e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 188 Ir. Antony Sihombing, MPD., Ph.D University of Indonesia Dr. Jajang Gunawijaya University of Indonesia Poeti Nazura Gulfira Akbar, S.T., M.Sc University of Indonesia Local Tourism Awareness and Knowledge: Community Views in Wanayasa Over the last few years, rural tourism has been increasingly viewed as a panacea for improving the economic benefits of rural communities in Indonesia. One of the main focuses in developing rural tourism is to encourage participation of local communities. While many scholars are concerned with a number of roles local communities could take in tourism development, few have reported how local communities themselves perceive and are aware of their role(s) in tourism development. Therefore, this paper examines local communities’ perceived awareness of their role in rural tourism development and assesses their knowledge of sustainable tourism principles. Differences in awareness and knowledge within resident groups based on their occupation are also examined. The findings reveal that local communities recognize and acknowledge the need to be involved in tourism development. Almost all of the respondents were not only aware of their important role in tourism development but also had high levels of knowledge of sustainable tourism principles. Furthermore, this study found that the perceived awareness of local communities’ role in tourism had influenced their perceived knowledge of sustainable tourism principles. Similar to previous studies, this study discovered that profession could not be used to differentiate residents’ awareness, as differences were not found between respondents who work in tourism and those who do not. Keywords: rural tourism development, perception, local tourism awareness, community participation, sustainable tourism, Indonesia Ir.Antony Sihombing, MPD., Ph.D Senior Lecturer at Department of Architecture University of Indonesia Kampus UI, Depok 16424 Indonesia Phone: [62] 21 290 274 81 Email: a.sihombing@eng.ui.ac.id Dr. Jajang Gunawijaya Head of Tourism Department Vocational Programme University of Indonesia Kampus UI, Depok 16424 http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 189 Indonesia Phone: [62] 21 290 274 81 Email: j_gunawijaya@yahoo.com Poeti Nazura Gulfira Akbar., M.Sc Junior Lecturer in Tourism Department Vocational Programme University of Indonesia Kampus UI, Depok 16424 Phone: [62] 21 290 274 81 Email: nazura.gulfira@gmail.com http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 190 Introduction Over the last few years, rural tourism has attracted increasing attention from the Indonesian government due to its importance in eliminating poverty and spreading economic benefits across the nation. Not only has rural tourism been increasingly promoted in many areas, but the development of sustainable rural tourism also forms part of a national strategic plan to be achieved by the Indonesian Ministry of Tourism (Junaid, 2015). This commitment to developing rural areas is also shown through financial assistance provided by the Indonesian government under the National Programme for Community Empowerment (PNPM). In this programme, communities are expected to develop and manage tourism in their rural areas with available resources in the hope it will help reduce rural poverty by participation and empowerment of the local community (Mujanah et al., 2015). As can be seen from Table 1, the government has allocated increased funding for rural tourism development over the years. Current data from the Indonesian Ministry of Tourism (2016) also shows that the government allocated Rp406.10 billion to develop 2000 tourism villages across the country in 2014. Table 1: PNPM Tourism Village Development in Indonesia Year Fund Village Province 2009 Rp 8.75 billion 104 17 2010 Rp 19.57 billion 200 29 2011 Rp 61.7 billion 569 33 2012 Rp 121.45 billion 978 33 2013 Rp 123.25 billion 980 33 Source: Suarthana et al. (2015) http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 191 Despite rural tourism development in Indonesia having received extensive government support, previous studies have reported obstacles exist for community participation and achievement of sustainability (Guntoro, 2010; Junaid, 2015). One of the main barriers to be overcome is the lack of knowledge and awareness of tourism among rural communities (Saufi et al., 2014). This is unsurprising because scholars have long considered limited knowledge of tourism amongst residents as one of the major challenges for community participation (Byrd et al., 2008; Cole, 2006; Wilson et al., 2001), along with sustainable tourism development (Sirakaya et al., 2002; Timothy, 1999). Both of these are present mainly in developing countries (Butler & Hinch, 2007; UNWTO, 2008; Tosun, 2000). Some researchers have highlighted that residents’ support for tourism is fundamental to the success of community participation, which only happens if their level of understanding of the tourism development process is similar to other stakeholders (Reid, 2003; Saarinen, 2010). Therefore, local communities having little knowledge of tourism systems and lacking understanding of the importance of sustainable tourism can be a barrier to participation, especially in areas where tourism is new to a community (Aref and Redzuan, 2009). As Simons (1994 in Dyer et al. 2007) states, limited knowledge and awareness of tourism among a community requires substantial efforts being made to encourage participation in the tourism development process. A number of authors have also explained that limited knowledge and awareness can lead to difficulties. These include a widening knowledge gap between local communities and decision-makers (Butler and Hinch, 2007), wrong expectations about tourism benefits (Tosun, 2000), a lack of preparation for change correlated with tourism (Cole, 2006), and increasing exclusion of local residents’ involvement in decision-making processes (Moscardo 2008 in Aref and Redzuan 