Tourism and Culture

TOURIST SATISFACTION TOWARD CULTURAL HERITAGE SITE:

THE PRAMBANAN TEMPLE

Hani Ernawati

Sekolah Tinggi Pariwisata Ambarrukmo

JalanJend. Ahmad Yani No 52, Banguntapan, Bantul Yogyakarta

Email : hani_ernawati@yahoo.com
.
Abstract
Prambanan temple, one of the cultural heritage sites in Yogyakarta, has a great effect on
increasing the welfare of the surrounding community.
This study measured tourists satisfaction level and the influencing factors by identifying
destination attributes used importance-performance analysis and multiple regression with
ordinary least squares.
The findings of the study revealed that the level of tourist satisfaction of Prambanan
temple by destination attributes is included in the criteria of quite satisfied. Procedurs of
community life, human creation, and tourism facilities are the main indicators of tourists’
satisfaction. Physical condition of the temple’, ‘splendor of the temple’, ‘theme park’,
‘hospitality’, ‘safety’,and ‘cleanlines’, are the factors which tourists are strongly satisfied with.
Focuse on those attributes would increase tourist satisfaction. Whereas public transportation,
shopping area, restaurants, hotels / inns, souvenirs, tour packages, festivals or cultural
ceremonies, ticket the fitingness of price, expenses during excursion,and food the fitingness of
pricehave low level of importance and performance, so that the improvement of them should
not become the priority. Museum and parking area considered excessive by tourists.

Keywords:Tourist satisfaction, destination attributes, Prambanan temple.

1. Introduction
Cultural/heritage tourism is the fastest growing segment of the tourism industry
because there is a trend toward an increased specialization among tourists. This trend
is an evident in the rise in the volume of tourists who seek adventure, culture, history,
archaeology and interaction with local people (1). The prior study on tourist
satisfaction, there was relationship between cultural/heritage destination attributes and
tourists' overall satisfaction (2). Prambanan temple as a cultural heritage tourism
makes an important economic contribution. Revenue earned from tourists’ spending
increased the surrounding community welfare and reduced unemployment, while its
benefit for education is to study historycal science.
Prambanan Temple has been designated by United Nationals Educational,
Scientific and Culture Organization (UNESCO), as a world herritage site in 2010
(3).Indonesian Government targeting the number of tourists up to 6.9 millions in
2017, while the number of tourists in 2016 only 2.03 millions (29.42% of the target),
whereas that was the largest number of tourists according to the statistical data.

1
 At Prambanan area tourists can also enjoy the museum while enjoying the
various of historical visuals and enjoying an event that very pity to miss, the staging
of Ramayana Ballet. Prambanan temple is also surrounded by other Buddhist temples.
In realty, the number of tourists were lower than expected target, It indicated that the
image of Prambanan temple as a heritage site must be improved to increase tourists’
satisfaction, because tourists’ satisfaction is a strategic variable for prescribing the
destination (4). The existing studies had widely suggested that consumer satisfaction
was a function of both expectations related to certain important attributes and
judgments of performance attributes (5) (6) (7).
Thus, this study attemps to seek the cause of the failure by exploring the
perception of destination attributes of Prambanan temple and by discovering common
and unique attributes of themselves. This study attempted to identify their position in
tourists’ mind. To be more specific, the obectives of this study were (1) to measure
tourist satisfaction level on heritage destination of Prambanan temple reviewed by
the gab between performance and importance attributes, (2) to identify the position of
the destination attributes in tourists’ mind by using importance-performance analysis
(IPA), (3) to test whether the importance-performance destination attributes are
distinct indicators that could better measure tourist satisfaction.

2. Literature Review
2.1. Destination Attribute Importance And Performance
Destination attribute plays an important role in tourists’ evaluation of the
attractiveness, image, and satisfaction of a particular destination. Attribute importance
refers to a person’s overall evaluation of the significance of the attribute to a product. A
fundamental assumption is that consumers differentiate the relative importance of each
product attribute (8) (9). Consumers are presumed to trade off the relative attribute
importance among decision alternatives, and this trade off eventually leads to actual
purchase decisions or behavior. Thus to the extent to which these assumptions hold, the
attribute that is perceived as most importance communicates how the various products
are perceived to differ and eventually plays a significant role in influencing the product
choice of the consumer (10). On the other hand, performance is regarded as the
customer perception of the evaluative level of the attribute as it pertains to a product
(11). Importance-Performance Analysis(IPA) and the related analysis of performance
minus importance gaps have proved valuable and popular techniques for the
management of tourism destinations as well as products and services more generally.
Their simplicity makes them easily interpretable to management. Unfortunately their
application is hindered by measurement bias and doubt over the appropriate placement
of crosshairs to determine whether performance and importance is high or low (12).
The importance-performance analysis (IPA) was introduced as a useful technique for
evaluating the different elements of a marketing program (6) which extensively used in
hospitality and tourism research because of its simplicity. However, due to the lack of
critical statistical analysis, the traditional IPA framework is compromised by serious
reliability and validity issues (13). It is suggested that product/destination attributes or
features are first identified (5) (6).

