Determinant on the Development of Agroecotourism

This research is about the direct and indirect effect of the government willings, community based tourism and the development of agroecotourism to people walfare through mediation variabel community based tourism and infrastructure. The methodology of the reserch is a quantity reserch. The population of the reserch is the people of Serang Village surrounding Lembah Asri. The sample is based on purposive sampling method as many as 110 people. The methodology of data analysis that has used evaluation of inner and outer model by using application of WarpPLS 6.0. The result of the determine of the hypothesis on the direct influence shows us that there is a positive and significance correlation between one variabel and the others. But on the influence of the correlation government wises and people walfare on the result of laniary outputthere is a result which has negative wave It means that the government wises should be bordered so the people creativities wil develop well so their walfare can be reached and even gotten more successfully. On the indirect influence which is mediated by community based tourism and infrastructure there is a positive, significance correlation and in the form of partial mediation with cretarian VAF between 20%-80%.


INTRODUCTION
Tourism is one of the largest industrial sectors in the world. Indonesia as an archipelago has abundant natural resources with a variety of cultures, customs, and religions, including Central Java. Development of tourism in various regions as well as placing it as an alternative development approach (alternative development) that aims to increase economic growth, improve people's welfare. Purbalingga is one of the regencies in Central Java which is blessed with natural potential such as waterfalls, upstream rivers, cliffs and hills, whose potential has now begun to be developed to attract local and foreign tourists. Tourism development in Purbalingga Regency refers to the Purbalingga Regency RPJMD for 2016-2021 relating to tourism development as follows : Purbalingga Regency Regional Regulation Number 5 Year 2011 concerning the Regional Spatial Planning (RTRW) of Purbalingga Regency, Purbalingga Regency Regional Regulation No. 1 of 2009 concerning the Purbalingga Regency Long-Term Development Plan for  In the RPJMD, Purbalingga explained the spatial plan for the area where Purbalingga Regency has the potential that can be used for tourist attractions, namely developing villages that have natural potential, arts and man-made tourism to become tourism villages. Here are tourist villages in Purbalingga Regency. Table I.1 shows some of the Tourism Villages of 6 Tourism Villages in Purbalingga that have unique and distinctive tourist attractions. Serang tourism village has its own uniqueness by being set to be a strawberry tourism agro-tourism place that is different from other tourist villages which have an average natural waterfall tourism, art and man-made tourism such as Owabong, rivel world, taman reptile and others.

No
Name of Tourism Village This study establishes the object of research is Serang Tourism Village which is in the Purbalingga Regency area. This refers to a number of reasons, including: (1) Purbalingga as one of the districts in Central Java that has a quite diverse ODTW and is one of the mainstays of Central Java tourism (2) is a village located in one of the prominent natural tourism areas in Karangreja sub-district with strawberry agrotourism attractions (3) is an open tourism resort where integrated tourism facilities with community designation (4) have been designated as tourist villages (5) including one of the tourist villages that receive Co-Administration Funds (TP ) APBN in tourism development.
On February 12, 2010 the Purbalingga Regency Government through the deputy regent held a socialization about the diversion of the function of Serang Village into "Agro Tourism Village" (Susanto, 2012). This policy is expected to increase people's income by developing community agricultural products. The village of agrotourism referred to by the government of Purbalingga is the agro tourism of the beautiful valley. This place has the potential of good quality strawberries where the appearance of strawberries is still green but the taste is sweet, with three types of strawberries that are seeded. The agrotourism visitors in the visitor's chart are as follows: Seen from the picture 1.1, visitors to the beauty of the beautiful valley have experienced an increase but not too much. This has resulted in villagers who tend to be lazy because they get little profit. People who totally manage this potential feel they cannot stand their income so far. The community wants to work so directly to get results to support the family's living expenses. This can be proven that from some managers there are 76% who resign to work in other sectors. An important factor in the development and management of tourism is by including the community, because the community has understood and controlled the area. According to (Astuti, 2010) Development of local communities (community based tourism) or CBT, including giving great value to society, as well as long-term benefits / orientation (Arida, 2009: 2). This is what makes the motivation for community-based tourism development quite potential.
