Our Social Media



Pages|Hits |Unique

  • Last 24 hours: 0
  • Last 7 days: 0
  • Last 30 days: 0
  • Online now: 0


March 2018
« Feb    

International Tourist Preference to Increase Visitor of Bromo Mountain as Main Destination in Indonesia


(Presented in IFLA APR Congress, Lombok, 7 – 9 September 2015) 

Balqis Nailufar1, Nuraini2 , Ray March Syahadat3


1 Graduate School of Landscape Architecture, Bogor Agricultural University

2Departement of Landscape Architecture, National Institute of Science and Technology


E-mail of contact person : balqisnailufar@gmail.com




Indonesia has target to increased 10 million international tourist on 2015. Bromo as one of main destination in Indonesia, has role to reached the target. The aim of this study was to get information about international tourist preference of Bromo. The method that used was survey to 85 respondents from 35 countries. The data analyzed by descriptive statistic. To know the good view based on tourist preference, the data analyzed by scenic beauty estimation (SBE). Then, to know the tourist passion to visit Bromo, analyzed by McNemar Test. The results showed only 21,2% respondents that know Bromo. Good view of landscape was from Penanjakan 1. There were enhancement passion to visited Bromo after respondents looked the pictures of Bromo than after read the information about Bromo. Respondents needs toilet, safety, and local culture if they visited Bromo.


Keywords: scenic beauty estimation, McNemar test, landscape, tourism, tourist needs.


  1. Introduction


Indonesia is one of biodiversity countries in the world [1], and it has many national parks and other protected areas. Natural resource has a big potency become tourism industry in Indonesia and it can improve the economy. Therefore on 2015, Indonesia has target to increased 10 million international visitors [2].

Bromo as one of the main destinations in Indonesia, has a role to achieve the target. Bromo is one of the national parks and protected areas with attractions of volcanoes. Volcano tourism was growing and popular because of many factor [3]. However, most of the international markets are still not aware of biodiversity in Indonesia and also Bromo [4]. So that required research on international tourists preference about Bromo.

Preference is important because it will affect the desire to travel. Goodall [5] suggested three key predictors of holiday choice: desires, motivation, and image. In that model, motivation directly influences preference [6]. Oppermann [7] found a relationship between destination choice and motivation to revisit it. Opperman’s results indicated that the choice is affected by destination loyalty which, in turn, is influenced by motivation, image, and experience.

The combination of revealed and stated preference data has been widely discussed in the literature (e.g. Englin and Cameron [8]; Grijalva et al. [9]; Whitehead et al.[10]. This study has to get information about international tourist preference of Bromo. The result of this study can be the basis for optimizing resources of Bromo Mountain.


  1. Methods


The method that used of this study was survey to 85 respondents from 35 countries. The datas analyzed by descriptive statistic, scenic beauty estimation (SBE), and McNemar test. Descriptive statistic used to know what the international tourist needs and wants if they visited Bromo. SBE used to know where the landscape that has good view. We showed six different view of Bromo landscapes and the respondents give a score from 1 (bad view) to 10 (good view). The six landscapes described different vantage point (Picture 1). It determine how potential the landscape. We also asked respondents about their passion to visit Bromo before and after we give a treatment by looking the pictures and read information about it and analyzed by McNemar test.

Screen Shot 2015-09-28 at 20.16.01


  1. Result and Discussion

3.1 Sceenic Beauty Estimation (SBE)

International tourist respondents have perception about the landscape that they think has good view (Picture 2). Landscape 1 is a vantage point that is taken from one of the objects on tour Bromo by name Penanjakan 1. Usually at Penanjakan 1, tourists can enjoy the sunrise. Another good news of this result, all landscapes SBE score there are in interval -20 to 20. It means all landscapes have good view and potentially to developed alternative tourism spot for landscape watching.

Tourism and the images of landscape have connectivity [11]; [12]. It have influence for the tourist to make decision for their destination [13]; [14]). So, the image of landscape for the tourism promotion should choose carefully. Penanjakan 1 always used by government to promote bromo. By the SBE result, we think that’s a right choise. Therefore, we recommended to still used the image of landscape 1 that has elements of sky, mountain, and sunrise for media promotion of Bromo.

