Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

INTEGRATED TOURISM MASTER PLAN BOROBUDUR – YOGYAKARTA – PRAMBANAN (ITMP-BYP)

ANALYSIS OF DEMAND AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR TOURISM DESTINATION AREA DEVELOPMENT

. Document B

Edition 31 March 2020

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Contents

1. Tourism market analysis ...... 11 1.1 Global trends ...... 11 1.2 Tourism trends in Indonesia ...... 15 1.3 Competitive Comparative Analysis ...... 22 1.4 Tourism in DI Yogyakarta and Central Java ...... 24 1.5 Visitor Profile, Behaviour and Opinions ...... 40 1.6 Tourism Trade Perspectives ...... 72 1.7 Key Issues and Opportunities ...... 84 2. Tourism products and services ...... 86 2.1 Accommodation ...... 86 2.2 Conference and Exhibition Facilities ...... 92 2.3 Restaurants and Catering ...... 93 2.4 Product offer ...... 96 2.5 Sports facilities ...... 122 2.6 Performing Arts and Intangible Cultural Heritage ...... 122 2.7 Online presence of tourism businesses ...... 126 2.8 Accessible Tourism and the TDAs ...... 147 2.9 Government plans ...... 148 2.10 Context of the TDAs: Tourism in Yogyakarta-Solo-Semarang Area ...... 152 2.11 Key issues ...... 156

ii BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Appendices

Appendix 1.1 - Additional Tables ...... 161 Appendix 1.2 - Comparative Competitive Analysis – selected WHS sites in Southeast Asia ...... 163 Appendix 1.3 - Tourism Trade Survey Sample ...... 166 Appendix 2.1 - List of attractions ...... 168

iii BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Tables Index

Table 1.1: Regional market shares (%) in international arrivals in Indonesia 2012-2016 ...... 18 Table 1.2: Purpose of Visit by Region of Residence in 2016 ...... 18 Table 1.3: Distribution of International Tourists by Region of Residence and Province Visited ...... 19 Table 1.4: Population in source markets within 4 hours’ flight of Yogyakarta ...... 21 Table 1.5: Arrivals 2010, 2016, 2018 in with percentage change (16/15 and 17/16) and 2017 share ...... 24 Table 1.6: Receipts from International Tourism in 2010, 2016, 2017 (USD million) ...... 24 Table 1.7: Arrivals to DI Yogyakarta from source markets, 2016-17 ...... 26 Table 1.8: International visitors to Indonesia, DI Yogyakarta and Bali, 2013-17 ...... 27 Table 1.9: International Arrivals in Indonesia by Key Port of Entry ...... 28 Table 1.10: Seasonality in Domestic Tourism in Central Java and D.I. Yogyakarta in 2016 (trips) ...... 29 Table 1.11: Breakdown of International Visitors to DI Yogyakarta ...... 30 Table 1.12: Domestic tourist and trip profiles in DI Yogyakarta and Central Java in 2016 ...... 30 Table 1.13: Number of Hotels and Rooms in the City of Yogyakarta, 2011-2017 ...... 33 Table 1.14: Average expenditure and length of stay in C Java/DIY per region of origin ...... 34 Table 1.15: Length of Stay at star-rated and non-star rated hotels in DIY and Yogyakarta City ...... 35 Table 1.16: Percentage of Foreign and Domestic Guests Staying Overnight, by Hotel Classification, in City of Yogyakarta (2014-17) ...... 36 Table 1.17: Occupancy rates at star-rated and non-star rated accommodation in DIY ...... 36 Table 1.18: International and domestic visitors to key attractions in Borobudur TDA ...... 37 Table 1.19: International and domestic to key attractions in Yogyakarta TDA ...... 38 Table 1.20: International and Domestic visitors to key attractions in Prambanan TDA ...... 39 Table 1.21: Distribution of tourists according to purpose of visit and source of information (2016) ...... 39 Table 1.22: Respondent type/Prior Experience of Destination ...... 43 Table 1.23: Age and Gender ...... 44 Table 1.24: Party Type and Party Size ...... 44 Table 1.25: Respondents’ Working Status ...... 45 Table 1.26: Points of Entry/Main Transport used in Destination ...... 46 Table 1.27: Rating of Road Journeys...... 47 Table 1.28: Type of Accommodation Used/Number of Nights Spent in Destination ...... 47 Table 1.29: Reason for Choosing Accommodation ...... 50 Table 1.30: Activities would be interested in participating in in the future (Very Interested/Quite Interested) ...... 55 Table 1.31: Experience of Borobudur ...... 57 Table 1.32: Timing of visit to Borobudur Temple ...... 57 Table 1.33: Experience of Prambanan ...... 63 Table 1.34: Timing of visit to Prambanan Temple ...... 63 Table 1.35: Visitor Expenditure (USD) ...... 69 Table 1.36: Overall Rating ...... 71 Table 1.37: Inbound Tour Operators, Sample of Itineraries ...... 73 Table 2.1: Room availability in Yogyakarta ...... 87 Table 2.2: Occupancy rates at star-rated and non-star rated hotels in DIY ...... 88 Table 2.3: Quantity of Hotels and Rooms in Yogyakarta KTA compared with TDA ...... 88 Table 2.4: Principal MICE venues in Yogyakarta TDA ...... 93 Table 2.5: Principal iconic and Javanese restaurants in Yogyakarta TDA ...... 94 Table 2.6: Restaurants in Kabupaten Magelang (2016) ...... 96 Table 2.7: Visitor attendance at various attractions in Borobudur TDA (2016) ...... 102 Table 2.8: Tourism-Related Facilities on Jl. Prawirotaman, Yogyakarta – online presence...... 127 Table 2.9: Tourism-Related Facilities in Kec. Borobudur – online presence ...... 134

iv BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Figures Index

Figure 1.1: Growth in International Arrivals in Asia and the Pacific Region 2017 ...... 12 Figure 1.2: Regional Outbound Travel Trends ...... 12 Figure 1.3: Outbound Travel Trends of the Chinese Market to 2025 ...... 13 Figure 1.4: Increases in experiences, tours and activities booked through TripAdvisor (2016-17) ...... 14 Figure 1.5: Age Profile of Domestic Tourists in 2016 ...... 17 Figure 1.6: Visitor arrivals to Indonesia 1969-2017 ...... 17 Figure 1.7: Regional Market Access, Flight times ...... 20 Figure 1.8: Performance Overview of Travel and Tourism in Indonesia in 2017 ...... 23 Figure 1.9: Domestic and International Visitor Arrivals in DI Yogyakarta 2013-2017 ...... 25 Figure 1.10: International and Domestic Visitor Arrivals in Central Java 2013-2017 ...... 25 Figure 1.11: Seasonality of Domestic and International Visitors based on Accommodation Statistics in DI Yogyakarta in 2017 ...... 29 Figure 1.12: Origin of domestic visitors to Central Java in 2017 ...... 32 Figure 1.13: Distribution of international visitor arrivals based on country of residence in 2017 ...... 32 Figure 1.14: International visitors in star-rated and non-star-rated accommodation in DI Yogyakarta ...... 34 Figure 1.15: Domestic visitors in star-rated and non-star rated accommodation in DI Yogyakarta ...... 34 Figure 1.16: Occupancy rates at hotels in DIY, 2012-17 averages, by month ...... 36 Figure 1.17: Main Reason for Visiting Borobudur-Yogyakarta-Prambanan...... 41 Figure 1.18: Country of Residence (International Visitors) ...... 42 Figure 1.19: Province of Residence (Domestic Visitors) ...... 43 Figure 1.20: Rating of Road Journey ...... 46 Figure 1.21: Reasons for Choosing Accommodation ...... 48 Figure 1.22: Activities Taken Part in / Intend to take Part In ...... 51 Figure 1.23: Sites Visited/Intend to Visit ...... 52 Figure 1.24: Rating of Activities ...... 53 Figure 1.25: Rating of Tourism in Yogyakarta ...... 54 Figure 1.25: Rating of Tourism in Yogyakarta (Contd.) ...... 54 Figure 1.26: Activities would be interested in participating in in the future ...... 55 Figure 1.27: Particular Likes - Yogyakarta ...... 56 Figure 1.28: Suggested Improvements - Yogyakarta ...... 56 Figure 1.29: Activities at Borobudur WHS ...... 58 Figure 1.30: Rating of Activities ...... 58 Figure 1.30: Rating of Activities (Contd.) ...... 59 Figure 1.31: Rating of Borobudur Experience Against Prior Expectations (All Visitors) ...... 59 Figure 1.31: Rating of Borobudur Experience Against Prior Expectations (All Visitors) ...... 60 Figure 1.32: Did the Hawkers at Borobudur Alter the Overall Experience ...... 60 Figure 1.33: Value for Money ...... 61 Figure 1.34: Particular Likes - Borobudur ...... 61 Figure 1.35: Suggested Improvements - Borobudur ...... 62 Figure 1.36: Activities Participated in at Prambanan Temple ...... 64 Figure 1.37: Rating of Activities ...... 65 Figure 1.38: Visit Vs Expectations ...... 66 Figure 1.38: Visit Vs Expectations (Contd.) ...... 66 Figure 1.39: Did the Hawkers at Prambanan Alter the Overall Experience? ...... 67 Figure 1.40: Value for Money ...... 67 Figure 1.41: Particular Likes - Prambanan ...... 68 Figure 1.42: Suggested Improvements - Prambanan ...... 69 Figure 1.43: Visitor Expenditure - Impact on Sectors of the Economy ...... 70 Figure 1.44: Total Visitor Expenditure - Impact on Sectors of the Economy ...... 70 Figure 1.45: Sample Details ...... 72 Figure 1.46: Method of Travel to Central Java ...... 75 Figure 1.47: Main Purpose of Travel ...... 75 Figure 1.48: Level of Demand compared to 5 Years Ago ...... 76 Figure 1.49: Expectations in terms of demand for the next 5 years...... 77

v BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Figure 1.50: Rating of Appeal of Borobudur-Yogyakarta-Prambanan ...... 78 Figure 1.51: Rating of Tourism Experience in Borobudur- Yogyakarta- Prambanan ...... 79 Figure 1.52: Level of Agreement with statements ...... 80 Figure 1.53: Types of Tourism Experiences Customers are interested in in Borobudur-Yogyakarta -Prambanan...... 81 Figure 1.54: Growth Prospects for Borobudur -Yogyakarta- Prambanan ...... 82 Figure 1.55: Markets offering the best potential for growth for Borobudur-Yogyakarta-Prambanan ...... 83 Figure 1.56: Market segments offering best potential for growth ...... 83 Figure 1.57: Dual location packages ...... 84 Figure 2.1: Growth in hotel rooms in Yogyakarta 2010-17...... 87 Figure 2.2: Concentration of Restaurants in Yogyakarta TDA ...... 95 Figure 2.3: World Heritage Property Boundary and Buffer Zone Boundary ...... 97 Figure 2.4: Plan of installations on Borobudur Temple Site ...... 98 Figure 2.5: Map of Balkondes in Kec. Borobudur ...... 99 Figure 2.6: Map of visitor attractions in Borobudur TDA ...... 100 Figure 2.7: Map of three ‘sunrise spots’ in Borobudur TDA ...... 101 Figure 2.8: Photos from three ‘sunrise spots’ in Borobudur TDA ...... 101 Figure 2.9: Satellite view of new ‘Sunrise Spots’ south-west of Borobudur Temple ...... 102 Figure 2.10: Panoramic view from Mongkrong Hill ...... 103 Figure 2.11: Prambanan Attractions and Facilities ...... 104 Figure 2.12: Map of visitor attractions in Prambanan TDA/KTA ...... 105 Figure 2.13: Satellite view of key attractions in Prambanan TDA/KTA (northern area) ...... 106 Figure 2.14: Satellite view of key attractions in Prambanan TDA/KTA (southern area) ...... 106 Figure 2.15: Plaosan Temple: Satellite view and photograph ...... 107 Figure 2.16: Ratu Boko Palace: Satellite view and photograph ...... 107 Figure 2.17: Temples of Banyunibo and Barong: Satellite view and photographs ...... 108 Figure 2.18: Breksi Cliff Park and Temple of Ijo: Satellite view and photographs ...... 109 Figure 2.19: Map of Yogyakarta TDA and KTA ...... 110 Figure 2.20: Map of Principal Visitor attractions in Yogyakarta TDA ...... 112 Figure 2.21: Map delineating Jl. Margo Utomo area ...... 113 Figure 2.22: Map delineating ‘Upper Malioboro’ area ...... 115 Figure 2.23: Map delineating ‘Lower Malioboro’ area ...... 116 Figure 2.24: Lower Malioboro - Key Attractions ...... 117 Figure 2.25: Map delineating the walled Kraton area ...... 119 Figure 2.26: Kraton area - Major Features ...... 120 Figure 2.27: Kotagede - Principal attractions ...... 121 Figure 2.28: Principal location of batik shops and sales in Yogyakarta TDA ...... 123 Figure 2.29: Plan for Special Interest Tours, Yogyakarta & surrounding area ...... 150 Figure 2.30: Central Java Province Concept for Tourism Development at and around Borobudur ...... 151 Figure 2.31: Principal tourism areas in Central Java / DI Yogyakarta ...... 152

vi BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Glossary of Acronyms

ALoS Average Length of Stay AADC2 Ada Apa Dengan Cinta 2 AC Air Conditioners ADUPI Asosiasi Daur Ulang Plastik Indonesia (Association of Plastic Recyclers) AELI Asosiasi Experiential Learning Indonesia AKAP Inter-city transportation between provinces AKDP Inter-city transport within the province AMDAL Analisis Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan (Environmental Impact Assessment) Angkot Internal city transportation API Angka Pengenal Impor (Import Identification Number) AQI Indeks Kualitas Udara (Air Quality Index) ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations ASITA Association of Indonesian Tour and Travel Agencies ASITA Association of Indonesian Tours and Travel Agencies ASKRAB Borobudur Folk Art Association ASTI Asosiasi Spa Terapis Indonesia (Indonesian Association of Spa Therapists) ATPRS ASEAN Tourism Professionals Registration System BABS Open-air defecation Balkondes Balai Ekonomi Desa (Village Economy Centre) Badan Pengendalian Dampak Lingkungan Daerah (Regional Environmental Impact Management BAPEDALDA Agencies) BAPPEDA Badan Perencanaan dan Pembangunan Daerah (Regional Development Planning Board) BAPPENAS Badan Perencaan Pembangunan Nasional (National Development Planning Agency) BCO Borobudur Conservation Office BKPM Badan Koordinasi Penanaman Modal (Indonesian Investment Coordinating Board) BLH Badan Lingkungan Hidup (Environmental Agency) BMA Borobudur Management Authority BNPB Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana (National Disaster Management Agency) BOB Badan Otorita Borobudur (Borobudur Management Authority) BPBD Badan Penanggulangan Bencana Daerah (Regional Disaster Management Agencies) BPCB Balai Pelestarian Cagar Budaya (Cultural Heritage Conservation Agency) BPIW Badan Pembangungan Infrastruktur Wilayah (Regional Infrastructure Development Agency) BPN Badan Pertanahan Nasional (National Land Agency) BPPI Indonesian Tourism Promotion Agency BPS Badan Pusat Statistik (Central Statistical Bureau) BUMDES Badan Usaha Milik Desa (Village-Owned Enterprise) CAGR Compound Average Growth Rate CBT Community-Based Tourism CESR Corporate Environmental and Social Responsibility CHPA Cultural Heritage Preservation Agency CO Carbon Monoxide CSR Corporate Social Responsibility DAMRI Indonesian state-owned public transit bus company DAOP Daerah Operasi (Operational regions) dBA Decibels DDI Domestic Direct Investments DI Yogyakarta Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta (Special Region of Yogyakarta)

vii BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

DLH Environment Agency DW Desa Wisata (Tourism Village) EQI Indeks Kualitas Lingkungan Hidup (Overall Environmental Quality Index) ESG Environmental, Social and Governance ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework EU European Union F&B Food and Beverage FDI Foreign Direct Investments FGD Focus Group Discussion ForEx Foreign Exchange Forkom Komunikasi Kampung Wisata Yogyakarta GDP Gross Domestic Product GKM Food Poverty Line GKNM Non-Food Poverty Line GOI Government of Indonesia GRDP Gross Regional Domestic Product HEI Higher Education Institution HPI Indonesian Tour Guide Association HR Human resources HTL Hotel, Tourism, Leisure IATA International Air Transport Association ICG Indonesia Charm Generation (Generasi Pesona Indonesia) ICOMOS International Council on Monuments and Sites ICT Information and Communications Technologies IHRA Indonesian Hotel and Restaurants Association ILO International Labour Organisation IMB Izin Mendirikan Bangunan (building permit) IMTA Izin Menggunakan Tenaga Kerja Asing (Permit to Hire Foreign Workers) INACA Indonesia National Air Carriers Association Indecon Indonesian Ecotourism Network IPAL Communal wastewater treatment plants IPLT Instalasi Pengolahan Lumpur Tinja (Wastewater Treatment Plants) IPs Indigenous People IRI International Roughness Index IRMS Integrated Road Management System ITGA Indonesian Tourist Guide Association ITMP BYP Integrated Tourism Master Plan Borobudur-Yogyakarta Prambanan JEC Jogja Expo Center JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency JJLS Jalur Jalan Lintas Selatan (southern ring-road) Joglosemar Jogja-Solo-Semarang JORR Yogyakarta Outer Ring Road KAI PT. Kereta Api Indonesia Kepres Keputusan Presiden (Presidential Decision / Decree) KHT Kotagede Heritage Trail Konservasi Sumber Daya Alam dan Ekosistem (Directorate General for Natural Resource KSDAE Conservation and Ecosystems) KSM Group-managed wastewater management system KSN Kawasan Strategis Nasional (National Strategic Area)

viii BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

KSNP-SPP Development of Waste Management Systems KSP National Tourism Strategic Areas KSPN Kawasan Strategis Pariwisata Nasional (National Tourism Strategic Area) KTA Key Tourism Area KW Kampung Wisata LCCs Low-cost carriers LCQI Land Cover Quality Index Indeks Kualitas Tutupan Lahan LWG Borobudur Local Working Group MENA Middle East and North Africa MICE Meetings, Incentives, Conventions, Exhibitions MOEC Ministry of Education and Culture MOEF Ministry of Environment and Forestry MPWH Ministry of Public Works and Housing MRA Mutual Recognition Arrangement MSMEs Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Mt. Mount MURI Museum of Indonesian Records NGO Non Governmental Organisation NO2 Nitrogen dioxide NPWP Nomor Pokok Wajib Pajak (Taxpayer Identification Number) OSS Online Single Submission OUV Outstanding Universal Value PAD Project Appraisal Document PAPTA Pagayuban Pemandu Perjalanan Pariwisata (a guides’ association operating in DI Yogyakarta) PCRs Physical Cultural Resources PDAM Perusahaan Daerah Air Minum (state-owned Water Company) Perda Peraturan Daerah (Provincial Regulation) Perda Peraturan Daerah Kota/Kabupaten (District Regulation) Kota/Kabupaten Perpres Peraturan Presiden (Presidential Regulation) PHRI Perhimpunan Hotel dan Restoran Indonesia (Indonesian Hotel and Restaurant Association) PKL Pusat Kegiatan Lokal (Local Activity Centres) PKN Pusat Kegiatan Nasional (National Activity Centres) PKW Pusat Kegiatan Wilayah (Regional Activity Centres) PLN PT Perusahaan Listrik Negara PMI Pekerja Migran Indonesia (Migrant workers) PP Peraturan Pemerintah (Government Regulation) PPP Purchasing Power Parity PPSP Acceleration Program for Settlement of Sanitation Development PT TWC PT Taman Wisata Candi Borobudur, Prambanan dan Ratu Boko Puspar UGM Pusat Studi Pariwisata (Centre for Tourism Studies) Universitas Gadjah Mada PW Public Works & Housing RDTR Rencana Detail Tata Ruang RIDA/BPIW Regional Infrastructure Development Agency RIPNAS National Rail Masterplan RIPPARDA Rencana Induk Pariwisata Daerah (Regional Tourism Master Plan) RIPPARPROV Rencana Induk Pariwisata Provinsi (Provincial Tourism Master Plan) RPJMD Medium Term Development Plan RPJMN Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah (Medium-Term Development Plan)

ix BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

RPTKA Rencana Penggunaan Tenaga Kerja Asing (Foreign Workers Employment Plan) RTRW Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayang (Spatial Planning) RUPTL Electricity Supply Business Plan RW Sub-District SD-SMP Elementary – Junior High Scool SKMB Sentra Kerajinan dan Makanan Borobudur (Centre of Handicrafts and Food in Borobudur) SMA Senior High Scool SME Small to medium scale enterprise SO2 Sulphur dioxide SOE State-Owned Enterprise SOPs Standard Operational Procedures Surat Pernyataan Kesanggupan Pengelolaan dan Pemantauan Lingkungan Hidup (Statement of SPPL Assurance for Implementation of Environmental Management and Monitoring) SSK Sanitation Strategy for the Kota/Kabupaten STBM Sanitasi Total Berbasis Masyarakat (Community Sanitation Facilities) STBM Strategic Community-Based Sanitation Susenas National Socio-Economic Survey SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats TDA Tourism Development Area TDP Tanda Daftar Perusahaan (Certificate of Company Registration) TODs Transit-Orientated Developments TPS Temporary Disposal Sites TPST Waste disposal sites TSA Tourism Satellite Account UKL Upaya Pemantauan Lingkungan Hidup (Environmental Monitoring Plan) UN United Nations UNESCAP United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNFPA United Nations Population Fund UNWTO United Nations World Tourism Organization UPL Upaya Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup (Environmental Management Plan) UPT Unit Pelaksana Teknis (Technical Implementation Unit) UU Undang-Undang (Law/Regulation) UUD Undang-Undang Dasar (Constitution) VCR Volume Capacity Ratio VFR Visiting Friends and Relatives VMP Visitor Management Plan WC Water Closet WHO World Health Organization WHS World Heritage Site WQI Indeks Kualitas Air (Water Quality Index) WTTC World Travel & Tourism Council YIA Yogyakarta International Airport

x BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

1. Tourism market analysis

Understanding market trends and consumer behaviour are essential elements of creating a resilient tourism system. The ITMP team has researched international and national trends in tourism, with a view to marrying them up with the current and potential tourism offer of the TDAs. This chapter reviews global trends in tourism in order to set the context for national trends (Section 1.1), and goes on to discuss trends within Indonesian tourism (Section 1.2) with a competitive analysis of Indonesia compared to other destinations, particularly in Southeast Asia (Section 1.3). Section 4.4 examines tourism markets in Central Java and DI Yogyakarta, in other words covering the TDAs. Sections 1.5 and 1.6 review the findings of the Visitor Behaviour Survey and Tourism Trade Survey which have been carried out for the ITMP preparation.

1.1 Global trends

Over the past six decades, tourism has experienced Over the past six decades, tourism continued expansion and diversification to become one of has experienced continued the largest and fastest growing economic sectors in the expansion and diversification to world and is estimated to represent around 7% of global become one of the largest and exports and 30% of the world’s export of services. This fastest growing economic sectors ranks the sector the third most important in the world in the world. after chemicals and fuels.

In 2017, international tourism grew by 6.8% to reach 1,323 million international tourist arrivals worldwide, generating USD 1,332 billion in receipts. According to the UNWTO (United Nations World Tourism Organization), international visitor arrivals will continue growing by 3.3% annually and will reach 1.8 billion by 2030. The number of international visitors to emerging destinations is expected to increase on average by 4.4% per annum, which is almost double the rate for advanced economies. Roughly half (53%) of global tourists travel for leisure, recreation, and holidays, a quarter travel to visit friends and relatives or for health and religious reasons, and around 14% for business. Around 80% of global visitor arrivals are generated within the regions themselves (i.e. intraregional travel).

Asia and the Pacific welcomed 323 million international UNWTO forecasts estimate that tourists in 2017 – close to a quarter of the world’s total and the average annual growth rate 17 million more than in 2016 (Figure 1.1). This is equivalent in international arrivals in to a 6% growth in arrivals and reflects solid intraregional Southeast Asia will be 4.9% up to demand, particularly from China, the Republic of Korea and 2030. International visitor Australia. Southeast Asia enjoyed the highest growth arrivals in the Asia-Pacific region amongst Asian sub-regions thanks to the demand from are expected to exceed 535 Northeast Asian source markets. Long-term UNWTO million in 2030. forecasts estimate that the average annual growth rate will be at 4.9% up to 2030. With this, international visitor arrivals in the Asia-Pacific region are expected to exceed 535 million in 2030. Similar growth trends are seen in the tourism investments. During the past decade (2008-2017) the annual average tourism investment growth rate in the Asia and the Pacific has been around 3.5-3.6%.1

1 Rui, S. (2018) Report on World Tourism Economy Trends 2018, presentation at ITB Germany, 2018

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Figure 1.1: Growth in International Arrivals in Asia and the Pacific Region 2017

Source: UNWTO Tourism Highlights, 2018 Edition

Tourism to Asia and the Pacific in fact is growing faster than Tourism to Asia and the Pacific is any other tourism region of the world. Due to the continued growing faster than to any other growth of demand in emerging economies, especially in tourism region of the world, a Asia, with a growing middle class, the growth of tourism trend expected to continue. within the region is expected to continue (see Figure 1.2).

Figure 1.2: Regional Outbound Travel Trends

Source: Choong and Wong (2016)2

2 Choong, D. and Wong, Y.H. (2016) MasterCard Future of Outbound Travel in Asia-Pacific 2016-2021, UNWTO

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Growth is expected to be affected by the following trends:

 The rise of selected outbound markets: By 2020 UNWTO expects 50 million Indians to take a trip abroad. They look for luxurious travel experiences, three out of four will travel for leisure, and their spending will be over USD 50 billion by 2027. The Indian market is motivated by learning about local cultures and spending quality time with the family. Grandparents, parents, youngsters travel together, but during the daytime they might separate for various types of activities – older people for relaxation and youngsters for adventurous experiences.  Maturing Chinese market: There is expected to be an annual average growth of 8.5% for the Chinese outbound market between 2016 and 2021, with the second most popular destination region being ASEAN, after the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macau.3 The expected destinations globally are shown in Figure 1.3.

Figure 1.3: Outbound Travel Trends of the Chinese Market to 2025

Source: Kawano et al, (2015) 4

 Members of the Chinese middle-class earn USD 10,000–30,000 a year and form the stimulus for outbound tourism. It is predicted that over three-quarters of the Chinese population will be considered middle-class by 2022.5 Chinese travellers are becoming more sophisticated and expect to experience authenticity and nature. They will spend, but – as with other more mature markets - the shift in spending is towards experience.6 In addition, they are increasingly likely to choose independent travel rather than group tours 7 Several developments within destination markets follow from this trend in the expectation of reaping more benefits from the Chinese market, given that individual tourists are already amongst the world’s highest spenders in tourism terms. 8 For example, the Nordic

3 Choong and Wong (2016), op. cit. 4 Kawano S., Lu J., Tsang R., Liu J. (2015) The Asian Consumer – The Chinese Tourist Boom, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research, 15 November. 5 2016 study by McKinsey and Co, cited in Business Insider UK, August 28 6 Guangrui, Z. Honorary Director of the Tourism Research Centre of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (2017) Chinese will reduce ‘crazy spending’ and mature into Western-style tourists, ITB World Travel Trends Report, Stark Tourism LLP 7 Nielsen, plc (2018) Outbound Chinese Tourism and Consumption Trends 2017, Neilsen, plc 8 UNWTO (2018) Tourism Highlights, 2018 Edition

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

destinations have agreed to collaborate with Baidu Maps to support the travel of Chinese independent travellers. Family travel is also gaining momentum.  Changing tastes: iconic sites remain popular, but travellers are expanding their horizons to cultural categories such as historical and heritage experiences, food tours, and cooking classes, which have seen a dramatic increase in bookings.9 Figure 1.4 shows the increase in bookings via TripAdvisor for several categories of experience (2017 data compared with 2016). Although the base from which these percentages is not known, they nevertheless give an indication of interest trends.

Figure 1.4: Increases in experiences, tours and activities booked through TripAdvisor (2016-17)

Source: TripAdvisor, 2018

 Blurring of generational differences: In 2015, around 270 million tourists aged 15-29 years old (Millennials) generated around USD 283 billion in international visitor expenditure. They are technology savvy, seek socially responsible travel experiences, and share their experiences and views about a destination on social media. Another important market segment is those above 60 years, whose numbers are expected to increase from 901 million in 2015 to 2.1 billion in 2050, led by growth in Asian and North American markets including India and China. Seniors, Millennials, and other age groups are all part of the growing global middle class, which is expected to reach 4.9 billion by 2030. Two-thirds of this growth will be in Asia.10

 Ratio of global tourist arrivals to global population: The ratio has increased from 1.4 to 1.6 in 2017 and is forecast to be 1.7 in 2018. This could put pressure on tourism destinations where the number of visitors exceeds the number of residents considerably.

 Millennial tastes: The Millennial generation is known for placing a high emphasis on being unique, and a major part of that is growing their identity through culturally rich experiences and exploration of the unknown — both of which travel provides in full. This means Millennial travel experiences involve more adventure and the desire for more customization than their predecessors.11

 Environmental awareness/green economy: The environmental impacts of tourism warrant consideration, as awareness of the environmental impact of tourism grows. Destinations

9 TripAdvisor (2018) Travel Trends Report: Experiences, Tours and Activities 10 Greater Mekong Subregion, Tourism Sector Strategy 2016-2025 11 Fromm, J. (2017) Why Millennials Are the Most Important Consumer Generation for The Travel Industry. At< www.forbes.com>

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

which take genuine measures to control the impacts of tourism in order to ensure the sustainability of the environment are likely to achieve higher market recognition.12

 Value placed on authenticity: Major visitor attractions located in places with considerable heritage experience value are considered more authentic, with the authenticity of attractions influenced by iconicity and the heritage value of the destination region. This highlights the importance of maintaining and enhancing the heritage value of tourism destinations.13

 Safety/security: A study of CNN consumers' travel perceptions and behavioral trends asked respondents from more than 70 countries to identify key influencing factors in their decision-making process before travelling for leisure or business. The survey found that for more than two-thirds of global respondents, safety and security is of greatest concern when choosing an international travel destination. 14

 Digitisation/mobile bookings: Asian smartphone users are more likely to plan and book their entire trip with their smartphones.15

The above trends are intrinsic to the ‘More, Mobility and Mentality’ Revolutions.16 The outline principles are:

More: Population growth; increased economic output; increased income per capita; reduction in poverty levels; increase in international tourist arrivals and greater movement of domestic visitors. The ‘More’ revolution opens up opportunities for tourism. Mobility: The speed at which people, goods, services, money, and ideas move around the world thanks to improved communications technology and travel infrastructure, including air transportation. The ‘Mobility’ revolution facilitates the realization of opportunities. Mentality: This implies a fundamental change of cognizance and attitude resulting from the ‘More’ and ‘Mobility’ changes. ‘Changing aspirations’ and ‘experiential travel’ are key phrases that help understand changes in individual and group behaviour.

These trends will be taken into consideration when developing the growth and development scenarios in later stages of the ITMP process.

1.2 Tourism trends in Indonesia

This section will start by covering domestic tourism trends within Indonesia and then move on to international trends in travel to the country. It should be noted that most of our statistics only go to 2017 because this chapter was mainly prepared in mid-2018, as required under the IMTP BYP programme planning, when 2018 statistics were not available.

12 Azam, M. and Sarkar, T. (2010) Governance of Green Tourism and Sustainable Development: Towards Greening the Economy 13 Ram, Y, Bjork, P. and Weidenfeld (2016) Authenticity and place attachment of major visitor attractions, Tourism Management 52, pp. 110-122 14 CNN (2012) Consumer Connect: Travel & Tourism survey 15 https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/consumer-insights/consumer-travel-smartphone-usage/ 16 Naim, M. (2013) The End of Power: From Boardrooms to Battlefields and Churches to States, Why Being in Charge Isn't What It Used to Be, USA: Basic Books

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

1.2.1 Domestic tourism trends

Domestic tourism in Indonesia has increased from 196 17 Domestic tourism has increased million movements in 2001 to roughly 264 million in 2016. from 196 million in 2001 to Most domestic tourists originate from Java: residents of East roughly 264 million in 2016. Most Java account for roughly 17% of all tourist trips within domestic tourists originate from Indonesia, while people from West Java/Banten represent 16%, and from Central Java 15%. Residents of Jakarta Java. represent 7% and those residing in Bali close to 4%.18 The pattern of domestic tourism destinations follows the pattern of origin: East Java is the most visited province (roughly 17%) followed by West Java (16%) and Central Java (15%), while only around 4% of domestic trips are made to Bali.19

Land transportation still dominates among domestic tourists, with 37.4% travelling by bus and 23.9% by private car in 2014. With the increase in car ownership, the use of private vehicles has increased sharply in recent years and by 2016 the proportions had changed to 15.3% travelling by bus and 61.5% travelling by private car; this trend is likely to continue. Slightly under 3% use trains (explained by the fact that few regions have a railway network) and only around 10% travelled to their destinations by air in 2014 and 6% in 2016 – this decline seems somewhat surprising given that air transport is relatively inexpensive.

The main motivation to travel is visiting friends and relatives (VFR), although the trend has been decreasing: in 2014 around 55% of domestic visitors were motivated by VFR while this accounted only for 44% in 2016. Holiday and leisure travel, on the other hand, has increased from 22% in 2014 to 39% in 2016. Pilgrimage/religious activities were the motivation for roughly 5% of domestic visitors in 2016. The average length of stay at a destination has decreased from 4.3 days in 2015 to 3.9 days in 2016. For residents of Java, the average length of stay is between 2 to 3 days.

According to the national level domestic tourism study, 43.5% of domestic tourists are excursionists/day visitors who did not stay overnight on their trip. Those who stay overnight prefer to stay with their friends and relatives (45%). Of the total respondents, only around 6% stayed in hotels (a decrease from 2014, when 11.2% stayed in hotels). The reason for this steep decline is unclear, although it is possible that by 2016 many Indonesians were beginning to use the online booking sites such as Airbnb and Mamikos for their stays, rather than registered hotel sector (there is more discussion on this phenomenon in Chapter 2).

The most travelled age group is the youth, i.e. younger than 15 years old, followed by working age people, especially between 35 and 44 years of age. The high numbers of children travelling is somewhat surprising but may perhaps be explained by the fact that family units in the 35-44 age

17 Ministry of Tourism (2017) cited in “Tourism becomes the new star of Indonesia’s economy”, The Jakarta Post, 18 October 18 Data in this section is primarily from the BPS/Ministry of Tourism (2017) Survey of Domestic Tourists (Statistik Profil Wisatawan Nusantara 2016, Jakarta, unless otherwise stated. 19 Pratomo D. S. (2017) The Analysis of Domestic Travellers in Indonesia, in Jejak – Journal of Economics and Policy 10(2), pp. 317-329

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

range are taking increasing numbers of holidays in their own cars, taking their school-age children with them.

Figure 1.5: Age Profile of Domestic Tourists in 2016

Source: Domestic Tourism Survey 2016, op. cit.

Domestic tourists spent around Rp. 914,270 per trip in 2016 – an increase of 7.3% compared to 2014. The biggest spenders were tourists originating from West Papua and Papua (Rp.4 million per visit), while people from Java generally spend less than Rp. 1 million (Rp.400 000-1 million). Most was spent on transportation (37%) followed by food & beverage (19%), shopping (19%), and accommodation (10%).

1.2.2 International tourism trends to Indonesia

Modern tourism to Indonesia began in the late 1960s/early 1970s and has experienced periods of strong growth since the mid-1980s, interspersed with stagnation or decline due to a variety of factors. The growth factors include deregulation of the tourism industry in the mid-1980s and a very strong promotional push throughout most of the 1990s. Stagnation or decline was caused by the monetary crisis in 1998 and the social and political disruption resulting from the fall of Soeharto in the same year, followed by terrorist attacks in Bali in 2002 and 2005, the first of which killed over 200 people when 3 nightclubs were bombed. These vicissitudes are illustrated in Figure 1.6, showing the pattern of visitor arrivals to the country from 1969-2017.

Figure 1.6: Visitor arrivals to Indonesia 1969-2017

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Source: ParPosTel; Ministry of Tourism, Indonesia (various dates)

Very strong growth has again been evidenced over the past decade, and inbound tourism increased from roughly 8 million in 2012 to 14 million in 2017. The average annual growth rate during this period was 9.3%. ‘Holiday, Leisure and Recreation’ was the main purpose of travel (59% in 2012 and 58.6% in 2016), followed by ‘Business and Professional’ (35% in 2012 and 34% in 2016). The average annual growth rate for Holiday, Leisure and Recreation purposes was 7.0%, while for Business and Professional it was slightly less, 6.6% in 2012-2016.20

During the period 2012 to 2016, Indonesia attracted three During the period 2012 to 2016, quarters of its international arrivals from the East Asia and Indonesia attracted three quarters Pacific region. However, this region’s market share of its international arrivals from dropped slightly from 77.5% in 2012 to 73% in 2016. the East Asia and Pacific region. Europe’s market share has been more or less stagnant at between 13-15%. The Middle East and South Asia have gained market share, albeit a small amount.

Table 1.1: Regional market shares (%) in international arrivals in Indonesia 2012-2016 Market share of regions 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Africa 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7 Americas 23.9 23.8 23.8 24.0 24.1 East Asia and the Pacific 77.5 76.8 76.6 75.7 73.0 Europe 13.8 14.1 14.4 14.0 15.3 Middle East 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.5 South Asia 2.4 2.6 2.6 3.4 4.3 Source: UNWTO Inbound Statistics, and Ministry of Tourism in Indonesia (various dates)

The main purpose for visiting Indonesia is ‘Holiday’ followed by Meetings, Incentive, Conference and Exhibitions (MICE) and VFR (Table 1.2). MICE is more dominant among ASEAN and other Asian visitors, reflecting the strength of intra-regional business activities.

Table 1.2: Purpose of Visit by Region of Residence in 2016

20 Figures in this section are from UNWTO and BPS sources.

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Region of Holiday VFR Education Health Religious Shopping Other MICE Other Total Residence % % % % % % personal % business % interests and % professional % ASEAN 52.5 18.0 1.7 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.1 22.0 2.9 100 Asia 60.2 9.2 1.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 1.0 24.9 2.8 100 Middle 100 78.9 7.0 0.8 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.8 10.1 1.4 East Europe 83.2 5.6 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.5 8.2 1.6 100 America 70.9 7.7 1.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 1.0 15.3 3.2 100 Oceania 81.6 6.2 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.5 8.8 1.7 100 Africa 66.8 6.3 2.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 18.5 4.4 100 Source: Exit Survey, Foreign Tourists, 2016

The most visited Indonesian provinces by international tourists in 2016 were Bali and DKI Jakarta (Table 1.3), which reflects the importance of Jakarta as a business hub and the well-established position of Bali as a holiday destination. In fact, Bali has a very significant influence on international tourist arrivals to Indonesia, accounting for 43% of international tourists in 2016. In the 4-year period from 2013 to 2017, international tourism to Indonesia grew by a cumulative 60%. However, if Bali is excluded from the total arrivals, a lower cumulative growth rate of 51% is recorded for the same 4-year time frame. For the European market, Lombok (represented by NTB in the table below) is also popular as a holiday destination, while some parts of Sumatra (especially North Sumatra and Riau) are attractive to ASEAN visitors in particular because of their proximity. After those destinations, West Java and Central Java/DI Yogyakarta perform reasonably well, indicating the established position of the TDAs collectively in overseas markets – albeit a minor one compared to the more popular destinations.

Table 1.3: Distribution of International Tourists by Region of Residence and Province Visited ASEAN Asia Middle Europe America Oceania Africa Average % % East % % % % % % NAD 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.5 1.0 0.2 Sumut 11.2 1.8 1.6 5.4 3.1 3.0 4.9 5.9 Sumbar 3.5 1.8 2.7 3.2 4.5 6.5 9.8 3.3 Riau 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 Kep. Riau 15.2 7.1 1.8 6.4 5.3 2.8 3.9 9.1 Sumsel 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.2 Bengkulu 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 Jambi 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 Lampung 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 Bangka/Belitung 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 DKI Jakarta 28.9 37.7 65.6 18.8 29.7 13.0 41.0 29.5 Jabar 10.5 6.8 47.7 4.8 4.8 2.1 6.8 8.6 Jateng 1.6 1.2 1.1 2.5 1.3 0.7 3.9 1.6 DIY 6.7 3.6 1.7 9.0 7.4 2.5 4.4 5.8 Jatim 9.4 7.2 3.9 6.6 6.2 2.3 4.9 7.2 Banten 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.4 Bali 15.5 46.9 40.3 69.8 60.4 73.7 49.3 43.4 Kalbar 5.3 0.9 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.5 2.3 Kalsel 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 Kalteng 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 Kaltim 1.8 1.3 0.1 2.1 2.5 2.4 2.4 1.7 Kalut 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 Sulut 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.8 0.2 0.5 0.4 Sulteng 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 Sultra 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 Sulsel 2.1 0.8 0.2 2.7 1.6 1.1 0.0 1.7 Sulbar 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Gorontalo 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 14.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 NTB 1.1 1.6 3.3 20.9 2.6 6.2 8.3 6.5 NTT 0.2 0.2 0.3 2.8 0.3 0.8 0.5 0.9 Maluku 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 Maluku Utara 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Papua 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 Papua Barat 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 Source: Exit Survey, Foreign Tourists, 2016

In 2016, tourists from the Middle East were the biggest spenders per day followed by residents from Oceania (including Australia), ASEAN and Asia. Europeans spend the least per day, but stayed the longest in Indonesia (at 14.5 days for holiday trips). International tourists spend most of the money per trip on accommodation followed by food and beverage and local transport, if long-haul flights are not included in the trip expenditure. 21

Further information on average length of stay, average expenditure, distribution of expenditure and choice of activities by international tourists to Indonesia has been compiled and placed in Appendix 1.1 as a source of reference material for later stages of the ITMP process.

