FACTOR OF LOCAL ACCEPTANCE (LA) TO DRIVING TOURIST
6.5 Effect of ADB to Basic Model of Local Acceptance (LA)
89
Table 6-5. Factor effect to acceptance in Basic Model
No Factor Direct Indirect Total
1 Benefit 0 0.042 0.042
2 Involvement 0.192 0.000 0.192
3 Perceive Risk -0.215 0.030 -0.185
4 Competition 0 0.061 0.061
5 Social cost 0 -0.120 -0.120
6 Trust to Government 0 0.065 0.065
7 Fairness 0 0.033 0.033
90
Table 6-6. Result of Hypotheses Test
No H Hypotheses
Basic Model Affected by ADB
Path
coefficients CR Result Path
coefficients CR Result Acceptance Factor (FA)
1 H1a Perceive benefit → Acceptance (deleted in basic model)
0.110 1.600 No - - -
2 H1b Perceive benefit → Involvement/participation
0.219*** 3.313 Yes 0.236*** 3.512 Yes
3 H2 Involvement/participation
→ Acceptance
0.192*** 3.687 Yes 0.214*** 4.034 Yes
4 H3a Perceive risk
→Acceptance
-0.215*** -4.109 Yes -0.226*** -4.242 Yes
5 H3b Perceive risk → Involvement/participation
0.158** 2.996 No 0.170** 3.107 No
6 H3c Social cost → Risk 0.652*** 11.434 Yes 0.599*** 10.315 Yes 7 H4a Competition → Perceive
benefit
0.369*** 5.311 Yes 0.368*** 5.198 Yes
8 H4b Competition →
Involvement /participation
0.239*** 3.603 Yes 0.242*** 3.599 Yes
9 H4c Competition → Social cost
0.199** 3.264 Yes 0.190** 3.099 Yes
10 H5a Trust to Government → Perceive benefit
0.159** 2.699 Yes 0.160** 2.685 Yes
11 H5b Trust to Government → Involvement
/participation
0.302*** 5.173 Yes 0.270*** 4.655 Yes
12 H5c Trust to Government → Perceive risk (deleted in basic model)
0.011 0.231 No - - -
13 H6 Fairness → Trust to Government
0.526*** 8.096 Yes 0.522*** 6.923
91
No H Hypotheses
Basic Model Affected by ADB
Path
coefficients CR Result Path
coefficients CR Result Aggressive Driving Behaviour Factor (ADB)
14 H7 Threat → Negative Intention
- - - 0.761*** 14.842 Yes
15 H8 Negative intention → Risky behaviour
- - - 0.679*** 13.346 Yes
16 H9 Negative intention → Improper
- - - 0.483*** 10.179 Yes
17 H10 Risky behaviour → Social cost
- - - 0.272*** 4.941 Yes
18 H11 Improper → Involvement - - - -0.130** -2.756 Yes
19 H12 Threat → Acceptance - - - -0.013 -0.151 No
20 H13 Negative intention → Acceptance
- - - 0.006 0.054 No
21 H14 Risky behaviour → Acceptance
- - - 0.095 1.303 No
22 H15 Improper → Acceptance - - - -0.075 -1.411 No
Construct in aggressive driving behaviour (ADB) consist of threat, negative intention and emotion, risky driving behaviour, and improper driving. Based result of model, there is no direct connection between every ADB construct to local acceptance (LA). all of these constructs have a negative effect as indirectly to local acceptance
92
Figure 6-13. Model of Local Acceptance toward driving tourist
* Significant at P < 0.05
**Significant at p < 0.01
*** Significant at p < 0.001
Based on final model of local resident acceptance, factor related to acceptance factor and aggressive driving behaviour as show in table 6-7.
0.170**
Competiti on
Benefit Trust to
Government
0.368***
0.242***
0.160**
0.236***
Involvem
ent Acceptance
0.522***
Fairness
Social Cost
0.190**
0.599***
-0.226***
0.302*** 0.214***
Risk
Risky Behaviour
Negative Intention
Threat Improper
0.272***
0.679***
0.761***
0.483***
-0.130**
93
Table 6-7. Factor affected acceptance
No Item / Description
A. Acceptance factor (AF) Perceive risk
1 Driving tourist can caused me an accident
2 Driving tourist can cause me losing property (vehicle etc) Social cost
3 Driving tourist caused losing work-field for local resident 4 Driving tourist caused conflict between with local resident Perceive benefit
5 Driving tourist can increasing government income 6 Driving tourist can add value of tourism in Bali Perceived fairness
7 I will have same protection with driving tourist 8 I can use same vehicle used by driving tourist Trust government
9 I believe government will implement regulation of driving tourist 10 I believe government will issue regulation of driving tourist Competition
11 Driving tourist will increasing competition with community 12 Driving tourist will increasing competition with myself Involvement
13 I can involve in drive tourist program planning
14 Community can involve in drive tourist program planning 15 I can involve in drive tourist program implementation B. Aggressive Driving Behaviour factor
Threat (psychological)
1 Communication treat or insult voice 2 Gesture
3 Intentionally barking suddenly Intention
4 Taking space in parking (more 1 spaces) 5 Easy to be provoked
6 Quickly seek for vengeance Risky behaviour
94
No Item / Description
7 Annoyed in intersection
8 Running stop/ red light signals 9 Blocking intersection
10 Failing to yield right of way Improper driving
11 Improper safety equipment
based on SEM results there are 5 additional hypotheses as follows:
• Threat → Negative Intention
The higher the value of the threat, the higher the value of the negative intention.
