IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

Research article
erd

Visitor Perception and Economic Value Estimation of
Mekarsari Fruit Garden as Agritourism Destination inIndonesia
RAMADHINA P. INDRASWARI
Graduate School of Agriculture, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Japan

KENJI OKUBO*
Faculty of International Agriculture and Food Studies, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Japan
Email: kuboken@nodai.ac.jp

NINA N. SHIMOGUCHI
Faculty of International Agriculture and Food Studies, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Japan
Received 25 February 2020

Accepted 24 September 2021(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract With abundant natural and cultural resources, Indonesia has great potential in the
tourism sector significantly contributing to GDP. To achieve its long-term benefits, there isa need to address tourism development, focusing mainly on how to create various types of
tourism combined with education and the environment, such as agritourism. Mekarsari Fruit
Garden (MFG) is Indonesia’s largest agritourism destination and education, research, andtraining center for horticultural plant germplasm. Although MFG experienced a 70% drastic
decrease in visitors in 2013, visitors started to increase in 2014. However, MFG has notreached the same number of visitors as its peak years. This study aimed to determine visitor
perception and agritourism economic value of MFG in Bogor Regency, West Java, towards
finding sustainable and innovative ways to increase visitors and expand the business.
Specifically, this study aimed to identify visitor characteristics and their perception of MFG
using factor analysis, determine the frequency of visits and economic value using the travel
cost method, and formulate the sustainable development plan for MFG. A questionnaire
survey of 321 visitor-respondents and key-informant interviews of MFG executives were also
conducted. Factor analysis on visitor perception identified three factors: (1) location,
facilities, and agritourism operation characteristics, (2) agritourism attractivenesscharacteristics, and (3) agritourism support characteristics. Moreover, the travel cost method
revealed that MFG had a high economic value amounting to Rp 107 billion per year. As arecommendation, MFG should continue its operations and improve its facilities and services
offered due to prevailing high economic value and the willingness of its visitors to pay more,in addition to its significant role as the preservation and education center of tropicalhorticulture in Indonesia.
Keywords agritourism, factor analysis, travel cost method

INTRODUCTION
As a tropical country with abundant natural and cultural resources, Indonesia has great potential in
the tourism sector, significantly contributing to GDP. World Travel and Tourism Council (2018)
reported that travel and tourism generated Rp 787,100 billion (5.8% of GDP) and created 12.2 million
jobs (10% of total employment) in 2017. The World Tourism Organization (WTO) refers to theeconomic importance of tourism for future growth, employment, and development (WTO, 2003).
The Indonesian tourism sector is one of the sectors with a positive revenue earning, based on thecontribution of foreign tourists and domestic tourists spending generated 58.7% of direct travel andtourism GDP in 2017 compared with 41.3% for foreign visitors (World Travel and Tourism Council,
2018).

