Participatory Planning: A View of Tourism in Indonesia

8/19/2019 Participatory Planning: A View of Tourism in Indonesia

1/21

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 371 Ð 391, 1999Þ 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Pergamon Printed in Great Britain0160-7383/99 $19.00+0.00

PII: S0160-7383(98)00104-2

PARTICIPATORY PLANNINGA View of Tourism in Indonesia

Dallen J. TimothyBowling Green State University, USA

Abstract: Most of the planning literature dealing with tourism focuses on what should be donein developing this industry at the expense of providing an understanding of what is actually being pursued and what can be done given a destination|s local conditions. This study presentsa normative model of participatory planning principles, which originates in the Western litera-ture. This model is used to investigate what is actually being done in tourism planning inone developing destination, and examines the local constraints upon many of the principlesrecommended by researchers. Some of the participatory principles are practiced, but others arenot. Local sociocultural and economic conditions are constraints in the principles recommendedin the model. Keywords: planning, public participation, developing countries, Yogyakarta,Indonesia.Þ 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Resume: Planification partenariale: une vue du tourisme en Indonesie. La plus grande partiede le litterature de planification traitant du tourisme se concentre sur ce qu|il faut faire pourde velopper cette industrie, sans examiner les activities en cours ou les possibilites etant donneles conditions locales d|une destination. Cette etude propose un modele normatif des principesde planification partenariale qui ont leur origine dans la litterature occidentale. On utilise cemodele pour examiner la pratique a une destination en voie de de veloppement et les contrainteslocales sur grand nombre des principes qui sont recommandes par les chercheurs. On meten pratique quelques-uns de ces principes mais pas tous. Les conditions socioculturelles eteconomiques sont les contraintes sur les principes qui sont recommandees dans cet article.Mots-cles: planification, participation publique, pays en voie de de veloppement, Yogyakarta,Indonesie.Þ 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION

Sound tourism planning is widely viewed as a way of maximizingthe benefits of tourism to an area and mitigating problems that mightoccur as a result of development. According to Getz, planning is{{a process . . . which seeks to optimize the potential contribution of tourism to human welfare and environmental quality || (1987:409).Places with carefully planned development are likely to experience

the most success in terms of high tourist satisfaction level, positiveeconomic benefits, and minimal negative impacts on the local social,economic, and physical environments.

Scholars have identified a significant evolution in tourism planningparadigms from narrow concerns with physical planning and blindpromotion to a more balanced form of planning that recognizes the

Dallen Timothy is Assistant Professor in the School of Human Movement, Sport, and LeisureStudies, Bowling Green State University (Bowling Green OH 43403, USA. Emailð[email protected]Ł). His research interests include tourism planning in developingcountries, political boundaries and tourism, personal and community heritage, and shoppingtourism.

371


2/21

372 PARTICIPATORY PLANNING

need for greater community involvement and environmental sen-sitivity (Getz 1987; Inskeep 1991; Murphy 1985). de Kadt (1979) andKrippendorf (1982) realized the need for a type of product that wouldpromise the greatest social benefits. Pearce (1989) declared thatplanning should become more concerned with integrating tourism with other forms of social and economic development. These changingemphases in planning suggest a significant dissatisfaction with tra-ditional approaches to tourism development and a perception thatimprovements can be made. Further, because it is commonly acceptedthat tourism|s impacts are most apparent at the level of the des-tination community, researchers have started to emphasize the needto decentralize planning and to integrate it into broader community-defined development objectives (Haywood 1988; Long 1993; Prentice1993; Simmons 1994; Timothy 1998). Greater levels of public par-ticipation in tourism development have been heralded by many plan-ning specialists (e.g., Gunn 1994; Inskeep 1991; Murphy 1985).

Public participation in tourism can be viewed from at least twoperspectives: in the decision-making process and in the benefits of tourism development (Figure 1) (McIntosh and Goeldner 1986; Wall1995). Participation in the former generally refers to empoweringlocal residents to determine their own goals for development, andconsulting with locals to determine their hopes and concerns fortourism. The concept also includes the involvement of other stake-holders and interest groups in decision making. Increasing incomes,employment, and education of locals are the most apparent ways of

involving community members in the benefits of tourism development(Brohman 1996; Echter 1995; Pearce, Moscardo and Ross 1996). Tol-erance to tourist activities appears to be strengthened if opportunitiesare provided for active resident participation in the ownership andoperation of tourism facilities (D| Amore 1983).

Therefore, three notions form the focus of this paper: involvement of community members in decision making, participation of locals in thebenefits of tourism, and education of locals about tourism. These prin-ciples, albeit Western perspectives, collectively comprise the concept of participation in tourism development as used in this paper.By contrast,most of the literature deals with what should be done, at the expense of building understanding of what is actually undertaken and what can beemployed given local conditions. Such a situation is especially true in

Figure 1. A Normative Model of Participatory Tourism Planning.


3/21

373DALLEN TIMOTHY

the developing world. This paper examines to what extent these prin-ciples are actually implemented in Indonesia where the political, soci-ocultural, and economic environments are very different from those inthe developed countries where these paradigms originate.

PARTICIPATORY TOURISM PLANNING

Most characteristics of community-based tourism are derived fromthe transactive and advocacy planning traditions, wherein weak inter-est groups are defended and local residents are given more controlover the social processes that govern their welfare (Hudson 1979).

