Bali’s image as a tourist destination- a perspective of Australian tourists after bomb Bali

artikel ditulis oleh Putu Indah Rahmawati

Telah di publikasikan dalam Jurnal Pariwisata, Vol. 13, No.2, Juli 2008, Halaman : 106-116

Diterbitkan oleh Pusat Penelitian dan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat Sekolah Tinggi Pariwisata Trisakti

Akreditasi Dikti No: 55a/Dikti/Kep/2006

executive summary

Tourist’s decision in choosing destinations has been influenced by several factors, such as economic, technology, politic, social and culture (Lewis et al. 1995). Any publication aboutBali, both positive and negative release will influence the images of the previous and potential tourists. This will be the big issues in redesigning an effective marketing and positioning strategy forBaliafter bomb. Therefore, the aim of this research is to assess the images of Bali as a tourist destination in the Australian tourist perspective. This study reveals that images of Bali were positively influenced by gender and types of respondents’ variables.  Visitors have more positive images rather than non-visitors. Similarly, male store more positive images than female. Non visitors and female respondents tend to think more about the risk to visit Bali while for visitors and male respondents travel warning only give little influence to their decision to travel. Positive images remain strong in Australian perspective despite the negative news about Bali. Finally, the study provides some recommendations for Bali tourism authority in redesigning promotion campaign.

1.0               INTRODUCTION

 

Tourist’s decision in choosing destinations has been influenced by several factors, such as economic, technology, politic, social and culture (Lewis et al. 1995). These factors can be significantly created public awareness and promoted positive images. On the other hand, negative images can also have profound impacts in destination marketing, in particular, civil war, natural disasters and men-made disasters (Kotler et al. 2006); as a consequence, negative images increase the challenge for destination marketers to promoting a country into international tourist market. The initially images of a destination is difficult to change, visitors make a destination choice based on a previously-held images of the destination.

According to Touhino in Henkel, et al, “ image can be either a mental image of a product created by a marketing department, or an associative image of a product that is developed by consumer”.  The images that stored by the travelers about the tourist destination would be extensively influenced by numerous information source as well as the travel agent or tour operator influencing destination image and choice, particularly for the international destinations (Baloglu & Mangaloglu, 2001:2). Therefore, the tourist destination has a strong dependence of the positive image spread by the media publication or promotion. The negative publication obviously will ruin the promotion effort and marketing strategy of the tourist destination.

Based on the several research findings, “Image has been proven to be a pivotal factor in travellers’ decision process and destination selection behavior (Gunn, 19972; Gartner, 1993; Goodrich, 1978; Woodside and Lysonski, 1989; Um and Crompton, 1990). Stabbler in Jenkins (1999) stated that there are many factors influencing the formation of a consumers’ destination image. This can be seen in the following diagram.

Bali island-Indonesia is well-known as the isle of God with its mystical charm, unique way of life and wonderful scenery. Tourists spent lot of money on this island and the community has benefited largely from tourism industry. However, Baliglorious time is immediately changed after a series of disasters; bomb blast in 2002 and 2005, serial of drug cases of Australian tourists, tsunami issues. Those occasions become the background reasons for the Australian government to establish new the travel warning to Indonesiainclude Baliisland in 18 July 2007. (http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/Indonesia, 2007). Again, travel warning can influence the images of Bali island in the prospective tourists and also will impactIndonesia’s economic indirectly.

According to Suparwoko (2005; 148) “Tourism inBalihas been the primary contributor not only to the regional government income but also to the national income”. In addition, The United Nation Development Program (UNDP) reports that Bali attracted over one million foreign visitors flying directly toBalisince 1994. Tourism industry employed around 58,000 people and give contribution more than 60% ofBali’s economy and 20% resident highly depend on tourism industry (UNDP 2003).

