourism is indicated by
the level of labor absorption from tourism businesses and
the growth of multiplier effects at the community level
from mangrove tourism activities (Salam et al. 2000;
Iftekhar and Islam 2004).
Carrying capacity
Wt (hours) Wp (hours)
(ind./day)
8 2 33
6 3 137
8 2 1620
24 24 541
8 2 6
2337
 SUKURYADI et al. – Mangrove ecosystem for ecotourism in Lembar Village, Indonesia 601

Table 4. Mangrove ecotourism suitability index at each station

Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 Station 5

Weight
Parameters Field Scores Field Scores Field Scores
(W) Field data Scores (S) W x S Field data Scores (S) W x S WxS WxS WxS
data (S) data (S) data (S)
Mangrove vegetation width (m) 3 292.52 5 15 214.09 5 15 259.74 5 15 97.98 1 3 143.44 3 9
Mangrove density (ind./100 m2) 2 7 3 6 7 3 6 6 3 6 5 3 6 2 1 2
Mangrove species 2 4 3 6 4 3 6 4 3 6 2 1 2 2 1 2
Biota species (reptiles, birds, fish, 1 > 3 biota 5 5 > 3 biota 5 5 >3 5 5 >3 5 5 3 biota 3 3
shrimp, crabs, molluscs, and others) species species biota biota species
species species
Tidal range (m) 1 1.1 3 3 1.1 3 3 1.1 3 3 1.1 3 3 1.1 3 3
Maximum value/Vmax (Nmaks) 45 45 45 45 45
Total of values (∑Ni) 35 35 35 19 19
Ecotourism Suitability Index (ESI) (%) 77.78 77.78 77.78 42.22 42.22
Category Suitable Suitable Suitable Conditional Suitable Conditional Suitable
602 B I OD I V E R S ITA S 21 (2): 596-604, February 2020
Figure 2. Map of suitability level for mangrove ecotourism in Lembar Village, Lembar sub-district, West Lombok District, Indonesia
Carrying capacity of the area for mangrove ecotourism
activities
According to Nugraha et al. (2013), efforts to manage
natural resources and environment in a sustainable manner
can be carried out with due regard to the welfare of
community. The utilization of mangrove ecosystems area
in a sustainable way requires an analysis of the carrying
capacity of the area for the development of mangrove
ecotourism. The principle of ecotourism according to Bjork
(2000) is a form of tourism that does not exceed the
carrying capacity of an area. According to Yulianda et al.
(2010), carrying capacity analysis when developing marine
tourism is aimed at utilizing the potentials of coastal
resources, beaches and small islands in a sustainable
manner. Utilization of coastal areas without regard to
carrying capacity can cause various problems and threats to
the preservation of resources in it, given the level of
vulnerability and limited space for visitor activity in
various tourist attractions, it is necessary to analyze the
carrying capacity of the area to support various tourist
attractions in it so as to guarantee the sustainability of
resources and the economy of coastal communities.
According to Clark (1996), carrying capacity is more often
applied as a limit of ecotourism activities, while according
to Bengen et al. (2012), carrying capacity is viewed as a
level of sustainable use of natural resources or ecosystems
without causing damage to natural resources and the
environment. The method used in calculating carrying
capacity in the development of mangrove ecotourism is the
concept of carrying capacity of the area. Based on the
concept of carrying capacity of the area, it is expected to be
able to minimize or prevent damage to natural resources
and environment from the utilization activities conducted.
According to Chougule (2011), carrying capacity is an
important tool for protecting ecological aspects, rich
biodiversity, and endangered species
According to Sitohang et al. (2014), carrying capacity
analysis is carried out on every utilization activity that has
been analyzed for its suitability for mangrove ecotourism
activities. The carrying capacity of the area is the
maximum number of visitors that can be physically
accommodated in the area provided at a certain time
without causing natural and human disturbance (Yulianda
2007). Utilization of an area for tourism needs to pay
attention to its carrying capacity to remain sustainable.
Activities that can be carried out in the mangrove forest of
Lembar Village are mangrove tracking, fishing, picnic,
camping ground, bird watching. The results of the carrying
capacity analysis of mangrove ecotourism in Lembar
Village is presented in Table 5.
According to Masum (2013), carrying capacity in the
context of environmental planning and management is
defined as the ability of natural or man-made systems to
absorb population growth without any degradation of the
 SUKURYADI et al. – Mangrove ecosystem for ecotourism in Lembar Village, Indonesia
environment and nature. The carrying capacity of a tourist
area is an analysis used to provide a visitor value that can
be accommodated in a tourist area. The results presented in
Table 4 shows that the carrying capacity of mangrove
ecotourism areas is divided into several attractions namely
mangrove tracking, fishing, picnics, bird watching, and
camping ground. The total carrying capacity of tourism in
the mangrove forests of Lembar Village is 2337
people/day, suggesting the maximum number of visitors
that can be accommodated in the mangrove forests of
Lembar is 2337 people with an operational time of 8
working hours per day. The amount is used as a reference
in limiting the number of visitors, this is done to reduce the
negative influence on the impact that will be caused in the
ecotourism area.
The carrying capacity in Lembar mangrove ecosystem
for tracking activities is 33 people/day with the length of
the area utilized is 409 meters. This tracking activity can be
done by visitors to enjoy the beauty of the mangrove
ecosystem and can also be used as an educational tour
through planting of mangrove seedlings. The carrying
capacity for fishing is 137 people/day with area used is
686.136 m. This fishing activity can be done by visitors to
get fish in coastal waters or in mangrove forests. The
carrying capacity for picnic activities is 1620 people/day
with the area used is 6480.55 m2. Picnic activities can be
done by visitors to rest and enjoy the beautiful panorama of
the beach and mangrove forests. This picnic activity can be
carried out along the coastline adjacent to the mangrove
ecosystem. Camping ground activity has a carrying
capacity of 541 people/day. Camping activities can be done
by visitors who want to enjoy the beach and mangrove
ecosystems. The tour manager needs to give the time
allowed for camping activities. This is caused by the
camping area is located on the beach. Bird watching
activity has a carrying capacity of 6 people/day. This
activity can be done to observe the birds found in the
mangrove forest and migratory birds.
In conclusion, potential ecotourism that can be
developed in the mangrove ecosystem area of Lembar
Village is tracking, fishing, picnic, camping ground, and
bird watching. The suitability of the area for mangrove
ecotourism is categorized as suitable or very suitable (ESI
= 77.78%) for ecotourism activities. The carrying capacity
of the mangrove forest area for tracking is 33 people/day,
fishing 137 people/day, picnic 1620 people/day, bird
watching 6 people/day, and camping 541 people/day. Thus,
the total carrying capacity of the area is 2337 visitors/day
to enter the mangrove eco-tourism area.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Our deepest acknowledgments to related parties who
have provided their support in the research process to the
completion of this paper for publication. I hope that the
assistance and support that has been given to the authors be
recorded as good deeds that can bring blessings and Grace
God's.
603
REFERENCES
Agussalim A, Hartoni. 2014. Potensi kesesuaian mangrove sebagai daerah
ekowisata di pesisir muara Sungai Musi Kabupaten Banyuasin.
Maspari Journal : Mar Sci Res 6 (2): 148-156. [Indonesian]
Bengen DG. 2000. Pedoman teknis pengenalan dan pengelolan ekosistem
mangrove. Pusat Kajian Sumberdaya Pesisir dan Lautan, IPB, Bogor.
[Indonesian]
Bengen DG. 2001. Ekosistem dan sumber daya pesisir laut serta
pengelolaan secara terpadu dan berkelanjutan. Pelatihan Pengelolaan
Wilayah Pesisir Terpadu, Bogor, Indonesia, 29-3 Okt-Nov 2001.
[Indonesian]
Bengen DG. 2002. Ekosistem dan sumberdaya alam pesisir dan laut serta
prinsip pengelolaannya. Pusat Kajian Sumberdaya Pesisir dan Lautan,
IPB, Bogor. [Indonesian]
Bengen DG, Retraubun SWA, Saad S. 2012. Menguak Realitas dan
Urgensi Pengelolaan Berbasis Eko-Sosio Sistem Pulau-Pulau Kecil.
Pusat Pembelajaran dan Pengembangan Pesisir dan Laut (P4L).
Bogor. [Indonesian]
Bjork P. 2000. Ecotourism from a conceptual perspective, an extended
defenition of a unique tourism form. Intl J Tourism Res 2: 189-202
Burhanuddin AI. 2011. The Sleeping Giant: Potensi dan Permasalahan
Kelautan. Brillian International, Surabaya. [Indonesian]
Chougule B. 2011. Environmental carrying capacity and Ecotourism
development. Int J Econ Issues 4 (1): 45-54.
Clark JR. 1996. Coastal zone management. Handbook. CRS Press, Lewis
Publishers, Florida. 694 p.
Dinas Kelautan dan Perikanan Lombok Barat (DKP Lobar). 2016.
Penyusunan Rencana Zonasi Wilayah Pesisir dan Pulau-Pulau Kecil
(RZWP3K). [Indonesian]
Douglass RW. 2016. Forest Recreation. Pergamon Press Inc., New York.
Hadinoto, Mulyadi A, Siregar YI. 2012. Keanekaragaman jenis burung di
hutan kota Pekanbaru. Jurnal Ilmu Lingkungan 6 (1): 25-42.
[Indonesian]
Halidah. 2010. Pertumbuhan Rhzopora mucronata Lamk pada berbagai
kondisi substrat di kawasan mangrove rehabilitasi Sinjai, Timur
Sulawesi Selatan. Balai Penelitian Kehutanan, Manado. [Indonesian]
Harahap N, Harsuko R, Soemarno and Nuhfil H. 2018. Economic value of
mangrove ecosystem as base of coastal area planning. Agric J 13 (2):
48-55
Hidayatullah M, Pujiono E. 2014. Struktur dan Komposisi Jenis Hutan
Mangrove di Golo SepangKecamatan Boleng Kabupaten Manggarai
Barat. Jurnal Penelitian Kehutanan Wallacea 3: 151-162. [Indonesian]
Hijbeek R, Koedam N, Khan MNI, Kairo JG, Schoukens J. 2013. An
evaluation of plotless sampling using vegetation simulations and field
data from a mangrove forest. Plos ONE 8 (6): 67201. DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0067201.
Hutabarat A, Yulianda F, Fahrudin A, Harteti S, and Kusharjani. 2009.
Pengelolaan pesisir dan laut secara terpadu (Edisi I). Bogor: Pusdiklat
Kehutanan, Deptan, SECEN-KOREA International Cooperation
Agency. [Indonesian]
Iftekhar MS, Islam MR. 2004. Managing mangroves in Bangladesh: a
strategy analysis. J Coast Con 10: 139-146
Imran A, Ismail E. 2016. Inventarisasi mangrove di pesisir Pantai Cemara
Lombok Barat. JUPE 1: 105-112. [Indonesian]
Iswahyudi, Kusmana C, Hidayat A, Noorachmat BP. 2019. Evaluasi
kesesuaian lahan untuk rehabilitasi hutan mangrove Kota Langsa
Aceh. Jurnal Matematika Sains dan Teknologi 20 (1): 45-56.
[Indonesian]
Jesus AD. 2012. Kondisi ekosistim mangrove di sub district Liquisa
Timor-Leste. Depik 1 (3): 136-143. [Indonesian]
Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup (KEMENLH). 2004. Keputusan Menteri
Negara Lingkungan Hidup Nomor: 201 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kriteria
Baku dan Pedoman Kerusakan Hutan Mangrove, Jakarta.
[Indonesian]
Komiyama A, Eong JO, Poungparn S. 2008. Allometry, biomass, and
productivity of mangrove forests: a review. Aquat Bot 89: 128-137
Maiti SK, Abhiroop C. 2013. Effects of anthropogenic pollution on
mangrove biodiversity: A review Subodh. J Environ Protec 4: 1428-
1434.
Masum KZ, Mamun AA, Rahman ZMM, Rahman MM, Newaz MS,
Redowan M. 2013. Ecotourism carrying capacity and the potentiality
of the safari park of Bangladesh. J For Sci 29 (4): 292-299.
Muflih A, Fahrudin A, Wardiatno Y. 2015. Kesesuaian dan daya dukung
wisata pesisir Tanjung Pasir dan Pulau Untung Jawa. Jurnal Ilmu
604 B I OD I V E R S ITA S 21 (2): 596-604, February 2020
Pertanian Indonesia (JIPI) 20 (2): 141-149. DOI:
10.18343/jipi.20.2.141. [Indonesian]
Muhtadi A, Ramadhani SF, Yunasfi. 2016. Identifikasi dan tipe habitat
ikan gelodok (famili: gobiidae) di Pantai Bali Kabupaten Batu Bara
Provinsi Sumatera Utara. Biospecies 9 (2): 1-6. [Indonesian]
Nadiasa M, Maya DNKW, Norken IN. 2010. Analisis investasi
pengembangan potensi pariwisata pada pembangunan Waduk Jehem
di Kabupaten Bangli. Jurnal Ilmiah Teknik Sipil Universitas Udayana
Denpasar, Bali. [Indonesian]
Nagelkerken I, Blaber SJM, Bouillon S, Green P, Haywood M, Kirton
LG, Meynecke JO, Pawlik J, Penrose HM, Sasekumar A. 2008. The
habitat function of mangrove for terrestrial and marine fauna: a
review. Aquat Bot 89: 155-185.
Nugraha HP, Indarjo A, Helmi M. 2013. Studi kesesuaian dan daya
dukung kawasan untuk rekreasi pantai di Pantai Panjang Kota
Bengkulu. J Mar Res 2 (2): 130-139. [Indonesian]
Purwanti P, Mimit P, Mochammad F. 2018. Comparison of the value of
mangrove forest benefits and the benefits of coconut plantation as a
result of land conversion activities in Prenger Bay of Trenggalek
Regency. Asian J Microbiol Biotech Environ Sci 20: S155-S162.
Sadik M, Muhiddin AH, Ukkas M. 2017. Kesesuaian ekowisata mangrove
ditinjau dari aspek biogofisik kawasan Pantai Gonda di Desa Laliko
Kecamatan Cempalagian Kabupaten Polewali Mandar. Jurnal Ilmu
Kelautan Spermonde 3 (2): 25-33. [Indonesian]
Salam MA, Ross LG, Beveridge MCM. 2000. Eco-tourism to protect the
reserve mangrove forest the Sundarbans and its flora and fauna. J
Anatolia 11 (1): 56-66.
Santos LCM, Matos HR, Novelli YS, Lignon MC, Bitencourt MD,
Koedam N. 2014. Anthropogenic activities on mangrove areas (Sao
Francisco river estuary, Brazil northeast): a gis-based analysis of
cbers and spot images to aid in local management. J Ocean Coast
Manag 89: 39-50.
Satyanarayana B, Bhanderi P, Debry M, Maniatis D, Fore´F, Badgie D,
Jammeh K, Vanwing T, Farcy C, Koedam N, Guebas D. 2012. A
socio-ecological assessment aiming at improved forest resource
management and sustainable ecotourism development in the
mangroves of Tanbi Wetland National Park, The Gambia, West
Africa. Report. Ambio. DOI 10.1007/s13280-012-0248-7.
Sitohang PS, Yunasfi A, Muhtadi. 2014. Kajian Kesesuaian Ekowisata
Mangrove Di Pantai Bali Desa Mesjid Lama Kecamatan Talawi
Kabupaten Batu Bara Provinsi Sumatera Utara. Aquacostmarine 4
(3): 38-47. [Indonesian]
Sofian A, Harahab N, Marsoedi. 2012. Kondisi dan manfaat langsung
ekosistem mangrove Desa Penunggul Kecamatan Nguling Kabupaten
Pasuruan. ElHayah 2 (2): 56-63. [Indonesian]
Suryaperdana Y, Soewardi K, Mashar ALI. 2012. Keterkaitan lingkungan
mangrove pada produksi udang dan ikan bandeng di kawasan
silvofishery Blanakan, Subang, Jawa Barat. Bonorowo Wetlands 2
(2): 74-85. [Indonesian]
Susi S, Adi, W, Sari SP. 2018. Potensi kesesuaian mangrove sebagai
daerah ekowista di Dusun Tanjung Tedung Sungai Selan Bangka
Tengah. Akuatik: Jurnal Sumberdaya Perairan 12 (1): 65-73.
[Indonesian]
Syarifuddin A, Zulharman. 2012. Analisa vegetasi hutan mangrove
Pelabuhan Lembar Kabupaten Lombok Barat Nusa Tenggara Barat.
Jurnal Gamma 7 (2): 1-13. [Indonesian]
Tuwo A. 2011. Pengelolaan Ekowisata Pesisir dan Laut. Brillian
Internasional, Sidoarjo. [Indonesian]
Usman L, Syamsuddin, Hamzah SN. 2013. Analisis vegetasi mangrove di
Pulau Dudepo Kecamatan Anggrek Kabupaten Gorontalo Utara.
Jurnal Nike 1 (1): 11-17. [Indonesian]
Yulianda F. 2007. Ekowisata bahari sebagai alternatif pemanfaatan
sumber daya pesisir berbasis konservasi. Seminar Sains. Departemen
Manajemen Sumberdaya Perairan. FPIK, IPB, Bogor, 21 Februari
2007. [Indonesian]
Yulianda F, Fahrudin A, Hutabarat AA, Harteti S, Kusharjani, Kang HS.
2010. Pengelolaan Pesisir dan Laut Secara Terpadu (Integrated
Coastal and Marine Management). Pusdiklat Kehutanan Departemen
Kehutanan RI, Secem-Korea International Cooperation Agency,
Bogor. [Indonesian]
B I OD IV E R S ITA S ISSN: 1412-033X
Volume 21, Number 5, May 2020 E-ISSN: 2085-4722
Pages: 2266-2274 DOI: 10.13057/biodiv/d210557

Environment carrying capacity and willingness to pay for bird-

watching ecotourism in Kerandangan Natural Park, Lombok, Indonesia

I WAYAN SUANA1,♥, HILMAN AHYADI1, GITO HADIPRAYITNO2, SALEH AMIN3, LALU ACHMAD TAN
TILAR WANGSAJATI SUKMARING KALIH4, FRANCISCUS XAVERIUS SUDARYANTO5
1Department of Biology, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Universitas Mataram. Jl. Majapahit No. 62, Mataram 83126,
Nusa Tenggara Barat, Indonesia. Tel./fax.: +62-370-646506, ♥email: wynsuana@unram.ac.id
2Department of Biology Education, Universitas Mataram. Jl. Majapahit No. 62, Mataram 83126, Nusa Tenggara Barat, Indonesia
3Ecotraveland. Jl. Prasarana Terusan 11, Mataram 83121, Nusa Tenggara Barat, Indonesia
4Universitas 45 Mataram. Jl. Imam Bonjol 45, Mataram 83239, Nusa Tenggara Barat, Indonesia
5Department of Biology, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Universitas Udayana. Jl. Raya Kampus Unud No. 9, Jimbaran, Badung 80361,

Bali, Indonesia

Manuscript received: 3 April 2020. Revision accepted: 28 April 2020.

Abstract. Suana IW, Ahyadi H, Hadiprayitno G, Amin S, Kalih LATTWS, Sudaryanto FX. 2020. Environment carrying capacity and
willingness to pay for bird-watching ecotourism in Kerandangan Natural Park, Lombok, Indonesia. Biodiversitas 21: 2266-2274. Five
trails of interest to bird-watchers and an observation point by the guest house of Kerandangan Natural Park (KNP) have potential to be
developed as bird-watching ecotourism packages. In order to develop sustainable bird-watching ecotourism in KNP, we analyzed the
environment carrying capacity and willingness to pay (WTP) for bird-watching ecotourism packages. All of the trails and an observation
point in KNP were explored to determine the width and length of the trails, the visit time, as well as the soil texture and slope along the
trails. Interviews with KNP managers and secondary data from Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics Council (BMKG)-
Climatology Station Class I-West Lombok were also used to determine the status of biophysical habitats. The environment carrying
capacity was calculated by combining the physical carrying capacity, real carrying capacity, and effective carrying capacity. The results
show that environment carrying capacity of bird-watching ecotourism packages in KNP was higher than the actual visitation levels. It
indicates that opportunity to develop and increase the number of visitors is considerable. WTP was determined by Contingent Valuation
Method (CVM) with payment card approach. Through the brochure, 150 respondents were given information on bird-watching
ecotourism packages, then are offered three options, and only allowed to choose one that can be paid. Data were collected by the
incidental sampling method. The results show that the visitors are willing to pay for bird-watching ecotourism packages, with mean
WTP of US$ 20.7 per visitor. It implies that they are willing to shoulder the financial support for management and conservation of birds
and their habitat in KNP. The findings provide important information for KNP managers for planning and marketing bird-watching
ecotourism in KNP.

Keywords: Bird-watching ecotourism, physical carrying capacity, real carrying capacity, effective carrying capacity, willingness to pay

INTRODUCTION
Fifty species of birds have been recorded at
Kerandangan Natural Park (KNP), Lombok, Indonesia
(Suana et al. 2016). Particular attractions in KNP include
Elegant Pitta (Pitta elegans), an endemic Wallacean
species, which is a world favorite for bird-watchers. Since
2012, based on the guest book at KNP guest house, many
international visitors from Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand,
Netherlands, Switzerland, and United Kingdom had come
just to find this bird. Clearly, the presence of Elegant Pitta
has a tremendous appeal. The Rinjani Scops Owl (Otus
jolandae), known as Lombok’s endemic bird described by
Sangster et al. (2013), Flores Hawk-Eagle (Nisaetus floris)
are classified as Critically Endangered by BirdLife
International (www.birdlife.org), Cinnamon-banded
Kingfisher (Todiramphus australasia) and Rufous-chested
Flycatcher (Ficedula dumetoria) are also found in KNP
(Suana et al. 2016). This combination of birds can be
considered the iconic species of KNP to attract bird-
watchers from all over the world.
At KNP there are trails and observation points for bird-
watching. Identification of the trails and observation points
based on the following indicators: (i) bird diversity and
endemicity; (ii) distribution and variation of bird habitat;
and (iii) zonation of conservation areas, yielded five bird-
watching trails and an observation point by the guesthouse
(Suana et al. 2016). All of these trails have potential to be
developed as bird-watching ecotourism packages.
However, tourism activities can cause various negative
impacts on the environment. The high number of visitors
could result in environmental disturbance in the ecotourism
area. This leads to deterioration in the quality of the
environment, and the environmental aesthetic value will
decrease (Bunruamkaew and Muruyama 2012; Enseñat-
Soberanis et al. 2020; Ferreira and Harmse 2014; Marsiglio
2015; Sabokkhiz et al. 2016; Salemi et al. 2019; Sutanhaji
et al. 2019). Thus, environment carrying capacity of bird-
watching ecotourism packages in KNP should be analyzed
to ensure its sustainability. Sustainable tourist development
meets the needs of present tourists and host regions while
 SUANA et al. – Bird-watching in Kerandangan Natural Park, Lombok, Indonesia
protecting and enhancing opportunity for the future
(Lalrosanga et al. 2019; UNEP and WTO 2005).
WTO (1981) defines the concept of carrying capacity as
the maximum number of people that may visit a tourist
destination at the same time, without causing destruction of
the physical, economic and socio-cultural environment and
an unacceptable decrease in the quality of the visitors’
satisfaction. The environment carrying capacity is a useful
concept in the management of wildlife and its environment
(Manning 2002; Masum et al. 2019; Vujko et al. 2017).
This concept refers to the number of animals that can
survive in their habitat with the amount of use for
recreation that can be accommodated in the park. Cifuentes
(1992) has generated formula for analyzing the
environment carrying capacity, by combining the physical
carrying capacity (PCC), real carrying capacity (RCC), and
effective carrying capacity (ECC). This has been widely
used by researchers (Sayan and Atik 2011; Lagmoj et al.
2013; Lucyanti et al. 2013; Purwanto et al. 2014; Sasmita
et al. 2014; Armono et al. 2017; Junaid et al. 2018; Sari et
al. 2018; Wulandari et al. 2018; Maryono et al. 2019;
Oktavia et al. 2019; Sofiyan et al. 2019; Zhao and Jiao
2019; Sukuryadi et al. 2020).
In general, the users of environmental goods and
services such as those provided by KNP pursue their
objective, regardless of environmental sustainability. The
public perception that environmental goods and services
have no real monetary value also causes most people to be
unconcerned with environmental sustainability.
Environmental services can be translated into economic
value. Providing economic value to the environment is an
effort to enhance the role of the community in the
preservation and management of natural ecosystems
(Costanza et al. 2014; Iasha et al. 2015; Paranata et al.
2017; Kalfas et al. 2020). It can also increase awareness of
the importance of natural ecosystems in producing direct
and indirect benefits that contribute to health, livelihood,
and the economy (Cheung and Jim 2014; Abrahams 2015;
Cochrane 2015; Sheridan 2015; Pengwei and Linsheng
2018).
The Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) is one
method used to convert goods, services, and the
convenience of environmental assets into monetary value,
by directly asking people, in a survey, how much they
would be willing to pay for specific environmental services
(King and Mazzotta 2000). Many researchers have used
CVM in their studies (Nuva et al. 2009; Kamri 2013;
Cheung et al. 2014; Adamu et al. 2015; Lamsal et al. 2015;
Kirkbride-Smith et al. 2016; Subanti et al. 2016; Kalfas et
al. 2020; Resende et al. 2017). Willingness to pay (WTP)
of the communities should be known for management and
encourage investments in order to sustainable bird-
watching ecotourism development at KNP.
This paper reports (i) the environment carrying capacity
of bird-watching ecotourism packages, and (ii) willingness
to pay by visitors for bird-watching ecotourism packages in
KNP. Bird-watching is a form of ecotourism that has a
bright future (UNEP 2012). Bird-watching, a popular
2267
hobby around the world, can present significant economic
opportunities for countries through sustainable tourism. In
the United States, at least $ 32 billion is spent per year on
bird-watching and other wildlife. In Scotland, between $ 8-
12 million is spent by tourists each year, just to observe the
white-tailed hawk, and 4% of job opportunity in Scotland is
related to ecotourism. Opportunities to develop bird-
watching ecotourism in KNP are very wide-open, so this
study are expected to provide important information for
KNP managers for planning and marketing bird-watching
ecotourism in KNP.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study area
Kerandangan Natural Park (KNP), Lombok, Indonesia
is a conservation area of 396.10 ha, managed by the
Natural Resource Conservation Center, West Nusa
Tenggara (BKSDA, NTB), Indonesia. Located in Senggigi
Village, West Lombok, at 8º20'13''-8º20'15'' and
116º04'00''-116º04'03'' (Figure 1), KNP is a lowland
monsoon forest. Based on Schmidt-Ferguson classification,
the climate type is D (Wahyuni and Mildranaya 2010).
Study was carried out on five trails and observation
point of bird-watching in KNP, i.e. Main Trail, Southern
Valley Trail, Northern Valley Trail, Southern Hill Trail,
Northern Hill Trail, also Night Birding and Bird
Photography in observation point around the guesthouse
(Figure 1) to calculate the environment carrying capacity of
each trails. To determine the WTP, we conducted a study at
three popular tourism hotspots in Lombok, i.e. Senggigi
Beach, Kuta Beach, and Gili Trawangan, also nature
tourists at KNP.
Procedures
Each bird-watching ecotourism packages in KNP were
explored to determine the width and length of the trails, as
well as the visit time. We also observed the soil texture and
slope along the trails. Interviews with KNP managers and
secondary data from Meteorology, Climatology, and
Geophysics Council (BMKG)-Climatology Station Class I-
West Lombok were also used to determine the status of
biophysical habitats.
WTP was determined by CVM with payment card
approach (King and Mazzotta 2000). We used payment
cards approach in this study to reduce non-response rates
and eliminate the need for prompting by the interviewer
(Kalfas et al. 2020; Kirkbride-Smith et al. 2016; Subanti et
al. 2016). Through the brochure, respondents were given
information on bird-watching ecotourism packages, then
are offered three options from each package and are only
allowed to choose one of the payment value options that
can be paid. Data were collected by the incidental sampling
method, that is, by selecting respondents who are
conveniently available. Our questionnaire surveys gathered
data from 150 respondents.
2268 B I OD I V E R S ITA S 21 (5): 2266-2274, May 2020

Figure 1. Map showing location of study sites in Kerandangan Natural Park, Lombok, Indonesia

Data analysis ECC is the maximum number of visitors that can be

Environment carrying capacity accommodated by the park with the availability of
Environment carrying capacity was calculated by management capacity (MC) by the formula:
combining the PCC, RCC, and ECC (Cifuentes 1992;
Sofiyan et al. 2019). PCC is the maximum number of ECC = RCC x MC
visitors who can physically fill an area within a certain 100
time, expressed in the formula: Where: MC = capacity of existing staff
capacity of staff required

PCC = V x S x t
a Willingness to pay
WTP is the willingness of respondents (visitors) to pay
Where: for an environmental condition or an assessment of natural
V : the area required by a single visitor to move freely resources and natural services in order to improve the
a
quality of the environment. The average value of
S : area available for public use respondent’s WTP (EWTP) was calculated using the
t : daily number of visits formula:

RCC is the maximum number of visits after considering EWTP =  Wi

the factors that limit the occurrence of visits or correction n
factor (CF). The correction factor is obtained by considering Where:
the physical, environmental, ecological, social, and Wi : amount of WTP that willing to be paid by respondent
management variables of the area, resulting in the formula: i : respondent who willing to pay
n : number of respondents
RCC = PCC x 100  CF1 x 100  CF2 x…… 100  CFn
100 100 100 After determining EWTP value, we calculated total
Where: CF = Mx x 100% value of respondent's WTP (TWTP) using the formula:
Mtx TWTP = EWTP x Ni, where EWTPi is average value of
WTP, and Ni is total of tourist population per month.
Mx = variable size border
Mtx = number of variable sizes
 SUANA et al. – Bird-watching in Kerandangan Natural Park, Lombok, Indonesia 2269

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Physical carrying capacity
There are seven bird-watching ecotourism packages at
KNP analyzed in this study, i.e. Main Trail (MT), Southern
Hill Trail (SH), Northern Hill Trail (NH), Southern Valley
Trail (SV), Northern Valley Trail (NV), Bird Photography
(BP), and Night Birding (NB). The MT, SV, and NV are
relatively easy trails, so they are categorized as Soft Trail
packages, while SH and NH are classified as Adventure
Trail packages, because they are uphill and long trails. Bird
Photography (BP) and Night Birding (NB) packages can be
done in the observation point around the guest house of
KNP.
Each package was calculated for its PCC value. To
determine PCC value, basic criteria or assumptions are
required (Cifuentes 1992). The basic assumptions for MT
package were: (i) it takes a space of 1 m per visitor in order
to move freely in the trail; (ii) MT width is 1 m, so the total
area used per visitor is 1 m2; (iii) minimum distance with
other groups to avoid accumulation of visitors in the trail is
50 m; (iv) maximum number of visitors per group is 6, so
as not to disturb the birds; (v) MT length is 1,800 m, and
the time required for the visit is 4 hours; and (vi) the KNP
open from 7:00 to 17:00 hr (10 hours per day).
To find out the space available, if each visitor occupies
1 m in the trail, each group of 6 individuals requires 6 m. If
the distance between groups is 50 m, then in MT (1,800 m
long) there are 32 groups at the same time. Thus, it needs
space of 32 groups x 6 visitors/group x 1 m/visitor = 192
m.
The KNP opens 10 hours per day. It takes 4 hours to
visit MT, so visitor can visit MT as much as 2.5
visits/day/visitor. Thus, the PCC for MT package is 1
visitor/m x 192 m x 2.5 visits/day = 480 visitors/day. In the
same way, the PCC of other bird-watching ecotourism
packages can be determined, as presented in Table 1.
The basic assumptions for BP and NB packages were:
(i) each visitor occupies a space of 1 m2 in order to move
freely; (ii) there is no distance between groups; (iii) it takes
two hours for each visit to BP and NB packages; (iv) the
KNP opens 10 hours per day, and two additional hours
from 18:00 to 20:00 hr for NB, so theoretically visitors can
visit BP as much as 5 visits/day/visitor, and
1visit/day/visitor for NB; and (v) the available area for
each BP and NB packages are 100 m2.
Thus, PCC of BP package is 1 visitor/m2 x 100 m2 x 5
visits/day/visitor = 500 visitors/day, while NB package is 1
m2/visitor x 100 m2 x 1 visit/day/visitor = 100 visitors/day
(Table 1).
Real carrying capacity
Before calculating the RCC value, we first determined
the biophysical environmental factors that limit the number
of visits to the park. Based on field observation and
interview with KNP manager, the biophysical
environmental factors limiting the number of visits for MT,
SH, NH, SV, and NV packages are: rainfall (CF1), erosion
(CF2), and accessibility (CF3), while for BP and NB
packages rainfall (CF1) is the only limiting factor.
The rainfall correction factor (CF1) is obtained by
comparing the number of dry months with the number of
wet months, so: CF =  dry months x 100%. Referring
1
 wet months
to the climatic classification of Schmidt & Ferguson, the
categories of month based on rainfall data in the last nine
years (2009 to 2017) from Meteorology, Climatology and
Geophysics Council (BMKG)-Climatology Station Class I-
West Lombok, are: (i) dry months (rainfall <60 mm) are 37
months; (ii) moist months (rainfall 60 to 100 mm) are 7
months; and (iii) wet months (rainfall>100 mm) are 64
months. Therefore, CF1 is (37/64) x 100% = 58%. Thus, the
rainfall limits the number of visits to all bird-watching
ecotourism packages by 58%.

Table 1. Physical carrying capacity of bird-watching ecotourism packages in Kerandangan Natural Park, Lombok, Indonesia

Service time
Space needed per Visit time Number of visits
Package Trail length (m) per day PCC (visits/days)
group (m) (hours) (visits/days/visitors)
(hours)
MT 1,800 192 10 4 2.5 480
SH 2,400 252 10 8 1.3 315
NH 2,100 222 10 8 1.3 278
SV 460 48 10 1.5 6.7 320
NV 780 78 10 2 5.0 390

Service time
Space needed/ Visit time Number of visits
Package Area (m2) per day PCC (visits/days)
visitor (m2) (hours) (visits/days/ visitors)
(hours)
BP 100 1 10 2 5.0 500
NB 100 1 2 2 1.0 100
Total 2,383
Note: MT: Main Trail, SH: Southern Hill Trail, NH: Northern Hill Trail, SV: Southern Valley Trail, NV: Northern Valley Trail, BP:
Bird Photography, NB: Night Birding, PCC: Physical Carrying Capacity
2270 B I OD I V E R S ITA S 21 (5): 2266-2274, May 2020

Slope range and soil texture affect the vulnerability or the administration of a protected area must be able to fully
risk of erosion on the trails which are used as bird-watching comply with its functions and objectives. MC measurement
ecotourism packages. Referring to the slope range and soil is not easy, as it involves variables such as: legal support,
texture made by Cifuentes (1992), there are three slope policies, equipment, personnel, financing, infrastructure,
ranges (less than 10%, between 10% and 20%, and more and facilities. Some of these variables are not measurable
than 20%), and three soil textures (gravel or sand, muddy, (Cifuentes 1992).
and clay. Combination of slope range and soil texture In this study, MC is measured only from the variable
results in three levels of erosion risk: low, medium, and number of employees. The number of employees at KNP is
high. Trail with a slope of less than 10%, whatever the soil four persons. When we plan to develop bird-watching
texture, has a low or no erosion risk. Soil with gravel or ecotourism, it takes at least five additional employees (a
sand, and clay, with a slope of between 10% and 20% have guide and tour service providers), so MC for bird-watching
a moderate risk. Muddy soils with a slope of between 10% ecotourism packages in KNP is 0.4. Thus, ECC can be
and 20% are at high risk of erosion, as are all soil textures determined as presented in Table 6.
with a slope above 20%.
Based on the combination of slope range and soil
texture, the degrees of erosion of the trail are summarized Table 2. Degree of trail erosion based on a combination of slope
in Table 2. With the criteria in Table 2, the erosion range and soil texture (Cifuentes 1992)
correction factor (CF2) can be obtained by summing the
Slope range
trail length which has medium risk multiplied by two and Soil texture
<10% 10 – 20% >20%
high risk multiplied by three, then divided by the total trail Gravel or sand Low Medium High
length. The erosion correction factor for each bird- Muddy Low High High
watching ecotourism package is presented in Table 3. Clay Low Medium High
Accessibility is the level of difficulty of visitors
walking on the trails which are used as bird-watching
ecotourism packages. The flat trail has a lower difficulty Table 4. Accessibility correction factor of bird-watching
level than the uphill trail. The higher slope makes level of ecotourism packages in Kerandangan Natural Park, Lombok,
difficulty higher too. Based on this criterion, Cifuentes Indonesia
(1992) determined trail difficulty level be low, medium,
Trail length Trail length with
and high. Trails with a slope of less than 10% have low Package CF3 (%)
(m) risk (m)
difficulty, 10% to 20% medium, and more than 20% MT 1,800 105 5.8
high. SH 2,400 1,750 72.9
Accessibility correction factor (CF3) is a comparison NH 2,100 1,500 71.4
between trail lengths that have medium to high risks with SV 460 0 0.0
total trail length. Table 4 presents the accessibility NV 780 10 1.3
correction factor of each bird-watching ecotourism Total 7,540 3,365 44.6
package. Based on these correction factors, the RCC of
bird-watching ecotourism packages can be calculated as Package Area (m2) Area with risk (m2) CF3 (%)
BP 100 0 0
presented in Table 5.
NB 100 0 0
Note: MT: Main Trail, SH: Southern Hill Trail, NH: Northern Hill
Effective carrying capacity Trail, SV: Southern Valley Trail, NV: Northern Valley Trail, BP:
ECC value is obtained by comparing RCC with Bird Photography, NB: Night Birding, CF: Correction Factor
management capacity (MC). MC is a condition in which

Table 3. Erosion correction factor of bird-watching ecotourism packages in Kerandangan Natural Park, Lombok, Indonesia

Trail length Risk degree and weight (m)

Package Trail length with risk (m) CF2 (%)
(m) Medium = 2 High = 3
MT 1,800 25 50 200 11.1
SH 2,400 50 203 709 29.5
NH 2,100 207 87 675 32.1
SV 460 0 0 0 0
NV 780 7 0 14 1.8
Total 7,540 289 340 1,598 21.2

Risk degree and weight (m2)

Package Area (m2) Area with risk (m2) CF2 (%)
Medium = 2 High = 3
BP 100 0 0 0 0
NB 100 0 0 0 0
Note: MT: Main Trail, SH: Southern Hill Trail, NH: Northern Hill Trail, SV: Southern Valley Trail, NV: Northern Valley Trail, BP:
Bird Photography, NB: Night Birding, CF: Correction Factor
 SUANA et al. – Bird-watching in Kerandangan Natural Park, Lombok, Indonesia 2271

Table 6. Effective carrying capacity of bird-watching ecotourism Although ecotourism is more environmentally friendly
packages in Kerandangan Natural Park, Lombok, Indonesia activity of resource utilization compared to other uses, it
still has the potential to cause disruption to resources. To
Package MC RCC (visitors/day) ECC (visitors/day) increase added value, parks or protected areas require
MT 0.4 169 75 visitor management (Eagles and McColl 2002; Sabokkhiz
SH 0.4 25 11 et al. 2016; Maryono et al. 2019). The optimal capacity for
NH 0.4 23 10 visitors must be carefully determined to provide the desired
SV 0.4 134 60 biophysical and social conditions. Optimal capacity can
NV 0.4 159 71 change according to place, season, time, user behavior,
BP 0.4 210 93 facility design, pattern and level of management, and
NB 0.4 42 19
Total 0.4 437 175
dynamic character of environmental elements (Ceballos-
Note: MT: Main Trail, SH: Southern Hill Trail, NH: Northern Hill Lacurảin 1996; Marsiglio 2015; Sutanhaji et al. 2019).
Trail, SV: Southern Valley Trail, NV: Northern Valley Trail, BP:
Bird Photography, NB: Night Birding, RCC: Real Carrying Table 7. Value of respondent's WTP, EWTP, and TWTP for bird-
Capacity, ECC: Effective Carrying Capacity, MC: Management watching ecotourism packages at Kerandangan Natural Park
Capacity

Willing to pay
Bid offered x
pay (person)
Bid offered
Willingness to pay

Willing to
Package
Payment card CVM approach is used to analyze the

EWTP

TWTP
(US$)

(US$)

(US$)

(US$)
value of respondent's WTP to bird-watching ecotourism
packages tariff in KNP. The results are presented in Table
7. The average value of respondent's WTP (EWTP) is Soft Trails 10 92 920
obtained from the multiplication of total number of (MT, SV, 20 44 880
respondent's WTP with the number of respondents willing NV) 30 14 420
to pay according to their choice, and then divided by the Sub total 150 2,220 14.8 3,478.0
total number of respondents. Table 7 presents the results of
Adventure 30 78 2,340
EWTP. The total value of respondent's WTP (TWTP) is
Trails (SH, 40 57 2,280
calculated based on the EWTP value multiplied by the total NH) 50 15 750
tourist population per month – average tourist in KNP from Sub total 150 5,370 35.8 8,413.0
January to July 2017 was 235 visitors per month. The Bird 10 92 920
results are presented in Table 7. Photography 20 39 780
30 19 570
Discussion Sub total 150 2,270 15.1 3,556.3
Study on different aspects of the environment carrying Night 10 68 680
capacity in the implementation for ecotourism in National Birding 20 57 1,140
30 25 750
Parks and protected areas have been carried out by some
Sub total 150 2,570
17.1 4,026.3
researchers (Cifuentes 1992; Manning 2002; Clivaz et al. Total 19,473.6
2004; Maldonado and Montagnini 2005; Sayan and Atik Note: MT: Main Trail, SH: Southern Hill Trail, NH: Northern Hill
2011; Lucyanti et al. 2013; Masum et al. 2013; Purwanto et Trail, SV: Southern Valley Trail, NV: Northern Valley Trail,
al. 2014; Sasmita et al. 2014; Sadikin et al. 2017; Vujko et WTP: Willingness to Pay, EWTP: Average Value of WTP,
al. 2017; Lalrosanga et al. 2019; Salemi et al. 2019). TWTP: Total Value of WTP

Table 5. Real carrying capacity of bird-watching ecotourism packages in Kerandangan Natural Park, Lombok, Indonesia

PCC Correction factor RCC

Package
(visitors/day) Rainfall Erosion Accessibility (visitors/day)
MT 480 58 11.1 5.8 169
SH 315 58 29.5 72.9 25
NH 278 58 32.1 71.4 23
SV 320 58 0 0 134
NV 390 58 1.8 1.3 159
BP 500 58 0 0 210
NB 100 58 0 0 42
Total 2,383 58 21.2 44.6 437
Note: MT: Main Trail, SH: Southern Hill Trail, NH: Northern Hill Trail, SV: Southern Valley Trail, NV: Northern Valley Trail, BP:
Bird Photography, NB: Night Birding, PCC: Physical Carrying Capacity, RCC: Real Carrying Capacity
2272 B I OD I V E R S ITA S 21 (5): 2266-2274, May 2020
The calculation of environment carrying capacity of
bird-watching ecotourism packages in KNP indicates PCC
> RCC > ECC with a total value of 2,383 > 437 > 175.
Based on this result, the maximum number that can be
physically accommodated is 2,383 visitors per day. PCC
value of 2,383 has not considered biophysical factors in the
field, which means that environmental conditions of bird-
watching ecotourism packages have not been used in the
calculation of environment carrying capacity. Carrying
capacity of the tourist environment is influenced by one of
the biophysical environmental factors of the tourist area,
and they have an effect on the strength or fragility of
ecosystem. Ecosystem quality will decrease when the
number of visitors exceeds the number of PCCs, therefore
the number of visitors must be balanced with PCC in order
to develop sustainable ecotourism. An area managed by the
PCC approach will be able to avoid the development at too
fast and of uncontrolled areas that would harm the
development of ecotourism (Lucyanti et al. 2013;
Lalrosanga et al. 2019; Sofiyan et al. 2019).
PCC value of bird-watching ecotourism packages
associated with the actual number of visitors in KNP (235
visitors per month or only eight visitors per day) is very far
below the value of PCC (2,383 visitors per day). The actual
visitor value is the average number of visitors coming to
KNP per month over the past seven months. This
assumption does not take into account the peak season and
off season, as well as the origin of the visitors
(international or domestic). Peak season usually occurs
during the holiday, between December to January, as well
as June to July.
RCC values were obtained after including biophysical
environmental factors of the tourist area limiting the
number of visits, resulting in lower RCC value than PCC
value. Some biophysical parameters usually used by some
researchers in calculating RCC are: climatic conditions
(sunlight, rainfall, snow, and wind speed); natural disasters
(storms, erosion, and floods); flora and fauna (wildlife
disruption, and vegetation conditions); accessibility; and
temporary closure (Cifuentes 1992; Sayan and Atik 2011;
Zacarias et al. 2011; Lagmoj et al. 2012; Lucyanti et al.
2013; Purwanto et al. 2014; Sasmita et al. 2014; Sofiyan et
al. 2019). Based on field observation and interview with
KNP manager, biophysical parameters which are
considered as the limiting factors of environment carrying
capacity in KNP are: rainfall, erosion, and accessibility.
Rainfall is the biggest limiting factor to RCC value, i.e.
58%. Based on data from BMKG-Climatology Station
Class I-West Lombok, the average rainfall is 146 mm.
January to April, and September to December are
categorized as wet months with rainfall between 130 and
245 mm. This condition makes bird observation in those
months less effective, as bird activity is limited when it
rains, and making it more difficult to observe. The addition
of shelter or gazebo facilities scattered at several points
along the trail is necessary for visitor shelter when it rains.
High rainfall also increases the chances of erosion on the
trail.
Erosion can limit the average number of visits by
21.2%. SH and NH have the greatest risk of erosion, i.e.
29.5% and 32.1% respectively. The soil texture of the KNP
contains rocks, gravel, and sand, so that it is vulnerable
when stepped on. This makes visitors easily slip, especially
on the trail uphill. In the rainy season, the soil will be easily
eroded by rainwater and cause avalanches. Trail situated on
the river banks, such as MT and NV are also vulnerable to
landslides due to scouring river currents. SV, BP, and NB
have low or no erosion risk, because they are located in flat
area.
Accessibility is level of difficulty of visitors walking on
the trail, due to slope of the trail. Jangpradit (2007) ranked
landform with a slope of 0-5° as having high potential for
ecotourism, 5-25° with moderate potential, 25-35° with
marginal potential, and above 35° without potential. Trail
with a slope of more than 35° has an impact on the speed
and health of visitors. Fatigue of visitors due to a steep trail
can disrupt the concentration of visitors during bird
observation. SH and NH have a higher difficulty level
compared with other packages, because some parts of the
trail have a slope of 30°. But visitors who like hiking, SH
and NH are the right choice. From the hill ridge of 450 to
650 m above sea level, visitors can see the beauty of the
green forest cover in the valley with blue waters of
Senggigi Beach in the background.
The RCC value of bird-watching ecotourism packages
is 437 visitors per day, so the estimated number of visits
per month that can be accommodated is 13,110 visitors.
This value is far above the actual number of visitors to
KNP, which is an average of 235 visitors per month. It
means that the number of visitors can be optimized up to
98.2%. Taking the RCC value into consideration will help
efforts to maintain the balance between environmental
conditions with the number of visitors. Carrying capacity is
a limitation of the use of tourism space before a significant
decline in the quality of tourism resources or tourist
experiences.
ECC value associated with MC shows the number of
175 visitors per day or 5,250 visitors per month. Referring
to these results, the number of visitors can be optimized by
95.5% or 167 visitors per day or 5,010 visitors per month.
This value indicates that with the current staffs of KNP are
able to serve visitors who come every day, where the
average number of visits is up to eight visitors per day.
Optimizing the number of visitors based on ECC value
must be accompanied by optimizing MC to 100%.
According to Cifuentes (1992), MC optimization takes into
account variables, such as: legal basis, policies and
regulations, equipment, personnel, financing,
infrastructure, and facilities.
Willingness to pay by the visitors is a form of visitor
responsibility to the environment. Result of visitor’s WTP
analysis on bird-watching ecotourism packages at KNP
indicates an average value of US $ 20.7 per visitor. All
respondents in this study want to contribute to bird-
watching ecotourism development at KNP. Positive
responses were also obtained by Adamu et al. (2015),
where 77.9% of 335 visitors interviewed were willing to
pay for conservation in Yankari Game Reserve, Bauchi,
Nigeria. Visitors of Gunung Gading National Park in
Malaysia also showed a positive response to contribute for
 SUANA et al. – Bird-watching in Kerandangan Natural Park, Lombok, Indonesia
the purpose of the national park conservation (Kamri
2013). Kirkbride-Smith et al. (2016) found that user fees
could provide a considerable source of income to aid reef
conservation in Barbados, West Indies. Study in Gunung
Gede Pangrango National Park, West Java, Indonesia by
Nuva et al. (2009) found that visitors were willing to pay
more for entrance fees. Interesting results found by Vujko
and Gajić (2014) showed that the visitors of Fruška Gora
National Park, who have not a positive attitude towards the
payment of the park user fees, after persuasive
communication changed their opinion and answered in
favour of the payment. This indicates that persuasive
communication is important to enhance participation of the
communities in protecting the environment through
payment of park user fees.
To conclude, the environmental carrying capacity of the
bird-watching ecotourism package in KNP is higher than
the actual level of visits, so the opportunity to develop and
increase the number of visitors is huge. Visitors are willing
to pay for bird-watching ecotourism packages with an
average of US $ 20.7 per visitor. Thus they are willing to
shoulder financial support for the management and
conservation of birds and their habitats in KNP. This
finding provides important information for KNP managers
for planning and marketing bird-watching ecotourism in
KNP.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Our gratitude goes to Head of the Natural Resource
Conservation Center, Nusa Tenggara Barat, for permission
to work in Kerandangan Natural Park. Earl of Cranbrook
and Yong Hoi Sen for helpful advice. Ministry of
Research, Technology and Higher Education, Republic of
Indonesia for the financial support grant number
074/SP2H/LT/DRPM/IV/2017.
REFERENCES
Abrahams J. 2015. Message testing nature. In: Figgis P, Mackey B,
Fitzsimons J, Irving J, Clarke J (eds). Valuing Nature: Protected
Areas and Ecosystem Services. Australian Committee for IUCN,
Sydney.
Adamu A, Yacob MR, Hashim R. 2015. Factors determining visitors’
willingness to pay for conservation in Yankari Game Reserve,
Bauchi, Nigeria. Intl J Econ Manag 9: 95-114.
Armono HD, Rosyid DM, Nuzula NI. 2017. Carrying capacity model
applied to coastal ecotourism of Baluran National Park, Indonesia.
IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 79: 012004. DOI: 10.1088/1755-
1315/79/1/012004
Bunruamkaew K, Murayama Y. 2012. Land use and natural resources
planning for sustainable ecotourism using GIS in Surat Thani,
Thailand. Sustainability 4: 412-429. DOI: 10.3390/su4030412
Ceballos-Lascuráin H. 1996. Tourism, Ecotourism and Protected Areas:
The State of Nature-Based Tourism around the World and Guidelines
for Its Development. IUCN, Cambridge, UK.
Cheung LTO, Fok L, Fang W. 2014. Understanding geopark visitors'
preferences and willingness to pay for global geopark management
and conservation. J Ecotourism 13: 35-51. DOI:
10.1080/14724049.2014.941848
Cheung LTO, Jim CY. 2014. Expectations and willingness-to-pay for
ecotourism services in Hong Kong’s conservation areas. Int J Sustain
Dev World Ecol 21: 149-159. DOI: 10.1080/13504509.2013.859183
2273
Cifuentes M. 1992. Determinacion de Capacidad de Cargatruisticaen
Areas Protegidas. Centro Agronomico Tropical de Investigacion Y
Enzenanza Catie, Costa Rica.
Clivaz C, Hausser Y, Michelet J. 2004. Tourism monitoring system based
on the concept of carrying capacity: The case of the regional natural
park Pfyn-Finges (Switzerlands). Working Paper of the Finish Forest
Research Institute 2, Helsinski.
Cochrane P. 2015. Natural solutions: embedding ecosystem understanding
in protected area policy in Australia. In: Figgis P, Mackey B,
Fitzsimons J, Irving J, Clarke J (eds). Valuing Nature: Protected
Areas and Ecosystem Services. Australian Committee for IUCN,
Sydney.
Costanza R, Groot R, Sutton P, van der Ploeg S, Anderson SJ,
Kubiszewski I, Farber S, Turner RK. 2014. Changes in the global
value of ecosystem services. Global Environ Ch 26: 152-158. DOI:
10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002.
Eagles P, McCool S. 2002. Tourism in National Parks and Protected
Areas. Cabi Publishing, Wallingford.
Enseñat-Soberanis F, Blanco-Gregory R, Mondragón-Mejía J, Simoes N,
Moreno-Acevedo E, Ortega I. 2020. Crowding standards and
willingness to pay at cenotes (sinkholes) of the Yucatan Peninsula: a
comparative analysis of local, national and international visitors. J
Ecotourism 19: 1-22. DOI: 10.1080/14724049.2019.1619747
Ferreira S, Harmse A. 2014. Kruger National Park: tourism development
and issues around the management of large numbers of tourists. J
Ecotourism 13: 16-34, DOI: 10.1080/14724049.2014.925907
Iasha A, Yacob MR, Kabir I, Radam A. 2015. Estimating economic value
for potential ecotourism resources in Puncak Lawang Park, Agam
District, West Sumatera, Indonesia. Procedia Environ Sci 30: 326-
331. DOI: 10.1016/j.proenv.2015.10.058
Jangpradit C. 2007. An assessment of ecotourism potential at Sauk Phet
Bay at Ko Chang, Trat Province [Thesis]. Kasetsart University,
Bangkok.
Junaid I, Fauziah AN. 2018. The carrying capacity for the development of
marine ecotourism. Masyarakat, Kebudayaan dan Politik 31: 190-200.
DOI: 10.20473/mkp.V31I22018.190-200. [Indonesian]
Kalfas DG, Zagkas DT, Dragozi EI, Zagkas TD. 2020. Estimating value
of the ecosystem services in the urban and peri-urban green of a town
Florina-Greece, using the CVM. Intl J Sustain Dev World Ecol. DOI:
10.1080/13504509.2020.1714786
Kamri T. 2013. Willingness to pay for conservation of natural resources in
the Gunung Gading National Park, Sarawak. Procedia Soc Behav Sci
101: 506-515. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.224
King DM, Mazzotta MJ. 2000. Ecosytem valuation.
www.ecosystemvaluation.org.
Kirkbride-Smith AE, Wheeler PM, Johnson ML. 2016. Artificial reefs and
marine protected areas: A study in willingness to pay to access
Folkestone Marine Reserve, Barbados, West Indies. PeerJ 4:e2175.
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.2175
Lagmoj MA, Shokry AK, Hashemi SA, Zadegan HK. 2013. Defining the
ecotourism carrying capacity of Langeroud City (case study: Khorma
Forest). Greener J Soc Sci 3: 447-457.
Lalrosanga, Sajnani M, Pachuau R. 2019. Assessment of physical carrying
capacity of tourism for ecological development at Phawngpui
National Park, Mizoram, India. Ecology, Environ Conserv Paper 25:
837-844.
Lamsal P, Atreya K, Pant KP, Kumar L. 2015. An analysis of willingness
to pay for community-based conservation activities at the Ghodaghodi
Lake Complex, Nepal. Intl J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 11:
341-348. DOI: 10.1080/21513732.2015.1055338
Lucyanti S, Hendrarto B, Izzati M. 2013. Assessment of carrying capacity
of tourism in tourist sites of Palutungan Campsite of Mount Ciremai
National Park, West Java Province. Proceedings of National Seminar
on Natural Resource Management and Environment 2013.
[Indonesian]
Maldonado E, Montagnini F. 2005. Carrying capacity of La Tigra
National Park, Honduras: Can the park be self-sustainable? J Sustain
For 19: 29-48. DOI: 10.1300/J091v19n04_03
Manning RE. 2002. How much is too much? Carrying capacity of
National Parks and protected areas. In: Arnberger A, Brandenburg C,
Muhar A (eds) Proceedings of monitoring and management of visitor
flows in recreational and protected areas. Bodenkultur University,
Vienna, Austria.
Marsiglio S. 2015. On the carrying capacity and the optimal number of
visitors in tourism destinations. Tourism Economics 23: 632-646.
DOI: 10.5367/te.2015.0535
2274 B I OD I V E R S ITA S 21 (5): 2266-2274, May 2020
Maryono M, Effendi H, Krisanti M. 2019. Tourism carrying capacity to
support beach management at Tanjung Bira, Indonesia. J Segara 15:
119-126.
Masum KM, Mamun AA, Rahman ZMM, Rahman MM, Newaz MS,
Redowan M. 2013. Ecotourism carrying capacity and the potentiality
of the Safari Park of Bangladesh. J For Environ Sci 29: 292-299.
DOI: 10.7747/JFS.2013.29.4.292
Nuva R, Shamsudin MN, Radam A, Shuib A. 2009. Willingness to pay
towards the conservation of ecotourism resources at Gunung Gede
Pangrango National Park, West Java, Indonesia. J Sustain Dev 2: 173-
186. DOI: 10.5539/jsd.v2n2p173
Oktavia RCD, Siregar H, Sunarminto T, Hermawan R. 2019. Analysis of
recreational carrying capacity of urban parks and urban forests in DKI
Jakarta Province. Intl J Sci Basic Appl Res 46: 38-56.
Paranata A, Sutanto H, Dakwah M. 2017. Willingness to pay of
ecotourism visitors. Jurnal Ekonomi dan Kebijakan 10: 350-360.
DOI: 10.15294/jejak.v10i2.11299 [indonesian]
Pengwei W, Linsheng Z. 2018. Tourist willingness to pay for protected
area ecotourism resources and influencing factors at the Hulun Lake
Protected Area. J Res Ecol 9: 174-180. DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-
764x.2018.02.007
Purwanto S, Syaufina L, Gunawan A. 2014. Potency and carrying capacity
of Bukit Kelam Nature Park for ecotourism. Jurnal Pengelolaan
Sumberdaya Alam dan Lingkungan 4: 119-125. [Indonesian]
Resende FM, Fernandes GW, Andrade DC, Néder HD. 2017. Economic
valuation of the ecosystem services provided by a protected area in
the Brazilian Cerrado: application of the contingent valuation method.
Braz J Biol 77: 762-773. DOI: 10.1590/1519-6984.21215
Romadhon A, Yulianda F, Bengen D, Adrianto L. 2014. Sustainable
tourism based on carrying capacity and ecological footprint at
Sapeken Archipelago, Indonesia. Intl J Ecosyst 4: 190-196.
Sabokkhiz M, Sabokkhiz F, Shayesteh K, Malaz J, Shieh E. 2016.
Sustainable tourism management by using recreational carrying
capacity concept (Case: Mesr Desert in Iran). Rev Eur Stud 8: 105-
112.
Sadikin PN, Arifin HS, Pramudya B, Mulatsih S. 2017. Carrying capacity
to preserve biodiversity on ecotourism in Mount Rinjani National
Park, Indonesia. Biodiversitas 18: 978-989. DOI:
10.13057/biodiv/d180316
Salemi M, Jozi SA, Malmasi S, Rezaian S. 2019. Conceptual framework
for evaluation of ecotourism carrying capacity for sustainable
development of Karkheh protected area, Iran. Intl J Sustain Dev
World Ecol 26: 354-366. DOI: 10.1080/13504509.2019.1570379
Sangster G, King BF, Verbelen P, Trainor CR.. 2013. A new owl s pecies
of the Genus Otus (Aves: Strigidae) from Lombok, Indonesia. PLoS
ONE 8: e53712. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053712
Sari CP, Rahayu S. 2018. Carrying capacity of Gancik Hill Top for
ecotourism development in Boyolali District. E3S Web Conf. 73:
02008. DOI: 10.1051/e3sconf/20187302008
Sasmita E, Darsiharjo, Rahmafitria F. 2014. Analysis of carrying capacity
of tourism as an effort to support the function of conservation and
tourism in Cibodas Botanical Garden, Cianjur Regency. Jurnal
Manajemen Resort & Leisure 11 (2):-. [Indonesian]
Sayan MS, Atik M. 2011. Recreation carrying capacity estimates for
protected areas: Study of park. Ekoloji 20: 66-74.
Sheridan P. 2015. Public perceptions and challenges of communicating
the value of ecosystems and protected areas. In: Figgis P, Mackey B,
Fitzsimons J, Irving J, Clarke J (eds). Valuing Nature: Protected
Areas and Ecosystem Services. Australian Committee for IUCN,
Sydney.
Sofiyan A, Hidayat W, Winarno GD, Harianto SP. 2019. Analysis of
ecotourism’s physical, real and effective carrying capacity in Pulau
Pisang, Pesisir Barat Regency. Jurnal Sylva Lestari 7: 225-234
[Indonesian]
Suana IW, Ahyadi H, Amin S, Kalih LATTWS, Hadiprayitno G. 2016.
Birdwatching in Kerandangan Natural Park, Lombok, Nusa Tenggara
Barat, Indonesia. BirdingAsia 26: 8-16.
Subanti S, Hakim IM, Daerobi A, Nasir MS, Hakim AR. 2016.
Determinant of willingness to pay and economic value for ecotourism
object using contingent valuation method: the case of Rawapening,
Semarang Regency, Central Java, Indonesia. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Tourism, Gastronomy, and Tourist
Destination (ICTGTD 2016). DOI: 10.2991/ictgtd-16.2017.49
Sukuryadi, Harahab N, Primyastanto M, Semedi B. 2020. Analysis of
suitability and carrying capacity of mangrove ecosystem for
ecotourism in Lembar Village, West Lombok District, Indonesia.
Biodiversitas 21: 596-604. DOI: 10.13057/biodiv/d210222
Sutanhaji AT, Susilo A, Sunaryo S, Suyadnya IW, Ishaq B. 2019.
Environmental carrying capacity base on land balance to support
geotourism programs in the karst area of South Malang. J Environ
Manag Tourism 10: 1756-1766. DOI: 10.14505//jemt.v10.8(40).06
UNEP [United Nation Environment Programme]. 2012. Bird-watching
can help boost ecotourism industry, says UN environment agency.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2012/05/410602-bird-watching-can-help-
boost-ecotourism-industry-says-un-environment-agency.
UNEP [United Nations Environment Programme and World Tourism
Organization]. 2005. Making tourism more sustainable: A guide for
policy makers. Paris, Madrid.
Varcoe T, O’Shea HB, Eigenraam M, Jackson B. 2015. The value of
Victoria’sparks: A new framework for valuation and accounting of
park ecosystem services. In: Figgis P, Mackey B, Fitzsimons J, Irving
J, Clarke J (eds). Valuing Nature: Protected Areas and Ecosystem
Services. Australian Committee for IUCN, Sydney.
Vujko A, Gajić T. 2014. Persuasive communication and visitors
willingness to pay park user fees. Turizam 18: 1-10.
Vujko A, Plavša J, Petrović MD, Radovanović M, Gajić T. 2017.
Modelling of carrying capacity in National Park-Fruška Gora (Serbia)
case study. Open Geosciences 9: 61-72. DOI: 10.1515/geo-2017-0005
Wahyuni TE, Mildranaya E. 2010. Guide to nature tourism in
conservation area of West Nusa Tenggara. West Nusa Tenggara
Natural Resources Conservation Center, Mataram. [Indonesian]
WTO [World Tourism Organization]. 1981. Saturation of tourist
destinations: Report of the Secretary General.
Wulandari A, Maryono M, Setyawan A. 2018. Carrying capacity for
ecotourism development in Tahura K.G.P.A.A. Mangkunagoro I. E3S
Web Conf 73: 02007. DOI: 10.1051/e3sconf/20187302007
Zacarias DA, Williams AT, Newton A. 2011. Recreation carrying
capacity estimations to support beach management at Praia De Faro,
Portugal. Appl Geogr 31: 1075-1081. DOI:
10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.01.020
Zhao Y, Jiao L. 2019. Resources development and tourism environmental
carrying capacity of ecotourism industry in Pingdingshan City, China.
Ecol Process 8: 7. DOI: 10.1186/s13717-019-0161-0
 Journal of Governance and Public Policy
ISSN: 2460-0164 (print), 2549-7669 (Online)
Vol 8, No 2 (2021): Page no: 93-105

