64
local income to the local people; those activities can also be developed as tourism attractions, which can characterize the area as the coastal area as well. These
fishery activities are given as 2 in scoring. Beside those two economic activities, there are also agricultural activities,
which cannot be neglected. A big part of local people in this area are still working in agriculture sector as their main income. But since agricultural activities are not
closely related to coastal livelihood, and they do not give impacts directly to tourism activities, they are considered to have the lowest value of scoring.
Spatially, the distribution of tourism economic factor assessment in Parangtritis Coastal Area can be seen in Figure 30.
4.3.5. Cultural Quality of Parangtritis Coastal Area
Similar process as obtaining the natural quality, cultural quality of the study area is obtained by considering all four cultural factors: legend and
historical factor, architectural factor, ethnical factor, and tourism economic factor, then integrated with the supporting factor, infrastructure, as the accessibility
consideration. By using the concept of weighting process of spatial analysis, those four maps of cultural factors and one map of supporting factor are overlaid
for acquiring a composite map of cultural resources quality Figure 31.
65
Figure 30. Map of Tourism Economic Factor in Parangtritis Coastal Area
Figure 31. Cultural Resources Quality Map of Parangtritis Coastal Area Table 10 illustrates the simplification of cultural resources assessment
result. Within the table, there is some information of cultural factors and cultural quality for each neighborhood.
Gunung Kidul Regency
Indian Ocean
Gunung Kidul Regency
Indian Ocean
66
Table 10. Cultural Factors and Quality for Each Neighborhood
No. Neighborhood
Legend and Historical
Factor Architectural
Factor Ethnical
Factor Tourism
Economic Factor
Cultural Quality
1. Depok 2
1 2
2 Medium
2. Bungkus 1
2 2
1 Low
3. Samiran 1
2 2
1 Low
4. Sono 1
2 2
1 Low
5. Kretek 1
2 2
1 Low
6. Duwuran 1
2 2
1 Low
7. Grogol VII
1 2
2 1
Low 8. Grogol
VIII 1
2 2
1 Low
9. Grogol IX
1 2
2 1
Low 10. Grogol
X 2
2 2
1 Medium
11. Mancingan 3
1 1
3 Very
High
According to the result above, it is obvious that Mancingan neighborhood has the highest quality of cultural resources. High quality areas are only found in
some small areas in Depok and Mancingan neighborhood, which is intersected with infrastructure areas. Because of their small size, they can be neglected in
consideration for future development as cultural tourism attractions. The medium quality is found in the neighborhood of Depok and Grogol X. The rest of the
areas are included in low quality area, except a small part of infrastructure area in the north to west side of the area that has very low quality of cultural resources.
4.4. Potential Tourism Area
