Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
tour and fish feeding) and non-water-based (man-
grove sightseeing, crocodile cave, limestone cave
and eagle feeding) activities. One-Way ANOVA
and T-test analyses were run to evaluate the sig-
nification relationship between [1] nationality and
visitation characteristics and [2] genders and visi-
tation characteristics. Both nationality and gen-
ders were found significant with visit companion
[F(4, 137)
mangrove sightseeing and experience unspoiled
nature (
r
.006) as well as
eagle feeding and experience unspoiled nature
(
r
= −
0.230,
n
=
142,
p
=
.005). Of importance, the
correlation results were not influenced by distance
between tourism activities location, which indi-
rectly explained respondents' accessibility level to
each tourism activity. Despite the importance of
sustaining and maintaining KILIM Geopark, an
alarming result was observed in relation to youth
respondents' sustainable tourism development sup-
portiveness. The fact of only one significant model
(limestone cave and emphasis on limits:
r
= −
0.234,
n
=
142,
p
=
.000]. The results suggest
that higher number of female visitors were accom-
panied during visitation to KILIM Geopark.
Interestingly, nationality and genders were insig-
nificant with visitation purpose for ANOVA [F(4,
137)
=
6.461,
p
=
=
0.175,
=
0.601,
p
=
0.663] and significant for t-test
n
.037) observed shows KILIM Geopark
inefficient campaign and/or respondents' indiffer-
ent attitude towards nature.
Additionally, results obtained from Regression
analysis state that an activity is well explained
by the remaining activities and services vari-
ables: mangrove sightseeing [R
2
=
142,
p
=
[(M
=
2.09, SD
=
1.085) conditions; t(
−
3.582)
=
140,
p
.000)]. Meanwhile, ANOVA revealed signifi-
cant result [F(4, 137)
=
=
3.022,
p
=
.019] and T-test
showed insignificant result [M
=
2.53, SD
=
1.276)
conditions;
t
(
−
.015)
=
140,
p
=
0.913)] with length
of stay.
=
0.599, F(6,
135)
=
33.570,
p
=
.000], limestone cave [R
2
=
.621,
F(6, 135)
=
.36.862,
p
=
000], crocodile cave
4.1
Non water-based tourism activities
This section examines the non-water-based tour-
ism activities with [1] services variables (adequate
safety facilities, cheap recreational activities and
good condition) and [2] environment variables
(experience beautiful nature, experience unspoiled
nature and unique). Correlation analysis was
done in order to understand the ability of non-
water-based tourism activities to satisfy the youth
respondents' expectation. Analysis between non
water-based tourism activities and services exhibits
the following: [1] significant results except for croc-
odile cave and adequate safety facilities (
r
[R
2
=
0.557, F(6, 135)
=
28.286,
p
=
.000] and
eagle feeding [R
2
=
0.554, F(6, 135)
=
27.902,
p
.000]. Further observation reveals the follow-
ing: [1] mangrove sightseeing is well explained by
eagle feeding (
b
=
.000), [2]
limestone cave is well explained by crocodile cave
(
b
=
0.355,
t
(4.695)
=
p
=
.000), [3] crocodile cave
is well explained by limestone cave (
b
=
0.492,
t
(7.301)
=
p
=
=
0.575,
t
(7.301)
.000) and [4] eagle feeding is well
explained by mangrove sightseeing (
b
=
p
=
=
0.395,
t
(4.695)
.000). Similarly, an acitivity is well
described by the remaning activities and environ-
ment variables: mangrove sightseeing [R
2
=
p
=
=
0.129,
=
0.604,
n
0.127) as well as crocodile cave and
good condition (
r
=
142,
p
=
F(6, 135)
=
34.271,
p
=
.000], limestone cave
0.113)
and [2] weakest correlation is recorded by croco-
dile and cheap recreational activities (
r
=
0.134,
n
=
142,
p
=
[R
2
=
0.593, F(6, 135)
=
32.791,
p
=
.000], croco-
dile cave [R
2
=
0.499, F(6, 135)
=
22.399,
p
=
.000]
=
0.318,
and eagle feeding [R
2
=
0.486, F(6, 135)
=
21.288,
n
.000), meanwhile strongest correlation
is observed for adequate safety facilities and good
condition (
r
=
142,
p
=
p
.000]. At a deeper level, it shows that: [1]
mangrove sightseeing is well explained by eagle
feeding (
b
=
.000). Further
observation (excluding crocodile cave activity)
shows weak correlation results for limestone cave
and adequate safety facilities (
r
=
0.674,
n
=
142,
p
=
.000), [2] lime-
stone cave is well explained by crocodile cave
(
b
=
0.392,
t
(5.804)
=
p
=
.000), [3] crocodile cave
is well explained by limestone cave (
b
=
0.426,
t
(6.241)
=
p
=
=
0.409,
n
=
142,
=
0.525,
p
.000) and limestone cave and cheap recreational
activities (
r
=
t
(6.241)
.000) and [4] eagle feeding is well
explained by mangrove sightseeing (
b
=
p
=
.000). The high
significant results present the ability of limestone
cave to be further improved.
On the other hand, while environment vari-
ables are found significant (experience beautiful
nature and experience unspoiled nature:
r
=
0.389,
n
=
142,
p
=
=
0.509,
t
(5.804)
=
p
=
.000).
4.2
Water-based tourism activities
This section examines the water-based tourism
activities with [1] services variables (adequate
safety facilities, cheap recreational activities and
good condition) and [2] environment variables
(experience beautiful nature, experience unspoiled
nature and lakes). Correlation results present the
following: [1] assessments between water-based
=
0.622,
n
=
142,
p
=
.000; experience beautiful nature and
unique:
r
=
0.655,
n
=
142,
p
=
.000; experience
unspoiled nature and unique:
r
=
0.609,
n
=
142,
p
.000), correlation analysis shows none sig-
nificant relationship between non water-based
tourism activities and environment except for
=
Search WWH ::
Custom Search