Ecotourism in Indonesia: Local Community Involvement and

The Affecting Factors
Zakia
University of Indonesia, Jl. Margonda Raya, Pondok Cina, Beji District, Depok City, West Java, Indonesia
Corresponding Author: zakia18@ui.ac.id
https://doi.org/10.18196/jgpp.v8i2.10789

Article Info
Abstract: Travel and tourism have become a fast-growing industry and a major
source of income for many developing countries including Indonesia. However,
wrong perceptions and poor management of ecotourism concept arise; one of
them is the low level of local community involvement in ecotourism management.
Article History;
Even though the existence of community interaction is a guarantee to the
Received: sustainability of ecotourism development. This study aims to analyze the local
2021-01-08 community involvement as well as the affecting factors in managing ecotourism
Revised: in Indonesia by systematic literature review method. The discussion about local
2021-02-23 community involvement was reviewed from the ecotourism planning level,
Accepted: participation in the ecotourism development implementation, and participation
2021-05-05 in its use. Meanwhile, the affecting factors were analyzed from the operational,
structural, and cultural perspectives. The results showed that the involvement of
the local community in ecotourism management in Indonesia was still limited to
the level of utilization. From the operational perspective, limits to local
community involvement came from limited information availability about
ecotourism to the local community, centralized tourism management, and the lack
of coordination among stakeholders. A limited number of trained human
resources, a legal system that did not support the participatory practices, the
uncooperative attitude of professionals, and the dominance of the local elite have
become the limitations to local community involvement from a structural
perspective. Meanwhile, cultural barriers included apathy and a low level of
public awareness of the potential benefit of ecotourism in their area.
Keyword: Local Community Involvement; Ecotourism; Conservation; Systematic Literature
Review.
INTRODUCTION
The concept of rural tourism could be identified through various disciplines (Jaafar et al.,
2015). Tourism itself is a proper medium to stimulate rural economies in both developed and
developing countries (Hall & Page, 2014). Rural tourism encompasses various activities and
concepts such as agrotourism, ecotourism, green tourism, and nature tourism (MacDonald &
Jolliffe, 2003; Su, 2011), which could be great alternatives for vacation compared to mass
tourism. Ecotourism was designed as a form of protest against the expansion of the mass tourism
model by promoting environmental conservation, cultural preservation, community engagement,
economic benefit, and empowerment of vulnerable groups (Cobbinah, 2015). This eco-friendly
option appeared as a result of the devastating and negative impact of mass tourism, such as (1)
environmental, social and cultural degradation, (2) unfair distribution of financial benefit, (3)
promotion of paternalistic attitude, and (4) spread of disease (Mowforth & Munt, 2008).
Compared to mass tourism, ecotourism could offer better sectoral relationships, reduce leakages
of international tourism, create local jobs and encourage sustainable development (Belsky, 1999;
Khan, 1997). Hence, ecotourism is a popular way of conservation in economic development,
specifically in developing countries (Campbell, 1999). Rural tourism could benefit the local

93 | Zakia
 Ecotourism in Indonesia: Local Community Involvement and The Affecting Factors
Vol 8, No 2 (2021): Page no: 93-105

community in economic growth, socio-cultural development, service provider, and living

standards (Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012). Those benefits resulted in the positive development of
behavioral and attitude toward local community related to tourism development (Jaafar et al.,
2015; Jurowski et al., 1997). However, rural tourism also presents many drawbacks, and its
growth could be negatively affected as it contributed to the increasing amount of waste and
criminal cases, and no-more-peaceful villages (Andereck, K. L. et al., 2005).
The local community is the most vulnerable group that can experience those negative
impacts. Ecotourism destinations are generally located and dispersed in remote areas. They need
the local community’s participation, especially in remote areas and islands (Fotiou et al., 2002).
In a recent study, it is reported that the engagement of local community’s participation plays an
essential role in the development and environmental conservation as well as local resources. In
developing countries, tourism is considered a sustainable source of income for rural and local
communities. The participation of the local community is generally one of the sustainable tourism
components and ecotourism precisely (Drake, 1991). The important benefit of ecotourism policy
and planning is to benefit the local community and surroundings in several ways through the
creation of new jobs, additional income, the market for local products, infrastructure
improvements, community’s facility and service, technology, and new skills, increasing cultural
and environmental awareness, protection and conservation as well as improving land-use
patterns (Dowling & Fennell, 2003).
Travel and tourism have become a fast-growing industry and a major source of income for
many developing countries (Wood, 2002), including Indonesia. The average growth of foreign
tourists traveling to Indonesia in 2014-2018 reached 14% annually. This figure is higher than the
average growth of foreign tourists in 2009-2013, which was only 9% per year (BPS, 2019). As the
third-largest mega-biodiversity country in the world besides Brazil and Kongo, tourists visiting
Indonesia will be indulged by the exotic flora and fauna, magnificent panoramic landscape, and
adventure experiences. Approximately 35% of the major nature tourism product portfolio is
ecotourism (Kementerian Pariwisata dan Ekonomi Kreatif, 2019). Ecotourism is defined as a
journey full of responsibility toward the natural area by keeping the environmental conservation
and involving interpretation and education. Education, in this concept, is inclusive for both
tourism management and the tourists (The International Ecotourism Society, 2015). Ecotourism
development is based on the awareness of every environmental condition oriented toward
conservation and concern for local culture and civilization. Besides, the tourism activities do not
demand any requirements like mass tourism, which requires complete recreational facilities. It
only requires the ideal quality of a beautiful tourism landscape. Despite the benefits offered by
the concept of ecotourism, several problems arise in its implementation. Several critics against
the concept of ecotourism are firstly related to environmental issues (Ko & Stewart, 2002), which
are the results of the lack of knowledge and awareness of local community and tourists about this
concept, as well as the lack of management and role of government to promote conservation and
decisive action in managing the environmental problems. Secondly, poor management.
Several problems arise in ecotourism management in various regions in Indonesia, one of
them related to the low involvement of the local community - which often leads to conflict or
disturbance in ecotourism activities (Laapo et al., 2010; Mawardi, 2006; Tiga et al., 2019a). Hence,
the main goal of ecotourism as a support for conservation efforts and local economic
improvement becomes difficult to achieve. It happens due to the lack of understanding of the
concept of ecotourism (Tiga et al., 2019a, 2019b) as well as poor supervision and role of
government in developing the tourist area to a better condition – which can be seen from the high
dominance of the private sector involvement in ecotourism management (Darmawan & Putradi,
2010; Ibrahim et al., 2019; Wildan et al., 2016). Ecotourism management often passes up
community participation as an important stakeholder. The local community is sometimes
considered an object or onlooker solely without actively involved in the economic process. The
local community participation in ecotourism has been widely used as a focus in various studies.
Community participation is defined as cooperation, involvement, and similarities among the
community members in certain activities directly or indirectly, from the ideas, policy-making
process, program implementation, and evaluation. Direct participation means that the
Zakia| 94
 Local Government Respond to COVID-19 Pandemics: A Study of South Tangerang City
Vol 8, No 2 (2021): Page no: 93-105

community members are involved in extending support through human resources assistance in
every activity, while indirect participation consists of ideas, funding, and materials needed.
According to (Cohen, J. M., & Uphoff, 1977), participation is an active engagement of the local
community in the decision-making process, implementation, research utilization, and evaluation.
Local community participation is an essential component in ecotourism as it draws together the
interest of current and future generations (Drake, 1991). Local community participation in
ecotourism does not only contribute to the improved quality of life but also toward sustainability
in conservation practice.
This research aims to synthesize the literature on local community participation in the
context of ecotourism management. This study reviewed and analyzed the participation of the
local community in ecotourism management in Indonesia as well as the factors affecting the local
community participation. The local community participation was analyzed from the ecotourism
planning level, participation in the ecotourism development implementation, and participation
in its use (Lukman, 2017). Meanwhile, the factors affecting it were reviewed through three
obstacles faced by the community to participate in managing the tourism, such as operational,
structural, and cultural obstacles (Tosun, 2000). The further section systematically elaborates the
methods used in this literature review. Following the literature review and analysis, the
discussion regarding the findings is presented. Finally, the conclusion is displayed by
theoretically and practically elaborating the implication of this study as well as offering several
recommendations for further research in the future.

RESEARCH METHODS
This paper employed content analysis to review updated literature about the local
community participation in managing ecotourism in Indonesia. This study reviewed scientific
articles published in Sinta Ristekdikti’s accredited journals with the qualifications of Sinta 1 and
Sinta 2, proving the high-quality articles used in this paper. The articles were searched by typing
the subject area of “Social”, “Science”, “Agriculture” and “Economy” and narrowed it down using
the keywords of “Local Community”, “Community Involvement”, “Citizen Participation”, “Public
Participation” and then carried out a more specific search on the keywords of “Ecotourism”,
“Tourist Villages” and “Rural Tourism”.

Figure 1. The Systematic Literature Review Process

Source: Processed by the researcher (2021)
From the process of article search, approximately 189 articles were identified, comprising
11 Sinta 1-accredited articles and 178 Sinta 2-accredited articles. Those articles were further
assessed by considering relevant topics according to the purpose of the study, deleting duplicate
articles, and abstract screening for each article. The in-depth screening process resulted in 29
articles. Each article was reviewed and analyzed to identify the types of local community

95 | Zakia
 Ecotourism in Indonesia: Local Community Involvement and The Affecting Factors
Vol 8, No 2 (2021): Page no: 93-105

participation and factors affecting it in managing ecotourism in Indonesia.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

From the articles reviewed, 38 ecotourism destinations were identified in several
provinces in Indonesia (Figure 2). These ecotourism destinations are managed by various actors
such as cooperatives, village-owned enterprises, the private sector, local and central
governments, and the local community. This study aims to analyze the local community
involvement as well as the affecting factors in managing ecotourism in Indonesia. The local
community involvement was reviewed from the ecotourism planning level, participation in the
implementation process, and participation in its use. Meanwhile, the affecting factors were
analyzed from the operational, structural, and cultural perspectives.

Figure 2. Ecotourism Destination Distribution Map

Source: Processed by the researcher (2021)

The local community involvement in ecotourism management

The types of community involvement in managing ecotourism vary in different
development levels of tourism objects. Several types of community involvement in supporting
ecotourism development are ecotourism planning level, participation in the ecotourism
development implementation, and participation in its use (Lukman, 2017). Community
involvement in planning ecotourism explains the supports of tourism development ideas,
involvement in the tourism design plan process, and roles in planning socialization. As mentioned
by (Slamet, 1994), there are four levels of engagement in planning, such as an ability to define
situations that expect a decision, choose the most proper alternatives, determine strategies, and
measure the impact of decision and action. Several published articles reviewed revealed the local
community involvement in the planning level.
The involvement included several activities such as planning the development of local areas
into ecotourism destinations (Hijriati & Mardiana, 2014), discussing customary or local
regulations regarding to conservation efforts for ecotourism areas (Asriyani & Verheijen, 2020),
discussing the conservation methods or strategies (Asriyani & Verheijen, 2020; Ayuningtyas &
Dharmawan, 2011; Harahab & Setiawan, 2017; Hijriati & Mardiana, 2014; Ibrahim et al., 2019;
Muaz et al., 2017; Ridlwan et al., 2017), discussing the current ecotourism problems (Ayuningtyas
& Dharmawan, 2011; Hijriati & Mardiana, 2014; Ibrahim et al., 2019; Ridlwan et al., 2017), finding
out people’s responses or perceptions regarding to the perceived benefits of ecotourism (Hijriati
& Mardiana, 2014; Ibrahim et al., 2019; Ridlwan et al., 2017), establishing visiting rules or policies
for tourists (Harahab & Setiawan, 2017; Hijriati & Mardiana, 2014; Ibrahim et al., 2019; Muaz et
al., 2017), and determining who would be involved in the development of ecotourism
(Ayuningtyas & Dharmawan, 2011; Nuraini et al., 2019). The form of local community
involvement at the planning level was only discussed in nine out of the 29 articles.
Community involvement in the execution stage is an implementation of planning arranged
on the planning stage, including the funding process and the implementation of tourism
development. The forms of engagement, for instance, are human resources assistance, fund, and

Zakia| 96
 Local Government Respond to COVID-19 Pandemics: A Study of South Tangerang City
Vol 8, No 2 (2021): Page no: 93-105

materials. The funding process can be done by sending and supervising proposals to various
agencies. A small-scale tourism development model, not capital intensive, and implementation of
mutual cooperation, open up a big area or participation for the local community to avoid them
from the marginalization of tourism development.
The local community involvement in the implementation process was reflected in several
activities such as patrolling the ecotourism destination from disturbances by the local community
such as illegal encroachment, fires, etc. (Muaz et al., 2017). A patrol was also carried out to
monitor the occurrence of criminal acts around the ecotourism area to provide convenience for
tourists (Ayuningtyas & Dharmawan, 2011). Reforestation of the ecotourism area supported the
conservation efforts to support ecotourism management (Harahab & Setiawan, 2017; Hijriati &
Mardiana, 2014; Wahdaniar et al., 2019; Wulandari & Sumarti, 2011). The local community also
participated in funding the ecotourism development, and sources of funding could come from
cooperatives (Ibrahim et al., 2019), a group of residents (Harahab & Setiawan, 2017), local
community, and local village government (Wulandari & Sumarti, 2011). As much as 25% of
development funds came from the local community, and the rest were from the village
government. In addition, the local community also contributed to the development and
maintenance of the public infrastructure such as irrigation and ecotourism facilities, cleaning and
maintaining the ecotourism area, and storing and maintaining the cultural heritage objects
(Hijriati & Mardiana, 2014; Ibrahim et al., 2019; Nuraini et al., 2019). The local community
involvement type at the implementation level was discussed in nine of the 29 articles reviewed
in this study.
Community involvement in utilization level is related to how the community members gain
results in managing tourism in job and business opportunity utilization. Compared to the
previous levels, the local community involvement in ecotourism management was mainly found
at the utilization level. It can be seen from the 29 articles analyzed, 23 discussed the local
community involvement at this level. Almost the whole article stated that ecotourism directly
provided economic benefits to the local community through various activities such as providing
accommodation or homestays, becoming tour guides, renting the tourist activity equipment such
as canoes, snorkeling equipment, boats, etc., providing transportation services, providing
culinary delights by opening restaurants or catering services, providing souvenirs or local
handicrafts, providing tour packages as well as cultural attractions packages and providing other
services such as parking area, public toilets, and photographer service. Ecotourism also benefited
the local community regarding job recruitment opened by tourism managers or investors, both
as cooks, hotel employees, and local micro, small, medium enterprises (MSMEs). Some
ecotourism destinations, most of which were managed by the local community, such as
cooperatives, village-owned enterprises, local youth organizations, even shared the profits from
ecotourism in their area.
Those were all economic benefits that provided immediate benefits for the local community
directly involved in ecotourism management. There were also the indirect benefits that came
from the results of conservation efforts, such as fishing for sale or personal consumption. Then,
the maintenance of village infrastructures such as roads and bridges also facilitated the delivery
of local community agricultural products, impacting better prices for agricultural products
(Nuraini et al., 2019). Of course, the flow of benefits obtained could not be separated from the
mechanisms of access and power possessed by the local community. In addition to economic
benefits, the local community also obtained social benefits, such as increasing the local
community’s knowledge and abilities about ecotourism, preserving the local culture, and
transferring information among the local community and tourists. Meanwhile, from an ecological
perspective, the community actively contributed to conservation efforts to protect ecotourism
areas.

97 | Zakia
 Ecotourism in Indonesia: Local Community Involvement and The Affecting Factors
Vol 8, No 2 (2021): Page no: 93-105

Figure 3. The Forms of Local Community Involvement in Ecotourism Management in Indonesia

Source: Processed by the researcher (2021)

The affecting factors of the local community involvement

Local participation is highly important for the tourism industry’s success as it is considered
one of the tourism products, and their input in the tourism development decision-making process
should be a focal point. In organizing facts relating to barriers to the factors affecting the local
community participation for tourism development in developing countries, (Tosun, 2000)
mentioned three obstacles faced by the community to participate in managing the tourism such
as operational, structural, and cultural obstacles. Limitations at the operational level included
centralization of public administration in the tourism sector (Anisaldi et al., 2013; Ridlwan et al.,
2017; Wildan et al., 2016; Wulandari & Sumarti, 2011), the lack of coordination between the
involved parties (Darmawan & Putradi, 2010; Wildan et al., 2016; Wulandari & Sumarti, 2011)
and the lack of information for the local community about the tourism destination (Anisaldi et al.,
2013; Sari & Santoso, 2016; Tiga et al., 2019b; Wildan et al., 2016; Wulandari & Sumarti, 2011).
Regarding the centralization of public administration in the tourism sector, any formulation and
implementation of public participation required the decentralization of political, administrative,
and financial power from the central government to local governments. However, in many
developing countries, planning was a centralized activity (Tosun, 2000). It impacted limiting the
influence of groups at the community level in the planning and implementation process so that
centralization hindered community participation in the planning process. It indeed increased the
span vertical relationship between the policymaker and the community.
The lack of coordination and cohesion within the highly fragmented tourism industry has
been a ‘well-known problem’ to tourism professionals. A participatory tourism development
strategy surely invited more actors to play a role in the tourism development process; thus,
increasing the need for interaction between institutions. However, the lack of coordination could
derail potential opportunities for communities to be involved in ecotourism development. In
most developing countries, insufficient tourism data, even if collected, have not been
disseminated to the public. Because most people did not receive complete information about
tourism development in their environment, community involvement in ecotourism development
was limited. A knowledge gap between centralized authorities and the local community made it
difficult for the local community to participate in the tourism development process. Likewise, on
the other hand, it could be that decision-makers or the central authority did not have the latest
information on the social and economic structure of the local community so that the goal of
developing better ecotourism has not been achieved.
Limitations at the structural level included professional attitudes, lack of expertise, elite
domination, lack of a proper legal system, lack of well-trained human resources, relatively high
participation costs, and lack of financial resources. In many developing countries, most
professionals did not have close relationships with the local community and tourism
backgrounds, causing them to be unable to accept the participatory tourism development model
as an effective approach. It was because professionals believed in the quality of their work in
formulating ecotourism development plans so that the possibility of accepting opinions from

Zakia| 98
 Local Government Respond to COVID-19 Pandemics: A Study of South Tangerang City
Vol 8, No 2 (2021): Page no: 93-105

amateurs or local people became impossible. This reason is understandable because involving lay
people in the decision-making process will affect time and cost inefficiency. The absence of a
positive attitude from professionals to involve the local community made it difficult for the
community to participate in the development of ecotourism in their area. The lack of expertise in
tourism management was also a major obstacle to participatory tourism development. The
participation of the local community required not only tourism planners but also sociologists,
economists, socio-psychological and political experts to formulate and implement participatory-
based tourism development (Tosun, 2000).
From the operational perspective, limits to local community involvement came from
limited information availability about ecotourism to the local community (Tiga et al., 2019a),
centralized tourism management, and the lack of coordination among stakeholders (Ridlwan et
al., 2017; Wildan et al., 2016; Wulandari & Sumarti, 2011). The low understanding of the local
community about zoning or area boundaries, coupled with a high dependence on ecotourism
areas to meet their daily needs, caused conflicts between the local community and the ecotourism
manager. The conflict triggered disturbances from the local community, including illegal logging,
encroachment, hunting of animals, and fires (Anisaldi et al., 2013; Tiga et al., 2019b). Lack of data
and information availability regarding ecotourism management had an indirect impact on the low
access of the local community in managing their area. The centralization of ecotourism
management is still happening in ecotourism management in Indonesia. Licensing systems and
investment-related decision-making were often carried out centrally by the government without
involving the local community (Anisaldi et al., 2013; Ridlwan et al., 2017; Wildan et al., 2016;
Wulandari & Sumarti, 2011). Another operational obstacle could be seen from the unclear status
of tourism area management so that the funds allocated by local governments were limited for
ecotourism development. This lack of funds impacted the availability of facilities and
infrastructure and inadequate accessibility (Anisaldi et al., 2013). Some other obstacles were such
as inconsistent government policies related to ecotourism, lack of clarity in legal authority and a
planning framework for ecotourism management, weak institutional capacity, and lack of
integration between programs caused by weak coordination between the government and local
community around ecotourism destinations (Darmawan & Putradi, 2010; Wulandari & Sumarti,
2011).
The limited number of trained human resources, a legal system that did not support the
participatory practices, the uncooperative attitude of professionals, and the dominance of the
local elite became the limitations to the local community involvement from a structural
perspective. The local community involvement in ecotourism management in Indonesia was
often hampered by their low capacity (Darmawan & Putradi, 2010; Ginting et al., 2010; Ibrahim
et al., 2019; Muaz et al., 2017; Ridlwan et al., 2017; Wildan et al., 2016; Wulandari & Sumarti,
2011). Thus, ecotourism management was delegated to external parties. This limited capacity
affected the ecotourism manager’s decision to recruit external workers. It further made the
practice of ecotourism away from its actual concept, namely the welfare or empowerment of the
local community. Apart from not being supported by a legal structure that could encourage
participatory practices (Kasmiati et al., 2016; Wulandari & Sumarti, 2011), this limited ability was
also caused by the attitude of the professionals (consultants) who tended to feel the most
competent in formulating the ecotourism development plans. Hence, they did not need to involve
the lay community (Ginting et al., 2010; Muaz et al., 2017). Likewise, the local elite’s high
dominance in ecotourism management has created opportunities for local community
involvement.
From the cultural perspective, limitations to local community involvement were in the form
of apathy and low awareness about the potential of ecotourism in their area. The management of
tourism and conservation, dominated by the central government or the local elite, without paying
attention to local people’s concerns, has made them apathetic to the ecotourism area
development program (Asriyani & Verheijen, 2020; Ridlwan et al., 2017; Tiga et al., 2019b). The
form of protest took the form of rejection of the rules or policies, especially those related to
conservation regulations. The local community still carried out hunting, encroachment, illegal
planting activities, etc., which often interfered with conservation efforts, in addition to their high

99 | Zakia
 Ecotourism in Indonesia: Local Community Involvement and The Affecting Factors
Vol 8, No 2 (2021): Page no: 93-105

dependence on these conservation areas. The low support—even tended to be antagonistic —

indeed became a significant obstacle in the development of the tourism industry.
Community is related to groups of people who share geographical areas and are bound by
similar cultures, values, races, or social classes (S. Mostafa Rasoolimanesh & Jaafa, 2016).
Community engagement is a relationship built by its members through collaboration to reach a
common goal and make the community a better place to live. In World Health Organization’s
module (Haslina Hashim & Garai Abdullah Regina, 2009), local participation benefits individuals
and groups of people to build long-term relationships with a shared vision for the common
interest of the community. This definition highlights that local community engagement contains
efforts to build relationships among stakeholders in long term to develop a shared vision to
extend benefits wider to all community members, individually or in groups. In other words,
community engagement is a form of cooperative relationship designed for long-term interest
among community members with a shared vision to overcome problems and promote benefits
for the common interest. Therefore, the purpose of community engagement works as a learning
process to build trust, develop priorities, obtain resources, develop networking, build effective
communication channels, and gain beneficial results through a comprehensive and sustainable
collaboration process.
Participation is an essential concept in the community to gain benefits in managing
ecotourism (France, 1998). Conceptually, ecotourism is ideal to be developed by the local
community as defined for the following reasons. First, small-scale tourist objects and attractions
can be easily accepted and managed by the local community. Second, participation and ownership
for the local community. Third, the benefits of managing tourism will be gained by the local
community as tourism management. The local community that fully supports and develops the
tourism objects can guarantee sustainable tourism development and elevate the quality of
tourists’ experiences (Wood, 2002). A participative approach facilitates the principles’
implementation of sustainable tourism development by creating better opportunities for the local
community to gain bigger and more balanced benefits from the tourism development (Tosun,
2000).
The increasing number of areas developed for mass tourism affected the balance between
local ownership and external ownership of resources and control over tourism resources. If the
local community in the tourist area is not empowered, the involvement will be very limited to the
elite in the community. It often resulted in their interests being prioritized over the interests of
the community. In other words, elite domains in participatory decision-making can enhance their
status and legalize what they do at the expense of the excluded local community. Therefore, it is
not surprising if the tourism development in many developing countries is not driven by the
community but by the local elite together with the external tour operators. The legal structures
in many developing countries did not encourage local people to participate; legislative structures
tended to distance grassroots communities and formal authorities. The legal structure did not
encourage the local people by educating them about their rights and setting up organizations to
promote their interests. In addition, such organizations must obtain government approval, where
the level of illiteracy is still prevalent in the lower classes.
Most economists would probably agree that it is the human resources of a nation, not its
capital or its natural resources, that ultimately determine the character and pace of its economic
and social development. Lack of qualified human resources in the tourism sector in many tourist
destinations in developing countries has encouraged labor entry from other regions to work in
their areas. It shows that the principle of maximizing the benefits of ecotourism for the local
community from tourism has failed to apply. The scarcity of financial and human resources in
developing countries prioritized resources for physical development rather than administrative
procedures usually required in the early stages of tourism development. As a result, public
agencies might not want to spend their limited financial resources on managing community
participation and the private sector, which would avoid practicing participatory tourism
development strategies because it was not in accordance with the investment principles. Because
the participation of the local community in ecotourism development could increase the need for
these limited resources, it was an obstacle to local community participation. Ownership and
Zakia| 100
 Local Government Respond to COVID-19 Pandemics: A Study of South Tangerang City
Vol 8, No 2 (2021): Page no: 93-105

investment are essential variables that can determine the power of the tourism industry. The
financial resources of the local community were usually limited to build or develop ecotourism,
so they required capital from outside their community. When the financial resources did not come
from the local community, the local community would lose control to formulate or organize the
tourism development model or strategy.
Finally, cultural limitations included the limited capacity of the poor, apathy, and low levels
of awareness of the local community. Cultural barriers were the highest barriers limiting
community participation. The condition of the community around the ecotourism area would
greatly affect their involvement in ecotourism development. The poor would have less time and
energy to participate because they have been used up to meet their basic needs. Apathy and a low
level of awareness of the local community arose because, after a long time, the grassroots
community has never been involved in the decision-making process regarding the problems
around them, making them apathetic to give their opinion because they believed that their ideas
would not be considered. This alienation caused low public awareness of the potential benefits of
tourism development in their area. The findings indicate that culture is an internal factor, while
operational and structural are external barriers that hinder community participation. Internal
barriers are related to factors that the local community can control while external obstacles are
outside their jurisdiction. The biggest obstacle for the community to manage ecotourism was a
structural obstacle, for instance, the absence of a proper system to encourage community
engagement, the low capacity of low-income citizens, and lack of financial resources.
Table 1. The affecting factors of local community involvement in Indonesia
Persepective Limitation to Local Community Involvement
Operational 1. Limites information about ecotorisism
2. Centralized tourism management
3. The lack of coordination among sthkeholders
Structural 1. Limited number of trained human resources
2. Unsupprtive legal system
3. The uncooperative attitude of professionals
4. The dominance of the local elite
Cultural 1. apathy
2. The low awareness of the benefits of
ecotourism
Source: Processed by the researcher (2021)

CONCLUSIONS
The local community involvement in ecotourism management in Indonesia was still limited
to the utilization level. Ecotourism directly provided economic benefits to the local community
through various activities, job recruitment, and profit-sharing, especially for some ecotourism
destinations fully managed by the local community. The indirect benefits also came from the
results of conservation efforts by the maintenance of village infrastructure, which facilitated the
delivery of local agricultural products, which impacted the better prices. Indeed, the flow of
benefits obtained could not be separated from the mechanisms of access and power possessed by
the local community. The social benefits included increasing the local community’s knowledge
and abilities about ecotourism, preserving the local culture, and transferring information among
the local community and tourists.
Meanwhile, from an ecological perspective, the community actively contributed to
conservation efforts to protect ecotourism areas. The affecting factors of local community
involvement from an operational perspective came from the limited information available about
ecotourism to the local community, centralized tourism management, and the lack of
coordination among stakeholders. A limited number of trained human resources, a legal system
that did not support the participatory practices, the uncooperative attitude of professionals, and
the dominance of the local elite became the limitations to local community involvement from a
structural perspective. Meanwhile, cultural barriers included apathy and a low level of public
awareness of the potential benefit of ecotourism in their area. The empowerment efforts to the
local community in ecotourism destinations must be further improved. Educating the local
101 | Zakia
 Ecotourism in Indonesia: Local Community Involvement and The Affecting Factors
Vol 8, No 2 (2021): Page no: 93-105

community to understand their rights, informing them about ecotourism management would be
the right first step to execute. However, due to the lack of knowledge and information they had, it
frequently triggered disturbances from the local community, which would thwart them the
ecotourism purposes.

REFERENCES
Andereck, K. L., Valentine, K. M., Knopf, R. C., & Vogt, C. A. (2005). Residents’ perceptions of
community tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 1056–1076.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2005.03.001

Anisaldi, Siregar, Y. I., & Siregar, S. H. (2013). Analisis Potensi Air Terjun Tujuh Tingkat Batang
Koban Lubuk Ambacang sebagai Daerah Ekowisata. Jurnal Ilmu Lingkungan, 7(2), 12–17.

Asriyani, H., & Verheijen, B. (2020). Protecting the Mbau Komodo in Riung, Flores: Local Adat,
National Conservation and Ecotourism Developments. Forest and Society, 4(1), 20–34.
https://doi.org/2549-4724

Ayuningtyas, D. I., & Dharmawan, A. H. (2011). Dampak Ekowisata Terhadap Kondisi Sosio-
Ekonomi Dan Sosio-Ekologi Masyarakat Di Taman Nasional Gunung Halimun Salak. Sodality:
Jurnal Transdisiplin Sosiologi, Komunikasi, Dan Ekologi Manusia, 05(03), 247–258.
https://doi.org/1978-4333,

Belsky, J. (1999). Misrepresenting Communities: The Politics of Community-based Rural

Ecotourism in Gales Point Manatee, Belize. Rural Sociology, 64, 641–666.

BPS. (2019). Badan Pusat Statistik. https://www.bps.go.id

Campbell, L. M. (1999). Ecotourism in rural developing communities. Annals of Tourism Research,

26(3), 534–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00005-5

Cobbinah, P. (2015). Contextualising the meaning of ecotourism. Tourism Management

Perspectives, 16, 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2015.07.015

Cohen, J. M., & Uphoff, N. (1977). Rural development participation: Concepts and measures for
project design, implementation and evaluation.

Darmawan, D. P., & Putradi, J. (2010). Analisis Struktur Pengembangan Ekowisata Di Kawasan
Pusat Informasi Mangrove Kota Denpasar. Omni-Akuatika, 1(2).

Dowling, R., & Fennell, D. (2003). The Context of Eco-tourism Policy and Planning. In Ecotourism
Policy and Planning (pp. 1–20). CABI Publishing.

Drake, S. P. (1991). Local Participation in Ecotourism Projects. In T. Whelan (Ed.), Nature Tourism:
Managing for the Environment. (pp. 132–163). Island Press.

Fotiou, S., Buhalis, D., & Vereczi, G. (2002). Sustainable development of ecotourism in small
islands developing states (SIDS) and other small islands. Tourism and Hospitality Research,
4(1), 79–88.

France, L. (1998). Local participation in tourism in the West Indian islands. In E. Laws, B.
Faulkner, & G. Moscardo (Eds.), Embracing and Managing Change in Tourism (pp. 222–234.).
Routledge.

Ginting, Y., Dharmawan, A. H., & Sekartjakrarini, S. (2010). Interaksi Komunitas Lokal di Taman
Zakia| 102
 Local Government Respond to COVID-19 Pandemics: A Study of South Tangerang City
Vol 8, No 2 (2021): Page no: 93-105

Nasional Gunung Leuser. Sodality: Jurnal Transdisiplin Sosiologi, Komunikasi, Dan Ekologi
Manusia, 04(01), 39–58.

Hall, M. C., & Page, S. J. (2014). The geography of tourism and recreation: Environment, place and
space. Routledge.

Harahab, N., & Setiawan. (2017). Suitability Index Of Mangrove Ecotourism In Malang Regency.
Ecsofim: Journal of Economic and Social of Fisheries and Marine, 04(02), 153–165.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.21776/ub.ecsofim.2017.004.02.05

Haslina Hashim, & Garai Abdullah Regina. (2009). Penglibatan Komuniti dalam Program
Pembangunan Luar Bandar: Kajian Kes di Pusat Pertumbuhan Desa Gedong, Sarawak.
Akademika, 77, 41–67.
https://doi.org/http://islamic.utm.my/qamar/2016/11/27/penglibatan-komuniti-dalam-
program-pembangunan-luar-bandar-kajian-kes-di-pusat-pertumbuhan-desa-gedong-
sarawak-community-participation-in-rural-development-program-a-case/

Hijriati, E., & Mardiana, R. (2014). Community Based Ecotourism influence the condition of
Ecology, Social, and Economic Batusuhunan village, Sukabumi. Sodality: Jurnal Sosiologi
Pedesaan, 2(3). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22500/sodality.v2i3.9422

Ibrahim, I., Zukhri, N., & Rendy, R. (2019). From Nature Tourism To Ecotourism: Assessing The
Ecotourism Principles Fulfillment Of Tourism Natural Areas In Bangka Belitung. Society,
7(2), 281–302.

Jaafar, M., Rasoolimanesh, S. M., & Lonik, K. A. T. (2015). Tourism growth and entrepreneurship:
Empirical analysis of development of rural highlands. Tourism Management Perspectives,
14(April), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2015.02.001

Jurowski, C., Uysal, M., & Williams, D. R. (1997). A theoretical analysis of host community resident
reactions to tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 36(2), 3–11.
https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759703600202

Kasmiati, Dharmawan, A. H., & S.Bratakusumah, D. (2016). Ekowisata, Sistem Nafkah, dan
Decoupling Sustainability di Wakatobi, Sulawesi Tenggara. Sodality: Jurnal Sosiologi
Pedesaan, 158–164.

Kementerian Pariwisata dan Ekonomi Kreatif. (2019). Kementerian Pariwisata dan Ekonomi
Kreatif. https://www.kemenparekraf.go.id/berita/Siaran-Pers-%3A-Hutan-Ekowisata-
Tangkahan-Sumut-Disarankan-Mulai-Terapkan-Konsep-Pariwisata-Berkelanjutan
Khan, M. (1997). Tourism Development and Dependency Theory: Mass vs Ecotourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 24, 988–991.

Ko, D.-W., & Stewart, W. (2002). A Structural Equation Model of Residents’ Attitudes for Tourism
Development. Tourism Management, 23(5), 521–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-
5177(02)00006-7

Laapo, A., Fahrudin, A., Bengen, D. G., & Damar2, A. (2010). Kajian Karakteristik Dan Kesesuaian
Kawasan Mangrove Untuk Kegiatan Ekowisata Mangrove Di Gugus Pulau Togean, Taman
Nasional Kepulauan Togean (Study of Mangrove Areas Characteristic and Suitability for
Mangrove Ecotourism Activity in Togean Islands of Tog. Omni-Akuatika, 33(4).

Lukman, H. (2017). Partisipasi Masyarakat Dalam Pembangunan Desa Sukamerta Kecamatan

Rawamerta Kabupaten Karawang. Jurnal Politikom Indonesiana, 2(2), 43–53.

103 | Zakia
 Ecotourism in Indonesia: Local Community Involvement and The Affecting Factors
Vol 8, No 2 (2021): Page no: 93-105

https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabupaten_Karawang

MacDonald, R., & Jolliffe, L. (2003). Cultural rural tourism: Evidence from Canada. Annals of
Tourism Research, 30(2), 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(02)00061-0

Mawardi, I. (2006). Pengembangan Ekowisata Sebagai Strategi Pelestarian Hutan Mangrove:

Studi Kasus Hutan Mangrove Di Pantai Utara Kabupaten Indramayu. Jurnal Teknologi
Lingkungan, 7(3), 234–242.

Mowforth, M., & Munt, I. (2008). Tourism and sustainability: Development, globalisation and new
tourism in the third world (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203891056

Muaz, H., Rinekso, S. A., & Susilo, H. (2017). Potensi Daya Tarik Ekowisata Suaka Margasatwa
Bukit Batu Kabupaten Bengkalis Provinsi Riau. Jurnal Penelitian Sosial Dan Ekonomi
Kehutanan, 14(1), 39–56.

Nunkoo, R., & Gursoy, D. (2012). Residents’ support for tourism: An identity perspective. Annals
of Tourism Research, 39(1), 243–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.05.006

Nuraini, Satria, A., & Sri, W. E. (2019). Mekanisme Akses Dan Kekuasaan Dalam Memperkuat
Kinerja Institusi Pengelolaan Ekowisata Bahari. Sodality: Jurnal Sosiologi Pedesaan, 65–77.

Ridlwan, M. A., Muchsin, S., & Hayat. (2017). Model Pengembangan Ekowisata dalam Upaya
Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Lokal. Politik Indonesia: Indonesian Political Science Review 2,
2(2), 141–158.

S. Mostafa Rasoolimanesh, & Jaafa, M. (2016). Community Participation toward Tourism

Development and Conservation Program in Rural World Heritage Sites. In Tourism - From
Empirical Research Towards Practical Application reviving (pp. 1–14).
https://doi.org/10.5772/62293

Sari, D. A. W., & Santoso, E. B. (2016). Faktor-faktor yang Mempengaruhi Pengembangan

Komoditas Unggulan Hortikultura di Kawasan Agropolitan Ngawasondat Kabupaten Kediri.
Jurnal Teknik Its, 5(1), C64–C69.
http://www.ejurnal.its.ac.id/index.php/teknik/article/viewFile/14195/2526

Slamet. (1994). Pembangunan Masyarakat Berwawasan Partisipasi. Sebelas Maret University

Press.

Su, B. (2011). Rural tourism in China. Tourism Management, 32(6), 1438–1441.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.12.005

The International Ecotourism Society. (2015). What Is Ecotourism? https://ecotourism.org/the-

ties-ecotourism-institute/

Tiga, M. R. M., Kumala, E. I., & Ekayani, M. (2019a). Analisis Potensi Kawasan Laiwangi
Wanggameti Di Taman Nasional Matalawa Untuk Arahan Pengembangan Ekowisata. Jurnal
Ilmu Lingkungan, 17(1), 32–41.

Tiga, M. R. M., Kumala, E. I., & Ekayani, M. (2019b). Community Perception of Katikuwai Village
and Praing Kareha Village Toward Ecotourism Development in Matalawa National Park,
NTT. Sodality: Jurnal Sosiologi Pedesaan, 7(1), 34–40.
https://doi.org/10.22500/sodality.v7i1.22866

Zakia| 104
 Local Government Respond to COVID-19 Pandemics: A Study of South Tangerang City
Vol 8, No 2 (2021): Page no: 93-105

Tosun, C. (2000). Limits to community participation in the tourism development process in

developing countries. Tourism Management, 21(6), 613–633.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(00)00009-1

Wahdaniar, Hidayat, J. W., & Muhammad2, F. (2019). Daya Dukung Dan Kesesuaian Lahan
Ekowisata Mangrove Tongke-Tongke Kabupaten Sinjai Sulawesi Selatan. Jurnal Ilmu
Lingkungan, 17(3), 481–485. https://doi.org/ISSN 1829-8907

Wildan, W., Sukardi, S., & Syuaeb, M. (2016). The Feasibility Of Development Of Social Capital-
Based Ecotourism In West Lombok. Mimbar : Jurnal Sosial Dan Pembangunan, 32(1), 214–
222.

Wood, M. (2002). Ecotourism: Principles, Practices, and Policies for Sustainability.

Wulandari, & Sumarti, T. (2011). Implementasi Manajemen Kolaboratif Dalam Pengelolaan

Ekowisata Berbasis Masyarakat. Sodality: Jurnal Transdisiplin Sosiologi, Komunikasi, Dan
Ekologi Manusia, 05(01), 32–50.

105 | Zakia
Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, 26(2), 178-188, August 2020 Scientific Article
EISSN: 2089-2063 ISSN: 2087-0469
DOI: 10.7226/jtfm.26.2.178

Ecotourism Policy Research Trends in Indonesia, Japan, and Australia

Saraswati Sisriany , Katsunori Furuya

1* 2

1
Graduate School of Horticulture, Department of Environment Science and Landscape Architecture, Chiba University,
648 Matsudo, Matsudo, Chiba, Japan 271-8510
Landscape Planning of Graduate school of Horticulture, Landscape Architecture Course, Chiba University,
2

648 Matsudo, Matsudo, Chiba, Japan 271-8510

Received February 21, 2020/Accepted July 16, 2020

Abstract

Numerous definitions and concepts regarding ecotourism lead to different implementations in ecotourism policies
and systems. Identifying trends between countries provide valuable information for the development of inadequate
ecotourism sites. This study aimed to understand the trends in ecotourism policies in Japan, Indonesia, and Australia
by examining the bibliographic records of existing ecotourism policy research. These records were retrieved from the
Scopus database and processed by using the scientometrics analysis. The results show the significant research trends
of ecotourism policy in each country based on the co-occurrence of keywords were "conservation" for Indonesia,
"biodiversity" for Japan, and "management" for Australia. Whereas, based on the research field, it revealed a
similar priority within ecotourism policy between Australia and Japan in Social Science, while Indonesia in
Environmental Science. The pattern of the keyword network analysis results in an anomaly in Indonesia compared to
Japan and Australia, which clarifies the overlapping problem in ecotourism policy in Indonesia. It also visualized
the shifting trends of research in some timeline intervals and notifies their relation to the emerging of ecotourism
policy. This research also included the usefulness of the research results for future study and the recommendation for
the ecotourism policy, especially for Indonesia.

Keywords: co-occurrence, cluster analysis, scientometrics, research themes

*Correspondence author, email: saraswatisisriany@gmail.com

Introduction the presence and procedures of the national ecotourism

Ecotourism has been a widely defined and used concept
by researchers and experts from various academic fields.
This concept emerged in the 1970s and 1980s in the literature
on sustainable development and environmental
development, which then caused much enthusiasm for
conflicting debates (Fennell, 2015). One of the earliest
definitions of ecotourism was as activities of traveling to a
nature area that is undisturbed and uncontaminated with a
clear objective such as study, pondering, and enjoying the
nature view and its wildlife, including the cultural attractions
in the area (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996). Ecotourism has been
recently defined as "responsible travel to natural areas that
conserves the environment, sustains the well-being of the
local people, and involves interpretation and education"
(TIES, 2016).
Increasing demand for tourism in the current era of focus
on ecological issues has given rise to the need for more
ecotourism sites. Respond to this need; almost all countries
have increasingly promoted ecotourism. The approaches
pursued by each country regarding the promotion of
ecotourism have varied, and most countries have conducted
ecotourism research based on their own needs, influencing
policies.
Australia is an excellent example of ecotourism due to its
recognized leadership and rapidly developing ecotourism
industry. Australia is one of the pioneers in ecotourism. It has
formed an organization named Ecotourism Australia in 1991
that has promoted ecotourism and developed the National
Ecotourism Accreditation Program (NEAP) ecotourism
standard launched in 1996, which was later renamed
Ecotourism Australia with various types of certification.
Japan has a specific policy of ecotourism in Japan that
been implemented since 2007 called Ecotourism Promotion
Act. The Ecotourism Promotion Council is in charge of
organizing ecotourism in Japan, as specified by the national
Ecotourism Promotion Act. The council members include
local government officials, citizens, and academics, and the
Council has links to 17 local institutions that organize
ecotourism activities tailored to the local culture and natural
sites in their zone (Fukamachi, 2017).
Indonesia, as a country with abundant potential natural
resources, the government of Indonesia strongly supports
tourism in a variety of ways. The governmental institutions
actively promoted ecotourism, including the ministries of
Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, 26(2), 178-188, August 2020
EISSN: 2089-2063
DOI: 10.7226/jtfm.26.2.178
forestry and environment, marine, tourism, and home affairs.
Nevertheless, there is still a lack of integration of proper
ecotourism management at the central and regional levels,
leading to the uncoordinated development of ecotourism by
each party (Meilani & Muntasib, 2013). Research in
regulation and policy aspects is essential for national
ecotourism development since the failure of most ecotourism
programs is due to the overlapping management and lack of
coordination of the sectors responsible for the programs
(Nasution et al., 2018). State of the art of the researches and
its trend related to regulation and policy in ecotourism
development is necessary to be known.
Research trends in ecotourism policy in Indonesia are
expected to represent the problems behind ecotourism
development policies in Indonesia. Comparing the research
trends of Indonesia and other countries that have good
ecotourism development policies are expected to explore the
policy gaps among them to improve the ecotourism
development in Indonesia.
A research trend can be represented by a network of
various items such as references, collaborating authors, and
co-occurring keywords. Scientometrics is possible to analyze
several types of networks from bibliographic sources and
used for investigation of the document networks of co-
occurring keywords and cluster analysis (Chen, 2018).
This study aimed to understand the trends of ecotourism
policies in Indonesia, and in Japan and Australia as the
comparison, to understand and overcome a country's
problem related to the research trends and its policies in a
broader context and point of view, and to identify future
research trends and recommendations.
Methods
Ecotourism policy research trends in Indonesia, Japan,
and Australia were analyzed using the Scientometrics
approach. Scientometrics is the quantitative study of science
using computational and visual analytics to detect and
identify patterns and emerging trends of research themes
based on existing publications or bibliographic records
(Chen et al., 2014). This method has widely applied to
various fields such as psychology (Chen et al., 2019),
sustainability (Albort-Morant et al., 2017; de Toledo et al.,
2019), environmental research (Martinez et al., 2019), city
planning (Min, et al., 2019), management (Guo et al., 2017),
and agriculture (Hossard & Chopin, 2019).
Data collection The data were retrieved from Scopus
Elsevier scientific database on its website within the period
between 1990 and 2019. The documents were specifically for
'ecotourism policy' and selected by using the advanced search
option based on the following keywords: TITLE-ABS-KEY
(("ecotourism" OR "sustainable tourism" OR "ecotourism"
OR "ecotourism") AND ("policy" OR "regulation" OR
"strategy" OR "strategies")). Furthermore, a limitation was
added to extract the database based on the research affiliation
country using the following keywords: AND (LIMIT-TO
(AFFIL COUNTRY,"country-name")). All of the selected
data were exported into the .ris format by the Scopus export
feature for further analysis in the CiteSpace (5.5) software.
Scopus was selected as the database of this research since
it has an option to limit the search based on a particular
Scientific Article
ISSN: 2087-0469
country; this feature was necessary to distinguish data
between Indonesia, Japan, and Australia. The other
consideration is because it often used as Indonesia's
requirement for research publication and brings an additional
reputation for Indonesian academicians. As an international
journal index, Scopus is most suitable for this research
considering its impact factor and standard, although it is
limited only for English articles.
Data analysis The selected research database from each
country was first analyzed by the Scopus Journal Analyzer
that is available on Scopus websites. It shows the research
trend of the selected document based on the published year,
subject, and document type. The analysis and visualization of
the keyword network and cluster used CiteSpace (5.5)
software (Chen, 2006).
All collected data were refined and then analyzed by
generating a series of co-occurring keywords networks based
on the title, abstract, and keywords noun phrase. The co-
occurrence keywords are regarded as the co-word relation.
The more frequent every two keywords co-occur, the
stronger the co-word relation is (Chen & Morris, 2003). The
keyword network analysis visualized by the betweenness
centrality degree, which represents the probability of the
closest distance in the graph (Chen et al., 2005). The higher
the degree, the bigger the word's size in keyword networks,
so we can easily recognize the significant co-occurrence
keywords, which we interpreted as the 'research trends.
Cluster analysis applied to classify the co-occurrence
keywords and summarize the essence of the abstracts in
bibliographic records into cluster labels, which we
interpreted as the 'research themes.
Further examination also conducted based on various
indicators as follows: a) the pivot nodes, for intellectual
turning points of the research (Chen, 2012), b) silhouettes
scores, for the quality of the clusters (Chen et al., 2012), c)
cluster labels size, for the importance of research themes, d)
time interval for research evolution overtimes, and d) the
overall patterns. Both co-occurring keywords and cluster
labels in this article were combined into one figure of each
country.
Results and Discussion
According to the bibliography extracted from Scopus,
there were 99 ecotourism-related research studies in
Indonesia, 35, and 296 studies in Japan and Australia,
respectively. The number of ecotourism research in Japan
was much lower than in Indonesia. However, the ecotourism
research in Japan has been stated earlier and consistently
since 2002. In Indonesia, ecotourism policy research just
started in the year 2008; however, it increased significantly in
the past five years (2015–2019). Meanwhile, Australia has
begun research related to ecotourism policy since the early
90s, with a significant increase in the research effort two
decades later (Figure 1). Ecotourism policy research has
been conducted in many subject areas. The most often
investigated subject area in Japan and Australia was Social
Sciences, whereas, for Indonesia, it was Environmental
Science (Table 1). Publication related to ecotourism policy in
Indonesia was dominated by conference papers (52,2%),
while in Japan (67,6%) and Australia (83,1%) were
179
Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, 26(2), 178-188, August 2020 Scientific Article
EISSN: 2089-2063 ISSN: 2087-0469
DOI: 10.7226/jtfm.26.2.178

dominated by research articles (Figure 2). Conservation research plays a vital role in the ecotourism
policy field since it has the highest betweenness degree and
Network analysis The trends in ecotourism policy research also forms the pivotal points, and connects the timeline
in Indonesia based on the degree of keyword betweenness nodes from the early to recent studies. Hence, it can be
results are "conservation", "ecology", "biodiversity", concluded that conservation is the main principle of
"ecotourism", and "local community". Other issues ecotourism policy in Indonesia. Various subjects of the
investigated in ecotourism policy research include ecotourism policy research in Indonesia have included
"forestry", "sustainable development", "tourism carrying capacity conservation area for tourists attraction
development", "local government", "ecosystem", (Murdiyarso et al., 2015; Aryasa et al., 2017), tourism
"planning", and "economics", as shown in Figure 3. assessment (Sri Budhi & Lestari, 2016; Mustika et al., 2017;

40
Table 1 Top ten subject area of ecotourism policy research
35
Subject area Japan Indonesia Australia
30
Environmental science 13 57 91
25 1 36 15
Earth and planetary sciences
20
Social sciences 18 20 199
11 19 186
15 Business, management and accounting
7 17 49
10 Agricultural and biological aciences 2 9 8
5
EnergyPhysics and astronomy - 7 -
Economics, econometrics and finance 3 6 24
0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Engineering 1 6 5
Computer science 1 4 2
Australia Indonesia Japan

Figure 1 Documents by year.

Japan Indonesia
Documents by type
Documents by type
Book Chapter (5.9%) Editorial (2.9%) Review (1.1%)
Book Chapter (1.1%)
Review (8.8%)

Conference Pape.. (14.7%) Article (45.7%)

Conference Pape.. (52.2%)

Article (67.6%)

Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V All rights reserved. Scopus® is registered trademark of Elsevier B.V Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V All rights reserved. Scopus® is registered trademark of Elsevier B.V

Australia
Documents by type
Short Survey (0.3%) Undefined (0.3%)

Editorial (0.3%)
Conference Pape.. (2.4%)
Book (3.0%)
Book Chapter (1.1%)
Review (7.1%)

Article (83.1%)

Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V All rights reserved. Scopus® is registered trademark of Elsevier B.V

Figure 2 Document types of ecotourism policy publication in Japan, Indonesia and Australia based on Scopus Index.

180
Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, 26(2), 178-188, August 2020
EISSN: 2089-2063
DOI: 10.7226/jtfm.26.2.178
Ariefianda et al., 2019), and management strategy (Wardani
et al., 2017; Idajati & Widiyahwati, 2018; Indah et al., 2018;
Sasana et al., 2019). Research studies related to ecotourism
policy in Indonesia have mostly focused on a particular area,
and have been case study-based rather than nationwide.
In Japan, the highest degree of betweenness centrality
values was found for the following keywords: 'biodiversity',
'sustainability', 'Hokkaido', 'participatory approach', and
'heritage tourism'. These were followed by 'conservation',
'china', 'community', 'forestry', 'far east', 'ecosystem service',
'cultural heritage', 'destination management', and 'ecosystem'
(Figure 4). The critical turning point of the research trend was
identified for three keywords, namely sustainability, heritage
tourism, and participatory approach. Research trends shifted
from the 2002–2006 time period through the turning points of
heritage tourism trends to a participatory approach in 2010
and sustainability in the last five years. The pattern for
ecotourism-policy-related research in Japan includes
research that focused on the tourism practice in Hokkaido.
Various studies in Japan related to ecotourism policies are as
follows: understanding of the potential value in tourism
destination management to formulate new tourism strategies
(Higuchi & Yamanaka, 2019), marketing policy for
ecotourism (João Romão et al., 2014), tourism preferences
Figure 3 Co-occuring keywords and cluster labels of ecotourism policy research in Indonesia.
Figure 4 Co-occuring keywords and cluster labels of ecotourism policy research in Japan.
Scientific Article
ISSN: 2087-0469
and demands of ecotourism (Neuts et al., 2016).
In Australia, the trend of ecotourism policy research in
Australia, based on the betweenness degree results, is
'management regime', 'management strategy', 'tourism
management', 'sustainable tourism', and 'sustainability'.
'Ecotourism' and 'Australia' keywords were excluded as
trends since their apparent keywords are related to all
ecotourism policy research in Australia and are not
considered to indicate trends.
The research trend in Australia has been consistently
focused on management. The turning point of the research
trend in Australia shifted from focuses on sustainable tourism
to investigations of management strategy. Numerous
research studies of ecotourism policy related to management
strategy cited include environmental impacts management
(Turton, 2005), tourist and wildlife (Orams, 1996; Orams &
Hill, 1998; Miller et al., 2004; Schianetz et al., 2009), and
cultural impacts (Chin et al., 2000).
Cluster analysis The six clusters were obtained for the
ecotourism policy research trend in Indonesia. They are a)
Coast People, b) Community based tourism, c) Sumatran
Elephant, d) Branding Strategy, e) Whale Shark, and f) Data
Collection (Figure 3). Cluster #0 Coastal People appeared as
181
Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, 26(2), 178-188, August 2020 Scientific Article
EISSN: 2089-2063 ISSN: 2087-0469
DOI: 10.7226/jtfm.26.2.178

Figure 5 Co-occuring keywords and cluster labels of ecotourism policy in Australia.

