variable - web viewtourists perception of safety and security in kepulauan seribu (a case study...

48
TOURISTS PERCEPTION OF SAFETY AND SECURITY IN KEPULAUAN SERIBU (A CASE STUDY OF PULAU PRAMUKA) BY RINA KURNIAWATI, MM, MBA ABSTRACT This study tries investigates safety and security in Kepulauan Seribu. The objective of this study is to investigate tourists’ perception of safety and security in Kepulauan Seribu which involves aspects including transportation, accommodation, attraction, the destination, and food safety. The nature of the study is a quantitative analysis which employs a questionnaire survey which is distributed to 100 respondents visiting Kepulauan Seribu in October to 2008 in using random sampling method. The result is analyzed using SPSS software which comprises a frequency, ANOVA, and Pearson Correlation. The result shows that respondents demonstrate a positive perception of safety security in Kepulauan Seribu, except safety at the Muara Angke Pier. The result indicates that despite tourists have positive perceptions they are not fully satisfied with the safety and security condition available that accommodate them while they are traveling to Kepulauan Seribu. The result also indicates that there are significant differences over socio-demographic profile and travel characteristics. This supports the previous studies in the areas. Finally, it is discovered that general perception of safety and security has a minor influence on tourists’ intention to revisit. Keywords: Safety, Security, Perception, Tourists, Kep. Seribu, P. Pramuka. 1.0. INTRODUCTION Tourism industry has become world’s prominent industry. Its powerful influence on the economic development is obvious. According to The World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) estimated that tourism was the world’s largest industry (WTTC, 1996): Tourism directly and indirectly generates and supports 204

Upload: hoangdung

Post on 06-Feb-2018

219 views

Category:

Documents


4 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Variable -    Web viewtourists perception of safety and security in kepulauan seribu (a case study of pulau pramuka) by rina kurniawati, mm, mba. abstract. this study tries

TOURISTS PERCEPTION OF SAFETY AND SECURITY IN KEPULAUAN SERIBU (A CASE STUDY OF PULAU PRAMUKA)

BY RINA KURNIAWATI, MM, MBA

ABSTRACT

This study tries investigates safety and security in Kepulauan Seribu. The objective of this study is to investigate tourists’ perception of safety and security in Kepulauan Seribu which involves aspects including transportation, accommodation, attraction, the destination, and food safety. The nature of the study is a quantitative analysis which employs a questionnaire survey which is distributed to 100 respondents visiting Kepulauan Seribu in October to 2008 in using random sampling method. The result is analyzed using SPSS software which comprises a frequency, ANOVA, and Pearson Correlation. The result shows that respondents demonstrate a positive perception of safety security in Kepulauan Seribu, except safety at the Muara Angke Pier. The result indicates that despite tourists have positive perceptions they are not fully satisfied with the safety and security condition available that accommodate them while they are traveling to Kepulauan Seribu. The result also indicates that there are significant differences over socio-demographic profile and travel characteristics. This supports the previous studies in the areas. Finally, it is discovered that general perception of safety and security has a minor influence on tourists’ intention to revisit.

Keywords: Safety, Security, Perception, Tourists, Kep. Seribu, P. Pramuka.

1.0. INTRODUCTION

Tourism industry has become world’s prominent industry. Its powerful influence on the economic development is obvious. According to The World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) estimated that tourism was the world’s largest industry (WTTC, 1996): Tourism directly and indirectly generates and supports 204 million of jobs. This is equivalent to more than 10% of the world’s workforce and is forecast to rise over 11% of global manpower in the early years of the next millennium. It is also responsible for over 10% global gross domestic product (GDP), a figure that is forecast to rise to over 11% early in the 21st century. In Indonesia, tourism has a significant contribution to the national economy. In 2007, Tourism in Indonesia generated US$5 billion dollars for the national economy. Its important role for the economic development is undoubted.

Safety and security are important determinants affecting people’s travel decision. It is a fact that tourists visit destinations which they consider safe and secured. Destination which has poor reputation in terms of its safety and security will be avoided by tourists. If the destination is considered unsafe, it will force tourists go to alternative places or stay at home. Research has indicated that issues in safety and security such as avian flu, catastrophic disaster tsunami and terrorism have significant impact in tourists’ arrival and expenditure. Maulana (2007) Issue of tsunami has caused in decreased number of tourists coming to Kepulauan Seribu. In 2003 the number of tourists was 84,242 people. The following year, the number of tourists decreased into 76,836 people. And in 2005, it decreased into 62,075 people. Safety and security have become

Page 2: Variable -    Web viewtourists perception of safety and security in kepulauan seribu (a case study of pulau pramuka) by rina kurniawati, mm, mba. abstract. this study tries

important factors in tourists’ destination marketing. Without them, the value of the tourist destination will lessen. Sukma (2008) stated that there are three main factors causing the rating of Indonesia in The Travel and Tourism Competitive Index/TTTCI fell from rank 60 to 80. Three factors include: safety and security, infrastructure, and natural disaster. Because of its importance, it is necessary to consider the safety and security in any tourist destination.

Kepulauan Seribu, located to the north the capital city of Indonesia is aimed for eco-marine tourism. There are many activities that tourists can do. They can enjoy many activities such as diving, snorkeling, sightseeing, marine biodiversity observation including mangrove, turtle, fish, and reefs. Beside that, they can also explore the culture of the people living in the islands. Facilities such as resort hotels, guest house, shopping center and restaurants are provided to better serve the tourists. Transportations, such as speed boat and fishermen boat are also available to take tourists to the islands.

There are several reasons that safety and security need to be considered by the tour operator, resort management and developer in the islands. First, Kepulauan are located in an open sea; it makes the islands easily affected by natural disturbances. Raharjo (2007) reported that severe tidal wave had eliminated several islands in Kepulauan Seribu. Global warming and irresponsible human activities also contributed to the lost of the islands. The natural disturbances might become threats to the safety of the tourists and the sustainability of tourism in the destination. In addition, the location is also near to the active volcanic mountain, the Krakatau. The islands should be equipped with equipment that can anticipate in case natural disturbances occur and guarantee the safety of the tourists.

Second, Media reported several cases related to safety and security in Kepulauan Seribu. Joniansyah (2006) reported that a boat carrying 40 passengers sank in the sea when the boat was on its way to Mauk Tangerang from Kepulauan Seribu. Two people died in the accident and some people injured. Another case that relates to safety and security in Kepulauan Seribu was reported by Laksono (2008) that a speed boat transferring passengers from marina bay to Kepulauan Seribu stopped suddenly. The event shocked the passengers as it was so unexpected. From the report it was said that some garbage had made the propeller machine jammed. So, the boat could not run.

Such events would of course lessen the travel experience of the tourists as it would make a bad precedence for future tourists. The tourists that had bad experience during their journey in Kepulauan Seribu might not want to recommend the place to other people. In addition, report in the media might as well give bad image about the destination. It is the tendency of the media to exaggerate on the news reported. And news that is widely published will form collective opinion about it. If the public perceives negative image of the destination, it is likely that the destination will not be chosen by public at large as a tourist destination. The result will create negative impact for tourism sector, as tourists’ arrival decrease so is the economic income generating from tourism sector.

The location of Kepulauan Seribu in the capital city of Indonesia gives more pressure to maintain the safety and security in the Island. Jakarta, the capital city of Indonesia is the reflection of the country. What happen in Jakarta might affect overall perception of the country as a whole. Therefore, it is crucial to maintain the safety and security in the island.

Several researches have been carried out in the field. Researches have showed that Safety and security are important factors for the success of destination marketing. They are the key to promote sustainability of tourism destination. However, there is not yet any study conducted to assess safety and security in Kepulauan Seribu.

Page 3: Variable -    Web viewtourists perception of safety and security in kepulauan seribu (a case study of pulau pramuka) by rina kurniawati, mm, mba. abstract. this study tries

There are several questions arising from the topic. These questions include:1. How do tourists perceive safety and security in Kepulauan Seribu?2. iS there any difference in perception according to socio-demographic profile (such as: age,

gender, marital status, and education background) and travel characteristics (first visit and repeat visit, length of stay and purpose of visit)?

3. Is the decision to travel or repeat visit influenced by perception of safety and security?The study will focus on the investigation of tourists’ perception of safety and security in

Kepulauan Seribu. The investigation is likely to be the key factor to success in providing greater travel experience to tourist. There are approximately a hundred island located in Kepulauan Seribu. Due to limitation of time and resource, the research location is limited only in Pulau Pramuka which is the most visited island located in the north district of Kepulauan Seribu. This study also focuses on domestic tourists only that are the majority type of tourists visiting Kepulauan Seribu.

2.0. LITERATURE REVIEW

Safety and security are very important in human’s life. According to Maslow, individual has several needs, and the fulfillments of the needs are necessary. Maslow listed safety is the second of human needs hierarchy.