1.2.3 International source markets for BYP

The potential access to source markets facilitated by Yogyakarta’s new International Airport (YIA) has been calculated, particularly in terms of short to mid-haul markets, as illustrated in Figure 1.7 below. This illustrates the coverage in hours of flight time from YIA, based on the assumption that the average speed of a commercial airliner is 800 kms. per hour (500 mph / 435 knots). Thus, the distance covered in a 4-hour flight is 3,200km (2,000 miles). The red circles illustrate the approximate areas covered within up to 2 and 4 hours’ flight-time.

Figure 1.7: Regional Market Access, Flight times

21 BPS Exit Survey of Foreign Tourists, 2016

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Source: timecaculator.net

The graphic illustrates that the following source markets are roughly within 4 hours’ travel of Yogyakarta:

 Western and Northern Australia  All of Southeast Asia  Timor Leste  Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China

By extending flight times to 6 hours it can be seen that significantly larger source markets could be addressed, notably:

 Sri Lanka and much of India  Most of China  Eastern Australia  Papua New Guinea

In addition, the catchment population in each of the principal overseas countries or territories within approximately 4 hours’ flight time of Yogyakarta has been compiled, as an indicator of market size. Table 1.4 below shows this population, totalling over 366 million. In addition, the entire domestic population of Indonesia of 270 million is within this range.

Table 1.4: Population in source markets within 4 hours’ flight of Yogyakarta Country/Territory Population Western Australia 2,595,000 Australia – Northern Territories 247,000 Singapore 5,804,000

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Malaysia 31,950,000 Philippines 108,117,000 Thailand 69,626,000 Cambodia 16,487,000 Laos 7,169,000 Vietnam 96,462,000 Brunei 433,000 Timor Leste 1,293,000 South Myanmar* 19,072,000 Hong Kong 7,372,000 Total 366,627,000 Source: UN World Population Prospects 2019; Australian Bureau of Statistics (2018); Department of Population, Myanmar Population and Housing Census 2014 *South Myanmar includes the following states: Tamintharyi, Mon, Kayin, Ayeyarwady, Bago and Yangon

1.3 Competitive Comparative Analysis

In terms of its international position in travel and tourism, Indonesia improved its competitiveness ranking from 50th place in 2015 to 42nd in 2017.22 However, the country continues to rank poorly in environmental sustainability, travel infrastructure and tourism service infrastructure (Figure 1.8). These are core aspects that the overall ITDP is addressing, so it is expected that once the ITMPs are implemented there will be less weakness in these areas; although Indonesia needs to make greater strides in addressing its weak environmental management performance in order to improve its ranking from 131st place on that aspect.

22 World Economic Forum (2017) Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report, Indonesia 2017

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Figure 1.8: Performance Overview of Travel and Tourism in Indonesia in 2017

Source: Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report, Indonesia 2017, op. cit.

INDONESIA COMPETITIVENESS OVERVIEW Indonesia has made the most of its globally recognized natural resources (14th) at very affordable prices (5th). To build on its assets, Indonesia has emphasized its cultural resources (23rd) and prioritized the travel and tourism sector as an important driver of economic development. Currently representing 6% of the country's exports, the government recognizes the potential of travel and tourism and is investing about 9% of its budget in the sector. Indonesia has further improved its international openness (17th, up 38 positions), becoming the country with the 2nd strongest visa policy. The country has further expanded the offer and promotion of its natural resources by increasing the size of protected areas and attracting more online interest on natural activities. Still, better protection of the environment (131st) remains a key risk factor for sustained development of the sector. Being home of one of the most biodiverse habitat in the world, Indonesia must address deforestation (113th), insufficient treatment of wastewaters (109th) and augmenting species listed as threatened (127th). Indonesia should also focus on improving its tourism service infrastructure (96th), with the supply of hotel rooms still low (93rd). Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report, Indonesia 2017. World Economic Forum

The following tables illustrate the comparative performances of Indonesia against other Southeast Asian countries, which is particularly relevant here since several offer similarities in terms of climate, culture and natural resources (especially the long-established markets of Thailand and Malaysia, and the more recently developing one of Vietnam), while all are competing in particular for shares of intra-regional and long-haul markets. Table 1.5 shows a comparison of several key indicators in these markets. In volume terms, Indonesia still lags well behind Thailand and Malaysia and is on a par with Vietnam, where arrivals have grown particularly swiftly in the last few years. Singapore, as ever, has a strong showing with 3rd largest number of arrivals in Southeast Asia, but the product here is very different from the larger countries.23

23 UNWTO (2017) Tourism Highlights 2018 Edition, Madrid

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Table 1.5: Arrivals 2010, 2016, 2018 in with percentage change (16/15 and 17/16) and 2017 share 2010 2016 2017 % Change % Change 2017 16/15 17/16 Share South East Asia 70,473 110,830 120,362 6.3 8.6 37.3 Brunei 214 219 259 0.3 18.3 0.1 Cambodia 2,508 5,012 5,602 5.0 11.8 1.7 Indonesia 7,003 11,072 12,948 11.1 16.9 4.0 Laos 1,670 3,315 3,257 -6.4 -1.8 1.0 Malaysia 24,577 26,757 25,948 4.0 -3.0 8.0 Myanmar 792 2,907 3,443 -37.9 18.4 1.1 Philippines 3,560 5,967 6,621 11.3 11.0 2.0 Singapore 9,161 12,914 13,906 7.2 7.7 4.3 Thailand 15,936 32,588 35,381 8.9 8.6 11.0 Timor-Liste 40 66 74 6.6 12.5 0.0 Viet Nam 5,050 10,013 12,922 26.0 29.1 4.0 Source: UNWTO Tourism Highlights, 2018 edition

Table 1.6 shows a comparison of receipts from tourism. As with arrival numbers, Indonesia again ranks 4th in Southeast Asia.

Table 1.6: Receipts from International Tourism in 2010, 2016, 2017 (USD million) 2010 2016 2017 South East Asia 68,547 116,730 130,734 Brunei - 144 - Cambodia 1,519 3,208 3,636 Indonesia 6,958 11,206 12,520 Laos 382 712 648 Malaysia 18,115 18,075 18,323 Myanmar 72 2,197 2,260 Philippines 2,645 5,143 6,986 Singapore 14,178 18,945 19,707 Thailand 20,104 48,792 57,477 Timor-Liste 31 58 73 Viet Nam 4,450 8,250 8,861 Source: UNWTO Tourism Highlights, 2018 edition

1.4 Tourism in DI Yogyakarta and Central Java

This section discusses the principal characteristics of tourism to DI Yogyakarta and Central Java, where the TDAs are located. There is a concentration of discussion of arrivals and tourists to DI Yogyakarta because the great majority of visitors to the three TDAs use Yogyakarta as the base for their visit. These figures are therefore much more relevant to the TDAs than the statistics for Central Java in that they offer a clearer picture of arrivals to all three of the TDAs.24

There are no arrival statistics for visitors to individual kabupaten or kecamatan.

24 A discussion on the expatriate market for tourism within Indonesia was included in an earlier version of this report, but has been omitted from this edition because there was no information on numbers travelling to DIY/Central Java and the numbers overall were not felt to be statistically significant.

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

1.4.1 Visitor arrivals

The total number of visitors to DI Yogyakarta increased from 2.84 million in 2013 to 5.23 million in 2017 (Figure 1.9). International arrivals are only a small proportion of this – in 2013 only 8.3% of total arrivals and in 2017 slightly less, i.e. 7.6%. The average annual growth rate for international arrivals was 10.5% between 2013 and 2017 and for domestic arrivals 12.4% during the same time period. DI Yogyakarta received only 2.8% of all international visitors in Indonesia in 2017.

Figure 1.9: Domestic and International Visitor Arrivals in DI Yogyakarta 2013-2017

Source: Presentation by Bappeda DI Yogyakarta 3.9.2018

Central Java has experienced more substantive growth in Central Java has experienced visitor arrivals since 2013 (Figure 1.10). The number of substantive growth in visitor domestic tourist visits increased from roughly 29 million in arrivals since 2013. The number of 2013 to 49 million in 2017 while the number of international visitors grew from international visitors grew from 288,143 in 2013 to 781,197 288,143 to 781,197 in the four in 2017. During the same time period the average annual years up to 2017. growth rate was 19.9% for internationals and 10.2% for domestic. The strength of the domestic economy is the key driving factor.

Figure 1.10: International and Domestic Visitor Arrivals in Central Java 2013-2017

Source: Presentation by Bappeda Central Java, 3.9.2018

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

The principal international markets to DI Yogyakarta (and therefore the TDAs) are shown in Table 1.7 below. The figures show arrivals in 2016 and 2017 and the percentage growth over that period. Arrivals from Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) countries were also recorded but were too small to be statistically significant, so have been aggregated.25 It will be noted that there is strong growth in a wide range of markets.

Table 1.7: Arrivals to DI Yogyakarta from source markets, 2016-17 Yogyakarta 2016 2017 Growth % Taiwan 351 523 49.0 India 2,152 3,185 48.0 Australia 1,375 2,016 46.6 Japan 1,936 2,811 45.2 Russian Federation 450 636 41.3 France 4,880 6,580 34.8 Malaysia 48,474 65,237 34.6 Germany 2,629 3,445 31.0 Other Europe 7,449 9,610 29.0 China 2,946 3,792 28.7 Hong Kong 324 408 25.9 USA 2,636 3,311 25.6 UK 2,457 3,027 23.2 Thailand 2,176 2,644 21.5 Netherlands 1,530 1,787 16.8 South Korea 920 1,074 16.7 Singapore 14,348 16,373 14.1 Philippines 1,198 1,310 9.3 Not stated 16,321 17,793 9.0 MENA 87 111 27.0 TOTAL 114,639 145,673 27.1 Source: BPS Indonesia and Directorate General of Immigration (data reprocessed by The Assistant Deputy of Research & Development on Tourism Policy, Ministry of Tourism), 2018

A comparison has been made between the volume of international visitors to DI Yogyakarta and to Bali as a percentage of total arrivals to Indonesia over the period 2013-17 (Table 1.8). As explained in the introduction to this section, the figures for DI Yogyakarta have been selected for this comparison rather than for Central Java. The Central Java figures include visitors to Semarang and other areas which are not relevant to the TDAs, whereas the vast majority of visitors to the TDAs are counted in DI Yogyakarta statistics. This shows that the percentage of arrivals to DI Yogyakarta and Bali has remained relatively static at between 37.3% and 41.1% for Bali and 2.5% and 3% for DI Yogyakarta, although both show a gradual upwards trend.

Table 1.8 also shows arrivals to DI Yogyakarta as a percentage of international visitors to Indonesia excluding Bali. The numbers visiting the area of the TDAs are still rather low, at 4.3%-5%. This figure in particular provides a very useful baseline for measuring the future impact of the ITMP.

25 In this instance MENA countries included Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait.

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Table 1.8: International visitors to Indonesia, DI Yogyakarta and Bali, 2013-17 Year Indonesia DI %age Bali %age Indonesia DIY arrivals Yogyakarta of total of total arrivals excl. Bali excl. Bali (%age)

2013 8,800,000 235,888 2.68 3,278,598 37.26 5,521,402 4.27 2014 9,435,000 254213 2.69 3,766,638 39.92 5,668,362 4.48 2015 10,400,000 261,063 2.51 4,001,835 38.48 6,398,165 4.08 2016 12,000,000 355,313 2.96 4,927,937 41.07 7,072,063 5.02 2017 14,040,000 397,951 2.83 5,697,739 40.58 8,342,261 4.77 Source: Ministry of Tourism, BPS DI Yogyakarta, BPS Bali, various dates

A further analysis has been made of the numbers of people of different nationalities arriving at Yogyakarta’s Adisucipto Airport as a first port of entry, as compared with the principal points of Jakarta, Bali and Batam (Table 1.9). In 2017, roughly 48% of all international visitors arrived at Bali, while Yogyakarta received only around 1.2% of international arrivals as the first port of entry. Excluding Bali, then Yogyakarta would have seen around 2.4% of all international visitors in 2017 as the first port of entry. (These figures differ from the preceding table because that is based on international visitors to the destinations overall, not just people who arrived there as a first port of entry.)

The statistics also reveals that Malaysians and Singaporeans dominate arrivals at Yogyakarta Airport. This is, of course, explained by the direct air access. The French were the biggest European segment followed by Germans and British, although the Dutch represent the largest number of European tourists to Yogyakarta overall (see below).

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Table 1.9: International Arrivals in Indonesia by Key Port of Entry International Arrivals in Indonesia by Key Port of Total international visitors Growth Entry through 19 main ports of % entry Nationality/Airport Jakarta Bali Batam Yogyakarta 2016 2017 Singapore 202,499 121,873 884,964 16,373 1,472,767 1,512,813 3

Malaysia 301,122 165,541 190,607 65,237 1,225,458 1,238,376 1 Japan 228,648 252,497 23,002 2,811 513,297 538,334 5 South Korea 139,121 162,857 51,026 1,074 343,887 378,769 10 Taiwan 72,641 111,852 7,480 523 209,369 211,489 1 China 338,833 1,366,032 50,261 3,792 1,452,971 1,972,405 36 India 106,798 265,336 63,458 3,185 376,802 485,314 29 Philippines 49,170 48,108 43,355 1,310 149,490 162,726 9 Hong Kong 32,783 35,552 2,944 408 83,830 82,946 (1) Thailand 47,381 34,119 4,035 2,644 98,864 106,510 8 Australia 79,494 1,061,287 13,699 2,016 1,198,033 1,188,449 (1) USA 98,716 190,307 13,980 3,311 296,183 331,132 12 UK 68,657 240,007 19,700 3,027 328,882 361,197 10 Netherlands 83,979 102,487 4,240 1,787 195,463 205,844 5 Germany 54,300 177,321 4,683 3,445 231,694 260,586 12 France 55,527 179,086 6,244 6,580 250,921 268,989 7 Russian Federation 10,973 94,669 654 636 80,514 110,529 37 Other Europe 138,093 451,053 14,034 9,610 557,343 655,086 18 Saudi Arabia 154,956 10,068 258 29 186,654 166,111 (11) Egypt 5,520 7,894 247 48 14,325 14,246 (1) UAE 5,543 1,803 14 4 8,220 7,545 (8) Bahrain 1,543 712 6 2 2,151 2,281 6 Kuwait 3,501 2,176 8 - 6,201 5,738 (7) Yemen 7,225 494 12 20 9,330 8,278 (11) Qatar 876 680 6 - 1,685 1,595 (5) Oman 15,204 1,119 68 8 12,423 16,568 33 Not stated 446,218 597,318 165,732 17,793 1,263,530 1,497,998 19 TOTAL 2017 2,749,321 5,682,248 1,564,717 145,673 10,570,287 11,791,854 12 TOTAL 2016 2,603,195 4,885,062 1,510,203 114,639

Growth (%) 6 16 4 27 INTERNATIONAL VISITORS THROUGH OTHER 948,968 2,247,945 137 PORT OF ENTRY

INTERNATIONAL VISITOR THROUGH ALL PORT 14,039,799 11,519,275 22 OF ENTRY

Source: Ministry of Tourism, BPS DI Yogyakarta, BPS Bali, various dates

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

The peak season for international arrivals in Yogyakarta occurs during the summer holidays in Europe (July, August), which also reflects the market structure. There is no peak in December as Australians, Singaporeans and Malaysians account for a smaller share of overall international visitors.26 As far as the influx of domestic tourists is concerned, the flow is quite regular in DI Yogyakarta (Table 1.10).

Table 1.10: Seasonality in Domestic Tourism in Central Java and D.I. Yogyakarta in 2016 (trips) Destination I Quarter II Quarter III Quarter IV Quarter Total Trips Province Central Java 22% 25% 32% 21% 42,433,954 16% of total DI Yogyakarta 25% 29% 25% 21% 13,061,408 4.9% of total Total in 24% 27% 27% 22% 264,337,518 Indonesia Source: Domestic Tourist Profile 2016, BPS

Based on the DI Yogyakarta accommodation statistics, the most popular months for international visitors were July, August and September followed by December in 2017. The pattern has not changed much since 2013. Among domestic visitors the most popular months were May, July, and December in 2017 (the pattern of domestic visitor arrivals is affected on an annual basis by when the week-long holiday at the end of Ramadhan takes place).

Figure 1.11: Seasonality of Domestic and International Visitors based on Accommodation Statistics in DI Yogyakarta in 2017 600.000 500.000 400.000 300.000 200.000 100.000 0

International Visitors Domestic Visitors

Source: Tourism Statistics 2017, DI Yogyakarta Tourism Office

Since 2012, the Dutch have represented the biggest share of international tourists in DI Yogyakarta, although the share has decreased from 16.2% in 2012 to 13% in 2017. In recent years, Malaysia has maintained its position as the second biggest source market for the area. Visitor numbers from East Asia, especially from South Korea, have increased since 2014, as shown in Table 1.11. The steep rise in arrivals from Malaysia and Singapore in 2017 as compared with 2016 may be accounted for by the release of a popular romantic film ‘Ada Apa Dengan Cinta 2’ (known as ‘AADC2’) which was released across the Indonesian/Malay-speaking countries of Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei as well as in

26 Horwath HTL (2017) Lombok/Borobudur-Yogyakarta-Prambanan/Lake Toba Baseline Supply and Demand, market demand forecasts, and investment needs (hereafter: ‘Demand Assessment’, as per MPWH Environmental and Social Management Framework)

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Indonesia itself. The places visited by selfie-seeking film-lovers are experiencing a boost, as will be described further below and in Chapter 2.

Table 1.11: Breakdown of International Visitors to DI Yogyakarta 2012 2013 Share 2014 Share 2015 Share 2016 Share 2017 Share Share % % % % % % Netherlands 16.2 11.3 11.5 10.8 12.7 13 Malaysia 10.5 9.4 9.9 9.1 10.1 13 France 9.9 6.3 7.0 6.2 5.0 5 Japan 9.6 10.7 10.6 9.6 7.2 6 Germany 5.2 5.0 4.9 4.5 4.7 4 Australia 4.7 4.1 5.3 5.4 4.7 4 USA 4.6 4.7 6.3 5.3 6.5 4 Singapore 4.2 5.3 5.5 6.0 6.0 10 Thailand 2.6 2.7 0.0 China 2.5 2.4 2.7 2.5 4.1 3 South Korea 2.6 0.2 2.9 4 Other countries 30.0 38.0 33.6 37.7 36.2 34 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 Source: Tourism Statistics 2016 and 2017, DI Yogyakarta Tourism Office

Based on the national level domestic tourism study, roughly The proportion of domestic day 45% of all domestic visitors are excursionists/day visitors in visitors to Yogyakarta, Borobudur Indonesia. The proportion of domestic day visitors to the and Prambanan is even higher Yogyakarta, Borobudur and Prambanan TDAs is even higher than the national average – 63%. than the national average – 63%.27 Tourists originating from DI Yogyakarta and Central Java can therefore be described as ‘residents visiting their own area or nearby destinations’.

Table 1.12: Domestic tourist and trip profiles in DI Yogyakarta and Central Java in 2016 DI Yogyakarta Central Java Age Relatively young Relatively young Younger than 24 40% 39 % 25-44 31% 34% Marital status Mostly married Mostly married Married 55% 57% Singles 42% 39% Profession Technicians and Technicians and government officials government officials Technicians/sales 37% 37% Government officials 21% 25% Purpose of visit On holidays Visiting friends and relatives Holiday/recreation 67% 42% VFR 23% 44% Activities engaged in City and marine tourism City tourism Marine tourism (Bahari) 26% 12% Ecotourism (Ekowisata) 2% 4% Adventure (Petualangan) 1% 1%

27 Horwath HTL (2017) Demand Assessment, op. cit.

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

DI Yogyakarta Central Java History/religion (Sejarah/Religi) 9% 10% Art and culinary (Kesenian & Kuliner) 12% 6% City and village tourism (Kota & Pedesaan) 30% 46% MICE 2% 2% Sport and health tourism (Olah raga/Kesehatan) 2% 5% Integrated tourism object (Objek Wisata Terintegrasi) 16% 15%

Transportation used Private car Private car Flight 8% 4% Boat/water transport 0.4% 1% Train 3% 3% Bus 23% 23% Minibus 4% 3% Private car 48% 52% Rented car 13% 13% Other 0.3% 0.3% Accommodation used Do not use Do not use Hotel 11% 4% Other accommodation 4% 3% Homes of friends/family 25% 36% Other 1% 1% Do not use accommodation 59% 57% Source of information used Friends Not used or friends Official website 0.6% 0.4% Social media 3% 2% Other internet 3% 1% TV/radio 1% 1% Print media 1% 0.4% Friend 49% 45% Other 3% 2% Do not use 39% 48% Average expenditure (rupiah) 720,290 488,070 Accommodation 68,460 (9.5%) 30,610 (6%) Food, beverage, tobacco 186,770 (26%) 120,080 (25%) Transport 259,980 (36%) 146,400 (30%) Entertainment, recreation and cultural services 30,650 (4%) 18,210 (4%) Other tourism services 38,020 (5%) 42,810 (9%) Shopping/souvenirs 112,240 (16%) 103,330 (21%) Other 24,170 (3%) 26,620 (5%) Source: Statistics of Domestic Tourist Profile 2016, BPS Indonesia, 2017

Based on DI Yogyakarta tourism statistics 2017, the most important provinces of origin for domestic tourists staying at star-rated hotels in the province are Jakarta (34%), DI Yogyakarta itself (12%), Central Java (11%), and West Java (10%). Domestic visitors staying at non-star rated accommodation come from the same regions i.e. Jakarta (29%), DI Yogyakarta (11%), Central Java (10%), and West Java (9%).28 This mirrors the point made above that people living in Java form the biggest demand for travel within Indonesia, and that they tend to visit their own or other provinces within Java. The origin of domestic visitors to Central Java in 2017 is illustrated in Figure 1.12.

28 Tourism Statistics 2017, DI Yogyakarta Tourism Office

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Figure 1.12: Origin of domestic visitors to Central Java in 2017

Source: Presentation by Bappeda Central Java, 3.9.2018

In terms of international visitors to Central Java, Malaysians (24%) account for the biggest share, followed by people from Mainland China (13%), Singapore (10%) and the Netherlands (9%). As described above, the direct flight to Yogyakarta Adisucipto airport from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and Singapore is facilitating visits from both those countries.

Figure 1.13: Distribution of international visitor arrivals based on country of residence in 2017

Source: BPS Exit Survey Central Java 2017 in presentation by Bappeda Central Java 3.9.2018

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

1.4.2 Education Sector and VFR

A particular factor in tourism to Yogyakarta is the Yogyakarta is recognised as a significance of the education sector. In 2017 there were national educational hub, with 372,478 students enrolled at Higher Education Institutions students from all over Indonesia (HEIs) in DI Yogyakarta, with 112 universities and other HEIs as well as internationally. in the province, the majority of which are located in or near the City of Yogyakarta. 29 Yogyakarta is recognised as a national educational hub, with students from all over Indonesia as well as internationally. The student population therefore represents over 10% of the metropolitan population of 3.4 million. It is estimated that around 100,000 of these students are from DI Yogyakarta, although it is not known how many of them live at home: if they are from cities outside Yogyakarta it is very likely that they live in student hostels of some kind (see comment on the ‘Kost’ accommodation supply in Chapter 2). The resident student population, as well as a substantial influx of friends and relatives, makes a significant contribution to the city’s economy as well as accounting for a large volume of visitor arrivals and driving demand for air transport and accommodation. In addition, the education sector is a major generator of MICE tourism through the staging of national and international conferences, conventions and exhibitions in the city (see also Chapter 2).

1.4.3 Accommodation and length of stay

Government statistics indicate that the total number of starred rooms in the City of Yogyakarta in 2013 was 5,877, rising to 14,966 by 2017. The significance for supply aspects of the rapid increase over this period will be discussed in Chapter 2.

Table 1.13: Number of Hotels and Rooms in the City of Yogyakarta, 2011-2017 Year Hotels Rooms 2011 387 3,752 2012 396 4,933 2013 400 5,877 2014 419 6,381 2015 413 (59)* 8,391 2016 521 (54)*30 8,991 2017 580 (90)* 14,966 Source: BPS – Statistics of Yogyakarta Municipality; Dinas Pariwisata – Tourism Statistics (2017) *Number of star-rated hotels out of the total.

The use of star-rated hotel accommodation among international visitors increased from 78% in 2012 to 89% in 201731 while among domestic the share increased from 46% in 2012 to 53% in 2017 (Figures. 4.14 and 4.15).

29 Ministry of Research and Higher Education (2017) Statistical Yearbook 2017, Jakarta 30 The figure for hotels was collected from a different source to the others, as 2016 was missing from the first one. There is no explanation as to why the number of starred hotels appears to have decreased; the two sources may have been using different data. 31 Dinas Pariwisata (various dates) Statistik Kepariwisataan/Tourism Statistics

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Figure 1.14: International visitors in star-rated and non-star-rated accommodation in DI Yogyakarta

2017 342.744 55.207 2016 314.827 40.486 2015 231.971 76.514 2014 199.864 54.349 2013 179.404 56.489 2012 154.979 42.772

Star-rated Non-star rated

Source: Tourism Statistics 2016 and 2017, DI Yogyakarta Tourism Office

Figure 1.15: Domestic visitors in star-rated and non-star rated accommodation in DI Yogyakarta

2017 2.274.636 2.556.711 2016 2.094.015 2.100.246 2015 1.583.296 2.230.424 2014 1.194.148 1.897.819 2013 1.026.745 1.575.329 2012 990.676 1.171.746

Star-rated Non-star rated

Source: Tourism Statistics 2016 and 2017, DI Yogyakarta Tourism Office

Based on the Exit Survey amongst international visitors at The biggest spenders came from Yogyakarta’s Adisucipto airport in 2016, the average the Middle East, Americas and expenditure per day was USD 105.66 and per trip USD ASEAN. 761.67. The biggest spenders per day came from the Middle East, Americas and ASEAN. Europeans spend the least per day. The DI Yogyakarta Tourism Office conducted a further survey of tourist expenditure in late 2018, but the results were not available at the time this report was compiled.

Table 1.14: Average expenditure and length of stay in C Java/DIY per region of origin Expenditure per Expenditure per ALOS (days) ALOS (days) day (USD) trip (USD) Recorded in D.I. Recorded in Yogyakarta Central Java ASEAN 124.9 612.7 4.0 4.1 Asia 98.6 784.6 4.6 5.0 Middle East 175.0 1400.0 5.1 4.3 Europe 69.6 915.9 6.2 7.2 Americas 149.8 1978.1 5.3 8.6 Oceania 90.7 1472.4 7.8 6.5 Africa 73.2 1000.0 5.2 6.5 Average 105.7 761.7 5.0 5.2

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Source: BPS Passenger Exit Survey 2016

If the average length of stay in 2016 is reviewed by region of origin, visitors from Oceania (which includes Australians) stayed the longest in DI Yogyakarta (7.82 days) and Americans (8.53 days) in Central Java. When highlighting the longest stays by country of origin, the best performers per region in DI Yogyakarta originated from Brunei (4.50), Taiwan (5.67), Yemen (9.50), Russia (11.27), New Zealand (12.25) and South Africa (6.20). The longest stayers in Central Java were visitors from the Philippines (30), South Korea (6.57), United Arab Emirates (7.0), Austria (13,0), Australia (6.69) and South Africa (8.0). There are some slightly surprising figures here and some may represent individuals rather than an average for many people of a particular nationality), and the length of stay recorded does not tally with the length of stay shown for hotels in DI Yogyakarta (see next table). This is just one indication of the challenges the Consultant team has found in obtaining consistent data.

As shown in Table 1.15, the average length of stay at star-rated hotels in DI Yogyakarta has increased slightly from 1.74 nights in 2012 to 2 nights in 2017 among international tourists and from 1.59 nights in 2012 to 2.08 nights among domestic tourists, while in Yogyakarta City hotels there has been a very slight increase from 2014-17 from 2.2 nights to 2.3 nights amongst international tourists (over all categories of hotel), while for domestic tourists the average length of stay has remained static at 1.6 nights. It appears that for International tourists there is a slight preference for staying in hotels in the City since the ALOS here is slightly longer than for the province overall.

Table 1.15: Length of Stay at star-rated and non-star rated hotels in DIY and Yogyakarta City 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Length of Stay I* D* I D I D I D I D I D Star-rated 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.8 1.6 2.1 1.9 2.1 2.0 hotel (DIY) Non-star 1.8 1.5 2.0 1.7 2.0 1.6 2.0 1.7 2.1 1.9 2.1 2.0 rated hotels (DIY) Star-rated 2.2 1.7 2.1 1.7 1.9 1.6 2.3 1.7 hotel (Yogya) Non-star 2.4 1.3 1.8 1.3 2.1 1.6 2.3 1.5 rated hotels (Yogya) All hotels 2.2 1.6 2 1.6 2 1.6 2.3 1.6 *I = International, D=Domestic Source: Tourism Statistics 2016, DI Yogyakarta Tourism Office, 2017

Table 1.16 below shows that in 2017, overnight guests in both star-rated and non-star-rated hotel accommodation in the City of Yogyakarta came overwhelmingly from the domestic market although star-rated hotels attracted three times as many international guests as non star-rated hotels. Domestic guests accounted for 92.3% of total guests in star-rated hotels and 97.79% of all guests in non star-rated hotels while 7.77% of guests in star-rated hotels and 2.21% of guests in non star-rated hotels were foreign visitors. January and December were the most popular months for domestic guests in both star-rated and non star-rated hotels while August was the most popular month for foreign guests in both star-rated and non star-rated hotels. The trend in the percentage split between domestic and foreign guests staying in star-rated and non star-rated hotels since 2014 has shown that the percentage of foreign guests staying in star-rated hotels has been declining while foreign guests staying in non star-rated hotels has been growing but fell back in 2017.

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Table 1.16: Percentage of Foreign and Domestic Guests Staying Overnight, by Hotel Classification, in City of Yogyakarta (2014-17) Star-Rated Hotel Non-Star Rated Hotel Star-rated and Non Star- Rated Hotels Foreign Domestic Foreign Domestic Foreign Domestic 2014 10.2 89.8 2.8 97.2 8.5 91.5 2015 8.7 91.3 3.9 96.1 7.7 92.3 2016 9.7 90.3 3.5 96.5 8.4 91.6 2017 7.8 92.2 2.2 97.8 7.1 92.9 Source: BPS – Statistics of Yogyakarta Municipality

The occupancy rate at star-rated hotels has increased from 58% in 2012 to 68% in 2017. During the same time period, the occupancy rates at non-star rated accommodation increased by around 5 percentage points, as shown in the following table.

Table 1.17: Occupancy rates at star-rated and non-star rated accommodation in DIY 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Star-rated hotel 57.4% 61.9% 61.9% 63.7% 63.7% 67.5% Non-star rated 38.5% 38.6% 38.6% 38.5% 42.2% 43.9% accommodation Source: Tourism Statistics 2017, DI Yogyakarta Tourism Office

The increase in average occupancy rates over the last 5 years is in line with the increase in visitor numbers to Yogyakarta and to Indonesia generally, and by 2017 the rates (in star-rated hotels at least) were approaching international standards: the average occupancy rate for European hotels in 2017 was 71.9% and for hotels in Asia-Pacific was 70.9%.32 The annual figures however mask some seasonal differences, shown in Figure 1.16:

Figure 1.16: Occupancy rates at hotels in DIY, 2012-17 averages, by month 100 80 60 40 20 0

Star (%) Non-Star (%)

Source: Tourism Statistics 2017, DI Yogyakarta Tourism Office

This graph shows higher levels of visitors in May and December, but with only 16 percentage points between the quietest month (January) and the busiest (December). This reflects the effectiveness of hotel operators’ efforts to diversify into different markets, especially the MICE sector, during quieter

32 https://www.statista.com/statistics/266741/occupancy-rates-of-hotels-worldwide-by-region/

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

months. But even this more detailed breakdown misrepresents the complete picture, since there are time when hotels are running at full capacity, particularly over the longer holiday over Christmas and New Year and the Idul Fitri holiday at the end of Ramadhan.33 The strength of the domestic market in 2016-2017 is a key factor driving strong occupancy. The three TDAs will require investment in both star-rated and non-star-rated forms of accommodation to cater for the anticipated growth in demand in domestic and international tourism. Viability of new (and existing) accommodation establishments will be determined by the extent to which operators respond to market needs, both in terms of marketing and product (i.e. design, facilities and range of services offered to customers), taking into account the different preferences of domestic and international visitors.

For family-owned accommodation such as homestays Viability will be greatly enhanced operating in the informal sector, viability will be greatly where investment is underpinned enhanced where investment is underpinned by a range of by measures to support owners. measures to support owners, including basic training in customer care, marketing and ICT. This is particularly the case in rural accommodation in the TDAs, for example the Balkondes set up in the villages of Kec. Borobudur.

Projected room demand to 2023 will be presented in the next report - Growth Projections and Development Scenarios.

1.4.4 Visits to key destinations/attractions in the TDAs

Visitor numbers to tourism attractions in the three TDAs are presented here, followed by a short competitive analysis of the Borobudur and Prambanan WHS in relation to comparable sites elsewhere in Southeast Asia. A fuller list of attractions and issues affecting their management are presented in Chapter 2.

Kab. Magelang (where the Borobudur TDA is located) recorded 4,511,917 visitors overall in 2017.34 The majority were domestic (4,265,252) and the rest (246,665) were international visitors. The most popular destination in Magelang is Borobudur Temple. Other destinations around Borobudur such as Mendut and Pawon temple, Punthuk Setumbu, and Bukit Rhema (also known as Gereja Ayam – the ‘Chicken Church’) were visited by fewer than 500,000 people in total. The comparison of domestic and international visitors to the destinations in Kab. Magelang is depicted in the table below:

Table 1.18: International and domestic visitors to key attractions in Borobudur TDA Destinations Kecamatan International Domestic Total Borobudur Temple Borobudur 200,616 3,594,684 3,795,300 Mendut and Pawon Borobudur/Mungkid 1,492 73,676 75,168 Punthuk Setumbu Borobudur 24,270 78,616 102,886 Bukit Rhema* (‘Chicken Borobudur 112 26,545 41,475 Church) Ngawen Temple Muntilan 209 41,266 26,656 Mendut Recreation Park Mungkid 0 91,385 91,385 Source: Kab. Magelang in figures (2018) *Figures for Bukit Rhema are incomplete

33 Interview with Yulianto, Program and Data Division, Dinas Pariwisata Kota Yogyakarta, 5/2/2019 34 BPS Kab. Magelang (2018) Kabupaten Magelang dalam Angka 2018. Magelang: BPS Magelang.

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

The Yogyakarta TDA is host to a wide range of attractions, predominantly culture-based. A summary of the principal attractions together with 2017 visitor numbers is set out in Table 1.19 below. It will be noted that the most popular attractions are not cultural ones: the Zoo, Taman Pintar (a science park aimed at children), and a gallery of Instagrammable optical illusions (the De Mata Trick museum) were the top three attractions. Although in most cases there is a breakdown between foreign and domestic visitors, there is no information as to whether these are residents or tourists. Table 1.19: International and domestic to key attractions in Yogyakarta TDA Site/attraction International Domestic Total KOTA YOGYAKARTA HISTORY AND CULTURE (KEY SITES) Kraton Yogyakarta 130,139 416,351 545,490 Tamansari 99,407 434,138 533,545 Pagelaran Kraton (Kraton performance) 43,505 404,964 448,469 Presidential Palace* 15,655 SUB-TOTAL HISTORY AND CULTURE 273,051 1,255,453 1,544,159 MUSEUMS (KEY MUSEUMS) Museum Benteng Vredeburg 10,280 445,049 455,329 Museum Sonobudoyo 6,736 39,232 45,968 Museum Kereta Kraton (Carriage Museum) 297 25,023 25,320 Museum Sasmitaloka 10 20,276 20,286 Museum Sandi (Cipher Museum) 14,111 Museum Batik 3,742 SUB-TOTAL MUSEUMS 17,323 529,580 564,756 OTHER TOURISM ATTRACTIONS (MOST VISITED) Gembiraloka Zoo 3,830 1,505,528 1,509,358 Taman Pintar (Science Park) - 1,005,293 1,005,293 De Mata Trick Eye Museum 613,812 SUB-TOTAL OTHER TOURISM ATTRACTIONS 3,830 2,510,821 3,128,463 TOTAL OF ALL ATTRACTIONS LISTED 5,237,378 Source: Tourism Statistics 2017, DI Yogyakarta Tourism Office *Not all attractions had a breakdown of visitors into foreign and domestic

The interest in cultural attractions and museums could potentially be enhanced with modernization, especially better interpretation, as confirmed in the Visitor Behaviour Survey (See Section 1.5).

The Kab. Sleman government collects some visitor information to attractions but out of the 10 listed, only 6 are in the Prambanan TDA: the WHS of Prambanan Temple itself, Ratu Boko Palace, Breksi Cliff, and the three smaller temples of Banyuibo, Barong and Ijo. Numbers of visitors to these are shown in Table 1.20 below. The steep increase in the number of foreign visitors to Ratu Boko - whereas arrivals to Prambanan (both foreign and domestic) declined over the same year - could possibly be ascribed to the AADC2 effect, as explained above, since this was one of the locations featured in the film. However, without a longer time series of data or further detail it is impossible to draw firm conclusions. The doubling of visitors to Breksi Cliff is explained by the fact that it only opened in 2015.

In the Prambanan TDA, the most visited site in 2017 was Prambanan Temple (2.2 million visits) followed by Breksi Cliff (approaching 0.9 million) and Ratu Boko (0.4 million). The Ramayana Ballet is popular and numbers are counted separately to the Temple itself. The figure of 13,941 visitors was recorded to temples in Prambanan-Klaten35 but this was not broken down into different temples and seems a remarkably small figure, given the crowds at Candi Plaosan on an average Saturday afternoon, and given the popularity of an annual ‘Twin Temples’ Festival held there (in its third year in 2018). The figure is not broken down into Domestic and International tourists, even though the

35 Kab. Klaten Dalam Angka (2018), Bappeda Klaten

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

overall figure is provided by Dinas Kebudayaan, Pariwisata, Pemuda, & Olah Raga, Kabupaten Klaten (Culture, Tourism, Youth, and Sports Service of Kab. Klaten). The numbers apparently show a decline of around 25% compared to 2016, which also seems unlikely.

Table 1.20: International and Domestic visitors to key attractions in Prambanan TDA 2016 2017 Site/Attraction I D Total I D Total Candi Prambanan (Sleman) 208,090 1,887,038 2,095,128 177,122 1,998,437 2,175,559 Temples in Prambanan 17,961 13,941 (Klaten)36 Tebing Breksi (Cliff) 0 315,455 315,455 1,744 869,457 871,201 Ratu Boko Palace 7,387 342,530 349,917 14,184 352,017 366,201 Candi Ijo ------3,802 162,353 166,155 Ramayana Ballet ------17,108 78,846 95,954 Candi Barong 9 7,196 7,205 165 7,376 7,541 Candi Banyuibo 9 2,733 2,742 107 2,216 2,323 Source: Kab. Sleman in figures (2017), op. cit.; Kab. Klaten Dalam Angka (2018), op. cit.; Dinas Pariwisata DIY (2017)37

As shown in the Horwath HTL Market Demand Assessment, numbers of international visitors to Prambanan in particular have been declining, while visitors to the smaller temples have been rising. It is our contention that this is happening because information on the poor value of the Prambanan site has been circulating on social media, while information on how to reach the smaller temples has also been circulating. Some of the negative social media comments on Prambanan and Borobudur are examined in Chapter 2. The near doubling of International visitors to Ratu Boko between 2016 and 2017 can be directly attributed to the ‘film tourism’ effect of the AADC2 romantic film referred to above.

Generally, the importance of social media as a source of information cannot be overestimated, and was recognised by the Indonesian Ministry of Tourism several years ago. An analysis of the Ministry’s campaign published in 201938 noted that social media has transformed the way that tourism-related information is created and disseminated. The authors concluded that complaints can be used as a positive source of change for companies and destination managers if they are responsive, which can in turn help to generate positive coverage of a destination. The BPS Passenger Exit Survey in 2016 found that friends, the internet and social media are the major sources of finding information about a destination among international visitors (Table 1.21). It is likely that a similar survey in 2019 would show that social media plays an even more important role.