Table 2 Cluster information for ecotourism research trend in Indonesia

Cluster- Mean
Cluster label Size Silhouette Top 5 keywords
ID (Year)
#0 Coast people 31 0.695 2017 ecology, ecosystem, planning, community
participation, eco-tourism development
#1 Community 27 0.825 2017 sustainable development, sustainable tourism, tourism
based tourism development, sustainable tourism development,
#2 sumatran 19 0.812 2017 coastal community, development strategy, laws and
elephant legislation, economic activity, employment
opportunity
#3 Branding 19 0.892 2017 local community, coastal ecosystem, tourist
strategy destination, east nusa tenggara, coral reef
#4 Whale shark 18 0.955 2011 ecotourism industry, bajo fishermen, cetacea,
customary belief, long-lived migratory specy,
#6 Data collection 15 0.904 2016 ecotourism, tourist attraction, tourism, data
acquisition, data analysis
#7 Mangrove area 8 0.968 2008 biodiversity, agricultural management, cropping
practive, alternative agriculture, computer simulation

Table 3 Cluster information for ecotourism research trend in Japan

Mean
Cluster-ID Cluster label Size Silhouette Top 5 keywords
(Year)
#0 Fengshui forest 41 1 2014 biodiversity, conservation, china, community
forestry, far east,
#1 Resident 24 0.935 2012 sustainability, heritage tourism, cultural heritage,
empowerment sustainability of cultural heritage, spatial
econometrics
#2 Advantageous 22 1 2015 Hokkaido, destination management, policy
cluster development, tourist satisfaction, economic impact
#3 Tourism industry 20 0.979 2016 group size, Japan, dolphin tourism, cetacea,
Amakusa Island
#6 Participatory 12 0.956 2013 participatory approach, khojir national park, bottom
conservation up management, conservation management, local
people
#11 Nature-based 6 0.976 2003 coastal zone, primate, industrial application,
tourism environmental impact, environmental protection

182
Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, 26(2), 178-188, August 2020
EISSN: 2089-2063
DOI: 10.7226/jtfm.26.2.178
the most significant cluster, containing 31 nodes of co-
occurrence keywords, and despite its lowest silhouette score
(0.695), it still has good homogenous and consistency
(Table 2). The highest silhouette score was obtained by
Cluster #7 Mangrove Area, which is affected by the size so
that it has higher homogeneity and consistency. Most
research studies in Cluster #0 Coastal People have been
focused on mangrove ecotourism and management
(Arkwright & Kaomaneng, 2018; Feti & Hadi Sudharto,
2018; Harahab et al., 2018; Idajati & Widiyahwati, 2018;
Indah et al., 2018; Prasetya et al., 2018; Prasetyo et al., 2018;
Roziqin, 2018).
Based on the mean year information, the topic trends of
ecotourism policy research in Indonesia shifted from
mangrove area (2008) to whale shark (2011), data collection
(2016), coast people, community based tourism, sumatran
elephant, and branding strategy (2017). Unlike the other
countries, Indonesia cluster distributions overlap with each
other in recent studies. Taking into account that the number
of ecotourism-related publications increased significantly in
2017, this overlap may be due to the emergence of various
interesting topics for researchers in ecotourism policy. These
overlapping clusters may indicate the wide range of research
subjects examined in ecotourism policy research in
Indonesia, which is positive, or the overlap may also reflect
the problem of overlapping management in Indonesia
(Meilani & Muntasib, 2013; Nasution et al., 2018).
Similar to Indonesia, six clusters were identified for the
ecotourism policy research trend in Japan. They are a)
Fengshui Forest, b) Resident Empowerment, c)
Advantageous Cluster, d) Tourism Industry, e) Participatory
Conservation, and f) Nature-based Tourism, as shown in
Figure 3. Most of the silhouette scores in this cluster analysis
were close to 1 (Clusters 1, 3, 6, and 11) or were equal to 1
(Clusters 0 and 2). Therefore, all of the clusters have good
properties of homogeneity and consistency.
The most significant cluster in this result is Cluster #0
Fengshui Forest, containing 41 nodes of keywords (Table 3).
The top five keywords of this cluster not only include China
and the Far East (China, Japan, and other countries in eastern
Table 4 Cluster information for ecotourism research trend in Australia
Cluster-
Cluster Label Size Silhouette
ID
#0 Indigenous 44 0.892
tourism
#1 Biodiversity 15 0.974
conservation
#2 Management 14 0.960
policies
#3 Sub-antarctic 13 0.967
region
#4 Northern territory 11 0.986
#6 Protection 10 0.977
policies
#10 Wildlife tourism 7 0.976
Scientific Article
ISSN: 2087-0469
Asia) but also biodiversity, and conservation. As can be seen
from the definition, the Fengshui forest is generally the
cultural preservation area of the natural landscape in China,
which is also common in other parts of Asia, such as Korea
and Japan (Chen et al., 2018). Thus, Cluster #0 Fengshui
Forest label covers the ideas of biodiversity and conservation
in the Far East. This forest concept is particularly meaningful
for supporting the present efforts of the national government
to contribute to urban forestry, ecosystem conservation,
cultural heritage preservation, and ecotourism (Chen et al.,
2018).
Another impressive cluster in this result is Cluster #1
Resident Empowerment, considering the variety in this
research timeline. As shown by the various colors ranging
from dark blue to yellow, the research on these topics has
been continuously conducted since the first research
recorded in the database until recent years (2003–2017).
Resident empowerment has been believed to be the main
principle of sustainable tourism development (Boley &
McGehee, 2014). Such tourism is mostly ecotourism,
whereas empowerment defined as transformation growth of
people from vulnerable conditions to a condition of having
their power to manage their life and environment (Sadan,
1997).
Most studies have focused on cultural and heritage such
issues as the relationship between the cultural heritage and
tourism (Loulanskia & Loulanski, 2011), cultural-based
perception of resident empowerment (Maruyama et al.,
2016), integration of cultural and natural resource into
tourism supply (Romão et al., 2017), and cultural-tourism
development centered on the World Heritage sites
(Yamamura, 2003).
Based on the mean year information, the topic of
ecotourism policy research in Japan shifted from Nature-
based tourism (2003), to Resident empowerment (2012),
Participatory conservation (2013), Fengshui forest (2014),
Advantageous cluster (2015), and Tourism industry (2016).
This trend shows the main topics of ecotourism research in
Japan but does not eliminate the possibility that the other
research topics were also investigated in another timeline.
Mean
Top 5 keywords
(Year)
2007 tourism management, sustainable tourism,
sustainability, protected area, tourism
1995 management strategy, interpretation, simple
enjoyment, conceptual model, management
approach, environmental education
1999 tourist attraction, marine park, tourist behaviour,
ecotourism component, cultural dimension
1994 management regime, cultural heritage, managing
nature tourism, government authority, heritage
1994 aborigine, comanagement, cultural diversity,
australian national park, ethonecology
1993 future prospect, country ecotourism destination,
industry segment, client expectation, Australian
tourism
2009 wildlife tourism, wildlife management, animalia,
cetacea, whale
183
Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, 26(2), 178-188, August 2020
EISSN: 2089-2063
DOI: 10.7226/jtfm.26.2.178
In contrast to Indonesia and Japan, seven clusters were
obtained for ecotourism policy research in Australia. They
are a) Indigenous Tourism, b) Biodiversity Conservation, c)
Management Policies, d) Sub-Antarctic Region, e) Northern
Territory, f) Protection Policies, and g) Wildlife Tourism, as
shown in Figure 5.
Cluster #1, Indigenous Tourism, is the largest obtained
cluster and has been a part of Australian ecotourism since the
1990s (Table 4), with 200 indigenous tourism businesses in
Australia. Indigenous ecotourism refers to the involvement
of indigenous people in nature-based ecotourism activities in
their living environment, including their indigenous way
interpretation of nature and culture, generally related to the
Aborigine tribes. (Fennell & Downling, 2003).
Comparison of ecotourism policy research trends Based
on the co-occurrence keywords results, similar research
trends between Japan and Indonesia were observed for some
keywords such as "biodiversity" and "community" or
"participatory approach" (Figure 6). Another similar
research trend in Japan and Australia is sustainability. This
comparison only includes five keywords with the highest
betweenness centrality. Therefore, while more similar
keywords may have been found, they have been excluded
because they are not considered as the trend.
Keywords that characterize each county research trends
are 'biodiversity' for Japan, 'conservation' for Indonesia and
'management' for Australia. Compared to other countries,
ecotourism policy research trends in Indonesia are focused
more on ecological conservation. Because Australia is a
prosperous country, ecotourism research, there is more
focused on "management." This is correlated with the fact
that the Australian management system, based on
accreditation and certification, can be a useful reference.
Research themes based on the cluster analysis between
Japan, Indonesia, and Australia also show some similarities
related to the co-occurrence keywords found. Japan and
Australia have similar research themes of Biodiversity and
Conservation, and Cultural and Heritage, while Japan and
Indonesia have similar research themes of community-based
ecotourism and conservation.
JAPAN
Hokkaido and heritage tourism
Biodiversity and
community/participatory
approach
Ecology and conservation
INDONESIA
Figure 6 Comparison of keywords trends between countries.
184
Scientific Article
ISSN: 2087-0469
Research trends perspective and its relation to
ecotourism policy The first glance based on the numbers of
the study area shows that research on ecotourism conducted
in Japan and Australia are more anthropocentric approaches
as to how their most subject areas of the research are in Social
Sciences. Meanwhile, Indonesia scholar studies ecotourism
focuses on ecocentric approaches as the most subject areas
are in Environmental Sciences. On the other hand, define
judgment cannot only be based on the subject areas of the
publication. Background studies of the researchers should
also be the factors for these numbers. Therefore, from these
research findings on keywords and themes are supposedly
done to elaborate on the whole perspectives of these
countries regarding ecotourism policy.
However, it does not necessarily mean that Japan's
researcher did not pay attention to the environment.
Biodiversity, as the most significant ideas on ecotourism for
Japan scholars, believed to the essential for well-being,
including human survival (Wearing & Neil, 2009). Besides,
the most significant cluster is the Fengshui forest, as a
traditional ecological knowledge for biodiversity
conservation in Japan, supported the ideas of both people and
the environment that are equally important in ecotourism for
Japan's researchers. Whereas, traditional ecological
knowledge, which often falls into cultural-ecological
studies, is an ethnological approach that sees the modes of
production of societies around the world as an adaptation to
their local environments (Berkes, 2012). As also mentioned
in Japan's ecotourism policy, Ecotourism Promotion Act
(2007), ecotourism should consider the conservation of
biodiversity as well as contributing to the sound
development of local communities and local economies, by
appropriately implantation of coordination among various
entities.
Australia's researchers, on the other hands, see that
dealing with ecotourism can be simultaneously done by
having the priority to the management, whereby all means,
includes human, environments and its wildlife. Australian
National Ecotourism Strategy (1994), has considered as the
most excellent examples of policy development with
stakeholder involvement in ecotourism, with the belief that
growth and management of ecotourism are fundamental to
Sustainability
Management regime,
management strategy, tourism
management,
AUSTRALIA
Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, 26(2), 178-188, August 2020
EISSN: 2089-2063
DOI: 10.7226/jtfm.26.2.178
optimizing the benefits it offers (Fennell, 2015). This
strategy consisted of 12 ecotourism strategy objectives, as
follows: ecological sustainability integrated regional
planning, natural resource management, regulation, impact
monitoring marketing, industry standards/accreditation,
education involve indigenous people, viability, and equity
consideration (Grant, 1995). One of the objectives in these
strategies, indigenous people, became the main theme of
most researched in Australia, which is indigenous tourism.
Indonesia has one of the biggest tropical rainforest and
marine resources in the world. No wonder if their highest
priority is to protect their ecosystem. Moreover, as expected,
this research results supported the idea of their preference in
environments without leaving the importance of human life
behind. It also fits in with policies in Indonesia to apply the
ecotourism principles includes suitability, conservation,
economy, educations, satisfaction, community participation,
and traditional knowledge (Ministry of Home Affairs
Indonesia, 2009). Overall, all priorities of approach could be
the main factor of the different ecotourism policies in each
country. The similarity of these countries is that they still
keep the right balance between the environment and human
life.
Regardless of how Japan's and Australia's research is
social-oriented, it does not necessarily mean that Indonesia's
policy should shift into social oriented. But still, they should
consider enriching research about ecotourism policy from
the social science point of view. Ecotourism is not solely on
the environment because there is a robust interconnection
between humans and their environment. Also, note that
social science is a more dynamic topic compared to the
environment topic meaning the necessities on this aspect are
quite demanding.
Evolution of ecotourism policy according to
bibliographic records The findings of this research show
how trends shift from one to another time interval. Australia
researchers were the first to take off in ecotourism policy
history. Themes related to the policies were the earliest occur
before the national policy in 1994 came out, shows that their
most initial attention, in the mean year 1993, was to the
policies and then actually the output of the national strategies
itself. This policy indeed continues to develop and improve,
starting from the expansion of standards, to the deepening of
strategy. The evolution of ecotourism research in Australia
changes as it needs to deal with ecotourism issues, from
policy, conservation, and protection, and finally to
management issues. The turning point of the ecotourism
policy in Australia shows that management, which is also a
result of trends, is the most influential in their policies.
Japan, which began its research in ecotourism policy a
little bit late in 2003, also visualized the pattern of keywords
networks in a natural movement flow. At the beginning of
they focus on natural resources. Then, after their ecotourism
policy came out in 2007, research soared and varied from the
community, conservation, traditional knowledge to profits
from the ecotourism industry.
The same pattern flow on the results of Australia and
Japan did not happen to Indonesia. Their attention to
ecotourism policies came later, causing overloaded issues
raised at the same time. It is noticeable in the pattern of trend
Scientific Article
ISSN: 2087-0469
movements in Indonesia (Figure 3), which mostly emerged
in 2017 (Table 2). This last-minute attention could also be
one of the overlapping factors in policy and management in
Indonesia. Also, the last ecotourism policy in Indonesia from
the Ministry of Home Affairs was issued in 2009, and there is
no track record of previous research. However, as mentioned
earlier in the data collection section, it might have happened
because of the limited ability of Indonesian researchers to
publish the results in international journals with the Scopus
Index. This problem is serious because although Indonesian
journals currently have excellent research standards, it is
most likely that before 2009 their publication standards for
Indonesian journals were way from high.
Potential future research and recommendation One of
the limitations of this research is the method that only relies
on keyword analysis, which, of course, another research can
develop using a more in-depth analysis method. Also, the
limitations of the Scopus database for publication from
Indonesia and Japan, indicate the potential for research using
the same method but with the local journal database of each
country.
Despite all those limitations, this study was able to find
issues in the development of ecotourism policies in various
countries. The approach and development process of
ecotourism policy issues used by Australia, Japan, and
Indonesia can contribute and be studied by researchers from
particular countries and other countries.
One of the recommendations for policy in Indonesia is to
revise the regulation on ecotourism development from the
Ministry of Home Affairs Indonesia (2009). Likely, the basic
research for the policy is still insufficient. Thus the
implementation of their policy is less successful, as well as
needs to be more enhance and developed. Also, the
Indonesian government should clarify its goal for ecotourism
so that later it can create clear movement patterns in research
trends. This is then expected to improve overlapping
conditions not only in research trends but also in ecotourism
policies and management for real.
The concept of the local community's participatory
approaches in ecotourism is similar between Indonesia and
Japan, but in terms of implementation, there is a
distinctiveness. Based on the similarity of the concept, it is
likely beneficial for Indonesia to learn about the
implementation of this participatory approach from Japan.
Finally, the authors consider this method can be
beneficial to understand the broader context of problems in a
country, especially if supported by comparing the results
with other acknowledgeable countries. Because without
comparing the result to the other countries, we cannot see the
abnormality of the analysis result. Difficulties for this
method include the interpretation of the keywords and
trends, and understanding using the software.
Conclusion
This study examines the ecotourism policy research
trends in Indonesia, Japan, and Australia based on the
bibliographic records by using the scientometric approach.
The number of articles and also the research themes are
increased rapidly in recent years for Indonesia, while more
steady for Japan and Australia. The result indicates that
185
Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, 26(2), 178-188, August 2020
EISSN: 2089-2063
DOI: 10.7226/jtfm.26.2.178
Australia is the leading country in this ecotourism policy
research with the highest number of publications. The
networks analysis pattern and research trend's evolution
results suggested that the overlapping problem in Indonesia
is due to the interrelated problem between the lack of
research in ecotourism before their ecotourism policy made
in 2009, and no clear goals for the ecotourism policy in
Indonesia.
Recommendation
The ecotourism policy in Indonesia needs to be revised to
clarify their goals for proper ecotourism implementation in
Indonesia. Further, the research of the ecotourism policy
research trend in Indonesia needs to cover research results
published in Indonesian journals or in-depth analyses such as
content analysis. At last, this paper provides at least the
information for Indonesian researchers about potential
research topics related to ecotourism policy in Japan and
Australia.
References
Albort-Morant, G., Henseler, J., Leal-Millán, A., & Cepeda-
Carrión, G. (2017). Mapping the field: A bibliometric
analysis of green innovation. Sustainability, 9(6), 1011.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su9061011
Ariefianda, R., Hidayat, J. W., & Maryono, E. (2019).
Assessment of tourism suitability in natural tourism
object of Lengkuas Island, Sijuk District, Belitung
Regency, Bangka Belitung Province. E3S Web of
Conferences, 125. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/2019
12501011
Arkwright, D., & Kaomaneng, I. S. (2018). Mangrove
ecotourism development on Kakaralamo Island North
Halmahera: Community perception, participation and
development strategies. IOP Conference Series: Earth
and Environmental Science, 175(1). https://doi.org/10.
1088/1755-1315/175/1/012232
Aryasa, A. M., Bambang, A. N., & Muhammad, F. (2017).
The study of environmental carrying capacity for
sustainable tourism in Telaga Warna Telaga Pengilon
Nature Park, Dieng Plateu, Central Java. IOP Conference
Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 70(1).
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/70/1/012003
Berkes, F. (2012). Sacred ecology: Traditional knowledge
and resource management. Environmental Ethics, 22(4),
419–421. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics20002247
Boley, B. B., & McGehee, N. G. (2014). Measuring
empowerment: Developing and validating the Resident
Empowerment through Tourism Scale (RETS). Tourism
Management, 45, 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tour
man.2014.04.003
Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1996). Tourism, ecotourism, and
protected areas: The state of nature-based tourism
around the world and guidelines for its development.
Gland: IUCN https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.1996.
7.en
186
Scientific Article
ISSN: 2087-0469
Chen, B., Coggins, C., Minor, J., & Zhang, Y. (2018).
Fengshui forests and village landscapes in China:
Geographic extent, socioecological significance, and
conservation prospects. Urban Forestry and Urban
Greening, 31, 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.
2017.12.011
Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing
emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific
literature. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359–377.
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20317
Chen, C. (2012). Predictive effects of structural variation on
citation counts. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 63(3), 431–449.
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21694
Chen, C. (2018). Visualizing and exploring scientific
literature with CiteSpace. CHIIR '18: Proceedings of the
2018 Conference on Human Information Interaction &
Retrieval (pp.369–370). https://doi.org/10.1145/31763
49.3176897
Chen, C., Dubin, R., & Kim, M. C. (2014). Orphan drugs and
rare diseases: A scientometric review (2000-2014).
Expert Opinion on Orphan Drugs, 2(7), 709–724.
https://doi.org/10.1517/21678707.2014.920251
Chen, C., Hu, Z., Liu, S., & Tseng, H. (2012). Emerging
trends in regenerative medicine: A scientometric analysis
in CiteSpace. Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy,
12(5), 593–608. https://doi.org/10.1517/14712598.2012.
674507
Chen, C., McCain, K., White, H., & Lin, X. (2005). Mapping
scientometrics (1981-2001). Proceedings of the
American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 39(1), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.
1450390103
Chen, C., & Morris, S. (2003). Visualizing evolving
networks: Minimum spanning trees versus Pathfinder
networks. Proceedings-IEEE Symposium on Information
Visualization, INFO VIS, 67–74. https://doi.org/10.1109/
INFVIS.2003.1249010
Chen, H., Feng, Y., Li, S., Zhang, Y., & Yang, X. (2019).
Bibliometric analysis of theme evolution and future
research trends of the type a personality. Personality and
Individual Differences, 150, 109507. https://doi.org/10.
1016/J.PAID.2019.109507
Chin, C. L. M., Moore, S. A., Wallington, T. J., & Dowling,
R. K. (2000). Ecotourism in Bako National Park, Borneo:
Visitors' perspectives on environmental impacts and their
management. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(1),
20–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580008667347
de Toledo, R. F., Miranda Junior, H. L., Farias Filho, J. R., &
Costa, H. G. (2019). A scientometric review of global
research on sustainability and project management
dataset. Data in Brief, 25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.
Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, 26(2), 178-188, August 2020
EISSN: 2089-2063
DOI: 10.7226/jtfm.26.2.178
2019.104312
Fennell, D. A. (2015). Ecotourism (4th ed.). London and New
York: Routledge.
Fennell, D. A., & Downling, R. K. (2003). Ecotourism policy
and planning. London: CAB International.
Feti, F., & Hadi Sudharto, P. (2018). The problem and its
impacts of mangrove rehabilitation in Karangsong. E3S
Web of Conferences, 73. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/
20187304016
Fukamachi, K. (2017). Sustainability of terraced paddy
fields in traditional satoyama landscapes of Japan.
Journal of Environmental Management, 202, 543–549.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.061
Grant, J. (1995). The national ecotourism programme:
Australia. Tourism Recreation Research, 20(1), 56–57.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.1995.11014735
Guo, D., Chen, H., Long, R., Lu, H., & Long, Q. (2017). A co-
word analysis of organizational constraints for
maintaining sustainability. Sustainability, 9(10), 1928.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101928
Harahab, N., Riniwati, H., & Abidin, Z. (2018). The
vulnerability analysis of mangrove forest status as a
tourism area. Ecology, Environment and Conservation,
24(2), 968–975.
Higuchi, Y., & Yamanaka, Y. (2019). The potential value of
research-based evidence in destination management: The
case of Kamikawa, Japan. Tourism Review, 74(2),
173–185. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-11-2017-0188
Hossard, L., & Chopin, P. (2019). Modelling agricultural
changes and impacts at landscape scale: A bibliometric
review. Environmental Modelling and Software, 122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.104513
Idajati, H., & Widiyahwati, M. (2018). The sustainable
management priority of ecotourism mangrove Wonorejo,
Surabaya-Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science, 202(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/
1755-1315/202/1/012048
Indah, P. N., Radianto, I., Abidin, Z., Amir, I. T., & Pribadi, D.
U. (2018). Management mangrove experiences form
coastal people. Journal of Physics: Conference Series,
953(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/953/
1/012241
Loulanskia, T., & Loulanski, V. (2011). The sustainable
integration of cultural heritage and tourism: A meta-
study. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(7), 837–862.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2011.553286
Martinez, S., Delgado, M. del M., Martinez Marin, R., &
Alvarez, S. (2019). Science mapping on the
environmental footprint: A scientometric analysis-based
Scientific Article
ISSN: 2087-0469
review. Ecological Indicators, 106. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecolind.2019.105543
Maruyama, N. U., Woosnam, K. M., & Boley, B. B. (2016).
Comparing levels of resident empowerment among two
culturally diverse resident populations in Oizumi,
Gunma, Japan. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(10),
1442–1460. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.
1122015
Meilani, R., & Muntasib, E. K. H. (2013). The role of
ministry of internal affairs in ecotourism development in
Indonesia. Media Konservasi, 18(3). https://doi.org/10.
29243/medkon.18.3.
Miller, K. J., Mundy, C. N., & Chadderton, W. L. (2004).
Ecological and genetic evidence of the vulnerability of
shallow-water populations of the stylasterid hydro coral
Errina novaezelandiae in New Zealand's fiords. Aquatic
Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems,
14(1), 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.597
Min, K., Yoon, M., & Furuya, K. (2019). A comparison of a
smart city's trends in urban planning before and after
2016 through keyword network analysis. Sustainability,
11(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113155
Ministry of Home Affairs Indonesia. (2009). The guidelines
for regional ecotourism development. Jakarta: Republic
of Indonesia.
Murdiyarso, D., Purbopuspito, J., Kauffman, J. B., Warren,
M. W., Sasmito, S. D., Donato, D. C., …, & Kurnianto, S.
(2015). The potential of Indonesian mangrove forests for
global climate change mitigation. Nature Climate
Change, 5(12), 1089–1092. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncli
mate2734
Mustika, P. L. K., Welters, R., Ryan, G. E., D'Lima, C.,
Sorongon-Yap, P., Jutapruet, S., & Peter, C. (2017). A
rapid assessment of wildlife tourism risk posed to
cetaceans in Asia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(8),
1138–1158. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2016.
1257012
Nasution, R. H., Avenzora, R., & Sunarminto, T. (2018). The
analysis of ecotourism laws and policies in Indonesia.
Media Konservasi, 23(1), 9–17.
Neuts, B., Romão, J., Nijkamp, P., & Shikida, A. (2016).
Market segmentation and their potential economic
impacts in an ecotourism destination: An applied
modelling study on Hokkaido, Japan. Tourism
Economics, 22(4), 793–808. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1354816616654252
Orams, M. B. (1996). A conceptual model of tourist-wildlife
interaction: The case for education as a management
strategy. Australian Geographer, 27(1), 39–51. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00049189608703156
Orams, M. B., & Hill, G. J. E. (1998). Controlling the
187
Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, 26(2), 178-188, August 2020
EISSN: 2089-2063
DOI: 10.7226/jtfm.26.2.178
ecotourist in a wild dolphin feeding program: Is
education the answer? Journal of Environmental
Education, 29(3), 33–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/0095
8969809599116
Prasetya, J. D., Maharani, Y. N., & Rahatmawati, I. (2018).
Mangrove ecotourism management at local community
in Jangkaran, Kulonprogo, using hierarchy analysis. IOP
Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science,
212(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/212/1/0120
06
Prasetyo, J. B., Muhammad, F., & Sugianto, D. N. (2018). An
overview of encouraging sustainable tourism in the
coastal tourism of Karang Jahe Beach: Issues and
challenges. E3S Web of Conferences, 73. https://doi.org/
10.1051/e3sconf/20187302015
Romão, J., Guerreiro, J., & Rodrigues, P. M. M. (2017).
Territory and sustainable tourism development: A space-
time analysis on european regions. Region, 4(3), 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.18335/region.v4i3.142
Romão, João, Neuts, B., Nijkamp, P., & Shikida, A. (2014).
Determinants of trip choice, satisfaction and loyalty in an
ecotourism destination: A modelling study on the
Shiretoko Peninsula, Japan. Ecological Economics, 107,
195–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.
07.019
Roziqin, A. (2018). Environmental Policy of Mangroves
Management in Rembang Regency. E3S Web of
Conferences, 31. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20183
109002
Sadan, E. (1997). Empowerment and community planning.
Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishing, 350. Retrieved from
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=intitle:Empowerm
ent+and+Community+Planning#7
188
Scientific Article
ISSN: 2087-0469
Sasana, H., Nurcahyanto, H., & Novitaningtyas, I. (2019).
The development strategy of world heritage tourism in
Indonesia. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and
Leisure, 8(5).
Schianetz, K., Jones, T., Kavanagh, L., Walker, P. A.,
Lockington, D., & Wood, D. (2009). The practicalities of
a learning tourism destination: A case study of the
Ningaloo Coast. International Journal of Tourism
Research, 11(6), 567–581. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jtr.729
Sri Budhi, M. K., & Lestari, N. P. N. E. (2016). Community
based ecotourism development in Jatiluwih Village Bali.
International Journal of Applied Business and Economic
Research, 14(3), 1864–1880.
[TIES] The International Ecotourism Society. (2016). What
is ecotourism? Retrieved from https://www.ecotourism.
org/what-is-ecotourism
Turton, S. M. (2005). Managing environmental impacts of
recreation and tourism in rainforests of the wet tropics of
Queensland World Heritage area. Geographical
Research, 43(2), 140–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17
45-5871.2005.00309.x
Wardani, M. P., Fahrudin, A., & Yulianda, F. (2017). Analysis
of successful strategy to develop sustainable marine
ecotourism in Gili Bawean Island, Gresik, East Java. IOP
Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science,
89(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/89/1/012036
Wearing, S., & Neil, J. (2009). Ecotourism: Impacts,
potentials and possibilites. Elsevier Ltd (2nd ed). Oxford:
Elsevier Ltd.
Yamamura, T. (2003). Indigenous society and immigrants:
Tourism and retailing in Lijiang, China, a world heritage
city. Tourism, 51(2), 215–234.
 sustainability

Article
Model Development of A Synergistic Sustainable
Marine Ecotourism—A Case Study in Pangandaran
Region, West Java Province, Indonesia
Atikah Nurhayati 1, *, Isah Aisah 2, * and Asep K. Supriatna 2, *
1 Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science, Padjadjaran University, 45363 West Java, Indonesia
2 Department of Mathematics, Padjadajaran University, 45363 West Java, Indonesia
* Correspondence: atikah.nurhayati@unpad.ac.id (A.N.); isah.aisah@unpad.ac.id (I.A.);
a.k.supriatna@unpad.ac.id (A.K.S.); Tel.: +62-08-12-2031417 (A.N.)
!"#!$%&'(!
Received: 30 March 2019; Accepted: 30 May 2019; Published: 21 June 2019 !"#$%&'

Abstract: Coastal areas in the South Coast of West Java Province, Indonesia, have potential to develop
marine ecotourism. One specific case is the Pangandaran area which must be transferred into economic
value by not damaging natural resources. Marine ecotourism development is not only intended to
raise foreign exchange for the local government, but is also expected to play a role in maintaining
natural resources sustainably. This research aims to analyze the sustainable synergistic marine
ecotourism development model. The method used in this research is the quantitative descriptive
method. The quantitative descriptive method is used to describe the general condition of the research
area, using primary and secondary data. The technique includes the taking of respondents using
accidental sampling as many as 50 respondents, consisting of tourists, public figures, and fishermen
who have side jobs as providers of marine ecotourism services. The analysis is carried out through
the Rapfish modeling approach to measure the synergistic elements of sustainable development of
marine ecotourism. Based on the results of the research the ecological dimension of environmental
services are the most influential conditions, the economic dimension of marine ecotourism is a
less influential condition. Meanwhile, marine ecotourism technology and the social dimension
of marine ecotourism are least influential conditions. In regard to infrastructure and regulatory
dimensions, the use of information technology is recommended to promote marine ecotourism
optimally. It is also concluded that regulations are needed to establish marine ecotourism zoning
rules and infrastructure improvements.

Keywords: marine ecotourism; coastal areas; fishermen; development model; sustainable

1. Introduction
Unsustainable natural resource management practices are an increasing problem in Pangandaran.
As overfishing and deforestation continues to degrade the environment, some community members
(including fishermen) are looking towards marine ecotourism as a sustainable livelihood alternative.
Tourism is a sector made up of many subcategories, such as nature tourism, agrotourism, marine
ecotourism, and more. Nature tourism is also called ‘ecotourism’ which was first conceived by Hector
Ceballos-Lascurain in the early 1980 [1]. Tourism is a travel activity in the country and abroad to enjoy
natural scenery, such as mountains (plants, wild animals), coastal areas (sea), and cultural aspects of
the area. Ecotourism can be realized through an educational approach about natural beauty that can
be enjoyed by every tourist [2]. Some considerations in realizing ecotourism are the focus of marine
ecotourism in coastal areas, because coastal area is a huge marine tourism asset which is supported
by geological potential and characteristics that are very closely related to coral reefs, especially hard

Sustainability 2019, 11, 3418; doi:10.3390/su11123418 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 3418 2 of 16

corals, so it is very desirable for development for marine ecotourism such as diving and snorkeling.
Ecotourism can contribute to maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem functions [3,4]. Maritime tourism
potential of natural resources can be seen in various forms such as coral reef ecosystems, reef fish,
ornamental fish, seagrass, and fishing.
In general, the environment is greatly influenced by human activities. The pressure of human
activities on natural resources in coastal areas and small islands will have an impact on ecological
sustainability [5,6]. The implications of developing marine tourism activities will have an influence on
the biotic and abiotic—social, cultural, and economic—environments. Therefore, special considerations
are needed to emphasize in the development of marine ecotourism activities. This is due to the fact that
marine ecotourism has the potential to cause changes in community behavior, waning social values
and norms, loss of identity, as well as social conflict, shifting livelihoods and environmental pollution.
Coastal areas in the South Coast of West Java Province are potential areas for the development of
marine ecotourism, one of which is the Pangandaran area. The area could be transferred into an area
that produces economic value by not damaging natural resources. Marine ecotourism is one of the
two legal income activities in Pangandaran, the other being regulated fishing. Marine ecotourism is a
growing sector in Pangandaran and globally. The development of marine ecotourism in the coastal
areas of the Pangandaran area will have an e↵ect on people’s lives directly or indirectly, especially for
fishermen in the Pangandaran region [7].
The development of marine ecotourism in coastal areas will directly involve coastal communities,
most of whom work as fishermen. The social characteristics possessed by fishing communities
di↵er from other communities in general. This is caused by di↵erences in the characteristics of the
resources concerned [8]. The development of maritime ecotourism is not only intended to increase
foreign exchange for local governments, but is expected to play a role as a national scale development
building. This is among the reasons why we need to undertake research on synergistic sustainable
marine ecotourism.
Maritime ecotourism development has several advantages, namely diversification of work for
fishermen, increasing employment opportunities for fishing families, increasing local tax revenues,
accelerating the process of income distribution, increasing the added value of ecotourism products,
expanding domestic product markets, and providing a multiplier e↵ect on the regional economy [9].
Marine ecotourism development is not only intended to raise foreign exchange for local governments,
it is also expected to play a role in maintaining natural resources sustainably. This research aims
to analyze the development model of synergistic sustainable marine ecotourism (case study in
Pangandaran Region, West Java Province).

2. Materials and Methods

This research was conducted from February 2017 to March 2018, taking place in Pangandaran
Region (Figure 1). This location has a tropical climate with two seasons, namely the dry season
(east season) and the rainy season (west season). The east and west seasons will directly a↵ect the
number of visitors in Pangandaran, both domestic and foreign tourists. The east season occurs from
May to October, where during this season the waters are calm so that tourists can enjoy the beautiful
Pangandaran beach and engage in water sports on the beach. The west season occurs from November
to April, where in this season tourist numbers are relatively lower due to sea conditions with large
waves and relatively high rainfall, making it difficult for tourists to do water sports [9].
The quantitative descriptive method is used to describe the general condition of the research
area, using primary and secondary data. The data were collected by interviewing 50 respondents
drawn through accidental sampling framework. These respondents represent groups of tourists, public
figures, and fishermen—all of whom have side jobs as marine ecotourism service providers. The
analytical tool used to process the data is the Rapfish (rapid appraisal of fisheries) model approach.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3418 3 of 16
Sustainability 2019, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 16

Figure1.1. Map
Figure Map of
of Pangandaran,
Pangandaran,West
WestJava
JavaProvince,
Province,Indonesia.
Indonesia.

The
The Rapfish framework
quantitative adopts
descriptive the multidimensional
method is used to describe scaling (MDS)condition
the general principlesoftothe assess the
research
sustainability level of and
area, using primary various marine data.
secondary ecotourism
The datadimensions. This technique
were collected is basically
by interviewing a statistical
50 respondents
calculation
drawn through that performs
accidentala multidimensional
sampling framework. transformation into more
These respondents simple dimensions
represent [10] to
groups of tourists,
measure the synergistic
public figures, model of sustainable
and fishermen—all of whomdevelopment
have side jobs of as
marine
marineecotourism.
ecotourism In service
this research, five
providers.
dimensions
The analytical are assessed
tool usedand to these
processare the
environmental,
data is the cultural,
Rapfish social,
(rapid economic,
appraisal and infrastructural
of fisheries) model
dimensions.
approach. Each dimension contains factors, called ‘attributes’ in this paper.
In theRapfish
The MDS, two points of adopts
framework the same object
the are mapped in scaling
multidimensional far-flung points,principles
(MDS) which aretovery useful
assess the
in regression analysis
sustainability level oftovarious
calculate the “stress”
marine that is
ecotourism a part of theThis
dimensions. MDS method [10–14].
technique Score
is basically on each
a statistical
attribute marine
calculation that ecotourism
performs awill form a matrix X,transformation
multidimensional where x is the into
numbermore of simple
areas and p is the number
dimensions [10] to
of attributes
measure theused. A goodmodel
synergistic model of is indicated
sustainable by development
the S-stress value smallerecotourism.
of marine than 0.25 orIn S <this and R2
0.25research,
close
five to 1. Index scales
dimensions are that assess and
assessed the sustainability of the system have
these are environmental, an interval
cultural, social,of 0–100%.
economic, In this
and
research, there are
infrastructural four categories
dimensions. of status ofcontains
Each dimension marine ecotourism of sustainability,
factors, called ‘attributes’ inas seen
this in Table 1.
paper.
In the MDS, two points of the same object are mapped in far-flung points, which are very useful
Table 1.toCategory
in regression analysis calculateindex and status
the “stress” of sustainability
that forMDS
is a part of the marine ecotourism.
method [10–14]. Score on each
attribute marine No
ecotourism will form a matrix X,
Index Value
where x is the number of areas
Category
and p is the number
of attributes used. A good model is indicated by the S-stress value smaller than 0.25 or S < 0.25 and
1. 0.0–25.00 Bad: not sustainable
R2 close to 1. Index2
scales that assess the25.01–50.00
sustainability of the system have an interval of 0–100%. In
Low: almost unsustainable
this research, there3 are four categories of status
50.01–75.00 of marine ecotourism of sustainability,
Sufficient: simply sustainable as seen in
Table 1. 4 75.01–100.00 Good: very sustainable

Table 1. Category index and status of sustainability for marine ecotourism

The most important results of Rapfish analyses basically are: (1) scatter plot diagrams, (2)
ordination graphs, and (3) Noleverage
Index graphs.
Value Scatter diagrams
Categorytell about an ordination technique
that can produce a ’map’ not 1. far 0.0–25.00
from the relative Bad:
location. These maps can be rotated and shifted
not sustainable
linearly with minimal disturbances.
2 Group analysis
25.01–50.00 of almost
Low: ordination points can be used to classify marine
unsustainable
ecotourism mathematically.3 50.01–75.00 Sufficient: simply sustainable
Random marine ecotourism 4 is represented by
75.01–100.00 the cross
Good: very in the center of the plot—it is normally
sustainable
distributed and the size of the arms of the cross is proportional to the 95% confidence limits on their
standard
Theerrors. The cross has
most important been displaced
results of Rapfishslightly vertically
analyses to make
basically it visible:
are: (1) scatterinplot
fact,diagrams,
it lies almost
(2)
precisely at the
ordination centerand
graphs, of the
(3) ordination. The ordination
leverage graphs. graphs tell
Scatter diagrams tellthe location
about of sustainability
an ordination techniqueindexes
that
of theproduce
can compared marine
a 'map' notecotourism
far from theforrelative
particular dimensions
location. These within
maps can a ‘bad-to-good’
be rotated and scale. Meanwhile,
shifted linearly
with minimal disturbances. Group analysis of ordination points can be used to classify marine
ecotourism mathematically.
 Random marine ecotourism is represented by the cross in the center of the plot—it is normally
distributed and the size of the arms of the cross is proportional to the 95% confidence limits on their
standard errors. The cross has been displaced slightly vertically to make it visible: in fact, it lies almost
Sustainability 3418 of the ordination. The ordination graphs tell the location of sustainability
the11,center
precisely at2019, 4 of 16
indexes of the compared marine ecotourism for particular dimensions within a ‘bad-to-good’ scale.
Meanwhile, the leverage graphs indicate which attributes are most sensitive in a particular
the leverage graphs indicate which attributes are most sensitive in a particular dimension; the longer
dimension; the longer the bar in the graph, the more sensitive the attribute is.
the bar in the graph, the more sensitive the attribute is.
3. Results
3. Results
The Pangandaran District is bordered by Ciamis in the North, Tasikmalaya in the West, Cilacap
The Pangandaran District is bordered by Ciamis in the North, Tasikmalaya in the West, Cilacap in
in the East, and the Indian Ocean in the South [14]. The coastal area surrounding this district belongs
the East, and the Indian Ocean in the South [14]. The coastal area surrounding this district belongs to
to six sub-districts. One of the primary purposes of visitors visiting the tourism centers in this district
six sub-districts. One of the primary purposes of visitors visiting the tourism centers in this district is
is to enjoy coral reef ecosystems as objects in diving and snorkeling activities. However, it is not only
to enjoy coral reef ecosystems as objects in diving and snorkeling activities. However, it is not only
limited to enjoying the hard coral but also soft coral and other side events [7–9].
limited to enjoying the hard coral but also soft coral and other side events [7–9].
Based on the research, ecological dimensions determine significantly the suitability of marine
Based on the research, ecological dimensions determine significantly the suitability of marine
ecotourism diving tourism categories, namely the brightness of the waters, coral community cover,
ecotourism diving tourism categories, namely the brightness of the waters, coral community cover, type
type of life form, types of reef fish, current velocity, and depth of coral reefs. Whatever it is, the
of life form, types of reef fish, current velocity, and depth of coral reefs. Whatever it is, the ecotourism
ecotourism activity interacts not only with ecological dimensions but also with those of social and
activity interacts not only with ecological dimensions but also with those of social and economic
economic systems. Therefore, the sustainability of of such a natural resource based ecotourism will
systems. Therefore, the sustainability of of such a natural resource based ecotourism will depend also
depend also on a set of social and economic dimensions. The following are the result of Rapffish
on a set of social and economic dimensions. The following are the result of Rapffish Analysis applied
Analysis applied to measure the sustainability of marine ecotourism Pangandaran District. The
to measure the sustainability of marine ecotourism Pangandaran District. The results cover scatter
results cover scatter plot, ordination, and leverage analysis, wherein five dimensions are considered:
plot, ordination, and leverage analysis, wherein five dimensions are considered: (1) environmental, (2)
(1) environmental, (2) culture, (3) social, (4) economic, and (5) infrastructure.
culture, (3) social, (4) economic, and (5) infrastructure.
3.1. Scatter
3.1. Scatter Plotting/Monte Carlo Simulation
Plotting/Monte Carlo Simulation
Monte Carlo
Monte Carlo simulation
simulationisisessentially
essentiallyintended
intendedtoto
seesee
thethe level
level of disturbance
of disturbance (perturbation)
(perturbation) to
to the
the value of the ordinance [14] and carried out by iteration 25 times. The results
value of the ordinance [14] and carried out by iteration 25 times. The results of Monte Carlo analysisof Monte Carlo
analysis scatter
through through scatter
plots plots
in the in the environmental
environmental dimension
dimension have experienced
have experienced disturbance
disturbance that will that will
threaten
threaten
the the sustainability
sustainability of marine of marine ecotourism
ecotourism in Pangandaran
in Pangandaran region. Theregion.
results The results
can be seen can be seen2–6.
in Figures in
Figures 2 to 5. As seen in these figures, it can be concluded that the data used
As seen in these figures, it can be concluded that the data used in this analysis are reliable. in this analysis are
reliable.

60

40
Other Distingishing Features

20

0
0 50 100 150

-20

-40

-60

Figure 2. Scatter plot for the enviromental dimension.

Figure 2. Scatter plot for the enviromental dimension.
Sustainability 2019, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 16
Sustainability 2019, 10,
Sustainability 3418
11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 55of
of 16
Sustainability 2019, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 16
60
60
60
40
40

Features
40
20

Features
20

Features
200

Distingishing
Distingishing
0 0 50 100 150

Distingishing
0
-20 0 50 100 150
0 50 100 150
-20

Other
-20
-40
Other
Other -40
-40
-60
-60
-60

Figure 3. Scatter plot for the cultural dimension.

Figure 3. Scatter plot for the cultural dimension.
Figure
Figure 3. Scatter plot
3. Scatter plot for
for the
the cultural
cultural dimension.
dimension.
60
60
60
40
40
40
20
Features

20
Features

20
Features

0
Distingishing

0 0 50 100 150
Distingishing

0 0 50 100 150
Distingishing

-20
0 50 100 150
-20
Other

-20
-40
Other

-40
Other

-40
-60
-60
-60

Figure 4. Scatter plot for the economic dimension.

Figure 4.
Figure Scatter plot
4. Scatter plot for
for the
the economic
economic dimension.
dimension.
Figure 4. Scatter plot for the economic dimension.
60
60
60
40
40
40
20
Features

20
Features

20
Features

0
Distingishing

0 0 50 100 150
Distingishing

0 0 50 100 150
-20 0
Distingishing

50 100 150
-20
-20
Other

-40
Other

-40
Other

-40
-60
-60
-60
Figure 5. Scatter plot for the infrastructural dimension.
Figure 5. Scatter plot for the infrastructural dimension.
Figure 5. Scatter plot for the infrastructural dimension.
Figure 5. Scatter plot for the infrastructural dimension.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3418 6 of 16
Sustainability 2019,2019,
Sustainability 10, x 10,
FOR PEERPEER
x FOR REVIEW
REVIEW 6 of 616of 16

60 60

40 40

Other Distingishing Features

Other Distingishing Features

20 20

0 0
0 0 50 50 100 100 150 150

-20 -20

-40 -40

-60 -60

Figure
Figure 6.
6. Scatter
FigureScatter plot for
for the
plot plot
6. Scatter forsocial
the social dimension.
dimension.
the social dimension.

3.2. Ordination
3.2. Ordination
3.2. Ordination
In Figures
In Figures 7–11
7,
In Figures 9,the
8, 7, 10,9,horizontal
8, and 11axis
11 the
10, and the shows
horizontal the
axisdi↵erence
horizontal shows
axis theindifference
shows type
the of marine inecotourism
in type
difference of marine
type in bad (0%)
ecotourism
of marine ecotourism
to good
in bad
in bad(100%)
(0%)(0%) ordinations
to good (100%)
to good for each dimension
ordinations
(100%) ordinationsfor eachanalyzed,
dimension
for each while
dimension the vertical
analyzed, while
analyzed, axis shows the
the vertical
while di↵erence
axis axis
the vertical shows
shows
fromdifference
the the attribute
from mixthescore between
attribute mix the type
score of marine
between ecotourism
the type of evaluated.
marine The
ecotourism
the difference from the attribute mix score between the type of marine ecotourism evaluated. The ordination analysis
evaluated. The
shows that analysis
ordination
ordinationthe sustainability
shows
analysis shows of that
that marinetheecotourism
the sustainability in marine
of
sustainability the Pangandaran
ecotourism
of marine region
ecotourismin theinvaries between type
Pangandaran
the Pangandaran of
region
region
marine
varies ecotourism.
between
varies between Below
typetype ofare
of marine graphs showing
ecotourism.
marine ecotourism. loci
Below of
aresustainability
Below graphs indexes
showing
are graphs lociofloci
showing ofeachof type of ecotourism
sustainability indexes
sustainability indexes
based
of eachon a
type five-dimension
of ecotourism point
based of
on view.
a five-dimension
of each type of ecotourism based on a five-dimension point of view. point of view.

60 60
UP UP
40 40 Remark
Remark
Other Distingishing Features
Other Distingishing Features

: : Business
Business Ecotourism
Ecotourism
20 20
: : Seaside
Seaside Ecotourism
Ecotourism
0 0BAD BAD GOOD
GOOD : : Cultural
Cultural Ecotourism
Ecotourism
0 0 50 50 100 100 150 150 :
-20 -20
: Fishing
Fishing Ecotourism
Ecotourism
: : Cruise
Cruise Ecotourism
Ecotourism
-40 -40 : : Sport
Sport Ecotourism
Ecotourism
DOWN
DOWN
: Anchor
: Anchor
-60 -60
: : References
References

Figure
Figure 7.
7. Rapfish
Figure ordination
7. Rapfish
Rapfish of
of the
ordination
ordination ofenvironmental
the dimension.
the environmental
environmental dimension.
dimension.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3418 7 of 16
Sustainability
Sustainability 2019,
2019, 10,
10, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 77 of
of 16
16

60
Other Distingishing Features UP
40 Remark
: Business Ecotourism
20
: Seaside Ecotourism
0 BAD GOOD : Cultural Ecotourism
0 50 100 150 : Fishing Ecotourism
-20
: Cruise Ecotourism
-40 : Sport Ecotourism
DOWN
: Anchor
-60
: References

Figure 8. Rapfish
Figure ordination
8. Rapfish of the
ordination of cultural dimension.
the cultural dimension.

60
UP
40 Remark
:
Other Distingishing Features

Business Ecotourism
20 : Seaside Ecotourism
: Cultural Ecotourism
0 BAD GOOD
0 50 100 150 : Fishing Ecotourism
-20 : Cruise Ecotourism
: Sport Ecotourism
-40
: Anchor
DOWN
-60 : References

Figure
Figure 9. Rapfish
9. Rapfish ordination
ordination of social
of the the social dimension.
dimension.

22

UP
UP
Other Distingishing Features

1.5
1.5
Remark
11 : Business Ecotourism
0.5
0.5 : Seaside Ecotourism
BAD
BAD 00 GOOD
GOOD : Cultural Ecotourism
-2
-2 -1
-1 00 11 22
-0.5
-0.5 : Fishing Ecotourism

-1
-1
: Cruise Ecotourism

-1.5
-1.5
: Sport Ecotourism
DOWN
DOWN
: Anchor
-2
-2
: References

Figure 10. Rapfish

Figure ordination
10. Rapfish of the
ordination of economic dimension.
the economic dimension.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3418 8 of 16
Sustainability 2019, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16

60
UP Remark
40
Other Distingishing Features : Business Ecotourism
20 : Seaside Ecotourism

0 BAD GOOD : Cultural Ecotourism

0 50 100 150 : Fishing Ecotourism
-20
: Cruise Ecotourism
-40 : Sport Ecotourism
DOWN
: Anchor
-60
: References

FigureFigure 11. Rapfish

11. Rapfish ordination
ordination of the
of the infrastructuraldimension.
infrastructural dimension.

Figure 7Figure
shows 7 shows the ordinance
the ordinance analysis
analysis in the
in the enviromental
enviromental dimension with
dimension with two
two timetimeiterations
iterations
resulting in a quadratic value of correlation2 (R2) of 93.73% and stress value (S) of 17.18%. From this
resulting in a quadratic value of correlation (R ) of 93.73% and stress value (S) of 17.18%. From this
stability indicator, it can be seen how far the results of the analysis are reliable. Thus, the analysis of
stability indicator, it can be seen how far the results of the analysis are reliable. Thus, the analysis of
the environmental dimension in this research shows the condition of goodness of fit, considering the
the environmental
stress value dimension in this research
obtained is 17.18%. shows
(<25%). Then we the condition
divide the scaleofofgoodness of fit,into
the ordinance considering
four groupsthe
stress value obtained is 17.18%. (<25%). Then we divide the scale of the ordinance into four
with different levels of sustainability, namely 0–25 is bad; 26–50 is low; 51–75 is sufficient; and 76– groups
with di↵erent levelsThe
100 is good. of sustainability, namely
result can be seen 0–25
in Table 2 asisfollows.
bad; 26–50 is low; 51–75 is sufficient; and 76–100
is good. The result can be seen in Table 2 as follows.
Table 2. Sustainability level of marine ecotourism environmental dimensions in the Pangandaran
Table 2.RegionSustainability level of marine ecotourism environmental dimensions in the
Pangandaran
No Region.
Type of Marine Ecotourism Dimension Enviromental Status of Sustainability
1. Business Ecotourism 47.119 Low
No Type of Marine Ecotourism Dimension Enviromental Status of Sustainability
2. Seasides Ecotourism 64.306 Sufficient
1. 3. Business
Cultural Ecotourism
Ecotourism 47.119
66.298 Low
Sufficient
2. 4. Seasides Ecotourism
Fishing Ecotourism 64.306
77.999 Sufficient
Good
3. 5. Cultural Ecotourism
Cruise Ecotourism 66.298
43.796 Sufficient
Less
4. Fishing Ecotourism 77.999 Good
6. Sport Ecotourism 85.186 Good
5. Cruise Ecotourism 43.796 Less
6. Sport Ecotourism 85.186 Good
Figure 8 shows the ordinance analysis in the cultural dimension with two time iterations results
in a quadratic value of correlation (R2) of 93.50% and stress value (S) of 18.68%. From this stability
Figure 8 shows
indicator, thebe
it can ordinance
seen howanalysis in the of
far the results cultural dimension
the analysis with two
are reliable. time
Thus, theiterations
analysis ofresults
culturalin a
dimensions in this 2
quadratic value of correlation (R ) of 93.50% and stress value (S) of 18.68%. From this stability indicator,
research shows the condition of goodnes of fit, considering the value of stress
it can beobtained
seen how is far
equal
thetoresults
18. 68%.
of(<25%). Thus, are
the analysis the reliable.
analysis of cultural
Thus, the dimensions
analysis of in this research
cultural showsin
dimensions
the condition of goodnes of fit, considering the value of stress obtained is equal to 18. 68%. (<25%).
this research shows the condition of goodnes of fit, considering the value of stress obtained is equal to 18.
Then we divide the scale of the ordinance into four groups with different levels of sustainability,
68%. (<25%). Thus, the analysis of cultural dimensions in this research shows the condition of goodnes of
namely 0–25 is bad; 26–50 is low; 51–75 is sufficient and 76–100 is good. The result can be seen in
fit, considering the value of stress obtained is equal to 18. 68%. (<25%). Then we divide the scale of the
Table 3 as follows:
ordinance into four groups with different levels of sustainability, namely 0–25 is bad; 26–50 is low; 51–75 is
sufficient andTable
76–100 is good. The
3. Sustainability result
level can of
of types bemarine
seen in Table 3 as
ecotourism follows:
cultural dimensions in the Pangandaran
Region
Table 3. Sustainability level of types of marine ecotourism cultural dimensions in the
No Type of Marine Ecotourism Dimension Cultural Status of Sustainability
Pangandaran Region.
1. Business Ecotourism 67.259 Sufficent
No 2.Type of Marine Ecotourism
Seasides Ecotourism Dimension Cultural
47.820 Status of Sustainability
Less
1. 3. Cultural Ecotourism
Business Ecotourism 83.253
67.259 GoodSufficent
2. 4. Fishing
Seasides Ecotourism
Ecotourism 55.973
47.820 SufficentLess
3. 5. Cultural Ecotourism
Cruise Ecotourism 83.253
47.971 Less Good
4. Fishing Ecotourism 55.973 Sufficent
5. Cruise Ecotourism 47.971 Less
6. Sport Ecotourism 46.158 Less
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3418 9 of 16

Figure 9 shows the ordination analysis in terms of social dimensions between good and bad.
Ordinance analysis in the social dimension with the number of iterations is two times, resulting in a
quadratic value of correlation (R2 ) of 92.62% and stress value (S) of 18.81%. Thus, the analysis of the
social dimension in this research shows the condition of goodness of fit, considering the stress value
obtained is 18.81%. (<25%). Then we divide the scale of the ordinance into four groups with di↵erent
levels of sustainability, namely 0–25 is bad; 26–50 is low; 51–75 is sufficient; and 76–100 is good. The
result can be seen in Table 4 as follows.

Table 4. Sustainability level type of marine ecotourism social dimension in Pangandaran Region.

Type of Marine
No Cultural Dimension Status of Sustainability
Ecotourism
1. Business Ecotourism 99.903 Good
2. Seasides Ecotourism 56.861 Sufficient
3. Cultural Ecotourism 52.295 Sufficient
4. Fishing Ecotourism 60.510 Sufficient
5. Cruise Ecotourism 67.461 Sufficient
6. Sport Ecotourism 56.177 Sufficient

Figure 10 shows the ordinance analysis in the economic dimension with two time iterations results
in a quadratic value of correlation (R2 ) of 94.64% and stress value (S) of 17.21%. Thus, the economic
dimension analysis in this reserach shows the condition of goodnes of fit, considering the value of
stress obtained is 17.21%. (<25%). Then we divide the scale of the ordinance into four groups with
di↵erent levels of sustainability, namely 0–25 is bad; 26–50 is low; 51–75 is sufficient; and 76–100 is
good. The result can be seen in Table 5 as follows.

Table 5. Sustainability level type of marine ecotourism economic dimension in Pangandaran Region.

Type of Marine
No Economic Dimension Status of Sustainability
Ecotourism
1. Business Ecotourism 96.754 Good
2. Seasides Ecotourism 50.948 Sufficient
3. Cultural Ecotourism 85.784 Sufficient
4. Fishing Ecotourism 71.250 Sufficent
5. Cruise Ecotourism 66.048 Sufficient
6. Sport Ecotourism 57.453 Sufficient

Figure 11 shows the ordinance analysis in the infrastructure dimension with two time iterations
resulting in a quadratic value of correlation (R2 ) of 93.02% and stress value (S) of 17.42%. Thus,
the infrastructure dimension analysis in this reserach shows the condition of goodnes of fit, considering
the value of stress obtained is 15.21% (<25%). Then we divide the scale of the ordinance into four
groups with di↵erent levels of sustainability, namely 0–25 is bad; 26–50 is low; 51–75 is sufficient;
and 76–100 is good. The result can be seen in Table 6 as follows.

Table 6. Sustainability level type of marine ecotourism infrastructure dimension in Pangandaran Region.

Type of Marine
No Dimension Economic Status of Sustainability
Ecotourism
1. Business Ecotourism 81.529 Good
2. Seasides Ecotourism 46.992 Low
3. Cultural Ecotourism 68.998 Sufficient
4. Fishing Ecotourism 47.697 Low
5. Cruise Ecotourism 46.022 Low
6. Sport Ecotourism 45.510 Low
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3418 10 of 16
Sustainability 2019, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16

4.
4. Discussion

Ecotourism
Ecotourism potentially
potentially provides
provides aa sustainable
sustainable approach
approach to to development
development [15].[15]. In this scope,
marine
marineecotourism
ecotourismisisa form
a formof natural marine
of natural resource-based
marine tourism
resource-based that isthat
tourism educational, low-impact,
is educational, low-
non-consumptive, and locally oriented: local people must control the industry and receive the bulk of
impact, non-consumptive, and locally oriented: local people must control the industry and receive
the
the benefits
bulk of to
theensure sustainable
benefits to ensuredevelopment [16]. Ecotourism
sustainable development [16].inEcotourism
this contextincanthisbecontext
viewedcanas an
be
activity
viewedtoaspromote responsible
an activity to promotetravel to naturaltravel
responsible areas, to
to natural
make a positive
areas, tocontribution
make a positiveto environmental
contribution
preservation, and to
to environmental improve theand
preservation, welfare of localthe
to improve communities [17–19].
welfare of local communities [17–19].

4.1.
4.1. Environmental
Environmental Dimension
Dimension of
of Marine
Marine Ecotourism
Ecotourism
The
The elements
elements of of the
the environmental
environmental dimension
dimension of of marine
marine ecotourism
ecotourism include:
include: (1) (1) nature
nature
conservation,
conservation, (2) (2) natural
natural value,
value, (3)
(3) protected
protected areare of
of nature,
nature, (4) (4) disrupting
disrupting wildlife,
wildlife, (5)
(5) illegal
illegal hunting
hunting
and
and fishing,
fishing, (6)
(6) degradation
degradation water water quality,
quality, (7)
(7) disruption
disruption of of local
local flora
flora and
and fauna,
fauna, (8)(8) bidiversity
bidiversity loss,
loss,
(9)
(9) habitat
habitatalteration,
alteration,and and(10)
(10)environmental
environmentaleducation.
education.
In
In Figure
Figure 12,
12, itit can
can bebe seen
seen that
that the
the highest
highest value
value of of 3.171
3.171 belongs
belongs to to the
the ‘illegal
‘illegal hunting
hunting andand
fishing’ attribute, which means that this attribute has the highest sensitivity value related
fishing’ attribute, which means that this attribute has the highest sensitivity value related to the level to the level of
marine
of marine ecotourism
ecotourism environmental dimension
environmental sustainability.
dimension The ‘environmental
sustainability. education’education’
The ‘environmental attribute
has the lowest
attribute has thevalue
lowest ofvalue
0.808,ofmeaning that it that
0.808, meaning has it
little
has sensitivity to the
little sensitivity tolevel of sustainability
the level of sustainabilityof
marine tourism.
of marine tourism.

Nature Conservation

Natural Value

Protected area of nature.

Attribute

Disrupting wildlife

Illegal hunting and fishing

Degraded water quality

Disruption of local flora and fauna

Biodiversity loss

Habitat alteration

Environmental education

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Figure
Figure 12.12.Leverage of elements
Leverage of theof
of elements enviromental dimension
the enviromental of marine of
dimension ecoturism
marineonecoturism
a sustainability
on a
scale of 0 to 100.
sustainability scale of 0 to 100.

4.2.
4.2. Cultural
Cultural Dimension
Dimension of
of Marine
Marine Ecotourism
Ecotourism
The
The culture
culture of
of coastal
coastal communities
communities is is di↵erent
different from
from other
other communities,
communities, humans
humans are are cultural
cultural
beings,
beings, and culture is the result of creativity, work, and joint initiatives. One of the factors that
and culture is the result of creativity, work, and joint initiatives. One of the factors that
influence
influencethetheformation
formation of culture is theisphysical,
of culture natural natural
the physical, environment; such situations
environment; such and conditions
situations and
will indirectly shape the character of the personality and culture of the people who
conditions will indirectly shape the character of the personality and culture of the people who live in live in that
environment. The dependence
that environment. The dependence of theofcommunity
the community on the
onmarine sector
the marine provides
sector its own
provides identity
its own as a
identity
coastal community
as a coastal communitywith with
a lifestyle known
a lifestyle as ‘coastal
known culture’
as ‘coastal [15]. [15].
culture’
The
The elelments of the cultural dimension of marine ecotourisminclude:
elelments of the cultural dimension of marine ecotourism include: (1)
(1) creating
creating sustainable
sustainable
livelihoods;
livelihoods; (2) traditional ethnic; (3) behavioral patterns; (4) religious beliefs; (5) existing
(2) traditional ethnic; (3) behavioral patterns; (4) religious beliefs; (5) existing skill
skill levels;
levels;
(5) cultural attractions; (6) practicing respect for local culture; (7) local and national heritage; (8)
indiegenous culture; and (9) adaptation to local norms. In Figure 13, it can be seen that the highest
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3418 11 of 16

(5) cultural attractions; (6) practicing respect for local culture; (7) local and national heritage; (8)
Sustainability 2019, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 16
indiegenous culture; and (9) adaptation to local norms. In Figure 13, it can be seen that the highest
value
value ofof 3.068
3.068 belongs
belongs to to the
the ‘existing
‘existing skill’
skill’ attribute,
attribute, and
and thus
thus it
it is
is the
the most
most sensitive
sensitive among
among the
the
cultural dimensions of marine ecotourism. The ‘traditional ethnicity’ attribute
cultural dimensions of marine ecotourism. The ‘traditional ethnicity’ attribute has the lowest has the lowest value
valueof
0.701, meaning that it has little sensitivity to the level of sustainability of marine
of 0.701, meaning that it has little sensitivity to the level of sustainability of marine tourism. tourism.

Creating sustainable livelihoods

Traditional ethnic

Behavioural patterns
Attribute

Religious beliefs

Existing skill levels

Cultural attractions

Practice respect for local culture

Local and national heritage

Indigenous cultures

Adaptation to local norms

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Figure 13. Leverage of elements of the cultural dimension of marine ecoturism on a sustainability scale
Figure 13. Leverage of elements of the cultural dimension of marine ecoturism on a sustainability scale 0 to
0 to 100.
100.
4.3. Social Dimension of Marine Ecotourism
4.3. Social Dimension of Marine Ecotourism
The social dimension is a person’s actions in certain ways in an e↵ort to exercise rights and
The social
obligations dimensionwith
in accordance is astatus
person's
theyactions
have. Ain certain
person canways in to
be said anplay
effort to if
a role exercise rights and
he had carried out
obligations in accordance with status they have. A person can be said to play
their rights and obligations in accordance with their social status within society. The World Tourism a role if he had carried
out their rights
Organization and states
(WTO), obligations in accordance
that: “Tourism withthe
comprises their social of
activities status within
persons, society.
traveling The staying
to and World
Tourism
in Organization
place outside (WTO),
their usual states that:for
environment "Tourism
not morecomprises the activitiesyear
than one consecutive of persons,
for leisure, traveling
business to
and staying in place
and other purposes” [16]. outside their usual environment for not more than one consecutive year for
leisure,
Thebusiness
elements and
of other purposes"[16].
the social dimension of marine ecotourism include (1) ecotourism income; (2)
The elements of the social
benefit for local people; (3) conflict dimension
status; (4)of marine ecotourism
education include (1)
level of tourism; (5) ecotourism income; (2)
number of tourists; (6)
benefit for local people; (3) conflict status; (4) education level of tourism; (5) number
type of tourists; (7) traditional events; and (8) enforcement of regulations. In Figure 14, it can be seen of tourists; (6)
type the
that of tourists;
highest (7) traditional
value of 3.660events;
belongsand (8) enforcement
to ‘number of regulations.
of tourists’, and it means In Figure
that it14,hasit the
cangreatest
be seen
that the highest value of 3.660 belongs to ‘number of tourists’, and it means
sensitivity with respect to the level of social dimension sustainability of marine ecotourism comparedthat it has the greatest
sensitivity
to with respect
other attributes. The to the level of
‘education social
level’ dimension
attribute sustainability
of tourism has theof marine
lowest ecotourism
value of 1.239,compared
meaning
to other
that it isattributes. The ‘education
the least sensitive in termslevel’ attribute
of its of tourism
influence has the
on the level lowest value of
of sustainability of1.239, meaning
this particular
that it is the least sensitive
marine tourism dimension. in terms of its influence on the level of sustainability of this particular
marine tourism dimension.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3418 12 of 16
Sustainability 2019, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 16

Ecotourism income
Sustainability 2019, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 16

Benefits for local people

Ecotourism income
Attribute

Conflict status
Benefits for local people
Attribute

Education level of tourism

Conflict status

Number of tourists
Education level of tourism

Types of tourists
Number of tourists

Types ofevents
Traditional tourists

Traditional
Enforcement of events
regulations

Enforcement of regulations
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Figure
Figure 14. Leverage
14. Leverage of elements
of elements of theof the social
social dimension
dimension of marine
of marine ecoturism
ecoturism on a sustainability
on a sustainability scale scale
of 0 to
of 0 to
Figure 100.
14. Leverage of elements of the social dimension of marine ecoturism on a sustainability scale of 0 to
100.
100.
4.4. Economic Dimension of Marine Ecotourism
4.4. Economic Dimension of Marine Ecotourism
4.4. Economic Dimension of Marine Ecotourism
The elements of the economic dimension of marine ecotourism include (1) domestic ecotourism
The elements
investors; (2) elements
The foreignof the economic
ecotourism
of the economic dimension
investors;
dimension (3)of marine
ofecotourism ecotourism
industry;
marine ecotourism include (1) (1)
(4) jobs
include fordomestic ecotourism
localecotourism
domestic communities;
investors;
(5) other (2) foreign
income;
investors; ecotourism
(6) marketing
(2) foreign investors;
ecotourismtechniques; (3)
investors; (3)(7)ecotourism
employment
ecotourism industry;
industry;in (4)(4) jobs
ecotourism; for
jobs for local local communities;
(8)communities;
average wage;(5) (5)
(9)
other income;
other income;(6) marketing
(6) marketing techniques;
techniques; (7)
(7) employment
employment
ecotourism entrepreneurship; and (10) providing benefits for local communities. in
in ecotourism;
ecotourism; (8) (8) average
average wage;wage;
(9) (9)
ecotourism
ecotourism
In Figure entrepreneurship;
entrepreneurship;
15, it can be seen andand(10)
(10)providing
that theproviding benefits
highest benefits
value of for
for localcommunities.
local
2.953 communities.
belongs to the foreign ecotourism
In Figure 15,can
it can be seen thatthe
thehighest
highest value
value of 2.953 belongs to thethe foreign ecotourism
investors attribute, so it means that the foreign ecotourism investors attributeto
In Figure 15, it be seen that of 2.953 belongs has theforeign
greatestecotourism
sensitivity
investors
investors attribute,
attribute, so so
it it means
means that
that the
the foreign
foreign ecotourism
ecotourism investors
investors attribute
attribute has the the
has greatest
greatest
with respect
sensitivity
to the level ofto
sustainability of the economic dimension of marine ecotourism.
sensitivity withwith respect
respect to the the level
level ofofsustainability
sustainability of of the
theeconomic
economicdimension
dimension of marine ecotourism.
of marine ecotourism.

