Timothy 1998

This article was downloaded by: [Indiana Universities]
On: 09 September 2012, At: 01:51

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Sustainable
Tourism
Publication details, including instructions
for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20
Cooperative Tourism
Planning in a Developing
Destination
Dallen J. Timothy
Version of record first published: 29 Mar

2010
To cite this article: Dallen J. Timothy (1998): Cooperative Tourism Planning

in a Developing Destination, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 6:1, 52-68
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669589808667301
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/

terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in
any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or
make any representation that the contents will be complete or
accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae,
and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions,
claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or
arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded by [Indiana Universities] at 01:51 09 September 2012
Cooperative Tourism Planning in a
Developing Destination
Dallen J. Timothy
Sport Management, Recreation and Tourism Division, School of HMSLS, Bowling
Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio 43403, USA
This paper presents a normative model of tourism planning which requires cooperation
between government agencies, between various administrative levels of government,
between same-level autonomous polities, and between the public and private sectors.
These cooperative planning principles are examined in the context of Yogyakarta,
Indonesia, where it was found that they are not a part of the planning practices already
in place. Sociopolitical factors are considered the most important reasons for the lack
of cooperative tourism planning in the study area and it is believed that other devel-
oping destinations with similar human environmental conditions would also be lack-
ing in the use of cooperative planning principles.
Introduction
In the recent past, several tourism planning paradigms have emerged from
the broader traditions of urban and regional planning. These paradigms
generally aim to reduce tourism’s negative impacts and enhance its positive
impacts. They include community-based planning, wherein locally defined goals
and local development actions are an integral part of tourism planning (Murphy,
1985, 1988; Prentice, 1993; Simmons, 1994), incremental planning, which allows
for high levels of predictability and flexibility (Getz, 1986, 1987; Baud-Bovy,
1982), and collaborative planning where all stakeholders are permitted and
encouraged to participate in the decision-making process (Gunn, 1994; Dowling,
1993; Getz & Jamal, 1994; Jamal & Getz, 1995).
Comprehensive development is another view of planning that takes on a
systems tradition in that all aspects of regional tourism, including its institutional
elements, facilities, and services, are planned in a comprehensive manner.
Tourism is thus viewed as an interrelated system that ought to be planned as
such (Inskeep, 1991: 29). According to Gunn (1994), all elements of regional
tourism, such as transportation, accommodation, promotion, attractions, and
information, need to be planned in concert to avoid conflicts between tourism
sub-sectors. This paradigm has received widespread criticism in the past
(Hudson, 1979; Mitchell, 1989), suggesting, among other things, that it is
impossible to consider all elements in the planning process together at one time.
The introduction of alternative approaches, such as community-based and
incremental planning, has been a response to recognised deficiencies in this
approach.
A second, perhaps less disputable, perspective related to comprehensive
planning is that tourism ought to be integrated into the overall plan and total
development strategy of a country or region (Lee, 1987; Inskeep, 1991). This is
often referred to in the literature as integrative planning (Marcouiller, 1997).
0966-9582/98/01 0052-17 $10.00/0 ©1998 D.J. Timothy

JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM Vol. 6, No.1, 1998
52
Cooperative Tourism Planning in a Developing Destination 53
Several authors have stressed the importance of not singling out tourism alone
for development. Rather, it should be planned in conjunction with a region’s
broader development goals; tourism should be one element of broader regional
development 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 region’s
broader 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 at
various administrative levels, and between the private and public sector is
necessary if integrative tourism development is the goal. Nunn and Rosentraub
(1997) have referred to these approaches collectively as ‘interjurisdictional
cooperation’. Regardless of its importance, however, this may be difficult to

accomplish because, as Edgell (1990: 7) noted, ‘there is no other industry in the
economy that is linked to so many diverse and different kinds of products and
services as is the tourism industry’.
This perspective, cooperative planning, is the focus of this paper. Several
authors have acknowledged the need for cooperation between the private and
public sectors (Inskeep, 1991; Minca & Getz, 1995; Brohman, 1996), but very little
has been written about the importance of cooperative efforts between public
agencies, different levels of government, and same-level political units in tourism
planning. These cooperative concepts are essentially a Western perspective on
how tourism should be planned. Prescriptive models, such as this one, are often
formulated by planners from Western, developed countries, but the questions
that usually go unanswered are whether or not these normative approaches to
tourism planning are followed in developing countries, and if not, why. This
paper attempts to fill that gap by discussing the different aspects of cooperative
planning and examining empirical examples from Indonesia which demonstrate
how each of these forms of cooperation is being addressed in a developing
destination.
Sustainability and Cooperative Tourism Planning

