TRISUTOMO Island Infrastructure.doc

Slamet Trisutomo “Island Tourism in Makassar: An Assessment on Infrastructures

of Laelae, Barrang Lompo and Samalona Islands”

ISLANDS TOURISM IN MAKASSAR: AN ASSESSMENT ON INFRASTRUCTURES OF LAELAE, BARRANG LOMPO, AND SAMALONA

Slamet Trisutomo1),

1) Urban and Regional Planning Study Programs, Hasanuddin University, email: [email protected]

Abstract Tourism plays very important role in alleviating local economy development. Makassar as a waterfront city has beaches and Spermonde islands, a potential capital for developing marine tourism. Various articles and research report that many island-based tourism remains left behind due to lack of adequate infrastructures. This study aims to assess the availability and adequacy of island tourism infrastructures of the three islands of Spermonde cluster i.e. Laelae, Barrang Lompo and Samalona, and what type of infrastructures must be provided immediately to attract tourist to visit the islands. The assessment was done by tourists who were being in the each island; they were selected accidentally. The questionnaire as assessment instrument was applied to assess and to score the availability of 25 kinds of infrastructures. The findings show that the three islands were very attractive as island tourism destination; however, the availability of infrastructures was in poor condition. FGD of stakeholders have identified and recommended many kinds of infrastructures to build soon in order to attract more tourist to visit.

Keywords: islands infrastructure, Laelae-Barrang Lompo-Samalona, Makassar island tourism

I. Introduction

I.1. Background of StudyIndonesia is the largest archipelago in the world, which has more than 18,110 islands with

a coastline of 108,000 km. Referring to the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 1982, Indonesia has sovereignty over the territorial waters of an area of 3.2 million km2 consisting of archipelagic waters covering an area of 2.9 million km2 and territorial sea area of 0.3 million km2. In addition, [1], [2], [3], [4] Indonesia also has the exclusive right to exploit marine resources and interests related area of 2.7 km2 in the waters of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) which up to 200 miles from the baselines.

Makassar with a population of nearly 1.5 million people plays a role as the National Development Center (Pusat Kegiatan National) according to Law 26/2007 on Spatial Planning. Based on Government Regulation 55/2012 on Mamminasata, Makassar also has been decreed a the growth center of Mamminasata metropolitan, a conurbation of four regencies namely Makassar, Sungguminasa, Maros, and Takalar. Consequently, this has accelerated the development of the Makassar city, which is recently more concentrated on the coastal area. Considering islands, coastal, and waters area are vulnerable environment ([5], [6]), therefore a careful attention to the development in the island tourism must be paid.

Marine tourism sector is the most efficient in the marine economic development. It might be implemented through the use of objects and attractions optimally. Various objects and attractions that can be used are natural attractions at the beach, the diversity of flora and fauna (biodiversity) as marine parks, natural tourism (ecotourism), business tourism, cultural tourism, and sports tourism. Having beautiful and attractive coastal and islands, they will bring enormous immediate impact to the income of local communities and local governments.

As a waterfront city, Makassar has 35 km length of coastlines from Barombong on the south side to Biringkanaya in the north side. While in the waters area, Makassar has Spermonde islands, a cluster of islands that consists of 11 of islands. These natural resources are very potential that can be developed to become a island tourism.

International Conferences on 15th SENVAR (Sustainable Environmental Architecture) and 2nd AVAN (Asian Vernacular Architecture Network), Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Hasanuddin University, Makassar, November 14-15, 2014

P a g e | 1

Slamet Trisutomo“Assessment on Makassar Islands Ecotourism:

Cases of Laelae, Barrang Lompo and Samalona Islands”

Ecotourism. [7], [8] The term is derived from the words ecosystem and tourism. It is ecosystem-based tour or tours. Often, it is called green tourism, natural attractions, green tourism or sustainable tourism. As the principle or pillars of sustainable development, ecotourism is a tour based on the balance between the elements of ecosystem sustainability, social welfare, and economic development. In the context of this study, ecotourism is tourism activities those based on the balance of human, economic, and environment.

It is a fact that ecotourism in developing countries are currently undeveloped. It is believed, this inability is caused by a lack of infrastructure of the island ([9], [10], [11], [12]). For this reason, this research interested in conducting investigation how far the level of availability of infrastructure in main islands in the cluster of Spermonde of Makassar and what the infrastructures are need to accelerate the ecotourism.