Domestic ecotourism investors

Domestic ecotourism investors
Foreign ecotourism investors
Foreign ecotourism investors
Ecotourism industry
Ecotourism industry
Jobs for local communities
Attribute

Jobs for local communities

Attribute

Other income
OtherTechniques
Marketing income

Marketing
EmploymentTechniques
in ecotourism

Average wage
Employment in ecotourism
EcotourismAverage
entrepreneurship
wage
Provide benefits for local communities
Ecotourism entrepreneurship
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Provide benefits for local communities

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Figure Leverage
15.Leverage
Figure 15. of of elements
elements of economic
of the the economic dimension
dimension of ecoturism
of marine marine ecoturism on a sustainability
on a sustainability scale of 0 to
scale
100. of 0 to 100.

Figure 15. Leverage of elements of the economic dimension of marine ecoturism on a sustainability scale of 0 to
100.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3418 13 of 16
Sustainability 2019, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 16

4.5.
4.5. Infrastructural
InfrastructuralDimension
DimensionofofMarine
MarineEcotourism
Ecotourism
Elements
Elementsof oftheinfrastructural
theinfrastructuraldimension
dimensionof ofmarine
marineecotourism
ecotourisminclude
include(1) (1)lodging,
lodging,(2)(2)tourism
tourism
support
support service, (3) restaurants and markets, (4) fuel, (5) health care and service, (6)
service, (3) restaurants and markets, (4) fuel, (5) health care and service, (6) public
public
administration,
administration,(7) (7)communication
communicationservce,
servce,(8)
(8)new
newsport
sportrecreational,
recreational,andand(9)(9)transportation.
transportation.
In Figure
In Figure 16,
16, it
it can
can be
be seen
seen that
that the
the highest
highest value
value of
of 4.149
4.149belongs
belongsto tohealth
healthcare
careservice,
service,which
which
means
means that it has the highest sensitivity value with respect to the level of sustainability of
that it has the highest sensitivity value with respect to the level of sustainability of the
the
infrastructural
infrastructural dimension of marine ecotourism. Tourism support services has the lowest valueof
dimension of marine ecotourism. Tourism support services has the lowest value of
1.444.
1.444. Tourism
Tourism support
support service, therefore, itit has
service, therefore, hasthe
thesmallest
smallestvalue
valueofofsensitivity
sensitivitytotothis
thisdimension
dimension of
of sustainability.
sustainability.

Lodging

Tourism support services

Restaurants and Market

Attribute

Fuel

Health care services

Public administration

Communication services

New sport recreational

Transportation

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Figure 16. Leverange of elements of the

Figure 16. the infrastructural
infrastructural dimension
dimension of
of marine
marine rcotourism
rcotourism on
on aa
sustainability
sustainabilityscale
scaleof
of00toto100.
100.

Based on
Based on this
this research,
research, the the Rapfish
Rapfish modelmodel measured
measured the the synergistic
synergistic modelmodel of of sustainable
sustainable
development
development of marine ecotourism through the approach environment, culture, social, economicand
of marine ecotourism through the approach environment, culture, social, economic and
infrastructure
infrastructuredimension.
dimension. The The sustainability
sustainability levels
levels by
by type
typeof ofenvironmental
environmentaldimensions
dimensionsof ofmarine
marine
ecotourism
ecotourism in inPangandaran
Pangandaran region region werewere found
found to tobebeas
asfollows:
follows: (1)(1) business
business ecotourism
ecotourism is is low;
low; (2)
(2)
seaside
seasideecotourism
ecotourismisissufficient;
sufficient;(3)(3)cultural
cultural ecotourism
ecotourism is sufficient;
is sufficient;(4) (4)
fishing ecotourism
fishing ecotourismis good; (5)
is good;
cruise ecotourism
(5) cruise is low;
ecotourism is and
low;(6)and
sport
(6)ecotourism is good.isMarine
sport ecotourism good. ecotourism business is
Marine ecotourism very complex,
business is very
requiring entrepreneurial spirit to achieve profitability with no damage to the
complex, requiring entrepreneurial spirit to achieve profitability with no damage to the environment. environment. Start-up
ecotourism ventures have
Start-up ecotourism venturesa high riska of
have failure
high risk and the marine
of failure and the tourism
marine business
tourism faces challenges
business faces
in conditions
challenges in of uncertainty
conditions in natural in
of uncertainty resources. Environmental
natural resources. dimensions
Environmental include: include:
dimensions (1) nature (1)
conservation, (2) natural
nature conservation, (2) value,
natural(3)value,
protected are of nature,
(3) protected are of(4) disrupting
nature, wildlife, (5)
(4) disrupting illegal(5)
wildlife, hunting
illegal
and fishing,
hunting and (6)fishing,
degradation water quality,
(6) degradation (7) disruption
water of local
quality, (7) flora and
disruption of fauna, (8) biodiversity
local flora and fauna,loss, (8)
(9) habitat alteration, and (10) environmental education.
biodiversity loss, (9) habitat alteration, and (10) environmental education.
Maritime
Maritimeecotourism
ecotourismfocuses
focuseson onlocal
localcultures
culturesfrom
fromcertain
certainareas,
areas,including
includingcoastal
coastalareas,
areas,as aswell
well
as
asnatural
naturalbeauty,
beauty,geological
geologicalstructures,
structures,natural
naturalvegetation,
vegetation,and andfauna
fauna[20,21]
[20,21]andandisisaatype
typeof oftourism
tourism
that
thatcovers
coversthe
thesubject
subjectof of conservation
conservationof of natural
natural areas,
areas, education,
education, economic
economic benefits,
benefits, quality
quality tourism,
tourism,
and
andlocal
localcommunity
communityparticipation
participation[22].[22].Based
Basedon onthis
thisresearch,
research,sustainability
sustainabilitylevelslevelsofoftypes
typesof ofmarine
marine
ecotourism
ecotourism cultural
cultural dimension
dimension in in Pangandaran
Pangandaran Region Region were
were found
found to tobebeasasfollows:
follows: (1)
(1)business
business
ecotourism is sufficient; (2) seasides ecotourism is low; (3) cultural ecotourism is good; (4) fishing
ecotourism is sufficent; (5) cruise ecotourism is low; and (6) sport ecotourism is low. There are three
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3418 14 of 16

ecotourism is sufficient; (2) seasides ecotourism is low; (3) cultural ecotourism is good; (4) fishing
ecotourism is sufficent; (5) cruise ecotourism is low; and (6) sport ecotourism is low. There are three
main principles in sustainable development [23]: (1) ecological sustainability, namely ensuring that
development is carried out in accordance with ecological, biological, and diversity of existing ecological
resources; (2) social and cultural sustainability, namely ensuring that the development carried out has
a positive impact on the lives of the surrounding community and in accordance with the culture and
values that apply to the community; (3) economic sustainability, namely ensuring that development is
carried out efficiently economically and that the resources used can survive for future needs. Based on
this research, cultural dimensions include: (1) creating sustainable livelihoods; (2) traditional ethnic; (3)
behavioral patterns; (4) religious beliefs; (5) existing skill levels; (5) cultural attractions; (6) practising
respect for local culture; (7) local and national heritage; (8) indegenous culture; and (9) adaptation to
local norms.
From a sociological perspective, marine ecotourism systems have three types of actors: (1)
tourism brokers, (2) local tourism residents, and (3) tourists [24]. Interactions within and between
these actors can a↵ect the speed and character of coastal development and increase the income of
coastal communities. Based on this research, the sustainability level of types of marine ecotourism
social dimension in Pangandaran Region are as follows: (1) business ecotourism is good; (2) seaside
ecotourism is sufficient; (3) cultural ecotourism is sufficient; (4) fishing ecotourism is sufficient; (5)
cruise ecotourism is sufficient; and (6) sport ecotourism is sufficient. Maritime tourism not only
promotes local economic growth, but also promotes social equality rights in the community and
preserves the surrounding environment. Social dimensions include (1) ecotourism income; (2) benefits
for local people; (3) conflict status; (4) education level of tourism; (5) number of tourists; (6) type of
tourists; (7) traditional events; and (8) enforcement of regulations.
Tourism is considered as combining time and pleasure, benefiting prospective tourists,
and providing the tourism industry and host countries with significant flowing e↵ects at all levels
and sectors in the local economy [25]. Based on this research, sustainability levels according to the
type of economic dimension of marine ecotourism in Pangandaran Region are as follows: (1) business
ecotourism is good; (2) seasides ecotourism is sufficient; (3) cultural ecotourism is sufficient; (4) fishing
ecotourism is sufficient; (5) cruise ecotourism is sufficient; (6) sport ecotourism is sufficient. Economic
dimensions include; (1) domestic ecotourism investors; (2) foreign ecotourism investors; (3) ecotourism
industry; (4) jobs for local communities; (5) other income; (6) marketing techniques; (7) employment
in ecotourism; (8) average wage; (9) ecotourism entrepreneurship; and (10) providing benefits for
local communities.
Based on this research, sustainability levels for the infrastructural dimensions of marine ecotourism
in the Pangandaran Region are as follows: (1) business ecotourism is good; (2) seaside ecotourism is
sufficient; (3) cultural ecotourism is sufficient; (4) fishing ecotourism is sufficient; (5) cruise ecotourism
is sufficient; and (6) sport ecotourism is sufficient. Infrastructural dimensions include: (1) lodging;
(2) tourism support services; (3) restaurants and markets; (4) fuel; (5) health care service; (6) public
administration; (7) communication service; (8) new sport recreational; and (9) transportation.

5. Conclusions
A development model for synergistic sustainable marine ecotourism (Case Study in Pangandaran
Region, West Java Province) through a multidimensional scaling approach was presented.
The dimesions involved are environmental, cultural, social, economic, and infrastructural dimensions.
These dimensions demonstrate sufficient conditions to support the sustainability of marine ecotourism
in the Pangandaran región. However, coastal natural resources in the Pangandaran area still need
to be improved and maintained through good management. Strategies that can be employed to
increase the number of tourists include increasing access to transportation, information, and adequate
accommodations in accordance with tourism standards.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3418 15 of 16

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.N. and A.K.S.; Data curation and formal analysis, A.N, I.A.,
and A.K.S.; Funding acquisition, A.K.S.; Methodology, A.N., I.A., and A.K.S.; Resources, A.N.; Software, A.N. and
A.K.S.; Visualization, A.N.; Writing—original draft, A.N. and A.K.S. Writing—review and editing, A.N.
Funding: This research was funded by the Academic Leadership Grant (ALG-2019) Universitas Padjadjaran,
Bandung, Indonesia.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Das, M.; Chatterjee, B. Ecotourism: A panacea or a predicament? Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2015, 14, 3–16.
[CrossRef]
2. Ceballos-Lascurain, H. Tourism, Ecotourism and Protected Areas; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 1996.
3. Gossling, S. Ecotourism: A Means to Safeguard Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functions. Ecol. Econ. 1999, 29,
303–320. [CrossRef]
4. Ross, S.; Wall, G. Evaluating ecotourism: The case of North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Tour. Manag. 1999, 20,
673–682. [CrossRef]
5. Tsaur, S.H.; Lin, Y.C.; Lin, J.H. Evaluating ecotourism sustainability from the integrated perspective of
resource, community and tourism. Tour. Manag. 2006, 27, 640–653. [CrossRef]
6. Zhang, H.; Lei, S.L. A Structural Model of Reaident’s Intention to Participate in Ecotourism: The Case of a
Wetland Community. Tour. Manag. 2012, 33, 916–925. [CrossRef]
7. Nurhayati, A.; Purnomo, A.H. A Case study on sustainability analysis of fisheries in Pangandaran, West
Java Province. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. B 2014, 4, 321–330. [CrossRef]
8. Nurhayati, A. Analysis of the Local Government Policy Supporting to Sustainable Fisheries Resources (Case
Study in the Pangandaran). Journal Kebijakan Social Ekonomi Kelautan dan Perikanan 2012, 2. (In Indonesian)
9. Nurhayati, A.; Purnomo, A.H. Developing the Marine and Fisheries Industry in Pangandaran using a
Bioecoregion-Based Technopark Framework. J. STI Policy Manag. 2017, 2, 43–52. [CrossRef]
10. Pitcher, T.J.; Preikshot, D. Rapfish: A rapid appraisal technique to evaluate the sustainability status of
fisheries. Fish. Res. 2001, 49, 255–270. [CrossRef]
11. Pitcher, T.J.; Power, M.P. Fish figures: Quantifying the ethical status of Canadian fisheries, East and West. In
Just Fish: The Ethics of Canadian Fisheries; Coward, H., Ommer, R., Pitcher, T.J., Eds.; Institute of Social and
Economic Research Press: St John’s, NL, Canada, 1999.
12. Food and Agricultural Organizations. Fisheries Management. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries;
FAO: Rome, Italy, 1997.
13. Regional Planning Agency of West Java Province. Regional Long-Term Development Plan of West Java Province
2005–2025; Regional Planning Agency of West Java: West Java, Indonesia, 2007. (In Indonesian)
14. Kavanagh, P.; Pitcher, T.J. Implementing Microsoft Excel Software For Rapfish: A Technique For The Rapid Appraisal
of Fisheries Status; Fisheries Centre Research Reports; The Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia:
Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2004; Volume 12, 75p.
15. Okech, N.R. Developing urban ecotourism in Kenyan cities: A sustainable approach. J. Ecol. Nat. Environ.
2009, 1, 1–6.
16. D’Angelo, R.; Sachasiri, T.; Vaccaro, N.; Welie, M.V.; Vargas, A.; Yongsanguanchai, N.
Post-Tsunami Ecotourism Development: Solutions for the Laem Cohort Village. 2010.
Available online: https://web.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-030410-063443/unrestricted/
EcoTourismGroup_FinalReportSubmission_3-4-2010.pdf. (accessed on 19 June 2019).
17. The UMKM Service in Pangandaran Regency. Data on Tourist Visits and Vehicle Flow; Publishing
Disparperindagkop & UMKM; Pangadaran Regency: Ciamis Regency, Indonesia, 2015. (In Indonesian)
18. Geertz, H. Various Cultures and Communities in Indonesia (Cont.); Social Sciences & FS UI Foundation: Jakarta,
Indonesia, 1981.
19. Pitana, I.G.; Gayatri, P.G. Sosiologi Pariwisata; Andi Publisher: Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2005.
20. Angelica, M.; Zambrano, A.; Broadbent, E.N.; Durham, W.H. Social and environmental e↵ects of ecotourism
in the Osa Peninsula of Costa Rica: The Lapa Rios case. J. Ecotour. 2010, 9, 62–83.
21. Masberg, B.A.; Morales, N. A Case Analysis of Strategies in Ecotourism Development. Aquat. Ecosyst.
Health Manag. 1999, 2, 289–300. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3418 16 of 16

22. Benzer Kiliç, N. The Assessment of the Natural and Cultural Resources of Bolu-Goynuk with the Ecotourism
Point of View. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Landscape Architecture, Graduate School of Natural and Applied
Sciences, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey, 2006; p. 266.
23. Mclntyre, G. Sustainable Tourism Development, Guide for Local Planners; World Tourism Organization: Madrid,
Spain, 1993; p. 166.
24. Miller, M.L.; Auyong, J. Remarks on tourism terminologies: Antitourism, mass tourism, and alternative
tourism. In Proceedings of the 1996 World Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism: Experiences in Management and
Development; Miller, M.L., Auyong, J., Eds.; Washington Sea Grant Program and the School of Marine A↵airs,
University of Washington and Oregon Sea Grant College Program; Oregon State University: Corvallis, OR,
USA, 1998; pp. 1–24.
25. Wearing, S.; Neil, J. Ecotourism: Impacts, Potentials and Possibilities; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 1999.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
 sustainability

Article
Model Development of A Synergistic Sustainable
Marine Ecotourism—A Case Study in Pangandaran
Region, West Java Province, Indonesia
Atikah Nurhayati 1, *, Isah Aisah 2, * and Asep K. Supriatna 2, *
1 Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science, Padjadjaran University, 45363 West Java, Indonesia
2 Department of Mathematics, Padjadajaran University, 45363 West Java, Indonesia
* Correspondence: atikah.nurhayati@unpad.ac.id (A.N.); isah.aisah@unpad.ac.id (I.A.);
a.k.supriatna@unpad.ac.id (A.K.S.); Tel.: +62-08-12-2031417 (A.N.)
!"#!$%&'(!
Received: 30 March 2019; Accepted: 30 May 2019; Published: 21 June 2019 !"#$%&'

Abstract: Coastal areas in the South Coast of West Java Province, Indonesia, have potential to develop
marine ecotourism. One specific case is the Pangandaran area which must be transferred into economic
value by not damaging natural resources. Marine ecotourism development is not only intended to
raise foreign exchange for the local government, but is also expected to play a role in maintaining
natural resources sustainably. This research aims to analyze the sustainable synergistic marine
ecotourism development model. The method used in this research is the quantitative descriptive
method. The quantitative descriptive method is used to describe the general condition of the research
area, using primary and secondary data. The technique includes the taking of respondents using
accidental sampling as many as 50 respondents, consisting of tourists, public figures, and fishermen
who have side jobs as providers of marine ecotourism services. The analysis is carried out through
the Rapfish modeling approach to measure the synergistic elements of sustainable development of
marine ecotourism. Based on the results of the research the ecological dimension of environmental
services are the most influential conditions, the economic dimension of marine ecotourism is a
less influential condition. Meanwhile, marine ecotourism technology and the social dimension
of marine ecotourism are least influential conditions. In regard to infrastructure and regulatory
dimensions, the use of information technology is recommended to promote marine ecotourism
optimally. It is also concluded that regulations are needed to establish marine ecotourism zoning
rules and infrastructure improvements.

Keywords: marine ecotourism; coastal areas; fishermen; development model; sustainable

1. Introduction
Unsustainable natural resource management practices are an increasing problem in Pangandaran.
As overfishing and deforestation continues to degrade the environment, some community members
(including fishermen) are looking towards marine ecotourism as a sustainable livelihood alternative.
Tourism is a sector made up of many subcategories, such as nature tourism, agrotourism, marine
ecotourism, and more. Nature tourism is also called ‘ecotourism’ which was first conceived by Hector
Ceballos-Lascurain in the early 1980 [1]. Tourism is a travel activity in the country and abroad to enjoy
natural scenery, such as mountains (plants, wild animals), coastal areas (sea), and cultural aspects of
the area. Ecotourism can be realized through an educational approach about natural beauty that can
be enjoyed by every tourist [2]. Some considerations in realizing ecotourism are the focus of marine
ecotourism in coastal areas, because coastal area is a huge marine tourism asset which is supported
by geological potential and characteristics that are very closely related to coral reefs, especially hard

Sustainability 2019, 11, 3418; doi:10.3390/su11123418 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 3418 2 of 16

corals, so it is very desirable for development for marine ecotourism such as diving and snorkeling.
Ecotourism can contribute to maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem functions [3,4]. Maritime tourism
potential of natural resources can be seen in various forms such as coral reef ecosystems, reef fish,
ornamental fish, seagrass, and fishing.
In general, the environment is greatly influenced by human activities. The pressure of human
activities on natural resources in coastal areas and small islands will have an impact on ecological
sustainability [5,6]. The implications of developing marine tourism activities will have an influence on
the biotic and abiotic—social, cultural, and economic—environments. Therefore, special considerations
are needed to emphasize in the development of marine ecotourism activities. This is due to the fact that
marine ecotourism has the potential to cause changes in community behavior, waning social values
and norms, loss of identity, as well as social conflict, shifting livelihoods and environmental pollution.
Coastal areas in the South Coast of West Java Province are potential areas for the development of
marine ecotourism, one of which is the Pangandaran area. The area could be transferred into an area
that produces economic value by not damaging natural resources. Marine ecotourism is one of the
two legal income activities in Pangandaran, the other being regulated fishing. Marine ecotourism is a
growing sector in Pangandaran and globally. The development of marine ecotourism in the coastal
areas of the Pangandaran area will have an e↵ect on people’s lives directly or indirectly, especially for
fishermen in the Pangandaran region [7].
The development of marine ecotourism in coastal areas will directly involve coastal communities,
most of whom work as fishermen. The social characteristics possessed by fishing communities
di↵er from other communities in general. This is caused by di↵erences in the characteristics of the
resources concerned [8]. The development of maritime ecotourism is not only intended to increase
foreign exchange for local governments, but is expected to play a role as a national scale development
building. This is among the reasons why we need to undertake research on synergistic sustainable
marine ecotourism.
Maritime ecotourism development has several advantages, namely diversification of work for
fishermen, increasing employment opportunities for fishing families, increasing local tax revenues,
accelerating the process of income distribution, increasing the added value of ecotourism products,
expanding domestic product markets, and providing a multiplier e↵ect on the regional economy [9].
Marine ecotourism development is not only intended to raise foreign exchange for local governments,
it is also expected to play a role in maintaining natural resources sustainably. This research aims
to analyze the development model of synergistic sustainable marine ecotourism (case study in
Pangandaran Region, West Java Province).

2. Materials and Methods

This research was conducted from February 2017 to March 2018, taking place in Pangandaran
Region (Figure 1). This location has a tropical climate with two seasons, namely the dry season
(east season) and the rainy season (west season). The east and west seasons will directly a↵ect the
number of visitors in Pangandaran, both domestic and foreign tourists. The east season occurs from
May to October, where during this season the waters are calm so that tourists can enjoy the beautiful
Pangandaran beach and engage in water sports on the beach. The west season occurs from November
to April, where in this season tourist numbers are relatively lower due to sea conditions with large
waves and relatively high rainfall, making it difficult for tourists to do water sports [9].
The quantitative descriptive method is used to describe the general condition of the research
area, using primary and secondary data. The data were collected by interviewing 50 respondents
drawn through accidental sampling framework. These respondents represent groups of tourists, public
figures, and fishermen—all of whom have side jobs as marine ecotourism service providers. The
analytical tool used to process the data is the Rapfish (rapid appraisal of fisheries) model approach.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3418 3 of 16
Sustainability 2019, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 16

Figure1.1. Map
Figure Map of
of Pangandaran,
Pangandaran,West
WestJava
JavaProvince,
Province,Indonesia.
Indonesia.

The
The Rapfish framework
quantitative adopts
descriptive the multidimensional
method is used to describe scaling (MDS)condition
the general principlesoftothe assess the
research
sustainability level of and
area, using primary various marine data.
secondary ecotourism
The datadimensions. This technique
were collected is basically
by interviewing a statistical
50 respondents
calculation
drawn through that performs
accidentala multidimensional
sampling framework. transformation into more
These respondents simple dimensions
represent [10] to
groups of tourists,
measure the synergistic
public figures, model of sustainable
and fishermen—all of whomdevelopment
have side jobs of as
marine
marineecotourism.
ecotourism In service
this research, five
providers.
dimensions
The analytical are assessed
tool usedand to these
processare the
environmental,
data is the cultural,
Rapfish social,
(rapid economic,
appraisal and infrastructural
of fisheries) model
dimensions.
approach. Each dimension contains factors, called ‘attributes’ in this paper.
In theRapfish
The MDS, two points of adopts
framework the same object
the are mapped in scaling
multidimensional far-flung points,principles
(MDS) which aretovery useful
assess the
in regression analysis
sustainability level oftovarious
calculate the “stress”
marine that is
ecotourism a part of theThis
dimensions. MDS method [10–14].
technique Score
is basically on each
a statistical
attribute marine
calculation that ecotourism
performs awill form a matrix X,transformation
multidimensional where x is the into
numbermore of simple
areas and p is the number
dimensions [10] to
of attributes
measure theused. A goodmodel
synergistic model of is indicated
sustainable by development
the S-stress value smallerecotourism.
of marine than 0.25 orIn S <this and R2
0.25research,
close
five to 1. Index scales
dimensions are that assess and
assessed the sustainability of the system have
these are environmental, an interval
cultural, social,of 0–100%.
economic, In this
and
research, there are
infrastructural four categories
dimensions. of status ofcontains
Each dimension marine ecotourism of sustainability,
factors, called ‘attributes’ inas seen
this in Table 1.
paper.
In the MDS, two points of the same object are mapped in far-flung points, which are very useful
Table 1.toCategory
in regression analysis calculateindex and status
the “stress” of sustainability
that forMDS
is a part of the marine ecotourism.
method [10–14]. Score on each
attribute marine No
ecotourism will form a matrix X,
Index Value
where x is the number of areas
Category
and p is the number
of attributes used. A good model is indicated by the S-stress value smaller than 0.25 or S < 0.25 and
1. 0.0–25.00 Bad: not sustainable
R2 close to 1. Index2
scales that assess the25.01–50.00
sustainability of the system have an interval of 0–100%. In
Low: almost unsustainable
this research, there3 are four categories of status
50.01–75.00 of marine ecotourism of sustainability,
Sufficient: simply sustainable as seen in
Table 1. 4 75.01–100.00 Good: very sustainable

Table 1. Category index and status of sustainability for marine ecotourism

The most important results of Rapfish analyses basically are: (1) scatter plot diagrams, (2)
ordination graphs, and (3) Noleverage
Index graphs.
Value Scatter diagrams
Categorytell about an ordination technique
that can produce a ’map’ not 1. far 0.0–25.00
from the relative Bad:
location. These maps can be rotated and shifted
not sustainable
linearly with minimal disturbances.
2 Group analysis
25.01–50.00 of almost
Low: ordination points can be used to classify marine
unsustainable
ecotourism mathematically.3 50.01–75.00 Sufficient: simply sustainable
Random marine ecotourism 4 is represented by
75.01–100.00 the cross
Good: very in the center of the plot—it is normally
sustainable
distributed and the size of the arms of the cross is proportional to the 95% confidence limits on their
standard
Theerrors. The cross has
most important been displaced
results of Rapfishslightly vertically
analyses to make
basically it visible:
are: (1) scatterinplot
fact,diagrams,
it lies almost
(2)
precisely at the
ordination centerand
graphs, of the
(3) ordination. The ordination
leverage graphs. graphs tell
Scatter diagrams tellthe location
about of sustainability
an ordination techniqueindexes
that
of theproduce
can compared marine
a 'map' notecotourism
far from theforrelative
particular dimensions
location. These within
maps can a ‘bad-to-good’
be rotated and scale. Meanwhile,
shifted linearly
with minimal disturbances. Group analysis of ordination points can be used to classify marine
ecotourism mathematically.
 Random marine ecotourism is represented by the cross in the center of the plot—it is normally
distributed and the size of the arms of the cross is proportional to the 95% confidence limits on their
standard errors. The cross has been displaced slightly vertically to make it visible: in fact, it lies almost
Sustainability 3418 of the ordination. The ordination graphs tell the location of sustainability
the11,center
precisely at2019, 4 of 16
indexes of the compared marine ecotourism for particular dimensions within a ‘bad-to-good’ scale.
Meanwhile, the leverage graphs indicate which attributes are most sensitive in a particular
the leverage graphs indicate which attributes are most sensitive in a particular dimension; the longer
dimension; the longer the bar in the graph, the more sensitive the attribute is.
the bar in the graph, the more sensitive the attribute is.
3. Results
3. Results
The Pangandaran District is bordered by Ciamis in the North, Tasikmalaya in the West, Cilacap
The Pangandaran District is bordered by Ciamis in the North, Tasikmalaya in the West, Cilacap in
in the East, and the Indian Ocean in the South [14]. The coastal area surrounding this district belongs
the East, and the Indian Ocean in the South [14]. The coastal area surrounding this district belongs to
to six sub-districts. One of the primary purposes of visitors visiting the tourism centers in this district
six sub-districts. One of the primary purposes of visitors visiting the tourism centers in this district is
is to enjoy coral reef ecosystems as objects in diving and snorkeling activities. However, it is not only
to enjoy coral reef ecosystems as objects in diving and snorkeling activities. However, it is not only
limited to enjoying the hard coral but also soft coral and other side events [7–9].
limited to enjoying the hard coral but also soft coral and other side events [7–9].
Based on the research, ecological dimensions determine significantly the suitability of marine
Based on the research, ecological dimensions determine significantly the suitability of marine
ecotourism diving tourism categories, namely the brightness of the waters, coral community cover,
ecotourism diving tourism categories, namely the brightness of the waters, coral community cover, type
type of life form, types of reef fish, current velocity, and depth of coral reefs. Whatever it is, the
of life form, types of reef fish, current velocity, and depth of coral reefs. Whatever it is, the ecotourism
ecotourism activity interacts not only with ecological dimensions but also with those of social and
activity interacts not only with ecological dimensions but also with those of social and economic
economic systems. Therefore, the sustainability of of such a natural resource based ecotourism will
systems. Therefore, the sustainability of of such a natural resource based ecotourism will depend also
depend also on a set of social and economic dimensions. The following are the result of Rapffish
on a set of social and economic dimensions. The following are the result of Rapffish Analysis applied
Analysis applied to measure the sustainability of marine ecotourism Pangandaran District. The
to measure the sustainability of marine ecotourism Pangandaran District. The results cover scatter
results cover scatter plot, ordination, and leverage analysis, wherein five dimensions are considered:
plot, ordination, and leverage analysis, wherein five dimensions are considered: (1) environmental, (2)
(1) environmental, (2) culture, (3) social, (4) economic, and (5) infrastructure.
culture, (3) social, (4) economic, and (5) infrastructure.
3.1. Scatter
3.1. Scatter Plotting/Monte Carlo Simulation
Plotting/Monte Carlo Simulation
Monte Carlo
Monte Carlo simulation
simulationisisessentially
essentiallyintended
intendedtoto
seesee
thethe level
level of disturbance
of disturbance (perturbation)
(perturbation) to
to the
the value of the ordinance [14] and carried out by iteration 25 times. The results
value of the ordinance [14] and carried out by iteration 25 times. The results of Monte Carlo analysisof Monte Carlo
analysis scatter
through through scatter
plots plots
in the in the environmental
environmental dimension
dimension have experienced
have experienced disturbance
disturbance that will that will
threaten
threaten
the the sustainability
sustainability of marine of marine ecotourism
ecotourism in Pangandaran
in Pangandaran region. Theregion.
results The results
can be seen can be seen2–6.
in Figures in
Figures 2 to 5. As seen in these figures, it can be concluded that the data used
As seen in these figures, it can be concluded that the data used in this analysis are reliable. in this analysis are
reliable.

60

40
Other Distingishing Features

20

0
0 50 100 150

-20

-40

-60

Figure 2. Scatter plot for the enviromental dimension.

Figure 2. Scatter plot for the enviromental dimension.
Sustainability 2019, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 16
Sustainability 2019, 10,
Sustainability 3418
11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 55of
of 16
Sustainability 2019, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 16
60
60
60
40
40

Features
40
20

Features
20

Features
200

Distingishing
Distingishing
0 0 50 100 150

Distingishing
0
-20 0 50 100 150
0 50 100 150
-20

Other
-20
-40
Other
Other -40
-40
-60
-60
-60

Figure 3. Scatter plot for the cultural dimension.

Figure 3. Scatter plot for the cultural dimension.
Figure
Figure 3. Scatter plot
3. Scatter plot for
for the
the cultural
cultural dimension.
dimension.
60
60
60
40
40
40
20
Features

20
Features

20
Features

0
Distingishing

0 0 50 100 150
Distingishing

0 0 50 100 150
Distingishing

-20
0 50 100 150
-20
Other

-20
-40
Other

-40
Other

-40
-60
-60
-60

Figure 4. Scatter plot for the economic dimension.

Figure 4.
Figure Scatter plot
4. Scatter plot for
for the
the economic
economic dimension.
dimension.
Figure 4. Scatter plot for the economic dimension.
60
60
60
40
40
40
20
Features

20
Features

20
Features

0
Distingishing

0 0 50 100 150
Distingishing

0 0 50 100 150
-20 0
Distingishing

50 100 150
-20
-20
Other

-40
Other

-40
Other

-40
-60
-60
-60
Figure 5. Scatter plot for the infrastructural dimension.
Figure 5. Scatter plot for the infrastructural dimension.
Figure 5. Scatter plot for the infrastructural dimension.
Figure 5. Scatter plot for the infrastructural dimension.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3418 6 of 16
Sustainability 2019,2019,
Sustainability 10, x 10,
FOR PEERPEER
x FOR REVIEW
REVIEW 6 of 616of 16

60 60

40 40

Other Distingishing Features

Other Distingishing Features

20 20

0 0
0 0 50 50 100 100 150 150

-20 -20

-40 -40

-60 -60

Figure
Figure 6.
6. Scatter
FigureScatter plot for
for the
plot plot
6. Scatter forsocial
the social dimension.
dimension.
the social dimension.

3.2. Ordination
3.2. Ordination
3.2. Ordination
In Figures
In Figures 7–11
7,
In Figures 9,the
8, 7, 10,9,horizontal
8, and 11axis
11 the
10, and the shows
horizontal the
axisdi↵erence
horizontal shows
axis theindifference
shows type
the of marine inecotourism
in type
difference of marine
type in bad (0%)
ecotourism
of marine ecotourism
to good
in bad
in bad(100%)
(0%)(0%) ordinations
to good (100%)
to good for each dimension
ordinations
(100%) ordinationsfor eachanalyzed,
dimension
for each while
dimension the vertical
analyzed, while
analyzed, axis shows the
the vertical
while di↵erence
axis axis
the vertical shows
shows
fromdifference
the the attribute
from mixthescore between
attribute mix the type
score of marine
between ecotourism
the type of evaluated.
marine The
ecotourism
the difference from the attribute mix score between the type of marine ecotourism evaluated. The ordination analysis
evaluated. The
shows that analysis
ordination
ordinationthe sustainability
shows
analysis shows of that
that marinetheecotourism
the sustainability in marine
of
sustainability the Pangandaran
ecotourism
of marine region
ecotourismin theinvaries between type
Pangandaran
the Pangandaran of
region
region
marine
varies ecotourism.
between
varies between Below
typetype ofare
of marine graphs showing
ecotourism.
marine ecotourism. loci
Below of
aresustainability
Below graphs indexes
showing
are graphs lociofloci
showing ofeachof type of ecotourism
sustainability indexes
sustainability indexes
based
of eachon a
type five-dimension
of ecotourism point
based of
on view.
a five-dimension
of each type of ecotourism based on a five-dimension point of view. point of view.

60 60
UP UP
40 40 Remark
Remark
Other Distingishing Features
Other Distingishing Features

: : Business
Business Ecotourism
Ecotourism
20 20
: : Seaside
Seaside Ecotourism
Ecotourism
0 0BAD BAD GOOD
GOOD : : Cultural
Cultural Ecotourism
Ecotourism
0 0 50 50 100 100 150 150 :
-20 -20
: Fishing
Fishing Ecotourism
Ecotourism
: : Cruise
Cruise Ecotourism
Ecotourism
-40 -40 : : Sport
Sport Ecotourism
Ecotourism
DOWN
DOWN
: Anchor
: Anchor
-60 -60
: : References
References

Figure
Figure 7.
7. Rapfish
Figure ordination
7. Rapfish
Rapfish of
of the
ordination
ordination ofenvironmental
the dimension.
the environmental
environmental dimension.
dimension.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3418 7 of 16
Sustainability
Sustainability 2019,
2019, 10,
10, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 77 of
of 16
16

60
Other Distingishing Features UP
40 Remark
: Business Ecotourism
20
: Seaside Ecotourism
0 BAD GOOD : Cultural Ecotourism
0 50 100 150 : Fishing Ecotourism
-20
: Cruise Ecotourism
-40 : Sport Ecotourism
DOWN
: Anchor
-60
: References

Figure 8. Rapfish
Figure ordination
8. Rapfish of the
ordination of cultural dimension.
the cultural dimension.

60
UP
40 Remark
:
Other Distingishing Features

Business Ecotourism
20 : Seaside Ecotourism
: Cultural Ecotourism
0 BAD GOOD
0 50 100 150 : Fishing Ecotourism
-20 : Cruise Ecotourism
: Sport Ecotourism
-40
: Anchor
DOWN
-60 : References

Figure
Figure 9. Rapfish
9. Rapfish ordination
ordination of social
of the the social dimension.
dimension.

22

UP
UP
Other Distingishing Features

1.5
1.5
Remark
11 : Business Ecotourism
0.5
0.5 : Seaside Ecotourism
BAD
BAD 00 GOOD
GOOD : Cultural Ecotourism
-2
-2 -1
-1 00 11 22
-0.5
-0.5 : Fishing Ecotourism

-1
-1
: Cruise Ecotourism

-1.5
-1.5
: Sport Ecotourism
DOWN
DOWN
: Anchor
-2
-2
: References

Figure 10. Rapfish

Figure ordination
10. Rapfish of the
ordination of economic dimension.
the economic dimension.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3418 8 of 16
Sustainability 2019, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16

60
UP Remark
40
Other Distingishing Features : Business Ecotourism
20 : Seaside Ecotourism

0 BAD GOOD : Cultural Ecotourism

0 50 100 150 : Fishing Ecotourism
-20
: Cruise Ecotourism
-40 : Sport Ecotourism
DOWN
: Anchor
-60
: References

FigureFigure 11. Rapfish

11. Rapfish ordination
ordination of the
of the infrastructuraldimension.
infrastructural dimension.

Figure 7Figure
shows 7 shows the ordinance
the ordinance analysis
analysis in the
in the enviromental
enviromental dimension with
dimension with two
two timetimeiterations
iterations
resulting in a quadratic value of correlation2 (R2) of 93.73% and stress value (S) of 17.18%. From this
resulting in a quadratic value of correlation (R ) of 93.73% and stress value (S) of 17.18%. From this
stability indicator, it can be seen how far the results of the analysis are reliable. Thus, the analysis of
stability indicator, it can be seen how far the results of the analysis are reliable. Thus, the analysis of
the environmental dimension in this research shows the condition of goodness of fit, considering the
the environmental
stress value dimension in this research
obtained is 17.18%. shows
(<25%). Then we the condition
divide the scaleofofgoodness of fit,into
the ordinance considering
four groupsthe
stress value obtained is 17.18%. (<25%). Then we divide the scale of the ordinance into four
with different levels of sustainability, namely 0–25 is bad; 26–50 is low; 51–75 is sufficient; and 76– groups
with di↵erent levelsThe
100 is good. of sustainability, namely
result can be seen 0–25
in Table 2 asisfollows.
bad; 26–50 is low; 51–75 is sufficient; and 76–100
is good. The result can be seen in Table 2 as follows.
Table 2. Sustainability level of marine ecotourism environmental dimensions in the Pangandaran
Table 2.RegionSustainability level of marine ecotourism environmental dimensions in the
Pangandaran
No Region.
Type of Marine Ecotourism Dimension Enviromental Status of Sustainability
1. Business Ecotourism 47.119 Low
No Type of Marine Ecotourism Dimension Enviromental Status of Sustainability
2. Seasides Ecotourism 64.306 Sufficient
1. 3. Business
Cultural Ecotourism
Ecotourism 47.119
66.298 Low
Sufficient
2. 4. Seasides Ecotourism
Fishing Ecotourism 64.306
77.999 Sufficient
Good
3. 5. Cultural Ecotourism
Cruise Ecotourism 66.298
43.796 Sufficient
Less
4. Fishing Ecotourism 77.999 Good
6. Sport Ecotourism 85.186 Good
5. Cruise Ecotourism 43.796 Less
6. Sport Ecotourism 85.186 Good
Figure 8 shows the ordinance analysis in the cultural dimension with two time iterations results
in a quadratic value of correlation (R2) of 93.50% and stress value (S) of 18.68%. From this stability
Figure 8 shows
indicator, thebe
it can ordinance
seen howanalysis in the of
far the results cultural dimension
the analysis with two
are reliable. time
Thus, theiterations
analysis ofresults
culturalin a
dimensions in this 2
quadratic value of correlation (R ) of 93.50% and stress value (S) of 18.68%. From this stability indicator,
research shows the condition of goodnes of fit, considering the value of stress
it can beobtained
seen how is far
equal
thetoresults
18. 68%.
of(<25%). Thus, are
the analysis the reliable.
analysis of cultural
Thus, the dimensions
analysis of in this research
cultural showsin
dimensions
the condition of goodnes of fit, considering the value of stress obtained is equal to 18. 68%. (<25%).
this research shows the condition of goodnes of fit, considering the value of stress obtained is equal to 18.
Then we divide the scale of the ordinance into four groups with different levels of sustainability,
68%. (<25%). Thus, the analysis of cultural dimensions in this research shows the condition of goodnes of
namely 0–25 is bad; 26–50 is low; 51–75 is sufficient and 76–100 is good. The result can be seen in
fit, considering the value of stress obtained is equal to 18. 68%. (<25%). Then we divide the scale of the
Table 3 as follows:
ordinance into four groups with different levels of sustainability, namely 0–25 is bad; 26–50 is low; 51–75 is
sufficient andTable
76–100 is good. The
3. Sustainability result
level can of
of types bemarine
seen in Table 3 as
ecotourism follows:
cultural dimensions in the Pangandaran
Region
Table 3. Sustainability level of types of marine ecotourism cultural dimensions in the
No Type of Marine Ecotourism Dimension Cultural Status of Sustainability
Pangandaran Region.
1. Business Ecotourism 67.259 Sufficent
No 2.Type of Marine Ecotourism
Seasides Ecotourism Dimension Cultural
47.820 Status of Sustainability
Less
1. 3. Cultural Ecotourism
Business Ecotourism 83.253
67.259 GoodSufficent
2. 4. Fishing
Seasides Ecotourism
Ecotourism 55.973
47.820 SufficentLess
3. 5. Cultural Ecotourism
Cruise Ecotourism 83.253
47.971 Less Good
4. Fishing Ecotourism 55.973 Sufficent
5. Cruise Ecotourism 47.971 Less
6. Sport Ecotourism 46.158 Less
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3418 9 of 16

Figure 9 shows the ordination analysis in terms of social dimensions between good and bad.
Ordinance analysis in the social dimension with the number of iterations is two times, resulting in a
quadratic value of correlation (R2 ) of 92.62% and stress value (S) of 18.81%. Thus, the analysis of the
social dimension in this research shows the condition of goodness of fit, considering the stress value
obtained is 18.81%. (<25%). Then we divide the scale of the ordinance into four groups with di↵erent
levels of sustainability, namely 0–25 is bad; 26–50 is low; 51–75 is sufficient; and 76–100 is good. The
result can be seen in Table 4 as follows.

Table 4. Sustainability level type of marine ecotourism social dimension in Pangandaran Region.

Type of Marine
No Cultural Dimension Status of Sustainability
Ecotourism
1. Business Ecotourism 99.903 Good
2. Seasides Ecotourism 56.861 Sufficient
3. Cultural Ecotourism 52.295 Sufficient
4. Fishing Ecotourism 60.510 Sufficient
5. Cruise Ecotourism 67.461 Sufficient
6. Sport Ecotourism 56.177 Sufficient

Figure 10 shows the ordinance analysis in the economic dimension with two time iterations results
in a quadratic value of correlation (R2 ) of 94.64% and stress value (S) of 17.21%. Thus, the economic
dimension analysis in this reserach shows the condition of goodnes of fit, considering the value of
stress obtained is 17.21%. (<25%). Then we divide the scale of the ordinance into four groups with
di↵erent levels of sustainability, namely 0–25 is bad; 26–50 is low; 51–75 is sufficient; and 76–100 is
good. The result can be seen in Table 5 as follows.

Table 5. Sustainability level type of marine ecotourism economic dimension in Pangandaran Region.

Type of Marine
No Economic Dimension Status of Sustainability
Ecotourism
1. Business Ecotourism 96.754 Good
2. Seasides Ecotourism 50.948 Sufficient
3. Cultural Ecotourism 85.784 Sufficient
4. Fishing Ecotourism 71.250 Sufficent
5. Cruise Ecotourism 66.048 Sufficient
6. Sport Ecotourism 57.453 Sufficient

Figure 11 shows the ordinance analysis in the infrastructure dimension with two time iterations
resulting in a quadratic value of correlation (R2 ) of 93.02% and stress value (S) of 17.42%. Thus,
the infrastructure dimension analysis in this reserach shows the condition of goodnes of fit, considering
the value of stress obtained is 15.21% (<25%). Then we divide the scale of the ordinance into four
groups with di↵erent levels of sustainability, namely 0–25 is bad; 26–50 is low; 51–75 is sufficient;
and 76–100 is good. The result can be seen in Table 6 as follows.

Table 6. Sustainability level type of marine ecotourism infrastructure dimension in Pangandaran Region.

Type of Marine
No Dimension Economic Status of Sustainability
Ecotourism
1. Business Ecotourism 81.529 Good
2. Seasides Ecotourism 46.992 Low
3. Cultural Ecotourism 68.998 Sufficient
4. Fishing Ecotourism 47.697 Low
5. Cruise Ecotourism 46.022 Low
6. Sport Ecotourism 45.510 Low
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3418 10 of 16
Sustainability 2019, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16

4.
4. Discussion

Ecotourism
Ecotourism potentially
potentially provides
provides aa sustainable
sustainable approach
approach to to development
development [15].[15]. In this scope,
marine
marineecotourism
ecotourismisisa form
a formof natural marine
of natural resource-based
marine tourism
resource-based that isthat
tourism educational, low-impact,
is educational, low-
non-consumptive, and locally oriented: local people must control the industry and receive the bulk of
impact, non-consumptive, and locally oriented: local people must control the industry and receive
the
the benefits
bulk of to
theensure sustainable
benefits to ensuredevelopment [16]. Ecotourism
sustainable development [16].inEcotourism
this contextincanthisbecontext
viewedcanas an
be
activity
viewedtoaspromote responsible
an activity to promotetravel to naturaltravel
responsible areas, to
to natural
make a positive
areas, tocontribution
make a positiveto environmental
contribution
preservation, and to
to environmental improve theand
preservation, welfare of localthe
to improve communities [17–19].
welfare of local communities [17–19].

4.1.
4.1. Environmental
Environmental Dimension
Dimension of
of Marine
Marine Ecotourism
Ecotourism
The
The elements
elements of of the
the environmental
environmental dimension
dimension of of marine
marine ecotourism
ecotourism include:
include: (1) (1) nature
nature
conservation,
conservation, (2) (2) natural
natural value,
value, (3)
(3) protected
protected areare of
of nature,
nature, (4) (4) disrupting
disrupting wildlife,
wildlife, (5)
(5) illegal
illegal hunting
hunting
and
and fishing,
fishing, (6)
(6) degradation
degradation water water quality,
quality, (7)
(7) disruption
disruption of of local
local flora
flora and
and fauna,
fauna, (8)(8) bidiversity
bidiversity loss,
loss,
(9)
(9) habitat
habitatalteration,
alteration,and and(10)
(10)environmental
environmentaleducation.
education.
In
In Figure
Figure 12,
12, itit can
can bebe seen
seen that
that the
the highest
highest value
value of of 3.171
3.171 belongs
belongs to to the
the ‘illegal
‘illegal hunting
hunting andand
fishing’ attribute, which means that this attribute has the highest sensitivity value related
fishing’ attribute, which means that this attribute has the highest sensitivity value related to the level to the level of
marine
of marine ecotourism
ecotourism environmental dimension
environmental sustainability.
dimension The ‘environmental
sustainability. education’education’
The ‘environmental attribute
has the lowest
attribute has thevalue
lowest ofvalue
0.808,ofmeaning that it that
0.808, meaning has it
little
has sensitivity to the
little sensitivity tolevel of sustainability
the level of sustainabilityof
marine tourism.
of marine tourism.

Nature Conservation

Natural Value

Protected area of nature.

Attribute

Disrupting wildlife

Illegal hunting and fishing

Degraded water quality

Disruption of local flora and fauna

Biodiversity loss

Habitat alteration

Environmental education

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Figure
Figure 12.12.Leverage of elements
Leverage of theof
of elements enviromental dimension
the enviromental of marine of
dimension ecoturism
marineonecoturism
a sustainability
on a
scale of 0 to 100.
sustainability scale of 0 to 100.

4.2.
4.2. Cultural
Cultural Dimension
Dimension of
of Marine
Marine Ecotourism
Ecotourism
The
The culture
culture of
of coastal
coastal communities
communities is is di↵erent
different from
from other
other communities,
communities, humans
humans are are cultural
cultural
beings,
beings, and culture is the result of creativity, work, and joint initiatives. One of the factors that
and culture is the result of creativity, work, and joint initiatives. One of the factors that
influence
influencethetheformation
formation of culture is theisphysical,
of culture natural natural
the physical, environment; such situations
environment; such and conditions
situations and
will indirectly shape the character of the personality and culture of the people who
conditions will indirectly shape the character of the personality and culture of the people who live in live in that
environment. The dependence
that environment. The dependence of theofcommunity
the community on the
onmarine sector
the marine provides
sector its own
provides identity
its own as a
identity
coastal community
as a coastal communitywith with
a lifestyle known
a lifestyle as ‘coastal
known culture’
as ‘coastal [15]. [15].
culture’
The
The elelments of the cultural dimension of marine ecotourisminclude:
elelments of the cultural dimension of marine ecotourism include: (1)
(1) creating
creating sustainable
sustainable
livelihoods;
livelihoods; (2) traditional ethnic; (3) behavioral patterns; (4) religious beliefs; (5) existing
(2) traditional ethnic; (3) behavioral patterns; (4) religious beliefs; (5) existing skill
skill levels;
levels;
(5) cultural attractions; (6) practicing respect for local culture; (7) local and national heritage; (8)
indiegenous culture; and (9) adaptation to local norms. In Figure 13, it can be seen that the highest
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3418 11 of 16

(5) cultural attractions; (6) practicing respect for local culture; (7) local and national heritage; (8)
Sustainability 2019, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 16
indiegenous culture; and (9) adaptation to local norms. In Figure 13, it can be seen that the highest
value
value ofof 3.068
3.068 belongs
belongs to to the
the ‘existing
‘existing skill’
skill’ attribute,
attribute, and
and thus
thus it
it is
is the
the most
most sensitive
sensitive among
among the
the
cultural dimensions of marine ecotourism. The ‘traditional ethnicity’ attribute
cultural dimensions of marine ecotourism. The ‘traditional ethnicity’ attribute has the lowest has the lowest value
valueof
0.701, meaning that it has little sensitivity to the level of sustainability of marine
of 0.701, meaning that it has little sensitivity to the level of sustainability of marine tourism. tourism.

Creating sustainable livelihoods

Traditional ethnic

Behavioural patterns
Attribute

Religious beliefs

Existing skill levels

Cultural attractions

Practice respect for local culture

Local and national heritage

Indigenous cultures

Adaptation to local norms

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Figure 13. Leverage of elements of the cultural dimension of marine ecoturism on a sustainability scale
Figure 13. Leverage of elements of the cultural dimension of marine ecoturism on a sustainability scale 0 to
0 to 100.
100.
4.3. Social Dimension of Marine Ecotourism
4.3. Social Dimension of Marine Ecotourism
The social dimension is a person’s actions in certain ways in an e↵ort to exercise rights and
The social
obligations dimensionwith
in accordance is astatus
person's
theyactions
have. Ain certain
person canways in to
be said anplay
effort to if
a role exercise rights and
he had carried out
obligations in accordance with status they have. A person can be said to play
their rights and obligations in accordance with their social status within society. The World Tourism a role if he had carried
out their rights
Organization and states
(WTO), obligations in accordance
that: “Tourism withthe
comprises their social of
activities status within
persons, society.
traveling The staying
to and World
Tourism
in Organization
place outside (WTO),
their usual states that:for
environment "Tourism
not morecomprises the activitiesyear
than one consecutive of persons,
for leisure, traveling
business to
and staying in place
and other purposes” [16]. outside their usual environment for not more than one consecutive year for
leisure,
Thebusiness
elements and
of other purposes"[16].
the social dimension of marine ecotourism include (1) ecotourism income; (2)
The elements of the social
benefit for local people; (3) conflict dimension
status; (4)of marine ecotourism
education include (1)
level of tourism; (5) ecotourism income; (2)
number of tourists; (6)
benefit for local people; (3) conflict status; (4) education level of tourism; (5) number
type of tourists; (7) traditional events; and (8) enforcement of regulations. In Figure 14, it can be seen of tourists; (6)
type the
that of tourists;
highest (7) traditional
value of 3.660events;
belongsand (8) enforcement
to ‘number of regulations.
of tourists’, and it means In Figure
that it14,hasit the
cangreatest
be seen
that the highest value of 3.660 belongs to ‘number of tourists’, and it means
sensitivity with respect to the level of social dimension sustainability of marine ecotourism comparedthat it has the greatest
sensitivity
to with respect
other attributes. The to the level of
‘education social
level’ dimension
attribute sustainability
of tourism has theof marine
lowest ecotourism
value of 1.239,compared
meaning
to other
that it isattributes. The ‘education
the least sensitive in termslevel’ attribute
of its of tourism
influence has the
on the level lowest value of
of sustainability of1.239, meaning
this particular
that it is the least sensitive
marine tourism dimension. in terms of its influence on the level of sustainability of this particular
marine tourism dimension.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3418 12 of 16
Sustainability 2019, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 16

Ecotourism income
Sustainability 2019, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 16

Benefits for local people

Ecotourism income
Attribute

Conflict status
Benefits for local people
Attribute

Education level of tourism

Conflict status

Number of tourists
Education level of tourism

Types of tourists
Number of tourists

Types ofevents
Traditional tourists

Traditional
Enforcement of events
regulations

Enforcement of regulations
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Figure
Figure 14. Leverage
14. Leverage of elements
of elements of theof the social
social dimension
dimension of marine
of marine ecoturism
ecoturism on a sustainability
on a sustainability scale scale
of 0 to
of 0 to
Figure 100.
14. Leverage of elements of the social dimension of marine ecoturism on a sustainability scale of 0 to
100.
100.
4.4. Economic Dimension of Marine Ecotourism
4.4. Economic Dimension of Marine Ecotourism
4.4. Economic Dimension of Marine Ecotourism
The elements of the economic dimension of marine ecotourism include (1) domestic ecotourism
The elements
investors; (2) elements
The foreignof the economic
ecotourism
of the economic dimension
investors;
dimension (3)of marine
ofecotourism ecotourism
industry;
marine ecotourism include (1) (1)
(4) jobs
include fordomestic ecotourism
localecotourism
domestic communities;
investors;
(5) other (2) foreign
income;
investors; ecotourism
(6) marketing
(2) foreign investors;
ecotourismtechniques; (3)
investors; (3)(7)ecotourism
employment
ecotourism industry;
industry;in (4)(4) jobs
ecotourism; for
jobs for local local communities;
(8)communities;
average wage;(5) (5)
(9)
other income;
other income;(6) marketing
(6) marketing techniques;
techniques; (7)
(7) employment
employment
ecotourism entrepreneurship; and (10) providing benefits for local communities. in
in ecotourism;
ecotourism; (8) (8) average
average wage;wage;
(9) (9)
ecotourism
ecotourism
In Figure entrepreneurship;
entrepreneurship;
15, it can be seen andand(10)
(10)providing
that theproviding benefits
highest benefits
value of for
for localcommunities.
local
2.953 communities.
belongs to the foreign ecotourism
In Figure 15,can
it can be seen thatthe
thehighest
highest value
value of 2.953 belongs to thethe foreign ecotourism
investors attribute, so it means that the foreign ecotourism investors attributeto
In Figure 15, it be seen that of 2.953 belongs has theforeign
greatestecotourism
sensitivity
investors
investors attribute,
attribute, so so
it it means
means that
that the
the foreign
foreign ecotourism
ecotourism investors
investors attribute
attribute has the the
has greatest
greatest
with respect
sensitivity
to the level ofto
sustainability of the economic dimension of marine ecotourism.
sensitivity withwith respect
respect to the the level
level ofofsustainability
sustainability of of the
theeconomic
economicdimension
dimension of marine ecotourism.
of marine ecotourism.

Domestic ecotourism investors

Domestic ecotourism investors
Foreign ecotourism investors
Foreign ecotourism investors
Ecotourism industry
Ecotourism industry
Jobs for local communities
Attribute

Jobs for local communities

Attribute

Other income
OtherTechniques
Marketing income

Marketing
EmploymentTechniques
in ecotourism

Average wage
Employment in ecotourism
EcotourismAverage
entrepreneurship
wage
Provide benefits for local communities
Ecotourism entrepreneurship
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Provide benefits for local communities

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Figure Leverage
15.Leverage
Figure 15. of of elements
elements of economic
of the the economic dimension
dimension of ecoturism
of marine marine ecoturism on a sustainability
on a sustainability scale of 0 to
scale
100. of 0 to 100.

Figure 15. Leverage of elements of the economic dimension of marine ecoturism on a sustainability scale of 0 to
100.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3418 13 of 16
Sustainability 2019, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 16

4.5.
4.5. Infrastructural
InfrastructuralDimension
DimensionofofMarine
MarineEcotourism
Ecotourism
Elements
Elementsof oftheinfrastructural
theinfrastructuraldimension
dimensionof ofmarine
marineecotourism
ecotourisminclude
include(1) (1)lodging,
lodging,(2)(2)tourism
tourism
support
support service, (3) restaurants and markets, (4) fuel, (5) health care and service, (6)
service, (3) restaurants and markets, (4) fuel, (5) health care and service, (6) public
public
administration,
administration,(7) (7)communication
communicationservce,
servce,(8)
(8)new
newsport
sportrecreational,
recreational,andand(9)(9)transportation.
transportation.
In Figure
In Figure 16,
16, it
it can
can be
be seen
seen that
that the
the highest
highest value
value of
of 4.149
4.149belongs
belongsto tohealth
healthcare
careservice,
service,which
which
means
means that it has the highest sensitivity value with respect to the level of sustainability of
that it has the highest sensitivity value with respect to the level of sustainability of the
the
infrastructural
infrastructural dimension of marine ecotourism. Tourism support services has the lowest valueof
dimension of marine ecotourism. Tourism support services has the lowest value of
1.444.
1.444. Tourism
Tourism support
support service, therefore, itit has
service, therefore, hasthe
thesmallest
smallestvalue
valueofofsensitivity
sensitivitytotothis
thisdimension
dimension of
of sustainability.
sustainability.

Lodging

Tourism support services

Restaurants and Market

Attribute

Fuel

Health care services

Public administration

Communication services

New sport recreational

Transportation

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Figure 16. Leverange of elements of the

Figure 16. the infrastructural
infrastructural dimension
dimension of
of marine
marine rcotourism
rcotourism on
on aa
sustainability
sustainabilityscale
scaleof
of00toto100.
100.

Based on
Based on this
this research,
research, the the Rapfish
Rapfish modelmodel measured
measured the the synergistic
synergistic modelmodel of of sustainable
sustainable
development
development of marine ecotourism through the approach environment, culture, social, economicand
of marine ecotourism through the approach environment, culture, social, economic and
infrastructure
infrastructuredimension.
dimension. The The sustainability
sustainability levels
levels by
by type
typeof ofenvironmental
environmentaldimensions
dimensionsof ofmarine
marine
ecotourism
ecotourism in inPangandaran
Pangandaran region region werewere found
found to tobebeas
asfollows:
follows: (1)(1) business
business ecotourism
ecotourism is is low;
low; (2)
(2)
seaside
seasideecotourism
ecotourismisissufficient;
sufficient;(3)(3)cultural
cultural ecotourism
ecotourism is sufficient;
is sufficient;(4) (4)
fishing ecotourism
fishing ecotourismis good; (5)
is good;
cruise ecotourism
(5) cruise is low;
ecotourism is and
low;(6)and
sport
(6)ecotourism is good.isMarine
sport ecotourism good. ecotourism business is
Marine ecotourism very complex,
business is very
requiring entrepreneurial spirit to achieve profitability with no damage to the
complex, requiring entrepreneurial spirit to achieve profitability with no damage to the environment. environment. Start-up
ecotourism ventures have
Start-up ecotourism venturesa high riska of
have failure
high risk and the marine
of failure and the tourism
marine business
tourism faces challenges
business faces
in conditions
challenges in of uncertainty
conditions in natural in
of uncertainty resources. Environmental
natural resources. dimensions
Environmental include: include:
dimensions (1) nature (1)
conservation, (2) natural
nature conservation, (2) value,
natural(3)value,
protected are of nature,
(3) protected are of(4) disrupting
nature, wildlife, (5)
(4) disrupting illegal(5)
wildlife, hunting
illegal
and fishing,
hunting and (6)fishing,
degradation water quality,
(6) degradation (7) disruption
water of local
quality, (7) flora and
disruption of fauna, (8) biodiversity
local flora and fauna,loss, (8)
(9) habitat alteration, and (10) environmental education.
biodiversity loss, (9) habitat alteration, and (10) environmental education.
Maritime
Maritimeecotourism
ecotourismfocuses
focuseson onlocal
localcultures
culturesfrom
fromcertain
certainareas,
areas,including
includingcoastal
coastalareas,
areas,as aswell
well
as
asnatural
naturalbeauty,
beauty,geological
geologicalstructures,
structures,natural
naturalvegetation,
vegetation,and andfauna
fauna[20,21]
[20,21]andandisisaatype
typeof oftourism
tourism
that
thatcovers
coversthe
thesubject
subjectof of conservation
conservationof of natural
natural areas,
areas, education,
education, economic
economic benefits,
benefits, quality
quality tourism,
tourism,
and
andlocal
localcommunity
communityparticipation
participation[22].[22].Based
Basedon onthis
thisresearch,
research,sustainability
sustainabilitylevelslevelsofoftypes
typesof ofmarine
marine
ecotourism
ecotourism cultural
cultural dimension
dimension in in Pangandaran
Pangandaran Region Region were
were found
found to tobebeasasfollows:
follows: (1)
(1)business
business
ecotourism is sufficient; (2) seasides ecotourism is low; (3) cultural ecotourism is good; (4) fishing
ecotourism is sufficent; (5) cruise ecotourism is low; and (6) sport ecotourism is low. There are three
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3418 14 of 16

ecotourism is sufficient; (2) seasides ecotourism is low; (3) cultural ecotourism is good; (4) fishing
ecotourism is sufficent; (5) cruise ecotourism is low; and (6) sport ecotourism is low. There are three
main principles in sustainable development [23]: (1) ecological sustainability, namely ensuring that
development is carried out in accordance with ecological, biological, and diversity of existing ecological
resources; (2) social and cultural sustainability, namely ensuring that the development carried out has
a positive impact on the lives of the surrounding community and in accordance with the culture and
values that apply to the community; (3) economic sustainability, namely ensuring that development is
carried out efficiently economically and that the resources used can survive for future needs. Based on
this research, cultural dimensions include: (1) creating sustainable livelihoods; (2) traditional ethnic; (3)
behavioral patterns; (4) religious beliefs; (5) existing skill levels; (5) cultural attractions; (6) practising
respect for local culture; (7) local and national heritage; (8) indegenous culture; and (9) adaptation to
local norms.
From a sociological perspective, marine ecotourism systems have three types of actors: (1)
tourism brokers, (2) local tourism residents, and (3) tourists [24]. Interactions within and between
these actors can a↵ect the speed and character of coastal development and increase the income of
coastal communities. Based on this research, the sustainability level of types of marine ecotourism
social dimension in Pangandaran Region are as follows: (1) business ecotourism is good; (2) seaside
ecotourism is sufficient; (3) cultural ecotourism is sufficient; (4) fishing ecotourism is sufficient; (5)
cruise ecotourism is sufficient; and (6) sport ecotourism is sufficient. Maritime tourism not only
promotes local economic growth, but also promotes social equality rights in the community and
preserves the surrounding environment. Social dimensions include (1) ecotourism income; (2) benefits
for local people; (3) conflict status; (4) education level of tourism; (5) number of tourists; (6) type of
tourists; (7) traditional events; and (8) enforcement of regulations.
Tourism is considered as combining time and pleasure, benefiting prospective tourists,
and providing the tourism industry and host countries with significant flowing e↵ects at all levels
and sectors in the local economy [25]. Based on this research, sustainability levels according to the
type of economic dimension of marine ecotourism in Pangandaran Region are as follows: (1) business
ecotourism is good; (2) seasides ecotourism is sufficient; (3) cultural ecotourism is sufficient; (4) fishing
ecotourism is sufficient; (5) cruise ecotourism is sufficient; (6) sport ecotourism is sufficient. Economic
dimensions include; (1) domestic ecotourism investors; (2) foreign ecotourism investors; (3) ecotourism
industry; (4) jobs for local communities; (5) other income; (6) marketing techniques; (7) employment
in ecotourism; (8) average wage; (9) ecotourism entrepreneurship; and (10) providing benefits for
local communities.
Based on this research, sustainability levels for the infrastructural dimensions of marine ecotourism
in the Pangandaran Region are as follows: (1) business ecotourism is good; (2) seaside ecotourism is
sufficient; (3) cultural ecotourism is sufficient; (4) fishing ecotourism is sufficient; (5) cruise ecotourism
is sufficient; and (6) sport ecotourism is sufficient. Infrastructural dimensions include: (1) lodging;
(2) tourism support services; (3) restaurants and markets; (4) fuel; (5) health care service; (6) public
administration; (7) communication service; (8) new sport recreational; and (9) transportation.