Lower1. Physiological – hunger, thirst, rest, activity2. Safety – security, freedom from fear and anxiety3. Belonging and love – affection, giving and receiving love4. Esteem – self-esteem, and esteem for others5. Self actualization – personal self-fulfillment

HigherFig. 2.1. Maslow Hierarchy of Needs

Safety and security is also a useful tool for promoting a destination. Inskeep (1991:92) stated that “A high level of crime such as murder, rape, and theft will be a deterrent to attracting tourists, while an area that is known to be safe and maintain an efficient and honest police force will have an advantage of promoting it self.” (WTO: 2004) stated that maintenance of good public security is a key factor in a good image or brand for a destination and it finally contributes to tourist satisfaction and finally leads to the overall sustainability of a destination. In addition to that it was also stated that public safety is not only measured by crime health or crime statistic but by investigating the perception of the public.

Issues of safety and security in tourism industry may be caused by two factors; human activities (such as war, crimes, terrorism, etc.) and natural disaster (earthquake, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, etc.). Both causes may be very destructive and might jeopardize the sustainability of tourism industry. Hall C.M. & O’Sullivan V (1996) stated that safety is an essential component of the attractiveness of destination and transport routes to tourist. Safety might be judged by the nature of the physical environment (as in adventure travel, white-water rafting, or mountain climbing), by the potential for criminal activity (for example, pick pocketing or mugging), the possibility of being caught in a war zone and/or by the potential for politically motivated attacks on tourists.

Page 4: Variable -    Web viewtourists perception of safety and security in kepulauan seribu (a case study of pulau pramuka) by rina kurniawati, mm, mba. abstract. this study tries

Tarlow & Santana (2002) mentioned some of the safety and security issues are the following: transportation, such as airplane crashes, issues of pollution, sexual assault, natural disaster, issues of food safety, international terrorism, crimes of opportunity, and acts of war.

The issues of safety and security mentioned above might create a negative impression to tourists. Tourists who have bad experience at the destination due to the problem of safety and security might not return back to the destination nor recommend the destination to other people. In addition to that, media attention also has raised tourists’ concern about safety and security and ultimately might cancel their trip to the destination. In other word, it can be said that the pattern of the tourist market is determined by public perception on safety. According to a study conducted by Ferreira and Harmse (2000), it was stated that experience and ‘word-of-mouth communication’ are the main factors that affected tourists decision in visiting South Africa.

Several researches have indicated the importance of safety and security for a prosperous destination (Burnt, Mawby & Hambly: 2000), (Milman & Bach: 1999), Sonmez: (1998) Pinhey & Iverson (1994), and (Demos: 1992) Sonmez (1998) claimed ‘if the destination choice is narrowed down to two alternatives which promise similar benefits, the less costly one—one that is safe from threat—is likely to be chosen’. On recent studies, Sarigolu & Huang (2006) stated that safety and security are the most important drivers for travel decision. Kim, Guo, & Agrusa (2006) found out on their study that Chinese mainland respondent rated Safety and Beautiful scenery are the most important attributes of a tourist destination.

Milman et al., (1999) stated the number of research on guests’ safety and security at hotels increased due to the high crime level dealing with accommodation in tourism industries. Overcoming crimes threatening tourists to use certain accommodations can assist government or destination to recover the awful image. Groenenboom, K. & Jones, P. (2003) highlighted the importance of safety in the hotel. Chen, J.S. & Gursoy, D. (2001) conducted a study on transportation, it was discovered that safety and convenient travel were significant to destination loyalty. Thus, it can be said that safety and security need to be present in some aspects of tourism, such as hotel and transportation. Thus, other aspects of tourism such as attraction need to be safe and secured for tourists as well.

Several researches were taken to find out the relationship between crime and tourists (Brunt, Mawby & Hambly: 2000), (Chesney-Lind: 1986), (de Albuquerque & Mc Elroy: 2001). The researchers found out that tourists are prone to be target or victims of crime instead of local residents. Levantis (2000) investigated the deterrent effect of crime on tourism in developing island economies of the South Pacific and Caribbean, found out that levels of crime become a hindrance of the demand for tourism. The reason is that news is disseminated to potential tourists despite the general inaccessibility of up to date crime statistics.

While perception concerned, perception developed by tourists can be at pre-purchase stage or post purchase stage. The perception before purchase is usually influenced by the media or recommendation from friends and relatives, and also the image of the destination itself. And first time visitors’ decision to visit is normally affected by information delivered by the media, friends or relative, or from the image of the destination itself.

There is also perception which is developed by tourists after experience. This post-purchase perception can be used as an indicator of measurement for tourist satisfaction which many research argued that it would eventually lead to revisit intention. There are many research conducted in examining tourists satisfaction, and its desirable effect in the intention to revisit (Kozak, 2001; George and George, 2004; World Tourism Organization, 2004; Hui and Ho, 2005; Yoon and Uysal, 2005; Alegre and Juaneda, 2006; do Valle et al 2006; Sánchez et al, 2006; Hui

Page 5: Variable -    Web viewtourists perception of safety and security in kepulauan seribu (a case study of pulau pramuka) by rina kurniawati, mm, mba. abstract. this study tries

et al, 2007; Jang and Feng, 2007; Chi and Qu, 2008). Besides intention to revisit, recommending the destination to others is also another desirable effect of tourist satisfaction. Recommendation to other is considered as a positive word-of-mouth communication (Hutchinson et al., 2008).

Do Valle et al (2006) measured tourist satisfaction through three variables: general satisfaction, attribute satisfaction, and met expectations. Safety is one of the thirty-three satisfaction attributes. WTO (2004) agreed that safety and security as one of the factor contributing to satisfaction attribute. Baker and Crompton (2000) discussed about satisfaction in terms of quality of experience. Quality of experience, which may also be termed as satisfaction, refers to an emotional state of mind after exposure to the opportunity. It is measured by how well the opportunity is perceived by the tourists.

There are two different theory regarding tourist satisfaction. The first theory was proposed by Oliver in 1980 that mentioned that tourist satisfaction the result of the discrepancy between expectations and perceived performance (Hui et al, 2007). This theory is called as disconfirmation theory. This theory suggested that satisfaction occurs whenever the actual performance/experience exceeds expectation. If it happens, then tourists are willing to purchase the product again. However Cronin and Taylor (cited in Hui et al, 2007), argued that measurement based on perceptions/experiences alone was superior to the expectancy disconfirmation theory. This is because perception already leads tourists to compare between perception of experience and expectation. This is in line with the study conducted by Um, et al (2006) that stated it is the perceived quality of service which triggers revisit intention.

In other words, it implies that there is some kind of perception develops after one has experienced opportunity and this perception may lead to intention to revisit and recommending to friend and relatives.

Research conducted by Demos (1992) examined the subject of tourists’ perceptions while on holiday in Washington, DC. Demos’s study involved interviewing visitors (holidaymakers, business people and those visiting friends or relatives) to the city during the early 1990s. The study was prompted by the possibility that the city’s tourism industry was under threat due to very high crime levels. He found that the number of visitor’s previous visits and their demographic profile such as gender, marital status, and level of education influenced their perceptions. Recent research was carried out by George (2003) and Nurul Iswani (2006). Both study investigated tourists’ perception of safety and security in one tourism destination.WTO (2004) stated that one of the indicators of a safe destination is the adoption of compliance and with safety and security standards and practices at tourism facilities and sites regarding: fire prevention, food safety, and other health requirements specific to the destination, environmental standards, prevention of illegal interference and violence (terrorism) and other relevant standards specific to the destination. Adoption of safety and security standards in any component of tourism is important. It is something that can not be bargain in whatsoever because the safety and security of the tourists are at stake.

In terms of safety and security in the sea, according to the Government Regulation No.51 (2002), a sea transportation has to be equipped with fire protection, fire detection and fire extension; life saving appliances and arrangement including life boat, rescue boat, and life jackets depends on the size of the boat; radio communication device, navigation device, an alarm system for emergency situation, a certification of operation issued by sea transport safety authority; and be checked regularly for fit and proper test. This is inline with the standard sets up by International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) in 1974.

Page 6: Variable -    Web viewtourists perception of safety and security in kepulauan seribu (a case study of pulau pramuka) by rina kurniawati, mm, mba. abstract. this study tries

In terms of safety and security at the accommodation, there are several common safety and security standards applied in hotel or accommodation. According to Chiang (2000), accommodation has to provide safety and security equipment which includes locks and key, fire alarm system, safe deposit box, communication system, lighting and public areas, and closed circuit television. In addition, there should be safety and security procedure which includes audit of security system, procedure of handling theft, and lost and found items, and use of safe deposit box. And finally, there has to be safety and security teams that have knowledge of security procedure and are well trained. In addition, Poon W. et.,al (2005) mentioned aspects of safety and security which influence tourist satisfaction, which include: accessibility of fire extinguisher, good fire detection system, secure fire door, and responsible security personnel.

For marine based tourism activities, there are several basic safety and security aspects that must be fulfilled (http://www.safewatersports.co.uk/SeaSafety.html; The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents: 2007; ) which include: provision of essential equipment which are well maintained, buoyancy aid (life jacket) at all times, safe location for doing activities, activities are held in designated zones which prevent tourists coming into dangerous areas, a safety watch that look after tourists activities, and personal request information for advanced activities such as jetski.

In order to prepare from the occurrence of natural disaster, it is essential for a destination to have prevention measures for emergency. At the destination (ISO-20712: 2008), it is necessary to have water safety signs which include: escape and emergency equipment signs, mandatory action signs, prohibition and warning signs.

