8956072 Cooperative Tourism Planning

8/14/2019 8956072 Cooperative Tourism Planning

1/17


2/17

Several authors have stressed the importance of not singling out tourism alonefor development. Rather, it should be planned in conjunction with a regions

broader development goals; tourism should be one element of broader regionaldevelopment planning (Baud-Bovy, 1982; Inskeep, 1987, 1988; Marcouiller, 1997).This type of planning aims to increase efficiency and adaptability as components

of the tourism industry are planned together and are included in a regionsbroader development goals.If integrative tourism development is to occur, however, cooperation between

various planning sectors must exist. Cooperation between government agencies,between different levels of government, between equally autonomous polities atvarious administrative levels, and between the private and public sector isnecessary if integrative tourism development is the goal. Nunn and Rosentraub(1997) have referred to these approaches collectively as interjurisdictionalcooperation. Regardless of its importance, however, this may be difficult toaccomplish because, as Edgell (1990: 7) noted, there is no other industry in theeconomy that is linked to so many diverse and different kinds of products andservices as is the tourism industry.

This perspective, cooperative planning, is the focus of this paper. Severalauthors have acknowledged the need for cooperation between the private andpublic sectors (Inskeep, 1991; Minca & Getz, 1995; Brohman, 1996), but very littlehas been written about the importance of cooperative efforts between publicagencies, different levels of government, and same-level political units in tourismplanning. These cooperative concepts are essentially a Western perspective onhow tourism should be planned. Prescriptive models, such as this one, are oftenformulated by planners from Western, developed countries, but the questionsthat usually go unanswered are whether or not these normative approaches totourism planning are followed in developing countries, and if not, why. Thispaper attempts to fill that gap by discussing the different aspects of cooperativeplanning and examining empirical examples from Indonesia which demonstratehow each of these forms of cooperation is being addressed in a developing

destination.

SustainabilityandCooperativeTourismPlanningThe now well-established concept of sustainable tourism emphasises a form

of tourism development that is particularly sensitive to the long-term good of thenatural and sociocultural environment, while still realising financial benefits forthe host community. The focus of the sustainability debate is that tourism must

be planned and managed in such a manner that its natural and cultural resourcesare not depleted or degraded, but maintained as viable resources on a permanent

basis for continuous future use. Bramwell and Lane (1993: 2) identified four basicprinciples that are critical to the concept of sustainability: (1) holistic planningand strategy formulation; (2) preservation of essential ecological processes; (3)protection of both human heritage and biodiversity; and (4) development inwhich productivity can be sustained over the long term for future generations.

Wall (1993) described how the Bali Sustainable Development Project adaptedthese basic elements of sustainability to develop seven principles, or criteria, to

assess sustainable development in Bali, Indonesia. These principles included

Cooperative Tourism Planning in a Developing Destination 53


3/17

ecological integrity, efficiency, equity, cultural integrity, community, integra-tionbalanceharmony, and development as realisation of potential. At leastthree of these are particularly appropriate to this discussion about cooperation.Efficiency is concerned with the evaluation of alternative methods in terms ofcosts measured in time, money, personnel, and public convenience. Equity refers

to equality of opportunity and recognition of needs among various stakeholders,in terms of individuals, social groups, and communities, for both present andfuture generations. Integrationbalanceharmony refers to the struggle forintegration, balance, and harmony between key factors, such as environment andeconomy, sectors such as agriculture and tourism, and in patterns of regionaldevelopment (Wall, 1993: 55). Many of the sustainability concepts brought out

by Bramwell and Lane (1993) and Wall (1993) are particularly relevant to thefollowing discussion on cooperative tourism planning.

As noted earlier, at least four types of cooperation need to exist in order forsuccessful integrative tourism development to occur (Figure 1). These includecooperation between government agencies, cooperation between levels ofadministration, cooperation between same-level polities, and private-and pub-lic-sector cooperation.

Cooperation between government agencies is essential if tourism is to developand operate smoothly. Coordinated efforts between agencies would further thecause of cooperative tourism planning by decreasing misunderstandings andconflicts related to overlapping agency goals. As Spann (1979: 411, in Hall, 1994:33) observed, "Coordination" usually refers to the problem of relating units ordecisions so that they fit in with one another, are not at cross-purposes, and

operate in ways that are reasonably consistent and coherent. Also, in mostcountries government agencies compete among themselves for scarce operatingfunds. For example, the Department of Tourism and the Department of PublicWorks in some destination areas might each have equally important projectsplanned. However, funds are scarce and decisions have to be made byadministrators as to which programmes will be best to support. Efficiency could

be improved if various agencies would cooperate by coordinating their effortson development projects. Less money would have to be spent and more fundscould be divided and allocated to other purposes. It might also eliminate somedegree of redundancy that exists today in many countries. Parallel, or duplicate,

Cooperative Tourism Planning

Cooperationbetweengovernmentagencies

Private-

andpublic-sectorcooperation

Cooperationbetweenlevels ofadministration

Cooperationbetweensame levelpolities

Figure 1 The four types of cooperation necessary for the development of successful

integrative tourism

54 Journal of Sustainable Tourism


4/17

research and development projects by various agencies are not at all uncommon,especially in developing countries (e.g. when two or more situation analyses areconducted by two different agencies at the same time for regional tourismplanning).