5. Conclusions
A development model for synergistic sustainable marine ecotourism (Case Study in Pangandaran
Region, West Java Province) through a multidimensional scaling approach was presented.
The dimesions involved are environmental, cultural, social, economic, and infrastructural dimensions.
These dimensions demonstrate sufficient conditions to support the sustainability of marine ecotourism
in the Pangandaran región. However, coastal natural resources in the Pangandaran area still need
to be improved and maintained through good management. Strategies that can be employed to
increase the number of tourists include increasing access to transportation, information, and adequate
accommodations in accordance with tourism standards.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3418 15 of 16

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.N. and A.K.S.; Data curation and formal analysis, A.N, I.A.,
and A.K.S.; Funding acquisition, A.K.S.; Methodology, A.N., I.A., and A.K.S.; Resources, A.N.; Software, A.N. and
A.K.S.; Visualization, A.N.; Writing—original draft, A.N. and A.K.S. Writing—review and editing, A.N.
Funding: This research was funded by the Academic Leadership Grant (ALG-2019) Universitas Padjadjaran,
Bandung, Indonesia.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Das, M.; Chatterjee, B. Ecotourism: A panacea or a predicament? Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2015, 14, 3–16.
[CrossRef]
2. Ceballos-Lascurain, H. Tourism, Ecotourism and Protected Areas; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 1996.
3. Gossling, S. Ecotourism: A Means to Safeguard Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functions. Ecol. Econ. 1999, 29,
303–320. [CrossRef]
4. Ross, S.; Wall, G. Evaluating ecotourism: The case of North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Tour. Manag. 1999, 20,
673–682. [CrossRef]
5. Tsaur, S.H.; Lin, Y.C.; Lin, J.H. Evaluating ecotourism sustainability from the integrated perspective of
resource, community and tourism. Tour. Manag. 2006, 27, 640–653. [CrossRef]
6. Zhang, H.; Lei, S.L. A Structural Model of Reaident’s Intention to Participate in Ecotourism: The Case of a
Wetland Community. Tour. Manag. 2012, 33, 916–925. [CrossRef]
7. Nurhayati, A.; Purnomo, A.H. A Case study on sustainability analysis of fisheries in Pangandaran, West
Java Province. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. B 2014, 4, 321–330. [CrossRef]
8. Nurhayati, A. Analysis of the Local Government Policy Supporting to Sustainable Fisheries Resources (Case
Study in the Pangandaran). Journal Kebijakan Social Ekonomi Kelautan dan Perikanan 2012, 2. (In Indonesian)
9. Nurhayati, A.; Purnomo, A.H. Developing the Marine and Fisheries Industry in Pangandaran using a
Bioecoregion-Based Technopark Framework. J. STI Policy Manag. 2017, 2, 43–52. [CrossRef]
10. Pitcher, T.J.; Preikshot, D. Rapfish: A rapid appraisal technique to evaluate the sustainability status of
fisheries. Fish. Res. 2001, 49, 255–270. [CrossRef]
11. Pitcher, T.J.; Power, M.P. Fish figures: Quantifying the ethical status of Canadian fisheries, East and West. In
Just Fish: The Ethics of Canadian Fisheries; Coward, H., Ommer, R., Pitcher, T.J., Eds.; Institute of Social and
Economic Research Press: St John’s, NL, Canada, 1999.
12. Food and Agricultural Organizations. Fisheries Management. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries;
FAO: Rome, Italy, 1997.
13. Regional Planning Agency of West Java Province. Regional Long-Term Development Plan of West Java Province
2005–2025; Regional Planning Agency of West Java: West Java, Indonesia, 2007. (In Indonesian)
14. Kavanagh, P.; Pitcher, T.J. Implementing Microsoft Excel Software For Rapfish: A Technique For The Rapid Appraisal
of Fisheries Status; Fisheries Centre Research Reports; The Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia:
Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2004; Volume 12, 75p.
15. Okech, N.R. Developing urban ecotourism in Kenyan cities: A sustainable approach. J. Ecol. Nat. Environ.
2009, 1, 1–6.
16. D’Angelo, R.; Sachasiri, T.; Vaccaro, N.; Welie, M.V.; Vargas, A.; Yongsanguanchai, N.
Post-Tsunami Ecotourism Development: Solutions for the Laem Cohort Village. 2010.
Available online: https://web.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-030410-063443/unrestricted/
EcoTourismGroup_FinalReportSubmission_3-4-2010.pdf. (accessed on 19 June 2019).
17. The UMKM Service in Pangandaran Regency. Data on Tourist Visits and Vehicle Flow; Publishing
Disparperindagkop & UMKM; Pangadaran Regency: Ciamis Regency, Indonesia, 2015. (In Indonesian)
18. Geertz, H. Various Cultures and Communities in Indonesia (Cont.); Social Sciences & FS UI Foundation: Jakarta,
Indonesia, 1981.
19. Pitana, I.G.; Gayatri, P.G. Sosiologi Pariwisata; Andi Publisher: Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2005.
20. Angelica, M.; Zambrano, A.; Broadbent, E.N.; Durham, W.H. Social and environmental e↵ects of ecotourism
in the Osa Peninsula of Costa Rica: The Lapa Rios case. J. Ecotour. 2010, 9, 62–83.
21. Masberg, B.A.; Morales, N. A Case Analysis of Strategies in Ecotourism Development. Aquat. Ecosyst.
Health Manag. 1999, 2, 289–300. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3418 16 of 16

22. Benzer Kiliç, N. The Assessment of the Natural and Cultural Resources of Bolu-Goynuk with the Ecotourism
Point of View. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Landscape Architecture, Graduate School of Natural and Applied
Sciences, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey, 2006; p. 266.
23. Mclntyre, G. Sustainable Tourism Development, Guide for Local Planners; World Tourism Organization: Madrid,
Spain, 1993; p. 166.
24. Miller, M.L.; Auyong, J. Remarks on tourism terminologies: Antitourism, mass tourism, and alternative
tourism. In Proceedings of the 1996 World Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism: Experiences in Management and
Development; Miller, M.L., Auyong, J., Eds.; Washington Sea Grant Program and the School of Marine A↵airs,
University of Washington and Oregon Sea Grant College Program; Oregon State University: Corvallis, OR,
USA, 1998; pp. 1–24.
25. Wearing, S.; Neil, J. Ecotourism: Impacts, Potentials and Possibilities; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 1999.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
 sustainability
Article
Ecotourism as a Resource Sharing Strategy: Case Study of
Community-Based Ecotourism at the Tangkahan Buffer Zone of
Leuser National Park, Langkat District, North
Sumatra, Indonesia
Wiratno Wiratno 1 , Susanti Withaningsih 1,2,3, * , Budhi Gunawan 1,3,4 and Johan Iskandar 1,2,3
!"#!$%&'(!
!"#$%&'
Citation: Wiratno, W.; Withaningsih,
S.; Gunawan, B.; Iskandar, J.
Ecotourism as a Resource Sharing
Strategy: Case Study of
Community-Based Ecotourism at the
Tangkahan Buffer Zone of Leuser
National Park, Langkat District,
North Sumatra, Indonesia.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su14063399
Academic Editor: Bruce Prideaux
Received: 9 February 2022
Accepted: 10 March 2022
Published: 14 March 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063399
1 Doctoral Programme on Environmental Studies, Graduate School, Universitas Padjadjaran,
Bandung 40132, Indonesia; inung.wiratno.2000@gmail.com (W.W.); budhi.gunawan@unpad.ac.id (B.G.);
johan.iskandar@unpad.ac.id (J.I.)
2 Department of Biology, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences Natural Science,
Universitas Padjadjaran, Sumedang 45363, Indonesia
3 Center for Environment and Sustainability Science, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung 40132, Indonesia
4 Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Padjadjaran,
Sumedang 45363, Indonesia
* Correspondence: susanti.withaningsih@unpad.ac.id; Tel.: +62-222-502-176
Abstract: The local community is an essential and key partner in managing protected areas, especially
for national parks in Indonesia. Therefore, there is a need to establish adaptive collaborative manage-
ment (ACM) between the park authorities and the local community. In 2000, several local leaders
established a new organization to develop an ecotourism package called the Tangkahan Ecotourism
Organization or Lembaga Pariwisata Tangkahan (LPT) and set up the Community Tour Operator to
manage the ecotourism activities. Our study used a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats
(SWOT) analysis through focus group discussions (FGDs), interviews with related stakeholders and
key informants, and carried out a literature review. It was found that ensuring local community could
generate alternative income from ecotourism was an effective way to protect the park from any illegal
activities. Additionally, the results about sustainability from the FGDs show that all three categories:
Social Process, Adaptive Natural Resource Management, and Impact/Condition are interrelated,
meaning that the collaboration and adaptive management in Tangkahan have resulted in high levels
of humanistic well-being and the maintenance of ecological values, supporting collaboration pro-
cesses and adaptive levels. Finally, our study can be used as a basis for a model of national parks
focusing on ACM.
Keywords: adaptive collaborative management; collective awareness and collective action;
community-based ecotourism; sustainability
1. Introduction
Indonesia is the largest island nation in the world with 17 thousand islands covering a
land area of 1.91 million km2 [1]. Of this, more than 22 million ha or 21.26% is managed
as protected areas [2,3], which exceeds the protected areas (PAs) in most countries in Asia,
Africa, and Latin America [4], as well as exceeding the Aichi Biodiversity Targets aiming
to protect 13% to 17% of the land surface by the year 2020 [5]. Unfortunately, human
activities may negatively impact these protected areas and decrease their effectiveness as
shown by current data: around 1.8 million ha or around 10% of the total area of lands
in terrestrial protected areas is degraded [3]. Therefore, the importance of PAs cannot
be denied, especially in light of the current high pressures for economic and human
development [6,7]. PAs protect the habitats, wildlife populations, forest ecosystems, and
the various ecosystem services that they provide from deforestation.
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 2 of 18

In Indonesia, 48.8 million people live inside or near state forest land and 10.2 million are
classified as poor. Based on the Ministry of Forestry and National Bureau of Statistics [8,9],
there are 25,863 villages or 26.6% of the total villages in Indonesia located inside or nearby
state forest land. Beside production forests and protection forests, there are PAs that consist
of strict nature reserves, wildlife sanctuaries, grand forest parks, recreation parks, and
national parks. There are 27.14 million hectares of PAs in 552 locations covering almost all
ecosystem types, including coral reefs, coasts, mangrove forests, lowland tropical forests,
deciduous forests, kerangas forests, limestone forests, savannas, mixed savannas, cloud
forests, and snow on the Cartentsz summit as well as tropical areas at the Lorentz National
Park. Indonesia’s PAs are surrounded by more than 6202 villages or 8% out of total
82,038 villages in the country [1], and the villages nearby PAs are occupied by 9.5 million
people. In the PA, it has been proposed by Badan Registrasi Wilayah Adat (BRWA), under
Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara, that there are 1,646,155 hectares of “Adat Area” and
1,334,554 hectares or 81% are located in national parks.
Before 2018, the national policy of the management for conservation areas in Indonesia
was still focused mostly on the protection of parks through patrol conducted by park
rangers, and the involvement of the local communities was limited. Zoning as a manage-
ment tool was limited for the core zone (for the protection of biodiversity and wildlife
habitat), the wilderness zone as a buffer of the core zone, and the utilization for (eco)tourism
purposes. There is no traditional zone to accommodate legal access for local communities
to collect non-timber forest products, water, and other environmental services. However,
the gazettements of the Bukit Duabelas National Park in 2004 were exceptional. This park
is purposed to guarantee legal rights and access for traditional communities, namely “Suku
Anak Dalam” or “Orang Rimba”, to stay and manage their ancestral land for their life. Their
wisdom and knowledge about forests are respected by the park authority to this day.
Managing protected areas in Indonesia cannot be separated from the issues of (1) local
communities, local economies, spiritual purposes, non-timber forest products, agroforestry,
and community-based ecotourism, (2) other related local basic needs, such as the availability
of water for agriculture and consumption, fuelwood, green manure, and (3) infrastructure,
such as road connection to markets, schools, healthcare, and electricity. Thus, local community
is an essential and key partner in managing PAs. There is a need to establish collaborative
management among the park authorities, local communities, and business communities.
The practice of collaborative national park management (under different terms: collab-
oration, co-management, and partnership) has received the attention of many researchers
in its development [10]. Research examples include reviewing the co-management concept
of Karimunjawa National Park [11], raising the issue of the co-management development
concept to preserve Lore Lindu National Park”, and [12] observing the local knowledge of
Sialang Tree management in Orang Rimba and the management of Bukit Duabelas National
Park. These researchers observed and examined how a collaborative approach inevitably
involved people surrounding the forests in the national park areas as the main stakeholders.
In the collaborative management process, several key words emerge, including participa-
tion, negotiation, consensus, mutual trust, mutual respect, and mutual benefits [13].
In Indonesia, for example, between 2000 and 2012, forest cover in Sumatra was shown
to be more undamaged in and the surrounding area of Pas, including national parks. Several
reasons why protected areas, especially national parks in Indonesia, have been well managed
include funding, park rangers, and developed ecosystem services such as tourism [14,15].
Tourism development in PAs has been the subject of many studies; however, the links
between tourism, prosperity, and sustainability in these areas are complex. On a large scale,
prosperity increases the environmental impact, but at the same time, increasing economic
growth will increase the need for environmental protection. Conversely, Buckley (2003)
stated that those links were an erroneous interpretation of history on the development
of PAs. In developed nations, tourism has contributed to urban development, material
consumption, and pressure on PAs, but in developing nations, the generated wealth from
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 3 of 18

tourism has sometimes been used for unproductive tools, such as guns or chainsaws, that
might be a cost to conservation efforts [16].
In most countries, tourism can generate economic growth and population change,
mainly through migration [17], observed by the number of people in some national parks
due to their attraction to tourism opportunities [18]; although in rare cases, the resident
population decreases in spite of the growth in tourism [19].
Our study aims to understand the success story of community tourism in national
parks and the sustainability of ecotourism as a resource sharing strategy. The chosen case
was the Gunung Leuser National Park, where the local community had been successful
both in developing ecotourism activities to generate income for their community and at the
same time in assisting the park authority in patroling the park. The lesson learned are from
how they started the initiative, the steps taken in developing the ecotourism, how they
managed and shared the revenue generated income, what they thought of sustainability,
and why they were willing to participate in making sure that the park was secured.

2. Materials and Methods

This section is divided into two subsections: study area and the methods used in this
study, comprising a literature review, interviews, SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportuni-
ties, and threats) analysis, and focus group discussions (FGDs).

2.1. Study Area

Gunung Leuser National Park is located between 2 550 and 4 050 N and between
96 300 and 98 350 E. It straddles the border of two provinces, Aceh and North Sumatra,
and in five regencies, Southeast Aceh, South Aceh, North Aceh, Langkat, and Tanah Karo.
Gunung Leuser National Park covers 838,872 ha and its border is 850 km long.
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 20It spreads

over 100 km along the Bukit Barisan Mountain Range, from the west coast of Sumatra in the
southwestern tip to less than 25 km from the north coast of the Northeastern tip (Figure 1).

Study
Figure1.1.Study
Figure Area:
Area: Tangkahan,
Tangkahan, Mt Leuser
Mt Leuser National
National Park. Park.

2.2. Methods
This research used a literature review as the secondary form of data by collecting
some documents from the government, long-term management documents, maps, high-
resolution satellite imagery, and some research reports on studies conducted at Gunung
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 4 of 18

2.2. Methods
This research used a literature review as the secondary form of data by collecting
some documents from the government, long-term management documents, maps, high-
resolution satellite imagery, and some research reports on studies conducted at Gunung
Leuser National Park.
In interacting with various parties, as part of the data collection, the researcher also
conducted various in-depth interviews with a number of purposively selected informants.
Most of the informants were selected with a snowball sampling strategy while the other
small part was selected by opportunistic sampling. The selection of informants in the latter
provided useful knowledge for the research.
In addition to interviews conducted individually, the researcher also conducted group
interviews. This was carried out in formal/informal meetings with residents where they
lived or in meetings with residents held at Gunung Leuser National Park great halls.
The researcher also checked the validity of the data by confirming the data obtained
from interviews with data obtained from observation techniques or with data obtained
from secondary sources (the triangulation method).
Methods in strategic management are employed to build an overall development
strategy (general) as well as functional strategies (fractional) concerning a function to be
performed by a state, a local government unit or an enterprise (marketing, finance, logis-
tics, etc.). SWOT analysis is not a strategic method of analysis but is a unique algorithm for
a strategic analysis process, a systemic proposal and a wide-ranging evaluation of external
and internal factors, which specify an organization’s current status and its development
potential [20]. This method is wide-ranging because it concerns internal factors (the organi-
zation as such), and a combination of external and internal factors leads to four categories
(external positive—opportunities; external negative—threats; internal positive—strengths;
and internal negative—weaknesses).
SWOT assumes that strengths and weaknesses are frequently internal, while opportu-
nities and threats are more commonly external, and the four parameters examine:
• Strengths: characteristics of the business or project that give it an advantage over others.
• Weaknesses: characteristics that place the business or project at a disadvantage relative
to others.
• Opportunities: elements in the environment that the business or project could exploit
to its advantage.
• Threats: elements in the environment that could cause trouble for the business or project.
The degree to which the internal environment of the organization matches with the
external environment is expressed by the concept of strategy. SWOT is important because
it can inform the later steps in planning to achieve an objective. Learning from the SWOTs,
decision makers should consider whether the objective is attainable. If it is not, they must
select a different objective and repeat the process.
To carry out a sustainability analysis on the implemented collaborative management
system, data collection was carried out by inviting several experts to a focus group discus-
sion (FGD) by adapting the Delphi method [21]. A number of experts who were considered
to have comprehensive knowledge and understanding in the management of conservation
areas, such as national parks, those who had conducted research, or who had collabo-
rated with the National Park Authority, were asked to discuss and provide their responses
regarding the sustainability issue of the applied management system.
The questions posed to the experts were compiled using the adaptive collaborative
management sustainability criteria and indicators from [22], consisting of three categories:
(1) Social Process Category, (2) Adaptive Natural Resource Management Category, and
(3) Impact/Condition Category. The interrelationships of these three categories are shown
in the Figure 2 below.
 collaborated with the National Park Authority, were asked to discuss and provide their
responses regarding the sustainability issue of the applied management system.
The questions posed to the experts were compiled using the adaptive collaborative
management sustainability criteria and indicators from [22], consisting of three categories:
(1) Social Process Category, (2) Adaptive Natural Resource Management Category, and
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 5 of 18
(3) Impact/Condition Category. The interrelationships of these three categories are shown
in the Figure 2 below.

Figure 2. Sustainability
Figure categories
2. Sustainability [22].
categories [22].

3. Results
3. Results andand Discussion
Discussion
Gunung
Gunung LeuserNational
Leuser National Park
Park isisthe
thehome
home to to
380380
birdbird
species, 350 of350
species, which settle there,
of which settle
and this accounts for 80% of the 438 resident Sumatran birds. Thirty-six
there, and this accounts for 80% of the 438 resident Sumatran birds. Thirty-six birds birds endemic
to Sumatra are also recorded in this national park [23,24]. This national park is home to
192 species of mammals, including 15 species of rats, 13 species of bats, and 17 species of
squirrels. The number of mammals in Gunung Leuser National Park is estimated at 65% of
mammals in Sumatra, accounting for 129 species of the 205 species found in Sumatra [24].
Various rare species are also found here, among others: Sumatran orangutans (Pongo
abelii), Sumatera elephants (Elephas maximus sumatranus), Sumatran tigers (Panthere tigris
sumatrae), and Sumatran rhinoceros (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis). Additionally, mountain goats
(Capricornis sumatraensis), burung rangkong (Buceros bicornis), rusa sambarer (Cervus unicolor),
Leopard cats (Prionailurus bengalensis sumatrans), Clouded leopard (Neofelis diardi), kucing emas
(Pardofelis temincki), Fishing cat (Prionailurus viverrinus), Marbled cat (Pardofelis marmorota),
and Flat-headed cat (Prionailurus planiceps) are also found here. Other endemic mamals are
Kloss’s squirrel (Callosciurus albescens), kelinci loreng Sumatera (Nesolagus netscheri), and tikus
Hoogerwerf’s (Rattus hoogerwerfi). Primates found at the park are Sumatran orangutan (Pongo
abelii), Siamang (Symphalangus syndactylus syndactylus), gibon (Hylobates lar), kedih (Presbytis
thomasi), Silvery leaf monkey (Trachypithecus cristatus), monyet ekor babi (Macaca nemestrina),
monyet ekor panjang (Macaca fascicularis), and sloth (Nycticebus coucang).
Approximately 50% of Sumatran orangutan habitat falls inside the park directly
managed by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, and 78% lies within the boundaries
of the wider vast Leuser Ecosystem Area that includes the park [25]. Thus, Gunung Leuser
National Park is vital habitat for the critically endangered Sumatran orangutan [26]. It is
estimated that there were 85,000 Sumatran orangutans in 1900. By 2017, only 6600 were
thought to exist, all in North Sumatra and Aceh provinces [25].
Similarly, 70 Sumatran tigers out of the approximately 500 individuals in Sumatra
are found in this park, but the number goes up to 250 individuals, or almost half of
the Sumatran tiger population, for the wider Leuser ecosystem. This park is also a key
location for the critically endangered Sumatran rhino, of which only 100–150 individuals
are left in three locations, Gunung Leuser, Way Kambas and Bukit Barisan National parks,
with Gunung Leuser having the largest block of suitable habitats for Sumatran rhinos.
Furthermore, this park and the wider Leuser Ecosystem have the largest blocks of suitable
habitat for the Sumatran Elephants.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 6 of 18

Gunung Leuser National Park area has several international statuses: (1) the Biosphere
Reserve, established by Man and Biosphere (MAB) Unesco in 1981; (2) the ASEAN Heritage
Park, established by the Asean Center for Biodiversity in 1984; and (3) the Tropical Rain-
forest Heritage of Sumatra (together with Kerinci Seblat National Park and South Bukit
Barisan National Park) by UNESCO in 2004. This area has an important value as the life
support for two provinces (Aceh Province and North Sumatran Province), supporting the
watershed system (Daerah Aliran Sungai or DAS), being the habitat for flora and fauna, and
having the potentials for environmental services and nature tourism. Based on its status
and importance, effective and efficient management is necessary for this area. In Gunung
Leuser National Park, four of the most important large mammals are found: the Sumatran
elephant, Sumatran tiger, Sumatran rhino, and the orangutan.
Tourism is already well established in the Bohorok and Berastagi/Sibayak areas of
the park. The Berastagi area, which is only 30 km from Medan, the third largest city in
Indonesia, with a population of more than 4 million people, is one of the most visited areas
on the weekends in North Sumatra. Similarly, thousands of people, mostly Indonesian but
also many foreign tourists visit Bohorok, which is approximately 96 km to the south of
Medan, to see orangutans and other wildlife and to bathe in the beautiful clear water of the
river. A few hundred kilometers to the south of the park, there is Lake Toba, which is also
an important tourist destination. This lake is in the largest caldera in the world. Formed by
a super-volcano, the lake is more than 100 km wide and approximately 700 m deep.
The community tourism in the Tangkahan area is one of the tourism activities with a
different setting. This community has been working together closely with the Tangkahan
Tourism Organization (Lembaga Pariwisata Tangkahan or LPT) and park authority since
2005. Following this collaboration, a memorandum of understanding (MoU) was signed on
23 July 2006. This MoU has granted access rights to LPT to manage 17,500 hectares of forest
area in the park nearby Tangkahan for community-based ecotourism activities. This is called
resource sharing, where the park authority gives access to LPT to manage part of the park
for ecotourism business, managed by the local community under LPT for five years, which
can be extended based on evaluation of its effectiveness. The LPT also has a duty both to
develop awareness for tourists and the local community and to protect the park from illegal
activities such as poaching, illegal logging, land encroachment, and snares clean up.
This process happened just two years after the Ministry of Forestry issued P.19/Menhut-
II/2004 about collaborative management in PAs. They are required to help the park author-
ity in protecting the forest surrounding Tangkahan from illegal logging, encroachment, and
poaching, and they can successfully stop all illegal activities. For example, foreign tourists
would not visit Tangkahan if they heard a chainsaw operating in the park. Nowadays, we
can observe that many logs are still lying down in the forest floor after the ministry has
made a commitment to stop illegal logging and left all logs in the park. In 2011, the MoU
has been renewed for the second phase considering the effectiveness of LPT in developing
community-based ecotourism and in working with park rangers to conduct a routine patrol
activity every Friday.

3.1. Ecotourism Initiative

There are five benefits that can be accrued from community-based ecotourism: (1) en-
vironmental benefits, (2) economic benefits, (3) political benefits, (4) social benefits, and
(5) cultural benefits [27]. Additionally, ecotourism ventures should only be considered
“successful” if the local communities have some measures of control and share equitably in
the benefits [28]. He also suggests that the term “community-based ecotourism” should be
reserved for those ventures based on a high degree of community control (and hence where
the communities command a large proportion of the benefits), rather than those almost
wholly controlled by outside operators. In the case of the ecotourism camp at Tumani Tenda,
Gambia, there is evidence to support the hypothesis that a high social capital manifesting
particularly in people’s commitment to collectively act in village projects is instrumental in
the development of the ecotourism.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 7 of 18

It is rare in the literature to find examples of community-based initiative areas that are
not managed, co-managed, or initiated by “outsiders”.
In the process of initiating ecotourism or special interest tourism, the park author-
ity and two NGOs—Indonesian Ecotourism Network or INDECON and Fauna Flora
International (FFI)—works together with the newly created LPT in designing ecotourism
packages, establishing community patrol systems, namely the Simalem Ranger, waste
management, elephant safari, and patrol as a part of the tourism package, and establishing
a Community Tour Operator (CTO) to manage foreign and local tourists. One of the most
attractive packages is elephant trekking, where tourists ride on the top of the elephant with
a companionship of mahouts.
Mostly, local tourists spend their time enjoying the beauty of Batang Serangan River,
tubing, enjoying the forest, and seeing the waterfall. Meanwhile, foreign tourists have many
alternatives to enjoy the beauty of the tropical rainforest in Tangkahan, such as joining an
elephant safari and walking in the park with 2–5 km distance for 2–3 h, visiting the youth
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 20
track, butterfly beach, hot spring, rafflesia spot, and salt lick spot.
Figure 3 shows the profile of visitors to Tangkahan since 2004.

Figure3.3.Profile
Figure Profileof
ofvisitors
visitorsby
bynumber
number to
to Tangkahan
Tangkahan (2004–2019).
(2004–2019). Source:
Source: Tangkahan Community
Tangkahan Community
Tour Operator, 2020.
Tour Operator, 2020.

The
Thegraph
graphshows
showsthat
thatinin2004,
2004,Tangkahan
Tangkahanwas wasvery
verypopular
popularamong
amongthe thelocal
localtourists
tourists
from Medan and the Langkat District, and they mostly spent one day on a round trip. They
from Medan and the Langkat District, and they mostly spent one day on a round trip.
enjoyed tubing, visiting the water springs and waterfall, playing along the riverside of Sei
They enjoyed tubing, visiting the water springs and waterfall, playing along the riverside
Buluh, and visiting
of Sei Buluh, the butterfly
and visiting spot. spot.
the butterfly Weekends are the
Weekends aremost popular
the most for local
popular tourists
for local tour-
visiting Tangkahan.
ists visiting Tangkahan.The number
The numberstarted withwith
started 41 local tourists
41 local per per
tourists dayday
(1250 per per
(1250 month
monthor
15,000 per per
or 15,000 year) in 2004
year) to 188
in 2004 local
to 188 tourists
local per per
tourists dayday
(5666 per per
(5666 month or 68,000
month perper
or 68,000 year) in
year)
2016. With
in 2016. thethe
With high number
high number of of
local tourists,
local Tangkahan
tourists, Tangkahan became
becameone
oneofofthe
themost
mostfamous
famous
outdoor
outdoorrecreation
recreationlocations
locationsin inNorth
NorthSumatra
SumatraProvince
Provinceuntil
untilthe
theDG
DGof ofKSDAE
KSDAEclosed
closed
down
down allall ecotourism activitiesininthe
ecotourism activities theparks
parks and
and recreation
recreation parks
parks when
when the COVID-19
the COVID-19 pan-
pandemic
demic hit hit at the
at the endend of March
of March 2020.
2020.
Figure 4 shows that foreign tourists spent 800–900 times more time than local visitors
at Tangkahan. This seems reasonable as foreign visitors spent more than 2 days there and
spent money for activities such as elephant trekking, enjoying one night in the jungle,
tubing, and trekking to find wild orangutans or other wildlife in the park.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 8 of 18

Figure 4 shows that foreign tourists spent 800–900 times more time than local visitors
at Tangkahan. This seems reasonable as foreign visitors spent more than 2 days there
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of
and spent money for activities such as elephant trekking, enjoying one night in the jungle,
tubing, and trekking to find wild orangutans or other wildlife in the park.

Figure
Figure 4. Spending cost4.ofSpending cost
visitors at of visitors(2014–2019).
Tangkahan at TangkahanSource:
(2014–2019). Source:Community
Tangkahan Tangkahan Community
Tour To
Operator, 2020.
Operator, 2020.

Over a five-yearOver a five-year

period period (2014–2019),
(2014–2019), local
local tourists tourists contributed
contributed USD 1,863,103
USD 1,863,103 and and fo
foreign tourists contributed USD 5,944,227, totaling to USD 7,807,330 According to govern- to gover
eign tourists contributed USD 5,944,227, totaling to USD 7,807,330 According
ment regulationment regulation
No.12, No.12,accepted
total revenue total revenue
by the accepted by thefrom
park authority parkforeign
authority
andfrom
localforeign an
local tourists (2015–2020) was only USD 89,013 or IDR 1,246,187,500 (1 USD = IDR 14,00
tourists (2015–2020) was only USD 89,013 or IDR 1,246,187,500 (1 USD = IDR 14,000).
In conclusion, the revenue from ecotourism for the local community is about 87
In conclusion, the revenue from ecotourism for the local community is about 87,7 times
times larger than the revenue accepted by the park authority. The entrance fee for loc
larger than the revenue accepted by the park authority. The entrance fee for local tourists
tourists was USD 0.35 and for foreign tourists was USD 12.5 (weekday) and USD 16
was USD 0.35 and for foreign tourists was USD 12.5 (weekday) and USD 16.0 (weekend).
(weekend). Additionally, foreign tourists had to pay USD 17.8 for elephant washing an
Additionally, foreign tourists had to pay USD 17.8 for elephant washing and USD 71.4 for
USD 71.4 for elephant trekking. These packages were managed by LPT and FFI, and a
elephant trekking. These packages were managed by LPT and FFI, and although they had
hough they had to help park rangers to guard and patrol the park, most of the incom
to help park rangers to guard and patrol the park, most of the income went to the local
went to the local community, which was a win–win solution. Working with the comm
community, which was a win–win solution. Working with the community required mutual
nity required mutual respect, mutual trust, and mutual benefits. This was a social capi
respect, mutualthat
trust,
wasand mutual
crucial benefits.
to be developedThis
sowas
thatathe
social capital that
park–people was crucial
relationship to be
could be improve
developed so that the park–people relationship could be improved.
3.2. Impacts for Conservation
3.2. Impacts for Conservation
After the community of two villages of Namo Sialang and Sei Serdang committed
After the community of two villages
stop illegal logging of Namo
in 2001, there Sialang
has been and Sei positive
a significant Serdangimpact
committed
on thetocommunit
stop illegal logging in 2001, there has been a significant positive impact on the community-
based ecotourism in Tangkahan, compared to Sekoci area, a part of Gunung Leuser N
based ecotourism in Tangkahan,
in the northern partcompared to Sekoci
of Tangkahan which area,
has abeen
partheavily
of Gunung Leuser
logged, NP, in and occ
encroached,
the northern part of Tangkahan which has been heavily logged, encroached, and occupied
pied for illegal palm oil plantation since 1990. The spatial analysis conducted by the G
for illegal palm team
oil plantation
of Gunung since 1990.
Leuser NPThe spatialin
is shown analysis
Figure conducted
5. by the GIS team of
Gunung Leuser NP is shown in Figure 5.
The map also shows us that Tangkahan, with the community-based ecotourism as
an alternative income generator for the local community, could stop illegal logging or
encroachment into the park as shown by the relatively green vegetation cover as compared
to the Sekoci area at the northern part of Tangkahan. There is a growing awareness from
the local community in Tangkahan about the values of parks in the form of environmental
services, such as the fresh and clean water stream at Buluh River and the pristine tropical
forest inside the park, as an asset for ecotourism. By guarding and participating in patrolling
the park, they can gradually invite foreign visitors to enjoy the beauty of Buluh River and
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 9 of 18

the
Sustainability 2022, 14,tropical forest
x FOR PEER of
Leuser NP nearby Tangkahan. Members of LPT and all related
REVIEW 10 o
ecotourism activities can gradually increase their awareness to protect the park for income
generation and eventually for improving their welfare.

Figure 5. Comparison
Figurebetween the Tangkahan
5. Comparison between and Sekoci areaand
the Tangkahan in terms
Sekociofarea
deforestation.
in terms of deforestation.

The area at theThe

Sekoci
mapLepan Resort
also shows has long
us that been damaged
Tangkahan, due to encroachment
with the community-based ecotourism as
for planting rubber, oil palm,
alternative andgenerator
income various other crops.
for the local This condition
community, is shown
could through
stop illegal logging or e
image analysis,croachment
where the into
following damage occurred in the noted periods: 1990–1995
the park as shown by the relatively green vegetation cover as compar
(2064 Ha), 1995–2000
to the (1156
SekociHa),
area2000–2005 (1547part
at the northern Ha),of2005–2011
Tangkahan.(2637 Ha),
There is and 2011–2016
a growing awareness fro
(286 Ha). The decrease in the rate of
the local community deforestation
in Tangkahan or encroachment
about wasindue
the values of parks to theoflaw
the form environmen
enforcement of services,
GunungsuchLeuser National
as the Park.
fresh and Meanwhile,
clean in Tangkahan,
water stream at Buluh Rivertheand
forest that
the pristine tropi
forest inside the park, as an asset for ecotourism. By guarding and participating
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 10 of 18

was once encroached was maintained by the community for ecotourism assets, and as a
result, as shown in the map, the condition of the vegetation cover did not change much
(shown by the green color in Figure 4). Overall, in the period before 1990 to 2019, only the
Tangkahan Resort had a very low level of disturbance. This is indicated by the relatively
good vegetation cover, with no encroachment found, when compared to conditions at
Sekoci Lepan Resort.

3.3. Understanding the Organization by Using SWOT Analysis

3.3.1. Strengths
1. People-Centered Approach
Since 2000, the park authority has spent time to work with the Tangkahan community
in developing new initiatives, particularly for community-based ecotourism. Intensive
dialogues that have been conducted since 2005 and in 2006 resulted in a formal collaboration
between LPT and the park authority. An MoU was signed that granted 17,500 hectares of
forest to be an ecotourism site managed by LPT. This was a relatively new management
style of the park authority. It is clear, therefore, that prioritizing dialogues with the local
community is a key success in developing a socio-economic buffer around the park.
2. Support from Partners
Since 2005, the park authority has opened a wide window of communications with
partners who have been concerned with working in Leuser NP, in the scope of orangutan
protection and law enforcement to combat illegal logging, encroachment, poaching, and
wildlife trafficking. Among the prominent partners are the Sumatran Orangutan Conserva-
tion Program, Leuser Foundation, Orangutan Information Center, Wildlife Conservation
Society, and Fauna Flora International. Fauna Flora International is a partner who is con-
sistent in helping to work with LPT for ecotourism in Tangkahan in the form of elephant
safaris and elephant patrol in the park, which is the most popular ecotourism attraction in
Tangkahan. This attraction has contributed to more than 70% of the local income for LPT
until now.
3. Award for Tangkahan
In 2004, the Tangkahan Ecotourism Institution (LPT) received the “Innovation Award”
from the Minister of Tourism, the Government of Indonesia. In 2018, Tangkahan Ecotourism
received the “Indonesia Sustainable Tourism Award 2018”, the Green-Gold Award in the
Environmental Conservation Category, GSTC Recognition Standard, from the Ministry of
Tourism, the Government of Indonesia. Finally, in 2019, the chairman of the Tangkahan
Community Tour Operator (TCTO) received an appreciation from The World Committee
on Tourism Ethics. The committee encouraged TCTO and their collaborators to continue
their endeavors in implementing the Global Code of Ethics for Tourism. This award
expressed the recognition and respect to Tangkahan for their roles not only in developing the
ecotourism movement, with elephant jungle trekking as the most attractive attraction [29],
but also in growing the awareness to protect the tropical forests of park near their villages
for long-term purposes and for the next generation. This was what made the Tangkahan
initiative unique.
4. A New Site for Research
Tangkahan has also become a site for research, with 26 studies conducted at this
location from 2015–2020. Among the most popular research topics in Tangkahan: finan-
cial analysis of ecotourism, ethnography of elephant-based ecotourism, plant ecology of
dipterocarpaceae regeneration, and attitudes of elephants.
Some of these studies show that the foundation for sustainability in tourism, as well
as in other industry sectors, is provided by the regulatory instruments, success of which is
often limited by poor implementation. This situation can happen in both developed and
developing nations on a global scale [29–44].
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 11 of 18

These show that standard and straightforward planning, regulations, and technologi-
cal approaches are essential in reducing the pollution and the negative impacts from the
large-scale and mainstream tourism development in resort clusters in both coastal and
mountainous destinations and in peri-urban and urban areas.
Tourism in public protected areas is heavily studied, with a focus on:
• Visitor numbers [45–47];
• Fees and concessions arrangements [16,48–56];
• Access [57,58];
• Management tools [44,58–60];
• Interpretation [61–64].
When rigorous conditions are met, interpretation can reduce negative impacts [65,66].
Otherwise, interpretation does not change the attitudes nor the impacts [66,67].
Additionally, tourism with its communal conservancies, private reserves, and con-
tributions to public PAs can support conservation. However, this can be achieved under
specific circumstances and with associated environmental costs [59,68–70]. In a number
of countries, over half of park funding is now derived by income generated from visitors,
although it is more typically around 10%, or in the case for many countries, 0%.
One form of tourist-generated income, leasing tourism operating rights on communal
land tenures, may contribute to the well-being of the community as well as the biodiver-
sity conservation, depending on the legal details of land and wildlife ownership and the
structure, cohesion, and internal governance of community organizations [70–75]. Sim-
ilar conditions occur when tour operators lease rights from private landowners or land
trusts [70,76] or from public national parks [49,70,77,78].
The significance of sustainability indicators in tourism is long recognized, and many
have been proposed [58,79–83]. However, only a few of these address the actual impacts [84],
which suggests a lack of ecological data. Tourist, resident, or operator-based indicators may
not be complete since people may not always perceive, comprehend, or care about their
impacts [85–88]. Attempts to quantify any sustainability indicators for the tourism sector
worldwide have been found to be lacking, with one study focusing on pollution [84,89].
This limited progress is reflected not only in tourism but in all sectors [90].
In parks and biodiversity, conservation ecotourism is gaining significance for sustain-
ability and influence of the tourism sector.

3.3.2. Weaknesses
There are many challenges in establishing and maintaining the spirit of togetherness in
collaborative management. In the case of community-based ecotourism with elephants as
the main attraction in Tangkahan, starting from 2001 until before the COVID-19 pandemic,
there were several challenges as follows:
1. Monitoring
The lack of participatory monitoring and evaluation conducted by the park author-
ities led to a growing misunderstanding or distrust among the members of LPT. As a
consequence, there was a growing inconsistency for patroling the park, with or without
elephants, that was normally conducted every Friday.
2. Lack of Support from Local Government
The district and provincial government had prioritized Tangkahan as the main tourist
destination in the North Sumatra Province. However, there was still a need to support
Tangkahan in the form of improvement of the roads to the site, as almost 25 km of road
was still in bad condition.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 12 of 18

3. Growing Distrust
Internally, inconsistency and growing distrust between the park authority and LPT or
between LPT and the community in the village can be the real threats to sustain Tangkahan
as an ecotourism site. Illegal logging, wildlife hunting and trading, and encroachment can
increase since they do not receive any substantial profit from ecotourism.
4. Weak Leadership
The success of ecotourism in Tangkahan is due to the fact there is a consistent strong
leadership that always supports innovation. A leader who understands that a partnership
including the local community around the park is a must. This is a relatively new approach
in Indonesia. Guidance from [3] gives a clear direction to all park managers to put the
local community as a subject. Working with the local community through conservation
partnership is the main policy in solving tenurial conflict and other problems with the
local community through intensive communication and dialogue. Building trust with the
local community as well as strengthening the social capital at the villages near the park is
essential. Tangkahan is the case that has proven the power and substant of leadership in
developing a mutual respect, mutual trust, and mutual benefits.

3.3.3. Opportunities
Opportunities to implement community-based ecotourism in conservation areas have
been widely opened, particularly since 2013 when the digital era started through social me-
dia such as Facebook and Instagram. Lessons from Tangkahan can give us a clear argument
that ecotourism requires the local community to be treated as a subject and involved from
the beginning, starting with problem identification, planning, implementation, monitoring,
and evaluation. Tangkahan provides evidence for this.
In many villages located at the buffer zone of the conservation areas, forest resources
in the park must provide direct or indirect economic benefits. Ecotourism can be one of
the choices beside other local economic opportunities, such as non-timber forest products,
water sources, and micro hydro, or even their values as spiritual sites. There is a wide-open
window since 27.14 million hectares of conservation area in Indonesia is surrounded by
6747 villages. The development of a socio-economic buffer can be a significant opportunity
and Tangkahan can be seen as an inspiration and evidence that we have to work with the
local community as the key partners in park management.

3.4. Threats
1. Animal Welfare
Elephant riding has been the main attraction and provides the biggest local economic con-
tribution for ecotourism business in Tangkahan. However, there has been a growing awareness
of animal welfare issues, and this situation has been the main subject of criticism [91].
2. Domination of Foreign Visitors
A higher dependency on foreign visitors than local visitors was a significant problem
when COVID-19 directly impacted the closing of all NPs to visitors, including ecotourism
activities at Tangkahan.

3.5. Adaptive Collaborative Management (ACM) Sustainability Criteria and Indicators

ACM sustainability in Tangkahan was investigated using an analysis of the sustain-
ability criteria and indicators [22]. The scores of a number of indicators were averaged to
become the criterion scores. The average value of a number of criteria was the value of a
principle and the average value of a number of the principles was the value of a category.
The categories are divided into three: Social Process Category, Adaptive Natural Resource
Management Category, and Impact/Condition Category. A complete analysis of ACM’s
sustainability can be seen in Tables 1 and 2 below.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 13 of 18

Table 1. ACM Sustainability Analysis Categories. (A). Category: Social Process; (B) Category:
Adaptive Natural Resource Management; (C) Category: Impact/ Condition.

(A)
No. Principles, Criteria, and Indicators (P, C, I) Scoring Average
P 1. The actors are motivated to collaborate
C 1.1. The actors have the same basic interests 4.33
C 1.2 There are no disincentives that hinder cooperation among the actors 4.00
P 2. Communication among the actors is sufficient
C 2.1. The actors know how to negotiate the political process within and between groups 5.00
The actors take advantage of individual opportunities as well as the mechanisms and
C 2.2. 4.29
technologies for communication
P 3. The actors collaborate
C 3.1. The actors work together within and between groups satisfactorily 4.00
The actors participate in decision making and negotiations within and between
C 3.2. 3.50
groups satisfactorily
(B)
No. Principles, Criteria, and Indicators (P, C, I) Scoring Average
P 4. The actors have the capacity and resources to manage natural resources sustainably
The actors are aware of the opportunities and requirements related to sustainable natural
C 4.1. 3.75
resource management
C 4.2. The actors are motivated to implement sustainable management 4.33
C 4.3. The actors have the resources to carry out management as recommended by current knowledge 4.67
P 5. The actors manage natural resources as well as possible
C 5.1. The actors plan management activities adequately 5.00
C 5.2. Resources are managed in accordance with currently developing knowledge 4.00
C 5.3. Based on the monitoring results, management practices are continuously adjusted 5.00
(C)
No. Principles, Criteria, and Indicators (P, C, I) Scoring Average
P 6. Politics, legislation, and institutional structures reflect the requirements to ensure sustainability
C 6.1. The plans set by public authorities are realistic and in line with sustainable development 4.00
C 6.2. Legislation reflects sustainable development requirements 3.80
C 6.3. Economic and financial policies do not conflict with sustainable development 3.20
Local mechanisms, including traditions, norms, and regulations, ensure the sustainable
C 6.4. 4.00
use of resources
P 7. Infrastructure reflects the needs of the actors
C 7.1. The situation in the health sector is good 2.57
C 7.2. The availability of educational facilities and technical assistance is adequate 3.25
C 7.3. The infrastructure for culture and entertainment is present 2.33
C 7.4. The transportation and electricity infrastructure is adequate 3.00
C 7.5. There is a free market to sell local products and meet the local demand 3.57
C 7.6. Public institutions are adequately equipped to ensure law enforcement and personal safety 3.50
P 8. The actors have adequate living conditions and live in harmony with one other
C 8.1. People feel safe 3.57
C 8.2. People want to stay 3.86
C 8.3. The actors have adequate income and property 4.00
C 8.4. People act as responsible citizens 3.80
P 9. The value of natural resources is maintained
C 9.1. Ecological processes that maintain the function of the management units are conserved 4.67
C 9.2. Ecosystem function is maintained 3.80
C 9.3. Processes that maintain genetic variation are conserved -

Table 2. ACM Sustainability Analysis Resume.

No. Category Scoring Average
1 Social process 4.19
Adaptive Natural Resources
2 4.46
Management
3 Impact/Condition 3.56
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 14 of 18

FGDs, which were analyzed using the criteria and indicators, resulted in the Social
Process Categories being rated an average of 4.19 (good). This shows that the quality
of articulation and communication as well as the level of integration and collaborative
action was good. The category of Adaptive Natural Resources Management was rated an
average of 4.46 (good), meaning that the level of planning, implementation, monitoring,
and adjustment of natural resource management as well as personal, technical, and financial
capacity for sustainable management was also good.
Likewise, the Impact/Condition Category was rated 3.56 (adequate) with a record
value of ecosystem function being maintained. The representative area indicators, especially
locations that are important for ecological interests, are maintained and are given a value
of 4. This was evidenced by the relatively good condition of forest cover around the
Tangkahan Resort as shown in Figure 2 compared to the vegetation cover at the Sekoci
Lepan Resort. Of all the existing criteria, only one could not be filled: the process of
maintaining the sustainability of genetic variation. This was because there had never been
a study or research on genetic variations of both flora and fauna in Tangkahan.
The Impact/Condition for ACM on natural resources shows, on the one hand, the
expected impacts of collaboration and adaptive management of natural resources, and
on the other, conditions under which collaboration and adaptive management take place.
Considering ACM as an integrative form of social and natural resource management, the
status quo of human well-being, including issues such as infrastructure, satisfactory levels
of well-being, laws, and markets, reflects the conditions, as well as the results of previous
processes. Even biophysical conditions, if under human influence, can be interpreted as the
impact of a specific combination of collaboration and adaptation.
The three sustainability categories above are integrally interrelated, meaning that
collaboration and adaptive management in Tangkahan have resulted in high levels of
humanistic well-being and the maintenance of ecological values, supporting collaboration
processes and adaptive levels (the “systems approach”).

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the above-mentioned results and discussions, several conclusions and rec-
ommendations can be drawn from this research. At Gunung Leuser National Park, the
initiation of community-based ecotourism in Tangkahan was evaluated and showed an
indication in the right direction. This direction is a response to the changing of aspirations
in national park management at the local level and the dynamics of policy changes at the
national level. This policy is the opening of the management access space for people living
in buffer villages in the conservation partnership policy scheme.

4.1. Conclusions
Tangkahan is an important example or a success story of park–people relationships.
After 20 years of this initiative, they are successful in guarding the park from massive illegal
logging, encroachment, and poaching. The comparison with the Sekoci area provides clear
evidence; when the local community has the opportunity to generate alternative local
economic activities that increase their income substantially, not from an illegal logging,
encroachment, and poaching perspective, but rather from an ecotourism perspective,
they are willing to guard the park in a more collective manner based on their collective
awareness at the local level. Tangkahan initiatives can be seen as a success story for
community-based ecotourism.
Another lesson that can be learned from Tangkahan is the good forest cover in the
park near Tangkahan, as compared to the Sekoci area. However, there is still a need to
conduct periodic monitoring and evaluation by involving the key stakeholders as a basis
for improvement in many aspects of their local institutions, namely LPT. The park authority
should play a neutral role and conduct mentoring if there are conflicts, or review the
operation and performance of LPT in order to balance between income generation from
ecotourism and its impacts for the environment and protection of the park.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 15 of 18

National parks cannot be managed in isolation from the local community. Collabora-
tive adaptive management, or the creation of partnerships, is an essential policy strategy at
this time and in the future. It requires an intensive mentoring from the park authority and
NGOs starting from the beginning of the initiation. Participatory and open monitoring as
well as evaluation involving key stakeholders is needed to ensure that the learning process
among the key stakeholders can be conducted in a fairer way. This is an important start
in order to gradually build mutual respect, trust, and benefits, and to build an adaptive
collaborative management approach.
Tangkahan achieves its success due to the fact that the park authority has structured
their model around the local community as being the main partner with the park and
surrounding the park to guard it. In addition, the commitment from the members of LPT
to protect the national park for the last 20 years is the result of strong norms, values, and
trust among the members.
Additionally, the results about sustainability from the FGD show that all three cate-
gories: Social Process Category, Adaptive Natural Resource Management Category, and
Impact/Condition Category are interrelated, and this means that the collaboration and adap-
tive management in Tangkahan have resulted in high levels of humanistic well-being and the
maintenance of ecological values, supporting collaboration processes, and adaptive levels.
The study had some limitations. It is proven that community-based ecotourism
initiatives still require facilitation and assistance so that any agreements can be implemented
consistently through a continuous learning process. Therefore, future research on the
monitoring and evaluation of the success of Gunung Leuser National Park still needs to be
conducted to ensure the continuation of this success.

4.2. Recommendations
Learning from the community-based ecotourism in Tangkahan, there is a need to
replicate this approach to other forest-dependent communities. Since 27.14 million hectares
of conservation area in Indonesia is surrounded by 6747 villages with more than 16 million
inhabitants, mostly small farmers and fisherman families, a new approach in term of
developing community-based park management is the right policy.
However, considering the high variation in terms of the state of development, accessi-
bility, biophysical, spiritual, and socio-economic situations, and the cultural setting across
the villages in the park buffer zone, the approach in Tangkahan is not a blue-print for
planning. Tangkahan can be seen as an inspiration for other park managers in Indonesia;
working with a new approach in dealing with the local community is very important. This
is the lesson that can contribute to park management style reform in Indonesia. It takes
time and thus long-term monitoring and evaluation for cross-learning is essential. The
park authority must be a learning organization and innovative in dealing with the local
community, which is the most critical agenda to address.
Thus, our study can be used as a basis for replication to other similar situations in
many villages in the buffer zone of national parks in Indonesia, with an adaptation of
strategies considering the dynamics and diversity in the form of biophysics, socio-culture
aspects, and political situations.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, W.W. and S.W.; methodology, B.G.; software, W.W.;
validation, S.W., B.G. and J.I.; formal analysis, W.W; investigation, W.W; resources, W.W; data curation,
S.W.; writing—original draft preparation, W.W.; writing—review and editing, S.W.; visualization,
W.W.; supervision, J.I.; project administration, S.W.; funding acquisition, W.W. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: This study involves humans not as patients, but as partici-
pants and/or respondents to questions and discussion for the purpose of gaining their insights. This
study is also unrelated to health studies. Thus, ethical review and approval were not applicable for
this study.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 16 of 18

Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement: This study does not report any data.
Acknowledgments: I thank Jatna Suprijatna, Indonesian University, Pak Susyafrianto-Director of
Mt Leuser NP; Ahtu Trihangga, staff of Mt Leuser NP; Wak Yun and Pak Okor as the founder
of Tangkahan site and developing spirit of protection of part of Mt Leuser NP and initiator of
ecotourism; the late Saiful Bahri for his brilliant ideas to establish partnership between Tangkahan
and Park Authority in 2006; Syukur Alfajar Harahap; Taufik Ramadan as an environmental activist
who supports collaboration between Tangkahan and park authorities; and Ary Suhandi-Indonesian
Ecotourism Network that gives mentorship for developing ecotourism packages and marketing. We
thank all staff of Mt Leuser NP for consistent supports and technical guidance for Tangkahan since
the beginning of the ecotourism initiative. Finally, we thank Noer Fauzi Rachman, for guidance on
searching for more research findings in Tangkahan, and sent many of the relevant documents to
improve this research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Badan Pusat Statistik. Badan Pusat Statistic; BPS-Statistic: Central Jakarta, Indonesia, 2018.
2. PHKA. Statistik PHKA; PHKA: Bangkok, Thailand, 2013.
3. Wirat. Sepuluh Cara baru Kelola Kawasan Konservasi di Indonesia: Membangun Organisasi Pembelajar; Direktorat Jenderal Konservasi
Sumberdaya Alam dan Ekosistem: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2018.
4. Mulyana, A.; Kosmaryandi, N.; Hakim, N.; Suryadi, S. Ruang Adaptif. Refleksi Penataan Zona/Blok di Kawasan Konservasi; Direktorat
Pemolaan dan Informasi Konservasi Alam (PIKA) Direktorat Jenderal Konservasi Sumberdaya Alam dan Ekosistem (KSDAE)
Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan: Bogor, Indonesia, 2019.
5. Murniningtyas, E.; Darajati, W.; Sumardja, E.; Kementerian Negara Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional. Indonesian Biodiversity
Strategy and Action Plan, 2015–2020; Kementerian PPN/BAPPENAS: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2016.
6. Coad, L.; Leverington, F.; Knights, K.; Geldmann, J.; Eassom, A.; Kapos, V.; Kingston, N.; de Lima, M.; Zamora, C.;
Cuardros, I.; et al. Measuring impact of protected area management interventions: Current and future use of the Global Database
of Protected Area Management Effectiveness. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2015, 370, 20140281. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Geldmann, J.; Barnes, M.; Coad, L.; Craigie, I.D.; Hockings, M.; Burgess, N.D. Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in
reducing habitat loss and population declines. Biol. Conserv. 2013, 161, 230–238. [CrossRef]
8. Kehutanan, D. Identifikasi Desa Dalam Kawasan Hutan; Pusat Rencana dan Statistik Kehutanan Departemen Kehutanan dan:
Jakarta, Indonesia, 2007.
9. Kehutanan, D.; Statistik, B. Identifikasi Desa di Dalam dan di Sekitar Kawasan Hutan 2009; Pusat Rencana dan Statistik Kehutanan:
Jakarta, Indonesia, 2009.
10. Purwanti, F. Konsep Co-Management Taman Nasional Karimunjawa; IPB University: Bogor, Indonesia, 2008.
11. Kassa, S.; Alikodra, H.S.; Salim, B.; Basuni, S. Co-management Untuk Menginisiasi Penyelesaian Konflik di Taman Nasional Lore
Lindu. Agroland J. Ilmu Ilmu Pertan. 2008, 15, 4.
12. Marpaung, J. Pengetahuan Lokal Pengelolaan Pohon Sialang Pada Suku Anak Dalam di Taman Nasional Buki 12 Provinsi Jambi.
J. TroEthnobiol. 2021, 116–122.
13. Hidayat, H. National Park Management in Local Autonomy: From The Viepoint of Political Conservation in Biology: A Case
Study of Tanjung Puting-Central Kalimantan. J. Biol. Indones. 2017, 5, 2.
14. Supriatna, J.; Dwiyahreni, A.A.; Winarni, N.; Mariati, S.; Margules, C. Deforestation of primate habitat on Sumatra and adjacent
islands, Indonesia. Primate Conserv. 2017, 31, 71–82.
15. Supriatna, J.; Shekelle, M.; Fuad, H.A.; Winarni, N.L.; Dwiyahreni, A.A.; Farid, M.; Mariati, S.; Margules, C.; Prakoso, B.; Zakaria, Z.
Deforestation on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi and the loss of primate habitat. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 24, e01205. [CrossRef]
16. Buckley, R. Pay to Play in Parks: An Australian Policy Perspective on Visitor Fees in Public Protected Areas. J. Sustain. Tour. 2003,
11, 56–73. [CrossRef]
17. Gill, A.; Williams, P. Managing growth in mountain tourism communities. Tour. Manag. 1994, 15, 212–220. [CrossRef]
18. Wittemyer, G.; Elsen; Bean, W.T.; Burton, A.C.O.; Brashares, J.S. Accelerated human population growth at protected area edges.
Science 2008, 321, 123–126. [CrossRef]
19. Heberlein, T.A.; Fredman, P.; Vuorio, T. Current tourism patterns in the Swedish mountain region. Mt. Res. Dev. 2002, 22, 142–149.
[CrossRef]
20. Gurl, E. SWOT analysis: A theoretical review. J. Int. Soc. Res. 2017, 4. [CrossRef]
21. Fletcher, A.J.; Marchildon, G. Using the Delphi method for qualitative, participatory action research in health leadership. Int. J.
Qual. Methods 2014, 13, 1–18. [CrossRef]
22. Pokorny, B.; Cayres, G.; Nunes, W.; Segebart, D.; Drude, R.; Steinbrenner, M. Adaptive Collaborative Management Criteria and
Indicator for Assessing Sustainability; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 2003.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 17 of 18

