1. No category

Journal of Contemporary Management Sciences
Volume 4 (2) 1-14
JCMS Publication, 2015
Journal of
Contemporary
Management
Sciences
How Motives are Made and Turned to Actions: a Case Study of
Hikers in Gunung Gede Pangrango National Park, Indonesia
Arief Syakur Sutedjo
*1
School of Business and Management, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung, Indonesia
([email protected])
Jl.Ganeca No. 10, Bandung
Abstract
A research by Janet Cochrane in 2006 found that domestic national park tourists in Indonesia are mainly motivated by hedonistic
motives rather than appreciation to nature. This seemingly remain-unchanged anthropocentric motive held by domestic tourists is
possibly the root cause which prompts hikers‘ current unsustainable behaviors toward national park. Hence, this research intends
to describe how the motives held by hikers are constructed and turned to the current behavior. This study took place at Gunung
Gede Pangrango National Park (TNGGP) due to the intense hiking activity that is occurring there. This research methodology
adopts several terminologies from destination marketing and environmental psychology—destination image, place attachment,
loyalty, and environmentally responsible behavior. Aligning to hikers‘ decision making process, this research involves 12
interviews for generating attributes prior to quantitative phase. Survey then is conducted resulting to 489 respondents which are
analyzed with structural equation modelling and interaction analysis. The result of this study confirms Cochrane‘s finding and
explains the complexity of how domestic hikers‘ perception toward a national park affects their attachment then turned to
behavior. Detail explanation of what type of image and attachment which influence desirable behavior is provided as the result of
the study.
Keyword: Destination Marketing, Destination Image, Environmental Responsible Behavior, Place Attachment, National Park
1. Introduction
Tourism activity in nature-based tourism destination should have supported the environmental sustainability of the
destination rather than only gained economic benefits, moreover for the destination that has declared on
implementing ecotourism. Therefore, this also prevails for Gunung Gede Pangrango National Park (TNGGP) which
has declared and having intense tourism activity on site. Unfortunately, the current situation in TNGGP seems to
violate this principle. Despite all TNGGP‘s enforcement taken toward hiking regulation (examples: the obligation to
bring down their garbage, a checking to every hiker‘s rucksack prior to the hike, and prohibition to bring soapcontained stuffs), the damage taken from the hikers toward the nature of the national park is still considerably
massive (See: Viva News, 2012). Some studies have indicated that domestic tourists in Indonesia have low
awareness of the purpose of national parks, with a focus less on deliberate appreciation of nature than on hedonistic
enjoyment of their surroundings (Cochrane, 2006). For instance, Sensudi (1997) found Indonesians at Gunung
Gede-Pangrango, in West Java, unclear about the conservation functions of national parks. Therefore, it seems that
the root cause of this current problems are more likely coming from hikers‘ overall evaluation process toward
TNGGP that unconsciously impacts to their behavior rather than the national park‘s regulation enforcement.
According to this, the current urgency for TNGGP seems to be a good understanding toward the current evaluation
process that is held by domestic hikers toward TNGGP and how it turns to behavior. And Destination image
terminology in destination marketing was found to be capable of capturing the evaluation process held by domestic
hikers until it becomes behavior toward TNGGP.
2. Literature Review
In the early works of image study, Boulding (1956) and Martineau (1958) proposed that human behavior is
dependent upon image rather than objective reality. (Boulding, 1956; Martineau, 1958). This foundational base and
adoption of image concept have led to image theory, which suggests that the world is a psychological or distorted
representation of objective reality existing in the individual‘s mind. (Myers, 1968) Particularly in tourism marketing,
this image study has been adopted into the notion of destination image study. A lot of researchers and experts have
tried to define destination image, but currently, there is no official definition which is internationally accepted. The
most cited and widely accepted definition of destination image is the definition by Crompton (1979) that defines
destination image as ―Sum of beliefs, ideas, and impressions that a person has of a destination.‖ (Crompton, 1979)
Destination image is also well-known as the overall image from cognitive and affective evaluation held by a person
toward a destination (McClearly 1999; Gartner 1994). According to McClearly & Banglolu (1999), perceptual or
cognitive evaluation refers to beliefs and knowledge about an object whereas affective refers to feelings toward, or
attachment to it. While Gartner (1994) defined cognitive as the internally accepted picture of destination attributes
and Affective as the motives or what to be obtained from the object (destination).