The now well-established concept of sustainable tourism emphasises a form
of tourism development that is particularly sensitive to the long-term good of the
natural and sociocultural environment, while still realising financial benefits for
the 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 resources
are not depleted or degraded, but maintained as viable resources on a permanent
basis for continuous future use. Bramwell and Lane (1993: 2) identified four basic
principles that are critical to the concept of sustainability: (1) holistic planning
and strategy formulation; (2) preservation of essential ecological processes; (3)
protection of both human heritage and biodiversity; and (4) development in
which productivity can be sustained over the long term for future generations.
Wall (1993) described how the Bali Sustainable Development Project adapted
these basic elements of sustainability to develop seven principles, or criteria, to
assess sustainable development in Bali, Indonesia. These principles included
54 Journal of Sustainable Tourism
ecological integrity, efficiency, equity, cultural integrity, community, integra-

tion–balance–harmony, and development as realisation of potential. At least
three of these are particularly appropriate to this discussion about cooperation.
Efficiency is concerned with the evaluation of alternative methods in terms of
costs 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 and
future generations. Integration–balance–harmony refers to the struggle for
integration, balance, and harmony between key factors, such as environment and
economy, sectors such as agriculture and tourism, and in patterns of regional
development (Wall, 1993: 55). Many of the sustainability concepts brought out
by Bramwell and Lane (1993) and Wall (1993) are particularly relevant to the
following discussion on cooperative tourism planning.
As noted earlier, at least four types of cooperation need to exist in order for
successful integrative tourism development to occur (Figure 1). These include
cooperation between government agencies, cooperation between levels of
administration, cooperation between same-level polities, and private-and pub-
lic-sector cooperation.
Cooperative Tourism Planning
Cooperation Cooperation Cooperation Private-

between between between and
government levels of same level public-sector
agencies administration polities cooperation
Figure 1 The four types of cooperation necessary for the development of successful
integrative tourism
Cooperation between government agencies is essential if tourism is to develop

and operate smoothly. Coordinated efforts between agencies would further the
cause of cooperative tourism planning by decreasing misunderstandings and
conflicts related to overlapping agency goals. As Spann (1979: 411, in Hall, 1994:
33) observed, ‘"Coordination" usually refers to the problem of relating units or
decisions 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 most
countries government agencies compete among themselves for scarce operating
funds. For example, the Department of Tourism and the Department of Public
Works in some destination areas might each have equally important projects
planned. However, funds are scarce and decisions have to be made by
administrators as to which programmes will be best to support. Efficiency could
be improved if various agencies would cooperate by coordinating their efforts
on development projects. Less money would have to be spent and more funds
could be divided and allocated to other purposes. It might also eliminate some
degree of redundancy that exists today in many countries. Parallel, or duplicate,
research and development projects by various agencies are not at all uncommon,
especially in developing countries (e.g. when two or more situation analyses are
conducted by two different agencies at the same time for regional tourism
planning).
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 planning
is done. Nearly all countries, however, are divided in some way for purposes of
administration. Lower-order civil divisions include states, provinces, counties,
and municipalities. Each of these levels has its own responsibilities and conducts
some form of planning, such as education and law enforcement. To be successful,
tourism development in a region might require coordinated efforts between two
or more levels of government. This will eliminate some overlap of services and
parallel planning, which will improve efficiency in terms of time and money. As
Hall (1994: 33) commented, ‘Coordination is necessary both within and between
the different levels of government in order to avoid duplication of resources in
the various government tourism bodies and the private sector, and to develop
effective tourism strategies’.
Cooperation is also essential in many countries because local initiatives
usually require approval and financial support from the national government.
As well, the successful implementation of national-level initiatives might require
the involvement of lower-level governments. This is because tourism develop-
ment usually requires critical, local knowledge, something that is often lacking
in large, distant capital cities among leaders who are less familiar with regional
cultures and local conditions. This would also improve equity as lower-level
governments would be permitted and even encouraged to participate more in
decision making.
In areas where tourism resources are shared by one or more autonomous
polities, 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 of
the world as neighbouring international destinations realise the value of working
together 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 Union
and 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 in
the Northeastern United States, where the New England states (i.e. Maine, New
Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut) have
begun a unique cooperative effort to market themselves together as a tourism
region, individual political boundaries notwithstanding. A lack of trans-bound-
ary cooperation can result in environmental degradation on both sides of a border
and can create a rift between neighbours. It might also mean that resources in
one area are over utilised or under utilised compared with a neighbouring region.
Cross-border planning can prevent or eliminate, at least to some degree,
economic, social, and environmental imbalances that might occur on opposite

sides of a border and increase efficiency in promotional efforts.
It is obvious that tourism requires a wide range of services and facilities, most
of 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 type
of symbiotic relationship between the two sectors exists in most destinations. The
public sector is dependent on private investors to provide services and to finance,
at least in part, the construction of tourist facilities. Conversely, without
cooperation, tourism development programmes may be stalled, since private
investors require government approval of, and support for, most projects.
Furthermore, in some cases competition between private-and public-sector
initiatives may occur and result in a deterioration of relations between them.

