Agrotourism is a tourism that more concern to educational benefit as the objective. All the activities that visitors able to do in agrotourism are expected to
increase the visitor benefit from tourism especially in educational benefit. Through agrotourism activities, visitors can involved directly in agriculture
activities, learn how to pick fruits, doing some maintenance in agriculture or fishing.
Pairwise comparison also uses to compare the interpretation alternative route each zone. The three interpretation route alternatives are compared with the
criteria in second level. The result can be seen in table 31 – 40.
4.4.1. AHP in Zone I
Matrix of pairwise comparison for alternatives is determined based on the expert judgment and the calculation process of priority vector for each criterion.
Table 31. Matrix of Pairwise Comparison for Alternatives Respecting to the Criteria
Educational Benefit
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Alternative 3 Priority Vector
Alternative 1 1
5 5
0.670
Alternative 2 0.2
1 4
0.234
Alternative 3
0.2 0.25
1 0.094
Recreational Benefit
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Alternative 3 Priority Vector
Alternative 1 1
6 5
0.673
Alternative 2 0.167
1 5
0.238
Alternative 3
0.2 0.2
1 0.083
Inspirational Benefit
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Alternative 3 Priority Vector
Alternative 1
1 5
5 0.671
Alternative 2
0.2 1
4 0.234
Alternative 3
0.2 0.25
1 0.094
Based on those calculation results of priority vector, it is obvious that alternative 1 has the highest value. It mean that alternative 1 that visiting
horticulture plan and non plan objects performed best in education, recreational and Inspirational.
But it is not a final result, it still need to be calculated by sum the results of local priorities of the alternatives with respect to each criterion multiplied by the
priority of the corresponding criterion.
Table 32. Global Priorities of the Alternatives
Alternatives Educational
Benefit 0.671
Recreational Benefit
0.243 Inspirational
Benefit 0.086
Priority Vector 1
0.670 0.673
0.671 0.669
2 0.234
0.238 0.234
0.236
3 0.094
0.083 0.094
0.091
The result from global priorities shows that alternative 1 is the most prioritizing interpretation route in zone I. Alternative I is developed by classifying
the visited stops based on the object with horticulture and non plant as the agrotourism attraction. Object with horticulture plant as the attractions are more
attractive than non horticulture plant. This method continually used for zone II, II , IV and V.
Figure 28. Priority Interpretation Route in Zone I
4.4.2. AHP in Zone II
Three alternatives in zone II are determined based on the expert judgment and the calculation process of priority vector for each criterion.
Table 33. Matrix of Pairwise Comparison for Alternatives Respecting to the Criteria
Educational Benefit
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Alternative 3 Priority Vector
Alternative 1
1 4
7 0.675
Alternative 2 0.25
1 5
0.252
Alternative 3
0.14 0.2
1 0.073
Recreational Benefit
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Alternative 3 Priority Vector
Alternative 1 1
5 6
0.692
Alternative 2 0.2
1 4
0.223
Alternative 3
0.167 0.25
1 0.166
Inspirational Benefit
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Alternative 3 Priority Vector
Alternative 1 1
6 5
0.702
Alternative 2
0.167 1
3 0.197
Alternative 3
0.2 0.33
1 0.198
Table 34. Global Priorities of the Alternatives
Alternatives Educational
Benefit 0.671
Recreational Benefit
0.243 Inspirational
Benefit 0.086
Priority Vector 1
0.675 0.692
0.702 0.681
2
0.252 0.223
0.197 0.240
3
0.073 0.166
0.198 0.106
The outcome from global priorities shows that alternative 1 is the most prioritizing interpretation route than the other alternatives in zone II. Alternative I
is developed by classifying the visited stops based on the object with horticulture and non plant as the agrotourism attraction. It still shows same trend that
horticulture plant is more attractive as the objects in agrotourism.
Figure 28. Priority Interpretation Route in Zone II
4.4.3. AHP in Zone III