Baliis a top tourist destination particularly for Australians. Moreover, TravelMole reported that Bali is nowAustralia’s fourth most popular holiday destination, behindNew Zealand,Thailandand theUSAand its share of the total Australian holiday market has grown by 44.5 per cent over the most recent half year (www.travelmole.com, 2007). Australian market has been becoming the second main market to Bali just afterJapansince 2001. Table about direct tourist arrival toBalifom 15 main market in 2001 to 2005 can be seen in appendix 1.

Unfortunately, the number of Australian tourists comes to visit Bali after the second bomb in Balidropped from 249,001 in 2005 to 117969 in 2006.  Apparently, numerous negative publications after bomb and Australian travel warning to Indonesiaespecially to Bali influenced prospective visitor decision to visit Bali. However, in 2007, after a series of promotions and recovery program, the Australian market to Baliis returning. It can be seen from table in appendix 1 that in the first half of 2007 was around 30,000 more than for the same time last year (www.travelmole.com, 2007).

Considering that Australian market is very important for the tourism in Bali, therefore it is essential to assessBaliimages in Australian perspective. The research result will be very useful in planning the marketing strategy for Australian market as well as improving tourism development inBali.

2.0                        METHODOLOGY

Since the purpose of this research is to find out aboutBaliimages in Australian visitors and non-visitors perceptions, therefore there are two types of respondent were surveyed. The respondents are; (1) Australian tourists who never been to Bali, (2) Australian tourists who already visitBali. Data collected inMelbourneutilized snowball random sampling. In this case, respondents help researcher to find other respondents. This will save time especially in finding respondents who ever been to Bali due to limited time that researcher has.

Data collected through questionnaire and in-depth interview regarding respondent socio-demographic and perceptions aboutBali. First section of the question list will indentify visitor and non-visitor respondent then continue with the list of question about Bali images in their perspective and ended by several questions related with respondent socio-demographic (complete list of question can be seen in the appendix 2).

Both survey instruments consisted of questions that asked the respondents to mentions the top three images ofBalias a tourist destination, as well as rating all images listed on a five-point Likert-type scale to determine the importance of each image to the respondents. Attributes selected similar to the images characteristic used by Echtner and Ritchie in Henkel, et al (2006)  and Chaudhary (2000) which focused on the images of  tourist destination. The questionnaire of the survey contained 27 questions; the highlights of the measurement are stated as below:

  1. Dependent variables will be measured by scaling.
  • Quality ofBalias a tourist destination, question No.7 was measured on 5-point scales

very low quality 1 2 3 4 5 very high quality 

  • Image ofBaliin respondent perspective, question No.9 was measured on 5-point scales

 strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree

  1. Independent variables were measured by nominal scale where objects were labeled for respondents to choose from. This was applied to all questions except No. 8,10, 14, and 15.
  2. Open ended questions were analyzed by qualitative analysis method. This applied to questions No. 8,10, 14, and 15.

Finally, data which are gathered from the questionnaire were transferred into the statistical software package (SPSS). Afterward, a numerous of statistical methods utilized to asses the exploratory data collected; first, frequency distribution (descriptive analysis) – “a set data organised by summarising the number of times a particular value of a variable occurs” (Zikmund 2003, p403), was used for data the respondent profiles in the survey was identified through frequency analysis. In terms of the adequacy, the KMO value needs to be higher than 0.5 or close to 1. Moreover, the significance of Bartletts test of Sphericity is smaller than 0.05, meaning factor analysis is suitable procedure to analyse the data and the Cumulative % of Total variance must to be more than 60% where the variance can be explained by the factor. Third, the reliability coefficients with extracted domains were computed to measure the internal consistency among items and the value needs to be bigger than 0.6.

Then, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) were utilised in order to assess the test the mean different between groups, made for two or more dependent variables (Zikmund 2003). If the significance is bigger than .000, its means that the Box’s Test indicates the Multivariate test is a appropriate methods and Multivariable tests are used to assess the differences between the groups. Hence, if the significance is less than 0.05, then a multivariate effect has occurred. With regard to other tests, Levene’s test is the pre-requisite for the Test of between Subjects Effects. To be qualified for the test the significance must be bigger than 0.05. Test of Between Subjects Effects shows which variables have significantly different means where means need to have a significance to show that means are significantly different.