Ⓒ ISERD

98

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

Along with the increasing public interest in tourism, the tourism sector could provide long-term
benefits if the management carried out sustainable and environmentally friendly initiatives (OECD,2020). Therefore, there is a need to address the development of the tourism sector, focusing mainly
on creating various types of tourism combined with education and the environment, such as
agritourism. There are many definitions of agritourism and many agriculture-related tourism that are
similar to agritourism. For example, agritourism is identical to "farm tourism" (Busby and Rendle,
2000; Getz and Carlsen, 2000). Agritourism and rural tourism are not the same. Agritourism may
also be seen as a segment within rural tourism (Roberts and Hall, 2001; Wilson et al., 2001). Rural
tourism, agritourism, and active tourism are directly connected to rural areas (Hegarty andPrzezborska, 2005). Agritourism refers to commercial enterprises offering festivals and educational
events related to agricultural production and processing through tourism. These enterprises attract
visitors onto a farm, ranch, or other agricultural business to entertain and educate the visitors andgenerate income for the farm, ranch, or business owner (McGehee and Kim, 2004; The National
Agricultural Law Center, 2018). Thus, opportunities for agritourism development offer the
tranquility and natural atmosphere of an agricultural area to attract many tourists. Integrating
agriculture (agri-industry) and tourism in a particular undeveloped region's economic development
planning can be considered an alternative (Satriawan, 2005).
Located in Bogor Regency, West Java Province, Mekarsari Fruit Garden (MFG) has been thevenue to cultivate, preserve and showcase Indonesian tropical horticulture since 1995. However,
MFG has experienced a drastic decrease in the number of visitors. From the peak year at 1.6 million
visitors in 2008, the number of visitors has decreased ever since. Due to the global crisis, MFG also
experienced a drastic 70% decrease in visitors in 2012 and 2013. Although the MFG manager had atarget to attract 1 million visitors in 2014, MFG has had around 200,000 visitors per year since 2016
(Mekarsari Fruit Garden, 2018), conveying that this is the most crucial issue to be addressed
immediately.
OBJECTIVESThis study aimed to identify characteristics of visitors and their perception of MFG using factor
analysis, determine the frequency of visits and economic value in MFG using the travel cost method,and formulate the sustainable development plan for MFG.
METHODOLOGYThis study utilized primary data from a questionnaire survey, key-informant interviews, and direct
observation in August 2018, with a preliminary survey in February 2018. There was a total of 321
domestic tourist respondents.
Factor Analysis
Factor Analysis (FA) was utilized to determine visitors’ perception towards MFG. The Travel Cost
Method (TCM) was used to estimate the economic value and development of MFG tourist activities.
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and FA are statistical techniques applied by researchers when
there is a need to find which variables are related to one another. Variables correlate with each otherbut are independent with other subsets, a combination of variables in the factor. Factors reflect theunderlying process that correlates with variables (Umar, 2009).
Travel Cost Method
Travel Cost Method is used for calculating the economic values of environmental goods or services.
It is mainly applied for determining the economics of recreation. It can also serve as a basis forevaluating how an increase in entrance fees will affect the number of visitors. Willingness to pay fora site visit is thus estimated based on the number of trips they make at the different travel costs. ThisⒸ ISERD

99

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

is called a revealed preference technique because it ‘reveals’the willingness to pay based on the
consumption behavior of visitors (Healy et al., 2013).
Individual TCM is the best tool to estimate the value of the recreational costs incurred by thevisitors to visit the place. Thus, an increase in travel costs is expected to decrease the number of visitsby the visitors. Researchers use this inverse relationship between travel cost and the number of visits
to map/design a travel demand function of the place of interest. Then from the demand function, theconsumer surplus is calculated, representing the recreational value of the place of interest (Alam etal., 2017).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONSFA revealed that visitors' perceptions on the facilities are essential to make MFG one of the best
examples of agritourism in Indonesia. The results of FA processing and Promax rotation are shownin Table 1.
Table 1 The result of factor analysis of visitors' perception
Access to location
Security
Tourism object management
Can eat and pick the fruit directly
Educational activities
Farm tour
Facilities and infrastructure
Support local economy
Petting zoo
Location hygiene
Trash canSpend time with family
Experience
Family atmosphereFresh fruit
Quality
Price
Support local agriculture
Convenience
Learn or be taught how fruits is produced
Natural panorama
Souvenir kiosk
ToiletRestaurant
Proportion var
Cumulative var
Sources: Field survey, 2018

Factor 1
0.892
0.859
0.775
0.696
0.670
0.562
0.542
0.533
0.530
0.521
0.463
-0.1930.132-0.136
0.383
0.270
0.304
0.367
0.404
0.458
0.205
0.030
0.404
0.147
0.244
0.244

Factor 2-0.197
0.083
0.121
0.370
0.164
0.190
0.062
0.433
0.253
0.114
0.139
1.028
0.934
0.894
0.720
0.668
0.586
0.519
0.507
0.480
0.468
0.088
-0.707
0.259
0.235
0.479