2009). By making local communities aware of tourism, not only http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 192 will they accept tourism in their area but it could also help them become agents in tourism development rather than objects, as still often happens in rural communities in developing countries (Saarinen, 2010). Other researchers have also argued that potential conflicts arising from the interaction between tourism activities and local cultures can be avoided if local communities are aware of the significance of tourism (Suntikul et al., 2010). It is therefore important to investigate residents’ knowledge and awareness of tourism development in their area in pursuit of sustainable tourism. Moreover, previous studies have focused on measuring awareness and attitudes of residents in areas where tourism is already an important aspect of the local economy (Cardenas et al., 2015). Indeed, limited research examines awareness and knowledge of residents at the inception stages (Sirakaya et al., 2002). Regarding this, Saarinen (2010) argued it is important to first assess the level of local communities’ awareness and knowledge through communities’ perceptions of tourism development in their areas. Not only will it help to identify gaps in the community’s understanding of the concept, but it can also be used to develop programmes and policies guidance for the community to gain a better understanding of the process and importance of tourism development (Byrd et al. 2008). Subsequently, this will lead to meaningful community participation and sustainable tourism (Cardenas et al., 2015). Therefore, this study expands on the notion that before residents can fully participate in tourism, they need to have a basic understanding of conceptual ideas of community participation and sustainable tourism. Specifically, this exploratory study investigates information about a community’s awareness and knowledge of sustainable tourism in development of rural tourism. By using Wanayasa, West Java, Indonesia as a case study, this paper aims to contribute to better understanding of this important topic by examining local communities’ views on their role in and awareness of sustainable tourism development. The research http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 193 questions in this paper cover two issues. Firstly, are there any differences in the perception of awareness and knowledge of sustainable rural tourism based on occupation? Secondly, do residents’ perceptions of their role in tourism influence their awareness and knowledge of sustainable rural tourism? Overall, the goal of this study is to examine residents’ perceptions towards their role in tourism and to investigate its influence on perceived knowledge of sustainable tourism. Research framework and hypothesis development Perception of community participation The role of community participation in tourism development has been widely examined by researchers and planners, especially since Murphy first introduced the concept of “community participation” in 1985 (Tosun, 2000). However, much of this has focussed more on the actual participation of a community in tourism, including the type and level of community participation (see Chengcai et al., 2012) and barriers and limitations of community participation (see Cole, 2006; Tosun, 2000). Few studies have discussed how local communities themselves feel about the various ways to achieve community participation suggested by empirical and theoretical literature (Michael, 2009). As a result, there has been little evidence concerning local communities’ views of their roles in tourism development (Muganda et al., 2013). This is important as previous studies have found the effectiveness of actual community participation in tourism development depends on a number of factors, including the community’s perceived awareness of the tourism issue (Lekaota, 2014; Wang et al., 2010). Some studies conducted in areas where tourism is still in its early stages of growth (cf. Michael, 2009; Reid et al., 2004) found local communities have high levels of awareness of their role in tourism development. Meanwhile, a study by Wang et al. (2010) differed from http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 194 the previous findings of rural communities in China having weak awareness and knowledge of tourism in the early stages of tourism development. H1: There is a high level of awareness among residents regarding their role in tourism development Sustainable tourism The existing literature has noted that besides knowing their role in the tourism planning process, local communities must also have a basic understanding of sustainable tourism to be able to participate (Byrd et al., 2008; Michael, 2009). Although it is important to comprehend how local communities view and understand the concept of sustainable tourism, little research has focused on residents’ understanding of sustainable tourism (Cardenas et al., 2015). Much of the literature has investigated residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts (cf. Andereck et al., 2005; Dyer et al., 2007; Lee, 2013). Moreover, only limited research in this area has begun to explore communities’ knowledge of sustainable tourism in rural areas (Byrd et al., 2008), urban areas (Dey and Basu, 2013) and protected areas (Szell, 2013). H2: There is a high level of knowledge about the sustainable tourism concept among residents Theoretical linkage between perceived role of community participation and sustainable tourism A substantial amount of literature has suggested community participation has become inseparable from sustainable tourism (Aref & Redzuan, 2009; Chengcai et al., 2012; Saufi et al., 2014). This is not only because the success of tourism development often relies on community support, but also because their participation is one of the key principles of sustainable development (Choi and Sirakaya, 2006). Several researchers also believe that raising awareness of participation