PRIORITAS PENGEMBANGAN OBJEK WISATA DI KOTA PADANG, PROVINSI SUMATERA BARAT

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/tataloka.20.4.%25p

Article Metrics: (Click on the Metric tab below to see the detail)

Article Info
Submitted: 20-03-2017
Published: 28-11-2018
Section: Articles
Tell your colleagues Email the author

Indonesia is one country that has the potential for development of tourist beach. The number of visits to both domestic and foreign travel has increased every year. This study aims to determine the priority of tourism development in the coastal city of Padang. Priority tourism development is determined by the suitability of land and tourism development potential index. Suitability of land for tourist beach area using eight indicators, namely: water transparency, type of beach, shore depth, substrate, current speed, live coral cover, hazards, and accessibility. Index development potential attraction beach using five criteria: community acceptance, facilities and supporting infrastructure, cultural performances, industry support, and government support. The results showed attraction Muaro peevish beach is the main priority areas of tourism development in the coastal city of Padang, while the beach a tourist attraction Muaro Anai is the lowest priority.

Keywords

development; priority; potential; land suitability; tourist attractions

  1. Iswandi Umar 
    Jurusan Geografi, Fakultas Ilmu Sosial, Universitas Negeri Padang, Indonesia
  1. Aklibasinda, M., dan Bulut, Y. 2014. Analysis of terrains suitable for tourism and recreation by using geographic information system (GIS). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 186(9): 5711-5720.
  2. Badan Pusat Statistik [BPS]. 2016. Indonesia dalam Angka. Badan Pusat Statistik. Jakarta.
  3. Baja, S., 2012. Tata Guna Lahan dalam Pengembangan Wilayah. Penerbit Andi. Yogyakarta.
  4. Endarto, D., 2008. Pengantar Geomorfologi Umum. Penerbit Lembaga Pengembangan Pendidikan (LPP) UNS dan UPT Penerbitan dan Perctakan UNS (UNS Press). Surakarta.
  5. Hawkes, S., Williams, P., & Penrose, R., 1998. Tourism industry perspectives on the cariboo-chilcotin CORE process. Environments, 25 (2): 48-51.
  6. Hardjowigeno, S., dan Widiatmaka. 2007. Evaluasi Kesesuaian Lahan dan Perencanaan Tataguna Lahan. Gadjah Mada University Press. Yogyakarta.
  7. Masron, T., Mohamed, B., dan Marzuki, A., 2015. Gis Base Tourism Decision Support System For Langkawi Island, Kedah, Malaysia. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, 10(2): 21-35.
  8. Marimin, dan Maghfiroh, N., 2010 . Aplikasi Teknik Pengambil Keputusan dan Manajemen Rantai Pasok. IPB Press. Bogor.
  9. Primadany, S. R., Mardiyono, dan Riyanto. 2014. Analisis Strategi Pengembangan Pariwisata Daerah. Jurnal Administrasi Publik (JAP), 1(4) : 135-143.
  10. Sitorus, S.R.P., 2004. Evaluasi Sumberdaya Lahan. Edisi Ketiga. Penerbit Tarsito. Bandung.
  11. Unga, K. L., Benyamin, I. M., dan Al, R. 2010. Stratege Pengembangan Kawasan Wisata Pulau Banda. Jurnal Administrasi Publik (JAL), 1 (3) : 1-10.
  12. United States Department of Agriculture [USDA], 1971.Guide for Interpreting Engineering Uses of Soils. US. Dept. of Agriculture. Washington DC.
  13. Umar , I., 2016. Mitigasi Bencana Banjir Kawasan Permukiman di Kota Padang. (Disertasi). Sekolah Pascasarjana IPB. Bogor.
  14. Umar, I., Widiatmaka, Pramudya , B., dan Barus, B., 2017. Prioritas Pengembangan Kawasan Permukiman pada Wilayah Rawan Banjir Di Kota Padang Provinsi Sumatera Barat. Majalah Ilmiah Globe , 19 (1): 1-10.
  15. Zhang, J. 2013. The issues facing the sustainable development of rural tourism and the path selection. Asian Agricultural Research , 5 (9): 5-7.