Investigating Tourists' Motivation for Visiting

INVESTIGATING TOURISTS’ MOTIVATION FOR VISITING NATIONAL PARKS: THE CASE OF KOMODO NATIONAL PARK, INDONESIA

MUHAMMAD IKBAL PUTERA

A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2019

To my mom and dad for their love and prayers

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would first like to thank Allah Subhanahu Wa ta’ala for making this dream possible. I am aware that my journey to the University of Florida was rough and full of challenges but am grateful that you gave me the wisdom and courage for me to be able to complete this journey. This degree is dedicated to my parents and family who have been raising and taking care of me and forged me into the person I am now.

I am sincerely thankful to every person who offered me assistance and encouragement throughout my master’s program. I would like to thank CIFOR for giving me the chance to pursue a master’s degree in University of Florida. I am grateful that

Dr. Taylor Stein was willing to accept me as his mentee and for giving the chance to study at the University of Florida. He has been supportive and always patient throughout his guidance. Taylor has taught me well about ecotourism and made me confident to say that ecotourism is now my field of expertise.

I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Marilyn Swisher and Dr. Brijesh

Thapa for their knowledge, guidance, and support throughout my master’s program and research. Dr. Swisher has taught me well about research design and methods, and her inputs will always be remembered and used throughout my career. Dr. Swisher provided great assistance during my first year in University of Florida and had encouraged me to develop critical thinking skills to understand the true quality of research. Dr. Thapa provided me with a great knowledge of tourism, particularly about

World Heritage Site. He inspired me to develop many research ideas on World Heritage and motivated me to learn more about World Heritage and UNESCO. Thank you for paving the way for me and making my sacrifices successful.

A huge thank you to my cousin, Adam Brooks, for always supporting whenever I needed him as well as to all of Brooks family members for always helping me since I was a child. I am finally here in America! I owe you and hope I could come back for the doctoral program here sometime in the future.

I would like to thank Zhakiyah Khairunissa for supporting me collecting the data and to Rina Hartini for assisting me in analyzing the data. I’d to thank my closest and dearest best friends, Sheherazade, Ana Carolina Oliveira Fiorini, and Febrian Adhitya for supporting me day and night throughout my master’s program. I would like to thank my roommates, Mackenzie Smith, Benjamin North, Camila Arzola, and Mon Seoane for always introducing me to many places in the US, stand to hear all the hilarious stories at home, and for always uplifting me when I hit a wall. I’d like to thank my beloved friends,

Jessica Belva, Najiah, Frank Prince, Sara Komenda, Shane Feyers, Kotryna Klizentyte,

Kate Nelson, and to all my ecotourism lab mates for always supporting me and cheering me on when I was down. I’d like to thank my friends from another department, Sophia

Salem, Noemi Reyes, Nana Adu, Rojan Baniya, Hao Chen, and Shuwen Zhang for always sharing the joy of friendship, laughing and crying together. I had no chance to survive without your presence and encouragement. You all make my life in the States happier than ever. Every meeting has a goodbye. Thank you for coming into my life and giving me joy. Thank you for the memories I will cherish forever.

Finally, I would like to thank Komodo National Park authority who has supported me to make this dream a reality. Lastly, I’d to thank all of PERMIAS (The Indonesian

Students’ Association) in Gainesville who considered me as their family when I was in the US.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 4

LIST OF TABLES ...... 9

LIST OF FIGURES ...... 10

ABSTRACT ...... 11

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF STUDY ...... 13

Research Background ...... 13 The Significance of the Problem ...... 15

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...... 18

Theories Related to Motivations ...... 18 Theory of Planned Behavior ...... 18 Expectancy-Valence Theory ...... 19 Outcomes-Focused Management ...... 20 The Push and Pull Theory ...... 21 Push factors ...... 22 Pull factors ...... 24 World Heritage Attributes ...... 25 Market Segmentation in Nature-based Tourism ...... 26 Socio-Demographic Characteristics ...... 30

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 32

Purpose and Objectives ...... 32 Research Site ...... 33 Participants ...... 38 Instrumentation ...... 40 Push Factor ...... 40 Pull Factors ...... 41 World Heritage Information ...... 44 Socio-demographic Characteristics ...... 44 Pilot Test ...... 44 Respondent Data Collection ...... 45 Data Analysis ...... 45 Descriptive Analysis ...... 45 Objective 1. To investigate push and pull factors motivating tourists to visit the national park the most...... 46

Research question 1a: What is the dominant push and pull factors that motivate tourists to visit the national park? ...... 46 Objective 2. To establish market segments and characteristics of tourists visiting the national park ...... 48 Research question 2a: What types of tourists come to the national park? ...... 48 Objective 3. To establish a respondent profile of World Heritage information from tourists at Komodo National Park...... 49 Research question 3a: To what extent are tourist aware of World Heritage information and recognize the presence of World Heritage labels while visiting the national park? ...... 49

4 RESULTS ...... 59

Objective 1. The Most Dominant Push and Pull Factors of Tourists Visiting Komodo National Park ...... 60 Research Question 1a: What is the most dominant push and pull factors that motivated tourists to visit the national park? ...... 60 Objective 2. Market Segmentation of Tourists Visiting Komodo National Park ...... 62 Research Question 2a: What are the types of tourists who were coming to the national park? ...... 62 The adventure seekers...... 63 The passive tourists ...... 64 The want-it-all tourists ...... 64 Objective 3. Respondent Profile and Recognition of World Heritage Information ... 65 Research Question 3a: To what extent are tourists aware of World Heritage information and recognize the presence of World Heritage labels while visiting the national park? ...... 65

5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 79

The Most Dominant Push and Pull Factors of Tourists Visiting Komodo National Park ...... 79 The Market Segments of Tourists Visiting Komodo National Park ...... 82 World Heritage Information ...... 85 Management Implications ...... 86 Limitations and Future Research ...... 88 Conclusions ...... 89

APPENDIX

A QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUMENT (ENGLISH VERSION) ...... 92

B QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUMENT (INDONESIAN VERSION) ...... 101

C INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVALS OF PROTOCOL MEMORANDUM ...... 110

D RESEARCH PERMISSION REQUEST LETTERS ...... 112

LIST OF REFERENCES ...... 114

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 123

LIST OF TABLES

Table page

3-1 The list of deleted push factor items in pilot test ...... 51

3-2 The list of deleted pull factor items in the pilot test ...... 52

3-3 List of push factors variables and items after pilot test ...... 53

3-4 List of pull factors variables and items after pilot test ...... 54

4-1 Tourist group characteristics ...... 67

4-2 Tourist socio-demographic profile ...... 67

4-3 Tourist nationality groups ...... 68

4-4 The most visited destination in Komodo National Park ...... 69

4-5 Tourist performed activities in Komodo National Park ...... 70

4-6 Principal component analysis for push factor ...... 71

4-7 Principal component analysis for pull factor ...... 72

4-8 ANOVA for comparison of push and pull factor variables among market segments ...... 73

4-9 Chi-Square results for comparison of market segments among socio- demographic characteristics ...... 74

4-10 Tourist cognition regarding Komodo National Park as a World Heritage Site. .... 76

4-11 Tourist cognition regarding the presence of World Heritage signage ...... 76

4-12 Tourist perception regarding World Heritage label importance ...... 76

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

3-1 The map of Indonesia...... 56

3-2 The distribution map of national parks in Indonesia ...... 56

3-3 Komodo National Park zoning system map ...... 57

3-4 The research framework ...... 58

4-1 K-Means cluster analysis results ...... 77

4-2 Tourist source of information knowing Komodo National Park as World Heritage Site ...... 77

4-3 Tourist cognition of World Heritage label ...... 78

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

INVESTIGATING TOURISTS’ MOTIVATION FOR VISITING NATIONAL PARKS: THE CASE OF KOMODO NATIONAL PARK, INDONESIA

Muhammad Ikbal Putera

May 2019

Chair: Taylor V. Stein Major: Forest Resources and Conservation

The aim of this study is to investigate primary motivations for tourists visiting national parks by examining tourist market segments and through the creation of respondent profiles on World Heritage information. The push and pull theory (Dann,

1977; Crompton, 1979) was operationalized in this research to address this question.

Komodo National Park in Indonesia was chosen as the research site to investigate this topic. This research distributed questionnaires by interviewing tourists on-site. Out of

373 participants who were approached, 289 agreed to participate in the study.

Results indicate that the primary push and pull motivational factors for tourist at

Komodo National Park was to learn and experiencing natural excitements and longing for interaction with unique wildlife and adoring the authenticity of the natural destination.

This finding suggests that a destination’s authenticity and its scenic landscape are potential drivers to attract tourists to travel to a national park. Furthermore, unique wildlife has influenced tourists’ decision to choose a national park as their tourism destination.

This study found three market segments; the ‘adventure seekers’, ‘passive tourists’, and the ‘want-it-all tourists’. This study also examined the role of naming a

national park as a World Heritage Site, and how it influences a tourists’ motivations.

Results showed that tourists were aware that Komodo National Park is a World Heritage

Site (84.07%) but were not be able to acknowledge the World Heritage label.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF STUDY

This chapter justifies the need to research sustainable nature-based tourism practice and management improvement. Reasons why tourists visit specific destinations are key in understanding how to plan and manage those destinations and to reap the potential benefits that arise from tourism; including economic benefits. In the case of

Indonesia, national park managers focused their management priority on wildlife conservation and human conflict management. They often not consider the motivations of tourists, and how tourists’ motivations differ. This research hopes to provide a more complete understanding of what tourists hope to attain in their visits to one of the most iconic national parks in the word, Komodo National Park.

Research Background

Tourism is widely considered one of the world’s largest and rapidly growing industries (Mutanga et al., 2017; Jarvis et. al., 2016; Murphy, 2013). There are many different types of tourism that have developed and have become accessible to this increasingly globalized world. In particular, nature based-tourism has seen an increase throughout the world – especially in developing countries. Nature-based tourism is defined as

“Travel for the purpose of enjoying undeveloped natural areas or wildlife involves marketing of natural landscapes and wildlife to tourists and includes a wide range of activities from relatively passive scenery and wildlife viewing to physically exerting ‘adventure tourism’ activities often involving risk” (Goodwin, 1996: 287).

According to Goodwin’s (1996) definition, nature based-tourism points at the movement of tourist to natural areas in order to admire its wildlife and scenery. Nature- based tourism is not only considered a development strategy to protect wildlife and the

environment (Goodwin, 1996) but also a powerful market force with 5% to 10% of the global travel marketplace. Nature-based tourism has become one of the fastest growing sectors in the tourism industry that projects an annual global growth rate of 5% (Lu and

Stepchenkova, 2012; Oviedo-García et al., 2016). Tourists generate economic gain and successfully support the sustainability of ecotourism for many years. Taking into consideration the potential to generate revenue from nature-based tourism, it is essential to explore further factors that may affect a tourists’ intention to visit national parks.

Investigating tourist travel motivation is crucial for the long-term success of nature-based tourism. Crompton and McKay (1997) defined motivation as a dynamic process of internal psychological factors (needs and wants) that generate a state of tension or disequilibrium within individuals. Griffiths (2012) defines motivation as a driving force that is originally rooted from physiological or psychological needs that are at times unknown to the individual. A triggering question posed by Lundberg (1972: 70) that asked, why do people travel? has influenced researchers globally to investigate people's motivation in the field of tourism as the basis of tourist behavior.

By seeing the importance of tourists’ participation in nature-based tourism, The

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) developed a strategy – known as ‘World Heritage’ designation – to promote and reinforce tourism among well managed protected areas such as national parks. This designation acted as a brand and marketing tool intended to attract tourists to visit and support its financial system by attracting potential donors to invest and improve the overall site management. Despite the value of this UNESCO’s branding,

“many researchers have noted that visitors were unaware of World Heritage Site designation, unaware of its meaning and calling into question whether the World Heritage Site label has value toward them” (Baral et al., 2017: 1496).

This value of designating areas as World Heritage Sites comes into question when the lack of awareness of this term is discussed by the very visitors it was designed to help attract. Therefore, the term requires further examination to identify the extent of which visitors as well as park managers understand the World Heritage label.

The Significance of the Problem

In order to provide scientific evidence regarding tourists' motivation, a useful research framework needs to be employed. Tourists' motivations can be observed by examining the relationship among various push and pull factors. The push and pull factors theory proposed by Dann (1977) and later enhanced by Crompton (1979) are widely used in tourism research to identify which factors drive tourists to travel to specific locations. Push factors are defined as factors that create a desire to travel

(Crompton, 1979; Dann, 1977, 1981; Iso-Ahola, 1982, 1989; Kim et al., 2002; Pearce and Caltabiano, 1983; Pyo, Mihalik and Uysal, 1989; Uysal and Hagan, 1993; Yuan and

McDonald, 1990), while pull factors are features, attractions, or attributes of the destination Kim et al., 2003). Identification of motivations is the first step towards generating destination plans. This may explain why tourists plan a trip and decide which type of experience, destination or activity they want to experience (Caber and Albayrak,

2016; Kim, Lee, and Klenosky, 2003).

Protected areas which include national parks are believed to be powerful attractions for tourists, major foreign currency earners, and constitute an important part of the tourism industry; especially in African countries (Mutanga et al., 2017; Chikuta,

2015; Job and Paesler, 2013) and Indonesia. National parks offer tourists a unique experience by allowing them to enjoy natural attractions that comprise of wildlife biodiversity, cultural events, and scenic landscapes as pull factors. Despite its unique attractions offered, most national parks are in remote locations and can be difficult to reach, thus requiring greater financial expenses for the tourists. To build upon

Lundberg's question on a person’s motivation to travel, a follow-up question can be asked; why do tourists desire to observe wild animals, plants, and pristine environments at national parks? Considering the high financial cost and greater effort it requires to visit, alternatives such as observing animals at the zoo exist, which is much cheaper and easier. So, what pushes a person to visit national parks?

Travel behavior patterns, market segmentation, nature-based tourism benefits, travel motivations, nature-based tourism activities have been the focus of previous studies (Lu and Stepchenkova, 2012), as well as research on psychological factors towards nature-based tourists’ experience and satisfaction (Oviedo-García et al., 2016).

Prior studies have explored tourists' motivations in various events such as participation in festivals (Schofield and Thompson, 2007), visiting rural settings (Devesa et al., 2010), visiting national parks (Kim et al., 2003), participating in white-water rafting (Fluker and

Turner, 2000) and enjoying rock climbing (Caber and Albayrak, 2016).

Motivation takes an important role in the process of travelling that might affect a person’s decision to visit national parks. Tourists’ motivation varies, depending on the type of attractions that the parks offer (Merwe and Saayman, 2008). My research attempts to identify and understand tourists' motivation for visiting national parks using the theory of push and pull factors, as well as to understand the tourist psychological

state. This research also attempts to examine the different push and pull factors among market segments. Lastly, this research is aimed to measure tourists’ degree of knowledge regarding World Heritage Site and investigating whether the label ‘World

Heritage Site’ effect motivations for visiting national parks. The information generated from this research will hopefully assist national park authority to formulate policy and decide suitable improvements based on tourists’ preferences. Furthermore, this research will hope to emphasize the importance of tourists’ motivation for national parks as this information can be incorporated toward the parks’ marketing campaign strategy.

This research was conducted at Komodo National Park, Indonesia. Komodo

National Park was selected as the research site as it is one of the leading ecotourism destinations in Indonesia that has many attractive aspects for tourists. It is primarily known for its famous endemic species and for the largest lizard in the world; the

Komodo dragon. The park also contains scenic landscapes, high marine biodiversity, local unique villages, and is designated a World Heritage Site. Given the dominance of the Komodo dragon as the primary attraction to this unique area – even though the park offers a plethora of unique tourism resources – Komodo National Park is a suitable location to investigate tourists' motivation for visiting national parks further and identify which factors that the park has motivated them the most.

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This chapter explains the operationalized research framework of the study. This research was built upon many prior studies that have applied the theory of push and pull factors. The push and pull factors were measured in a cohesive way to determine which factors have the strongest and/or weakest statistical correlations. World Heritage is discussed and included as part of pull factors, which integrates push and pull factors with international national park destination research. Combining all these constructs, this research is expected to extend the domain of the theory and its assigned variables within the Indonesian National Park research setting.

Theories Related to Motivations

This chapter briefly explains other theories related to motivations as comparison to push and pull factor theory. The theories are comprised of theory of planned behavior

(Ajzen, 1975), expectancy-valence theory (Vroom, 1964), benefits-based management

(Stein & Lee, 1995), and push and pull factor theory (Dann, 1977; 1979; Crompton,

1979). They are the most commonly used theory for research on travel behaviors and motivations.

Theory of Planned Behavior

This theory was first introduced by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) as an extension of earlier framework, the theory of reasoned action. Theory of planned behavior becomes one of the most frequently cited and influential models for the prediction of human behavior (Ajzen, 2011: 589), including in the tourism literature (Crompton, 1979; Uysal

& Hagan, 1993).

Theory of planned behavior has three core constructs (‘attitude’, ‘subjective norm’, and ‘perceived behavior control’). Ajzen (1991) and Lam & Hsu (2006) added additional variable to those constructs, ‘past behaviors’ which are likely to be contributing factor on behavioral intention. Past research found that ‘past behaviors’,

‘subjective norm’, and ‘perceived behavioral control’, but not ‘attitude’ have a direct impact on behavioral intention (Lam & Hsu, 2006: 597). Lam and Hsu (2004; 2006) stated that theory of planned behavior supports push and pull factor theory for predicting travelers’ attitudes in choosing travel destination.

Expectancy-Valence Theory

This theory was first introduced by Vroom (1964) to organize and integrate existing knowledge in the field of vocational psychological and motivation (Lawler and

Porter, 1967; Lee, 2007). The expectancy-valence model is defined as,

“a long-established behavioral framework used by accounting researcher to study individual motivation and performance in the organization” (Kominis & Emmanuel, 2007: 50).

Expectancy theorist share the belief that controls attempt to influence behavior and may not elicit the same response from all managers (Kominis & Emmanuel, 2007).

Expectancy-valence theory has three constructs, valence, expectancy, and instrumentality. Firstly, Vroom (1964) defined valence as affective orientations toward particular outcomes. Secondly, expectancy is defined as the subjective probability that a given act will be followed by a given outcome and varies between 0 (certain non- occurrence) and 1 (certain occurrence) (Vroom, 1964: 18). Lastly, instrumentality is defined as a person perception of the probability that performance will lead to a specific outcome (Lee, 2007). In tourism domain, visitors tend to engage in recreation opportunity with some expectation that they will fulfill desired conditions and outcomes

(Kil, 2012: 24). If visitors do not fulfill their desired recreation outcomes, they would tend to be less satisfied (Driver & Brown, 1978).

Outcomes-Focused Management

This theory was first called as benefits-based management (BBM) as researched by Stein & Lee (1995). It provides a framework specifically developed to assist park managers in improving planning for recreation and managing target outcomes or goals of recreation opportunities (Stein & Lee, 1995; Kil, Holland, & Stein, 2015). Benefits- based management broadened its focus and evolved to become outcomes-focused management (OFM) model consists of three levels of demand for opportunities: activity opportunities provided by resources managers (Level 1); recreation opportunities that provide on-site desired experiences (Level 2); and opportunities that help to provide values that extend beyond individual on-site experiences and benefits (Level 3) (Kil,

Holland, & Stein, 2015: 1110-1111). Recreation managers are required to have a good understanding of visitors’ desired outcomes when providing recreation opportunities in order.

Researches who study outcomes-focused management heavily use recreation experience preference (REP) scales (Manfredo, Tarrant, Driver, 1996) to not only identify personal motivations and desired outcomes of visitors (Kil, Holland, & Stein,

2015). In regards of benefits, OFM can be individual, social, economic, and environmental (Kil, Holland, & Stein, 2015: 1111). OFM recreation benefits are parallel to push and pull factor variables. For instance, nature enjoyment/learning is part of

Driver’s scales which are also considered as OFM personal benefits. Thus, by identifying tourists’ push and pull factors, the OFM recreation benefits can be better

understood. The information gathered can assist managers to carefully formulate policy related ecotourism and recreation management in national parks.

The Push and Pull Theory

Dann (1977) proposed a conceptual framework on why people travel to participate in recreation by identifying two types of factors he called ‘push’ and ‘pull’.

Dann (1977; 1981) and Crompton (1979) underlines that push and pull factors are important when examining tourists' motivations. Paudyal et al. (2018: 25) stated,

"once recreationists declare their recreation, destination attributes influence their decision of selecting a specific site".