3.0                        RESULTS

3.1                                                Demographic profile of visitors

There are 88 valid respondents generated from the survey. Majority of the respondent never been to Bali (69.3%) and only 30.7% have been toBali. However, most of them heard about Bali (96.6%), only 3.4% never heard aboutBali. This is reveals that Bali quite well known inAustraliaboth with positive and negative images. In term of age, majority of the respondents are between 20-29, while, other groups have quite similar proportion. Respondents tend to be relatively highly level of education, about 43% having finished their education at bachelor degree. Details of the figures can be seen in the table 1.0 below.

Table 1.0 Description of survey respondents

Gender Frequency (%) Occupational Group Frequency (%)
Male 46.6 Director 15.9
Female 53.4 Professional 4.5
Technical Profession 8
Total

100

Clerical/ administrative 18.2
Age Frequency Service / sale personal 17
16-19 13.6 Others 36.4
20-29 36.4 Total

100

30-39 20.5 Annual Gross Income Group Frequency
40-49 15.9 A$8000 or less

16.7

50-59 11.4 A$8000 -A$16,500

14.1

60 or over 2.3 A$8000-A$33,000

21.8

Total

100

A$33,001-A$49,500

17.9

Level of education qualification Frequency A$49,501-A$66,000

10.3

(%) A$66,001-A$82,500

6.4

Primary school 3.4 A$82,501-A$99,000

2.6

Secondary school 35.2 more than 99,001

10.2

Vocational education 9.1
Bachelor degree 43.2 Total

100

Master or Doctoral degree 9.1 Have been visited Bali Frequency
Total

100

yes

30.7

Marital Status Frequency no

69.3

(%)
Single 65.9 total

100

De facto 14.8 Have heard about Bali Frequency
Married without children 10.2 yes

96.6

Married with children 9.1 no

3.4

Total

100

Current Position Frequency Total

100

(%)
Employee 61.4
Self employee 6.8
Housewife/ man 15.9
Student 14.8
Unemployed 1.1
Total

100

Source : Data analysis (2007)

3.2                                                Factor analysis

After factor analysis process, there were some variables dropped. The remaining 13 variables were grouped into six factors which were named as follow: tourist attractions, poor environment, low quality public facilities and services, attractive leisure activities, good tourist facilities and unsafe from terrorism. The tourist attractions consist of: rich of cultural heritage, magnificent scenery and local people. Poor environment consist of unsafe drinking water, poor road quality, high level of beggar and cheater. Attractive leisure activities consist of beautiful beaches and exotic nightlife entertainment, good tourist facilities consist of good shopping facilities and good transportation.

Table 2.0 is the indications for the sampling adequacy, the accompanying KMO value (.646 bigger than 0.5) and Barletts test of Sphericity was .000 smaller than 0.05 which mean the factor analysis data could be considered as an appropriate technique to be used in the study. Further, the total variance showed that the total cumulative % was 72.391% which is over 60% which indicates the items contained in the data set are reliable. Hence, the identified factors can be utilised for further analysis in MANOVAS test.

Table 2.0 Factor analysis

KMO= .646

 

FACTORS

BT =.000123456Rich of cultural heritage.943     Magnificent scenery.587     Local people.454     Unsafe drinking water .798    Poor road quality .759    High level of beggar and cheater .426    Low quality of public service  .854   Low quality of public facilities  .814   Beautiful beaches   .909  Exotic nightlife entertainment   .491  Good shopping facilities    .767 Good transportation    .432 Unsafe from terrorism     .709Variance

Total variance=72.391%21.144%35.315%42.281%48.242%53.401%57.866%

Source : data analysis (2007)

3.3                                                MANOVA Analysis

The use of MANOVA test is to determine the different images of Bali in Australian perspective between visitors/non-visitors and different variables (gender, age, education, income groups). This is can be seen in Table 3.0.

