\

Pergamon

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 371391, 1999

1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
0160-7383/99 $19.00+0.00

PII: S0160-7383(98)00104-2

PARTICIPATORY PLANNING
A View of Tourism in Indonesia
Dallen J. Timothy
Bowling Green State University, USA
Abstract: Most of the planning literature dealing with tourism focuses on what should be done
in 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 presents
a normative model of participatory planning principles, which originates in the Western literature. This model is used to investigate what is actually being done in tourism planning in
one developing destination, and examines the local constraints upon many of the principles
recommended by researchers. Some of the participatory principles are practiced, but others are
not. Local sociocultural and economic conditions are constraints in the principles recommended
in the model. Keywords: planning, public participation, developing countries, Yogyakarta,
Indonesia. 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Re sume : Planification partenariale: une vue du tourisme en Indone sie. La plus grande partie
de le litte rature de planification traitant du tourisme se concentre sur ce qu|il faut faire pour
de velopper cette industrie, sans examiner les activitie s en cours ou les possibilite s e tant donne
les conditions locales d|une destination. Cette e tude propose un mode le normatif des principes
de planification partenariale qui ont leur origine dans la litte rature occidentale. On utilise ce
mode le pour examiner la pratique a une destination en voie de de veloppement et les contraintes
locales sur grand nombre des principes qui sont recommande s par les chercheurs. On met
en pratique quelques-uns de ces principes mais pas tous. Les conditions socioculturelles et
e conomiques sont les contraintes sur les principes qui sont recommande es dans cet article.
Mots-cle s: planification, participation publique, pays en voie de de veloppement, Yogyakarta,
Indone sie. 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION
Sound tourism planning is widely viewed as a way of maximizing
the benefits of tourism to an area and mitigating problems that might
occur 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, positive
economic benefits, and minimal negative impacts on the local social,
economic, and physical environments.
Scholars have identified a significant evolution in tourism planning
paradigms from narrow concerns with physical planning and blind
promotion to a more balanced form of planning that recognizes the

Dallen Timothy is Assistant Professor in the School of Human Movement, Sport, and Leisure
Studies, Bowling Green State University (Bowling Green OH 43403, USA. Email
dtimoth@bgnet.bgsu.edu). His research interests include tourism planning in developing
countries, political boundaries and tourism, personal and community heritage, and shopping
tourism.

371

372

PARTICIPATORY PLANNING

need for greater community involvement and environmental sensitivity (Getz 1987; Inskeep 1991; Murphy 1985). de Kadt (1979) and
Krippendorf (1982) realized the need for a type of product that would
promise the greatest social benefits. Pearce (1989) declared that
planning should become more concerned with integrating tourism
with other forms of social and economic development. These changing
emphases in planning suggest a significant dissatisfaction with traditional approaches to tourism development and a perception that
improvements can be made. Further, because it is commonly accepted
that tourism|s impacts are most apparent at the level of the destination community, researchers have started to emphasize the need
to decentralize planning and to integrate it into broader communitydefined development objectives (Haywood 1988; Long 1993; Prentice
1993; Simmons 1994; Timothy 1998). Greater levels of public participation in tourism development have been heralded by many planning specialists (e.g., Gunn 1994; Inskeep 1991; Murphy 1985).
Public participation in tourism can be viewed from at least two
perspectives: in the decision-making process and in the benefits of
tourism development (Figure 1) (McIntosh and Goeldner 1986; Wall
1995). Participation in the former generally refers to empowering
local residents to determine their own goals for development, and
consulting with locals to determine their hopes and concerns for
tourism. The concept also includes the involvement of other stakeholders 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). Tolerance to tourist activities appears to be strengthened if opportunities
are provided for active resident participation in the ownership and
operation 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 the
benefits of tourism, and education of locals about tourism. These principles, 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 be
employed given local conditions. Such a situation is especially true in

Figure 1. A Normative Model of Participatory Tourism Planning.

DALLEN TIMOTHY

373

the developing world. This paper examines to what extent these principles are actually implemented in Indonesia where the political, sociocultural, and economic environments are very different from those in
the developed countries where these paradigms originate.
PARTICIPATORY TOURISM PLANNING
Most characteristics of community-based tourism are derived from
the transactive and advocacy planning traditions, wherein weak interest groups are defended and local residents are given more control
over the social processes that govern their welfare (Hudson 1979).
This approach has recently received a great deal of attention in the
literature in response to the obvious shortcomings of the traditional
economic emphasis on tourism development. One of its most active
proponents, Murphy (1985), emphasizes a strategy that focuses on
identifying the host community|s goals and desires for and capacity
to absorb tourism. According to Murphy, each community is supposed
to identify its own goals and pursue tourism to the extent that it
satisfies local needs. This style of planning recognizes that social and
environmental considerations need to be included in planning and
that 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-meaning
mitigating 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 because
they 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 the
problem, the greater the need for localized solutions and for value
innovations*both of which call for broadly based participation in
decision processes|| (1981:613). In addition, community-based planning also recognizes that various stakeholders need to be involved in
decision making (Jamal and Getz 1995). The public sector, private
businesses and organizations, and environmental advocates are interdependent stakeholders in a complex tourism domain, where no single
individual or group can resolve tourism issues by acting alone (Brohman 1996; Gunn 1994).
Some difficulties exist in involving community members in the
planning process in developing countries. Owing to tourism|s relative
newness in such destinations, little experience in the industry and
knowledge of its dynamics have been gained by officials, private
groups, or community members at large. Community involvement in
decision-making processes is a new concept in most of the developing
world (Mitchell 1994), and traditional practices that preclude
grassroots involvement are not easy to change.
If local residents are to benefit from tourism, they must also be given
opportunities to participate in, and gain financially from, tourism.