Table 1.21: Distribution of tourists according to purpose of visit and source of information (2016) Official Social Other TV Radio Book/ News Leaflet/ Friend Info from Other website media internet % % Magazine paper Brochure % tourism % % % % % % % board % Holiday 14 35 46 6 0.3 16 2 5 49 7 2 VFR 5 20 22 5 0.4 5 3 3 81 2 1 Education 9 29 34 9 0.7 14 4 7 57 5 7 Health 10 36 36 2 0 18 4 2 72 6 2 Religious 11 24 18 9 0 6 1 5 80 4 3

36 See comment in paragraph immediately above Table 1.21 37 Dinas Pariwisata DI Yogyakarta (2017) Statistik kepariwisataan 2016 38 Dolan, R., Seo, Y. and Kemper, J. (2019) Complaining practices on social media in tourism: a value co-creation and co-destruction perspective, Tourism Management, 73, pp. 35-45

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Shopping 10 27 41 10 0 13 2 8 61 1 4 Personal 10 20 33 8 0.5 14 3 6 57 6 6 interest MICE 7 18 37 7 0.4 9 5 4 59 2 10 Other 9 19 43 7 0.2 8 5 3 54 3 10 business and professional Average 11 30 41 6 0.3 13 3 4 55 5 4 Source: BPS Passenger Exit Survey 2016 The impact of social media may be partly responsible for Borobudur and Prambanan the fact that in comparison with other UNESCO sites in received fewer international Southeast Asia, international arrivals to Borobudur and arrivals than Angkor Wat, the Prambanan have remained somewhat disappointing most comparable UNESCO WHS compared to other sites, in particular Angkor Wat, in site in Southeast Asia. Cambodia, which received 2.46 million visitors in 2017. Angkor Wat is visited by 40% of international arrivals in Cambodia, yet DI Yogyakarta received only 2.8% of all international visitors to Indonesia in 2017. The difference in visitation levels can be explained partly by the failure to address international trends and aspirations at the two Indonesian sites, resulting in a somewhat narrow experience for visitors; by the limited international direct air connectivity of DI Yogyakarta/Central Java; and also by the fact that Indonesia is a much larger country than Cambodia with major alternative poles of tourism attraction - in particular Bali – and a more diversified tourism product, meaning that visitors to the country have far more choice of places to visit.

In terms of pricing, international single day ticket prices at WHS temple sites vary from USD 25 at Borobudur and Prambanan to USD 37 at Angkor Wat. However, again, these are not directly comparable as the Angkor Wat complex is much larger than either Borobudur or Prambanan, at 162.6 hectares; it is considered to be the largest religious monument in the world. There are challenges at Borobudur and Prambanan which will need to be resolved before significantly larger numbers of foreign visitors are likely to be attracted.

The WHS of Luang Prabang, in Lao PDR, attracts 80% of all international arrivals to the country. Again, this is partly because there are fewer outstanding attractions there than in Indonesia. There is no entry fee as consists of 58 adjacent villages, of which 33 comprise the World Heritage Site. Luang Prabang’s appeal is partly based on the historical architecture of the town, with the opportunity of enjoying a stay or at least a meal here, while the temples represent a living tradition of religious worship. Luang Prabang is in fact more comparable with the Historic City of Yogyakarta than with Prambanan or Borobudur, but it differs markedly from Yogyakarta in that its traditional architecture has been carefully preserved and there are strict constraints as to what developments can take place there, since the entire heart of the city is included in the World Heritage Site listing.

A comparative competitive analysis of Angkor Wat and Luang Prabang is included as Appendix 1.2.

1.5 Visitor Profile, Behaviour and Opinions

Prior to the ITMP process visitor satisfaction surveys were carried out at Borobudur on several occasions, administered by the Borobudur Conservation Office (BCO). The most recent was in 2013.39 The principal findings from this were that visitors complained of the lack of information

39 BCO (2013) Laporan Hasil Kajian Persepsi Pengunung Terhadap Kenyamanan Berkunjung to Kompleks Candi Borobudur (Visitor Satisfaction Survey to Borobudur), Balai Konservasi Borobudur

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

boards, seating, WCs and litter-bins, and about the number of hawkers. International tourists generally gave lower satisfaction rates than domestic ones.

With a view to obtaining a deeper insight into visitor characteristics and behaviour, the ITMP team undertook a Visitor Behaviour Survey from October 2018 to March 2019. The survey was administered by researchers from UGM using a questionnaire and sampling plan developed by the Consultant and agreed with RIDA. The survey results below are based on a sample of 1001 interviews conducted with domestic and international visitors in Yogyakarta City (348), at Prambanan Temple (203) and Borobudur Temple (450). 1.5.1 Survey Details and Sample Composition

Interviews were conducted at Prambanan, Borobudur and at three popular locations in Yogyakarta – Jl. Malioboro, the Kraton and Tamansari/Water Castle. The approach used was quota sampling, in order to achieve roughly a 75:25 split between domestic and international tourists. Thus, the majority of respondents interviewed (799) were domestic visitors, with 202 international visitors, representing a 80:20 split. The overwhelming majority of visitors from each category were overnight visitors (72% of domestic visitors and 98% of international visitors). 90% of overnight visitors spent the previous night in Yogyakarta, reinforcing existing knowledge that Yogyakarta is core to all 3 TDAs.

The significance of Yogyakarta as a centre for business and learning is confirmed by the results of this survey (Figure 1.17) in that for international visitors, over half (52%) of respondents mentioned business as the main reason for their visit, while 38% of domestic visitors were visiting the area for business-related purposes. These figures are interesting for two reasons. First, it is worrying that so many international visitors were effectively only visiting the area because they had a business (or conference) opportunity to do so: in other words they did not feel it was sufficiently appealing to spend their own money or take their own holiday time to visit the destination. Secondly, they confirm that for domestic visitors Yogyakarta and the surrounding area is a popular choice for company outings such as incentive or team-building trips.

One third of survey respondents were visiting the TDAs for leisure/holiday purposes. The proportion visiting on holiday was broadly similar for domestic and international visits. In keeping with Yogyakarta’s status as ‘Education City’, 13% of domestic visitors were in the area for educational reasons.

Figure 1.17: Main Reason for Visiting Borobudur-Yogyakarta-Prambanan40

40 The source of all graphics and tables in this section is the ITMP BYP Visitor Survey 2018, unless otherwise stated.

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

34% Leisure/Holiday 31%

13% Education or training 7%

38% Attend a business meeting/ workshop/ conference 52%

4% Visiting friends/relatives 2%

8% Religion/pilgrimage 6%

1% Shopping 0%

2% Other personal reason 1%

Domestic Visitor International Visitor

1.5.2 Respondent Characteristics

This section sets out the characteristics of survey respondents.

Province and Country of Residence Where international visitors are concerned, European visitors are well represented within the overall sample with Germany (14% of respondents), France (7%) and Spain (7%) being the most significant countries. In overall terms, European visitors accounted for over half (57%) of international visitors interviewed on the survey.

Figure 1.18: Country of Residence (International Visitors) North America North East Asia Other 7% 8% South East Asia 5% 12% Central/ Australia & Eastern Europe New Zealand 5% 10% [CATEGORY Other Southern NAME] Europe [VALUE] 5% Spain Germany 7% 14% Other Western Europe France 12% 7%

The visitor profile as represented in the Visitor Behaviour Survey displays some noticeable differences to the official statistics for DI Yogyakarta and Central Java. In both cases, visitors from

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Asia (in particular Malaysia and Singapore) account for a significantly higher share in the BPS statistics than is indicated in the figure above. It should be noted that the two sets of statistics are not directly comparable. First, in the BPS DI Yogyakarta market breakdown, over one third of the total for 2017 has been attributed to 'other countries' and this makes direct comparison difficult. Furthermore, the ITMP Visitor Behaviour Survey was conducted over a shorter timeframe (October 2018 to March 2019) whereas it is understood that the BPS Passenger Exit Survey is undertaken throughout the year

Domestic respondents are drawn from across Java with significant proportions resident in Central Java, East Java, Jakarta and West Java. This correlates with the national figures from the BPS discussed earlier in the chapter.

Figure 1.19: Province of Residence (Domestic Visitors)

Others 23% Central Java 26%

DKI Jakarta 12% DI Yogyakarta East Java 4% 20% West Java 14%

Organisation of tour/Prior Experience of Destination One in seven domestic respondents had travelled as part of a package tour, while the vast majority of international visitors (96%) had travelled independently. While two-thirds of domestic respondents had visited the destination previously, for the overwhelming majority of international visitors (90%), this was their first visit to Borobudur–Yogyakarta-Prambanan. This is an expected finding since it is known that many local visitors treat the principal attractions of the three TDAs as a pleasant day out with friends or family, while for international visitors it is much more likely to be a ‘once in a lifetime’ experience. Table 1.22: Respondent type/Prior Experience of Destination All Visitors Domestic International RESPONDENT TYPE Yes, on package tour 13% 15% 4%

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

All Visitors Domestic International No, not on package 87% 85% 96% Tour PRIOR EXPERIENCE OF DESTINATION First visit 45% 34% 90% Have visited previously 55% 66% 10%

Age and Gender The age profile of domestic visitors in the survey is younger than international visitors, reflecting the higher proportion of families and students amongst domestic visitors (Table 1.23). Half (50%) of international visitors are in the 25-35 age cohort. As previously indicated, the majority of these individuals are travelling independently, are ‘tech savvy’ and likely to be flexible in terms of their use of a range of transport options. Table 1.23: Age and Gender All Visitors Domestic International AGE 17-20 10% 12% 4% 20-24 27% 29% 19% 25-35 37% 34% 50% 36-59 24% 24% 24% >60 1% 1% 2% GENDER Female 50% 52% 41% Male 50% 48% 59%

The implications of these figures are that products which appeal to younger visitors need to be taken into account in future plans. Party Type and Party Size Individuals travelling as part of a family or group of friends account for in excess of eight in ten domestic visitors interviewed. More than one third (36%) of international respondents were travelling alone. Linked to this, the average party size for domestic visitors was 3.45 and 2.38 for international visitors.

Table 1.24: Party Type and Party Size All Visitors Domestic International PARTY TYPE Travelling alone 15% 10% 36% Family or relatives 35% 38% 23% Friends 43% 45% 37% School group 3% 4% - Others 3% 3% 4% PARTY SIZE Travelling alone 15% 10% 36% 2 persons 35% 34% 39% 3 persons 13% 14% 10% 4 persons 11% 12% 7% 5-6 persons 12% 15% 3% 7-10 persons 12% 13% 5% AVERAGE (IMMEDIATE PARTY - LESS THAN 15 3.22 3.45 2.38 PEOPLE)

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Respondents’ Working Status The profile of domestic and international respondents displays quite significant differences where working status is concerned. Reflecting Yogyakarta’s significance as a centre of learning, one quarter of domestic respondents were students. Almost two thirds of international respondents were working either as employees, as business owners, or were self-employed. This is a reflection of the fact that reaching Indonesia as a tourist – even from other parts of Southeast Asia – is relatively expensive (Table 1.25).

Table 1.25: Respondents’ Working Status All Visitors Domestic International RESPONDENTS’ WORKING STATUS Hired Employee 39% 36% 49% Owner of a business 7% 6% 8% that employs others Self-employed without 9% 9% 7% employed persons Pensioner/retired 1% 1% 1% Unemployed 3% 2% 5% Housewife/unpaid 6% 7% - family worker Student 25% 26% 18% Other 11% 11% 11%

1.5.3 Trip Characteristics

Travel to and within the destination In terms of point of entry to the destination and mode of travel used, the pattern recorded in respect of domestic visitors varies quite considerably to that of international visitors. Domestic respondents accessed the destination using a range of transport modes including rail (27%), air (26%) and road (47%). This shows a considerable variation to the findings reported above of the national Domestic Respondents accessed domestic tourism survey, which found that only 6% of the destination using a range of people travelled to their destination by air. However, as transport modes including rail, air already explained, the discrepancy is almost certainly and road. because the national survey was delivered to people in their homes rather than at the destinations they travelled to.

Not surprisingly, the majority of international respondents to the survey (83%) arrived via air, while rather more surprisingly, given the relatively limited rail network, almost one in five reported travelling to Yogyakarta by rail.

Once within the TDA, there are a number of differences in the forms of transport used by domestic and international visitors. Approaching one in four (23%) of domestic visitors had used their own car, while similar proportions travelled around the destination by motorbike or taxi (including Go-Jek or Grab vehicles). 14% of domestic visitors cited ‘tour bus’ as the main form of transport to the TDAs. Where international visitors are concerned, approaching four in ten (38%) had used taxis (including online ones), while motorbikes (24%), public buses (15%) and rented cars (13%) were also used.

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Table 1.26: Points of Entry/Main Transport used in Destination All Visitors Domestic International POINT OF ENTRY Railway Station in 25% 27% 15% Yogyakarta Railway Station in 0% 0% - Semarang Adisucipto Airport 28% 23% 47% Yogyakarta Ahmad Yani Airport 1% 1% 0% Semarang Adi Sumarmo Airport 1% 1% 1% Surakarta Other Airports 8% 1% 35% Road from West Java 10% 13% - Road from East Java 10% 12% 1% Other/Road from 17% 22% 1% Central Java MAIN TRANSPORT IN DESTINATION Own car 20% 23% 7% Motorbike 25% 25% 24% Taxi/Gojek/Grab or 28% 25% 38% equivalent Public Bus 5% 2% 15% Tour bus 11% 14% 3% Other/ Rental Car 12% 11% 13%

Satisfaction with road journeys Survey respondents were asked to rate the road journey to and within the TDAs on a range of criteria. In overall terms, satisfactory ratings were recorded in respect of safety and comfort/quality of road surface. Lower levels of satisfaction were recorded for signage/directions and ease of movement of road traffic.

Figure 1.20: Rating of Road Journey Comfort/ Ease of quality of Signage/ movement of Safety road surface directions traffic

23% Very Good 40% 38% 36%

40% Good 44% 47% 47% Fair 26% 14% 13% Poor/ Very 11% 10% 2% 2% 5% poor

Table 1.27 shows significant variations in the ratings of road journeys for domestic and international respondents. In general, international visitors were more critical across each of the four criteria,

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

which is not surprising given that safety standards on the roads in the TDAs and surrounding areas are lower than in many of the source market countries. These figures will provide a useful baseline to measure improvements in road standards against after the ITMP has been implemented.

Table 1.27: Rating of Road Journeys All Visitors Domestic International SAFETY Very Good 40% 40% 40% Good 47% 49% 36% Fair 11% 9% 20% Poor/Very Poor 2% 2% 3% COMFORT/ QUALITY OF ROAD SURFACE Very Good 38% 39% 34% Good 47% 49% 38% Fair 13% 11% 24% Poor/Very Poor 2% 1% 4% SIGNAGE/ DIRECTIONS Very Good 36% 39% 23% Good 44% 44% 46% Fair 14% 12% 21% Poor/Very Poor 5% 4% 9% EASE OF MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC Very Good 23% 25% 14% Good 40% 42% 32% Fair 26% 24% 36% Poor/Very Poor 10% 8% 16%

Accommodation and Length of Stay As already indicated in Section 1.5.1, the majority of survey respondents were overnight visitors. 230 individuals were day visitors and therefore did not require accommodation.

Where accommodation is concerned, star-rated hotels are ‘Homestay’ was the preferred the most popular form of accommodation for both form of accommodation for 34% domestic and international visitors although there are of international visitors surveyed. important variations in the patterns of usage across the two categories. For example, in excess of one in four of domestic visitors were staying with friends or relatives while ‘homestay’ was the preferred form of accommodation for 34% of international visitors surveyed. This figure shows a significant discrepancy with figures from the Yogyakarta Tourism Office finding that 89% of international visitors stayed in star-rated hotels in 2017, and is most likely because the Visitor Behaviour Survey sampled a disproportionate number of younger independent travellers.

Domestic respondents spent on average 3 nights in the area of the TDAs, while the average length of stay for international visitors was similar at 3.61 nights. This is lower than the average length of stay of 5 days for international visitors to DI Yogyakarta recorded in the 2016 BPS Passenger Exit Survey. However, the 2016 survey covered days in the destination rather than nights, so it is possible that the discrepancy is not so great as at first appears.

Table 1.28: Type of Accommodation Used/Number of Nights Spent in Destination All Visitors Domestic International

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

TYPE OF ACCOMMODATION USED Star-rated hotel 36% 37% 33% Non star-rated hotel 18% 18% 16% Homestay 25% 23% 34% With friends/relatives 18% 22% 6% Other 5% 2% 12% No reply 1% 1% 1% NUMBER OF NIGHTS SPENT IN DESTINATON 1 night 18% 21% 7% 2 nights 33% 35% 29% 3 nights 25% 22% 35% 4 nights 10% 8% 14% 5 nights 4% 3% 6% 6-7 nights 6% 7% 5% More than 7 nights 4% 3% 5% AVERAGE NO OF NIGHTS SPENT IN 3.17 3.04 3.61 DESTINATION

Reasons for choosing accommodation The desire for ‘good value’, convenient location to sites (including ease of access) and comfort were cited as the main reasons for choice of accommodation.

Figure 1.21: Reasons for Choosing Accommodation

Free/Good Value 34% Good Location/ Easy access 25% Comfortable/ good facilities 16% Catching up with own family and friends 7% Good review/ Recommendation 6% Organised by someone else 6% Enjoy Homestay atmosphere 2% Clean 2% Friendly staff/ Engaging with locals 2% Online booking/ Easy to Book online presence 2%

Value for money, convenient location and comfort were primary considerations in the choice of accommodation for both domestic and international visitors. Recommendations and engagement with local people were also cited as motivating factors by international visitors.

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Table 1.29: Reason for Choosing Accommodation All Visitors Domestic International Free/Good Value 34% 31% 46% Good Location/ Easy access 25% 25% 23% Comfortable/ good facilities 16% 16% 18% Catching up with own family and friends 7% 8% 5% Organised by someone else 6% 7% 3% Good review/ Recommendation 6% 4% 10% Online booking/ Easy to Book online 2% 2% 3% presence Friendly staff/ Engaging with locals 2% 2% 6% Clean 2% 2% 2% Enjoy Homestay atmosphere 2% 2% 2% Safe 1% 1% 1% Good atmosphere/ Authentic 1% 1% 2% Hotel Building itself/Architecture 1% 1% 0% Good for groups 1% 1% 0% Good service 1% 1% 1% No need for credit card 1% 0% 2% Quiet place 0% 1% 0%

1.5.4 Participation in Activities

Consistent with insights into demand patterns presented Visitor participation in activities earlier in this chapter, the pattern of visitor participation reflects the strong desire for in activities when in the TDAs reflects the strong desire for ‘experiential tourism’ and heritage ‘experiential tourism’ and heritage and culture in and culture in particular. particular (including ‘intangible culture’ such as music and dance performances and demonstrations of traditional skills). However, there are differences: as shown in Figure 1.22 below, interest in cultural activities (including visits to cultural heritage attractions, visiting local communities, and experiencing local cuisine) is higher amongst international visitors, as is visiting the destination’s main environmental assets, while shopping is a stronger motivation for domestic visitors.

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Figure 1.22: Activities Taken Part in / Intend to take Part In

87% Visiting cultural and historical heritage/Temples 85% 96% 84% General sightseeing 82% 89% 80% Shopping 84% 64% 80% Tasting local cuisine 78% 88% Visiting national parks/protected areas/exploring 39% 35% landscape/caves/exotic places 54% 30% Hiking/walking 26% 45% 15% Visiting local communities 12% 28% 10% Horse riding/taking the horse carts 11% 7% 9% Cycling 9% 9% 8% Resting in recreational resorts 9% 6% 7% Bird watching 7% 7% 4% Taking part in agricultural activities 4% 4% 4% Other 4% 3%

All Visitors Domestic Visitors International Visitors

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Consistent with knowledge of tourist journeys and preferences in the three TDAs, the main sites visited are Jl. Malioboro, the Water Castle and the Kraton in the Yogyakarta TDA, Borobudur WHS, and Prambanan WHS. Each of these sites was visited by the overwhelming majority of international visitors.

Figure 1.23: Sites Visited/Intend to Visit

81% Malioboro Street 80% 84% 69% Borobudur Temple 65% 88% 52% Prambanan Temple 47% 71% 42% Kraton 37% 59% 34% Water Castle 30% 50% 12% Ratu Boko 13% 12% 8% Sewu Temple 7% 14% 7% Gamelan Performance at Kraton 5% 14% 7% Bubrah Temple 6% 10% 7% Lumbang Temple 6% 12% 6% Kota Gede 6% 6% 4% Villages around Borobudur Temple 2% 11% 4% Villages around Prambanan Temple 2% 12% 4% Museum Sono Budoyo 3% 9% 3% Plaosan Temple 2% 7% 1% Gamelan Performance elsewhere 1% 1% 5% Other 4% 10%

All Visitors Domestic Visitors International Visitors

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

1.5.5 Rating of Activities in Yogyakarta, Prambanan and Borobudur

Yogyakarta

This section presents the findings of the 348 individuals interviewed in Yogyakarta City.

Respondents were asked to rate each of the activities they had participated in. A standard five-point rating scale was used from Very Satisfied to Very Dissatisfied. The results are presented in Figure 1.24 below. While satisfactory ratings were recorded in respect of most activities and sites visited, less satisfactory ratings were recorded in respect of the Kraton visit and eating in Jl. Malioboro, with more than one quarter of visitors describing these experiences as no better than fair.

Figure 1.24: Rating of Activities Gamelan Shopping - Fort Taman Eating - performance Malioboro Vredeburg Merapi Kraton/the Sari/Water Malioboro at Kraton Street Museum Batik factory Museum Palace Castle Street Batik shop

40% 40% 39% 39% Very satisfied 45% 43% 43% 51% 50%

Satisfied 36% 34% 44% 38% 43% 45% 36% 48% Fair 45% Dissatisfied 21% 22% 12% 12% 15% 5% 10% 14% No Reply 0% 4% 2% 0% 5% 5% 1%3% 2% 5% 1%3% 0%0 0 2% 0 1% 0

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

The overwhelming majority of visitors rate Yogyakarta as a The overwhelming majority of friendly/hospitable destination. As can be seen in Figure visitors rate Yogyakarta as a 1.25, positive ratings were also recorded in respect of the friendly/hospitable destination. city’s cultural heritage sites, culinary offer and overall value and heritage and culture in for money. However, less satisfactory ratings were recorded in respect of the quality of the city’s sidewalks, public toilets, internet access and information in the event of the occurrence of a natural disaster.

Figure 1.25: Rating of Tourism in Yogyakarta Hospitality & Cultural tourism Eating and friendliness sites Value for moneyAccommodation drinking Air access Visitor safety

29% 36% 36% 42% 39% 50% Very Good 55%

53% 49% 51% 53% Good 47% 43% 41%

Fair 13% 16% 10% 9% 9% Poor 6% 0%4% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% Very Poor

Figure 1.25: Rating of Tourism in Yogyakarta (Contd.) Information on Footpaths and what to do in non-motorized WIFI / Internet the event of a Public transport pathways Signage Access natural disaster Public toilets Air quality

10% 10% 9% Very Good 18% 17% 29% 28% 25% 33% 43% 41% Good 53% 46% 42% 27% 32% 25% 36% 30% 19% 23% Fair 21% 22% 14% Poor 8% 11% 4% 6% 7% Very Poor 1% 3% 3% 3% 0% 1%

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

With a view to guiding the direction of tourism development recommendations for the ITMP, respondents were presented with a list of potential ‘experiences’ and activities and were asked to indicate how interested they would be in participating in each of these at some future date.

Consistent with tourism demand trends presented to date, High levels of interest were as can be seen from Figure 1.26, high levels of interest recorded in both tangible and were recorded in both tangible and intangible aspects of intangible aspects of culture. culture. Significant interest is also expressed in nature- based activities. For a majority of international tourists, a proposition combining authentic culture experiences and nature is likely to be very well received. This will be taken into consideration in future stages of the ITMP, since although nature-based tourism activities are not likely ever to be possible in the Yogyakarta TDA, there are opportunities for developing these in the Borobudur and Prambanan TDAs.

Figure 1.26: Activities would be interested in participating in in the future Nature-based Culture-based Central Java Encounters of local City tourism experiences tourism experiences exploration Soft adventure communities

43% 41% Very 54% interested 66% 66% 65%

33% Quite 36% Interested 29% Not Very 30% 26% 28% Interested 19% 21% 15% Not at all 4%0 1% 0 2% 2% 5% Interested

Table 1.30: Activities would be interested in participating in in the future (Very Interested/Quite Interested) All Visitors Domestic International City tourism 96% 97% 90% Culture-based tourism experiences 93% 91% 97% Nature-based experiences 92% 92% 97% Central Java exploration 83% 82% 88% Soft adventure 79% 81% 72% Beach and water sports 74% 74% 74% Encounters of local communities 74% 71% 88%

Interesting culture/history (mentioned by 24% of visitors) and the friendliness of the people in the city (23%) were spontaneously highlighted as aspects of Yogyakarta that were particularly liked. Visitors also commented on the nice lively atmosphere and ‘good range of things to see and do’. Yogyakarta’s appeal as a cultural destination and the friendliness of the people were significant factors where international visitors are concerned.

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Figure 1.27: Particular Likes - Yogyakarta

24% Interesting culture/history 21% 35% 23% Friendly people/ visitor friendly 16% 48% 15% Nice atmosphere 16% 8% 11% Good range of things to do and see 12% 8% 9% Good food 8% 13% 8% Good value for money (esp food) 8% 7% 5% Easy access 6% 1%

All Visitors Domestic Visitors International Visitors

Traffic congestion, and the related issues of road safety is identified as Yogyakarta’s primary weakness as a tourism destination. Approaching three in ten visitors mentioned these as issues. Visitors would like to see more effective measures introduced to alleviate congestion in the city. Measures to improve the city environment and provision of Traffic congestion is identified as more pedestrian areas (sidewalks and open spaces) are also Yogyakarta’s primary weakness as recommended. International visitors are more vocal than a tourism destination. domestic visitors in recommending interventions to alleviate traffic congestion, improve the quality of pedestrian spaces, and improved safety measures.

Figure 1.28: Suggested Improvements - Yogyakarta

28% Address traffic congestion 26% 38% 12% Improve cleanliness/ city environment 13% 6% Police the misuse of pedestrian areas by motorised 10% 7% vehicles 23% 10% Control hawkers/ buskers / traders 11% 6% 9% Improve public transport 9% 11% 8% Improve facilities (i.e. public toilets) 9% 4% Provide better visitor information/ interpretation/ 7% 5% signage (in English) 18% Address crowded attractions and poor visitor 6% 6% behaviour 3% Provide shaded areas (more trees/shelter)/ lack of 5% 6% open spaces 3%

All Visitors Domestic Visitors International Visitors

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Borobudur

This section presents the findings of the 450 individuals interviewed at Borobudur WHS.

Just over half of all visitors interviewed at Borobudur WHS were first-time visitors to the site, including the overwhelming majority (94%) of international visitors. Six in ten domestic visitors had visited the site previously.

Table 1.31: Experience of Borobudur All Visitors Domestic International First Visit 51% 40% 94% Previous Visit Made 49% 60% 6%

Most visits to Borobudur WHS take place in the morning with four in ten respondents visiting at sunrise or in the early morning. The timing of visit to Borobudur is much the same for domestic and international visitors. On average, visitors spent 2.46 hours at Borobudur WHS. Average ‘dwell time’ for domestic visitors at 2.51 hours was slightly lower than the dwell time recorded for international visitors (2.28 hours).

Table 1.32: Timing of visit to Borobudur Temple All Visitors Domestic International At Sunrise (05.00 – 07.00) 3% 3% 6% Early Morning (07.00 – 11.00) 38% 38% 36% Noon (11.00 – 13.00) 38% 39% 34% Early Afternoon (13.00 – 15.00) 19% 19% 20% Late Afternoon (15.00 – 17.00) 2% 1% 4% Early Evening/Sunset (17.00 – 19.00) - - - Time Spent at Borobudur (Average 2.46 2.51 2.28 Hours)

Figure 1.29 below presents the pattern of visitor participation in different activities during their visit to Borobudur WHS. For this question, respondents were allowed to provide multiple responses.

Walking around the temple was the most popular activity undertaken by visitors to Borobudur WHS with the overwhelming majority (94%) claiming to have undertaken this particular activity. A majority of visitors also undertook associated activities including sightseeing (88%), climbing to the top of the temple (64%), and reading interpretation panels (50%).

Much lower levels of participation were recorded in respect of visits to the Archaeological/UNESCO Museum (11%), visits to the information centre (7%), hire of guides and audio guides, both at 5%.

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Figure 1.29: Activities at Borobudur WHS

Walked around the Temple 94% Took selfies 91% Sightseeing/enjoyed the views 88% Read the code of conduct 83% Shared my experience through social media 70% Took the stairs straight up to the top 64% Read interpretation panels 50% Studied the map 41% Had a picnic in temple area 17% Visited the Archaeological/ UNESCO Museum 11% Visited the information centre 7% Downloaded and used the audio guide 5% Hired a guide at entrance 5%

High levels of satisfaction were recorded in respect of each of the main activities in which visitors had participated during their visit to Borobudur WHS. Particularly high levels of satisfaction were recorded in respect of sightseeing/enjoying temple views.

Rating of Borobudur activities was equally high for domestic and international visitors.

Figure 1.30: Rating of Activities Sharing experience through social Picnic in the Walked around theInformation Center Sightseeing media temple area Selfies Guide * temple clock wise *

59% 59% 73% 80% 87% 83% 82% Very satisfied

Satisfied 30% 38% 18% Fair 15% 14% 12% 18% 0 8% 5% 9% 0 Dissatisfied 1%0 0%3% 0 1% 3% 3%

* Small base

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Figure 1.30: Rating of Activities (Contd.) Took the stairs Walking around straight up to the the temple anti- Interpretation Code of conduct top clock wise UNESCO Museum panels Map Audio guide *

13%

46% 42% 53% 52% Very satisfied 58% 58%

61%

18% 33% 38% 23% Satisfied 32% 44% 19% 17% Fair 11% 18% 19% Dissatisfied 9% 10% 9% 1% 8% 4%0 3% 2%

Visitors were asked how their visit to Borobudur WHS compared with their prior expectations. Confirming the high levels of visitor satisfaction already reported, visitors’ experience of Borobudur was exceeded across a range of criteria. These include the landscaping surrounding the temple, the site in general including the pedestrian/non-motorized pathways, and Borobudur Temple itself. Roads/access to the temple and directional signage were also better than expected.

Figure 1.31: Rating of Borobudur Experience Against Prior Expectations (All Visitors) Landscape/ Non-motorized park pathways Roads/ access Shelter Park around surrounding The site in around the The main to Borobudur facilities (heat Directional the souvenir the Temple general Temple area temple Temple and rain) Safety features Signage shop

36% 45% 44% 43% 52% Exceeded 60% 60% 56% Expectations 68%

45% 36% 42% 47% 39% Fulfilled 36% 35% 32% Expectations 28% Below 19% 19% 9% 14% 10% Expectations 4% 5% 8% 8%

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Figure 1.31: Rating of Borobudur Experience Against Prior Expectations (All Visitors) Amount of Information on Interpretation Behavior of WIFI/ Internet people visiting natural disasters panels other visitors Toilets Car park Special events Access

Exceeded 21% 28% 25% 25% 23% Expectations 30% 29% 28%

Fulfilled 34% 35% 35% 43% 43% 46% 52% Expectations 46%

Below Expectations 36% 37% 36% 32% 32% 31% 26% 27%

The overwhelming majority (99%) of visitors to Borobudur had purchased a single entrance ticket to the site. Where international visitors are concerned, three-quarters (73%) had purchased a single entrance ticket with just over one quarter (27%) having purchased a combined entrance ticket to Borobudur and Prambanan WHS.

Visitors to Borobudur WHS were asked the following question: ‘Did the hawkers at Borobudur Temple alter your overall experience?’

A majority of visitors (62%) indicated that their experience of Borobudur was altered in some way, some to a much greater extent than others. Where international visitors are concerned, a higher proportion (69%) claimed that their overall experience had been altered due to hawkers, although this was only noted as ‘significant’ in 22% of cases. See suggested improvements in Figure 1.35.

Figure 1.32: Did the Hawkers at Borobudur Alter the Overall Experience

Altered the Significantly experience altered the 18% experience 22% Slightly altered the experience 23% Not at all 38%

A majority of visitors to Borobudur WHS expressed the view that their visit represented either ‘very good’ or ‘good value for money. Having had to pay a A lower value for money rating significantly higher admission charge (USD25 rather than was recorded in respect of international visitors. 60

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Rp. 40,000), not surprisingly a lower value for money rating was recorded in respect of international visitors, with 33% of people commenting that the entry fee was too high (see also Figure 1.35).

Figure 1.33: Value for Money All Visitors Domestic International

33% Very Good 42% 44%

30%

41% Good 38%

24% Fair 11% 13% Poor/ Very 15% 12% Poor 6%

Borobudur’s overall setting, incorporating the Temple and its scenic surroundings, is highlighted by 34% of visitors as the most appealing aspect. One in four visitors commented on the unique and distinctive architecture at the Word Heritage Site. The historic and cultural aspects of Borobudur were particularly appealing to international visitors.

Figure 1.34: Particular Likes - Borobudur

34% Nature/ scenery 36% 26% 25% Historic buildings/ architecture 23% 31% 17% Interesting culture/ history 15% 23% 13% Cleanliness 14% 7% 9% Nice atmosphere 10% 3%

All Visitors Domestic Visitors International Visitors

Notwithstanding the appeal of Borobudur, visitors make a number of suggestions designed to improve the quality of the visitor experience, with some interesting discrepancies between the comments of domestic and international visitors, as shown in Figure 1.35.

For instance, one in four domestic visitors mentioned the distance from the WHS site entrance to the Temple as an issue and would like to see more forms of transport introduced on site, while only 7% of international visitors did so. Other suggested improvements include measures to control

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

hawkers (although only 15% of visitors overall commented on this) and to address poor visitor behavior on and around the Temple (12%).

There was a variation in response regarding the provision of more sheltered areas: 16% of domestic visitors remarked on this but only 6% of international visitors did so. On this point, it is likely that these visitors would prefer covered sitting areas on or near the monument itself, since the Consultants have observed that the extensive shady parklands and covered sitting areas away from the monument itself are largely ignored by domestic visitors.

As mentioned above, international visitors recommended lower admission charges. It is significant that 13% of international visitors would like to see better interpretation, while only 7% of domestic visitors mentioned this, confirming the Consultants’ impression from observation at Borobudur and other sites that international visitors are more interested in a knowledge-seeking experience.

Figure 1.35: Suggested Improvements - Borobudur

22% Provide free transport within site/ exit too far 25% 7% 15% Control hawkers/ traders 16% 8% 14% Provide shelter 16% 6% 12% Address poor visitor behaviour / crowds 12% 11% 10% Address expensive admission fees 4% 33% Provide better visitor information/ interpretation/ 8% 7% signage (in English) 13% 7% Provide motorbike parking within temple area 8% 3% 7% Provide better facilities/ services (i.e. public toilets) 8% 3% 6% Improve security/ safety 7% 2% 6% Improve cleanliness (incl. provision of bins) 7% 1%

All Visitors Domestic Visitors International Visitors

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Prambanan

This section presents the findings of the 201 individuals interviewed at Prambanan WHS.

58% of all visitors interviewed at Prambanan WHS were first-time visitors. As with Borobudur WHS, the overwhelming majority (95%) of international visitors were first-time visitors to the site (Table 1.33).

Table 1.33: Experience of Prambanan All Visitors Domestic International First Visit 58% 48% 95% Previous Visit Made 42% 52% 5%

Again as with the Borobudur WHS, most visits to the Prambanan WHS take place in the early morning or noon. Similar patterns of visitation were recorded for domestic and international visitors.

On average, visitors spent 2.3 hours at the site. Average dwell time for domestic visitors was 2.32 hours while international visitors’ dwell time was slightly lower at 2.24 hours (Table 1.34).

Table 1.34: Timing of visit to Prambanan Temple All Visitors Domestic International At Sunrise (05.00 – 07.00) - - - Early Morning (07.00 – 11.00) 28% 30% 21% Noon (11.00 – 13.00) 40% 40% 43% Early Afternoon (13.00 – 15.00) 22% 21% 26% Late Afternoon (15.00 – 17.00) 9% 9% 10% Early Evening/Sunset (17.00 – 19.00) - - - Time Spent at Prambanan (Average 2.31 2.32 2.24 Hours)

Figure 1.36 shows that many of the activities in which visitors to Prambanan WHS participate were similar to those reported at Borobudur, including selfie-taking and sharing experiences on social media. A majority of visitors had also read the code of conduct and interpretative panels.

However, as with the findings at Borobudur, the survey highlighted important discrepancies between the preferences of international and domestic visitors. Picnicking was an activity enjoyed by domestic visitors far more than international ones, with a 24-point difference between the two categories, with exactly the same difference for reading the interpretation panels but with foreign visitors in the majority: 79% of foreign visitors did so but only 55% of domestic ones. 12% of international visitors used the QR codes to obtain more information and hired a guide at the entrance to the temple, but only 7% (4%) of domestic visitors did either of these.

In terms of the more ‘amusement park’ style of activities, 10% of domestic visitors tried the ‘swing in the sky’, an opportunity for people to have their photo taken in a swing-chair hoisted into the air with the temple in the background, and smaller numbers took part in similar activities. No international tourists at all reported participating in any of these.

These differences are partly because domestic visitors are often on a day out from home and are more interested in a hedonistic type of experience, while international visitors are likely only to visit once and seek a richer, more in-depth experience which offers value for money.

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Figure 1.36: Activities Participated in at Prambanan Temple

94% Took selfies at the temple 97% 81%

Shared my experience with my friends through social 77% 78% media 71%

76% Read the code of conduct in the temple area 75% 76%

60% Read interpretation panels 55% 79%

52% Studied the map 51% 57%

24% Had a picnic in the temple area 29% 5%

20% Ate at the restaurant outside the Prambanan Temple 20% 19%

8% Took the swing in the sky 10% 0

8% Used the QR codes to get more information 7% 12%

6% Hired a guide at the entrance of the Prambanan Temple 4% 12%

3% Tried the bicycle drifting 4% 0

2% Tried the archery 3% 0

1% Saw the Ramayana Ballet 0 7%

20% Other 20% 19%

All Visitors Domestic Visitors International Visitors

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Although still high, levels of satisfaction in respect of various activities undertaken at Prambanan WHS were generally not as high as those recorded at Borobudur.

Figure 1.37: Rating of Activities Shared experience on Picnic in temple area Selfies social media Code of conduct Interpretation panels Studied map

47% 54% 48% Very satisfied 75% 74% 72%

38% 36% Satisfied 35% Fair/ Dissatisfied 17% 21% 26% 16% 4% 11% 14% 4% 1% No Reply 4% 1% 1% 1% 0 1%

* Activities recording low levels of participation have been excluded

Consistent with the approach adopted at Borobudur WHS, visitors to Prambanan were asked to rate their visit against their prior expectations.

For a majority of visitors to Prambanan WHS, the ambience and setting of the site itself and landscaping around it had exceeded their prior expectations. The non-motorized pathways at the site also exceeded the expectations of a majority of visitors

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Figure 1.38: Visit Vs Expectations Park at the Non-motorized Interpretation Park at souvenir temple pathways Main temple Site in general Roads/access panels shop Special events

37% 36% 42% 54% 53% 52% Exceeded 62% 58% Expectations

36% 35% 47% Fulfilled 30% 40% 40% 39% Expectations 35% 24% 27% Fair/ Below 12% 9% 16% Expectations 3% 5% 7%

Figure 1.38: Visit Vs Expectations (Contd.) Information on Amount of what to do in Shelter facilities Behavior of people visiting WIFI/ Internet the event of a Car park Safety features (heat and rain) other visitors Toilets the site Access natural disaster

27% 23% 23% Exceeded 34% 34% 32% 29% 28% Expectations

31% 44% 42% 43% 48% 55% Fulfilled 55% 55% Expectations 46% 32% Fair/ Below 25% 23% 28% 21% Expectations 11% 11%

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Unlike Borobudur WHS, where a significant minority of visitors claimed their experience had been altered by the hawkers there, the issue does not appear to be as significant in Prambanan. Two- thirds of visitors to Prambanan indicated that hawkers had not impacted on their experience in any way.

Figure 1.39: Did the Hawkers at Prambanan Alter the Overall Experience? Slightly Altered the altered the experience experience 6% 16% Significantly altered the experience Not at all 6% 68%

Most domestic visitors (91%) to Prambanan had purchased a single entry ticket. Where international visitors are concerned, just over half (52%) had purchased a single entry ticket, 38% had purchased a combined ticket including Borobudur WHS while a further 10% had purchased a combined ticket for the two WHS attractions and Ratu Boko.