I.2. Research Problems This research is address to assess the availability of infrastructures in three islands i.e.

Laelae, Barrang Lompo, and Samalona. The detail formulation of the research problems are: (1) How are the availability and condition of existing infrastructures in each of these islands? (2) Based on the existing infrastructures, how tourists assess the infrastructure availability in

these islands? (3) As realizing the availability of the infrastructures based on the ideas of stakeholders, what

kind infrastructures will be proposed and be built soon in order to attract more visitors to visit.

I.3. Scope and Limit of StudySpermonde Islands is a cluster of islands consists of 11 islands. This study was an

assessment of the three islands, the most frequently visited by tourists, ie. Laelae, Barrang Lompo, and Samalona Island. This research focused on the availability infrastructures, but excluded the quality of the infrastructures.

II. Literature Review

Tourism. [13] compares several definitions of tourism. Law 9/90 of Tourism sais that tourism is everything related to travel including business objects and attractions, businesses and other tourist facilities in the field. WTO stated that tourism comprises the activity of persons traveling to and staying in places outside their usual environment for not more than one consecutive year for leisure, business and other purposes. BPS formulates tourism is a traveling activity of the departed to return to his or her residence, into a tourist attraction, and the length of stay is more than 24 hours but less than 6 months, which is not the purpose of getting a living from the places visited and not a routine trip. From some of these definitions, [13] concluded that tourism is an activity for a place to stay for leisure within a certain time.

Island ecotourism. [14], [15], [16] write about ecotourism. It is said that the term ecotourism evolved since the late 80s in response to the reaction to the use of elements of ecological sustainability principles by tourist activities. Activity-based recreation natural elements appear together with increased awareness of the impact of tourism on the environment. Realizing that mass tourism activities allegedly positive impact on the economy and has a negative impact on the conservation of nature.

Ecotourism: to see, to do, to buy. [17] suggests that in order to tourists interested in the sights, the objects should qualify something to see, something to do, and something to buy. To see, tourist activities there should be an object of interest to be seen. In the context of island tours, an object that can be seen for examples enjoy panoramic, waves, white sand, sunset or sunrise, seen underwater biota. To do is active tourism activities, such as diving, see the coral reefs, fishing, surfing, boating, fishing and doing activities together local communities. To buy means tourists while seeing and doing thing activities, they are expected to buy something, such as souvenirs or

International Conference on the 15th SENVAR (Sustainable Environmental Architecture) and the 2nd AVAN (Asian Vernacular Architecture Network , Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Hasanuddin University, Makassar, November 14-15, 2014

P a g e | 2



food. The conclusion from the principle, to see, to do and to buy in the context of this study is tourism activities should provide the infrastructure to do in order to see and to buy as to provide the level of satisfaction for tourists.

Some researchers have done some preliminary studies that focus on island tourism. A study titled Coastal Area Development Planning in the Context of Integrated Economic Zones of Makassar, which was sponsored by Bappedakot Makassar was done in 2011. This multidisciplinary research includes experts in spatial planning, marine sociologist, economic regional development, infrastructure experts, and marine ecologist. The study aims to develop a multi-sector economic activity planning and plotting where they are located in Makassar area. [18] One of the conclusions was the need to more intensive development of tourism by utilizing the natural potential of coastal and islands.

[19] conducted a visual assessment on tourism along the coast of Makassar. Generally, visual assessment is focused on the panorama from mainland to water area. Conversely, this research was done to assess the object from water side to mainland. A group of stakeholders were cruising to assess the 10 interesting objects along the waterfront of Makassar. Using questionnaires, there are 3 of the 10 objects that qualify as a tourist attraction namely Tanjungbayang, Losari public space, and Paotere traditional port.

Infrastructure. [11] and [8] write the infrastructure and tourist facilities in the topic of Evaluation of Tourist Facilities, with the objects in the Great Barrier Reef pontoon, and evaluating the water tourist facilities. The infrastructures cover the amount of space and shade facilities, range availability, access to water, cleanliness, the number of places to sit, equipment for snorkeling and diving, lunch facilities, underwater observatory, facility safety, capacity of the pontoon.