Table 3.0 MANOVA test

  Visitor/non-visitor Gender Age Education Income
Box’s test: Sig>.000

0.529

0.913

0.296

0.461

0.315

Multivariate: sig<.05

0.000

0.006

0.071

0.089

0.539

Factor 1=.094 Factor 1=.871 Factor 1=.107 Factor 1=.007 Factor 1=.401
Factor 2=.351 Factor 2=.472 Factor 2=.514 Factor 2=.553 Factor 2=.356
Factor 3=.928 Factor 3=.610 Factor 3=.011 Factor 3=.355 Factor 3=.193
Levene’s test : sig>.05 Factor 4=.838 Factor 4=.823 Factor 4=.165 Factor 4=.006 Factor 4=.043
Factor 5=.512 Factor 5=.171 Factor 5=.192 Factor 5=.777 Factor 5=.694
Factor 6=.670 Factor 6=.085 Factor 6=.776 Factor 6=.440 Factor 6=.228
Factor 1=.011 Factor 1=.154 Factor 1=.220 Factor 1=.412 Factor 1=.416
Factor 2=.162 Factor 2=.001 Factor 2=.650 Factor 2=.250 Factor 2=.633
Test of between subjects Factor 3=.863 Factor 3=.809 Factor 3=.207 Factor 3=.047 Factor 3=.397
 effects : Sig<.05 Factor 4=.008 Factor 4=.980 Factor 4=.206 Factor 4=.467 Factor 4=.090
Factor 5=.113 Factor 5=.332 Factor 5=.554 Factor 5=.536 Factor 5=.854
Factor 6=.180 Factor 6=.048 Factor 6=.093 Factor 6=.685 Factor 6=.350

        Source : data analysis (2007)

 

  • Visitors/ non-visitors- the significance (0.529) of The Box’s test which was bigger than .000 therefore the test can be continued.  In relation to Multivariate test, it showed that the significance (.000) was smaller than 0.05, meaning there were significance differences between visitors/ non-visitors and images of Bali and confirms that the multivariate effect has occurred.
  • Gender variable – the significance (.913) of the Box’s test which was bigger than .000 thus, the test could be continued. However, the Multivariate test, it showed that the significance (.006) was smaller than 0.05, there were significance differences between visitors/ non-visitors and images of Bali and confirms that the multivariate effect has occurred.
  • Age variable – the significance (0.296) of The Box’s test which was bigger than .000 therefore the test can be continued.  In relation to Multivariate test, it showed that the significance (.071) was bigger than 0.05, meaning there were no differences between age groups and images of Bali and confirms that the multivariate effect has rejected.
  • Education variable – the Box’s test (Sig. = 0.461) was bigger than .000 which is accepted for using Multivariate test. The Multivariate test (Sig. = 0.089) was not meet the requirement. Its means that there were no differences between education variables and images of Bali and confirms that the multivariate effect has rejected.
  • Income variable – The Box’s test (Sig. = 0.315 greater than .000) and the Multivariate test (Sig. = 0.539) exhibited the study can not be proceeded to the next stage of data analysis.

 

3.3.1                                        Images of Bali in visitors and non-visitors perspective

The statistical analysis found out that Australian have more positive images than negatives images. This can be seen in table 4.0. The images of Bali were slightly different between visitors’ perspective and non-visitors perspective both for positive and negative images. Based on mean scores, positive images of visitors were 2.0788 higher than negative images. Similarly, positive images of non-visitors were 1.8329 higher than their negative images. Moreover, positive images of visitors 0.2459 higher than non-visitors positive images. This is means that Bali tourism authority still has chance to promote despite the negative images spread in the media because Australian especially for those who ever visited Bali already has positive images in their perspective. Positioning of Bali as a wonderful tourist destination remains strong in Australian tourist perspective.

