Penilaian Wisatawan terhadap Hasil Pembangunan Pariwisata di Situ Cileunca, Situ Datar, dan Wisata Fajar Alam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.Tourism development can be seen from the 3A components (attraction, amenities, accessibility) and also all residents' activities and the physical environment of the village. The results of tourism development in 3 (three) tourist objects namely Situ Cileunca, Situ Datar, and Fajar Alam Tourism have not been optimal according to the Bandung Regency RPJMD study where there are still gaps in implementation, besides that there are several problems that occur in the 3A component. The problems that arise from each of these components affect the satisfaction of the quality of the results of the tourism development carried out and also the evaluation of tourists. So here it is necessary to carry out measurements or assessments from tourists regarding the results of tourism development because it is one of the important factors in implementing strategic management. This research will examine the community's assessment of the results of tourism development. The approach method used in this study is the mixed method method. Then the data were analyzed using the Importance Performance Analysis (IPA) method. Based on the community's assessment of the results of the tourism development studied, the expectations are still lacking for the quality of the existing development results. Judging from the interview data, there are also various obstacles in the performance of tourism development. Moreover, there are also differences of opinion or point of view from the agency and the village. Judging from the planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation there are obstacles in it.
 Abstrak. Pembangunan Pariwisata dapat dilihat dari komponen 3A (attraction, amenities, accessibility) dan juga seluruh aktivitas penduduk beserta lingkungan fisik desa. Hasil pembangunan pariwisata di 3 (tiga) objek wisata yaitu Situ Cileunca, Situ Datar, dan Wisata Fajar Alam belum optimal menurut kajian RPJMD Kabupaten Bandung dimana masih ada gap dalam pelaksanaannya, selain itu terdapat beberapa permasalahan yang terjadi pada komponen 3A. Permasalahan yang timbul dari tiap komponen ini mempengaruhi kepuasan dari kualitas hasil pembangunan pariwisata yang dilaksanakan dan juga penilaian dari wisatawan. Maka disini perlu dilakukanya pengukuran atau penilaian dari wisatawan mengenai hasil pembangunan pariwisata karena merupakan salah satu faktor penting dalam pengimplementasian manajemen strategis. Penelitian ini akan dikaji mengenai penilaian masyarakat terhadap hasil pembangunan pariwisata. Metode pendekatan yang dilakukan pada penelitian ini adalah metode mix method. Kemudian data dianalisis menggunakan metode Importance Performance Analysis (IPA). Berdasarkan penilaian masyarakat terhadap hasil pembangunan pariwisata yang dikaji adalah harapanya masih kurang terhadap kualitas hasil pembangunan yang ada. Dilihat dari data hasil wawancara juga terdapat berbagai kendala dalam kinerja pembangunan pariwisata sekain itu juga terdapat perbedaan pendapat ataupun sudut pandang dari pihak dinas dengan pihak desa. Dilihat dari perencanaan, pelaksanaan, dan monitoring serta evaluasi terdapat kendala didalamnya.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".