374

PARTICIPATORY PLANNING

However, in many developing countries, tourism benefits are concentrated in the hands of a few at the expense of those with existing
disadvantages, such as small land holdings, low incomes, and poor
housing (Sproule 1995). To be equitable, tourism|s benefits and costs
should 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 a
more broadly based positive attitude toward tourism. A large proportion of
the local population should benefit from tourism, rather than merely bearing the burden of its costs (1996:59).

While resident participation in decision making would promise a

greater expansion of benefits throughout the community, they need
also to be prepared to host tourism.
The most widely understood types of resident education for hosting
tourism include professional, vocational, and entrepreneurial training
(Echtner 1995). Timothy (in press) has identified an additional aspect
of resident education in destination areas, namely building general
community awareness of tourism. Lynn (1992) recognizes the importance of assisting community members in knowing how to handle
situations that will arise with tourists and how they might support
tourism development and benefit from it economically. Some countries are just now beginning to devote more attention to building such
public awareness (Lynn 1992), a practice which is still uncommon.
Action on the part of the local community, by participating in or
benefiting from tourism, requires some knowledge about the industry
and its impacts (Din 1993). Educating residents of developing countries is one way of building awareness, so that they will be better
qualified to make informed decisions in their own communities.
Study Method
Fieldwork for this study took place from June to September 1994
and from April to June 1995 in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Key-informant
interviews were conducted with a mix of 20 tourism planning officials,
academic and private planning consultants, interest-group representatives, and business managers. The interviews included openended questions which are designed to address the participatory principles discussed earlier. Twenty additional interviews were conducted
with street vendors to understand the view of this ubiquitous, informal
tourism-related sector on tourism and planning in Yogyakarta, and to
assess their degree of involvement in the industry.
Additionally, 60 questionnaires were administered randomly in
Indonesian or Javanese among managers of small tourism-related
businesses, including guesthouses, restaurants, and rental/tour agencies. Sosrowijayan and Prawirotaman were chosen for this random
survey owing to their status as key tourism zones, ease of accessibility,
and availability of information on their development. A systematic
survey was also conducted with street vendors along the main throughfare, Malioboro Street, to learn of their involvement in tourism. After

DALLEN TIMOTHY

375

randomly selecting the first vendor, surveyors were instructed to interview every fifth vendor, and refusals were not replaced. Given the
number of stalls (967), this meant that a potential of approximately
193 interviews could have been completed. In all, 78 surveys were
completed for a response rate of just over 40%. The system worked
satisfactorily 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 main
reasons: they were tired of being interviewed, for other vendor studies
had recently been carried out by the municipal government and the
university, and they were afraid that the surveyors were employed by
the taxation department to acquire additional information about their
business affairs. However, there is no indication of systematic biases
in non-response.
In addition to the interviews and surveys, government planning
documents 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 planning
principles have been, and are being, considered in the official documents 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 the
royal palace, local handicrafts, and living cultural traditions attract

Figure 2. Yogyakarta Province, Indonesia.

376

PARTICIPATORY PLANNING

large numbers of tourists. The most important attractions in the

region are the Borobudur and Prambanan ancient temple complexes.
Although these are located just outside Yogyakarta in Central Java
Province, Yogyakarta is the transportation and accommodation center
for 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 this
growth considerably since 1997. In 1980, the province received only
280,619 tourists. In 1994, however, 963,995 tourists stayed in Yogyakarta, which makes it one of the most important destinations in the
country. The national government has recognized the province|s
potential for tourism, so many of its planning efforts have included
Yogyakarta. Tourism planning in this city, as in many other developing
countries, is a top-down process, is sectoral in nature, and focuses on
the 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 provincial and local governments more power to direct development and
manage local tourism.
Development of tourism at the national level is carried out by the
Department of Tourism, Art and Culture in Jakarta. Every five years,
the Department contributes a tourism section, outlining its goals and
recommendations, to the Repelita (National Five-Year Development
Plan). This section establishes the country|s regulations, policies, and
programs for its development. In addition, the Dinas Pariwisata
(Department of Tourism) of each province contributes a section to
the regional five-year plan (Repelitada) which establishes policies, programs, and regulations for tourism at the provincial level.
Tourism in Yogyakarta has grown physically around the royal palace
and 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 two
low-budget accommodation zones: one (Prawirotaman) near the bus
station and royal palace, and another (Sosrowijayan) just west of
Malioboro Street near the train station. During the day and into the
evening, Malioboro Street, the main shopping area for both tourists
and locals, is lined with nearly 1,000 vendors of various goods and
services ranging from brooms and radios to snack foods and souvenirs.
For tourists, these vendors and their affinities for bargaining are a
major attraction. Most of these businesses began as informal ventures,
but since the mid-80s and early 90s nearly all of them have become
fully licensed and registered with the government (Timothy and Wall
1997). There has also been a shift of economic emphasis from smallscale manufacturing to tourism in the two kampungs (urban neighborhoods) mentioned earlier. These neighborhoods have undergone
both a change in economic practices and in physical appearance.
For example, in their studies of Sosrowijayan, Herwanto (1992) and
Dermawati (1994) describe how many residents had converted their
original dwellings into tourism facilities, including guesthouses, rental
shops, and small cafes.
In the late 60s and early 70s, most residents of Sosrowijayan were