Meanwhile, [8] in his article entitled Tourism Planning in Saronde in Gorontalo, suggests that tourist infrastructure means roads, electricity, waste management, drainage, and telecommunications. Still on infrastructure, [3], [20], [21], [12], [22] also state that maritime tourism infrastructure must provide and include transportation from departure and destination points in the island, water utilization facilities such as boating, bathing, diving, and snorkeling. They also consider the need for rescue, and island coastal ecosystems such as mangroves, protective embankment or other construction.

Based from previous arguments, it can be deduced that the island ecotourism infrastructure facilities must be available to serve the tourists activities. Infrastructure components can be grouped into three namely transport infrastructure as a means of access to the island, water infrastructure, and the infrastructure on the island.

Scoring as method of assessment. As a research method based on assessment or judgment by the respondents, scoring method has been widely applied in various studies. [23], [20], [24], [25], they have applied the scoring method in their research. Debate arises because scoring will be very subjective and highly dependent background of evaluators or assessors. Another thing generated scoring will provide a complete picture of various subjectivities. Given the success depends tourist traveler ratings themselves, then use the scoring method of assessment can be considered as an approach to meet the demands of the users or consumers. In this study, scoring on all the details of the type of island eco-tourism infrastructure were done by applying the model Likert interval scale of 0 to 5. Scores of 0 is given if the infrastructure is not available on the island. When it is available, scores will range from 1 (very poor), 2 (poor), 3 (pretty), 4 (good), and 5 (excellent).

Referring to the previous references, this research has focused on the availability and sufficiency of 25 kinds infrastructures as seen in Table 4. The infrastructures might be categorized into 3 groups. Group transportation infrastructures to the islands (4 kinds) were jetty or dock, waiting space in the dock, crossing bridge, and speed boat. Group infrastructures in the islands (14 kinds) i.e. pedestrian, information board, park or green area, restaurant or coffee shop, gazebo (a shaded place for sitting), bench for sitting, space for fishing, cottage, clean water supply, electrical supply, cellular signal, security post, health facilities, and public toilet. Group waters area


P a g e | 3



infrastructure (7 kinds) i.e. snorkeling facilities and equipment, diving equipment, baywatch, saving equipment, breakwater, cleanliness of water, and shower.

III. Research Method

The design of this study is descriptive qualitative and quantitative method. It was focused on three islands i.e. Laelae, Barranglompo, and Samalona islands. From visitors who were being in the islands, 63 visitors were selected in Laelae, 46 visitors in Barrang Lompo, and 31 visitors in Samalona; totally 140 visitors were selected from three islands. Scoring was ranging from 0 to 5; score 0 means the infrastructure was not available while score 5 means the infrastructure was available and in excellent condition. Using questionnaires, than visitors scored the availability of the infrastructures. Collected data than were analyzed to obtain the descriptive statistic, maximum, minimum, and mean. To identify the required infrastructures to be built sooner in order to attract more visitors, this research applied FGD of stakeholders.

IV. Research Findings

IV.1. Overview the Objects of ResearchMakassar is the fifth largest city in eastern part of Indonesia. With a population of 1.4

million, it has mainland area of 177.55 km2. In waters areas, Makassar has a cluster of names Spermonde, consists of 11 inhabited islands. Those are Laelae, Samalona, Barrang Caddi, Barrang Lompo, Kodingareng Keke, Kodingareng Lompo, Bonetambung, Lumulumu, Langkai, Lanjukang. Figure 1 shows the map of Makassar coastal area where the three islands were studied. Figure 2 Laelae island, Figure 3 Barranglompo island and, Figure 4 is Samalona island.

Laelae island, the closest island in term of distance from mainland among the three, now inhabited by 307 households consists of 1,485 persons which 748 were men and 737 were women. Barrang Lompo island, the largest island of Spermonde cluster, was inhabited by 3563 persons consists of 1709 men and 1854 women; Samalona, the smallest one among the three, inhabited by 82 persons.