Within a country, the national government is the highest level of administra-

tion and in some countries this may be the only level at which tourism planningis done. Nearly all countries, however, are divided in some way for purposes ofadministration. Lower-order civil divisions include states, provinces, counties,and municipalities. Each of these levels has its own responsibilities and conductssome form of planning, such as education and law enforcement. To be successful,tourism development in a region might require coordinated efforts between twoor more levels of government. This will eliminate some overlap of services andparallel planning, which will improve efficiency in terms of time and money. AsHall (1994: 33) commented, Coordination is necessary both within and betweenthe different levels of government in order to avoid duplication of resources inthe various government tourism bodies and the private sector, and to developeffective tourism strategies.

Cooperation is also essential in many countries because local initiativesusually require approval and financial support from the national government.As well, the successful implementation of national-level initiatives might requirethe involvement of lower-level governments. This is because tourism develop-ment usually requires critical, local knowledge, something that is often lackingin large, distant capital cities among leaders who are less familiar with regionalcultures and local conditions. This would also improve equity as lower-levelgovernments would be permitted and even encouraged to participate more indecision making.

In areas where tourism resources are shared by one or more autonomouspolities, at any administrative level (e.g. national, provincial, or county),integrative planning can best be achieved through some kind of cooperation.Although planning traditions in most countries have been restricted by political

boundaries, cross-border tourism planning is now increasing in a few parts ofthe world as neighbouring international destinations realise the value of workingtogether to develop and promote common resources (Richard, 1993; Kliot, 1996).Some destinations are beginning to promote day visits to areas in neighbouring

jurisdictions as an added attraction to the original destination (Timothy, 1995).On a larger scale, strategic international alliances, such as the European Unionand NAFTA, are examples of multi-lateral cross-border cooperation that are

becoming more commonplace. This type of cross-border planning is also

occurring at a sub-national level in many parts of the world. One example is inthe Northeastern United States, where the New England states (i.e. Maine, NewHampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut) have

begun a unique cooperative effort to market themselves together as a tourismregion, individual political boundaries notwithstanding. A lack of trans-bound-ary cooperation can result in environmental degradation on both sides of a borderand can create a rift between neighbours. It might also mean that resources inone area are over utilised or under utilised compared with a neighbouring region.

Cross-border planning can prevent or eliminate, at least to some degree,



5/17

economic, social, and environmental imbalances that might occur on oppositesides of a border and increase efficiency in promotional efforts.

It is obvious that tourism requires a wide range of services and facilities, mostof which are owned and operated by individuals or private corporations.However, regional tourism also needs to be regulated, promoted, and physically

developed responsibilities that in most areas fall under government control.Thus, cooperation between the private and public sectors is vital. In fact, a typeof symbiotic relationship between the two sectors exists in most destinations. Thepublic sector is dependent on private investors to provide services and to finance,at least in part, the construction of tourist facilities. Conversely, withoutcooperation, tourism development programmes may be stalled, since privateinvestors require government approval of, and support for, most projects.Furthermore, in some cases competition between private-and public-sectorinitiatives may occur and result in a deterioration of relations between them.Governments in developing countries tend to take on a more obvious role intourism development than in developed countries, where the industry is usuallyshaped and is largely controlled through the efforts of the private sector. Thefollowing sections examine the roles of these four types of cooperation in thecontext of Yogyakarta, Indonesia, which is a major tourist destination on theisland of Java.

ResearchMethodsAs part of a larger research project, which involved several methods of

collecting data, 20 key-informant interviews were conducted from June toAugust 1994 and from April to June 1995 with a mix of tourism planning officials,private tourism planning consultants, and interest-group representatives. Dur-ing the same periods, 20 interviews with small tourism business managers (e.g.street vendors, guest house owners, shop keepers, and tour guides) wereconducted. As most government officials and planning consultants spoke andunderstood English well, interviews with them were conducted in English, aswere some of the interviews with interest-group representatives and small

business managers. Approximately half of the interviews were conducted inBahasa Indonesia with the assistance of experienced interpreters and researchassistants. To ensure reliability of the information through the translationprocess, detailed repetitive explanations of questions and answers between theinterviewer and those being interviewed were given. Questioning proceededonly once the previous questions and answers were fully understood by bothparties. Interviews included a consistent set of open-ended questions that weredesigned to address issues of tourism planning. For example, administratorswere asked about the degree of local participation in decision making, coopera-tion between agencies and governments in tourism planning, as well as aboutspecific examples where this might have taken place. They were also questionedabout their understanding of community-based and cooperative tourism devel-opment, what these mean, and whether or not they felt these approaches wereimportant. Other participants were asked similar questions but were also

questioned about their involvement in tourism decision making and their



6/17

perceptions about the need for cooperative planning. They were also asked toconsider local constraints to cooperative planning.