DALLEN TIMOTHY

377

poor laborers. But as tourism began to grow, many began working on

Malioboro Street as vendors of souvenirs and clothing. Since their
location was near the main tourism region of the city, some residents
opened their homes and began to offer beds for rent as cheap alternatives to the new, expensive hotels in town. Most of Sosrowijayan|s
moderate hotels and all of the guesthouses began in this manner.
During the early 80s, several people began to extend their homes and
businesses to include motorbike, bicycle, and car rental offices, tour
agencies, and art galleries. During the 70s and 80s, many were transformed into restaurants. In contrast, Prawirotaman was a center for
cottage industries, especially batik cloth painting, until the 70s.
However, its residents were not as poor as those in Sosrowijayan, for
most of them were affiliated with the palace nobility in business
terms and many were distantly related. Around the same time as in
Sosrowijayan, residents of Prawirotaman began to modify their homes,
redirecting their activities to tourism services. Data collected from
the vendors on Malioboro Street and business managers in Prawirotaman and Sosrowijayan will be used in part to examine participatory tourism planning.
Participatory Tourism Development
According to the participatory principles discussed earlier, tourism
planning should involve host residents in a consultative role to identify
locally-defined goals. This planning process should also seek input
from various other stakeholders, involve locals in the benefits of tourism development, and educate community residents.
Public Consultation and Locally-Defined Goals. Despite recent
national recognition of the need to decentralize tourism planning,
none of the plans evaluated in this research mentioned the need or
intention to include residents in decision making. The role of community members was outlined in the provincial master plan that
merely refers to their responsibility to improve local hospitality for
the benefit of tourists. However, one provincial government official
agreed that local people should be more involved in tourism planning,
although he admitted that this is rarely done, at least in a consultative
sense. The tendency is for decisions to be made by bureaucrats and
then the people are informed as to what will occur. The interviews
revealed that a common perception among government planners in
Yogyakarta is that residents are uneducated and thus unable to participate in the planning process. Government officials attribute much
of their reluctance to involve community members in planning to this
lack of education.
Table 1 shows the responses of the 78 vendors along Malioboro
Street and the 60 small business managers in Sosrowijayan and Prawirotaman to questions pertaining to their involvement in tourism
planning. When asked if they had ever been counseled with by the
government, 23% of the street vendors answered that they had been
since they started their vending business. However, further inquiry

378

PARTICIPATORY PLANNING

Table 1. Private Sector and Resident Involvement in Tourism Planning

Vendors

Questions
Have you ever been consulted by the
government for tourism planning?
Do you feel that local people should
be consulted for tourism
planning?
Would you like to be involved more
in tourism planning?

n = 78
Yes No
(%) (%)

Guesthouses
n = 45
Yes No
(%) (%)

23

77

4.5 95.5

91

23

78

Restaurants/
Rental Agencies
n = 15
Yes
No
(%)
(%)
0

100

77

60

40

22

67

33

revealed that their involvement simply reflected urgings by local

government officials in recent years to keep the sidewalks clean and
uncrowded, not to be too aggressive to tourists, and to maintain a
safe environment around their stalls. This so-called involvement, as
perceived by nearly one quarter of the vendors, indicates a different
understanding on the part of these residents about the consultative
role of locals in the planning process.
None of the 78 vendors responded to a question pertaining to what
they 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. One
planning consultant suggested that this reflects the paucity of local
education, again supporting the position of many government planners. Only 9% of the vendors felt that local residents should be consulted for their opinions in planning and developing tourism. The rest
believed that planning is the sole responsibility of the government
which should inform the people of its decisions once they have been
made.
Among the owners of guesthouses and non-star hotels in Sosrowijayan and Prawirotaman, 95.5% replied that they had never been
involved by the government in tourism planning, although 23% said
that they are regularly contacted by the Department of Tourism for
statistical information. One informant who claimed to have been
contacted by the government had been asked his opinion of how
tourism 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 government
employees who came around to collect taxes and statistics. None of
the tour, rental agency and restaurant managers could remember
ever having been involved in tourism planning.
More that three quarters of the guesthouse managers answered
that they felt local residents and small business owners should not be