Another important component of a destination which is primary for tourists is food. Food is a part of life; however when food is out of standard of safety food can be contaminated and can cause illnesses and even death. Thus food safety is part of the safe destination. Purnomo (2006) analyzed the importance of safety in hospitality industry. Griffith (2006) in Purnomo (2006) stated that food safety is synonymous with food hygiene embracing anything in the processing, preparation, or handling food in order to ensure it is safe to eat. Food that is safe to eat according to Purnomo is food which is free from biological, physical, and chemical hazard. Over all the above safety security standards attributes, some items are included as a measurement instrument to assess safety in Kepulauan Seribu as a tourist destination.

3.0. METHODOLOGY

This research employs questionnaire based survey. Questionnaire is designed to gather information from individuals about their characteristic. The questionnaire consists of several parts, which include:

Part I – Tourist ProfilePart II – Travel CharacteristicPart III – Tourist Perception of Safety and Security on Destination ComponentPart IV – Tourist Awareness of Safety and Security Standards AttributesPart V – Tourist Perception of Safety and Security Standards AttributesPart VI – Intention to revisitPart VII – Suggestion and Recommendation

Page 7: Variable -    Web viewtourists perception of safety and security in kepulauan seribu (a case study of pulau pramuka) by rina kurniawati, mm, mba. abstract. this study tries

The first part consists of questions which identify respondent’s background such as age, country of residence, marital status, age, etc. This part identifies characteristic of tourist who comes to the destination. The second part ask questions related to travel characteristic which is chosen by the respondent, such as the source of information, length of stay, and activities done in the place of study. The third part asks about overall perception of safety and security in Kepulauan Seribu over safety aspects at the destination which include safety at the transportation, at activity, during day and night time, food and accommodation. It employs Likert Scale which comprises “Very unsafe (1) to Very safe (5)”The fourth part of the questionnaire asks questions about respondent awareness of safety and security standards in Kepulauan Seribu. It employs nominal scale which comprises “No”, “Don’t know”, and “Yes”. The question asked in this part is to discover respondents’ awareness of safety and security. The answer is matched with the respondents answer in the previous part, which asks about their perception. The fifth part asks about their perception of safety and security standards attributes in kepulauan Seribu. In this part a Likert scale is employed. It employs an ordinal scale which comprises ‘Poor(1)’, ‘Bad(2), ‘Fair(3)’, ‘Good(4)’, and ‘Excellent(5)’. The sixth part asks about how much has the safety and security issues affect tourist decision to visit, and how big is their intention to do revisit. The last part asks the tourists to give suggestion and recommendation.

In order to minimize bias or non representative ness of the sample, the researcher employs a simple random sampling method. In random sampling all members of the population have an equal chance of inclusion of the sample. The population of this study is tourist visiting Kepulauan Seribu. According to tourist arrival statistic to Kepulauan Seribu in 2007, there were 60,675 tourists visiting Kepulauan Seribu. For sampling purposes, a sample size of 100 is drawn for the purpose of this study. In determining the sample size the researcher is employing 90% confidence level. Which means that it has it has a sampling error or level of precision of more or less 10 percent. The number of 100 is drawn from Yamane (1967) formula in calculating sample size.

Questionnaire survey involves quantification – the presentation of results in numerical terms. In other word it uses a quantitative analysis in the result presentation. 1. Frequencies

Frequencies procedure produces counts and percentages for individual variable. The procedure can be run for one variable at a time or for a number of variables. The first and second parts of the questionnaire ask about demographic profile of the respondents such as gender, sex and origin. The finding of the survey will be presented descriptively in numbers and percentages according to the frequency of occurrence.

2. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is used to examine more than two means at a time.

ANOVA analysis is used to identify whether there are any differences in perception over respondent socio-demographic and travel characteristics, which include: Gender, Age, Marital Status, Education background, Origin, Occupation, First or repeat visit, Length of stay, Purpose of visit, Source of Information, Travel Partner.

From lists above, researcher delivers hypothesis that there is significant difference of perceptions and preferences among those groups.

Ho – Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the meansH1 – Alternative hypothesis: There is difference between the means

Page 8: Variable -    Web viewtourists perception of safety and security in kepulauan seribu (a case study of pulau pramuka) by rina kurniawati, mm, mba. abstract. this study tries

Ho is accepted if the value from the sample is high – on the top 5 per cent of values for that sample size. Ho is rejected and H1 is accepted if there is significant difference at the 5 per cent level of probability respectively.

p value < 0.05 = Ho rejected p value > 0.05 = H1 rejectedIn order to answer the research questions mentioned in the introduction chapter, whether there perception influence tourists’ decision to make repeat visit, therefore a Pearson Correlation technique is employed. Correlation is used to examine the relationships between two or more ordinal or scale variables. In this correlation method, a hypothesis is drawn. The hypothesis is:

Ho – Null hypothesis: There is no significant correlation between general perception of safety and security and intention to revisitH1 – Alternative hypothesis: There is significant correlation between

general perception of safety and security and intention to revisitHo is when the correlation is zero. Ho is rejected and H1 is accepted if there is

significant correlation at the 5 per cent level of probability respectively. And Ho is accepted and H1 is rejected if there is no significant correlation at 5 percent level of probability.

p value < 0.05 = Ho rejected p value > 0.05 = H1 rejected

4.0. RESULT ANALYSIS

This section is divided into four main parts. The first part describes the tourist profile and travel characteristics. The second part describes tourist perception of safety and security. This part includes tourist perception of safety at the destination, awareness of safety and security standards, and perception of safety and security standards in Kepulauan Seribu as well as intention to revisit. Pearson Correlation is employed to discover whether overall perception affects respondents’ intention to revisit. The first and the second part will be described using a descriptive analysis. The third part focuses on both parts. In this part, the writer analyzes whether there is significant differences in perception over tourist profile and travel characteristic. In this part, a statistical analysis of ANOVA is employed. The last part of this chapter provides a discussion on the result.

100 distributed questionnaires are taken as the basis of analysis; the questionnaires are distributed to the tourists visiting P. Pramuka. The period of distribution of the questionnaire is in October 2008.

4.1. Socio-Demographic Profile

Over 100 respondents, there are 55% of male respondents and 45% of female respondents. Almost half of the respondents are in early twentieth; they are mostly aged 18-24 years old which represents 47% of the total respondents. And another largest proportion of respondents aged between 25-35 years old which represents 43% of the total respondents. The others are between 36-45 years old (8%), younger than 17 years old (1%), and older than 46 years old (1%).

Most of the respondents are educated people, which have pursued a tertiary educational level. 63% of the respondents are undergraduates, 17% have a diploma degree, 6% have a master degree, and the rest 14% are high school graduates. Majority of the respondents are single, which represents 83% of the total respondents, and the rest 17% are married. Most of the respondents

Page 9: Variable -    Web viewtourists perception of safety and security in kepulauan seribu (a case study of pulau pramuka) by rina kurniawati, mm, mba. abstract. this study tries

are working as private employee (42%) and the rest are student (29%) and professional (19%). Some of the respondents are working as entrepreneur (6%) and state employee (4%).

And for the monthly earning, it falls almost to an equal proportion. 21% of the respondents answer that they receive more than 4 million, 15% receive 2-3 million, another 15% receive 1-2 million, 9% receive less than 1 million. However, many of the respondents refuse to answer on how much their monthly is earning; 21% of them refuse to answer. Most of the visitors are from Jakarta, it represents 69% of the respondents, and there is only one third of respondents that come from outside Jakarta (31%).

From overall, it clearly indicates that travelers that come to P. Pramuka are those who are young, single, educated, and they also have the buying power for visiting kepulauan Seribu. The segmentation of the respondents can be said they are actual consumers for tourism in P. Pramuka.

Page 10: Variable -    Web viewtourists perception of safety and security in kepulauan seribu (a case study of pulau pramuka) by rina kurniawati, mm, mba. abstract. this study tries

Table.4.1. Socio-demographic profile of the respondents

Variable N % of Total Sample

GenderMale 55 55.0Female 45 45.0

AgeYounger than 17 1 1.018-24 47 47.025-35 43 43.036-45 8 8.046 and older than 46 1 1.0

EducationHigh school 14 14.0Diploma 17 17.0Undergraduate 63 63.0Post Graduate 6 6.0

Marital StatusMarried 17 17.0Single 83 83.0

OccupationEntrepreneur 6 6.0State Employee 4 4.0Private Employee 42 42.0Professional 19 19.0Student 29 29.0

OriginJakarta 69 69.0Outside Jakarta 31 31.0

Monthly EarningLess than Rp.1 million 9 9.0Rp.1-2 million 19 19.0Rp.2-3 million 15 15.0Rp.3-4 million 15 15.0More than 4 million 21 21.0Refuse to answer 21 21.0

4.2. Travel Characteristics

Over 100 respondents, two third of the respondents are visiting P.Pramuka for recreation purpose (70%), very small proportion of respondents visit P.Pramuka for business (4%) and VFR purpose (3%), the rests are for other purposes in which are for study or research purpose(23%).