2
2.2. Satisfaction
Oliver (7) defines satisfaction as an evaluation of a con- sumption event or its
constituent parts. The study of satisfaction involves addressing two important issues:
how satisfaction judge - ments are formed and what is evaluated. The first involves
understanding the mental heuristics (or processes) used by consumers when evaluating
an experience. The disconfirmation of expectations posits that consumers develop fairly
specific expectations about the performance of the service, which are then compared to
the actual performance (14).
Satisfaction is considered a crucial element to sustain the competitive business
in the tourism industry. Measuring tourist satisfaction is important to successful
destination marketing since it is directly linked to destination (15) (16) (17). Measuring
satisfaction provides information related to how well a destination is currently meeting
the tourists’ needs and therefore helps destination marketers adjust their efforts on
improving the quality of products and services, or offering the products and services
that are really appealing to tourists.Satisfaction can be defined as ‘a judgment that a
product, or service feature, or the product or service itself, provides a pleasurable level
of consumption – related fulfillment, including levels of under or over fulfillment’ (7).
Researchers have further defined the concept of satisfaction from various perspectives
in different contexts (18) (19). Furthermore, many researchers have attempted to
develop theoretical and methodological frameworks to measure customer satisfaction in
a more reliable way (16) (17). Nine theories on customer satisfaction have been
introduced in the literature: (1) expectancy disconfirmation; (2) assimilation or
cognitive dissonance; (3) contrast; (4) assimilation contrast; (5) equity; (6) attribution;
(7) comparison level; (8) generalized negativity; and (9) value percept,43 among which
expectancy disconfirmation model has received the widest acceptance (16) (17).The
expectation-disconfirmation model proposes that satisfaction is the comparison of the
product expectation and actual performance of the product (20). In the tourism industry,
tourist satisfaction is based on the goodness of fit between expectation about a
destination (previous destination image) and the perceived evaluative experience in the
destination (what tourists see, feel, and achieve in the destination experience), (21)
(22). In response to the complex nature of the mental process of satisfaction evaluation
and the diverse theories/models of measuring satisfaction, it is suggested that the
evaluation of tourist satisfaction needs to be considered in multiple dimensions and
integrated approaches, since tourists may vary in motivation for visiting destinations
and they may have different satisfaction levels and standards (21) (22).One study also
examines the theoretical and methodological contexts of tourist satisfaction and
suggests the need of a deeper investigation to better understand this issue (23) (24).

2.3. The Prior Study

The Level of performance attributes such as tourism products provided by nature, the
result of human creation: Borobudur temple, tourism infrastructure, electricity, hospital,
shopping place, parking, life of society have less satisfactory for tourists at Borobudur
Temple Post-Eruption of Merapi Mount in 2010 (25). Nature tourism attraction in
Central Java has a positive effect to the foreign tourists satisfaction. Improving to the
quality of natural tourism attraction will increase foreign tourists satisfaction. (26) (27).
The products that are the main priority in Ubud Bali but not yet satisfy the
tourists are the transportation and domestic flights. Products that already satisfy the
tourists and in accordance with the interests of tourists so it needs to be maintained are
entertainment, hotels, restaurants, accommodation, attractions, site seeing, local
package tours, souvenirs, shopping, postal services, customs, tourist information, and

3
tourist activities. Tourism products that have less important and less provide
satisfaction for tourists are taxi, airport immigration, quarantine, and money changer
(28) (29). To examine tourists' satisfaction used a specially developed questionnaire,
regarding various factors, such as the region's natural characteristics, the level of
service and the adequacy of the accommodation facilities for tourists (30).
The highest satisfaction felt by tourists in Berastagi Hot Springs Region is the
natural beauty of the destination, while the lowest satisfaction felt by tourists is
hospitality (31).Satisfaction model was utilized in order to determine the gap between
tourist's expectations and experiences based on positive and negative attributes that
were grouped into six categories of accessibility, accommodation, tourist amenities,
tourist activities, food/meal and tourism attractions (22). The findings provide Pahang's
tourism managers with insite about the level of satisfactions among domestic tourists
and call for better improvements strategies for future tourism development in Pahang
(32). The affecting factors of tourists' satisfaction as well as the critical points that the
management authority must concentrate its improvement actions (12). The most
important factors in terms of satisfaction are touristy substructure-transportation options
and image factors of touristy attractions (33). There was relationship between
cultural/heritage destination attributes and tourists' overall satisfaction. Twenty-five
destination attributes resulted to four dimensions: General tour attraction, heritage
attraction, maintenance factors, and culture attraction (2).Perception of the quality of
heritage interpretation was significantly associated with destination cultural image and
site visit satisfaction (34)

3. Method
3.1. Survey and Data collection
Although there is no consensus on how to measure customer satisfaction, the literature
further emphasizes the measurement of satisfaction immediately after purchase (35).
This study approached randomly selected tourists at Prambanan temple area during
their visiting time and questionnaires were collected. In so doing, tourists might have
available time to assess their satisfaction perceptions of the destination. Surveys were
restricted to a one-month period in Prambanan temple area in September 2017 as an
individual tourism was signicant for European.

3.2. Questionnaire design

The respondents were asked to rate the importance of the 23 attributes. Respondents
were asked to rate how important were the attributes and how well the product or
service perform. Each attribute was rated using a 5-point Likert Scale, ranging from
“Very unimportant (1) to “very important (5). Respondents were also asked to evaluate
the performance of heritage product of Prambanan temple in term of 23 attributes on a
5-point Likert-Scale ranging from “strongly dissagre’ (1) to “strongly agree’ (5). This
study attempted to collect 100 respondents for both domestic and foreign tourists.

3.3. Analysis
Tourist satisfaction index analized by weighting importance-performance attributes.
The six measured importance-performance attributes were: 1).objects created by
nature, 2). human-creation (HC), 3).tourism facilities (TF), 4). tourism infrastructure
TI), 5).procedures of community life (CL), and 6).cost / the fitingness of price (C).
The marketing literature suggests several customer satisfaction measurement
approaches such as ‘expectation-performance', ‘importance-performance',and
disconfirmation' and ‘performance-only' (36) (37). It is proposed that regardless ofthe

4
existence of any prior expectations, the consumer is likely to be satisfied when a
product or service performs at a desired level (38) (39).
In importance-performance analysis (IPA), a product is expressed in terms of the
importance and performance of its attributes.Finally importanceand performance scores
for each attribute are calculated and formed into a four-cell typology (5) (6) as shown in
table 1.

Table 1.Cartessian diagram

High importance

Quadrant 1 Quadrant II

Low Improve it Maintain it High

performance
Performance

Low priority Surplus

Quadrant III Quadrant IV

Low importance

Source : ’Leavy and Daegan, 2005 (40)

The study described overall satisfaction as a function of importance-performance
destination attributes. The major question raised in this research was that to what extent
the tourists’ evaluation ondestination attributes relate to their overall satisfaction, so
that the hypothesized working model was proposed as follows:

SAT = f (OCN, HC, TF, TI, CL, C)

Where

SAT = overall tourist satisfaction Hypothesis

OCN = objects created by nature
HC = human creation
TF = tourism facilities
TI = tourism infrastructure
CL = procedurs of community life
C = cost/the fitingness of price
H1 : ‘objects created by nature’ positively
influences ‘satisfaction’
H2 : ‘ human creation’ influences ‘satisfaction’
H3 : ‘tourism facilities’ influences ‘satisfaction’
H4 : ‘tourism infrastructure’ influences
‘satisfaction’
H5 : ‘procedurs of community’ life positively
influences ‘satisfaction’
H6 : ‘the fitingness of price positively influences
‘satisfaction’

The above delineated independent factors were hypothesized to influence satisfaction

by using multiple regression with ordinary least squares.