The push and pull framework have also shown to be an effective approach to observe and understand travel behaviors as well (Kim and Lee, 2002; Kim, Lee, and

Klenosky, 2003, 2002; Prayag and Hosany, 2014; Chen and Chen, 2015). There have also been numerous studies that have replicated and extended the domain of push and pull theory by applying it to a national park. These studies include in Gonarezhou and

Matusadona National Parks in Zimbabwe (Mutanga et al., 2017), Bako National Park in

Malaysia (Kamri and Radam, 2013), National Parks in Korea (Kim et al., 2003), Kruger and Tsitsikamma National Parks in South Africa (Merwe and Saayman, 2008) (Kruger and Saayman, 2010), Kenyan Natural Reserves (Beh and Bruyere, 2007), Taiwan’s

National Parks (Hwang, Lee, and Chen, 2005), and Australian visitors visiting US

National Park and natural areas (Uysal, McDonald, and Martin, 1994).

Push factors

Push factors reflect the psychological drivers of behavior (Wu and Pearce, 2014) such as the desire for escape, relaxation, or adventure. Originally, Crompton (1979:

416-419) identified nine motivational domains as follows: (1) Escape from a perceived mundane environment, (2) exploration and evaluation of self, (3) relaxation, (4) prestige,

(5) regression, (6) enhancement of kinship relationships, (7) facilitation of social interaction, (8) Novelty, and (9) Education. Afterwards, Iso-Ahola (1982, 1989) suggested two fundamental motivational dimensions that concurrently affect people's behavior regarding tourist leisure behavior study, escaping and seeking.

Prior studies have discovered similar motivational indicators among push factors in different research locations. Kim et al. (2003) stated that commonly found push factors among Korean tourists visiting national parks were to ‘escape from everyday environment', ‘novelty', ‘social interaction', ‘prestige', ‘challenge or adventure',

‘enjoyment', ‘social interaction', and ‘religious heritage'. Among those factors, the most important push factors for Korean were ‘appreciating natural resources and health',

‘adventure and building friendship', ‘family togetherness and study', and ‘escaping from everyday routine'. Loker-Murphy (1996) found that the most common motivations among backpackers that visit Australian National Parks were ‘Meeting with local people' and ‘excitement/adventure'.

Phau, Lee, and Quintal (2013) observed tourists' motivations on a private park of

Araluen Botanic Park - Western Australia and found that ‘escape and health',

‘appreciating cultural and natural resources', and ‘curiosity' as the most underlying push factors. Cha et al. (1995) clustered Japanese tourists into three distinct groups based on their motivations for visiting Japan and South Korea tourism destinations, ‘sports

seekers', ‘Novelty seekers', and ‘family/relaxation seekers'. Examining push motivations evidence in Africa, Mutanga et al. (2017) found that ‘recreation and knowledge seeing',

‘appreciating wildlife', and ‘feeling close to nature' as the push motives for tourists in

Gonarezhou National Park and Matusadona National Park – Zimbabwe. Carvache-

Franco et al. (2019) found that the most dominant push motivations of visitors at

Samanes Park – Ecuador were ‘to enjoy the environment and pure air', ‘enjoy public recreation spaces', ‘perform sports', and ‘perform activities in nature'.

For this research context, Recreation Experience Preference (REP) scales were operationalized. As described earlier, REP scales were originally developed by Driver

(1983) to investigate why visitors engaged in recreation activity, understanding what visitors want from recreation, and unraveling the visitors’ psychological state based on the US recreation context (Manfredo, Driver, & Tarrant, 1996). The early scale that was generated by Driver (1983) had nineteen domains and 328 items. Later, Manfredo,

Driver, & Tarrant (1996) conducted a meta-analysis research among 36 studies that have been implementing REP scales and examined its reliability and validity. Among nineteen domains, a hundred and eight items remained and found 5,778 correlations among them (Manfredo, Driver, & Tarrant, 1996).

For future implementation, Manfredo, Driver, & Tarrant (1996) suggested that researchers can determine which of the variables are applicable to their respective studies and advised future researchers to use empirical observations related to scale consistency by employing reliability and validity tests. Not only had REP scales have been used to understand outcomes-focused management, as described earlier, researchers have also modified and widely used REP scales to understand push factors (Kouthouris,

2009). For example, researchers have used REP scales throughout the world, including

Raadik et al. (2010) REP scales in Sweden’s national park; Weber & Anderson (2010) in

Australian parks; Kouthouris (2009) for recreational skiers in south of Greece; and in

Payne et al. (2004) in Ontario Forest, Canada. These prior studies have shown the effectiveness of REP scales in a variety of recreation settings.

Pull factors

Pull factors are external aspects of a specific location and/or attraction which tourists might or might not find desirable to visit. These can include tangible and intangible elements and can include environmental features (Dann, 1977; Klenosky,

2002; Chen and Chen, 2015; Ramseook et al., 2015), unique culture, events, and unique environment. Ritchie & Ritchie (1998) added that the destination brand, symbol, logo, and other combination that identifies one particular site and that influences a tourists’ desire to travel can be considered as pull factors. Pull factors are directly related to the destination so that each site might have a unique set of pull factors.

Different groups of people have been evaluating these factors in various ways depending on the travel purpose and destination familiarity (Kim et al., 2003).

Research throughout the world have evaluated a variety of pull factors that help to explain the appeal of tourism areas. Fakeye and Crompton (1991) identified pull factors of ‘social opportunities and attractions', ‘natural and cultural amenities',

‘accommodations and transportation', ‘infrastructure', ‘foods and friendly people',

‘physical amenities and recreation activities', and ‘bars and evening entertainment' among tourists who visited a winter destination in Texas. Kim, Crompton, & Botha

(2000) identified ‘entertainment', ‘infrastructure', ‘physical environment', and ‘high profiles entertainment opportunities' as pull factors from the Sun/Lost City Resort in

South Africa. In the context of South Korea, a variety of researchers identified pull factors from the Korean National Parks setting which included ‘natural resources',

‘historical and cultural resources', ‘climbing or good walking facilities', ‘facilities for rest and recreational services', ‘information and convenience facilities', and ‘commercial and accommodation facilities' (Ahn and Kim, 1996; Kim et al, 2003). Mutanga et al. (2017) added climate, history, and sport as an example of observed pull factors from

Gonarezhou and Matusadona National Park in Zimbabwe.

World Heritage Attributes

Branding plays a key role in the sustainability of protected areas as well as a fundamental role in the sustainability of heritage sites and destinations (King et al.,

2012). World Heritage designation is a tool designed to enhance branding and to shape the image of an area; particularly for a national park. It was originally proposed in 1972 at the ‘Convention Concerning the Protection of the World's Cultural and Natural

Heritage' and was later adopted by UNESCO in 1976 (Leask and Fyall, 2006).

The purpose of the Convention was to ensure the identification, protection, conservation, presentation, and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage of Outstanding Universal Value (UNESCO, 2017: 10). The World

Heritage Committee was established in order to coordinate the inscription process, which aimed to encourage conservation of the resources within the designated sites and surrounding buffer zones on a local level and also to foster a sense of collective global and responsibility via international cooperation, exchange and support (Leask and Fyall, 2006).

King and Halpenny (2014) have investigated the tourist cognition of World

Heritage brand within five World Heritage Sites in Australia and one World Heritage Site in USA. They concluded that

“the World Heritage symbol has been failing to communicate any message to the overwhelming majority of park visitors” (King and Halpenny, 2014: 782).

They pointed out the importance for conducting similar research at other World

Heritage Sites and examine whether there is a difference in results. This concern is consistent with research attempts to understand how well tourists understand the meaning of World Heritage designation and the extent to which tourists are aware of the presence of World Heritage signage while visiting the national park. World Heritage has the potential to provide an international status symbol on national parks, if people (i.e. tourists, locals, and managers) valued and understood the designation. Thus, learning how tourists understand and value World Heritage designation and the symbols and logos associated with World Heritage Sites are essential to best market, promote, plan, and manage World Heritage Sites to tourists.

Market Segmentation in Nature-based Tourism

Previous studies considered the investigation of motivations as an essential process of market segments identification (Carvache-Franco, Segarra-Oña Bieger, &

Carrascosa-López, 2019; Bieger & Laesser, 2002; Ryan & Glendon, 1998), especially within the scope of protected areas such as national parks. For the national parks environment to be sustainable, the authority should formulate the right regulations in line with the right tourist market segments. Thus, market segment identification is pivotal that it would assist conservation managers in determining the best strategy to attract

certain groups of customers based on their preferred motivations and socio- demographic characteristics.

Past studies found that every destination provides different types of attractions and amenities, enticing different types of tourists’ segmentations with a broad spectrum of travel motivations. Weaver & Lawton (2002) identified three distinct market segments of tourists who were visiting Binna Burra Mountain Lodge and O’Reilly’s Rainforest

Guesthouse at Australia’s Gold Coast Hinterland. The first identified segment was

‘harder ecotourists’ that have a greater fascination with wildlife, eager to learn about nature, self-reliance, and enjoying the risky activity. In contrast to the ‘harder ecotourists,’ they also found the ‘softer ecotourists’ which are more likely be interested with given services and facilities provided on the natural environment, such as more preferred to spend time at a beach resort. The last segment was the in-between group, namely ‘structured ecotourists’ who gave high mean scores toward escorted tours, adequate infrastructure, and interpretation. Following up, Weaver & Lawton (2007:

1172) mentioned that the ‘structured ecotourists’ preferred to have a hard ecotourism experience when interacting with natural attractions but the desire for a soft ecotourism experience at other times.

Market segmentation is highly studied in the tourism literature. It is renowned that it could provide direct implications for national parks authority better design their marketing strategy. Previous studies on market segmentation should be examined to reach the anticipated outcome. A study by Barić, Anić, & Macías Bedoya (2016) found three meaningful market segments of tourists visiting Paklenica National Park in

Croatia. The first segment they found was the ‘naturalists’, who considered enjoying

nature as the most important reason to visit the park. The second segment was the

‘escapists’ group who represent those who had desire to escape and solitude. Lastly, the ‘ecotourists’ group as their largest segment, showed greater interest among all benefits but mostly showed a high likeliness to enjoy nature and novelty-learning.

Each national park has different market segments. Supporting the notion, Kruger,

Viljoen, & Saayman (2017) found three distinct market segments of tourists visiting

Kruger National Park at South Africa, the ‘Marulas’, the ‘Tambotis’, and the ‘Baobabs’.

Both ‘Marulas’ and the ‘Tambotis’ are mostly domestic tourists who considered ambiance, primary interpretation, and viewing points as the most important feature in the park (Kruger, Viljoen, & Saayman, 2017: 330). Comprehensive family destination, escape, and lifestyle were their strongest motives for visiting the park (Kruger, Viljoen, &

Saayman, 2017: 330). The difference between those two segments can be seen from their willingness to pay to see the wildlife object. The ‘Marulas’ are willing to pay more to see a leopard, while the ‘Tambotis’ are willing to pay more to see a rhino. Interestingly, the ‘Baobabs’ who were predominantly international tourists had no intention to pay more to see the wildlife objects. Kruger’s et al. (2017) market segments showed that the distinct group preferences could also be seen not only from their motives to visit the park but also to see their degree of willingness to pay for an object.

The establishment of market segments corresponds with the tourists’ attraction available on each destination. This notion is supported by Neuts et al. (2016) who identified four distinct market segments based on Shiretoko National Park in Japan.

They discovered ‘bear-watchers’, ‘landscape lovers’, ‘organized tour groups’, and ‘active explorers’. Explicitly as the group’s name, the ‘bear-watchers’ gave a strong motivation

to bear-watching. In contrast, the ‘landscape-lovers’ preferred to experience physical activities with the purpose to enjoy the scenery, such as playing sea kayaks. The

‘organized tour groups’ represent those who visit the park with a larger tour group and being organized by the third party. The last identified group was the ‘active explorers’ in which those who had broad motivations, enticed to many features the park provided.

Concerning more recent studies, Gu, et al. (2018) classified four different market segments of tourists visiting Changbai Mountain Biosphere Reserve in China. They discovered ‘nature travelers’ as their first segment group who were interested the most in experiencing nature and natural landscapes. Similarly to ‘nature travelers’ value of appreciating nature and natural landscapes, they identified ‘cultural landscape tourists’ that had a strong enamor of experiencing the cultural environment in the park.

Furthermore, they identified ‘food and shopping enthusiasts’ that considered buying food and shopping as their distinct motivation to travel compared to other segments.

Lastly, the ‘eclectic adventures’ similarly to Neuts’s ‘active explorers’ are those who are interested in a broad spectrum of motivations for visiting the park. Another study by

Carvache-Franco, Segarra-Oña, & Carrascosa-López (2019) classified three distinct market groups of tourists visiting Santay National Recreation Area, Morro Mangrove

Wildlife Refuge, and Samanes National Recreation Area in Guayas, Ecuador. They found the ‘multiple motives’ tourists, ‘reward and escape’ tourists, and ‘nature’ seeker tourists. The ‘multiple motives’ tourists are those who gave high motivations on many variables. The second group was the ‘reward and escape’ tourists gave strong motivations related to nature, excitement, exploration, building good memories, escaping daily routine, and getting away from daily stress (Carvache-Franco, Segarra-

Oña, & Carrascosa-López, 2019: 11). The third group was the ‘nature’ seeker tourists, those who are more interested in nature appreciation.

Socio-Demographic Characteristics

Although socio-demographic characteristics do not cause people to visit specific locations, they are often related to visitors’ desired push and pull factors and can aid in the development of market segments of tourists visiting national parks. Furthermore, examination of socio-demographic variables would help park managers identify appropriate management decision based on tourist groups’ demographic preferences.

Socio-demographic characteristics influence tourists’ decision to travel motivations, tourists’ behaviors, and their likeliness toward particular destination attractions. Jonsson and Devonish (2008) operationalized nationality, age, and gender to report motivations. They found age and nationality proved significant to differentiate group preferences to visit Barbados. Tourists from Canada are more motivated to visit

Barbados for almost every identified push factor compared to tourists from United

States, United Kingdom, and other Caribbean countries (Jonsson and Devonish, 2008).

Furthermore, they found that tourists who over 55 years old are more motivated in experiencing Barbados cultures and had a strong desire to relax compared to those who are in 18 to 55 years old. In contrast, tourists who are in 18 to 35 years old gave the highest mean score toward physical motivation, indicating their a strong desire to experience more physical activity in nature compared to the other age groups.

Meanwhile, those who are in 36 to 55 years old showed greater motivations toward pleasure-seeking, wanted to get away from home.

More recent studies support the notion that the different tourist socio- demographic characteristics showed different preferences. A study by Ma et al. (2018)

who examined Chinese tourists’ travel motivation found that age was positively correlated with the desire to relax and explore nature. By contrast, education was negatively correlated with social influence. Ma et al. (2018) assert the notion of understanding tourists’ characteristics is pivotal and would allow the management authority to manipulate tourists in a sustainable way, potentially generate minimum environmental impact from tourism activity. By contrast, Allan and Shavanddasht (2019) found that gender, age, educational level, occupation, and marital status had significant difference toward each of rural geotourists’ market segments in Kandovan Village, Iran.

In their research, they found that most of the geotourists were predominantly male ranging from 40 -59 years old, mostly married, hold a bachelor degree, and are employed. This information establish a notion that each and every tourists market segments has their own preferences based on their unique socio-demographic characteristics. Thus, it would certainly influence Kandovan Village tourism managers in managing their customers’ needs.

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this research was to understand the motives on why tourists desire to travel to a national park that is focused on a particular wildlife attraction.

Furthermore, this research attempted to establish tourists’ market segments and investigate tourists’ knowledge regarding World Heritage inscription. The following chapter will review the research methodology that discusses research design and methods used for data collection as well as the data analysis.

Purpose and Objectives

The goal of conducting research on tourist motivations is to understand the match between tourists’ desires and the settings of a tourism destination that might or might not meet those desires (i.e., push factors enhance destination quality and management strategy as well as aid in marketing and promoting Komodo National

Park). The purpose of this research is to investigate tourists’ motivations when visiting a national park, when more efficient and easier alternatives exist to observe those same animals in a zoo.

This research hopes to capture tourists' motivations for visiting the national park by operationalizing push and pull theory (Dann, 1977, 1981; Crompton, 1979) and include socio-demographic variables to distinguish the difference between each tourist market segments. Push and pull theory were used in order to explore the potential drivers that motivate and attract tourists to visit a national park – a common framework to examine visitation to national parks. Few studies have used this theory to examine tourists’ visitation to national parks in Indonesia, and no research of this kind has been applied to Komodo National Park.

The anticipated outcomes of this study are to expand the body of knowledge related to tourists’ motivations to visit unique natural areas like Komodo. It also was designed to provide practical recommendations toward national park policy-making process regarding ecotourism and tourism management within the national park. The objectives and research questions of this research are as follow:

 Objective 1: To investigate the most dominant push and pull factors that motivated people to visit the national park.

o Question 1a: What is the most dominant push and pull factors that motivates tourists to visit the national park?

 Objective 2: To establish market segments and characteristics of tourists visiting the national park.

o Question 2a: What are the types of tourists who were coming to the national park?

 Objective 3: To establish a respondent profile regarding World Heritage information from the tourists at Komodo National Park.

o Question 3a: To what extent of which tourists are aware of World Heritage information and recognize the presence of World Heritage labels while visiting the national park?

Research Site

Indonesia is an archipelagic country located in South East Asia (Figure 3-1). In total, Indonesia has fifty-four unique national parks scattered from the western part to the eastern part of Indonesia (Figure 3-2). Komodo National Park, the home of the last living “dinosaurs” in the world, is an archipelagic national park located near the town of

Labuan Bajo on Flores Island, Province of Nusa Tenggara Timur, Indonesia (Figure 3-

3).

Komodo National Park has a land area of 173,300 hectares in total, consisting of

40,728 hectares of land and 132,572 hectares of marine territory. The park is

geographically bordered with Flores Island to the east, Banta Island and Sumbawa

Island to the west, Sumba Strait to the south, and the Flores Sea to the north. As the park’s geographic borders are predominantly oceans, the park is accessible from many directions (Figure 3-3).

Komodo National Park was one of the first national parks in Indonesia. It was established on March 6, 1980 along with four other national parks, Ujung Kulon,

Gunung Gede Pangrango, Gunung Leuseur, and Baluran national parks. Komodo

National Park is managed by the Komodo National Park Bureau, which is a government agency overseen under the Indonesian Ministry for Environment and Forestry. Several years following its designation, the status of Komodo National Park lands was strengthened by the decree of the Indonesian Minister of Forestry through Letter of

Decree No. 306/Kpts-II/1992 on February 29th, 1992. In addition, another Letter of

Decree No. 172/Kpts-II/2000 on June 29th, 2000 was signed to strengthen Komodo

National Park’s marine territory sovereignty.

The main task of Komodo National Park designation is ecologically based, where the park conserves the population of Komodo dragons (Varanus komodoensis) along with their habitat. Examining the important presence of other wildlife in the area, the

Park’s functions has expanded, and now incorporates both an ecological and sociological aspects too. The existence of Komodo National Park has improved the well-being of local residents and people living nearby, which also became a concern of the Komodo National Park.

According to Komodo National Park management plan, the park territory is divided into zones based on the zoning system determined by the Ministry. There are

seven different zones in total. The ‘Core Zone’ is the largest zone intended only for the

Komodo dragons’ habitat. It must remain wild, pristine, and heavily monitored by park rangers. The ‘Core Zone’ is the most restricted zone where no one except for park rangers are allowed to enter and for extremely important research purposes (Figure 3-

3). In contrast, the ‘Tourism Utilization Zone’ is the only zone that tourists may visit as has the least negative impacts towards the Komodo dragon population (Figure 3-3).

These zones are limited to ecotourism purposes and heavily guarded by the park authorities. Besides having Komodo dragons’ in the area, these zones have other unique features that attract visitors, such as unique beaches and picturesque landscapes, and panoramas that have the capacity to accommodate high visitation.

Moreover, the local residents live in the ‘Buffer Zone’ (Figure 3-3), where it is intended to support their livelihood needs and may be developed according to the national park sustainable development policy.

Due to its international reputation as a valuable cultural and natural attraction,

Komodo National Park was designated as a Man and Biosphere Reserve (MAB) in

1977 and a World Heritage Site in 1991 by UNESCO. In addition, Komodo National

Park was chosen as The Real Wonder of the World (The Real WOW!) by Indonesian

Marketers in 2011, The New 7 Wonder of Nature by the New 7 Wonders Organization in

2012 and World's Top 10 Destinations by National Geographic Magazine in their special issue of 100 Best Destinations Around the World in Four Seasons in July 2017.

The most popular tourism sites in Komodo National Park are Rinca Island, southern Padar Island, and Komodo Island (Figure 3-3). Komodo dragons can be found both in Rinca and Komodo Islands. The savannah ecosystem provides unique

characteristics among the islands in Rinca Island and Padar Island. In contrast, Komodo

Island has a more tropical atmosphere because of the coastal ecosystems and lowlands on the island.