Page 11: Variable -    Web viewtourists perception of safety and security in kepulauan seribu (a case study of pulau pramuka) by rina kurniawati, mm, mba. abstract. this study tries

Majority of the respondents find out about P. Pramuka from word of mouth, it is shown from the statistic that 80% of the respondents find out about P. Pramuka from Friend or relative. There are 13% of respondents that use Internet as a media to get information about P. Pramuka. Very small proportion of respondents uses travel agencies or information center as source of information. None of the respondents find out about P. Pramuka from the newspaper.

In terms of travel mode, majority of the respondents chooses to travel to P.Pramuka with their friends (80%), small number of the respondents chooses to travel alone (13%) or club/community (12%). Few of the respondents choose to travel with family (4%) or tour package (5%).

More than fifty percent of the respondents are first time travelers visiting P. Pramuka (56%), and the rests 44 (%) are repeat travelers. Two-third of the respondents stays 2 days/1 night in P. Pramuka, in which they visit P. Pramuka for a weekend-break. 28% of the respondents stay longer time or about 3 days/2 nights. And a small proportion of the respondents stay for 1 day. The transports that are mostly used by the respondents are wooden boat which departs from Muara Angke Pier. There are 85% of the respondents that use the traditional boat, while the rest 15% use speed boat from Marina Ancol. There are several activities that can be done by tourists in P. Pramuka. The activity that most of the respondents participate in is snorkeling.

Table.4.2. Travel Characteristics

Variable Frequency % of sample

Purpose of visit to P. PramukaRecreation 70 70.0Business 4 4.0Visiting Friend and Relatives 3 3.0Others 23 23.0

Sources of InformationFriend or relative 80 80.0Travel agencies 2 5.0Information center 2 2.0Newspaper 0 0Internet 13 13.0

Travel PartnerAlone 13 13.0Friend 66 66.0Club/Community 12 12.0Family 4 4.0Tour Group 5 5.0

No. of VisitFirst Time 56 56.0Repeat Traveler 44 44.0

Page 12: Variable -    Web viewtourists perception of safety and security in kepulauan seribu (a case study of pulau pramuka) by rina kurniawati, mm, mba. abstract. this study tries

Length of Stay1 Day 7 7.02 Days/1 night 65 65.03 Days/2 nights 28 28.0

Transportation ModeSpeed Boat from Ancol 15 15.0Traditional Boat from Muara Angke 85 85.0

ActivitiesSwimming 30 30.0Diving 18 18.0Canoeing 7 7.0Snorkeling 78 78.0Recreation 32 32.0Fishing 18 18.0

AccommodationBalai TNLKS guesthouse 16 16.0Friend and Relative house 10 10.0Cottage 30 30.0Guest house 44 44.0

Over 100 respondents, 85% of the respondents participate in snorkeling activity. The second activity that most of the respondents participate in is recreation (32%), the third one is swimming (30%). There are only 18% of the respondents that participate in diving and fishing activity; and the activity which least respondents participate in is canoeing (7%).

Nearly half of the respondents stay in a guest house when they are visiting P. Pramuka. 30% of the respondents stay in cottage, and 16% of them stay in Balai Taman Nasional Laut Kepulauan Seribu Guesthouse, and the rest 10% stay in a friend and relative house (10%).

4.3. Perception of Safety and Security on Destination Components

Based on the table below, it can be said that in overall, respondents are hesitant to view Kepulauan Seribu as a safe tourist destination, in this case is P. Pramuka. It is reflected by the total mean score of 3.64 which position is between neutral and safe category. And the total mean score is relatively similar to the score of overall perception of safety and security which is reflected by the mean score of 3.74. A glimpse look on the mean score of each attributes also shows that the means are relatively the same; they all are in the area of neutral and safe.

Safety and security attributes of destination components that have the highest means include feeling safe in day time, feeling safe in consuming food, and staying in accommodation. Majority of the respondents stated that they feel safe in day time at the destination. Majority of the respondents also feel safe when they are consuming food and staying in the accommodation.

Higher safety and security means of destination components occurs in feeling safe in water based activities and feeling safe using speed boat. More than two –third of the respondents stated that they feel safe in these two attributes.

Lowest means of perception of safety and security occurs in using traditional boat and being on Muara Angke Pier. Less than 50% of the respondents feel safe when they are using wooden boat as means of transport to P. Pramuka. In fact, half of the respondents feel neutral and feel unsafe traveling by wooden boat. 29.7% feel neutral and 25.3% feel unsafe traveling

Page 13: Variable -    Web viewtourists perception of safety and security in kepulauan seribu (a case study of pulau pramuka) by rina kurniawati, mm, mba. abstract. this study tries

wooden boat. Less than one-third of the respondents feel safe when they are on Muara Angke Pier. In fact, almost 60% of the respondents feel neutral when they are on the Pier.

The statistic clearly indicates that over two means of transportation to P. Pramuka, respondents feel safer using the speed boat instead of using the wooden boat. And respondents do not feel safe being in the Muara Angke Pier, the pier in which they depart from. This is also shown by the mean score that indicates feeling safe of wooden boat is 3.13 and the mean score of feeling safe in Angke Pier is 3.12, which is lower than the means of other attributes, which almost reach to 4.00 in average.

The reason why they do not feel safe in Muara Angke Pier and wooden boat is probably because the pier and the boat are actually not specially meant for tourists’ purpose. The pier is to transport the local citizens. And tourists have to use the same facilities and service of the transport for the local citizens. And it is probable that the standard of the facilities and service in terms of safety and security have not met their expectation.

Table.4.3.

Tourists Perception of Safety and Security

Attributes were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale, anchored by 1=very unsafe and 5=very safe

4.4. Awareness of Safety and Security

In terms of importance of safety and security, majority of the respondents consider safety and security are extremely important for them when traveling. It is indicated by the score mean of 92% over all respondents.

Attributes N Very unsafe

(1)

Unsafe

(2)

Neutral

(3)

Safe

(4)

Very Safe(5)

Mean Std.Dev.

General perception of Kep. Seribu 99 0 4.0 22.2 69.7 4.0 3.74 0.56

Feeling safe on day time 99 0 7.1 13.1 63.6 16.2 3.89 0.75

Feeling safe on Water-based activities 98 1.0 5.0 10.5 84.2 0 3.68 0.68

Feeling safe of speed boat 38 0 5.3 10.5 84.2 0 3.79 0.53

Feeling safe of wooden boat 91 2.2 25.3 29.7 42.9 0 3.13 0.87

Feeling safe on Muara Angke Pier 91 7.7 4.4 57.1 29.7 1.1 3.12 0.83

Feeling safe on accommodation 100 0 0 20.0 73.0 7.0 3.87 0.51

Feeling safe on consuming food 100 0 0 21.0 69.0 10.0 3.89 0.55

Total Perception of safety & security 3.64 0.66

Page 14: Variable -    Web viewtourists perception of safety and security in kepulauan seribu (a case study of pulau pramuka) by rina kurniawati, mm, mba. abstract. this study tries

Table 4.4. Importance of Safety and Security

Variable Mean Std.Dev.

Security and Safety 92.0 15.3

Note: variable was measured by likert-type scale, 0% not important at all to 100% extremely important

Respondents’ awareness of safety and security are measured in order to find out whether their perception of safety at the destination is in accordance with their knowledge of safety and security basic standard. In terms of the provision of basic appliances of safety and security devices (life vest, radio telecommunication, and fire extinguisher), it is discovered that less than one third of the respondents mention that the devices are available, the other two-third either choose not available and do not know. It is life vest which majority of the respondents aware of its presence (60%). Nearly fifty percent of the respondents are not aware of the presence of radio telecommunication and fire extinguisher.

In terms of accommodation, almost fifty percent of the respondents say that security devices are not available in the accommodation they stay. Only one-third of the respondents say that the security devices are available. Small percentage of respondents (14%) does not know whether the safety and security devices are available or not. Majority of the respondents or around 74% of the respondents answer that the accommodation that they stay in is equipped with key and locks which are primary devices of safety and security. However, nearly two-third of them mentions that the accommodation that they stay in is not equipped with neither fire alarm nor fire extinguisher. Almost half of the respondents mention that the accommodation is not equipped with security guards. In fact, fire alarm and extinguisher are two primary devices of safety and security standards in accommodation.

56% of the respondents mention that during activities in sea, bay watch or safety guard that monitor their activities are available. However, 30% of the respondents mention that bay watch or safety guards during activities on the sea are not available. More than two-third of the respondents are given briefing before doing water based activities. For dangerous activities, largest proportion of the respondents or around 44% of them answer do not know for the item of asking for personal ID and qualification for dangerous activities by the officer while one third of the respondents answer yes. The writer assume that most of the respondents do not participate in extreme water activities such as diving, therefore they do not know whether the officer ask for ID and qualifications before doing such activities. And yes, before doing extreme water activities such as diving, officer does ask for personal ID and qualification.

More than half of the respondents answer that they do not find any evacuation sign that can help them to safe their life whenever there is a natural disaster, 40% of them answer that they do not know whether the evacuation sign is available or not. 45% of the respondents do not read safety signs which are available, almost one-third (32%) of the respondents answer do not know, and there are only 23% of the respondents that read safety signs that are available.