 

Table 4.0 Images of Bali in visitors and non-visitors perspective

Images Visitors (mean) Non-visitors (mean)
Tourist attraction

4.4615

3.9887

Interesting leisure activities

3.6481

4.1864

Good tourist facilities

3.5741

3.2627

Total positive images

11.6837

11.4378

Low level safety

3.4938

3.4938

Low quality public facilities and services

3.037

3.037

Unsafe from terrorism

3.0741

3.0741

Total negative images

9.6049

9.6049

Source : data analysis (2007)

3.3.2                                            Images of Bali and Australian perspective based on gender

Based on mean score in table 5.0, it can be seen that male more concern about Bali’s tourist attraction and interesting leisure activities and only give little attention for the negative images. While female almost the same proportion of positive images as male but have more concern about negative images. Therefore, the female negative images higher than male have.

Table 5.0  Images of Bali and Australian perspective based on gender

Gender Male Female
tourist attraction

4.2333

4.0444

interesting leisure activities

4.0244

4.0111

good tourist facilities

3.2683

3.4444

total positive images

11.5260

11.5000

low level safety

2.9917

3.5870

low quality public facilities and services

3.0366

3.0761

Unsafe from terrorism

3.0488

3.5217

total negative images

9.0770

10.1848

Source : data analysis (2007)

3.4                              Qualitative Analysis

In the questionnaire, respondents were asked to mention 5 images that they have. Researcher adds this question in order to uncover the hidden images of Bali in Australian perspective. There were 37 images come up in the list. Then after the descriptive analysis, it can be seen clearly in the charts that beaches were the most popular images then continued by friendly local people and cheap holiday destination.

In regard of the level of satisfaction, from 27 respondents who ever been to Bali, there were 11 people very satisfied with their visit, 12 people satisfied and only 4 people said neutral.  Mostly, said that travel warning is irrelevant and terrorism can be happen everywhere anytime in the world. Visitors said that travel warning only give little influence to their decision. However, non-visitors mostly said that travel warning is good for the travelers and it will influence their decision to travel.

4.0                        DISCUSSION

This study sheds some valuable findings in regard of the images of Bali as a tourist destination in Australian perspective. Despite the bad images spread on the electronic and printed media in Australia, Bali’s positive images remain strong in Australian perspective. Beaches were the most popular images that come up as the highest score from first images to third images, and then continued by friendly local people and inexpensive holiday destination. In the open ended questions some interesting images come up which were not asked in the questionnaire, such as monkeys, banana leaves, palm trees, chickens, market, surf, Hindu population, colourful, motorbikes, frangipani, Australian in jails.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

The result of the research indicates that images of Bali were positively influenced by gender and types of respondents’ variables.  Visitors have more positive images rather than non-visitors. Similarly, male store more positive images than female. Non visitors and female respondents tend to think more about the risk to visit Bali while for visitors and male respondents travel warning only give little influence to their decision to travel. Positive images remain strong in Australian perspective despite the negative news about Bali.

The findings of this research have several practical implications for the Bali’s tourism authority that Australian tourists remain prospective tourism market for Bali and there are some opportunities to repair the negatives images into positive images by conducting more intensive promotion campaign. Likewise, the promotion should be linear with government program to reduce poverty and increase safety, security, cleanliness, transport systems to increase the tourist satisfaction in visiting Bali.

6.0                        LIMITATIONS

Due to the limited time that researcher has in collecting the data therefore only less than 100 respondent were surveyed. Consequently, the generalization of this result can not applicable to the total population. However, despite the limitation, the findings found some valuable insights for Bali tourism authority in promoting Bali as a tourist destination.

 

7.0      REFERENCES

 

Baloglu. Seyhmus & Mangaloglu. Mehmet (2001) “ tourism destination images ofTurkey,Egypt,Greece, andItalyas perceived by US-based operators and travel agents”, Tourism Management, vol.22, pp.1-9.

Chaudhary. Manjula (2000) “India’s image as a tourist destination – a perspective of foreign tourists”, Tourism Management, vol. 21, pp.293-297.