Aside from the major tourism activities located on the islands, Komodo National

Park also has marine attractions. Pink beach, Gili Lawa shores, and the Batu Bolong diving site are favorite and well-known sites for coastal tourism seekers. Pink Beach is a unique shore with pinkish-colored sands located on Komodo Island. Likewise, the scenic shore of Gili Lawa is also located on Komodo Island. Among the fifty diving sites at Komodo National Park, Batu Bolong is considered a jewel of the park and is famous for observing giant manta rays (Manta birostris). Apart from these attractions, Komodo

National Park has a healthy coral reef ecosystem and an abundant population of reef fish and larger marine animals such as sharks and dolphins.

Komodo National Park attracted more than 117,100 tourists from 52 countries and generated about 27 billion Indonesian Rupiah (US$ 1,776,284) in 2017 (Currency rate of 15,201 IDR per US$ 1) non-tax state revenue for the Indonesian foreign exchange income. This income was collected from park ticketing fees that include entrance fees, trekking and wildlife observation fees, diving fees, snorkeling fees, and boat fees.

Among the fifty-four national parks in Indonesia, Komodo National Park falls within the top five revenue producers for the Ministry of Environment and Forestry in

2017. The enhancement of tourist visitation provides a positive impact on the national foreign exchange as well as to the local economy. The number of tourists visiting the park is gradually increasing ever year; 63,809 (2013), 80,635 (2014), 95,420 (2015),

107,000 (2016), and 117,100 (2017). Furthermore, the vast majority of the tourists are from foreign countries.

Many local residents live within Komodo National Park’s boundary. There are three villages located within the park: Pasir Panjang village that consists of 1,579 head households, Komodo village at 1,735 head households, and Papagarang village at

1,252 head households. Most of the villagers work as fishermen/fisherwomen and sculptors. Komodo National Park has been shown to implement ecotourism because it provides trainings and assistantship to support the local resident’s economic growth.

The Park has trained and recruited local residents as park’s interpreters to provide tourists adequate knowledge about the park, which has enhanced the linguistic ability of the local residents. In addition, Komodo National Park created a community park ranger program that allows communities living inside the park to assist park rangers, thus enhancing the protection of the park’s natural resources. Furthermore, the presence of ecotourism in Komodo National Park has generated a variety of tourism businesses, offering job opportunities for local residents in the nearby town of Labuan Bajo as tour operators and tour guides.

In this research, two sites were selected as the location for the pilot test and data collection. For the pilot test, Komodo Island was the only location available that researchers could access; due to building renovations on Rinca Island. Following the test pilot, Rinca Island was accessible and approval from Komodo National Park authority was provided to perform data collection for the study. Park managers determined it would have been too much of a burden for visitor to complete the

questionnaire on Padar Island, as visitors did not have a shelter or convenience locations to complete the questionnaire and often left the island quickly after their visit.

Moreover, researchers could not travel island to island due to unexpected dangerous weather and hazards (earthquake and mount eruption) that happened during the proposed research timeframe, which generated rough and dangerous boating conditions. Although the location for test pilot and actual data collection were different, all tourists visiting Komodo National Park potentially went to all islands during their stay; even for a one-day trip based on researcher observation and experience working as the park ranger in Komodo National Park.

This research was conducted at two tourism sites within Komodo National Park,

Loh Buaya Resort-Rinca Island and Loh Liang Resort-Komodo Island, from May 2018 to August 2018, which is peak tourist season for the park. Field assistants were employed to help collect data in order to improve efficiency and effectiveness of this research.

Participants

Participants were first assessed by identifying their eligibility to participate through a screening criteria: 1) tourists who were willing and eligible to participate in the study, 2) both domestic and foreign tourists visited Komodo National Park within May-

August 2018, 3) and were 18 years old and older. As the only way to access participants were by engaging them on-site, a visitor intercept technique was used. The visitor intercept technique is an extensively used survey procedure that has been utilized to extract data directly onsite. Previous studies have been used the intercept sampling method (Watson et al., 2009; Nicholas & Thapa, 2010; Poria et al., 2011;

Patti, 2013; Poria et al., 2013; Baral et al. 2017) and has shown to be efficient and

effective for cross-sectional research design. The survey instruments were distributed by intercepting the participants directly on-site. Swisher (2017) suggested using this type of sampling procedure if data collection is conducted at accidental venues or events, a list of names is not available or unable to be generated, thus, a sampling frame might not be applicable.

Due to the limitations of the intercept sampling technique, there is a probability of losing potential research participants. In order to reduce selection bias and ensure a random selection of participants, research assistants asked every fifth person met at the site, which is similar to Cahyanto and Gray (2015) survey administration technique.

Moreover, in order to reduce the probability of losing potential participants, three research assistants were assigned to support this research.

Prior to data collection and distribution of the questionnaire, the research along with its instrument was reviewed and approved as behavioral/non-medical research

(IRB-02) by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) University of Florida. Participants were asked to complete the questionnaire voluntarily and had the right to refuse participation and could stop anytime during the questionnaire. The majority of the questionnaire contained close-ended questions with a few open-ended questions, which took 15-30 minutes to complete. Questionnaires were written in English and Indonesian. Anonymity was maintained for participants participating in this research.

Instrumentation

The push and pull factors, World Heritage attributes, and socio-demographic variables were employed within the measurement process, generating a research framework (Figure 3-4). The push and pull factor theory was strengthened by adding supplemental constructs in order to create a robust research framework. Push and pull theory does not provide variables and or supporting items. Prior research that operationalized push and pull factors has operationalized various variables and items depending on their unique research objectives and questions. Thus, this research added additional supplemental constructs in order to expand and strengthen the overall research framework.

Push Factor

Recreational Experience Preferences (REP) scales and domains (Driver, 1983;

Manfredo, Driver, & Tarrant, 1996) were used in this research to support the operationalization of push and pull factors theory. Driver's REP scales attempts to understand how participation in recreation meets visitors' psychological needs or traits

(Driver, 1991). Driver (1983) operationalized these items that he developed earlier by examining recreationists' characteristics in the United States. Following Driver (1991),

Manfredo, Driver, & Tarrant (1996) conducted a meta-analysis that tested the reliability and validity of item indicators for every variable. Among the nineteen domains, a hundred and eight items remained, where they found 5,778 correlations among them

(Manfredo, Driver, & Tarrant, 1996). Driver's items had been replicated by many prior types of research in different multiple research settings.

For this research, REP variables and items were partially adopted, modified, and used for relevant research objectives and questions. By adopting the short version of

REP scales established by Manfredo, Driver, & Tarrant (1996) and considering the reliability and validity of this study, the push factors in the study consist of five dimensions and eleven variables (Table 3-1). Among the five dimensions and eleven variables, there were twenty-eight items in total that measured push factors. The research instrument operationalized a five-point scalar format ranging from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). The scale for each question may differ depending on the type of response required by the researcher.

Pull Factors

Pull factors are varied among destinations. Research related to pull factors in

Indonesia is limited. This limitation provided a pathway for the researcher to explore and test which pull attributes in Indonesian National Parks were preferred by the tourists.

World Heritage attributes were included as part of pull factors as well. This research operationalized three dimensions and four variables of pull factors adopted and modified from earlier studies (Table 3-2).

The first dimension was ‘attractiveness of destination’, which had variables of

‘wildlife uniqueness and interaction’ as well as ‘wildlife attractions, scenery, and climate’.

These variables were examined in studies completed by Yousefi & Marzuki (2015) identified three distinct pull dimensions of Penang – Malaysia, ‘environment and safety’,

‘cultural and historical attractions’, and ‘tourism facilities’. Furthermore, Mutinda &

Mayaka (2012) looked at pull factors among residents of Nairobi in Kenya. The pull factor items they operationalized depicted the unique characteristics of a Kenyan shopping mall and examined whether there are different perceptions between non-

Kenyan and domestic tourists. By contrast, Mutanga et al. (2017) observed even more

pull factors from Gonarezhou and Matusadona National Parks – Zimbabwe. They found fourteen pull factors, which mostly described the attractiveness of the two destinations.

These studies had similarities by observing the attractiveness of a particular destination in each respective site. However, instead of fully adopting their respective item indicators, this research modified and complemented the item indicators, making the items more applicable to the current research needs. This was completed because of insufficiency of item indicators from prior research. Kouthouris (2009) also took this approach and argued that the researcher has the rights to determine relevant items applicable to his or her research. Moreover, the process of item modifications are acceptable as long as those items were empirically tested and had a good reliability and validity score (Manfredo, Driver, & Tarrant, 1996). Additionally, the variable ‘wildlife attractions, scenery, and climate’ was utilized by Driver (1983). Echtner & Richie (1991) argued destination image as an important component that influences people’s desire to travel, Fakeye & Crompton (1991) examined image differences between different types of tourist, and Yousefi & Marzuki (2015) observed pull factors of international tourists in

Malaysia (Table 3-2).

The second dimension was ‘reputation, safety, quality of service, and pricing’ that consisted variables of ‘reputation’, ‘safety’, ‘quality of service’, and ‘pricing’ (Table 3-2).

These variables were taken into consideration based on variables used earlier in prior studies (Dann, 1977; Echtner & Richie, 1991; Fakeye & Crompton, 1991; Kim et al.,

2003; Pan & Ryan, 2007; Mutinda & Mayaka, 2012; Yousefi & Marzuki, 2015). Every assigned item that measured those variables were purposely designed to match the current research needs and had reliability and validity test in advance.

Lastly, the third dimension is ‘Outstanding Universal Value’ (Table 3-2). This particular dimension is observed in relation to World Heritage Site, making this current research unique to earlier studies, as it incorporates a World Heritage attribute within the framework. This dimension was adopted mainly from UNESCO (2017) and Baral et al. (2017). UNESCO (2017) defined ‘Outstanding Universal Value’ as exceptional qualities of history, art, natural beauty or science that a cultural and/or natural heritage site has. According to Baral et al. (2017: 1496) a site that has

‘Outstanding Universal Value’ is “supposed to be of exceptional significance and hold both local and global importance for current and future generations”.

Baral et al. (2017) incorporated ‘Outstanding Universal Value’ to measure visitor perceptions of World Heritage value at Sagarmatha National Park in Nepal. Baral et al.

(2017: 1495) emphasized that

“Visitor expectations, perspectives and behaviors are imperative to assess for effective site management and protection in order to maintain outstanding universal values”.

Baral’s statement aligns closely to this research purpose, pointing out the importance to incorporate this dimension to investigate tourists’ motivation for visiting national parks. The dimension of ‘Outstanding Universal Value’ has one variable, namely ‘eminent, unique, and pristine’ (Table 3-2). The variable is adopted from Baral et al. (2017: 1501) and measured the ‘Outstanding Universal Value’ dimension of a specific site. The research instrument operationalized a five-point scalar format ranging from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important) to measure all of the variables. The scale for each question may differ, depending on the type of response required by the researcher.

World Heritage Information

In addition to push and pull factors, this research investigated tourists’ recognition of World Heritage information. In order to assess tourist cognition on how well they were aware of the World Heritage brand, this research adopted one particular question from King (2012: 105). King (2012) assessed tourist cognition by asking a question that compares a well-known product brand to the World Heritage brand.

According to King (2014: 778) 60% of tourists were aware of the designation of the

World Heritage Site and only 8% recognized the World Heritage symbol during their trips. King’s results emphasize the importance to assess tourist awareness of the World

Heritage brand for park managers and researcher that are interested in tourist motivation research.

Socio-demographic Characteristics

Socio-demographic variables were included as important predictors and to further understand respondent characteristics. This research employed ‘nationality’,

‘country of origin’, ‘gender’, ‘age’, ‘marital status’, ‘educational background’,

‘occupation’, and ‘income (USD) per year’ as socio-demographic variables (Figure 3-4).

Pilot Test

Pilot tests were conducted prior to the actual data collection for three weeks at

Loh Liang Resort, Komodo Island. Tourists who came to Komodo Island often visited

Rinca and other islands prior to their visit at Loh Liang. During the pilot test, forty-eight respondents were successfully asked to participate. The response rate for the pilot test was 66.67%. Some respondents provided information on how to improve the English wording of questions, which helped researchers to strengthen the instrument.

Items reliability and validity test was performed to enhance research and instrument internal validity. Cronbach's Alpha for each variable and domain were examined to assess the internal consistency of the items. For push factor construct, eight out of thirty-six items got reliability coefficient lower than the r-table (0.36), and therefore they were removed (Table 3-3). The Cronbach’s Alpha for the push factor construct was 0.93, which is greater than 0.6, therefore the push factor items that were valid are considered as reliable.

For the pull factor construct, twenty out of forty-two items showed reliability coefficient lower than the r-table score (0.36), hence those items were removed (Table

3-4). Cronbach’s Alpha for pull factor construct was 0.66, which is greater than 0.60.

Revisions was applied to both Indonesian and English versions if the questionnaires.

Respondent Data Collection

Following the pilot test, actual data collection was conducted for two weeks at

Rinca Island. Most respondents were visiting Rinca Island either as their first or last stop before leaving Komodo National Park. The data collection was started Monday –

Sunday from 06.00 am until 05.00 pm. Of 373 people contacted, 289 people completed the questionnaire (77.5% response rate).

Data Analysis

Descriptive Analysis

Respondents socio-demographic characteristics was completed by operationalizing a descriptive analysis approach. Descriptive analysis was performed to allow a closer examination of the nature of the data patterns (Cahyanto and Gray, 2015:

333). Descriptive analysis was chosen to analyze the frequency distribution of basic socio-demographic questions: ‘nationality’, ‘country of origin’, ‘gender’, ‘age’, ‘marital

status’, ‘education background’, ‘occupation’, and ‘income per year’ (Figure 3-4). In addition, general questions were asked as introductory questions on the itinerary of tourists while visiting Komodo National Park. These questions assessed whether tourists were first-time or returning visitors, examined their length of stays, the tourism destinations that they had visited, tourists they traveled with, and their itinerary at

Komodo National Park. The information generated from this analysis would be the fundamental information to understand the basic characteristics of this study’s participants in relation to their experiences with the park. In addition, descriptive analysis was used to provide responses for establishing respondent profile and assessing tourist cognition regarding World Heritage information during their visitation in

Komodo National Park.

Objective 1. To investigate push and pull factors motivating tourists to visit the national park the most.

Research question 1a: What is the dominant push and pull factors that motivate tourists to visit the national park?

Principal Component Analysis was operationalized for the purpose of data reduction. The push and pull variables and items that were adopted from previous studies need to be reduced in order to identify the new variables for later data analysis.

Factor analysis is a valuable instrument suitable to examine behavioral characteristics in the science of psychology. The basic assumption of factor analysis is that the observed variables have a set of underlying variables that explain the interrelationships among those variables.

Principal Component Analysis employs a rotation matrix to provide researchers option selection toward the type of models and the number of factors they wanted to extract. Factor rotation is intended to improve the variables interpretability. This

research used Varimax rotation with Kaiser Normalization. The Varimax rotation with

Kaiser Normalization is the commonly used factor rotation in many travel motivations researches (Gu et al., 2018; Jeong et al., 2018; Ma et al., 2018; Barić et al., 2016;

Marques et al., 2010). Following the extraction process, items that received a factor loading score lower than 0.4 were deleted (Kim et al., 2003; Paudyal et al. 2017; Vaske,

2008; Yoon and Uysal, 2005). Prior to analysis, some items that were negative were reverse coded.

Following the data reduction, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was performed to identify specific motivations based on items that have similar patterns. Cronbach’s

Alpha test was run to further assess whether the items fit within each of the motivation factors, improving the internal consistency of the item measurement.

Once the new variables from EFA are identified, mean importance analysis was operationalized. Mean importance analysis is a reliable measure of central tendency.

This procedure is adopted from Pan and Ryan (2007) who operationalized mean importance score to rank the highest to the lowest visitor motivations for visiting

Pirongia Forest Park in New Zealand. Enright and Newton (2004) also used a similar mean importance analysis to identify item competitiveness of business-related attractors. By adopting these studies, this research uses mean importance analysis to identify the highest and the lowest push and pull factors of tourists’ motivations for visiting a national park. The mean importance scores are validated by computing

Cronbach’s Alpha scale measurement for each variables of each construct.

Cronbach’s Alpha technique was also used to further assess and strengthen the research construct validity (Enright and Newton, 2004). Cronbach’s Alpha was

operationalized to test the reliability of the items’ mean importance scores. Items are validated by deleting those who got Cronbach’s Alpha score lower than 0.5 (Nunnally,

1967). The minimum value of 0.5 had been considered acceptable as a measure of research reliability (Mehmetoglu, 2007: 654).

Objective 2. To establish market segments and characteristics of tourists visiting the national park

Research question 2a: What types of tourists come to the national park?

“Cluster analysis allows for identifying similarities among subjects based on any number of variables and allows for researcher interpretation of what latent constructs those classification means” (Beh & Bruyere, 2007: 1466). For this research purposes,

K-means cluster analysis was used to create tourist market segments based on the push and pull motivation items. K-means cluster method is commonly implemented in tourist segmentation studies (Lee, Lee, & Wicks, 2004; Beh & Bruyere, 2007; Andriotis,

Agiomirgianakis, & Mihiotis, 2008; Park & Yoon, 2009; Allan & Shavanddasht, 2019;

Carvache-Franco, Segarra-Oña Bieger, & Carrascosa-López, 2019; Carvache-Franco et al., 2019). Researcher believed that K-means cluster analysis is the most applicable method to this research, as it generates the most meaningful and interpretable cluster segments compared to Ward’s algorithm method and the two-step cluster analysis.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was operationalized to examine the statistically significance of push and pull factors among the generated clusters. Duncan post hoc test was performed to further examine the significant difference of each push and pull variables among clusters. Furthermore, Chi-square test was employed to examine the difference of socio-demographic characteristics among each tourist market segments.

Objective 3. To establish a respondent profile of World Heritage information from tourists at Komodo National Park.

Research question 3a: To what extent are tourist aware of World Heritage information and recognize the presence of World Heritage labels while visiting the national park?

This research investigated tourist cognition by examining which tourists were knowledgeable of World Heritage information and aware of World Heritage signage while visiting the national park. This research assessed the source of information where tourists receive information about the park existence and reputation. A list of media sources was computed in the questionnaire to gather this information.

This research adopted one question from King (2011: 324). King (2014) assessed tourist cognition by asking a question that compared a well-known product brands to the World Heritage brand. According to King (2014: 778) only 60% of tourists were aware that the location was a World Heritage Site and only 8% were recognized the World Heritage symbol during their trips. King’s results emphasize the importance to assess tourist cognition on World Heritage brand for park managers’ purpose and to complement the tourist motivation research.

Adopting King’s question, this research assessed tourists’ cognition by comparing World Heritage brand with widely known product brands. For instance, this research compared brands of these following products; ‘Nike’, ‘Apple’, ‘McDonald’s’,

‘World Wildlife Fund’, and ‘Singapore Airlines’ with World Heritage brand. The purpose of this assessment is to investigate the effectiveness of World Heritage brand as a global promotion tool. Following the brand comparison, this research also incorporated item question that assessing the importance of World Heritage signage placed at the

national park. Tourists were asked whether the signage affects their overall experience while visiting the park.

Table 3-1. The list of deleted push factor items in pilot test Reliability No Push Factor Variables in Pilot Test R-Table Coefficient

1 Experiencing a lot of activities 0.33

2 Meeting other people in the park 0.02 3 The local people are nice -0.06 Learning about natural settings on natural 4 0.30 park 5 Gaining a better appreciation of nature 0.29 0.36 Exploring and discovering something new 6 about the area and wildlife during 0.13 visitation Having something different from what you 7 -0.02 do back home 8 Experience peace and calm 0.34

Table 3-2. The list of deleted pull factor items in the pilot test

Reliability No Pull Factor Variables in Pilot Test R-Table Coefficient

I prefer to spend my trip doing marine activities rather 1 0.20 than land-activities I want to see extraordinary wildlife and scenery that I 2 0.35 have never seen before I have to found the Komodo dragons that I am 3 0.21 planning to see I never hear the information about this park prior to 4 0.35 my visitation 5 Ranger interpretation is excellent 0.35 6 I am satisfied with the ranger services 0.18 Chances to observe wildlife is higher with guide 7 -0.20 companion during my trip 8 Too many infrastructures on-site 0.04 The rest area is adequate enough during your 9 0.04 visitation 10 The trekking paths are easy to run through 0.34 0.36 11 There is insufficient information signage on-site 0.34 This destination has varied and unique flora and 12 0.28 fauna 13 The local people are nice -0.07 The quality of goods and services provided are 14 0.18 excellent 15 The environment in this destination is clean 0.21 16 This destination is very safety for tourists -0.19 17 The entrance and activity fees are expensive 0.12 The quality of this destination is not good as I 18 0.33 expected beforehand 19 There are not enough places for leisure and rest 0.26 Komodo National Park makes me feel completely 20 0.35 different emotions

Table 3-3. List of push factors variables and items after pilot test Push construct dimensions, variables, and items Sources Dimension of achievement Social recognition 1 To impresses and be seen by others 2 To be recognized for going to Komodo national Park. 3 To have others think highly of you. 4 I prefer taking pictures rather than seeing wildlife. 5 I feel delighted that my friends, family and relatives know that I have visit Komodo National Park as World Heritage Site. Telling others 6 To have others know that you have been to Komodo National Park. 7 To tell others about the trip Excitement 8 To have experience on natural excitement. 9 Feeling exhilaration. Experiencing the exciting events that happen on Komodo National 10 Park. Dimension of new people Meeting with new people 11 Talking to new and varied people Dimension of learning Driver (1983); Manfredo et al. General learning (1996) 12 Developing your knowledge about nature and other things there. Exploration 13 Experiencing new and different things during your visit. Dimension of escaping personal-social pressures Tension release 14 Releasing or reduce some built-up tensions. 15 Reducing anxieties. 16 Reducing frustrations you have been feeling. Dimension of escaping physical pressures Tranquility 17 Experiencing tranquility. 18 Experiencing solitude. 19 Enjoying quietness and beauty. Privacy 20 Feeling isolated and being alone for good reasons. 21 Having more privacy than you have back home. 22 Getting away from other people. 23 Being away from crowds of people.