In addition to the interviews, planning documents were examined tounderstand the issues of concern to planners in the study region. The plans wereexamined to discover the extent to which they recognise and consider the

cooperative planning principles discussed earlier. Each Repelita (NationalFive-Year Development Plan) and Repelitada (Regional Five-Year DevelopmentPlan) was examined beginning with the original plans dating from 1969.Additionally, several regional tourism planning documents were examined. Thedocuments were read and reread, and information was recorded pertaining tothe types of tourism development recommended and established in policy. Theappearance of cooperative planning principles in the development of the plansthemselves, as well as in their recommendations and policy sections wasrecorded. The information presented in this paper is based on this research.

TourisminYogyakarta,IndonesiaYogyakarta Province is centrally located on the south coast of Java (see Figure

2). Yogyakarta City is the provincial capital and the main service centre not onlyfor Yogyakarta Province, but for much of Central Java Province as well.Yogyakarta, which is Indonesias fourth most important tourist destination afterBali, Jakarta, and Batam, has a thriving tourism industry, and tourism is one of

the most important economic sectors in the region. Tourism has grown rapidlyin recent years. In 1980, 280,619 tourists spent the night in Yogyakarta. In 1990,the number increased to 587,185. Four years later, in 1994, the number of touristshad grown to 963,995 (Dinas Pariwisata, 1995). Furthermore, reflective of thisgrowth, the number of hotel rooms in star and non-star hotels increased from4775 in 1990 to 7292 in 1994 (Deparpostel, 1995).

Most of the areas appeal lies in its cultural heritage, which is comprised mostlyof ancient Hindu and Buddhist temples. These attractions, however, are located

just outside Yogyakarta, in the neighbouring province of Central Java. Neverthe-less, Yogyakarta City is the main transportation and accommodation centre fortourists in the region. The city itself offers a variety of living cultural traditions,such as dances, wayang puppet shows, gamelan orchestras, and handicraftmanufacturing, which all contribute to the tourist appeal of the region.

TourismPlanninginYogyakartaFive levels of government exist in Indonesia (Figure 3). The national level is

headed by the President and his cabinet. The province is headed by the Governorand his advisors. The next level is the kabupaten (rural district) and on the samelevel, but for urban areas, kotamadya (urban district). The next administrative levelis known as kecamatan (subdistrict). The kelurahan in urban areas and desa (village)in rural areas are at the bottom of the hierarchy, although in some regions, suchas Bali, even lower-level administrative units exist such as the banjar (sub-villagecommunity organisation) and subak (local irrigation authorities) and are instru-mental in decision making about a variety of topics on a very local level.

During the 1960s and 70s, Indonesia began to operationalise the concept ofbottom-up planning and decentralisation of power at the national level. For



7/17

Figur

e

2

YogyakartaProvin

ceon

theSouth

coasto

fJava



8/17

example, between 1960 and 1974, control over local development budgets wasgiven to the provincial and district-level governments (van Steenbergen, 1992),even though most development budgets were still collected and allocated by thecentral government. Decentralisation of administrative power began in 1969 with

the passing of legislation which allowed the establishment of provincial-leveltourism development boards that could act in a decision-making capacity. In1981, the Minister of Home Affairs introduced a bottom-up planning mechanism,which sought to incorporate popular priorities in regional and nationalplanning (Douglas, 1990; van Steenbergen, 1992). This decree was supposed toallow the identification of development projects at every level in the administra-tive hierarchy. After being discussed at one level, the proposals are directedupwards to the next level, where they are to be examined together with proposalsoriginating at various other levels (van Steenbergen, 1992; Tjatera, 1994). The firststep in the bottom-up procedure is the village-level development meeting( Musyawarah Pembangunan), which is supposed to provide a link betweengovernment workers and the general public.

According to van Steenbergen (1992), weaknesses exist in the bottom-upplanning mechanism in Indonesia. First, the procedure stretches over too manyadministrative levels. Apparently, the volume of project proposals generated isenormous because their numbers increase exponentially with each administra-tive level. As a result, many of the individual project proposals are abandonedearly on in the process, especially by provincial authorities who do not takeseriously the recommendations of lower administrative ranks. Another short-coming to this approach is that, in the event that central government prioritiesconflict with regional priorities, the desires of the central government always takeprecedence. According to informants, this is allowed because, although localgovernments can control their budgets, those same budget allocations are made

by the central government, thereby assuring a silent form of control over localdevelopment programmes.