This approach has recently received a great deal of attention in theliterature in response to the obvious shortcomings of the traditionaleconomic emphasis on tourism development. One of its most activeproponents, Murphy (1985), emphasizes a strategy that focuses onidentifying the host community |s goals and desires for and capacity to absorb tourism. According to Murphy, each community is supposedto identify its own goals and pursue tourism to the extent that itsatisfies local needs. This style of planning recognizes that social andenvironmental considerations need to be included in planning andthat tourism should serve both tourists and local residents. Long(1993) argues that if local people are not involved in this process,the implementation of even the most well-planned, well-meaningmitigating programs will be altered by those very people. Similarly,Gunn (1994:111) claims that {{Plans will bear little fruit unless those

most affected are involved from the start||. According to Murphy,Tourism . . . relies on the goodwill and cooperation of local people becausethey are part of its product. Where development and planning do not fit in with local aspirations and capacity, resistance and hostility can . . . destroy the industry |s potential altogether (1985:153).

Korten suggests that, for similar reasons, {{the more complex theproblem, the greater the need for localized solutions and for valueinnovations * both of which call for broadly based participation indecision processes|| (1981:613). In addition, community-based plan-ning also recognizes that various stakeholders need to be involved indecision making (Jamal and Getz 1995). The public sector, privatebusinesses and organizations, and environmental advocates are inter-dependent stakeholders in a complex tourism domain, where no singleindividual or group can resolve tourism issues by acting alone (Broh-man 1996; Gunn 1994).

Some difficulties exist in involving community members in theplanning process in developing countries. Owing to tourism|s relativenewness in such destinations, little experience in the industry andknowledge of its dynamics have been gained by officials, privategroups, or community members at large. Community involvement indecision-making processes is a new concept in most of the developing world (Mitchell 1994), and traditional practices that precludegrassroots involvement are not easy to change.

If local residents are to benefit from tourism, they must also be givenopportunities to participate in, and gain financially from, tourism.


4/21


However, in many developing countries, tourism benefits are con-centrated in the hands of a few at the expense of those with existingdisadvantages, such as small land holdings, low incomes, and poorhousing (Sproule 1995). To be equitable, tourism|s benefits and costsshould be spread to as many communities and residents as possible. As Brohman points out,

This would not only reduce the need for local residents to trade off quality of life and social costs for economic growth, but would also contribute to amore broadly based positive attitude toward tourism. A large proportion of the local population should benefit from tourism, rather than merely bear-ing the burden of its costs (1996:59).

While resident participation in decision making would promise agreater expansion of benefits throughout the community, they needalso to be prepared to host tourism.

The most widely understood types of resident education for hostingtourism include professional, vocational, and entrepreneurial training(Echtner 1995). Timothy (in press) has identified an additional aspectof resident education in destination areas, namely building generalcommunity awareness of tourism. Lynn (1992) recognizes the import-ance of assisting community members in knowing how to handlesituations that will arise with tourists and how they might supporttourism development and benefit from it economically. Some coun-tries are just now beginning to devote more attention to building suchpublic awareness (Lynn 1992), a practice which is still uncommon.

Action on the part of the local community, by participating in orbenefiting from tourism, requires some knowledge about the industry and its impacts (Din 1993). Educating residents of developing coun-tries is one way of building awareness, so that they will be betterqualified to make informed decisions in their own communities.

Study Method

Fieldwork for this study took place from June to September 1994and from April to June 1995 in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Key-informantinterviews were conducted with a mix of 20 tourism planning officials,academic and private planning consultants, interest-group rep-resentatives, and business managers. The interviews included open-ended questions which are designed to address the participatory prin-ciples discussed earlier. Twenty additional interviews were conducted with street vendors to understand the view of this ubiquitous, informaltourism-related sector on tourism and planning in Yogyakarta, and toassess their degree of involvement in the industry.

Additionally, 60 questionnaires were administered randomly inIndonesian or Javanese among managers of small tourism-relatedbusinesses, including guesthouses, restaurants, and rental/tour agenc-ies. Sosrowijayan and Prawirotaman were chosen for this randomsurvey owing to their status as key tourism zones, ease of accessibility,and availability of information on their development. A systematicsurvey was also conducted with street vendors along the main through-fare, Malioboro Street, to learn of their involvement in tourism. After


5/21

375DALLEN TIMOTHY

randomly selecting the first vendor, surveyors were instructed to inter- view every fifth vendor, and refusals were not replaced. Given thenumber of stalls (967), this meant that a potential of approximately 193 interviews could have been completed. In all, 78 surveys werecompleted for a response rate of just over 40%. The system workedsatisfactorily although some people were not interviewed because they were not at their stalls and there were also a substantial number of refusals. Some vendors were reluctant to participate for two mainreasons: they were tired of being interviewed, for other vendor studieshad recently been carried out by the municipal government and theuniversity, and they were afraid that the surveyors were employed by the taxation department to acquire additional information about theirbusiness affairs. However, there is no indication of systematic biasesin non-response.

In addition to the interviews and surveys, government planningdocuments were collected and examined to understand the issues of concern to planners in the study region. Goals, objectives, and policies,as well as the ways and extent to which the participatory planningprinciples have been, and are being, considered in the official docu-ments were examined.

Tourism in Yogyakarta

The province of Yogyakarta is located on the southern coast of Java(Figure 2). Its capital is Yogyakarta City, with a population in 1990

of 412,059. Yogyakarta is a cultural tourism destination where theroyal palace, local handicrafts, and living cultural traditions attract

Figure 2. Yogyakarta Province, Indonesia.


6/21


large numbers of tourists. The most important attractions in theregion are the Borobudur and Prambanan ancient temple complexes. Although these are located just outside Yogyakarta in Central JavaProvince, Yogyakarta is the transportation and accommodation centerfor most visitors to this part of Central Java.