Three-quarters of all visitors to Prambanan indicated that their visit represented either ‘very good’ or ‘good’ value for money. While a clear majority of visitors were satisfied in terms of value for money, one-third were not particularly satisfied with this particular aspect of their visit.The value for money rating for Prambanan was marginally lower than that recorded in respect of Borobudur WHS.

Figure 1.40: Value for Money All Visitors Domestic International

38% 38% Very Good 40%

26% 36% 38% Good

21% Fair 19% 18% Poor/ Very 12% Poor 7% 6%

As with Borobudur WHS, the unique history of Prambanan WHS is the aspect of this attraction that most appeals to visitors. In excess of one in four visitors mentioned this at a spontaneous level in response to an open ended question. The landscape surrounding Prambanan and atmosphere were other aspects that appealed to visitors.

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Figure 1.41: Particular Likes - Prambanan

22% Interesting culture/ history 21% 24% 15% Nature/ scenery 16% 14% 13% Nice atmosphere 14% 12% 12% Historic buildings/ architecture 8% 29% 9% Cleanliness 10% 7% 4% Friendly people/ visitor friendly 3% 12%

All Visitors Domestic Visitors International Visitors

Again, there are some significant difference between what international and domestic visitors to Prambanan WHS would like to see in terms of improvements. The principal measures include a comment from 29% of international tourists (who pay USD25 to get in) that the entry fee is too high – a significant finding which the managers of the site (PT TWC) should pay attention to.

There was also interest in more shaded areas (18% of domestic visitors but only 5% of international ones) although, as at Borobudur, there are in fact extensive areas of shady parkland for visitors to explore. 13% of domestic visitors (0% of international ones) would like to see on-site transportation as they consider the entrance to the temple itself is too far from the site entrance gate – even though in reality the distance is only around 200m.

A larger number of international visitors than domestic ones (19% as opposed to 11%) would like to see better interpretation, although as the question was asked about interpretation ‘in English’ this is not surprising.

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Figure 1.42: Suggested Improvements - Prambanan

15% Provide shaded areas/ shelter 18% 5%

12% Provide beverages in more locations 13% 10%

Provide better visitor information/ interpretation/ 12% 11% signage (in English) 19%

10% Address expensive admission fees 6% 29%

10% Provide transport within site/ exit too far away 13% 0%

6% Provide better facilities/ services (esp public toilets) 6% 7%

6% Address crowds/ poor visitor behaviour 4% 12%

5% Improve cleanliness (incl. provision of bins) 6% 2%

5% Provide facilities for children (rides/ playground) 6% 0%

5% Restore buildings 6% 2%

All Visitors Domestic Visitors International Visitors

1.5.6 Visitor Expenditure

Information on visitor expenditure patterns was also collected in the Visitor Behaviour Survey.

Day visitors spent an average of USD 16.76 during their visit to the three TDAs. For domestic overnight visitors, average expenditure on this visit amounted to USD 74.53. Where international visitors are concerned, average expenditure on their visit was significantly higher, at USD 139.55.

As can be seen from Table 1.35 below, the higher expenditure on this visit recorded in respect of International visitors can be explained by the higher average per capita daily expenditure (USD 38.66 compared to USD 24.52 for domestic overnight visitors). One quarter of domestic overnight visitors stayed with friends and relatives.

Table 1.35: Visitor Expenditure (USD) Total Domestic Day Domestic Overnight International Visitors Visitors Visitors Average Length of Stay (days) 3.17 - 3.04 3.61 Average Per Capita 24.39 16.76 24.52 38.66 Daily Expenditure (USD) Average Per Capita 77.31 16.76 74.53 139.55 Expenditure for Visit (USD)

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

As can be seen from Figures 4.43 and 4.44 below, the spending of visitors impacts on a wide range of economic sub-sectors and businesses in Yogyakarta. While hotels and other accommodation types and shops are the primary beneficiaries, accounting for 28% and 27% share of visitor expenditure respectively, restaurants and food providers (17%), transport providers (9%), and sightseeing tour operators (12%) each account for a significant share of visitor spend.

Figure 1.43: Visitor Expenditure - Impact on Sectors of the Economy Holiday, cultural and sporting activities Shopping 5%Sightseeing 27% tours 12% Local transport 9% Food and drink 17% Accommodatio n Other 28% 2%

The visitor expenditure pattern for domestic visitors compared to international visitors and day visitors compared to overnight visitors is presented in Figure 1.44 below. While the expenditure pattern is quite similar for both cohorts, both domestic day visitors and domestic overnight visitors allocate a higher proportion of their expenditure on shopping (36% and 32% respectively as against 14%). International visitors, on the other hand, allocate one fifth of their total expenditure on sightseeing/admission to attractions compared to 16% for domestic day visitors and 8% for domestic overnight visitors. This is consistent with the fact that international visitors are in the TDAs in order to view some of their exceptional and unique attractions, whereas domestic visitors are more likely to be on a pleasant day out and to be seeking gifts to take home to friends and family.

Figure 1.44: Total Visitor Expenditure - Impact on Sectors of the Economy Domestic Overnight All Domestic Day Visitors Visitors International Visitors 0%

Accommodation 27% 27% 29% 28%

Food and drink 17% 16% 18% 15% 5% Sightseeing tours 8% 12% 21% 4% Holiday, cultural 5% and sporting 36% activities 8% 26% 32% Shopping 14% Local Transport 14% 9% 9% 9% Other 2% 1% 1% 5%

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

The average per capita daily expenditure value for international visitors recorded in the Visitor Behaviour Survey (USD 38.66) differs significantly from the corresponding estimate of USD 105 recorded in the BPS Passenger Exit Survey 2016 (see Table 1.15). The Visitor Behaviour Survey value is however closer to the average per capita daily spend of European visitors recoded in the BPS Passenger Exit Survey.

As with the country of residence analysis presented earlier, caution should be exercised in making direct comparisons between the two sets of expenditure data. The Visitor Behaviour Survey comprised a higher proportion of visitors from Europe and visitors using non-star rated/homestay accommodation. A review of homestay websites indicates that the latter form of accommodation is available at an average of USD 10-12 per room per night (or USD 5-6 per person per night).

The lower average per capita daily expenditure recorded in the Visitor Behaviour Survey can also be explained by the young age profile of international visitors, 73% of whom were under 35 years of age.

1.5.7 Overall Rating

The overall high levels of satisfaction recorded in the Three-quarters of visitors Visitor Behaviour Survey is reflected by the fact that three- indicated that they would be very quarters of visitors indicated that they would be very likely likely to recommend the to recommend the destination to friends or relatives. destination to friends or relatives. Different levels of endorsement were recorded in respect of domestic and international visitors, with two-thirds of domestic visitors indicating that they would be ‘very likely’ to return but only one-third of international visitors claimed that they would be ‘very likely’ to return to and a further one quarter ‘likely’ to return. The difference can be largely explained by the fact that for most international visitors their visit to the area is likely to be a one-off.

Table 1.36: Overall Rating All Visitors Domestic International LIKELIHOOD OF RECOMMENDING VISIT TO FRIENDS & RELATIVES Very Likely 67% 65% 73% Likely 27% 28% 23% Neutral 5% 6% 3% Unlikely 1% 1% 0% Very Unlikely 0% 0% 0% LIKELIHOOD OF RETURNING Very Likely 54% 55% 51% Likely 26% 27% 19% Neutral 12% 12% 12% Unlikely 5% 4% 9% Very Unlikely 3% 2% 9%

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

1.6 Tourism Trade Perspectives

As a key component of the market research undertaken for this assignment, the Consultant conducted a survey of 60 tourism trade professionals in Indonesia and key overseas markets in order to obtain an insight into current perceptions of Borobudur–Yogyakarta–Prambanan and identify potential demand opportunities, i.e. high potential markets/market segments. The survey also sought to establish feedback on potential tourism products and experiences in the TDAs that could be developed to cater for target markets and market segments identified. The tourism trade survey complements the survey conducted by Horwath HTL for the Baseline Supply & Demand, Market Demand Forecasts and Investment Needs for Borobudur-Yogyakarta-Prambanan.

1.6.1 Sample Details

The survey, which was conducted online from 16th October to 24th December 2018, comprised interviews with inbound tour operators, outbound operators and Visit Indonesia officers in Indonesia’s source markets and hoteliers in Yogyakarta. Respondent details are outlined below. The sample of inbound tour operators is representative of the membership of the Association of the Indonesian Tours and Travel Agencies (ASITA Yogyakarta). A full listing of respondents is presented in Appendix 1.2.

Figure 1.45: Sample Details

Hotelier 15% Visit Indonesia Tourism Officer Overseas Inbound Tour 8% Operator 68% Outbound Tour Operator in Source Markets 8%

The tourism businesses which participated in the survey cater for a wide range of international visitors. The motivations of their clients vary in terms of purpose of visit. As indicated in the Visitor Behaviour Survey, the overwhelming majority of visitors (9 out of 10) travel independently, and therefore make their own holiday arrangements.

The following table sets out a sample of itineraries offered by inbound tour operators. Itineraries of 1-2 days’ duration are primarily focused on heritage and culture, featuring the flagship attractions of Borobudur and Prambanan WHS and Yogyakarta City. Longer (4-6 day packages) extend to other locations in Central Java and incorporate nature/geological attractions in addition to heritage and culture. A number of operators also include activities in their packages.

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Table 1.37: Inbound Tour Operators, Sample of Itineraries Operator Package name Duration Scope of Itinerary Jogjakarta Tour 2 days, 1 Day 1: Prambanan night Day 2: Kraton, Taman Sari, lunch at a local restaurant, visiting Kotagede that is famous for silverware, Borobudur Temple

Yogyakarta Package 2 days, 2 Day 1: Borobudur Temple, small Buddhist Temple nights Day 2: Yogyakarta, Pindul Cave, Indrayanti Beach Day 3: Yogyakarta, Kraton, Taman Sari, Prambanan Temple Jalan Jogja Tour 2 days, 1 Day 1: Ijo Temple, Tebing Breksi, Kotagede, batik night Day 2: Palace, Taman Sari, Prambanan temple, Malioboro, Borobudur temple Malam Budaya Jogja Tour 2 days, 1 Day 1: Kraton & Taman Sari, Kotagede, batik night Day 2: Prambanan Temple, Malioboro, Borobudur Temple Personal Yogja Tour 1 day Ijo Temple Breksi Cliff Becici Forest, Mangunan Orchard Shopping for Batik, Silver, Malioboro Beautiful Day Jogja Tour 1 day Borobudur temple Kraton & Taman Sari Prambanan temple Shopping for Batik, Silver, Malioboro Love Story Tour 1 day Sunrise at Punthuk Setumbu Chicken Church, Breksi Cliff Becici Forest, Mangunan Orchard Shopping for Batik, Silver, Malioboro From Merapi to the Beach, 2 days Day 1: Merapi Lava Tour - Prambanan Temple - Malioboro Overland Adventure Day 2: Goa Pindul - Pasir Putih Beach - Bukit Bintang Stories of the three Temples 1 day Borobudur Sunrise, Prambanan Temple, Belanja Oleh-Oleh, Ratu Boko Sunset, Ramayana Ballet Rafting on Elo River + Borobudur 1 day Rafting Sungai Elo - Borobudur Temple - Malioboro - Yogyakarta Souvenir Center + Malioboro Adrenaline Run, Gondola Ride and 1 day Goa Pindul - Timang Gunungkidul Beach - Bukit Bintang - Yogyakarta Souvenir Center Body Rafting Lava Tour Merapi + Hindu Temple 1 day Merapi Lava Jeep Tour - Sambisari Temple - Prambanan Temple - Center For Souvenir

Nature Tourism: Activities and 3 days Day 1: Purba Volcano - Goa Pindul (Pindul Cave) - De Mata Trick Adventure Day 2: Sunrise Mangunan - Pine Forest - Prambanan Temple - S / L / D Lantern Park

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Operator Package name Duration Scope of Itinerary Day 3: Shopping Tourism Malioboro - Kotagede Java Bali Package 21 days, Keraton, Borobudur temple, & horse cart tour in Candirejo Village (3 days in Yogyakarta, 2 days in 20 nights Free time in Yogyakarta Semarang) in total Prambanan Semarang Old Town Jogja and Central Java Tour 6 days, 5 Day 1: Malioboro Street JOGJA COMPASS TOURS Package nights Day 2: Borobudur Temple Sunrise, Dieng Plateu Day 3: Jomblang Cave, Timang Beach Day 4: Gedong Songo Temple, Ambarawa Railway Museum Day 5: Solo City Tours, Mangkunegaran Palace, Sangiran Fossil Museum, Sukuh Temple, Cetho Temple Day 6: Jogja City Tour, Prambanan Temple, Ratu Boko Temple, Ramayana Ballet Jogja 5 Days 4 Nights Tour 5 days, 4 Day 1: Malioboro Street Package nights Day 2: Borobudur Sunrise, Dieng Plateu, Arjuna Temple, Sikidang Crater, Color Lake Day 3: Lava Tour, Jogja City, Prambanan Temple, Sewu Temple, Plaosan Temple, Ramayana Ballet Performance Day 4: Solo City Tour, Suku Temple, Cetho Temple Day 5: Pottery Tour at Kasongan Yogyakarta 5 Days 4 Nights Tour 5 days, 4 Day 1: Sambi Sari Temple, Prambanan Temple, Ramayana Ballet at Purawisata Package nights Day 2: Jomblang Cave, Optional: (Cave Tubing at Pindul Cave/Trekking at Ngglanggeran Volcano/Gondola at Timang Beach Day 3: Mangunan Sunrise, Pine Forest, Sand Dune, Parangtritis Beach Sunset, Depok Beach Day 4: Borobudur Sunrise, Dieng Plateau Area, Arjuna Temple, Sikidang Crater, Color Lake Day 5: Lava Jeep Tour, Yogyakarta City, Kotagede Progo River Rafting Borobudur 1 day Progo River Rafting and Borobudur Temple Temple Tour Merapi Sunrise Lava Tour, Jeep 1 day Mount Merapi Adventure Dieng Plateau Tour: Sikunir 1 day Dieng plateau Golden Sunrise Source: BYP ITMP Consultants

BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

1.6.2 Method of Travel to Central Java

Tour Operators and Hoteliers indicated that their customers use a variety of methods of travel when visiting Central Java including by air, rail, road and sea.

Figure 1.46: Method of Travel to Central Java

Adisutjipto Airport - Yogyakarta 77% Tugo Station 58% Road - from West Java 33% Road - from East Java 28% AdiSumarmo Airport - Surakarta 18% Ahmad Yani Airport - Semarang 17% Other Railway Station 8% Solo Balapan Station 7% Tanjung Mas Port 5%

The findings clearly indicate a level of airline usage higher than indicated in the Visitor Behaviour Survey. This can be explained by the fact that tour operator customers are more likely to use this form of transport than visitors generally.

1.6.3 Main Purpose of Travel

The importance of culture as a motivating influence is confirmed by the fact that eight in ten respondents cite this as the primary purpose of travel. This pattern is broadly consistent with international trends – particularly in respect of the European outbound market. The demand for nature-based experiences is also significant and is mentioned by almost two thirds of respondents. The survey findings also confirm strong levels of visitor interest in culinary/food experiences (mentioned by 50% of respondents), encounters with local communities (37%), soft adventure (38%) and local festivals and events (35%) as complementary activities to culture-based and nature-based tourism experiences.

Over half of the respondents cater for clients whose main purpose of travel is city tourism. This category includes individuals travelling for the purpose of business meetings, conferences and events (MICE). This is a high yield segment with potential for delivering year-round business, and is currently welcomed by hoteliers in Yogyakarta as a way of filling rooms during quieter seasons.

Figure 1.47: Main Purpose of Travel

Culture-based tourism experiences 82% Nature-based experiences 63% City tourism (meetings, incentives,… 53% Culinary/food experiences 50% Soft Adventure (e.g. Hiking, cycling) 38% Beach and water sports 38% Encounters with local communities 37% Local festivals and events 35% Visiting friends/relatives 15%

75 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

1.6.4 Level of Demand for Tourism Categories

Trade professionals were presented with a list of different categories of tourism travel. For each category, respondents were asked to compare the current level of demand with that of five years ago.

As indicated in Figure 1.48 below, a majority of the trade report an increase in demand for culture and nature-based tourism experiences compared to five years ago. Excluding those who did not respond to this question, on balance, demand has also grown for ‘experiential tourism’ including encounters with local communities, participation in festivals and events, traditional culture and food: this correlates closely with the rising demand for experiential tourism described at the start of this chapter. The demand for ‘homestay’ accommodation as recorded in the Visitor Behaviour Survey is indicative of visitors’ desire to spend time with local communities. The question on Beach & Water sports was included in this case to give a comparative level of interest in this sector, even though this is not an option in any of the TDAs.

Figure 1.48: Level of Demand compared to 5 Years Ago Encounters Culinary/ Festivals & Soft Beach & Culture Nature with locals food City Tourism events Adventure MICE water sports

23% 28% 32% 32% 30% 42% 42% Demand has 50% Increased 58%

30% 23% 27% 23% 30%

25% 25% 7% 7% 8% Demand has 13% 27% Remained 12% the Same 23% 5% 8%

5% 38% 40% Demand has 34% 37% Decreased 8% 28% 25% 27% Don’t Know/ 18% 10% No Reply

As can be seen from Figure 1.49 below, demand for these The destination is well positioned categories of tourism are expected to continue to grow to capitalise on the expected over the next 5 years. As can be seen from Section 1.5.5 on continued growth on demand for ratings of appeal of Borobudur-Yogyakarta-Prambanan, the culture-based holidays. destination is well positioned to capitalise on the expected continued growth in demand for culture-based holidays – although with the proviso that ‘deeper’ interpretive experiences are provided for a more knowledge- seeking clientele.

76 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Figure 1.49: Expectations in terms of demand for the next 5 years Encounters Culinary/ Festivals & Soft Beach & Culture Nature with locals food MICE events Adventure City Tourismwater sports

40% 48% 48% 55% 53% Expect Demand 60% 60% 68% to Increase 77%

25% 13% 22% Expect Demand 15% 25% to Remain the 13% 17% 3% 3% Same 3% 15% 3% 7% 3% 7% Expect Demand 12% 32% 3% 27% 30% to Decrease 3% 23% 20% 23% 20% 14% Don’t Know/ 9% No Reply

Section 1.5.6 Rating of Tourism Experience in Borobudur-Yogyakarta-Prambanan benchmarks the destination’s current performance on a range of criteria.

1.6.5 Rating of Appeal of Borobudur-Yogyakarta-Prambanan

In order to assess the current appeal of the Borobudur-Yogyakarta-Prambanan as tourist destinations, the trade professionals were presented with a list of five statements and were asked to rate the TDAs on each.

A majority rated the destinations as excellent in respect of ‘culture and heritage exploration/ exceptional cultural traditions and heritage sites’. Very positive ratings were also recorded for Borobudur-Yogyakarta-Prambanan as destinations offering ‘experiential tourism’ including authentic Javanese experiences and interactions with local residents. The city of Yogyakarta is also seen as having a good vibe. The following verbatim comments were recorded:

“The centre of Java has unique aspects and features such as culture (Javanese massage, dance, music, culinary, batik, language, etc); architecture (Buddhist temple - Borobudur, Hindu's temple - Prambanan, some other temples which demonstrate the diversity of Buddhism and Hinduism until Islam reached Java).”

“Yogyakarta is a special region province which still has a Sultan as the Governor. The hospitality and way of life of the Javanese peoples (always smile, and "nrimo") make tourists feel like home.”

77 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Figure 1.50: Rating of Appeal of Borobudur-Yogyakarta-Prambanan Culture and heritage Local interaction - exploration - Touched by Yogya - excellent destination City with many exceptional cultural interactive and Yogya - place where for engaging and opportunities - traditions and authentic Javanese past, present and interacting with culture, nature, city heritage sites experience future meets locals vibes

Excellent 37% 35% 33% 32% 52%

28% 27% 35% Good 35% 25% 13% 15% Fair 8% 2% 12% 3% 3% 2% 2% Poor 20% 18% 23% 18% 22% No Reply

1.6.6 Rating of Tourism Experience in Borobudur-Yogyakarta- Prambanan

In a similar vein, respondents were asked to rate the Borobudur-Yogyakarta-Prambanan experience across a wider range of criteria.

In addition to the strong appeal and impact of the region’s cultural/heritage sites, satisfactory ratings were recorded in respect of accommodation, hospitality and friendliness and the food/culinary offer of the region. However, less satisfactory ratings were given for ‘value for money’, direct air access, road and rail access and public transport. The high levels of ‘no reply’ are also indicative of the fact that tourism trade professionals are not as familiar with the TDAs as other parts of Indonesia. The following verbatim comments were recorded in response to this particular question:

“Indonesia in general is experiencing severe decrease of Korean visitors, losing out from competition with other SE Asia countries closer to Korea such as Philippines, Vietnam. As price and time is the most important factor for Korean tourists in choosing a destination, Indonesia is the least preferable option as there is a limited number of direct flight connections in comparison to other SE Asia, which has growing number of LCC connections from regional airports in Korea such as Busan and Daegu. Seoul is the only airport in Korea where provides direct flight service to Indonesia.”

“Most tourists go to Bali, then Yogyakarta and Jakarta. Borobudur-Yogyakarta-Prambanan is unfamiliar.”

78 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Figure 1.51: Rating of Tourism Experience in Borobudur- Yogyakarta- Prambanan

Cultural tourism Hospitality & Quality of Nature tourism sites Accommodation friendliness guiding sites Value for money Road access Interpretation Excellent 13% 12% 8% 20% 18% 15% 15% 28% Good 33% 43% 40% 42% 42% Fair 33% 48% 55%

Poor 22% 17% 18% 28% Very Poor 15% 27% 10% 13% 8% 3% 5% 2% No Reply 2% 2% 23% 18% 18% 18% 23% 20% 22% 18%

79 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Using a similar approach, a batch of statements specifically Yogyakarta is not seen as a city relating to the Yogyakarta TDA were presented to survey that is easily navigated by visitors. participants. On this occasion, respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with each statement. It is clear from the results that Yogyakarta has significant appeal as a cultural tourism destination with potential to offer a wide range of authentic and distinctive Javanese experiences to visitors. However, it is not seen as a city that is easily navigated or accessed by visitors.

Figure 1.52: Level of Agreement with statements Yogyakarta It is visible that provides many Yogyakarta is a There are plenty of Yogyakarta is a It is easy to interact types of Yogyakarta is visitor welcoming city for things to do in cradle of traditional with the locals in experiences to friendly visitors Yogyakarta Javanese culture Yogyakarta visitors

Totally Agree 47% 45% 43% 43% 53% 53%

Partly Agree 27% 28% 27% 28% 20% 22% Do not Agree 3% 7% 7% nor Disagree 2% 2% 5% 3% 2% Partly/Totally Disagree 22% 22% 22% 23% 22% 22% No Reply

It is easy to navigate in Yogyakarta is a tolerant Yogyakarta is easily Yogyakarta and its Yogyakarta keeps up Yogyakarta is a safe city city accessible/convenience surroundings with the times

17%

37% 33% 42% 40%

47%

Totally Agree 35% 28% 37% 35% Partly Agree 10% 5% 8% Do not Agree 2% 4% 5% 2% 5% nor Disagree 23% Partly/Totally 22% 22% 22% 22% Disagree No Reply

80 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

1.6.7 Types of Tourism Experiences Customers Are Interested in

Trade professionals were presented with a list of potential tourism experiences to be offered in the TDAs. For each, respondents were asked for their opinion as to how interested their customers would be.

Consistent with findings presented earlier, there is very significant interest in heritage and cultural tourism in Borobudur-Yogyakarta-Prambanan and specific aspects including encounters with locals, sampling Javanese food, and attending festivals or events. High levels of demand are also reported in respect of nature-based tourism – although very few activities of this type are currently available, this potentially gives a steer towards future development plans. Again, the question on beach & water sports was included to give a comparative marker to the other questions.

Figure 1.53: Types of Tourism Experiences Customers are interested in in Borobudur-Yogyakarta - Prambanan Beach & Central Java Encounters Culinary/ Festivals & Soft City water Culture Nature Exploration with locals food events Adventure Tourism MICE sports

25% 22% 33% 33% 37% 37% Very Interested 43% 42% 55%

72% 25% 28%

32% 32% 28% 27% 25% 38% 13% Quite 17% Interested 25% 8% 7% 7% 9% 5% 3% Not Very/ Not 10% at all Interested 33% 36% 27% 27% 29% 29% 0,23 0,22 Don’t Know/ 18% 20% No Reply

81 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

1.6.8 Growth Prospects for the Borobudur, Yogyakarta and Prambanan TDAs

The tourism trade professionals interviewed for this Tourism trade professionals are survey were optimistic regarding the growth prospects for optimistic regarding the growth Borobudur-Yogyakarta-Prambanan. The level of optimism prospects of Borobudur- extends to the short term (to 2025), medium term (to Yogyakarta-Prambanan. 2030) and longer-term horizon (beyond 2030). The figures are based on year-on-year growth in total bookings.

Figure 1.54: Growth Prospects for Borobudur -Yogyakarta- Prambanan Short term (2019-2025) Medium Term (2026-2030) Long term (beyond 2030)

Very Strong Growth 33% 35% 37%

Moderate Growth 42% 42% 38%

2% No Growth 5% 2% 4% 2% 2% Decline 18% 20% 20% No Reply

1.6.9 Markets and Market Segments offering best potential for growth

Consistent with current visitor patterns, the domestic Europe and Asia are seen as market is identified as offering the best potential for offering good prospects for growth for the TDAs. In terms of international markets, growth and the Chinese market is both Europe (particularly Germany, Netherlands and maturing and becoming more France) and Asia (Singapore, Malaysia, China and Japan) sophisticated. are seen as offering good prospects for growth.

Having said that, caution must be exercised to ensure that the focus is not only on numbers, but also on yield. For instance, there are complaints from local operators that the Chinese market is not lucrative locally because the tour structure ensures that most expenditure accrues to the home country. However, as the Chinese market is maturing consumers are demanding a more diversified range of experiences, including local cultural experiences as well as visiting flagship attractions.41

41 McKinsey & Co. (2018) Chinese tourists: dispelling the myths. An in-depth look at China’s outbound tourist market.

82 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Figure 1.55: Markets offering the best potential for growth for Borobudur-Yogyakarta-Prambanan

Domestic Indonesian Market 72% Germany 58% Singapore 58% Netherlands 56% France 54% Malaysia 52% Other European Countries 44% China 44% Japan 44% Australia/ New Zealand 38% Other East Asian Countries 30% North America 26%

Consistent with the findings presented earlier for the Visitor Behaviour Survey, trade respondents identify culture, culinary tourism, experiential tourism, and community tourism as having potential for growth. The MICE market is also seen as having good prospects.

However, although prospects are promising there are challenges to be overcome which are identified elsewhere in this report. Amongst the challenges are the fact that, as indicated in the verbatim comment below, the TDAs collectively are not as well-known as others in Indonesia and the wider Asia region.

“BYP is not as well known as others in Indonesia and the wider Asia region.”

“Tourists need to have product knowledge first i.e. ‘Things to see and do’, food, shopping, nightlife etc with information to clarify major concerns such as safety and security and connectivity etc.”

Figure 1.56: Market segments offering best potential for growth

Culture 55% Culinary/ food 53% Experiential tourism 48% Village/ community tourism 48% Festivals & events 40% MICE 37% Soft Adventure 33% General sun/ beach 25% Water sports 10% Cruise 3%

83 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

1.6.10 Interest in Dual Location Packages

In a final question, trade professionals were presented with a list of destinations and asked which of the destinations could potentially be combined with the TDAs as dual location packages. It can be seen from Figure 1.57 that packages combining Borobudur-Yogyakarta-Prambanan with Bali are seen as having the greatest potential. Interest also exists in combined offers involving Solo, Semarang and Jakarta.

Figure 1.57: Dual location packages

Bali, Indonesia 65% Solo, Indonesia 50% Semarang, Indonesia 42% Jakarta, Indonesia 37% Siem Reap/Angkor Wat, Cambodia 23% Historic City of Ayutthaya, Thailand 13% Lumpini, Nepal 8% Luang Prabang, Lao PDR 5%

1.7 Key Issues and Opportunities

It is clear that the Borobudur-Yogyakarta-Prambanan TDAs have a very strong domestic tourism base. Although the majority of visitors are day trippers and therefore not ‘tourists’ in the international sense, their demand for attractions, catering and shopping is strong so their needs have to be catered for, while they offer considerable potential for activities organised at local level which can help spread the benefits of tourism. They have significant economic, social and physical impact on all three destinations and in particular on the Borobudur and Prambanan WHS because of the volume of numbers. These aspects will be taken into consideration during the next stages of the ITMP process.

In order to generate more foreign exchange earnings for Indonesia, more attention should be given to the market segments that bring most yield to the region. In international arrivals, more focus should be given to regional Asian source markets, which have the highest outbound growth potential.

Key issues arising from the market analysis can be summarized as follows:

 While the overall number of visitors to DI Yogyakarta and Central Java has increased significantly in recent years, international tourism in the TDAs represents only a small fraction of overall visitor numbers and a small fraction of international tourism to Indonesia.

 Tourism within Asia and the Pacific region is growing fast, with an expected annual average growth of 8.5% for the Chinese outbound market to 2022. Where international markets are concerned, opportunities exist to grow tourism from Asia (in particular China and Indonesia’s neighbouring countries of Malaysia and Singapore), Europe (particularly Germany, France and the Netherlands).

 Currently, Borobudur and Prambanan receive significantly fewer international visitors than comparable UNESCO World Heritage Sites. From the Visitor Behaviour Survey, two reasons

84 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

for this could be the high entrance fee and poor interpretive facilities, resulting in a perception of low value-for-money for international tourists.

 The domestic market is likely to remain the primary market for the TDAs into the future. Holiday and leisure travel is increasing among domestic tourists (22% in 2014; 39% in 2019) while VFR has decreased (55% in 2014; 44% in 2016). This is also noticeable in the star-rated hotel occupancy rates. This trend will be taken forward in future plans.

 Domestic tourism is well-balanced around the four quarters of the year. This provides a good basis for tourism development provided that an increase in overnight visitors to reduce the proportion of day excursionists (63% at the moment) can be made, and that youth tourism can be well managed.

 The growth in visitor numbers to the area is currently matched by the growth in room availability. Despite (or because of) the moratorium on hotel building in Yogyakarta, the informal sector of guest-houses and online-only accommodation is expanding.

 The TDAs are also well positioned to build on Yogyakarta’s reputation as a centre for business and education. The MICE and education markets complement the holiday/vacation market and have the potential to deliver year-round tourism business.

 It is expected that NYIA will facilitate a considerable increase in the percentage of arrivals to DI Yogyakarta and the TDAs, although this will depend on the other integrative factors of an improved tourism services infrastructure and a market-responsive product offer.

 The WHS of Borobudur and Prambanan together with the attractions in Yogyakarta City represent the core tourism product offer of the destination for international tourists. Scope exists to enhance the quality of the visitor experience, especially through better interpretation, and also to build on existing smaller attractions and introduce more in order to develop a more diversified range of cultural and nature-based experiences, including festivals and events, traditional music and dance, food/cuisine, and encounters with local communities and residents.

85 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

2. Tourism products and services

This chapter outlines the basic services, products and sectors in the TDAs and KTAs, including accommodation, conference facilities and restaurants (Sections 2.1 to 2.3), and attractions in the three TDAs, including intangible cultural heritage (Sections 2.4 to 2.6). We include an indication of the online presence of tourism-related businesses in the area in Section 2.7, comment on access for disabled people to the tourism facilities in Section 2.8, then outline government plans with regard to tourism in Section 2.9 and the wider geographical context of the TDAs in Section 2.10. Due to the nature of the area, most of the focus is on cultural heritage products, although there are a small number of rural products and many ‘fun’ attractions designed mainly to attract a local market.

The pre-eminent position of Yogyakarta in the TDAs The pre-eminent position of Yogyakarta reflects its role as the economic and education centre in the TDAs reflects its role as the of DI Yogyakarta and the southern part of Central Java, economic and education centre of DI as well as a hub of rail, air and road transport linkages. Yogyakarta and the southern part of While cultural tourism is one of the cornerstones of the Central Java, as well as a hub of rail, air tourism sector, two additional visitor segments drive and road transport. visitor demand in the city and the area generally: the MICE and VFR segments (as discussed in Chapter 1).

Throughout this chapter data has been drawn from the following principal sources covering the TDAs:

 The Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS), Bappeda and Investment and Licensing Offices (Dinas Penanaman Modal dan Perizinan) for DI Yogyakarta, the City of Yogyakarta, Central Java, and Kab. Magelang  Dinas Pariwisata (Tourism Offices) for DI Yogyakarta, the City of Yogyakarta, Central Java, Kab. Magelang, Kab. Sleman, Kab. Klaten

Further information and insights have been derived from structured observation.

2.1 Accommodation

2.1.1 Accommodation – Yogyakarta

The TDAs consist of three clusters: Borobudur, Prambanan and the City of Yogyakarta. We concur with the Horwath HTL finding that hotel demand is currently satisfied overwhelmingly for two of the three elements, namely Yogyakarta and Borobudur/Magelang. Accommodation provision associated directly with Prambanan, which is nowadays effectively a suburb of Yogyakarta, is negligible. Of the two accommodation clusters the overwhelmingly dominant centre is Yogyakarta.

According to figures from the City of Yogyakarta municipality, there were 580 hotels in Yogyakarta in 2017 (90 star-rated and 490 non-star rated).42 There has been a significant increase in recent years. (also illustrated in Figure 2.1 below, although this exaggerates the increase as the 2016 stage has been missed off).

42 BPS Yogyakarta (2018) Kota Yogyakarta Dalam Angka / Yogyakarta City in figures 2017

86 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Figure 2.1: Growth in hotel rooms in Yogyakarta 2010-17

Source: Yogyakarta City in Figures 2018

The figures set out in Table 2.1 below also show significant increases in the number of rooms in both the City of Yogyakarta and DI Yogyakarta more broadly, with rapid growth between 2012 and 2017, averaging 22% per year for the Province and 27.6% per year for the City. The table also shows the percentage of rooms in the City at around 60% of the Province overall, rising towards the end of the period to over 70%; this is slightly misleading as several large and popular hotels are just outside the City boundary and are therefore included in the statistics for the Province rather than the City, even though to all intents and purposes their guests perceive themselves as staying ‘in Yogyakarta’.

Table 2.1: Room availability in Yogyakarta KOTA/PROVINCE 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 DI YOGYAKARTA 6,389 8,171 9,280 10,725 13,709 14,432 20,426 GROWTH 27% 13.6% 15.6% 27.8% 5.3% 41.5% KOTA YOGYAKARTA 3,752 4,933 5,877 6,381 8,391 8,991 14,966 GROWTH 31% 21.1% 8.6% 31.5% 7.2% 66% KOTA AS % OF 58.7% 60.4% 63.3% 59.5% 61.2% 62.3% 73.2% PROVINCE Source: BPS DI Yogyakarta (2017)

It has been suggested that this large increase in room provision has been driven by speculative property development. On the other hand, it is also likely that growth has been supported by the measures taken to deregulate the tourism industry under President Joko Widodo’s administration43. Through the same period, visitor arrivals to the province of DI Yogyakarta rose from 2,837,962 to 4,549,574, an increase of 160%, indicating that room supply is broadly being driven by increasing demand. The implications for infrastructural development and investment of the increase in room numbers and tourist arrivals (also discussed in Chapter 1) will be discussed in the Growth Projects and Development Scenarios.

Statistics are not available for occupancy rates over time in hotels in the different kecamatan of Yogyakarta or for the City itself, but the table below (reproduced from Chapter 1 for ease of reference) shows occupancy rates for the province of DI Yogyakarta as a whole.

43 Guild, J. (2018) Indonesia’s Booming Tourist Industry, The Diplomat, June 7

87 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Table 2.2: Occupancy rates at star-rated and non-star rated hotels in DIY 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Star-rated hotel 57.4% 61.9% 61.9% 63.7% 63.7% 67.5% Non-star rated 38.5% 38.6% 38.6% 38.5% 42.2% 43.9% accommodation Source: Tourism Statistics 2017, DI Yogyakarta Tourism Office

This table illustrates an apparent oversupply in hotel rooms in the early part of the decade, which resulted in a moratorium on new hotel permits being issued from 2013-17 by the Mayor of Yogyakarta.44 This was subsequently extended and by February 2019 showed no sign of being lifted.45 In principle the moratorium applies to all hotels and guesthouses in the 3-star category or below, with 4-5 star hotels exempt. This was arranged in an attempt to drive Yogya’s hotel stock upmarket.46 The notable increase in the number of hotels and rooms since the imposition of the moratorium is explained by hotels with pre-existing licenses being built during the period and to the expansion of existing hotels, which is permitted. There appears to be weak enforcement in the case of smaller establishments.

As discussed in Chapter 1, there is particular pressure on rooms throughout the TDA at certain times, especially over the long public holidays at the end of Ramadhan and over Christmas/New Year, but despite this, there are no plans to lift the moratorium on issuing new licenses for hotels below the 4- 5-star category.

Table 2.3 gives more granular data on the supply of hotels and rooms in the Yogyakarta TDA and KTA. It can be seen that the 6 Kecamatan of the KTA provide 44.6% of hotels in the TDA and 37.9% of the number of beds.

Table 2.3: Quantity of Hotels and Rooms in Yogyakarta KTA compared with TDA

Hotels in TDA Total Rooms in TDA Total

Star Non-star Star Non-star Yogyakarta 90 490 580 8,652 8,111 16,763 Hotels in KTA Rooms in KTA

Kecamatan Star Non-star Star Non-star

Danurejan 5 37 42 571 512 1,083 Gedongtengen 22 139 161 1,807 1,869 3,676 Ngampilan 2 18 20 268 297 565 Gondomanan 3 13 16 529 155 684 Kraton 0 11 11 0 86 86 Kotagede 1 8 9 110 159 269 Total 33 226 259 3,285 3,078 6,363 KTA as %age of 36.6% 46.1% 44.6% 37.9% 37.9% 37.9% TDA

44 Indonesian Hotel & Restaurant Association (PHRI) (2016) reported in Koran SINDO, November 5 45 Interview with Wawan, Program and Data Division, Dinas Pariwisata Kota Yogyakarta, 6 February 2019 46 Interview with Agustin Wijayanti, Head of Sub-Unit for Local Economy and Finance, Bappeda, City of Yogyakarta, 7 February 2019

88 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Source: BPS (2018)47 2.1.2 Accommodation – Borobudur

As far as Borobudur is concerned, there were 7 star-rated hotels and 44 non-starred hotels recorded for the whole of Kab. Magelang. In 2016 (the last year for which figures are available). In that year, foreign tourists stayed for an average of 1.37 nights and domestic visitors for an average of 1.28 nights, with no marked seasonality but, as with Yogyakarta, very high demand over public holidays. There was a longer stay recorded in star-rated hotels, at 1.46 days as opposed to 1.03 days in non- star-rated hotels. Occupancy rates were only 39% on average across the year for both categories, with January and June the quietest months for non-starred hotels (31% occupancy or below) and April, July and December the busiest months (each showing around 45%), while in starred hotels the quietest months were again January and June (below 30% occupancy) and April, May and December the busiest months (44% and above, reaching 61% in April).48

There is no information available on which kecamatan the hotels are located in and the 2016 figures do not include the 20 Balkondes in Kec. Borobudur, all of which provide accommodation of around 4-8 rooms. There is also an unknown number of homestays, which are most prevalent in the villages closest to the Borobudur temple site.

While the City of Magelang is outside the Borobudur TDA, it is worth noting that there are 7 star- rated and 12 non-star-rated hotels there, although information on room capacity and occupancy levels is not available. Interestingly, the government office there still uses the old ‘Melati’ system to classify its non-star-rated hotels, although it is rare to see this nowadays and there is no information available as to what criteria the ratings are based on.49

2.1.3 Accommodation – Prambanan

According to government statistics, there are no starred hotels in Kec. Prambanan-Klaten, although there are 5 non-starred establishments with 1-9 beds, 14 with 10-19 beds, and 4 larger guesthouses with 20-29 beds.50 As with Magelang, these are described as ‘Melati’ establishments.

There is only one hotel (non-starred) registered in Kec. Prambanan-Sleman, while there are 624 hotels listed for the whole of Kab. Sleman (49 starred and 575 non-starred). The large number of hotels in the kabupaten as a whole is explained by the fact that this district borders the northern part of the City of Yogyakarta and includes the campus of Gadjah Mada University and other university campuses, along with many other service industry concentrations and malls.

On the other hand, research on the ground revealed several guesthouses around Prambanan and a resort hotel (Sumberwatu) 10 minutes’ drive to the south, near Ratu Boko. As with Borobudur, the places visited varied from small budget hotels to larger establishments. Here, the standard of accommodation was generally somewhat basic. The reviews tended to be fairly luke-warm, with comments on how the establishments needed updating. It is likely that the proximity of Prambanan to the City of Yogyakarta and the larger hotels of Sleman means that most visitors do not bother to stay here, making it unviable for hotel owners to invest in upgrading their establishments. However, some of the simpler establishments gained good reviews, as does the most expensive hotel in the Prambanan KTA/TDA, the Sumberwatu. With all establishments, the warmth and friendliness of the hosts or staff are significant factors in generating good reviews.