in a local community has been promoted as an approach to http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 195 making tourism more sustainable (Saufi et al., 2014; Pookaiyaudom, 2015). In this way, residents’ knowledge of their role in the tourism planning process can help the tourism industry deliver a more sustainable product (Robinson and O’Connor, 2013). Other scholars have found that community participation integrally leads to sustainable tourism because both parties are pursuing similar aims (Matarrita-Cascante et al., 2010; Cole, 2006; Saarinen, 2010). However, others have contradicted this view by stating that community-based tourism does not automatically lead to sustainable tourism (Li, 2006; Stem et al., 2003). Based on the literature review, a conceptual framework underpins this research in which the causal relationship between two latent constructs is hypothesized. H3: Perceived importance of the local community role in tourism influences the perceived importance of sustainable tourism Occupation Differences within resident groups regarding the understanding of tourism development and impacts have earned much attention. However, less focus has been placed on exploring differences across demographic variables within resident groups, specifically with regard to awareness of their role in community participation and sustainable tourism development (Cardenas et al., 2015). Previous studies have investigated differences in awareness based on age, income and traveling behavior (Dagiliute al., 2015); gender and activity patterns (Cardenas et al., 2015) and level of education and willingness to pay (Szell, 2013). Nevertheless, few studies have examined differences in residents’ awareness and knowledge of tourism based on their occupation (Dey and Basu, 2013). Yet, as some studies have noted, there are differences in the level of understanding of tourism between groups of residents according to their occupation (Andereck et al., 2005; Aref and Redzuan, 2009). http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 196 Meanwhile, a study by Chon (2000) indicated that residents who work in tourism perceived more awareness and knowledge of tourism than those who do not work in that industry. H4: Rural communities working in the tourism industry have better knowledge and awareness of sustainable tourism than those who do not work in the industry. Methodology Area profile This study was conducted in Wanayasa, Purwakarta regency, West Java province, Indonesia. The decision to undertake this study in Wanayasa village was largely based on a combination of three major factors. First, the area’s location supports tourism activities as Wanayasa is located within the tourism nodes of well-established tourist destinations in West Java, namely Bandung, Subang, and Sumedang. When there is increased traffic on almost every national and regional road in West Java (especially during the Muslim holidays of Eid), Wanayasa becomes an alternative route, rest area and even an overnight stop among people traveling from Jakarta to other cities in West Java (Tempo, 2014). Second, there is strong evidence showing Wanayasa has high potential to become a successful tourism destination. According to the Master Plan of Purwakarta Regency 2011 – 2031, Wanayasa is one of the main priority areas for tourism development in Purwakarta with the particular aim to implement the concept of community-based tourism and pro-poor tourism in Purwakarta regency (Sutamanggala, 2010). In the Master Plan of West Java 2005 – 2025, Wanayasa is identified as a living rural landscape area with an enormous amount of untapped natural, cultural, heritage and historical resources suited to tourism development (Ibid). Third, the area has a number of tourism establishments, such as tourist hotels, lodges, and other recreation facilities, as well as some tourist attractions, such as Situ (Lake) Wanayasa, hot springs, waterfalls and campsites. Regarding early tourism development in http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 197 Wanayasa, proper management and evaluation are needed to minimalize any negative impacts of tourism in the area (Qusyairi, 2012). All of these factors combine to make the area suitable for this community case study, which also sought to examine local communities’ views of their role in and knowledge of sustainable tourism. Figure 1: Map of Purwakarta and Wanayasa Data collection and measurement In August 2015, 120 questionnaires were distributed purposively to residents in Desa Wanayasa. There were two groups of respondents: (1) residents who have tourism-related jobs, such as village municipalities; small-scale entrepreneurs including small store owners, shop workers and vendors; and people working in hotels, restaurants and travel agencies and (2) residents whose jobs are not associated with tourism. The purpose of targeting the different groups of respondents was to compare their perspectives and understanding regarding tourism development. People with tourism-related occupations may have different awareness and knowledge of tourism from those with other occupations. The questionnaire contained 21 questions and consisted of three parts, which are respondents’ perceptions of their role in tourism development; respondents’ awareness and http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 198 knowledge of sustainable tourism; and information about demographic characteristics. In the first section, six questions were originally adapted from Muganda et al. (2013), Tosun (2006) and Messele (2010), with little modification and changes to the other two questions based on previous research by Chengcai et al. (2012) and Timothy (1999). In the second section, respondents were asked to complete nine questions developed from previous research into local awareness and knowledge of sustainable tourism adapted from Byrd et al. (2008), Cardenas et al. (2015), Dey & Basu (2013), Saarinen (2010) and Wang & Pfister (2008). Each question required