Priorly researched in image study (Oxenfeldt, 1974-75; Ditcher, 1985), Gartner (1994) and McClearly & Banglolu
(1999) claimed that these cognitive and affective components influence the overall image and the behavior of a
person toward the destination. C.-F. Chen, D. Tsai (2007) also found that destination image appears to have the most
important effect on behavioral intentions (i.e. intention to revisit and willingness to recommend) directly and
indirectly. The intentions to revisit the destination and to spread a positive word - of - mouth have been the two most
important behavioral consequences in destination and post - consumption behavior studies (H. Qu et. Al, 2011). Yet,
these behavioral intentions are not the only outcomes that nature-based tourism destination has concern of.
Responsible behavior is another important desirable behavior which is expected by eco destinations. A study which
gave important insight related to the influence of destination toward responsible behavior is a study by Yen-Ting
Helena Chiu et al. (2013). Despite its method of evaluating environmental responsible behavior, their study found
that destination image has impact to environmental responsible behavior. Referring to the image formation process
that was proposed by Gartner (1994) and McCleary & Banglolu (1999), Yen-Ting Helena Chiu et al. (2013) found
that affective evaluation has direct impact to environmental responsible behavior. While, cognitive evaluation has
indirect impact to environmental responsible behavior through the affective evaluation.
According to what it is found by Yen-Ting Helena Chiu et al. (2013), author is interested to capture the cognitive
and affective evaluation held by domestic hikers toward TNGGP and how it results to desirable behaviors. There
have been acceptably two methods of assessing a destination image which are unstructured and structured methods
(Jenkins 1999; Etchner & Ritchie 1993; Gartner 1989). Structured method is a quantitative method which try to
measure identified attributes of destination image to the respondents using likert or semantic scale. While
unstructured method is using open-ended questions, focus group, and interviews which try to measure destination
image holistically. But, Gartner (1989) argued that one of the biggest drawbacks with structured models on that
time, weighted or unweighted, was that identified attributes (especially those identified by researcher) may not
actually be the most important attributes in the consumer decision process. In consequence, Jenkins (1999)
suggested that, to accurately measure destination image through structured method, a qualitative approach has to be
carried out prior for providing relevant construct to the market being studied.
3. Methodology
Following the suggestion of Jenkins‘ (1999), author firstly conducted qualitative study to generate considered
attributes and identified representing constructs through another literature review prior to quantitative study.
Although the conduction of this qualitative study was based on Jenkins‘ suggestion (1999), the method of the
qualitative study was not following the method that has been suggested by Jenkins (1999)—range of proposed
elicitations. Author preferred to have semi-structured interview constructed from customers‘ decision process model
by Pellemans and Paul (1971) that was transformed to such guided free elicitations. The main argument for this is
that author prevented ineffective qualitative study since too unguided elicitation often makes the participants
responds with too narrow attributes. Through more guided elicitations based on decision process model, adequate
number of attributes are expected to be generated.
As for the operationalization of the interview, author stimulated the interviewees to generate attributes that they
consider in each phase of the Pellemans and Paul model (1971). This was conducted by having them imagining as if
Need
Recognition
Information
Search
Evaluation of
alternatives
Purchase
Decision
Post Purchase
Behavior
Figure 1. Qualitative Study Construct - Pellemans and Paul Customer Decision Process Model (1971)
IRC-2015 THAILAND
Figure 2. Conceptual Framework - Gartner's Destination Image Typology (1994)
Page 2
they were going hiking and asking them what things they would have considered in every phase of the decision
process. For example, a question like ―what makes you interested in going hiking?‖ would be asked as the media to
generate attributes in the need recognition phase. Another question asking ―what kind of mountain would you prefer
to hike?‖ became another media for generating attributes in the information search phase. And other representative
questions were asked to the interviewees to generate attributes in the rest of the phases in the model. As for the data
Cognitive Evaluation
Affective Evaluation
Conative Evaluation
(Behavior)
collection. Author did not constraint the interviewees to be only the hikers who have ever been hiked Gunung Gede
Pangrango. Author argues that attributes expected to generate seems to come from domestic hikers‘ way of thinking
toward hiking a mountain in general as Krider et al. (2010) claimed that an image of an eco-destination held by
tourists is comparison evaluation toward several eco-destination that the person can think of.
