Sustainable Development Concept of Heritage Kampung Tourism Using Novel Prioritization Approach
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Sustainable Urban Kampung Heritage Tourism
2.1. Literature Review
2.2. Kampung Kayutangan Profile as Heritage Tourism Site
3. Methods
3.1. Data Distribution Analysis
- The questionnaires are considered valid if each variable obtains Rxy > 0.212 (from R table with an error rate 0.05). The factors that were unable to fulfill this requirement were deleted from the questionnaires.
- The questionnaires are considered reliable if the questionnaire has a Cronbach’s Alpha > 0.75.
3.2. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Fuzzy AHP (FAHP)
4. Results
4.1. Environmental Assessment
4.1.1. Built Attractions
4.1.2. Non-Building Attractions
4.2. Social Assessment
4.2.1. Activities
4.2.2. Partnership
4.3. Economic Assessment
4.3.1. Non-Farebox Revenue
4.3.2. Farebox Revenue
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Egidi, G.; Salvati, L.; Vinci, S. The long way to tipperary: City size and worldwide urban population trends, 1950–2030. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 60, 102148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shirleyana, S.; Hawken, S.; Sunindijo, R.Y. City of Kampung: Risk and resilience in the urban communities of Surabaya, Indonesia. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 2018, 36, 543–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kii, M. Projecting future populations of urban agglomerations around the world and through the 21st century. NPJ Urban Sustain. 2021, 1, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hutama, I.A.W. Exploring the Sense of Place of an Urban Kampung: Through the Daily Activities, Configuration of Space and Dweller’s Perception: Case Study of Kampung Code, Yogyakarta. Master’s Thesis, University of Twente, Twente, The Netherlands, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nugraha, Y.; Nugraha, M.F.; Abdillah, A. Analisis Strategi Peningkatan Kualitas Bermukim Di Kampung Padat Perkotaan (Studi Kasus Kampung Kota Nyengseret) [Strategic Analysis to Increase Settlement Quality in High-Density Urban Kampung (Case Study of Nyengseret)]. AGORA J. Penelit. Dan Karya Ilm. Arsit. Usakti 2021, 19, 12–21. [Google Scholar]
- Ramadhani, A.N. Territoriality in Tourism Kampung Alley as A Shared Public Space. J. Arsit. ARCADE 2021, 5, 215–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murtyas, S.; Hagishima, A.; Kusumaningdyah, N.H. On-site measurement and evaluations of indoor thermal environment in low-cost dwellings of urban Kampung district. Build. Environ. 2020, 184, 107239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bawole, P.; Darsono, P.; Prawoto, E.A.; Guspara, W. The Development of Low-Income Settlement by Community Driven Strategy and Introducing Batik Home Industry. J. US-China Public Adm. 2015, 12, 876–889. [Google Scholar]
- Silas, J.; Ernawati, R. Liveability of Settlements by People in the Kampung of Surabaya. In Proceedings of the 19th International CIB World Building Congress: Construction and Society, QUT, Brisbane, Australia, 5–9 May 2013; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Octifanny, Y.; Norvyani, D.A. A review of urban kampung development: The perspective of livelihoods and space in two urban kampungs in pontianak, Indonesia. Habitat Int. 2021, 107, 102295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anjasmoro, D.A.; Dwisusanto, Y.B. The Role of Physical Element Settings on The Activities of The Urban Tourism Village Study Object: Kampung Lawas Maspati And Kampung Pelangi Kenjeran. Ris. Arsit. 2022, 6, 20–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asy’ari, R.; Afriza, L.; Silalahi, A.T. Pengembangan Tata Kelola Destinasi Pariwisata Melalui Pendekatan Pemberdayaan Masyarakat di Kampung Wisata Braga. TOBA J. Tour. Hosp. Destin. 2022, 1, 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sari, K.; Nabella, R.S. Potensi Lokal dan Pengembangan Desa Wisata Melalui Badan Usaha Milik Desa (BUMDES): Studi Desa Wisata Pujon Kidul, Kabupaten Malang. In Proceedings of the Prosiding Seminar Nasional Ekonomi Pembangunan, Malang, Indonesia, 24 September 2021; pp. 109–114. [Google Scholar]
- Sodiq, A.; Baloch, A.A.; Khan, S.A.; Sezer, N.; Mahmoud, S.; Jama, M.; Abdelaal, A. Towards modern sustainable cities: Review of sustainability principles and trends. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 227, 972–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomor, Z.; Meijer, A.; Michels, A.; Geertman, S. Smart governance for sustainable cities: Findings from a systematic literature review. J. Urban Technol. 2019, 26, 3–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heymans, A.; Breadsell, J.; Morrison, G.M.; Byrne, J.J.; Eon, C. Ecological Urban Planning and Design: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maraña, M. Culture and Development: Evolution and Prospects. 2010. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/40616477/Culture_and_Development_Evolution_and_prospects (accessed on 30 December 2023).