responses using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Table 1: Indicators of Local People’s Awareness of Their Role in Rural Tourism Development Indicator Code Local people should have a voice in the decision-making process for local tourism development CP 1 Local people should be involved more in tourism development and planning CP 2 Local people should be consulted when tourism policies are being formed CP 3 Local people should be consulted but the final decision for tourism development should be made by formal bodies CP 4 Local people should have an active involvement in conservation of the region’s environment CP 5 Local people should be financially supported to invest in tourism development CP 6 Local people should take the leading role as workers at all levels CP 7 Local people should take the leading role as entrepreneurs CP 8 http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 199 Table 3: Indicators of Knowledge of Sustainable Tourism Indicator Code Tourism development should include protection of the natural environment SU 1 Tourism development should be discouraged when it harms the environment SU 2 Tourism activities should be integrated with the region's conservation programs SU 3 A long-term goal is needed when planning tourism development SU 4 Tourism leaders must monitor citizens’ satisfaction with tourism in order for tourism to be successful SU 5 Tourism leaders must monitor tourists’ satisfaction with tourism in order for tourism to be successful SU 6 Tourism should be managed to meet the needs of the present. SU 7 Tourism development should respect the scale, nature, and character of the village. SU 8 Tourism should not be allowed to damage cultural resources SU 9 Data analysis, results, and discussion Other than using descriptive statistics for reporting the demographic profiles of respondents, independent sample t-test was used to investigate differences in the level of awareness and knowledge of sustainable tourism between residents working in tourism- related fields and those working elsewhere. The correlation of awareness and knowledge of rural tourism development in Wanayasa using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was then analyzed. First, this paper assesses residents’ perceptions of local community role and sustainable tourism measurement models and then validates the underlying constructs measuring those two models by conducting Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The next step is to examine the full measurement model with all latent and observed factors included. In this case, the perceived local community role and the importance of sustainable tourism are seen as latent variables while other variables, such as CP 1 to CP 8 and SU 1 to SU 9, are http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 200 considered observed variables. Second, the complete structural model is examined by identifying and analyzing the relationship between the local community role and the importance of a sustainable tourism construct to determine whether the data matched the complete structural model. Demographic profile of respondents It is found that 73.3% of respondents are male and 26.7% females. Respondents were in highly diverse age groups of 41 – 45 years (18.3%), 16 – 20 years (15%), and 31 – 35 years (13.35%) almost equally represented. In terms of education level, most respondents had completed a high school education at 70.8% and 17.5% had achieved a university degree. In terms of occupation, 40% are working in fields other than tourism, such as work as teachers, social workers, laborers, and homemakers. Meanwhile, 60% work in tourism activities, consisting of village municipality, tourism entrepreneurs, and tourism workers. Perceived local community role in tourism For variables related to local communities’ views on their role in tourism development, the data reveals slight perceptual differences between local residents who work in tourism and those who do not. Table 4 shows the mean scores for all variables in both groups of residents are above 4. This not only suggests their strong agreement with all eight statements but also indicates that respondents perceive their role and participation in tourism development to be important. The most accepted idea for both groups of residents (those working in tourism and those who do not) is that local people should be more involved in tourism development and planning. Although the difference between the mean scores of the two respondent groups is small, the tourism worker group (mean 4.71, SD 0.458) has a higher mean score than the non- tourism worker group (mean 4.69, SD 0.512). These results support those from research carried out in Poland by Niezgoda and Czernek (2009), who state that local community http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 201 workers in tourism services have a higher awareness of residents’ involvement in tourism. The second most accepted option is the idea that local people should have a voice in the decision-making process for local tourism development. These results confirm findings by Jaafar et al. (2015), Michael (2009), Muganda et al. (2013) and Tosun (2006), which also found most respondents tended to accept the idea that their voices should be taken into account in the tourism decision-making process. Table 4: Local People’s Perception of their Role in Rural Tourism Development Mean SD CP 1 Tourism Workers Non-Tourism Workers 4.64 4.63 0.484 0.489 CP 2 Tourism Workers Non-Tourism Workers 4.71 4.69 0.458 0.512 CP 3 Tourism Workers Non-Tourism Workers 4.56 4.60 0.528 0.574 CP 4 Tourism Workers Non-Tourism Workers 4.57 4.58 0.526 0.498 CP 5 Tourism Workers Non-Tourism Workers 4.29 4.31 0.638 0.719 CP 6 Tourism Workers Non-Tourism Workers 4.56 4.63 0.528 0.570 CP 7 Tourism Workers Non-Tourism Workers 4.63 4.56 0.488 0.542 CP 8 Tourism Workers Non-Tourism Workers 4.60 4.58 0.548 0.647 On the other hand, the statement “local people should have active involvement in the