After the attributes and representative constructs were identified, a quantitative study then took place. This
quantitative study intended to explain the influence of the constructs identified toward desirable behaviors for the
national park. The desirable behaviors were determined by the author as destination loyalty (Oppermann, 2000),
site-specific environmental responsible behavior (T.H. Lee et al., 2013), and agreement to policy. As for the
attributes for each desirable behavior were using the attributes proposed from the literatures except the agreement to
policy. The attributes for destination loyalty consists of intention to revisit and intention to recommend others
(Oppermann, 2000). The attributes for site-specific environmental responsible behavior were chosen from the
literature of Lee et al. (2013) considering the relevancy with the activity of hiking in TNGGP which were previously
contained in the terminology of sustainable behavior (Kim et al., 2011; Lee, 2007; Lee & Lin, 2001; Taiwan
Ecotourism Association, 2011), pro-environmental behavior (Halpenny, 2010; Walker & Chapman, 2003), and
environmentally responsible behavior (Alessa et al., 2003). And the attributes for agreement to policy were
indicators measuring the level of agreement held by domestic hikers toward the three hiking regulations in TNGGP
(Hikers quota per day, pre-hiking test, and online registration).
Every attribute then would be measured with 5-point likert/semantic scale. The sample size of the quantitative study
was following Krejcie and Morgan (1970) using the ceiling number of the sample size for 5% which is 384
respondents. Both online and field survey took place in the data collection of the quantitative study. Author used
google docs form as the media for online survey targeting respondents who hiked Gunung Gede Pangrango in the
last two years. And the field survey took place at the Cibodas Gate of Gunung Gede Pangrango National Park
(TNGGP) on weekend targeting hikers who just finished hiking.
As for the analysis, this study was using exploratory structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis and interaction
analysis. The analysis involved data screening and several analyses prior to the SEM analysis. Data screening
involving treatment to outliers and missing values, also normality test would took place for fulfilling normality and
no-missing values assumptions. After the assumptions needed have been fulfilled, exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) then were conducted to identify underlying dimensions within each
construct and confirming the model fit of each construct made of identified underlying dimensions. Another CFA of
measurement model test then took place once more prior to SEM and interaction analysis to validate the convergent
and discriminant validity across constructs in more comprehensive way. Along this data screening and analyses
prior to SEM and Interaction analysis, eliminations toward attributes would occur to increase level of reliability and
the model fit of each construct. And after the most optimal model of constructs could be identified, the SEM
analysis and Interaction then could take place. All of these analyses were conducted using SPSS 21, AMOS 21, and
Gaskin‘s Excel StatTool Package (2012).
4. Qualitative Study
The qualitative data gathering resulted to 12 interviews toward persons who love hiking Author could identify
number of attributes that were being considered by 70% of the interviewees. And those attributes were constructing
two terminologies that author found in the literature of destination marketing and environmental psychology. Those
terminologies that seemed to be similar with the cognitive and affective evaluation are cognitive image (Baloglu &
McCleary, 1999; Gartner, 1994) itself and place attachment (Vaske & Robin, 2001).

Cognitive Image
The construct of cognitive evaluation that was mentioned in Gartner‘s Image Typology (1994) was already
representing attributes which domestic hikers consider in their decision process. There were attributes
being considered by the domestic hikers related to the physical evidence of the mountains which influence
their preferences. Domestic hikers tended to evaluate natural beauty, trail difficulty, safety, accessibility,
and related physical attributes of the national park. The complete list of physical attributes identified is
shown in the table X.

Place Attachment
As for the affective evaluation of the Gartner‘s Typology (1994) was substituted with the place attachment
construct (Vaske and Robin, 2001; Kyle et al., 2003). Author found that interviewees were actually having
such functional and emotional attachment to mountains they hike. And previous researches described place
attachment in term of two components; place dependence and place identity. These two components found
to be identically representing the functional attachment and emotional attachment which were identified in
the qualitative study. Moreover, affective evaluation that is defined by Gartner (1994) and Mclearly and
Banglolu (1999) was similar to the concept of place attachment. According to Williams et al. (2003), place
dependence (a functional attachment) as one component of place attachment is the importance of a place in
providing features and conditions that support specific goals or desired activities. And affective evaluation
is motives or what to be obtained from the destination (Gartner, 1994). Similarly, both terminologies
emphasis on what to be obtained from the destination to support specific goals or desired activities—
motives. Moreover, McClearly & Banglolu (1999) defined affective evaluation as the feelings toward, or
attachment to a destination. The word ‗attachment to a destination‘ in McClearly and Banglolu‘s definition
of affective evaluation (1999) clearly shows the similarity between the concept of affective evaluation in
destination image typology and the concept of place attachment.