Much of the planned tourism development that has occurred so far in

CentralGovernment

Province

Kabupaten Kotamadya

Kecamatan

Kelurahan Desa

Figure 3 The five levels of government in Indonesia



9/17

Yogyakarta has been nationally sponsored, usually in conjunction with tourismin neighbouring Central Java. Local authorities, however, are responsible forimplementing most of the recommendations made in the regional and nationalplans. In addition to these nationally driven programs, several local initiativeshave also been undertaken in the past to develop tourism in the province.

As in many other developing countries, the planning tradition in Yogyakartais a top-down approach, is sectoral in nature, and focuses on physical, or spatial,planning for the improvement of tourist attractions and infrastructure. Since1979, a common practice in Yogyakarta has been the formulation of provincialmaster plans to guide tourism development generally, and the formulation ofsubsequent site-specific physical improvement plans.

Tourism is a major focus of the National Five-Year Development Plan (Repelita)which establishes policy regarding most sectors of the economy. The tourismsection of the document establishes the countrys goals and policies for tourismdevelopment and is compiled by the national-level Department of Tourism, Postand Telecommunications (Deparpostel). In addition, each province produces itsown regional five-year plan, Repelitada, which also includes a tourism section.

At the provincial level there are presently two parallel government agencieswhose responsibilities include collecting tourism-related data and directing thedevelopment of tourism within the province. Kanwil is the provincial office forthe national governments Deparpostel, and Dinas Pariwisata is the provincialgovernments tourism development agency. Kanwil reports both to the provincialGovernor and to its home ministry in Jakarta, while Dinas Pariwisata reports onlyto the Governor (Mitchell, 1994). Each of these agencies has its own responsibili-ties, although many of their duties overlap.

CooperativeTourismPlanninginYogyakartaThe earliest Repelitada plans highlighted development that would require only

minimal cooperation between economic sectors and government agencies. Themost recent plans, however, have begun to broaden their recommendations toinclude projects that will require multi-sectoral cooperation. Repelitada VI(19941999), for example, clearly states that one of the principal goals ofprovincial administrators is to increase the status of tourism as the primaryeconomic sector in Yogyakarta Province in terms of regional income and jobs.Hence, efforts have been made in recent years to increase various types ofcooperation so that tourism can be developed more smoothly. The very fact thata tourism chapter has been included in the national and provincial developmentplans, is evidence that the need for integrative planning is being recognised.

Cooperationbetweengovernmentagencies

Officially, including tourism as part of broader economic development is thepolicy in Yogyakarta. In practice, however, this is difficult to achieve because ofthe lack of coordination between various planning agencies. The problem iscreated by the provinces sectoral planning tradition, which allows too manyorganisations and agencies to plan and implement development projects at thelocal level. This creates a great deal of overlap between projects, and parallel

research and development often takes place.



10/17

Even in tourism-related government sectors, fragmented development com-monly occurs. For example, management of star hotels, travel and tour agencies,and large restaurants is controlled by Kanwil, while non-star hotels, guest houses,small restaurants, and tour guides are under the jurisdiction of Dinas Pariwisata.Moreover, entertainment facilities are licensed and regulated by the municipal

government, and souvenir shops are monitored by the Department of Industry.Furthermore, to add to the confusion, according to informants, there is littlecooperation between these agencies in matters of tourism. As well, Kanwil andDinas Pariwisata collect parallel information, such as accommodation statisticsand visitor numbers, spending huge amounts of money and time. If cooperationwas in place, official tourism statistics would probably be more consistent andreliable.

Although cooperative planning has been difficult to achieve in the past, a fewsigns exist that it is beginning to emerge in Yogyakarta. For example, during themid-1980s, cooperation between Dinas Pariwisata and the Department of PublicWorks resulted in the improvement of the highway between the city, the airport,and Prambanan temple complex. The road was widened, motorcycle and bicyclelanes were added, and trees were planted to improve the highway environmentfor tourists and locals. According to officials at Dinas Pariwisata, there are ongoingplans to collaborate with Public Works to continue improving the highway byadding toll booths. It is believed that this will enhance the quality of the road anddecrease travel time to the airport by decreasing crowded conditions.

The Kraton (palace) Festival 1991, which focused on the Sultan palaces inYogyakarta and Surakarta, is viewed by local planners as an example ofsuccessful cross-sectoral cooperation. The festival was held from 721 September1991, and was featured as one of four core events during Visit Indonesia Year.The festival drew thousands of foreign and domestic visitors to Yogyakarta andSurakarta and featured many aspects of everyday life among palace residentsand workers. In both public and private circles the festival was considered a hugesuccess. The gala was unique and successful in many peoples view because it

involved planned cooperation among 15 separate government agencies inYogyakarta and Central Java to cover transportation, security, accommodation,public relations, equipment, and health. According to one informant, however,this success was in large part due to the fact that the festival was a nationally-sponsored event and local government agencies were required by Jakarta tocoordinate their efforts.