5
4. Findings
4.1. Characteristic of respondents
A total of 100 respondents were collected and analyzed for the current tourists survey.
Demographic characteristics of the tourists were investigated with regards to their age,
gender, income, originanated the source of the information about Prambanan temple
they got. Visiting tourists are mostly teenager to middle-age in the middle to lower
income, originated from Europe while the others come from Middle East, America and
Asia. The related information of Prambanan temple they got mostly from electronic
media and friends’ references.

4.2. Performance Evaluation of Attributes

Table 2 presents the distribution of respondents on Importance - Performance attributes.
For the attribute of‘the objects provided by nature’ and ‘human creation’ most
respondents answered ‘agree’ for the performance, and felt importance for the attribute.
For the attribute of ‘tourism Infrastructure’ and ‘tourism facility’ and ‘the fitingness of
price ’ most respondents answered neutral for the performance and felt fairy important
for the attribute.For the attribute of ‘the way of the community life’most respondents
answered neutral for the performance and felt fairy important for the attribute.

6
Table 2. Distribution of respondent According to Importance Performance Indicators
Destination Attributes Performance Score Importance score
SD D N A SA VNI NI FI I VI
The objects provided by nature (OCN) 0 3 63 81 53 3 4 52 84 57
Natural scenery(OCN.1.) 0 1 26 36 37 3 2 23 36 36
Natural condition. (OCN.2) 0 2 37 45 16 0 2 29 48 21
Human creation(HC) 0 7 211 214 157 0 7 192 230 162
Relief (HC.1.) 0 0 17 42 41 0 1 15 40 44
Physical condition of 0 2 48 32 18 0 1 42 39 18
PrambananTemple(HC.2.)
The splendor of Prambanan temple (HC.3) 0 0 29 36 35 0 0 25 38 37
Museum(HC.4) 0 1 37 29 25 0 0 45 29 20
The Buddhist temples next to the 0 0 41 34 22 0 0 33 40 24
sights(HC.5)
Theme park (HC.6) 0 4 39 41 16 0 5 32 44 19
Tourism Infrastructure(TF) 4 18 332 144 75 2 17 296 177 84
Quality of roads leading to the destination 0 4 54 28 14 0 4 45 34 17
(TF.1)
Public transportation(TF.2) 0 7 48 26 11 0 4 50 28 12
Shopping area (TF.3) 1 2 63 17 14 0 3 58 20 17
Parking area (TF.4) 0 1 54 31 11 0 1 42 43 11
Restaurant (TF.5) 2 3 50 25 17 1 4 45 28 19
Hotel/Inn (TF.6) 1 1 63 17 8 1 1 56 24 8
Tourism Facility(TI) 0 8 94 60 24 0 4 92 57 26
Souvenirs (TI.1) 0 4 47 30 12 0 3 46 32 13
Tour package (TI.2) 0 0 43 25 14 0 1 46 25 13
The way of the community life (CL) 2 11 147 137 86 2 7 137 142 72
Festival and cultural ceremonies(CL.1) 1 2 35 35 13 1 0 36 34 16
Hospitality (CL.2) 0 1 30 35 33 0 2 28 34 33
Safety (CL.3) 1 1 40 37 20 1 0 36 40 0
Cleanliness (CL.4) 0 7 42 30 20 0 5 37 34 23
The fitingness of the fitingness of price 16 72 123 56 22 27 57 121 57 30
(C)
Ticket the fitingness of price (C.1) 12 29 33 16 8 13 20 40 17 9
Expenses during excursion (C.2) 3 26 45 18 5 5 20 48 17 7
Food the fitingness of price (C.3) 1 17 45 22 9 1 17 41 23 12
SD = Strongly dissagree; D = dissagree; N= neutral; A = Agree; SA = Strongly agree
NVI = Very not importance; NI = Not importance; FI = Fairy importance; I = Importance; VI = Very importance

Tabel 3 presents the overall performance of destination attributes. Relief of the

temple topped the attribute list and was followed by scenery and the splendor of the
temple, hospitality, natural condition, safety, the Buddhist temples at surroundings,
theme park, physical condition of the temple, cleanliness, museum, roads leading to the
destination, parking area, restaurants, shopping area, souvenirs, public transportation,
festifal and cultural ceremonies, , hotel/inn, tour package, whereas the fitingness of
prices of both entering tickets and other goods that affecting tourists expenses during
excursionare considered less.

7
Table 3. Performance Ranking of Destination Attributes
No Indicators attributes Score
1 HC.1 Relief 4,24
2 OCN.1 Scenery 4,09
3 HC.3 The 'splendor of Prambanan temple 4,06
4 CL.2 Hospitality 3,97
5 OCN.2 Natural condition. 3,75
6 CL.3 Safety 3,71
7 HC.5 The Buddhist temples next to the sights 3,69
8 HC.6 Theme park 3,69
9 HC.2 Physical condition of Prambanan Temple 3,66
10 CL.4 Cleanliness 3,6
11 HC.4 Museum 3,54
12 TF.1 Road 3,52
13 TF.4 Parking area 3,43
14 TF.5 Restaurants 3,43
15 TF.3 Shopping area 3,32
16 TI.1 Souvenirs 3,29
17 TF.2 Public transportation 3,17
18 CL.1 Festival and cultural ceremonies 3,15
19 C.3 Food price 3,03
20 TF.6 Hotel/Inn 3
21 TI.2 Tour package 2,99
22 C.2 Expenses during excursion 2,87
23 C.1 Ticket price 2,73

4.3. Importance Evaluation of Attributes

The overall performance and importance of destination attributes presented in table 3
and table 4. The performance’s attributes whose value higher than importance’s
attributes means that tourists felt delighted are physical condition of prambanan temple,
the splendor of Prambanan temple, theme park, restaurants, hotel/inn, hospitality,
safety, cleanliness, expenses during excursion, whilst for other destination atttibutes
tourists felt dissatisfied.