conservation of the region’s environment” had the lowest mean scores for both groups of residents. Those who work in tourism have a mean 4.29 and SD 0.638 while those who do not have a mean of 4.31 and SD 0.719. These mean scores suggest local people understand http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 202 they need to participate in the conservation of the environment. These results contrast with those from a survey carried out by Junaid (2015), which found a local community tends to have less awareness of environmental conservation as they view it as the main task of government. The overall results of the above awareness assessment suggest that all respondents involved in this study’s survey have high levels of awareness of their role in the tourism development process despite their differences in terms of occupation. These results contrast with the survey carried out in India by Dey and Basu (2013), who found residents working in the tourism industry have a lower level of awareness and knowledge rather than those who do not work in tourism. Perceived importance of sustainable tourism Similar to the previous results, the assessment of these nine variables also suggests that both groups of respondents had high-level knowledge of sustainable tourism. As indicated in table 5, the lowest mean was still above 4, which implies that overall responses spread between agree and strongly agree. These findings build an impression that the study’s sample population have some knowledge of sustainable tourism. The statement “tourism development should be discouraged when it harms the environment” had the highest scores for the group of residents working in tourism (mean 4.82, SD 0.387). Meanwhile, the statement “tourism development should include protection of the natural environment” (mean 4.83, SD 0.377) had the highest scores for those who do not work in a tourism-related field. The results suggest that local communities in Wanayasa understand the importance of preserving the environment while developing tourism. The second most accepted option for residents working in tourism (mean 4.69, SD 0.521) and those who do not (mean 4.77, SD 0.472), was the idea that tourism leaders must monitor the http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 203 satisfaction of local communities with tourism in order for tourism development to be successful. Table 5: Knowledge of Sustainable Tourism Mean SD SU 1 Tourism Workers Non-Tourism Workers 4.68 4.83 .470 .377 SU 2 Tourism Workers Non-Tourism Workers 4.82 4.69 .387 .512 SU 3 Tourism Workers Non-Tourism Workers 4.47 4.54 .556 .582 SU 4 Tourism Workers Non-Tourism Workers 4.61 4.71 .491 .504 SU 5 Tourism Workers Non-Tourism Workers 4.69 4.77 .521 .472 SU 6 Tourism Workers Non-Tourism Workers 4.64 4.73 .512 .449 SU 7 Tourism Workers Non-Tourism Workers 4.47 4.52 .556 .505 SU 8 Tourism Workers Non-Tourism Workers 4.43 4.50 .526 .652 SU 9 Tourism Workers Non-Tourism Workers 4.38 4.52 .568 .545 At the opposite end of the spectrum, the lowest score for respondents who work in tourism relates to “tourism should not be allowed to damage the cultural resources” (mean 4.38, SD 0.568). Meanwhile, “tourism development should respect the scale, nature, and character of the village” had the lowest score for respondents who do not work in tourism (mean 4.50, SD 0.652). Based on these mean scores, it appears that the importance of sustainable tourism development was well received by all respondents, regardless of their occupation. This study contrasts with previous research (cf. Dey and Basu, 2013), which http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 204 proposed that residents working in the tourism industry would have a better knowledge of sustainable tourism than those who are not. Influence of perceived local community role in tourism towards the perceived importance of sustainable tourism Reliability Test To understand whether the questions in the questionnaire all reliably measure the same latent variable, which is the perceived local community role in tourism and the perceived importance of sustainable tourism, a Cronbach’s alpha reliability test was run on a sample size of 120 local residents. This test was chosen because it has been considered the most appropriate reliability test for research in attitudinal studies and it uses multiple Likert questionnaires that form a scale. Table 6 shows the results for the reliability level of variables in this model where the latent variables are represented by community participation and sustainability. The Cronbach’s Alpha reliability scores for local people’s perception of their role in rural tourism development and the importance of sustainable tourism are at 0.849 and 0.842, respectively. These show that both latent variables used in the model are significantly higher than the suggested 0.70 threshold and indicates a high level of internal consistency for the scale. Therefore, the perceived local community role in this study can be measured by one construct composed of 8 items, while the perceived importance of sustainable tourism is composed of 9 items. Table 6: Construct Reliability Latent Constructs N of Items Cronbach’s Alpha Local community role 8 0.849 Sustainability 9 0.842 http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 205 Assessment of fitness for the model In this section, we examine the measurement models for local residents’ perceptions of their role and sustainable tourism to ensure the theoretical relationships among the observed variables and their respective factors are supported by the data. Thus, CFA was conducted on each of the two measurement models in order to examine model fit. The conventional method for assessing model fit is the Chi-Square (χ 2 ) statistic. However, based on accepted practice, several other model fit indices were also used in the analysis. These included the Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI), Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), Normed Fit Index (NFI) and Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). Table 7 summarises the measurement model statistics obtained. The result of the study finds the variables of perceived importance of local people’s role and sustainable tourism in this study were assumed to have a linear correlation; where the result of the Overall Goodness of Fit showed that CMIN/DF was classified as a recommended good model. This is implied from the value of Chi-Square/DF at 1.347, which is less than 2.00, and also the value of fitness indices for GFI, AGFI, NFI, RFI, IFI, and CFI exceeding 0.90, as well as the small RMSEA value being less than 0.08 (RMSEA = 0.076). All the results confirm the reliability of the measurement model in the structural equation model proposed by researchers. All the Goodness-of-fit indices results are shown in table 7. http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 206 Table 7: Summary of Measurement Model Statistics Goodness of fit model index Recommended good fit value Test Results Chi Square/DF ≤ 2.00 1.347 Probability ≥ 0.05 0.072 RMSEA ≤ 0.08 0.076 GFI ≥ 0.90 0.90 AGFI ≥ 0.90 0.85 CFI ≥ 0.95 0.99 NFI ≥ 0.90 0.98 RFI ≥ 0.90 0.92 IFI ≥ 0.90 0.99 The result of confirmatory factor analysis, which is the likelihood estimate, indicates that the C.R value for the regression between the community participation and the third indicative variables (conservation, financial support, and tourism enterprises) are out of range at 1.96. Thus, all the third variables are significant predictor variables for the community participation variable at p < 05. The same result is also obtained for the sustainability variable with its three indicator variables (tourism needs to meet present needs, appreciate the traditional culture and cultural resources) are out of range at 1.96. http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 207 Figure 2: Community Participation and Sustainability Model Based on figure 2, the regression weight shows that not all eight variables used in this study presented a significant correlation to the dependent [latent-community participation] variable. Indeed, five items were deleted from the model, resulting in a higher order three- factor model comprising “active involvement in conservation” (CP05): β = 0.69; “financial support” (CP06): β = 0.77; and “take the leading role as entrepreneurs” (CP07): β =. 0.73. The highest standardized coefficient is obtained from the sixth indicator (CP06). This indicates that the factor “local people should take the leading role as workers at all levels” is the strongest variable that determines community participation. Figure 2 also reveals that from the nine variables used in this study, only three items presented a significant correlation to the independent [latent-sustainability] variable. Those observed variables are “tourism should be managed to meet the needs of the present” (SU07): β = 0.70; “tourism should respect the scale, nature, and character of the village” (SU08): β = 0.78; and “tourism should not be allowed to damage the cultural resources” (SU09): β = 0.70. For the sustainability model, the highest standardized coefficient is obtained from SU08, which indicates local people have gained the highest knowledge of sustainable tourism regarding tourism development respecting the nature and character of the local community. CONSERVATION FINANCIAL SUPPORT TOURISM ENTERPRISES COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION SUSTAINABILIT Y PRESENT NEEDS TRADITIONAL CULTURE CULTURAL RESOURCES http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 208 Furthermore, Figure 2 also shows community participation to be positively related to sustainability. This study demonstrates that the perceived importance of community participation can influence perception towards sustainability. Moreover, the standardized regression weight between these two constructs was 0.63 (p < .01), suggesting an awareness of community participation directly affects local knowledge of sustainable tourism in the context of rural tourism development. This finding reflects a previous study by Lee (2013), who also found that community participation influences residents’ support for sustainable tourism development. Conclusion Several hypotheses were tested in this study; the results obtained were mixed and are summarised in Table 8. Table 8: Summary of Hypotheses Test Results Hypothesis Statement Status H1 There is a high level of awareness among residents regarding their role in tourism development Supported H2 There is a high level of knowledge about sustainable tourism concept among residents Supported H3 Perceived importance of local community role in tourism influences the perceived importance of sustainable tourism Supported H4 Rural communities working in the tourism industry have better knowledge and awareness of sustainable tourism than those who do not Rejected http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 209 The findings have revealed that local people recognize and acknowledge the need to be involved in the tourism decision-making process. Almost all respondents were aware that they have important role in participation. This study ascertained the findings of studies conducted elsewhere in Indonesia by Cole (2006), Timothy (1999) and Saufi et al. (2014). Those studies found that most host communities are aware of the importance of community participation in tourism development. However, this study discovered that profession could not be used to differentiate residents’ awareness as no differences were found between the respondents who work in tourism and those who do not. Both groups also exhibited the same high level of knowledge, to an extent, of the principles of sustainable tourism. This study also confirmed the relationship between community participation and sustainable tourism, and supported the findings of earlier research, which suggests that knowledge of sustainable tourism might not only be gained through direct involvement but also via indirect