- Chong, K.Y.; Balasingam, A.S. Tourism sustainability: Economic benefits and strategies for preservation and conservation of heritage sitesin Southeast Asia. Tour. Rev. 2018, 74, 268–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henderson, J.C. Conserving heritage in South East Asia: Cases from Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2012, 37, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leal Filho, W.; Tripathi, S.K.; Andrade Guerra, J.; Giné-Garriga, R.; Orlovic Lovren, V.; Willats, J. Using the sustainable development goals towards a better understanding of sustainability challenges. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 26, 179–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clune, W.H.; Zehnder, A.J. The three pillars of sustainability framework: Approaches for laws and governance. J. Environ. Prot. 2018, 9, 211–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansmann, R.; Mieg, H.A.; Frischknecht, P. Principal sustainability components: Empirical analysis of synergies between the three pillars of sustainability. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2012, 19, 451–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kadir, S.A.; Jamaludin, M. Universal design as a significant component for sustainable life and social development. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 85, 179–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Purvis, B.; Mao, Y.; Robinson, D. Three pillars of sustainability: In search of conceptual origins. Sustain. Sci. 2019, 14, 681–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomislav, K. The concept of sustainable development: From its beginning to the contemporary issues. Zagreb Int. Rev. Econ. Bus. 2018, 21, 67–94. [Google Scholar]
- Stefanakis, A.I. The Role of Constructed Wetlands as Green Infrastructure for Sustainable Urban Water Management. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feroz, A.K.; Zo, H.; Chiravuri, A. Digital Transformation and Environmental Sustainability: A Review and Research Agenda. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shirazi, M.R.; Keivani, R.; Brownill, S.; Butina Watson, G. Promoting social sustainability of urban neighbourhoods: The case of Bethnal Green, London. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2022, 46, 441–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grum, B.; Kobal Grum, D. Concepts of social sustainability based on social infrastructure and quality of life. Facilities 2020, 38, 783–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Putra, R.P.; Hidayati, A.N.; Soewarni, I. Strategi pembangunan perkotaan berkelanjutan di Kota Batu. J. Inov. Penelit. 2021, 1, 1805–1824. [Google Scholar]
- Apriyanto, H.; Eriyatno, E.; Rustiadi, E.; Mawardi, I. Status Berkelanjutan Kota Tangerang Selatan-Banten Dengan Menggunakan Key Performance Indicators (Sustainable Status of South Tangerang City-Banten Using Key Performance Indicators). J. Mns. Dan Lingkung. 2015, 22, 260–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Surya, B.; Ahmad, D.N.A.; Sakti, H.H.; Sahban, H. Land Use Change, Spatial Interaction, and Sustainable Development in the Metropolitan Urban Areas, South Sulawesi Province, Indonesia. Land 2020, 9, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, W.; Yi, P. Assessment of city sustainability—Coupling coordinated development among economy, society and environment. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 256, 120453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kusno, A. Middling urbanism: The megacity and the kampung. Urban Geogr. 2020, 41, 954–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Husin, D.; Prijotomo, J.; Sugiharto, B. The Informality of Urban Kampungs in Jakarta: A Model of an Architectural Form. J. Int. Soc. Study Vernac. Settl. 2021, 8, 16–30. [Google Scholar]
- Susilowati, D.T.; Rochwulaningsih, Y.; Rinardi, H. Kampung Improvement Program: Obstacles and Implementation in Semarang, 1978–1988. 2020. Available online: https://ejournal2.undip.ac.id/index.php/ihis/article/download/8951/5041 (accessed on 5 January 2024).
- Ulfa, E.Y. Kampung Improvement Programme (KIP): Perkembangan dan Perubahannya di Kampung Kebalen Surabaya Tahun 1976–1986 [Development and Transformation of KIP in Kebalen Kampung Surabaya 1976–1986]. Doctoral Dissertation, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Ernawati, R.; Santosa, H.R.; Setijanti, P. Facing urban vulnerability through kampung development, case study of kampungs in Surabaya, Indonesia. Development 2013, 14, 15. [Google Scholar]
- Fathy, R.; Anuraga, J. Community Action Plan (Cap) Dan Kampung Improvement Program (KIP): Studi Komparatif Kebijakan Inklusif Tata Ruang Permukiman di Surabaya dan Jakarta. J. View Proj. 2019, 1, 148. [Google Scholar]
- Fatimah, W.; Sarli, P.; Soewondo, P.; Zakiyya, N. Strategic thinking to improve sanitation in Kampung Pelangi 200, Bandung City: In comparison with Kampung Jodipan-Ksatrian, Malang City. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 592, 012018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tamariska, S.; Siregar, M.; Widya, A. Collaboration settlement improvement program: Case study Kampung Tematik, Semarang. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 881, 012007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fatimah, T. The Impacts of Rural Tourism Initiatives on Cultural Landscape Sustainability in Borobudur Area. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2015, 28, 567–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lak, A.; Gheitasi, M.; Timothy, D.J. Urban regeneration through heritage tourism: Cultural policies and strategic management. J. Tour. Cult. Change 2020, 18, 386–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pérez Guilarte, Y.; Lois González, R.C. Sustainability and visitor management in tourist historic cities: The case of Santiago de Compostela, Spain. J. Herit. Tour. 2018, 13, 489–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bec, A.; Moyle, B.; Timms, K.; Schaffer, V.; Skavronskaya, L.; Little, C. Management of immersive heritage tourism experiences: A conceptual model. Tour. Manag. 2019, 72, 117–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Supriharjo, R.D.; Rahmawati, D.; Santoso, E.B.; Setiawan, R.P.; Pradinie, K. Factors Influencing Community-based Heritage Sustainability in Kampung Kemasan, Gresik. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 227, 498–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colavitti, A.M. Urban Heritage Management: Planning with History; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Y.; Jin, X.; Dupre, K. Engaging stakeholders in contested urban heritage planning and management. Cities 2022, 122, 103521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pendlebury, J. Conservation values, the authorised heritage discourse and the conservation-planning assemblage. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2013, 19, 709–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, H.; Sofield, T. New interests of urban heritage and tourism research in Chinese cities. J. Herit. Tour. 2017, 12, 223–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Badri, N.F.A.; Ramli, R.R. The Assessment on Kampung Kubu, Tanjung Malim, Perak as a Heritage Village. Plan. Malays. 2022, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Radzuan, I.S.M.; Ahmad, Y.; Zainal, R.; Shamsudin, Z.; Wee, S.T.; Mohamed, S. Conservation of a Cultural Heritage Incentives Programme in a Malay Village: Assessing Its Effectiveness. J. Herit. Manag. 2019, 4, 7–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lucchi, E.; Buda, A. Urban green rating systems: Insights for balancing sustainable principles and heritage conservation for neighbourhood and cities renovation planning. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 161, 112324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rey-Perez, J.; Siguencia Ávila, M.E. Historic urban landscape: An approach for sustainable management in Cuenca (Ecuador). J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 7, 308–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mufidah, H.B.; Alfianistiawati, R.; Dionchi, P.H.P.; Fatanti, M.N. Digital Creative Promotion Melalui Pembuatan Video Pendek Sebagai Strategi Promosi Kampung Sejarah “Kayutangan Heritage” Kota Malang. Surya Abdimas 2022, 6, 311–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Budiyono, D.; Nurlaelih, E.E.; Djoko, R. Lanskap Kota Malang Sebagai Obyek Wisata Sejarah Kolonial. J. Lanskap Indones. 2012, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faghrezi, M.R.; Satiawan, P.R. Arahan Pengembangan Koridor Basuki Rahmat Kawasan Kayutangan Kota Malang sebagai Heritage Tourism. J. Tek. ITS 2022, 11, D160–D166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pramono, W.T.; Anggriani, S.D.; Meiji, N.H.P.; Ujang, N.; Sayono, J. Awakening Local Tourism Based On Indische Architecture In Indonesia. Case Study Kajoetangan Kampong Heritage Of Malang. Geo J. Tour. Geosites 2021, 35, 437–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khakim, M.N.L.; Putri, M.U.U.; Suktianto, W.; Budi, N.A. Urgensi pengelolaan pariwisata kampung heritage Kajoetangan Malang. J. Teor. Dan Praksis Pembelajaran IPS 2019, 4, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kurniawan, D.; Kusumasari, A.A.; Palandi, J.F. Perancangan Infografis Interaktif Bagi Pengunjung Museum Singhasari Malang. MAVIS J. Desain Komun. Vis. 2022, 4, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rakhmawati, E.; Antariksa, F.U. Pola Permukiman Kampung Kauman Kota Malang [Settlement Pattern of Kampung Kauman Malang City]. Arsit. E-J. 2009, 2, 160–178. [Google Scholar]
- Santoso, R.E.; Sari, S.R.; Rukayah, R.S. Peran Masyarakat Tionghoa Terhadap Perkembangan Kawasan Heritage Di Kota Lasem, Kabupaten Rembang. Modul 2020, 20, 84–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahman, A. Kafe dan Gaya Hidup: Studi pada Pengunjung Kafe di Wilayah Barombong Kota Makassar. J. Multidisiplin Madani 2022, 2, 3796–3806. [Google Scholar]
- Prabasmara, P.G.; Wibowo, S.H.; Yuniastuti, T. Kajian Struktur Bangunan Tradisional Jawa pada Bangsal Kencana Keraton Yogyakarta. Sinektika J. Arsit. 2020, 16, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Putra, A.M.; Wibowo, A.P. Konsep Perancangan Fasad Bangunan Berdasarkan Karakter Fasad Bangunan Dalem Di Jalan Mondorakan Kotagede, Yogyakarta. J. Arsit. ARCADE 2019, 3, 117–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yazdani Mehr, S.; Wilkinson, S. The importance of place and authenticity in adaptive reuse of heritage buildings. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 2020, 38, 689–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nathanael, J.; Halim, M. Menghidupkan Kembali Pasar Antik Jalan Surabaya Melalui Galeri, Pertokoan, Dan Kuliner Dengan Strategi Akupunktur Perkotaan [Revitalizing Antique Store of Surabaya Street using Gallery, Shophouses, and Culinary through Urban Acupuncture]. J. Sains Teknol. Urban Peranc. Arsit. (Stupa) 2022, 4, 975–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murti, C.; Wijaya, H.B. Pengaruh kegiatan komersial terhadap fungsi bangunan bersejarah di koridor jalan Malioboro Yogyakarta. Tek. PWK (Perenc. Wil. Kota) 2013, 2, 60–75. [Google Scholar]
- Adegoriola, M.I.; Lai, J.H.; Chan, E.H.; Darko, A. Heritage building maintenance management (HBMM): A bibliometric-qualitative analysis of literature. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 42, 102416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sodangi, M.; Idrus, A.B.; Khamidi, F.M. Examining the maintenance management practices for conservation of heritage buildings in Malaysia. In Proceedings of the 2011 National Postgraduate Conference, Perak, Malaysia, 19–20 September 2011; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Conejos, S.; Langston, C.; Chan, E.; Chew, M. Governance of heritage buildings: Australian regulatory barriers to adaptive reuse. Build. Res. Inf. 2016, 44, 507–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mulyadi, L.; Fathony, B.; Prikasari, E. Potensi Kampung Heritage Kayutangan sebagai Destinasi Wisata di Kota Malang. 2019. Available online: http://arsitektur-lalu.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Buku-Kayutangan-_Full-OK-Banget.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2024).
- Andanwerti, N.; Dwiyanto, S.; Widyani, A.I. Kajian Estetika dan Potensi Muatan Lokal Pada Desain Produk Dekorasi Interior di Desa Semoyo Gunung Kidul Yogyakarta [Study of Aesthetics and Potential for Local Content in Interior Decoration Product Design in Semoyo Village, Gunung Kidul, Yogyakarta]. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/36128478/KAJIAN_ESTETIKA_DAN_POTENSI_MUATAN_LOKAL_PADA_DESAIN_PRODUK_DEKORASI_INTERIOR_DI_DESA_SEMOYO_GUNUNG_KIDUL_YOGYAKARTA (accessed on 20 December 2023).