5. Quantitative Study
The quantitative data gathering resulted to 495 samples, exceeding the target which is 384 following the table by
Krejcie & Morgan (1970) at the level error of 5%. The field survey successfully resulted to 352 respondents. And
the rest (143 respondents) was collected through online survey. In the data screening, there were no variables found
that have missing values more than 5% of samples acquired in field survey (352 samples). Considering the level of
missing values in the dataset was not more than 5%, the treatment for the missing values was following the
recommendation by James Gaskin (2012) for 5-point likert scale which is median imputation. The data screening
also removed 3 univariate outliers and 3 highly violating multivariate outliers resulting to final number of samples
which was 489 respondents.
IRC-2015 THAILAND
Page 4
Table 1. Complete List of Quantitative Study Attributes (Cont.)
Construct
Destination Image
Place Attachment
Attribute Code
Attributes Operationalization
Measurement Scale
Compared to other hiking trail in Indonesia, how would you describe Gunung Gede
Pangrango National Park?
Beauty
Natural Beauty
Unsatisfying Satisfying
Difficulty
Difficulty
Easy - Hard
Safety
Safety
Safe - Dangerous
Accessability
Accessibility
Information
Availability
Level of
Crowdedness
Level of Waste
Information Availability
Price
Overall cost to hike
Crowdedness
Level of Waste
Easy - Hard
Few - Much
Quiet - Crowded
Clean - Dirty
Expensive - Affordable
Do you agree with these statements?
Place Identity A
I am very attached with Gunung
Gede Pangrango
Place Identity B
I have special connection to
Gunung Gede Pangrango and
people who hike along it
Place Identity C
Gunung Gede Pangrango means a
lot to me
Place Identity D
I Identify Strongly with Gunung
Gede Pangrango
Very Disagree - Very
Agree
Compared to others hiking trail in Indonesia, how represtative is Gunung Gede
Pangrango National Park to have this range of activties?
Refreshment
Dependence A
Refreshing from daily activities
Refreshment
Dependence B
Relaxation from fatigue
Social Dependence
A
Relaxing with friends/relatives
Social Dependence
B
Spend spare time with
friends/relatives
Solitary
Dependence A
Finding solitary
Solitary
Dependence B
Finding peacefulness
Beauty Dependence
A
Feasting for the eyes with natural
beauty
Beauty Dependence
B
Finding natural beauty
Very Unrepresentative
- Very Representative
Loyalty
Agreement to
Policy
Site-Specific
Environmental
Behavior
Do you agree with these statements?
Intention to Revisit
I have intention to revisit Gunung
Gede Pangrango National Park
Intention to
Recommend Others
I will recommend others to visit
Gunung Gede Pangrango National
Park
Very Disagree - Very
Agree
Do you Agree with these Gunung Gede Pangrango National Pakrk Regulation?
Agreement to
Online Registration
Online Registration
Agreement to
Quota Policy
Quota System
Very Disagree - Very
Agree
Agreement to Pre
Pre-Hiking Examination
Hiking Exam
Policy
When I hike Gunung Gede Pangrango, …
Sustainable
Behavior A
Sustainable
Behavior B
I observe the nature and wildlife
detailed
I observe the history and culture
heritage detailed
Sustainable
Behavior C
I pick up (encourage others) litter
left by other people
Environmental
Friendly Behavior
After a picnic, I leave the place as
clean as it was originally
Pro Environmental
Behavior
I voluntarily stop visiting a favorite
spot if it needed to recover from
environmental damage
Very Disagree - Very
Agree
As for the normality test, the rules of thumb of skewness (between +1 and -1) by Gaskin (2012) and kurtosis
(between +2.2 and -2.2) by Spostio et al. (1983) became the threshold resulting to removals toward two attributes
since they were severely violating the normality assumption. These attributes were level crowdedness (skewness: 2.809; kurtosis: 8.052) and Place Identity B (skewness: 10.282; kurtosis: 176.646).