involvement, such as local awareness of community participation. In simple terms, local people’s awareness of their role in community participation increased knowledge of their sustainable tourism development. Nevertheless, the findings of this study suggest that more research work is required to understand the relationship between perceived awareness towards the role of the local community and their perceived knowledge of sustainable tourism principles, especially in Indonesia. Moreover, follow-up research should be conducted with a larger sample to compare and validate the results of this study. Future studies should also investigate the actual participation of the local community in Wanayasa, as this study is limited to examining the perceptions of local community towards their role in community participation and not actual participation. http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 210 References Andereck, K. L., Valentine, K. M., Knopf, R. C. and Vogt, C. A. 2005. Residents’ perceptions of community tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 32 (4), pp. 1056-1076. Aref, F. and Redzuan, M. 2009. Community leaders’ perceptions toward tourism impacts and level of building community capacity in tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Development, 2 (3), pp. 208. Butler, R. and Hinch, T., 2007. Tourism and indigenous people: issues and implications. 1st. USA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Byrd, E. T., Cárdenas, D. A. and Greenwood, J. B. 2008. Factors of stakeholder understanding of tourism: The case of Eastern North Carolina. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 8 (3), pp. 192-204. Cárdenas, D. A., Byrd, E. T. and Duffy, L. N. 2015. An exploratory study of community awareness of impacts and agreement to sustainable tourism development principles. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 15 (4), pp. 254-266. Chengcai, T., Linsheng, Z. and Shengkui, C. 2012. Tibetan attitudes towards community participation and ecotourism. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 3 (1), pp. 8-15. Choi, H. C. and Sirakaya, E. 2006. Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism. Tourism Management, 27 (6), pp. 1274-1289. Chon, K. S., 2000. Tourism in Southeast Asia: a new direction. New York: Haworth Hospitality Press. Cole, S., 2006. Information and empowerment: The keys to achieving sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14 (6), pp. 629-644. Dagiliute, R., Bartkute, Z., Zaltauskaite, J. and Sujetoviene, G., eds., 2015. Sustainable tourism: perceptions and behaviour of local and foreign tourists in Lithuania, Rhodes, Greece, 3-5 September. CEST. Available from: http://cest.gnest.org/cest15proceedings/public_html/papers/cest2015_00273_oral_paper. pdf [Accessed 12 January 2016]. Dey, S. and Basu, A., eds., 2013. Perception of eco-tourism among urban residents in India: an exploratory study, October. National Seminar on Contextual Management. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282348612_Perception_of_Eco- Tourism_among_Urban_Residents_in_India_An_Exploratory_Study [Accessed 9 February 2016]. Dyer, P., Gursoy, D., Sharma, B. and Carter, J. 2007. Structural modeling of resident perceptions of tourism and associated development on the Sunshine Coast, Australia. Tourism Management, 28 (2), pp. 409-422. Guntoro, B., 2010. Rural tourism development in Sleman Regency, Yogyakarta Province, Indonesia. International Journal of Asian Tourism Management, 1 (1), pp. 1-12. Indonesian Ministry of Tourism. 2016. Ministry of Tourism targeting 960 tourism villages. Ministry of Tourism. Available from: http://www.kemenpar.go.id/asp/detil.asp?c=16&id=814 [Accessed 9 February 2016]. Jaafar, M., Bakri, N. M. and Rasoolimanesh, S. M. 2015. Local Community and Tourism Development: A Study of Rural Mountainous Destinations. Modern Applied Science, 9 (8), pp. 399. http://ertr.tamu.edu/ http://cest.gnest.org/cest15proceedings/public_html/papers/cest2015_00273_oral_paper.pdf http://cest.gnest.org/cest15proceedings/public_html/papers/cest2015_00273_oral_paper.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282348612_Perception_of_Eco-Tourism_among_Urban_Residents_in_India_An_Exploratory_Study https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282348612_Perception_of_Eco-Tourism_among_Urban_Residents_in_India_An_Exploratory_Study http://www.kemenpar.go.id/asp/detil.asp?c=16&id=814 e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 211 Junaid, I., 2015. Enhancing community participation: alternative frameworks for sustainable tourism in Makassar City, Indonesia. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 5 (4), pp. 1. Lee, T. H., 2013. Influence analysis of community resident support for sustainable tourism development. Tourism Management, 34 pp. 37-46. Lekaota, L., 2014. Perceptions on Local communities’role and Awareness in Rural Tourism Development: A Case Study from Lesotho. University of Pretoria. Available from: http://repository.up.ac.za/dspace/handle/2263/46193 [Accessed 3 April 2016]. Li, W., 2006. Community decisionmaking participation in development. Annals of Tourism Research, 33 (1), pp. 132-143. Matarrita-Cascante, D., Brennan, M. A. and Luloff, A. 2010. Community agency and sustainable tourism development: The case of La Fortuna, Costa Rica. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18 (6), pp. 735-756. Messele, W., 2010. Community participation in tourism development in Tigray: the case of Oxum. Mekelle University. Available from: http://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/123456789/5076 [Accessed 9 February 2016]. Michael, M., 2009. Community involvement and participation in tourism development in Tanzania: a case study of local communities in Barabarani village, MTO WA MBU, Arusha-Tanzania. Available from: http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10063/968/thesis.pdf?sequence =1 [Accessed 3 April 2016]. Muganda, M., Sirima, A. and Ezra, P. M. 2013. The role of local communities in tourism development: Grassroots perspectives from Tanzania. Journal of Human Ecology, 41 (1), pp. 53-66. Mujanah, S., Ratnawati, T. and Andayani, S. 2015. The strategy of tourism village development in the hinterland Mount Bromo, East Java. Journal of Economic, Business, and Accountancy Ventura, 18 (1), pp. 81. Niezgoda, A. and Czernek, K. 2009. Development of cooperation between residents and local authority in tourism destination. Turizam: Znanstveno-Stručni Časopis, 56 (4), pp. 385- 398. Pookaiyaudom, G., 2015. Relationship between community pride and participation needs in sustainable tourism development of Fishing Village: a case study of Samut Sakhon Province, Thailand. Ecosystems and Sustainable Development X, 192 pp. 343. Qusyairi, I. A., 2012. Evaluation of tourist destination attractiveness. Case study: Purwakarta Regency, Indonesia. Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia. Available from: http://a- research.upi.edu/operator/upload/s_geo_0800598_chapter1.pdf [Accessed 9 February 2016]. Reid, D. G., Mair, H. and George, W. 2004. Community tourism planning: A self-assessment instrument. Annals of Tourism Research, 31 (3), pp. 623-639. Reid, S., 2003. Community participation in rural events: The potential to develop and utilize social capital. The University of Queensland. Available from: http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/47930/68395_1.pdf?sequen ce=1 [Accessed 4 May 2015]. http://ertr.tamu.edu/ http://repository.up.ac.za/dspace/handle/2263/46193 http://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/123456789/5076 http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10063/968/thesis.pdf?sequence=1 http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10063/968/thesis.pdf?sequence=1 http://a-research.upi.edu/operator/upload/s_geo_0800598_chapter1.pdf http://a-research.upi.edu/operator/upload/s_geo_0800598_chapter1.pdf http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/47930/68395_1.pdf?sequence=1 http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/47930/68395_1.pdf?sequence=1 e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 212 Robinson, J. and O'Connor, N. 2013. Ballyhoura—A case study of cohesive rural tourism planning in Ireland. Tourism Planning & Development, 10 (3), pp. 307-318. Saarinen, J., 2010. Local tourism awareness: community views in Katutura and King Nehale conservancy, Namibia. Development Southern Africa, 27 (5), pp. 713-724. Saufi, A., O'Brien, D. and Wilkins, H. 2014. Inhibitors to host community participation in sustainable tourism development in developing countries. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22 (5), pp. 801-820. Sirakaya, E., Teye, V. and Sönmez, S. 2002. Understanding residents’ support for tourism development in the central region of Ghana. Journal of Travel Research, 41 (1), pp. 57- 67. Stem, C. J., Lassoie, J. P., Lee, D. R., Deshler, D. D., et al., 2003. Community participation in ecotourism benefits: The link to conservation practices and perspectives. Society &Natural Resources, 16 (5), pp. 387-413. Suarthana, I. K., Madiun, N., Moeljadi and Yuniarsa, S. O. 2015. Exploring the community participation, tourism village, and social-economic to environment impact (case study: pentingsari village, yogyakarta). International Journal of Business and Management Invention, 4 (9), pp. 85. Suntikul, W., Bauer, T. and Song, H. 2010. Towards tourism: A Laotian perspective. International Journal of Tourism Research, 12 (5), pp. 449-461. Sutamanggala, D., 2010. The tourism development strategy of Wanayasa as tourism village, Purwakarta Regency. Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia. Available from: http://a- research.upi.edu/skripsiview.php?start=12839 [Accessed 3 March 2016]. Szell, A. B., 2013. Attitudes and perceptions of local residents and tourists toward the protected area of Retezat National Park, Romania. Western Michigan University. Available from: http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=masters_thes es [Accessed 3 March 2016]. Tempo. 2014. Alternative roads during the Eid Season. Available from: https://m.tempo.co/read/news/2014/07/25/058595648/ini-jalur-alternatif-bila-mau- mudik-nyaman [Accessed 16 February 2015]. Timothy, D. J., 1999. Participatory planningA view of tourism in Indonesia. Annals of Tourism Research, 26 (2), pp. 371-391. Tosun, C., 2000. Limits to community participation in the tourism development process in developing countries. Tourism Management, 21 (6), pp. 613-633. Tosun, C., 2006. Expected nature of community participation in tourism development. Tourism Management, 27 (3), pp. 493-504. UNWTO (United Nations World Tourism Organization), 2008. Policy for the growth and development of tourism in Botswana. UNWTO. Available from: http://cf.cdn.unwto.org/sites/all/files/docpdf/devcoengfinal.pdf [Accessed 9 February 2016]. Wang, H., Yang, Z., Chen, L., Yang, J., et al., 2010. Minority community participation in tourism: A case of Kanas Tuva villages in Xinjiang, China. Tourism Management, 31 (6), pp. 759-764. Wang, Y. A. and Pfister, R. E. 2008. Residents' attitudes toward tourism and perceived personal benefits in a rural community. Journal of Travel Research. http://ertr.tamu.edu/ http://a-research.upi.edu/skripsiview.php?start=12839 http://a-research.upi.edu/skripsiview.php?start=12839 http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=masters_theses http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=masters_theses https://m.tempo.co/read/news/2014/07/25/058595648/ini-jalur-alternatif-bila-mau-mudik-nyaman https://m.tempo.co/read/news/2014/07/25/058595648/ini-jalur-alternatif-bila-mau-mudik-nyaman http://cf.cdn.unwto.org/sites/all/files/docpdf/devcoengfinal.pdf e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 213 Wilson, S., Fesenmaier, D. R., Fesenmaier, J. and Van Es, J. C. 2001. Factors for success in rural tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 40 (2), pp. 132-138. http://ertr.tamu.edu/