- Fitrianti, L.; Adiluhung, H.; Muttaqien, T.Z. Perancangan Set Pot Dekorasi Rumah Dengan Konsep Space Odyssey pada PT. Artes Indonesia. eProceedings Art Des. 2021, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marpaung, Y.T.; Rostyaningsih, D. Implementation of Green Open Space Management Area of Settlement in Gajahmungkur District, Semarang City. J. Public Policy Manag. Rev. 2019, 8, 473–483. [Google Scholar]
- Wedayanthi, L.M.D.; Adiwijaya, P.A.; Pradnyana, P.B.; Purwantara, I.K.G.T.; Putra, I.K.C.; Purnami, M.A. Pelatihan pengelolaan dan pelayanan pondok wisata untuk pokdarwis di kabupaten bangli. SELAPARANG J. Pengabdi. Masy. Berkemajuan 2023, 7, 1491–1497. [Google Scholar]
- Priyambodo, D.Y.; Artanti, M.S.T.; Suriyanto, R.A.; Basworo, W.; Prasamya, E.; Sekarsih, F.N. Pelatihan Bantuan Hidup Dasar (BHD) Kelompok Sadar Wisata (Pokdarwis) Desa Wisata Nglanggeran Untuk Peningkatan Keamanan Pengunjung. J. Pengabdi. Kpd. Masy. Nusant. 2023, 3, 1684–1692. [Google Scholar]
- Kharisma, D.; Yuniningsih, T. Efektivitas Organisasi Dalam Penyelenggaraan Pelayanan Tanda Daftar Usaha Pariwisata (TDUP) Dinas Kebudayaan Dan Pariwisata Kota Semarang. J. Public Policy Manag. Rev. 2017, 6, 770–781. [Google Scholar]
- Prabawati, N.P.D. Peran Pemuda dalam Kegiatan Pengembangan Pariwisata di Desa Tibubeneng, Kabupaten Badung, Bali. J. Kepariwisataan Indones. J. Penelit. Dan Pengemb. Kepariwisataan Indones. 2019, 13, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rohman, Y.A.; Prananta, R. Sistem Pengelolaan dan Strategi Pemasaran Event Pariwisata di Nusa Dua. J. Tour. Creat. 2019, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nurhasanah, L.; Siburian, B.P.; Fitriana, J.A. Pengaruh globalisasi terhadap minat generasi muda dalam melestarikan kesenian tradisional indonesia. J. Glob. Citiz. J. Ilm. Kaji. Pendidik. Kewarganegaraan 2021, 10, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luturlean, B.S.; Se, M. Strategi Bisnis Pariwisata; Humaniora: Saint-Nicolas, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Fiandari, Y.R.; Rumijati, A.; Fauzi, R.R.; Samara, E.; Rudini; Dahlia; Syafrizan. Manajemen Destinasi Untuk Penguatan Pariwisata Indonesia di Tingkat Internasional; Pustaka Peradaban: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Yasir, M.S.; Nurjanah, M.S.; Samsir, M.S. Manajemen Komunikasi Lingkungan Berbasis Pengembangan Pariwisata; CV. Bintang Semesta Media: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Hermawan, H.; Brahmanto, E.; Hamzah, F. Pengantar Manajemen Hospitality; Penerbit NEM: Jawa Tengah, Indonesia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Aliyah, I.; Setioko, B.; Pradoto, W. Spatial flexibility in cultural mapping of traditional market area in Surakarta (A case study of Pasar Gede in Surakarta). City Cult. Soc. 2017, 10, 41–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harlina, M.S.; Agnesasmitha, E.P.; Herawati, M.S. Layanan Delivery Warung Makan Bardja Berbasis Website Menggunakan PHP dan mySQL dengan Framework Codeigniter [Website-Based Delivery Service through PHP and mySQL through Framework Codeigniter]. UG J. 2022, 15, 18–35. [Google Scholar]
- Rosalina, P.D.; Susanti, L.E.; Paramitha, M.W. Preferensi Wisatawan Milenial Nusantara Pada Daya Tarik Wisata Swafoto Di Bali. J. Ilm. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 10, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Narendra, W. Identifikasi Kebutuhan Sarana Dan Prasarana Wisata Berdasarkan Persepsi Pengunjung Di Pantai Sipelot Kabupaten Malang. Ph.D. Thesis, Institut Teknologi Nasional Malang, Kota Malang, Indonesia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Monariyanti, N.; Sidiq, S.S. Seni pertunjukan sebagai atraksi wisata budaya di kecamatan Karimun kabupaten Karimun provinsi Kepulauan Riau. J. Online Mhs. (JOM) Bid. Ilmu Sos. Dan Ilmu Polit. 2015, 2, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Fiatiano, E. Perencanaan Paket Wisata atau Tur. J. Masy. Kebud. Dan Polit. 2004, 22, 171–178. [Google Scholar]
- Purwaningsih, R.M. Pengaruh Kualitas Pelayanan Pemandu Wisata Terhadap Kepuasan Wisatawan di Candi Prambanan Tinjauan Khusus Pada Kemampuan Berbahasa Verbal. J. Nas. Pariwisata 2013, 5, 146–153. [Google Scholar]
- Fahirra, R.D.; Putri, B.P.S. Analisis Bauran Komunikasi Pemasaran Wisata Tanjung Lesung Di Masa Pandemi COVID-19. Eproceedings Manag. 2021, 8, 4–10. [Google Scholar]
- Romanelli, M. Cities Rethinking Smart-Oriented Pathways for Urban Sustainability. In Handbook of Quality of Life and Sustainability; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 451–467. [Google Scholar]