23. Wind, J. Gunung Leuser National Park: History, threats and options. Leuser Sumatran Sanctuary 1996, 4–27.
24. Van Schaik, C.; Supriatna, J.; Yayasan Bina Sains Hayati Indonesia; Yayasan Leuser Internasional; Wildlife Conservation Society.
Leuser: A Sumatran Sanctuary; Yayasan Bina Sains Hayati Indonesia, Yayasan Leuser Internasional: Depok, Indonesia; Wildlife
Conservation Society: New York, NY, USA, 1996.
25. Wich, S.A.; Meijaard, E.; Marshall, A.J.; Husson, S.; Ancrenaz, M.; Lacy, R.C.; Van Schaik, C.P.; Sugardjito, J.; Simorangkir, T.;
Traylor-Holzer, K.; et al. Distribution and conservation status of the orang-utan (Pongo spp.) on Borneo and Sumatra: How many
remain? Oryx 2008, 42, 329–339. [CrossRef]
26. Rijksen, H.D.; Meijaard, E. Our Vanishing Relative: The Status of Wild Orangutans at the Close of the Twentieth Century; Springer:
Cham, Switzerland, 1999.
27. Musavengane, R.; Matikiti, R. Does Social Capital Really Enhance Community Based Ecotourism? A Review of the Literature; Boloka
Institutional Repository: Potchefstroom, South Africa, 2015.
28. Jones, S. Community-based ecotourism: The significance of social capital. Ann. Tour. Res. 2005, 32, 303–324. [CrossRef]
29. Wiranatha, A.S. Sustainable development strategy for ecotourism at Tangkahan, North Sumatera. E-J. Tour. 2015, 2, 1–8. [CrossRef]
30. Berry, S.; Ladkin, A. Sustainable tourism: A regional perspective. Tour. Manag. 1997, 18, 433–440. [CrossRef]
31. Bowen, G.A. Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qual. Res. J. 2009, 9, 27–40. [CrossRef]
32. Dinica, V. Governance for sustainable tourism: A comparison of international and Dutch visions. J. Sustain. Tour. 2009, 17, 583–603.
[CrossRef]
33. Glasson, J. Towards Visitor Impact Management: Visitor Impacts, Carrying Capacity and Management Responses in Europe’s Historic
Towns and Cities; Avebury: Aldershot, UK, 1995.
34. Hall, C.M. Changing paradigms and global change: From sustainable to steady-state tourism. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2010, 35, 131–143.
[CrossRef]
35. Hunter, C.; Shaw, J. The ecological footprint as a key indicator of sustainable tourism. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 46–57. [CrossRef]
36. Ioannides, D. Planning for international tourism in less developed countries: Toward sustainability? J. Plan. Lit. 1995, 9, 235–254.
[CrossRef]
37. Logar, I. Sustainable tourism management in Crikvenica, Croatia: An assessment of policy instruments. Tour. Manag. 2010,
31, 125–135. [CrossRef]
38. Martín-Cejas, R.R.; Sánchez, R. Ecological footprint analysis of road transport related to tourism activity: The case for Lanzarote
Island. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 98–103. [CrossRef]
39. Mycoo, M. Sustainable tourism using regulations, market mechanisms and green certification: A case study of Barbados. J. Sustain.
Tour. 2006, 14, 489–511. [CrossRef]
40. Soteriou, E.C.; Coccossis, H. Integrating sustainability into the strategic planning of national tourism organizations. J. Travel Res.
2010, 49, 191–205. [CrossRef]
41. Tosun, C. Challenges of sustainable tourism development in the developing world: The case of Turkey. Tour. Manag. 2001,
22, 289–303. [CrossRef]
42. Wall, G. International collaboration in the search for sustainable tourism in Bali, Indonesia. J. Sustain. Tour. 1993, 1, 38–47. [CrossRef]
43. Warnken, J.; Buckley, R. Scientific Quality of Tourism Environmental Impact Assessment. J. Appl. Ecol. 1998, 35, 1–8. [CrossRef]
44. Zubair, S.; Bowen, D.; Elwin, J. Not quite paradise: Inadequacies of environmental impact assessment in the Maldives. Tour.
Manag. 2001, 32, 225–234. [CrossRef]
45. Buckley, R. Tools and indicators for managing tourism in parks. Ann. Tour. Res. 1999, 1, 207–210. [CrossRef]
46. Lindberg, K.; McCool, S.; Stankey, G. Rethinking carrying capacity. Ann. Tour. Res. 1997, 24, 461–465. [CrossRef]
47. Shultis, J.; More, T. American and Canadian national park agency responses to declining visitation. J. Leis. Res. 2011, 43, 110–132.
[CrossRef]
48. Alpizar, F. The pricing of protected areas in nature-based tourism: A local perspective. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 56, 294–307. [CrossRef]
49. Barborak, J. Results of a comparative international review of public-private partnerships for tourism management in protected
areas. J. Sustain. Tour. 2011, 9, 95–110.
50. Chung, J.Y.; Kyle, G.T.; Petrick, J.F.; Absher, D.J. Fairness of prices, user fee policy and willingness to pay among visitors to a
national forest. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 1038–1046. [CrossRef]
51. Crompton, J.L. A theoretical framework for formulating non-controversial prices for public park and recreation services. J. Leis.
Res. 2011, 43, 1–29. [CrossRef]
52. Mmopelwa, G.; Kgathi, D.L.; Molefhe, L. Tourists’ perceptions and their willingness to pay for park fees: A case study of self-drive
tourists and clients for mobile tour operators in Moremi Game Reserve, Botswana. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 1044–1056. [CrossRef]
53. Peters, H.; Hawkins, J. Access to marine parks: A comparative study in willingness to pay. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2009, 52, 219–228.
[CrossRef]
54. Reynisdottir, M.; Song, H.; Agrusa, J. Willingness to pay entrance fees to natural attractions: An Icelandic case study. Tour. Manag.
2008, 29, 1076–1083. [CrossRef]
55. Thur, S.M. User fees as sustainable financing mechanisms for marine protected areas: An application to the Bonaire National
Marine Park. Mar. Policy 2010, 34, 63–69. [CrossRef]
56. Uyarra, M.C.; Cote, I.M.; Gill, J.A.; Tinch, R.R.; Viner, D.; Watkinson, A.R. Island-specific preferences of tourists for environmental
features: Implications of climate change for tourism-dependent states. Environ. Conserv. 2005, 32, 11–19. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 18 of 18

57. Kaltenborn, B.; Haaland, H.; Sandell, K. The public right of access–some challenges to sustainable tourism development in
Scandinavia. J. Sustain. Tour. 2001, 9, 417–433. [CrossRef]
58. McCool, S.F.; Moisey, R.N.; Nickerson, N. What should tourism sustain? The disconnect with industry perceptions of useful
indicators. J. Travel Res. 2001, 40, 124–131. [CrossRef]
59. Buckley, R. Evaluating the net effects of ecotourism on the environment: A framework, first assessment and future research.
J. Sustain. Tour. 2009, 17, 643–672. [CrossRef]
60. Eagles, F.; McCool, S.F.; Haynes, C.D. Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas: Guidelines for Planning and Management; IUCN: Gland,
Switzerland, 2002.
61. Ballantyne, R.; Packer, J.; Hughes, K. Tourists’ support for conservation messages and sustainable management practices in
wildlife tourism experiences. Tour. Manag. 2009, 30, 658–664. [CrossRef]
62. Ballantyne, R.; Packer, J.; Sutherland, L.A. Visitors’ memories of wildlife tourism: Implications for the design of powerful
interpretive experiences. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 770–779. [CrossRef]
63. Blangy, S.; Nielsen, T. Ecotourism and minimum impact policy. Ann. Tour. Res. 1993, 20, 357–360. [CrossRef]
64. Bramwell, B.; Lane, B. Sustainable tourism: An evolving global approach. J. Sustain. Tour. 1993, 1, 1–5. [CrossRef]
65. Coghlan, A.; Gooch, M. Applying a transformative learning framework to volunteer tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2011, 19, 713–728. [CrossRef]
66. Littlefair, C.; Buckley, R. Interpretation reduces ecological impacts of visitors to world heritage site. Ambio 2008, 37, 338–341.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
67. Boon, I.; Fluker, M.; Wilson, N. A ten-year study of the effectiveness of an educative programme in ensuring the ecological
sustainability of recreational activities in the Brisbane Ranges National Park, South-eastern Australia. J. Sustain. Tour. 2008,
16, 681–697. [CrossRef]
68. Balmford, A.; Beresford, J.; Green, J.; Naidoo, R.; Walpole, M.; Manica, A. A global perspective on trends in nature-based tourism.
PLoS Biol. 2009, 7, e1000144. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
69. Buckley, R. Parks and tourism. PLoS Biol. 2009, 7, e1000143. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
70. Buckley, R. Conservation Tourism; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2010.
71. Akyeampong, O.A. Pro-poor tourism: Residents’ expectations, experiences and perceptions in the Kakum National Park Area of
Ghana. J. Sustain. Tour. 2011, 19, 197–213. [CrossRef]
72. Jamal, T.; Stronza, A. Collaboration theory and tourism practice in protected areas: Stakeholders, structuring and sustainability.
J. Sustain. Tour. 2009, 17, 169–189. [CrossRef]
73. Meguro, T.; Inoue, M. Conservation goals betrayed by the uses of wildlife benefits in community-based conservation: The case of
Kimana Sanctuary in southern Kenya. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2011, 16, 30–44. [CrossRef]
74. Saarinen, J.; Becker, F.O.; Manwa, H.; Wilson, D. Sustainable Tourism in Southern Africa: Local Communities and Natural Resources in
Transition; Channel View Publications: Bristol, UK, 2009.
75. Stronza, A.; Durham, W.H. Ecotourism and Conservation in the Americas, 7; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2008.
76. Chancellor, C.; Norman, W.; Farmer, J.; Coe, E. Tourism organizations and land trusts: A sustainable approach to natural resource
conservation? J. Sustain. Tour. 2011, 19, 863–875. [CrossRef]
77. Bushell, R.; Eagles, F. Tourism and Protected Areas: Benefits Beyond Boundaries: The Vth IUCN World Parks Congress; CABI: Wallingford,
UK, 2006.
78. Svensson, P.; Rodwell, L.D.; Attrill, M.J. Privately managed marine reserves as a mechanism for the conservation of coral reef
ecosystems: A case study from Vietnam. Ambio 2009, 38, 72–78. [CrossRef]
79. Castellani, V.; Sala, S. Sustainable performance index for tourism policy development. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 871–880. [CrossRef]
80. Cheong, S.-M.; Miller, M.L. Power and tourism: A Foucauldian observation. Ann. Tour. Res. 2000, 27, 371–390. [CrossRef]
81. Ko, T.G. Development of a tourism sustainability assessment procedure: A conceptual approach. Tour. Manag. 2005, 26, 431–445.
[CrossRef]
82. Roberts, S.; Tribe, J. Sustainability indicators for small tourism enterprises—An exploratory perspective. J. Sustain. Tour. 2008,
16, 575–594. [CrossRef]
83. Tsaur, S.-H.; Lin, Y.-C.; Lin, J.-H. Evaluating ecotourism sustainability from the integrated perspective of resource, community
and tourism. Tour. Manag. 2006, 27, 640–653. [CrossRef]
84. Hughes, H.L. Culture and tourism: A framework for further analysis. Manag. Leis. 2002, 7, 164–175. [CrossRef]
85. Budeanu, A. Sustainable tourist behaviour–a discussion of opportunities for change. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2007, 31, 499–508. [CrossRef]
86. Dodds, R.; Graci, S.R.; Holmes, M. Does the tourist care? A comparison of tourists in Koh Phi Phi, Thailand and Gili Trawangan,
Indonesia. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010, 18, 207–222. [CrossRef]
87. Miller, G.; Rathouse, K.; Scarles, C.; Holmes, K.; Tribe, J. Public understanding of sustainable tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2010,
37, 627–645. [CrossRef]
88. Puczko, L.; Ratz, T. Tourist and resident perceptions of the physical impacts of tourism at Lake Balaton. Hungary: Issues for
sustainable tourism management. J. Sustain. Tour. 2000, 8, 458–478. [CrossRef]
89. Gössling, S. Global environmental consequences of tourism. Glob. Environ. Change 2002, 12, 283–302. [CrossRef]
90. Böhringer, C.; Jochem, E. Measuring the immeasurable—A survey of sustainability indices. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 63, 1–8. [CrossRef]
91. Labubun, N. Lively Elephants an Ethnography of Elephant-Based Ecotourism in Tangkahan, Indonesia. Master’s Thesis,
Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 27 August 2019.
 sustainability
Article
Ecotourism as a Resource Sharing Strategy: Case Study of
Community-Based Ecotourism at the Tangkahan Buffer Zone of
Leuser National Park, Langkat District, North
Sumatra, Indonesia
Wiratno Wiratno 1 , Susanti Withaningsih 1,2,3, * , Budhi Gunawan 1,3,4 and Johan Iskandar 1,2,3
!"#!$%&'(!
!"#$%&'
Citation: Wiratno, W.; Withaningsih,
S.; Gunawan, B.; Iskandar, J.
Ecotourism as a Resource Sharing
Strategy: Case Study of
Community-Based Ecotourism at the
Tangkahan Buffer Zone of Leuser
National Park, Langkat District,
North Sumatra, Indonesia.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su14063399
Academic Editor: Bruce Prideaux
Received: 9 February 2022
Accepted: 10 March 2022
Published: 14 March 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063399
1 Doctoral Programme on Environmental Studies, Graduate School, Universitas Padjadjaran,
Bandung 40132, Indonesia; inung.wiratno.2000@gmail.com (W.W.); budhi.gunawan@unpad.ac.id (B.G.);
johan.iskandar@unpad.ac.id (J.I.)
2 Department of Biology, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences Natural Science,
Universitas Padjadjaran, Sumedang 45363, Indonesia
3 Center for Environment and Sustainability Science, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung 40132, Indonesia
4 Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Padjadjaran,
Sumedang 45363, Indonesia
* Correspondence: susanti.withaningsih@unpad.ac.id; Tel.: +62-222-502-176
Abstract: The local community is an essential and key partner in managing protected areas, especially
for national parks in Indonesia. Therefore, there is a need to establish adaptive collaborative manage-
ment (ACM) between the park authorities and the local community. In 2000, several local leaders
established a new organization to develop an ecotourism package called the Tangkahan Ecotourism
Organization or Lembaga Pariwisata Tangkahan (LPT) and set up the Community Tour Operator to
manage the ecotourism activities. Our study used a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats
(SWOT) analysis through focus group discussions (FGDs), interviews with related stakeholders and
key informants, and carried out a literature review. It was found that ensuring local community could
generate alternative income from ecotourism was an effective way to protect the park from any illegal
activities. Additionally, the results about sustainability from the FGDs show that all three categories:
Social Process, Adaptive Natural Resource Management, and Impact/Condition are interrelated,
meaning that the collaboration and adaptive management in Tangkahan have resulted in high levels
of humanistic well-being and the maintenance of ecological values, supporting collaboration pro-
cesses and adaptive levels. Finally, our study can be used as a basis for a model of national parks
focusing on ACM.
Keywords: adaptive collaborative management; collective awareness and collective action;
community-based ecotourism; sustainability
1. Introduction
Indonesia is the largest island nation in the world with 17 thousand islands covering a
land area of 1.91 million km2 [1]. Of this, more than 22 million ha or 21.26% is managed
as protected areas [2,3], which exceeds the protected areas (PAs) in most countries in Asia,
Africa, and Latin America [4], as well as exceeding the Aichi Biodiversity Targets aiming
to protect 13% to 17% of the land surface by the year 2020 [5]. Unfortunately, human
activities may negatively impact these protected areas and decrease their effectiveness as
shown by current data: around 1.8 million ha or around 10% of the total area of lands
in terrestrial protected areas is degraded [3]. Therefore, the importance of PAs cannot
be denied, especially in light of the current high pressures for economic and human
development [6,7]. PAs protect the habitats, wildlife populations, forest ecosystems, and
the various ecosystem services that they provide from deforestation.
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 2 of 18

In Indonesia, 48.8 million people live inside or near state forest land and 10.2 million are
classified as poor. Based on the Ministry of Forestry and National Bureau of Statistics [8,9],
there are 25,863 villages or 26.6% of the total villages in Indonesia located inside or nearby
state forest land. Beside production forests and protection forests, there are PAs that consist
of strict nature reserves, wildlife sanctuaries, grand forest parks, recreation parks, and
national parks. There are 27.14 million hectares of PAs in 552 locations covering almost all
ecosystem types, including coral reefs, coasts, mangrove forests, lowland tropical forests,
deciduous forests, kerangas forests, limestone forests, savannas, mixed savannas, cloud
forests, and snow on the Cartentsz summit as well as tropical areas at the Lorentz National
Park. Indonesia’s PAs are surrounded by more than 6202 villages or 8% out of total
82,038 villages in the country [1], and the villages nearby PAs are occupied by 9.5 million
people. In the PA, it has been proposed by Badan Registrasi Wilayah Adat (BRWA), under
Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara, that there are 1,646,155 hectares of “Adat Area” and
1,334,554 hectares or 81% are located in national parks.
Before 2018, the national policy of the management for conservation areas in Indonesia
was still focused mostly on the protection of parks through patrol conducted by park
rangers, and the involvement of the local communities was limited. Zoning as a manage-
ment tool was limited for the core zone (for the protection of biodiversity and wildlife
habitat), the wilderness zone as a buffer of the core zone, and the utilization for (eco)tourism
purposes. There is no traditional zone to accommodate legal access for local communities
to collect non-timber forest products, water, and other environmental services. However,
the gazettements of the Bukit Duabelas National Park in 2004 were exceptional. This park
is purposed to guarantee legal rights and access for traditional communities, namely “Suku
Anak Dalam” or “Orang Rimba”, to stay and manage their ancestral land for their life. Their
wisdom and knowledge about forests are respected by the park authority to this day.
Managing protected areas in Indonesia cannot be separated from the issues of (1) local
communities, local economies, spiritual purposes, non-timber forest products, agroforestry,
and community-based ecotourism, (2) other related local basic needs, such as the availability
of water for agriculture and consumption, fuelwood, green manure, and (3) infrastructure,
such as road connection to markets, schools, healthcare, and electricity. Thus, local community
is an essential and key partner in managing PAs. There is a need to establish collaborative
management among the park authorities, local communities, and business communities.
The practice of collaborative national park management (under different terms: collab-
oration, co-management, and partnership) has received the attention of many researchers
in its development [10]. Research examples include reviewing the co-management concept
of Karimunjawa National Park [11], raising the issue of the co-management development
concept to preserve Lore Lindu National Park”, and [12] observing the local knowledge of
Sialang Tree management in Orang Rimba and the management of Bukit Duabelas National
Park. These researchers observed and examined how a collaborative approach inevitably
involved people surrounding the forests in the national park areas as the main stakeholders.
In the collaborative management process, several key words emerge, including participa-
tion, negotiation, consensus, mutual trust, mutual respect, and mutual benefits [13].
In Indonesia, for example, between 2000 and 2012, forest cover in Sumatra was shown
to be more undamaged in and the surrounding area of Pas, including national parks. Several
reasons why protected areas, especially national parks in Indonesia, have been well managed
include funding, park rangers, and developed ecosystem services such as tourism [14,15].
Tourism development in PAs has been the subject of many studies; however, the links
between tourism, prosperity, and sustainability in these areas are complex. On a large scale,
prosperity increases the environmental impact, but at the same time, increasing economic
growth will increase the need for environmental protection. Conversely, Buckley (2003)
stated that those links were an erroneous interpretation of history on the development
of PAs. In developed nations, tourism has contributed to urban development, material
consumption, and pressure on PAs, but in developing nations, the generated wealth from
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 3 of 18

tourism has sometimes been used for unproductive tools, such as guns or chainsaws, that
might be a cost to conservation efforts [16].
In most countries, tourism can generate economic growth and population change,
mainly through migration [17], observed by the number of people in some national parks
due to their attraction to tourism opportunities [18]; although in rare cases, the resident
population decreases in spite of the growth in tourism [19].
Our study aims to understand the success story of community tourism in national
parks and the sustainability of ecotourism as a resource sharing strategy. The chosen case
was the Gunung Leuser National Park, where the local community had been successful
both in developing ecotourism activities to generate income for their community and at the
same time in assisting the park authority in patroling the park. The lesson learned are from
how they started the initiative, the steps taken in developing the ecotourism, how they
managed and shared the revenue generated income, what they thought of sustainability,
and why they were willing to participate in making sure that the park was secured.

2. Materials and Methods

This section is divided into two subsections: study area and the methods used in this
study, comprising a literature review, interviews, SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportuni-
ties, and threats) analysis, and focus group discussions (FGDs).

2.1. Study Area

Gunung Leuser National Park is located between 2 550 and 4 050 N and between
96 300 and 98 350 E. It straddles the border of two provinces, Aceh and North Sumatra,
and in five regencies, Southeast Aceh, South Aceh, North Aceh, Langkat, and Tanah Karo.
Gunung Leuser National Park covers 838,872 ha and its border is 850 km long.
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 20It spreads

over 100 km along the Bukit Barisan Mountain Range, from the west coast of Sumatra in the
southwestern tip to less than 25 km from the north coast of the Northeastern tip (Figure 1).

Study
Figure1.1.Study
Figure Area:
Area: Tangkahan,
Tangkahan, Mt Leuser
Mt Leuser National
National Park. Park.

2.2. Methods
This research used a literature review as the secondary form of data by collecting
some documents from the government, long-term management documents, maps, high-
resolution satellite imagery, and some research reports on studies conducted at Gunung
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 4 of 18

2.2. Methods
This research used a literature review as the secondary form of data by collecting
some documents from the government, long-term management documents, maps, high-
resolution satellite imagery, and some research reports on studies conducted at Gunung
Leuser National Park.
In interacting with various parties, as part of the data collection, the researcher also
conducted various in-depth interviews with a number of purposively selected informants.
Most of the informants were selected with a snowball sampling strategy while the other
small part was selected by opportunistic sampling. The selection of informants in the latter
provided useful knowledge for the research.
In addition to interviews conducted individually, the researcher also conducted group
interviews. This was carried out in formal/informal meetings with residents where they
lived or in meetings with residents held at Gunung Leuser National Park great halls.
The researcher also checked the validity of the data by confirming the data obtained
from interviews with data obtained from observation techniques or with data obtained
from secondary sources (the triangulation method).
Methods in strategic management are employed to build an overall development
strategy (general) as well as functional strategies (fractional) concerning a function to be
performed by a state, a local government unit or an enterprise (marketing, finance, logis-
tics, etc.). SWOT analysis is not a strategic method of analysis but is a unique algorithm for
a strategic analysis process, a systemic proposal and a wide-ranging evaluation of external
and internal factors, which specify an organization’s current status and its development
potential [20]. This method is wide-ranging because it concerns internal factors (the organi-
zation as such), and a combination of external and internal factors leads to four categories
(external positive—opportunities; external negative—threats; internal positive—strengths;
and internal negative—weaknesses).
SWOT assumes that strengths and weaknesses are frequently internal, while opportu-
nities and threats are more commonly external, and the four parameters examine:
• Strengths: characteristics of the business or project that give it an advantage over others.
• Weaknesses: characteristics that place the business or project at a disadvantage relative
to others.
• Opportunities: elements in the environment that the business or project could exploit
to its advantage.
• Threats: elements in the environment that could cause trouble for the business or project.
The degree to which the internal environment of the organization matches with the
external environment is expressed by the concept of strategy. SWOT is important because
it can inform the later steps in planning to achieve an objective. Learning from the SWOTs,
decision makers should consider whether the objective is attainable. If it is not, they must
select a different objective and repeat the process.
To carry out a sustainability analysis on the implemented collaborative management
system, data collection was carried out by inviting several experts to a focus group discus-
sion (FGD) by adapting the Delphi method [21]. A number of experts who were considered
to have comprehensive knowledge and understanding in the management of conservation
areas, such as national parks, those who had conducted research, or who had collabo-
rated with the National Park Authority, were asked to discuss and provide their responses
regarding the sustainability issue of the applied management system.
The questions posed to the experts were compiled using the adaptive collaborative
management sustainability criteria and indicators from [22], consisting of three categories:
(1) Social Process Category, (2) Adaptive Natural Resource Management Category, and
(3) Impact/Condition Category. The interrelationships of these three categories are shown
in the Figure 2 below.
 collaborated with the National Park Authority, were asked to discuss and provide their
responses regarding the sustainability issue of the applied management system.
The questions posed to the experts were compiled using the adaptive collaborative
management sustainability criteria and indicators from [22], consisting of three categories:
(1) Social Process Category, (2) Adaptive Natural Resource Management Category, and
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 5 of 18
(3) Impact/Condition Category. The interrelationships of these three categories are shown
in the Figure 2 below.

Figure 2. Sustainability
Figure categories
2. Sustainability [22].
categories [22].

3. Results
3. Results andand Discussion
Discussion
Gunung
Gunung LeuserNational
Leuser National Park
Park isisthe
thehome
home to to
380380
birdbird
species, 350 of350
species, which settle there,
of which settle
and this accounts for 80% of the 438 resident Sumatran birds. Thirty-six
there, and this accounts for 80% of the 438 resident Sumatran birds. Thirty-six birds birds endemic
to Sumatra are also recorded in this national park [23,24]. This national park is home to
192 species of mammals, including 15 species of rats, 13 species of bats, and 17 species of
squirrels. The number of mammals in Gunung Leuser National Park is estimated at 65% of
mammals in Sumatra, accounting for 129 species of the 205 species found in Sumatra [24].
Various rare species are also found here, among others: Sumatran orangutans (Pongo
abelii), Sumatera elephants (Elephas maximus sumatranus), Sumatran tigers (Panthere tigris
sumatrae), and Sumatran rhinoceros (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis). Additionally, mountain goats
(Capricornis sumatraensis), burung rangkong (Buceros bicornis), rusa sambarer (Cervus unicolor),
Leopard cats (Prionailurus bengalensis sumatrans), Clouded leopard (Neofelis diardi), kucing emas
(Pardofelis temincki), Fishing cat (Prionailurus viverrinus), Marbled cat (Pardofelis marmorota),
and Flat-headed cat (Prionailurus planiceps) are also found here. Other endemic mamals are
Kloss’s squirrel (Callosciurus albescens), kelinci loreng Sumatera (Nesolagus netscheri), and tikus
Hoogerwerf’s (Rattus hoogerwerfi). Primates found at the park are Sumatran orangutan (Pongo
abelii), Siamang (Symphalangus syndactylus syndactylus), gibon (Hylobates lar), kedih (Presbytis
thomasi), Silvery leaf monkey (Trachypithecus cristatus), monyet ekor babi (Macaca nemestrina),
monyet ekor panjang (Macaca fascicularis), and sloth (Nycticebus coucang).
Approximately 50% of Sumatran orangutan habitat falls inside the park directly
managed by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, and 78% lies within the boundaries
of the wider vast Leuser Ecosystem Area that includes the park [25]. Thus, Gunung Leuser
National Park is vital habitat for the critically endangered Sumatran orangutan [26]. It is
estimated that there were 85,000 Sumatran orangutans in 1900. By 2017, only 6600 were
thought to exist, all in North Sumatra and Aceh provinces [25].
Similarly, 70 Sumatran tigers out of the approximately 500 individuals in Sumatra
are found in this park, but the number goes up to 250 individuals, or almost half of
the Sumatran tiger population, for the wider Leuser ecosystem. This park is also a key
location for the critically endangered Sumatran rhino, of which only 100–150 individuals
are left in three locations, Gunung Leuser, Way Kambas and Bukit Barisan National parks,
with Gunung Leuser having the largest block of suitable habitats for Sumatran rhinos.
Furthermore, this park and the wider Leuser Ecosystem have the largest blocks of suitable
habitat for the Sumatran Elephants.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 6 of 18

Gunung Leuser National Park area has several international statuses: (1) the Biosphere
Reserve, established by Man and Biosphere (MAB) Unesco in 1981; (2) the ASEAN Heritage
Park, established by the Asean Center for Biodiversity in 1984; and (3) the Tropical Rain-
forest Heritage of Sumatra (together with Kerinci Seblat National Park and South Bukit
Barisan National Park) by UNESCO in 2004. This area has an important value as the life
support for two provinces (Aceh Province and North Sumatran Province), supporting the
watershed system (Daerah Aliran Sungai or DAS), being the habitat for flora and fauna, and
having the potentials for environmental services and nature tourism. Based on its status
and importance, effective and efficient management is necessary for this area. In Gunung
Leuser National Park, four of the most important large mammals are found: the Sumatran
elephant, Sumatran tiger, Sumatran rhino, and the orangutan.
Tourism is already well established in the Bohorok and Berastagi/Sibayak areas of
the park. The Berastagi area, which is only 30 km from Medan, the third largest city in
Indonesia, with a population of more than 4 million people, is one of the most visited areas
on the weekends in North Sumatra. Similarly, thousands of people, mostly Indonesian but
also many foreign tourists visit Bohorok, which is approximately 96 km to the south of
Medan, to see orangutans and other wildlife and to bathe in the beautiful clear water of the
river. A few hundred kilometers to the south of the park, there is Lake Toba, which is also
an important tourist destination. This lake is in the largest caldera in the world. Formed by
a super-volcano, the lake is more than 100 km wide and approximately 700 m deep.
The community tourism in the Tangkahan area is one of the tourism activities with a
different setting. This community has been working together closely with the Tangkahan
Tourism Organization (Lembaga Pariwisata Tangkahan or LPT) and park authority since
2005. Following this collaboration, a memorandum of understanding (MoU) was signed on
23 July 2006. This MoU has granted access rights to LPT to manage 17,500 hectares of forest
area in the park nearby Tangkahan for community-based ecotourism activities. This is called
resource sharing, where the park authority gives access to LPT to manage part of the park
for ecotourism business, managed by the local community under LPT for five years, which
can be extended based on evaluation of its effectiveness. The LPT also has a duty both to
develop awareness for tourists and the local community and to protect the park from illegal
activities such as poaching, illegal logging, land encroachment, and snares clean up.
This process happened just two years after the Ministry of Forestry issued P.19/Menhut-
II/2004 about collaborative management in PAs. They are required to help the park author-
ity in protecting the forest surrounding Tangkahan from illegal logging, encroachment, and
poaching, and they can successfully stop all illegal activities. For example, foreign tourists
would not visit Tangkahan if they heard a chainsaw operating in the park. Nowadays, we
can observe that many logs are still lying down in the forest floor after the ministry has
made a commitment to stop illegal logging and left all logs in the park. In 2011, the MoU
has been renewed for the second phase considering the effectiveness of LPT in developing
community-based ecotourism and in working with park rangers to conduct a routine patrol
activity every Friday.

3.1. Ecotourism Initiative

There are five benefits that can be accrued from community-based ecotourism: (1) en-
vironmental benefits, (2) economic benefits, (3) political benefits, (4) social benefits, and
(5) cultural benefits [27]. Additionally, ecotourism ventures should only be considered
“successful” if the local communities have some measures of control and share equitably in
the benefits [28]. He also suggests that the term “community-based ecotourism” should be
reserved for those ventures based on a high degree of community control (and hence where
the communities command a large proportion of the benefits), rather than those almost
wholly controlled by outside operators. In the case of the ecotourism camp at Tumani Tenda,
Gambia, there is evidence to support the hypothesis that a high social capital manifesting
particularly in people’s commitment to collectively act in village projects is instrumental in
the development of the ecotourism.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 7 of 18

It is rare in the literature to find examples of community-based initiative areas that are
not managed, co-managed, or initiated by “outsiders”.
In the process of initiating ecotourism or special interest tourism, the park author-
ity and two NGOs—Indonesian Ecotourism Network or INDECON and Fauna Flora
International (FFI)—works together with the newly created LPT in designing ecotourism
packages, establishing community patrol systems, namely the Simalem Ranger, waste
management, elephant safari, and patrol as a part of the tourism package, and establishing
a Community Tour Operator (CTO) to manage foreign and local tourists. One of the most
attractive packages is elephant trekking, where tourists ride on the top of the elephant with
a companionship of mahouts.
Mostly, local tourists spend their time enjoying the beauty of Batang Serangan River,
tubing, enjoying the forest, and seeing the waterfall. Meanwhile, foreign tourists have many
alternatives to enjoy the beauty of the tropical rainforest in Tangkahan, such as joining an
elephant safari and walking in the park with 2–5 km distance for 2–3 h, visiting the youth
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 20
track, butterfly beach, hot spring, rafflesia spot, and salt lick spot.
Figure 3 shows the profile of visitors to Tangkahan since 2004.

Figure3.3.Profile
Figure Profileof
ofvisitors
visitorsby
bynumber
number to
to Tangkahan
Tangkahan (2004–2019).
(2004–2019). Source:
Source: Tangkahan Community
Tangkahan Community
Tour Operator, 2020.
Tour Operator, 2020.

The
Thegraph
graphshows
showsthat
thatinin2004,
2004,Tangkahan
Tangkahanwas wasvery
verypopular
popularamong
amongthe thelocal
localtourists
tourists
from Medan and the Langkat District, and they mostly spent one day on a round trip. They
from Medan and the Langkat District, and they mostly spent one day on a round trip.
enjoyed tubing, visiting the water springs and waterfall, playing along the riverside of Sei
They enjoyed tubing, visiting the water springs and waterfall, playing along the riverside
Buluh, and visiting
of Sei Buluh, the butterfly
and visiting spot. spot.
the butterfly Weekends are the
Weekends aremost popular
the most for local
popular tourists
for local tour-
visiting Tangkahan.
ists visiting Tangkahan.The number
The numberstarted withwith
started 41 local tourists
41 local per per
tourists dayday
(1250 per per
(1250 month
monthor
15,000 per per
or 15,000 year) in 2004
year) to 188
in 2004 local
to 188 tourists
local per per
tourists dayday
(5666 per per
(5666 month or 68,000
month perper
or 68,000 year) in
year)
2016. With
in 2016. thethe
With high number
high number of of
local tourists,
local Tangkahan
tourists, Tangkahan became
becameone
oneofofthe
themost
mostfamous
famous
outdoor
outdoorrecreation
recreationlocations
locationsin inNorth
NorthSumatra
SumatraProvince
Provinceuntil
untilthe
theDG
DGof ofKSDAE
KSDAEclosed
closed
down
down allall ecotourism activitiesininthe
ecotourism activities theparks
parks and
and recreation
recreation parks
parks when
when the COVID-19
the COVID-19 pan-
pandemic
demic hit hit at the
at the endend of March
of March 2020.
2020.
Figure 4 shows that foreign tourists spent 800–900 times more time than local visitors
at Tangkahan. This seems reasonable as foreign visitors spent more than 2 days there and
spent money for activities such as elephant trekking, enjoying one night in the jungle,
tubing, and trekking to find wild orangutans or other wildlife in the park.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 8 of 18

Figure 4 shows that foreign tourists spent 800–900 times more time than local visitors
at Tangkahan. This seems reasonable as foreign visitors spent more than 2 days there
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of
and spent money for activities such as elephant trekking, enjoying one night in the jungle,
tubing, and trekking to find wild orangutans or other wildlife in the park.

Figure
Figure 4. Spending cost4.ofSpending cost
visitors at of visitors(2014–2019).
Tangkahan at TangkahanSource:
(2014–2019). Source:Community
Tangkahan Tangkahan Community
Tour To
Operator, 2020.
Operator, 2020.

Over a five-yearOver a five-year

period period (2014–2019),
(2014–2019), local
local tourists tourists contributed
contributed USD 1,863,103
USD 1,863,103 and and fo
foreign tourists contributed USD 5,944,227, totaling to USD 7,807,330 According to govern- to gover
eign tourists contributed USD 5,944,227, totaling to USD 7,807,330 According
ment regulationment regulation
No.12, No.12,accepted
total revenue total revenue
by the accepted by thefrom
park authority parkforeign
authority
andfrom
localforeign an
local tourists (2015–2020) was only USD 89,013 or IDR 1,246,187,500 (1 USD = IDR 14,00
tourists (2015–2020) was only USD 89,013 or IDR 1,246,187,500 (1 USD = IDR 14,000).
In conclusion, the revenue from ecotourism for the local community is about 87
In conclusion, the revenue from ecotourism for the local community is about 87,7 times
times larger than the revenue accepted by the park authority. The entrance fee for loc
larger than the revenue accepted by the park authority. The entrance fee for local tourists
tourists was USD 0.35 and for foreign tourists was USD 12.5 (weekday) and USD 16
was USD 0.35 and for foreign tourists was USD 12.5 (weekday) and USD 16.0 (weekend).
(weekend). Additionally, foreign tourists had to pay USD 17.8 for elephant washing an
Additionally, foreign tourists had to pay USD 17.8 for elephant washing and USD 71.4 for
USD 71.4 for elephant trekking. These packages were managed by LPT and FFI, and a
elephant trekking. These packages were managed by LPT and FFI, and although they had
hough they had to help park rangers to guard and patrol the park, most of the incom
to help park rangers to guard and patrol the park, most of the income went to the local
went to the local community, which was a win–win solution. Working with the comm
community, which was a win–win solution. Working with the community required mutual
nity required mutual respect, mutual trust, and mutual benefits. This was a social capi
respect, mutualthat
trust,
wasand mutual
crucial benefits.
to be developedThis
sowas
thatathe
social capital that
park–people was crucial
relationship to be
could be improve
developed so that the park–people relationship could be improved.
3.2. Impacts for Conservation
3.2. Impacts for Conservation
After the community of two villages of Namo Sialang and Sei Serdang committed
After the community of two villages
stop illegal logging of Namo
in 2001, there Sialang
has been and Sei positive
a significant Serdangimpact
committed
on thetocommunit
stop illegal logging in 2001, there has been a significant positive impact on the community-
based ecotourism in Tangkahan, compared to Sekoci area, a part of Gunung Leuser N
based ecotourism in Tangkahan,
in the northern partcompared to Sekoci
of Tangkahan which area,
has abeen
partheavily
of Gunung Leuser
logged, NP, in and occ
encroached,
the northern part of Tangkahan which has been heavily logged, encroached, and occupied
pied for illegal palm oil plantation since 1990. The spatial analysis conducted by the G
for illegal palm team
oil plantation
of Gunung since 1990.
Leuser NPThe spatialin
is shown analysis
Figure conducted
5. by the GIS team of
Gunung Leuser NP is shown in Figure 5.
The map also shows us that Tangkahan, with the community-based ecotourism as
an alternative income generator for the local community, could stop illegal logging or
encroachment into the park as shown by the relatively green vegetation cover as compared
to the Sekoci area at the northern part of Tangkahan. There is a growing awareness from
the local community in Tangkahan about the values of parks in the form of environmental
services, such as the fresh and clean water stream at Buluh River and the pristine tropical
forest inside the park, as an asset for ecotourism. By guarding and participating in patrolling
the park, they can gradually invite foreign visitors to enjoy the beauty of Buluh River and
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 9 of 18

the
Sustainability 2022, 14,tropical forest
x FOR PEER of
Leuser NP nearby Tangkahan. Members of LPT and all related
REVIEW 10 o
ecotourism activities can gradually increase their awareness to protect the park for income
generation and eventually for improving their welfare.

Figure 5. Comparison
Figurebetween the Tangkahan
5. Comparison between and Sekoci areaand
the Tangkahan in terms
Sekociofarea
deforestation.
in terms of deforestation.

The area at theThe

Sekoci
mapLepan Resort
also shows has long
us that been damaged
Tangkahan, due to encroachment
with the community-based ecotourism as
for planting rubber, oil palm,
alternative andgenerator
income various other crops.
for the local This condition
community, is shown
could through
stop illegal logging or e
image analysis,croachment
where the into
following damage occurred in the noted periods: 1990–1995
the park as shown by the relatively green vegetation cover as compar
(2064 Ha), 1995–2000
to the (1156
SekociHa),
area2000–2005 (1547part
at the northern Ha),of2005–2011
Tangkahan.(2637 Ha),
There is and 2011–2016
a growing awareness fro
(286 Ha). The decrease in the rate of
the local community deforestation
in Tangkahan or encroachment
about wasindue
the values of parks to theoflaw
the form environmen
enforcement of services,
GunungsuchLeuser National
as the Park.
fresh and Meanwhile,
clean in Tangkahan,
water stream at Buluh Rivertheand
forest that
the pristine tropi
forest inside the park, as an asset for ecotourism. By guarding and participating
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 10 of 18

was once encroached was maintained by the community for ecotourism assets, and as a
result, as shown in the map, the condition of the vegetation cover did not change much
(shown by the green color in Figure 4). Overall, in the period before 1990 to 2019, only the
Tangkahan Resort had a very low level of disturbance. This is indicated by the relatively
good vegetation cover, with no encroachment found, when compared to conditions at
Sekoci Lepan Resort.

3.3. Understanding the Organization by Using SWOT Analysis

3.3.1. Strengths
1. People-Centered Approach
Since 2000, the park authority has spent time to work with the Tangkahan community
in developing new initiatives, particularly for community-based ecotourism. Intensive
dialogues that have been conducted since 2005 and in 2006 resulted in a formal collaboration
between LPT and the park authority. An MoU was signed that granted 17,500 hectares of
forest to be an ecotourism site managed by LPT. This was a relatively new management
style of the park authority. It is clear, therefore, that prioritizing dialogues with the local
community is a key success in developing a socio-economic buffer around the park.
2. Support from Partners
Since 2005, the park authority has opened a wide window of communications with
partners who have been concerned with working in Leuser NP, in the scope of orangutan
protection and law enforcement to combat illegal logging, encroachment, poaching, and
wildlife trafficking. Among the prominent partners are the Sumatran Orangutan Conserva-
tion Program, Leuser Foundation, Orangutan Information Center, Wildlife Conservation
Society, and Fauna Flora International. Fauna Flora International is a partner who is con-
sistent in helping to work with LPT for ecotourism in Tangkahan in the form of elephant
safaris and elephant patrol in the park, which is the most popular ecotourism attraction in
Tangkahan. This attraction has contributed to more than 70% of the local income for LPT
until now.
3. Award for Tangkahan
In 2004, the Tangkahan Ecotourism Institution (LPT) received the “Innovation Award”
from the Minister of Tourism, the Government of Indonesia. In 2018, Tangkahan Ecotourism
received the “Indonesia Sustainable Tourism Award 2018”, the Green-Gold Award in the
Environmental Conservation Category, GSTC Recognition Standard, from the Ministry of
Tourism, the Government of Indonesia. Finally, in 2019, the chairman of the Tangkahan
Community Tour Operator (TCTO) received an appreciation from The World Committee
on Tourism Ethics. The committee encouraged TCTO and their collaborators to continue
their endeavors in implementing the Global Code of Ethics for Tourism. This award
expressed the recognition and respect to Tangkahan for their roles not only in developing the
ecotourism movement, with elephant jungle trekking as the most attractive attraction [29],
but also in growing the awareness to protect the tropical forests of park near their villages
for long-term purposes and for the next generation. This was what made the Tangkahan
initiative unique.
4. A New Site for Research
Tangkahan has also become a site for research, with 26 studies conducted at this
location from 2015–2020. Among the most popular research topics in Tangkahan: finan-
cial analysis of ecotourism, ethnography of elephant-based ecotourism, plant ecology of
dipterocarpaceae regeneration, and attitudes of elephants.
Some of these studies show that the foundation for sustainability in tourism, as well
as in other industry sectors, is provided by the regulatory instruments, success of which is
often limited by poor implementation. This situation can happen in both developed and
developing nations on a global scale [29–44].
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 11 of 18

These show that standard and straightforward planning, regulations, and technologi-
cal approaches are essential in reducing the pollution and the negative impacts from the
large-scale and mainstream tourism development in resort clusters in both coastal and
mountainous destinations and in peri-urban and urban areas.
Tourism in public protected areas is heavily studied, with a focus on:
• Visitor numbers [45–47];
• Fees and concessions arrangements [16,48–56];
• Access [57,58];
• Management tools [44,58–60];
• Interpretation [61–64].
When rigorous conditions are met, interpretation can reduce negative impacts [65,66].
Otherwise, interpretation does not change the attitudes nor the impacts [66,67].
Additionally, tourism with its communal conservancies, private reserves, and con-
tributions to public PAs can support conservation. However, this can be achieved under
specific circumstances and with associated environmental costs [59,68–70]. In a number
of countries, over half of park funding is now derived by income generated from visitors,
although it is more typically around 10%, or in the case for many countries, 0%.
One form of tourist-generated income, leasing tourism operating rights on communal
land tenures, may contribute to the well-being of the community as well as the biodiver-
sity conservation, depending on the legal details of land and wildlife ownership and the
structure, cohesion, and internal governance of community organizations [70–75]. Sim-
ilar conditions occur when tour operators lease rights from private landowners or land
trusts [70,76] or from public national parks [49,70,77,78].
The significance of sustainability indicators in tourism is long recognized, and many
have been proposed [58,79–83]. However, only a few of these address the actual impacts [84],
which suggests a lack of ecological data. Tourist, resident, or operator-based indicators may
not be complete since people may not always perceive, comprehend, or care about their
impacts [85–88]. Attempts to quantify any sustainability indicators for the tourism sector
worldwide have been found to be lacking, with one study focusing on pollution [84,89].
This limited progress is reflected not only in tourism but in all sectors [90].
In parks and biodiversity, conservation ecotourism is gaining significance for sustain-
ability and influence of the tourism sector.

3.3.2. Weaknesses
There are many challenges in establishing and maintaining the spirit of togetherness in
collaborative management. In the case of community-based ecotourism with elephants as
the main attraction in Tangkahan, starting from 2001 until before the COVID-19 pandemic,
there were several challenges as follows:
1. Monitoring
The lack of participatory monitoring and evaluation conducted by the park author-
ities led to a growing misunderstanding or distrust among the members of LPT. As a
consequence, there was a growing inconsistency for patroling the park, with or without
elephants, that was normally conducted every Friday.
2. Lack of Support from Local Government
The district and provincial government had prioritized Tangkahan as the main tourist
destination in the North Sumatra Province. However, there was still a need to support
Tangkahan in the form of improvement of the roads to the site, as almost 25 km of road
was still in bad condition.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 12 of 18

3. Growing Distrust
Internally, inconsistency and growing distrust between the park authority and LPT or
between LPT and the community in the village can be the real threats to sustain Tangkahan
as an ecotourism site. Illegal logging, wildlife hunting and trading, and encroachment can
increase since they do not receive any substantial profit from ecotourism.
4. Weak Leadership
The success of ecotourism in Tangkahan is due to the fact there is a consistent strong
leadership that always supports innovation. A leader who understands that a partnership
including the local community around the park is a must. This is a relatively new approach
in Indonesia. Guidance from [3] gives a clear direction to all park managers to put the
local community as a subject. Working with the local community through conservation
partnership is the main policy in solving tenurial conflict and other problems with the
local community through intensive communication and dialogue. Building trust with the
local community as well as strengthening the social capital at the villages near the park is
essential. Tangkahan is the case that has proven the power and substant of leadership in
developing a mutual respect, mutual trust, and mutual benefits.

3.3.3. Opportunities
Opportunities to implement community-based ecotourism in conservation areas have
been widely opened, particularly since 2013 when the digital era started through social me-
dia such as Facebook and Instagram. Lessons from Tangkahan can give us a clear argument
that ecotourism requires the local community to be treated as a subject and involved from
the beginning, starting with problem identification, planning, implementation, monitoring,
and evaluation. Tangkahan provides evidence for this.
In many villages located at the buffer zone of the conservation areas, forest resources
in the park must provide direct or indirect economic benefits. Ecotourism can be one of
the choices beside other local economic opportunities, such as non-timber forest products,
water sources, and micro hydro, or even their values as spiritual sites. There is a wide-open
window since 27.14 million hectares of conservation area in Indonesia is surrounded by
6747 villages. The development of a socio-economic buffer can be a significant opportunity
and Tangkahan can be seen as an inspiration and evidence that we have to work with the
local community as the key partners in park management.

3.4. Threats
1. Animal Welfare
Elephant riding has been the main attraction and provides the biggest local economic con-
tribution for ecotourism business in Tangkahan. However, there has been a growing awareness
of animal welfare issues, and this situation has been the main subject of criticism [91].
2. Domination of Foreign Visitors
A higher dependency on foreign visitors than local visitors was a significant problem
when COVID-19 directly impacted the closing of all NPs to visitors, including ecotourism
activities at Tangkahan.

3.5. Adaptive Collaborative Management (ACM) Sustainability Criteria and Indicators

ACM sustainability in Tangkahan was investigated using an analysis of the sustain-
ability criteria and indicators [22]. The scores of a number of indicators were averaged to
become the criterion scores. The average value of a number of criteria was the value of a
principle and the average value of a number of the principles was the value of a category.
The categories are divided into three: Social Process Category, Adaptive Natural Resource
Management Category, and Impact/Condition Category. A complete analysis of ACM’s
sustainability can be seen in Tables 1 and 2 below.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 13 of 18

Table 1. ACM Sustainability Analysis Categories. (A). Category: Social Process; (B) Category:
Adaptive Natural Resource Management; (C) Category: Impact/ Condition.

(A)
No. Principles, Criteria, and Indicators (P, C, I) Scoring Average
P 1. The actors are motivated to collaborate
C 1.1. The actors have the same basic interests 4.33
C 1.2 There are no disincentives that hinder cooperation among the actors 4.00
P 2. Communication among the actors is sufficient
C 2.1. The actors know how to negotiate the political process within and between groups 5.00
The actors take advantage of individual opportunities as well as the mechanisms and
C 2.2. 4.29
technologies for communication
P 3. The actors collaborate
C 3.1. The actors work together within and between groups satisfactorily 4.00
The actors participate in decision making and negotiations within and between
C 3.2. 3.50
groups satisfactorily
(B)
No. Principles, Criteria, and Indicators (P, C, I) Scoring Average
P 4. The actors have the capacity and resources to manage natural resources sustainably
The actors are aware of the opportunities and requirements related to sustainable natural
C 4.1. 3.75
resource management
C 4.2. The actors are motivated to implement sustainable management 4.33
C 4.3. The actors have the resources to carry out management as recommended by current knowledge 4.67
P 5. The actors manage natural resources as well as possible
C 5.1. The actors plan management activities adequately 5.00
C 5.2. Resources are managed in accordance with currently developing knowledge 4.00
C 5.3. Based on the monitoring results, management practices are continuously adjusted 5.00
(C)
No. Principles, Criteria, and Indicators (P, C, I) Scoring Average
P 6. Politics, legislation, and institutional structures reflect the requirements to ensure sustainability
C 6.1. The plans set by public authorities are realistic and in line with sustainable development 4.00
C 6.2. Legislation reflects sustainable development requirements 3.80
C 6.3. Economic and financial policies do not conflict with sustainable development 3.20
Local mechanisms, including traditions, norms, and regulations, ensure the sustainable
C 6.4. 4.00
use of resources
P 7. Infrastructure reflects the needs of the actors
C 7.1. The situation in the health sector is good 2.57
C 7.2. The availability of educational facilities and technical assistance is adequate 3.25
C 7.3. The infrastructure for culture and entertainment is present 2.33
C 7.4. The transportation and electricity infrastructure is adequate 3.00
C 7.5. There is a free market to sell local products and meet the local demand 3.57
C 7.6. Public institutions are adequately equipped to ensure law enforcement and personal safety 3.50
P 8. The actors have adequate living conditions and live in harmony with one other
C 8.1. People feel safe 3.57
C 8.2. People want to stay 3.86
C 8.3. The actors have adequate income and property 4.00
C 8.4. People act as responsible citizens 3.80
P 9. The value of natural resources is maintained
C 9.1. Ecological processes that maintain the function of the management units are conserved 4.67
C 9.2. Ecosystem function is maintained 3.80
C 9.3. Processes that maintain genetic variation are conserved -

Table 2. ACM Sustainability Analysis Resume.

No. Category Scoring Average
1 Social process 4.19
Adaptive Natural Resources
2 4.46
Management
3 Impact/Condition 3.56
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 14 of 18

FGDs, which were analyzed using the criteria and indicators, resulted in the Social
Process Categories being rated an average of 4.19 (good). This shows that the quality
of articulation and communication as well as the level of integration and collaborative
action was good. The category of Adaptive Natural Resources Management was rated an
average of 4.46 (good), meaning that the level of planning, implementation, monitoring,
and adjustment of natural resource management as well as personal, technical, and financial
capacity for sustainable management was also good.
Likewise, the Impact/Condition Category was rated 3.56 (adequate) with a record
value of ecosystem function being maintained. The representative area indicators, especially
locations that are important for ecological interests, are maintained and are given a value
of 4. This was evidenced by the relatively good condition of forest cover around the
Tangkahan Resort as shown in Figure 2 compared to the vegetation cover at the Sekoci
Lepan Resort. Of all the existing criteria, only one could not be filled: the process of
maintaining the sustainability of genetic variation. This was because there had never been
a study or research on genetic variations of both flora and fauna in Tangkahan.
The Impact/Condition for ACM on natural resources shows, on the one hand, the
expected impacts of collaboration and adaptive management of natural resources, and
on the other, conditions under which collaboration and adaptive management take place.
Considering ACM as an integrative form of social and natural resource management, the
status quo of human well-being, including issues such as infrastructure, satisfactory levels
of well-being, laws, and markets, reflects the conditions, as well as the results of previous
processes. Even biophysical conditions, if under human influence, can be interpreted as the
impact of a specific combination of collaboration and adaptation.
The three sustainability categories above are integrally interrelated, meaning that
collaboration and adaptive management in Tangkahan have resulted in high levels of
humanistic well-being and the maintenance of ecological values, supporting collaboration
processes and adaptive levels (the “systems approach”).

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the above-mentioned results and discussions, several conclusions and rec-
ommendations can be drawn from this research. At Gunung Leuser National Park, the
initiation of community-based ecotourism in Tangkahan was evaluated and showed an
indication in the right direction. This direction is a response to the changing of aspirations
in national park management at the local level and the dynamics of policy changes at the
national level. This policy is the opening of the management access space for people living
in buffer villages in the conservation partnership policy scheme.

4.1. Conclusions
Tangkahan is an important example or a success story of park–people relationships.
After 20 years of this initiative, they are successful in guarding the park from massive illegal
logging, encroachment, and poaching. The comparison with the Sekoci area provides clear
evidence; when the local community has the opportunity to generate alternative local
economic activities that increase their income substantially, not from an illegal logging,
encroachment, and poaching perspective, but rather from an ecotourism perspective,
they are willing to guard the park in a more collective manner based on their collective
awareness at the local level. Tangkahan initiatives can be seen as a success story for
community-based ecotourism.
Another lesson that can be learned from Tangkahan is the good forest cover in the
park near Tangkahan, as compared to the Sekoci area. However, there is still a need to
conduct periodic monitoring and evaluation by involving the key stakeholders as a basis
for improvement in many aspects of their local institutions, namely LPT. The park authority
should play a neutral role and conduct mentoring if there are conflicts, or review the
operation and performance of LPT in order to balance between income generation from
ecotourism and its impacts for the environment and protection of the park.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 15 of 18

National parks cannot be managed in isolation from the local community. Collabora-
tive adaptive management, or the creation of partnerships, is an essential policy strategy at
this time and in the future. It requires an intensive mentoring from the park authority and
NGOs starting from the beginning of the initiation. Participatory and open monitoring as
well as evaluation involving key stakeholders is needed to ensure that the learning process
among the key stakeholders can be conducted in a fairer way. This is an important start
in order to gradually build mutual respect, trust, and benefits, and to build an adaptive
collaborative management approach.
Tangkahan achieves its success due to the fact that the park authority has structured
their model around the local community as being the main partner with the park and
surrounding the park to guard it. In addition, the commitment from the members of LPT
to protect the national park for the last 20 years is the result of strong norms, values, and
trust among the members.
Additionally, the results about sustainability from the FGD show that all three cate-
gories: Social Process Category, Adaptive Natural Resource Management Category, and
Impact/Condition Category are interrelated, and this means that the collaboration and adap-
tive management in Tangkahan have resulted in high levels of humanistic well-being and the
maintenance of ecological values, supporting collaboration processes, and adaptive levels.
The study had some limitations. It is proven that community-based ecotourism
initiatives still require facilitation and assistance so that any agreements can be implemented
consistently through a continuous learning process. Therefore, future research on the
monitoring and evaluation of the success of Gunung Leuser National Park still needs to be
conducted to ensure the continuation of this success.