 Screen Shot 2015-09-28 at 20.16.10

3.2 Perception

When respondents asked are they know about Bromo, almost all respondents don’t know. International tourist that know Bromo, only 21.2% of 85 respondents from 35 countries. If we seen in the picture from SBE result, all landscapes have great value. The government also always use the picture of landscape 1 from Penanjakan 1. The low result of known of Bromo we estimate because of mistakes on promotion or not comprehensive. Based on the perception of Bromo, we conclude needed promotion to increase the recognition of Bromo. Especially Bromo is one of major main destination in Indonesia.

3.3 Passion to Visit Bromo Mountain

There were reduction passion of International respodent after seeing the pictures and read information about Bromo although not significant by McNemar test. Number of respondents that before said yes want to visit Bromo, significant decline after seeing read the information about Bromo than after just seeing the pictures (Tabel 1). From this result, we can conclude to promote Bromo we just need many pictures and minumum information text.

Screen Shot 2015-09-28 at 20.16.15

3.4 Tourist needs

When the respondents answered the question what they needs if visited Bromo, they have variative answer. We make assumptions, the needs will be recommended if more than 50% respondents have same opinion. The result showed that international respondents needs toilet, safety, and local culture if they visited Bromo. We found a phenomenon, only 2,35% respondents want hustle. It means, we must not just to increased the visitors but also must pay attention of visitors comfort. We can raise the ticket prices to control the visitors because only 34,12% respondents that want low prices ticket. But how much? We don’t know because Bromo need more study about carrying capacity and willingnes to pay.

 Screen Shot 2015-09-28 at 20.16.30

  1. Conclution

Most of respondents don’t know about Bromo. But, all images of Bromo landscapes have good view and potentially to developed alternative tourism spot for landscape watching. Short information with the right pictures can’t be required to promote Bromo to international tourists. There were reduction passion of international respodents after seeing the pictures and read information about Bromo than just seeing the picture without information.





[1] Whitten A., J. Whitten. 1994. Wild Indonesia. London, New Holland.
[2] Kompas. 2015. Arief Yahya: Target 10 Juta Wisman untuk 2015. http://travel.kompas.com

[3] Cooper P.E, H. Sigurdsson, R.M.C. Lopes, 2015. The Encyclopedia of Volcanoes (Second Edition), United Kingdom, p.1295-1311. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-385938-9.00075-4.

[4] Cochrane J. 2006. Indonesian National Parks Understanding Leuser Users. Annals of Tourism Research 33(4): 979–997. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2006.03.018.

[5] Goodall, B. 1988. How Tourists Choose Their Holidays: An Analytical Framework. In Marketing in the Tourism Industry. The Promotion of Destination Regions, B. Goodall and G. Ashworth, eds. Routledge. London, p.41–60.

[6] Tran X., L. Ralston. 2006. Tourist Preferences Influence Of Unconscious Needs. Annals of Tourism Research 33(2): 424–441. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2005.10.014.

[7] Oppermann, M. 2000. Where Psychology and Geography Interface in Tourism Research and Theory. In Consumer Psychology of Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure, A. Woodside, G. Crouch, J. Mazanec, M. Oppermann and M. Sakai. eds. CABI Publishing. Wallingford, p.19–38.

[8] Englin, J., T.A Cameron., 1996. Augmenting travel cost models with contingent behavior data. Environ. Res. Econ 7(2): 133–147.

[9] Grijalva, T.C., R.P. Berrens, A.K. Bohara, W.D. Shaw, 2002. Testing the validity of contingent behavior trip responses. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 84(2): 401–414.  doi. 10.1111/1467-8276.00306.

[10] Whitehead, J.C., T.C. Haab, J.-C. Huang, 2000. Measuring recreation benefits of quality improvements with revealed and stated behavior data. Resour. Energy Econ. 22(4): 339–354. doi:10.1016/S0928-7655(00)00023-3.

[11] Molina, M.A.R., D.M.F. Jamilena, C. Garcia, 2015. The contribution of website design to the generation of tourist destination image: The moderating effect of involvement. Tourism Management 47(2015), 303-317.

[12] Tasci, A, W, Garther 2007. Destination image and its functional relationships. Journal of Travel Research 45 (2007), 413-425.

[13] Nadeau, J., L. Heslop, N. O’Reilly, P. Luk, 2008. Destination in a country image context. Annals of Tourism Research 35(1), 84-106.

[14] Chen, C., D. Tsai. 2007. How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioural intentions. Tourism Management 28(2007), 1115-1122.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.