DALLEN TIMOTHY

379

consulted in tourism planning. Surprisingly, however, 78% of the

managers expressed interest in being consulted. This inconsistency
likely reflects the tradition of competitiveness between guesthouses
in the two neighborhoods. Many managers would probably prefer to
be the only one taking part in planning. Most (60%) tour/rental agency
and restaurant managers felt that local residents and business owners
should be involved in tourism planning and the same number expressed interest themselves in becoming more involved. However, 67%
of restaurant owners and agency managers expressed interest in being
included by the Department of Tourism in the planning of tourism.
Again, for those who believe that locals should not be involved, planning was felt to be the sole responsibility of the government.
These findings are interesting and important since 40% of all the
business people surveyed in Prawirotaman and Sosrowijayan indicated
that they had concerns about tourism planning in Yogyakarta. Another 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 being
exploited for tourism should not be. The most common attractions
mentioned that ought to be promoted better included several coastal
caves and Kukup, Krakal, and Baron Beaches. Trekking on Mount
Merapi, night activities, handicraft centers, and a railroad museum
nearby in Central Java were also considered attractions which have
not received the promotional attention they deserve. Several participants 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 overcrowded
condition. The zoo was felt to be insignificant and unattractive for
tourists so that any effort to promote it is wasted. A couple of people
unrealistically claimed that Prambanan and Borobudur should not be
promoted as the area|s primary attractions because of overcrowding
and the resultant degraded quality of the sites themselves. These
responses show that a number of community members have opinions
about 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 development
ideas from the local people*also became apparent during field
research. At the base of Mount Merapi, in Bangunkerto Village,
people have for a long time grown salak pondoh which is a unique fruit
owing to its snakeskin-like appearance and unusual flavor. Apparently
this variety is native to the area and, as a result, the location has
become famous in Indonesia for the rare fruit.
Residents collectively decided to expand their fruit production
capacity by building small dams to increase the available water supply.
After expansion began, during the late 80s, several community members proposed an idea to promote their crop as an attraction so that
they, on the periphery of the province, would be able to take part in
tourism. The idea was proposed to the village council where it was
unanimously approved. From there it followed the normal course
through the district and regional meetings to the provincial level,

380

PARTICIPATORY PLANNING

where it was eventually approved by the Department of Tourism as a

worthwhile effort. Soon after, the department awarded a contract to
private 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 to
Prambanan and Borobudur. Tours have been privatized and are
arranged by local tour agencies. According to tourism officials, there
are plans to build a few guesthouses in the area, but hotels are not
being considered. Business is slow, but officials are optimistic that
interest in this form of agrotourism will increase in the near future.
This is just one example of development ideas originating among
community members. Other cases may exist, but officials were unable
to remember more. The concept of effective ideas originating from
the bottom levels of society is a new one, owing largely to strong
cultural and political traditions which will be discussed later in this
paper. According to most informants, examples like the salak project
are rare, since few proposals from the lowest administrative ranks
ever make it to high-level planning meetings.
Input from Other Stakeholders. From the discussion above, it can
be seen that direct citizen participation in tourism planning in a
consultative manner is lacking in Yogyakarta. In addition to local
residents and government agencies, other stakeholders in the province
include private-sector organizations (e.g., hotel associations and tour
guide alliances) and non-government organizations (NGOs). Only
as recently as Repelitada VI (199499) did the concept of additional
stakeholders appear in the plans. The document suggests that community members and the private sector must be more involved in
tourism development. Similarly, the tourism master plan laid down
the policy that the government, the private sector, and society all have
a role to play in developing tourism. Surprisingly, the document also
stated that this development should function without government
domination*in other words, that the government should adopt a
more laissez faire attitude toward development. However, contradictions to this statement appeared later in the document when
the roles of stakeholders were explicitly described as part of a recommended action program. According to the plan, the role of government is to propose, build, set in motion, and manage tourism
development. The role of the private sector is to invest in the expansion of attractions and services, and the role of local residents is to
create a pleasant atmosphere for tourists. No mention was made of
involving the private sector or residents in planning or of decreasing
traditional government domination of the industry.
The national Hotel and Restaurant Association of Indonesia has a
local branch in Yogyakarta to which star hotels and several restaurants
belong. However, the majority of non-government tourism associations are based locally. PARTSY (Paguyuban Akomodasi, Restauran,
Transport Sosrowijayan*Yogyakarta), established in 1983, is an association in the Sosrowijayan neighborhood comprised of 25 guesthouses,
eight restaurants, eight travel bureaus, and four art galleries. Not all

