| Literature DB >> 36254293 |
Zainal Abidin1,2, Wahyu Handayani2, Emeraldo A Zaky2, Achmad D Faturrahman2.
Abstract
CMC Tiga Warna is one of the coastal area management for conservation and ecotourism in southern Malang, Indonesia. Despite fewer tourist visits, the COVID-19 pandemic did not dissuade locals from managing and protecting ecotourism in the coastal area. This study aims to: (a) to describe coastal ecosystem management; and (b) to analyze coastal ecotourist visit intention related to tourism knowledge, perceived health risk, and risk attitude in the post-COVID-19 era as a part of developing strategy for coastal ecosystem management in the study area from the perspective of ecotourists and destination management. CMC Tiga Warna management, community group supervisors, the local community, and a variety of experts were interviewed in order to gather data for the current strategy. Coastal ecotourist visit intention data from domestic ecotourists was gathered via online and offline surveys. Analyzing the visit intention data with Warp-PLS. Using the visit intention model and interview data, the coastline management strategy was described. This study found that the coastal environment management plan constantly involved ecotourists and locals. Tourism knowledge and risk attitude are positively related to the visit intention, however perceived health risk is negatively related to it. The significant positive relationship between tourism knowledge and ecotourist visit intention is mediated by perceived health risk and risk attitude. Development of the coastal ecosystem management plan could be supported by boosting visit intention, ecotourism visits, or economic incentive as a motive for sustaining the conservation program's consistency, and ecological and social rewards in a sustainable manner. This study added to the Theory of Reasoned Action by adding two additional factors, tourist knowledge and perceived health risk, in addition to the attitude to predict the visit intention. The ecotourism manager should provide varied tourist information and knowledge as needed, reduce COVID-19 exposure risk at tourist destinations, and increase risk attitude.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Coastal ecosystem management strategy; Ecotourism; TRA; Visit intention
Year: 2022 PMID: 36254293 PMCID: PMC9568856 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10724
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Figure 1Conceptual framework.
Figure 2Map of research location: CMC Tiga Warna coastal ecotourism, southern Malang. (Source: Riniwati et al., 2019).
Respondent characteristics.
| Respondent characteristics | Amount (Person) and Percentage (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | Male | 125 (36.0%) |
| Female | 223 (64.0%) | |
| Place of Origin | East Java province | 288 (83.0%) |
| Outside East Java province | 60 (17.0%) | |
| Age (year) | 17–25 | 271 (78.0%) |
| 26–36 | 61 (17.5%) | |
| 36–45 | 11 (3.2%) | |
| >45 | 5 (1.4%) | |
| Marital status | Single | 295 (85%) |
| Married with no children | 24 (6.9%) | |
| Married with children | 29 (8.3%) | |
| Education level | Primary education (SD/MI) | 33 (9%) |
| Secondary education (SMP/MTS) | 4 (1.0%) | |
| Secondary education (SMA/SMK/MA) | 116 (33%) | |
| Degree (Diploma, S1, S2, S3) | 195 (56%) | |
| Occupation | Student | 154 (44%) |
| Civil servant | 6 (1.7%) | |
| Private employee | 102 (29%) | |
| Entrepreneur | 37 (11%) | |
| Housewife | 10 (2.9%) | |
| Household personal assistant | 9 (2.3%) | |
| Unemployed | 30 (8.6%) | |
| Religion | Moslem | 328 (94%) |
| Christian and Catholic | 20 (6%) | |
| Income | < IDR 2,500,000 | 207 (59.5%) |
| IDR 2,500,000–4,000,000 | 76 (21.8%) | |
| >IDR 4,000,000 | 65 (18.7%) | |
| Frequency of visits | 1-2 times | 261 (75%) |
| >2 times | 28 (8.0%) | |
| Source of information | Family/friends | 170 (49.0%) |
| Social Media | 149 (43.0%) | |
| Others | 29 (8.3%) | |
56% from areas such as Malang City, Surabaya, Malang Regency, Sidoarjo, and Mojokerto, which are all within 80–165 km of the CMC Tiga Warna.
Rule and result of validity and reliability test.
| Test | Parameter | Rule of Thumb | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity | Factor loading value | >0.3 is considered acceptable | Valid |
| Average Variance Extracted (AVE) | >0.5 is considered acceptable. However, if < 0.5 does not cause a concern, it is acceptable | Valid | |
| Reliability | Composite reliability coefficients | >0.7 is considered reliable | Reliable |
| Cronbach's alpha coefficients | >0.6 is considered reliable | Reliable |
Model fit and quality indices.