5.1. Underlying Dimensions
Principal extraction method EFA with VARIMAX rotation and minimal eigenvalue: 1 toward each construct
resulted to two dimensions (Natural Beauty and Ecotourism Spectrum Image) within cognitive image; three
dimensions (Leisure Dependence, Solitary Dependence, and Place Identity) within place attachment; three
dimensions (Agreement to Policy, Loyalty, and Sustainable Behavior) within Desired Behavior. KMO level of all
constructs were found to be good with significance level below 0.05
IRC-2015 THAILAND
Page 6
Table 2. EFA Result (Cont.)
Construct with the Dimensions
Factor
Loadings
Eigenvalue
Cognitive Image
KMO= 0.634
Total Variance Explained
Natural Beauty (0.766)
Natural Beauty
Beauty Dependence A
Beauty Dependence B
2.09
Place Identity (0.802)
Place Identity C
Place Identity D
Desired Behavior
KMO=0.563
29.85%
0.66
0.897
0.904
0.434
0.824
0.827
1.901
27.16%
0.654
0.7
0.746
0.627
0.433
0.504
0.557
0.412
80.37%
2.02
28.79%
0.66
0.9
0.81
Solitary Dependence (0.929)
Solitary Dependence A
Solitary Dependence B
Communalities
57.02%
Ecotourism Spectrum Image (0.622)
Difficulty
Safety
Accessability
Information Availability
Place Attachment
KMO=0.681
Leisure Dependence (0.764)
Refreshment Dependence A
Social Dependence A
Social Dependence B
Variance
Explained
0.581
0.825
0.696
1.93
27.51%
0.931
0.924
0.93
0.918
1.69
24.07%
0.9
0.89
0.843
0.834
72.09%
1.799
Agreement to Policy (0.663)
Online Registration
Quota
Pre-Hiking Examination
0.773
0.81
0.73
Loyalty (0.796)
Loyalty A
Loyalty B
0.91
0.91
Sustainable Behavior (0.725)
Sustainable Behavior A
Sustainable Behavior B
0.88
0.873
25.70%
0.609
0.657
0.552
1.662
23.75%
0.832
0.831
1.58
22.64%
0.781
0.779
No dimensions were having the crobanch alpha below 0.6 meaning each dimension has acceptable level of
reliability. In achieving this, removals occurred toward the attributes of level of waste, price, refreshment
dependence A, place identity A, sustainable behavior C, pro-environmental friendly behavior, and proenvironmental behavior. All of them were having low level of factor loading (>0.5) and communalities (>0.4). Two
attributes (Beauty Dependence A and Beauty Dependence B) within place attachment were also moved to the
cognitive image to achieve the most optimal result since they would give higher factor loading and increase the level
of reliability to both dimensions.
5.2. Offending Estimates
Four CFAs with maximum likelihood extraction method were conducted toward the three constructs and the
measurement model test. All of the model fit indices were showing that the CFA results for all constructs are good
and acceptable.
Cognitive
image
Place
Attachment
Desired
Behavior
Measurement
Model
Table 3. CFA Model Fit Indices
X2/p
RMSEA SRMR
CFI
X2
Df
p
TLI
GFI
AGFI
19.542
12
0.076
1.628
0.036
0.0365
0.991
0.984
0.989
0.974
10.41
10
0.406
1.041
0.016
0.0211
0.999
0.999
0.995
0.984
28.383
11
0.01
2.58
0.057
0.0319
0.976
0.953
0.984
0.96
264.61
141
0
1.877
0.042
0.0455
0.964
0.952
0.948
0.923
Following the rule of thumb by Hu and Bentler (1999), the CFA results toward all constructs showed that RMSEA
is below or near to the threshold of 0.05, SRMR is below 0.05, CFI/TLI/GGI/AGFI are above or near to the
threshold of 0.95. As for the Chi Square level of desired behavior and measurement model construct, which were
above the Chi Squre Table (df: 11/p: 0.05/X2: 19.675; df: 141/p: 0.05/X2: 169,711), and the p Value which were
below 0.05 seemed to be sensitive with the sensitive with the large number of samples used in this research
according to Bentler and Bonnet (1980) and Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993). And in achieving this optimal model fit,
attribute of refreshment dependence A was removed changing the name of Leisure Dependence to be Social
Dependence.
Table 4. Attributes Regression Weights and Dimension Composite Reliability (Cont.)