DALLEN TIMOTHY

381

businesses in the area are members. The Prawirotaman area has a

similar organization. The purpose of these associations is to provide
a channel for discussions on topics of common concern to their
members. 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 businesses. The meetings are also used to collect statistical data, to check
for cleanliness and safety, and to inquire about tourism-related problems that members face. According to some guesthouse managers,
this type of input from local groups is merely cosmetic on the part
of the provincial government. One owner suggested that, although
government representatives meet with the local organizations,
nothing ever results from the meetings. In his words, government
consultation with the group is {{just talk, talk, talk; they don|t do
anything.||
Although individual community members are not usually given
much of a voice in matters of planning, the voice of business people
does appear to improve slightly through collective associations. At
least these associations are heard regarding problems they consider
important, however superficial the consultations may be. Although
little stress is placed on involving the small organizations in a consultative manner, the Department of Tourism appears to be concerned with what the local organizations and private sector view as
problems 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 local
organizations. 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 national
level of Indonesia, though some have branches in various provinces,
including Yogyakarta. However, little information exists about local
branches 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 theme
throughout the Repelitada plans has been the involvement of locals
in the benefits of tourism, usually through training for employment
in the industry. The provincial master plan identified the need to
spread tourism to more remote parts of the province so that more
people 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 to
increase residents| income levels, and the tourism master plan makes
it policy. Most local planners realize the need to utilize local labor in
order to have a successful industry. The phrase, {{the people are our
most important resource||, is used often among government planners,
and involvement of locals in the benefits of tourism development is a
common theme in Yogyakarta. A typical concept brought out in the
interviews was that tourism development is for the locals, and society
at large must benefit from it. This theme of economic improvement,

382

PARTICIPATORY PLANNING

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 the
benefits of tourism is the recent recognition of many small-scale
accommodation and restaurants as legitimate, legal businesses.
Unlike informal-sector endeavours in many developing countries,
officials have given locals the opportunity to benefit from tourism
development legally. This is especially apparent in areas near attractions and in the urban zones. In Prawirotaman and Sosrowijayan,
every guesthouse and restaurant is now legal, although they began as
informal ventures. Each of them possesses a business license, and it
has become easier to procure a building permit from the municipal
government if owners wish to change or increase the size of their
businesses.
Sometimes, the government gives small financial incentives to
guesthouse owners in the two urban neighborhoods. Eighty percent
of the managers stated that they regularly receive money from the
provincial government, on an annual basis, for the purpose of improving their businesses. However, the quantity of money is small, amounting to only about Rp 10,000 (approximately $1.25 in May 1998) a
year for each guesthouse. Most people agreed that this was not enough
to make physical improvements to their businesses. Owing to the
insignificant amount, most people did not remember what they did
with the money, but some recall purchasing brooms, dusters, and
light 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 form
of tax breaks, is viewed as one way of supporting owners in their
businesses.
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 to
provide opportunities for residents to benefit from tourism. They
have been permitted to form cooperatives to assist them in financial
matters and in negotiations with government agencies and suppliers
(Timothy and Wall 1997). Nearly all of the vendors hold vending
licenses and pay taxes to the local government. In return, they are
permitted to sell goods along the city|s busiest tourism thoroughfare.
Education of Residents. The 1990 national tourism laws do not
specifically mention building public awareness or providing entrepreneurial training. However, they do provide the legal mechanisms
for involving locals in the benefits of tourism as a form of public
participation, which includes educational programs. Repelita V (1989
94) recognized the need to increase public awareness of tourism, but
recommendations 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 1992
National Tourism Development Strategy was to improve human
resource training and to develop tourism awareness among the popu-

DALLEN TIMOTHY

383

lation at large. Provincial planning documents focus on improving

vocational training for industry workers, although the current Repelitada recognizes the lack of public awareness as a significant problem
in Yogyakarta.
In terms of entrepreneurial training, taxi drivers, guesthouse managers, restaurant owners, and some street vendors have been selected
in 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, ranging
from one day to several days, and only one group of entrepreneurs is
selected each year for training. Officials, however, feel that it is
benefiting the local industry and desire to continue the program as
long as funding is available. Small business owners appreciate the
training classes and feel that the courses are beneficial in their work.
More than half of the business owners claimed to have participated
in 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 is
being done primarily through the Seven Charms (Sapta Pesona)
program, which was initiated nationally and is now being implemented
locally. 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 forms
of media, such as brochures, newspapers, and television advertisements. The goal is to create a more hospitable environment for
tourists, to improve the international image of Indonesia, to increase
national 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 employment
and income. Recent television advertisements have begun to educate
Indonesians about the need to clean up the environment. The advertisements depict Indonesians as happier and healthier people when
garbage is put in its place and when other pollutants are reduced.
This is apparently part of a widespread environmental awareness
campaign to build national pride and awareness among Indonesians
and to make the country more beautiful, comfortable, and clean for
tourists.
Constraints to Participatory Principles
The education of local residents and the involvement of locals in
the economic benefits of tourism are happening in theory (i.e., in the
planning documents and policy) and to a lesser extent in practice.
However, resident and other stakeholder participation in decision
making has not been recognized as important in planning documents,
nor has it been addressed in practice in Yogyakarta, except in a few
isolated cases.
Cultural and Political Traditions. Most Javanese cultural practices