In fact, tourism management is managed by the community without developing community-owned agricultural products. Even though agricultural produce can be sold as fresh fruit, it can actually be processed into a good, nutritious and high-quality food because of the vitamins from the fruit itself. This situation is very detrimental to the people who cannot develop it. The government should be able to help the community to be able to enjoy the great benefits of agricultural products and the agricultural business of the community can support the development of agrotourism, and later there will be strong partnership cooperation, with agreements that can provide mutual benefits. This is due to the government's lack of commitment in implementing policies and not paying attention to the involvement of local communities, giving rise to various problems and constraints.
The results from the field indicate that there is still a lack of infrastructure to support tourism sites, access to tourist sites that are less noticed so that there is a reduced number of visitors. Followed by a lack of infrastructure facilities in tourist attractions that have not reached every place, such as lack of trash cans that are still less available, wcs that are still few are only located at the entrance and exit only, while in the picking center fruit and eating places do not exist, the parking lot is less extensive and Agrot ouris m Visito rs lack of security for the rides that endanger the safety of visitors. Government policy on infrastructure will open up new innovations for agro-tourism development because this village has a unique agricultural potential, namely strawberries. According to (Astami & Erli H, 2015) explained that infrastructure will encourage the quality of tourism because it will be a business opportunity to support tourism activities to attract the number and interest of tourist visits so that it will have an impact on increasing community income and community welfare.
The development of tourism in Purbalingga Regency is not yet optimal because there are still many problems and shortcomings which are obstacles in tourism development. Tourism in Purbalingga Regency has not been fully considered by the government, the public and the private sector. According to (Elfianita, 2016) Community based tourism is used as one form of a new paradigm of tourism development that carries the principles of sustainable development for the sake of achieving a prosperous society (Nasikun, 2001: 56). Community participation in the development of tourism can increase the income of the community, where later the community will develop their creative power by utilizing tourism products that are made into handicrafts that can be bought to visitors.
Seeing the importance of the role of tourism in community development. Tourism is considered as a strategy that can be used for community empowerment through providing opportunities to local communities to develop and manage regional tourism with a communitybased tourism approach. Supported by the importance of infrastructure as a support for the successful development of tourism places and with government policies that provide community opportunities in the development of tourist attractions.

RESEARCH METHODS
This research is causally associative, that is research that has a causal relationship between two or more variables, namely exogenous and endogenous variables (Sugiyono, Metode Penelitian Pendidikan (Pendekatan Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&G), 2016), 2016). The population in this study is the community around Agro tourism in the village of Serang, namely the community of RT 02 RW 04 which consists of 150 households.
The data that I use as primary data is observation / survey, questionnaire as a research instrument. The questionnaire instrument was developed using a Likert Scale with five scales namely "strongly disagree", "disagree", "neutral", "agree", and "strongly agree" where the lowest score is given the number 1 for the "strongly disagree" attitude scale and score the highest is number 5 for the "strongly agree" attitude scale.
The data analysis technique used in this study is descriptive analysis is a statistic used to analyze data by describing or describing data that has been collected as it is without intending to make conclusions that apply to the general or generalization (Sugiyono, Metode Penelitian Pendidikan (Pendekatan Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&G), 2016). Data analysis method is Partial Least Square using a reflective measurement model and processed using WarpPLS 6 software.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The number of respondents is 100 male and 10 female. The majority of the community has a job as a farmer and has a monthly income of Rp. 500,000-1,000.00. The majority of respondents have ages between 36 years and 45 years. After statistical testing, further discussion and analysis of the results of the research are as follows Direct Influence of Government Policy on Community Based Tourism, Hypothesis 1 (H1) which says that the path coefficient is the direct influence of government policy on community based tourism is 0.737 and is significant at p <0.001 and less than 0.05.
The results of the plot output test on WarpPLS 6.0 have also been seen from the picture that the relationship between government policy and community based tourism shows a positive and increasing direction. This means that the policy of the village government is able to develop community based tourism by providing knowledge or strategies in the development of tourism. The competitiveness of rural tourism is inseparable from the extent to which the government provides excellent and total services.
But if only the government policy will not succeed, the tourism village must have community involvement. A program is said to involve the community when the community has been invited to carry out a particular program. Whereas in fact that a program is said to be participatory if the community has been involved since the planning, implementation of management, evaluation and utilization of results. Often people are only involved when implementing activities and management, while at the time of planning, evaluating and utilizing the results they are never invited to discuss (Ziwista, 2016) Direct Influence of Government Policy on Infrastructure, Hypothesis II (H2) which says that the path coefficient is the direct influence of government policy on community based tourism is 0.498 and is significant at p <0.001 and less than 0.05.