Planning for heritage-based tourism presents some unique difficulties leadingto a similar fragmentation of responsibilities. By legislation, the national-level

Department of Education and Culture is directly responsible for the restorationand preservation of the historic structures themselves. The grounds surroundingthe monuments and their related infrastructure, such as ticket booths, interpre-tative centres and parking lots, are administered by PT Taman Wisata (TourismParks), a public corporation under the administration of the national Departmentof Tourism, Post and Telecommunications. On the other hand, souvenir stands,food stalls, and other tourism-related structures outside the main grounds fallunder the control of Dinas Pariwisata of the province in which they are located.

This kind of spatial arrangement has the potential to create administrative



11/17

problems and indeed it has in the past. The current practice, however, is to makethe spatial delineations prior to development of the attraction, so that conflicts

between departments are usually avoided. One recent example of an operationalhorizontal delineation of this nature occurred at the Ratu Boko palace complexto the northeast of Yogyakarta City. The historic structures themselves are

currently being restored by archaeologists under the Department of Educationand Culture. The grounds have already been improved a great deal, and a ticketbooth is operated by Taman Wisata. The tourism infrastructure in surroundingcommunities is being improved with shops, snack bars, and other facilities underthe administration of Dinas Pariwisata.

Cooperation was also recently achieved between Dinas Pariwisata and theDepartment of Agriculture for the development of the Salak Pondoh agrovillageproject. Salak is a unique fruit with a snakeskin-like appearance and is a popularfood among Indonesians. Thepondoh variety is apparently found only at the baseof Yogyakartas Mount Merapi in Bangunkerto Village. Owing to the fruitsuniqueness, the decision was made by provincial administrators to promote salakcultivation as a form of agrotourism. Promotion for the project began in 1992,with Japanese, Dutch, and domestic tourists being targeted as the primary marketgroups for half-day tours to the area in conjunction with visits to Prambanan andBorobudur. Interpretative information regarding the plant itself and cultivatingand harvesting procedures were dealt with by the Department of Agriculture.The more direct touristic aspects, such as organising tour groups, establishingeating facilities and small guest houses, and erecting signs, were handled byDinas Pariwisata. Telfers (1997) work provides a detailed account of the growthof salak tourism in Bangunkerto.

Cooperation was also achieved between Dinas Pariwisata and the policedepartment in 1991 with the creation of tourist police. This was a response to theneed to improve safety for tourists during Visit Indonesia Year, and the servicestill continues to function in an effort of cooperation.

Still, according to most informants, little cooperation occurs among various

government agencies, and none of the provincial planning documents recognisedthe need for this type of cooperation. According to most of the local planners,these examples of cooperation are the exception rather than the rule. There is stilla notable lack of cooperation and communication among government agencies.To the admission of some informants, as mentioned above, there is a significantdearth of cooperation between Dinas Pariwisata and Kanwil, even though bothhave been charged with developing tourism at the provincial level. Tjatera (1994)discovered a similar lack of coordination in Bali and found that weak cooperative

efforts between government agencies often lead to confusion among implemen-ters and beneficiaries.

Cooperationbetweenadministrativelevels

Bottom-up planning occurs in Yogyakarta in the sense that decentralisation ofdecision making is official policy and lower-level governments are now

beginning to be involved in decision-making processes. In common withnational-level planning, on paper, lower administrative levels are permitted and

encouraged to propose ideas for tourism development. However, according to



12/17

some informants, these grassroots proposals are rarely taken into account, sincehigher-level priorities always tend to take precedence, even within the province.This problem was also observed by van Steenbergen (1992) in the broaderIndonesian context.

As part of the larger attempts to decentralise power at the national level, as

discussed earlier, provincial governments are supposed to decentralise as well.This process has apparently begun, as attempts are being made at cooperativeefforts between provincial and municipal governments in matters of tourismmanagement. For example, according to the director of Yogyakartas municipal-level planning agency, certain responsibilities relating to tourism, such asoverseeing the operations of some restaurants and entertainment facilities, werehanded over to the municipal government of Yogyakarta in 1995 by DinasPariwisata and Kanwil. Similarly, dealings with street vendors are divided

between the municipal government and the provincial Dinas Pariwisata. The cityhandles matters of taxation and licensing, while the province handles matters oftourism-related training and public relations.

The Kraton Festival, mentioned above, was viewed as an important adminis-trative breakthrough in this respect as well. The event was considered successful

by Indonesian and international observers alike because ground-breakingcooperation between the national government in Jakarta (responsible for

budgeting and marketing) and the two provincial governments (responsible forlocal arrangements) was achieved (UNESCO/UNDP, 1992).

Despite these initial attempts to share tourism responsibilities betweenadministrative levels, little other progress is actually being made along theselines. That the recommendation in the third Regional Five-Year DevelopmentPlan to establish sub-provincial branches of Dinas Pariwisata, made nearly 19years ago, has not yet been accomplished, attests to this fact.