Table 4. Importance Ranking of Destination Attributes

No Indicator Attributes Score
1 HC.1 Relief 4,27
2 HC.3 The 'splendor of Prambanan temple 4,12
3 OCN.1 Scenery 4
4 CL.2 Hospitality 3,91
5 OCN.2 Natural condition 3,88
6 HC.5 The Buddhist temples next to the sights 3,79
7 CL.3 Safety 3,79
8 HC.6 Theme park 3,77
9 HC.2 Physical condition of Prambanan Temple 3,74
10 CL.4 Cleanliness 3,72
Quality of roads leading to the
11 TF.1 destination 3,64
12 TF.4 Parking area 3,55

8
 13 HC.4 Museum 3,51
14 TF.5 Restaurants 3,51
15 TF.3 Shopping area 3,45
16 TI.1 Souvenirs 3,37
17 TF.2 Public transportation 3,3
18 CL.1 Festival and cultural ceremonies 3,25
19 C.3 Food the fitingness of price 3,1
20 TF.6 Hotel/Inn 3,07
21 TI.2 Tour package 3,05
22 C.2 Expenses during excursion 2,92
23 C.1 Ticket the fitingness of price 2,86

4.4. Tourist Satisfaction Index (TSI)

Tourist satisfaction index (include both domestic and foreign tourists) and the scale
range of its interpretation presented in table 6 and table 5. It was amounted to 70.43%,
included in the criteria of quite satisfied.

Table 5. Scale range and Interpretation of

Costumer SatisfactionIndex(CSI)
Scale range Interpretation
0,00 – 0,20 Very dissatisfied
0,21– 0,40 Dissatisfied
0,41 – 0,60 Fairy Satisfied
0,61 – 0,80 Satisfied
0,81 – 1,00 Very Satisfied

Table 6. Tourist Satisfaction Index

No Indicator Variables Average Weighting Average Weighted

Importance Factor Performance Score
Score (AIS) (WF) Score (APS) [WS=
= Y axis = X axis (APS X WF)]
I The objects provided by
nature(OCN)
1 Natural scenery(OCN.1.) 4 0,049 4,09 0,201
2 Natural condition. (OCN.2) 3,88 0,048 3,75 0,178
II Human creation(HC) - -
3 Relief (HC.1.) 4,27 0,052 4,24 0,222
4 Physical condition of 3,74 0,046 3,75 0,172
PrambananTemple(HC.2.)
5 The splendor of Prambanan 4,12 0,051 4,06 0,205
temple (HC.3)
6 Museum(HC.4) 3,51 0,043 3,54 0,152
7 The Buddhist templesat 3,79 0,046 3,69 0,171
surroundings(HC.5)
8 Theme park (HC.6) 3,77 0,046 3,69 0,171
III Tourism Infrastructure - -
(TI)
9 Quality of roads leading to 3,64 0,045 3,52 0,157

9
 the destination (TF.1)
10 Public transportation(TF.2) 3,3 0,040 3,17 0,128
11 Shopping area (TF.3) 3,45 0,042 3,32 0,140
12 Parking area (TF.4) 3,55 0,044 3,43 0,149
13 Restaurants (TF.5) 3,51 0,043 3,43 0,148
14 Hotel/Inn (TF.6) 3,07 0,038 3 0,113
IV Tourism Facility(TI) - -
15 Souvenirs (TI.1) 3,37 0,041 3,29 0,136
16 Tour package (TI.2) 3,05 0,037 2,99 0,112
V The way of the community - -
life (CL)
17 Festival and cultural 3,25 0,040 3,15 0,126
ceremonies(CL.1)
18 Hospitality (CL.2) 3,91 0,048 3,97 0,190
19 Safety (CL.3) 3,79 0,046 3,71 0,172
20 Cleanliness (CL.4) 3,72 0,046 3,6 0,164
VI The fitingness of the - -
fitingness of price (C)
21 Ticket the fitingness of price 2,86 0,035 2,73 0,096
(C.1)
22 Expenses during excursion 2,92 0,036 2,87 0,103
(C.2
23 Food the fitingness of price 3,1 0,038 3,03 0,115
(C.3)
81,57 1,000 3,521
CSI = WT:5 x 100% 70,43%

4.5. IPA Grids for Destination Attributes

Table 7 shows the mean score of destination attributes in relation to importance and
performance of Prambanan temple. The data then is transfered to the IPA grids. The
four quadrants are contructed based on the mean scores of the importance and
performance ratings (11). The grand means of importance and performance are 3,50.
All points are plotted to the IPA grid for each attribute.

Table7 .The Result of Importance Performance Analysis

10
 There are eleven attributes situated in second quadrant in accordance with
tourists’ expectations which considered to have a high level of importance and
performance, so that managers should maintain their performance for better assessment
in the future. Those are natural ‘scenery’, ‘natural conditions’, ‘relief’, ‘physical
condition of the temple’, ‘splendor of the temple’, ‘Buddhist temples at surroundings’
,’theme park’, ‘quality of roads leading to the destinations’,’hospitality’, ‘safety’, and
‘cleanliness’.
Ten attributes attend in third quadrant, which considered to have low level of
importance and performance, are ‘public transportation’, ‘shopping area’,
‘restaurants’, ‘hotels/inns’, ‘souvenirs’, ‘tour packages’, ‘festivals or cultural
ceremonies’, ‘ticket the fitingness of price’, ‘expenses during excursion’, and ‘food the
fitingness of price’, so that the improvement of them should not become the priority.
The other variables such as ‘museum’ and ‘parking area’ have low importance but high
performance level, so that managers should not require to improve their performance
that will be only considered excessive by tourists. The result of IPA grids are
summarized in table 8.