Standardized
Composite
Dimension
Attribute
Factor Loading
p Value
Realibility (CR)
Soft Ecotoursim
Safety
0.49
***
0.60
Spectrum
Accessibility
0.68
***
Difficulty
0.37
***
Information Availability
0.55
***
Natural Beauty
Find Beauty A
Find Beauty B
Natural Beauty
0.93
0.87
0.42
***
***
***
0.81
Place Identity
Identity C
Identity D
0.78
0.86
***
***
0.80
Social Dependence
Friends A
Friends B
0.82
0.76
***
***
0.77
IRC-2015 THAILAND
Page 8
Solitary
Dependence
Solitude B
Solitude A
0.96
0.91
***
***
0.93
Loyalty
Loyalty A
Loyalty B
0.92
0.72
***
***
0.81
Sustainable
Behavior
Sust. Behavior A
Sust. Behavior B
0.69
0.82
***
***
0.73
Agreement to
Policy
Online Registration
Quota
Pre – Hiking Examination
0.69
0.63
0.57
***
***
***
0.66
***= <0.001
The convergent validity of each dimension, in overall, is already good. Most of the dimensions has composite
reliability above 0.7 following the rule of thumb by Hair et al. (2010). Although the composite reliability of soft
ecotourism spectrum image and agreement to policy are below 0.7, they seem to be acceptable since the values are
still near to the threshold of 0.7. As for the discriminant validity, author tested all dimensions with factor correlation
matrix using the excel macro by Gaskin (2012) and there was found no problems related to discriminant validity.
Following the rule of thumb by Brown (2006), no dimension was found for having correlation as high as 0.8 to other
dimensions.
5.3. Evaluation Process
AMOS regression imputation took place prior to SEM analysis to simply the complex model of the domestic hikers
evaluation process. The model fit of the structural equation modelling result was considerably satisfactory (X2:
Figure 3. SEM Model of the Evaluation Process
16.025; df: 11; p: 0.14; X2/p 1.457; RMSEA: 0.031; SRMR: 0.0284; CFI: 0.996; TLI: 0.99; GFI; 0.992; AGFI:
0.974). The level of chi square(X2) is below the chi square table for the level significance of 0.05 with degree of
freedom: 11 (X2 Table: 19.675). And following the rule of thumb by Hu and Bentler (1999), the result of SEM
shows that p value is insignificant above 0.05, RMSEA is below 0.05, SRMR is below 0.05, and
CFI/TLI/GGI/AGFI are all above 0.95.
According to Elifson, Runyon, and Haber (1998), these general guidelines used by many researchers may be useful:
a weak relationship, r = 0.01 to 0.30; a moderate relationship, r = 0.31 to 0.70l; and a strong relationship, r = 0.71 to
0.99. In overall, most of the regressions identified in the model are categorized as having weak relationship but all
of the regressions are significant at the level of 0.001. But, there are also several regressions that are categorized as
having moderate relationship such as Soft Ecotourism Spectrum Image to Social Dependence (0.287) and
Agreement to Policy (0.524); Natural Beauty to Place Identity (0.425), Solitary Dependence (0.685), Social
Dependence (0.535); and Place Identity to Sustainable Behavior (0.556), and Loyalty (0.309).
IRC-2015 THAILAND
Page 10
Table 5. Regression Weights of the Dimensions
Independent
Variables
Soft Ecotoursim
Spectrum Image
Natural Beauty
P. Attachment
D. Behavior
P. Attachment
D. Behavior
Place Identity
Social Dependence
0.287
R
Squared
0.08
Loyalty
0.173
0.03
***
***
Agreement to Policy
0.524
0.27
***
Sustainable Behavior
0.129
0.02
***
Place Identity
0.425
0.18
***
Solitary Dependence
0.685
0.47
***
Social Dependence
0.535
0.29
***
Sustainable Behavior
0.136
0.02
***
Loyalty
0.171
0.03
***
Sustainable Behavior
0.556
0.31
***
Loyalty
0.309
0.10
***
Agreement to Policy
0.144
0.02
***
Dependent Variables
D. Behavior
Standardized
p Value
***= <0.001
In brief interpretation, the image of TNGGP that is accessible, informative, easy and safe to hike was found to be
stimulating domestic hikers to: agree on the policies that are being regulated by TNGGP (.524); perceive TNGGP as
the right place for having quality time with friends or relatives (.287); and slightly intends to revisit and recommend
others to visit TNGGP (.173). As for the natural beauty image, the more beautiful Gunung Gede Pangrango is
perceived by domestic hikers the more attached domestic hikers with TNGGP: as a place for spending time with
friends (0.553) and finding solitary (0.685); and in emotional way (0.425). And the emotional attachment (place
identity) is the only dimension within place attachment construct which has influence toward any dimensions within
desirable behaviors. Place identity stimulate domestic hikers to: learn deeply about TNGGP when they hike (0.556);
intend to revisit and recommend others to visit TNGGP (0.309); and slightly agree on the TNGGP‘s regulations
(0.114).
