Main trends in the tourism industry in Indonesia between 2020–2023
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indonesia’s tourism industry has emerged as a strategic sector, contributing to the country’s foreign exchange earnings. Given the prominence of this sector, there is significant potential for further development. Indeed, a mapping study to assess the dissemination of the trend and the potential for further issues to emerge would be highly beneficial. It is encouraging to note that academics have produced substantial literature on the subject, offering insights into its many facets. However, there is still a need for more in-depth analysis to understand the trends and issues currently facing the sector entirely. Consequently, this article examines the core themes in Indonesia’s tourism studies and maps the potential for future research on tourism issues and regulations. To this end, it employs a qualitative, four-year data set (2020–2023) and a SWOT analysis to identify critical aspects of Indonesian tourism issues. The data was collected in three forms: government reports, statistical data, and research articles (n = 252 samples) from the Scopus database. The results demonstrate that the predominant trend in Indonesia’s tourism industry is the widespread embrace of ecotourism at both the local and regional levels. Instead of identifying a limited number of leading destinations, the focus has shifted towards developing tourism villages and multi-stakeholder tourism. The primary concerns are the Indonesian tourism industry’s growth potential and sustainability. The development potential of Indonesian destinations based on SWOT objectives is a crucial aspect, and its score shows that Indonesia’s tourism sector is strategically positioned to take advantage of strengths and opportunities.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".