47 Biro Pusat Statistic (2018) Kota Yogyakarta Dalam Angka (City of Yogyakarta in Figures) 2017 48 BPS Kabupaten Magelang (2017) Kabupaten Magelang Dalam Angka / Magelang District in Figures, 2017 49 BPS Kota Magelang (2018) Kota Magelang Dalam Angka / Magelang Municipality in Figures, 2017 50 BPS Kab. Klaten (2018) Kabupaten Klaten Dalam Angka / Klaten in Figures, 2017

89 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

2.1.4 Accommodation standards and Accreditation

BPS define a hotel as an enterprise which has a daily supply of accommodation rooms within a building which can be equipped with eating and drinking services, entertainment activities and/or other facilities and that hotels can be classified or non-classified. A classified hotel is a business providing accommodation, eating and drinking facilities as well as other services for the public by using a building or a part of a building. It is managed commercially and meets specified requirements as a star hotel (including diamonds).

Indonesian hotels are rated by the Indonesian Hotel and Restaurant Association (PHRI), which has over 6,000 member hotels and restaurants as well as associate members. There are two basic categories of accommodation, star-rated and non-star-rated. The principal difference between these, as interpreted by the BPS, is that star-rated hotels must have a restaurant on their premises that is managed by the hotel. PHRI however have a broad range of parameters in their evaluation and they differentiate between one to five-star properties. The PHRI evaluation criteria are exhaustive: in the case of 5-star hotels they have no less than 208 standards to meet for classification.

However, the ‘star’ accreditations on booking engines appear to The ‘star’ accreditation on be at variance with the PHRI system. Current categories do not booking engines appears to include guesthouses, hostels (often called ‘losmen’) and be at variance with the PHRI homestays: as noted above, the system for this which formerly system. existed in Indonesia (the Melati classification) appears to have been largely abandoned.

In principle accreditation is compulsory but it is not enforced.

A weak aspect in hotels, guesthouses and homestays of all standards and all TDAs is any appreciation of environmental management systems. Given the growing market concerns about climate change, a key marketing message for accommodation could be developed centred on energy-saving and water-saving measures, as well as better waste management. These aspects often save businesses money as well as reducing environmental impacts.

A further weakness is the lack of preparedness by accommodation establishments in the event of a disaster such as an earthquake, with no information on evacuation routes and meeting points generally available in hotels or guesthouses. It is recommended that the provision of clear emergency and disaster information to guests, posted in their rooms, become a legal requirement and strictly enforced.

90 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

2.1.5 Informal Accommodation Sector

A recent and fast-growing trend in Indonesia, as in many markets, has been the advent of the private home rental and the ‘informal’ accommodation sector. According to the online booking service Agoda, the informal sector groups an accommodation offer ranging from a room in someone’s home to apartments.51 There is a strong overlap in sites such as Agoda and Airbnb with the formal sector of registered hotels, since the online marketplace offers much convenience for both buyer and seller. The growth of the informal sector and its impact on trade has been well documented in other countries:52,53 for instance in Sri Lanka it is thought that 50% of visitors opt for accommodation in the informal sector. While the positive aspects of this can be convenience, wider choice and a good experience for consumers, on the negative side it can result in tax evasion, poor standards, potential security threats to guests, and fraudulent activities.54 In December 2018, AirBnB listed some 304 properties being offered for holiday rentals in Yogyakarta.

The issue has been raised by both tour operators and hoteliers in interviews carried out under the ITMP BYP programme. If international trends are followed, this type of activity may sharply increase in the coming years: not only will this be to the detriment of traditional forms of tourist accommodation, but it will put a strain on infrastructure resources which is not necessarily accounted for in traditional methods of measuring visitor volumes, such as through occupancy levels in registered hotels. This factor will need to be taken into account in forward planning.

A major informal accommodation sector in Yogyakarta which is overlooked in tourism statistics is the provision of low-cost accommodation originally rented by the year or month in boarding-houses, known as ‘kost’ (or ‘kos’). These are either rooms in private houses or purpose-built lodgings aimed at students or junior/shortstay workers; they include apartments.

A specialist website listed 4978 rooms available in Kost in Yogya city and surroundings in January 2019.55 While not primarily catering for tourists, they provide accommodation for the many students in the city who form an important excursionist market for visitor attractions. However, in this case – as with much of the accommodation at different standards - there is increasing blurring of the distinction between the short-stay overnight (tourist) market and longer-stay visitors, since rooms in kos are also advertised on booking sites such as Airbnb and can be rented by the night or week, while apartments and rooms in some hotels can be booked for longer periods at a discounted rate (normally discounted at a month or more). The most popular booking site for kos is Mamikos.com, while dparagon.com lists franchised kosts and guesthouses at the upper end of this market.56 There is no licensing system for the kos.

51 Agoda Outside (n/d) The Informal accommodations market is here to stay (https://outside.agoda.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/01/Agoda-Outside-white-paper-MS-Word-template.pdf) 52 Guttentag, D. (2015) Airbnb: disruptive innovation and the rise of an informal tourism accommodation sector, Current Issues in Tourism 15(12) 53 Williams, C.C. and Horodnic, I.A. (2017) Regulating the sharing economy to prevent the growth of the informal sector in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29 (9). pp. 2261-2278 54 Ellepola, Y. (2017) Booming informal accommodation sector: bane or boom of Sri Lanka’s tourism? Institute of Policy Studies, November 20 55 https://mamikos.com/kost/kost-jogja-murah 56 http://dparagon.com/

91 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

No historical data is available for this sector nor are there any official statistics, although observation and anecdotal evidence suggest that the sector is growing rapidly: as these establishments are unregulated they are also not covered by the moratorium on hotel-building. Given the enthusiasm with which Indonesians (both consumers and providers) have welcomed the ‘sharing economy’, it appears likely that many overnight stays by domestic visitors are absorbed by these facilities.

2.2 Conference and Exhibition Facilities

With its deep cultural roots, Javanese culinary offer and educational function, Yogyakarta is a significant player in the MICE market with large numbers of public and private sector events being staged. The city has established itself as a conference and exhibition destination in the domestic market and to a lesser extent the international one, with large numbers of public and private sector events. In addition, the educational sector is a major generator of MICE tourism through the staging of numerous conferences, conventions and exhibitions in the city. In 2015, some 842,000 domestic visitors57 - 7% of total arrivals - stated that their purpose of visit was to attend an event. It has also been reported by some hoteliers that up to 15% of their Yogyakarta has established annual business is MICE-related. The MICE market is itself as a conference and particularly important during the leisure tourism low season exhibition destination. when it serves to maintain hotel occupancy rates.

Information on conference venues uncovered so far indicates that there are some small and medium-sized facilities in the Yogyakarta TDA with many others just outside it in the wider Yogyakarta metropolitan area, but none in the Prambanan or Borobudur TDAs. The WHS at the centre of these TDAs however form an important draw for people attending the conferences in Yogyakarta since visits to them can easily be arranged before or after the conference, either individually or as part of conference field trips. During the data-gathering period for the Baseline Analysis Report, for instance, Yogyakarta hosted the General Assembly of the International Council of Women, as part of which the delegates stayed in several of the newly-built Balkondes around Borobudur.

In response to the demand for events in the Yogyakarta area a number of meeting venues have been developed of varying capacities. The principal venues are primarily associated with hotels and are capable of accommodating small to medium scale events of up to 1,000 delegates (Table 2.4). The larger venues – including the Jogja Expo Center – are located outside the TDAs.58

57 Dinas Pariwisata Yogyakarta 2015 58 Even the Jogja Expo Centre, with a floor area of 8,640 m² over 6 halls, offers insufficient accommodation to host major national/international events, where in excess of 20,000 m² is generally demanded.

92 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Table 2.4: Principal MICE venues in Yogyakarta TDA Venue Meeting Rooms Capacity Grand Inna Malioboro 17 The largest can accommodate up to 600 people, total capacity 2070. Hotel Tentrem 14 The largest can accommodate 1250 people, with total capacity of 3990. Phoenix Hotel 7 meeting rooms Room capacity 40-500, with total capacity of 2010. Melia Purosani Hotel 1 ballroom, 15 function rooms. Room capacity 40-800, total capacity 2130. Grand Aston Hotel 1 ballroom + 3 meeting rooms Room capacity 100-800, total capacity 1300. Cavinton Hotel A ballroom and 2 smaller meeting rooms. Up to 500 people in total. Swiss Bel-Hotel 8 rooms, some can be combined. Total capacity of 480. Hotel Neo 3 meeting rooms. Total capacity of 210. Novotel Jogya 4 meeting rooms. Total capacity of 350. Grand Zuri Hotel 4 meeting rooms. Total capacity of 250. Ibis Styles Malioboro 6 meeting rooms. Total capacity of 432. Hotel 101 Tugu 10 meeting rooms. Total capacity of 760. Source: ITMP BYP Consultants from various hotel websites

2.3 Restaurants and Catering

2.3.1 Yogyakarta

Yogyakarta in particular has an excellent range of restaurants representing culinary traditions from around the world. Javanese food is renowned for certain ingredients and specialities, especially gudeg (made from unripe jackfruit) and bakpia, sweet filled pastries often purchased as souvenirs. The tradition of lesehan, roadside food-stalls selling a range of foods, where customers sit on mats or low benches, is well established here and much enjoyed by local visitors and the city’s large student population, as are the pop-up warung (informal eateries) which appear at road-sides as night falls, rapidly constructed from metal poles and plastic sheeting (see photo, below). Local food- stalls can be found on almost every street corner and there is a small number of food-courts.

Roadside foodstall (warung) in Yogya operating partly from a kakilima (literally, ‘five feet’), so called after the two feet of the person pushing it and the three legs which provide stability (in the original versions at least).

The only statistics it has been possible to find on the number of restaurants in Yogyakarta indicate that in 2016 there were 350 restaurants, an increase from 327 in 2015 and 313 in 2014.59 However,

59 Dinas Pariwisata DI Yogyakarta (2017) Statistik Kepariwisataan 2016, Yogyakarta

93 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

hundreds of additional restaurants are of the lesehan and ‘pop-up warung’ variety or food-courts, so a genuine quantification is impossible. Iconic establishments include the Bale Raos, serving European and Javanese food in the Kraton; Omah Dhuwur and Sekar Kedhaton in Kotagede, with good food and beautiful architecture; the long-established Legian, on Jl. Malioboro; the newer ‘hip’ establishments of Mediterranea, Milas Vegetarian and ViaVia, catering to Jogja’s art-crowd, expatriates and tourists in the Prawirotaman area; and the bizarre but fascinating House of Raminten, which doubles as a living museum of Javanese art, in Kota Baru. A good chain of Indonesian food with a few outlets around the city is Madam Tan’s, while the Yu Djum gudeg restaurants are also popular and guarantee a good standard of this local delicacy. Table 2.5 lists the principal iconic and Javanese restaurants in the city.

Table 2.5: Principal iconic and Javanese restaurants in Yogyakarta TDA Restaurant Address Bale Raos Jalan Magangan Kulon No.1, Panembahan, Kraton, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55131 Omah Dhuwur Jl. Mondorakan No.252, Bodon, Prenggan, Kotagede, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55172 Sekar Kedhaton Jl. Tegal Gendu No.28, Prenggan, Kotagede, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55173 Legian Jl. Perwakilan No.9, Suryatmajan, Danurejan, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55213 Mediterranea Jl. Tirtodipuran No. 24 A, Mantrijeron, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55143 Milas Jl. Prawirotaman 4 No. 127B, Parangtritis, Brontokusuman, Mergangsan, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55153 Via Via Jl. Prawirotaman No.30, Brontokusuman, Mergangsan, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55153 House of Raminten Jl. Faridan M Noto No.7, Kotabaru, Gondokusuman, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55224 Madam Tan Jl. Jend. Sudirman No.16, Gowongan, Jetis, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55233 Gudeg Yu Djum Jl. Wijilan No.167, Panembahan, Kraton, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55131 Nanamia Jl. Tirtodipuran No.1, Mantrijeron, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55143 Warung Bu Ageng Jl. Tirtodipuran No.13, Mantrijeron, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55143 Kedai Kebun Jl. Tirtodipuran No.3, Mantrijeron, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55143 Lotus Mio Jl. Tirtodipuran No.10, Mantrijeron, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55143 Poka Ribs Jl. Tirtodipuran No.20, Mantrijeron, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55143 Canting Galeria Mall Rooftop, Jl. Jend. Sudirman No.99-101, Terban, Gondokusuman, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55223 Cangkir 6 Jl. Kapten Laut Samadikun No.16, Wirogunan, Mergangsan, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55151 Bumbu Desa Jl. Kartini No.8, Terban, Gondokusuman, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55223 Sasono Ondrowino Jl. Pekapalan No.7, Prawirodirjan, Gondomanan, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55121 Pendopo Ndalem Jl. Sompilan Ngasem No.12, Kadipaten, Kraton, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55133 Bilik Kayu Heritage Resto Jl. Ipda Tut Harsono No.72, Muja Muju, Umbulharjo, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55165 Den Nany Resto Jl. Taman Siswa No.150-F, Wirogunan, Mergangsan, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55151 Sixsenses Kitchen Jl. DI Panjaitan No.39, Mantrijeron, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55143 Bong Kopitown Jl. Sagan No.4, Terban, Gondokusuman, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55223 My Kopi O Jl. Candrakirana No.21, Terban, Gondokusuman, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55223 Mahkota Chinese Food Jl. Pajeksan No.25, Ngupasan, Gondomanan, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55122 (Tiong San) Secret Garden Jl. Prof. DR. Ki Amri Yahya No.2, Pakuncen, Wirobrajan, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55253 Kesuma Restaurant Jl. Sartono No.858, Mantrijeron, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55143 Lombok Idjo Jl. Pangeran Diponegoro No.64, Gowongan, Jetis, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55233 Bedhot Resto Jl. Sosrowijayan Wetan GT1 No.127, Sosromenduran, Gedong Tengen, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55271 Shabu Auce Jl. Jend. Sudirman No.3, Cokrodiningratan, Jetis, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55233 Silol Jl. Suroto, Kotabaru, Gondokusuman, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55224 Bakmi Kadin Jl. Bintaran Kidul No.6, Wirogunan, Mergangsan, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55151 Raminten's Kitchen Jl. Sabirin, Kotabaru, Gondokusuman, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55224

94 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Source: ITMP BYP Consultants

These restaurants have been plotted on a map (see There are very few restaurants or Figure 2.2 below), showing that concentrations of mid cafés on Jl. Malioboro. to high-range restaurants can mainly be found in the Kota Baru and Jl. Prawirotaman areas. This last area evidences the closest approximation of a ‘café culture’ that exists in Yogyakarta. Surprisingly, there are very few restaurants or cafés on Jl. Malioboro itself, possibly because they feel unable to compete with the lesehan and the batik / souvenir stalls; there are slightly more on Jl. Margo Utomo, the northwards continuation of Malioboro. A few new cafés have opened fairly recently within Kec. Kraton, and there are food-stalls and small restaurants around both the north and south alun-alun. Figure 2.2 also indicates the location of clusters of low-end eateries.

Figure 2.2: Concentration of Restaurants in Yogyakarta TDA

Source: ITMP BYP Consultants

95 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Most restaurants are no longer permitted to sell alcoholic drinks, even beer, which is an inhibiting factor for increasing international tourists’ dwell time. Beer is generally still available in some of the larger and more expensive restaurants and those within the larger hotels.

One of the two tourism-related opportunities in the 2017 ‘Jogja Investment’ report produced by the DIY Agency for Cooperation and Investment is to create more destination-style restaurants to raise the appeal of the food offer in the city.60

2.3.2 Borobudur

The BPS for Kab. Magelang has published some statistics for restaurants in the district. Out of the 21 Kecamatan, only 11 have recorded restaurants, of which the highest numbers are the Kecamatan covered by the TDA (see Table 2.6 below).61 It should be noted that in the opinion of the Consultant this is a considerable under-estimate: it is likely that only the medium-sized and larger establishments are included in these figures rather than the many smaller ones. Nevertheless, the statistics reveal that four out of the five kecamatan included in the TDA are the best served in terms of restaurants, indicating that they have already responded to the opportunities offered by the thousands of domestic and international visitors to the area.

Table 2.6: Restaurants in Kabupaten Magelang (2016) Kecamatan No. of restaurants Mertoyudan (TDA) 40 Mungkid (TDA/KTA) 25 Muntilan (TDA) 18 Borobudur (TDA/KTA) 10 Secang 7 Salaman 5 Salam 4 Tempuran (TDA) 3 Tegalrejo 3 Grabag 1 Dukun 1 Remaining 10 Kecamatan 0 Source: BPS Kab. Magelang (2017)

2.3.3 Prambanan

The BPS office for Kec. Prambanan-Sleman lists only 16 restaurants, while there are no statistics available for Kec. Prambanan-Klaten. The Prambanan-Sleman statistics only cover official restaurants and not the smaller and non-permanent establishments. Three mid-range restaurants in this area are the Ramayana, Prambanan Galery and Abhayagiri.

2.4 Product offer

A list of attractions in the TDAs is presented in Appendix 2.1. Other than the flagship attractions of the World Heritage Sites of Borobudur and Prambanan, most of the places are popular with domestic tourists rather than international ones. Having said that, certain places which featured in

60 Badan Kerjasama dan Penanaman Modal DIY (2017) Jogja Istimewa: Potensi Investasi Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta 61 Restaurant numbers are also available for 2015 but the figures are identical.

96 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

the popular romantic film ‘Ada Apa Dengan Cinta 2’ (AADC2) are finding great popularity with the Southeast Asian market, as the film was released in other Indonesian/Malay-speaking countries as well as in Indonesia itself (the implications of this for visitor arrivals were discussed in Chapter 1). Some of the 16 attractions listed in the trail are in or close to the TDAs, although only three (Kotagede, Ratu Boko Palace, in Kec. Prambanan (Sleman) and Punthuk Setumbu, in Kec. Borobudur) are in the KTAs. 2.4.1 Borobudur TDA and KTA

The leading attraction of the TDA, as well as being The leading attraction of the TDA is the emblematic of Indonesian tourism, is the Borobudur Borobudur Temples Compound WHS. Temples Compound WHS. The complex, which is in the form of a Buddhist mandala, dates from the 8th and 9th centuries and is one of the great Buddhist sites of the world.

The Borobudur TDA is focused on the Borobudur temple site which is fringed to the north and east by the village of Borobudur. The temple itself measures only 1.4 ha. The World Heritage Property Boundary is shown in red in the figure below, with the Temple itself in green, while the Buffer zone boundary is shown in yellow. These boundaries follow the recommendations of the 1979 JICA plan. However, the actual area of Zones 1 and 2 differ from those prescribed in the World Heritage Centre listing.

Figure 2.3: World Heritage Property Boundary and Buffer Zone Boundary

Source: World Heritage Centre, n/d

The entire area of these two zones and a wider area are now encompassed by by Preservation Sub- Zones 1 and 2 (SP-1 and SP-2).

The main features of the site are illustrated in the figure below, and are:  The Borobudur Temple  The Samudra Raksa Museum  The Karmawibhangga Museum  The Visitor Arrival Area  The former Manohara Hotel (closed in June 2018)

97 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

 The Borobudur Conservation Office (Balai Konservasi Borobudur)

Figure 2.4: Plan of installations on Borobudur Temple Site

Source: ITMP BYP Consultants

Associated with the site are the offices of the site management agencies of the Borobudur Conservation Office and PT. TWC, as well as souvenir shops, a food sellers’ area, parking, elephant rides and an art gallery. As well as these formally established functions there are a significant number of informal uses populating the site and the parking area. These include large numbers of hawkers and an installation of cleaner fish (which nibble the dead skin on people’s feet) outside the Archaeological Museum.

The site and its grounds are generally well maintained, however the high visitor numbers, particularly on peak days, and the proliferation of incompatible uses on and around the site give the attraction more of the atmosphere of a funfair than that of a sacred and heritage asset of international significance.

The 20 villages of Kec. Borobudur have seen a number of interventions, including capacity-building programmes run by UNESCO and the creation of Village Economy Centres (Balkondes), which were set up under a programme organised by PT TWC and paid for by other large state-owned enterprises (see map, Figure 2.5). The Balkondes in Kec. Borobudur are already starting to develop a more diversified form of tourism: for instance, there is a so-called ‘Junkyard’ next to the Wanurejo Balkondes where people can pose with old motorbikes and cut-down cars to take Instagrammable photos (see photo, left), and at the Karanganyar Balkondes there is a ‘Community Gallery’ where UNESCO has been supporting villagers to showcase their handicrafts.

98 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Figure 2.5: Map of Balkondes in Kec. Borobudur

Source: ITMP BYP Consultants

In addition, there are several Desa Wisata in the TDA, where community-based tourism takes place. Tour packages lasting from two hours to two or three days to experience village life in varying depth are offered. They are the villages of Candirejo, Karanganyar, Borobudur, Wanurejo (in Kec. Borobudur), Ngawen (in Kec. Muntilan), and Bojong Kojor and Kalangan Kulon (in Kec. Mungkid). The best known is Desa Wisata Candirejo, Kec. Borobudur, where the agrotourism and nature tourism offer includes short hikes to explore the local woodland of the Menoreh Hills. 62

There is some other tourism in the area, mainly but not entirely focussed on the Borobudur Temple. A popular activity is watching the sun rise over Borobudur from a variety of viewpoints, including

62 In Candirejo the tourism is labelled locally ‘ekowisata’ (ecotourism), mainly because the original impetus for tourism here came from the Indonesian Ecotourism Network (‘Indecon’).

99 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Bukit Rhema (the ‘Chicken Church’ – actually intended to resemble a Dove of Peace); Puncak Sethumbu, in the Menoreh Hills, and Bukit Barede. There is a variety of soft adventure options in the form of hiking and cycling, while the Kecamatan of Mungkid and Mertoyudan, north-east of Borobudur, are popular for tubing and rafting along the Elo and Progo rivers. There are smaller attractions such as a ‘Camera Room’, which promotes itself as an art gallery and ‘selfie paradise’. These are also shown on the map in Figure 2.6. Figure 2.6: Map of visitor attractions in Borobudur TDA

Source: ITMP BYP Consultants

As can be seen from this map and Figure 2.7 showing the Balkondes, there is already a concentration of tourism activity in Kec. Borobudur.

Figure 2.7 shows the proximity of three of the ‘sunrise spots’ to each other, to the west of the Borobudur Temple (the three locations are Bukit Rhema, Punthuk Setumbu, and Bukit Barede). The location makes it possible to view the sun rising behind the temple and the mountains behind it.

100 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Figure 2.7: Map of three ‘sunrise spots’ in Borobudur TDA

Source: BYP ITMP Consultant

Figure 2.8: Photos from three ‘sunrise spots’ in Borobudur TDA

Photos: Top left (1): Sunrise from Punthuk Setumbu (Borobudur Temple showing on right); Top right (2): Borobudur Temple from Bukit Barede; Bottom (3): Sunrise behind Mt. Merapi and Mt. Merbabu from Chicken Church.

Sources: (1) punthuksetumbu.com; (2) Tripadvisor.com; (3) bukitrhema.com

The district government of Kab. Magelang collects visitor arrival statistics for 14 attractions in its area, only 6 of which are in the TDA (see Table 2.7 below). Meanwhile, there are 52 visitor attractions on the list compiled by the ITMP BYP team, with 3 in Kec. Mertoyudan, 4 each in Kec. Tempuran and Kec. Muntilan, 6 in Kec. Mungkid, and 35 in Kec. Borobudur (including the Balkondes and their associated attractions). The full list of these is shown in Appendix 2.1.

101 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Table 2.7: Visitor attendance at various attractions in Borobudur TDA (2016) Attraction Kecamatan Domestic International Total visitors visitors Borobudur Temple Borobudur 3,594,684 200,616 3,795,300 Pawon & Mendut Temples Borobudur/Mungkid 1,492 73,676 75,168 Sethumbu Hill Borobudur 78,616 24,270 102,886 Ngawen Temple Muntilan 41,266 209 41,475 Rhema Hill (‘Chicken Borobudur 26,544 112 26,656 Church’)* Mendut Recreation Park Mungkid 91,385 0 91,385 *Figures for Rhema Hill are incomplete Source: Kab. Magelang in figures (2018) op. cit.

The popularity of ‘sunrise spots’ such as Punthuk Sethumbu and Rhema Hills should not be underestimated since these are popular with all markets, and consideration will be given in later stages of the ITMP process to this factor.

Villagers and local entrepreneurs are well aware of the popularity of ‘sunrise spots’ are opening up more, such as Punthuk Sukmojoyo and Punthuk Mongkrong, in the wooded hills to the south-west of Borobudur (Figure 2.9).

Figure 2.9: Satellite view of new ‘Sunrise Spots’ south-west of Borobudur Temple

Source: BYP ITMP Consultants

Punthuk Mongkrong was described in December 2016 as a ‘spot baru’ (‘new spot’) and ideal for viewing both sunrise and sunset.63 The same article described it as an ‘open secret’ that the Magelang area is perfect for enjoying panoramic views at both sunset and sunrise (Figure 2.10).

63 Riani, A. (2016) Punthuk Mongkrong, Spot Baru Sunrise dan Sunset di Magelang, fimela.com, 17 December

102 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Figure 2.10: Panoramic view from Mongkrong Hill

Source: dimas.hy/Instagram (2019)

A fee is generally payable for entering and using the ‘Instagramable’ facilities at these locations, ranging from Rp. 5,000 (Punthuk Mongkrong) to Rp. 20,000 (Bukit Rhema), depending on the popularity of the location and the time of day or day of the week (the fees are slightly more for foreigners). It should be noted that the fee payable by domestic tourists for the ancient, unique and irreplaceable World Heritage Site of Borobudur Temple is Rp. 40,000 – just double the fee for using the facilities at the more popular of the ‘sunrise spots’, which are no more than easily replicated locations for people to enjoy the view and take selfies to post on Instagram. Concern was expressed by one tour operator informant that once a ‘selfie spot’ becomes popular the path to it is tarmacked over by the local government, souvenir and drinks sellers arrive, the spot becomes crowded, and the experience is no longer a pleasant one for people who may be paying for a more exclusive experience.64

2.4.2 Prambanan TDA

Prambanan is the only one of the 3 areas involved in the ITMP where the TDA and KTA cover the same area, i.e. the two Kecamatan of Prambanan (in Kab. Sleman) and Prambanan (in Kab. Klaten).

The Prambanan Temples Compound WHS, located some The Prambanan Temples Compound 8 km northeast of Yogyakarta, is one of the flagship WHS is one of the flagship tourist tourist attractions of DI Yogyakarta and southern Central attractions of DI Yogyakarta and Java. The 9th century temple is dedicated to the Hindu southern Central Java. deities Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. The central building reaches a height of 47m and is considered to have once been the tallest free-standing structure in the Southern Hemisphere. Inscribed onto the UNESCO list of World Heritage Sites in 1991, the temple compound is centre of a wider complex of temples stretching across the Prambanan Plain. The Kabupaten and Provincial boundary cuts through the WHS, with the northern part in Kec. Prambanan (Klaten) and the southern part in Kec. Prambanan (Sleman). Klaten is in the Province of Central Java while Sleman is in the Province of DI Yogyakarta.

The Prambanan complex differs from Borobudur in its proximity to a major city; it could be described as being within the ‘Yogyakarta Metropolitan Area’, in that development between the City of Yogyakarta and Prambanan is effectively contiguous, much of it being strip development along the provincial highway to Klaten and on to Solo.

64 Interview with staff of ViaVia tour agency, Yogyakarta, 10 November 2018

103 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

The site itself contains several further temples in addition to the main Shiva complex, of which the principal ones are:  Candi Lumbung  Candi Bubrah  Candi Sewu

The principal attractions and facilities at the Prambanan site are shown in Figure 2.11.

Figure 2.11: Prambanan Attractions and Facilities

Source: ITMP BYP Consultants

The Prambanan Museum is located between the Shiva The Prambanan Museum is in poor Temple and Lumbung Temple. The museum is built in condition and does not reflect the traditional Javanese architectural style. The museum’s unique nature of the site and its relics. collection comprises a variety of temple stones and statues found around the location of the Prambanan temple, for example the Nandi bull statue, Agastya Rishi, Shiva, Wishnu, Garuda, and Durga Mahisasuramardini statues; it also includes a sacred Shiva Linga stone, a symbol of fertility. Sadly, the building and its displays are in poor condition with very poor interpretation, and do not reflect the unique nature of the site and its relics.

Linkages to other temples in the area Linkages to other temples in the area are very weak, are weak, inhibiting the development even ones close to the main site, inhibiting the of a clear and accessible circuit of sites development of a clear and accessible circuit of sites for tourists. for tourists. In particular, to the east Candi Plaosan and Candi Plaosan Kidul are no more than 1200m from the Prambanan site, but access to these temples is not direct and difficult to navigate.

104 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

These and other smaller temples in the region represent an anomaly in that while Prambanan and its sister site of Ratu Boko Palace (also in the TDA/KTA and managed by PT TWC) are expensive to visit, costing US$25 each for international tourists, the small temples are under the management of the Cultural Heritage Preservation Centres of Central Java or DI Yogyakarta and can be visited by foreigners and locals alike for just Rp. 3000, a tiny sum. There is an opportunity here to create an enhanced product focused on the fascinating history of the Mataram period, but the failure to do this so far and to create a more ‘joined up’ product is mainly due to institutional reasons. The entrance to Prambanan Temple is in the province of DI Yogyakarta while Plaosan is in Central Java, and there is little cooperation between the two government offices, while PT TWC, which manages tourism aspects of Prambanan, encourages people to remain on the site and pay for additional activities.

There are few other tourism opportunities so far in the TDA, although the local governments and communities have been proactive in developing some. There are 6 Desa Wisata in the TDA: Kebondalem Kidul and Bugisan in Kec. Prambanan-Klaten, and Plempoh/Bokoharjo, Nawung, Rumah Domes and Sambirejo in Kec. Prambanan-Sleman. Visitor numbers to the attractions were discussed in Chapter 1, while Figure 2.12 shows the main attractions on a map.

Figure 2.12: Map of visitor attractions in Prambanan TDA/KTA

Source: ITMP BYP Consultants

Figures 7.13 to 7.14 show overall satellite views of the Prambanan KTA, while Figures 7.15 to 7.16 show satellite views and photographs of the principal sites within this.

105 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Figure 2.13: Satellite view of key attractions in Prambanan TDA/KTA (northern area)

Source: BYP ITMP team

Figure 2.14: Satellite view of key attractions in Prambanan TDA/KTA (southern area)

106 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Source: BYP ITMP team

Figure 2.15: Plaosan Temple: Satellite view and photograph

Source: Compiled by BYP ITMP team; PMS BYP, 2019

The twin temples of Plaosan (under government management, as mentioned above) are located at the village of Bugisan, in Kec. Prambanan-Klaten.

Bugisan has Desa Wisata status and the village organizes an annual ‘Twin Temples’ Festival, and has created a ‘Lantern Park’ (Taman Lampion) on land adjacent to the temple site.

Figure 2.16: Ratu Boko Palace: Satellite view and photograph

Source: Compiled by BYP ITMP team; Kompas Travel, 2014

107 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Figure 2.17: Temples of Banyunibo and Barong: Satellite view and photographs

Candi Banyunibo Candi Barong

Source: Compiled by BYP ITMP team; PMS BYP, 2019

Other than at the WHS site of Prambanan Temple Compounds, most archaeological tourism in Kec. Prambanan-Sleman place around the temples of Ratu Boko, Banyunibo, Barong, and Ijo. These are located in or near two villages, Bokoharjo and Sambirejo, but again there has been little attempt to develop a narrative or route (on foot, by cycle or by car) to showcase the history and purpose of these temples. Most of the area around the temples is composed of agricultural land (mainly sawah rice-fields) or in the case of the temples in hillier areas (Ratu Boko and Candi Ijo) by terraced crop- fields and mixed community forest.

Sambirejo is also home to the area’s 2nd-most popular attraction after the Prambanan WHS – the Breksi Cliff, or Tebing Breksi. This former limestone quarry was closed by the local government in 2014. After a year-long intensive programme of preparation involving local artists from Yogyakarta in carving statues, reliefs and stairways into the limestone cliffs, Tebing Breksi was opened by the Sultan of Yogyakarta in May 2015 and is now a fast-growing destination.

108 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Figure 2.18: Breksi Cliff Park and Temple of Ijo: Satellite view and photographs

Breksi Park Candi Ijo

Source: Compiled by BYP ITMP team

2.4.3 Yogyakarta TDA and KTA The metropolitan area of Yogyakarta has now expanded far beyond its original boundaries (see photo) and now extends well into Kab. Sleman and Kab. Bantul. The population of the City of Yogyakarta was 422,732 inhabitants in the 2017 census, while its built-up area was estimated to be around 3.4 million.

The Yogyakarta TDA is formed of the whole of the City of Yogyakarta, while the KTA consists of five kecamatan clustered along either side of Jl. Malioboro, the principal thoroughfare of Yogyakarta, together the walled area around the Kraton (palace), and the historic district of Kotagede in the southeast. The five contiguous kecamatan forming the older heart of the city are Gedongtengen, Danurejan, Ngampilan, Kraton and Gondomanan, with Kotagede separated from them by intervening areas which have largely developed over the last 30 years. These districts are illustrated on the map below, with the TDA boundary shown in green and the KTA boundaries in red.

109 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Figure 2.19: Map of Yogyakarta TDA and KTA

Source: ITMP BYP Consultants

Yogyakarta is reportedly the most densely developed urban area on Java, with an average population density of 130 persons per hectare. In comparison, Jakarta has an average population density of 43.8 persons per hectare. A noticeable feature of the city, in comparison to other major cities of Java (Jakarta, Bandung, Semarang and Surabaya), is the almost total absence of open space in the urban area. Other than the two town squares (alun-alun) associated with the Kraton, the city has no meaningful areas of A noticeable feature of the parkland at its core for residents and visitors to enjoy. The city is the almost total largest green space within the city is Gembiraloka Zoo, at 22 absence of open space in the hectares, which is pleasantly green and forested, but access to urban area. the site is on a paid-for basis.

At one time the rivers running north-south from Merapi provided wooded and green corridors of landscape running through the urban area. However, the river banks and valleys have now largely been consumed by areas of informal and largely sub-standard housing. Chaotically developed communities (see photo, left) lack basic urban services and are at constant risk of uncontrollable fires spreading through neighbourhoods. They also lack sewage and drainage systems and are in themselves a major source of river pollution.

This lack of public open space, as well as the lack of adequate For visitors and residents alike sidewalks in most places, places a good deal of stress on the walking experience in streetscapes where pedestrians are often forced into Yogyakarta is not pleasant. roadways by the absence of sidewalks and the presence of food vendors. For both visitors and residents alike the walking experience in Yogyakarta is not a pleasant one and should be addressed in KTA proposals.

110 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Development within the city, and along the main arterial routes serving it, is typified by low-rise storey structures of a wide variety of uses and generally of poor design quality. The overall effect is of a somewhat chaotic streetscape and highly congested roads. There are numerous examples of modern integrated developments or medium-rise hotels being implanted into the urban area, including the Malioboro Mall and the Hotel 101 Tugu; these sit as islands within the existing townscape, often contrasting with the low-rise character of the city, rather than being developed as elements of a wider approach to urban restructuring.

Yogyakarta has many visitor attractions, ranging from cultural to amusement parks. As discussed in Chapter 1, the most popular attractions are the ones aimed at domestic visitors, with the Zoo by far the most popular. It is likely that part of the reason for this is because it offers the only pleasantly green and shaded area within the City (see photo).

The principal attractions are shown in Figure. 7.20 and described below, with lists of attractions and addresses in Appendix 2.1

111 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Figure 2.20: Map of Principal Visitor attractions in Yogyakarta TDA

Source: ITMP BYP Consultants

Jalan Malioboro Jl. Malioboro is the principal thoroughfare of the City of Yogyakarta. A key visitor attraction, the area abounds with retail outlets, hotels and (especially at night) food stalls.

Along Malioboro are clusters of historic buildings which have been preserved and maintained, although many sections of the street have been degraded by inappropriate development and building remodelling. Some work was carried out in 2018 to improve the streetscape. A one-way traffic flow has been initiated, and wider pedestrian footpaths, new street furniture and the replacement and reinforcement of soft landscaping is greatly enhancing the aesthetic amenity. For the greater part, however, little action has been undertaken to improve, restore or maintain the area’s built fabric. Commercial premises are festooned with large advertising signs and hoardings which in many cases obscure fine old buildings. In extreme case additions have been added to building In general, little action has been frontages which are completely out of character with undertaken to restore or maintain the the original structure. Sensitively restored, these older visual amenity and built fabric of the Jl. buildings would create a unique and attractive Malioboro area. streetscape for residents and visitors alike.

On Jl. Malioboro, a cluster of heritage buildings is degraded by inappropriate building extensions and excessive advertising signage. The street would benefit from a building preservation and renovation programme to safeguard and improve its cultural significance.

112 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

An example of a ‘heritage cluster’ which could be readily restored is the stretch of the road opposite the Grand Inna Hotel where some fine buildings have been defaced by excessive signage and modifications. On the other hand, a few heritage buildings have been carefully restored and maintained by their owners: perhaps the best example of this is north of the railway line close to the Tugu Pal Putih, while there are also a number of restored Chinese shophouses along the southern end of Malioboro.

On Jl. Margo Utomo, an example of a heritage building which has been carefully restored to accommodate a quality retail outlet and restaurant.

The Consultant has analysed this street in four distinct sections, commencing at its northern extremity. These are:

a) Jl. Margo Utomo (formerly Jl. Pangeran Mangkubumi)65: The area extending from the Tugu Pal Putih monument to the railway line. b) Upper Malioboro, the commercial heart of the street extending from the railway line south beyond the Malioboro Mall. c) Lower Malioboro, the old colonial administrative area centred on Fort Vredeburg and including Pasar Beringharjo and the Chinese Quarter (Kampung Ketandan). d) The Kraton, the historic and cultural core of Yogyakarta. a) Jl. Margo Utomo / P. Mangkubumi Figure 2.21 shows the street running northwards from the railway line to the Tugu Pal Putih. This is effectively an extension of Jl. Malioboro but is very different in character and content from the section south of the railway and extending to the Kraton.

Figure 2.21: Map delineating Jl. Margo Utomo area

65 The street name was changed in 2013 from Jl. Pangeran Mangkubumi to Margo Utomo.

113 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Source: ITMP BYP Consultants

The road is the location of several large hotels, including the Harper and Tugu 101, while the Hotel Phoenix is nearby on Jl. Sudirman. The ‘tourist’ area of the road effectively ends at the emblematic Tugu Pal Putih monument, symbol of the city. To enter this street from Jl. Malioboro visitors must traverse the railway line as well as a conflicting and potentially hazardous system of roads and barriers which make little concession to pedestrian movement.

Although this stretch is heavily frequented by tourists walking to the Tugu Pal Putih and the lesehan nearby, the street is in a poor state of repair. Sidewalks are dirty and broken with inadequate and low-quality street furniture. At the junction with Jl. Sudirman is a model of Yogyakarta City showing the relationship between Jl. Malioboro, the Tugu Pal Putih and the Kraton, with a series of bilingual panels relating the history of the area. This small open area is heavily frequented by local residents in the evening, many of them taking selfies against the background of the Tugu, or even trying to reach the monument itself in the face of heavy traffic. Movement for pedestrians around this area generally is particularly difficult, with pavements heavily obstructed by barriers and fixtures forcing pedestrians from the sidewalk in places (see photo), a situation further exacerbated in the evening by the proliferation of street food vendors.

With a few notable exceptions of a small number of renovated structures, building conditions along the road are generally very poor with structures in a state of disrepair and occupied by uses such as

114 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

vehicle repair shops which are incompatible with tourism areas. A significant number of what appear to be abandoned businesses lend further weight to the sense of decay. One of these buildings is the Hotel Toegoe, a historic structure listed as ‘Cagar Budaya’ – cultural heritage – and yet which is being allowed to collapse and rot away.

Hotel Toegoe, one of the principal hotels in Yogyakarta in the first half of the 20th century but now abandoned. The roof has collapsed (not visible in this photo).

b) Jl. Malioboro For the purposes of this analysis we consider ‘Upper Malioboro’ to be the stretch of street running south from the railway line to beyond the Malioboro Mall. This is the area most closely associated with retail activities and is a major draw for visitors to the city (Figure 2.22).

