82
4.6. Prioritizing Touring Alternatives Using Analytical Hierarchy Process AHP
As the problems are already structured before, where the objective or the goal has been defined as the first level, which is to prioritize the most preferable
alternative track among those 3 alternatives that can enrich the visitor experience in Parangtritis Coastal Area, as well as the 3 criteria as the second level that
contribute to the goal, which consists of educational benefits, recreational benefits, and inspirational benefits. In the third level are the three candidates of
touring alternatives developed in the previous section. First of all, based on the result of experts’ judgment on those criteria, a
matrix is arranged to the relative importance weight of criteria in the second level with respect to the overall objective. After calculating the priority vector for
each criterion, the result of pairwise comparison for level 2 is acquired as shown in Table 14.
Table 14. Matrix of Pairwise Comparison for Criteria Contribute to the Goal
Relative Important Criteria Contribute To
the Goal
Educational Benefits
Recreational Benefits
Inspirational Benefits
Priority Vector
Educational Benefits 1 5 4 0.6268
Recreational Benefits 0.2 1 0.167 0.0845
Inspirational Benefits 0.25 6
1 0.2887
According to the acquired result, it is clearly that educational benefits for visitors are perceived by the experts to be the most important criteria as a
consideration in selecting the most preferable touring alternative, with the priority of 0.6268. It is far more important than inspirational benefits that become the
second important criteria to be considered with the priority of 0.2887. The recreational benefits become the lowest priority of 0.0845 contributing to the goal.
83
A pairwise comparison is also arranged to compare the touring alternatives in the third level of the hierarchy. The three developed touring alternatives are
compared with respect to the criteria of the second level. Based on the expert’s judgment and the calculation process of priority vector for each criterion, the
detailed result of pairwise comparison of the alternatives can be seen in Table 15. Table 15. Pairwise Comparison for Alternatives Respecting to the Criteria
Educational Benefits Alt 1
Alt 2 Alt 3
Priority Vector
Alt 1 1 0.2
0.125 0.0660
Alt 2
5 1 0.2
0.2231
Alt 3 8 5 1
0.7109
Recreational Benefits Alt 1
Alt 2 Alt 3
Priority Vector
Alt 1 1 0.167
0.143 0.0722
Alt 2
6 1 5 0.6581
Alt 3 7 0.2 1
0.2697
Inspirational Benefits Alt 1
Alt 2 Alt 3
Priority Vector
Alt 1 1 0.25
0.167 0.0835
Alt 2
4 1 0.167
0.2089
Alt 3 6 6 1
0.7077
Based on those calculation results of priority vector, it is obvious that Touring alternative 3 performed best on the criterion of educational benefits as
well as on the inspirational benefits criterion, and Touring alternative 2 is perceived to be best with respect to recreational benefits. Though, according to
the results, it is easy to guess which alternative has the highest global priority ranking, but scientifically the composite priorities still need to be calculated by
summing the results of local priorities of the alternatives with respect to each criterion multiplied by the priority of the corresponding criterion. Table 16 shows
the recapitulation of the local priorities of the alternatives and their global priorities.
84
Table 16. The Composite or Global Priorities of the Alternatives
Alternatives Educational
Benefits 0.6268
Recreational Benefits
0.0845
Inspirational Benefits
0.2887
Global Priority
1 0.0660 0.0722 0.0835 0.0716
2 0.2231 0.6581 0.2089 0.2558
3 0.7109 0.2697 0.7077 0.6727
The outcome of the global priority calculation as shown in Table 16 summarized that Touring Alternative 3 is the most preferable alternative as the
potential tourism network within Parangtritis Coastal Area. It could have been guessed before as it is out-performed the other alternatives on two of the three
criteria. Finally, it can be concluded that Touring Alternative 3 which is more focusing on the conservation values of the natural factors, spiritual cultural
resources, and the traditional livelihood of the local community, becomes the most preferable alternative. The preferable touring alternative also pertains to be more
beneficial for educational as well as inspirational purposes.
V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1. Conclusion
After performing the analysis and synthesis process, a touring plan has been developed as a potential guidance for tourism network in Parangtritis Coastal
Area. The network is developed based on the visual, natural, and cultural potential qualities of the area, and also prioritized to assist the visitors in obtaining
the important values of those qualities. Visually, the very high quality area can be found in sand dunes, while the settlement areas have very low quality of visual.
The best natural quality can be found in the hilly banks area, while the beach and riverbanks area are considered with high quality of natural resources. The lowest
quality of natural resources is found in the flood plain area near the riverbanks. Considering the cultural resources, it is obvious that in general Parangtritis area is
covered by low quality of cultural resources, except the area of Mancingan neighborhood with the very high quality, while Depok and Grogol X
neighborhoods that are considered with medium quality of cultural resources. By using geographic information system, a composite result integrating
those three resources assessment can be easily performed. As the result, the study area is dominated with high to medium quality of potential area for tourism,
which includes beach, sand dunes, woodlands, and a big part of agriculture area. There are also some areas with very high quality that are found especially around
Cepuri Parangkusumo and in some part of agricultural area. The rest part of the area is covered with low to very low quality of tourism potency, which includes
settlement area and part of scrubland area. In general, it can be concluded that
Kategori