Cooperationbetweensame-levelpoliticalunits

Cooperation between same-level polities is especially important in this

location because the main attractions are located in the province of Central Javaeven though the transportation and accommodation centre is Yogyakarta. In1984, the fourth Repelitada recognised the need to coordinate efforts with otherdestination provinces, namely Central Java, for joint promotion. There is noevidence that this ever occurred. More recent regional plans have encouraged asimilar relationship between the two provinces. The UNESCO/UNDP (1992)cultural tourism planning document explicitly called for increased cooperation

between Central Java and Yogyakarta in the planning and promotion of cultural

tourism, since many of the two provinces resources overlap a great deal. Theprocess of the formulation of this plan broke free of the traditional planningpractices in that it included shared efforts between the Department of Tourism,the Department of Economic Development, and the Department of Educationand Culture in both provinces.

From the experience gained during the Kraton Festival, the UNESCO/UNDPreport (1992) recognised two needs related to cooperative planning that must bemet on a continuing basis. One is the need to allow decentralisation of decision

making and budgeting to give provincial governments the freedom to undertake



13/17

tourism planning. The second need, more pertinent to this section, is to increasecooperation between the two provinces for cultural tourism development. Inorder to accomplish this, a regional cultural tourism planning approach wasrecommended that involved equal input from the Departments of Tourism,Education and Culture, and Home Affairs from both provinces under a joint

board. This Memorandum of Understanding was drafted and signed by thegovernors of both provinces in June 1993. Although this has been established,according to one participant, it is having difficulty functioning and is essentiallydefunct owing to lack of interest on both parts and lack of communication

between the two provinces.As for the national government, there appears to be a great deal of

international cooperation for tourism development. A number of ambitiousplans have been considered for international tourism alliances. The IndonesiaMalaysiaSingapore Growth Triangle is one example of these internationalarrangements (Lee, 1990; Ooi, 1995). The focus of this triangle is to develop closereconomic ties, including tourism, between Indonesias Riau Islands, Singapore,and Johor Province in Malaysia. Other prospective international triangles are

being considered, such as connecting parts of North Sulawesi with the Philip-pines for tourism development. International trade agreements betweenmembers of economic communities such as ASEAN and organisations such asPATA, increase the possibilities of forming these kinds of growth triangles. Interms of provincial and district governments in Yogyakarta, however, there islittle evidence that local-level administrative units are endeavouring to achievecooperation with same-level polities.

Cooperationbetweenpublicandprivatesectors

As early as 1979 (in Repelitada III), the provincial government recognised thelack of cooperation between private and public sectors, but the concept did notappear again in any of the plans and appears not to have influenced planningefforts since then. All informants agreed that this type of cooperation does not,

as yet, exist in Yogyakarta, except where permission is granted by thegovernment for private investments in developing the tourism supply.

ConstraintstoCooperativeTourismPlanningThe examples in this paper demonstrate that most cooperative planning

principles are lacking in Yogyakarta. There are, however, signs that some of themare beginning to be realised in some isolated instances. Cross-sectoral coopera-tion, cooperation between administrative levels, and cooperation betweenautonomous polities are strongly advocated in the planning documents, but inpractice they only occasionally occur. Cooperation between government agen-cies and between the private and public sectors is just now beginning to occur ina few limited cases. It is still not the norm. Cooperation between levels ofadministration is also in its infancy, and decentralisation has yet to be realisedon a sub-provincial level to the extent that it has begun to occur at the nationallevel, where more autonomy has been granted to the provinces in recent years.Cooperation between governments at the sub-provincial level appears to be very

weak, if it exists at all, in Yogyakarta.



14/17

Several possible reasons were identified during the field research for thisdearth of cooperative efforts. According to all government and other planninginformants, the traditional social and political hierarchy in the country is a majorfactor in producing traditional sectoral and political boundary-restricted plan-ning practices locally. Javanese traditional views of power concentration are still

very strong and continue to influence the political structure in Indonesia even tothe extent that such power, or control, is mandated by constitutional law (Liddleand Mallarangeng, 1997; Suryadinata, 1997). These traditions accept that politicaland social control rests in the hands of the central government or headsocio-political figure (Moedjanto, 1986) a concept that has allowed theconcentration of power in the hands of President Suharto and his family for morethan 30 years. According to Brown (1994: 117), the Javanese concept of powerpresumes that power diminishes with distance from the individual at thecentre. And, according to tradition, power generates its own authority in thatthose who attain positions of dominance are assumed to have deserved it becauseof their skill and moral virtue. Therefore, it is believed that the centre of power,whether at the national, provincial, or village level, will make decisions that arefor the good of everyone, including lower levels of government. To break fromthis hierarchical tradition is a sign of rebellion and would be insulting to socialand political superiors (Anderson, 1972). Some of this sentiment can probably beattributed to the fact that those in positions of control are reluctant to share theirpower. As Reed (1997: 589) suggests, stakeholders in tourism planning whotraditionally hold power may resist its redistribution, thereby hindering attemptsfor collaboration. This attitude has been demonstrated strongly in recent yearsin Indonesia with the suppression of political rivals, captious journalists, andother outspoken critics on the part of leading national politicians (Liddle &Mallarangeng, 1997).