Table 3-3. List of push factor variables and items after pilot test (Continued) Push construct dimensions, variables, and items Sources

Escaping crowds 24 Experiencing an open space and unobstructed views. 25 Being away from crowded situation for a while. Driver (1983); Manfredo et al. Escaping physical stressors (1996) 26 Getting away from ugly scenes back home. 27 Getting away from noise back home. 28 Getting away from pollution back home.

Table 3-4. List of pull factors variables and items after pilot test

Pull construct dimensions, variables, and items Sources

Dimension of attractiveness of destination Wildlife uniqueness and interaction 1 I prefer to go to zoo rather than a national park.

The Komodo Dragon is the most important reason I visited 2 the park.

I do not want to directly encounter with wildlife that I have 3 never seen before.

Other creatures and scenery are the most important 4 Mutinda & Mayaka (2012); reason I visited the park. Yousefi & Marzuki (2015) If I did not find the creatures that I am planning to see, it 5 does not matter for me. Marine activity and marine life are the most important 6 reason I visited the park.

Komodo National Park does give me opportunity to 7 increase knowledge about wildlife and environment

Wildlife attractions, scenery, and climate

Komodo National Park offers a lot of desirable locations 8 for taking pictures and videos

I prefer to see a Komodo dragon in the zoo rather than in Driver (1983); Echtner & Richie 9 Komodo National Park because it cost less, easier, and (1991); Fakeye & Crompton closer. (1991); Mutinda & Mayaka (2012)

10 Komodo National Park has many sites to visit 11 The weather at this destination is nice.

Table 3-4. List of pull factor variables and items after pilot test (Continued) Pull construct dimensions, variables, and items Sources

Dimension of psychological impressions

Reputation, safety, quality of services, and pricing 12 The quality of goods and services provided are excellent. Dann (1977); Echtner & Richie 13 The entrance and activity fees are expensive (1991); Fakeye & Crompton 14 Komodo National Park is very safe for tourists. (1991); Kim et al. (2007); Pan & Ryan (2007); Mutinda & Mayaka Komodo National Park offers a lot in terms of the natural (2012); Yousefi & Marzuki 15 scenic beauty of land and marine areas. (2015)

I am going to Komodo National Park because of the 16 reputation and fame it possessed

Dimension of outstanding universal value

Eminent, unique, and pristine Komodo National Park has unique features that motivate 17 me to visit it. 18 Komodo National Park is an authentic natural destination.

19 The authenticity of a World Heritage Site motivates the intent of my visitation. Baral et al. (2017) 20 Komodo National Park represents a scenic landscape. 21 How pristine do you think Komodo National Park

22 Komodo National Park has wildlife that cannot be found anywhere else in the world.

Figure 3-1. The map of Indonesia (University of Texas at Austin, 2002).

Figure 3-2. The distribution map of national parks in Indonesia (Direktorat Pemolaan dan Informasi Konservasi Alam, 2017).

Figure 3-3. Komodo National Park zoning system map. The red zone shows the core zone, specifically designed to maintain the habitat of Komodo dragons and are closed to any type of tourism activities. Tourism activities are only allowed in the small portion of the green zone (Balai Taman Nasional Komodo, 2000).

57 Push Factor Construct Pull Factor Construct Socio-demographic

Marital Achievements New People Learning Attractiveness Psychological Outstandin Age Gender g Universal Status of Destination Impressions Value

Education Income per Social Occupation Meeting Exploration Background year Recognition with New People Wildlife Reputation, Eminent, General Uniqueness Safety, Quality Unique, Telling Others Nationality Learning and Interaction of Service, and and Pricing Pristine

Excitement Wildlife Attractions and Escaping Scenery Escaping Physical Personal-Social Pressures Pressures

Stakeholders’ Inputs Tension Release Escaping Crowds Scientific Information Regarding Tourists’ Motivations Escaping Physical Stressors

Ecotourism Policy Tranquility Formulation Recommendation

Privacy Extending the domain of theory in Marketing Strategy other research locations Improvement

Figure 3-4. A research framework was created to investigate the objectives of this research. The framework combined the push and pull factor theory and socio-demographic variables.

58 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS

Among the 289 tourists who participated in the study, the average visitation length was 5.69 days  0.24 (SE) (range: 1-30 days). Most of the tourists who were visiting Komodo National Park during the research time frame are first timers (94.8%).

The tourists mostly traveled with 7.3 people  0.54 (SE) (range: 0-47 people) in a group.

They traveled mostly with friends (32.2%), family (23.2%), tour groups (13.1%), and workgroup (5.2%) (Table 4-1). The length of visit to Komodo National Park was half a day (52.1%), one whole day (11.4%), more than one day (34.1%), while the rest were no response (2.4%).

The tourist groups based on gender were comprised of males (48.8%), females

(45.7%), and those who did not prefer to answer (5.5%). The highest number of tourists who visited Komodo National Park based on age group was ‘25-29’ years old (27.0%),

‘20-24’ years old (25.3%), and ‘30-34’ years old (14.5%) (Table 4-2). Komodo tourists tend to be well educated with more than one-third having graduate degrees and beyond

(37.4%) and another third were college graduates (34.9%). A little less than 20% only had a high school education (19.4%) (Table 4-2).

During the research time frame, Komodo National Park received tourists from five continents (Table 4-3). Tourists visiting Komodo National Park during the research time frame originated from Asia (41.6%), Europe (37.9%), North and South America

(16%), Australia (3.8%), and Africa (0.3%). Tourists were mostly Indonesians (33.6%),

British (11.8%), Americans (8.3%), Argentines (5.5%), and Dutch (4.8%) (Table 4-6).

The highest percentage of tourists’ occupation was professional or technician (29.1%), other (unlisted professions) (27.3%), businessman or entrepreneur (22.8%), student

(12.8%), researcher (6.6%), and household worker or housewife (1.3%) (Table 4-2).

The highest percentage of tourist income earned US$ 20,001-40,000 (41.2%), and <

US$ 20,000 (25.6%) (Table 4-2).

The most visited destination among study participants in Komodo National Park were Rinca Island (38.9%) (Table 4-4). Rinca was becoming the most visited destination because it is geographically closest the town of Labuan Bajo. Day-trippers who are time constrained would potentially go to Rinca Island instead to see the

Komodo dragons. The most performed tourist activity in Komodo National Park was trekking (30.3%) (Table 4-5). Tourists who chose Rinca Island as their only destination mostly went for trekking.

The second most common itinerary was starting from Rinca Island, to Komodo

Island, then Padar Island (18.3%) (Table 4-4). Tourists who have more time availability would potentially choose this journey to enjoy different activities offered by visiting those islands. Tourists who chose this particular itinerary would mostly perform nature-based tourism activities such trekking-snorkeling (19.7%), trekking-snorkeling-beach activities

(17.9%), trekking-scuba diving (5.9%), and trekking-snorkeling-scuba diving (4.1%)

(Table 4-5). Besides time limitations and diverse nature-based tourism activities offered, the difference of the travel itinerary depended on the type of packages offered by the travel agents.

Objective 1. The Most Dominant Push and Pull Factors of Tourists Visiting Komodo National Park

Research Question 1a: What is the most dominant push and pull factors that motivated tourists to visit the national park?

The principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation was performed on the examined push and pull items. Any observed push and pull items with low factor

loading score below 0.4 are removed from the analysis. The results found that six out of twenty-eight push items were deleted, while for the pull factor, seven out of twenty-two pull items were removed.

Following the items reduction procedure, exploratory factory analysis (EFA) was conducted to create new push and pull variables. The EFA generated five-factor solutions for the push factor and three-factor solutions for the pull factor (Table 4-6).

Cronbach’s Alpha and item total correlation were examined to assess the reliability and validity of each identified push and pull variable.

The Cronbach’s Alpha score for all identified push variables ranged from 0.87 to

0.89 (Table 4-6). This finding indicates that all the items contributed to the high value of

Alpha, thus, the push factor items are considered as acceptable and reliable. Item-total correlation showed that the push items of each variable had a greatear score than 0.4

(Table 4-6), indicating that the item scale are acceptable according to Vaske (2008).

The results indicate Alpha coefficient ranged from 0.75 to 0.77 (Table 4-7) for the pull factors. The Cronbach’s Alpha test for pull factor construct found that all variables were considered acceptable and reliable (Table 4-7). Similar to the push construct, the item-total correlation of pull variables are greater than 0.4 (Table 4-7), considering the item scale as acceptable (Vaske, 2008).

For the push construct, the identified variables were ‘social recognition’, ‘escape and privacy’, ‘tension release’, ‘exploration’, and ‘learning and excitement’ (Table 4-6).

Mean importance rank analysis showed that the most dominant push factor that motivated tourists to visit Komodo National Park were ‘learning and excitement’ (4.0) and ‘exploration’ (3.9) (Table 4-6). In contrast, tourists rated the push factor of ‘escape

and privacy’ (2.6) and ‘tension release’ (2.5) as the third and second lowest mean scores, while ‘social recognition’ (2.3) as the lowest (Table 4-6).

For the pull construct, the identified variables were ‘destination authenticity’,

‘attractiveness of destination’, and ‘wildlife uniqueness and safety’ (Table 4-7).Mean importance analysis indicated that tourists gave the highest mean score for variable of

‘destination authenticity’ (4.0) and ‘wildlife uniqueness and safety’ (4.0). Meanwhile, variable of ‘attractiveness of destination’ (3.5) got the lowest mean score (Table 4-7).

Objective 2. Market Segmentation of Tourists Visiting Komodo National Park

Research Question 2a: What are the types of tourists who were coming to the national park?

The K-means cluster analysis revealed that a three meaningful and distinct clusters solution was most appropriate (Figure 4-1). The three clusters had 113 (39%),

95 (33%), and 81 (28%) out of 289 observations in total (Table 4-8). To delineate the three clusters and to label them, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Duncan’s test for each push and pull factor variables were computed (Table 4-8). Examination of ANOVA suggested the label for cluster 1, cluster 2, and cluster 3 as the adventure seekers, passive tourists, and the want-it-all tourists, respectively (Table 4-8).

ANOVA tests revealed that all the push factor variables contributed to differentiating market segments of tourists’ motivations for visiting a national park (Table

4-8). Those significant variables were ‘social recognition’, ‘escape and privacy’, ‘tension release’, ‘exploration’, and ‘learning and excitement’. (Table 4-8). Following ANOVA test results, Duncan’s test was examined to further observe the significant difference among clusters.

ANOVA revealed that all of pull factor variables had statistically significant difference among segments, ‘wildlife uniqueness and safety’, ‘destination authenticity’, and ‘attractiveness of destination’ (Table 4-8). Likewise to push factor, Duncan post hoc tests were also employed.

The Chi-square analysis revealed that among eight socio-demographic variables, only four variables gave significant difference towards market segments. The difference among market segments can further be examined through the variables ‘marital status’,

‘income per year (USD)’, ‘nationality’, and ‘continents’ (Table 4-9).

The adventure seekers.

Cluster 1 is labeled as the ‘adventure seekers’ since members of this group had the second highest importance toward push variable of ‘exploration’ (3.89) (Table 4-8).

However, tourists in this segment gave almost the lowest importance toward the other push variables. Duncan’s test results show that the ‘adventure seekers’ had the lowest mean score toward pull factor variable ‘attractiveness of destination’ (3.54) compared to other segments (Table 4-8).

Cluster 1 consisted of tourists who are predominantly non-Indonesian (77%) who are mostly coming from Europe (64%), followed by North and South America (17%)

(Table 4-9). It consists largely of female tourists (50%), ranging from 20 to 29 years

(53%) old, single (60%), having earned a graduate degree and beyond (36%) and a college graduate degree (34%) (Table 4-9). The ‘adventure seekers’ are mostly working in other professions that were unlisted in the questionnaire (28%) and as a professional or technician (27%) (Table 4-9). The most common income per year for this particular segment was between ’20,001 to 60,000’ USD (55%) (Table 4-9).

The passive tourists

Cluster 2 is labeled as the ‘passive tourists’ since the results of the ANOVA and

Duncan’s tests show that this segment did not indicate the highest mean score toward all push factor variables (Table 4-8). Tourists in this segment gave the lowest mean score toward the push factor variable ‘exploration’ (3.30) when compared to other segments (Table 4-8). Similarly to the push factor construct, Duncan’s test identified that this segment did not have the highest mean score toward any of the pull factor variables. However, they gave the lowest mean score toward ‘attractiveness of destination’ (3.54) compared to other segments (Table 4-8).

The proportion of Indonesian and non-Indonesian tourists in cluster 2 are almost equal, 51% and 49%, respectively. The ‘passive tourists’ consisted of tourists who mostly come from Asian countries (54%), followed by tourists coming from Europe

(28%) (Table 4-9). In this segment, the proportion of male tourists are larger (52%) than the female tourists (43%) (Table 4-9). Tourists are mostly single (57%) between 20 to

29 years old (52%), working as mostly ‘professional or technician’ (57%), and the majority having earned a graduate degree and beyond (40%). Most of the tourists’ income per year in this segment ranges from

Additionally, this segment has the most tourists with income ranges from US$60,001 to

US$100,000 a year (28%) greater than compared to other segments (Table 4-9).

The want-it-all tourists

Cluster 3 is labeled as the ‘want-it-all tourists’ since members of this group had the highest importance with all push and pull factor variables (Table 4-8). These are people who are seeking multiple experiences at one time during their visit at the national park. Among the five significant push factor variables, Duncan’s test results

show that the want-it-all tourists had the highest mean score for most of the variables compared to other segments (Table 4-8). For instance, the ‘want-it-all tourists’ gave the highest mean scores for ‘learning and excitement’ (4.59), ‘exploration’ (4.54), ‘tension release’ (3.85), ‘escape and privacy’ (3.57), and ‘social recognition’ (3.02) (Table 4-8).

Similarly for the pull factor construct, Duncan’s tests results showed that the ‘want-it-all tourists’ gave the highest mean score for all variables; ‘destination authenticity’ (4.24),

‘wildlife uniqueness and safety’ (4.10), and ‘attractiveness of destination’ (3.96) (Table

4-8).

Cluster 3 consisted of tourists who are non-Indonesian (74%), mostly coming from Asia (68%), followed by those who are coming from North and South America

(15%), and from Europe (15%) (Table 4-9). It consists largely of male tourists (52%), ranging from 20 to 29 years (52%) old, single (55%), and having earned a college graduate degree (46%) (Table 4-9). Tourists in this segment are mostly businessman or entrepreneur (34%). The most common income per year for this particular segment was between ’20,001 to 60,000’ USD (43%) (Table 4-9). Interestingly, this segment has the most tourists with the lowest income (33%) and the highest income (12%) (Table 4-9).

Objective 3. Respondent Profile and Recognition of World Heritage Information

Research Question 3a: To what extent are tourists aware of World Heritage information and recognize the presence of World Heritage labels while visiting the national park?

Most tourists sampled indicated that they were aware that Komodo National Park is a World Heritage Site (84.07%) (Table 4-10). Tourists received this information mostly through ‘relatives/friends/family’ (14.91%), ‘Instagram’ (13.46%), ‘Youtube’ (13.17%),

‘travel blog’ (12.45%), ‘online mass media’ (11.14%), ‘television’ (10.42%), ‘Facebook’

(7.96%) (Figure 4-2).

This research assessed tourist cognition by comparing the World Heritage label with other world’s well-known product brands. The World Heritage label consists of a logo stating ‘Patrimonio Mundial’, which is placed in every nominated World Heritage

Site. This brand is meant to be a promotion tool and unique sign that identify World

Heritage Sites. This research assessed tourist cognition by comparing the World

Heritage label to other well-known products or services. Tourists were asked to identify and write the products name they know. The World Heritage label were put together among these products’ labels: ‘Singapore airlines’, ‘McDonald’s’, ‘World Wildlife Fund’,

‘Apple’, ‘Nike’. The results indicated that 52.98% tourists did not recognize World

Heritage label (Figure 4-3).

Within the nominated World Heritage Sites, area managers are supposed to incorporate the World Heritage label together with the area’s logo into an informative signage. The signage is placed throughout the sites but mostly in areas that have a high tourist visitation. Likewise, tourists often did not recognize World Heritage signage during their trips in Komodo National Park. The results indicated that tourists almost never recognized the signage (20.14%) and/or rarely recognized the signage (26.29%)

(Table 4-11). Only 17.6% of tourists frequently recognized the signage and 5.2% always recognized the signage (Table 4-11). One question asking the importance of World

Heritage signage indicates that 60.9% tourists considered signage as important, while

15.6% did not think it’s important to them (Table 4-12).

Table 4-1. Tourist group characteristics Type of group traveling with Percentage (%) Friends 32.2 Family 24.2 Tour Group 13.1 Family Friends 5.8 Workgroup 5.2 Friends and Tour Group 4.5 Family and Tour Group 2.8 Tour Group and Other 1.7 Friends and Work Group 1.0 Family, Friends, and Tour Group 0.7 Family and Work Group 0.3 Family, Friends, and Work Group 0.3 Other 7.3 NA 0.7

Table 4-2. Tourist socio-demographic profile Socio-demographic Characteristics Percentage (%) Age 20 to 24 25.3 25 to 29 26.9 30 to 34 14.5 35 to 39 10.7 40 to 44 4.2 45 to 49 7.6 50 to 54 4.2 > 55 6.6 Education background Graduate degree and beyond 37.4 College graduate 35 High school graduate 19.4 Some college graduate 8.3 Income per year (USD) > 100,000 8.3 80,001 to 100,000 6.2 60,001 to 80,000 11.8 40,001 to 60,000 6.9 20,001 to 40,000 41.2 < 20,000 25.6 Occupations Professional or technician 29.1 Other 27.3 Businessman or entrepreneur 22.8 Student 12.8 Researcher or academia 6.6 Household worker or housewife 1.4

Table 4-3. Tourist nationality groups Frequency Tourist Nationality Percentage (n=289) Continent of Asia Indonesian 97 33.6 Malaysian 9 3.1 Chinese 6 2.1 Singaporean 5 1.7 Japanese 1 0.3 Thai 1 0.3 South Korean 1 0.3 Continent of Europe British 34 11.8 Dutch 14 4.8 German 13 4.5 Danish 13 4.5 French 10 3.5 Spanish 8 2.8 Swiss 5 1.7 Poles 3 1.0 Belgians 3 1.0 Austrian 2 0.7 Italian 2 0.7 Irish 1 0.3 Portuguese 1 0.3 Slovaks 1 0.3 Continents of North and South America American 24 8.3 Argentines 16 5.5 Canadian 3 1.0 Brazilian 1 0.3 Chileans 1 0.3 Costa Rican 1 0.3 Mexican 1 0.3 Continent of Australia and Polynesia Australian 8 2.8 New Zealander 2 0.7 New Caledonian 1 0.3

Continent of Africa Moroccans 1 0.3

Table 4-4. The most visited destination in Komodo National Park Tourist Itinerary in Komodo National Park Percentage (%) Rinca Island 38.9 Rinca Island, Komodo Island, and Padar Island 18.3 Rinca Island and Komodo Island 13.1 Rinca Island, Komodo Island, Padar Island, and Other Islands 9.7 Rinca Island and Padar Island 7.6 Komodo Island 3.4 Rinca Island and Other Islands 3.4 Rinca Island, Padar Island, and Other Islands 2.1 Rinca Island, Komodo Island, and Other Islands 1.0 Other Islands 1.0 Komodo Island and Other Islands 0.3 komodo Island and Padar Island 0.3 Padar Island and Other Islands 0.3 NA 0.3