Table 8. Summary for the IPA of destination attributes

Quadrant Attributes
Quadrant 1 None
(Improve it)
Quadrant 2 Natural scenery (OCN1)
(Maintain it) Natural conditions of Prambanan temple (OCN2)
Relief(HC1)
Physical condition of Prambanan temple(HC2)
Splendor of Prambanan temple(HC3)
Buddhist temples at surroundings (HC5)
theme park(HC6)
Quality of roads leading to the destination(TF1)
Hospitality (CL2)
Safety(CL3)
Cleanliness (CL4)
Quadrant 3 public transportation (TF2)
(Low priority) shopping area (TF3)
Restaurants(TF5)
hotels / inns (TF6)
Souvenirs (TI1)
tour packages (TI2)
festivals or cultural ceremonies(CL1)
ticket the fitingness of price(C1)
expenses during excursion (C2)
food the fitingness of price(C3)
Quadrant 4 Museum (HC4)
(Surplus) parking area (TF4)

4.6. Regression Analysis

As the final step, the composite factors (i.e., sub-constructs) of ‘objects created by
nature (OCN)’, ‘human creation (HC)’, ‘procedurs of community life (CL)’, ‘cost/the
fitingness of price (C)’, ‘tourism infrastructure (TI)’, and ‘tourism facilities (TF)’, were
treated as indicators to measure the construct of overall ‘tourist satisfaction (SAT)’.The

11
regression analysis results showed that 89,80% of the variation in overall satisfaction
was explained by the variables included in the model (Table 9).

Table 9. Results of regression analysis

Std Error Std Beta t-value Sig. level
Coefficient
s
(Constant) ,117 3,314 ,001
HC ,006 ,307 7,676 ,000
TF ,006 ,305 6,614 ,000
TI ,010 ,067 1,516 ,133
CL ,007 ,330 7,959 ,000
C ,007 ,270 7,285 ,000
2
Note: The model statistics: Adjusted R = 0,898;
F change = 171,912 ;p = ,000
HC = Human-creation ; TF = Tourism facilities; Tourism
infrastructure (TI) ; Procedures of community life (CL) ; Cost /
the fitingness of price (C).

Whereas, because objects created by nature (OCN) was unreliable with

Cronbach's Alpha value of 0,589 (<0,60), so that variable couldn’t be included into the
regression model. Human creation (HC), procedurs of community life (CL), tourism
facilities (TF) and cost/the fitingness of price (C) indicated stastistical significance at
the .000 probability level, whereas tourism infrastructure (TI) had the p value of 0,133,
indicated not significant statistically. Therefore HC, CL, TF and C are considered
important indicators in determining the overall satisfaction level. So that, the hypothesis
of H2, H3, H 5, and H6 are supported. Attribute of OCN (objects created by nature)
doesn’t support the hypothesis because tourists who visited Prambanan temple focused
on the cultural heritage site as their travel motivation not on the scenery of the nature.
The attribute of tourist infrastruture doesn’t influence significantly to satisfaction
because it doesn’t deliver the uniqueness of the destination. Perception of the quality of
heritage interpretation was significantly associated with destination cultural image and
site visit satisfaction (34) :
The highest beta coefficients scores were CL (ß = ,330), HC (ß =,307) , and TF
(ß = ,305) indicating that ‘procedurs of community life’, ‘human creation’, and’tourism
facilities’ significantly impact tourists’ overall satisfaction toward Prambanan temple.
‘Tourism infrastructure (TI)’although not highly statistical significant, also indicated
heuristic impact on tourists’ satisfaction.

5. Conclussion
The findings of the study revealed that the importance and performance destination
attributes provided some measurements of the tourits’ satisfaction toward the
destination. The attributes of the destination work for a function to measure tourist
satisfaction and simultaneously influence the degree of tourist satisfaction.
There was relationship between cultural/heritage destination attributes and
tourists' overall satisfaction (2). It reveals that ‘procedurs of community life’, ‘human
creation’, and ‘tourism facilities’ are the main indicators of tourists’ satisfaction, whilst
the attributes of procedurs of community life’ such as ‘hospitality’, ‘safety’,and
‘cleanlines’, have more impact on tourists’ perceptions of their visiting experience than

12
other attributes, then followed by ‘relief’, ‘physical condition of the temple’, ‘splendor
of the temple’, ‘Buddhist temples at surroundings’, ‘theme park’, and ‘roads leading to
the destination’. They all must be maintained tightly by manager.
In this respect, our study represents an additional step in the study of meassuring
tourist satisfaction especially for the heritage site by focusing on the destination
attributes that have a high level on importance – performance, delighted felt by tourists,
and simoultaneously influence significantly to satisfaction. Perception of the quality of
heritage interpretation was significantly associated with destination cultural image and
site visit satisfaction (34) : ‘Physical condition of the temple’, ‘splendor of the temple’,
‘theme park’ (which included in the independent variable of ‘human creation’),
‘hospitality’, ‘safety’,and ‘cleanlines’ (which included in the independent variable of
‘procedurs of community life’) are the factors which tourists were strongly satisfied
with. In other words, tourist satisfaction is determined by how people felt by the
community life of the site , and what the destination could offer by human creation.
The overall satisfaction is most influenced by the factors where the expectations are
strong but these are not fulfilled or where the visitors have no prior expectations as
there is no information available (41).
Finally, there are several issues associated with the limitations of the study that
should be discussed to provide a guide for the future research. The research data were
collected in a specific setting – acultural heritage site in Prambanan temple in
Yogyakarta, which nearly impedes the generalization of the research findings. The
different sites with different destination attributes could be important for generalization
issue. Moreover, it would be more meaningful to answer the question ‘are there any
other distinguished factors which give a more holistic picture to measure tourist’s
satisfaction? Will the different sites have different key indicators although they have
the same destination attributes?. Future studies should attempt possibility to evaluate
other destination attributes impact on tourist satisfaction.
Those findings would help tourism manager makes appropriate strategies to
increase the number of visitors at Prambanan temple by increasing their satisfaction.