4.2. Recommendations
Learning from the community-based ecotourism in Tangkahan, there is a need to
replicate this approach to other forest-dependent communities. Since 27.14 million hectares
of conservation area in Indonesia is surrounded by 6747 villages with more than 16 million
inhabitants, mostly small farmers and fisherman families, a new approach in term of
developing community-based park management is the right policy.
However, considering the high variation in terms of the state of development, accessi-
bility, biophysical, spiritual, and socio-economic situations, and the cultural setting across
the villages in the park buffer zone, the approach in Tangkahan is not a blue-print for
planning. Tangkahan can be seen as an inspiration for other park managers in Indonesia;
working with a new approach in dealing with the local community is very important. This
is the lesson that can contribute to park management style reform in Indonesia. It takes
time and thus long-term monitoring and evaluation for cross-learning is essential. The
park authority must be a learning organization and innovative in dealing with the local
community, which is the most critical agenda to address.
Thus, our study can be used as a basis for replication to other similar situations in
many villages in the buffer zone of national parks in Indonesia, with an adaptation of
strategies considering the dynamics and diversity in the form of biophysics, socio-culture
aspects, and political situations.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, W.W. and S.W.; methodology, B.G.; software, W.W.;
validation, S.W., B.G. and J.I.; formal analysis, W.W; investigation, W.W; resources, W.W; data curation,
S.W.; writing—original draft preparation, W.W.; writing—review and editing, S.W.; visualization,
W.W.; supervision, J.I.; project administration, S.W.; funding acquisition, W.W. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: This study involves humans not as patients, but as partici-
pants and/or respondents to questions and discussion for the purpose of gaining their insights. This
study is also unrelated to health studies. Thus, ethical review and approval were not applicable for
this study.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 16 of 18

Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement: This study does not report any data.
Acknowledgments: I thank Jatna Suprijatna, Indonesian University, Pak Susyafrianto-Director of
Mt Leuser NP; Ahtu Trihangga, staff of Mt Leuser NP; Wak Yun and Pak Okor as the founder
of Tangkahan site and developing spirit of protection of part of Mt Leuser NP and initiator of
ecotourism; the late Saiful Bahri for his brilliant ideas to establish partnership between Tangkahan
and Park Authority in 2006; Syukur Alfajar Harahap; Taufik Ramadan as an environmental activist
who supports collaboration between Tangkahan and park authorities; and Ary Suhandi-Indonesian
Ecotourism Network that gives mentorship for developing ecotourism packages and marketing. We
thank all staff of Mt Leuser NP for consistent supports and technical guidance for Tangkahan since
the beginning of the ecotourism initiative. Finally, we thank Noer Fauzi Rachman, for guidance on
searching for more research findings in Tangkahan, and sent many of the relevant documents to
improve this research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Badan Pusat Statistik. Badan Pusat Statistic; BPS-Statistic: Central Jakarta, Indonesia, 2018.
2. PHKA. Statistik PHKA; PHKA: Bangkok, Thailand, 2013.
3. Wirat. Sepuluh Cara baru Kelola Kawasan Konservasi di Indonesia: Membangun Organisasi Pembelajar; Direktorat Jenderal Konservasi
Sumberdaya Alam dan Ekosistem: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2018.
4. Mulyana, A.; Kosmaryandi, N.; Hakim, N.; Suryadi, S. Ruang Adaptif. Refleksi Penataan Zona/Blok di Kawasan Konservasi; Direktorat
Pemolaan dan Informasi Konservasi Alam (PIKA) Direktorat Jenderal Konservasi Sumberdaya Alam dan Ekosistem (KSDAE)
Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan: Bogor, Indonesia, 2019.
5. Murniningtyas, E.; Darajati, W.; Sumardja, E.; Kementerian Negara Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional. Indonesian Biodiversity
Strategy and Action Plan, 2015–2020; Kementerian PPN/BAPPENAS: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2016.
6. Coad, L.; Leverington, F.; Knights, K.; Geldmann, J.; Eassom, A.; Kapos, V.; Kingston, N.; de Lima, M.; Zamora, C.;
Cuardros, I.; et al. Measuring impact of protected area management interventions: Current and future use of the Global Database
of Protected Area Management Effectiveness. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2015, 370, 20140281. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Geldmann, J.; Barnes, M.; Coad, L.; Craigie, I.D.; Hockings, M.; Burgess, N.D. Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in
reducing habitat loss and population declines. Biol. Conserv. 2013, 161, 230–238. [CrossRef]
8. Kehutanan, D. Identifikasi Desa Dalam Kawasan Hutan; Pusat Rencana dan Statistik Kehutanan Departemen Kehutanan dan:
Jakarta, Indonesia, 2007.
9. Kehutanan, D.; Statistik, B. Identifikasi Desa di Dalam dan di Sekitar Kawasan Hutan 2009; Pusat Rencana dan Statistik Kehutanan:
Jakarta, Indonesia, 2009.
10. Purwanti, F. Konsep Co-Management Taman Nasional Karimunjawa; IPB University: Bogor, Indonesia, 2008.
11. Kassa, S.; Alikodra, H.S.; Salim, B.; Basuni, S. Co-management Untuk Menginisiasi Penyelesaian Konflik di Taman Nasional Lore
Lindu. Agroland J. Ilmu Ilmu Pertan. 2008, 15, 4.
12. Marpaung, J. Pengetahuan Lokal Pengelolaan Pohon Sialang Pada Suku Anak Dalam di Taman Nasional Buki 12 Provinsi Jambi.
J. TroEthnobiol. 2021, 116–122.
13. Hidayat, H. National Park Management in Local Autonomy: From The Viepoint of Political Conservation in Biology: A Case
Study of Tanjung Puting-Central Kalimantan. J. Biol. Indones. 2017, 5, 2.
14. Supriatna, J.; Dwiyahreni, A.A.; Winarni, N.; Mariati, S.; Margules, C. Deforestation of primate habitat on Sumatra and adjacent
islands, Indonesia. Primate Conserv. 2017, 31, 71–82.
15. Supriatna, J.; Shekelle, M.; Fuad, H.A.; Winarni, N.L.; Dwiyahreni, A.A.; Farid, M.; Mariati, S.; Margules, C.; Prakoso, B.; Zakaria, Z.
Deforestation on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi and the loss of primate habitat. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 24, e01205. [CrossRef]
16. Buckley, R. Pay to Play in Parks: An Australian Policy Perspective on Visitor Fees in Public Protected Areas. J. Sustain. Tour. 2003,
11, 56–73. [CrossRef]
17. Gill, A.; Williams, P. Managing growth in mountain tourism communities. Tour. Manag. 1994, 15, 212–220. [CrossRef]
18. Wittemyer, G.; Elsen; Bean, W.T.; Burton, A.C.O.; Brashares, J.S. Accelerated human population growth at protected area edges.
Science 2008, 321, 123–126. [CrossRef]
19. Heberlein, T.A.; Fredman, P.; Vuorio, T. Current tourism patterns in the Swedish mountain region. Mt. Res. Dev. 2002, 22, 142–149.
[CrossRef]
20. Gurl, E. SWOT analysis: A theoretical review. J. Int. Soc. Res. 2017, 4. [CrossRef]
21. Fletcher, A.J.; Marchildon, G. Using the Delphi method for qualitative, participatory action research in health leadership. Int. J.
Qual. Methods 2014, 13, 1–18. [CrossRef]
22. Pokorny, B.; Cayres, G.; Nunes, W.; Segebart, D.; Drude, R.; Steinbrenner, M. Adaptive Collaborative Management Criteria and
Indicator for Assessing Sustainability; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 2003.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 17 of 18

23. Wind, J. Gunung Leuser National Park: History, threats and options. Leuser Sumatran Sanctuary 1996, 4–27.
24. Van Schaik, C.; Supriatna, J.; Yayasan Bina Sains Hayati Indonesia; Yayasan Leuser Internasional; Wildlife Conservation Society.
Leuser: A Sumatran Sanctuary; Yayasan Bina Sains Hayati Indonesia, Yayasan Leuser Internasional: Depok, Indonesia; Wildlife
Conservation Society: New York, NY, USA, 1996.
25. Wich, S.A.; Meijaard, E.; Marshall, A.J.; Husson, S.; Ancrenaz, M.; Lacy, R.C.; Van Schaik, C.P.; Sugardjito, J.; Simorangkir, T.;
Traylor-Holzer, K.; et al. Distribution and conservation status of the orang-utan (Pongo spp.) on Borneo and Sumatra: How many
remain? Oryx 2008, 42, 329–339. [CrossRef]
26. Rijksen, H.D.; Meijaard, E. Our Vanishing Relative: The Status of Wild Orangutans at the Close of the Twentieth Century; Springer:
Cham, Switzerland, 1999.
27. Musavengane, R.; Matikiti, R. Does Social Capital Really Enhance Community Based Ecotourism? A Review of the Literature; Boloka
Institutional Repository: Potchefstroom, South Africa, 2015.
28. Jones, S. Community-based ecotourism: The significance of social capital. Ann. Tour. Res. 2005, 32, 303–324. [CrossRef]
29. Wiranatha, A.S. Sustainable development strategy for ecotourism at Tangkahan, North Sumatera. E-J. Tour. 2015, 2, 1–8. [CrossRef]
30. Berry, S.; Ladkin, A. Sustainable tourism: A regional perspective. Tour. Manag. 1997, 18, 433–440. [CrossRef]
31. Bowen, G.A. Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qual. Res. J. 2009, 9, 27–40. [CrossRef]
32. Dinica, V. Governance for sustainable tourism: A comparison of international and Dutch visions. J. Sustain. Tour. 2009, 17, 583–603.
[CrossRef]
33. Glasson, J. Towards Visitor Impact Management: Visitor Impacts, Carrying Capacity and Management Responses in Europe’s Historic
Towns and Cities; Avebury: Aldershot, UK, 1995.
34. Hall, C.M. Changing paradigms and global change: From sustainable to steady-state tourism. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2010, 35, 131–143.
[CrossRef]
35. Hunter, C.; Shaw, J. The ecological footprint as a key indicator of sustainable tourism. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 46–57. [CrossRef]
36. Ioannides, D. Planning for international tourism in less developed countries: Toward sustainability? J. Plan. Lit. 1995, 9, 235–254.
[CrossRef]
37. Logar, I. Sustainable tourism management in Crikvenica, Croatia: An assessment of policy instruments. Tour. Manag. 2010,
31, 125–135. [CrossRef]
38. Martín-Cejas, R.R.; Sánchez, R. Ecological footprint analysis of road transport related to tourism activity: The case for Lanzarote
Island. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 98–103. [CrossRef]
39. Mycoo, M. Sustainable tourism using regulations, market mechanisms and green certification: A case study of Barbados. J. Sustain.
Tour. 2006, 14, 489–511. [CrossRef]
40. Soteriou, E.C.; Coccossis, H. Integrating sustainability into the strategic planning of national tourism organizations. J. Travel Res.
2010, 49, 191–205. [CrossRef]
41. Tosun, C. Challenges of sustainable tourism development in the developing world: The case of Turkey. Tour. Manag. 2001,
22, 289–303. [CrossRef]
42. Wall, G. International collaboration in the search for sustainable tourism in Bali, Indonesia. J. Sustain. Tour. 1993, 1, 38–47. [CrossRef]
43. Warnken, J.; Buckley, R. Scientific Quality of Tourism Environmental Impact Assessment. J. Appl. Ecol. 1998, 35, 1–8. [CrossRef]
44. Zubair, S.; Bowen, D.; Elwin, J. Not quite paradise: Inadequacies of environmental impact assessment in the Maldives. Tour.
Manag. 2001, 32, 225–234. [CrossRef]
45. Buckley, R. Tools and indicators for managing tourism in parks. Ann. Tour. Res. 1999, 1, 207–210. [CrossRef]
46. Lindberg, K.; McCool, S.; Stankey, G. Rethinking carrying capacity. Ann. Tour. Res. 1997, 24, 461–465. [CrossRef]
47. Shultis, J.; More, T. American and Canadian national park agency responses to declining visitation. J. Leis. Res. 2011, 43, 110–132.
[CrossRef]
48. Alpizar, F. The pricing of protected areas in nature-based tourism: A local perspective. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 56, 294–307. [CrossRef]
49. Barborak, J. Results of a comparative international review of public-private partnerships for tourism management in protected
areas. J. Sustain. Tour. 2011, 9, 95–110.
50. Chung, J.Y.; Kyle, G.T.; Petrick, J.F.; Absher, D.J. Fairness of prices, user fee policy and willingness to pay among visitors to a
national forest. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 1038–1046. [CrossRef]
51. Crompton, J.L. A theoretical framework for formulating non-controversial prices for public park and recreation services. J. Leis.
Res. 2011, 43, 1–29. [CrossRef]
52. Mmopelwa, G.; Kgathi, D.L.; Molefhe, L. Tourists’ perceptions and their willingness to pay for park fees: A case study of self-drive
tourists and clients for mobile tour operators in Moremi Game Reserve, Botswana. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 1044–1056. [CrossRef]
53. Peters, H.; Hawkins, J. Access to marine parks: A comparative study in willingness to pay. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2009, 52, 219–228.
[CrossRef]
54. Reynisdottir, M.; Song, H.; Agrusa, J. Willingness to pay entrance fees to natural attractions: An Icelandic case study. Tour. Manag.
2008, 29, 1076–1083. [CrossRef]
55. Thur, S.M. User fees as sustainable financing mechanisms for marine protected areas: An application to the Bonaire National
Marine Park. Mar. Policy 2010, 34, 63–69. [CrossRef]
56. Uyarra, M.C.; Cote, I.M.; Gill, J.A.; Tinch, R.R.; Viner, D.; Watkinson, A.R. Island-specific preferences of tourists for environmental
features: Implications of climate change for tourism-dependent states. Environ. Conserv. 2005, 32, 11–19. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3399 18 of 18

57. Kaltenborn, B.; Haaland, H.; Sandell, K. The public right of access–some challenges to sustainable tourism development in
Scandinavia. J. Sustain. Tour. 2001, 9, 417–433. [CrossRef]
58. McCool, S.F.; Moisey, R.N.; Nickerson, N. What should tourism sustain? The disconnect with industry perceptions of useful
indicators. J. Travel Res. 2001, 40, 124–131. [CrossRef]
59. Buckley, R. Evaluating the net effects of ecotourism on the environment: A framework, first assessment and future research.
J. Sustain. Tour. 2009, 17, 643–672. [CrossRef]
60. Eagles, F.; McCool, S.F.; Haynes, C.D. Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas: Guidelines for Planning and Management; IUCN: Gland,
Switzerland, 2002.
61. Ballantyne, R.; Packer, J.; Hughes, K. Tourists’ support for conservation messages and sustainable management practices in
wildlife tourism experiences. Tour. Manag. 2009, 30, 658–664. [CrossRef]
62. Ballantyne, R.; Packer, J.; Sutherland, L.A. Visitors’ memories of wildlife tourism: Implications for the design of powerful
interpretive experiences. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 770–779. [CrossRef]
63. Blangy, S.; Nielsen, T. Ecotourism and minimum impact policy. Ann. Tour. Res. 1993, 20, 357–360. [CrossRef]
64. Bramwell, B.; Lane, B. Sustainable tourism: An evolving global approach. J. Sustain. Tour. 1993, 1, 1–5. [CrossRef]
65. Coghlan, A.; Gooch, M. Applying a transformative learning framework to volunteer tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2011, 19, 713–728. [CrossRef]
66. Littlefair, C.; Buckley, R. Interpretation reduces ecological impacts of visitors to world heritage site. Ambio 2008, 37, 338–341.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
67. Boon, I.; Fluker, M.; Wilson, N. A ten-year study of the effectiveness of an educative programme in ensuring the ecological
sustainability of recreational activities in the Brisbane Ranges National Park, South-eastern Australia. J. Sustain. Tour. 2008,
16, 681–697. [CrossRef]
68. Balmford, A.; Beresford, J.; Green, J.; Naidoo, R.; Walpole, M.; Manica, A. A global perspective on trends in nature-based tourism.
PLoS Biol. 2009, 7, e1000144. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
69. Buckley, R. Parks and tourism. PLoS Biol. 2009, 7, e1000143. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
70. Buckley, R. Conservation Tourism; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2010.
71. Akyeampong, O.A. Pro-poor tourism: Residents’ expectations, experiences and perceptions in the Kakum National Park Area of
Ghana. J. Sustain. Tour. 2011, 19, 197–213. [CrossRef]
72. Jamal, T.; Stronza, A. Collaboration theory and tourism practice in protected areas: Stakeholders, structuring and sustainability.
J. Sustain. Tour. 2009, 17, 169–189. [CrossRef]
73. Meguro, T.; Inoue, M. Conservation goals betrayed by the uses of wildlife benefits in community-based conservation: The case of
Kimana Sanctuary in southern Kenya. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2011, 16, 30–44. [CrossRef]
74. Saarinen, J.; Becker, F.O.; Manwa, H.; Wilson, D. Sustainable Tourism in Southern Africa: Local Communities and Natural Resources in
Transition; Channel View Publications: Bristol, UK, 2009.
75. Stronza, A.; Durham, W.H. Ecotourism and Conservation in the Americas, 7; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2008.
76. Chancellor, C.; Norman, W.; Farmer, J.; Coe, E. Tourism organizations and land trusts: A sustainable approach to natural resource
conservation? J. Sustain. Tour. 2011, 19, 863–875. [CrossRef]
77. Bushell, R.; Eagles, F. Tourism and Protected Areas: Benefits Beyond Boundaries: The Vth IUCN World Parks Congress; CABI: Wallingford,
UK, 2006.
78. Svensson, P.; Rodwell, L.D.; Attrill, M.J. Privately managed marine reserves as a mechanism for the conservation of coral reef
ecosystems: A case study from Vietnam. Ambio 2009, 38, 72–78. [CrossRef]
79. Castellani, V.; Sala, S. Sustainable performance index for tourism policy development. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 871–880. [CrossRef]
80. Cheong, S.-M.; Miller, M.L. Power and tourism: A Foucauldian observation. Ann. Tour. Res. 2000, 27, 371–390. [CrossRef]
81. Ko, T.G. Development of a tourism sustainability assessment procedure: A conceptual approach. Tour. Manag. 2005, 26, 431–445.
[CrossRef]
82. Roberts, S.; Tribe, J. Sustainability indicators for small tourism enterprises—An exploratory perspective. J. Sustain. Tour. 2008,
16, 575–594. [CrossRef]
83. Tsaur, S.-H.; Lin, Y.-C.; Lin, J.-H. Evaluating ecotourism sustainability from the integrated perspective of resource, community
and tourism. Tour. Manag. 2006, 27, 640–653. [CrossRef]
84. Hughes, H.L. Culture and tourism: A framework for further analysis. Manag. Leis. 2002, 7, 164–175. [CrossRef]
85. Budeanu, A. Sustainable tourist behaviour–a discussion of opportunities for change. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2007, 31, 499–508. [CrossRef]
86. Dodds, R.; Graci, S.R.; Holmes, M. Does the tourist care? A comparison of tourists in Koh Phi Phi, Thailand and Gili Trawangan,
Indonesia. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010, 18, 207–222. [CrossRef]
87. Miller, G.; Rathouse, K.; Scarles, C.; Holmes, K.; Tribe, J. Public understanding of sustainable tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2010,
37, 627–645. [CrossRef]
88. Puczko, L.; Ratz, T. Tourist and resident perceptions of the physical impacts of tourism at Lake Balaton. Hungary: Issues for
sustainable tourism management. J. Sustain. Tour. 2000, 8, 458–478. [CrossRef]
89. Gössling, S. Global environmental consequences of tourism. Glob. Environ. Change 2002, 12, 283–302. [CrossRef]
90. Böhringer, C.; Jochem, E. Measuring the immeasurable—A survey of sustainability indices. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 63, 1–8. [CrossRef]
91. Labubun, N. Lively Elephants an Ethnography of Elephant-Based Ecotourism in Tangkahan, Indonesia. Master’s Thesis,
Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 27 August 2019.
 sustainability

Article
Examining the Economic Value of Tourism and Visitor
Preferences: A Portrait of Sustainability Ecotourism in the
Tangkahan Protection Area, Gunung Leuser National Park,
North Sumatra, Indonesia
Agus Purwoko 1, *, Dodik Ridho Nurrochmat 2 , Meti Ekayani 3 , Syamsu Rijal 4 and Herlina Leontin Garura 1

1 Faculty of Forestry, Universitas Sumatera Utara, Jl. Tri Dharma Ujung No.1 Kampus USU Medan,
Medan City 20155, North Sumatra, Indonesia; herlinaleontinn@gmail.com
2 Faculty of Forestry and Environment, IPB University, Jl. Lingkar Akademik IPB Dramaga Campus,
Bogor 16680, West Java, Indonesia; dnurrochmat@ipb.ac.id
3 Faculty of Economics and Management, IPB University, Jl. Agatis, IPB Dramaga Campus,
Bogor 16680, West Java, Indonesia; meti@ipb.ac.id
4 Faculty of Forestry, Universitas Hasanuddin, Jl. Perintis Kemerdekaan No. Km.10, Tamalanrea Indah,
Makassar 90245, South Sulawesi, Indonesia; jsyamsurijal@unhas.ac.id
* Correspondence: agus9@usu.ac.id; Tel.: +62-813-6051-3501

Abstract: North Sumatra Province has the Tangkahan Nature Tourism Area, which represents
ecotourism managed by local communities, established in 2001, which has now become the leading
Citation: Purwoko, A.; Nurrochmat, tourism destination of North Sumatra both locally and internationally. Tangkahan ecotourism is an
D.R.; Ekayani, M.; Rijal, S.; Garura, example of payment for environmental services for the Tangkahan community, which initially carried
H.L. Examining the Economic Value out illegal logging in the mount Leuseur national park and then agreed to preserve the national park
of Tourism and Visitor Preferences: A through ecotourism. This study aims to analyze the economic value of tourism and the preferences
Portrait of Sustainability Ecotourism of tourists to revisit, along with the factors that influence them, where these conditions can be an
in the Tangkahan Protection Area,
illustration of the sustainability of Tangkahan ecotourism. The travel cost method is used to calculate
Gunung Leuser National Park, North
the economic value of Tangkahan Ecotourism environmental services. The factors that affect the
Sumatra, Indonesia. Sustainability
economic value, intensity of visits, and interest in revisiting, were analyzed using multiple linear
2022, 14, 8272. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su14148272
regression. The results showed that Tangkahan ecotourism has a relatively high economic value,
supported by the intensity and interest of tourist visits. Factors that affect the economic value and
Academic Editors: Miklas Scholz,
preferences of tourist visits can be managed for the sustainability of Tangkahan ecotourism so as not
Mario A. Pagnotta, Panayiotis
to lose the economic value of the ecotourism environmental services.
Dimitrakopoulos and
Arshiya Noorani
Keywords: ecotourism; Tangkahan; economic value; intensity of visits; travel cost method; interest
Received: 7 June 2022 in revisiting
Accepted: 2 July 2022
Published: 6 July 2022

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

with regard to jurisdictional claims in
1. Introduction
published maps and institutional affil- Forest resources have various interests that should be considered optimally. These
iations. interests are fragmented into interests of the community, law enforcement, conservation
goals, and accelerated development [1]. Each region also faces the same challenges and is
characterized by abundant natural resources on land and water. These natural resources are
of interest and are included in the progress of a country, specifically the regions. Therefore,
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
various forms of productive and multi-purpose use should be identified, planned, and
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
developed. Varied use of forest resources is also important for conservation and resistance
This article is an open access article
to pests and climate shocks [2]. This includes tourism activities as a more sustainable use of
distributed under the terms and
forest services. Thus, it is hoped that nature can be a solution for the community’s economy
conditions of the Creative Commons
and the conservation of nature itself.
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
As the main stakeholder, communities around forests are important parties to pay
4.0/).
attention to in natural resource management. If the community obtains the benefits that can

Sustainability 2022, 14, 8272. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148272 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 8272 2 of 14

be felt, then various forms of participation can be developed [3]. If these conditions are met,
according to [4], local governments can encourage community participation in activities
such as trade, business exhibitions, various cultural festivals and museums, organizing
sports and art attractions, and investing in various types of businesses based on ecotourism.
Collaborative ecotourism management is also a demand in sustainable ecotourism man-
agement. The involvement of stakeholders both locally and internationally will have a
positive impact on their concern about how ecotourism destinations can be developed and
managed sustainably [5]. Participation and involvement of local communities as well as
the application of a responsible ecotourism model cannot be ignored, so that the goals of
sustainable ecotourism can be realized [3].
Indonesia, specifically North Sumatra Province, has Tangkahan Ecotourism managed
by local communities and has been around for a long time [6]. The area has become one
of the leading tourism destinations in the province, locally, nationally, and internationally.
This ecotourism was opened in 2001 and inaugurated in February 2004. The object is an
ecotourism area with excellent local community participation in nature conservation. These
nature tourism activists are precisely communities that previously relied heavily on the
economy of the forest in harmful ways, such as illegal logging and hunting. The presence
of ecotourism activities has become a solution for the community’s economy that is in line
with the principles of sustainability. Additionally, the region demonstrates how ecotourism
growth may significantly protect the 17,000-hectare Gunung Leuser National Park (GLNP)
area in North Sumatra [7].
The intangible benefits of forests cannot be assessed using a market system, and several
users are unaware of these benefits. There is still a lack of appreciation for environmental
benefits in the form of scenic beauty. Landscape beauty can be enjoyed and used by humans
through nature tourism [8]. Efforts should be made to develop the form and management
of its utilization to increase the value of the benefits. This study is necessary to ensure that
the planning for the development of Tangkahan Ecotourism in Gunung Leuser National
Park can be truly effective and provide significant benefits for the welfare of the community.
This is because, according to [4], the benefits to the surrounding community will greatly
affect the support of local communities for the development of sustainable tourism. These
benefits should include both material and non-material domains.
People believe that the development of ecotourism can produce significant economic
benefits for them [3]. The condition is that they must be able to play key roles both
in the decision-making process and in the formulation of the direction of ecotourism
management. For this reason, studies related to the economic benefits of Tangkahan
ecotourism management are important to prove how much these economic benefits are
manifested. Aspects that are also important to study are the characteristics and behavior
of visitors. Therefore, this study analyzes the economic value of nature tourism objects,
the intensity of visits, the tourist interest in revisiting, and the affecting factors in the
Tangkahan Ecotourism Area, Langkat Regency, North Sumatra, Indonesia. According
to [9], feedback from visitors is very helpful for ecotourism destination management
institutions to determine the priorities and directions of wisdom in the development of
tourist attractions. The importance of visitor returns is also related to competition and the
application of the principles of sustainable ecotourism management.

2. Materials and Methods

The study was conducted in Tangkahan Ecotourism, Namo Sialang and Sei Serdang
Villages, Batang Serangan Sub-district, Langkat Regency, North Sumatra Province, Indone-
sia (Figure 1).
Primary data were collected through questionnaires and field observations, while
secondary data were collected from various institutions, especially Tangkahan Ecotourism
managers. Quoted accidental sampling technique was used in collecting primary data [10].
Sustainability 14, 8272
2022, 14,
Sustainability 2022, x FOR PEER REVIEW 33of
of 14
15

Figure 1.1.Tangkahan
Figure Tangkahan Ecotourism
Ecotourism Location,
Location, Gunung
Gunung LeuserLeuser National
National Park,
Park, North North Indonesia
Sumatra, Sumatra,
Indonesia
0 00 (03°41′0″ N and
0 98°04′28.2″
00
(03 41 0 N and 98 04 28.2 E). E).

Secondary
Primary data data collected
were are through
collected the characteristics of visitors
questionnaires andobservations,
and field tourist attractions.
while
The characteristics of visitors include the number of visitors each year, the number of
secondary data were collected from various institutions, especially Tangkahan
inhabitants,
Ecotourism the area of origin,
managers. Quotedasaccidental
well as thesampling
number oftechnique
inhabitants
wasof used
the visitor’s home
in collecting
zone.
primaryThedata
characteristics
[10]. of tourist attractions include location, area, biological conditions,
tourism potential,
Secondary accessibility,
data and
collected are recreational
the facilities.
characteristics of visitors and tourist attractions. The
The number
characteristics ofofvisitors
samplesinclude
was determined by theofSlovin
the number formula,
visitors each referring
year, theto the number
number of
of visitor populations
inhabitants, the area ofoforigin,
Tangkahan Ecotourism.
as well The Slovin
as the number formulaof
of inhabitants according to [11–13]
the visitor’s home
is as follows:
zone. The characteristics of tourist attractions include location, area, biological conditions,
tourism potential, accessibility, and recreational N facilities.
n=
The number of samples was determined e)2 the Slovin formula, referring to the
1 + N (by
Description:
number of visitor populations of Tangkahan Ecotourism. The Slovin formula according
to=[11–13]
n number is of
as samples
follows:
N = number of population 𝑁
e = error tolerance (0, 1) 𝑛=
1 + 𝑁(𝑒)
Refers to the total population of 31,200 people/year according to Tangkahan Tourism
Description:
Institute. The sample taken was 99.68 (increased to 100 people). The Slovin formula in
n = number of
determining thesamples
sample for nature tourism was also used by [14] in Natsepa Beach, Maluku
N = number of population
Province; [15] in Carocok Painan Beach, West Sumatra Province; [16] in Ciwidey, West Java;
e = error
and tolerance
[17] in Gunung(0,Ciremai
1) National Park.
Refers to the total population of 31,200 people/year according to Tangkahan Tourism
2.1. Travel The
Institute. Costsample
Analysistaken was 99.68 (increased to 100 people). The Slovin formula in
A zonedthe
determining travel cost for
sample approach
naturecan be used
tourism wastoalso
estimate
used the economic
by [14] value of
in Natsepa eco-
Beach,
tourism [18–20]. The use of the travel cost method for the valuation of tourism
Maluku Province; [15] in Carocok Painan Beach, West Sumatra Province; [16] in Ciwidey, objects is
also used by [21] in Bozcaada (Turkey), [22] in
West Java; and [17] in Gunung Ciremai National Park.Valencia (Spain), and [23] in Taman Tasik
Cempaka (Malaysia). The stages in calculating the economic value of ecotourism [24–28]
are as follows:
Sustainability 2022, 14, 8272 4 of 14

2.1.1. Calculating the Number of Visitors from Each Origin Area (Zone) Based on
Interviews with Respondents

Zi = Pi ⇥ ÂY
Description:
Zi: Number of visitors zone i
Pi: Percentage of zone visits i
ÂY: Total visits

2.1.2. Determining the Average Travel Cost of the Total Travel Costs Incurred during Travel
or Recreational Activities

BPR = TR + KA + TK + LL
Description:
BPR: Average travel cost (IDR/person)
TR: Transportation cost (IDR/person)
KA: Consumption and accommodation cost during the trip (IDR/person)
TK: Ticket cost (IDR/person)
LL: Other costs (IDR/person)

2.1.3. Determining the Average Travel Cost of Zone i

 BPi
Xli =
Ni
Description:
Xli: Average travel cost of zone i
Bpi: Travel cost of the sample
Ni: Total population of zone i

2.1.4. Determining the Visit Rate per 1000 People in Zone i in One Year

 JPi
LKi = ⇥ 1000
 JPT
Description:
LKi: Visit rate of visitors in zone i
JPi: Number of visitors in zone i
JPT: Total population in zone i

2.1.5. Determining the Total Economic Value (NET), Obtained from the Following Formula

NET = Average Travel Cost ⇥ Average Number of Visitors

2.2. Analysis of Factors Affecting Economic Value, Intensity of Visits, and Tourist Interest
in Revisiting
To determine the socioeconomic factors that influence the intensity of travel visits,
multiple linear analysis is used. The multiple linear regression models used are:

Y1 = ↵0 + ↵1 X1 + ↵2 X2 + ↵3 X3 + ↵4 X4 + ↵5 X5 + ↵6 X6 + e

Y2 = 0 + 1 X1 + 2 X2 + 3 X3 + 4 X4 + 5 X5 + 6 X6 + 7 X7 + 8 Y1 +e
Y3 = 0 + 1 Y1 +e
Sustainability 2022, 14, 8272 5 of 14

Description:
Y1 = Travel Cost Value (individual)
Y2 = Intensity of visits (frequency of visits up to the time of the study)
Y3 = Tourist Interest in Revisiting
↵i , i , i = Regression coefficient of independent variable
X1 = Visitor Age
X2 = Education Level
X3 = Income Level
X4 = Distance from Object
X5 = Number of Members
X6 = Travel Time
X7 = Information Acquisition
In order to produce unbiased data, multiple regression analysis models are evaluated
by econometric evaluation with classical assumption tests. Multicollinearity, heteroscedas-
ticity, and autocorrelation tests were performed and met all assumptions. A Likert scale
approach is used to measure various ordinal variables with a range of 1–5 [29]. It is used to
measure visitors’ conditions, attitudes, and opinions. The most positive opinion and in line
with the theoretical assumptions are given a score of 5 (maximum), and the most negative
opinion is given a score of 1 (minimum). After the data are obtained from the Likert scale,
the validity and reliability tests are conducted to determine the validity and consistency of
the received data.

2.3. Overview of Study Location

Tangkahan is developed as an ecotourism area located on Gunung Leuser National
Park (GLNP) border. The area of the Tangkahan Ecotourism is ±103 hectares, which is
divided into village and forest with an area of 18,526 ha and 17,653 ha, respectively [30].
Tangkahan is at an altitude of 130–200 m above sea level. The area’s topography consists of
hilly areas with varying slopes (45–90 ). The Tangkahan area is located at the confluence of
the Buluh and Batang Serangan rivers. This area has unique natural formations, beautiful
landscapes, hot springs, waterfalls, caves, cliffs, high diversity of flora and fauna, and
tropical rain.

2.4. Socioeconomic Characteristics of Visitors

An overview of the profile of visitors who travel to Tangkahan Ecotourism is obtained
from the characteristics of respondents. The majority of visitors are domestic tourists from
the area with a distance of 1–4 h, such as Stabat, Binjai, Medan, and several areas in North
Sumatra. In certain seasons, it is also visited by many foreign tourists. The figures below
show the distribution of respondents based on the type of tourists and their origin area
(Figure 2). For the category of origin area, visitors consist of 20% and 80% of domestic and
foreign tourists.
The characteristics of the visitors observed include age, gender, education level, occu-
pation type, and income level. Visitors from the area are dominated by women (42% males
and 58% females). A similar result was reported by [31], where 57% of Tangkahan visitors
were female. This is because women prefer to spend recreational time with their friends.
More women engage in tourism activities for various purposes [32–34]. The domination of
women also occurs in families within the area. The average level of education of visitors is
quite good. Most visitors have at least 12 years of education. Most visitors have received
an education for at least 12 years. The majority of visitors’ education levels are senior high
school level (57%), 41% of visitors are undergraduate educated, and 2% have a master’s
degree. The occupation type of respondents is very diverse, with the largest proportion
being students (33%), followed by entrepreneurs (17%) and private employees (15%).
 Croatia,1%

Denpasar,2%
Bogor,2%

Sustainability 14,8272
2022,14,
Sustainability2022, x FOR PEER REVIEW Jakarta,8% 66 of
of 14
15
Medan,35%
Langsa,6%

Siantar,5%
Puerto Rico,3%
Lubuk Pakam,7%
Switzerland,6%
Stabat,10%
Netherlands,8%
Figure 2. Distribution of Tangkahan Ecotourism respondents based on the origin of visitors.
Binjai,5%
Germany,2%
The characteristics of the visitors observed include age, gender, education level,
Croatia,1%
occupation type, and income level. Visitors from the area are dominated by women (42%
Denpasar,2%
males and 58% females). A similar result was reported by [31], where 57% of Tangkahan
visitors wereBogor,2%
female. This is because women prefer to spend recreational time with their
friends. More women Jakarta,8% engage in tourism activities for various purposes [32–34]. The
domination of women Langsa,6%
also occurs in families within Medan,35% the area. The average level of
education of visitors is quite good. Most visitors have at least 12 years of education. Most
visitors have received anSiantar,5% education for at least 12 years. The majority of visitors’ education
levels are senior high school level Lubuk(57%),
Pakam,7%41% of visitors are undergraduate educated, and
2% have a master’s degree. The occupation type of respondents is very diverse, with the
largest
Figure 2.proportion
Figure 2. Distributionbeing
Distribution of students
of Tangkahan
Tangkahan (33%), followed
Ecotourism
Ecotourism respondents
respondents by based
entrepreneurs
basedon onthe
theorigin(17%)
origin and private
ofofvisitors.
visitors.
employees (15%).
The
The income
The income level of
characteristics
level of visitors
visitors varies from
of the visitors
varies from the lowest
observed
the lowest
includeto the
to the
age,highest
gender,
highest segment
education
segment (Figure
(Figure 3).
level,
3).
Theoretically,
occupation the
type, level
and of
income visitor income
level. Visitors will
fromaffect
the expenses
area are
Theoretically, the level of visitor income will affect expenses during tourist visits. The during
dominated tourist
by visits.
women The
(42%
allocation
males andof
allocation of
58%expenditures
females). Aincludes
expenditures transportation,
similar result
includes was reported
transportation, consumption,
by [31], where
consumption, accommodation,
57% of Tangkahan
accommodation, and
and
other
other costs.
visitors were
costs. Income
female.
Income is also
is also expected
This expected
is because towomen
to influence
influence the choice
prefer
the choice
to spend of tourism
of tourism objects
recreational
objects to be
time
to be visited.
with their
visited.
These
friends.
These data
data are consistent
More
are consistent
women engage with the
with the occupation
inoccupation type data,
tourism activities
type data, where
forwhere
variousmost
most visitors are
purposes
visitors are students.
[32–34]. The
students.
Students
domination do not
of have
women incomealso at that
occurs age,
in and are
families still supported
within the by
area.
Students do not have income at that age, and are still supported by their parents, including their
The parents,
average including
level of
budget
educationallocations
of visitors for istourism
quite
budget allocations for tourism purposes. purposes.
good. Most visitors have at least 12 years of education. Most
visitors have received an education for at least 12 years. The majority of visitors’ education
levels are senior high school level (57%), 41% of visitors are undergraduate educated, and
Visitors’
2% have a master’s incomeThe
degree. level
occupation type of respondents is very diverse, with the
40 largest proportion being students (33%), followed by entrepreneurs (17%) and private
Number of Visitors

30 employees (15%).
The income level of visitors varies from the lowest to the highest segment (Figure 3).
20
Theoretically, the level of visitor income will affect expenses during tourist visits. The
10 allocation of expenditures includes transportation, consumption, accommodation, and
0 other costs. Income is also expected to influence the choice of tourism objects to be visited.
≤ 500,000 500,000 – 2,000,000 – 3,500,000 – 5,000,000 – ≥ 7,500,000
These data2,000,000
are consistent with the occupation
3,500,000 5,000,000 type7,500,000
data, where most visitors are students.
Students do not have income at that age, and are still supported by their parents, including
Income (IDR)
budget allocations for tourism purposes.

Figure
Figure 3.
3. Graphic
Graphic of
of visitors’
visitors’ income
income level.
level.
Visitors’ income level
40 3. Results and Discussion
Number of Visitors

3.1. Valuation of Economic Value of Tangkahan Ecotourism

30
Calculating the value of the intangible benefits of a recreation area can be done
20
through the approach of the travel cost method. Furthermore, the total value included in
10 the travel cost is the round trip cost plus the monetary value of the time spent on travel and
0 recreational activities [35]. This method is widely used in various nature-based tourism
≤ 500,000 500,000 – 2,000,000 – 3,500,000 – 5,000,000 – ≥ 7,500,000
objects such2,000,000
as Lake Limboto [36], Kalibiru
3,500,000
[37], Parangtritis
5,000,000 7,500,000
[38], Muara Angke [39], Batu
Karas Beach, Pangandaran [40], Punti Kayu, Palembang [41,42], Thousand Islands [43],
Income (IDR)
Ujung Genteng, Sukabumi [44], and others. The economic assessment of the Tangkahan
Ecotourism area collected includes information about the origin of visitors, the cost of
round-trip visitoroftravel,
Figure 3. Graphic consumption
visitors’ income level.costs during tourist visits, ticket fees for entrance to
tourist objects, and other costs that must be paid (documentation, parking, storage, guides,
supporting equipment, and documentation fees).
Table 1 shows the highest average travel cost value comes from Zagreb at IDR
14,600,000/visit, while the lowest comes from Stabat as the origin area of visitors closest to
Sustainability 2022, 14, 8272 7 of 14

this tourism object at IDR 52,700/visit. The average travel costs that should be incurred
from all visitors and all origin areas/countries of visitors is IDR 4,181,786/visit/person.

Table 1. Recapitulation of visitor data based on average travel cost.

� � � �
x Transportation x Consumption Ticket Cost x Other Cost x Travel Cost
No Visitor Origin
Cost (IDR) Cost (IDR) (IDR) (IDR) (IDR)
1 Stabat 21,000 22,900 3000 5800 52,700
2 Binjai 38,000 28,000 3000 9000 78,000
3 Medan 56,971 31,343 5343 8257 101,914
4 Lubuk Pakam 42,857 58,857 3000 10,000 114,714
5 Siantar 51,000 49,000 3000 8800 111,800
6 Langsa 83,333 20,833 3000 7500 114,667
8 Jakarta 2,193,750 48,750 26,875 174,625 2,444,000
9 Bogor 3,000,000 200,000 100,000 250,000 3,550,000
10 Denpasar 3,494,000 80,000 100,000 107,500 3,781,500
11 Croatia 12,400,000 450,000 250,000 1,500,000 14,600,000
12 Germany 9,300,000 175,000 250,000 1,250,000 10,975,000
13 Netherlands 7,756,250 302,500 250,000 1,243,750 9,552,500
14 Switzerland 8,086,666 326,666 250,000 526,666 9,190,000
15 Puerto Rico 7,460,000 200,000 250,000 150,000 8,060,000
Average after weighting each origin cluster of visitors 4,181,786

The costs incurred by respondents, according to the results of data recapitulation, in

carrying out tourist activities (based on total travel costs), obtaining the economic value of
the existence of Tangkahan Ecotourism, were IDR 72,708,168,000, -/year (equivalent to US
$505,514.6). This value is obtained from the multiplication between the average value of
visitor travel costs (IDR 4,181,786/visit) and the average number of tourist visits in 1 year.
The average number of annual visits (31,200 people/year) was taken from data for the
last three years from 2016 to 2018, based on data retrieved from the Tangkahan Tourism
Institute in 2019.
The average travel cost of IDR 4,181,786 per visit is already high because Tangkahan
is an ecotourism special interest tourism. Therefore, it selects visitors and attracts special
groups of interested people willing to pay more to enjoy the specificity of a nature tourism
area. In Bozkaada, Turkey, the economic value is TL 21,795,492.32 [21], and the travel
cost value per person is TL 4.80 per travel or TL 110 per season [15]. Furthermore, the
economic value of tourism in Kaziranga National Park is INR 773.45 million (INR 187.6 per
visitor) [45]. Malaysia has a net economic value of MYR 6.2/visit/person [23].
This economic value is far greater than the revenue obtained from receiving an entrance
ticket of IDR 3000/visit. The total revenue obtained by the manager from ticket sales is only
IDR 71,814,000/year. This illustrates that the economic value of natural resources is from
direct revenue and all benefits received by all parties related to the management/utilization
of these natural resources. Therefore, this study uses a total travel cost approach to calculate
the entire value received by the parties involved in Tangkahan Ecotourism.
In addition to material benefits, the existence of ecotourism also contributes to the
welfare of communities around the forest in a non-material form. The important determi-
nants of the quality of human life include the material and non-material domains [4]. The
economic benefits of the existence of Tangkahan Ecotourism have an impact on material
aspects, while changes in socio-cultural aspects such as increasing respect for the environ-
ment, strengthening community institutions in ecosystem management, changes in lifestyle
and livelihoods, lack of potential disaster threats, and a sense of security are positive
non-material impacts. These non-material benefits are inseparable from the development
of Tangkahan Ecotourism as a form of active involvement of communities around national
parks in managing forest ecosystems. Related to the above, as a result, [46] reported that
the participating community in the development of Tangkahan Ecotourism has made a
major contribution to the conservation of the Gunung Leuser National Park area. For more
Sustainability 2022, 14, 8272 8 of 14

than 20 years the Tangkahan Ecotourism area has been running under the auspices of an
institution, namely the Tangkahan Tourism Institute (LPT) [11].

3.2. Factors Affecting Economic Value

An econometric evaluation with classical assumption tests, including multicollinearity,
heteroscedasticity, and autocorrelation tests, was conducted before the regression analysis.
The multicollinearity test results show that the VIF value is less than 10, and the tolerance
is less than 1 for all study variables. Based on the results of the multicollinearity test, the
value of Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) was less than 10, and the value of Tolerance was
less than 1 for all variables studied, so it was concluded that there was no multicollinearity
in the regression. The heteroscedasticity test using graphical aids also shows an even
distribution of points above and below the value 0. The autocorrelation test using the
Durban Watson Test showed a DW value close to a value of 2. In general, the test results
stated that there was no violation of assumptions so it was feasible to proceed to the next
stage of testing [47–49].
Based on Tables 2 and 3, the regression equation obtained is Y1 = 8.295 + 0.192X1
1.924X2 + 1.518X3 + 1.980X4 0.733X5 + 2.203X6 . From the evaluation results of the test
model, age, education, income, distance, number of members, and travel time significantly
affect individual visitors’ travel costs with a coefficient of 57.1%. The factors that partially
have a significant effect on the economic value of the Tangkahan Ecotourism area are
education, income, distance of objects from the origin of visitors, and the travel time of
visitors to reach tourist sites.

Table 2. Simultaneous test results (F-test) for travel expenses value.

Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 324.812 6 54.135 38.260 0.000 b
1 Residual 131.589 93 1.415
Total 456.402 99
Dependent variable: the value of travel expenses; b Predictors: (constant), visitor age, education level, income
level, distance from area, number of members, length of travel, and acquisition of information.

Table 3. Partial test results (t-test) for travel expenses value.

Variable B Std. Error Beta T Sig.

(Constant) 8.295 1.011 8.208 0.000
Age 0.192 0.223 0.051 0.860 0.392
Education 1.924 0.875 0.160 2.199 0.030
Income 1.518 0.243 0.491 6.240 0.000
Distance 1.980 0.743 0.275 2.666 0.009
Number of
0.733 0.562 0.077 1.305 0.195
Members
Travel Time 2.203 0.760 0.309 2.899 0.005
R Adjusted 0.844
R2 0.712

Education has a positive effect with a negative coefficient on the travel cost. Therefore,
visitors with higher levels of education spend less on travel costs. This is not consistent
with the theoretical assumption that groups with higher education should be willing to
spend more [50,51]. Based on field observations, the lower travel cost of the more educated
group is due to their better ability to organize visits and reduce travel costs individually.
These efforts include using more mass transportation facilities, more planned management
of visit activities, and better access to information technology. Therefore, transactions can
be conducted more efficiently through online-based ordering and transaction services.
Income has a significant and positive effect on travel costs. This is consistent with
the theoretical assumption that higher-income visitors will spend more to enjoy nature
Sustainability 2022, 14, 8272 9 of 14

tourism areas, as reported by [52] in Kodagu District, India, [53] concerning Nature-Based
Tourism (NBT), and [54] in Kalam Valley of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Distance and
travel time are synchronous factors, where the distance is directly proportional to the travel
time from the visitor’s origin to the location of a tourism site. These two variables have
a significant and positive effect; therefore, the distance and the travel time are directly
proportional. Visitors need to spend more to enjoy Tangkahan nature tourism areas [55].

3.3. Factors Affecting Intensity of Visits

According to descriptive statistical data, tourists visited Tangkahan 1.6 times on
average. This illustrates that many visitors repeat visits to Tangkahan tourism areas due to
the good impression obtained from various aspects. The intensity of visits to Tangkahan is
low/moderate/high compared to other tourism areas studied.
The intensity of tourist visits in Tangkahan illustrates that there are still demands
to improve the impression of visitors by increasing aspects that significantly affect the
intensity of tourists. Improving service quality through important elements is expected to
be more effective [56–59].
Table 4 explains that the F-count value is greater than the F-table. Therefore, the
independent variable simultaneously has a significant effect on the dependent variable
(intensity of tourist visits). This shows that travel cost, age, education level, income,
distance from residence to tourism objects, number of members in the group, travel time to
be taken, and the acquisition of information related to tourism sites affect the intensity of
visiting Tangkahan nature locations. The high coefficient of determination in this regression
model (93.2%) indicates that the eight variables above can simultaneously explain almost
all changes/variations in the intensity of visits.

Table 4. Simultaneous test results (F-test) for visit intensity.

Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 14.489 8 1.811 17.440 0.000 b
1 Residual 9.450 91 0.104
Total 23.940 99
Dependent variable: intensity of visits; b Predictors: (constant), information, number of members, education, age,
travel time, income, distance, travel cost.

The F-test has not shown which independent variables directly and significantly affect
the dependent variable (intensity of visits). Therefore, it is continued with multiple linear
regression analysis to determine which variables significantly affect the dependent. Based
on Table 5, the regression equation obtained is Y2 = 1.570 + 0.072X1 0.140X2 + 0.415X3
0.185X4 1.457X5 0.244X6 0.026X7 0.066X8 .

Table 5. Partial test results (t-test) for visit intensity.

Variable B Std. Error Beta T Sig.

(Constant) 1.570 0.361 4.352 0.000
Travel Cost 0.072 0.029 0.315 2.475 0.015
Age 0.140 0.064 0.162 2.194 0.031
Education 0.415 0.244 0.151 1.705 0.092
Income 0.185 0.079 0.262 2.357 0.021
Distance 1.457 0.209 0.882 6.953 0.000
Number of
0.244 0.154 0.111 1.587 0.116
Members
Travel Time 0.026 0.216 0.016 0.120 0.904
Information 0.006 0.069 0.006 0.087 0.931
R Adjusted 0.778
R2 0.605
Sustainability 2022, 14, 8272 10 of 14

Simultaneously, these predictor variables have a significant effect on the intensity

variables of visits. These independent variables significantly affect the dependent (intensity
of visits). However, the partial test shows that not all independent variables affect the
intensity of visits. The test results showed that of the seven socioeconomic variables
observed in this study, there were only two variables that had a significant effect (using
↵ = 0.05) on the intensity of tourist visits to the Tangkahan Ecowista area. The two variables
are the distance and the number of members with a negative sign. It shows that visits
will increase as the distance decreases and the number of members decreases. Distance
is very influential in the selection of tourism objects. Another study stated that 4 out of
10 independent variables tested directly affected tourist revisits, such as safety and security,
description of destinations, infrastructure, and price [60].
This study found that the farther the tourism site from the residence, the less intense
the tourist visits. Visitors prefer tourist destinations that are closer to their homes [40],
indicating distance significantly affects tourist visits, specifically costs and benefits [61–63].
People closer to tourism areas are more supportive of tourism activities than those far away.
The distance factor is often a barrier to tourist visits to nature tourism areas; therefore, it
is necessary to support adequate regional transportation infrastructure to minimize the
distance factor with good access quality to shorten travel time.
The greater the number of members in the visiting group, the less the intensity of visits
to Tangkahan. This shows the tendency of tourists to enjoy visits with fewer members.
The major attractions of nature tourism are rivers and landscapes; thus, people prefer
to experience them in smaller groups. Therefore, it is necessary to have facilities and
tourism object designs that support small and personal group-based activities to enjoy their
privacy more.
The other five variables, such as travel cost, age, education, income, travel time, and
information acquisition, have no significant effect (using ↵ = 0.05) on the intensity of tourist
visits. In general, traveling can be conducted on weekends and national holidays. For
foreign tourists, visits are made during seasonal holidays. During that period most people
will plan trips to tourist attractions that present recreational attractions. The factors of
per-street cost, age, education, income, length of travel, and acquisition of information tend
not to be significant considerations for tourists, so that it has a negligible influence on the
intensity of tourist visits.

3.4. Tourist Interest in Revisiting

The average score of interest in revisiting the Tangkahan Ecotourism area is 4.21 (on a
scale of 5). This total score is in the very high category (slightly past the very high-class
limit); therefore, most tourists express interest in revisiting. This answer does not depend
on the intensity of visits to describe the visitors’ impression of the area. The interest in
revisiting is increases when it is close to a score of 5 (total score of 500), where all visitors are
willing to come back for a tour according to Pareto terms. The interest score in revisiting by
4.21 is very high compared to other tourism attractions. According to [64], there is a total of
2948 people willing to revisit the Ciwangun Indah Camp. In Banyuwangi, the Effectiveness
of Tourism Destination Advertisements on Interest in Revisiting had a score of 3.66 [65].
This study shows that satisfaction is a factor that has a direct significant influence
on short-term return visit intentions, while the novelty of tourist attractions is a factor
that has a significant effect on medium- to long-term return visit intentions [66]. In the
United Arab Emirates, satisfaction affects the interest in revisiting [67]. The impressions
of visitors which are positive but have not reached the highest score illustrate that even
though Tangkahan nature tourism areas are quite attractive to visitors, some aspects of
service need to be addressed. Improvements carried out effectively are expected to increase
the average score of the interest in revisiting to close to 5. The aspects developed should be
prioritized to affect the interest/willingness/intention to revisit significantly.
A simple model of estimating the tourist interest in revisiting (Y3 ) is obtained by using
travel cost (Y1 ) as the independent variable (Table 6). The regression analysis results show
Sustainability 2022, 14, 8272 11 of 14

that travel cost significantly affects the tourist interest in revisiting (Table 7). However, this
regression model is simple, with a sufficient coefficient of determination at 43%. This also
tends to be different from the theoretical assumption that the cost is a factor inhibiting
tourist interest in revisiting. Empirically, this is possible because Tangkahan natural tourism
is a special interest tourism, so the cost factor tends to be in elastic. The average travel cost
to enjoy this tourist area is relatively low; hence, it has not been considered a factor that
becomes a negative factor for visiting. However, it is still necessary to conduct a special
study to explain this matter further.

Table 6. F-test results for tourist interest in revisiting.

Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 0.156 1 0.156 5.400 0.022 b
1 Residual 2.835 98 0.029
Total 2.991 99
Dependent variable: interest in revisiting; b Predictors: (constant), travel cost.

Table 7. Linear regression results for tourist interest in revisiting.

Variable B Std. Error Beta T Sig.

(Constant) 2.288 0.102 22.406 0.000
Travel Cost 0.019 0.008 0.229 2.324 0.022
R Adjusted 0.229
R2 0.052

4. Conclusions
The economic value of the Tangkahan Ecotourism area with the zoned travel cost
method is IDR 72,708,168,000/year. On average, tourists have visited Tangkahan 1.6 times.
Simultaneously, the factors of age, education, income level, distance, number of members,
and travel time significantly affect the value of the individual travel costs of visitors,
with a regression model Y1 = 8.295 + 0.192X1 1.924X2 + 1.518X3 + 1.980X4 0.733X5 +
2.203X6 . Education, income, distance, and travel time partially affect the economic value.
This is a reference for the right promotional segmentation policy in order to increase the
economic value of the existence of Tangkahan Ecotourism. The tourist interest in revisiting
Tangkahan nature tourism objects is very high (score 4.21). Generally, travel cost, age,
education level, income level, distance, number of members, travel time, and information
acquisition significantly affect the intensity of visits with regression model Y2 = 5.975 +
1.040 ⇥ 10 8 X1 0.097X2 + 0.267X3 + 0.121X4 0.723X5 0.515X6 0.116X7 0.190X8 .
Distance, number of members, and travel cost significantly affect the intensity of tourist
visits to the Tangkahan Ecotourism area. Ecotourism managers must improve accessibility
infrastructure, increase comfort for visitors with large groups, and minimize travel costs to
increase tourist interest in visiting again. Socio-cultural variables and visitors’ assessment
of ecotourism sustainability aspect are recommended to be involved in the next research.

Author Contributions: Drafting concepts, A.P. and D.R.N.; data analysis, A.P., D.R.N. and H.L.G.;
format adjustment, H.L.G.; fund-raising, A.P.; clarification of data, A.P., M.E. and H.L.G.; method
design, A.P.; field equipment, H.L.G.; software, S.R.; supervision, S.R. and M.E.; visual display, A.P.
and H.L.G.; writing and editing drafts, A.P. and H.L.G. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This study received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Decla-
ration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of Universitas Sumatera Utara (No.
396/KEPK/USU/2022, date of approval 22 April 2022).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 8272 12 of 14

Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the Universitas Sumatera Utara for funding
this research. We also extend our gratitude to The Manager of Gunung Leuser National Park (TNGL)
and the Tangkahan Tourism Institute (LPT) for access, data, and explanations in the field. We also
express our gratitude to visitors to Tangkahan Ecotourism for their willingness to be respondents.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Fisher, M.R.; Dhiaulhaqi, A.; Sahide, M.A.K. The politics, economies, and ecologies of Indonesia’s third generation of social
forestry: An introduction to the special section. For. Soc. 2019, 3, 152–170. [CrossRef]
2. Affandi, O.; Zaitunah, A.; Batubara, R. Potential Economic and Development Prospects of Non-Timber Forest Products in
Community Agroforestry Land around Sibolangit Tourism Park. For. Soc. 2017, 1, 68–77. [CrossRef]
3. Chan, J.K.L.; Marzuki, K.M.; Mohtar, T.M. Local Community Participation and Responsible Tourism Practices in Ecotourism
Destination: A Case of Lower Kinabatangan, Sabah. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13302. [CrossRef]
4. Eslami, S.; Khalifah, K.; Mardani, A.; Streimikiene, D.; Han, H. Community attachment, tourism impacts, quality of life and
residents’ support for sustainable tourism development. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2019, 36, 1061–1079. [CrossRef]
5. Roxas, F.M.Y.; Rivera, J.P.R.; Gutierrez, E.L.M. Mapping stakeholders’ roles in governing sustainable tourism destinations. J. Hosp.
Tour. Manag. 2020, 45, 387–398. [CrossRef]
6. Rachmawati, E.; Joanna, F. Role of External Stakeholders in Tourism Development and Community Empowerment. For. Soc.
2017, 1, 25. [CrossRef]
7. Yusnikusumah, T.R.; Sulystiawati, E. Evaluation of Ecotourism Management in Tangkahan Ecotourism Area of Gunung Leuser
National Park, North Sumatra. J. Reg. City Plan 2016, 27, 173–189.
8. Hayati, N.; Wakka, A.K. Valuasi Ekonomi Manfaat Air Di Taman Nasional Bantimurung Bulusaraung, Sulawesi Selatan. J. Penelit.
Sos. Dan Ekon. Kehutan. 2016, 13, 47–61. [CrossRef]
9. Ponte, J.; Couto, G.; Pimentel, P.; Sousa, A.; Oliveira, A. Tourism planning in the Azores and feedback from visitors. Tour. Manag.
Stud. 2021, 17, 7–15. [CrossRef]
10. Ernawan, F.N.; Harini, R. Economic valuation of Blue Lagoon Tourism Village Widodomartani Sleman. E3S Web Conf. 2020,
200, 03003. [CrossRef]
11. Tejada, J.J.; Joyce, R.B.P. On the Misuse of Slovin’s Formula. Philipp. Stat. 2012, 61, 129–136.
12. Ellen, S. Slovin’s Formula Sampling Techniques. 2012. Available online: http://www.ehow.com/way_5475547_slovins-formula-
sampling-techniques.html (accessed on 3 May 2020).
13. Sugiyono, D. Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif dan R&D; Penerbit Alfabeta: Bandung, Indonesia, 2017.
14. Sulistio, T.D.; Fitriana, R.; Melisa, L. The Influence of Words of Mouth and Sapta Pesona on the Decision to Visit Natsepa Beach.
Enrich. J. Manag. 2021, 11, 334–337.
15. Salfadri; Hadya, R. Determining Factors for Tourists Visiting Carocok Painan Beach. Int. J. Multi Sci. 2020, 1, 67–81.
16. Rahmafitria, F.; Nurazizah, G.R. Community Based Tourism: A Correlation Between Knowledge and Participation in Mountain
Based Destination. In Proceedings of the 1st UPI International Conference on Sociology Education (UPI ICSE 2015), Bandung,
Indonesia, 12 October 2015.
17. Syamsudina, T.; Kosmaryandi, N.; Nopiansyah, F. Evaluation of Natural Tourism Objects Potential in Nature Tourism Resort
Kuningan National Park Management Section I Gunung Ciremai National Park. Int. J. Sci. Basic Appl. Res. (IJSBAR) 2020, 50,
44–54.
18. Das, S. Travel Cost Method For Environmental Valuation. Center of Excellence in Environmental Economics. Madras Sch. Econ.
Chennai 2013, 600, 025.
19. Brown, G., Jr.; Mendelsohn, R. The hedonic travel cost method. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1984, 66, 427–433. [CrossRef]
20. Lamtrakul, P.; Teknomo, K.; Hokao, K. Public Park Valuation Using Travel Cost Method. Proc. East. Asia Soc. Transp. Stud. 2005, 5,
1249–1264.
21. Çay, R.D.; Taşli, T.C. Determination of Recreation and Tourism Use Value of Bozcaada by Travel Cost Analysis Methods. Pol.
J. Environ. Stud. 2021, 30, 35–45. [CrossRef]
22. Gimenez, F.V.; Mas, C.V. The Valuation of Recreational Use of Wetlands and the Impact of the Economic Crisis. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health 2020, 17, 3228. [CrossRef]
23. Othman, J.; Jafari, Y. Economic Valuation of an Urban Lake Recreational Park: Case of Taman Tasik Cempaka in Bandar Baru
Bangi, Malaysia. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3023. [CrossRef]
24. Douglas, A.J.; Taylor, J.G. A New Model for The Travel Cost Method: The Total Expenses Approach. Environ. Model Softw. 1999,
14, 81–92. [CrossRef]
25. Sulistiyono, N. Pemanfaatan Jasa Lingkungan Hutan sebagai Kawasan Ekotourisme; USU e-Repository: Medan, Indonesia, 2008.
26. Mayor, K.; Scott, S.; Tol, R.S.J. Comparing the travel cost method and the contingent valuation method—An application of
convergent validity theory to the recreational value of Irish forests. In ESRI Working Papers No 190; Environmental Economics;
Institute for Environmental Studies: Daejeon, Korea, 2014.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 8272 13 of 14

27. Latinopoulos, D. The impact of economic recession on outdoor recreation demand: An application of the travel cost method in
Greece. J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 2014, 57, 254–272. [CrossRef]
28. Ezebilo, E.E. Economic value of a non-market ecosystem service: An application of the travel cost method to nature recreation in
Sweden. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2016, 12, 314–327. [CrossRef]
29. Croasmun, J.T.; Lee, O. Using Likert-Type Scales in the Social Sciences. J. Adult Educ. 2011, 40, 19–22.
30. Lembaga Pariwisata Tangkahan. Database Lembaga Pariwisata Tangkahan: Annual Report of Tangkahan Tourism Institute. Stabat;
Tangkahan Tourist Institute: Tangkahan, Indonesia, 2019.
31. Nasution, H.R.; Herwanti, S.; Febryano, I.G.; Winarno, G.J. Characteristics of Business Actors and Visitors in the Tangkahan
Ecotourism Area during The COVID-19 Pandemic. Gorontalo J. For. Res. 2021, 4, 61–71. [CrossRef]
32. McGuckin, N.; Murakami, E. Examining Trip-Chaining Behavior: Comparison of Travel by Men and Women. Transp. Res. Rec.
J. Transp. Res. Board 1999, 1693, 79–85. [CrossRef]
33. Collins, D.; Tisdell, C. Gender and Differences in Travel Life Cycles. J. Travel Res. 2002, 41, 133–143. [CrossRef]
34. Hasan, R.; Shaw, C.; Russell, M.; Keall, M.; Wild, M.; Woodward, A.; MacBride-Stewart, S. How do Female Patterns of Utility
Cycling, and Travel More Generally, Differ From Men? Cross Sectional Survey in New Zealand. J. Transp. Health 2020, 14, 100635.
[CrossRef]
35. Suzana, B.O.L.; Timban, J.; Kaunang, R.; Ahmad, F. Economic Valuation of Mangrove Forest Resources in Palaes Village, West
Likupang Subdistrict, North Minahasa Regency. Agri-Sosioekonomi 2011, 7, 9–38. [CrossRef]
36. Noho, Y.; Wijaya, R.; Anugrah, K. Economic Value Analysis of Ecotourism Development of Lake Limboto Area Using Travel Cost
Method Approach. J. Ilmu Pendidik. Nonform. 2020, 6, 1–8. [CrossRef]
37. Arsalan, A.; Gravitiani, E.; Irianto, H. Valuasi Ekonomi Ekowisata Kalibiru dengan Individual Travel Cost Method. In National
Seminar on Biology Education; Sebelas Maret University: Surakarta, Indonesia, 2018; pp. 110–118. ISBN 978-602-61265-2-8.
38. Khoirudin, R.; Khasanah, U. Valuasi Ekonomi Objek Wisata Pantai Parangtritis, Bantul Yogyakarta Economic Valuation of
Parangtritis Beach, Bantul Yogyakarta Pendahuluan. J. Ekon. Dan Pembang. Indones. 2018, 18, 152–166. [CrossRef]
39. Mahardhika, S.M.; Saputra, S.W.; Ain, C. Economic Valuation of Fisheries Resources and Mangrove Ecotourism in Muara Angke,
Jakarta. J. Maquares 2018, 7, 458–464.
40. Zulpikar, F.; Prasetiyo, D.E.; Shelvatis, T.V.; Komara, K.K.; Pramudawardhani, M. Economic Valuation of Environmental Service-
Based Tourism Object in Batu Karas Beach-Pangandaran Using The Travel Cost Method. J. Reg. Rural Dev. Plan. 2017, 1,
53–63.
41. Subardin, M.; Yusuf, M.K. Valuasi Ekonomi Menggunakan Metode Travel Cost pada Taman Wisata Alam Punti Kayu Palembang.
J. Ekon. Pembang. 2011, 9, 81–89.
42. Premono, B.T.; Kunarso, A. Economic Valuation on Punti Kayu Recreation Park Palembang. J. Penelit. Hutan Dan Knservasi Alam
2010, 7, 13–23. [CrossRef]
43. Marjuka, M.Y. Econometric Valuation with Travel Cost Method on The Ecotourism Objects of Small Islands (Case of Kepulauan
Seribu). Bina Ekonomi 2007, 11, 80–100. [CrossRef]
44. Aryanto, R.; Mardjuka, M.Y. Valuasi Ekonomi Dengan Travel Cost Method pada Obyek Ekowisata Pesisir (Kasus Kawasan Ujung
Genteng, Sukabumi). J. Ilm. Pariwisata 2005, 10, 58–76.
45. Bharali, A.; Mazumder, R. Application of Travel Cost Method to Assess The Pricing Policy of Public Parks: The Case of Kaziranga
National Park. J. Reg. Dev. Plan. 2012, 1, 44–52.
46. Anggraini, R.I.; Budhi, G. Ecotourism Development in National Parks: A New Paradigm of Forest Management in Indonesia.
E3S Web Conf. 2021, 249, 03010. [CrossRef]
47. Qudratullah, M.F. Analisis Regresi Terapan: Teori, Contoh Kasus, dan Aplikasi Dengan SPSS; Penerbit Andi: Yogyakarta, Indone-
sia, 2012.
48. Hamid, M.; Sufi, I.; Konadi, W.; Akmal, Y. Analisis Jalur Dan Aplikasi Spss Versi 25, 1st ed.; Sefa Bumi Persada: Lhokseumawe,
Indonesia, 2019.
49. Ghozali, I. Aplikasi Analisis Multivariate Dengan Program SPSS; Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro: Semarang, Indonesia, 2011.
50. Rivas, J.C.; Sánchez, R.M. Willingness to Pay for More Sustainable Tourism Destinations in World Heritage Cities: The Case of
Caceres, Spain. Sustainability 2020, 11, 5880. [CrossRef]
51. Cai, Y.; Jin, L.; Du, B. Effects on Willingness to Pay for Marine Conservation: Evidence from Zhejiang Province, China. Sustainability
2018, 10, 2298. [CrossRef]
52. Sardana, K. Tourists’ Willingness to Pay for Restoration of Traditional Agro-forest Ecosystems Providing Biodiversity: Evidence
from India. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 159, 362–372. [CrossRef]
53. McCreary, A.; Fatoric, S.; Seekamp, E.; Smith, J.W.; Kanazawa, M.; Davenport, M.A. The Influences of Place Meanings and Risk
Perceptions on Visitors’ Willingness to Pay for Climate Change Adaptation Planning in a Nature-Based Tourism Destination.
J. Park Recreat. Adm. 2018, 36, 121–140. [CrossRef]
54. Sanaullah, F.; Rabbi, S.A.; Khan, Z.; Zamin, M. Visitors’ Willingness to Pay for Conservation of the Biodiversity and Tourism in
Kalam Valley of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Sarhad J. Agric. 2020, 36, 81–94. [CrossRef]
55. Xuea, L.; Zhang, Y. The effect of distance on tourist behavior: A study based on social media data. Ann. Tour. Res. 2020, 82, 102916.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 8272 14 of 14