- Dey, T.; Kamruzzaman, M.; Islam, M.A.; Bachar, B.K.; Pitol, M.N.S. Attitudes of local people towards community based eco-tourism in the Sundarbans. Int. J. Bus. Manag. Soc. Res. 2020, 9, 528–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arrobas, F.; Ferreira, J.; Brito-Henriques, E.; Fernandes, A. Measuring tourism and environmental sciences students’ attitudes towards sustainable tourism. J. Hosp. Leis. Sport Tour. Educ. 2020, 27, 100273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saaty, T.L. Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2003, 145, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saifullah, S. Fuzzy-AHP approach using Normalized Decision Matrix on Tourism Trend Ranking based-on social media. arXiv 2021, arXiv:2102.04222. [Google Scholar]
- Balubaid, M.; Alamoudi, R. Application of the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to multi-criteria analysis for contractor selection. Am. J. Ind. Bus. Manag. 2015, 5, 581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asadabadi, M.R.; Chang, E.; Saberi, M. Are MCDM methods useful? A critical review of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and analytic network process (ANP). Cogent Eng. 2019, 6, 1623153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gass, S.I.; Standard, S.M. Characteristics of Positive Reciprocal Matrices in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 2002, 53, 1385–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Aspects | Factors | Variables | Code |
---|---|---|---|
Environmental | Built attractions | Building uniqueness | BU |
Permanent antiquities’ exhibits | AE | ||
Building authenticity | BA | ||
Building performance | PER | ||
Building maintenance | MAIN | ||
Non-building attractions | Sacred tomb (Makam Mbah Honggo) | MMH | |
Vintage sewer system | SS | ||
Vintage stairs’ structure (Tangga Seribu) | TS | ||
Street furniture, signs, and decorations | SFD | ||
Green area | GA | ||
Social | Activities | Pokdarwis | PO |
Art showcase | AS | ||
Public events | EVE | ||
Local women associations | WO | ||
Local youth groups | YO | ||
Partnership | Community involvement in decision-making | DM | |
Community hospitality | HP | ||
Non-government organization involvement | NGO | ||
Government involvement | GOV | ||
University involvement | UNI | ||
Economic | Non-farebox revenue | Antiquities | AN |
Traditional market | TM | ||
Cafe and traditional drinks vendor | CTV | ||
Roadside stalls | RS | ||
Selfie spots | SLF | ||
Farebox revenue | Ticketing | TIK | |
Art performance | AP | ||
Tourism package | TP | ||
Tourism guidance services | GI | ||
Sponsorship | SP |
Scales of Relative Importance | Interpretation |
---|---|
1 | Item i is equally important to item j |
3 | Item i is slightly more important than item j |
5 | Item i is more important than item j |
7 | Item i is much more important than item j |
9 | Item i is substantially more important than item j |
2, 4, 6, 8 | Intermediate scales |
N | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
RI | 0 | 0 | 0.58 | 0.98 | 1.12 | 1.24 | 1.32 | 1.41 | 1.45 | 1.49 |
Verbal Judgments of Preferences between Criterion i and Criterion j | Triangular Fuzzy Numbers | Reciprocals |
---|---|---|
Equally important | (1, 1, 1) | −1 = (1, 1, 1) |
Judgment values between equal and moderate | (1, 2, 3) | −1 = (1/3, 1/2,1) |
Moderately more important | (2, 3. 4) | −1 = (1/4, 1/3, 1/2) |
Judgment values between moderate and strong | (3. 4. 5) | −1 = (1/5, 1/4, 1/3) |
Strongly more important | (4. 5, 6) | −1 = (1/6, 1/5, 1/4) |
Judgment values between strong and very strong | (5, 6, 7) | −1 = (1/7, 1/6, 1/5) |
Very strongly more important | (6, 7, 8) | −1 = (1/6, 1/7, 1/8) |
Judgment values between very strong and extreme | (7, 8, 9) | −1 = (1/9, 1/8, 1/7) |
Extremely more important | (8, 9, 9) | −1 = (1/9, 1/9, 1/8) |
If factor i has one of the above numbers assigned to it when compared to factor j, then j has the reciprocal value when compared with i | Reciprocals of above −1 = (1/, 1/, 1/) |
Factors | Geometric Average | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
BU | AE | BA | PER | MAIN | |
BU | 1 | 1.90 | 0.64 | 1.55 | 1.55 |
EA | 0.46 | 1 | 0.36 | 0.46 | 0.46 |
BA | 1.93 | 2.77 | 1 | 2.19 | 1.90 |
PER | 0.64 | 2.18 | 0.46 | 1 | 1.32 |
MAIN | 0.64 | 2.18 | 0.53 | 0.76 | 1 |
Total | 4.681 | 10.018 | 2.988 | 5.956 | 6.234 |
Normalization Vector Matrix | Row | Weight | Eigenvalue | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BU | AE | BA | PER | MAIN | |||
0.214 | 0.189 | 0.216 | 0.261 | 0.249 | 1.128 | 0.226 | 1.056 |
0.098 | 0.100 | 0.121 | 0.077 | 0.074 | 0.470 | 0.094 | 0.941 |
0.413 | 0.276 | 0.335 | 0.367 | 0.305 | 1.696 | 0.339 | 1.014 |
0.138 | 0.217 | 0.153 | 0.168 | 0.212 | 0.888 | 0.178 | 1.057 |
0.138 | 0.217 | 0.176 | 0.127 | 0.160 | 0.818 | 0.164 | 1.021 |
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5.089 |
Built Attractions | BU | AE | BA | PER | MAIN |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
BU | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) | (1.000, 3.659, 8.000) | (0.250, 0.381, 1.000) | (1.000, 1.588, 3.000) | (1.000, 1.588, 3.000) |