384

PARTICIPATORY PLANNING

and traditional social structures can still be found at their strongest

in Yogyakarta and nearby Central Java (Smithies 1986). Perhaps one
of the most apparent traditions is that of authority and reverence
toward people in positions of power or of otherwise high social standing. The logic of Javanese traditional concepts of authority required
a center, which was usually realized in the form of a ruler (Anderson
1972). In Javanese society, the followers do not ask themselves whether
or not they agree with what the leader has proposed, or whether or
not this agrees with their own opinions and beliefs. Rather, discussions
with the leader are a means of determining where followers should
stand on an issue (Jackson and Moeliono 1973:16).
This concept permeates all social boundaries from high-level political jurisdictions, down to the village, and even into familial relationships (Geertz 1967; Koentjaraningrat 1985; Moedjanto 1986). At the
village level, its head commands a great deal of respect. Villagers
honor his position, and they consult with him on important matters
concerning family relations, crops, and education (Geertz 1959). In
most cases, villagers view him as the authority and few would bypass
him for receiving or giving advice since this type of avoidance may be
considered offensive by the leader and could cause him to lose face.
According to Emmerson (1976:67), in the broader political realm, the
village head is {{a minor official, but in the village, he [is] king.|| In
Central Java, the ruling Sultan has traditionally been viewed as the
center of authority (Anderson 1972; Moedjanto 1986).
Anderson (1972:63) suggests that despite years of Dutch colonialism, Japanese occupation, nationalist revolution, and the socioeconomic changes they brought about, the cultural grip of this topheavy traditional perspective on power remains strong in Indonesia.
In common with other social structures, the core of the traditional
Javanese polity has always been the ruler, who personifies the unity
of society (Geertz 1968). Javanese traditional views of power concentration are still very strong and continue to influence the political
structure in Indonesia even to the extent that such control is mandated by constitutional law (Liddle and Mallarangeng 1997; Suryadinata 1997). These traditions accept that political and social
control rests in the hands of the central government or head sociopolitical figure (Moedjanto 1986). In political systems that are dominated by one person or one small group of gentry, such as the current
order in Indonesia, traditions of power concentration allow for the
continuation of such a system. For, as Anderson claims, in the mind
of the Javanese:
There is no inherent contradiction between the accumulation of central
power and the well being of the collectivity [or society], indeed the two are
interrelated. The welfare of the collectivity does not depend on the activities
of its individual components but on the concentrated energy of the center.
The center|s fundamental obligation is to itself. If this obligation is fulfilled,
popular welfare will necessarily be assured (1972:52).

This sentiment is reflected in the prevailing attitudes among some

government tourism planners in Yogyakarta. One participant suggested that the decisions should be made by the government for the

DALLEN TIMOTHY

385

good of society. {{If a neighborhood is being improved [physically for

tourism], it is unnecessary to involve the local people.|| The academic
interviewees agreed that this customary approach to authority may
be one of the most significant inhibitors to grassroots involvement in
planning in Yogyakarta. It is still difficult for common people to
approach their superiors, and vice versa, regarding issues of change.
This perspective may help explain why so many of the residents
interviewed and surveyed believe that local people should not be
involved 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 traditional Javanese social structure to keep people from participating
in decision making. According to de Kadt (1979), the experiences of
local people in political decision making in most countries of the
developing world tend to be limited, owing to dominant local and
national groups that deliberately keep them in a subordinate position.
Haywood (1988) supports this claim in his suggestion that public
participation is impossible in many countries where officials are not
interested in encouraging representational democracy. In many
developing countries, public participation in tourism decision making
in merely a form of tokenism (Wall 1995). According to one expert on
Indonesian politics (Soekanto 1995), the concentration of decision
making in only a few hands for more than 30 years has deprived the
public of experience with democratic participation and managing
differences of opinion. As a result, most people remain politically
untrained for involvement in the decision-making process. This is
attributed in part to Dutch colonialism which also kept Indonesians
from participating in democratic decision making for many years.
Another political constraint to community participation is the physical
nature of planning that has occurred until now. In Indonesia, governments prefer the expeditious, outward manifestations of physical
development. According to private planners, involving private stakeholders and locals in planning is not outwardly visible in the short
term and may require significant amounts of time, so it is not a high
priority for bureaucrats.
Poor Economic Conditions. According to Yogyakarta|s planning
officials, insufficient public funding is one constraint to local and
private-sector participation in planning. Financial limitations at lower
administrative levels increase dependence on the central government.
As a result, the central government|s grip on provincial and subprovincial governments remains solid (Tjatera 1994). Furthermore,
the degree of local and private-sector involvement recommended in
the planning literature is viewed by administrators as a luxury that
can hardly be afforded in terms of both time and money. Tjatera
echoed this concern by stating that participation in decision making
may indeed slow the development process owing to the time needed
for consultation and deliberation.
Another economic constraint to local involvement identified by