56. Narayan, B.; Rajendran, C.; Sai, L.P.; Gopalan, R. Dimensions of service quality in tourism—An Indian perspective. Total Qual.
Manag. 2009, 20, 61–89. [CrossRef]
57. Haghkhah, A.; Nosratpour, M.; Ebrahimpour, A.; Hamid, A.B.A. The impact of service quality on tourism industry. In Proceedings
of the 2nd International Conference on Business and Economic Research Proceeding, Langkawi, Malaysia, 14–16 March 2011.
58. Ţîţu, M.A.; R´ulea, A.S.; Ţîţu, Ş. Measuring service quality in tourism industry. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 221, 294–301.
[CrossRef]
59. Kachwala, T.; Bhadra, A.; Bali, A.; Dasgupta, C. Measuring customer satisfaction and service quality in tourism industry. SMART
J. Bus. Manag. Stud. 2018, 14, 42–48. [CrossRef]
60. Ngoc, K.M.; Nguyen, T.T. Factors Affecting Tourists’ Return Intention towards Vung Tau City, Vietnam-A Mediation Analysis of
Destination Satisfaction. J. Adv. Manag. Sci. 2015, 3, 292–298. [CrossRef]
61. Soukotta, L.M.; Willem, T.; Eygner, G.T. Relationship of Marketing Mix Factors and Interest in Returning to Lubang Buaya Beach
Tourism. In Proceedings of the National Seminar on Marine and Fisheries, Nusaniwe, Indonesia, 18–19 December 2019; Faculty
of Fisheries and Marine Sciences, Universitas Pattimura Ambon: Nusaniwe, Indonesia, 2019. [CrossRef]
62. Wiseza, F.C. Faktor-faktor yang Mendukung Pengembangan Obyek Wisata Bukit Khayangan di Kota Sungai Penuh Provinsi
Jambi. J. Nur. El-Islam 2017, 4, 89–106.
63. Jurowski, C.; Gursoy, D. Distance Effects on Residents’ Attitudes Toward Tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2004, 31, 296–312. [CrossRef]
64. Wiradipoetra, F.A.; Erlangga, B. Analysis of Travelers’ Perceptions of The Decrease in The Quality of Tourist Attractions to
Visiting Interests. J. Pariwisata 2016, 3, 129–137. [CrossRef]
65. Suryaningsih, I.B.; Kristian, S.W.N. Epic Model: Effectiveness of Banyuwangi Regency Tourist Destination Ads Against Domestic
Tourists’ Revisiting Interest. Manag. Insight 2018, 13, 8–26. [CrossRef]
66. Jang, S.C.; Feng, R. Temporal destination revisit intention: The effects of novelty seeking and satisfaction. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28,
580–590. [CrossRef]
67. Jimenez, R.G.; Reyes, Z.M.; Garcíab, J.M.P.; Margalida, A. Economic Valuation of Non-Material Contributions to People Provided
by Avian Scavengers: Harmonizing Conservation and Wildlife-based Tourism. Ecol. Econ. 2021, 187, 107088. [CrossRef]
 water
Article
A Longitudinal Study of the Local Community Perspective on
Ecotourism Development in Lombok, Indonesia
Muhammad Nur Syamsi 1 and Ju-hyoung Lee 2, *
!"#!$%&'(!
!"#$%&'
Citation: Nur Syamsi, M.; Lee, J.-h.
A Longitudinal Study of the Local
Community Perspective on
Ecotourism Development in Lombok,
Indonesia. Water 2021, 13, 2398.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w13172398
Academic Editors: Robert C. Burns
and Danielle Schwarzmann
Received: 27 June 2021
Accepted: 26 August 2021
Published: 31 August 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Water 2021, 13, 2398. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13172398
1 The Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Senayan, Jakarta 10270, Indonesia; nursyamsim@gmail.com
2 Department of Forest Resources, Yeungnam University, 280 Daehak-ro, Gyeongsan 38541, Korea
* Correspondence: jhlee9@yu.ac.kr
Abstract: This study examined stakeholders’ perception related to the Korea–Indonesia international
ecotourism official development assistance project in Tunak, Lombok, Indonesia. In-depth interviews
were conducted with 18 local community members, government officers, and project executors in 2014
and 2020. Six themes arose from the respondents’ perceptions: nature appreciation, enhancement of
sociocultural development, prospect of stakeholder involvement, boosting environmental conditions,
present economic contributions for conservation, and project deficiencies. The results showed
that the project was carried out in line with the initial plan and emphasized local community
involvement. However, the community’s dependence on external help could lead to unsustainable
ecotourism practices in the future. Through various project programs, the local village’s economy
and infrastructure started to develop. Education and direct local community involvement positively
affected the local community conditions, both in sociocultural and economic terms.
Keywords: international cooperation; ecotourism; local community; coastal tourism; ODA
1. Introduction
Timber forest production has become the mainstay of Indonesia’s forestry sector. It
accounts for the country’s second-largest foreign exchange after oil and gas. Internationally,
Indonesia is a major exporter of tropical logs, more than all African and Latin American
countries combined [1]. However, this massive timber harvesting activity leads to high
deforestation. According to the Forest Watch Indonesia [2], in 2009–2013, 1.13 million
hectares of forest were lost in the country. In response, the Indonesian government applied
a moratorium on new natural forest utilization permits and promoted the ecological tourism
sector. According to a Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF [3]) report, there was
an increase in state revenue from national parks through tourism. Strengthened by a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the MoEF and the Ministry of Tourism,
service revenue including ecotourism revenues, environmental and forestry contribution
fees, and environmental and forestry service revenues increased year by year, reaching IDR
205 billion (USD 17 million) in 2019.
However, the development of natural tourist areas is still limited to famous national
parks. Tourists are more likely to visit developed provinces such as Bali, Jakarta, West
Java, and Yogyakarta [3]. There is the opportunity to pursue best-practice in ecotourism
development. South Korea is an example of a country that successfully uses forests
sustainably through the utilization of its environmental services. South Koreans’ social
demand for nature recreation has progressively increased, with 175 recreation forests and
28 healing forests from 2015 to present. In addition, every year, at least 3000 individuals
find work in the fields of forest therapy and forest education, acquiring certificates through
state-certified training programs [4].
Therefore, in 2013, the Indonesian minister of forestry asked Korea to share its recre-
ation forest model as official development assistance (ODA). The international cooperation
was planned to promote ecotourism practices in Indonesia’s rich biodiversity forests, based
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/water
Water 2021, 13, 2398 2 of 19

on Korea’s modern recreation management experiences. Additionally, it was designed

to revitalize the regional economy by strengthening forest recreation and ecotourism in
conservation areas in Indonesia. Gunung Tunak Nature Recreation Park (TWA Gunung
Tunak) on Lombok Island was chosen because it has abundant natural resources, unique
biota both on land and at sea, and high biodiversity [5–8]. Moreover, it aimed to achieve
economic development of the local community by focusing on ecotourism based on the
landscapes of the surrounding coasts.
The community in the research area is characterized by a young and abundant work-
force, good local government support policies, and development potential that can meet the
demand for community-based tourism (CBT), offering an optimized setting for ecotourism.
Korea joined the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) in 2010, and its
ODA projects made up 0.15% of the country’s Gross National Income (GNI) in 2019, or
$2540 million. It offers the most assistance to social infrastructure and economic infras-
tructure services, accounting for 70.4% of the total ODA volume. Major recipients are
in Asia (51.7%) and Africa (26.2%) [9]. As in the case of numerous ODA projects, the
primary goal of Korea’s ODA is sustainability. In recent times, Korea’s concessional loans,
a form of credit assistance, comprised 70% of the entire ODA volume, and it intends to
build a sustainable development model through bilateral cooperation instead of offering
unilateral assistance. In this project, the main task was to establish a sustainable community
development model that can be carried out after the termination of the project. To this
end, it aimed to build an independent community development model by implementing
various projects to strengthen the capacity of the local residents. This study was carried out
to examine the intended sustainable ecotourism-based community development model
(CBET: Community-based Ecotourism) after the conclusion of the project, and to identify
any problems.
In the early twentieth century, people began to enjoy their leisure time among nature,
due to the impact of urbanization after the Industrial Revolution [10]. Nilsson et al. [11] ex-
plained that people believe that trees and forests can positively affect human mental health.
Later, outdoor recreation became a necessity for many people around the world, including
in Indonesia. Ecological tourism has been rapidly developed since then. According to
Lindberg [12], ecotourism is a journey to a natural site, aiming to protect and preserve the
environment. Furthermore, ecotourism emphasizes local people’s involvement. Several
studies described ecotourism development in Indonesia [13–15]. One important objec-
tive of community-based ecotourism is sustainable development [16–20], and previous
research has discussed increasing economic value through CBET [12,21–24]. The important
precondition for successful ecotourism was the highly motivated local community for
development [25,26]. Enhancing the competency of an organized local community was
discussed as a significant factor for sustainable development [17,27–29].
The Korea–Indonesia Forest Recreation and Ecotourism Development Project was
carried out from 2014 to 2018. During the project, the visitor numbers increased, and the
development impact should clarify the influence of the project and its programs. Therefore,
from that assumption, this research defined how the project and its programs (training
for local communities, infrastructure, and support facilities) are affecting the number of
tourists in the Tunak area. To evaluate the success and sustainability of the project, a
stakeholder viewpoint was needed. Other objectives of this study were to determine the
suitability of the initial goals, particularly boosting the regional economy, and to assess
changes in the local communities before and after the project. This paper comprises results
of two surveys from 2014 and 2020, and the following section describes the structure for
the long-term survey.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Characteristics of the Study Area
This study was conducted in the Gunung Tunak Nature Recreation Park. Geographi-
cally, Tunak is located between 08 530 3000 –08 570 3000 S and 116 220 0000 –116 240 0000 . It is a
 ically, Tunak is located between 08°53′30″–08°57′30″ S and 116°22′00″–116°24′00″. It is a
four-hour flight from Jakarta and is located near the tourist hotspot Bali (Figure 1). The
area covers a total of 1217.91 hectares and is administratively located in Mertak Village,
Pujut Subdistrict, Central Lombok Regency, West Nusa Tenggara Province.
The research area is of a gradient of 45–100%, situated 0–105 m above sea level, and
the coastal areas are on a gentle slope. The rock layer is composed of chalked sedimentary
Water 2021, 13, 2398 rock and demonstrates characteristics of neogen soil. The area was categorized as a coastal 3 of 19
forest ecosystem with the following dominant flora: Syzygium javanica, Schoutenia ovata,
Schleicera oleosa, Tamarindus indicus, Kleinhovia hospita, Erithryna sp., Hibiscus tiliaceus, Ficus
amplas, and Spondias sp.
It is also home to 73 species of birds (including but not limited to, Rhipidura javanica,
four-hour flight from Jakarta
Orthotomus and issp.,located
sp., Lonchura near and
Saxicola caprata, theStreptopelia
tourist hotspot Bali
chinensis), and (Figure 1). The
in particular,
Bila Sayak Beach is a nesting ground for the turtle species Eretmochelys imbricate and Che-
area covers a totallonia
of mydas.
1217.91 A total of 30 butterfly species were also observed around the target area, in- Village,
hectares and is administratively located in Mertak
Pujut Subdistrict, cluding
Central Lombok
Euphloe Regency,
sp., Hypolimnas West
sp., Ixias NusaCepora
reinwartii, Tenggara Province.
temena, and Junonia erigone.

Water 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 20

Figure 1. Map of Gunung Tunak, Lombok, Nature Recreation Park, Indonesia (Source: Google Maps, Geospatial Infor-
Figure 1. Map
mation Agency, of Gunung
IUPPA Tunak,
TWA Gunung Lombok, Nature Recreation Park, Indonesia (Source: Google Maps,
Tunak).
Geospatial Information Agency, IUPPA TWA Gunung Tunak).
Water 2021, 13, 2398 4 of 19

The research area is of a gradient of 45–100%, situated 0–105 m above sea level, and
the coastal areas are on a gentle slope. The rock layer is composed of chalked sedimentary
rock and demonstrates characteristics of neogen soil. The area was categorized as a coastal
forest ecosystem with the following dominant flora: Syzygium javanica, Schoutenia ovata,
Schleicera oleosa, Tamarindus indicus, Kleinhovia hospita, Erithryna sp., Hibiscus tiliaceus, Ficus
amplas, and Spondias sp.
It is also home to 73 species of birds (including but not limited to, Rhipidura javanica,
Orthotomus sp., Lonchura sp., Saxicola caprata, and Streptopelia chinensis), and in particular,
Bila Sayak Beach is a nesting ground for the turtle species Eretmochelys imbricate and Chelonia
mydas. A total of 30 butterfly species were also observed around the target area, including
Euphloe sp., Hypolimnas sp., Ixias reinwartii, Cepora temena, and Junonia erigone.

2.2. Selecting Sample and Data Collection

Creswell [30] describes data collection as the process of gathering information through
semi-structured or unstructured interviews and visible materials, document analysis, and
recorded information. The collected data were divided into primary and secondary data.
Primary data were obtained through in-depth interviews, while secondary data were
acquired from the Korea Forest Service-MoEF collaboration project activity documents and
any other documents related to the project.
For this research, the local community was placed as the main source informant.
Thus, their suggestions on other informants were highly regarded for other involved
community members and project executors. Table 1 details the nine respondents from
three different stakeholders interviewed. The stakeholders were local community members
involved in the project, project executors who had a role in planning and implementing
activities, and official government employees both in Jakarta and West Nusa Tenggara
province. Government officers and local community members play a vital role in promoting
sustainable development, from the national to the local level. Their rich knowledge
related to the project made them suitable subjects [31]. Project executors (interest groups)
were chosen as stakeholders by considering the respondents’ knowledge and wealth of
information [32]. Contact with local communities was the most challenging point during
the research, with movement restricted by the government due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to Strauss and Corbin [33], in some situations, it is not possible to inquire about
an “ideal case.”

Table 1. General Characteristics of Key Informants.

Local Communities
Age Organization Position Task in Organization
55 Mertak Village Village Head Maintaining village security and judiciary aspects
31 Tunak Besopoq Group Leader Managing group activities in Tunak
29 Tunak Ecotourism Unit Ex-Manager Managing ecotourism activities in Tunak
Government Officer
38 BKSDA NTB (MoEF) Data Division Officer Monitoring and reporting activities in Tunak
56 BKSDA NTB (MoEF) Tunak Resort Head Protecting Tunak
45 PJLHK (MoEF) Data Division Officer Monitoring and supervising ecotourism activities in NTB Province
Project Executors
32 University of Mataram Lecturer Providing knowledge relating to ecotourism practices
40 IPB University Researcher Conducting field survey and involved in project design
31 IPB University Researcher Conducting field survey and involved in project design
Note: MoEF = Ministry of Environment and Forestry.
Water 2021, 13, 2398 5 of 19

The first survey of the Korea–Indonesia Forest Recreation and Ecotourism Devel-
opment Project was carried out from March to May 2014, and the second survey was
conducted in April to May 2020, two years into self-management of the project after it was
concluded in 2018. This study analyzed the results of the second survey and compared the
outcomes with those of the first survey for interpretative purposes.
Interviews were conducted using an in-depth interview method. The entire interview
was recorded with consent and transcribed and analyzed later. They started with semi-
structured, open-ended questions to ensure the informant’s congruity with the project.
Post-survey questions were utilized to gather details on the background and respondents’
interest in the project. According to Charmaz [34], post-survey questions can ensure the
suitability of the questions given the experiences and preferences of the participants. The
survey questions were originally composed in English then translated into Indonesian
(Bahasa) and then into the Lombok dialect during the interviews; therefore, we used two
translators.

2.3. Survey Theme and Data Analysis Method

An open-ended interview was conducted on the three topics of recognition of
community-based ecotourism (CBET) and biodiversity protection, ecotourism and lo-
cal community involvement, and financial status and post-project condition (Table 2). Data
analysis procedures were done through microanalysis, open coding, axial coding, and
selective coding via grounded theory [35]. In the grounded theory method, data analysis is
carried out in two stages. First is examining all information from the transcribed interview
to get a thorough understanding of the data and essential things. Second is coding the data,
which entails breaking down data, building concepts, and rearranging them in a new way.
Through coding, researchers find the substance of the data and start isolating the mean-
ing [34]. This stage includes labeling some essential events, relations, and issues. Next,
three types of coding are done: open coding, axial coding, and selective coding [33,35].
First, coding was done using open codification and then categorized based on the similarity
of meaning, originating the first categories. After all categories were determined, axial
coding was carried out to find the relationships between them. The processes of open
coding and axial coding were repeated whenever new empirical data were obtained. The
process of repeating this comparison is referred to as a constant comparison between
indicators, codes, concepts, and categories with new empirical data.

Table 2. Survey Interview Themes and Questions in 2020.

Theme Questions
What do you think when you hear the word “ecotourism”?
What do you feel when you enter a forest?
How often do you visit a forest? And what is the purpose?
Recognition of ecotourism and biodiversity protection
Do you think there is any increase in visitor numbers in Tunak? And what is the
impact on its environment?
What is the most important benefit from the project for the Tunak area?
What do you think about when you hear “Tunak Nature Park”?
What do you know about the Korea–Indonesia cooperation project at Tunak
Nature Park?
Ecotourism and local community involvement Was is appropriate to implement the project on Lombok island, particularly in
the Tunak area? Please explain your answer further.
Do you think local community involvement mostly has a positive or negative
impact? Please explain.
In your opinion, what do most people need from the activities in the Tunak area?
Do you think every project will bring benefits for the local people?
What do you think about the effectiveness of the project on a scale from 0 to 10?
Financial status and post-project condition Please explain the reason.
Does the project bring benefits to you? Please explain the benefits you get.
What is the most important thing that management can contribute to/do for
local communities?
Visit motivation, visit frequency, and staying time.
Post-survey: Arriving time at the forest.
Age/current financial status.
Water 2021, 13, 2398 6 of 19

Water 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 20

The derived concepts that are obtained from the open coding process are subcatego-
rized to build categories based on similar nuance in respondents’ points of view. Kruja and
Hasaj [36] stated that all stakeholder interests must be identified and understood carefully,
there were a total of 3160 inhabitants under the age of 19 (male: 1647; female: 1513), mak-
otherwise we will fail to understand the primary stakeholder group interest.
ing up 42% of the entire Mertak Village population. The age group with the smallest pop-
3.ulation
Results ratio was age 60 and over with a total of 554 inhabitants (male: 255; female: 299).
Some 84.3%
3.1. Descriptive ofSummary
village inhabitants
of the Firstworked
Survey in in agriculture,
2014 10.46% in fishing, and 5.15% in
commerce. The majority of the population had a low income as they relied on harvesting
During
natural the first
resources year
(e.g., of thebamboo,
bananas, project in and2014, the social,
farming). economic,
Only 0.49% of theand ecological
inhabitants
characteristics
were civil servants, military servicepersons, police officers, teachers, or nurses. Mostbased
of the target area were investigated to set a development master plan, of
on which
the management
villagers system
failed to benefit fromand facilityservices
welfare utilization
due to plan
thewere
lack ofestablished (Figure 2).
medical, educational,
andMertak Village
public safety itself consists
facilities. Fifty-sixof 21 smaller
percent of thevillages
inhabitants withdid about 7662 inhabitants,
not complete their pri- or
7.26%
mary of the totaland
education, population of Pujut Subdistrict
only 16 individuals, or 0.51%, [37].had aAs for the population
university degree. The distribution,
economic
there
level were
of the atarget
totalarea
of 3160 inhabitants
was quite low, withunder
a totalthe age
of 89 of 19 (male:
businesses in the1647;
fieldsfemale: 1513),
of food and
making up 42% of the entire Mertak Village population.
beverage, domestic handcrafted jobs, and domestic handcrafted woodworks. The age group with the smallest
population ratioto
According wastheage
survey60 and overitwith
in 2014, a total of
was deemed 554a CBT
that inhabitants (male:on255;
project based the female:
nat-
299). Some 84.3% of village inhabitants worked in agriculture, 10.46%
ural environment of the target area had great potential. To this end, construction work in fishing, and for
5.15%
inthe
commerce. The majority of the population had a low income as
following infrastructures was carried out between 2016 and 2017: a Korean-style na- they relied on harvesting
natural resources
ture recreation (e.g., bananas,
lodging, a butterflybamboo,
hatchery,and farming).
a butterfly Only
release 0.49%
center andofobservatory,
the inhabitants
a
were civil
visitor servants, military
information center, aservicepersons,
forest interpreter police officers,
research teachers,
center, and a or nurses.
forest trail.Most of the
During
villagers
the samefailed to benefit
period, the need from welfare services
to strengthen due to theof
the competency lack of residents
local medical, educational,
regarding theand
public safety
operation andfacilities.
program Fifty-six percentofofforest
development the inhabitants
healing anddid not was
CBET complete their In
proposed. primary
re-
education, and onlyfor
sponse, a program 16developing
individuals, or 0.51%,
local residents’hadcapacities
a university wasdegree.
carried outTheineconomic
both Korea level
ofand
theIndonesia,
target area was quite
providing low, with atraining
Korean-styled total ofin89forest
businesses
education, in the fields
natural of food and
handicrafts,
beverage, domestictechniques.
and commentary handcrafted jobs, and domestic handcrafted woodworks.

Initiation of Korea-Indonesia project 2013 Main gate of target area

Master plan of target area 2014 Discussion with community village leader

Figure 2. Cont.
Water 2021, 13, 2398 7 of 19
Water 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 20

Discussion with villagers Capability building program in Korea

Coastal area Water buffalo

Village view Village view

Figure 2. Images of research project, 2014–2018.

Figure 2. Images of research project, 2014–2018.
3.2. Interview Results in 2014
According to the survey in 2014, it was deemed that a CBT project based on the natural
As shown
environment of in
theFigure
target3,area
interviews were
had great carried out
potential. To with localconstruction
this end, inhabitants, project ex-the
work for
ecutors, government officials at Indonesia’s MoEF, and those from the Korea
following infrastructures was carried out between 2016 and 2017: a Korean-style nature Forest Ser-
vice. As itlodging,
recreation was the astarting year
butterfly of the international
hatchery, cooperation
a butterfly release centerproject, the four groups
and observatory, a visitor
shared many common goals and expectations, especially regarding community develop-
information center, a forest interpreter research center, and a forest trail. During the same
ment, such as a revenue increase and improvements to the living environment, through
period, the need to strengthen the competency of local residents regarding the operation
the project (Table 3). The interviewees were the same individuals as those in 2020.
and program development of forest healing and CBET was proposed. In response, a
program for developing local residents’ capacities was carried out in both Korea and
 L
Willing to join current project
Training program for local Should not be superficial changes, but inherent develop-

Project ex-
ecutor
Long-term people ment
tasks More than five years to suc- Long-term interaction with Korea
Water 2021, 13, 2398 8 of 19
cessful project Sustainable training program
officer in Indo-
Government

nesia Successful project Increase job opportunities through project

Local develop- Local development with new Building capability of local people
Indonesia, providing Korean-styled training in forest education, natural handicrafts, and
ment conceptiontechniques.
commentary of Korean-style Successful project with Korean style and traditional Lom-
forest recreation bok style
3.2. Interview Results in 2014
officer in Korea
Government

As shown in Figure 3, interviews

Transfer were carried the
to Indonesia outKorean-style
with local inhabitants, project
forest welfare cul-
executors,
Successfulgovernment officials
first project of for- at Indonesia’s MoEF, andture those from the Korea Forest
Project success
Service. As it was
est recreation the starting year of the
in Indonesia international
Considering roundcooperation
trail on Jejuproject,
island the four
groups shared many common goals and Successful expectations,
ODAespecially
project inregarding
Indonesia community
development, such as a revenue increase and improvements to the living environment,
through theODAproject (Table development
= Official 3). The interviewees
assistance.were the same individuals as those in 2020.

Project executors at Bogor Government officer from

Local community in Mertak
University Forestry Ministry

Figure
Figure 3.
3. Interviews
Interviews with
with government
government officer, project executor,
officer, project executor, and
and local
local community
community in
in 2014.
2014.

3.3. Interview
TableAnalysis in 2020
3. Summary of Interview Results in 2014.
Each stakeholder has similarities and different views on community-based ecotour-
Category Sub-Categories Concept
ism practices in Tunak. The interviewees were the same individuals as those in 2014.
Conserve
Twenty-five categories of axial coding results seashore for
were grouped crab
into sixplantation
main themes: Nature
Appropriate village development Secure current income source
people
Local

Quality of life plan without negative effects on Improve basic infrastructure of village
current life Needs education opportunity
Willing to join current project
officer in Korea officer in Indonesia executor

Training program for local people Should not be superficial changes, but inherent development
Project

Long-term tasks More than five years to Long-term interaction with Korea
successful project Sustainable training program
Government

Successful project Increase job opportunities through project

Local development with new Building capability of local people
Local development
conception of Korean-style Successful project with Korean style and traditional
forest recreation Lombok style
Government

Transfer to Indonesia the Korean-style forest welfare culture

Successful first project of forest
Project success Considering round trail on Jeju island
recreation in Indonesia
Successful ODA project in Indonesia

ODA = Official development assistance.

Water 2021, 13, 2398 9 of 19

The local inhabitants wanted limited development only at sites that urgently needed
it, rather than developing the entire area for tourists. They showed concern over possible
damages to their source of livelihood—lobster farming on the beach—from project develop-
ment. The Sasak tribe inhabits the Lombok region, and they were worried that an increase
in the number of tourists may disrupt their traditional culture and customs. At the same
time, they hoped that CBET could improve their quality of life through developments in
transportation, culture, and education, and that the project would reflect such expectations.
“The beaches should be developed partially to minimize damage to nature. In addition,
our village’s level of education is rather low, so we would be grateful to receive relevant
support.” (Local person)
“I would like to have the electricity and telephone problems resolved. In particular, since
roads and drinking water do not reach all places in the village, please put effort into the
supply of clean water.” (Local person)
“Please continue to communicate with the local people and it is advisable to follow local
customs.” (Local person)
A government officer at the MoEF hoped to attract both Korean and foreign tourists
by branding the international cooperation between Korea and Indonesia, and wished to
introduce the successful Korean model of the “Round Trail” into the country. He also looked
forward to improving Lombok’s infrastructure (e.g., roads, energy, telecommunications,
and drinking water) through cooperative projects with Korea.
“We plan to attract visitors by building something like the Olle Trail on Jeju Island in
Korea. In particular, we aim to create a one-of-a-kind brand by incorporating the culture
of the Sasak tribe, and butterfly, bird, and water buffalo watching. In addition to more
investments as there is a lack of infrastructure, we also need more competency training
for local residents to create more jobs and carry out the project.” (Government officer
in Indonesia)
In short, it was pointed out that continuous and long-term support and interaction
with Korea were necessary even after the finalization of the ODA project since the indepen-
dent development of a village is impossible with short-term capital investment. Ultimately,
it was affirmed that the identity of the Tunak region and effectiveness of the project could
be secured by conducting competency training education of local residents in Korea.
“While there were numerous ODA projects from various countries in Indonesia, a one-
time project is not effective at all. Instead of a perfunctory one-time cooperation, follow-up
projects must take place even after the end of the current one through the collaboration
between Korea and Indonesia.” (Project executor)
Meanwhile, a civil officer at the Korea Forest Service was interested in the implemen-
tation of the bilateral cooperation MOU signed in 2013. Although there has only been
the import and export of lumber between the two countries, the officer was hoping for a
successful outcome of the first-ever project to apply Korea’s forest healing welfare model.
He proposed the adoption of Korea’s “round trip trail” because of the high likelihood of
success in the relevant area, and emphasized the importance of local residents’ participation
and educational training for a successful outcome.
“The area in question is a volcanic island as in the case of Jeju Island, and therefore, it
is possible to consider the application of Jeju’s Olle round trip trail model. Securing
state support and participation of local residents are critical to guaranteeing a long-term
sustainable ODA project that is not superficial.” (Government officer in Korea)
“Consistent and continuous education on the forest healing program must be carried
out for local residents through the operation of a healing tourism education center,
and if possible, forming an affiliation with local universities should be considered.”
(Government officer in Korea)
Water 2021, 13, 2398 10 of 19

3.3. Interview Analysis in 2020

Each stakeholder has similarities and different views on community-based ecotourism
practices in Tunak. The interviewees were the same individuals as those in 2014. Twenty-
five categories of axial coding results were grouped into six main themes: Nature appre-
ciation, enhancement of sociocultural development, boosting environmental conditions,
prospect of stakeholders’ involvement, present economic contribution of ecotourism, and
project deficiencies. These main themes were obtained from axial and open coding (Table 4).

Table 4. (a) Summary of Coding Processes of Local community. (b) Summary of Coding Processes of Project executors.
(c) Summary of Coding Processes of Government officer.

Category
Nature appreciation
Enhancement on socioeconomic development
Boosting environmental condition
Prospect of stakeholders’ involvement
Project deficiency
Category
Nature appreciation
Enhancement of socioeconomic development
Improving local community entrepreneurship
Prospect of stakeholders’ involvement
Present economic contribution to conservation
Project deficiencies
Category
Nature appreciation
Enhancement of sociocultural development
Present economic contribution to conservation
Boosting environmental condition
Prospect of stakeholders’ involvement
(a)
Sub-Categories
Ecotourism discovery
Nature insight
Forest connections
Empowering local people and women
Induced behavior change
Environmental emendation
Expectancy
Antithesis
(b)
Sub-Categories
Comprehension
Affection
Obligation
Strengthening local community
Predisposition of locals’ manner
Future follow-up
Resource availability
Negative response to project
Regulation barrier
(c)
Sub-Categories
Activity
Sense through forest
Forest engagement
Promoting local people
Proclivity of behavior change
Capital opportunity
Improving environmental conditions
Perpetual assistance from stakeholders
Concept
• Education and recreation in nature
• Refreshing place, Calm condition
• Comfortable place
• Visit forest nearly every day
• Educating and training local people
• Integrating women
• Changing local people’s attitudes
• Participation in protecting forest
• Improvement of forest condition
• Infrastructure development
• Expecting continuous capacity building program
• Further collaboration among stakeholders
• Income inequality among members
• Discriminating against local people
• Lack of waste management system
• Training program did not achieve its goal
Concept
• Nature Conservation
• Peaceful place, Calm, Challenging
• Visit forest for work
• Inculcating local community
• Training local community
• Changing local people’s mindset
• Forest protection from illegal use
• Providing job opportunities
• Involving local community
• Continuous training program
• Improving supporting facilities
• Increasing BKSDA revenue
• Doubting visitor number increase
• Discrepancies in income among group members
• Waste-management issues
• Different regulations between Indonesia and Korea
Concept
• Journey in natural area
• Harmony with forest and people
• Happy, Peaceful, Healing
• Often visit forest for work
• Educating and training local people
• Emphasizing local community’s involvement
• Bring direct and indirect benefits
• Residents’ mind reshape
• Participation in forest protection
• Conflict resolution
• Increasing number of PNBP
• Improving facilities
• Improving forest condition
• Reducing forest destruction
• Further capacity building
• Setting up attractive ecotourism packages
Water 2021, 13, 2398 11 of 19

3.3.1. Nature Appreciation

Local people in Tunak have lived in and been dependent on forests for decades. How-
ever, previously local communities used forest resources through unsustainable practices.
The local community’s mindset toward tangible forest resources (timber or non-timber
forest products) was mentioned by Deb [38]. The quickest way to make money is to uti-
lize forest goods or natural resources in an unsustainable way [39–41]. Local community
members asserted that before the project, they often hunted rare birds or committed forest
encroachment in Tunak.
“In the 1990s, thousands of people encroached on forests in Tunak, took timber, and
burned it later.” (Local person)
“I regretfully said that I was one of the residents who often hunted birds in the forest. We
did it regularly to make money or just for fun.” (Local person)
Naturally, the local people are inseparable from the natural environment in the broad-
est sense [42–47]. Referring to previous research, the social characteristics of people around
forests have a higher level of sensitivity to the environment [48–50]. Through education
provided through the CBET project, their sensitivity reappeared. This led to changes in
their perceptions of the environment, and now they perceive the forest as their home.
“Forests are ecosystems that cover all aspects of life . . . Ecotourism is recreation and
education activities conducted in forests . . . I feel peace, comfortable, and united with
nature. Therefore, I often visit Tunak just for refreshing my body.” (Local person)

3.3.2. Enhancement of Community Development

All three stakeholders agreed about the enhancement of sociocultural development.
Community-based ecotourism is a win–win solution to conflicts of interest among stakeholders.
As already demonstrated in previous studies, CBET is the goal of sustainable commu-
nity ecotourism and has been profusely studied as a development model for coastal rural
villages [16–20]. While there are studies that are skeptical of the economic development
effects of CBT on a community, such as income increase and lifestyle improvements [25,26],
establishing an identity by developing unique tourism opportunities and active local com-
munity involvement play a significant role in the success of ecotourism practices [51,52].
Local community involvement in planning and decision-making will boost the sus-
tainability of CBET practices in Tunak. Even though this finding is in line with various
studies that emphasized initial local community participation to address socioeconomic
issues [17,51,53], in the case of Tunak, it has not been completely realized.
“The residents welcomed the presence of the project team members. Even though we
could not talk to every single community member, we tried out best to accommodate
all local community input and put it as recommendations for the master plan in 2014.”
(Project executor)
The community expressed a significant increase in economic impact. Data from the
Natural Resources Conservation Center in Nusa Tenggara Barat (BKSDA NTB) also showed
a significant increase in community income since CBET practices began that came from
various sectors, such as the management of guest houses, local businesses, souvenirs, and
tour packages (Figure 4).
“We established Tunak Besopoq group . . . We are the only community group that is
permitted to manage environmental services in Tunak . . . After we officially became part
of Tunak’s management, personally I enjoyed an improvement in our economic condition.”
(Local person)
Various studies discussed income generation from community-based ecotourism [21–24].
Lindberg [12] explicitly stated that ecotourism plays a large role in “generating economic
benefits,” even though, in practice, some respondents indicated that income generation
still concentrated on certain groups of people.
 from various sectors, such as the management of guest houses, local businesses, souve-
nirs, and tour packages (Figure 4).

“We established Tunak Besopoq group… We are the only community group that is per-
Water 2021, 13, 2398 mitted to manage environmental services in Tunak… After we officially became part12ofof 19
Tunak’s management, personally I enjoyed an improvement in our economic condition.”
(Local person)

411,863,581

150,833,000

2017 2018 2019

Figure4.4.Local
Figure Localcommunity
communityincome
incomeinin2017–2019
2017–2019inintarget
targetarea
area(IDR:
(IDR:Indonesian
IndonesianRupiah).
Rupiah).

Another
Variousinteresting point from
studies discussed the research
income was the
generation fromemphasis on the involvement
community-based of
ecotourism
gender
[21–24].perspectives
Lindberg [12] in the perceptions
explicitly stated ofthat theecotourism
local community.
plays a Previously,
large role inthe tourism
“generating
industry
economic in benefits,”
Indonesiaeven facedthough,
injusticeininpractice,
terms ofsomegender issues. As indicated
respondents shown by that
Wilkinson
income
and Pratiwi’s
generation [54]
still study in Pangandaran,
concentrated on certain groups Indonesia, the participation of women in the
of people.
industrial sector
Another still often point
interesting gives from
a negative impression.
the research As aemphasis
was the result of the training
on the program,of
involvement
opportunities for women
gender perspectives in to
theengage in ecotourism
perceptions practices
of the local were increased.
community. Ramchurjee
Previously, [55]
the tourism
suggested
industry inthat the tourism
Indonesia faced sector can be
injustice in aterms
goodofopportunity for women’s
gender issues. As shownadvancement.
by Wilkinson
Furthermore,
and Pratiwi’sHaslinda
[54] study [56]
in argued that, inIndonesia,
Pangandaran, some places, the women play aofgreater
participation womenrolein in
the
the economic changes brought about by tourism and benefit from these
industrial sector still often gives a negative impression. As a result of the training pro- changes more
than men.
gram, opportunities for women to engage in ecotourism practices were increased. Ram-
churjee [55] suggested
“Training consisted ofthat the tourism
various elementssector can be
of society, botha men
goodandopportunity
women . . .for women’s
Many
advancement.
women in Mertak did not have access to job opportunities. Most are housewives or doingplay a
Furthermore, Haslinda [56] argued that, in some places, women
greater role .in
odd jobs . . the economic
So, no less thanchanges brought
30% of women about
were by tourism
involved and benefit
in each training from these
program.”
changes
(Localmore
person)than men.

3.3.3. Boosting
“TrainingEnvironmental Conditions
consisted of various elements of society, both men and women… Many
women in Mertak did not have access to job opportunities.
In the context of environmental conditions, governmentMost are and
officers housewives or doing
local communities
odd jobs… So, no less than 30% of women were involved in each training
had similar views regarding the impact of CBET projects in Tunak. They saw an improve- program.”
ment (Local person) of the forest areas in Tunak. Ecological protection was improved
in the condition
during and after CBET development [57,58]. Furthermore, through a bottom-up approach
with community involvement, the sustainability of forest resources can be achieved.
“People gain more understanding about nature and tourism. Environmental conditions
are also getting better.” (Local person)
“For the environmental impact, hmmm . . . it is good. As a field officer, I appreciated
their [the local community] help. The crime rate and illegal cutting have dramatically
decreased since the project began.” (Government officer)
Besides, the participants also underlined the role of facility development in improving
the environmental conditions in Tunak. Several facilities, such as guest houses, visitor
centers, multi-purpose centers, butterfly centers, and deer sanctuaries, were built within
zones of limited use in conservation areas.

3.3.4. Prospect of Stakeholders’ Involvement

The formation of the local community and development through competency training
have long been investigated as a sustainable development model, as in the case of research
on the preservation of marine environments and local development that plays a role in the
governance of coastal and marine areas [17,27–29].
Water 2021, 13, 2398 13 of 19

Studies have also focused on the active participation and performance of local resident
coalitions as a key factor in realizing sustainable forest management [59–61].
The participants had almost the same perception regarding the expectation of future
stakeholder involvement. They agreed that training activities could increase their knowl-
edge. However, some stated that some of the training was not effective. In principle,
training for the community must be adjusted to the basic knowledge of the participants.
So, local community respondents complained that they could not understand some of
the material.
“Even though the project in Tunak between Korea and Indonesia finished two years ago,
local people still expect training programs in Korean style to enhance their skills for the
development of the Tunak area. Training should continue to be carried out and needs
further improvement.” (Government officer)
“It’s necessary to involve them [the local people]. As far as I know, most residents come
from a poor educational background. Therefore, they need continuous education programs
to enhance their knowledge and skills.” (Project executor)
Promotion is also an essential factor for the future development of Tunak. Promotion
can be done by setting up more attractive tour packages. This necessity lends support to
Saha et al. [62], who underlined the importance of integrated and robust promotion with
supporting facilities such as road conditions, electricity, and buildings to support CBET.
Another way is a storynomics tourism strategy through promoting narration, creative
content, living culture, and cultural strength. The successful use of this promotional
strategy can be seen in the study by Kartika and Riana [63] in Tangkuban Perahu, Indonesia.

3.3.5. Present Economic Contribution for CBET

Water 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW In general, government officers and project executors believed that the improvement 15 of 20
of income from visitors should present economic contributions for conservation. They also
mentioned the impact of the project and its contribution to conservation through non-tax
state
staterevenue
revenue(PNBP).
(PNBP).According
Accordingto toGOI
GOI[64],
[65],PNBP
PNBPcomes
comesfrom
fromcollecting
collectingfees
feeson
onobjects
objects
that
that could not be categorized as tax objects. According to MoEF [3], national non-taxstate
could not be categorized as tax objects. According to MoEF [3], national non-tax state
revenue
revenuefrom
fromthethetourism
tourismsector continues
sector continuesto increase (Figure
to increase 5). Santoso
(Figure and Nugroho
5). Santoso [65]
and Nugroho
explicitly explained that PNBP collection could be used to preserve forestry resources
[66] explicitly explained that PNBP collection could be used to preserve forestry resources
through
throughitsitsuse
useby
bythe
theagencies
agenciesthat
thatcollect
collectit.
it.This
Thisscheme
schemecould
couldbebe used
used by
by TWA
TWATunak’s
Tunak’s
management to improve Tunak’s condition.
management to improve Tunak’s condition.

195.04
205.31
152.12
121.82 132.38

IDR billion

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Figure5.5.Total
Figure Totalnon-tax
non-taxstate
staterevenue
revenuefrom
fromthe
theecological
ecologicaltourism
tourismsector
sectorinin2015–2019.
2015–2019.

“PNBP has clearly increased… I will give you an illustration. The initial number of
visitor was 3000 and later it was multiplied to 10,000 or 16,000, which means total
revenue also increased.” (Government officer)
“….When I conducted research there [Tunak] at the end of 2018, I saw an increase in
the amount of BKSDA revenue.” (Project executor)
Water 2021, 13, 2398 14 of 19

“PNBP has clearly increased . . . I will give you an illustration. The initial number of
visitor was 3000 and later it was multiplied to 10,000 or 16,000, which means total
revenue also increased.” (Government officer)
“ . . . .When I conducted research there [Tunak] at the end of 2018, I saw an increase in
the amount of BKSDA revenue.” (Project executor)

3.3.6. Project Deficiencies

Some aspects of the project were viewed negatively, particularly by local communities
and project executors. Their perceptions mostly focused on income disparities among local
people and waste management issues. According to Greening [66], ecotourism does not
make the community perceive widespread benefits, but instead benefits other stakeholders
such as government officials. Moreover, Greening emphasized that, in particular conditions,
ecotourism negatively impacts marginal people and the environment.
“ . . . It caused social problems. Although the scale is still small, it leads to social jealousy.
It happened when community group members earned less money than their colleagues in
another sub-business unit.” (Local person)
“There is a problem among residents because of discrepancies in income generation. As
an example, hospitality and restaurant team members obtained more profit than souvenir
and biodiversity team members.” (Project executor)
Another negative point was waste-management issues. Respondents strongly argued
that waste-management issues could be a future problem. Though this has yet to become a
serious issue, with increased visitors it could be a big problem. Therefore, it needs gov-
ernment management, including the local community’s attention, regarding safeguarding
environmental facilities. This should be done to hamper the problem of contaminants,
protect the environment, and hinder diseases that come from waste handling. Nyaupane
and Thapa [67], who examined the impact of ecotourism development in Nepal, said
that management should focus on solid waste disposal to ensure the sustainability of
ecotourism activities.
“In general, public awareness of protecting the environment in Indonesia is still low.
They used to litter and pollute the environment. The current condition is much better,
but it still needs more concern from stakeholders.” (Local person)
“It must be affecting the environmental condition . . . Visitors with a low level of aware-
ness littered in the Tunak area.” (Local person)

4. Discussion
4.1. The Sustainability of the Implemented International CBET Project in Tunak
The complexity in Tunak is seen in the differing views of respondents from the
same stakeholder on the issues. Through the grounded theory analysis, the participants’
perceptions produced six categories: nature appreciation, enhancement of sociocultural
development, prospect of stakeholder involvement, boosting environmental conditions,
present economic contributions for conservation, and project deficiencies.
The results showed that the project in Tunak had been carried out in line with the initial
plan and began to reach the expected results based on several indicators (see Figure 4).
Although there was an initial positive impact, community-based ecotourism in Tunak
still faces various challenges. This study marked a primary change in the local people’s
mindset toward nature, but it had not yet reached the stage of self-initiation. The local
community seemed to be waiting for activities initiated by external parties (see Section 3.2
and Table 4). This condition potentially leads people to become passive and dependent.
In fact, local community engagements were essential predictors of sustainable CBET,
which was criticized by an Indonesian project executor in 2014 (see Table 3). In addition,
differences in sociocultural conditions between countries also hinder the successful Korean
Water 2021, 13, 2398 15 of 19

recreation model’s adaptation process, regulation, and planning duration. Moreover, CBET
development must focus on local uniqueness.
Numerous previous studies (e.g., [68]) indicated that ecotourism could be considered
“successful” if local people get some control over it and enjoy balanced benefits from
ecotourism activities (see Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.4). However, it is important to underline
that the current successful progress does not guarantee the sustainability of the project.

4.2. Changes in Local Community Condition: Mindset and Economic Perceptive

CBET projects that have been appropriately planned, implemented, and managed will
help to balance environmental conservation and community needs. In the end, the local
community’s change of mindset toward the environment will become the ultimate goal and
support the sustainability of the local economy [69]. This study showed positive changes
in the local community mindset through the Tunak conservation areas, both inland and
coastal. The accumulation of activities, starting from socialization, routine meetings, and
training, can revitalize the community’s sensitivity to the environment. The provision of
alternative livelihoods and improvement in the economic conditions of local communities
also play a vital role in local community perceptions of nature.
Several studies showed improvements in the economic conditions of local commu-
nities from ecotourism activities. This can come from direct employers, rental accommo-
dation, souvenirs [70–72], improved infrastructure, improving local stores’ business, and
better ecological resource integrity through the use of environmentally friendly materi-
als [68,73,74].
From Table 5, we can see the transformation of Mertak village. The most notable
result is the decrease in non-welfare families. According to BPS (Ministry of Environment
and Forestry in Indonesia) [37], the number of non-welfare families drastically decreased
from 235 to 1.71. Non-welfare families cannot meet basic needs, such as the need for
food, clothing, housing, health, and education [75–77]. This number reflects the economic
activities, such as CBET employees spending their salaries buying goods and services from
other community members and spreading tourism’s benefits.

Table 5. Changes in Mertak Village’s Condition.

Before the Project (2013) After the Project (2018)

Local community income (IDR) 1 0 411,863,581
Status of village Left behind/Innate strength Not left behind/Self-developing
Restaurant and kiosk 71 106
Non-welfare families 2 235.00 1.71
Road length (km) 96 98
Household electricity 84.75% 100%
1 2
Tunaq besopoq community group. According to the welfare stage and village.

In conclusion, education and direct local community involvement have a significant

effect on local community conditions both in sociocultural and economic terms. However,
income disparities among locals still exist, as mentioned by Lonn et al. [25].

4.3. Study Limitations

There are two major limitations in this study that could be addressed by future
research. First, the qualitative approach made it difficult to study large numbers of respon-
dents, and the information bias derived from the 18 respondents cannot be disregarded.
Second, qualitative methods can cause subjectivity in researchers. In order to reduce bias,
triangulation was carried out by cross-checking the data with facts from informants that
were different from the results of other studies.
Water 2021, 13, 2398 16 of 19

5. Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to assess the sustainability of the Korea–Indonesia
international ODA Forest Recreation and Ecotourism Project in Tunak, Lombok (2014–2018)
through different stakeholders’ perceptions. The project was carried out in line with its ini-
tial plan and emphasized local community involvement. However, to achieve sustainable
community-based ecotourism, local communities must have self-initiation in future eco-
tourism developments. Unfortunately, they still seem to be waiting for activities initiated
by external parties.
Another objective of this study was to evaluate local communities before and after the
project. Through various programs, Mertak village began to see an improved economy and
infrastructure. Furthermore, local communities’ perceptions toward nature were changed
after the project. They have more awareness of nature. Even though income disparities
still exist, this study showed that education and direct local community involvement had a
positive effect on local community conditions both in sociocultural and economic terms.
For the sustainability of the international ODA project, increasing the engagement of local
people by building their competency is essential. Training and education programs for the
local people will be the ultimate support factors, rather than direct investment.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.-h.L. and M.N.S.; methodology, J.-h.L.; validation, J.-h.L.
and M.N.S.; formal analysis, M.N.S.; investigation, M.N.S.; resources, M.N.S.; data curation, J.-h.L.;
writing—original draft preparation, M.N.S.; writing—review and editing, J.-h.L.; visualization,
M.N.S.; supervision, J.-h.L.; project administration, J.-h.L.; funding acquisition, J.-h.L. Both authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the staff members of BKSDA NTB, the
Ministry of Environment and Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia, and Professor Ricky Avenzora at
Bogor University for their assistance with this research. Also, the authors would like to thank the
Asian Forest Cooperation Organization for supporting Muhammad Nur Syamsi’s master program at
Yeungnam University.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Hidayat, H. Dynamism of Forest Policy in Indonesia: Focusing on the Movement and Logic of Stakeholders under the Soeharto Regime and
Reformation Era; Yayasan Obor Indonesia: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2005; p. 337.
2. Forest Watch Indonesia. Endless Deforestation: A Portrait of Deforestation in North Sumatra, East Kalimantan, and North Maluku
(Deforestasi Tanpa Henti: Potret Deforestasi di Sumatera Utara, Kalimantan Timur, dan Maluku Utara); FWI: Bogor, Indonesia, 2018; p. 61.
3. MoEF. Ministry of Environment and Forestry Annual Performance Report; Ministry of Environment and Forestry: Jakarta, Indonesia,
2019; 324p.
4. Korea Forest Service. 2020 Statistical Yearbook of Forestry; Korea Forest Service: Daejeon, Korea, 2020; p. 453.
5. Subhani, A. Potential Tourism Beach in East Lombok District in the Year of 2010. Master’s Thesis, The Postgraduate Sebelas
Maret University Surakarta, Lombok, Indonesia, 2010; p. 49.
6. Zusron, M.; Wibowo, C.A.; Langgeng, A.; Firdausi, F.M.; Etfanti, S. Biodiversity of mollusks at ela-ela beach, Sekotong Lombok
barat Indonesia. KnE Life Sci. 2015, 2, 574–578. [CrossRef]
7. Susanty, S. Inventory of Tourist Attraction at Gunung Tunak Tourist District, Pujut, Lombok. J. Media Bina Ilmiah 2018, 13,
1215–1226. [CrossRef]
8. Cahyani, E.; Mayana, E. Potensi Obyek Wisata Taman Wisata Alam Gunung Tunak. J. Sos. Ekon. Hum. 2019, 5, 134–139.
9. OECD. Development Co-operation Profiles; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2021; p. 32. [CrossRef]
10. Miller, M.D. The impacts of Atlanta’s urban sprawl on forest cover and fragmentation. Appl. Geogr. 2012, 34, 171–179. [CrossRef]
11. Nilsson, K.; Sangster, M.; Gallis, C.; Hartig, T.; De Vries, S.; Seeland, K.; Schipperijn, J. Forest, Trees and Human Health; Springer
Science Business and Media: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2010; p. 452.
Water 2021, 13, 2398 17 of 19

12. Lindberg, K. Policies for Maximizing Nature Tourism Ecological and Economic Benefit; World Resource Institute: Washington, DC,
USA, 1991; p. 37.
13. Butarbutar, R.; Soemarno, S. Environmental Effects of Ecotourism in Indonesia. J. Indones. Tour. Dev. Stud. 2013, 1, 97–107.
[CrossRef]
14. Wardhani, M.P.; Fahrudin, A.; Yulianda, F. Analysis of Successful Strategy to Develop Sustainable Marine Ecotourism in Gili
Bawean Island, Gresik, East Java. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2017, 89, 1–9. [CrossRef]
15. Nugroho, I.; Pramukanto, F.; Negara, P.; Purnomowati, W.; Wulandari, W. Promoting the Rural Development through the
Ecotourism Activities in Indonesia. Am. J. Tour. Manag. 2016, 5, 9–18.
16. Islam, M.R.; Iftekhar, M.S.; Islam, M.W. Potential of ecotourism development in Bangladesh coast: An overview. Tour. Rev. Int.
2011, 15, 325–336. [CrossRef]
17. Masud, M.M.; Aldakhil, A.M.; Nassani, A.A.; Azam, M.N. Community-based ecotourism management for sustainable develop-
ment of marine protected areas in Malaysia. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2017, 136, 104–112. [CrossRef]
18. Nurhayati, A.; Aisah, I.; Supriatna, A.K. Model Development of a Synergistic Sustainable Marine Ecotourism—A Case Study in
Pangandaran Region, West Java Province, Indonesia. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3418. [CrossRef]
19. Nur Nobi, M.; Majumder, M. Coastal and Marine Tourism/Eco-Tourism in the Future. J. Ocean Coast. Econ. 2019, 6, 1–18.
[CrossRef]
20. Musa, F.; Fozi, N.M.; Mohd, D.D. Coastal Communities’ Willingness to Pay for Mangrove Ecotourism in Marudu Bay, Sabah,
Malaysia. J. Sustain. Sci. Manag. 2020, 15, 130–140. [CrossRef]
21. Whelan, T. (Ed.) Nature Tourism: Managing for the Environment; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1991; p. 223.
22. Wunder, S. Promoting Forest Conservation Through Ecotourism Income? A Case Study from the Ecuadorian Amazon Region Occasional
Paper 21; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 1999; pp. 1–24.
23. Wunder, S. Ecotourism and economic incentives: An empirical approach. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 32, 456–479. [CrossRef]
24. Bangul, A. Success of Ecotourism Sites and Local Community Participation in Sabah. Ph.D. Thesis, Victoria University, Wellington,
New Zealand, 2009; p. 425.
25. Lonn, P.; Mizoue, N.; Ota, T.; Kajisa, T.; Yoshida, S. Evaluating the contribution of community-based ecotourism (CBET) to
household income and livelihood changes: A case study of the Chambok CBET program in Cambodia. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 151,
62–69. [CrossRef]
26. Harahab, N.; Primyastanto, M.; Semedi, B. Collaborative-based mangrove ecosystem management model for the development of
marine ecotourism in Lembar Bay, Lombok, Indonesia. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 6838–6868.
27. Gonzalez-Bernat, M.J.; Clifton, J. “Living with our backs to the sea”: A critical analysis of marine and coastal governance in
Guatemala. Mar. Policy 2017, 81, 9–20. [CrossRef]
28. Paredes, F.; Flores, D.; Figueroa, A.; Gaymer, C.F.; Aburto, J.A. Science, capacity building and conservation knowledge: The
empowerment of the local community for marine conservation in Rapa Nui. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2019, 29,
130–137. [CrossRef]
29. Yanfika, H.; Rangga, K.K.; Viantimala, B.; Listiana, I.; Mutolib, A.; Rahmat, A. Evaluation of the Success of Programs and Strategy
for Sustainable Coastal Community Development in Tanggamus Regency. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020, 1467, 12026. [CrossRef]
30. Creswell, W.; Hirose, M. Mixed methods and survey research in family medicine and community health. Fam. Med. Community
Health 2019, 7, 1–6. [CrossRef]
31. Nitoaia, P.; Camara, G. Roles of actors in promoting sustainable development. Present Environ. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 12, 169–177.
[CrossRef]
32. Patton, M.Q. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1990; p. 832.
33. Strauss, A.; Corbin, J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed.; Sage: London,
UK, 1998; p. 456.
34. Charmaz, K. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA,
USA, 2006; p. 208.
35. Corbin, J.; Strauss, A. Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria. Qual. Sociol. 1990, 13, 3–21.
[CrossRef]
36. Kruja, D.; Hasaj, A. Comparisons of stakeholders’ perception towards the sustainable tourism development and its impact in
Shkorda Region (Albania). J. Turiz. 2010, 14, 1–12. [CrossRef]
37. Ministry of Environment and Forestry. Kecamatan Pujut Dalam Angka 2019; Indonesia Bureau of Statistics: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2019.
38. Deb, D. The Value of Forest: An Ecological Economic Examination of Forest People’s Perspective. In Challenges and Opportunities
for the World’s Forest in the 21st Century; Fenning, T., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 123–159.
39. Diamond, J. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed; Penguin Random House: New York, NY, USA, 2005; p. 576.
40. Tainter, J.A. Collapse, sustainability, and the environment: How authors choose to fail or succeed. Rev. Anthropol. 2008, 37,
342–371. [CrossRef]
41. Langat, D.K.; Maranga, E.K.; Aboud, A.A.; Cheboiwo, J.K. Role of forest resources to local livelihoods: The case of East Mau
forest ecosystem, Kenya. Int. J. For. Res. 2016, 2016, 1–10. [CrossRef]
42. Bowler, D.E.; Buyung-Ali, L.M.; Healey, J.R.; Jones, J.P.; Knight, T.M.; Pullin, A.S. Does community forest management provide
global environmental benefits and improve local welfare? Front. Ecol. Environ. 2012, 10, 29–36. [CrossRef]
Water 2021, 13, 2398 18 of 19

43. Phiri, M.; Chirwa, P.W.; Watts, S.; Syampungani, S. Local community perception of joint forest management and its implications
for forest condition: The case of Dambwa Forest Reserve in southern Zambia. South. For. J. For. Sci. 2012, 74, 51–59. [CrossRef]
44. Khaine, I.; Woo, S.Y.; Kang, H. A study of the role of forest and forest-dependent community in Myanmar. For. Sci. Technol. 2014,
10, 197–200. [CrossRef]
45. Chowdhury, M.S.H.; Gudmundsson, C.; Izumiyama, S.; Koike, M.; Nazia, N.; Rana, M.P.; Redowan, M. Community attitudes
toward forest conservation programs through collaborative protected area management in Bangladesh. Environ. Dev. Sustain.
2014, 16, 1235–1252. [CrossRef]
46. Farouque, M.G.; Fuyuki, K.; Takashino, N. Attitudes of local people towards community-based forest management: A study of
Sal forest area in Bangladesh. Int. J. Agric. Ext. Rural Dev. 2017, 4, 263–273.
47. Hoshino, E.; van Putten, E.I.; Girsang, W.; Resosudarmo, B.P.; Yamazaki, S. Fishers’ perceived objectives of community-based
coastal resource management in the Kei Islands, Indonesia. Front. Mar. Sci. 2017, 4, 141. [CrossRef]
48. Tonin, S.; Lucaroni, G. Understanding social knowledge, attitudes and perceptions towards marine biodiversity: The case of
tegnùe in Italy. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2017, 140, 68–78. [CrossRef]
49. Winarwan, D.; Awang, S.A.; Keban, Y.T.; Semedi, P. Kebijakan pengelolaan hutan, kemiskinan struktural dan perlawanan
masyarakat. J. Kawistara 2011, 3, 213–320, (In Indonesian with English abstract).
50. McNeill, A.; Clifton, J.; Harvey, E.S. Attitudes to a marine protected area are associated with perceived social impacts. Mar. Policy
2018, 94, 106–118. [CrossRef]
51. KC, A.; Rijal, K.; Sapkota, R.P. Role of ecotourism in environmental conservation and socioeconomic development in Annapurna
conservation area, Nepal. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2015, 22, 251–258.
52. Amalu, T.E.; Otop, O.O.; Duluora, E.I.; Omeje, V.U.; Emeana, S.K. Socio-economic impacts of ecotourism attractions in Enugu
state, Nigeria. GeoJournal 2018, 83, 1257–1269. [CrossRef]
53. Nagarjuga, G. Local Community Involvement in Tourism: A Content Analysis of Websites of Wildlife Resorts. J. Tour. Stud. 2015,
10, 13–21.
54. Wilkinson, P.F.; Pratiwi, W. Gender and tourism in an Indonesian village. Ann. Tour. Res. 1995, 22, 283–299. [CrossRef]
55. Ramchurjee, N.A. Tourism a Vehicle for Women’s Empowerment: Prospect and Challenge; University of Mysore, Manasagangotri:
Mysore, India, 2011; pp. 1–12.
56. Haslinda, A. Women Participation in Tourism. J. Syari’ah Stain Watampone 2017, 10, 92–98.
57. Mirsanjari, M.M. Importance of Environmental Ecotourism Planning for Sustainable Development. OIDA Int. J. Sustain. Dev.
2012, 4, 85–92.
58. Wang, L.; Zhong, L.; Zhang, Y.; Zhou, B. Ecotourism Environmental Protection Measures and Their Effects on Protected Areas in
China. Sustainability 2014, 6, 6781–6798. [CrossRef]
59. Purnomo, E.P.; Ramdani, R.; Salsabila, L.; Choi, J.W. Challenges of community-based forest management with local institutional
differences between South Korea and Indonesia. Dev. Pract. 2020, 30, 1082–1093. [CrossRef]
60. Apipoonyanon, C.; Kuwornu, J.K.; Szabo, S.; Shrestha, R.P. Factors influencing household participation in community forest
management: Evidence from Udon Thani Province, Thailand. J. Sustain. For. 2020, 39, 184–206. [CrossRef]
61. Kaskoyo, H.; Mohammed, A.; Inoue, M. Impact of community forest program in protection forest on livelihood outcomes: A case
study of Lampung Province, Indonesia. J. Sustain. For. 2017, 36, 250–263. [CrossRef]
62. Saha, S.; Ahmed, M.; Roy, T.; Haldar, P. Community Based Ecotourism in Income Generation: A Study on the Sundarbans
Adjacent Area of Bangladesh. Int. J. Bus. Manag. Soc. Res. 2015, 2, 71–79. [CrossRef]
63. Kartika, T.; Riana, N. Storynomics Tourism as an Effective Marketing Strategy on Tourism Destination (Case Study on Tangkuban
Parahu, West Java-Indonesia). Tour. Sustain. Dev. Rev. J. 2020, 1, 33–40. [CrossRef]
64. GOI. Government of Indonesia Law No. 17/2003 on State Finance; Government of Indonesia: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2003.
65. Santoso, W.; Nugroho, A. Pemanfaatan Penerimaan Negara Bukan Pajak di Bidang Kehutanan Dalam Melestarikan Fungsi
Hutan. Mimb. Huk. Fak. Huk. Gadjah Mada 2009, 21, 474–554.
66. Greening, A. Understanding Local Perceptions and the Role of Historical Context in Ecotourism Development: A Case Study of
St. Kitts. Master’s Thesis, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA, 2014.
67. Nyaupane, G.; Thapa, B. Evaluation of Ecotourism: A Comparative Assessment in the Annapura Conservation Area Project,
Nepal. J. Ecotourism 2004, 3, 20–45. [CrossRef]
68. Scheyvens, R. Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities. Tour. Manag. 1999, 20, 245–249. [CrossRef]
69. Zacarias, D.; Loyola, R. How Ecotourism Affects Human Communities. In Ecotourism’s Promise and Peril; Blumstein, D.T., Geffory,
B., Samia, D.S.M., Bessa, E., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 133–151.
70. Clifton, J.; Benson, A. Planning for Sustainable Ecotourism: The Case for Research Ecotourism in Developing Country Destinations.
J. Sustain. Tour. 2006, 14, 238–254. [CrossRef]
71. Mitchell, J.; Ashley, C. Tourism and Poverty Reduction: Pathways to Prosperity; Earthscan Publications: London, UK, 2010; p. 172.
72. Telfer, D.; Sharpley, R. Tourism and Development in the Developing World; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2008; p. 263.
73. Stem, C.; Lassoie, J.; Lee, D.; Deshler, D. How Eco Is Ecotourism? A Comparative Case Study of Ecotourism in Costa Rica. J.
Sustain. Tour. 2003, 11, 322–347. [CrossRef]
74. Koens, J.; Dieperink, C.; Miranda, M. Ecotourism as a development strategy: Experiences from Costa Rica. Environ. Dev. Sustain.
2009, 11, 1225–1237. [CrossRef]
Water 2021, 13, 2398 19 of 19

75. GOI. Government of Indonesia Law No. 52/2009 on Development, Population, and Family Development; Government of Indonesia:
Jakarta, Indonesia, 2009.
76. Syahidah, L.; Sunarti, E. The Effect of Decision Making and Value of Family Transaction with its Environment on Family Social
Strength. J. Fam. Sci. 2018, 3, 1–15. [CrossRef]
77. Sunarti, E.; Nuryani, N.; Hernawati, N. Hubungan antara fungsi adaptasi, pencapaian tujuan, integrasi, dan pemeliharaan sistem
dengan kesejahteraan keluarga. J. Ilmu Kel. Konsum. 2009, 2, 1–10. [CrossRef]