AE | (0.125, 0.273, 1.000) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) | (0.111, 0.199, 1.000) | (0.200, 0.397, 1.000) | (0.200, 0.397, 1.000) |
BA | (1.000, 2.625, 4.000) | (1.000, 5.025, 9.009) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) | (1.000, 2.001, 3.000) | (1.000, 2.001, 3.000) |
PER | (0.333, 0.630, 1.000) | (1.000, 2.519, 5.000) | (0.333, 0.500, 1.000) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) |
MAIN | (0.333, 0.630, 1.000) | (1.000, 2.519, 5.000) | (0.333, 0.500, 1.000) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) |
Built Attractions | Fuzzy AHP Geometric Mean Value | Weight | Normalized Weight | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
L | M | U | |||
BU | 0.0815841 | 0.2250937 | 0.6928877 | 0.24368712 | 0.24368712 |
AE | 0.0380268 | 0.0663660 | 0.2945753 | 0.09726565 | 0.09726565 |
BA | 0.1076509 | 0.3801701 | 0.9360635 | 0.34713318 | 0.34713318 |
PER | 0.0690913 | 0.1641851 | 0.4064343 | 0.15595702 | 0.15595702 |
MAIN | 0.0690913 | 0.1641851 | 0.4064343 | 0.15595702 | 0.15595702 |
Total | 0.365 | 1 | 2.736 | 1.367280 | 1 |
Non-Building | Geometric Average | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
MMH | SS | TS | SFD | GA | |
MMH | 1 | 1.896 | 1.149 | 0.758 | 0.758 |
SS | 0.527 | 1 | 0.696 | 0.572 | 0.459 |
TS | 0.871 | 1.437 | 1 | 0.758 | 0.758 |
SFD | 1.320 | 1.748 | 1.320 | 1 | 1 |
GA | 1.320 | 2.178 | 1.320 | 1 | 1 |
Total | 5.037 | 8.259 | 5.484 | 4.088 | 3.975 |
Normalization Vector Matrix | Row | Weight | Eigenvalue | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MMH | SS | TS | SFD | GA | |||
0.199 | 0.230 | 0.209 | 0.185 | 0.191 | 1.014 | 0.203 | 1.021 |
0.105 | 0.121 | 0.127 | 0.140 | 0.116 | 0.608 | 0.122 | 1.005 |
0.173 | 0.174 | 0.182 | 0.185 | 0.191 | 0.905 | 0.181 | 0.993 |
0.262 | 0.212 | 0.241 | 0.245 | 0.252 | 1.210 | 0.242 | 0.990 |
0.262 | 0.264 | 0.241 | 0.245 | 0.252 | 1.263 | 0.253 | 1.004 |
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5.012 |
Non-Building | MMH | SS | TS | SFD | GA |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
MMH | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) | (0.333, 2.904, 8.000) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) | (0.333, 0.630, 1.000) | (0.333, 0.630, 1.000) |
SS | (0.125, 0.344, 3.003) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) | (0.125, 0.273, 1.000) | (0.111, 0.315, 3.000) | (0.111, 0.315, 3.000) |
TS | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) | (1.000, 3.663, 8.000) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) | (0.333, 0.630, 1.000) | (0.333, 0.630, 1.000) |
SFD | (1.000, 1.587, 3.003) | (0.333, 3.175, 9.009) | (1.000, 1.587, 3.003) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) |
GA | (1.000, 1.587, 3.003) | (0.333, 3.175, 9.009) | (1.000, 1.587, 3.003) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) |
Non-Building | Fuzzy Geometric Mean Value | Weight | Normalized Weight | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
L | M | U | |||
MMH | 0.0528366 | 0.1860345 | 0.5143353 | 0.16298384 | 0.163 |
SS | 0.0184655 | 0.0709784 | 0.6561270 | 0.16133163 | 0.161 |
TS | 0.0658334 | 0.1948774 | 0.5143353 | 0.16770966 | 0.168 |
SFD | 0.0820271 | 0.2740548 | 0.8176845 | 0.25398744 | 0.254 |
GA | 0.0820271 | 0.2740548 | 0.8176845 | 0.25398744 | 0.254 |
Total | 0.301 | 1 | 3.320 | 1.5405 | 1 |
Activities | Geometric Average | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
POK | AS | EVE | WO | YO | |
POK | 1 | 1.90 | 0.64 | 1.55 | 1.55 |
AS | 0.46 | 1 | 0.36 | 0.46 | 0.46 |
EVE | 1.93 | 2.77 | 1 | 2.19 | 1.90 |
WO | 0.64 | 2.18 | 0.46 | 1 | 1.32 |
YO | 0.64 | 2.18 | 0.53 | 0.76 | 1 |
Total | 4.681 | 10.018 | 2.988 | 5.956 | 6.234 |
Normalization Vector Matrix | Row | Weight | Eigenvalue | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
POK | AS | EVE | WO | YO | |||
0.372 | 0.404 | 0.372 | 0.342 | 0.342 | 1.831 | 0.366 | 0.985 |
0.158 | 0.172 | 0.158 | 0.226 | 0.226 | 0.939 | 0.188 | 1.093 |
0.245 | 0.267 | 0.245 | 0.226 | 0.226 | 1.208 | 0.242 | 0.985 |
0.113 | 0.079 | 0.113 | 0.104 | 0.104 | 0.511 | 0.102 | 0.987 |
0.113 | 0.079 | 0.113 | 0.104 | 0.104 | 0.511 | 0.102 | 0.987 |
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5.038 |
Activity | POK | AS | EVE | WO | YO |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
POK | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) | (2.000, 4.159, 9.000) | (2.000, 4.159, 9.000) | (6.000, 7.319, 9.000) | (6.000, 7.319, 9.000) |
AS | (0.111, 0.240, 0.500) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) | (1.000, 2.924, 6.000) | (1.000, 2.924, 6.000) |
EVE | (0.111, 0.240, 0.500) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) | (1.000, 2.924, 6.000) | (1.000, 2.924, 6.000) |
WO | (0.111, 0.137, 0.167) | (0.167, 0.342, 1.000) | (0.167, 0.342, 1.000) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) |