In case of emergency things, nearly all of the respondents know the location of police station and hospital. It is represented by 85% of the respondents that answer yes. There is only small percentage of respondents that answers do not know or no.

Page 15: Variable -    Web viewtourists perception of safety and security in kepulauan seribu (a case study of pulau pramuka) by rina kurniawati, mm, mba. abstract. this study tries

Table.4.5. Awareness of Safety and Security Attributes

VariableDon’t know

No Yes

Availability of safety appliances in sea transportation

27.6 37.6 30.6

Life vest 11 26 60

Fire extinguisher 37 44 14

Radio telecommunication 35 43 18

Availability safety instruction in sea transport before trip 1 69 29

Availability of safety appliances in accommodation 14 44.3 37.3

Key and locks 6 18 74

Fire alarm and extinguisher 19 66 10

Security guards17 49 28

Availability of Baywatch/safety guard during activities on the sea

14 30 56

Availability of briefing before doing activities on sea

5 19 76

Personal ID and qualification requirement before doing dangerous activities on sea such as diving

44 17 37

Availability of evacuation sign 40 58 2

Reading safety signs and warnings that are available

32 45 23

Location of emergency facilities

such as hospital and police station

5 10 85

Page 16: Variable -    Web viewtourists perception of safety and security in kepulauan seribu (a case study of pulau pramuka) by rina kurniawati, mm, mba. abstract. this study tries

4.5. Tourists Perception of Safety and Security Standard Attributes

Respondent’s perception is measured in order to assess the current provision of safety and security standard. From the survey, there are some findings that worth discussed. In terms of safety appliances available in sea transportation, it is discovered that one-third of the respondents consider the condition of life vest in Sea transport is neither bad nor good (fair). Smaller number of respondents considers them in good condition, represented by 28.6% of the respondents. And less than that consider them in bad condition. More than half of the respondents consider also the fire extinguisher found in the boat in fair condition (54.2%). Similar thing applies for radio telecommunication, in which there are 61.7% of the respondents agree that the condition of radio communication is fair. The average mean score for safety appliances in sea transportation is 2.84. It indicates that the perception is in between bad and fair interval. Overall, it can be said that the respondents do not think that the condition of the safety appliances is adequate for them.

41% of the respondents which represents the largest proportion of the respondents consider that the safety instruction in sea transport before trip is fair. 23% of the respondents even consider that the safety instruction is bad. Although, there are 20.7% of the respondents who consider that the safety instruction is good. The mean score for this attribute is nearly fair (2.94). It indicates that safety instruction is inadequate.

For accommodation, more than half of the respondents consider that locks and keys that are available in the accommodation are in good condition (56.1%). However, more than half of the respondents feel that the condition of security guards and the fire alarm & extinguisher are not good yet. Half of the respondents answer that the condition of the two attributes is fair. There are 59.8% of the respondents consider that the fire alarm and extinguisher is fair, while less number of respondents consider them bad. 51.6% of the respondents consider security guards in accommodation fair. Less number of the respondents (22%) considers them good. The mean score for this attribute falls between fair and good interval (3.36). It means that the safety in accommodation is moderately adequate.

In terms of service of the safety and security guards found outside the accommodation, it is found that 45% of the respondents consider their service is good, while there are also some of the respondents, which represents 28% of the total respondents. Some other respondents or 17% of the total respondents consider the service of the safety and security guards found in P. Pramuka excellent. Mean score for this attributes falls between fair and good (3.66). It implies that service of the security guards is adequate.

Similar case also occur in the attributes of feeling safe in the equipment (3.73) and feeling safe on the briefing given by the tour operator (3.70) and feeling safe consuming food in P. Pramuka (3.75). More than half of the respondents (58%) agree that the equipment rented for water based activities are good. However, 21 % of the respondents disagree and mention that the equipment is in fair condition. There are only 13% of the respondents that consider the equipment excellent.

Over half of the respondents say that the briefing given by tour operator before conducting activities in sea is already good, 21% of the respondents however do not have the same opinion, they consider the briefing or safety instruction before doing activities in the water is neither good nor bad (fair). And minority of them state that the briefing is excellent. Only 13% of the respondents mention that the briefing is excellent.

Page 17: Variable -    Web viewtourists perception of safety and security in kepulauan seribu (a case study of pulau pramuka) by rina kurniawati, mm, mba. abstract. this study tries

Table.4.6.

VariableN Poor

(1)Bad(2)

Fair(3)

Good(4)

Excellent(5)

Mean Std. Deviation

Safety appliances in sea transportation

12.5 16.6 50.2 15.1 5.5 2.84 0.98

Life vest 98 6.1 20.4 34.7 28.6 10.2 3.16 1.07Fire extinguisher 96 18.8 15.6 54.2 8.3 3.1 2.61 0.99

Radio telecommunication

94 12.8 13.8 61.7 8.5 3.2 2.76 0.90

Safety instruction in sea transport before trip 100 9.0 23.0 41.0 20.7 7.0 2.93 1.04

Availability of safety appliances in accommodation

3.6 13.7 46.6 28.5 7.5 3.36 0.84

Key and locks 98 0 6.1 28.6 56.1 9.2 3.68 0.73Fire alarm and extinguisher 92 8.7 20.7 59.8 7.6 3.3 2.76 0.84

Security guards 91 2.2 14.3 51.6 22.0 9.9 3.66 0.95

Service of the safety and security guards

100 3.0 7.0 28.0 45.0 17.0 3.66 0.95

Equipment during activities on the sea

100 3.0 5.0 21.0 58.0 13.0 3.73 0.86

Briefing before doing activities on the sea

99 3.0 8.1 21.2 51.5 16.2 3.70 0.94

Evacuation sign for natural disaster

100 10.0 31.0 58.0 1.0 0 2.97 0.81

Warning signs for dangerous areas

100 5.0 17.0 56.0 20.0 2.0 2.50 0.69

Accessibility of hospital and police station

99 0 4.0 24.2 64.6 7.1 3.83 0.76

food and beverage handling and service

99 0 4.0 24.2 64.6 7.1 3.75 0.64

Total Perception 3.33 0.85

Perception of Safety and Security Standard AttributesNote: measure was taken by using a likert scale, from poor (1) to excellent (5)

In terms of food, it clearly states that respondents believe with the handling and service of the food in P. Pramuka, it is proven by majority of the respondents which cover two third of them who give good score (64.6), and excellent (7.1).

Page 18: Variable -    Web viewtourists perception of safety and security in kepulauan seribu (a case study of pulau pramuka) by rina kurniawati, mm, mba. abstract. this study tries

Over half of the respondents consider that evacuation sign for natural disaster is in fair condition. Even there are 31% of the respondents say that the evacuation sign is bad. It clearly indicates that P. Pramuka is lack of evacuation sign to help tourists when natural disaster occurs. For warning signs that keep tourists away from dangerous areas, over half of the respondents consider them in fair condition also. There are some other respondents that disagree, 20% of them agree that the warning signs are good, and another group of respondents (17%) of them think that the warning signs are bad. It shows that the provision of evacuation sign and warning sign that prevents tourist from dangerous areas are in adequate.

Nearly two-third of the respondents agree that the emergency services, in this case is police station and hospital is easily accessible. 64.6% state that the accessibility of those places is good. Another group of respondents do not think the same thing, 24.2% of them give fair for accessibility of police station and hospital. However, seeing the relatively high score, it can be said that the location of police station and hospital is easily reached (3.83).

To sum up, the highest positive perception of the applied safety and security standard in kepulauan seribu falls on the accessibility of emergency services. This is true since the police station and the hospital are located in the islands. Higher positive perception are found in availability of safety appliances in accommodation, service of the security guards outside the accommodation, briefing before conducting water based activities, and equipment. Lowest perception of safety and security standards is found in safety appliances in sea transportation, safety instruction before trip on the sea, evacuation sign, and warning signs for protecting the tourists from dangerous areas.

4.6. Intention to Revisit

There are two causes of safety and security problem that might cause the tourists do not want to visit a tourist destination. They are issues of natural disaster and issues of man made disaster such as crimes, wars, and accidents. From the survey it can be seen that both issues have influence on respondents decision making. And the issues of natural disaster has higher means than the issues human caused disaster affecting respondents’ decision for traveling, although the different is not very significant. The mean on the effects of human caused disaster is 51.8 while for the mean of the effects of natural disaster is 61.2. The slight different can tell that respondents visiting P. Pramuka concern more on natural disaster compared to human caused disaster.

Table.4.7. Effects of Human caused and Natural DisasterVariable Mean Std.Dev.

How much had the issue of terrorism, accidents, crime or man

made disaster affect your decision to visit Kepulauan Seribu?

51.8 29.4

How much had the issue of natural disaster such as tsunami

affect your decision to visit Kepulauan Seribu?

61.2 28.9

Note: variable was measured by likert-type scale, 0% not at all to 100% to a great extent

From the survey, it is also found that respondents have the tendency to make a revisit in the future; it can be seen from the high mean score of intention to revisit which is more than

Page 19: Variable -    Web viewtourists perception of safety and security in kepulauan seribu (a case study of pulau pramuka) by rina kurniawati, mm, mba. abstract. this study tries

80%. Respondents also willing to recommend Kepulauan Seribu to their friends and relatives, it is predicted from the mean score of recommending to friend and relative which is nearly 80%.