6. Suggestion
Based upon the results of this study, several recommendations can be suggested
to rise tourists' satisfaction toward Prambanan temple by destination attributes. First,
understanding tourist needs by understanding what tourists search at the cultural
heritage sites.. Second, developing the most suitable strategy by identifying the most
suitable destination attribute to attrack and to serve tourists effectively. Third, setting
target market appropriately by understanding who the satisfied tourists are. Fourth,
making lower marketing costs in maintaining and preserving the cultural heritage
destinations' sustainability by indentifying destination attributes which must be taken
most attention to.

Acknowledgement
Funding of this study was provided by a grant from the Coordinator of Private
Universities Region 5 Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

13
Bibliography
1. Hollinshead. The Truth About Texas:A Naturalistic Study of the Construction of Heritage. USA :
Texas a&M University, 1993.

2. Huh, J. Tourit satisfaction with cultural/heritage sites: The Virginia historic triangle. 2002.

3. Kasnowihardjo, Gunadi. Prambanan-Sewu temple park:" A proposed reinterpretation and

revitalization. kompasiana. [Online] May 12, 2011. [Cited: May 12, 2011.]
http://www.kompasiana.com.

4. Cultural attitudes and tourist destination prescription. Pardo-Garcia, C., Coll-Serrano, V., Rausell-
Koster, p., & Bustamante-Yabar, D.P. 2018, Annals of Tourism Research.

5. Measuring tourist satisfaction by attribute and motivation: The case of a nature-based resort.
Fang Meng, Yodmanee Tepanon, Muzaffer Uysal. 2006, Journal of Vacation Marketing Volume 14
Number 1, pp. 41-55.

6. Importance-Performance Analysis. Martilla, J.A., James J.C. 1977, Journal of Marketing 41, pp. 77-
9.

7. Oliver, R.L. A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer . s.l. : Irwin: McGraw-Hill, 1997.

8. Keller, K.L. Strategic Brand Management: Building Measuring and Managing Brand Equity, second
edition. NJ : Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle, 2003.

9. Kotler, P. Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Control. New Jersey :
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle, 1988.

10. Fishbein, M. A behaviour theory approach to the relations between beliefs about an object and
the attitude toward the object .In Fishbein, M (ed): Readings an attitude theory and measurements.
In Fishbein, (Ed): Readings an attitude theory and measurements. New York : Wiley, 1967.

11. Measuring service quality for planning and analysis in service firms . Hemmasi, M., Strong, K.,
Taylor, S. 1994, Journal of Applied Business Research 10 (4), pp. 24-34.

12. But are tourist satisfied? Inportance-performance analysis of the whale shark tourism industry on
Isla Holbo, Mexico. Zieger, J., Dearden, P. Rollins, R. 2012, Tourism management, 33, pp. 692-701.

13. Importance-Performance analysis in tourism: a frameworkfor researcher. Ivan Ka Wai Lai,

Mitchael Hitchcock. 2015, Tourism management Vol 48, pp. 242-267.

14. Customer satisfaction: A Meta - Analysis of the Empirical Evidence. Henard, David M. Szymanski
& David H. No. 1, Texas : Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2001, Vol. 29. 16-35.

15. Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spaiin, as an Oss-season Holiday Destination. Kozak, M.,
Rimmington, M. 2000, Journal of Travel Research 38 (3), pp. 260-9.

16. Differences in Shopping Satisfaction levels: A Study of Tourists in Hong Kong. Wong, J. 2003,
Tourism management 24(4), pp. 401-10.

14
17. Differences in Shopping Satisfaction Levels: A Study of Torists in Hong Kong. Law, R. 2003,
Tourism Management 24(4): 401-10, pp. 401-10.

18. Development of a Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Customer Satisfaction in Travel Agencies
Services. Milan, A. 2004, Tourism Management 25(5):533-46, pp. 533-46.

19. Measuring Customer Satisfaction in Travel Agencies Services. Esteban, A. 2004, Tourism
Management 25(5), pp. 533-46.

20. A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of satisfaction Decisions. Oliver, R.L.
1980, Journal of Marketing Research 17, pp. 46-9.

21. An Examination of the Effects of Motivation and Satisfaction on Destination Loyalty: A structural
Model. Yoon, Y. 2005, Tourism Management 26(1), pp. 45-56.

22. An Examination of the Effects of Motivation and Satisfaction on destination Loyalty: A Structural
Model. Uysal, M. 2005, Tourism Management 26(1), pp. 45-56.

23. Reflections on Tourist Satisfaction research: Past, Present, and Future. Bowen, D. 2002, Journal
of Vacation Marketing 8(4), pp. 297-308.

24. reflections on Tourist Satisfaction Research: Past, Present, and Future. Clarke, J. 2002, Journal of
Vacation Marketing, pp. 297-308.

25. Lestari, Wahyu. Analisis Kepuasan Wisatawan Terhadap Kualitas Produk Wisata Candi
Borobudur Pasca Erupsi Merapi Yogyakarta tahun 2010 (Tourist satisfaction toward the product
quality of Borobudur temple after eruption of Merapi mount in 2010). Surakarta : Fakultas
Pendidikan dan Ilmu Keguruan Universitas Sebelas Maret, 2011.

26. Kualitas Daya Tarik Wisata, Kepuasan dan Niat Kunjungan kembali Wisatawan Mancanegara di
Jawa Tengah (The quality of tourist attraction, satisfaction and intention to visit of foreign tourists in
Central Java. Basiya, R. 2012, Jurnal Dinamika Kepariwisataan Vol 11 No. 2, pp. 1-12.

27. Kualitas daya Tarik Wisata, Kepuasan dan Niat Kunjungan Kembali Wisatawan Mancanegara di
Jawa Tengah(The quality of tourist attraction, satisfaction and intention to visit of foreign tourists in
Central Java). Hasan Abdul Rozak. 2012, Jurnal Dinamika Kepariwisataan Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 1-12.

28. Swabawa, Anak Agung Putu. Tingkat Kepuasan Wisatawan Terhadap Produk Wisata Ubud Pasca
Bom Bali (Tourist satisfaction toward the tourism quality of Ubud after Bali bomb). Bali : Universitas
Udayana, 2003.