YO | (0.111, 0.137, 0.167) | (0.167, 0.342, 1.000) | (0.167, 0.342, 1.000) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) |
Item | Fuzzy Geometric Mean Value | Weights (Wi) | Normalized Weight | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
L | M | U | |||
POK | 0.25 | 0.56 | 1.26 | 0.69 | 0.551 |
AS | 0.06 | 0.17 | 0.39 | 0.21 | 0.164 |
EVE | 0.06 | 0.17 | 0.39 | 0.21 | 0.164 |
WO | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.15 | 0.08 | 0.061 |
YO | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.15 | 0.08 | 0.061 |
0.429 | 1 | 2.330 | 1.253 | 1 |
Activities | Geometric Average | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
DM | HP | NGO | GOV | UNI | |
DM | 1 | 1.90 | 0.64 | 1.55 | 1.55 |
HP | 0.46 | 1 | 0.36 | 0.46 | 0.46 |
NGO | 1.93 | 2.77 | 1 | 2.19 | 1.90 |
GOV | 0.64 | 2.18 | 0.46 | 1 | 1.32 |
UNI | 0.64 | 2.18 | 0.53 | 0.76 | 1 |
Total | 4.681 | 10.018 | 2.988 | 5.956 | 6.234 |
Normalization Vector Matrix | Row | Weight | Eigenvalue | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DM | HP | NGO | GOV | UNI | |||
0.363 | 0.340 | 0.426 | 0.362 | 0.331 | 1.822 | 0.364 | 1.004 |
0.291 | 0.273 | 0.263 | 0.275 | 0.218 | 1.320 | 0.264 | 0.968 |
0.126 | 0.153 | 0.148 | 0.170 | 0.218 | 0.815 | 0.163 | 1.104 |
0.110 | 0.109 | 0.095 | 0.110 | 0.132 | 0.556 | 0.111 | 1.014 |
0.110 | 0.125 | 0.068 | 0.083 | 0.100 | 0.486 | 0.097 | 0.971 |
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5.060 |
Partnership | DM | HP | NGO | GOV | UNI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
DM | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) | (1.000, 1.442, 4.000) | (4.000, 5.848, 9.000) | (6.000, 7.319, 9.000) | (7.000, 8.000, 9.000) |
HP | (0.250, 0.693, 1.000) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) | (1.000, 3.683, 6.000) | (1.000, 4.610, 8.000) | (1.000, 5.040, 9.000) |
NGO | (0.111, 0.171, 0.250) | (0.167, 0.272, 1.000) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) | (1.000, 2.080, 4.000) | (1.000, 3.173, 5.000) |
OOV | (0.111, 0.137, 0.167) | (0.125, 0.217, 1.000) | (0.250, 0.481, 1.000) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) | (1.000, 2.001, 3.000) |
UNI | (0.111, 0.125, 0.143) | (0.111, 0.198, 1.000) | (0.200, 0.315, 1.000) | (0.333, 0.500, 1.000) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) |
Partnership | Fuzzy Geometric Mean Value | Weights (Wi) | Normalized Weight | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
L | M | U | |||
DM | 0.25 | 0.47 | 1.08 | 0.60 | 0.466 |
HP | 0.07 | 0.31 | 0.74 | 0.37 | 0.288 |
NGO | 0.04 | 0.11 | 0.30 | 0.15 | 0.116 |
GOV | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.19 | 0.10 | 0.074 |
UNI | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.15 | 0.07 | 0.056 |
Total | 0.407 | 1 | 2.457 | 1.288 | 1 |
Item | Geometric Average | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
AN | TM | CTV | RS | SLF | |
AN | 1 | 1.904 | 1.149 | 2.178 | 0.517 |
TM | 0.525 | 1 | 0.525 | 0.644 | 0.287 |
CTV | 0.871 | 1.904 | 1 | 1.896 | 0.425 |
RS | 0.459 | 1.552 | 0.527 | 1 | 0.303 |
SLF | 1.933 | 3.482 | 2.352 | 3.301 | 1 |
Total | 4.788 | 9.841 | 5.554 | 9.019 | 2.533 |
Normalization Vector Matrix | Row | Weight | Eigenvalue | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AN | TM | CTV | RS | SLF | |||
0.363 | 0.340 | 0.426 | 0.362 | 0.331 | 1,055 | 0.211 | 1.010 |
0.291 | 0.273 | 0.263 | 0.275 | 0.218 | 0.491 | 0.098 | 0.966 |
0.126 | 0.153 | 0.148 | 0.170 | 0.218 | 0.933 | 0.187 | 1.037 |
0.110 | 0.109 | 0.095 | 0.110 | 0.132 | 0.579 | 0.116 | 1.045 |
0.110 | 0.125 | 0.068 | 0.083 | 0.100 | 1.942 | 0.388 | 0.984 |
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5.041 |
Non-Farebox Revenue | AN | TM | CTV | RS | SLF |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
AN | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) | (2.000, 5.768, 9.000) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) | (2.000, 4.763, 7.000) | (0.333, 0.500, 1.000) |
TM | (0.111, 0.173, 0.500) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) | (0.111, 0.174, 0.500) | (0.250, 0.480, 1.000) | (0.111, 0.146, 0.333) |
CTV | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) | (2.000, 5.747, 9.009) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) | (2.000, 4.763, 7.000) | (0.333, 0.500, 1.000) |
RS | (0.143, 0.210, 0.500) | (1.000, 2.083, 4.000) | (0.143, 0.210, 0.500) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) | (0.111, 0.158, 0.333) |
SLF | (1.000, 2.000, 3.003) | (3.003, 6.849, 9.009) | (1.000, 2.000, 3.003) | (3.003, 6.329, 9.009) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) |
Non-Farebox Revenue | Fuzzy Geometric Mean Value | Weight | Normalized Weight | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
L | M | U | |||
AN | 0.11 | 0.25 | 0.57 | 0.31 | 0.241 |
