38
touring route is defined step 1-5. It will not extend to analyze the touring track restriction and opportunities to plan service and transportation program.
3.2.4.3. Analytical Hierarchy Process
There are three alternatives of touring plan developed based on interpretation concept. Each touring alternative represents one particular
interpretive theme of several defined interpretive themes which can further determined as a potential tourism movement. But it has to be evaluated first
whether it is appropriate enough to be selected as the preferable tourism movement route or not. A comparative judgment is needed here to select the most
preferable alternative of touring plan that is appropriate to be developed in Parangtritis Coastal Area.
This study used Analytical Hierarchy Process AHP method in selecting the most preferable alternative of touring plan by setting some relevant and
required criteria in weighting the priority factors of defined alternatives in pair wise comparisons. These priority weights are obtained by capturing some experts
perception towards the most preferable alternative of tourism track based on certain considerations. In this regard, five experts that come from different
professional background, such as landscape architects, tourism planner and expert, and coastal planner or expert, would be asked to give their judgement to rank the
alternatives in order to determine one of the most appropriate tourism track. The detail information about the experts can be seen in Appendix 2.
A hierarchical structure is an illustration of the problem that need to be solved. The hierarchy is structured from the top Level 1: the goal of the study,
through intermediate levels Level 2: criteria on which subsequent levels depend
39
to the lowest level Level 3, which is usually a list of alternatives Saaty and Kearns, 1991. The goal or objective of this stage is to select the most preferable
alternative track that can enrich the visitor experience in Parangtritis area by helping them to gain a sense of place, to respond to the beauty of their
environment, the significance of their legend and history, as well as their cultural surroundings. The hierarchy structure of the process can be seen in Figure 10.
A pairwise comparison is arranged to compare the relative importance of criteria at the second level with respect to the objective or goal at the first level.
The criteria used in this study are adopted from the perspectives of benefits of interpretation received by individuals concurred by Knudson et. al. 1995, where
the benefits can be classified as educational, recreational, and inspirational benefits. Other pairwise comparisons are also constructed to compare each
alternative at the third level with respect to the criteria at the second level. In the AHP, elements of a problem are compared in pairs with respect to
their relative impact on a property they share in common. A 1–9 scale is used in the comparison, with 1 for representing the comparison value if the two objectives
are equal in importance, 3 if an element is weakly more important than the other
one, 5 if the element is strongly more important than the other one, 7 if it
is very strongly more important than the other one, and 9 is for absolutely more important
than the other. The values of 2, 4, 6, and 8 will represent the scale of intermediate values between two adjacent judgments Saaty and Kearns, 1991.
40
Figure 10. Hierarchy Structure of AHP Method
The most preferable alternative track to enrich the visitor experience in Parangtritis
Coastal Area
Educational Benefits
Recreational Benefits
Inspirational Benefits
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Level 2: Criteria
Level 3: Alternatives Level 1: Goal
41
IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Visual Quality Assessment
Visual Quality Assessment for this study location is obtained from the integration of two kinds of analysis process. The first analysis is based on the
result of visual preferences assessment and another analysis is based on the result of visual character variables assessment.
4.1.1. Visual Preferences Assessment
According to the observers’ judgment of all the photos that have been presented, SBE value for each landscape character within the research area can be
acquired. Table 5 shows the calculation of SBE values for three photos of landscape character as samples. The complete calculation for each photo can be
seen in Appendix 3. The SBE values for the 63 photos are presented in Table 6, which have been grouped based on each landscape character in order to obtain the
average SBE value for each landscape character. Table 5. Calculation of SBE Value
Foto 723 Foto 532
Foto 711 Range
f cf
cp z
Range f
cf cp
z Range
f cf
cp z
1 4 60 1.000
1 0 60 1.000
1 3 60 1.000
2 8 56 0.933
1.5 2 1 60 1.000
2.4 2 5 57 0.950 1.65
3 10 48 0.800
0.84 3 2 59 0.983
2.13 3 12 52 0.867 1.11 4
11 38 0.633 0.34 4
2 57 0.950 1.65 4 12 40 0.667 0.43
5 13 27 0.450 -0.13 5
9 55 0.917 1.38 5 12 28 0.467 -0.08
6 11 14 0.233 -0.73 6 18 46 0.767
0.73 6 9 16 0.267 -0.62
7 2 3 0.050 -1.64 7 18
28 0.467 -0.08 7 5 7 0.117 -1.19
8 1 1 0.017 -2.13 8 6
10 0.167 -0.97 8 1 2 0.033 -1.88
9 0 0 0.000 -2.4 9 3 4 0.067 -1.5 9 1 1
0.017 -2.13 10
0 0 0.000 -2.4 10 1 1 0.017 -2.13 10 0 0 0.000 -2.4
Σz -6.75 Σz 3.61
Σz -5.11
z -0.75 z 0.40
z -0.57 SBE = -0.75--0.75x100
SBE = 0.40--0.75x100 SBE =
-0.57--0.75x100 SBE = 0
SBE = 115.11111 SBE = 18.22222
Note: f = frequencies; cf = cumulative frequencies; cp = cumulative probabilities; and z = z scores.