Tourism in Yogyakarta has grown a great deal in recent years,although the recent political and economic crisis has slowed thisgrowth considerably since 1997. In 1980, the province received only 280,619 tourists. In 1994, however, 963,995 tourists stayed in Yogyak-arta, which makes it one of the most important destinations in thecountry. The national government has recognized the province|spotential for tourism, so many of its planning efforts have included Yogyakarta. Tourism planning in this city, as in many other developingcountries, is a top-down process, is sectoral in nature, and focuses onthe physical development of attractions and infrastructure. However,recent years have seen some efforts toward the decentralization of decision-making power from the national government to give prov-incial and local governments more power to direct development andmanage local tourism.

Development of tourism at the national level is carried out by theDepartment of Tourism, Art and Culture in Jakarta. Every five years,the Department contributes a tourism section, outlining its goals andrecommendations, to the Repelita (National Five-Year DevelopmentPlan). This section establishes the country |s regulations, policies, andprograms for its development. In addition, the Dinas Pariwisata

(Department of Tourism) of each province contributes a section tothe regional five-year plan ( Repelitada) which establishes policies, pro-grams, and regulations for tourism at the provincial level.

Tourism in Yogyakarta has grown physically around the royal palaceand along Malioboro Street, the city |s main commercial thoroughfare(Timothy and Wall 1995). This has resulted in a concentration of street vendors along Malioboro Street and the development of twolow-budget accommodation zones: one (Prawirotaman) near the busstation and royal palace, and another (Sosrowijayan) just west of Malioboro Street near the train station. During the day and into theevening, Malioboro Street, the main shopping area for both touristsand locals, is lined with nearly 1,000 vendors of various goods andservices ranging from brooms and radios to snack foods and souvenirs.For tourists, these vendors and their affinities for bargaining are amajor attraction. Most of these businesses began as informal ventures,but since the mid-80s and early 90s nearly all of them have becomefully licensed and registered with the government (Timothy and Wall1997). There has also been a shift of economic emphasis from small-scale manufacturing to tourism in the two kampungs (urban neigh-borhoods) mentioned earlier. These neighborhoods have undergoneboth a change in economic practices and in physical appearance.For example, in their studies of Sosrowijayan, Herwanto (1992) andDermawati (1994) describe how many residents had converted theiroriginal dwellings into tourism facilities, including guesthouses, rentalshops, and small cafes.

In the late 60s and early 70s, most residents of Sosrowijayan were


7/21

377DALLEN TIMOTHY

poor laborers. But as tourism began to grow, many began working onMalioboro Street as vendors of souvenirs and clothing. Since theirlocation was near the main tourism region of the city, some residentsopened their homes and began to offer beds for rent as cheap alter-natives to the new, expensive hotels in town. Most of Sosrowijayan |smoderate hotels and all of the guesthouses began in this manner.During the early 80s, several people began to extend their homes andbusinesses to include motorbike, bicycle, and car rental offices, touragencies, and art galleries. During the 70s and 80s, many were trans-formed into restaurants. In contrast, Prawirotaman was a center forcottage industries, especially batik cloth painting, until the 70s.However, its residents were not as poor as those in Sosrowijayan, formost of them were affiliated with the palace nobility in businessterms and many were distantly related. Around the same time as inSosrowijayan, residents of Prawirotaman began to modify their homes,redirecting their activities to tourism services. Data collected fromthe vendors on Malioboro Street and business managers in Pra- wirotaman and Sosrowijayan will be used in part to examine par-ticipatory tourism planning.

Participatory Tourism Development

According to the participatory principles discussed earlier, tourismplanning should involve host residents in a consultative role to identify

locally-defined goals. This planning process should also seek inputfrom various other stakeholders, involve locals in the benefits of tour-ism development, and educate community residents.

Public Consultation and Locally-Defined Goals. Despite recentnational recognition of the need to decentralize tourism planning,none of the plans evaluated in this research mentioned the need orintention to include residents in decision making. The role of com-munity members was outlined in the provincial master plan thatmerely refers to their responsibility to improve local hospitality forthe benefit of tourists. However, one provincial government officialagreed that local people should be more involved in tourism planning,although he admitted that this is rarely done, at least in a consultativesense. The tendency is for decisions to be made by bureaucrats andthen the people are informed as to what will occur. The interviewsrevealed that a common perception among government planners in Yogyakarta is that residents are uneducated and thus unable to par-ticipate in the planning process. Government officials attribute muchof their reluctance to involve community members in planning to thislack of education.

Table 1 shows the responses of the 78 vendors along MalioboroStreet and the 60 small business managers in Sosrowijayan and Pra- wirotaman to questions pertaining to their involvement in tourismplanning. When asked if they had ever been counseled with by thegovernment, 23% of the street vendors answered that they had beensince they started their vending business. However, further inquiry


8/21


Table 1. Private Sector and Resident Involvement in Tourism Planning

Vendors Guest- Restaurants/ houses Rental Agencies

n = 78 n = 45 n = 15 Yes No Yes No Yes No

Questions (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Have you ever been consulted by the 23 77 4.5 95.5 0 100government for tourism planning?

Do you feel that local people should 9 91 23 77 60 40be consulted for tourismplanning?

Would you like to be involved more * * 78 22 67 33in tourism planning?

revealed that their involvement simply reflected urgings by localgovernment officials in recent years to keep the sidewalks clean anduncrowded, not to be too aggressive to tourists, and to maintain asafe environment around their stalls. This so-called involvement, asperceived by nearly one quarter of the vendors, indicates a differentunderstanding on the part of these residents about the consultativerole of locals in the planning process.