the threat in this study is a psychological threat carried out by foreign tourists including verbal threats, body shape and shouting to local residents. based on this, local residents will draw the conclusion that foreign tourists have strong negative intentions.
• Negative intention → Risky behaviour
Negative intention will encourage foreign tourists to risk behaviour. based on the perception of local residents, tourists who drive and have negative intentions while driving will have a tendency to violate traffic and provide interference or create inconvenience to other road users.
• Negative intention → Improper
Based on the perception of local residents, foreign tourists who drive with negative intention will not care about the rules or norms that exist in tourist attractions. they will tend to apply based on their own wishes, for example by not using safety equipment in driving.
• Risky behaviour → Social cost
Based on local perceptions, driving behaviour that is at risk will increase the social cost that must be accepted. This driving behaviour can cause disruption especially to people who depend their lives as perpetrators of transportation services such as taxi drivers, rental and online vehicles. This condition will create conflict between local residents and tourists.
95
• Improper → Involvement
based on the perceptions of local residents, driving without using improper equipment will reduce their desire to engage in driving tourist activities. local residents hope for every tourist to drive using appropriate safety equipment.
Result of final model, similar with basic model and some additional hypotheses and effect to acceptance as show in Table 6-8, the result as follow:
• Threat, directly, positively and significantly affected negative intention
• Negative intention, directly, positively and significantly affected risky behaviour
• Negative intention, directly, positively and significantly affected risky behaviour
• Risky behaviour, directly, positively and significantly affected social cost
• Improper, directly, negatively and significantly affected involvement
Table 6-8. Factor effect to acceptance in Final Model
No Factor Direct Indirect Total
Acceptance Factor
1 Benefit 0 0.051 0.051
2 Involvement 0.214 0.000 0.214
3 Perceive Risk -0.226 0.036 -0.190
4 Competition 0 0.049 0.049
5 Social cost 0 -0.114 -0.114
6 Trust to Government 0 0.073 0.073
7 Fairness 0 0.038 0.038
Aggressive Driving Factor
1 Threat 0 -0.026 -0.026
2 Intention 0 -0.034 -0.034
3 Risky behaviour 0 -0.031 -0.031
4 Improper driving 0 -0.028 -0.028
96 6.6 Chapter Summary
Result of this chapter describe how the relation between FA and ADB factors form in final acceptance model and divided to two parts, first part is about acceptance factor describe as follow:
• Social Cost; consist of driving tourist caused losing work-field for local resident, and driving tourist caused conflict between with local resident
• Risk, consist of driving tourist can caused me an accident, and driving tourist can cause me losing property (vehicle etc)
• Benefit, consist of driving tourist can increasing government income, driving tourist can add value of tourism in Bali
• Fairness, consist of have same protection with driving tourist, and can use same vehicle used by driving tourist
• Trust to Government, consist of government will implement regulation of driving tourist, and government will issue regulation of driving tourist
• Competition, consist of driving tourist will increasing competition with community, and driving tourist will increasing competition with myself
• Involvement, consist of involve in drive tourist program planning as individually, involve in drive tourist program planning as community, and involve in drive tourist program implementation individually.
Second part, related to final model of local acceptance toward driving tourist as show on figure 7-4, and item or description that can be handled to increasing value of acceptance to driving tourist as shown in table 7-5 and relation every construct (FA and ADB) as follow:
• Perceive benefit, indirectly, positively and significantly affected local acceptance
• Perceive benefit, directly, positively and significantly affected involvement
• Involvement, directly, positively and significantly affected acceptance
• Perceive risk, directly, negatively and significantly affected local acceptance
• Perceive risk, directly, positively and significantly affected involvement
• Social cost, directly, positively and significantly affected perceive risk
• Competition, directly, positively and significantly affected Perceive benefit
• Competition, directly, positively and significantly affected Involvement /participation
97
• Competition, directly, positively and significantly affected Social cost
• Trust to Government, directly, positively and significantly affected Perceive benefit
• Trust to Government, directly, positively and significantly affected Involvement /participation
• Trust to Government not affected Perceive risk
• Fairness directly, positively and significantly affected Trust to Government
• Threat, directly, positively and significantly affected negative intention
• Negative intention, directly, positively and significantly affected risky behaviour
• Negative intention, directly, positively and significantly affected risky behaviour
• Risky behaviour, directly, positively and significantly affected social cost
• Improper, directly, negatively and significantly affected involvement
98