Table.4.8. Recommendation to Friend and Relatives

Variable Mean Std.Dev.

How much do you intent to recommend Kepulauan Seribu to friend

and relative?

79.7 15.4

Note: variable was measured by likert-type scale, 0% not at all to 100% to a great extent

Table.4.9. Intention to Revisit

Variable Mean Std.Dev.

How much do you intent to revisit Kepulauan Seribu in the future? 82.2 15.4

Note: variable was measured by likert-type scale, 0% not at all to 100% to a great extent

So, it can be concluded that respondents, despite being hesitant to perceive Kepulauan Seribu as a safe destination, they would like to visit again Kepulauan Seribu, however, the time of the revisit vary from one month to one year period. As it is seen from table below, one third of the respondents say that they would likely to visit in the next 2-4 months, another one third of the respondents would likely to visit in the next 9-12 months, and the other one third of the respondents say that they would like to visit again in the next 1 month, and the next 5-8 months.

Table.4.10.Time to Revisit

Variable Frequency % of sample

Next 1 month

Next 2-4 month

Next 5-8 month

9-12 month

12

32

22

31

12.0

32.0

22.0

31.0

Besides using the descriptive analysis in calculating the intention to revisit, Pearson Correlation technique is also carried out to find out whether the perception of safety and security has an influenced on intention to revisit, as it was mentioned in the previous chapter that positive perception of safety and security leads to overall satisfaction of the destination thus encouraging tourists to make revisit in the future and can create a positive image of the destination giving encouraging people to recommend the destination to friends and relatives.

The mean score on the item of general perception of safety and security is relatively similar to the total mean of perception of safety and security on tourist destination. The mean

Page 20: Variable -    Web viewtourists perception of safety and security in kepulauan seribu (a case study of pulau pramuka) by rina kurniawati, mm, mba. abstract. this study tries

score on the score of perception of safety and security on tourist destination in general is correlated with intention to revisit, and recommendation to friend and relative to find out the relationship between these variables.

Based on statistical calculation it is found out that perception of safety and security in general has a significant influence on intention to revisit at 0.05 confidence level (p value is 0.041 is less than 0.05). In this case, Ho is rejected and H1 is accepted. However, the coefficient of the correlation is only 0.206 which means there is a positive weak correlation of perception of safety and security and intention to revisit (Veal, 2006).

Table.4.11Correlation General Perception of Safety and Security and Intention to Revisit

GENERAL

PERCEPTIONINTENTION TO REVISIT

GENERAL PERCEPTION Pearson Correlation 1 .206(*)Sig. (2-tailed) .041N 99 99

INTENTION TO REVISIT Pearson Correlation .206(*) 1Sig. (2-tailed) .041N 99 100

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Positive perception also encourages people to recommend the destination to other people. In table 5.11., p value 0.224 which is more than 0.05 confidence level, it means that there is no significant correlation between general perception of safety and security and recommendation to friend and relatives. In this case, Ho is accepted and H1 is rejected.

Table.4.12Correlation between General Perception and Recommendation

To Friend and Relatives

GENERAL

PERCEPTION

RECOMMENDATION TO

FRIEND AND RELATIVES

GENERAL PERCEPTION Pearson Correlation 1 .123Sig. (2-tailed) .224N 99 99

RECOMMENDATION TO FRIEND AND RELATIVES

Pearson Correlation .123 1Sig. (2-tailed) .224N 99 100

Page 21: Variable -    Web viewtourists perception of safety and security in kepulauan seribu (a case study of pulau pramuka) by rina kurniawati, mm, mba. abstract. this study tries

4.7. Difference in Perception over Demographic Profile & Travel Characteristics

From the comparison of means using ANOVA analysis, it is discovered that there is a significant difference over age on the variable of ‘importance of safety’, respondents whose age are less than 17, 18-24 years old, 46 and 46 older consider safety as extremely important, however those whose age 25-35 have a very high grading on the importance of safety, and those whose age 36-45 do not really think safety and security extremely important.

There is significant difference in perception over age on transportation, the young people or those whose age less than 17, 18-24, and 25-35 years old have m more positive perception of speed boat and traditional boat, while the older people those age 36-45 years old have a negative perception of the safety of speed boat and traditional boat. The assumption is that the older of an age of a person is the more experience he has, and with more experience they would expect to have better condition of safe transportation and old people normally requires more extensive facilities which guarantee their safety during trip.

It is interesting to identify that, those respondents whose age less than 17 years old have a low grading on recommending Kepulauan Seribu to friend and relatives compared to any other respondents. It is probable that the respondent do not have positive perception of Kepulauan Seribu

Significant difference is also found over marital status in general perception, traditional boat, and accommodation. It is interesting to find out that those married respondents have less grading on overall perception of safety. They also tend to consider traditional boat and accommodation in P. Pramuka less safe than the unmarried person. People when they are married surely have different kind of view than before, when they are considering about safety they do not think about it for themselves but also for their families and their consideration and expectation for safety would surely increase after they are married. Therefore, it is probable that they would rate safety in traditional boat and accommodation less than the unmarried ones. However, human caused activities tend to influence the decision of unmarried people than the married ones.

Significant difference is also found over origin (respondents from Jakarta and outside Jakarta). It is found that respondents outside from Jakarta tend to have more positive perception on general perception of Kepulauan Seribu than those from Jakarta. Respondents from outside Jakarta also tend to think that staying in accommodation in Kepulauan Seribu is much safer than those from Jakarta. It is assumed that the respondents who are originated from Jakarta have higher standard of safety compared to those respondents who are not originally from Jakarta. So, when it comes to grading, the respondents from outside Jakarta give higher grading than the respondents from Jakarta.

In terms of educational background, significant difference is found on perception of safety on day time, traditional boat, and Muara Angke pier. High school respondent tends to have negative perception of safety in those variables compared to the other respondents that view those variables positively.

In terms of occupation, significant differences occur in the perception of feeling safe in speed boat, in traditional or wooden boat, in Muara Angke Pier, and accommodation. Professionals do not consider that using speed boat as safe compared to other occupation. In traditional boat, professional and student do not feel safe using the traditional boat, and it happens also in Muara Angke Pier. However in Muara Angke Pier, it is the student that perceive that staying in the accommodation safe and state employee do not consider safe.

Page 22: Variable -    Web viewtourists perception of safety and security in kepulauan seribu (a case study of pulau pramuka) by rina kurniawati, mm, mba. abstract. this study tries

There is a significant difference in perception over no. of visit, it turns out that repeat visitors tend to consider staying in accommodation much safer compared to first time visitors. Repeat visitors also rate that food is much safer to eat than the first time visitors. It is probable that first time visitors are having a new kind of experience using the facilities and eating the food in the destination, and they are still on trial stage having a taste on the accommodation and the food. So, they might not want to rate more, whiled the repeat visitors already have some experiences of the destination and are already sure with quality of the accommodation and the food in the area therefore they rate very high. However, when they are asked how much does the issue of natural disaster affect the decision to travel, first time visitors are the ones that state that their decision to travel is influenced by issue of natural disaster such as the tsunami, the assumption is that repeat visitors have probably understand the situation that although there is issue of natural disaster it does not have any effect on the destination and their visit.

Length of stay also has a significant statistical relationship with perception in using the speed boat, recommendation to friend and relative and intention to revisit. Respondents who stay only one day have negative perception in safety using the speed boat than the other respondents. They also have least grading compared the other respondents in terms of recommendation to friend and relative and intention to revisit. It is assumed that the longer the respondents stay in the destination (normally done by most tourists are 2 days and 1 night), they are more likely to have more experiences than those who only stay for one day only, able to participate in much more activities that can add to their excitement, thus they are more likely to recommend it to friend and relative and might increase their intention to revisit in the future.

There is significant difference found in the perception of safe accommodation over source of information, it is found that the mean of the source of information from friend to relative has the lowest score compared to all. In addition, significant difference occurs in intention to revisit. Lowest mean is represented by travel agent. It is probable that information from the travel agent is mislaid that the respondents discourage respondents from intention revisit.

There is significant difference found in the feeling safe in accommodation and intention to revisit over source of information, it is found out that those who get information from friend and relative consider staying in accommodation less safe compared to other attributes. It is probable that information taken from friend and relatives are straightforward, there is no exaggeration on the information. Travel agent factor has the lowest means for intention to revisit.

In terms of travel companion, significant differences occur in overall perception, safe in day time, safe traditional boat, safe accommodation, and consuming food. Those traveling with friends or club/community have lower means compared to other attributes in overall perception, while in perception of safe in day time; lowest mean is indicated by club/community and for the highest mean is indicated by tour package. In safe traditional boat, lowest mean is indicated by family and highest mean is indicated by alone attribute. Those traveling with family, tour package and alone consider staying in accommodation safer compared to the other attributes. Family feel highly safe consuming food compared to the other attributes. It can be summarized that there are significant differences in perception over socio- demographic profile which includes occupation, age, marital status, education, and origin. It means that these socio-demographic profiles are related to perceptions of safety and security. In travel characteristics, significant differences in perception occur in travel companion, length of stay, no. of visit, and source of information.