| Model Fit and Quality Indices | Fit Criterion | Analysis Result | Remark |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average path coefficient (APC) | P < 0.05 | 0.244 (P < 0.001) | Good |
| Average R-squared (ARS) | P < 0.05 | 0.131 (P = 0.003) | Good |
| Average adjusted R-squared (AARS) | P < 0.05 | 0.127 (P = 0.004) | Good |
| Average block VIF (AVIF) | Acceptable if ≤ 5, ideally ≤3.3 | 1.130 | Ideal |
| Average full collinearity VIF (AFVIF) | Acceptable if ≤ 5, ideally ≤3.3 | 1.188 | Ideal |
| Tenenhaus GoF (GoF) | Small ≥0.1, medium ≥0.25, large ≥0.36 | 0.317 | Medium |
| Sympson's paradox ratio (SPR) | Acceptable if ≥ 0.7, ideally = 1 | 1.000 | Ideal |
| R-squared contribution ratio (RSCR) | Acceptable if ≥ 0.9, ideally = 1 | 1.000 | Ideal |
| Statistical suppression ratio (SSR) | Acceptable if ≥ 0.7 | 1.000 | Acceptable |
| Nonlinear bivariate causality direction ratio (NLBCDR) | Acceptable if ≥ 0.7 | 1.000 | Acceptable |
Validity and reliability of questionnaire.
| Variables, indicators, and items | Factor loading | Sq. roots AVE | Composite reliability | Cronbach's alpha | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tourism knowledge | 0.848 | 0.910 | 0.866 | ||
| X1.1 | Information regarding travel | 0.698∗∗∗ | |||
| X1.2 | Causes of tourism risk | 0.908∗∗∗ | |||
| X1.3 | Consequences of tourism risk | 0.924∗∗∗ | |||
| X1.4 | Solutions for travel risk | 0.845∗∗∗ | |||
| Perceived health risk | 0.885 | 0.947 | 0.930 | ||
| X2.1.1 | The contracting risk of the COVID-19 due to travel | 0.913∗∗∗ | |||
| X2.1.2 | The contracting risk of the COVID-19 even though the tourist location has implemented restrictions on visits | 0.933∗∗∗ | |||
| X2.2 | There is a spread of the COVID-19 in southern Malang | 0.908∗∗∗ | |||
| X2.3 | The travel refraining | 0.848∗∗∗ | |||
| X2.4 | The worrisome concerning health care at tourist sites | 0.817∗∗∗ | |||
| Attitude toward risk | 0.862 | 0.920 | 0.884 | ||
| X3.1.2 | Wise actions to comply with the health protocols | 0.898∗∗∗ | |||
| X3.2 | Supportive idea to comply with the health protocols | 0.918∗∗∗ | |||
| X3.3 | Supportive travel decisions | 0.840∗∗∗ | |||
| X3.4.1 | Cautious actions to comply with health protocols | 0.788∗∗∗ | |||
| Coastal ecotourist visit intention | 0.904 | 0.947 | 0.926 | ||
| Y.1 | Possibility of traveling | 0.893∗∗∗ | |||
| Y.2 | Desire to travel | 0.903∗∗∗ | |||
| Y.3 | Travel intentions | 0.931∗∗∗ | |||
| Y.4 | Travel plans | 0.890∗∗∗ | |||
Notes: ∗∗∗p < 0.001.
Hypotheses testing.
| Hypotheses number | Paths | Path coefficient | Supported |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | TKn → PR | −0.171∗∗∗ | Yes |
| 2 | PR → CEVI | −0.182∗∗∗ | Yes |
| 3 | ATR → CEVI | 0.269∗∗∗ | Yes |
| 4 | TKn → PR & ATR → CEVI | 0.137∗∗∗ | Yes |
| 5 | TKn → CEVI | 0.205∗∗∗ | Yes |
Notes: TKn: Tourism knowledge, PR: Perceived health risk, ATR: Attitude toward risk, CEVI: Coastal ecotourist visit intention, ∗∗∗ Significant at 0.01 levels.
Figure 3Structural model resulted. Note: ∗∗∗ Significant at 0.01 level.
Effectiveness of all paths.
| Variables | Type of Effect | Priority of the effectiveness | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct Effect (DE) | Indirect Effects (IE) | Total Effect (TE) | |||||
| P | M | R | β (p-value) | (p-value) | (p-value) | All paths to VI (DE & IE) | DE to CEVI |
| TKn | - | PR | −0.171 (<0.001) | - | −0.171 (<0.001) | - - | |
| TKn | - | ATR | 0.392 (<0.001) | - | 0.392 (<0.001) | - - | |
| TKn | PR | CEVI | - | 0.137 (0.005) | 0.342 < 0.001 | 1 | - |
| ATR | - | - | |||||
| - | 0.205 (<0.001) | - | 2 | ||||
| PR | - | CEVI | −0.182 (<0.001) | - | −0.182 (<0.001) | - | - |
| ATR | - | CEVI | 0.269 (<0.001) | - | 0.269 (<0.001) | 2 | 1 |
Notes: P: Predictor variables; M: Mediating variables; R: Response variables; TKn: Tourism knowledge; PR: Perceived health risk; ATR: Attitude toward risk; and CEVI: Coastal ecotourist visit intention.