29. Ni Gusti Nyoman Suci Murni. Tingkat Kepuasan Wisatawan Terhadap Produk Wisata Ubud
Pasca Bom Bali. Bali : Universitas Udayana, 2003.

30. Visitor's satisfaction, perception and gab analysis: The case of Dadia-Lefkimi-Souflion National
Park. Arabatitzis, G., Grigoroudis, E. 2010, Forest policy and economics, 12 (3), pp. 163-172.

31. Faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi tingkat kepuasan wisatawan terhadap destinasi (Studi kasus
kawasan pemandian air panas di Brastagi ( The influencing factors of tourist satisfaction on

15
destination: The case of Brastagi hot spring. Ginting, Sigit Putranta. Medan, Indonesia : USU Press,
2005.

32. Tourist Satisfaction as the key to destination survival in Pahang. Mohd Fauzi Sukiman, Shida
Irwana Omar, Masitah Muhibudin, Izatul Yussof, Badaruddin Mohamed. 2013, Procedia- Social and
Behavioral Sciences vo. 91, pp. 78-87.

33. The effects of the image of destination on tourist satisfaction and loyalty: The case of
Cappadocia. Coban, S. 2012, European Journal of Social Science, 29 (2), pp. 222-232.

34. Relationship among perception of heritage management, satisfaction and destination cultural
image. Vong, F. 2013, Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 11 (4), pp. 287-301.

35. Measuring Customer Satisfaction: Fact and. Peterson, R.A. and Wilson, W.R. 1992, Journal of
Academy of Marketing Science 20(1), pp. 61–71.

36. An investigation into the determinants of customer satisfaction. Churchill, G.A. 1982, Journal of
Marketing Research 29, pp. 491-504.

37. An investigation into the determinant of customer satisfaction . Suprenant, C. 1982, Journal of
Marketing Research 29, pp. 491-504.

38. Perspectives on Consumer Satisfaction. Czepiel, J.A. Rosenberg. s.l. : American Marketing
Association , 1974. pp. 119-123.

39. Perspectives on Consumer satisfaction. L.J. Akerele, A. s.l. : American Marketing Association,
1974. pp. 19-123.

40. Ireland's Image as a Tourism destination in France:Attribute importance and performance.

O'Leavy, S., and Deegan, J. 2005, Journal of Travel Research 43 (3), pp. 247-56.

41. Quality management of the tourist destination in the context of visitors' satisfaction. Vajcnerova,
I., Ziaran, P., Ryglova, J., & Andrasko, I. 2014, Procedia Economic and Finance, 12, pp. 718-724.

42. Oliver, R.L. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. s.l. : Irwin: McGraw-Hill.,
1997.

43. The Importance Performance analysisi: An Evaluation and Marketing Tool. Guadagnolo, F. 1985,
Jornal of Park and Recreation Administration 2, pp. 13-22.

44. Measuring tourist satisfaction by attribute and motivation: The case of a nature-based resort.
Fang Meng, Yodmanee Tepanon, Muzaffer Uysal. 2006, Journal of Vacation Marketing Volume 14
Number 1, pp. 41-55.

45. iApplication of Importance-Performance Model in Tour Guides’ Performance: Evidence from

Mainland Chinese Outbound Visitors in Hong Kong. Zhang, H.Q., Chow, I. 2004, Tourism
Management 25(1):, pp. 81–91.

46. Examining the effect of novelty seeking, satisfaction, and destination image. Guy Assaker,
Vincenzo Esposito Vinzi, Peter O’Connor. 2011, Tourism Management 32, pp. 890-901.

16
47. A model of destination image formation. Seyhmus Baloglu, Ken W. McCleary. 1999, Annals of
Tourism Research vol. 26, pp. 868-897.

48. Tourists' characteristics and the perceived image of tourist destinations: a quantitative analysis -
a case study of Lanzarote, spain. Asuncion Beerli, Josefa D Martin. 2004, Tourism Management vol.
5, pp. 623-636.

49. Formative indicators: introduction to the special issue. Diamantopoulos, A. 2008, Journal of
Business Research, 61(11),, pp. 1201–1202.

50. Modelling perceived quality, visitor satisfaction and behavioural intentions at the destination
level. Vesna Zˇ abkar, Maja Makovec Brencˇic, Tanja Dmitrovic. 2010 (31), Tourism Management,
pp. 537–546.

51. Solihin, M. Analisis SEM PLS dengan Warp PPL 3.0. Yogyakarta, Indonesia : ANDI, 2013.

52. Ireland'sImage as a Tourism Destination in France: Attribute Importance and Performance.

O'Leary, S., deegan, J. 2005, Journal of Travel Research 43 (3), pp. 247-256.

53. Toward a Social Psychologycal Theory of Tourism Morivation: Rejoinder. Iso-Ahola, S.E. 1982,
Annals of Tourism Research, pp. 256-62.

54. Anomie, Ego-enhancement and Tourism. Dann, G. 1977, Annals of Tourism Research 4 (4), pp.
1984-94.

55. Motivation and other consideration in tourist destination choice: A case study of Nigeria.
Awaritefe, O.D. 2004, Tourism Geographies 6(3), pp. 303-30.

56. Tourist perceptions of and motivation for visiting Algarve, Portugal. Correia, A., Crouch, G.I.
2004, Tourism Analysis 8, pp. 165-9.

57. Tourism Attraction System: Exploring Cultural Behavior. Richard, G. 2002, Annals of Tourism
Research 29 (4), pp. 1048-64.

58. Image differences between prospective, firstime, and repeat visitors to the Lower Rio Grand
valley. Fakeye, P.C., Crompton, J.L. 1991, Journal of Travel Research, 30 (2), p. 10e16.

59. Choice set propositions in destination decision's. Crompton, J.L., Ankomah, P.K. 1993, Annals of
Tourism Research 20, p. 461e476.

60. The role of awareness and familiarity with a destination the central Florida case. . Milman, A,,
Pizam, A. 1995, Journal of Travel Research, 33 (3), p. 21e27.

61. Korea's destination image formed by the 2002 world cup. Lee, C., Lee, Y., Lee, B. 2005, Annals of
Tourism Research, 32 (4), p. 839e858.