5.3.1. Hidden Role of Social Dependence
Interestingly, social dependence was identified as having an unseen role when it tested separately from other
dimensions of place attachment. When the presence of social dependence is being ignored, surprisingly, soft
ecotourism spectrum image has significant negative impact to place identity (-0.11) whereas it is the only dimension
within place attachment that influences dimensions within desirable behaviors.
Therefore, it cannot be neglected that the presence of social dependence actually has important role even though it
cannot be obviously seen when there has no deep analysis to the social dependence solely.
Figure 4. Hidden Role of Social Dependence
5.3.2. Interaction Analysis
As for the interaction analysis result, there were found several interesting significant interaction between dimensions
in the model:
 Ecotourism Spectrum Image was found to: dampen the positive relationship between Natural Beauty and
Social Dependence; dampen as well as strengthen the positive relationship between Natural Beauty and
Solitary Dependence. (cont.)
 Natural Beauty was found to dampen the positive relationship between Soft Ecotourism Spectrum Image
and Social Dependence.
 Low level of natura
 l beauty and high level of soft ecotourism spectrum image would result to the lowest level of place identity.
 Social Dependence makes the influence of place identity toward agreement to policy less effective.
6. Conclusion/Interpretation
After the analysis has taken place, the understanding to the evaluation process of the domestic hikers toward
Gunung Gede Panrango National Park (TNGGP) is achieved. The finding results to the explanation of the remaining
phenomena that previously has been found by James Cohcrane (2006) and Sensudi (1997) which is the hedonistic
motives of domestic eco tourists and the misunderstanding about the function of the national park. Below is the
explanation of the phenomena,
 The image of beautiful nature and the developed infrastructure are still mainly perceived for hedonistic
motives (social dependence and solitary dependence) which are not sustainable because they mostly do not
stimulate hikers to have desired behaviors (loyalty, sustainable behavior, and agreement to policy) but
rather having the possibility to stimulate hikers to less obey the national park policy.
In the other hand, the understanding toward the domestic hikers‘ evaluation process also results to several
opportunities and constraints for solving the remaining phenomena. Below is the explanation of the opportunities
and constraints identified from the analysis,
 Hikers‘ sense of belonging (place identity) which is mainly affected by the beautiful nature of TNGGP
should be enhanced because it greatly stimulates hikers to have most of the desired behaviors (sustainable
behavior and loyalty) through utilizing TNGGP‘s natural beauty or identifying the other predictors.
 The image of well-managed national park greatly helps TNGGP to make hikers obey the national park‘s
policy but the infrastructure development has to be balanced with the natural beauty preservation because
too artificial tourism in TNGGP will reduce the influence natural beauty toward hikers‘ sense of belonging.
 Despite its unsustainable effect, social dependence has to be preserved in TNGGP because its absence
somehow makes the image of developed infrastructure in TNGGP perceived negatively which reduces
hikers‘ sense of belonging.
IRC-2015 THAILAND
Page 12
References
1. Brown, T. (2006). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. Guilford Press.
2.
Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999). A model of destination image formation. Annals of Tourism
Research, 26(4), 868-897.
3.
Bentler, P. a. (1980). Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance. Psychological
Bulletin, 88(3), 588-606.
4.
Boulding, K. E. (1956). The Image: Knowledge and Life in Society.
5.
Chen, C.-F., & Tsai, D. (2007). How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral intentions?
Tourism Management, 28, 1115-1122.
6.
Chiu, Y.-T. H.-I.-H. (2014). Environmentally Responsible Behavior in Ecotourism: Exploring the Role of
Destination Image and Value Perception. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 19(8), 876-889.
7.
Cochrane, J. (2006). Indonesian National Parks, Understanding Leisure Users. Annals of Toursim
Research, 33(4), 979-997.
8.