386

PARTICIPATORY PLANNING

government planners is that, because of their low socioeconomic

status, residents are not interested in becoming involved in tourism
planning; they are merely concerned with making ends meet. Norton
(1989) argues that when people|s basic survival is being threatened
in developing countries, they place less value on long-term planning
and conservation. One government planner suggested that the most
important concern for locals is {{basic survival; they don|t think in the
long term.|| This may be true for people not involved in the industry,
but the survey results discussed earlier demonstrate that many smallscale entrepreneurs would be interested in participating.
Lack of Expertise. A lack of proper training for tourism planning
officials is one of the most significant constraints to allowing resident
and private-sector input into the process. Similar conclusions are
made by Jenkins (1980) for developing countries generally. This lack of
expertise was identified by private planners as well as by government
officials themselves. Interviews with local government planners
revealed that there may be a general lack of understanding about the
nature of local involvement in tourism planning, at least from the
Western perspective. One official claimed, {{We just don|t know how to
involve people in planning.|| When asked about resident involvement,
most government officials simply considered the participation of welleducated, university-affiliated researchers and trained consultants as
sufficient 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 developing
countries. The relative newness of the tourism industry itself has led
to 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 group
participation.
Lack of Understanding by Residents. A similar constraint to lack of
expertise on the part of government planners is the lack of understanding 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 with
locals, 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 in
planning. Some of these attitudes of inadequacy are used by government officials as excuses for not involving residents in the planning
process. One government official claimed that {{the people are not
prepared to participate in tourism planning.|| Officials tend to be
reluctant to involve local residents in decision making, unless the
residents are highly educated or in a position of power.
Despite the feelings of inadequacy on the part of street vendors, it
is apparent from the surveys of guesthouse managers that many would
be able and willing to contribute insights into planning based on
their dealings with tourists and their knowledge about the local area.

DALLEN TIMOTHY

387

Although problems arise from a lack of understanding on the part of

local residents, it is commonly felt that, as locals begin to understand
tourism better, their involvement in planning will begin to increase.
According to Friedmann (1981), it will require a long-term effort
to achieve a fully successful participatory, bottom-up approach to
development planning and implementation in developing countries.
CONCLUSION
This paper has presented a normative model of participatory tourism planning which argues that participation can be viewed from two
perspectives: taking part in decision making and enjoying the benefits
of tourism. The first perspective refers to the involvement of residents
and other stakeholders in decision-making processes. Participation in
the benefits of tourism includes allowing and encouraging residents
to gain economically from the industry, and engaging residents in
awareness-building efforts and other forms of education. This prescriptive model is essentially comprised of concepts and principles that
planners from developed countries accommodate in tourism planning.
However, relatively little is known about what is actually being done
in developing countries and what can be accomplished given local
socioeconomic and political conditions. This paper represents an
attempt to understand the operations (what is being done) and strategic (what can be done) aspects of regional tourism planning in
developing destinations as advised in the Western planning literature.
It appears that resident participation in decision making is currently non-existent in Yogyakarta. Official plans have not recognized
the need for this, and it is not carried out in practice. Many residents
do not feel that they should be involved in this process, even some of
those who themselves are employed in the industry. Provincial-level
administrators have avoided the practice of including other interest
groups in tourism planning, and this does not appear to be an important consideration in official plans. Several private-sector organizations exist with which the provincial government occasionally
discusses problems and management issues. But overall, government
consultation with private-sector organizations and business owners
appears to be mere tokenism.
The principles of involving locals in the benefits of, and educating
them about, tourism are being practiced in Yogyakarta and have been
considered important aspects of development for many years. The
provincial government has even established legal mechanisms for
residents to become involved directly in the benefits of tourism by
legalizing many of the entrepreneurial activities that were, until
recently, informal and illegal. Education programs also have been
established to build locals| awareness of tourism, and these efforts are
viewed positively by bureaucrats and residents alike. But several local
constraints have been identified that impede the employment of resident and other stakeholder participation in planning. Cultural and
political traditions have heavily influenced the approach taken by
officials and residents in Yogyakarta. The fact that so many people in
the province, especially among the street vendors, felt that locals

388

PARTICIPATORY PLANNING

should not be involved in tourism planning also can be attributed to

the strength of the Javanese traditional hierarchy. Poor economic
conditions also influence resident and stakeholder involvement in
planning. A lack of expertise on the part of government officials and
absence of understanding about tourism on the part of residents are
additional constraints to public participation in decision making.
It is clear that tourism planners in developing countries face a
number of obstacles, which, if not taken into account, may thwart the
successful implementation of recommendations and cause friction
between government agencies and local residents. It is important for
planners to consider local conditions and refrain from imposing only
foreign ideologies on traditional societies. Otherwise, as Smith puts
it:
In Third World societies the cleavages are great and the policies are devised
by the educated, upper class urbanites for application on rural, uneducated,
lower class, poor people. As such, many development policies are not
designed by the people they are supposed to benefit . . . thus, policies and
programs may be very inappropriate (1985:142).

Despite the fact that, according to Western paradigms, little resident and private-sector involvement appears to occur in decision making for tourism in developing countries, there may be a danger in
claiming that resident participation does not occur at all. Participation
may take a variety of forms, which may be a result of a melange
of place-specific conditions, such as the cultural attributes of the
community and its decision-making traditions that are already in
place.
Although this study has focused on Yogyakarta, it is believed that
many of the findings would be similar to conditions in other developing
countries 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 the
participatory principles discussed throughout this paper is the infancy
of the tourism industry in developing countries. As government
officials, private-sector stakeholders, and community members at
large increase their understanding of tourism, and as the economy is
expanded through tourism, it is likely that participation in tourism
decision making will become more commonplace.
Acknowledgments*The author is grateful for financial support from the Canadian
International Development Agency, administrative support from the Center for
Environmental Studies at Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, and professional 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. 170. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.
Brohman, J.