Page 23: Variable -    Web viewtourists perception of safety and security in kepulauan seribu (a case study of pulau pramuka) by rina kurniawati, mm, mba. abstract. this study tries

In the perception of safety and security standard attributes in Kepulauan Seribu, there are also some variances in the respondents answer. In regard to gender, there is significant difference in perception in the way the respondents perceive briefing and food handling and service. Male respondents grade higher than female in the briefing they receive before conducting water activities, while for food, apparently female grade higher than males.

Different kinds of age also contribute to different ways of perception of the safety and security standard attributes. Respondents’ age under 17 and age 36-45 tend to give negative grade over the safety of attributes of the sea transportation, compared to the other respondents who give higher grade. Similar case occurred in accessibility and food. While in terms of service of the security guards in the islands, equipment and briefing, the respondents’ age 36-45 tend give the least grade than the other respondents. It is assumed that respondents at this point of age; are the ones who have more experiences and they are likely to expect to have higher level provision of facilities that can assure their safety of any particular. Thus, it can be said that it is normal that this group of respondents give least score to the evaluation of safety and security in the island.

Marital status shows significant differences of perception over many aspects, including perception of safety and security in sea transportation, service of the security guards, equipment, evacuation sign, warning sign, and food. Apparently, married respondents tend to grade lower over safety and security attributes than the unmarried respondents. The writer assumes that married respondents may have higher expectation, thus they give less grade than the unmarried respondents.

Based on the originality of the respondents, it is found out that the respondents from Jakarta tend to give lower grade than those from outside Jakarta for attributes such as radio telecommunication in sea transportation, key and locks in accommodation, and food handling and service. As it is mentioned in the previous part, that Jakartans probably have higher standard than those who are not from Jakarta, thus when asked to give grading they do not give a high grading unlike the rest of the respondents.

In regard to education background, significant differences occur in several attributes, such as life vest in sea transportation, security guard in accommodation, briefing before doing water activities, and accessibility. There is no clear cut pattern that can be drawn as the score of lowest and highest means are distributed to all respondents based on their level of education. For life vest in sea transportation, bachelor degree respondents give the lowest grade for the quality of life vest in sea transport and the master respondents give the highest grade. While for the security in accommodation, the high school respondents give lowest grade, while the master respondents give the highest grade, for briefing before doing water activities the diploma give the highest grade while the high school give the lowest grade, and for accessibility to emergency buildings, such as hospital and police station, high school respondents give the highest grade and diploma respondents give the lowest grade. There is no particular level of education that is dominance.

In terms of purpose of visit, perception varies in safety instruction before doing sea trip and security guards in accommodation, from the statistic it is discovered that the respondents with the purpose of recreation and other tend to give lower grade than the others. It is assumed that people in recreation can focus on one particular thing than those who have other purposes such as business or visiting friend and relative, so they may have more time to pay attention on several things which may be rather difficult to be done with the other respondents.

Page 24: Variable -    Web viewtourists perception of safety and security in kepulauan seribu (a case study of pulau pramuka) by rina kurniawati, mm, mba. abstract. this study tries

In regard to no. of visit, significant differences occur in safety instruction at sea transportation, warning sign for dangerous areas and evacuation sign for natural disaster. It turns out that repeat visitors give lower grade than the first time visitors to the variables mentioned. It is probable that repeat visitors are already familiar with the situation and condition in the area, that they may have seen that the available safety and evacuation signs have not met their standard of safety thus they do not give higher grade to the variables mentioned. In terms of Length of stay, it is discovered that there is significant differences in perception in the life vest at the sea transportation, service of the security guards, and warning signs for dangerous areas. It seems that respondents who stay 2 days and one night tend to give higher grade on the evaluation of those variables, and the respondents who stay for 1 day only give lowest grade. It can be said that the longer ones stay in the island, the more that they can see and experiences, and it is likely that the longer they stay, their perception enhances. In sum, significant differences in perception are found over socio demographic profile on age, marital status, gender, origin, education, and occupation. Significant differences are found over travel characteristics, including no. of visit, length of stay, source of information, and travel companion. Most perceptions differ in marital status, age, occupation and travel companion.

5.0. CONCLUSION

The intent of the study is to determine tourists’ perception of safety and security in Kepulauan Seribu, which takes place in P. Pramuka as the place of conducting the study. Three research questions are outlined in the introduction chapter to guide the research process and the following is the summary of the research questions and the key findings.1. In overall, it can be said that tourists are hesitant to consider that Kepulauan Seribu is a safe

tourists’ destination. This perception of safety at the destination is in accordance with tourists perception of the safety and security standards attributes which are applied in the destination. Tourists perceive that the provision of safety and security standards in Kepulauan Seribu is nearly good. So, it can be said that there is a need to have some improvement in provision of safety and security standard in the Kepulauan Seribu.

2. Indeed, there are significance differences in perception according to socio-demographic profile and travel characteristics. This research confirms the previous studies which had been conducted in this area. The significant differences include differences in perception on marital status, age, occupation, and travel companion. It confirms that perception has a statistical relationship with socio-demographic and travel characteristics. This confirms previous research.

3. It is interesting to notice that Kepulauan Seribu has an appeal to the tourists for coming back to the island shown by a very high score of intention to revisit. And from the statistical calculation, it was found out perception of safety and security has a minor role in tourist decision to make revisit and no role recommending to friend and relatives. Other factors might have greater influence to intention to revisit. In addition, despite the fact tourists do not highly consider good the safety and security standards and the destination; it does not hinder tourist intention to revisit and recommendation to friend and relatives. It was found out also

Page 25: Variable -    Web viewtourists perception of safety and security in kepulauan seribu (a case study of pulau pramuka) by rina kurniawati, mm, mba. abstract. this study tries

the time to make revisit intention vary from as soon as one month time to one year period of time. In all, it can be predicted that Kepulauan Seribu, in this case is P. Pramuka will receive more tourists arrival in the future.

This research only uses a small number proportion of sampling which is much better if using large number of sampling. Beside that, the questionnaire is distributed in P. Pramuka only, which does not cover the whole area of Kepulauan Seribu, thus the result of the research cannot be generalized to all areas in Kepulauan Seribu. If there are sufficient time and resources, it will be better that the questionnaire is distributed to other areas as well with more sampling in order to get a larger picture of safety and security in Kepulauan Seribu. In addition, this research only uses a quantitative analysis and the subject of the thesis involving the perception of the tourists only. A deeper collaborative research using a depth-interview from the management side such as from the government and tour operator is needed to get more information and view from the various parties.

This research can be a valuable tool for further research in safety and security in Kepulauan Seribu. It is recommended that further research is conducted in this area, especially in investigating further about safety and security in Kepulauan Seribu in whole of its area. Investigating the safety and security in each aspect of tourism component will be beneficial and give a detail and closer look of safety of the component, such as investigating safety in transportation only or in accommodation. Beside that, it is recommended for further research to compare safety and security with other attributes. This is to give a big picture which attributes greatly influence tourists decision to revisit. And finally, it is advisable that there is a study is conducted in investigating about the safety and security from the point of view of tour operator or management of tourism such as the government. It is interesting to investigate about the policy, and strategy in ensuring the safety and security of the tourists.

For the management or the government, there is a need to upgrade the safety and security standards especially in the sea transportation. In addition, tourists need to be well informed about safety and security of the destination. The information needs to be delivered before and when tourists at the destination. The most crucial thing is the provision of signs in the destination that would prevent tourists from harm either caused by natural disaster or human caused disaster. Improved safety apparatus including the safety and security personals and devices are also necessary in order to provide secure feeling of the tourists.

REFERENCES

Ajagunna, I. (2006). Crime and Harassment in Jamaica: Consequences of Sustainability of Tourism Industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 18 3, Emerald Insight Publishing Ltd, pp. 253-259

Alegre, J. & Juaneda, C. (2006). Destination Loyalty. Consumers’ Economic Behavior. Annals of Tourism Research, 33/3, pp.684–706.

Baker, D.A., Crompton J.L., (2000) Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 27, No. 3, (2000) pp. 785±804, Elsevier Science Ltd.

Beerli and Martin, J.D. (2003). Factors influencing destination image. Annals of

Page 26: Variable -    Web viewtourists perception of safety and security in kepulauan seribu (a case study of pulau pramuka) by rina kurniawati, mm, mba. abstract. this study tries

Tourism Research 31 (2003): p.p. 657-681.

Barker, M., Page, S.J., Meyer D (2003). Urban Visitors Perceptions of Safety during A Special Events. Journal of Travel Research 41(2003): p.355-361

Brunt, Mawby, & Hambly (2000). P. Brunt, R. Mawby and Z. Hambly, Tourist victimisation and the fear of crime on holiday. Tourism Management 21 4 (2000), pp. 417–424.

Cavlek, Navenka. (2002). Tour Operator and Destination Safety. Annals of Tourism Research 29 (2002), pp.478-496.

Chesney-Lind & Lind. (1986). Visitors as victims: Crimes against tourists in Hawaii. Annals of Tourism Research 13 (1986), pp. 167–191.