None of the 78 vendors responded to a question pertaining to whatthey felt were the most significant planning needs in Yogyakarta. According to some informants, this was apparently a result of the vendors| lack of understanding about the nature of tourism. Oneplanning consultant suggested that this reflects the paucity of localeducation, again supporting the position of many government plan-ners. Only 9% of the vendors felt that local residents should be con-sulted for their opinions in planning and developing tourism. The restbelieved that planning is the sole responsibility of the government which should inform the people of its decisions once they have beenmade.

Among the owners of guesthouses and non-star hotels in Sos-rowijayan and Prawirotaman, 95.5% replied that they had never beeninvolved by the government in tourism planning, although 23% saidthat they are regularly contacted by the Department of Tourism forstatistical information. One informant who claimed to have beencontacted by the government had been asked his opinion of howtourism was being developed in Yogyakarta. Another had been asked what he felt could be done about public safety, noise, and pollution.It is not known why a few managers were asked for their opinions,but apparently it was through casual conversation with governmentemployees who came around to collect taxes and statistics. None of the tour, rental agency and restaurant managers could rememberever having been involved in tourism planning.

More that three quarters of the guesthouse managers answeredthat they felt local residents and small business owners should not be


9/21

379DALLEN TIMOTHY

consulted in tourism planning. Surprisingly, however, 78% of themanagers expressed interest in being consulted. This inconsistency likely reflects the tradition of competitiveness between guesthousesin the two neighborhoods. Many managers would probably prefer tobe the only one taking part in planning. Most (60%) tour/rental agency and restaurant managers felt that local residents and business ownersshould be involved in tourism planning and the same number expre-ssed interest themselves in becoming more involved. However, 67%of restaurant owners and agency managers expressed interest in beingincluded by the Department of Tourism in the planning of tourism. Again, for those who believe that locals should not be involved, plan-ning was felt to be the sole responsibility of the government.

These findings are interesting and important since 40% of all thebusiness people surveyed in Prawirotaman and Sosrowijayan indicatedthat they had concerns about tourism planning in Yogyakarta. Ano-ther 35% suggested that there were certain attractions which they felt should be promoted but which are not done well, while 23%claimed that some historical and natural attractions that are beingexploited for tourism should not be. The most common attractionsmentioned that ought to be promoted better included several coastalcaves and Kukup, Krakal, and Baron Beaches. Trekking on MountMerapi, night activities, handicraft centers, and a railroad museumnearby in Central Java were also considered attractions which havenot received the promotional attention they deserve. Several par-ticipants felt that Parangtritis Beach should not be promoted, owing

to its unclean condition and dangerous undertow. Similar feelings were expressed about Malioboro Street because of its overcrowdedcondition. The zoo was felt to be insignificant and unattractive fortourists so that any effort to promote it is wasted. A couple of peopleunrealistically claimed that Prambanan and Borobudur should not bepromoted as the area|s primary attractions because of overcrowdingand the resultant degraded quality of the sites themselves. Theseresponses show that a number of community members have opinionsabout the industry and how it is being planned, and would be able and willing to participate in its planning if they were allowed, so that they could raise their concerns.

Another aspect of locally defined goals * originating developmentideas from the local people * also became apparent during fieldresearch. At the base of Mount Merapi, in Bangunkerto Village,people have for a long time grown salak pondoh which is a unique fruitowing to its snakeskin-like appearance and unusual flavor. Apparently this variety is native to the area and, as a result, the location hasbecome famous in Indonesia for the rare fruit.

Residents collectively decided to expand their fruit productioncapacity by building small dams to increase the available water supply. After expansion began, during the late 80s, several community mem-bers proposed an idea to promote their crop as an attraction so thatthey, on the periphery of the province, would be able to take part intourism. The idea was proposed to the village council where it wasunanimously approved. From there it followed the normal coursethrough the district and regional meetings to the provincial level,


10/21


where it was eventually approved by the Department of Tourism as a worthwhile effort. Soon after, the department awarded a contract toprivate consultants to evaluate the area|s tourism potential.

Promotion for the agrotourism project began in 1992, with Japanese, Dutch, and domestic tourists being targeted as the primary markets for half-day tours to the area in conjunction with visits toPrambanan and Borobudur. Tours have been privatized and arearranged by local tour agencies. According to tourism officials, thereare plans to build a few guesthouses in the area, but hotels are notbeing considered. Business is slow, but officials are optimistic thatinterest in this form of agrotourism will increase in the near future.

This is just one example of development ideas originating amongcommunity members. Other cases may exist, but officials were unableto remember more. The concept of effective ideas originating fromthe bottom levels of society is a new one, owing largely to strongcultural and political traditions which will be discussed later in thispaper. According to most informants, examples like the salak projectare rare, since few proposals from the lowest administrative ranksever make it to high-level planning meetings.

Input from Other Stakeholders. From the discussion above, it canbe seen that direct citizen participation in tourism planning in aconsultative manner is lacking in Yogyakarta. In addition to localresidents and government agencies, other stakeholders in the provinceinclude private-sector organizations (e.g., hotel associations and tour

guide alliances) and non-government organizations (NGOs). Only as recently as Repelitada VI (1994 Ð 99) did the concept of additionalstakeholders appear in the plans. The document suggests that com-munity members and the private sector must be more involved intourism development. Similarly, the tourism master plan laid downthe policy that the government, the private sector, and society all havea role to play in developing tourism. Surprisingly, the document alsostated that this development should function without governmentdomination * in other words, that the government should adopt amore laissez faire attitude toward development. However, con-tradictions to this statement appeared later in the document whenthe roles of stakeholders were explicitly described as part of a rec-ommended action program. According to the plan, the role of govern-ment is to propose, build, set in motion, and manage tourismdevelopment. The role of the private sector is to invest in the expan-sion of attractions and services, and the role of local residents is tocreate a pleasant atmosphere for tourists. No mention was made of involving the private sector or residents in planning or of decreasingtraditional government domination of the industry.