The test results of plot output on WarpPLS 6.0 have also been seen from the picture that the relationship between government policy and infrastructure shows a positive and increasing direction. This means that in infrastructure development there needs to be support from the government to run it. Therefore, the government needs to facilitate the acceleration of increasing the competitiveness of ODTW in rural areas. According to (Astami & Erli H, 2015) explained that the role of infrastructure does not only affect the development of the region, but also in the field of tourism which will later encourage the quality of tourism itself.
Direct Influence of Government Policy on Agroecotourism Development, Hypothesis 3 (H3) which says that the path coefficient testing the direct influence of government policy on the development of agroecotourism is 0.593 and is significant at p <0.001 and less than 0.05. The test results of plot output on WarpPLS 6.0 have also been seen from the picture that the relationship between government policy and the development of agro-tourism shows a positive and increasing direction. This means that tourism will be increasingly developed along with the village government policy in developing it.
Purbalingga Regency, the village government, provides an opportunity for the surrounding community to participate in developing the tourism, by selling processed strawberry products, providing new creations with funny spots in tourism, and others. for the village government to carry out a policy, because every policy is made must pay attention to the condition of the community.
Direct Influence of Government Policies on Community Welfare, Hypothesis 4 (H4) which says that the path coefficient is the direct influence of government policy on public welfare is 0.538 and is significant at p <0.001 and smaller than 0.05. The plot output test results on WarpPLS 6.0 have also been seen from the picture that the relationship between government policies and public welfare shows a positive direction, but the level of community welfare is at an optimal point.This means that the village government policy in developing agro-tourism has its limits. If government interference is too large, it can result in a decrease in the level of community welfare. In Dr. I Gede Sudjana Budhiasa, SE, M.Sc stated that the CBT conceptual approach is different from government policies that traditionally provide more space for investors to develop tourist destinations, so this change in approach requires more preparation of government resources to become facilitators and understand correctly the idea of the existence of CBT as a framework for approaches to tourism development based on the welfare of local communities (Harvey, 1989).
Direct Influence of Community Based Tourism on Agroecotourism Developmen, the test results using WarpPLS 6.0 show that the path coefficient of direct influence of community based tourism on the development of agroecotourism is 0.629 and is significant at p <0.001 and less than 0.05 The test results of plot output on WarpPLS 6.0 have also been seen from the picture that the relationship between community based tourism and the development of macroeconomics shows a positive and increasing direction. This means that if the community experiences an increase (quality / quantity) then tourism development also increases. Research result in the field also increases that the increasing number of people who are members of the community, in this case the landowners for their attractions also show progress such as the expansion of the addition of tourist arena such as photo spots and so on.
Positive results are also consistent with (Nurhidayati & Fandeli, 2012) where CBT in the development of agro-ecotourism increases positive perceptions about the development of agro-tourism.
The implementation of community based tourism results in many tourism sector businesses that absorb local workers and increase community income from tourist spending.
Direct Influence of Community Based Tourism on Community Welfare, the test results using WarpPLS 6.0 showed that the path coefficient testing the direct influence of community based tourism on public welfare was 0.569 and was significant at p <0.001 and less than 0.05.
The plot output test results on WarpPLS 6.0 have also been seen from the picture that the relationship between community based tourism and community welfare shows a positive and increasing direction. This means that the more people who are members of the community, the stronger the community in the village will increase the welfare of the community. This happens because the community consists of local people.
This is in accordance with the previous research, Blackstock (2005), Koster and Rendall (2005) stated that CBT is in line with social economy where the goal to be achieved is to realize community benefits through a development oriented bottom-up process where local communities get space in management decisions, so that empowerment is needed (capacity building), the most important indicator of the progress of the tourism sector, in addition to national income through foreign exchange, also to improve the level of welfare and quality of life of people around tourist attractions.
Direct Influence of Infrastructure on Agrotourism Development, the test results using WarpPLS 6.0 infrastructure improvements will cause the development of agroecotourism also increased in this case as evidenced by the path coefficient of direct infrastructure influence on the development of agroecotourism is 0.715 and significant at p <0.001 and smaller than 0.05.