DALLEN TIMOTHY

389

1996 New Directions in Tourism for Third World Development. Annals of Tourism
Research 23:4870.
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. 135159. Victoria
BC: University of Victoria, Department of Geography.
de Kadt, E.
1979 Social Planning for Tourism in the Developing Countries. Annals of Tourism
Research 6:3648.
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 Tourism. In Tourism in South-East Asia, M. Hitchcock, V.T. King and M.J.G.
Parnwell, eds., pp. 327336. London: Routledge.
Echtner, C.M.
1995 Entrepreneurial Training in Developing Countries. Annals of Tourism
Research 22:119134.
Emmerson, D.K.
1976 Indonesia|s Elite: Political Culture and Cultural Politics. Ithaca NY: Cornell
University 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. 231272. Nagoya: Maruzen Asia.
Geertz, C.
1959 The Javanese Village. In Local, Ethnic, and National Loyalties in Village
Indonesia, G.W. Skinner, ed., pp. 3441. 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
96. New Haven: Yale University.
Getz, D.
1987 Tourism Planning and Research: Traditions, Models and Futures. In Proceedings of the Australian Travel Workshop, pp. 407448. Bunbury, Western
Australia: Australian Travel Workshop.
Graf, W.D.
1992 Sustainable Ideologies and Interests: Beyond Brundtland. Third World Quarterly 13:553559.
Gunn, C.A.
1994 Tourism Planning: Basics, Concepts, Cases (3rd ed.). Washington DC: Taylor
and Francis.
Haywood, K.M.
1988 Responsible and Responsive Tourism Planning in the Community. Tourism
Management 9:105118.
Herwanto, J.
1992 Fasilitas Pelayanan Wisatawan di Kampung Sosrowijayan Wetan, Pendekatan Penataan Kawasan. Unpublished Master|s Thesis, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta.
Hudson, B.M.
1979 Comparison of Current Planning Theories: Counterparts and Contradictions. Journal of the American Planning Association 45:387398.
Inskeep, E.
1991 Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach.
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Jackson, K.D., and J Moeliono
1973 Participation in Rebellion: The Dar|ul Islam in West Java. In Political Participation in Modern Indonesia, R.W. Liddle, ed., pp. 1257. New Haven: Yale
University.

390

PARTICIPATORY PLANNING

Jamal, T.B., and D. Getz

1995 Collaboration Theory and Community Tourism Planning. Annals of Tourism
Research 22:186204.
Jenkins, C.L.
1980 Education for Tourism Policy Makers in Developing Countries. International
Journal of Tourism Management 1:238242.
Kamrava, M.
1993 Politics and Society in the Third World. London: Routledge.
Koentjaraningrat
1985 Javanese Culture. Singapore: Oxford University Press.
Korten, D.C.
1981 Management of Social Transformation. Public Adminstration Review
41:609618.
Krippendorf, J.
1982 Towards New Tourism Policies: The Importance of Environmental and Sociocultural Factors. Tourism Management 3:135148.
Liddle, R.W., and R. Mallarangeng
1997 Indonesia in 1996: Pressures from Above and Below. Asian Survey 37:167
174.
Long, V.H.
1993 Techniques for Socially Sustainable Tourism Development: Lessons from
Mexico. In Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning, Managing, J.G. Nelson, R.W. Butler, and G.Wall, eds., pp. 201218. Waterloo ON:
Department of Geography, University of Waterloo.
Lynn, W.
1992 Tourism in the People|s Interest. Community Development Journal 27:371
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. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 15:145156.
Moedjanto, G.
1986 The Concept of Power in Javanese Culture. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University 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.
142145. London: Unwin Hyman.
Pearce, D.G.
1989 Tourist Development (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Pearce, P.L., G. Moscardo and G.F. Ross
1996 Tourism Community Relationships. Oxford: Pergamon.
Prentice, R.C.
1993 Community-Driven Tourism Planning and Residents| Preferences. Tourism
Management 14:218227.
Simmons, D.G.
1994 Community Participation in Tourism Planning. Tourism Management
15:98108.
Smith, T.B.
1985 Evaluating Development Policies and Programmes in the Third World. Public
Administration and Development 5:129144.
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 Process. Paper Presented at the PACT/WALHI Community-Based Ecotourism
Workshop and Seminar, Bogor, Indonesia, April.

DALLEN TIMOTHY

391

Suryadinata, L.
1997 Democratization and Political Succession in Suharto|s Indonesia. Asian Survey 37:269280.
Timothy, D.J.
Building Community Awareness of Tourism in a Developing Destination. Tourism
Recreation Research. (In press).
1998 Cooperative Tourism Planning in a Developing Destination. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 6:5268.
Timothy, D.J., and G. Wall
1995 Tourist Accommodation in an Asian Historic City. Journal of Tourism Studies
6(2):6373.
1997 Selling to Tourists: Indonesian Street Vendors. Annals of Tourism Research
24:322340.
Tjatera, W.
1994 A Model for Integrating Sub-Provincial Traditional and Official Regional
Planning 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, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, August.
Submitted 5 December 1997
Resubmitted 6 May 1998
Accepted 3 July 1998
Refereed anonymously
Coordinating Editor: Robert A. Poirier