Figure 1. Map of Makassar Coastal Area Figure 2. Laelae IslandSource: Google Earth (2013) Source: survey 2013


P a g e | 4



Figure 3. Map of Barrang Lompo and its facilities Figure 4. Laelae Island and its facilitiesSource: survey (2013) Source: survey (2013)

To describe the three islands in detail, following are the physical data:

Table 1. Description of Laelae, Barrang Lompo, and Samalona IslandsIslands Area Coordinate Positions Distance* Times**

1 Laelae 11,6 ha WL 119o23’30’’ and LS 5o08’24’’ 1,2 km 15 mnts

2 Barrang Lompo 19,2 ha WL 119o19’48’’ and LS 5o02’48’’ 12,77 km 90 mnts3 Samalona 2,3 ha WL 119o20’36,2’’ and LS 05o07’30,4’’ 6,8 km 90 mnts

*from coastal of mainland (km)** estimate times (minutes) to travel by speed boat from Makassar downtown to each island (minutes)

IV.2. Visitors as AssessorsIn this research, assessment on the availability and sufficiency of existing infrastructures in

three islands were done by visitors. They were found and selected accidentally Following table describes the proportion of selected respondents who acted as the assessors to score the infrastructures:

Table 2. Characteristics of Respondents as AssessorsNo Description Number and % respondents

1Position when respondents were interviewed

Laelae island: 63 (45%); Barranglompo island 46 (32.9%); Samalona island 31 (22.1%); Total 140 respondents

2 Age

Laelae island: young 4 (6.3%); adult 58 (92.1%); senior 1 (1.6%)Barrang Lompo island: young 7 (15.2%); adult 38 (82.6%); senior 1 (2.2%)Samalona island: young 1 (3.2%); adult 29 (93.5%); senior 1 (3.2%)

3 SexLaelae island: men 18 (28.6%); women 45 (71.4%)Barrang Lompo island: men 13 (28.3%); Women (33 (71.7%)Samalona island: men 13 (41.9%); women 18 (58.1%)

4 Education Laelae island: high school 62 (98.4%); graduate 1 (1.6%)Barranglompo island: high school 24 (52.2%); graduate 22


P a g e | 5



No Description Number and % respondents(47.8%)Samalona island: high school 23 (74.2%); graduate (25.8%)

5Occupation related to tourism

Laelae island: related to 0 (0%); not related to 63 (100%)Barranglompo island: related to 7 (15.2%); not related to 39 (84.8%)Samalona island: related to 1 (3.2%); not related to 30 (96.8%)

6 Frequency of visits

Laelae island: first time visit 11 (17.5%); not first time visit (82.5%)Barranglompo island: first time visit 24 (52.2%); not first time visit 22 (47.8%)Samalona island: fisrt time visit 6 (19.4%); not first time visit 25 (80.6%)

7Duration of visit in the island

Laelae island: 2 jam 27 (42.9%); > 2 jam 36 (57.1%)Barranglompo island: 2 jam 24 (52.2%); >2 jam 22 (47.8%)Samalona island: 2 jam 10 (43.6%); >2 jam 21 (67.7%)

8 Need to overnight stayLaelae island: yes 25 (39.7%); no 38 (60.3%)Barranglompo island: yes 22 (47.8%); no 24 (52.2%)Samalona island: yes 19 (61.3%); no12 (38.7%)

9 Interesting areaLaelae island: water area 7 (11.1%); beach 56 (88.9%)Barranglompo island: water area 26 (56.5%); beach 20 (43.5%)Samalona island: water area 17 (54.8%); beach 14 (45.2%)

Source: survey 2013

IV.3. Availability of InfrastructureAvailability ecotourism on the island were measured by 27 types of infrastructure, divided

into three groups. Group infrastructures related to transportation, comprising four kind i.e. speed boat as carrier from and to islands destination, the pier, a bridge from the pier to the area. Infrastructure in the island group includes 14 types i.e. pedestrians, information boards, parks, restaurants / cafes, gazebo, bench by the beach, fishing, lodge accommodation, clean water, electricity, cellular signaling, security stations, health facilities, and public toilets. Infrastructure in the water area includes seven types of facilities snorkeling i.e. diving facilities, baywatch, safety equipment, construction of coastal protection, clean water, and shower. The availability of infrastructures in each island are shown in the following table:

Table 3. List of Infrastructure Availability in the Islands

Types of InfrastructuresIslands

Laelae Barrang Lompo Samalona1 For accessing to island

destinations: 4 typesAll infrastructures are available

All infrastructures are available

All infrastructures are available

2 Infrastructures inside the islands: 14 types

Not available: information board, park, benches, cottages, public toilet

Not available: park, restaurant, gazebopublic toilet

Not available: pedestrian, park, beach security post, public toilet

3 Infrastructures for sport and recreation in the water area: 7 types

Not available: security guard, shower

Not available: diving facilities, bay watch , live fest, shower

Not available; bay watch, live fest, shower

Source: survey 2013

IV.4. Scoring Assessment Results


P a g e | 6



Results assessment by visitors on the condition and availability of infrastructure were shown in Tables 4, 5, and 6. Table 4 describes the average score of transportation infrastructures that serve visitors from downtown of Makassar to the islands. Table 5 shows the average score of infrastructures in the island. Table 6 shows the average score of infrastructure that are required when visitor swimming, bathing, snorkeling and diving. Almost all scores are very low, proving that the infrastructure is very poor. Score ranges from 1 (very poor) – 5 (excellent), while score 0 means the kind of infrastructure is not available.

Table 4. Average score of infrastructures for transportation Types of Infrastructures Laelae Barrang Lompo Samalona1 Jetty /dock 2.9 3.2 1.62 Waiting space 2.7 3.3 1.53 Bridge connector 2.5 1.8 0.54 Speed boat 2.8 3.1 3.3

Mean of scores 2.73 2.85 1.73Source: survey 2013

Table 5. Score of infrastructures inside the islandsTypes of Infrastructures Laelae Barranglompo Samalona

1 Pedestrian 1.9 3.3 02 Inforamation board 0 1.1 1.93 Park/ open space 0 0 04 Restaurant, café 1.7 0 2.75 Gasebo 3.2 0 3.36 Bech 0 1.5 2.87 Fishing platform 2.4 0 1.98 Cottages, accomofation 0 2.7 3.79 Clean water 2.3 3.1 2.1

10 Electrical supply 2.5 2.6 2.211 Cellular signals 3.0 3.4 2.812 Security post 0.7 1.9 013 Health facilities 2.6 3.6 014 Public toilets 0 0 2.1

Mean of the score 1.45 1.66 1.82Note: 0 means the infrastructure not availableSource: survey 2013

Table 6. Score of Infrastructures for Recreation and SportKinds of infrastructures Laelae Barranglompo Samalona

1 Snorkeling facilities 0.4 1.5 3.12 Diving facilities 0.1 0 2.63 Baywatch 0 0 04 Guard security 0.2 0 05 Breakwater 2.9 2.3 0.96 Cleanliness 2.0 2.4 3.07 Shower 0 0 0

Average Score 0.8 0.89 1.37Average core in each island 1.66 1.88 1.64

Source: survey 2013

IV.5. Quantitative Analysis


P a g e | 7



In case Laelae island infrastructures, from 25 types of infrastructure, the average score was only 1.66 out of a scale of 1-5. The highest value is gazebo (3.2) which means it was sufficient for visitors to enjoy the panorama while sitting. The lowest score (0.1) was diving facilities. The average score for transportation infrastructure was 2.73, the infrastructure in island was 1.45, and scores for sports facilities at beach was 0.8. The total average score for Laelae island only is 1.66, which means at very poor condition. There were 7 kinds of infrastructure not available, i.e. information board, park, bench, cottages, and public toilets, baywatch, and shower.

For Barang Lompo island, the highest score is the infrastructure of health facilities (3.6); others that have high scores (>3) were dock arrival (3.2), waiting space at the dock (3.3), speed boat (3.1), pedestrian (3.3), clean water supply (3.1), mobile phone signal (3.4), health facilities (3.6). There were 8 kinds infrastructure not available i.e. park, restaurant/coffee, gazebo, platform for fishing, public toilet, baywatch, saving facilities, and shower. Total average score for this island is 1.88 mean that the overall condition of the infrastructures is very poor condition.

For Samalona island, the highest score (3.7) is the availability cottages (cottages), while the lowest is the crossing bridge (0.5). Other infrastructure that has score higher than 3 were speed boat (3.3), gazebo (3.3); others were snorkeling equipments (3.1) and cleanliness of water area (3). Infrastructures that not available in Samalona are park, security post, healt facilities, baywatch, saving facilities, and shower. Total average score for Samalona island was 1.64.