The test results of plot output on WarpPLS 6.0 have also been seen from the picture that the relationship between infrastructure and the development of agroecowis shows a positive and increasing direction. This means that infrastructure improvements will cause agrotourism development to also increase in this case infrastructure development in the form of increasing access to tourist attractions such as road improvements in transportation also requires the development of tourism to be improved again.
This supports previous research by (I Putu Danu Swastika, 2017)which explains that directly the infrastructure has a positive and significant effect on the development of agrotourism. Good infrastructure will provide comfort in traveling and become a determinant of tourist arrivals.
Findings in the field that the infrastructure in Serang Village includes roads, electricity, clean water, telecommunications, signposts, tourist information boards, tourist traffic signs are already there but not yet adequate. Road access to the Asri valley agrotourism in Serang Village is still damaged, telephone, internet is still frequently disrupted, and directions and information boards are still limited.
Direct Influence of infrastructure on Community Welfare, the test results using WarpPLS 6.0 show that the path coefficient of the direct influence of infrastructure on public welfare is 0.474 and is significant at p <0.001 and less than 0.05.
The results of the plot output test on WarpPLS 6.0 have also been seen from the picture that the relationship between infrastructure and community welfare shows a positive and increasing direction. This means that if the infrastructure progresses, the better the public welfare will increase because it allows income from the tourism sector to increase. This is also supported by the results of interviews on June 26, 2018 by Mr. Suwedi as a community and workers around tourist attractions said: "When the tourist attractions in Lembah Asri are still as they are with strawberry plants without complete infrastructure, there are only a few toilets and parking lots. But when the infrastructure has been helped to be improved by the village even though it is still not good, thank God it has increased and our income has increased along with the access to education and health we received.
In this interview, it was explained that when people's income is at Serang village is increasing with infrastructure improvements, so that people can improve access to education and health, which means that infrastructure in tourism can improve community welfare.
Direct Influence of Agroecotourism Development on Community Welfare, the test results using WarpPLS 6.0 show that the path coefficient of the direct influence of agroecotourism development on public welfare is 0.550 and is significant at p <0.001 and less than 0.05.
The plot output test results on WarpPLS 6.0 have also been seen from the picture that the relationship between agroecotourism development shows a positive and increasing direction. This means that if the development of agro-tourism continues to increase, the welfare of the community will also increase along with the increase in income from the tourism sector.
The development of agro-tourism activities directly and indirectly will increase positive perceptions and will create jobs and increase the opinions of farmers outside the quantity value of their production. In addition, the development of agro-tourism activities can conserve resources, preserve local wisdom and technology, and increase the income of farmers or communities around agrotourism (Subowo 2002) (Budiarti, Suwarto, & Muflikhati, 2013) The influence of government policies on the development of agroecotourism through community based tourism as a mediating variable, in testing hypothesis 10 (H10) which says that the path coefficient testing the indirect influence of government policy on the development of agroecotourism through mediating variables community based tourism is 0.327 and is significant at p <0.001 less <0.05.
Agricultural tourism village development has a positive impact on the agricultural sector and its people, in line with this, it is necessary to increase rural human resources so that community participation is greater in management (Maharani & Budiarti 2010;Muzha et al. 2013). Tourism village development also increases community capacity in community organizing that plays a role in agrotourism activities (Andidi 2013). (Budiarti, Suwarto, & Muflikhati, 2013) The influence of government policies on public welfare through community based tourism as a mediating variable, in testing hypothesis 11 (H11) which says that the path coefficient testing the indirect influence of government policy on public welfare through mediating variables community based tourism is 0.239 and is significant at p <0.001 less <0.05. This was also supported by the results of the interview on 24 June 2018 by Mr Sugito as the village head and the manager of the tourist sites said: "When the village government intervenes in the management of tourist attractions that were previously only managed by the community without prior planning, it has now experienced an increase in tourist visits to the beautiful valley agrotourism" In the interview explained that the management of the community here referred to was community based tourism farmers and the community joined together to build tourist attractions. But the result is no increase due to lack of planning which is not supported by knowledge about tourism. Therefore, the government helps in planning by carrying out policies to support the development of tourist attractions in order to increase community income in order to achieve community welfare.