62. The meaning and measurement of destination image. Echtner, C.M., Ritchie, J. R.B. 1991, The
Journal of Tourism Studies, 2 (2), p. 2e12.

17
63. Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an off season holiday destination. Kozak, M.,
Rimmington, M. 2000, Journal of Travel Research, 38 91), p. 260e269.

64. Kotler, P., Bowen, J,, Makens. marketing for hospitality and tourism. New jersey : Prenice Hallt,
1996.

65. An Importance-Performance Analysis of Hotel Selection Factors in the Hongkong Hotel Industry: A
comparison of Business and Leisure Travelers. Chu, R.K.S., Choi, T. 2000, Tourism Management, 21
(4), pp. 363-77.

66. Tourism Destination Competitiveness: A quantitative Approach. Enright, MJ., Newton, J. 2004,
Tourism Management 25 (6), pp. 777-88.

67. Tourism, competitiveness, and social prosperity. Crouch, G.I., Ritchie, J.R.B. 1999, Journal of
Business Research 44, pp. 137-52.

68. Prideaux, B. Introducing river tourism: Physical, Ecological and human aspects. [book auth.]
Malcolm Cooper Bruce Prideaux. River Tourism. UK : CAB International, 2016, pp. 1-22.

69. Ningrum, Nur Indah Diawan. THE POTENTIALS OF GOA PINDUL AS A NATURAL ATTRACTION IN
GUNUNG KIDUL. Yogyakarta, Indonesia : Gadjah Mada University, 2014.

70. Tourjogja. Goa Pindul Cave Tubing. tourjogja. [Online] February 24, 2013.
http://www.toujogja.com.

71. Importance-Performance Analysis. Martila, J.A., James J.C. 1977, Journal of Marketing 41, pp.
77-9.

72. —. Martila, J.A., James J.C. Jornal of Marketing, 1977, Journal of Marketing 41, Vol. 41, pp. 77-9.
77-9.

73. Ireland's Image as a Tourism destination in France: Attribute importance and performance.
O'Leavy. 2005, Journal of Travel Research 43, pp. 247-56.

74. Structural equation modeling in practice: areview of recommended two-step approach.

Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W. 1988, Psychological Bulletin 103(3), pp. 411-423.

75. Haryono, S. Metode SEM untuk penelitian manajemen (Structural equation modeling for
Management research). Yogyakarta : PT. Luxima Metro Media, 2017.

76. cave, Tourism manager of Pindul. Annual report. Yogyakarta, Indonesia : Pindul Cave tourism
manager, 2017.

77. The Hongkong tourist satisfaction index. Song, H Van der Veen, R., Li, G & Chen J.L. 2012, Annals
of Tourism Research, 39 (1), pp. 459 - 479.

78. The role of mood on tourism product. Sirakaya, E., Petrick, J., & Choi, H. S. 2004, Annals of
Tourism Research, 31(3), pp. 517–539.

18
79. A cross national study of golf tourists' satisfaction. Moital, M., Dias, N.R & machado , D.F. 2013,
Journal of Destination marketing & management 2(1), pp. 39-45.

80. Tourist satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Alegre, J & Garau, J. 2010, Annals of Research, 3791), pp.
52-73.

81. Sustainability, value and satisfaction. Model testing and cross-validation in tourist destinations.
Iniesta-Bonillo, M.A.,Sanchez-Fernadez, R., & Jimenez-Castilo, D. 2016, Jornal of Business Research,
69(11), pp. 5002-5007.

82. Identification of hotel attributes for senior tourists by using Vavra's important grid. Albayrak, T.,
Caber, M., & Bideci, M. 2016, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 29, pp. 17-23.

83. Novelty seeking, image, and loyalty - The mediator role of satisfaction and moderating role of
length of stay: international tourists' perspective. Albaity, M., & Melhem, S.B. 2017, Tourism
management perspective, 23, pp. 30-37.

84. The behavioral consequences of tourist experience. Lin. C.H., % Kuo. B.Z.I. 2016, Tourism
management Perspective, 18, pp. 84-91.

85. Achieving tourist loyalty through destination personality, satisfaction, and identification.
Hultman, M., Skarmeas, D., Oghazi, P., & Bahesthi, H.M. 2015, Journal of Business Research, pp.
2227-2231.

86. The Hongkong tourist satisfaction index. Song, H., Van der Veen, R., Li, G., & Chen, J.L. 2012,
Annals of Tourism Research, 39, pp. 459-479.

87. Destination distinctiveness: Concept, measurement, and impact on tourist satisfaction. Truong,
T.L.H., Lenglet, F., & Mothe, C. 2017, Journal of Destination Marketing & Management.

88. Analyzing tourists' satisfaction. A multivariate ordered probit approach. Hasegawa, H. 2010,
Tourism Management, 31(1), pp. 86-97.

89. Authenticity, involvement, and image: Evaluating tourist experience at historic district. Lu, L.,
Chi., C., G., & Liu, Y. 2015, Tourim Management, 50, pp. 85-96.

90. Having a voice inclusive tourism research. Gillovic, B., McIntosh, A., Cockburn-Wootten, C., &
Darccy, S. 2018, Annals of Tourism Research.

91. Examining the structural relationships of destination image, perceived value, tourist satisfaction
and loyalty: case of Maritus. Ramseook-Munhurrun, P., seebaluck, V.N., & Naidoo, P. 2015,
Procedia-Social and Behavioral sciences, pp. 252-259.

92. The impact of tour quality and tourist satisfaction on tourist loyalty: The case of Chinese tourist in
Korea. Lee, S., Jeon, S., & Kim, D. 2011, Tourism Management, 32(5), pp. 1115-1124.

93. Using dummy regression to explore asymetric effects in tourist satisfaction: A cautionary note.
Milkulic, J., & Prebezac, D. 2012, Tourism Management, 33(3), pp. 713-716.

19
94. Two factor model of consumer satisfaction: International tourism research. Park, S., Hahn, S.,
Lee, T., & Jun, M. 2018, Tourism Management, 67, pp. 82-88.

20