Factor 3
0.207
0.045
0.093
-0.092
0.176
0.270
0.421
0.035
0.203
0.357
0.416
0.129
-0.1170.211-0.133
0.074
0.110
0.128
0.118
0.086
0.253
0.904
0.659
0.613
0.105
0.584

Average
3.794
3.829
3.838
3.844
3.850
3.838
3.841
3.841
3.841
3.835
3.847
3.885
3.879
3.866
3.860
3.860
3.847
3.860
3.841
3.850
3.879
3.841
3.841
3.835

SD
0.501
0.466
0.480
0.468
0.477
0.473
0.477
0.477
0.477
0.469
0.466
0.496
0.482
0.498
0.450
0.457
0.452
0.464
0.464
0.450
0.507
0.503
0.503
0.488

Factor 1 comprises the visitor's perception of the "Location, Facilities and Agritourism
Operation Characteristics." Factor 1 was the main reason why visitors chose to visit MFG rather thanother tourist attractions. Specifically, "Can eat and pick the fruit directly from the tree" was the main
reason that made MFG distinct from other tourist attractions and the main attraction of MFG. Factor
2 is about "Agritourism Attractive Characteristic." Factor 2 revealed that visitors could enjoy natural
panoramas, spend time with their family and friends, and have a family atmosphere that cannot befound in other tourist attractions. Factor 3 is about "Agritourism Support Characteristics." Factor 3
can be considered the additional factor/reason for traveling to MFG, conveying the importance ofimproving its restaurants or souvenirs kiosk to attract visitors further. Improvements may include
menu development for restaurants related to increasing usage of fresh fruit ingredients, facility
renovation, the introduction of new souvenirs, and branch establishment of restaurants or souvenir
kiosks outside MFG or nearby areas. It would be more effective if these improvements wereInstagram or SNS-worthy.
Ⓒ ISERD

100

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

The recreation demand model at MFG was carried out to estimate the effect of several socioeconomic variables on the frequency of tourist visits using a zero-truncated Poisson regression model.
Table 2 shows the results of Poisson regression analysis with a p-value of less than 0.05, conveyingthat the opportunity to reject the equation model was minimal and the occurrence of errors was veryminimal. The regression coefficients that influence the frequency of visits (Y) were travel cost (X1),
transportation by bus (D3), and accompany with friends (D4) at 1% level of significance, while
public transportation (D1), accompany by family (D4), and no accompany (D6) at 0.1% level ofsignificance. The zero-truncated Poisson regression analysis results indicated that five variables
influence the chances of the average number of MFG visits.
Table 2 Result of Poisson regression analysis
Coefficients
Constant-0.166
Travel cost
-1.909 x 10-6
Income/month (IDR)-1.193 x 10-8
Transport by public (Yes:1, No:0)
0.840
Transport by car (Yes:1, No:0)-0.167
Transport by bus (Yes:1, No:0)
1.039
With family (Yes:1, No:0)
1.325
With friends (Yes:1, No:0)
1.163
No accompany (Yes:1, No:0)
1.345
Marital status_NM (Yes:1, No:0)-0.139
Smpl
311
Log L
-404.577
Source: Field survey, 2018. Note. Signif codes: 0.001 (**), 0.01 (*)