Table 4-5. Tourist performed activities in Komodo National Park Tourist Activities in Komodo National Park Percentage (%) Trekking 30.3 Trekking and Snorkeling 19.7 Trekking, Snorkeling, and Beach Activities 17.9 Trekking and Scuba Diving 5.9 Trekking, Snorkeling, and Scuba Diving 4.1 Scuba Diving 3.1 Trekking, Snorkeling, Bird Watching, and Beach Activities 2.8 Trekking, Snorkeling, Scuba Diving, and Beach Activities 2.8 Trekking and Bird Watching 2.1 Trekking, snorkeling, Beach Activities, and Other 1.4 Snorkeling 0.7 Snorkeling and Beach Activities 0.7 Trekking and Beach Activities 0.7 Trekking and Other 0.7 Trekking, Scuba Diving, and Beach Activities 0.7 Trekking, Snorkeling, and Other 0.7 Trekking, Snorkeling, Scuba Diving, and Other 0.7 Other 0.7 Bird Watching and Beach Activities 0.3 Trekking, Bird Watching, and Beach Activities 0.3 Trekking, Scuba Diving, Beach Activities, and Sport Fishing 0.3 Trekking, Scuba Diving, and Other 0.3 Trekking, Snorkeling, Beach Activities, and Sport Fishing 0.3 Trekking, Snorkeling, and Bird Watching 0.3 Trekking, Snorkeling, Scuba Diving, and Bird Watching 0.3 Trekking, Snorkeling, Scuba Diving, Bird Watching, Beach Activities, Sports Fishing and Other 0.3 Trekking, Snorkeling, and Sport Fishing 0.3 NA 1.4

70 Table 4-6. Principal component analysis for push factor Rotated (Varimax) Cronbach's Item Total Push Factor Mean SD Component Factor Loading Alpha Total Correlation 1 2 3 4 5 Score Factor 1: Social Recognition 2.3 To have others think highly of you 2.2 1.3 0.87 0.54 To be recognized for going to Komodo National Park 1.9 1.3 0.87 0.52 To tell others about the trip 2.4 1.3 0.78 0.53 To have others know that you have been to Komodo National 2.7 1.4 0.65 0.49 0.88 Park I feel delighted that my friends, family, and relatives know that I 2.8 1.4 0.62 0.58 have visit Komodo National Park as World Heritage Site

To impress and be seen by others 1.8 1.3 0.56 0.47

Factor 2: Escape and Privacy 2.6 Having more privacy than you have back home 2.4 1.3 0.83 0.41 Being away from crowds of people 3.2 1.1 0.81 0.45 Getting away from ugly scenes back home 2.7 1.4 0.71 0.61 Getting away from pollution back home 2.5 1.5 0.57 0.54 0.88 Getting away from other people 2.6 1.5 0.54 0.63 Getting away from noise back home 2.6 1.5 0.50 0.66

Feeling isolated and being alone for good reasons 2.4 2.4 0.49 0.50

Factor 3: Tension Release 2.5 Reducing frustrations you have been feeling 2.7 1.4 0.80 0.58 Reducing anxieties 2.3 1.3 0.78 0.56 0.87

Releasing or reduce some built up tensions 2.5 1.4 0.75 0.67

Factor 4: Exploration 3.9 Experiencing new and different things during your visit 4.1 1.1 0.72 0.44 Experiencing the exciting events that happen on Komodo 3.7 1.2 0.71 0.48 0.89 National Park

Being away from crowded situation for a while 3.8 1.1 0.63 0.40

Factor 5: Learning and Excitement 4.0 Feeling exhilaration 3.7 1.3 0.69 0.53 To have experience on natural excitement 4.4 0.8 0.69 0.50 0.87 Developing your knowledge about nature and other things there 4.0 0.9 0.68 0.50

Table 4-7. Principal component analysis for pull factor Rotated (Varimax) Cronbach's Component Factor Item Total Pull Factor Mean SD Alpha Total Analysis Correlation Score 1 2 3 Factor 1: Destination Authenticity 4.0 Komodo National Park is an authentic natural destination 4.3 0.9 0.76 0.58

Komodo National Park represents a scenic landscape 4.2 0.9 0.68 0.53

Komodo National Park has wildlife that cannot be found 4.2 0.9 0.56 0.52 anywhere 0.75 The quality of goods and services provided are excellent 3.5 0.9 0.55 0.38

The authenticity of a World Heritage Site motivates the 4.1 0.9 0.53 0.44 intent of my visitation Komodo Dragon is the most important reason I visited 3.7 1.3 0.52 0.37 the park

Factor 2: Attractiveness of Destination 3.5 Komodo National Park has unique features that motivate 4.2 0.8 0.75 0.45 me to visit Komodo National Park has many sites to visit 4.1 0.7 0.66 0.49 The weather at this destination is nice 3.5 1.3 0.64 0.38 Komodo National Park does give me opportunity to 0.76 3.9 0.8 0.59 0.18 increase knowledge I am going to Komodo National Park because of the reputation and fame it possessed 2.0 1.1 0.59 0.38

Factor 3: Wildlife Uniqueness and Safety 4.0 I prefer to go to a zoo rather than a national park 4.3 0.9 0.76 0.32

Komodo National Park offers a lot in terms of the natural scenic beauty of land and marine areas. 3.8 0.8 0.71 0.08 0.77 I do not want to directly encounter with wildlife that I have 3.9 1.1 0.64 0.19 never seen before Komodo National Park is very safe for tourists 3.9 0.8 0.60 0.53

Table 4-8. ANOVA for comparison of push and pull factor variables among market segments Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Adventure Passive Want-it-all Factors F-Value P-Value Seekers Tourists Tourists n= 113 n= 95 n= 81 (39%) (33%) (28%) Push factor Social recognition 1.67a 2.50b 3.02c 61.18 0.00** Escape and privacy 1.73a 2.93b 3.57c 178.1 0.00** Tension release 1.45a 2.51b 3.85c 287.76 0.00** Exploration 3.89a 3.30b 4.54c 64.44 0.00** Learning and excitement 3.73a 3.93b 4.59c 42.01 0.00**

Pull factor Destination authenticity 4.03a 3.77b 4.24c 11.91 0.00** Attractiveness of destination 3.76a 3.54b 3.96c 13.94 0.00** Wildlife uniqueness and safety 4.05a 3.73b 4.10a 12.60 0.00** *Significance level at 5%

Table 4-9. Chi-Square results for comparison of market segments among socio-demographic characteristics Percentage Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Total Chi- Socio-demographic Variables Square P-Value Adventure Passive Want-it-all Value Seekers Tourists Tourists (n= 39%) (n= 33%) (n=28%) (n= 100%) Asia 12 54 68 Europe 64 28 15 Continents North and South America 17 2 15 82.95 0.00** Australia and Polynesia 7 1 1 Africa 0 0 1 Indonesian 23 51 26 Nationality 20.17 0.00** Non-Indonesian 77 49 74 <20,000 25 20 33 Income per year 20,001 - 60,000 55 44 43 15.96 0.00** (USD) 60,001 - 100,000 14 28 11 > 100,000 6 7 12 Single 60 57 55 289 Married 27 27 35 Marital Status 15.23 0.02** Divorced 2 10 0 Not preferably to answer 11 6 10 Male 44 52 52 Gender Female 50 43 43 1.51 0.8 Not preferably to answer 6 5 5 20 to 29 53 52 52 30 to 39 22 27 27 Age 12.11 0.06 40 to 49 19 6 9 > 50 6 15 12

Table 4-9. Continued Percentage Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Total Chi- Socio-demographic Variables Square P-Value Adventure Passive Want-it-all Value Seekers Tourists Tourists (n= 39%) (n= 33%) (n=28%) (n= 100%) High school graduate 22 22 12 Educational Some college graduate 8 11 6 8.57 0.2 background College graduate 34 27 46 Graduate degree and beyond 36 40 36 Businessman or entrepreneur 19 18 34 289 Professional or technician 27 34 27 Household worker or housewife 2 1 1 Occupations 9.84 0.5 Researcher or academia 9 5 5 Student 15 13 10 Other 28 29 23

Table 4-10. Tourist cognition regarding Komodo National Park as a World Heritage Site. Response Percentage (%) Strongly disagree 2.768 Disagree 4.844 Somewhat disagree 8.304 Agree 37.716 Strongly agree 46.367

Table 4-11. Tourist cognition regarding the presence of World Heritage signage Responses Percentage (%)

Almost never 20.415

Rarely 26.298

Sometimes 30.45

Frequently 17.647

Always 5.19

Table 4-12. Tourist perception regarding World Heritage label importance Responses Percentage (%)

Not Important at All 8.651

Least Important 6.92

Slightly Important 23.529

Important 38.754

Very Important 22.145

Figure 4-1. K-Means cluster analysis results

Tourist Source of Information 16 14.91 13.46 13.17 14 12.45 11.14 12 10.42 10 7.96 8 5.21 5.21

6 4.49 Percentage (%) Percentage 4 2 0.72 0.87 0

Figure 4-2. Tourist source of information knowing Komodo National Park as World Heritage Site

Comparison of Tourist Cognition toward World Heritage Labeland Other Well-Known Labels

20 Percentage (%)

10 52.98 32.67 8.61 1.55 1.1 0.22 2.87 0 World Heritage Singapore World Wildlife Apple McDonald's Nike Recognizes All Site airlines Fund Axis Title

Figure 4-3. Tourist cognition of World Heritage label

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This chapter will discuss the results of this research present suggestions for further research of this topic. Additionally, this chapter will discuss the management implications as well as recommendations for park authorities and similar stakeholders.

The Most Dominant Push and Pull Factors of Tourists Visiting Komodo National Park

The aim of this research is to examine the most dominant push and pull factors that motivate tourists to visit a national park such as Komodo. Among the five push factor solutions generated by the EFA, the top two highest variables describing tourists’ motivations to visit Komodo National Park are parallel with the desire to seek novel experience by exploring the park environment, having exposure to the natural excitement, and learning about new knowledge related to nature (Table 4-6).

Komodo dragons and other unique wildlife that tourists might encounter during their visits may potentially influence their travel motivations to seek learning experience and getting the opportunity to explore nature. Through examination of the most dominant push factors, this research has concluded multiple considerations for

Komodo National Park authorities. Firstly, the authorities must ensure that tourists receive adequate information about the park and wildlife. This could be accounted for by developing and engaging park interpreters in intensive trainings to enhance their knowledge and hospitality skills. In addition to that, a tourist information center should be built to support this particular motivation. Secondly, park authorities should evaluate tourists’ experiences after using trekking trails at Rinca, Padar, and

Komodo Islands. Since tourists want to experience new and different things that they have not seen before, park managers can consider developing additional trekking

trails to accommodate those needs. Thirdly, Komodo National Park authorities could introduce and promote local people’s culture as an alternative option for developing more ecotourism attractions. This notion might expand tourists’ motivations to travel to a national park, providing them more recreation outcomes and experience. For instance, tourists could go to Rinca Village or Komodo Village to have novel cultural experiences while on the island.

By contrast, travelling to a national park as a motivation for gaining social recognition received the lowest mean score. Despite this, some tourists may still perceive social recognition as important motivation, but this research would suggest that social recognition motivations should not be considered as an ecotourism management priority. This notion conflicts with Uysal, McDonald, and Martin (1994) who stated that ‘prestige’ was strongly influenced Australian tourists visiting US

National Parks. Thus, further assessment on this particular motivation should be re- evaluate in different time settings to capture potential responses.

Among the three pull factor solutions generated by the EFA, ‘destination authenticity’ is the most dominant motivation for tourists to visit a national park

(Table 4-7). The authenticity and possible interaction with the creatures on site potentially affect their intent to visit. Due to tourists’ desires to experience the authenticity of natural destination, tourists are more likely to visit a national park than a zoo. This idea can be further examined by seeing a particular pull item ‘I prefer to go to a national park rather than a zoo’ (4.3), whereas tourists gave the highest mean score for it (Table 4-7). The presence of Komodo dragons entices tourists to travel to Komodo National Park despite costing them more financially and requiring extra efforts to get there. This finding shows that visitors are looking for a holistic experience. Their motivations to visit Komodo are not focused solely on dragons but

include a desire to see Komodo dragons in their native habitat and to experience this habitat first-hand. Thus, managers should provide opportunities for visitors to experience wildlife as well as its habitat. As shown in the results, most visitors engage in trekking, which allows them to walk through these habitats. In that light, managers should continue to foster similar opportunities for visitors.

Another finding that supports the notion that tourists’ motivations to visit a national park is related to the unique wildlife presence and safety within the national park. This motivation became the second most dominant motivation for tourists traveling to the national park (Table 4-7). The finding is consistent to a particular item that ‘Komodo National Park has wildlife that cannot be found anywhere else in the world’, giving this item the second highest mean score among the other pull items

(Table 4-7). Thus, it emphasizes that the authorities of Komodo National Park must ensure that tourism will not harm or change the natural behavior of Komodo dragons, but they must still maintain opportunities for tourists to directly experience Komodo dragons. This can be a difficult balance for managers to maintain. This imperative is mirrored in the literature, which provides the following three management strategies to mitigate ecotourism-risks to Komodo dragons: (1) regulating an improved waste disposal system at the ranger resorts/stations, collecting the waste and transport them back to the landfill at Labuan Bajo; (2) providing alternative ecotourism activities; and (3) conduct a thorough spatial evaluation on ecotourism planning

(Jessop et al., 2018). Komodo dragons are the major natural tourist attraction that must be wildly conserved and should not be habituated by mass-visitation.

Examining the pull factor construct, this research discovered that attractiveness of destination is the least pull variable that tourists given the lowest mean scores compared to the other (Table 4-7). One particular item within this

variable indicates that the national park’s reputation and fame seems to not necessarily influence the desire of tourists to visit a national park. This notion is aligned with the push motivation for getting social recognition whereas tourists considered as the least drivers that might influence them visiting a national park.

This shows that the reputation of the park is not at a stage that visitors feel it is something to highlight to others. This might indicate that Komodo National Park is still in the early stages of tourism development as an international destination. As its fame and prestige continue to grow, tourists who do not necessarily care about the authentic and natural aspects of the park might come with more frequency. Instead, they might be motivated to visit the park simply to elevate their status among others.

This could result in more mass tourism to the park, and tourists looking for shorter, more superficial visits. Managers should develop plans to limit visitation by these types of visitors or identify tourism alternatives for these types of tourists, before they arrive in mass.

The Market Segments of Tourists Visiting Komodo National Park

Paudyal et al. (2017: 40) stated that marketing refers to providing a match between visitors’ motivations and destination settings where visitors can attain their desired outcome. Market segment identification would be useful for assisting park managers determining the right policy formulation for the right market targets. This study found three market segments of tourists visiting Komodo National Park. Those market segments are classified based on mean scores generated by the ANOVA.

Among all the identified market segments, the ‘adventure seekers’ are the largest proportion (39%) of non-Indonesian tourists (77%) interested in having exploration about natural excitements and experiencing the attractiveness of

destination. European are the majority of this segment, followed by North and South

American tourists as the second largest.

Seeing this segment as the largest proportion that Komodo National Park received during May – August 2018, park managers should be able to manage their experience and satisfaction during their visit. Development of new long-trekking trails in Komodo, Padar, and Rinca Island are highly recommended. By adding additional long trails within the islands, these tourists would have more opportunity to explore nature, satisfying their specific desire of exploration. From the pull factor perspective, this segment showed a strong interest toward wildlife uniqueness and destination authenticity. Observing the importance of these drivers and concerning the recommendation provided by Jessop et al. (2018), Komodo National Park authority is encouraged to conduct a deep spatial evaluation on park ecotourism planning before executing advance infrastructure developments within the park boundary, maintaining the pristine quality of environment.

The ‘passive tourists’ are the second largest (33%) market segment of tourists travelling to Komodo National Park. The majority of tourists in this segment are almost proportionally equal between Indonesian (51%) and non-Indonesian (49%) who are coming mostly from Asia. Generally, they did not indicate the highest or lowest motivation for going to a national park compared to the other segments. The potential characteristics of the ‘passive tourists’ can be seen through their interest toward learning and excitement. To boost and accommodate this motivation,

Komodo National Park authority are required to build a tourist information center and placing more educative sign boards at places that have a high tourist visitation.

The ‘want-it-all tourists’ are the smallest proportion (28%) of tourists visiting

Komodo National Park during the research time frame. Tourists in this segment

mostly came from Asia (68%). These tourists had the greatest push and pull motivations among the three groups. This segment is similar to a group Park and

Yoon (2009) identified and called the ‘Want-it-all’ segment and a group Paudyal et al.

(2017) identified as the ‘The Opportunist’ segment, which has a wide variety of push and pull factor motivations. To facilitate more tourists of this segment, park managers should be able to maintain more recreation opportunities along a spectrum of developed to primitive. For instance, opening more medium and short trekking trails and placing informative sign boards at Komodo, Padar, and Rinca

Island will better accommodate their wide diversity of motivations.

Recalling that ‘learning and excitement’ are important motivations for the

‘want-it-all tourists’, the Komodo National Park authority is encouraged to perform more park extension programs. The extension programs are intended to specifically improve park interpreters’ guiding skills which include language proficiency improvement, hospitality and safety enhancement, interpretation skills trainings, and the enrichment of the overall knowledge about the park to better assist the tourists.

Thus, the ‘want-it-all tourists’ will be able to enjoy the nature exploration and also obtain better insights about the environment that they are visiting.

Diversification of other types of ecotourism activities should also be highly promoted to all tourist segments. Komodo National Park has at least six identified diving sites namely; Manta Alley, Manta Point, Batu Bolong, Tatawa Besar, Castle

Rock, and Crystal Rock, whereas tourist might admire the magnificent underwater scenery. Therefore, the Komodo National Park authority should incorporate those snorkeling and diving sites in the advertisement to entice more divers and marine tourism enthusiasts.

Komodo National Park is also home to yellow-crested cockatoos (Cacatua sulphurea) and has various types of snakes, for instance; the blue Komodo pit vipers

(Trimeresurus insularis). Seeing this potential biodiversity, Komodo National Park may attract herpetologists and ornithologists to find and investigate specific types of wildlife. By developing new ecotourism opportunities in the park, it is expected for park managers would be able to accommodate tourists’ experiences; therefore, they will potentially return.

World Heritage Information

This research assessed the extent that tourists recognize World Heritage attributes and investigated whether tourists acquire information from them. Unlike

Baral et al. (2017) who stated most visitors in Sagarmatha National Park were unaware of World Heritage Site designation, most tourists in this research were aware that Komodo National Park is a World Heritage Site (84.07%) (Table 4-10).

This finding contrasts with Baral et al. (2017), Borges et al. (2011), and King and

Halpenny (2012) that called into a question the effectiveness of the World Heritage label as a global promotion tool toward tourists’ visitation to the area. Furthermore, online promotion of the park as a World Heritage Site in multiple sources of information such as Instagram, Youtube, and Facebook may also take into account and support this finding.

Although the majority of the tourists were aware of Komodo National Park as

World Heritage Site, half of the tourists did not recognize the World Heritage label. In the case of Komodo, World Heritage Site promotion seems to be assisted with the help of intensive social media. However, tourists might not acknowledge the logo since the logo is not promoted as highly as the brand and site itself. Tourists might have heard of the World Heritage Site title but not necessarily understand the

purpose of World Heritage Site designation, the inscription process, and how the

World Heritage logo functions. Even though tourists were not able to recognize the logo/label, they do believe that World Heritage signage is an important factor to their motivation and experience.

Additionally, recent interactions with park managers at this study site found that they scarcely fathomed the idea on how to operationalize the label. Park managers do not take into account how the label should be incorporated effectively in order to attract more funding sources and to make people more aware of the outstanding universal value and respect of the site that have visited. There was no transfer of knowledge of the inscription process of the site from the previous managers or upper governmental officers to the recent park managers.

Management Implications

‘Learning and excitement’ and ‘exploration’ are the most dominant push motivation identified in this research. The Komodo National Park authority should ensure standardization of interpreters’ that guide tourists. Strengthening the quality of the interpretation given by interpreters while explaining the natural excitement would potentially maintain tourists’ overall experience.

The authenticity of Komodo National Park as a natural destination and the wildlife uniqueness and safety were the highest mean for pull factor construct.

Komodo National Park should create monitoring programs to preserve the authenticity value and maintain the quality of Komodo National Park scenic landscape. This highlights that seeing Komodo dragons in their natural and authentic habitat is an important factor to why tourists travel to this remote region of the world.

Impacts that detract from the naturalness and authenticity of the area should be considered a primary threat against this motivation. For example, waste is becoming

an inseparable part to the scenic landscape in the park, such as floating garbage in the seas and shores. Correspond to the floating garbage and waste disposal system concern, the national park authority must collaborate with related stakeholders to manage waste inside the park. Those improvements would then improve the overall experience and satisfaction of tourists and their reason to visit Komodo National

Park.

Additionally, this study has identified three distinct market segments that have various push and pull motivations of tourists visiting national park. This research findings provide the Komodo National Park authority an understanding of its diverse visitors and their market characteristics. To provide better information and experience toward tourists’ groups, the Komodo National Park authority must be able to affirm the national park zoning system by placing more signs in critical areas.

Furthermore, Komodo National Park should be monitoring areas that receive a high tourist visitation so that ecotourism impacts can be pressed as minimum as possible.