Figure 2.22: Map delineating ‘Upper Malioboro’ area

Source: ITMP BYP Consultants

The sidewalks on this section of the street and Lower Malioboro are lined with stalls selling cheap batik clothing, T-shirts, toys and other souvenirs. Behind the stalls – especially on the western side of the street – is a variety of shops which are often obscured and somewhat hard to access because of

115 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

the souvenir stalls. Associated with the bustling commercial activity of this area a tourism cluster has developed consisting of a number of large hotels, including the historic Grand Inna Hotel (formerly the Garuda Hotel). A number of adjoining streets, including Jl. Sosrowijayan, evolved in the 1970s as a central location for budget accommodation principally for the international backpacker market, including hotels and homestays as well as souvenir shops and eateries. Already intensively developed, there is ample evidence of redevelopment and hotel stock upgrading throughout this area, with some ‘hip’ new restaurants and hotels (for instance on Jl. Jlagran), although greater consideration needs to be given to planning and development control if transport saturation and poor environmental quality are to be avoided.

Small guesthouses (known as homestays or losmen) on Jl. Sosrowijayan, near the station. ‘Superman’s’ was formerly famous amongst backpackers. The name is derived from a misreading by foreigners of the Javanese name ‘Suparman’.

The Jl. Sosrowijayan area is now mainly frequented by a domestic market, while international tourists mostly frequent the Jl. Prawirotaman area between the Kraton and Kotagede, where there is a concentration of boutique hotels and good restaurants.

While many parts of ‘Upper Malioboro’ would undoubtedly benefit from some form of limited pedestrianisation, careful consideration would need to be given to the potential wider impacts of the loss of limited and valuable road space. The ITMP team is aware that pedestrianisation has been discussed within the Dinas Pariwisata and Bappeda City and Province offices but that such a scheme is currently unlikely to be implemented. As already mentioned, a programme of street improvements undertaken by the local government has already improved the street-scene and its accessibility for tourists by widening the sidewalks, upgrading the green landscaping and street furniture, and designating special areas for andong and becak to wait for fares. Unfortunately the improvements have not yet extended to improving the melée of traffic, pedestrians (sometimes pushing motorbikes), becaks, barriers and trains near the Tugu Station. c) Lower Malioboro For the purposes of this analysis ‘Lower Malioboro’ extends southwards from Malioboro Mall, past Beringharjo Market and to the North Alun-Alun and Kraton (Figure 2.23).

Figure 2.23: Map delineating ‘Lower Malioboro’ area

116 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Source: ITMP BYP Consultants

This area contains the most significant cluster of colonial era buildings in the city and is a major focus of tourist activities. The key assets of Lower Malioboro to the south of Beringharjo Market are illustrated in Figure 2.24. The nature of these structures and their heritage values means that there are no significant new development opportunities in the area. Many of the existing attractions could however be refreshed and upgraded.

Figure 2.24: Lower Malioboro - Key Attractions

Source: ITMP BYP Consultants

Around this area are located a number of major visitor attractions, which include:

117 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

 The Sonobudoyo Museum. This museum is devoted to the history and culture of Indonesia and is regarded as the best museum in Yogyakarta. The Museum has an excellent collection of antiquities and artefacts although information and interpretation is weak.  Fort Vredeburg, site of the Dutch colonial garrison and the scene of a major action during the Independence struggle. The fort is one of the most popular attractions in the city  Pasar Beringharjo, the oldest market in Yogyakarta. Established in 1758, it re-located to its present building in 1925. The market is popular with both residents and visitors.  Kampung Ketandan: Located around Beringharjo, this is the traditional Chinese Quarter, a lively area of narrow streets and alleyways lined food-stalls and small shops. Week-long celebrations over Chinese New Year take place here.  Bank Indonesia. This building is one of the finest examples of Dutch colonial architecture in Indonesia. The local headquarters of the central bank, it was originally a branch of a Dutch- established bank operating in Java. The majestic building was designed by Marius Hulswit, sent by the Dutch to oversee the construction of several colonial buildings. It is strategically located near Fort Vredeburg, the Kraton and Yogyakarta’s Kilometre Zero.  Taman Pintar. One of the city’s most frequented attractions and popular with children and students, the Taman Pintar Science Park, which is located next to Fort Vredeberg is particularly well frequented at weekends. The park features a range of science-based displays and interactive games as well as a large food court.

d) Kraton The core of the city’s cultural centre is the Kraton area, the ancient walled city (Figure 2.25).

118 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Figure 2.25: Map delineating the walled Kraton area

While key buildings in the area, including the Sultan’s Key buildings are in a poor state of Palace and the Water Castle, are officially under repair and would be greatly enhanced cultural protection, they are in a poor state of repair by rehabilitation programmes. and would be greatly enhanced by rehabilitation programmes. The condition of the Water Castle is particularly poor, with access choked by vehicle parking and visitor safety issues evident in its layout.

The ancient walls of the Kraton are barely visible in most areas, having been obscured by encroaching development both internally and externally, although parts of them are currently being restored. While some form of development control is evident in parts of this area, there are numerous examples of inappropriate development at odds with the area’s traditional Javanese architectural vocabulary. In recent times there has been a surge in the number of cafes and small hotels opening in this area, along with house restoration, many of them pleasantly designed.

Associated with the Kraton are the city’s only two public squares, the North and South Alun-Alun. The largest of these open spaces is the North Alun-Alun, which lies at the southern end of Malioboro and is used for festivals and cultural events. The South Alun-Alun comes alive in the evening with food and souvenir-stalls, people picnicking on the grass, and a procession of cars bedecked with coloured lights which families pedal round the square. The popularity of this area has led to increased traffic congestion around the narrow but generally pleasant streets of the walled Kraton quarter.

Both of the Alun-alun are poorly maintained and often litter-strewn.

119 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

There are other interesting buildings within the Kraton quarter. For instance the Ndalem Kaneman, the residence of the Sultan’s older sister, already open to visitors, is targeted for restoration under the 2016 Tourism Masterplan for the City of Yogyakarta and surroundings.66

Figure 2.26 below shows the major attractions of the Kraton area.

Figure 2.26: Kraton area - Major Features

Source: ITMP BYP Consultants

Major attractions in the Kraton area include:

 The Sultan’s Palace, or Kraton, is the focal point of the walled city and the cultural and political heart of Yogyakarta. A popular attraction both with domestic and international tourists, the Kraton is one of the flagship attractions of Yogyakarta.  The Kauman Grand Mosque is one of the oldest mosques in Yogyakarta. The mosque was established in the Kauman, an Islamic quarter near the kraton, and is strongly related to the establishment of Yogyakarta in 1756 and the arrival of foreign Muslim leaders.  The Kraton Museum displays many exhibits and tableaux reflecting the atmosphere of the Kraton in former times. These include a life-size diorama of wedding ceremonies in the palace, shadow puppets, and sets of Javanese gamelan, as well as antiques and heirlooms from the palace. These displays make the Kraton one of the most interesting attractions in Yogyakarta for international tourists in particular.  The Taman Sari Water Castle is the site of a former royal garden of the Sultanate of Yogyakarta. It is located about 2 km south within the grounds of the Kraton. Built in the mid-18th century, the Taman Sari had multiple functions, such as a resting area, a workshop, a meditation area. The site is a major tourist attraction.

66 DI Yogyakarta Tourism Office (2016) City of Yogyakarta Tourism Master Plan, prepared by PT Dua Tiga Empat Consultants, Sleman.

120 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Kotagede Kotagede is a historic neighbourhood in the southeast of Yogyakarta. It was the site of the first capital of Mataram Kotagede has retained much Sultanate, established in the 16th century, and includes the of its Javanese character. remains of the palace, the royal cemetery, the royal mosque, traditional kampung (village areas) and defensive walls and moats. It is also well known internationally for its silver crafting as well as its traditional market and batik outlets. Kotagede has managed to retain much of its Javanese character, not having been subject to as many of the development pressures experienced by the central areas of the city.

The original town plan of Kotagede was centred on a mosque- palace-market square surrounded by defensive walls, not dissimilar to the main Kraton in Yogyakarta. Little now remains of the original city aside from the Great Mosque, Royal Rombs and fragments of the city walls. The most significant monument is the Royal Cemetery (photo, right) which contains the tombs of the rulers of Kotagede as well as leaders of Yogyakarta itself.

Kotagede has its own unique atmosphere and is markedly different from the central areas of Yogyakarta. Low rise, and with many buildings in traditional Javanese style, the district has its own distinctive character, further reinforced by a range of traditional crafts in the area, centred on the ‘silver market’, Jl. Karanglo. Jl. Kemasan, the main street leading into town from the north, is lined with silver workshops selling hand-beaten bowls, boxes, fine filigree and modern jewellery. Lying at the end of the tourist route through the area is the Monggo Chocolate factory, a delightful and interesting enterprise that offers factory tours as well as the opportunity to purchase its produce.

Many old buildings in Kotagede were destroyed during the 2006 Yogyakarta earthquake. A revitalization program was initiated by the Pusaka Jogja Bangkit! campaign (‘Yogyakarta Heritage Revival!’) in collaboration with the Yogyakarta Heritage Society and the Center for Heritage Conservation, Department of Architecture and Planning, at Gajah Mada University. This programme managed to restore many of the heritage structures which now form the area’s main attractions. These sites, which form a short but highly varied tourism route, are illustrated in the plan below.

Figure 2.27: Kotagede - Principal attractions

121 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Source: ITMP BYP Consultants Administratively, the area is divided into three villages: Prenggan and Purbayan belong to Kec. Kotagede within the City of Yogyakarta, while Jagalan belongs to Kec. Banguntapan in Kab. Bantul.

2.5 Sports facilities

There are two sports stadiums in Yogyakarta – Kridosono and Mandala Krida – of which the former is now fairly old and is rarely used for sporting events, although it occasionally hosts open-air concerts. There are two sports halls, one of which is for military use and the other can host indoor events. There is one reservoir with a jogging track around it. In addition, there are two public swimming baths. None of the facilities here are used for national tournaments (and are not capable of dealing with international ones).

There are 5 public swimming baths in the Borobudur TDA and no sports facilities at all in the Prambanan TDA.

2.6 Performing Arts and Intangible Cultural Heritage

Yogyakarta and the surrounding area is extremely rich in creative arts and Yogyakarta is extremely rich intangible cultural heritage, including in creative arts and gamelan music, shadow puppetry intangible cultural heritage. (wayang kulit), mask-dancing, and the making of textiles, especially batik, of which the most sophisticated form is batik tulis, or hand-drawn batik (see photo) and lurik (a striped fabric, often still hand-woven). Many of these art-forms and crafts are practised or produced in areas across Central Java and DI Yogyakarta: for instance, the town of Klaten, a town in Central Java mid-way between Yogya and Solo, is a centre for lurik weaving and there is a significant cottage-industry level of activity in that area.

The communities in and around the Borobudur TDA express their history and culture through a variety of art-forms, including:

 horse-trance dancing (kuda lumping or jaran kepang), in which men in traditional peasant costume prance on painted, bamboo-woven hobby-horses and often going into a trance  topeng ireng (also called ndayakan), a form of dance that integrates Islamic teachings with pencak silat, a popular Indonesian martial art  kubrosiswo, another form of dance inspired by Islamic teaching which sometimes involves dancers going into a trance when possessed by a spirit  warokan, a more traditional Javanese dance which includes mock-fighting, with participants dressed as evil spirits and sometimes horse-trance-dancing.

Dance troupes are formed by the men (and to a lesser extent the women) of several villages, and they often participate in the annual ‘Festival Lima Gunung’, named after the 5 mountains which surround the Kedu Plain (Merapi, Merbabu, Sundoro, Sumbing, Andong) and held in villages around Magelang.

122 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

As far as handicrafts are concerned, although there are many high-quality ones produced in the area, the majority on sale are cheap and poor-quality versions, such as those available on the Jl. Malioboro stalls and in the numerous batik-painting workshops (often glorified as ‘exhibitions’) in the backstreets around the kraton of Yogyakarta, where identical designs appear to have been on sale for at least 40 years.67 There are also still high-end versions produced by excellent craft-workers, although these are poorly marketed (or explained) to tourists. For instance, few foreign tourists are aware of the distinction between the different types of batik, both in terms of how the cloth is manufactured (e.g. batik tulis, batik cap) and the style, colour and meaning of the designs. A map indicating the principal concentrations of batik shops and stalls is shown in Figure 2.28.

Figure 2.28: Principal location of batik shops and sales in Yogyakarta TDA

Source: ITMP BYP Consultants

One of the two specific investment opportunities identified in the 2017 ‘Jogja Investment’ plan is to improve the quality and marketing of locally produced handicrafts68 ,while an opportunity also exists to train people living in villages around Borobudur and Prambanan in producing their own handicrafts in order to retain more value within the local supply chain. The puppetry and dancing are supported by local cultural institutions, either government-run or independent, such as the Yogya Institute of Arts (http://isi.ac.id/); SMKI Yogya, a vocational high school focussing on the arts (http://www.smki-yogya.sch.id/); the arts societies of Gadjah Mada University; and the Minomartani Cultural Centre, which produces performances of a form of shadow puppetry known as wayang kancil, which relates stories from Javanese mythology focussing on animals.

67 Personal observation, Consultant 68 Badan Kerjasama dan Penanaman Modal DIY (2017) Jogja Istimewa: Potensi Investasi Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta

123 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

There are frequent cultural festivals throughout all the There are frequent cultural festivals, TDAs, although these are poorly promoted (at least to although these are poorly promoted international tourists). Thanks to the City of Yogyakarta’s artistic heritage, a thriving art scene continues to exist, especially focussed on the Jl. Prawirotaman area to the south-east of the city, and modern art forms continue to thrive based on older ones. The popular Ramayana Ballet, performed almost nightly at Prambanan, is a relatively modern interpretation of traditional dance and legends (see box below).

The Ramayana Ballet at Prambanan The Ramayana Ballet is an excellent example of how the Outstanding Universal Value of the Prambanan WHS is being upheld and used to generate economic wealth as well as support local culture.

The ballet grew out of efforts in the 1950s to generate a pan-Indonesian culture (as opposed to regional culture) after Indonesian Independence in 1945, as part of the drive to knit the disparate islands and regions of the archipelago into one nation. Artists, dancers and intellectuals from the royal court cities of Yogyakarta and Solo worked together to develop a new form of dance which they called sendratari (from the words Seni, Drama, Tari – Art, Drama, Dance). The Yogya court involved was not the main Yogyakarta Sultanate but the ‘junior’ branch of Pakualaman. The result was the Ramayana Ballet, first performed in 1961 on an open stage south of the moonlit Loro Jonggrang temple at Prambanan. Performances initially took place on four nights of the dry season months (May-October), during the full moon. In the 1990s a new stage and an indoor theatre were built on the other side of the main temple complex to satisfy demand during the rainy season when outdoor performances are impossible.

Traditionally, the performances divide the Hindu epic story into four episodes performed by school-children, dance students and senior dancers. In addition to the original four evenings per month there are now performances on several nights a week offering a heavily truncated version of the story in one event. The ballet is characterised by large set pieces, elaborate costumes and dramatic effects, in particular the burning of the wicked King Rawana’s palace by the Monkey God Hanoman when he is rescuing Rama’s wife Sinta, who has been abducted.

The ballet combines the two main Javanese court dance styles (of Yogyakarta and Solo), and has an important place in the development and transmission of Indonesian national culture. It has become a major tourist attraction. The performance gives opportunities for dance students at all levels to perform and to earn money through performing. Sendratari generally is now part of the classical repertoire, and promoted by the government through competitive festivals.69

The major issue with all these art-forms, as for the The major issue with all these art- museums, is the lack of good quality interpretation in forms, as for the museums, is the any language, including Indonesian. It is essential that lack of good quality interpretation in this is addressed to deepen the visitor experience and any language, including Indonesian. encourage longer stays.

The City of Yogyakarta and its surroundings can also lay legitimate claim to the title ‘Cradle of the Republic’, since over two lengthy periods in its relatively recent history it has played host to dramatic episodes of the long-running struggle against the Dutch colonial power. In the 19th Century Prince

69 Yogyakarta can lay claim to the title Felicia Hughes-Freeland, anthropologist and film-maker specialising‘Cradle of in the the Republic’, cultural politics since over of maritime two Southeast Asia, including in performance, media and tourism, 24 October 2018 periods it played host to dramatic episodes of the long-running struggle 124 against the Dutch colonial power. BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Diponegoro, a member of the Yogyakarta Sultanate family, led a rebellion against the Dutch, although he was eventually tricked into capture and exiled to distant parts of the archipelago. There are several existing sites associated with this Javanese hero which have been used to trial a ‘Diponegoro Trail’, in particular:

 Tegalrejo (Diponegoro’s childhood home)  Fort Vredeburg  Taman Sari (where DN went with his father, the future third Sultan of Yogyakarta, during the British attack on the kraton)  Selarong (Diponegoro’s meditation cave in Bantul)  Sengir (Kulon Progo - site of ambush of Diponegoro’s uncle and chief military strategist, Pangeran Ngabehi Joyokusumo, and his two sons)  Nanggulan (site of Dutch Benteng and battle where 32 Dutch were killed including the commander Captain van Ingen and his dog - graves still visible)  Gua Sriti (spacious cave on road to Samigaluh, Kulon Progo - site of Diponegoro’s enthronement as Sultan Erucokro on 15 August 1825)  Magelang (Meteseh site of Diponegoro’s encampment during March 1830 ‘negotiations’ with the Dutch Commander-in-Chief general Hendrik Merkus de Kock)  Magelang Karesidenan Lama (site of Diponegoro’s treacherous arrest on 28 March 1839)  Bedono-Ungaran (Fort de Ontmoeting) and Semarang (Bojong) sites of beginning of DN’s journey into exile.70

Eminent British historian Dr Peter Carey (resident in Indonesia) gives at talk on Prince Diponegoro at Fort Vredeburg to a group of cultural tourists from Jakarta following the Diponegoro Trail (November 2018)

In the 20th Century, Yogyakarta was host to the nucleus of Indonesians determined to achieve independence from the Dutch after the end of World War II: several existing buildings bear witness to the bravery and tenacity of the people who fought, including the Garuda Hotel (now the Grand Inna), the abandoned Hotel Toegoe, and Fort Vredeburg, as well as other sites dotted around the city and marked with discreet ‘Cagar Budaya’ (cultural heritage) notices.

The 2016 Tourism Masterplan for Yogyakarta City produced by the DI Yogyakarta authorities notes this aspect as one of the themes it aims to develop (see also discussion on the Masterplan below). However despite domestic interest and some international interest in these historical matters, seeking out the sites of most interest is currently challenging.

The Kampung Wisata programme in Yogyakarta is designed to increase urban tourism and its economic benefits. Allied with the Kampung Wisata programme is the ‘Ecodistrict’ programme. This was initiated in 2015 under BPIW and funded by a loan from the French government as a way of boosting the quality of human resources, local economy and the environment in Kec. Kotagede and its neighbour Kec. Umbulharjo. 71

70 Interview with University of Indonesia Adjunct Professor Dr. Peter Carey, Diponegoro historian, 5 July 2019 71 Agence de L’Environnement et de la Maitrise de l’Energie / City of Yogkarta / BPIW (2016) Gadjah Wong Ecodistrict Kota Yogyakarta,

125 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

2.7 Online presence of tourism businesses

As indicated above, there are thousands of tourism businesses in the BYP area, ranging from large hotels and major flagship attractions attracting millions of visitors per year, to the tented eateries which pop up nightly along pavements and roadsides and which are popular with students and domestic visitors.

In order to quantify the online presence of this huge array of businesses, we conducted a sample survey of two specific areas within the TDAs: a tourist-popular street in Yogyakarta, Jl. Prawirotaman, and the entire Kecamatan of Borobudur.

In the case of Jl. Prawirotaman, we first used the Gojek app to list the which merchants are registered with the app to supply food to customers via GoFood, and supplemented this with information from Google Maps and Google Streetview to add further businesses. We walked and drove by motor-bike along the street several times to further check the presence of businesses (see photo, left). This resulted in a list of 57 businesses, including accommodation, catering outlets, souvenir shops, and travel companies (listed in Table 2.8 below).

126 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Table 2.8: Tourism-Related Facilities on Jl. Prawirotaman, Yogyakarta – online presence No Name Address Type of Contact Website Instagram Facebook Go- No Facilities Food online 1 Move On Jl. Café & (0274) moveon.yogya moveoncafe/ Y Prawirotaman Resto 2872815 1 No. 4-10 2 Tropis Jl. Homestay (0274) 1 Homestay Prawirotaman 376550 1 No.5A 3 Airlangga Jl. Hotel (0274) airlangga.yogyakarta-hotels-

Hotel Prawirotaman 372829 foryou.com/en/ 1 No. 6-8 4 Airy Jl. Guest airyrooms.com/hotel/airy- Mergangsan Prawirotaman House mergangsan-prawirotaman-

Prawirotaman 1 No. 10 dua-71-yogyakarta Satu 5 Hotel Putra Jl. Hotel (0274) 1 Jaya Prawirotaman 375185 1 No. 10 6 Topaz Silver Jl. Gift Shop 0895- topazsilvergallery; LINE: and Leather Prawirotaman 1761- intanrdini 1 no. 11A 2554 7 Mote Bowl Jl. Café motebowls Y Prawirotaman 1 No. 16 8 Warung Heru Jl. Restaurant 0813- warungheru Prawirotaman 5568- 1, No 27 6097 9 Agung Inn Jl. Hotel (0274) agunginnhotel Prawirotaman 370206 1 No. 30 081- 2295- 2295 10 Parikesit Jl. Hotel (0274) 1 Hotel Prawirotaman 375002 1 No.32 11 Karma Indian Jl. Restaurant karma_indian_kitchen Y Kitchen Prawirotaman 1 No. 33

127 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

No Name Address Type of Contact Website Instagram Facebook Go- No Facilities Food online 12 Pondok Jl. Guest kampoeng-djawa-guest-house-

Kampoeng Prawirotaman House yogyakarta.booked.net/ Jawa Guest 1 No. 40 House

13 De Hostel Jl. Hostel dehostelprawirotaman.com/ Prawirotaman 1, Gang Gringsing 14 Art Kitchen Jl. Restaurant artkitchen_greenhost Y Prawirotaman 2 No. 629

15 Vine Jl. Restaurant galleryprawirotamanhotel.com/ vine_restaurant Y Restaurant, Prawirotaman & Hotel Gallery 2 No. 839B Prawirotaman Hotel 16 Veno's Burger Jl. Restaurant 1 Prawirotaman No. 1 17 Spark Resto Jl. Bar & (0274) thesparkrestaurant The-Spark-Resto- Y and Sports Prawirotaman Restaurant 2872397 Bar/ Bar No. 1 18 Christine's Jl. Coffee (0274) chgarden01 Y Garden Prawirotaman Shop & 2871063 No. 2 Restaurant 19 Sate Bar and Jl. Restaurant 0896- satebarandthesecretgardenjogja Y The Secret Prawirotaman 7846- Garden No. 2 9755 20 Bon Sva Jl. Coffee bonsvajogja on-Sva-Coffee-Deli- Y Coffee & Deli Prawirotaman Shop & 2184867785113442/ No. 2 Restaurant 21 Christine's Jl. Coffee (0274) chgarden01 Y Garden Prawirotaman Shop & 2871063 No. 2 Restaurant 22 Markas 1001 Jl. Restaurant 0878- markas1001nasgor Y Prawirotaman 1277- No. 3 4272

128 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

No Name Address Type of Contact Website Instagram Facebook Go- No Facilities Food online 23 Just PlayOn Jl. Restaurant 0818- justplayon Prawirotaman 0807- No. 3 2155 24 Wisma Gajah Jl. Guest (0274) 1 Prawirotaman House 375659 No. 4 25 Gading Resto Jl. Restaurant (0274) 1 Prawirotaman 383987 No. 9 26 Palm House Jl. Restaurant (0274) 1 Restaurant Prawirotaman 373990 No. 12 27 Café Janur Jl. Café 1 Prawirotaman No. 12 28 EasyGoIn' Jl. Bar & EasyGoIn' Grill & Garden Grill & Prawirotaman Restaurant Garden No. 12 29 Prambanan Jl. Guest prambanangh.be/ Guest House Prawirotaman House No. 14 30 Jari Menari Jl. Massage & 1 Massage & Prawirotaman spa Spa No. 15 31 Agenda Resto Jl. Restaurant 0878- agenda.id agendajogja & Vibes Prawirotaman 3890- No. 16 6088 32 K'Meals Bar & Jl. Bar & 0812- k_meals_baresto Kmeals.BaResto/ Y Restaurant Prawirotaman Restaurant 4345- No. 20 8008 33 Burgerax Jl. Burger burgerax_id Y Prawirotaman Kiosk No. 20 34 Hotel Jl. Hotel (0274) 1 Sumaryo Prawirotaman 377552 No. 22 35 Losari Tours Jl. Travel 0818- jogjabromotour.com jogjabromotour

129 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

No Name Address Type of Contact Website Instagram Facebook Go- No Facilities Food online and Travel Prawirotaman Agent 640-941 No. 24 36 Duta Guest Jl. Guest (0274) dutagardenhotel.com dutagardenhhotel House Prawirotaman House 372064 No. 26 37 Renzo Café Jl. Café & renzo_jogja renzo.resto/ Y and Resto Prawirotaman Resto No. 27 38 Hotel Grand Jl. Hotel (0274) hotelgrandroselajogja.com Rosela Prawirotaman 419191 No. 28 39 Mas Gun Jl. Guest mas-gun-guest-house-

Guest House Prawirotaman House yogyakarta.booked.net/ No. 29 40 ASJAVA Jl. Leather (0274) asjavaleather.com asjavaprawirotaman Leather & Prawirotaman Goods 376311 Cafe No. 29 Shop & Prawirotaman Coffee Shop 41 Via Via Jl. Café & (0274) viaviajogja.com viaviajogja.bakery; Prawirotaman Resto 386557 viaviajogja.guesthouse; No. 30 iaviajogja.fairtradeshop; viaviajogja.travel

42 Hotel Perwita Jl. Hotel perwita-sari.yogyakarta-hotels-

Sari Prawirotaman foryou.com/en/ No. 31 43 Angkringan Jl. Restaurant angkringansriredjeki angkringansriredjeki Y Sri Redjeki Prawirotaman No. 33 44 Hotel Prayogo Jl. Hotel (0274) 1 Lama Prawirotaman 379926 No. 34 45 Hotel Eclipse Jl. Hotel (0274) eclipse.hotel Prawirotaman 380976 No. 35 46 House 37 Jl. Guest 1

130 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

No Name Address Type of Contact Website Instagram Facebook Go- No Facilities Food online Prawirotaman House No. 37

47 Pandanaran Jl. Hotel pandanaranhotel.com/jogja/ pandanaranjogja Hotel Prawirotaman No. 38 48 Geoffmax Jl. Clothing geoffmax Prawirotaman Store No. 39 49 Yam Yam Jl. Restaurant 0812- 1 Prawirotaman 2645- No. 39 6451 50 Tempo Gelato Jl. Gelato Café (0274) tempogelato.com tempogelato Il-Tempo-Del-Gelato Y Prawirotaman 373272 No. 43 51 Aglioo! Pizza Jl. Restaurant (0274) aglioo-pizza-and- aglioojogja; aglioopizza, Y And Prawirotaman 388934 pasta.business.site/; Coffeeshop No. 43 www.aglioopizza.com

52 Sartika Hotel Jl. Hotel sartika.yogyakarta-hotels.com Prawirotaman No. 44 53 Kirana Hotel Jl. Hotel (0274) Hotel-Kirana Prawirotaman 376600 No. 45 54 Kedai Jl. Restaurant cungkys Cungky's Prawirotaman No. 48 55 Annas Money Jl. Money 1 Changer & Prawirotaman Changer & Tourist Tourist Information Information 56 Masalla Asian Jl. Restaurant (0274) masalla.asia Cuisine Prawirotaman 4285899 57 The Celt: Irish Jl. Café & pub 0813- the-celt-irish-pub- Pub Prawirotaman 9200- bar.business.site/ 0050

131 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

We then researched the online presence of these businesses, checking for websites, Facebook and Instagram accounts, and recorded which of them are registered with GoFood. We discounted any Facebook or Instagram accounts that had been inactive for at least a year.

The results of this process were that 18 (31.5%) out of the 57 tourism businesses on Jl. Prawirotaman have a website, 31 (53%) have an Instagram presence, and only 10 (17.5%) have an active Facebook page (some businesses have more than one type of presence). 14 businesses (24.5%) appeared to have no self-generated online presence, although several of the hotels and guesthouses in this category appear on hotel booking sites such as booking.com and Traveloka so may not feel it is necessary to have their own website. Many of the accommodation providers who have their own website also appear in online booking sites.

Take-up of mobile phones and related technology and apps has been very fast in Indonesia because of the relatively inexpensive cost of these and because installation of landlines lagged years behind demand. Thus, it is not surprising that even small food-stalls (warung), even of the nightly pop-up variety, have embraced the GoFood app in order to expand their customer base (see photo).

One of the many roadside foodstalls (warung) which supply food via the GoFood (Gojek) app as well as to in-situ customers.

We took a different approach to sampling businesses in Kecamatan Borobudur as it is so extensive. Here, we used Google Maps to identify tourism-related businesses operating within the Kecamatan, supplemented with searching on terms such as ‘restaurants Borobudur’ and ‘souvenir shops Borobudur’ and with on-the-ground information gained from our site surveys (as illustrated in the maps of businesses in the Borobudur area included in Section 2.4.1 and the listing of attractions in Appendix 2.1). We also used Google Streetview to re-check whether the businesses were still operating or not. We are aware that this process may have missed some enterprises – especially microenterprises – which have no online presence at all, but other than checking the hundreds of kilometres of streets in Kec. Borobudur by day and then again by night, there was no other way of carrying out this survey. It should be noted that in some cases businesses are represented by a pin on GoogleMaps even though they appear to have no other form of online presence.

The result of this process is that in mid-2019 there were an estimated 133 tourism-related businesses operating in Kec. Borobudur, ranging from guesthouses and cafés to major and minor attractions (listed in Table 2.9). Here, we found that a higher proportion – 58 out of 133, or 43.5% - had dedicated websites, with many accommodation businesses again using online booking engines instead of (or as well as) their own websites. As with the Jl. Prawirotaman enterprises, Instagram was the most popular form of social media, with 43 (32%) having an Instagram account and 21 (16%) having a Facebook account. 47 businesses (35%) appeared to have no self-generated online presence, although in some cases they appear in Instagram searches because they are ‘Instagramable’ attractions in their own right or have such an attraction on-site (see photo).

132 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Young couple taking photos to upload to Instagram at the Wanurejo Balkondes, near Borobudur.

133 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Table 2.9: Tourism-Related Facilities in Kec. Borobudur – online presence No Name Address Type of Phone Website Instagram Facebook Facility

Bigaran 1 Balkondes Bigaran Guesthouse balkondesborobudur.com/desa- Balkondes-Coklat-Ndeso-

Bigaran & Café wisata/ Bigaran/160591231214186 Borobudur 2 Alea Coffee Jalan Coffee Shop (0293) aleaborobudur Shop Balaputradewa, 788602 Borobudur, Dusun XVI, Borobudur 3 Paksi Coffee Jl. Badrawati, Coffee Shop 0813- paksicoffeehouse House Ngaran I, 9178- Borobodur, Dusun 5656 XVIII, Borobudur 4 Stand By - By Jl. Medang Kamulan Gift Shop (0293) Typical No.7, Dusun XIII, 788360 Borobudur Borobudur 5 Cempaka Jl. Medang Kamulan Guesthouse (0293) cempakaguesthouse_borobud Guest House No.8B, Dusun XII, 789393 ur Borobudur Borobudur 6 Rumah Catra Jl. Daranindra No.9, Guesthouse (0293) rumahcatra.com rumahcatraguesthouse Guest House Dusun VIII, 3287227 & Resto Borobudur 7 Watu Agung Gg. Ngaran I, Dusun Guesthouse (0293) watuagung_borobudur Guesthouse XVII, Borobudur 3301222 and Resto 8 Efata Jl. Balaputradewa Homestay 0856- efatahomestay.com efatahomestay.borobudur Homestay No.33, Dusun XVI, 9754- Dusun Cawangsari 9245 9 First Kinara Jalan Badrawati No. Homestay 0812- Homestay 1, Desa Ngaran II, 1844- Dusun XIX, 5586 Borobudur 10 Homestay Jalan Badrawati No. Homestay 0852- anugrah-borobudur.com anugrahborobudur Anugrah 20 Ngaran Ngisor, 2508- Borobudur @ Dusun XVIII, 5029 (Kampung Borobudur Homestay

134 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

No Name Address Type of Phone Website Instagram Facebook Facility

Borobudur)

11 Penginapan Dsn Gendingan, Jl. Homestay 0831- homestaybukitdagiborobudur.com homestay_bukit_dagi_borobu Borobudur Medang Kamulan, 4502- dur Homestay RT.01/RW.12, Dusun 0100 Bukit Dagi VIII, Borobudur 12 Homestay Dusun XIX, Homestay 0857- Ndalem Borobudur 2770- Tentrem 4499 Borobudur 13 Lingkar Ngaran Lor, Dusun Homestay 0857- lingkarhomestay Homestay XVII, Borobudur 4392- 1247 14 Penginapan Gang Combat, Homestay 0857- Ana Indah Janan, Borobudur, 2997- Dusun XII, 9849 Borobudur 15 Willy Dusun XIX, Homestay 0823- willyhomestayborobudur Homestay Borobudur 2701- Borobudur 1200 16 Ardian Hotel Gg. Palem, Hotel 0812- ardian.hotel.borobudur Borobudur Borobudur 2207- 5123 17 Gopalan Jl. Borobudur - Hotel (0293) hotelgopalan Borobudur Ngadiharjo, Dusun 7182782 XX, Borobudur 18 Jaswan Inn Jl. Sudirman No.20, Hotel 0878- jaswan_inn_borobudur Borobudur Dusun XV, 6957- Borobudur 4874 19 The Nalaya Jl. Balaputradewa Hotel (0293) thenalayahotel Hotel & Resto No.22, Dusun XVII, 788779 Borobudur 20 The Omah Dusun XVII, Hotel 0823- theomahborobudur Borobudur Borobudur 2970- 4433

135 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

No Name Address Type of Phone Website Instagram Facebook Facility

21 Plataran Dusun Tanjungan, Hotel (0293) plataran.com pl.borobudur pl.borobudur/ Borobudur Dusun II, Borobudur 788888 Resort & Spa 22 Pondok Tingal Jl. Balaputradewa Hotel (0293) tanahtingalstay.com pondoktingalhotel No.32, Dusun 1, 788145 Borobudur 23 RedDoorz Jl Medan Kaman no Hotel (021) near 1, Borobudur, Dusun 80629666 Borobudur XIII, Borobudur Temple 24 RedDoorz Gg. Janan No.2, Hotel (021) Syariah @ Dusun XV, 80629666 Kompleks Borobudur Candi Borobudur 25 Sarasvati Jl. Balaputradewa Hotel (0293) saraswatiborobudur.com sarasvatiborobudur arasvatiborobudur/ Borobudur No.10, Dusun XVII, 788843 Hotel Borobudur 26 Shankara No.54, Jl. Hotel (0293) shankaraborobudur.com Shankara- Borobudur Balaputradewa, 3301818 Borobudur/350554018748522 Dusun XVI, Borobudur 27 Wahid Jl. Medang Kamulan, Hotel (0293) wahid-borobudur.business.site wahid.borobudur Borobudur Dusun XIII, 3301899 Borobudur 28 Benoa Dusun XVI, Restaurant benoaborobudur Borobudur Borobudur (0293) Resto & 7181368 Gallery 29 Borobudur Jl. Parakan Argo Restaurant 0815- pizzaborobudur Kopi Menoreh Mukti, Borobudur 6933-817 & Taman Violet Agro

Mukti 30 Dapoer Jl. Restaurant 0813- dapoer-gending.business.site Gending Pramudyawardhani 2906- No.19, Dusun XV, 2080

136 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

No Name Address Type of Phone Website Instagram Facebook Facility

Borobudur

31 Gending Jl. Badrawati No.13, Restaurant Resto Dusun XVIII, Borobudur

32 Manohara Komplek Taman Restaurant (0293) manoharaborobudur.com manoharaborobudur Manohara-Borobudur- Borobudur Wisata Candi 788131 126766430777021/ Borobudur Jl. Badrawati Borobudur 33 Mie Ayam & Gama, Borobudur, Restaurant 0819- Bakso Pak Dusun XIII, 0394- Sukar Borobudur 3453 34 Nirwana JL Balaputradewa, Restaurant (0293) Borobudur No. 30, Borobudur 788109 Restoran 35 Olive Chicken Jl. Restaurant Borobudur Pramudyawardhani No.34, Dusun XIII, Borobudur 36 Omah Mangut Gg. Ngaran I, Dusun Restaurant XVIII, Borobudur 37 One Chicken Jl. Balaputradewa Restaurant 0858- Gg. Ngaran I No.1, 7749- Dusun XVII, 0404 Borobudur 38 Patio Dusun II, Borobudur Restaurant (0293) Restaurant 788888 39 Rocket Dusun XIII, Restaurant 0878- rocketchickenindonesia.com Chicken Borobudur 3442- Borobudur 2206 40 Rumah Ketela Jl. Badrawati Restaurant (0293) rumahketela Borobudur No. 2, 788276 Borobudur 41 Rumah Jl. Sudirman No.14, Restaurant (0293) Makan Dusun XIV, 788429 Lumayan Borobudur

137 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

No Name Address Type of Phone Website Instagram Facebook Facility

42 Rumah Jl. Balaputradewa Restaurant 0817-469- Makan Melati Gg. Ngaran I No.3, 471 Dusun XVII, Borobudur 43 Rumah Jl. Medan Kamulan, Restaurant Makan Borobudur, Dusun Padang XIII, Borobudur Borobudur Indah 44 Warung Jl. Balaputradewa, Restaurant 0852- Bakmi Pak Borobudur, Dusun 9206- Muri XVII, Borobudur 8025 45 Warung Kopi Dusun Sabrangrowo, Restaurant 0852- Badhek RT.01/RW.16, Dusun 2800- XXII, Borobudur 0864 46 Warung Kawasan Candi Restaurant 0813- Makan Bu Siti Borobudur, 9260- Borobudur 1795 47 Warung Jalan Medang Restaurant 0857- Makan Mbak Kamulan, 0148- Antik Borobudur, Dusun 8930 XII, Borobudur 48 Warung Jl. Medang Kamulan Restaurant 0857- warungmakanmbakyuni.business.s

Makan Mbak No.7, Dusun XIII, 4312- ite/ Yuni Borobudur 6889 49 Warung Jl. Medang Kamulan, Restaurant 0813- Makan Mbak Borobudur 2845- Yus 2442 50 Warung Jl. Sudirman Gg. Restaurant 0817- Makan Nam Janan, Dusun XI, 9410-181 Ratus Borobudur 51 Warung Mie Jl. Balaputradewa Restaurant Ayam Bakso No.14, Dusun XVII, Pak Dayat Borobudur 52 Warung Sate Jl. Balaputradewa, Restaurant 0819- Ayam Borobudur, Dusun 0383- Suramadu Cak XVI, Borobudur 2315

138 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

No Name Address Type of Phone Website Instagram Facebook Facility

Badar

53 Warung Soto Dusun XIII, Restaurant Mbak Yah Borobudur 54 Booking RT 02 RW 11 Kujon Tour Agency 0877- bookingborobudur.blogspot.com Borobudur Borobudur 1923- Magelang Jawa 7653 Tengah, Dusun VI, Borobudur 55 Borobudur Jl. Medang Kamulan, Tour Agency 0812- borobudurtourandtransport.com Tour and Dusun VII, 4665- Transport Borobudur 8282 56 Borobudur Jl. Medang Kamulan Tour Agency 0882- borobudur_vwexplore VW Explore No.9, Dusun XIII, 1693- Borobudur 1823 57 Janaka Tour & Jl. Medang Kamulan Tour Agency 0822- janakatourism.com Travel Dusun Gendingan, 4372- RT.02/RW.12, Dusun 5273 VIII, Borobudur

58 Javanava Jl. Tour Agency 0813- javanava.com/ javanava_travelcafe Travelcafe Pramudyawardhani, 3363- Dusun XIII, 4334 Borobudur 59 Pesona Jl. Balaputradewa Tour Agency (0293) Indotour Tour Gg. Ngaran I No.3, 3301185 & Travel Dusun XVII, Borobudur 60 Cempaka Villa Jl. Badrawati, Villa (0293) Ngaran Lor No. 1, 789033 Dusun XVIII, Borobudur 61 Kampung Sodongan, Attraction & Kampoeng-Dolanan-Nusantara- Dolanan RT.17/RW.6, Dusun Café 457367934348671/ Nusantara I, Bumiharjo Borobudur (Traditional village games)

139 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

No Name Address Type of Phone Website Instagram Facebook Facility

Bumiharjo 62 Balkondes Bumiharjo Guesthouse balkondesborobudur.com/desa- Bumiharjo & Café wisata/ 63 Dodo Bumiharjo, Hostel Backpacker Borobudur, Dusun V, Hostel Bumiharjo Borobudur 64 VW Tour Perum Griya Tour Agency 0812- vwtourborobudur.com vwtourborobudur Borobudur Kencana Permai, 2800- (by SVARGA) Blok AIV no 4, RT 19 3345 RW 07, Sigug, Bumiharjo Candirejo 65 Off-road Dusun Sangen, Activity Jurang Jero Candirejo attraction 66 Omah Pring Jalan Borobudur – Attraction & omahpring31 Sendangsono km 3, Café Candirejo 67 Balkondes Margonodadi, Guesthouse 0856- balkondesborobudur.com official_site_balkondes Candirejo Candirejo & Restaurant 4045- 6628