Z value-0.346-2.456-0.5203.227-1.159
2.143
3.011
2.562
2.832
-1.095

P value
0.729
0.014
0.603
0.001
0.246
0.032
0.003
0.010
0.005
0.273

*
**
*
**
*
**

a. Travel Cost
Based on the results of analysis using Poisson regression, it is known that the probability value of
actual travel costs at the 1% level conveys that the travel costs significantly affect the number ofvisitors. The coefficient value, which has a negative sign (-1.909b×10-6), indicates that the higher
the value of travel costs will further reduce the number of goods consumed. This negative sign result
had similarities with Khoshakhlagh et al. (2013). Therefore, travel cost seemed to be a significant
factor in the decision to carry out recreational activities.
b. Public Transportation
The variable public transportation explains how much the availability of public transportation affects
the frequency of visitor visits. Results showed that the variable had a positive coefficient with 0.1%
level of significance, conveying that the more a person visits MFG by public transportation, thehigher the chances of visiting again in the future.
c. Transportation by Bus
Most visitors (group of friends or family members of more than ten people) come to MFG by bus(public transportation). Bus transportation is considered more effective to bring many visitors orbring visitors who come in a group. Results showed that the variable had a positive coefficient witha 1% level of significance, conveying that the more a person visits MFG in a group using bus
transportation, the higher the chances of visiting again in the future.
d. Accompany with Family
Accompany with family had a positive coefficient with a 0.1% level of significance, conveying thatthe more a person visits MFG with their family, the higher the chances of visiting again in the future.
Results showed that 54% of visitors visited MFG together with their families.
Ⓒ ISERD

101

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

e. Accompany with Friends
Visiting with friends had a positive coefficient with 1% level of significance, conveying that themore a person visits MFG together with their friends, the higher the chances of visiting again in the
future.
f. No Accompany/Alone
Variables of visiting to MFG alone had a positive coefficient with 0.1% level of significance,
conveying that the more a person visit MFG alone, the higher the chances of visiting again in the
future.
Determination of the total economic value of MFG is based on the surplus consumer value
estimated from the previously formed recreational demand function. Consumer surplus on total visits
per individual can be measured through the formula:𝑁2

𝐶𝑆 = − 2𝑏1(1)

whereas, CS = Consumer Surplus (Rp/person), N = Frequency visits per person, b1 = Coefficientfrom variable travel cost from Table 2.
𝐶𝑆 = −

1−1.909 𝑥 10−6

= 𝑅𝑝 523,834 = $36.421 𝑈𝑆 𝑑𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑠(2)

The consumer surplus concept is an indicator of visitors' ability to want to pay more than thecurrent one. Based on the calculation above, the surplus consumer value per individual per year was
Rp 523,834 (USD 36.42, exchange rate on January 2019: 1 USD = 14,382.51 rupiah). Therefore,
consumer surplus in a year (calculated based on 205,108 people in 2017) was Rp 107,442,640,126(USD 7,470,368). This economic value of MFG conveys its high economic value. Therefore, theMFG should continuously carry out the management and operations of its facilities andinfrastructure.
CONCLUSION
This study aimed to determine visitor perception and agritourism economic value of MFG in Bogor
Regency, West Java, towards finding sustainable and innovative ways to increase visitors and expand
the business. Visitor’s perception can be divided into three factors: factor 1 as “Location, Facilities,
and Agritourism Operation Characteristics” was the main reason why visitors choose to visit MFG
rather than other tourist attractions, for example, can eat and pick up the fruit directly from the tree;
factor 2 as “Agritourism Attractive Characteristics,” which attracts visitors to visit MFG (e.g., canenjoy natural panoramas, spend time with their family and friends, and have a family atmospherethat cannot be found in other tourist attractions); and factor 3 as “Agritourism Support Characteristic”
that can be considered as an additional reason for MFG visit, conveying that the improvement ofservices and facilities in the restaurant and souvenir kiosks should be prioritized to attract visitors
further or encourage an increase in frequency visit. Improvements may include menu development
for restaurants related to increasing usage of fresh fruit ingredients, facility renovation, theintroduction of new souvenirs, and branch establishment of restaurants or souvenir kiosks outside
MFG or nearby areas.
Travel costs, public transportation, transportation with bus, accompany with family, accompany
with a friend, and accompany alone significantly influenced the frequency of visits to MFG. Travel
cost method revealed that MFG had a high economic value amounting to Rp 107,442,640,126 (USD
7,470,368, exchange rate on January 2019: 1 USD = 14,382.51 rupiah) per year. Annual consumer
surplus value per individual was estimated at Rp 523,834 (USD 36.421). Therefore, the MFG should
continue its operations and improve on its facilities and services offered due to its high economic
value and the willingness of its visitors to pay more for its facilities services, in addition to its
significant role as the preservation and education center of tropical horticulture (fruits) in Indonesia.
Ⓒ ISERD