Overall, the infrastructure of three islands were very poor condition with average score less than <3. Comparing the availability and sufficiency of infrastructure among the three islands, Barrang Lompo was the highest one (1.88), while Laelae was 1.66) and Samalona 1.64.

Infrastructures plays role in providing satisfaction to the visitors. Realizing this poor condition, effort should be initiated to improve the infrastructures conditions. Following section shows the key infrastructures to build soon.

IV.6. Key Infrastructure Needs Analysis To determine the suitable types of infrastructures, this research applied needs assessment

using focused discussion (FGD) method. A group of stakeholder who related to island tourism were called; it consisted of tourist operators, staffs from Tourism Agency of Makassar, and visitors, and some experts in tourism management; totally 30 participants were gathered. Every kind of infrastructure was briefed to all FGD participants, and they were pleased to vote whether the kind of infrastructure were prioritized to build soon. The result shows, for Laelae island, the higher points were speed boat as transportation (26 points= 86.6%), gazebo (25 points= 83.3%)and clean water supply (24 points= 80%). It means that speed boat, gazebo. And clean water, are required and must be provided sooner, based on the FGD.

Table 7. Result of FGD to choose infrastructure to be built soon

No InfrastructuresVoted by

stakeholders%

Infrastructure related to transportation1 Dock for arrival 21 702 Waiting space on the dock 2 6.63 Crossing bridge 18 604 Speedboat 26 86.6

Infrastructure in the island1 Pedestrian 5 16.62 Information board 6 203 Park or green area 17 56.64 Restaurant, coffee 19 63.35 Gazebo 25 83.36 Sitting area 21 707 Space for fishing 15 50


P a g e | 8



No InfrastructuresVoted by

stakeholders%

8 Cottage, 10 33.39 Clean water 24 80

10 Electrical supply 13 43.311 Cellular signal 19 63.312 Security post 11 36.613 Health facilities 5 16.614 Public toilets 16 53.3

Infrastructure for beach activities1 Snorkeling facilities 5 16.62 Diving facilities 6 203 Baywatch 14 46.64 Save equipment 12 405 Break water 4 13.36 Cleanliness 22 73.37 Shower 15 50

Source: FGD October 2013

V. CONCLUSION

This study aims to (1) describe the potential and condition of infrastructure on the islands Laelae, Barranglompo, and Samalona, (2) to evaluate the availability of infrastructures, and (3) to determine the needs and desires of tourists infrastructures based on their assessment. Conclusion results of the study are:

(1) Besides as fishermen settlements, Laelae, Barranglompo, and Samalona islands now also becoming attractive islands tourist destination in Makassar. Due to the limitations of infrastructures especially the accommodation, residents also offer their home as accommodations for visitors.

(2) Availability of infrastructures. In terms of availability of 25 infrastructures, Barrang Lompo is better than the two others, although the quality remains in very poor condition, based on the assessment by visitors.

(3) Stakeholders consist of visitors, tourism operators, and staffs of Tourism Agency, using FGD method; together they have identified and formulated many infrastructures that required to be built soon in order to attract more visitors to visit. Related to transportation, comfortable and save speed boat and bridge that links dock – island, are required; related to infrastructure inside the island, gazebo and electrical power are very important; in terms of facilities on waters area, cleanliness of waters and save guard are needed soon.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This research was funded by the BOPTN Program 2013. My great appreciation goes to the staffs of Makassar Tourism Agency for supporting the valuable data. Thanks also address to students of PWK who collected data from the islands and preparing the figures.

REFERENCES

[1]Tuwo, Ambo. 2011. Pengelolaan Ekowisata Pesisir dan Laut. Brilian Internasional. Surabaya[2]Rais, Jacub dkk. 2004. Menata Ruang Laut Terpadu. Pradnya Paramita. Jakarta [3]Dahuri, Rokhmin dkk. 2004. Pengelolaan Sumber Daya Wilayah Pesisir dan Lautan Secara

Terpadu. Pradnya Paramita. Jakarta


P a g e | 9



[4]Setiawan, Johan. 2012. Kepariwisataan Alam dan Perubahan Iklim Studi Kasus di Taman Nasional Tanjung Putting Kalimantan Tengah. Jurnal Nasional Pariwisata Vol. 4 No 1, April 2012 (iv-x).