TM | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.15 | 0.07 | 0.056 |
CTV | 0.09 | 0.24 | 0.57 | 0.30 | 0.237 |
RS | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.20 | 0.10 | 0.076 |
SLF | 0.16 | 0.41 | 0.93 | 0.50 | 0.390 |
0.414 | 1 | 2.414 | 1.276 | 1.000 |
Farebox | Geometric Average | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
TIK | AP | TP | GI | SP | |
TIK | 1 | 2.4082 | 2.5119 | 3.3798 | 1.5518 |
AP | 0.4152 | 1 | 1.2457 | 1.5518 | 1 |
TP | 0.3981 | 0.8027 | 1 | 2.5119 | 1.1487 |
GI | 0.2959 | 0.6444 | 0.3981 | 1 | 0.5253 |
SP | 0.6444 | 1 | 0.8706 | 1.9037 | 1 |
Total | 2.7536 | 5.8554 | 6.0263 | 10.3472 | 5.2259 |
Normalization Vector Matrix | Row | Weight | Eigenvalue | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TIK | AP | TP | GI | SP | |||
0.3632 | 0.4113 | 0.4168 | 0.3266 | 0.2970 | 1.8149 | 0.3630 | 0.999 |
0.1508 | 0.1708 | 0.2067 | 0.1500 | 0.1914 | 0.8696 | 0.1739 | 1.018 |
0.1446 | 0.1371 | 0.1659 | 0.2428 | 0.2198 | 0.9102 | 0.1820 | 1.097 |
0.1075 | 0.1101 | 0.0661 | 0.0966 | 0.1005 | 0.4807 | 0.0961 | 0.995 |
0.2340 | 0.1708 | 0.1445 | 0.1840 | 0.1914 | 0.9246 | 0.1849 | 0.966 |
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5.076 |
Item | TIK | AP | TP | GI | SP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
TIK | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) | (2.000, 6.000, 9.000) | (1.000, 2.080, 9.000) | (2.000, 5.451, 9.000) | (0.333, 1.310, 9.000) |
AP | (0.111, 0.167, 0.500) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) | (0.111, 0.437, 3.000) | (0.250, 0.874, 3.000) | (0.111, 0.303, 1.000) |
TP | (0.111, 0.481, 1.000) | (0.333, 2.288, 9.009) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) | (1.000, 2.620, 7.000) | (0.333, 0.500, 1.000) |
GI | (0.111, 0.183, 0.500) | (0.333, 1.144, 4.000) | (0.143, 0.382, 1.000) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) | (0.111, 0.250, 1.000) |
SP | (0.111, 0.763, 3.003) | (1.000, 3.300, 9.009) | (1.000, 2.000, 3.003) | (1.000, 4.000, 9.009) | (1.000, 1.000, 1.000) |
Item | Fuzzy Geometric Mean Value | Weights (Wi) | Normalized Weight | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
L | M | U | |||
TIK | 0.08 | 0.41 | 2.28 | 0.92 | 0.424 |
PER | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.53 | 0.21 | 0.096 |
PW | 0.03 | 0.18 | 0.90 | 0.37 | 0.170 |
GI | 0.02 | 0.08 | 0.45 | 0.18 | 0.084 |
SP | 0.05 | 0.25 | 1.18 | 0.49 | 0.225 |
0.187 | 1 | 5.336 | 2.174 | 1 |
Factors | Final Score (Statistics) | Rank | Final Weight AHP | Rank | Final Weight F-AHP | Rank | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Built attractions | BU | 417.4 | 2 | 0.226 | 2 | 0.244 | 2 |
AE | 445.4 | 1 | 0.094 | 5 | 0.097 | 5 | |
BA | 405.8 | 3 | 0.339 | 1 | 0.347 | 1 | |
PER | 387.2 | 5 | 0.178 | 3 | 0.156 | 3 | |
MAIN | 393 | 4 | 0.164 | 4 | 0.156 | 3 | |
Non-building | MMH | 352.4 | 5 | 0.203 | 3 | 0.163 | 3 |
SS | 430.3 | 2 | 0.122 | 5 | 0.161 | 4 | |
TS | 398.8 | 3 | 0.181 | 4 | 0.168 | 2 | |
SFD | 437.2 | 1 | 0.242 | 2 | 0.254 | 1 | |
GA | 394.1 | 4 | 0.253 | 1 | 0.254 | 1 | |
Activity | POK | 418.6 | 5 | 0.366 | 1 | 0.551 | 1 |
AS | 421 | 3 | 0.188 | 3 | 0.164 | 2 | |
EVE | 450.1 | 1 | 0.242 | 2 | 0.164 | 2 | |
WO | 417.4 | 4 | 0.102 | 4 | 0.061 | 3 | |
YO | 429 | 2 | 0.102 | 4 | 0.061 | 3 | |
Partnership | DM | 464.7 | 1 | 0.364 | 1 | 0.466 | 1 |
HP | 458.9 | 2 | 0.264 | 2 | 0.288 | 2 | |
COM | 433.6 | 5 | 0.163 | 3 | 0.116 | 3 | |
GOV | 434.9 | 4 | 0.111 | 4 | 0.074 | 4 | |
UNI | 445.3 | 3 | 0.097 | 5 | 0.056 | 5 | |
Non-farebox revenue | AN | 413.9 | 2 | 0.211 | 2 | 0.241 | 2 |
TM | 399.6 | 4 | 0.098 | 5 | 0.056 | 5 | |
CTV | 419 | 1 | 0.187 | 3 | 0.237 | 3 | |
RS | 392.6 | 5 | 0.116 | 4 | 0.076 | 4 | |
SLF | 412.7 | 3 | 0.388 | 1 | 0.390 | 1 | |
Farebox revenue | TIK | 443.6 | 2 | 0.363 | 1 | 0.424 | 1 |
AP | 448.1 | 1 | 0.173 | 4 | 0.096 | 4 | |
TP | 429.4 | 3 | 0.182 | 3 | 0.170 | 3 | |
GI | 422.1 | 4 | 0.096 | 5 | 0.084 | 5 | |
SP | 418.6 | 5 | 0.184 | 2 | 0.225 | 2 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 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/).
Share and Cite
Sasongko, I.; Gai, A.M.; Azzizi, V.T. Sustainable Development Concept of Heritage Kampung Tourism Using Novel Prioritization Approach. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2934. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su16072934
Sasongko I, Gai AM, Azzizi VT. Sustainable Development Concept of Heritage Kampung Tourism Using Novel Prioritization Approach. Sustainability. 2024; 16(7):2934. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su16072934
Chicago/Turabian StyleSasongko, Ibnu, Ardiyanto Maksimilianus Gai, and Vidya Trisandini Azzizi. 2024. "Sustainable Development Concept of Heritage Kampung Tourism Using Novel Prioritization Approach" Sustainability 16, no. 7: 2934. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su16072934