102

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

We acknowledge that our study has a number of limitations because all respondents in our
research are domestic tourists. For future research, it would be better if we could combine opinions
about MFG from foreign tourists with domestic tourists so that MFG can develop better and also be
widely known by all foreign tourists. With the global recognition of MFG, Indonesia's tropical fruits
will be sustainable.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors extend sincere appreciation to the Management of Mekarsari Fruit Garden, its visitors,
and other individuals involved for their valuable understanding and cooperation in this research.
Moreover, we also wish to acknowledge the support and fellowship from the Tokyo University ofAgriculture.
REFERENCES
Alam, Md. T., Chowdury, A.U.E. and Hossian, Md. S. 2017. Estimating recreational value of Foy’s Lake: An
application of travel cost count data model for Truncated Zeros. Journal of Economics, 4 (1), 70-76.
Busby, G. and Rendle, S. 2000. The transition from tourism of farms to farm tourism. Tourism Management,
21, 635-642.
Getz, D., and Calsen, J. 2000. Characteristics and goals of family and owner-operated business in the rural
tourism industry and hospitality sectors. Tourism Management, 21 (6), 547-560.
Healy, H., Lorek, S. and Rodríguez-Labajos, B. 2013. Economic valuation. Retrieved from http://www.ejolt.
org/2013/05/economic-valuation/
Hegarty, C. and Przezborska, L. 2005. Rural and agri-tourism as a tool for reorganising rural areas in old andnew member states- a comparison study of Ireland and Poland. International Journal of Tourism Research,
7, 63-77.
Khoshakhlagh, R., Safaeifard, S.V. and Sharifi, S.N.M. 2013. Estimating recreation demand function by using
zero truncated poisson distribution: A case study of Tehran Darband site (Iran). Journal of Empirical
Economics, 1 (1), 11-20.
McGehee, N.G. and Kim, K. 2004. Motivation for agri-tourism entrepreneurship. Journal of Travel Research,
43, 161-170.
Mekarsari Fruit Garden. 2018. Mekarsari fruit garden pamphlet.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2020. Tourism 2020: Policies to promotecompetitive and sustainable tourism. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/
Roberts, L. and Hall, D. 2001. Rural tourism and recreation: Principles to practice, CABI Publishing:
Wallingford.
Satriawan, IK., 2005. A design of decision support system for the integration model of tourism and agroindustry in the economic development planning of Jembrana Regency. Ph.D. Dissertation, Graduate
School of Bogor Agricultural University, Bogor.
The National Agricultural Law Center. 2018. Agritourism - An overview, Retrieved from http://national
aglawcenter.org/overview/agritourism/
Umar, H.B. 2009. Principal component analysis (PCA) dan aplikasinya dengan spss. Jurnal Kesehatan
Masyarakat Andalas, 3 (2), 97-101. Retrieved from http://jurnal.fkm.unand.ac.id/index.php/jkma/article/view/68
Wilson, S., Fesenmaier, D.R., Fesenmaier, J. and Van Es, J.C. 2001. Factors for success in rural tourism
development. Journal of Travel Research, 40 (2), 132-138.
World Travel and Tourism Council. 2018. Travel and tourism economic impact 2018 Indonesia. Retrieved
from http://www.wttc.org/
World Travel Organization. 2003. World tourism in 2002: Better than expected. Retrieved from http://
www.world-tourism.org/Ⓒ ISERD

103