According to several private and academic planners, local tourism planningauthorities are simply unaware of the need for, and do not understand thepossible benefits of, cooperative tourism planning. In terms of cooperation

between same-level polities, several informants observed that local leaders aresometimes unaware of their jurisdictional rights, in other words, whether or notthey are permitted to establish cross-border ties with other jurisdictions. Dupuy(1982: 58) suggested that, in some political systems, it is believed that onlynational governments are competent to enter into international agreements, eveninformal, local ones. Local authorities and public establishments in these systemshave no right to contract with their trans-boundary partners, no matter howequal, unless they have received prior authorisation from a higher government.

The hierarchical nature of the Indonesian state likely contributes to this as asignificant reason for a lack of cooperation in Indonesia as well.

According to one informant, the physical development of attractions is themost popular planning approach because of its quick and conspicuous nature.This type of planning can be carried out expeditiously and thus can showoutwardly that government agencies are busy developing tourism, which willlikely help reduce critical appraisals of their efforts. Cooperative efforts mayrequire significant amounts of time, so that they are not a high priority for

bureaucrats. Furthermore, goals of other agencies, polities, and levels of



15/17

government might not be in harmony with those of the agency or government inquestion and thus some of its development plans might be thwarted.

Another constraint to cooperative tourism planning lies within the modelitself. The model in fact promotes a form of comprehensive planning, which, asmentioned earlier, has received significant criticism by planning scholars. It is

possible that the cooperative form of tourism planning is too comprehensive, sothat it is too difficult to implement all aspects of the approach at one time and inone region, especially in regions where planning traditions have until nowessentially ignored cooperation in all or some of the forms recommended in themodel.

ConclusionsThis paper has presented a normative approach to tourism planning that

requires cooperation between intra-government agencies, different levels ofgovernment, same-level political units, and the private and public sectors.However, although these principles are important and could improve the localtourism industry, Western visions of what tourism planning ought to be mightnot always fit neatly into the planning practices already in place in manydeveloping countries. Owing to local social and political conditions, as well as alack of awareness about the utility of cooperative planning on the part ofgovernment planners, these cooperative principles have not been operational-

ised as the norm in tourism planning in Yogyakarta. This lack of cooperation intourism planning likely exists in many other developing countries where socialand political mores and planning traditions are similar to those of Java and therest of Indonesia.

There is a significant lack of research on tourism planning in developingcountries, even though it is clear that planning and the political environments inwhich planning occurs are very different from those in developed, Westernsocieties. More research is needed on local and indigenous approaches to tourismplanning in a variety of socio-political contexts. The model presented in thispaper might fit appropriately in some destination areas in both developed anddeveloping countries and inappropriately in others. Additional research would

be useful in refining this prescriptive model and in adapting it to other situationswhere complete cooperation might or might not be feasible.

The underlying tenets of cooperative tourism planning correspond closelywith Bramwell and Lanes (1993) sustainability standards: development that can

be sustained far into the future and holistic planning and strategy formulation.The cooperative model is itself a holistic approach to regional tourism develop-ment in its attempts to maximise as many collaborative efforts as possible amongdevelopment authorities. Cooperative tourism planning aims to increase effi-ciency, harmony, and equity in the development of regional tourism principlesthat in part define sustainability in the context of other destination areas inIndonesia (Wall, 1993) and principles that, if followed, can assist a destination indeveloping a tourism industry that will be sustained over the long term.

Acknowledgement

The author is grateful for financial support from the Canadian International



16/17

Development Agency, and administrative support from the Centre for Environ-mental Studies at Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

ReferencesAnderson, B.R.O. (1972) The idea of power in Javanese culture. In C. Holt (ed) Culture and

Politics in Indonesia (pp. 170). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Baud-Bovy, M. (1982) New concepts in planning for tourism and recreation. TourismManagement 3 (4), 30813.

Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (1993) Sustainable tourism: An evolving global approach.Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1 (1), 15.

Brohman, J. (1996) New directions in tourism for third world development. Annals ofTourism Research 23 (1), 4870.

Brown, D. (1994) The State and Ethnic Politics in Southeast Asia. London: Routledge.Deparpostel (1995)Statistik Pariwisata, Pos dan Telekomunikasi Daerah Istimewah Yogyakarta,

Tahun 1994. Yogyakarta: Departemen Pariwisata, Pos dan Telekomunikasi.Dinas Pariwisata (1995) Statistik Pariwisata, 1994. Yogyakarta: Dinas Pariwisata.Douglas, M. (1990) Urban and Regional Development Strategies in Indonesia. Nagoya:

UNCRD.Dowling, R. (1993) An environmentally-based planning model for regional tourism

development.Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1 (1), 1737.Dupuy, P.M. (1982) Legal aspects of transfrontier regional cooperation. West European

Politics 5, 5063.Edgell, D.L. (1990) International Tourism Policy. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Getz, D. (1986) Models in tourism planning: Towards integration of theory and practice.