Lastly, Borges et al. (2011) stated that the use of the World Heritage logo is not effectively used in many natural areas. In the case of Komodo National Park, most of the tourists were aware that the park is a World Heritage Site, proving the effectiveness of World Heritage Site as a promotion tool. However, in general, tourists seem not to fully comprehend the true goals of the World Heritage Site inscription, why the label is important, and what benefits that the label could bring for the park and people. Excluded the marketing impact, Borges at al. (2011) and Baral et al. (2017) called into a question the effectiveness of World Heritage brand, and whether it really provides benefits to the management improvement. This research discovered that tourists believe that the World Heritage label is important to them. To resonate with Borges at al. (2011) and Baral et al. (2017) statements and to improve

this concern, park managers should distribute information regarding the usage of

World Heritage label and its information toward their staff to incorporate World

Heritage information throughout the park’s information media so that this information can be delivered to tourists.

Limitations and Future Research

This research had a short time frame to collect the actual data. Moreover, the data collection process was disrupted due to mount eruptions, earthquakes, and potential tsunami happened at the same time during the research time frame. Thus, future research on the similar topic should make the time frame longer to anticipate natural hazards that potentially happens and to have a larger sample size.

Additionally, future research might want to consider June to September of each year to conduct the research since those months are the peak season of tourist visitation in Komodo National Park. It is highly recommended for future researcher to coordinate with the Komodo National Park authority in advance and communicate the research progress in order to ease the data collection process and to avoid potential risks that might happened in the field such as unstable tidal waves, transport and logistical concerns.

Future research on comparing tourists’ perception on two different national parks that both holds World Heritage Site status should be conducted. These particular topics are highly recommended in order to compare the difference among visitors’ perceptions in sites that have similar attributes. Future research on residents’ perception on World Heritage Site should be performed to balance the findings of tourists’ perceptions gathered from this current research.

Furthermore, repeated cross sectional design and or longitudinal design should be conducted in future research in order to replicate similar topics within

Komodo National Park. These research designs would improve the internal validity and explanatory power of the current research by replicating the instruments or by adopting particular items or variables. Corresponding to this suggestion, the Komodo

National Park authority will potentially replicate the research and use the instrument to further assess tourists’ motivations for going to Komodo National Park quarterly a year, therefore, they will be able to capture other types of tourist market segments according to each season.

This research had only three major pull factors. Future research should explore additional push and pull variables relevant to Komodo National Park or other national parks to improve the instrument content validity. It is highly recommended that future research should add a new list of potential pull factors of specific national park to reveal more meaningful and relevant information.

Conclusions

The main objective of this research is to determine tourists’ motivations for visiting national parks by examining tourists’ motivation to visiting Komodo National

Park. To further investigate the most dominant motivations, Recreation Experience

Preference (REP) scales were operationalized. Mean importance analysis found that the most dominant push factor was ‘learning and excitement’ (4.0) while the lowest push factor motivation was ‘social recognition’ (2.3) (Table 4-6). For the pull factor construct, the highest mean score was given to ‘wildlife uniqueness and safety’ (4.0) and ‘destination authenticity’ (4.0), while ‘attractiveness of destination’ (3.5) got the lowest (Table 4-7). This idea indicates that a destination’s authenticity and its unique wildlife are the most dominant pull factors that potentially influence and entice tourists to travel to a national park.

Additionally, within the pull variable ‘wildlife uniqueness and safety’, a particular item ‘I prefer to go to a national park rather than a zoo’ received the highest mean importance score (4.3) (Table 4-7). This finding indicates that the majority of the tourists within this sample prefer to see the dragons on-site than going to an ex-situ conservation destination. The presence of Komodo dragons has been enticing tourists to travel to Komodo National Park despite the financial costs and time for travel. There is a strong indication that tourists want to travel to a national park even though it costs more financially and requires more effort.

This research finding indicates that unique wildlife and their habitat influences tourists’ decision to choose a national park as their tourism destination. Moreover, it is highly recommended that the Komodo National Park authority should continue to ensure that tourism activity will not harm the health Komodo dragon populations, while maintaining the authenticity of the environment as a natural destination.

This study found three distinct and meaningful market segment clusters, namely the ‘adventure seekers’, ‘passive tourists’, and ’want-it-all tourists’. Each segment has its own characteristics; however, the majority of tourists visiting

Komodo National Park among those clusters are mostly male (48.8%), 20 to 29 years old (52.3%), earned a graduate degree and beyond (37.4%), and are working as professional or technician (29.1%) (Table 4-2). The majority income per year of tourists visiting Komodo National Park are US$40,000 and or less (66.8%) (Table 4-

2) and were mostly coming from Asia (41.5%), followed by Europe (38%) (Table 4-

3). The information should be incorporated as essential inputs toward the policy formulation process.

Tourists who visited Komodo National Park were mostly aware that Komodo

National Park is a World Heritage Site (84.07%) (Table 4-10). This contradicts the

notion that Baral et al. (2017) stated based on Sagarmatha National Park in Nepal.

However, half of the tourists who visited did not recognize the World Heritage logo.

Consistent to Baral et al. (2017) and to King and Halpenny (2012) that was calling into a question about the effectiveness of World Heritage logo as a global promotion tool toward tourists’ visitation to the area. This research also found that despite tourists were unable to recognize the label, they do believe that World Heritage signage is an important factor to their motivation and experience.

APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUMENT (ENGLISH VERSION)

University of Florida/Institute of Food Agricultural Sciences 118 Newins-Ziegler Hall School of Forest Resources and Conservation PO Box 110410 Gainesville, FL 32611- 0410

INFORMED CONSENT Project Title: Investigating Tourists’ Motivation for Visiting National Parks: The Case of Komodo National Park, Indonesia On-Site Questionnaire, Komodo National Park, Indonesia Please read this consent document carefully before you participate in the study.

My name is Muhammad Ikbal Putera. I am a Master Student of School of Forest Resources and Conservation (SFRC) at the University of Florida, USA. My research project is funded by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). I will perform this research under the supervision of the primary advisor, Dr. Taylor V. Stein, who works in the SFRC at the University of Florida, USA. Purpose of the research study The purpose of this research that we are asking you to help with is to provide us insights toward tourists’ motivations for visiting a national park. Specifically, there are five purposes for our research questionnaire: (1) Investigate which push and full factors that influence tourists’ motivation for visiting national park most; (2) Investigate the relationship between socio-demographic variables with the tourist travel motivations to national park; (3) Investigate the relationship between tourist motivation with destination image; (4) Investigate the relationship between tourist motivation with World Heritage brand and value; (5) To determine the overall tourist satisfaction based on experience and motivation for visiting national park. We particularly want to talk to you because of your presence as a tourist at Komodo National Park. Your insights will help us reach our goals for this research, provide empirical evidence to our theories and may aid in the development of Komodo National Park policy consideration toward ecotourism management peculiarly. What you will be asked to do in the study We are asking you to complete a questionnaire for a pilot test of the research study stated above. There will be no salient questions being asked within the instrument that not related to our research goals. This should take no longer than 15 minutes and may take less time.

Confidentiality We will keep the information you provide confidential to the extent provided by law in the United States and Indonesia. The only people who will have on-going access to the research data on this research are the researchers in this project and committee members of our primary researcher. We will provide you with a list of their names and contact information. Documentation during the completion process may be taken and used in the future report. The information you provide us in reports may be used, for instance to the USAID or CIFOR or the University of Florida if necessary, but we will not identify you as an individual in those reports. We may also use the information in academic journals or at meetings of professionals. What risks and benefits of this research to you There no negative consequences either you are willing to participate or refuse to participate in this research. As far as we can tell, the risks of participating in our questionnaire completion are no more than spending your available time during your visit as minimum as possible. Furthermore, there are no direct benefits to you for participating in the study. Compensation and rights to withdraw from the study There will no compensation or penalty for not participating in this study. Your participation is completely voluntary. You have the right to withdraw from the questionnaire completion at any time. You are allow declined to answer any specific questions that you do not want to answer. (Please circle one of the following options) Do you have any questions about the consent process I just read to you? YES NO IF NO -> Thank you. I will ensure no one else from our research team contacts you again. I would like to give you a copy of this document, which provides you this information as well as contact information for the researchers at the University of Florida in the United States working for this study. There will also be contact information for the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Florida in the United States. IRB University of Florida is responsible for making sure that your rights as a research participant in this study are fully respected and protected. You can contact any of them if you have any questions or concerns about this research in the future. (Please circle one of the following options) Do you voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure I have described? YES NO IF YES -> I would like to give you a copy of this document, which provides you this information as well as contact information for the researchers at the University of Florida in the United States working for this study, who will have access to and use the information you provide. There will also be contact information for the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Florida in the United States. IRB University of Florida is responsible for making sure that your rights as a research participant in this study are fully respected and protected. You can contact any of them if you want more information about this study in the future. By answering “YES”, I justified myself that “I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description.”

Contact information regarding this research: 1. Dr. Taylor V. Stein Primary advisor of the researcher. Associate Professor. School of Forest Resources and Conservation, P.O. Box 110410, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 32611, USA. Phone (352) 219-7735; Email [email protected] 2. University of Florida Institutional Review Board (IRB) P.O. Box 112250, Gainesville, Florida 32611-2250, USA. Phone +1 (352) 392-0433; Fax +1 (352) 392-9234; Email [email protected]

IRB NUMBER: IRB201801002

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR INVESTIGATING TOURISTS’ MOTIVATION FOR VISITING NATIONAL PARKS: THE CASE OF KOMODO NATIONAL PARK, INDONESIA

Questionnaire ID : Date :

Surveyor : Time :

Site :

Please indicate your answers by giving check mark () based on the most appropriate respond according to you.

1. How many days are you spending at Flores Island (Labuan Bajo and other surrounding destinations)? days. 2. Was this your first time to Komodo National Park? Yes (Go to question 4) No (Go to question 3)

3. In what year did you make your visit?

4. Approximately how many times have you been to Komodo National Park? -6 times -12 times -20 times -30 times

5. About how long is your visit to Komodo National Park? a day whole day day ( number of days)

6. What islands have you visited at Komodo National Park? Rinca

7. What activities have you participated in at Komodo National Park?

Diving watching

Other

8. How many people were you with (not including yourself, just those people you are personally traveling with)? Total number of people ( #males, #females) Number of people under 18 years old

9. What type of group are you traveling with? (mark all that apply) Family Friends Work group Tour group (no families and friends) Other: ______

10. In this section, I am assessing the reasons why you choose to visit Komodo National Park. Please be aware that I am asking about your visit to the national park, itself. I am not asking about your visit to Indonesia or other destinations surrounding the national park. Please indicate how important each of the following items was as motivations for your visit to Komodo.

Not at all Slightly Moderately Very Extremely

Important Important Important Important Important To have others know that you have 1 2 3 4 5 been to Komodo National Park. To impresses and be seen by 1 2 3 4 5 others. To be recognized for going to 1 2 3 4 5 Komodo national Park. Talking to new and varied people. 1 2 3 4 5 Releasing or reduce some built-up 1 2 3 4 5 tensions. To have others think highly of you. 1 2 3 4 5 Feeling isolated and being alone for 1 2 3 4 5 good reasons. Experiencing new and different 1 2 3 4 5 things during your visit. To have experience on natural 1 2 3 4 5 excitement. Having more privacy than you have 1 2 3 4 5 back home. Getting away from ugly scenes back 1 2 3 4 5 home. Feeling exhilaration. 1 2 3 4 5 Being away from crowds of people. 1 2 3 4 5 I prefer taking pictures rather than 1 2 3 4 5 seeing wildlife. Getting away from other people. 1 2 3 4 5 Getting away from noise back home. 1 2 3 4 5 Reducing anxieties. 1 2 3 4 5 Getting away from pollution back 1 2 3 4 5 home. Experiencing an open space and 1 2 3 4 5 unobstructed views. Experiencing the exciting events that happen on Komodo National 1 2 3 4 5 Park. To tell others about the trip. 1 2 3 4 5 Developing your knowledge about 1 2 3 4 5 nature and other things there. Experiencing tranquility. 1 2 3 4 5 Experiencing solitude. 1 2 3 4 5

Enjoying quietness and beauty. 1 2 3 4 5 Being away from crowded situation 1 2 3 4 5 for a while. Reducing frustrations you have been 1 2 3 4 5 feeling. I feel delighted that my friends, family and relatives know that I have 1 2 3 4 5 visit Komodo National Park as World Heritage Site.

11. In this section, I would like to know to what extent you agree with each of the following aspects of Komodo National Park that you have observed and experienced. Please indicate how much you agree with these following items.

Strongly Somewhat Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Agree I prefer to go to zoo rather than a 1 2 3 4 5 national park.

The Komodo Dragon is the most 1 2 3 4 5 important reason I visited the park. I do not want to directly encounter with wildlife that I have never seen 1 2 3 4 5 before. Other creatures and scenery are the most important reason I visited the 1 2 3 4 5 park. If I did not find the creatures that I am planning to see, it does not 1 2 3 4 5 matter for me. Marine activity and marine life are the most important reason I visited 1 2 3 4 5 the park. The quality of goods and services 1 2 3 4 5 provided are excellent.

12. Put a check mark () next to the three (3) sources that most informed you about Komodo National Park as a World Heritage Site destination.

Instagram Online Mass Media ______Relatives/Friends/Family

Facebook Printed Media ______Travel Agency

Youtube Channel Television ______Travel Blog

Radio Others ______None of the Above

13. Please identify these following emblems. Put a check mark () under the picture if you do not know what the emblem represents.

14. As compared to other places that you have known or visited, please indicate how much you agree with the following statements:

Strongly Somewhat Strongly Statements Disagree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Komodo National Park has wildlife that cannot be found 1 2 3 4 5 anywhere else in the world. Komodo National Park is an 1 2 3 4 5 authentic natural destination. The authenticity of a World Heritage Site motivates the 1 2 3 4 5 intent of my visitation. I am aware that Komodo National Park is a Natural 1 2 3 4 5 World Heritage Site. Komodo National Park represents a scenic 1 2 3 4 5 landscape.

15. How often do you recognize World Heritage signage during your trip in Komodo National Park?

Almost Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always 1 2 3 4 5

16. To what extent do you think World Heritage signage is important?

Not Important Least Important Slightly Important Important Very Important At All 1 2 3 4 5

17. How important does the World Heritage signage to your overall experience and satisfaction?

Not Important Least Important Slightly Important Important Very Important At All 1 2 3 4 5

18. During your visit, how pristine do you think Komodo National Park?

Not Pristine At Least Pristine Slightly Pristine All Pristine Very Pristine 1 2 3 4 5

19. To what extent were you satisfied with Komodo National Park as a World Heritage Site after your visitation?

Not Satisfied At Somewhat Satisfied Satisfied Very Satisfied All Unsatisfied 1 2 3 4 5

20. Please indicate the number that best represents how much you agree with each of the following statements.

Strongly Somewhat Strongly Statements Disagree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree

I am going to Komodo National Park because of the reputation 1 2 3 4 5 and fame it possessed

The entrance and activity fees 1 2 3 4 5 are expensive Komodo National Park has unique features that motivate me 1 2 3 4 5 to visit it. Komodo National Park offers a lot of desirable locations for 1 2 3 4 5 taking pictures and videos Komodo National Park does give me opportunity to increase 1 2 3 4 5 knowledge about wildlife and environment

Komodo National Park has many 1 2 3 4 5 sites to visit I prefer to see a Komodo dragon in the zoo rather than in Komodo 1 2 3 4 5 National Park because it cost less, easier, and closer.

The weather at this destination is 1 2 3 4 5 nice. Komodo National Park is very 1 2 3 4 5 safe for tourists. Komodo National Park offers a lot in terms of the natural scenic 1 2 3 4 5 beauty of land and marine areas.

21. How satisfied are you with overall destination after you have visit Komodo National Park compared with your expectation prior to your visitation?

Not Satisfied Unsatisfied Somewhat Satisfied Satisfied Very Satisfied At All 1 2 3 4 5

Before we depart, I would like to ask you general questions regarding your background. This information will be used for statistical analysis only and all of the information given will remain confidential. You are free to skip any questions you do not want to answer. Please circle the number based on your response below that best represents you.

No Characteristics Response 1 United States 10 Australia 19 Philippine

2 Indonesia 11 Italy 20 China 3 Argentina 12 Austria 21 Japan 4 United Kingdom 13 Sweden 22 Singapore

1 Country of 5 Spain 14 Finland 23 Malaysia Origin 6 Peru 15 Belgium 24 Other 7 France 16 Switzerland (Please specify): 8 Germany 17 South Korea 9 Netherlands 18 New Zealand 1 American 10 Australian 19 Filipinos

2 Indonesian 11 Italian 20 Chinese 3 Argentine 12 Austrian 21 Japanese 4 British 13 Swede 22 Singaporean

2 Nationality 5 Spaniard 14 Finnish 23 Malaysian 6 Peruvian 15 Belgian 24 Other 7 French 16 Swiss (Please specify): 8 German 17 South Korean 9 Dutch 18 New Zealander Not Preferably 3 Gender 1 Male 2 Female 3 to Answer 1 20 - 24 4 35 - 39 7 50 - 54

4 Age 2 25 - 29 5 40 - 44 8 > 55 3 30 - 34 6 45 - 49 1 Single 3 Divorced 5 Marital Status 2 Married 4 Not Preferably to Answer

Educational 1 High School Graduate 3 College Graduate 6 Background 2 Some College Graduate 4 Graduate Degree and Beyond 1 Student 4 Researcher Other 6 Professional and 2 /Academia (Please specify): 7 Occupation Technical 3 Businessman 5 Household 1 < $ 20,000 4 60,001 - 80,000

8 Income (USD) 2 20,001 - 40,000 5 80,001 - 100,000 per Year 3 40,001 - 60,000 6 > 100,000

100

APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUMENT (INDONESIAN VERSION)

University of Florida/Institute of Food Agricultural Sciences 118 Newins-Ziegler Hall School of Forest Resources and Conservation PO Box 110410 Gainesville, FL 32611-0410

PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN Judul Penelitian: Investigasi Motivasi Wisatawan Untuk Mengunjungi Taman Nasional: Studi Kasus Taman Nasional Komodo, Indonesia Kuisioner di Tempat (On-Site), Taman Nasional Komodo, Indonesia Mohon dokumen pernyataan persetujuan agar dibaca dengan seksama sebelum berpartisipasi dalam penelitian.

Nama Saya Muhammad Ikbal Putera. Saya mahasiswa pascasarjana (S2) School of Forest Resources and Conservation (SFRC), University of Florida, Amerika. Penelitian Saya kali ini dibiayai oleh Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) dan the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Saya akan melakukan penelitian ini dibawah pengawasan pembimbing utama Saya, Dr. Taylor V. Stein, yang bekerja pada School of Forest Resources and Conservation (SFRC), University of Florida, Amerika.

Tujuan penelitian Tujuan kami memohon bantuan anda dalam penelitian ini adalah untuk menyediakan wawasan dan pengetahuan terhadap motivasi wisatawan mengunjungi taman nasional. Pada khususnya, terdapat 5 tujuan penelitian pada kuisioner ini: (1) Menyelidiki faktor push dan pull mana yang sangat mempengaruhi motivasi wisatawan mengunjungi taman nasional; (2) Menyelidiki hubungan antara variabel sosiodemografi dengan motivasi wisatawan pergi berwisata ke taman nasional; (3) Menyelidiki hubungan antara motivasi wisatawan dengan citra dari suatu objek tujuan; (4) Menyelidiki hubungan antara motivasi wisatawan dengan lambang dan nilai-nilai World Heritage; (5) Menentukan kepuasan wisatawan secara keseluruhan berdasarkan motivasi dan pengalaman mengunjungi taman nasional. Kami ingin berbicara pada anda berdasarkan posisi anda sebagai wisatawan di Taman Nasional Komodo. Informasi yang anda berikan akan membantu kami dalam menggapai tujuan penelitian, membantu pengembangan dan menyediakan bukti empiris/asli terhadap teori yang kami gunakan, serta membantu memberikan masukan atas kebijakan pengelolaan ekowisata di Taman Nasional Komodo.

101

Apa yang akan kami tanyakan dalam penelitian ini Kami memohon agar anda melengkapi kuisioner pilot test untuk keperluan penelitian yang telah dijelaskan diatas. Kami tidak akan menanyakan pertanyaan yang tidak berhubungan dengan tujuan penelitian yang telah kami tentukan kepada anda. Pengisian kuisioner ini diperkirakan akan menghabiskan waktu maksimal 15 menit ataupun lebih cepat.