Chen, J.S., Gursoy, D. (2001) An investigation of tourists' destination loyalty and preferences, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 79-85

Chi, C, G-Q., Qu, H. (2008). Examining the structural relationships of destination image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated approach. Tourism Management 29 (2008) :p.p. 624–636

Chiang, Lian Choong (2000). Strategies for Safety and Security in Tourism: A Conceptual Framework for Singapore Hotel Industry. The Journal of Tourism Studies 11 2: pp.44-52

Cooper C, et., al. (1998). Tourism Principles and Practice. Second Edition. Longman. Limited. England.

Cronin, J., and S. A. Taylor (1992). Measuring Service Quality: A Re-examination and Extension. Journal of Marketing 56(3):55–68.

de Alburquerque & McElroy (1999). K. de Alburquerque and J. McElroy, Tourism and crime in the Caribbean. Annals of Tourism Research 26 4 (1999), pp. 968–984.

Do Valle, et.al. (2006). Tourist Satisfaction and Destination Loyalty Intention: A Structural and Categorical Analysis. Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.com

Demos (1992). E. Demos, Concern for safety: A potential problem in the tourist industry. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 1 1 (1992), pp. 81–88.

Departemen Kehutanan, Balai TNL Kepulauan Seribu. (2008). Laporan Akhir Penyusunan Rencana Pemanfaatan Ruang Pada Zona Pemanfaatan dan Pemukiman Taman Nasional Laut Kepulauan Seribu. Jakarta

Ferreira, S., and A, Harmse (2000). "Crime and tourism in South Africa: International

Page 27: Variable -    Web viewtourists perception of safety and security in kepulauan seribu (a case study of pulau pramuka) by rina kurniawati, mm, mba. abstract. this study tries

tourists' perception and risk." South African Geographical Journal, 82(2): p.p.80-85.

George, B.P., George, B.P. (2004). The Journal of Tourism Studies. Vol. 15, No. 2, DEC. ‘04

George, R. (2002). Tourists perceptions of Safety and Security While Visiting Cape Town. Tourism Management Journal 24 5 (2003): 575-585

Greenberg, J & Baron, R.A. (2003). Behavior in Organization. Eighth Edition. Pearson Education Ltd. New Jersey

Groenenboom, K. & Jones, P. (2003). Issues of Security in Hotels. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. pp.14-19

Hall C,M., & O’ Sullivan V. (1996). Tourism, Political Stability, and Violence. Tourism, Crime, and Security Issues 8 (1996): pp.106-121

Heung, V.C.S. (2003). Internet Usage by International Travelers: Reasons and Barriers. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 15 7 (2003), pp.370-378.

Hui, T. K. Wan, D. & Ho, A. (2007). Tourists’ Satisfaction, Recommendation and Revisiting Singapore. Tourism Management, 28 No. 4, p.p. 965-975.

Hutchinson, J., et al. (2008). Understanding the relationships of quality, value, equity, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions among golf travelers. Journal of Tourism Management.

Inskeep, E. (1991). Tourism Planning – An Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach. John Wiley and Sons. Canada.

ISO 20712 (2008). ISO standard on beach safety flags and water safety signs for an accident-free summer. http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1147

Jang, S., Feng, R. (2007).Temporal destination revisit intention: The effects of novelty seeking and satisfaction. Tourism Management 28 (2007): p.p. 580–590

Jenkins, O. (1999). Understanding and measuring tourist destination images. International Journal of Tourism Research, 1 (1), 1-15.

Joniansyah (2006). Kapal Karam Dua Tewas. http://www.tempointeraktif.com/hg/jakarta/2006/01/08/brk,20060108-71979,id.html kpl karam

Kim, S.S., Guo, Y and Agrusa J. (2005). Preference and Positioning Analysis of Overseas Destinations by Mainland Chinese Outbound Pleasure Tourists. Journal of Travel Research 44 (2005): p.p.212-220

Page 28: Variable -    Web viewtourists perception of safety and security in kepulauan seribu (a case study of pulau pramuka) by rina kurniawati, mm, mba. abstract. this study tries

Kozak, M. (2001). Repeaters’ Behavior at Two Distinct Destinations. Annals of Tourism Research, 28/3, pp.784-807.

Lindsay, P & Norman, D.A. (1977) Human Information Processing: An Introduction to Psychology.

Laksono, H.W. (2008). Wisata Ke Untung Jawa. http://www.kompas.com/index.php/read/xml/2008/03/13/1936181/wisata.ke.untung.jawa

Levantis, T.(2000). Tourism Demand and The Nuisance of Crime. International Journal of Social Economics 27 7/8/9/10. MCB University Press: pp.959-967

Maulana, R. (2006). Tsunami Tekan Wisatawan Ke Pulau Seribu.

http://www.tempointeraktif.com/hg/jakarta/2006/08/16/brk,2006081682041id.Html.

Merikle, P.M. (1992). Perception Without Awareness. American Psychologist Vol. 47, No. 6,792-795

Milman, A., Jones, F., Bach, S (1999). The impact of security devices on tourists’ perceived safety: The central Florida example. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 23 4 (1999), pp. 371–386.

Nurul Iswani Binti Ismail (2006). Visitor’s Perceptions of Safety and Security in Ecotourism Destination Taman Negara Pahang: A Case Study. Fakulti Alam Bina. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

Omotara, BA., et al (2006). Communities’ Awareness, Perception and Participation in the Community-Based Medical Education of the University of Maiduguri. Education for Health Vol. 19, No. 2 (July 2006):p.p. 147 – 154

OSAC (2008) Indonesia 2008 Safety and Security Reports https://www.osac.gov/Reports/report.cfm?contentID=69926

Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia. No 51 2002. Perkapalan.

Pinhey & Iverson (1994). T.K. Pinhey and T.J. Iverson, Safety concerns of Japanese visitors to Guam. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 3 2 (1994), pp. 87–94.

Poon W.C., et., al (2005). Are travelers satisfied with Malaysian Hotel. International Journal ofContemporary Hospitality ManagementVol. 17 No. 3, 2005 pp. 217-227

Purnomo, H (2006). Food Safety in Hospitality Industry. Faculty of Animal Husbandry. Brawijaya University Malang. http://www.petra.ac.id/~puslit/journals/pdf.php?PublishedID=HOT06020101

Raharjo, S. (2007). Gelombang Pasang Sebabkan Pulau Hilang

Page 29: Variable -    Web viewtourists perception of safety and security in kepulauan seribu (a case study of pulau pramuka) by rina kurniawati, mm, mba. abstract. this study tries

http://www.pulauseribu.net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=107

Sánchez-Fernández, et al. (2006). Consumer Perception of Value: Literature Review and Conceptual Framework. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior

Sarigollu E., Huang, R (2005). Benefits Segmentation of Visitors to Latin America. Journal of Travel Research 43(2005): p.p. 277-293

Sigit, S. (2003). Pengantar Metodologi Penelitian Sosial-Bisnis-Manajemen. Cetakan ke-3. BPFE UST. Jogyakarta.

Sudarmadi, S., et al. (2001). A Survey of Perception, Knowledge, Awareness, and attitude in Regard to Environmental Problems in a Sample of two Different Social Groups in Jakarta, Indonesia. Environment, Development and Sustainability, Volume 3, Number 2, 2001, pp. 169-183(15)

Sueca N. P, et al. (2001). Faktor-Faktor Determinan Pengetahuan & Persepsi Masyarakat Tentang Bangunan Berlanggam Bali. Dimensi Teknik Arsitektur 29 2 (2001), pp.157-164. Jurusan Teknik Arsitektur, Fakultas Teknik Sipil dan Perencanaan - Universitas Kristen Petrahttp://puslit.petra.ac.id/journals/architecture/

Sonmez S,F., Apostopoulos Y., & Tarlow P (1999). Tourism in Crisis: Managing the Effects of Terrorism. Journal of Travel Research 38: 13-18

Stabler, M. (1988) The Image of Destination Regions: Theoretical and Empirical Aspects, in Marketing in the Tourism Industry, B. Goodall and G. Ashworth, (eds.), Croom Helm, London:p.p. 133-161.

Tarlow, P.E. & Santana G.(2002).Providing Safety for Tourists: A Study of a Selected of sample of Tourist Destination in the United States and Brazil. Journal of Travel Research (2002).40: 424

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. http://safety.dept.shef.ac.uk/guidance/watersportsabroad07.pdf

Veal, A.J. (2006). Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism. Third Edition. Prentice Hall. Harlow, England

Woronuk, J.A. (2008). Tourists’ Awareness, Attitudes, and Perceptions of Wildlife Souvenirs: A Case Study in Cuba. A Thesis. Canada

WTO (2004). Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism Destination: A Guidebook

Page 30: Variable -    Web viewtourists perception of safety and security in kepulauan seribu (a case study of pulau pramuka) by rina kurniawati, mm, mba. abstract. this study tries

Yoon, Y., Uysal, M. (2005). An Examination of the Effects of Motivation and Satisfaction on Destination Loyalty. Tourism Management 26 (2005): p.p. 45–56

http://www.safewatersports.co.uk/SeaSafety.html