Henkel.Roy, Henkel.Pattaya, Agrusa. Wendy, Agrusa. Jerome, Tanner. John (2006) “Thailandas a tourist destination: Perceptions of international visitors and thai residents”, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, vol.11, no.3. pp.269-284.

Jenkins. H. Olivia (1999) “Understanding and Measuring Tourist Destination Images”, International Journal of Tourism Research, vol. 1, pp. 1-15.

Kotler, P & Bowen, J.T. & Makens J.C. 2006, Marketing for hospitality and tourism, Pearson Education, Inc.,New Jersey.

Lewis, R.C. & Chambers, R.E. & Chacko, H.E. 1995, Marketing leadership in hospitality: foundations and practices, Van Nostrand Reinhold,USA.

McCarthy. John 1994, “Are sweet dreams made of this? Tourism in Bali and Eastern Indonesia”,The Indonesia resources and Information Program, Australia.

Pike. Steve (2002) “ Destination image analysis- a review of 142 papers from 1973 to 2000.

Smart traveler website, 2007, (http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/Indonesia,  viewed in 20 August 2007)

The Age, 2007, (http://www.the age.com.au viewed 22 August 2007)

Zikmund, William G, 2003, Business Research Methods, ThompsonLearning,USA.

http://www.travelmole.com/stories/1121835.php?mpnlog=1, viewed 10 of September 2007.

 

 

 

8.0           APPENDIX

 

 

DIRECT TOURIST ARRIVAL TO BALI

FROM 15 MAIN MARKET IN 2001-2005

 

NATIONALITY Rank 2001 Rank 2002 Rank 2003 Rank 2004 Rank 2005
JAPAN I 296,282 I 301,380 I 185,751 I 326,397 I 310,129
AUSTRALIA II 238,857 II 183,561 III 139,018 II 267,520 II 249,001
TAIWAN III 154,575 III 168,756 II 170,533 III 183,624 III 128,194
SOUTH OF KOREA IX 35,634 VIII 41,036 VI 46,365 IV 80,273 IV 78,146
UK IV 116,323 IV 96,806 V 50,043 VII 55,546 V 75,845
GERMANY V 84,028 V 72,599 IV 53,374 V 70,050 VI 73,998
MALAYSIA XIV 17,496 XIII 19,960 IX 34,820 VI 62,974 VII 66,568
USA VI 68,359 VI 50,007 VIII 35,937 VIII 50,516 VIII 51,739
FRANCE VII 42,944 VII 43,623 XI 29,628 X 40,441 IX 44,869
NETHERLAND VIII 40,633 IX 39,638 X 32,567 XI 32,805 X 41,998
SINGAPORE VIII 18,925 XI 27,919 VII 42,931 IX 43,113 XI 35,164
ITALY X 32,939 X 32,531 XIII 12,130 XIV 19,964 XII 19,388
NEW ZEALAND XI 26,018 XII 22,388 XII 15,624 XIII 20,231 XIII 17,182
SWITZERLAND 16,614 13,543 9,727 XV 16,035 XIV 17,155
PRC 1,898 4,232 7,524 XII 21,651 XV 17,137

Source:BaliTourism Board, 2007.

Jurnal Ilmiah PARIWISATA
Akreditasi Dikti No: 55a/Dikti/Kep/2006
ISSN 1411-1527
Vol. 13, No.2, Juli 2008
Halaman : 106-116
Diterbitkan oleh Pusat Penelitian
dan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat
Sekolah Tinggi Pariwisata Trisakti

About sustainabletourismforbali

I am the lecturer in Hotel Department , Social Science faculty, Ganesha Education University, Bali
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Bali’s image as a tourist destination- a perspective of Australian tourists after bomb Bali

  1. Mr WordPress says:

    Hi, this is a comment.
    To delete a comment, just log in, and view the posts’ comments, there you will have the option to edit or delete them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s