Kerahasiaan Kami akan menjaga kerahasiaan informasi yang diberikan sesuai dengan hukum yang diterapkan oleh pemerintah Amerika maupun Indonesia. Orang-orang yang hanya dapat mengakses data informasi penelitian ini adalah peneliti utama penelitian beserta para komite bimbingannya. Kami akan menyediakan daftar nama dan informasi kontak para komite yang dimaksud. Dokumentasi selama proses pengisian akan diambil dan digunakan dalam pembuatan laporan setelahnya. Informasi yang anda berikan pada kami juga akan digunakan oleh USAID dan CIFOR maupun University of Florida apabila diperlukan, namun kami tidak akan menyebutkan identitas diri anda dalam laporan tersebut. Kami akan menggunakan data informasi yang anda berikan untuk penelitian ini dalam jurnal akademik dan atau pertemuan professional/ilmiah. Risiko dan manfaat dari penelitian ini Tidak akan ada konsekuensi negatif apabila anda bersedia ataupun menolak berpartisipasi dalam penelitian ini. Sejauh yang dapat Saya katakan, risiko apabila berpartisipasi dalam pengisian kuisioner adalah tidak lain menghabiskan waktu anda seminimal mungkin disaat anda beristirahat setelah melakukan kegiatan wisata. Kemudian daripada itu, tidak ada manfaat langsung yang diterima anda apabila anda berpartisipasi dalam penelitian ini.

Kompensasi dan hak untuk mengundurkan diri dari penelitian Tidak akan ada kompensasi atau sanksi yang diberikan apabila anda berpartisipasi ataupun menolak untuk mengikuti penelitian ini. Partisipasi anda bersifat sukarela. Anda berhak untuk mengundurkan diri dari pengisian kuisioner kapanpun. Anda berhak untuk menolak menjawab pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang anda rasa sulit atau tidak berkenan pada saat pengisian.

(Mohon dilingkari sesuai dengan jawaban anda) Apakah anda memiliki pertanyaan atas pernyataan persetujuan yang telah Saya bacakan? IYA TIDAK

Jika TIDAK -> Terima kasih. Saya akan memastikan bahwa tidak akan ada anggota peneliti lain yang akan menghubungi anda. Saya akan memberikan satu Salinan pernyataan persetujuan ini yang atas berisikan informasi mengenai penelitian dan informasi kontak dari para peneliti di University of Florida, Amerika yang mengerjakan penelitiani ini. Dilampirkan juga pada pernyataan persetujuan ini kontak informasi dari Komite Ulasan Institusi (Institutional Review Board) di University of Florida, Amerika. Komite ini bertanggung jawab untuk memastikan bahwa hak anda sebagai peserta dalam penelitian ini terjaga dan dihargai sepenuhnya. Anda dapat menghubungi informasi kontak yang diberikan apabila anda memiliki pertanyaan atas penelitiani ini di waktu yang akan datang.

102

(Mohon dilingkari sesuai dengan jawaban anda) Apakah anda setuju dan bersedia untuk berpartisipasi sesuai dengan prosedur yang telah Saya bacakan? IYA TIDAK

Jika IYA -> Saya akan memberikan satu Salinan pernyataan persetujuan ini yang berisikan atas informasi mengenai penelitian dan informasi kontak dari para peneliti di University of Florida, Amerika yang mengerjakan penelitiani ini, yang memiliki akses dan dapat menggunakan informasi yang tersedia. Dilampirkan juga pada pernyataan persetujuan ini kontak informasi dari Komite Ulasan Institusi (Institutional Review Board) di University of Florida, Amerika. Komite ini bertanggung jawab untuk memastikan bahwa hak anda sebagai peserta dalam penelitian ini terjaga dan dihargai sepenuhnya. Anda dapat menghubungi informasi kontak yang diberikan apabila anda memiliki pertanyaan atas penelitiani ini di waktu yang akan datang. Demikian daripada itu, dengan ini: “Saya menyatakan bahwa “Saya setuju dan bersedia mengikuti penelitian berdasakan prosedur yang telah dibacakan dan telah menerima satu salinan pernyataan persetujuan ini.”

Kontak informasi atas pertanyaan mengenai penelitian 3. Dr. Taylor V. Stein Pembimbing Utama. Associate Professor. School of Forest Resources and Conservation, P.O. Box 110410, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 32611, USA. Telp. (352) 219-7735; Surel. [email protected] 4. University of Florida Institutional Review Board (IRB) P.O. Box 112250, Gainesville, Florida 32611-2250, USA. Telp. +1 (352) 392-0433; Fax +1 (352) 392-9234; Surel. [email protected]

Translated by: Sheherazade

IRB NUMBER: IRB201801002

103

KUISIONER INVESTIGASI MOTIVASI WISATAWAN MENGUNJUNGI TAMAN NASIONAL: STUDI KASUS TAMAN NASIONAL KOMODO, INDONESIA

Kuisioner ID : Tanggal:

Surveyor : Waktu :

Tempat :

Tandai jawaban Anda dengan memberi tanda centang ( ) berdasarkan respon yang paling sesuai dengan Anda.

1. Berapa lama waktu kunjungan Anda di Pulau Flores (Labuan Bajo dan atau wilayah lainnya)? ______hari.

2. Apakah ini kunjungan pertama Anda ke Taman Nasional Komodo? ______Ya (Lanjut ke pertanyaan 5) ______No (Lanjut ke pertanyaan 3)

3. Pada tahun berapa Anda melakukan kunjungan sebelumnya? ______

4. Berapa kali Anda pernah berkunjung ke Taman Nasional Komodo?  1-6 kali  7-12 kali  13-20 kali  21-30 kali  > 30

5. Berapa lama waktu kunjungan Anda ke Taman Nasional Komodo?  Setengah hari  Satu hari  Lebih dari 1 hari (______hari)

6. Sebutkan nama pulau di Taman Nasional Komodo yang telah Anda kunjungi?  Rinca  Komodo  Padar  Pulau/tujuan lain ______

7. Aktivitas apa yang telah Anda lakukan di Taman Nasional Komodo?  Trekking  Snorkeling  Scuba Diving  Bird watching  Sunbathing/Beach activities  Sport Fishing  Lainnya ______

8. Berapa jumlah orang yang berwisata bersama Anda? (Tidak termasuk Anda, hanya orang lain dalam kelompok wisata Anda) ______Total jumlah orang (____#pria, ___#wanita) ______Jumlah orang berusia di bawah 18 tahun

104

9. Bersama siapa Anda melakukan perjalanan wisata di Taman Nasional Komodo? (tandai semua yang sesuai)  Keluarga  Teman  Rekan Kerja  Rombongan Wisata (tanpa keluarga dan teman)  Lainnya:

10. Pada bagian ini, saya ingin mengetahui alasan Anda memilih untuk mengunjungi Taman Nasional Komodo. Mohon diperhatikan bahwa saya hanya menanyakan kunjungan Anda ke taman nasional itu sendiri. Saya tidak bertanya mengenai kunjungan Anda ke destinasi lain di sekitar Taman Nasional Komodo. Tandai tingkat kepentingan setiap butir motivasi kunjungan Anda ke Taman Nasional Komodo. Tidak Penting Sedikit Cukup Sangat Sama Penting Penting Penting Penting Sekali Agar orang lain mengetahui bahwa Anda 1 2 3 4 5 sudah pernah ke Taman Nasional Komodo. Agar dilihat dan dikagumi orang lain. 1 2 3 4 5 Agar diakui bahwa telah mengunjungi Taman 1 2 3 4 5 Nasional Komodo. Berbicara dengan orang yang baru dan 1 2 3 4 5 beragam Melepaskan atau mengurangi ketegangan. 1 2 3 4 5 Agar orang lain memandang Anda lebih 1 2 3 4 5 tinggi. Ingin menyendiri untuk alasan yang baik. 1 2 3 4 5 Mendapat pengalaman baru dan berbeda 1 2 3 4 5 selama kunjungan Anda. Untuk mendapat pengalaman yang 1 2 3 4 5 menyenangkan di alam Memiliki privasi yang lebih daripada yang 1 2 3 4 5 Anda miliki di tempat asal. Menjauhi pemandangan tidak mengenakkan 1 2 3 4 5 seperti di tempat asal. Merasakan kegembiraan 1 2 3 4 5 Menjauhi kerumunan orang. 1 2 3 4 5 Saya lebih menyukai untuk mengambil 1 2 3 4 5 gambar daripada melihat kehidupan liar. Menjauh dari orang lain. 1 2 3 4 5 Menjauhi kebisingan seperti di tempat asal. 1 2 3 4 5 Mengurangi kekhawatiran. 1 2 3 4 5 Menjauhi polusi seperti di tempat asal. 1 2 3 4 5 Menikmati pemandangan ruang terbuka tanpa adanya bangunan penghalang. 1 2 3 4 5 Mengikuti kegiatan-kegiatan menarik yang terjadi di Taman Nasional Komodo. 1 2 3 4 5 Untuk memberi tahu orang lain mengenai kunjungan Anda. 1 2 3 4 5 Mengembangkan pengetahuan Anda mengenai alam dan hal-hal lainnya. 1 2 3 4 5 Merasakan ketenangan. 1 2 3 4 5 Menikmati kesendirian. 1 2 3 4 5 Menikmati kesunyian dan keindahan. 1 2 3 4 5 Menjauh dari situasi ramai untuk sementara. 1 2 3 4 5

105

Mengurangi frustrasi yang Anda rasakan. 1 2 3 4 5 Saya merasa gembira jika teman, keluarga, dan saudara saya mengetahui bahwa saya telah mengunjungi Taman Nasional Komodo 1 2 3 4 5 sebagai situs warisan dunia.

11. Pada bagian ini, saya ingin mengetahui persepsi Anda terhadap aspek-aspek berikut mengenai Taman Nasional Komodo yang telah Anda amati dan alami. Tandai pernyataan- pernyataan berikut sesuai dengan jawaban yang paling mewakili Anda.

Sangat Tidak Agak Sangat Pernyataan Setuju Tidak Setuju Setuju Setuju Setuju Saya lebih menyukai pergi ke kebun 1 2 3 4 5 binatang daripada taman nasional. Komodo merupakan alasan terpenting saya mengunjungi Taman Nasional 1 2 3 4 5 Komodo. Saya tidak ingin melihat kehidupan liar dan pemandangan yang menarik dan 1 2 3 4 5 belum pernah saya lihat sebelumnya. Hewan-hewan lain dan pemandangan adalah alasan terpenting saya 1 2 3 4 5 mengunjungi Taman Nasional Komodo. Jika saya tidak menemukan hewan- hewan yang saya rencanakan ingin lihat, 1 2 3 4 5 itu tidak menjadi masalah bagi saya. Aktivitas dan kehidupan bawah laut merupakan alasan terpenting saya 1 2 3 4 5 mengunjungi Taman Nasional Komodo. Kualitas barang dan jasa yang 1 2 3 4 5 ditawarkan sangat baik.

12. Tandai dengan tanda centang 3 (tiga) sumber yang memberi informasi paling banyak mengenai Taman Nasional Komodo sebagai destinasi World Heritage Site kepada Anda!

Instagram Media Massa Online Saudara/Teman/Keluarga

Facebook Media Cetak Agen Travel

Youtube Televisi Travel Blog Channel _____ Radio Lainnya Tidak Tersedia dalam Pilihan

106

13. Identifikasi lambang-lambang berikut Tandai dengan centang (√) pada gambar apabila Anda tidak mengetahui apa yang diwakili lambang tersebut.

14. Bandingkan Taman Nasional Komodo dengan tempat-tempat lain yang Anda ketahui atau telah kunjungi, sebelumnya. Lingkari nomor-nomor berikut sesuai dengan jawaban yang paling mewakili Anda!

Sangat Tidak Agak Sangat Pernyataan Tidak Setuju Setuju Setuju Setuju Setuju Taman Nasional Komodo memiliki kehidupan liar yang 1 2 3 4 5 tidak dapat ditemukan di tempat lain di dunia. Taman Nasional Komodo merupakan destinasi wisata 1 2 3 4 5 alam yang otentik/asli. Keaslian dari situs warisan dunia memotivasi saya melakukan kunjungan ke Taman Nasional 1 2 3 4 5 Komodo. Saya mengetahui bahwa Taman Nasional Komodo adalah situs 1 2 3 4 5 warisan dunia. Taman Nasional Komodo memiliki pemandangan yang 1 2 3 4 5 indah.

15. Seberapa sering Anda menyadari adanya lambang warisan dunia selama kunjungan Anda di Taman Nasional Komodo?

Hampir Tidak Jarang Kadang Sering Selalu Pernah 1 2 3 4 5

107

16. Menurut Anda, seberapa penting lambang warisan dunia dalam suatu destinasi?

Tidak Penting Kurang Agak Sangat Penting Sama Sekali Penting Penting Penting 1 2 3 4 5

17. Seberapa penting lambang warisan dunia mempengaruhi pengalaman dan kepuasan Anda secara keseluruhan?

Tidak Penting Kurang Agak Sangat Penting Sama Sekali Penting Penting Penting 1 2 3 4 5

18. Selama waktu kunjungan, seberapa alami Taman Nasional Komodo menurut Anda?

Tidak Alami Kurang Agak Ala Sangat Alami Sema Sekali Alami Alami mi 1 2 3 4 5

19. Seberapa puaskah Anda terhadap Taman Nasional Komodo sebagai situs warisan dunia setelah kunjungan Anda?

Tidak Puas Sangat Agak Sangat Sama Tidak Puas Puas Puas Sekali Puas 1 2 3 4 5

20. Tandai nomor yang paling mewakili jawaban Anda terhadap setiap pernyataan berikut:

Sangat Tidak Tidak Agak Sangat Setuju Setuju Setuju Setuju Setuju Saya mengunjungi destinasi ini karena reputasi dan kepopuleran yang dimilikinya. 1 2 3 4 5 Biaya masuk dan aktivitas dalam kawasan mahal. 1 2 3 4 5 Taman Nasional Komodo memliki keunikan- keunikan yang memotivasi saya untuk 1 2 3 4 5 mengunjunginya. Taman Nasional Komodo memiliki banyak lokasi menjanjikan untuk mengambil gambar 1 2 3 4 5 dan video. Taman Nasional Komodo memberikan saya kesempatan untuk meningkatkan 1 2 3 4 5 pengetahuan mengenai lingkungan maupun kehidupan liar. Taman Nasional Komodo memiliki banyak 1 2 3 4 5 lokasi wisata untuk dikunjungi. Saya lebih suka melihat satwa komodo di kebun binatang daripada di Taman Nasional 1 2 3 4 5 Komodo karena lebih murah, mudah, dan dekat. Cuaca di Taman Nasional Komodo baik. 1 2 3 4 5 Taman Nasional Komodo sangat aman bagi 1 2 3 4 5 wisatawan. Taman Nasional Komodo menawarkan berbagai pemandangan indah baik di darat 1 2 3 4 5 maupun bawah laut.

108

21. Seberapa puaskah Anda dengan destinasi secara keseluruhan setelah Anda mengunjungi Taman Nasional Komodo jika dibandingkan dengan ekspektasi Anda sebelum kunjungan?

Tidak Puas Agak Sanga Tidak Puas Sama Sekali Puas Puas t Puas 1 2 3 4 5 Saya ingin menanyakan beberapa pertanyaan umum terkait latar belakang Anda. Informasi ini hanya akan digunakan untuk analisis statistik dan seluruh informasi yang diberikan akan dirahasiakan. Anda dipersilakan melewatkan pertanyaan manapun yang tidak ingin Anda jawab. Lingkari respon di bawah yang paling mewakili Anda.

No Karakteristik Respon 1 Amerika 10 Australia 19 Filipina 2 Indonesia 11 Italia 20 Cina 3 Argentina 12 Austria 21 Jepang 4 United Kingdom 13 Swedia 22 Singapura 1 Asal Negara 5 Spanyol 14 Finlandia 23 Malaysia 6 Peru 15 Belgia 24 Lainnya (Mohon 7 Perancis 16 Swiss sebutkan): 8 Jerman 17 Korea Selatan 9 Belanda 18 Selandia Baru 1 Amerika 10 Australian 19 Filipinos 2 Indonesia 11 Italian 20 Chinese 3 Argentina 12 Austrian 21 Japanese 4 British 13 Swede 22 Singaporean 2 Nationality 5 Spaniard 14 Finnish 23 Malaysian 6 Peruvian 15 Belgian 24 Lainnya (Mohon 7 French 16 Swiss sebutkan): 8 German 17 South Korean 9 Dutch 18 New Zealander Memilih tidak 3 Jenis Kelamin 1 Laki-laki 2 Perempuan 3 menjawab 1 20 – 24 4 35 – 39 7 50 – 54 4 Usia 2 25 – 29 5 40 – 44 8 > 55 3 30 – 34 6 45 – 49 1 Lajang 3 Cerai

5 Memilih tidak Status Hubungan 2 Nikah 4 menjawab

Latar 1 SMA 3 Sarjana 6 Belakang 2 Diploma 4 Pascasarjana atau tingkatan di atasnya Pendidikan Pelajar Lainnya 1 4 Peneliti 6

Profesional (Mohon 7 Pekerjaan ataupun 2 /Akademisi Sebutkan): Teknisi 3 Wiraswasta 5 Rumah tangga 1 < $ 20,000 4 60,001 - 80,000 Penghasilan (USD) 8 per Tahun 2 20,001 - 40,000 5 80,001 - 100,000 3 40,001 - 60,000 6 > 100,000

109

APPENDIX C INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVALS OF PROTOCOL MEMORANDUM

12/18/18, 7(05 PM

Behavioral/NonMedical Institutional Review Board PO Box 112250 FWA00005790 Gainesville FL 32611-2250 Telephone: (352) 392−0433 Facsimile: (352) 392−9234 Email: [email protected]

DATE: 6/12/2018 TO: Taylor Stein PO Box 110410 Gainesville, Florida 32611 FROM: Ira Fischler, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus Chair IRB-02

IRB#: IRB201801002 TITLE: Investigating Tourists' Motivation toward National Park Visitation: Case of Komodo National Park, Indonesia

Approved as Exempt You have received IRB approval to conduct the above-listed research project. Approval of this project was granted on 6/12/2018 by IRB-02. This study is approved as exempt because it poses minimal risk and is approved under the following exempt category/categories:

2. Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey or interview procedures, or the observation of public behavior, so long as confidentiality is maintained. If both of the following are true, exempt status can not be granted: (a) Information obtained is recorded in such a manner that the subject can be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subject, and (b) Subject’s responses, if known outside the research, could reasonably place the subject at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subject’s financial standing or employability or reputation.

Special Notes to Investigator:

In the myIRB system, exempt approved studies will not have an approval stamp on the consents, fliers, emails, etc. However, the documents reviewed are the ones to be used. Therefore, under ATTACHMENTS you should find the document that has been reviewed and approved. If you need to modify the document(s) in any manner then you'd need to submit to our office for review and approval prior to implementation.

Principal Investigator Responsibilities:

The PI is responsible for the conduct of the study.

Using currently approved consent form to enroll subjects (if applicable) Renewing your study before expiration Obtaining approval for revisions before implementation Reporting Adverse Events Retention of Research Records Obtaining approval to conduct research at the VA Notifying other parties about this project’s approval status

Should the nature of the study change or you need to revise the protocol in any manner please contact this office prior to implementation.

https://my.irb.ufl.edu/UFLIRB/Doc/0/KHR2UBONHNPK70VLRTJR8Q7HBB/fromString.html Page 1 of 2

110

Co-Investigator

The Foundation for The Gator Nation

111

APPENDIX D RESEARCH PERMISSION REQUEST LETTERS

UF/IFAS 118 Newins-Ziegler Hall

School of Forest Resources and Conservation PO Box 110410

Gainesville, FL 32611-0410

March 28, 2018

Budhy Kurniawan, S.Hut. Komodo National Park Labuan Bajo, Indonesia

Dear Mr. Kurniawan,

I am a professor in the School of Forest Resources and Conservation at the University of Florida. Muhammed Ikbal Putera is currently a graduate student in our MS degree program, and I am his faculty advisor.

Ikbal is an employee of Komodo National Park and is planning on conducting social science research in the park from May to July, 2018. The subject of his research study is “Investigating Tourists’ Motivation toward National Park Visitation: Case of Komodo National Park, Indonesia.” We believe his research will provide valuable information on an important aspect of Komodo National Park – motivations and perceptions of tourists. Research has long shown that national park managers can better protect the resource and ensure quality experiences for visitors when they have a thorough understanding of the people who visit the parks. A visitor assessment like this has never been conducted in Komodo National Park, so we believe that Ikbal’s work will not only provide interesting theoretical information regarding nature-based tourism visitation, but also practical results that will inform national park management.

As you might have seen in Ikbal’s research proposal, he plans to interview visitors in three areas of Komodo National Park. The interview is designed to be as unobtrusive as possible, and will only be conducted for visitors who voluntarily agree to participate in the survey. Ikbal will take all precautions necessary to ensure he does not negatively affect anybody’s experience while conducting his data collection. In fact, from my experience, tourists often enjoy taking part in these types of studies because it gives them a unique chance to share their opinions and potentially help national park management.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Taylor V. Stein Professor and Graduate Coordinator Forest Resources and Conservation

Direct responses to: Taylor Stein, Professor [email protected] 352-846-0860 FAX 352-846-1277

The Foundation for The Gator Nation An Equal Opportunity Institution

112

113

LIST OF REFERENCES

Ahn, K., & Kim, S. (1996). A study on visitors’ behaviour in Korean National Park. Journal of Korean Landscape, 24(1), 32.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

Ajzen, I. (2011). The theory of planned behavior: reactions and reflections.