68 Omahe Kaliduren, Candirejo Restaurant (0293) Biyung 789675 Restaurant 69 Soto Ndlesep Sangen, Candirejo Restaurant 0812- https://soto-ndlesep-mbah-

Mbah Supo 2816- supo.business.site/ 8272 70 Desa Wisata Ds Candirejo Tours & Candirejo Homestay Giripurno 71 Punthuk Gintung, Giripurno Attraction Sukmojoyo 72 Balkondes Giripurno Guesthouse balkondesborobudur.com/desa- Giripurno & Café wisata/

140 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

No Name Address Type of Phone Website Instagram Facebook Facility

Giritengah 73 Punthuk Dusun Kamal, Attraction Mongkrong Giritengah 74 Balkondes Kali Tengah, Guesthouse 0878- balkondes_giritengah_official Giritengah Giritengah & Café 2111- 4420 Karanganyar 75 Desa Wisata Desa Karanganyar Attraction & Desa-Wisata-Karanganyar- Karanganyar Homestay 222392398130760

76 Balkondes Karanganyar Guesthouse balkondesborobudur.com/desa- Balkondes-Karanganyar- Karanganyar & Café wisata/ BTN/2014424098623597 77 Borobudurhill Dusun Ngadiwinatan Hotel (0293) borobudurhills.com borobudurhills s 2 RT 01/ RW 04 Desa 3301917 Karanganyar 56553, Ngadiwinata 1, Karanganyar Kebonsari 78 Balkondes Kebonsari Guesthouse balkondesborobudur.com/desa- balkondes.kebonsari.7 Kebonsari & Café wisata/ Karangrejo 79 Bukit Barede Dusun Sendakan, Attraction Karangrejo 80 Balkondes Karangrejo Guesthouse balkondesborobudur.com/desa- Karangrejo & Café wisata/ 81 Homestay Jl. Borobudur - Homestay homestaykarangrejo homestaykarangrejo, Karangrejo Ngadiharjo, Bumen Djelapan, Karangrejo 82 Plataran Dusun Kretek, Hotel (0293) plataran.com pl.heritageborobudur pl.heritageborobudur Heritage Karangrejo 3301888 Borobudur Hotel 83 Menoreh Dusun Kretek, Restaurant (0293) plataran.com Restaurant Karangrejo 3301888

141 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

No Name Address Type of Phone Website Instagram Facebook Facility

84 Pendopo Bumen Djelapan, Restaurant 0896- Kampung Karangrejo 0533- Palawija 1232 85 Stupa Dusun Kretek - Restaurant (0293) plataran.com Restaurant adjacent to Plataran 788888 Heritage Borobudur, Karangrejo 86 Paket Wisata Jl. Paren Sikepan Tour Agency 0812- paket-wisata- Borobudur Sendaren l, 2466- borobudur.business.site/ Sendaren 1, 7640 Karangrejo Kembanglimus

87 Bukit Rhema Dusun Gembong, Attraction bukitrhema.com/id/ (Chicken Kembanglimus Church) 88 Balkondes Jl. Sudirman, Guesthouse 0822- balkondesborobudur.com; balkondes_kembanglimus Kembanglimu Sembungan, & Café 2665- s Kembanglimus 9344 89 Rumah Bumen, Restaurant 0822- mangut-beong-asli-kembanglimus- Makan Sehati RT.01/RW.06, 2665- pertama-di- Borobudur Bumen, 9344 borobudur.business.site/ Spesial Ndas Kembanglimus Beong 90 Sehati Selera Bumen, Restaurant 0813- Pedas Kembanglimus 2773- 5456 Kenalan 91 Balkondes Kenalan Guesthouse balkondesborobudur.com/desa- Kenalan & Café wisata/ Majaksingi 92 Rumah Majaksingi Attraction & camerahouseborobudur.blogspot.c

Kamera Café om/ (Camera House)

142 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

No Name Address Type of Phone Website Instagram Facebook Facility

93 Balkondes Majaksingi Guesthouse balkondesborobudur.com/desa- Balkondes- Majaksingi & Café wisata/ Majaksingi/366086487178706

94 Amanjiwo Ds. Majaksingi, Hotel (0293) aman.com/resorts/amanjiwo amanjiwo Sawah 788333 95 Villa Jl. Pete Dusun Pete, Resort 0851- villaborobudurresort.com villaborobudurresort Borobudur Sawah, Majaksingi 0052- Resort 5520 96 Borobudur Jl. Badrawati, Sawah, Restaurant Restaurant Majaksingi Ngadiharjo 97 Janur Desa Gunden, Bungalow 0821- janurbungalow.com janurbungalow Bungalow Karanganyar, 3841- Ngadiharjo 9380 98 Balkondes Jl. Borobudur, Guesthouse 0823- balkondes_official Borobudur Ngadiharjo, & Café 3551- Borobudur, Sawah, 2828 Borobudur 99 Balkondes Ngadiharjo Guesthouse balkondesborobudur.com/desa- balkondesPLNngadiharjo/?__tn__= Ngadiharjo & Café wisata/ kC- Ngargogondo

100 Desa Bahasa Dusun Parakan, Attraction & desa-bahasa.com/ Borobudur Desa Ngargogondo Café (Language Tourism Village) 101 Balkondes Ngargogondo Guesthouse balkondesborobudur.com/desa- Balkondes- Ngargogondo & Café wisata/ Ngargogondo/306224430167815

102 Homestay Parakan RT.2/RW.2, Homestay 0812- homestay-halal- homestayhalal Halal Desa Area Sawah/Kebun, 2500- borobudur.business.site/ Bahasa Ngargogondo 9634 Borobudur Sambeng

143 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

No Name Address Type of Phone Website Instagram Facebook Facility

103 Balkondes Sambeng Guesthouse balkondesborobudur.com/desa- Sambeng & Café wisata/ Tanjungsari 104 Balkondes Jl. Giri Tengah Guesthouse 0812- balkondesborobudur.com balkondes.tanjungsari Tanjungsari No.KM. 105, Dusun & Café 8581- V, Tanjungsari 6313 Tegalarum 105 Balkondes Tegalarum Guesthouse balkondesborobudur.com/desa- Tegalarum & Café wisata/ Tuksongo 106 Balkondes Tuksongo Guesthouse balkondesborobudur.com/desa- Tuksongo & Café wisata/ 107 Griya Harja Jl. Badrawati Homestay 0813- griyaharja.jimdo.com Homestay No.184, Kiyudan, 1984- Tuksongo 7151 Wanurejo 108 Candi Pawon Brojonalan, Attraction sejarahlengkap.com/bangunan/sej

Wanurejo arah-candi-pawon

109 Punthuk Brojonalan, Attraction Setumbu Wanurejo 110 Junkyard Dusun 1, Wanurejo Attraction & 0822- Autopark & Café 2598 - Café 7332

111 Desa Wisata Wanurejo Attraction & desawisatawanurejo.com/ Wanurejo Homestay

112 Mettaloka Jl. Alternative Guesthouse 0856- mettaloka-borobudur.com mettaloka_guesthouse Guest House Nanggulan - 4014- Borobudur, Dusun 5, 8848 Wanurejo 113 Ndalem Ds Djowahan, Guesthouse ndalemnitihardjan Nitihardjan Wanurejo Guesthouse

144 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

No Name Address Type of Phone Website Instagram Facebook Facility

114 OYO 598 RT. 02 / 01, Jl. Guesthouse (0293) oyorooms.com Udan Mas Sudirman, Dusun 1, 3301713 Guesthouse & Wanurejo Gallery

115 Balkondes Dusun 1, Wanurejo Guesthouse balkonwanurejo.webs.com balkondes.wanurejo Wanurejo BNI & Café 116 Homestay Dusun 2, Wanurejo Homestay 0812- Kumojoyo 2207- 5123

117 Rumah Boedi Desa Wanuredjo, Homestay 0857- rumahboediborobudur.com rumah_boedi Rumah-Boedi-Borobudur- Borobudur Dusun Tingal Wetan 7361- 151915015446362/ 5791 118 Omah Dusun 5, Wanurejo Hotel (0293) omahgarengpoeng Garengpoeng 789860 119 Rumah Dusun 3, Wanurejo, Hotel 0813- Dharma 2 Borobudur 9225- Riverside 2557 120 Maestro Jl. Balaputradewa Restaurant 0812- maestrokitchenborobudur Kitchen Dusun, Brojonalan 4239- Borobudur No.15, Dusun 1, 9269 Wanurejo 121 Pasta Gio Ds Djowahan, Restaurant 0812- pastagioborobudur astagioborobudur/ Borobudur Wanurejo 2707- 1425 122 Pawon Jl. Balaputradewa Restaurant 0858- Bakaran & No.15, Dusun 1, 7098- Mangut Wanurejo 7559 Beong 123 Rumah No, Jl. Restaurant 0821- Makan Balaputradewa 3822- Padang Uni No.3, Dusun 1, 0482 Yani Wanurejo 124 Warung SS Jl. Balaputradewa Restaurant Serba Sambal No.5, Dusun 1, Borobudur Wanurejo

145 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

No Name Address Type of Phone Website Instagram Facebook Facility

125 Borobudur TICC Building No. 1, Tour Agency Tour and Jalan Travel Balaputradewa, Wanurejo, Borobudur, Kw. Candi Borobudur, Borobudur Wringingputih 126 Balkondes Wringinputih Guesthouse balkondesborobudur.com/desa- Wringinputih & Café wisata/ 127 Jolan Jalan Srigetan, Homestay 0819- jolanjalan/ homestay Wringinputih 0411- Borobudur 4127 128 Borobudur Jl. Medang Kamulan Hotel 0819- borobudurvillageinn.com BorobudurVillageInn Village Inn No.1 A, Kujon, 1545- Wringinputih 7204 129 Mangut Jl. Pangeran Restaurant 0822- Beong Asli Diponegoro No.444, 2688- Borobudur Kanggaan, 4845 Wringinputih 130 Rumah Jl. Syailendra Raya Restaurant 0853- Makan No.45, Sorotanan, 2749- Minang Koto Wringinputih 7759 131 Rumah Jl. Sudirman, Restaurant 0857- Makan Brongsongan, 4320- Padang Sinar Wringinputih 7008 Riau Khas Minang 132 Rumah Jl. Sudirman, Restaurant 0812- Makan Sorotanan, 2760-968 Padang Wringinputih Sederhana 133 Borobudur Perum Griya Tour Agency 0823- borobudurtourandtransport.com Tour and Kencana Permai 3991- Transport B03/05, Borobudur, 0027 Srigetan, Wringinputih

146 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

The conclusion to be drawn from this survey are that there is a relatively high take-up of online promotion by local enterprises, using a variety of channels. The larger and more sophisticated businesses (e.g. the Aman Kila hotel in Kec. Borobudur and the ViaVia Tour Agency and Restaurant in Jl. Prawirotaman) have sophisticated websites and more than one social media account, whereas microentrepreneurs may only list themselves on GoFood or have no more than a pin location on Google Maps. The low use of websites is because these are expensive to set up and maintain, and because consumers increasingly use social media rather than formal websites, partly because social media is often more straightforward than websites to access on smart-phones, while Instagram, Facebook and others act as a form of ‘word of mouth’ recommendation which consumers may find more trustworthy than company-sponsored websites.

Analysing further the businesses which do not have any online presence, many of those on Jl. Prawirotaman are linked to GoFood and are therefore able to boost their business that way, while in the Borobudur area the businesses without an online presence tend to be the smaller restaurants and accommodation providers. These businesses are often a sideline which make a contribution to the household economy, rather than forming the main source of income for the owners: they are generally busy only at weekends and on public holidays. Although a similar exercise has not been carried out for the Prambanan KTA, a rapid assessment of a small number of businesses around the principal attraction of Candi Prambanan shows, again, that only around one third have websites, while social media presence (especially Instagram) is higher.

There is certainly scope for enhancing the online activity of small businesses, which should be allied with an improvement in service standards.

2.8 Accessible Tourism and the TDAs

Indonesia introduced legislation in 2016 governing The situation remains very challenging the access of people with disabilities to public for disabled residents as well as spaces, amongst other aspects of rights for disabled visitors. people. 72 This was underpinned by the GoI’s ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2011. However, the situation on the ground has a long way to go to catch up with reality. In the first place, “Indonesians with disabilities face a high level of discrimination and stigmatization”, according to the campaigning organisation Humanity and Inclusion,73 while in terms of tourism the situation remains very challenging for disabled residents as well as visitors. An Indonesian disability campaigner remarked recently that “in Indonesia, it’s hard to even find the basics – wheelchair-friendly pavements or accessible bathrooms for example. So accessibility for bigger things, such as airports, hotels, restaurants and even some shopping malls is far from ideal. As for getting between places, it’s practically impossible, especially if you rely on using a wheelchair.

Getting in and out of vehicles is a nightmare, unless it’s a taxi. But even that’s not stress-free.”74 He had not been on holiday since 2012, when he enjoyed a few days in Bali (where disabled access in tourism facilities is more advanced than anywhere else in the country).

72 Law no. 8/2016 concerning Disabled Persons 73 https://www.hi-us.org/ 74 Disability Horizons (2017) ‘Inaccessible Indonesia’, 21 August, http://disabilityhorizons.com/2017/08/inaccessible-indonesia-be-grateful-for-the-accessibility-we-have/

147 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

In December 2018 an Indonesian disability rights group carried out an assessment of tourism attractions in Yogyakarta, concluding (with characteristically polite understatement) that the realization of providing facilities “is not yet optimal”. Examples cited included poorly designed ramps (when any were available) and insensitive handling of people’s disabilities.75 As Yogyakarta’s Adisucipto Airport is not equipped with jetways, passengers embark and deplane via mobile stairways, which present an insuperable barrier to people unable to use their lower limbs; and it is hard to imagine wheelchair-bound people negotiating the disorderly, broken and obstructed sidewalks and chaotic traffic of Yogyakarta, even with significant assistance.

There is a long ramp at Borobudur leading to the base of the temple, but unsurprisingly – given the monument’s status as a World Heritage Site - there are no adaptations to allow people of limited mobility to reach the top of the monument. Prambanan is more difficult yet, with several flights of steep steps to be negotiated even to get close to the main Loro Jonggrang temple (although lesser temples within the compound can be reached more easily). A 2015 TripAdvisor reviewer was critical of attitudes at Borobudur when visiting with her disabled husband.76 A 2018 blog on visiting Indonesia by wheelchair by a Frenchwoman describing herself as a ‘wheelchair explorer’ was more positive about Borobudur at least, although the difficulties at Prambanan rule access out for anyone in a wheelchair or with other mobility challenges.77

Generally, providers at all levels (public, private, community) in the TDAs could benefit greatly from training in applying the UNWTO’s principles of accessibility throughout the tourism chain.78 Finally, it is worth noting that Indonesia has recently introduced the term ‘difabel’ (also spelled ‘diffable’ or ‘difable’) to indicate facilities for people with mobility issues. The term is not derived from a mis- spelling of the English word ‘disabled’ but is a deliberate choice to create an acronym from the more positive words ‘differently abled’, and in official texts at least has largely replaced the previously used term ‘orang cacat’.

2.9 Government plans

Regulations for preparing tourism masterplans issued at provincial, kabupaten and kota level have been reviewed. So far, however, the Consultants have only been able to access two firm plans affecting the TDAs, neither of which has yet been written in full. Only the Executive Summary exists for the first one listed below, while the second appears only to exist as a Powerpoint presentation (provided to the Consultants by Bappeda Central Java). These two are reviewed below.

1. Tourism Masterplan for the City of Yogyakarta and surroundings, 2016, prepared on behalf of Dinas Pariwisata DI Yogyakarta by PT. Dua Tiga Empat (Executive Summary). 2. Development Direction for Tourism in Central Java, Bappeda Central Java, 2018 (Powerpoint presentation), based on Central Java Tourism Masterplan 2012-2027.79

75 The Jakarta Post (2018) ‘Disability rights groups says Yogyakarta tourist attractions lack accessibility’, 30 December 76 TripAdvisor Review (2015) ‘Borobudur Amazing, staff an absolute disaster!’, 30 April https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g790291-d320054-r269149806-Borobudur_Temple- Borobudur_Magelang_Central_Java_Java.html. The reviewer had engaged in extensive correspondence with the “Borobudur Management Office” before arriving, and was disappointed to find that no-one knew about her visit when she arrived; presumably she was unaware that there are two entities responsible for the site’s management. 77 https://www.iwheeltravel.com/en/borobudur-prambanan-merapi-java-handicap-wheelchair-disability/ 78 UNWTO (2013) Recommendations on Accessible Tourism, Madrid 79 The legal foundation for the C Java Masterplan is Provincial Decree of Central Java no. 10/2012. However although the full Masterplan has yet to be written.

148 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

In addition, the Consultants have been able to find a 2016 Tourism Masterplan for the Southern Beaches of Yogyakarta and surroundings, 2016, prepared on behalf of Dinas Pariwisata DI Yogyakarta, but this has not been considered in detail since it is outside the TDA. The Masterplans for the kabupaten of Magelang, Sleman and Klaten have not yet been produced.

2.9.1 DI Yogyakarta Tourism Masterplan for the City of Yogyakarta

The Masterplan for the City of Yogyakarta is comprehensive in its analysis of Yogyakarta’s position as a hub of tourism for the province of DI Yogyakarta and the south-central parts of Central Java. It views ‘Yogyakarta’ more widely than just the municipality, as it follows the National Strategic Tourism Area designation of ‘and its surroundings’, and so includes areas in the neighbouring kabupaten which are effectively now part of the city due to its metropolitan spread, as noted above.

The Masterplan gives mid-level projections for arrivals of 1.1 million foreign tourists and 14.8 million domestic tourists to the city by 2025, with an increased length of stay by that time to 3.07 days for foreigners and 2.5 days for domestic tourists.80 Its 3 priority actions are:

1. Developing the Prawirotaman area, with better infrastructure, a traditional market and a community centre. 2. Revitalising the Ndalem Kaneman (part of the Sultan’s household within the Kraton, currently occupied by his sister) to demonstrate High Javanese culture such as cultural performances, and dinners. 3. Creating a modern theatre and Culture Park near the Jogja Expo Centre in the Kotagede area (although this will be just outside the city boundary and therefore outside the TDA).

Additional actions are to:

 Create a ‘living museum’ attraction within the Sonobudoyo Museum.  Create a ‘living past’ attraction in the Pakualaman Palace  Run regular cultural festivals  Improve pavements (sidewalks), signage, and public transport

The plan is carefully thought through with an aim of developing and matching products to several different market segments according to different themes, as shown in Figure 2.29 below:

80 Tourism Masterplan for the City of Yogyakarta and surroundings, 2016, prepared on behalf of Dinas Pariwisata DI Yogyakarta by PT. Dua Tiga Empat

149 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Figure 2.29: Plan for Special Interest Tours, Yogyakarta & surrounding area

Source: Tourism Masterplan for the Yogyakarta City (2016)

However, when members of the ITMP BYP team visited the Dinas Pariwisata and Bappeda offices for the City of Yogyakarta, the officials there knew little about this plan and were not responsible for or involved in implementing it.81 Instead, their priority is to invest in the Kampung Wisata and Ecodistrict schemes, as explained above. This is partly because significant parts of the city government’s attention is on developing tourism in the southern parts of the city, where income levels are generally lower than in the northern areas, and which experience much less tourism- generated wealth than the northern areas.82 Within the City of Yogyakarta’s programme are plans to create more green spaces, the absence of which in Yogya has already been noted above; cycleways, a community learning centre, pedestrianised areas and cultural spaces. The most significant part of this plan in terms of visitor attractions is to build a second ‘Taman Pintar’ (the original is the city’s second-most popular visitor attraction, as noted in Section 2.4 above) with an associated water- park. According to the Ekodistrict Masterplan, the programme in 2019 is in the stage of detailed engineering.

81 Interviews with staff of Dinas Pariwisata and Bappeda Kota Yogyakarta, 6 and 7 February, 2019. 82 The strength of tourism and higher levels of wealth in the northern part of the city can be ascribed to the presence of the major universities just across the city/kabupaten boundary in Sleman, and because of better access from the airport and train station.

150 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

The Consultant also visited the office of Dinas Pariwisata DI Yogyakarta to discuss the Kota Yogyakarta Masterplan and its implementation, and it was again clear that the people in this office knew nothing about the plan.83

Investment opportunities related to the DI Yogyakarta Masterplan are included in the portfolio held by the DI Yogyakarta agency for Cooperation and Investment (2017). Available online at a dedicated website,84 this includes a considerable amount of tourism information and some tourism investment opportunities, which illustrates the emphasis being put on the development of this sector by the local authorities as a way of generating income and employment.

2.9.2 Central Java Tourism Masterplan

The ‘Direction of Development’ for the Province of Central Java tourism policy has been reviewed (as stated above, only a Powerpoint is available). This analyses the position of the National Strategic Tourism Areas in relation to the National Tourism Masterplan, and groups them into 4 areas:

 Borobudur-Yogyakarta and surroundings  Semarang-Karimunjawa and surroundings  Solo-Sangiran and surroundings  Nusakembangan-Pangandaran and surroundings

The Powerpoint presentation only gives any detail for the Borobudur Temple area, including an outline of how it can be branded and advertised. There are also aims to make the attraction a world- class and sustainable destination, and an intention to retain and protect wider areas as new tourism zones outside the PS-1 and PS-2 zones established by Presidential Decree 58/2014, in order to increase integration with the Joglosemar area. This is illustrated in the graphic shown in Figure 2.30.

Figure 2.30: Central Java Province Concept for Tourism Development at and around Borobudur

Source: Central Java Bappeda presentation on proposed tourism development direction in C Java (2018)

83 The Consultants met senior members of the Marketing team (13 February 2019) and it was clear they had never seen the Masterplan. 84 http://jogjainvest.jogjaprov.go.id/potensi-investasi-diy.html

151 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

These proposed new zones do not coincide with the ITMP’s Borobudur TDA as determined under the RIDA Integrated Tourism Development Project, but they are a coherent extension of tourism already taking place in the area, and proposals include some credible ideas for direct and indirect tourism product development based on existing natural and cultural assets (for example forest walks, spa tourism, hot-air ballooning, horticultural produce for sale direct to tourists or to catering outlets).

The Central Java plan does not overtly state that the Borobudur WHS is already over-visited, but – importantly - it states that the Borobudur Tourism Park should be ‘revitalised’ and that the numbers of tourists should be limited by time-scheduling and by quota. The plan also includes aspirations to improve the transportation network in order to disperse tourists more widely.

2.10 Context of the TDAs: Tourism in Yogyakarta-Solo-Semarang Area

Outside the three TDAs, the area known as the Joglosemar Triangle has abundant further attractions, several of which are already designated as National Tourism Strategic Areas (as outlined previously in this report). These are the Dieng Plateau and its surroundings, the National Parks of Merapi and Merbabu, the island of Karimunjawa (also a National Park), the World Heritage Site of Sangiran, the Southern Beaches of Yogyakarta, and the Gunung Kidul Limestone landscape (mostly included in the Gunung Sewu Geopark).

A brief description of the principal attractions of this area is given below to set the context for the KTAs/TDAs included in the ITMP. The information will help to show that infrastructural planning and other improvements in the TDAs will help to stimulate tourism growth in the wider area in order to reach the Government’s targets. The key locations are shown on the map in Figure 2.31.

Figure 2.31: Principal tourism areas in Central Java / DI Yogyakarta

Source: Central Java Bappeda presentation on proposed tourism development direction in C Java (2018)

152 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

2.10.1 Cultural / Urban tourism in the Joglosemar Triangle

Surakarta/Solo: This city rivals Yogyakarta as the ‘cradle of Javanese’ culture, with excellent examples of architecture and crafts of all types. The main palace (Kraton Hadiningrat) was badly damaged by fire in the mid-1980s but has since been restored. The palace has interesting artefacts. The Kraton Mangkunegaran belongs to a junior line of the Solo royal family. Dating from 1757, it hosts one of Java’s oldest gamelan orchestras, Jyai Kanyut Mesem (‘Drifting with Smiles’). The Radya Pustaka Museum is the second-oldest museum in Indonesia, having been founded in the 1890s as the Institute of Javanese Culture. It has an excellent collection of kris, ancient sculptures and books.

Semarang: Semarang is a pleasant and well laid-out city, which despite its huge population (6 million) retains much of charm and interest and reflects the prosperity it has enjoyed over several centuries, based on its facility as an important trading port. Sights include the Great Mosque of Central Java; Kam Poo Kong Temple; Blenduk Church, the oldest church in Central Java; several fine old buildings in the Old Town.

Dieng Plateau: Less visited than Java’s other temple sites, Dieng has the oldest temples in Java. High places are particularly sacred in the traditional Javanese belief system, and the name derives from a Javanese phrase meaning ‘Abode of the Gods’. Of a former city with more than 400 temples and massive flights of steps rising from the valley below, today only eight small temples survive, surrounded by an attractive rural landscape dotted with bubbling mud pools, crater lakes and hot springs.

Salatiga/Ambarawa area: The Central Java town of Salatiga lies at 700m above sea-level between Mt. Merbabu and Mt. Ungaran (2050m). With the nearby smaller town of Ambarawa, the area has developed into a popular hill resort, especially for city-dwellers from Semarang and Jakarta wishing to enjoy the cooler air. A number of soft adventure activities have developed, including water-based activities on Lake Rawa Pening (which also provides water for hydro-electricity and irrigation). There are well over 100 hotels in the area.

Community-based tourism: There are several villages in the area with an existing infrastructure of community-based tourism, including more Desa Wisata. For instance, the DW Penting Sari (on the slopes of Merapi, in Kab. Sleman) has won several awards for its well-organised rural tourism, and DW Pulesari (also in Kab. Sleman) offers packages for family and group tourism such as learning local handicrafts and art-forms.85 This village is also a focus of a pilot scheme of the Yogyakarta-based Sustainable Tourism Observatory.

Kaliurang: This pleasant hill resort is sometimes known as the ‘Gateway to Merapi’. The informative ‘Volcano Museum’ is here, and nearby is the privately-owned Ullen Sentalu Museum of Javanese culture, while further attractions targeting mainly domestic tourists are the artificial lake of Tlogo Putri; the viewpoint of Klagon Hill, where camping also popular; the Lost World Castle, a mock- medieval castle built on the site of a village destroyed in the 2010 eruption of Merapi; and Merapi Park, which is “dedicated for selfie-lovers, avid Instagrammers and those who simply love taking photos”86.

85 https://desawisatapulesari.wordpress.com/ 86 https://www.indonesia.travel/uk/en/trip-ideas/5-awesome-places-for-family-recreation-in-kaliurang- mount-merapi

153 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

2.10.2 Nature-based tourism in the Joglosemar Triangle

Because of the overwhelmingly urban, agricultural and There is a surprising amount of heavily managed nature of the environment of the TDAs nature-based tourism opportunities themselves, there is little nature-based tourism within outside the TDAs. them. Outside these areas however there is a surprising amount of opportunities.

Mt. Merapi and Mt. Merbabu: The two national parks centred on the mountains of Merapi and Merbabu offer the greatest variety of nature-based tourism opportunities in the wider region. They are especially popular with hikers, especially the strenuous trek to the summit of Mt. Merapi (when volcanic activity permits). There is a significant amount of other nature-based tourism activity in the area, especially jeep-based lava tours, ‘outward bound’ style adventure tourism (known as ‘outbound’ in Indonesia), and relaxing in the fresh, cool air. (The photo shows a poster displaying some of these options.)

The frequent eruptions of Merapi give rise to a form of The frequent eruptions of Merapi ‘dark tourism’, with tourists keen to visit the area to give rise to a form of ‘dark experience for themselves the forces of nature. Some tourism’, with tourists keen to visit tours focus specifically on the volcanoes (for example the area to experience for the international tour operator Volcano Adventures / themselves the forces of nature. Volcano Discovery) or include visits to villages destroyed by the eruptions.

Gunung Sewu Geopark: Recognised by the UNESCO Global Geopark Network in 2005, the Geopark extends for 120 kilometres along the coast of DI Yogyakarta, Central Java and East Java, bounded to the north by the mountain ranges of Merapi and Sewu and covering the volcanic and karst landscapes of the eastern part of the provinces of Central Java and DI Yogyakarta along the Kidul range. Prehistoric settlements are known from the area.87 The limestone geology creates a number of opportunities for nature-based and adventure tourism, particularly within the cave systems. Speleology is popular in Indonesia and by the mid-1980s 261 caves had been mapped within the province of DI Yogyakarta alone, including the deepest and longest cave systems yet discovered in Indonesia.88 ‘Soft adventure’ forms tourism are also popular, such as cave-tubing and abseiling. A popular attraction in the Kidul Hills is the Jomblang Cave, where people abseil down into a sink-hole (25m in diameter) and explore the caverns at the bottom. Interestingly, this activity is limited to just 25 visitors per day - one of the few examples in Indonesia where numbers are limited due to physical and psychological carrying capacity. The underground river – the Kalisuci - is used for ‘cave tubing’, where people float on inner tubes from truck-tyres through the cave tunnels.

There is considerable recreational tourism activity centred on the caves and beaches, and various locations in the Geopark are also used for educational tourism (photo shows Geopark information board in Gunung Kidul area).

87 http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/earth-sciences/unesco-global-geoparks/list- of-unesco-global-geoparks/indonesia/gunung-sewu/ 88 http://caves.or.id/, website of the Indonesian Speleological Society; Whitten et al (1996) op. cit.

154 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Bird-watching: Several locations in the Joglosemar area and even are used for bird-watching tours (aimed at both domestic and international markets) facilitated by Yogya-based bird-guides. These include coastal lagoons near the estuary of the Progo River and other sites in Kulon Progo (DI Yogyakarta). Just west of Yogyakarta is the Desa Wisata Ketingan, where thousands of Cattle Egrets, Little Egrets and Night Herons roost, providing an interesting spectacle. The villagers here initially tried to deter the herons but later came to accept them and now benefit from a small visitor economy centred on them. Sites within the TDAs include the Menoreh Hills, fields and woods around the temple complexes of Borobudur and Prambanan and even within the city of Yogyakarta, where the hotel Melia Purosani manages its grounds to encourage nesting of the Java Sparrow and other birds.

Agrotourism: Rice-fields still dominate the landscape in many parts of Java but, as the population becomes increasingly urban,89 fewer and fewer people have direct experience of wet-rice farming, which until fairly recently formed the principal livelihood strategy of most Javanese. This has resulted in a significant sector of ‘nostalgia tourism’, with people returning to their ancestral villages – or somewhere resembling these villages – in order to experience or at least view what is considered to be a more traditional and less hurried way of life. This is one of the reasons for the popularity of the Desa Wisata – at least the ones organised enough to market themselves and provide clear packages or attractions.

Forestry reserves: In some cases, forest reserves are extremely popular with domestic visitors, for example the Pinus Asri and Pinus Pengger reserves located a few kilometres south-east of Yogyakarta, where wooden viewing platforms overlooking views of hills and forests have been erected to provide selfie spots. To the west of Yogya, the Kaliburu Nature Tourism (‘Wisata Alam’) park in the Menoreh Hills has also become popular in the last couple of years with young domestic tourists because of its soft adventure amenities such as a zip-wire and selfie facilities, again consisting mainly of tree-platforms designed to frame a dramatic backdrop to photos. Here, in addition to paying an entrance fee to the park, visitors pay a separate fee for each selfie spot.90

Generally, tourism to natural areas needs to be carefully Tourism to natural areas needs to managed if the intention is to attract international visitors as be carefully managed to attract well as domestic visitors, because of different expectations 91 international as well as domestic and behaviour. For instance, an international tourism visitors, because of different blogger made the following remarks about a ‘dark tourism’ expectations and behaviour. visit to an area of Merapi devastated by the 2010 eruption:

89 The percentage of Indonesians living in urban areas surpassed 50% in 2011, and by 2020 is expected to stand at 56.7% in the country as a whole. In Java over 70% of the population already lives in urban areas (Central Bureau of Statistics, www.bps.go.id, accessed 9 September 2018. 90 Kalibiru is sometimes incorrectly described as a ‘national park’, in a mistranslation of ‘Obyek Wisata Alam’ (‘Nature Tourism Attraction’). 91 Cochrane, J. (2006) Indonesian national parks: understanding leisure users, Annals of Tourism Research, 33(4), pp. 889-1200

155 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

“.. there was lots of selfie-taking. A large proportion of the tourists here clearly had no interest in the vestiges of the volcanic drama that were all around. They only seemed interested in having easy-going fun and taking pictures of themselves. They probably never even saw the lahars and the ruins or took in what they stood for. And during the jeep rides, which are naturally quite bumpy, girls were screeching as if they were on some kind of funfair ride. I found it quite distracting from what I had come to see and experience here”.92

Generally, market demand for small, nature-based soft adventure and ‘selfie’ attractions appears to be robust and expanding; for instance there are short hikes around and ancient (extinct) volcano of Mt. Nglanggeran, in the Gunung Kidul hills, and the Forest Recreation Park of Bunder, also in Gunung Kidul, has a range of sort adventure activities which are popular with domestic visitors (see photo, right). As an indication of this, the Yogyakarta-based tour operator Eksotis Jogja lists dozens of ‘nature-based tourism’ attractions in DI Yogyakarta alone, ranging from sand-boarding to waterfalls to educational tourism, and including – of course – many ‘photo spots’.93

2.11 Key issues

The key issues which can be drawn from this review of the tourism offer in the TDAs and KTAs are as follows:

 The WHS of Borobudur is the principal flagship attraction of southern Central Java and DI Yogyakarta, while the City of Yogyakarta also provides a strong pull because of the diversity of its attractions. The WHS of Prambanan is effectively now in a suburb of Yogyakarta and due to poor interpretation offers a relatively weak experience to international tourists, other than the Ramayana ballet. However, there are opportunities to considerably enhance this area.

 Including the National Priority Tourism Areas of DI Yogyakarta and Central Java and other places outside the TDAs, there is a wide range of nature-based, rural, adventure, cultural and culinary assets across the region which already appeal to a domestic and Southeast Asian market.

 Within the TDAs themselves, several new attractions have been developed in recent years to appeal primarily to a domestic market, both residents and visitors, who now benefit from a wide variety of possible activities.

 Although the TDAs have fascinating tangible and intangible cultural attractions of both historical and more recent interest, the offer likely to appeal to an international market is constrained by the shortage of good restaurants in the historic city and poor interpretation of cultural assets, including non-existent or poor promotion or development of cultural events.

 Throughout the TDAs, there is extensive evidence of the degradation of the built heritage through insensitive and inappropriate development as well as failures in protecting existing heritage assets.

92 http://www.dark-tourism.com/index.php/15-countries/individual-chapters/1011-merapi 93 https://eksotisjogja.com/wisata/wisata-alam-di-jogja/

156 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

 Yogyakarta is a large and still expanding city, with few green spaces or available development sites. This means that expanding the tourism infrastructure to create more facilities and a more pleasant environment will be challenging.

 There is very poor accessibility for people with mobility challenges to all principal attractions and to the great majority of facilities throughout the TDAs.

 The Government of DI Yogyakarta has commissioned a Tourism Masterplan for the City of Yogyakarta and its surroundings and is implementing this. The City of Yogyakarta government has a separate plan (although this does not appear to be written down) and is also proceeding with this. There is poor coordination between the Dinas Pariwisata and Bappeda offices at the different levels.

 There are still considerable areas of agricultural land still available in the Borobudur and Prambanan TDAs which may offer opportunities for development of accommodation and attractions and for dispersing tourists more widely through the region. Some opportunities have been identified in this regard for the Borobudur TDA by the Central Java Tourism Masterplan process.

157 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

References

Chapter 1

Azam, M. and Sarkar, T. (2010) Governance of Green Tourism and Sustainable Development: Towards Greening the Economy BCO (2013) Laporan Hasil Kajian Persepsi Pengunjung Terhadap Kenyamanan Berkunjung ke Kompleks Candi Borobudur (Visitor Satisfaction Survey to Borobudur), Balai Konservasi Borobudur BPS – Statistics of Yogyakarta Municipality; Dinas Pariwisata – Tourism Statistics, 2017

BPS Exit Survey Central Java 2017 in presentation by Bappeda Central Java 3.9.2018 BPS Exit Survey of Foreign Tourists, 2016 BPS Indonesia and Directorate General of Immigration (data reprocessed by The Assistant Deputy of Research & Development on Tourism Policy, Ministry of Tourism), 2018

BPS Kab. Klaten (2018) Kabupaten Klaten Dalam Angka 2018, BPS Kab. Klaten BPS Kab. Magelang (2018) Kabupaten Magelang dalam Angka 2018, BPS Kab. Magelang BPS/Ministry of Tourism (2017) Survey of Domestic Tourists (Statistik Profil Wisatawan Nusantara 2016, Jakarta Choong, D. and Wong, Y.H. (2016) Future of Outbound Travel in Asia-Pacific 2016-2021, UNWTO CNN (2012) Consumer Connect: Travel & Tourism survey DI Yogyakarta Tourism Office (2017), Tourism Statistics / Statistik kepariwisataan, DI Yogyakarta Dolan, R., Seo, Y. and Kemper, J. (2019) Complaining practices on social media in tourism: a value co-creation and co-destruction perspective, Tourism Management, 73, pp. 35-45 Fromm, J. (2017) Why Millennials Are the Most Important Consumer Generation for The Travel Industry Greater Mekong Subregion, Tourism Sector Strategy 2016-2025 Guangrui, Z. Honorary Director of the Tourism Research Centre of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (2017) Chinese will reduce ‘crazy spending’ and mature into Western-style tourists, ITB World Travel Trends Report, Stark Tourism LLP Horwath HTL (2017) Lombok/Borobudur-Yogyakarta-Prambanan/Lake Toba Baseline Supply and Demand, market demand forecasts, and investment needs (hereafter: ‘Demand Assessment’,asper MPWH Environmental and Social Management Framework). Kab. Sleman in figures (2017) Kawano S., Lu J., Tsang R., Liu J. (2015) The Asian Consumer – The Chinese Tourist Boom, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research, 15 November. McKinsey & Co (2016), cited in Business Insider UK, August 28 Ministry of Tourism (2017) cited in ‘Tourism becomes the new star of Indonesia’s economy’, The Jakarta Post, 18 October Ministry of Tourism, BPS DI Yogyakarta, BPS Bali, various dates

Naim, M. (2013) The End of Power: From Boardrooms to Battlefields and Churches to States, Why Being in Charge Isn't What It Used to Be, USA: Basic Books Nielsen, plc (2018) Outbound Chinese Tourism and Consumption Trends 2017, Neilsen, plc Pratomo D. S. (2017) The Analysis of Domestic Travellers in Indonesia, in Jejak: Journal of Economics and Policy 10(2), pp. 317-329

158 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Presentation by Bappeda Central Java, 3.9.2018 Ram, Y, Bjork, P. and Weidenfeld (2016) Authenticity and place attachment of major visitor attractions, Tourism Management 52, pp. 110-122 Rui, S. (2018) Report on World Tourism Economy Trends 2018, presentation at ITB Germany, 2018 Tourism Statistics 2016 and 2017, DI Yogyakarta Tourism Office

TripAdvisor (2018) Travel Trends Report: Experiences, Tours and Activities UNWTO (2018) Tourism Highlights 2018 Edition, Madrid World Economic Forum (2017) Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report, Indonesia 2017

Websites https://www.forbes.com http://kopertis3.or.id/v5/wp-content/uploads/Buku-Statistik-Pendidikan-Tinggi-2017.pdf) https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/consumer-insights/consumer-travel-smartphone-usage/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/266741/occupancy-rates-of-hotels-worldwide-by-region/ https://visitingjogja.com/

Interview Yulianto, Program and Data Division, Dinas Pariwisata Kota Yogyakarta, 5/2/2019

Chapter 2

Agence de L’Environnement et de la Maitrise de l’Energie / City of Yogkarta / BPIW (2016) Gadjah Wong Ecodistrict Kota Yogyakarta Badan Kerjasama dan Penanaman Modal DIY (2017) Jogja Istimewa: Potensi Investasi Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta Badan Kerjasama dan Penanaman Modal DIY (2017) Jogja Istimewa: Potensi Investasi DI Yogyakarta Biro Pusat Statistic (2018) Kota Yogyakarta Dalam Angka (City of Yogyakarta in Figures) 2017 BPS DI Yogyakarta, 2017 BPS Kab. Klaten (2018) Kabupaten Klaten Dalam Angka / Klaten in Figures, 2017 BPS Kabupaten Magelang (2017) Kabupaten Magelang Dalam Angka / Magelang District in Figures, 2017 BPS Kota Magelang (2018) Kota Magelang Dalam Angka / Magelang Municipality in Figures, 2017 BPS Yogyakarta (2018) Kota Yogyakarta Dalam Angka / Yogyakarta City in figures 2017 Central Java Bappeda presentation on proposed tourism development direction in C Java (2018) Cochrane, J. (2006) Indonesian national parks: understanding leisure users, Annals of Tourism Research, 33(4), pp. 889-1200 Dinas Pariwisata DI Yogyakarta (2015) Statistik Kepariwisataan, Yogyakarta Dinas Pariwisata DI Yogyakarta (2016) City of Yogyakarta Tourism Master Plan, prepared on behalf of Dinas Pariwisata DI Yogyakarta by PT Dua Tiga Empat Consultants, Sleman Dinas Pariwisata DI Yogyakarta (2017) Statistik Kepariwisataan 2016, Yogyakarta Ellepola, Y. (2017) Booming informal accommodation sector: bane or boom of Sri Lanka’s tourism? Institute of Policy Studies, November 20

159 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Guild, J. (2018) Indonesia’s Booming Tourist Industry, The Diplomat, June 7 Guttentag, D. (2015) Airbnb: disruptive innovation and the rise of an informal tourism accommodation sector, Current Issues in Tourism 15(12) Indonesian Hotel & Restaurant Association (PHRI) (2016) reported in Koran SINDO, November 5 Law no. 8/2016 concerning Disabled Persons Tourism Masterplan for the Yogyakarta City (2016) Tourism Statistics 2017, DI Yogyakarta Tourism Office UNWTO (2013) Recommendations on Accessible Tourism, Madrid Williams, C.C. and Horodnic, I.A. (2017) Regulating the sharing economy to prevent the growth of the informal sector in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29 (9). pp. 2261-2278

Websites http://caves.or.id/ http://www.dark-tourism.com/index.php/15-countries/individual-chapters/1011-merapi https://desawisatapulesari.wordpress.com/ http://disabilityhorizons.com/2017/08/inaccessible-indonesia-be-grateful-for-the-accessibility-we-have/ http://dparagon.com/ https://eksotisjogja.com/wisata/wisata-alam-di-jogja/ https://www.hi-us.org/ https://www.indonesia.travel/uk/en/trip-ideas/5-awesome-places-for-family-recreation-in-kaliurang-mount- merapi https://www.iwheeltravel.com/en/borobudur-prambanan-merapi-java-handicap-wheelchair-disability/ http://jogjainvest.jogjaprov.go.id/potensi-investasi-diy.html https://mamikos.com/kost/kost-jogja-murah https://outside.agoda.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Agoda-Outside-white-paper-MS-Word- template.pdf) https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g790291-d320054-r269149806-Borobudur_Temple- Borobudur_Magelang_Central_Java_Java.html. www.bps.go.id http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/earth-sciences/unesco-global-geoparks/list- of-unesco-global-geoparks/indonesia/gunung-sewu/

Interviews Interview with Wawan, Program and Data Division, Dinas Pariwisata Kota Yogyakarta, 6 February Interview with Agustin Wijayanti, Head of Sub-Unit for Local Economy and Finance, Bappeda, City of Yogyakarta, 7 February 2019 Interview with staff of ViaVia tour agency, Yogyakarta, 10 November 2018 Interview with Felicia Hughes-Freeland, anthropologist and film-maker specialising in the cultural politics of maritime Southeast Asia, including in performance, media and tourism, 24 October 2018 Interviews with staff of Dinas Pariwisata and Bappeda Kota Yogyakarta, 6 and 7 February, 2019.