The national Hotel and Restaurant Association of Indonesia has alocal branch in Yogyakarta to which star hotels and several restaurantsbelong. However, the majority of non-government tourism associ-ations are based locally. PARTSY ( Paguyuban Akomodasi, Restauran,Transport Sosrowijayan *Yogyakarta), established in 1983, is an associ-ation in the Sosrowijayan neighborhood comprised of 25 guesthouses,eight restaurants, eight travel bureaus, and four art galleries. Not all


11/21

381DALLEN TIMOTHY

businesses in the area are members. The Prawirotaman area has asimilar organization. The purpose of these associations is to providea channel for discussions on topics of common concern to theirmembers. The Department of Tourism meets with the head of PARTSY every year to advise the organization about health issues,safety, and how business owners can physically improve their busi-nesses. The meetings are also used to collect statistical data, to checkfor cleanliness and safety, and to inquire about tourism-related prob-lems that members face. According to some guesthouse managers,this type of input from local groups is merely cosmetic on the partof the provincial government. One owner suggested that, althoughgovernment representatives meet with the local organizations,nothing ever results from the meetings. In his words, governmentconsultation with the group is {{ just talk, talk, talk; they don|t doanything.||

Although individual community members are not usually givenmuch of a voice in matters of planning, the voice of business peopledoes appear to improve slightly through collective associations. Atleast these associations are heard regarding problems they considerimportant, however superficial the consultations may be. Althoughlittle stress is placed on involving the small organizations in a con-sultative manner, the Department of Tourism appears to be con-cerned with what the local organizations and private sector view asproblems and issues that need to be addressed in the neighborhoods where they are based. In an indirect way then, locals can at least

present their problems and concerns to the government via the localorganizations. It is then entirely up to the government|s discretion whether or not these concerns will be addressed. Similarly out of reach, most non-government organizations function at the nationallevel of Indonesia, though some have branches in various provinces,including Yogyakarta. However, little information exists about localbranches of NGOs and it appears that they do not have much of a voice in decision making for tourism.

Involvement of Locals in the Benefits of Tourism. One common themethroughout the Repelitada plans has been the involvement of localsin the benefits of tourism, usually through training for employmentin the industry. The provincial master plan identified the need tospread tourism to more remote parts of the province so that morepeople will have the opportunity to benefit from it. Specific actions,such as product diversification, were recommended to accomplish this.

Repelitada VI strongly acknowledges that this industry is needed toincrease residents| income levels, and the tourism master plan makesit policy. Most local planners realize the need to utilize local labor inorder to have a successful industry. The phrase, {{the people are ourmost important resource||, is used often among government planners,and involvement of locals in the benefits of tourism development is acommon theme in Yogyakarta. A typical concept brought out in theinterviews was that tourism development is for the locals, and society at large must benefit from it. This theme of economic improvement,


12/21


especially in terms of providing more jobs for community members,is a central concept of most of the five-year development plans.

One example of the provincial government involving locals in thebenefits of tourism is the recent recognition of many small-scaleaccommodation and restaurants as legitimate, legal businesses.Unlike informal-sector endeavours in many developing countries,officials have given locals the opportunity to benefit from tourismdevelopment legally. This is especially apparent in areas near attrac-tions and in the urban zones. In Prawirotaman and Sosrowijayan,every guesthouse and restaurant is now legal, although they began asinformal ventures. Each of them possesses a business license, and ithas become easier to procure a building permit from the municipalgovernment if owners wish to change or increase the size of theirbusinesses.

Sometimes, the government gives small financial incentives toguesthouse owners in the two urban neighborhoods. Eighty percentof the managers stated that they regularly receive money from theprovincial government, on an annual basis, for the purpose of improv-ing their businesses. However, the quantity of money is small, amoun-ting to only about Rp 10,000 (approximately $1.25 in May 1998) a year for each guesthouse. Most people agreed that this was not enoughto make physical improvements to their businesses. Owing to theinsignificant amount, most people did not remember what they did with the money, but some recall purchasing brooms, dusters, andlight bulbs. None of the restaurants and tour agencies reported ever

receiving monetary assistance or tax benefits from the government. Although small, this token gift, which is sometimes given in the formof tax breaks, is viewed as one way of supporting owners in theirbusinesses.

The fact that the vendors along Malioboro Street have been legally recognized by government officials, which is not the case in many developing countries, is a testimony that efforts are being made toprovide opportunities for residents to benefit from tourism. They have been permitted to form cooperatives to assist them in financialmatters and in negotiations with government agencies and suppliers(Timothy and Wall 1997). Nearly all of the vendors hold vendinglicenses and pay taxes to the local government. In return, they arepermitted to sell goods along the city |s busiest tourism thoroughfare.

Education of Residents. The 1990 national tourism laws do notspecifically mention building public awareness or providing entre-preneurial training. However, they do provide the legal mechanismsfor involving locals in the benefits of tourism as a form of publicparticipation, which includes educational programs. Repelita V (1989 Ð 94) recognized the need to increase public awareness of tourism, butrecommendations were not made regarding how this could be done.The current five-year plan, Repelita VI, recommends a program which will improve public awareness of tourism throughout Indonesia by means of intensive media campaigns. Similarly, one goal of the 1992National Tourism Development Strategy was to improve humanresource training and to develop tourism awareness among the popu-


13/21

383DALLEN TIMOTHY

lation at large. Provincial planning documents focus on improving vocational training for industry workers, although the current Repel- itada recognizes the lack of public awareness as a significant problemin Yogyakarta.