Crompton, J. L. (1979). An Assessment of the Image of Mexico as a Vacation Destination and the
Influence of Geographical Location Upon That Image. Journal of Travel Research, 17(4), 18-23.
9.
Dichter, E. (1985). What is in an Image? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 2, 39-52.
10. Echtner, C. M. (1993). The measurement of destination image: An empirical assessment. Journal of travel
research, 31(4), 3-13.
11. Elifson, K., Runyon, R. P., & Haber, A. (1998). Fundamental of Social Statistics (3rd ed.). Boston:
McGraw-Hill.
12. Gartner, W. C. (1994). Image Formation Process. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 2(2-3), 191-216.
13. Gaskin, J. (2012). Data Screening. Retrieved from Gaskination's Statwiki:
http://statwiki.kolobkreations.com
14. Hair, J. F., Tatham, R. L., Anderson, R. E., & Black, W. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 7). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: earson Prentice Hall.
15. Halpenny, E. A. (2010). Pro-environmental behaviours and park visitors: the effect. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 30, 409-421.
16. Hu, L.‐t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). utoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,
6(1), 1-55.
17. Jenkins, O. H. (1999). Understanding and Measuring Destination Image. International Journal of Toursim
Research, 1, 1-14.
18. J reskog, K., S rbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command
Language. Chicago: Scientific Software International Inc.
19. Kim, A. K., Airey, D., & Szivas, E. (2011). The multiple assessment of interpretation effectiveness:
promoting visitors‘ environmental attitudes and behavior. Journal of Travel Research, 50(3), 321-334.
20. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, W. D. (1970). Determining Sample Size for Research Activities. Educational
and Pschological Measurement, 30, 607-610.
21. Krider, R. E., Arguello, A., Campbell, C., & Mora, J.-D. (2010). Trait and Image Interaction in Ecotourism
Preference. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(3), 779-801.
22. Kristanti, E. Y., & Permadi. (2012, March 22). Gunung Gede Rusak, Ancaman Untuk Jakarta. Retrieved
from Viva News: http://fokus.news.viva.co.id/news/read/298610-gunung-gede-rusak--ancaman-untukjakarta
23. Kyle, G., Graefe, A., Manning, R., & Bacon, J. (2003). An Examination of the Relationship between
Leisure Activity Involvment and Place Attachment among Hikers Along the Applachian Trail. Journal of
Leisure Research, 35(3), 249-273.
24. Lee, S. P., & Lin, Y. J. (2001). The relationship between environmental attitudes and behavior of
ecotourism: a case study of Guandu Natural Park. Journal of Outdoor and Recreation Study, 14(3), 15-36.
25. Lee, T. H. (2007). Ecotourism behavioural model of national forest recreation areas in Taiwan.
International Forestry Review, 9(3), 771-785.
26. Lee, T. H.-H.-C. (2013). Conceptualizing and measuring environmentally responsible behaviors from the
perspective of community-based tourists. Tourism Management, 36, 454-468.
27. Martineau, P. (1958, January-February). The Personality of the Retail Store. Harvard Business Review, 36,
47-55.
28. Oppermann, M. (2000). Tourism destination loyalty. Journal of travel research, 39(1), 78-84.
29. Oxenfeldt, A. (1974-75). Developing a Favorable Price-Quality Image. Journal of Retailing, 50(4), 8-14,
115.
30. Pellemans, P. A. (1971). The consumer decision-making process. European journal of Marketing, 5(2), 821.
31. Sensudi, E. (1997). Ecotourism in Mount Gede-Pangrango National Park. In J. Minnery, & M. Gunawan,
Planning Sustainable Tourism (pp. 156-162). Bandung: Penerbit ITB.
32. Taiwan Ecotourism Association. (n.d.). Introduction for Taiwan Ecotourism Association. Retrieved from
http://www.ecotour.org.tw/p/blog-page_04.html.
33. Vaske, J. J., & Kobrin. (2001). Place attachment and responsible behavior. Journal of Environmental
Education, 32(4), 116-121.
34. Walker, G. J., & Chapman, R. (2003). Thinking like a park: the effects of sense of place, perspectivetaking, and empathy on pro-environmental intentions. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration,
21(4), 71-86.
35. Williams, D. R. (2003). The measurement of place attachment: Validity and generalizability of a
psychometric approach. Forest Science, 49(6), 830-840.
IRC-2015 THAILAND
Page 14