[5]Sari, Suzanna Ratih; and Darwawan, Edy. 2008. Coastal Area of Ujungnegoro Batang Regency. In Journal of Coastal Development, pp. 43-51 Vol. 9 No. 1 Oktober 2008

[6]Tahir, A. et al. 2009. Indeks Kerentanan Pulau-Pulau Kecil: Kasus Pulau Barang Lompo-Makasar. in Ilmu Kelautan, pp. 8-13, Vol. 14 (4).

[7]Moscardo, G. 1998. Interpretation and Sustainable Tourism: Fuctions, Examples and Principles. in the Journal of Tourism Studies, pp. 2-13, Vol. 9, No. 1

[8]Mas, Sitti Rokhina. 2009. Perencanaan Obyek Wisata Saronde sebagai Tujuan di Kabupaten Gorontalo. Jurna Inovasi Vol 6/4 DEsember 2009.

[9]Hay Pete. 2006. A Phenomenology of Islands. Islands Studies Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2006, pp. 19-42.[10]Kim, S.G. and Kim, Y.J.E. 1996. Overview of Coastal and Marine Tourism in Korea. in the Journal

of Tourism Studies, pp. 46-53, Vol. 7, No. 2.[11]Moscardo, Gianna. 2001. Visitor Evaluations of Built Tourist Facilities: Pontoons on the Great

Barrier Reef. The Journal of Tourism Studies Vol. 12, No. 1, May ’01.[12] Hadwen, Wade L dkk. 2003. The Significance and Management Implications of Perched Dune

Lakes as Swimming and Recreation Sites on Fraser Island, Australia. The Journal of Tourism Studies Vol. 14, No. 2, Dec ’03.

[13]Gunawan, Myra P. 2007. Leassure, Rekreasi, Pariwisata dalam Berbagai Dimensi Metropolitan. Dalam Jurnal Perencanaan Wilayah dan Kota Vol. 18 No. 1 April 2007 hal. 49-64.

[14]Diamantis, Dimitrios dkk. 1999. The Links Between Sustainable Tourism and Ecotourism: A definitional and operational perspective. The Journal of Tourism Studies Vol. 10, No. 2, Dec ’99.

[15] Hay Pete. 2006. A Phenomenology of Islands. Islands Studies Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2006, pp. 19-42.

[16]Ding, Peiyi. 1995. Environmental Audits: An Emerging Concept in Suistainable[17]Yoeti, Oka A. 2008. Perencanaan dan Pengeebangan Pariwisata. PT. Prajna Paramita, Jakarta.[18]Bappedakot Makassar. 2011. Pengembangan Kawasan Pesisir dalam Rangka Perencanaan

Kawasan Ekonomi Terpadu Kota Makassar. Laporan Penelitian APBD 2011. Beppedakot, Makassar

[19]Trisutomo, Slamet, dkk. 2012. Assesmen Visual Wisata Susur Pantai Kota Makassar Menuju Pengembangan Zonasi Kawasan Wisata Bahari. Tidak Diterbitkan.

[20]Blackman, Anna dkk. 2004. Factors Contributing to successful Tourism Development in Peripheral Regions. The Journal of Tourism Studies Vol. 15, No. 1, May ’04.

[21]Timothy, Dallen J dkk. 1995 . Tourist Accomodation in An Asian Jistoric City. The Journal of Tourism Studies Vol. 6, No. 2, Dec ‘95

[22]Fagence, Michael. 1997. Ecotourism and Pacific Island Countries: The First Generation of Strategies. The Journal of Tourism Studies Vol. 8, No. 2, Dec. ’97.

[23]Morrison, Alastair M. 2003. Comparative Profiles of Travellers on Cruises and Land-Based Resort Vacations. The Journal Of Tourism Studies Vol. 14, No. 1, May ’03.

[24]Noussia, Antonio. 1998. Framing Experience: Visual Interpretation and Space Open Air Museums. The Journal of Tourism Studies Vol. 9, No. 2, Dec ’98.

[25]Ciftci, Cigdem Ciftci. 2010. A Visual Assessment for Land Use Analysis at the Coastal Area of Beysehir Lake. BALWOIS 2010 - Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia - 25, 29 May 2010


P a g e | 10

TRISUTOMO Island Infrastructure.doc

Documents

Transcript of TRISUTOMO Island Infrastructure.doc