In terms of entrepreneurial training, taxi drivers, guesthouse man-agers, restaurant owners, and some street vendors have been selectedin recent years for tourism training by the Department of Tourism.Much of this training includes English courses, hygiene, accounting,and hospitality. Funds are limited and so sessions are short, rangingfrom one day to several days, and only one group of entrepreneurs isselected each year for training. Officials, however, feel that it isbenefiting the local industry and desire to continue the program aslong as funding is available. Small business owners appreciate thetraining classes and feel that the courses are beneficial in their work.More than half of the business owners claimed to have participatedin such training programs sponsored by the Department of Tourism.

In addition to tourism-oriented business people, other community members are being educated about tourism. Awareness building isbeing done primarily through the Seven Charms (Sapta Pesona)program, which was initiated nationally and is now being implementedlocally. The seven charms include security, orderliness, comfort,beauty, hospitality, and thoughtfulness. This education campaign, which aims to improve these characteristics, is not in the form of formal courses; rather, it is being conducted by means of various formsof media, such as brochures, newspapers, and television adver-

tisements. The goal is to create a more hospitable environment fortourists, to improve the international image of Indonesia, to increasenational pride, and to allow people to become more economically involved in tourism (Timothy in press). Officials believe this program will improve the product locally and increase regional employmentand income. Recent television advertisements have begun to educateIndonesians about the need to clean up the environment. The adver-tisements depict Indonesians as happier and healthier people whengarbage is put in its place and when other pollutants are reduced.This is apparently part of a widespread environmental awarenesscampaign to build national pride and awareness among Indonesiansand to make the country more beautiful, comfortable, and clean fortourists.

Constraints to Participatory Principles

The education of local residents and the involvement of locals inthe economic benefits of tourism are happening in theory (i.e., in theplanning documents and policy) and to a lesser extent in practice.However, resident and other stakeholder participation in decisionmaking has not been recognized as important in planning documents,nor has it been addressed in practice in Yogyakarta, except in a fewisolated cases.

Cultural and Political Traditions. Most Javanese cultural practices


14/21


15/21

385DALLEN TIMOTHY

good of society. {{If a neighborhood is being improved [physically fortourism], it is unnecessary to involve the local people.|| The academicinterviewees agreed that this customary approach to authority may be one of the most significant inhibitors to grassroots involvement inplanning in Yogyakarta. It is still difficult for common people toapproach their superiors, and vice versa, regarding issues of change.This perspective may help explain why so many of the residentsinterviewed and surveyed believe that local people should not beinvolved in tourism planning. It is the center|s responsibility to decide,and the resultant changes will be for the common good of society.During the interviewing process, the pervasiveness of this cultural view became quite clear.

Another view suggests that the government has relied on the tra-ditional Javanese social structure to keep people from participatingin decision making. According to de Kadt (1979), the experiences of local people in political decision making in most countries of thedeveloping world tend to be limited, owing to dominant local andnational groups that deliberately keep them in a subordinate position.Haywood (1988) supports this claim in his suggestion that publicparticipation is impossible in many countries where officials are notinterested in encouraging representational democracy. In many developing countries, public participation in tourism decision makingin merely a form of tokenism (Wall 1995). According to one expert onIndonesian politics (Soekanto 1995), the concentration of decisionmaking in only a few hands for more than 30 years has deprived the

public of experience with democratic participation and managingdifferences of opinion. As a result, most people remain politically untrained for involvement in the decision-making process. This isattributed in part to Dutch colonialism which also kept Indonesiansfrom participating in democratic decision making for many years. Another political constraint to community participation is the physicalnature of planning that has occurred until now. In Indonesia, govern-ments prefer the expeditious, outward manifestations of physicaldevelopment. According to private planners, involving private stake-holders and locals in planning is not outwardly visible in the shortterm and may require significant amounts of time, so it is not a highpriority for bureaucrats.

Poor Economic Conditions. According to Yogyakarta|s planningofficials, insufficient public funding is one constraint to local andprivate-sector participation in planning. Financial limitations at loweradministrative levels increase dependence on the central government. As a result, the central government|s grip on provincial and sub-provincial governments remains solid (Tjatera 1994). Furthermore,the degree of local and private-sector involvement recommended inthe planning literature is viewed by administrators as a luxury thatcan hardly be afforded in terms of both time and money. Tjateraechoed this concern by stating that participation in decision makingmay indeed slow the development process owing to the time neededfor consultation and deliberation.

Another economic constraint to local involvement identified by


16/21


government planners is that, because of their low socioeconomicstatus, residents are not interested in becoming involved in tourismplanning; they are merely concerned with making ends meet. Norton(1989) argues that when people|s basic survival is being threatenedin developing countries, they place less value on long-term planningand conservation. One government planner suggested that the mostimportant concern for locals is {{basic survival; they don|t think in thelong term.|| This may be true for people not involved in the industry,but the survey results discussed earlier demonstrate that many small-scale entrepreneurs would be interested in participating.