Tourism Management 7 (1), 2132.

Getz, D. (1987) Tourism planning and research: Traditions, models and futures. InProceedings of the Australian Travel Workshop (pp. 40748). Bunbury, Western Australia:Australian Travel Workshop.

Getz, D. and Jamal, T.B. (1994) The environmentcommunity symbiosis: A case forcollaborative tourism planning.Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2 (3), 15273.

Gunn, C. (1994) Tourism Planning: Basics, Concepts, Cases (3rd edn). Washington, DC:Taylor and Francis.

Hall, C.M. (1994) Tourism and Politics: Policy, Power and Place. Chichester: Wiley.Hudson, B.M. (1979) Comparison of current planning theories: Counterparts and

contradictions.Journal of the American Planning Association 45 (4), 38798.

Inskeep, E. (1987) Environmental planning for tourism.Annals of Tourism Research 14 (1),11835.Inskeep, E. (1988) Tourism planning: An emerging specialization.Journal of the American

Planning Association 54 (3), 36072.Inskeep, E. (1991) Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach.

New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Jamal, T.B. and Getz, D. (1995) Collaboration theory and community tourism planning.

Annals of Tourism Research 22 (1), 186204.Kliot, N. (1996) Turning desert to bloom: Israeli-Jordanian peace proposals for the Jordan

Rift Valley.Journal of Borderlands Studies 11 (1), 124.

Lee, G. (1987) Future of national and regional tourism in developing countries. TourismManagement 8 (2), 868.

Lee, Y.T. (ed.) (1990) Growth Triangle: The Johor-Singapore-Riau Experience. Singapore:Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Liddle, R.W. and Mallarangeng, R. (1997) Indonesia in 1996: Pressures from above andbelow.Asian Survey 37 (2), 16774.

Marcouiller, D.W. (1997) Toward integrative tourism planning in rural America.Journalof Planning Literature 22 (3), 33857.

Minca, C. and Getz, D. (1995) Public and private-sector cooperation in destinationplanning: A comparison of Banff and Niagara Falls. The Tourist Review 4, 4959.

Mitchell, B. (1989) Geography and Resource Analysis (2nd edn). London: Longman.



17/17

Mitchell, B. (1994) Institutional obstacles to sustainable development in Bali, Indonesia.Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 15 (2), 14556.

Moedjanto, G. (1986) The Concept of Power in Javanese Culture. Yogyakarta: Gadjah MadaUniversity Press.

Murphy, P.E. (1985) Tourism: A Community Approach. London: Methuen.Murphy, P.E. (1988) Community driven tourism planning. Tourism Management 9 (2),

96104.Nunn, S. and Rosentraub, M.S. (1997) Dimensions of interjurisdictional cooperation.

Journal of the American Planning Association 63 (2), 20519.Ooi, G.L. (1995) The Indonesia-Malaysia-Singapore growth triangle: Sub regional

economic cooperation and integration. GeoJournal 36 (4), 33744.Prentice, R.C. (1993) Community-driven tourism planning and residents preferences.

Tourism Management 14 (3), 21827.Reed, M.G. (1997) Power relations and community-based tourism planning. Annals of

Tourism Research 24 (3), 56691.Richard, W.E. (1993) International planning for tourism.Annals of Tourism Research 20 (4),

6014.Simmons, D.G. (1994) Community participation in tourism planning. Tourism Management15 (2), 98108.

Spann, R.N. (1979) Government Administration in Australia. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.Suryadinata, L. (1997) Democratization and political succession in Suhartos Indonesia.

Asian Survey 37 (3), 26980.Telfer, D.J. (1997) Agrotourism: A path to community development? Paper presented at

the ATLAS International Conference, Viana do Castelo, Portugal, 46 September.Timothy, D.J. (1995) International boundaries: New frontiers for tourism research. Progress

in Tourism and Hospitality Research 1 (2), 14152.

Tjatera, W. (1994) A model for integrating sub-provincial traditional and official regionalplanning institutions to achieve sustainable development in Bali, Indonesia.Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Urban and Regional Planning,University of Waterloo, Canada.

UNESCO/UNDP (1992) Cultural Tourism Development, Central Java Yogyakarta:Final Report. Yogyakarta: UNESCO/UNDP/Directorate General of Tourism.

van Steenbergen, F. (1992) Regional development and the planning framework: The caseof Indonesia. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 83 (3), 21625.

Wall, G. (1993) Towards a tourism typology. In J.G. Nelson, R.W. Butler and G. Wall (eds)Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning, Managing (pp. 4558).

Waterloo, ON: University of Waterloo, Department of Geography.


8956072 Cooperative Tourism Planning

Documents