KnE Social Sciences

Published date: Dec 03 2025

Journal Title: KnE Social Sciences

Issue title: The 5th International Conference on Tourism, Gastronomy, and Tourist Destination (TGDIC 2025)

Pages: 103 - 114

DOI: 10.18502/kss.v10i29.20255

Nexen Alexandre Pinontoannexenalexandre.pinontoan@budiluhur.ac.idUniversitas Budi Luhur, Jakarta

Rahmat IngkadijayaTrisakti Institute of Tourism, Jakarta

‎ NurbaetiTrisakti Institute of Tourism, Jakarta

Arief Faizal RachmanTrisakti Institute of Tourism, Jakarta

This study aims to critically explore and classify the typologies of tourists visiting Pentingsari Tourism Village, Yogyakarta, through the lens of their lived experiences within a community-based tourism (CBT) setting. Employing a descriptive qualitative methodology with a case study design, the research involved 21 purposively selected participants whose experiences were examined through in-depth interviews, participatory observation, and document analysis. Thematic analysis was used to inductively identify patterns of motivations, behaviors, and experiential meanings across cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions. Findings reveal four distinct typologies: drifters, explorers, individual mass tourists, and organized mass tourists each characterized by different levels of autonomy, depth of engagement, and expectations regarding authenticity and comfort. The study interprets these typologies as reflective of broader shifts in contemporary tourism behavior, particularly the growing demand for immersive, participatory experiences in rural destinations. The conclusion emphasizes that understanding tourist typologies is essential for tailoring tourism programs and marketing strategies that align with segment-specific expectations. Concrete recommendations include the development of live-in cultural immersion packages for independent travelers and the improvement of standardized service infrastructure for mass tourists. These findings provide practical guidance for tourism village managers to design inclusive, experience-based, and sustainability-oriented destination strategies, while contributing theoretically to the discourse on experiential tourism and typological differentiation within CBT contexts.

Keywords: tourist typology, tourism village, travel experience, case study, community-based tourism

[1] Arintoko A, Ahmad AA, Gunawan DS, Supadi S. Community-based tourism village development strategies: A case of Borobudur tourism village area, Indonesia. Geoj. Tour. Geosites [Internet]. 2020;29(2):398–413. Available from: doi: 10.30892/gtg.29202-477.

[2] Zielinski S, Jeong Y, Milanés CB. Factors that influence community-based tourism (CBT) in developing and developed countries. Tour. Geogr [Internet]. 2021;23(5– 6):1040–1072. Available from: doi: 10.1080/14616688.2020.1786156.

[3] Amin G, Rahmiati F. How community-based influence self esteem in rural tourism development. ICCD [Internet]. 2021;3(1):40–43. Available from: doi: 10.33068/iccd.vol3.iss1.345.

[4] Chen J, Huang Y, Wu EQ, Ip R, Wang K. How does rural tourism experience affect green consumption in terms of memorable rural-based tourism experiences, connectedness to nature and environmental awareness?. J. Hosp. Tour [Internet]. Manag. 2023;54:166–177. Available from: doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2022.12.006.

[5] Ćurčić N, Svitlica AM, Brankov J, Bjeljac Ž, Pavlović S, Jandžiković B. The role of rural tourism in strengthening the sustainability of rural areas: The case of Zlakusa village. Sustain [Internet]. 2021;13(12). Available from: doi: 10.3390/su13126747.

[6] Poursaeed M. Phenomenology of lived experience of creative tourists (Case study of creative tourism with a focus on nomads in Kerman province). J. Tour. Plan [Internet]. Dev. 2021;10(37):123–151.

[7] Zahavi D. Husserl’s. Legacy: Phenomenology, metaphysics, and transcendental philosophy. Oxford Univ. Press; 2017.

[8] Cohen E, Cohen E. The philosophical, ethical and theological groundings of tourism – An exploratory inquiry. J. Ecotourism [Internet]. 2018;0(0):1–24. Available from: doi: 10.1080/14724049.2018.1522477.

[9] Creswell JW, Cresswell JD. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 2023.

[10] Braun V, Clarke V. Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and becoming a knowing researcher. Int. J. Transgender Heal [Internet]. 2023;24(1):1–6. Available from: doi: 10.1080/26895269.2022.2129597.

[11] Mtapuri O, Camilleri MA, Dłużewska A. Advancing community-based tourism approaches for the sustainable development of destinations. Sustain [Internet]. Dev. 2022;30(3):423–432. Available from: doi: 10.1002/sd.2257.

[12] He Y, Gao X, Wu R, Wang Y, Choi BR. How does sustainable rural tourism cause rural community development?. Sustain [Internet]. 2021;13(24). doi: 10.3390/su132413516.

[13] Pine BJ, Gilmore JH. Distinctive Experiences. J. Shopp. Res [Internet]. 2017;6(2):60– 65. Available from: www.journalofshopperresearch.com

[14] Suansri P. Community based tourism handbook. 2003.

[15] Bayarsaikhan T, Kim ST, Gim THT. International tourists’ destination choice differences according to Plog’s personality types: Analyzing the case of Mongolia based on the recreation opportunity spectrum. Int. J. Urban Sci [Internet]. 2020;24(4):485–515. Available from: doi: 10.1080/12265934.2020.1771195.

[16] Kumar P. Achieving Sustainable Transformation in Tourism and Hospitality Sectors. Vol. i. 2024.

[17] Yuan H. Research of the Influence of Tourists’ Experience on Tourist’ Revisit Intention. J. Mod. Learn. Dev. 2024.

[18] Leković K, Tomić S, Marić D, Ćurčić NV. Cognitive component of the image of a rural tourism destination as a sustainable development potential. Sustain [Internet]. 2020;12(22):1–12. Available from: doi: 10.3390/su12229413.