Lack of Expertise. A lack of proper training for tourism planningofficials is one of the most significant constraints to allowing residentand private-sector input into the process. Similar conclusions aremade by Jenkins (1980) for developing countries generally. This lack of expertise was identified by private planners as well as by governmentofficials themselves. Interviews with local government plannersrevealed that there may be a general lack of understanding about thenature of local involvement in tourism planning, at least from theWestern perspective. One official claimed, {{We just don|t know how toinvolve people in planning.|| When asked about resident involvement,most government officials simply considered the participation of well-educated, university-affiliated researchers and trained consultants assufficient community involvement. This suggestion supports Graf |s(1992:558) claim that the modernization ethos that underlies many

government plans in developing countries focuses on the elites. According to Brohman (1996), this is common in most developingcountries. The relative newness of the tourism industry itself has ledto inadequate local expertise on the part of government planners.Together with dictates of the traditional political and social structure,this lack of expertise has limited the use of citizen and interest groupparticipation.

Lack of Understanding by Residents. A similar constraint to lack of expertise on the part of government planners is the lack of under-standing by locals about tourism. Owing largely to the newness of tourism in Yogyakarta, this situation also exists among community members and the small-scale private sector. Based on interviews withlocals, there appears to be a sense of inadequacy among themselves,in terms of touristic knowledge, for participating in decision making;hence the vendors perceived that they should not be involved inplanning. Some of these attitudes of inadequacy are used by govern-ment officials as excuses for not involving residents in the planningprocess. One government official claimed that {{the people are notprepared to participate in tourism planning.|| Officials tend to bereluctant to involve local residents in decision making, unless theresidents are highly educated or in a position of power.

Despite the feelings of inadequacy on the part of street vendors, itis apparent from the surveys of guesthouse managers that many wouldbe able and willing to contribute insights into planning based ontheir dealings with tourists and their knowledge about the local area.


17/21


18/21


should not be involved in tourism planning also can be attributed tothe strength of the Javanese traditional hierarchy. Poor economicconditions also influence resident and stakeholder involvement inplanning. A lack of expertise on the part of government officials andabsence of understanding about tourism on the part of residents areadditional constraints to public participation in decision making.

It is clear that tourism planners in developing countries face anumber of obstacles, which, if not taken into account, may thwart thesuccessful implementation of recommendations and cause frictionbetween government agencies and local residents. It is important forplanners to consider local conditions and refrain from imposing only foreign ideologies on traditional societies. Otherwise, as Smith putsit:

In Third World societies the cleavages are great and the policies are devisedby the educated, upper class urbanites for application on rural, uneducated,lower class, poor people. As such, many development policies are notdesigned by the people they are supposed to benefit. . . thus, policies andprograms may be very inappropriate (1985:142).

Despite the fact that, according to Western paradigms, little resi-dent and private-sector involvement appears to occur in decision mak-ing for tourism in developing countries, there may be a danger inclaiming that resident participation does not occur at all. Participationmay take a variety of forms, which may be a result of a melangeof place-specific conditions, such as the cultural attributes of the

community and its decision-making traditions that are already inplace.

Although this study has focused on Yogyakarta, it is believed thatmany of the findings would be similar to conditions in other developingcountries whose cultural traditions, social mores, political structures,and economic situations are like the system discussed in this paper(Brown 1994; Kamrava 1993). Perhaps the biggest impediment to theparticipatory principles discussed throughout this paper is the infancy of the tourism industry in developing countries. As governmentofficials, private-sector stakeholders, and community members atlarge increase their understanding of tourism, and as the economy isexpanded through tourism, it is likely that participation in tourismdecision making will become more commonplace.Ž

Acknowledgments *The author is grateful for financial support from the CanadianInternational Development Agency, administrative support from the Center forEnvironmental Studies at Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, and pro-fessional encouragement from Geoff Wall, University of Waterloo.

REFERENCES

Anderson, B.R.O.1972 The Idea of Power in Javanese Culture. In Culture and Politics in Indonesia,

C. Hot, ed., pp. 1 Ð 70. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.Brohman, J.


19/21

389DALLEN TIMOTHY

1996 New Directions in Tourism for Third World Development. Annals of TourismResearch 23:48 Ð 70.

Brown, D.1994 The State and Ethnic Politics in Southeast Asia. London: Routledge.

D| Amore, L.J.1983 Guidelines to Planning in Harmony with the Host Community. In Tourism

in Canada: Selected Issues and Options, P.E. Murphy, ed., pp. 135 Ð 159. VictoriaBC: University of Victoria, Department of Geography.

de Kadt, E.1979 Social Planning for Tourism in the Developing Countries. Annals of Tourism

Research 6:36 Ð 48.Dermawati, D.S.

1994 Perubahan Spasial pada Rumah Tinggal di Kampung Sosrowijayan wetan Yogyakarta. Unpublished Master|s Thesis, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta.

Din, K.1993 Dialogue with the Hosts: An Educational Strategy Towards Sustainable Tour-ism. In Tourism in South-East Asia, M. Hitchcock, V.T. King and M.J.G.Parnwell, eds., pp. 327 Ð 336. London: Routledge.

Echtner, C.M.1995 Entrepreneurial Training in Developing Countries. Annals of Tourism

Research 22:119 Ð 134.Emmerson, D.K.

1976 Indonesia|s Elite: Political Culture and Cultural Politics. Ithaca NY: CornellUniversity Press.

Freidmann, J.1981 The Active Community: Towards a Political-Territorial Framework for Rural

Development in Asia. In Rural Development: National Policies and Experiences,R.P. Misra, ed., pp. 231 Ð 272. Nagoya: Maruzen Asia.

Geertz, C.1959 The Javanese Village. In Local, Ethnic, and National Loyalties in Village

Indonesia, G.W. Skinner, ed., pp. 34 Ð 41. New Haven: Yale University.1968 Islam Observed. New Haven: Yale University.