Akama, J. S., & Kieti, D. M. (2003). Measuring tourist satisfaction with Kenya's wildlife safari: a case study of Tsavo West National Park. Tourism management, 24(1), 73-81.

Allan, M., & Shavanddasht, M. (2019). Rural geotourists segmentation by motivation in weekends and weekdays. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 19(1), 74-84.

Andriotis, K., Agiomirgianakis, G., & Mihiotis, A. (2008). Measuring tourist satisfaction: A factor-cluster segmentation approach. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 14(3), 221-235.

Balai Taman Nasional Komodo. (2000). Laporan Rencana Pengelolaan 25 Tahun Taman Nasional Komodo. Labuan Bajo: Balai Taman Nasional Komodo, Indonesia.

Baral, N., Hazen, H., & Thapa, B. (2017). Visitor perceptions of World Heritage value at Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest) National Park, Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(10), 1494-1512.

Barić, D., Anić, P., & Macías Bedoya, A. (2016). Combining benefit-sought segmentation and service quality gap analysis: Case study of Paklenica National Park, Croatia. Turizam: međunarodni znanstveno-stručni časopis, 64(1), 7-25.

Bieger, T., & Laesser, C. (2002). Market segmentation by motivation: The case of Switzerland. Journal of Travel research, 41(1), 68-76.

Beh, A., & Bruyere, B. L. (2007). Segmentation by visitor motivation in three Kenyan national reserves. Tourism management, 28(6), 1464-1471.

Blamey, R. K. (2001). Principles of ecotourism. The encyclopedia of ecotourism, 2001, 5-22.

Borges, M. A., Carbone, G., Bushell, R., & Jaeger, T. (2011). Sustainable tourism and natural World Heritage: Priorities for action. IUCN.

Caber, M., & Albayrak, T. (2016). Push or pull? Identifying rock climbing tourists' motivations. Tourism Management, 55, 74-84.

114

Cahyanto, I., & Pennington-Gray, L. (2015). Communicating hurricane evacuation to tourists: Gender, past experience with hurricanes, and place of residence. Journal of Travel Research, 54(3), 329-343.

Carvache-Franco, M., Segarra-Oña, M., & Carrascosa-López, C. (2019). Segmentation by Motivation in Ecotourism: Application to Protected Areas in Guayas, Ecuador. Sustainability, 11(1), 240.

Carvache-Franco, W., Carvache-Franco, M., Carvache-Franco, O., & Hernández- Lara, A. B. (2019). Segmentation of foreign tourist demand in a coastal marine destination: The case of Montañita, Ecuador. Ocean & Coastal Management, 167, 236-244.

Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1996). Tourism, ecotourism, and protected areas: The state of nature-based tourism around the world and guidelines for its development. Iucn.

Cha, S., McCleary, K. W., & Uysal, M. (1995). Travel motivations of Japanese overseas travelers: A factor-cluster segmentation approach. Journal of travel research, 34(1), 33-39.

Chen, L. J., & Chen, W. P. (2015). Push–pull factors in international birders' travel. Tourism Management, 48, 416-425.

Chikuta, O. (2015). The development of a universal accessibility framework for National Parks in South Africa and Zimbabwe (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.847.8360&rep=rep1 &type=pdf

Crompton, J. L., & McKay, S. L. (1997). Motives of visitors attending festival events. Annals of tourism research, 24(2), 425-439.

Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(4), 408-424

Dann, G. M. (1977). Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism. Annals of tourism research, 4(4), 184-194.

Dann, Graham MS. (1981) Tourist motivation an appraisal. Annals of tourism research, 8(2), 187-219.

Direktorat Pemolaan dan Informasi Konservasi Alam. (2017). Conservation Areas in Indonesia. Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan Indonesia. Retrieved from http://pika.ksdae.menlhk.go.id/

Devesa, M., Laguna, M., & Palacios, A. (2010). The role of motivation in visitor satisfaction: Empirical evidence in rural tourism. Tourism management, 31(4), 547-552.

115

Driver, B. L., & Brown, P. J. (1978). The opportunity spectrum concept and behavioral information in outdoor recreation resource supply inventories: a rationale. In: Integrated inventories of renewable natural resources: proceedings of the workshop, January 1978, Tucson, Arizona (Edited by HG Lund et al.). USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report, (RM-55), 24- 31.

Driver, B.L. (1983). Master list of items for Recreation Experience Preference scales and domains. Unpublished document. USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Driver, B.L., Tinsley, H.E., & Manfredo, M.J. (1991). The paragraphs about leisure and Recreation Experience Preference Scales: Results from two inventories designed to assess the breadth of the perceived psychological benefits of leisure. In B.L. Driver, P.J. Brown, & G.L. Peterson (Eds.), Benefits of Leisure (pp. 263-287). State College, PA: Venture.

Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. B. (1991). The meaning and measurement of destination image. Journal of tourism studies, 2(2), 2-12.

Enright, M. J., & Newton, J. (2004). Tourism destination competitiveness: a quantitative approach. Tourism management, 25(6), 777-788.

Fakeye, P. C., & Crompton, J. L. (1991). Image differences between prospective, first-time, and repeat visitors to the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Journal of travel research, 30(2), 10-16.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Intention and Behavior: An introduction to theory and research.

Fluker, M. R., & Turner, L. W. (2000). Needs, motivations, and expectations of a commercial whitewater rafting experience. Journal of travel research, 38(4), 380-389.

Fyall, A., & Rakic, T. (2006). The future market for World Heritage sites. Managing world heritage sites, 159-175.

Goodwin, H. (1996). In pursuit of ecotourism. Biodiversity & Conservation, 5(3), 277- 291.

Gu, Y., Du, J., Tang, Y., Qiao, X., Bossard, C., & Deng, G. (2013, May). Challenges for sustainable tourism at the Jiuzhaigou World Natural Heritage site in western China. In Natural Resources Forum (Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 103-112).

Gu, X. P., Lewis, B. J., Niu, L. J., Yu, D. P., Zhou, L., Zhou, W. M., ... & Dai, L. M. (2018). Segmentation by domestic visitor motivation: Changbai Mountain Biosphere Reserve, China. Journal of Mountain Science, 15(8), 1711-1727.

Hsu, T. K., Tsai, Y. F., & Wu, H. H. (2009). The preference analysis for tourist choice of destination: A case study of Taiwan. Tourism management, 30(2), 288-297.

116

Hwang, S. N., Lee, C., & Chen, H. J. (2005). The relationship among tourists’ involvement, place attachment and interpretation satisfaction in Taiwan’s national parks. Tourism Management, 26(2), 143-156

Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1982). Toward a social psychological theory of tourism motivation: A rejoinder. Annals of tourism research, 9(2), 256-262.

Iso-Ahola, S. E., La Verde, D., & Graefe, A. R. (1989). Perceived competence as a mediator of the relationship between high risk sports participation and self- esteem. Journal of Leisure Research, 21(1), 32-39.

Jarvis, D., Stoeckl, N., & Liu, H. B. (2016). The impact of economic, social and environmental factors on trip satisfaction and the likelihood of visitors returning. Tourism Management, 52, 1-18.

Jeong, Y., Zielinski, S., Chang, J. S., & Kim, S. I. (2018). Comparing motivation- based and motivation-attitude-based segmentation of tourists visiting sensitive destinations. Sustainability, 10(10), 3615.

Job, H., & Paesler, F. (2013). Links between nature-based tourism, protected areas, poverty alleviation and crises—the example of Wasini Island (Kenya). Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 1, 18-28.

Jönsson, C., & Devonish, D. (2008). Does nationality, gender, and age affect travel motivation? A case of visitors to the Caribbean Island of Barbados. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 25(3-4), 398-408.

Jessop, T. S., Purwandana, D., Ciofi, C., Imansyah, M. J., Panggur, M. R., & Ariefiandy, A. (2018). Effects of human activities on Komodo dragons in Komodo National Park. Biodiversity and conservation, 27(13), 3329-3347.

Kamri, T., & Radam, A. (2013). Visitors’ visiting motivation: Bako national park, Sarawak. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 101, 495-505.

Kil, N., Holland, S. M., & Stein, T. V. (2015). Experiential benefits, place meanings, and environmental setting preferences between proximate and distant visitors to a national scenic trail. Environmental management, 55(5), 1109-1123.

Kim, S. S., Crompton, J. L., & Botha, C. (2000). Responding to competition: a strategy for sun/lost city, South Africa. Tourism Management, 21(1), 33-41.

Kim, S., & Lee, C. (2002). Push and pull relationships. Annals of tourism research, 29(1), 257-260.

Kim, S. S., Lee, C. K., & Klenosky, D. B. (2003). The influence of push and pull factors at Korean national parks. Tourism management, 24(2), 169-180.

117

King, L. M. (2011). Investigating the role of the World Heritage brand in attracting visitors to protected areas in Queensland, Australia (Doctoral dissertation, James Cook University). Retrieved from https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/21186/1/01front.pdf

King, L. M., & Halpenny, E. A. (2014). Communicating the World Heritage brand: visitor awareness of UNESCO's World Heritage symbol and the implications for sites, stakeholders and sustainable management. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(5), 768-786.

King, L. M., McCool, S. F., Fredman, P., & Halpenny, E. (2012). Protected area branding strategies to increase stewardship among park constituencies. Parks, 18(2), 54-63.

Kominis, G., & Emmanuel, C. R. (2007). The expectancy–valence theory revisited: Developing an extended model of managerial motivation. Management Accounting Research, 18(1), 49-75.

Kouthouris, C. (2009). An examination of the relationships between motivation, involvement and intention to continuing participation among recreational skiers. International Journal of Sport Management, Recreation & Tourism, 4, 1-19.

Kruger, M., & Saayman, M. (2010). Travel motivation of tourists to Kruger and Tsitsikamma National Parks: A comparative study. South African journal of wildlife research, 40(1), 93-102.

Kruger, M., Viljoen, A., & Saayman, M. (2017). Who visits the Kruger National Park, and why? identifying target markets. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 34(3), 312-340.

Lam, T., & Hsu, C. H. (2004). Theory of planned behavior: Potential travelers from China. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 28(4), 463-482.

Lam, T., & Hsu, C. H. (2006). Predicting behavioral intention of choosing a travel destination. Tourism management, 27(4), 589-599.

LAWLER III, E. E., & Porter, L. W. (1967). The effect of performance on job satisfaction. Industrial relations: A journal of Economy and Society, 7(1), 20- 28.

Leask, A., & Fyall, A. (Eds.). (2006). Managing world heritage sites. Routledge.

Lee, C. K., Lee, Y. K., & Wicks, B. E. (2004). Segmentation of festival motivation by nationality and satisfaction. Tourism management, 25(1), 61-70.

Lee, S. (2007). Vroom's expectancy theory and the public library customer motivation model. Library Review, 56(9), 788-796.

118

Lu, W., & Stepchenkova, S. (2012). Ecotourism experiences reported online: Classification of satisfaction attributes. Tourism management, 33(3), 702-712.

Lundberg, D. E. (1972). Why tourists travel. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 12(4), 64-70.

Loker-Murphy, L. (1996). Backpackers in Australia: A motivation- based segmentation study. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 5(4), 23–45.

Ma, A., Chow, A., Cheung, L., Lee, K., & Liu, S. (2018). Impacts of Tourists’ Sociodemographic Characteristics on the Travel Motivation and Satisfaction: The Case of Protected Areas in South China. Sustainability, 10(10), 3388.

Marques, C., Reis, E., & Menezes, J. (2010). Profiling the segments of visitors to Portuguese protected areas. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(8), 971-996.

Manfredo, M. J., Driver, B. L., & Tarrant, M. A. (1996). Measuring leisure motivation: A meta-analysis of the recreation experience preference scales. Journal of leisure Research, 28(3), 188-213.

Mehmetoglu, M. (2007). Typologising nature-based tourists by activity—Theoretical and practical implications. Tourism management, 28(3), 651-660.

Murphy, P. E. (2013). Tourism: A community approach (RLE Tourism). Routledge.

Mutanga, C. N., Vengesayi, S., Chikuta, O., Muboko, N., & Gandiwa, E. (2017). Travel motivation and tourist satisfaction with wildlife tourism experiences in Gonarezhou and Matusadona National Parks, Zimbabwe. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 20, 1-18.

Mutinda, R., & Mayaka, M. (2012). Application of destination choice model: Factors influencing domestic tourists’ destination choice among residents of Nairobi, Kenya. Tourism Management, 33(6), 1593-1597.

Nicholas, L., & Thapa, B. (2010). Visitor perspectives on sustainable tourism development in the pitons management area world heritage site, St. Lucia. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 12(5), 839-857.

Nunnally, J. C., Bernstein, I. H., & Berge, J. M. T. (1967). Psychometric theory (Vol. 226). New York: McGraw-Hill.

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.

Oviedo-García, M. Á., Vega-Vázquez, M., Castellanos-Verdugo, M., & Reyes- Guizar, L. A. (2016). Tourist satisfaction and the souvenir shopping of domestic tourists: Extended weekends in Spain. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(8), 845-860.

119

Pan, S., & Ryan, C. (2007). Mountain areas and visitor usage–motivations and determinants of satisfaction: The case of Pirongia Forest Park, New Zealand. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(3), 288-308.

Patti, S. E. (2013). Sustainability and Support for the Ecotourism within Etna Park Area. American Journal of Tourism Research, 2(1), 124-129.

Park, D. B., & Yoon, Y. S. (2009). Segmentation by motivation in rural tourism: A Korean case study. Tourism management, 30(1), 99-108.

Paudyal, R., Stein, T. V., Adams, D., Jokela, E. J., Ober, H. K., Swisher, M. E. (2017). Motivational, Forest Management, and Climatic Factors Affecting Outdoor Recreation Participation and Experience in Florida (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida). Retrieved from http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0051832/00001

Payne, R. J., McIntyre, N., Yuan, M., Moore, J., Bradford, L., & Elliott, S. (2004, June). Recreation experience preferences and activity profiles in a Crown Forest Landscape in Ontario, Canada. In Policies, methods and tools for visitor management–proceedings of the second International Conference on Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas.

Pearce, P. L., & Caltabiano, M. L. (1983). Inferring travel motivation from travelers' experiences. Journal of Travel Research, 22(2), 16-20.

Phau, I., Lee, S., & Quintal, V. (2013). An investigation of push and pull motivations of visitors to private parks: The case of Araluen Botanic Park. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 19(3), 269-284.

Poria, Y., Reichel, A., & Cohen, R. (2011). World heritage site—is it an effective brand name? A case study of a religious heritage site. Journal of Travel Research, 50(5), 482-495.

Poria, Y., Reichel, A., & Cohen, R. (2013). Tourists’ perceptions of World Heritage Site and its designation. Tourism Management, 35, 272-274.

Prayag, G., & Hosany, S. (2014). When Middle East meets West: Understanding the motives and perceptions of young tourists from United Arab Emirates. Tourism Management, 40, 35-45.

Pyo, S., Mihalik, B. J., & Uysal, M. (1989). Attraction attributes and motivations: A canonical correlation analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 16(2), 277-282.

Raadik, J., Cottrell, S. P., Fredman, P., Ritter, P., & Newman, P. (2010). Understanding recreational experience preferences: application at fulufjället national park, Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 10(3), 231-247.

120

Ramseook-Munhurrun, P., Seebaluck, V. N., & Naidoo, P. (2015). Examining the structural relationships of destination image, perceived value, tourist satisfaction and loyalty: case of Mauritius. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 175, 252-259.

Ritchie, J. B., & Ritchie, R. J. (1998, September). The branding of tourism destinations: past achievements and future challenges. In Proceedings of the 1998 annual congress of the International Association of Scientific Experts in Tourism, destination marketing: Scopes and limitations (pp. 89-116). Marrakech: International Association of Scientific Experts in Tourism.

Ryan, C., & Glendon, I. (1998). Application of leisure motivation scale to tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(1), 169-184.

Saayman, M., & Saayman, A. (2009). Why travel motivation and socio-demographics matter in managing a national park. koedoe, 51(1), 0-0.

Schofield, P., & Thompson, K. (2007). Visitor motivation, satisfaction and behavioral intention: the 2005 Naadam Festival, Ulaanbaatar. International journal of tourism research, 9(5), 329-344.

Stein, T. V., & Lee, M. E. (1995). Managing recreation resources for positive outcomes: an application of benefits-based management. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 13(3), 52-70.

Swisher, M. (2017). Super-Simplistic Guide to Sampling Choices. Retrieved from https://fycs.ifas.ufl.edu/swisher/6800_18_CNV/05_06_Sample_Types.pdf

University of Texas at Austin. U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. (2002). Indonesia (Physiography). Retrieved fromhttps://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/maps/indonesia.html

Unesco. Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. (2017). Operational guidelines for the implementation of the world heritage convention. Retrieved from https://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/

Uysal, M., & Hagan, L. A. R. (1993). Motivation of pleasure travel and tourism. Encyclopedia of hospitality and tourism, 21, 798-810.

Uysal, M., McDonald, C. D., & Martin, B. S. (1994). Australian visitors to US national parks and natural areas. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 6(3), 18-24.

Van Der Merwe, P., & Saayman, M. (2008). Travel motivations of tourists visiting Kruger National Park. Koedoe, 50(1), 154-159.

Vaske, J. J. (2008). Survey research and analysis: Applications in parks, recreation and human dimensions. State College, Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing.

121

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation (Vol. 54). New York: Wiley.

Watson, A., Ostergren, D., Fix, P., Overbaugh, B., McCollum, D., Kruger, L., Madsen, M., & Yang, H. (2009). Protecting ecotourism resources in a time of rapid economic and environmental transformation in Asia. In In: Xiaowen, Jie; Xu erming, Xu; Schneider, Ingrid, editors. Strategic Management Engineering: Enterprise, Encironment and Crisis; Proceedings of 2009 International Conference on Strategic Management. Sichuan University Press: 185- 201. (pp. 185-201).

Wu, M. Y., & Pearce, P. L. (2014). Chinese recreational vehicle users in Australia: A netnographic study of tourist motivation. Tourism Management, 43, 22-35.

Weber, D., & Anderson, D. (2010). Contact with nature: Recreation experience preferences in Australian parks. Annals of Leisure Research, 13(1-2), 46-69.

Weaver, D. B., & Lawton, L. J. (2002). Overnight ecotourist market segmentation in the Gold Coast hinterland of Australia. Journal of Travel Research, 40(3), 270-280.

Weaver, D. B., & Lawton, L. J. (2007). Twenty years on: The state of contemporary ecotourism research. Tourism management, 28(5), 1168-1179.

Yuan, S., & McDonald, C. (1990). Motivational determinates of international pleasure time. Journal of Travel Research, 29(1), 42-44.

Yousefi, M., & Marzuki, A. (2015). An analysis of push and pull motivational factors of international tourists to Penang, Malaysia. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 16(1), 40-56.

Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: a structural model. Tourism management, 26(1), 45-56.

Yoon, Y. S., Lee, J. S., & Lee, C. K. (2010). Measuring festival quality and value affecting visitors’ satisfaction and loyalty using a structural approach. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(2), 335-342.

122

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Ikbal is a park ranger of Komodo National Park, Indonesia. He has been the park ranger for over the past 5 years and being responsible to perform the komodo dragons’ population monitoring. His experience for being the Indonesian Tourism

Ambassador made him involved in many human dimensional activities for the park’s brand marketing, involving in park’s extension programs with the local people, and holding responsibility to establish park’s exhibits in multiple promotional events.

Ikbal holds a bachelor’s degree in forestry from Bogor Agricultural University in Indonesia. His major was silviculture and chose forest fires as his expertise.

During his undergraduate program, Ikbal has been being a Teaching Assistant (TA) for multiple courses (Silviculture, Forest Fires, Forest Health Monitoring, Forest

Pathology, Forest Pest, and Forest Technology for Tree Improvements). He was appointed to be the TA coordinator of forestry field practicum for sophomore and junior forestry students in his former university.

His research interest on ecotourism getting the attention of Center for

International Forestry Research (CIFOR) – United States Agency for International

Development (USAID) fellowship committee board and brought him to University of

Florida. Throughout University of Florida, his research interest on ecotourism has been expanded further and made him interested to World Heritage knowledge. Ikbal received Tropical Conservation Development Field Research Grant in 2018. He has been participating in Diversity Graduate Research Symposium in 2018, Latin

American Studies Field Work Festival in 2019, Southeastern Recreation Research

Conference 2019, and Forestry Research Symposium 2019. After accomplishment of his master’s, Ikbal will be back working in Komodo National Park and hopes to pursue a Ph.D degree within few years.

123