Effect of government policies on the development of agroecotourism through infrastructure as a mediating variable, in testing hypothesis 12 (H12) which states that the path coefficient indirect effect of government policy on the development of agroecotourism through the infrastructure mediation variable is 0.319 and is significant at p <0.001 smaller <0.05 The results of testing this hypothesis are also supported by the results of previous studies by (I Putu Danu Swastika, 2017)explaining that government policies indirectly have a significant effect on the development of agrotourism through infrastructure. Government policies with the provision of infrastructure such as roads, electricity, clean water and adequate telecommunications can facilitate the economic activities of the community and attract tourists to visit tourist attractions so that indirectly affect the development of agrotourism.
The influence of government policies on public welfare through infrastructure as a mediating variable, in testing hypothesis 13 (H13) which says that the path coefficients have an indirect effect on government policy on development Agroecotourism through the infrastructure mediation variable is 0.434 and is significant at p <0.001 <0.05. This is supported by previous research by (I Putu Danu Swastika, 2017) explaining that government policies indirectly have a significant effect on the welfare of the community in Serang Village. The increasing development of agrotourism will have an indirect impact on the welfare of the community, due to being able to attract tourist arrivals and have an impact on increasing the income of people who work in agrotourism objects and also have an impact on increasing the income of the surrounding community by utilizing business opportunities arising from the presence of tourists in their area.

CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis of the research that has been done, then some conclusions are obtained as follows: (1) The test results show that there is a positive and significant direct influence between government policy on community based tourism of 0.737. This figure shows that if there is an increase in the assessment of government policies of one unit, the assessment of community based tourism will increase by 0.737.
(2) The test results show that there is a positive and significant direct influence between government policies on infrastructure at 0.498. This figure shows that if there is an increase in the assessment of government policies of one unit, then the assessment of infrastructure will increase by 0.498. (3) The test results show that there is a positive and significant direct influence between government policies on agroecotourism development of 0.593. This figure shows that if there is an increase in the assessment of government policies of one unit, then the assessment of agro-tourism development will increase by 0.593. (4) The test results show that there is a positive and significant direct influence between government policies on public welfare of 0.538. This figure shows that if there is an increase in the assessment of government policies in the amount of one unit, then the assessment of public welfare will increase by 0.538. (5) The test results show that there is a positive and significant direct influence between communitybased tourism on agro-tourism development of 0.629. This figure shows that if there is an increase in the assessment of agro-ecotourism development by one unit, then the assessment of people's welfare will increase by 0.629. (6) The test results show that there is a positive and significant direct influence between community based tourism on community welfare of 0.569. This figure shows that if there is an increase in the assessment of community based tourism by one unit, then the assessment of people's welfare will increase by 0.569. (7) The test results show that there is a positive and significant direct effect between infrastructure on agro-tourism development of 0.715. This figure shows that if there is an increase in the assessment of infrastructure by one unit, the assessment of agrotourism development will increase by 0.715. (8) The test results show that there is a positive and significant direct influence between infrastructure and community welfare of 0.474. This figure shows that if there is an increase in the assessment of government policies in the amount of one unit, then the assessment of public welfare will increase by 0.474. (9) The test results show that there is a positive and significant direct influence between the development of community welfare agro-tourism in the amount of 0.550. This figure shows that if there is an increase in the assessment of agro-ecotourism development by one unit, then the assessment of community welfare will increase by 0.550. (10) The test results show that there is a positive and significant indirect effect between government policies on agroecotourism development through community based tourism mediation variables of 0.327 with a significant level of p <0.001. This figure shows that if there is an increase in the assessment of government policies mediated by community based tourism by one unit, then the assessment of agro-tourism development will increase by 0.327. (11) The test results show that there is a positive and significant indirect effect between government policies on community welfare through community based tourism mediation variables of 0.239 with a significant level of p <0.001. This figure shows that if there is an increase in the assessment of government policies mediated by community based tourism in the amount of one unit, then the assessment of people's welfare will increase by 0.239. (12) The test results show that there is a positive and significant indirect effect between government policies on agroecotourism development through infrastructure mediation variables of 0.319 with a significant level of p <0.001. This figure shows that if there is an increase in the assessment of government policies that are mediated by an infrastructure of one unit, the assessment of agrotourism development will increase by 0.319. (13) The test results show that there is a positive and significant indirect effect between government policies on community welfare through infrastructure mediation variables of 0.434 with a significant level of p <0.001. This figure shows that if there is an increase in the assessment of government policies mediated by an infrastructure of one unit.