Geertz, H.1967 Indonesian Cultures and Communities. In Indonesia, R. McVey, ed., pp. 24 Ð

96. New Haven: Yale University.Getz, D.

1987 Tourism Planning and Research: Traditions, Models and Futures. In Pro-ceedings of the Australian Travel Workshop, pp. 407 Ð 448. Bunbury, Western Australia: Australian Travel Workshop.

Graf, W.D.1992 Sustainable Ideologies and Interests: Beyond Brundtland. Third World Quar-

terly 13:553 Ð 559.Gunn, C.A.

1994 Tourism Planning: Basics, Concepts, Cases (3rded.). Washington DC: Taylorand Francis.

Haywood, K.M.1988 Responsible and Responsive Tourism Planning in the Community. Tourism

Management 9:105 Ð

118.Herwanto, J.1992 Fasilitas Pelayanan Wisatawan di Kampung Sosrowijayan Wetan, Pen-

dekatan Penataan Kawasan. Unpublished Master|s Thesis, Gadjah Mada Uni- versity, Yogyakarta.

Hudson, B.M.1979 Comparison of Current Planning Theories: Counterparts and Contra-

dictions. Journal of the American Planning Association 45:387 Ð 398.Inskeep, E.

1991 Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach.New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Jackson, K.D., and J Moeliono1973 Participation in Rebellion: The Dar|ul Islam in West Java. In Political Par-

ticipation in Modern Indonesia, R.W. Liddle, ed., pp. 12 Ð 57. New Haven: YaleUniversity.


20/21


Jamal, T.B., and D. Getz1995 Collaboration Theory and Community Tourism Planning. Annals of Tourism

Research 22:186 Ð 204. Jenkins, C.L.

1980 Education for Tourism Policy Makers in Developing Countries. International Journal of Tourism Management 1:238 Ð 242.

Kamrava, M.1993 Politics and Society in the Third World. London: Routledge.

Koentjaraningrat1985 Javanese Culture. Singapore: Oxford University Press.

Korten, D.C.1981 Management of Social Transformation. Public Adminstration Review

41:609 Ð 618.Krippendorf, J.

1982 Towards New Tourism Policies: The Importance of Environmental and Soci-ocultural Factors. Tourism Management 3:135 Ð 148.Liddle, R.W., and R. Mallarangeng

1997 Indonesia in 1996: Pressures from Above and Below. Asian Survey 37:167 Ð 174.

Long, V.H.1993 Techniques for Socially Sustainable Tourism Development: Lessons from

Mexico. In Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning, Man-aging, J.G. Nelson, R.W. Butler, and G.Wall, eds., pp. 201 Ð 218. Waterloo ON:Department of Geography, University of Waterloo.

Lynn, W.1992 Tourism in the People|s Interest. Community Development Journal 27:371 Ð

377.McIntosh, R.W., and G.R. Goeldner

1986 Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies (5th ed.). New York: Wiley.Mitchell, B.

1994 Institutional Obstacles to Sustainable Development in Bali, Indonesia. Sin-gapore Journal of Tropical Geography 15:145 Ð 156.

Moedjanto, G.1986 The Concept of Power in Javanese Culture. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada Uni-

versity Press.Murphy, P.E.

1985 Tourism: A Community Approach. London: Methuen.Norton, P.

1989 Archaeological Rescue and Conservation in the North Andean Area. In Archaeological Heritage Management in the Modern World, H. Cleere, ed., pp.142 Ð 145. London: Unwin Hyman.

Pearce, D.G.1989 Tourist Development (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Pearce, P.L., G. Moscardo and G.F. Ross1996 Tourism Community Relationships. Oxford: Pergamon.

Prentice, R.C.1993 Community-Driven Tourism Planning and Residents| Preferences. Tourism

Management 14:218 Ð

227.Simmons, D.G.1994 Community Participation in Tourism Planning. Tourism Management

15:98 Ð 108.Smith, T.B.

1985 Evaluating Development Policies andProgrammesin theThird World. Public Administration and Development 5:129 Ð 144.

Smithies, M.1986 Yogyakarta:Cultural Heart of Indonesia. Singapore: Oxford University Press.

Soekanto, S.1995 Indonesia to Face Political Vacuum in Future. The Jakarta Post (June 7):1.

Sproule, K.W.1995 Community-Based Ecotourism Development: Identifying Partners in the Pro-

cess. Paper Presented at the PACT/WALHI Community-Based EcotourismWorkshop and Seminar, Bogor, Indonesia, April.


21/21

391DALLEN TIMOTHY

Suryadinata, L.1997 Democratization and Political Succession in Suharto|s Indonesia. Asian Sur-

vey 37:269 Ð 280.Timothy, D.J.

Building Community Awareness of Tourism in a Developing Destination. TourismRecreation Research. (In press).

1998 Cooperative Tourism Planning in a Developing Destination. Journal of Sus-tainable Tourism 6:52 Ð 68.

Timothy, D.J., and G. Wall1995 Tourist Accommodation in an Asian Historic City. Journal of Tourism Studies

6(2):63 Ð 73.1997 Selling to Tourists: Indonesian Street Vendors. Annals of Tourism Research

24:322 Ð 340.Tjatera, W.

1994 A Model for Integrating Sub-Provincial Traditional and Official RegionalPlanning Institutions to Achieve Sustainable Development in Bali, Indonesia.Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Waterloo, Canada.

Wall, G.1995 People Outside the Plans. Paper Presented at the ICCT Conference, Yogyak-

arta, Indonesia, August.

Submitted 5 December 1997Resubmitted 6 May 1998 Accepted 3 July 1998Refereed anonymously Coordinating Editor: Robert A. Poirier

Documents

Participatory Planning: A View of Tourism in Indonesia