The Communication Model Strategy of Kampoeng Heritage Kayutangan to

Maintain Sustainable Development in the Tourism Sector

by: Ashlaha Baladina (175120207121011)

As a developing country, Indonesia continues to carry out sustainable development for the
welfare of its society. Various development communication models are carried out such as modernization
and participatory. But in my opinion, the most effective communication for sustainable development in
Indonesia is through a participatory model. This model emphasizes on cultural identity and people as the
nucleus of development. In contrast to the modernization paradigm, it encourages the subject to be the
active participatory people-centered approach. Therefore, we can call it as a bottom-up approach or
horizontal communication to development as it depends on the dialectic process (Etana, 2014). Moreover,
the modernization theory regards the need to eliminate traditional values, while third world countries such
as Indonesia do not have a homogeneous set of traditional values; their value systems are highly
heterogeneous (Reyes, 2001). However, Khampa (2009) also stated that experts and practitioners agree
that the participatory model is an effective and important approach to follow. This approach literally
empowers local people in decision-making and derives the benefits of developments through it (Yoon,
1996).

One example of the best synergetic communication practices that I knew is from Kampoeng
Heritage Kayutangan Malang. One year ago, I joined an exchange program between FISIP students and
foreign students from the University of Newcastle Australia. One of their activities in Malang is to help to
resolve problems and develop the tourism potential in Kampoeng Heritage. We had to do the needs
assessment by coming to Kampoeng Heritage to observe and interview the tour management called
Pokdarwis (Kelompok Sadar Wisata) and community leaders who were there. The current literature on
needs assessment describes community inventory, community assessment, process evaluation, and social
diagnosis, as well as citing the advantages of time-honored assessment tools such as focus groups,
surveys, and interviews[ CITATION Wan97 \l 1033 ]. After conducting interviews and observations, we
were given time to analyze what we could do to help the existing problems. These problems include (1)
there are community members who still disagree if their area is made into the tourism sector, (2) lack of
human resources in the management of tourism villages, and (3) lack of promotion about the village.
Then we were divided into groups to present solutions that we could come up with and explain it in front
of the government represented by Dinas Pariwisata Kota Malang and the administrators of Kampoeng
Heritage. In this context, our faculty has the role of facilitators who initiated this program, Kampoeng
Heritage members as beneficiaries, and the government. Actually FISIP has been a facilitator in helping
Kampoeng Heritage since it was established as the tourism sector, so this program also aims to maintain
the sustainability of the previous programs.

At the presentation session, the majority of Australian students thought that they will help
promote the village by maintaining the Instagram or website, working with leading media in Malang, and
creating a guest house to facilitate foreign tourists. While our group consisting of FISIP's students came
up with ideas by emphasizing community engagement among the citizens of Kampoeng Heritage. That is
because we believe that we must prioritize the strength of the local potential and involved them to solve
the problems. At this point, I later realized that the solution presented by Australian students was mostly
using a modernization model, while our group used a participatory approach in solving the problems.
Besides that, in my opinion, this program is an example of the best synergetic communication practices
among facilitators, beneficiaries, and the government to maintain sustainable development in Indonesia
because all parties can work well together so that the desired sustainable development could be achieved.
FISIP as a facilitator could make a great program so their students would have a new experience and
knowledge, Kampoeng Heritage also gets fresh ideas from young people about how to improve their
tourism sector, and the government could also help Kampoeng Heritage to become tourism sector that can
lift the existence of Malang City either nationally or internationally.

After the discussions ended, our lecturer stated that both groups presentation had their respective
values which could not be compared because of the different approaches used. So what I can conclude is
that these two approaches could collaborate so that the optimal sustainable development goals will be
achieved. The centralized and participatory approach has advantages and disadvantages that if
collaborated will complement each other. According to Etana (2014), since the development of
communication has not experienced a linear evolution in which new approaches are replaced the previous
ones are still a possibility to use some models. To mobilize community participation which at the same
time empowers them in the development process, it is very important to pursue two-way communication
between the facilitator, the beneficiaries, and the government[ CITATION Was05 \l 1033 ]. This needs to
be done continuously throughout the development process. So that later there will be mutual
understanding between the various parties involved in development.
References

Etana, A. (2014). The Characteristics of Development Paradigms: Modernization. Ethiopia: Addis Ababa
University.
Khampa. (2009). PARTICIPATORY DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION AND PEOPLE’S
HAPPINESS IN A BHUTANESE COMMUNITY. Bangkok: The Graduate School of Bangkok
University.
Reyes, G. E. (2001). FOUR MAIN THEORIES OF DEVELOPMENT: MODERNIZATION,
DEPENDENCY, WORD-SYSTEM, AND GLOBALIZATION. Revista Crítica de Ciencias
Sociales y Jurídicas .
Wang, C., & Burris, M. A. (1997). Photovoice: Concept, Methodology, and Use for Participatory Needs
Assessment. Health Education & Behavior, 369-387.
Waskita, D. (2005). Komunikasi Pembangunan untuk Pemberdayaan. Jurnal Organisasi dan Manajemen,
32-40.
Yoon. (1996 ). PARTICIPATORY DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION AND PEOPLE’S HAPPINESS
IN A BHUTANESE COMMUNITY.