160 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Appendix 1.1 - Additional Tables

The following tables detail the average length of stay, average expenditure, distribution of expenditure, choice of activities of international tourists to Indonesia, as well as macro trends in visitor arrivals.

Average Length of Stay and Average Expenditure by Region of Residence in 2016 Region of ALOS ALOS ALOS Average Average residence Holiday MICE expenditure expenditure per per day/ trip/ Holiday USD Holiday USD Average 8.4 9.2 5.2 131.6 1255.0 ASEAN 5.5 4.9 4.1 150.8 738.7 Asia 11.6 6.7 5.9 150.1 1057.9 Middle East 12.9 10.6 5.4 195.1 2074.9 Europe 14.0 14.5 6.6 111.2 1613.2 America 12.2 13.5 5.3 121.4 1633.1 Oceania 10.2 10.4 7.1 156.6 1634.6 Africa 11.0 11.4 7.6 137.9 1567.7 Source: Exit Survey, Foreign Tourists, 2016

Distribution of Expenditure per Visit by Origin of Residence Accommo F & B Domestic Local Shopping Souvenirs Entertai Health dation flight transport nment and beauty Average 479.7 225.2 25.1 98.5 74.6 76.8 35.8 21.8 ASEAN 274.8 134.2 9.1 76.9 53.1 67.2 20.4 9.9 Asia 429.7 192.1 21.4 82.4 73.1 77.5 29.0 20.1 Middle 792.4 402.8 47.7 186.4 141.9 159.0 67.7 36.0 East Europe 696.6 319.3 48.1 125.8 83.0 76.3 47.0 30.6 America 684.2 329.0 48.8 129.3 77.9 80.6 60.7 24.6 Oceania 685.7 332.8 21.7 114.6 116.2 75.5 58.9 47.3 Africa 584.4 258.0 34.2 111.4 89.8 99.2 73.8 22.0 Source: Exit Survey, Foreign Tourists, 2016

Distribution of Expenditure per Visit by Origin of Residence (Contd.) Education Local tour Sightseeing Guides Others Amount packages Average 3.0 23.3 28.6 4.4 7.1 1,103.8 ASEAN 2.0 11.4 14.0 2.1 8.4 683.6 Asia 2.7 20.8 22.7 3.6 4.3 979.4 Middle East 5.3 21.7 46.9 4.7 5.6 1,918.2 Europe 4.5 44.5 46.5 7.9 8.6 1,538.7 America 5.7 27.2 45.2 6.4 7.1 1,526.6 Oceania 1.1 28.7 43.7 6.8 6.3 1,539.2 Africa 1.2 24.2 45.9 7.5 18.6 1,370.0 Source: Exit Survey, Foreign Tourists, 2016

161 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Trends in International Arrivals and their Trip Character in Indonesia 2012-201694 Foreign Tourists ALOS Average Expenditure ForEx per Person (USD) Receipts Volume Growth Per Per Amount Growth Year (%) Day visit (USD) (%) 2012 8,044,462 5.2 7.7 147.2 1,133.8 9,120.9 6.6 2013 8,802,129 9.4 7.7 149.3 1,142.2 10,054.1 10.2 2014 9,435,411 7.2 7.7 154.4 1,183.4 11,166.1 11.1 2015 10,406,759 10.3 8.5 141.7 1,208.8 12,225.9 9.5 2016 12,023,971 15.5 8.4 131.6 1,103.8 12,440.4 1.8 Source: BPS and Ministry of Tourism (2012-2016)

Distribution of tourists (%) according to region of residence and type of activities undertaken Region of Culture –based Tourism Activities Nature-based Tourism Activities Origin Historical Cultural & Urban and Marine Eco Adventure tourism and culinary rural tourism tourism/ tourism religion tourism tourism Nature- based ASEAN 25.4 37.5 79.9 22.2 12.5 10.3 Asia 29.6 45.3 84.0 44.2 13.1 11.2 Middle East 21.0 40.7 88.7 41.8 24.3 17.0 Europe 43.3 47.4 83.2 66.2 26.5 33.4 Americas 33.0 42.9 83.9 59.0 22.5 27.5 Oceania 27.8 36.1 85.2 65.6 18.6 24.5 Africa 36.6 36.6 89.8 56.6 22.0 22.4 Average 30.7 41.9 82.7 43.6 17.0 17.6 Source: BPS National Passenger Exit Survey 2016

Average Length of Stay (nights) of by Hotel Classification in Yogyakarta City, 2017 Month Star-Rated Hotel Non-Star Rated Hotel Star-rated and Non Star-Rated Hotels January 2.2 1.4 2.0 February 1.7 1.4 1.6 March 1.6 1.6 1.6 April 1.6 1.4 1.6 May 1.6 1.6 1.6 June 1.7 1.7 1.7 July 1.7 1.6 1.6 August 1.8 1.7 1.8 September 1.7 1.6 1.7 October 1.7 1.7 1.7 November 1.6 1.3 1.6 December 1.6 1.3 1.6 TOTAL 1.7 1.5 1.7 2016 1.6 1.6 1.6 2015 1.7 1.4 1.6 2014 1.7 1.3 1.6 Source: BPS – Statistics of Yogyakarta Municipality, 2017

94 Based on national level exit surveys (2012-2016) conducted by the Ministry of Tourism with the BPS, Directorate General of Immigration, Airport and Seaport Administrators, Bank Indonesia, Provincial Tourism Offices, and State and Private Higher Education.

162 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Appendix 1.2 - Comparative Competitive Analysis – selected WHS sites in Southeast Asia Destination Visitor Arrivals & revenue (if data International airlines Contribution of tourism to GDP Other aspects available) providing direct flights to the destination

Borobudur Borobudur 4 airlines (Yogya): National level Ticket prices for internationals (WHS) 2015 – 3.56 million visitors of which Silk Air, Air Asia, Singapore The total contribution of travel 93% domestic and 7% international Airlines (Singapore) and tourism to GDP was USD 58.9 Borobudur: and 2016 – 3.8 million visitors; Air Asia (Malaysia) bn equaling to 5.8% of GDP in 2017 USD 20 market structure expected to be 2017. This is forecasted to rise by 2018 USD 25 similar to 2015 6.4% per annum to USD 115.8 bn or 6.6% of GDP in 2028. Prambanan in 2018: Prambanan Prambanan 2016 – 1.97 million visitors of which In Joglosemar, the tourism (WHS), 90% domestic contribution to GRDP was close to Indonesia 2017 – 1.78 million visitors; market 7% in 2017. It is targeted to structure expected to be similar to increase to 8% in 2019. 2016

Combo ticket for Borobudur and Prambanan: 2017 USD 30 2018 USD 40

Rates are valid for one adult, single entry.

Angkor Wat 2.46 million 25 airlines National level The direct Ticket prices for internationals (WHS), Siem (2017) Air Asia (Malaysia) contribution of Travel & Tourism A single-day ticket $37

163 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Destination Visitor Arrivals & revenue (if data International airlines Contribution of tourism to GDP Other aspects available) providing direct flights to the destination

Reap, Cambodia Air Busan, Air Seoul (ROK) to GDP was USD3,134.5mn, 14.1% Three-day pass $62 Angkor ticket sales earned $107 Bangkok Airways (Thailand) of total Seven day pass $72 million in 2017, a 72.5 percent Beijing Capital Airlines GDP in 2017 and is forecast to rise The 3-day pass is valid for 10 days from the increase compared with the year (China) by 4.2% in 2018, and to rise by issue date, the 7-day pass is valid for 1 month before due to the increase in ticket Cambodia Airways (China, 5.9% pa, from 2018-2028, to from the issue date. So with both of these prices. Taiwan) USD5,794.3mn, 12.1% of total passes it’s not necessary to plan the visits on Cambodia Angkor Air GDP in 2028. consecutive days. From January to June 2018, 1.35 (China, Vietnam) million visited the archaeological Cathay Dragon, HK Express The total contribution of Travel & USD 2.00 from each ticket sold is donated to park, an increase of 10 percent (Hong Kong China) Tourism to GDP was the Kantha Bopha Foundation, a Swiss-run compared to the same period last Cebu Pacific (Philippines) USD7,206.7mn, 32.4% of GDP in hospital for children which provides free year. China Eastern Airlines 2017, and is forecast to rise by medical treatments. (China) 4.5% in 2018, and to rise by 6.0% Visitors to the Angkor Archaeological site have Cambodia earned $61.4 million in Far Eastern Air Transport pa to USD13,518.0mn, 28.3% of to be more aware about the Angkor Visitor of revenue from the sale of tickets at (Taiwan) GDP in 2028. Conduct. The Apsara Authority , which Angkor Wat during the first half of GX Airlines (China) manages the site, has implemented stricter 2018, a hike of nearly 18 percent Hainan Airlines (China) Regional level contribution not regulations. Tourists who are dressed compared to last year, according to JC International Airlines available. inappropriately will be denied to enter the figures from Angkor Enterprise. (China) temple complex. Revealing clothes such as Jetstar Asia Airways shorts and skirts above the knees and showing (Singapore) bare shoulders are strongly prohibited. Jetstar Pacific Airlines Smoking and drinking as well as entering (Vietnam) restricted areas are also forbidden. Lanmei Airlines (China) The new regulations by the Apsara Lao Airlines (Lao PDR) Authority aim to harmonize tourist Malaysia Airlines (Malaysia) experiences with public safety and for temple’s Shandong Airlines (China) sanctity. Silk Air (Singapore) Sky Angkor Airlines (China, ROK)

Spring Airlines (China) Siem Reap/Angkor market share in Thai Airways operated by total foreign arrivals to Cambodia has Thai Smile (Thailand)

164 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Destination Visitor Arrivals & revenue (if data International airlines Contribution of tourism to GDP Other aspects available) providing direct flights to the destination

dropped from close to 58% in 2012 VietJet Air (Vietnam) to close to 39% in 2016. This is Vietnam Airlines (Vietnam) explained by the country’s efforts to Xiamen Air (China) diversify its product offer. More internationals have been visiting the capital Phonom Penh and the coast.

. Luang Prabang 472 942 7 airlines: National level 80% of international arrivals in Lao PDR visit (WHS), Lao PDR (2017) China Eastern Airlines Luang Prabang. (China) The direct contribution of Travel Region of origin of international Bangkok Airways (Thailand) & Tourism to GDP was Luang Prabang consists of 58 adjacent villages, arrivals: Hainan Airlines (China) USD614.0mn, 4.2% of total of which 33 comprise the UNESCO Town Of ASEAN 16% Lao Airlines (Thailand, GDP in 2017 and is forecast to rise Luang Prabang WHS. It was listed in 1995 for Asia and the Pacific 29% China, Vietnam, Cambodia); by 3.8% in 2018, and to rise by unique and "remarkably" well preserved Europe 38% Silk Air (Singapore); Thai Air 4.2% pa, from 2018-2028, to architectural, religious and cultural heritage, a Americas 16% Asia (Thailand); Thai USD962.4mn, 3.5% of total GDP blend of the rural and urban developments Africa & Middle East 2% Airways (Thailand); Vietnam in 2028. over several centuries. Airlines (Vietnam; Cambodia) The total contribution of Travel & Tourism to GDP was USD2,012.2mn, 13.7% of GDP in 2017, and is forecast to rise by 4.7% in 2018, and to rise by 4.8% pa to USD3,373.4mn, 12.2% of GDP in 2028.

Local level contribution not available.

165 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Appendix 1.3 - Tourism Trade Survey Sample Name of respondent Position of Organisation name Country respondent Fadli Fahmi Ali Director Werkudara Travel Management Indonesia Jeremy Barnes GM Safari Tours Manado Indonesia Mochammad Choiri Tour Consultant Acacia Tour & Travel Indonesia Oey Jok Pin Director PT. CHACHA CHRISTO ANUGERAH WISATA Indonesia Agus wibowo Manager Aerotravel Indonesia Yunita Prihastuti Tour Consultant PT Tunas Indonesia Tours & Travel Indonesia ATOK - trianto Head Manager Seta Tours Yogyakarta (PT Kalimas Seta Indonesia sunarjati. Abadi, Yogyakarta branch) Dominique CLARISSE General Manager Azimuth Adventure Travel Indonesia M. Adlil Haq. MICE division Asita Indonesia Cunduk Bagus Position not JAVA BAGUS Indonesia Sudarwono disclosed TRI WASPODO SUPERVISOR CANTYA HOTEL Indonesia Bimo Nawang Yuda Director YOI TOUR Indonesia KRT Thomas Director PT MIDAS Indonesia Haryonagoro Adiel Priyarama Director YUKTI PERSADA NADI Indonesia Lucie Bel Marketing PT. SMAILING TOURS AND TRAVEL SERVICE Indonesia Manager Cunduk Bagus Director JAVA BAGUS Indonesia Sudarwono Mira Dhanisari, SE Managing Director M TRAVELLINK Indonesia Mohamad Rifki Tri Sales Marketing SATYA GRAHA HOTEL Indonesia Kurniawan Noegroho Soeprapto Position not SRI RAMA Indonesia disclosed Respondent’s name Marketing BATIK HOTEL YOGYAKARTA Indonesia not disclosed Manager Bagus Anindito Front Office ADHISTHANA HOTEL Indonesia Manager Veiko Kristanto Board of director SPIRIT OF JAVA Indonesia Jajang Sukendar Position not JAWA MANDIRI Indonesia disclosed Sri Mujiyati Director ViaVia Indonesia Ni Komang Darmiati General Manager GRAND INNA MALIOBORO Indonesia Auxilia Dora Patricia Managing Director STAT INDONESIA Indonesia H. Ng Sebastian Owner/ Director Incito. Vacations Indonesia Ni Putu Kristiawati Position not SANTA BALI (CABANG JOGJA) Indonesia disclosed Irul Maralewa SEO Jogja Compass Tours Indonesia Arif Hardiawan Sales and RAJAKLANA RESORT, VILLA AND SPA Indonesia Marketing Jiman Budiharja GM TARA HOTEL Indonesia Fafa Room supervisor POP Hotel Tugu Yogyakarta Indonesia Malia Sayuti Director ATA TRAVEL SERVICES Indonesia Andriyanto Tour operator TX Travel Indonesia

166 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Name of respondent Position of Organisation name Country respondent Fadhilla Seno Cahyo Director PT. Tiket2 Indonesia Indonesia Utomo Ummy setiowati Director PT. PARAMITA DEWI TOURS AND TRAVEL Indonesia Hendri Hidayat Director ORIZA INDO RAYA (ORIZA HOLIDAY) Indonesia Yayuk Ina Director Pt Inaya Anugerah Sejati Indonesia Purdiyastuti Arjen De Haan MD ASIALINK HOLIDAYS Indonesia Giovanni Lidya Marketing & PT.Elegi Lentera Sukses Indonesia Ticketing Staff Twenika Arisanti, BPW PT. Mitra Aiko Utama Indonesia SE.M.Mpar Ina Operations PT.Nawal Amura Pratama Indonesia Della Owner PT. Monggo Abadi Nusantara Indonesia Respondent’s name Position not PT.Global Tourindo Santoso Indonesia not disclosed disclosed Respondent’s name Position not PT. Citra Gilang Pariwisata Indonesia not disclosed disclosed Respondent’s name Position not Mandira Tour Indonesia not disclosed disclosed Bobby Ardyanto Position not Merapi Pesona Jogja Indonesia disclosed Ms. Cherry Kim Manager Visit Indonesia Tourism Officer South Korea Ms. Ekawati Country Manager Visit Indonesia Tourism Officer France Moncarre Mr. Emil Hardy Country Manager Visit Indonesia Tourism Officer Australia Ridwan Mr. Ricky Tse Country Manager Visit Indonesia Tourism Officer Hong Kong & Macau, China Ms. Susan van Country Manager Visit Indonesia Tourism Officer Netherlands Egmond Remie van Hal Product Manager DIVING WORLD Netherlands MR. S. M. GUPTA Position not PRINCESS TRAVEL SERVICES India disclosed MR. RAGHUVINDER Director D. PAUL'S TRAVEL & TOURS India PAL SINGH Respondent’s name Position not Aeronet Travtour Pvt. Ltd. India not disclosed disclosed Shravan Bhalla Executive Outbound Tour Operators Association of India Committee India Member Yosafat Alvian Operation Staff ELECTRATOUR Indonesia Saputro Yuliastuti KartikaSari General Manager BAT Travel Indonesia Respondent’s name Position not CV.Wisetra Organizer Indonesia not disclosed disclosed

167 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Appendix 2.1 - List of attractions

List of Attractions in Prambanan TDA/KTA Kecamatan Attraction Address Source

Prambanan Candi Prambanan Jl. Raya Solo - Yogyakarta No.16, Kranggan, http://borobudurpark.com/en/temple/prambanan-2/ Sleman Bokoharjo, Prambanan, Kabupaten Sleman, DI Yogyakarta 55571

Candi Lumbung Candi, Nngangrukbaru, Tlogo, Kec. Prambanan, http://www.info-jogja.com/2015/01/candi-lumbung.html Kabupaten Sleman, DI Yogyakarta 57454

Sendratari Ramayana Jl. Raya Solo - Yogyakarta No.16, Kranggan, http://visitramayana.com/ Bokoharjo, Prambanan, Kabupaten Sleman, DI Yogyakarta 55571

Candi Ratu Boko Gatak, Bokoharjo, Prambanan, Kabupaten Sleman, http://borobudurpark.com/en/temple/ratu-boko-2/ DI Yogyakarta

Candi Ijo Kikis, Sambirejo, Prambanan, Kabupaten Sleman, DI http://candi.perpusnas.go.id/temples/deskripsi-yogyakarta-candi_ijo Yogyakarta 55572 Tebing Breksi Gn. Sari, Sambirejo, Prambanan, Kabupaten Sleman, http://wisatabaru.com/lokasi-dan-rute-tebing-breksi-wisata-jogja-yang-

DI Yogyakarta 55572 eksotis/ Candi Banyunibo Desa Cepit, Kelurahan Bokoharjo, Kecamatan http://candi.perpusnas.go.id/temples/deskripsi-yogyakarta-

Prambanan, Kabupaten Sleman candi_banyuniba Candi Barong Dusun Candisari, Desa Sambirejo, Prambanan, http://candi.perpusnas.go.id/temples/deskripsi-yogyakarta-

Dowang Sari, Sambirejo, Prambanan, Kabupaten candi_barong Sleman, DI Yogyakarta 55572 Bukit Nganjir Sambirejo, Prambanan, Dowang Sari, Sambirejo, https://www.17sekians.com/destinasti-objek-wisata-bukit-nganjir-di-

Sleman, Kabupaten Sleman, DI Yogyakarta 55572 prambanan-sleman-yogyakarta/

Prambanan Candi Sojiwan Jl. Banjarsari, Kwaron, Kb. Dalem Kidul, Kec. https://www.aroengbinang.com/2018/04/candi-sojiwan-klaten.html Klaten Prambanan, Kabupaten Klaten, Jawa Tengah 57454

Candi Plaosan Jl. Candi Plaosan, Plaosan Lor, Bugisan, Kec. https://www.maioloo.com/tempat-wisata/jawa-tengah/candi-plaosan/ Prambanan, Kabupaten Klaten, Jawa Tengah 57454 Candi Bubrah Dukuh Bener, Desa Bugisan, Kecamatan Prambanan, http://candi.perpusnas.go.id/temples/deskripsi-jawa_tengah-

Kabupaten Klaten, Jawa Tengah candi_bubrah

168 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

List of Attractions in Yogyakarta TDA

KTA Attraction Address Source Kecamatan

Gondomanan Taman Pintar Jl. Senopati No. 1-3, Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta https://www.tamanpintar.co.id/ Titik Nol Kilometer (Zero Kilometer Jl. KH Ahmad Dahlan – Jl. Senopati Jl. Ahmad Yani https://www.maioloo.com/tempat-wisata/yogyakarta-jogja/titik-nol-

Area) – Jl. Trikora Yogyakarta. DI Yogyakarta kilometer/

Masjid Gedhe Kauman (Kauman Alun-Alun Keraton, Jl. Kauman, Ngupasan, http://mesjidgedhe.or.id/datang-dan-kunjungi/ Great Mosque) Gondomanan, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55132

Pasar Beringharjo (Beringharjo Jl. Pabringan No. 1 Yogyakarta 55122 https://panwis.com/yogyakarta/tempat-wisata-di-jogja/ Market)

Istana Kepresidenan Yogyakarta Jalan Ahmad Yani No. 3 Kampung Ngupasan RT. https://situsbudaya.id/sejarah-gedung-agung-di-yogyakarta/ (Yogyakarta Presidential Building) 09 RW. 03 Kelurahan Ngupasan, Kecamatan Gondomanan, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta

Museum Benteng Vredeburg Jl. Ahmad Yani No.6, Ngupasan, Gondomanan, https://panwis.com/yogyakarta/tempat-wisata-di-jogja/ (Vredeburg Fort Museum) Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta

Klenteng Buddha Prabha/Klenteng Jln Brigjen Katamso, No.3, Kota Yogyakarta http://pecinanjogja.blogspot.com/p/klenteng-gondomanan.html Gondomanan (Buddha Prabha Shrine)

Monumen Serangan Umum 1 Maret Jl. Margo Mulyo No.6, Ngupasan, Gondomanan, http://www.yogyakarta.co/monumen-serangan-umum-1-maret/ (The Attackng of 1st March Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta Monument) Alun-Alun Lor (Northern Town Jl. Alun-Alun Utara, Ngupasan, Gondomanan, https://www.gudeg.net/direktori/1750/alun-alun-lor-alun-alun-utara-

Square) Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55122 yogyakarta.html

Museum Sonobudoyo Jl. Trikora / Pangurakan No. 6, Yogyakarta 55122. http://sonobudoyo.com/id/page/hubungi-kami

Gereja Sayidan (Sayidan Church) Prawirodirjan, Gondomanan, Yogyakarta City, DI https://travelingyuk.com/gereja-gothic-sayidan-yogyakarta/74910/ Yogyakarta 55131

Kampung Ketandan Jl. Ketandan Lor, Ngupasan, Gondomanan, https://visitingjogja.com/12817/kampung-pecinan-ketandan/ Yogyakarta

Kraton Kraton Yogyakarta Jl. Rotowijayan Blok No. 1, Panembahan, Kraton, https://panwis.com/yogyakarta/tempat-wisata-jogja/ Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta

169 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

KTA Attraction Address Source Kecamatan Taman Sari (Water Castle) Jl. Komp. Taman Sari, Kraton, Patehan, Kota (same as above) Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta Alun-Alun Kidul (Southern Town Jalan Alun Alun Kidul, Patehan, Kraton, Kota (same as above) Square) Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55133 Plasa Ngasem Jl. Polowijan No.11, Patehan, Kraton, Kota http://yogyakarta.panduanwisata.id/headline/jalan-jalan-asyik-di-

Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55133 plaza-ngasem/

Sumur Gumuling (Ruins of Jl. Kadipaten Lor Kraton Kota Yogyakarta, DI https://www.justgola.com/a/sumur-gumuling-450897 Underground Mosque) Yogyakarta 55132 Museum Kereta Kraton (Carriage Jl. Rotowijayan 1 Kompleks Ndalem Kraton, https://www.tripadvisor.co.id/AttractionsNear-g294230-d379335-

Museum) Yogyakarta 55132 oa30-Yogyakarta_Palace-Yogyakarta_Java.html Situs Pulo Kenanga Jl. Polowijan No.11, Patehan, Kraton, Kota https://nusantaranews.co/menziarahi-situs-sejarah-tempo-dulu-edisi-

Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55133 pulo-kenanga/ Rumah Budaya Siliran (Art Space) Jl. Siliran Lor No.28, Panembahan, Kraton, Kota https://berandajogja.com/sambut-hari-anak-rumah-budaya-siliran-

Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55131 gelar-serangkaian-kegiatan/ Kampung Wisata Kadipaten Kadipaten, Kraton, Yogyakarta 55132 https://pewartayogya.wordpress.com/2014/10/12/wisata-urban-

kadipaten-jogja/

Ndalem Kaneman Jl. Kadipaten Kidul No.44, Kadipaten, Kraton, http://ndalem-kaneman.com/ Yogyakarta, 55132

Sentra Gudeg Wijilan Jl. Wijilan, Yogyakarta https://www.kotajogja.com/3180/gudeg-wijilan/ Gedong Tengen Ndalem Jogonegaran Pringgokusuman, Gedong Tegen, Yogyakarta http://navigasi-budaya.jogjaprov.go.id/heritage/cagar-

55271 budaya/bangunan/1081

Candi Donotirto Jl. Jogonegaran, Pringgokusumanm Gedong http://yacob-ivan.blogspot.com/2011/09/candi-donotirto.html Tengen, Yogyakarta 55272 Ngampilan Sentra Bakpia Jl. KS. Tubun, Yogyakarta http://jadiberita.com/88486/wisata-kampung-pathuk-jadi-pusat-

bakpia-legendaris-yogya.html

Danurejan Museum Batik Yogyakarta Jl. Doktor Sutomo No.13A, Bausasran, Danurejan, http://www.museumbatik.com/index.html Yogyakarta 55211 Kotagede Makam Panembahan Senopati Sayangan, Jagalan, Kotagede, Bantul Regency, DI http://kotagede.blogspot.com/2011/12/makam-panembahan-

(Panembahan Senopati Cemetery) Yogyakarta 55192 senopati.html

170 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

KTA Attraction Address Source Kecamatan Makam Raja-Raja Kotagede (Kings Jl. Purbayan, Jagalan, Kotagede, Bantul, DI https://www.njogja.co.id/wisata-sejarah/inilah-tempat-makam-raja-

Cemetery) Yogyakarta 55222 mataram-kotagede-yogyakarta/

Masjid Kotagede (Kotagede Mosque) Jalan Masjid Mataram, Jagalan, Banguntapan, https://www.njogja.co.id/bantul/masjid-kotagede-yogyakarta/ Sayangan, Jagalan, Banguntapan, Bantul, DI Yogyakarta 55192

Pabrik Coklat dan Showroom Jl. Dalem KG III No.978, Purbayan, Kotagede http://chocolatemonggo.com/ "Monggo" Kampung Wisata Basen Jl. Kemasan No.53, Purbayan, Kotagede, http://karewaburoguonogashita.blogspot.com/2012/08/mengisi-

Yogyakarta waktu-liburan-ke-kampung-wisata.html

Sentra Kerajinan Perak Purbayan, Prenggan, Kotagede, Yogyakarta https://umkmjogja.com/sentra-kerajinan-perak-kotagede.html Omah Kalang Sayangan, Jagalan, Banguntapan, Bantul Regency, http://jaladwara.weebly.com/blog/mengintip-rumah-kalang-rudy-

DI Yogyakarta 55192 pesik Sendang Seliran Jagalan, Banguntapan, Sayangan, Jagalan, http://traveltodayindonesia.com/sendang-seliran-pemandian-bersih-

Banguntapan, Bantul, DI Yogyakarta 55192 diri-ziarah-makam-raja-kotagede/ Other Taman Budaya Yogyakarta Jl. Sriwedani No.1, Ngupasan, Gondomanan, Kota https://tby.jogjaprov.go.id/agenda?year=2019&month=3 Kecamatan Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55122 Selfie Park Taman Pule Jl. Veteran No.150-151, Pandeyan, Umbulharjo, https://www.sobatjogja.com/selfie-park-umbulharjo/ Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55161 De Mata Trick Eye Museum XT Square, Jl. Veteran No.150-151, Pandeyan, https://dematamuseum.com/ Umbulharjo, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55161 De Arca Statue Art Museum XT Square, Jl. Veteran No.150-151, Pandeyan, https://www.yogyes.com/en/yogyakarta-tourism-object/other/de- Umbulharjo, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta arca-statue-museum-yogyakarta/ 55161 Situs Warungboto Jl. Veteran No.77, Warungboto, Umbulharjo, Kota https://gudeg.net/direktori/7564/situs-warung-boto-yogyakarta.html Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55164 Tugu Jogja (Tugu Pal Putih) Gowongan, Jetis, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta https://www.yogyes.com/en/yogyakarta-tourism-object/other/tugu- 55233 jogja/ Museum Perjuangan Yogyakarta Jl. Kolonel Sugiyono No.24, Brontokusuman, https://situsbudaya.id/serjarah-museum-perjuangan-yogyakarta/ Mergangsan, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55153

171 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

KTA Attraction Address Source Kecamatan Museum Sandi Jl. Faridan M Noto No.21, Kotabaru, https://www.njogja.co.id/museum-dan-monumen/museum-sandi- Gondokusuman, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta yogyakarta-mengintip-koleksi-mesin-sandi-dan-pesan-rahasia/ 55224 Museum Bahari Jl. R. E. Martadinata No.69, Wirobrajan, Bantul, DI https://www.kotajogja.com/1879/museum-bahari-yogyakarta/ Yogyakarta 55182 Museum Biologi Jl. Sultan Agung No.22, Wirogunan, Mergangsan, https://sejarahlengkap.com/bangunan/sejarah-museum-biologi Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55151 Museum Sasmitaloka Panglima Besar Jl. Bintaran Wetan No.3, Gunungketur, https://www.njogja.co.id/kota-yogyakarta/museum-sasmitaloka/ Jenderal Sudirman Pakualaman, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55151 Museum Dharma Wiratama Jl. Jend. Sudirman No.75, Terban, https://www.kotajogja.com/1140/museum-dharma-wiratama/ Gondokusuman, Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55223 Museum Dewantara Kirti Griya Jl. Taman Siswa No.25, Wirogunan, Mergangsan, https://gudeg.net/direktori/1780/museum-dewantara-kirti-griya- Kota Yogyakarta, DI Yogyakarta 55151 yogyakarta.html

172 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

List of Attractions in Borobudur TDA

Kecamatan Attraction Address Source

Mungkid Elo Rafting Arung Jeram Jl. Sendangsono No.KM. 0.2, https://citraelo.com/ Sungai Elo Progo Kanden, Progowati, Mungkid, Magelang, Jawa Tengah 56512

Candi Mendut Desa Mendut, Kecamatan Mungkid, http://sejarahlengkap.com/bangunan/sejarah-candi-mendut Kabupaten Magelang, Jawa Tengah Kerajinan Perak (Silver Craft) Jl. Raya Borobudur KM 2,5 Mungkid, http://pariwisata.magelangkab.go.id/home/detail/kerajinan-perak--ansor-silver-borobudur-

Kabupaten Magelang, Jawa Tengah /208 Wisata Sungai Gono (Gono Treko Mungkid, Magelang http://pariwisata.magelangkab.go.id/home/detail/wisata-kali-%E2%80%9Cx-gono-tubing-

River Tourism) adventure%E2%80%9D/201 Kerajinan Akar / Root Art Jl. Magelang KM. 9, Mungkid, http://pariwisata.magelangkab.go.id/home/detail/kerajinan-akar---root-art-centre---furniture-

Centre & Furniture Blondo, Mungkid, Magelang, Jawa magelang/206 Tengah

Desa Wisata Bojong Desa Bojong Kojor, Kecamatan http://pariwisata.magelangkab.go.id/home/detail/desa-wisata-bojong-kojor----boko----/367 Kojor(Bojong Kojor Tourism Mungkid, Kabupaten Magelang, Village) Jawa Tengah

Muntilan Candi Ngawen Ngawen, Muntilan, Magelang, http://candi.perpusnas.go.id/temples/deskripsi-jawa_tengah-candi_ngawen_53 Central Java 56415 Makam Raden Santri Desa Gunungpring, Kecamatan http://pariwisata.magelangkab.go.id/home/detail/makam-raden-santri-gunung-pring-

Muntilan muntilan/224 Museum Misi Muntilan Jl. Kartini No. 3 Muntilan, Kab. http://pariwisata.magelangkab.go.id/home/detail/museum-misi-muntilan-pusat-animasi-

(Missioner Museum) Magelang misioner/92

Desa Wisata Ngawen Ngawen, Muntilan, Magelang, https://desawisatangawen.wordpress.com/ (Ngawen Tourism Village) Central Java 56415

Borobudur Candi Borobudur Jl. Badrawati, Kw. Candi Borobudur, http://borobudurpark.com/en/temple/borobudur-2/ Borobudur, Magelang, Jawa Tengah

Candi Pawon Brojonalan, Wanurejo, Borobudur, http://sejarahlengkap.com/bangunan/sejarah-candi-pawon Magelang, Jawa Tengah 56553 Punthuk Setumbu Jl.Borobudur Ngadiharjo KM3, http://pariwisata.magelangkab.go.id/home/detail/--nirwana-sunrise--desa-wisata-

Kurahan, Karangrejo, Borobudur, karangrejo/84 Magelang, Jawa Tengah 56553

173 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Kecamatan Attraction Address Source Punthuk Sukmojoyo Gintung, Giripurno, Borobudur, http://visitjawatengah.jatengprov.go.id/detailnews.php?b1563a78ec59337587f6ab6397699afc-

Magelang, Central Java 56553 1088-Wisata%20Hits%20Punthuk%20Sukmojoyo%20Hill%20Magelang

Rumah Kamera (Camera Desa Majaksingi, Kecamatan http://camerahouseborobudur.blogspot.com/ House) Borobudur, Kabupaten Magelang, Jawa Tengah 56553

Punthuk Mongkrong Dusun Kamal, Desa Giritengah, https://indonesia.tripcanvas.co/id/jogja/tempat-wisata-di-magelang/ Kecamatan Borobudur, Kabupaten Magelang, Jawa Tengah 56553

Bukit Rhema/Gereja Ayam Dusun Gembong, Desa https://bukitrhema.com/id/home (Rhema Hill) Kembanglimus, Kecamatan Borobudur, Kabupaten Magelang, Jawa Tengah, 56553

Off Road Jurang Jero Dusun Sangen, Desa Candirejo, Kec. http://pariwisata.magelangkab.go.id/home/detail/of-road-merapi-jurang-jero/121 Borobudur, Magelang, Jawa Tengah

Omah Pring (Bamboo Jalan Borobudur – Sendangsono km https://web.facebook.com/omahpring31/ House) 3, Desa Wisata Candirejo, Kecamatan Borobudur, Kabupaten Magelang, Jawa Tengah 56553

Desa Wisata Candirejo Pulangan, Candirejo, Borobudur, http://pariwisata.magelangkab.go.id/home/detail/desa-wisata-candirejo/362 (Candirejo Tourism Village) Magelang, Central Java 56553

Desa Wisata Wanurejo Ngentak, Dusun 1, Wanurejo, http://desawisatawanurejo.com/ (Wanurejo Tourism Village) Borobudur, Magelang, Jawa Tengah 56553

Bukit Barede Dusun Sendakan, Karangrejo, http://pariwisata.magelangkab.go.id/home/detail/bukit-barede-/341 Borobudur, Magelang, Jawa Tengah Kampung Dolanan Sodongan, RT.17/RW.6, Dusun I, https://id-id.facebook.com/pages/category/Community-Organization/Kampoeng-Dolanan-

Nusantara Borobudur Bumiharjo, Borobudur, Magelang, Nusantara-457367934348671/ (Traditional village games) Jawa Tengah 56553

Desa Bahasa Borobudur Dusun Parakan, Desa Ngargogondo, http://www.desa-bahasa.com/ (Language Tourism Village Borobudur, Dusun 2, Ngargogondo, of Borobudur) Borobudur, Magelang, Jawa Tengah

174 BYP ITMP - Analysis of Demand and Opportunities for Tourism Destination Area Development

Kecamatan Attraction Address Source Desa Wisata Karanganyar Desa Karanganyar, Kecamatan https://web.facebook.com/pages/category/Recreation-Center/Desa-Wisata-Karanganyar-

Borobudur, Kabupaten Magelang 222392398130760/?_rdc=1&_rdr

*Balkondes in Tuksongo, Majaksingi, The name of the village is the same http://balkondesborobudur.com/desa-wisata/ Kecamatan Wringinputih, as the name of the Balkondes Borobudur Wanurejo,Tanjungsari, Kenalan, Kembanglimus, Giritengah, Karanganyar, Karangrejo, Kebonsari, Candirejo, Tegalarum, Sambeng, Ngargogondo, Ngadiharjo, Giripurno

Mertoyudan Tubing Kali Gending Jl. Letnan Tukiyat, Mentak, http://xgendingtubing.blogspot.com/p/about-us.html (Gending River Tubing) Pasuruhan, Mertoyudan, Magelang, Jawa Tengah 56172

Tubing Bela Negara WTGI Jl. Letnan Tukiyat, Gadungan, https://tubing-kali-gending-wtgi-adventure.business.site/ Adventure Pasuruhan, Mertoyudan, Magelang, Jawa Tengah 56172

Aligator Adventure Tonogoro, Jonggrangan, Kalinegoro, https://web.facebook.com/aligatoradventure/?_rdc=1&_rdr Mertoyudan, Magelang, Jawa Tengah 56172 Tempuran Punthuk Mangir Gunung Area Hutan, Bawang, Tempuran, https://www.dakatour.com/lokasi-dan-rute-menuju-punthuk-mangir-magelang-spot-wisata-

Payung Magelang, Central Java 56161 hits-kekinian.html

Bawang Wana Area Hutan, Bawang, Tempuran, http://desabawangagrowanawisata.blogspot.com/ Magelang, Central Java 56161

Bukit Asri Kertojoyo Jalan Bandongan - Tempuran, http://iwanwidi.blogspot.com/2018/02/keindahan-hutan-pinus-bukit-asri.html Pringombo, Bandongan, Hutan, Krinjing, Kajoran, Magelang, Jawa Tengah 56151

Puncak Setuko (Setuko Hill) Area Hutan, Kemutuk, Tempuran, http://iwanwidi.blogspot.com/2018/02/puncak-setuko-wisat-aalam-menarik-dan.html Magelang, Central Java 56161

175

In association with