Governments in developing countries tend to take on a more obvious role in
tourism development than in developed countries, where the industry is usually
shaped and is largely controlled through the efforts of the private sector. The
following sections examine the roles of these four types of cooperation in the
context of Yogyakarta, Indonesia, which is a major tourist destination on the
island of Java.
Research Methods
As part of a larger research project, which involved several methods of
collecting data, 20 key-informant interviews were conducted from June to
August 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) were
conducted. As most government officials and planning consultants spoke and
understood English well, interviews with them were conducted in English, as
were some of the interviews with interest-group representatives and small
business managers. Approximately half of the interviews were conducted in
Bahasa Indonesia with the assistance of experienced interpreters and research
assistants. To ensure reliability of the information through the translation
process, detailed repetitive explanations of questions and answers between the
interviewer and those being interviewed were given. Questioning proceeded
only once the previous questions and answers were fully understood by both
parties. Interviews included a consistent set of open-ended questions that were
designed to address issues of tourism planning. For example, administrators
were asked about the degree of local participation in decision making, coopera-
tion between agencies and governments in tourism planning, as well as about
specific examples where this might have taken place. They were also questioned
about their understanding of community-based and cooperative tourism devel-
opment, what these mean, and whether or not they felt these approaches were
important. Other participants were asked similar questions but were also
questioned about their involvement in tourism decision making and their
perceptions about the need for cooperative planning. They were also asked to
consider local constraints to cooperative planning.
In addition to the interviews, planning documents were examined to
understand the issues of concern to planners in the study region. The plans were
examined to discover the extent to which they recognise and consider the
cooperative planning principles discussed earlier. Each Repelita (National
Five-Year Development Plan) and Repelitada (Regional Five-Year Development
Plan) was examined beginning with the original plans dating from 1969.
Additionally, several regional tourism planning documents were examined. The
documents were read and reread, and information was recorded pertaining to
the types of tourism development recommended and established in policy. The
appearance of cooperative planning principles in the development of the plans
themselves, as well as in their recommendations and policy sections was
recorded. The information presented in this paper is based on this research.
Tourism in Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Yogyakarta 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 only
for Yogyakarta Province, but for much of Central Java Province as well.
Yogyakarta, which is Indonesia’s fourth most important tourist destination after
Bali, Jakarta, and Batam, has a thriving tourism industry, and tourism is one of
the most important economic sectors in the region. Tourism has grown rapidly
in 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 tourists
had grown to 963,995 (Dinas Pariwisata, 1995). Furthermore, reflective of this
growth, the number of hotel rooms in star and non-star hotels increased from
4775 in 1990 to 7292 in 1994 (Deparpostel, 1995).
Most of the area’s appeal lies in its cultural heritage, which is comprised mostly
of 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 for
tourists in the region. The city itself offers a variety of living cultural traditions,
such as dances, wayang puppet shows, gamelan orchestras, and handicraft
manufacturing, which all contribute to the tourist appeal of the region.
Tourism Planning in Yogyakarta

Five 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 Governor
and his advisors. The next level is the kabupaten (rural district) and on the same
level, but for urban areas, kotamadya (urban district). The next administrative level
is 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, such
as Bali, even lower-level administrative units exist such as the banjar (sub-village
community 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 of
bottom-up planning and decentralisation of power at the national level. For
58
Figure 2 Yogyakarta Province on the South coast of Java

Journal of Sustainable Tourism
Central
Government
Province
Kabupaten Kotamadya
Kecamatan
Kelurahan Desa
Figure 3 The five levels of government in Indonesia

example, between 1960 and 1974, control over local development budgets was
given to the provincial and district-level governments (van Steenbergen, 1992),
even though most development budgets were still collected and allocated by the
central government. Decentralisation of administrative power began in 1969 with
the passing of legislation which allowed the establishment of provincial-level
tourism development boards that could act in a decision-making capacity. In
1981, the Minister of Home Affairs introduced a bottom-up planning mechanism,
which sought to incorporate ‘popular priorities’ in regional and national
planning (Douglas, 1990; van Steenbergen, 1992). This decree was supposed to
allow the identification of development projects at every level in the administra-
tive hierarchy. After being discussed at one level, the proposals are directed
upwards to the next level, where they are to be examined together with proposals
originating at various other levels (van Steenbergen, 1992; Tjatera, 1994). The first
step in the bottom-up procedure is the village-level development meeting
(Musyawarah Pembangunan), which is supposed to provide a link between
government workers and the general public.
According to van Steenbergen (1992), weaknesses exist in the bottom-up
planning mechanism in Indonesia. First, the procedure stretches over too many
administrative levels. Apparently, the volume of project proposals generated is
enormous because their numbers increase exponentially with each administra-
tive level. As a result, many of the individual project proposals are abandoned
early on in the process, especially by provincial authorities who do not take
seriously the recommendations of lower administrative ranks. Another short-
coming to this approach is that, in the event that central government priorities
conflict with regional priorities, the desires of the central government always take
precedence. According to informants, this is allowed because, although local
governments can control their budgets, those same budget allocations are made
by the central government, thereby assuring a silent form of control over local
development programmes.
Much of the planned tourism development that has occurred so far in
Yogyakarta has been nationally sponsored, usually in conjunction with tourism

in neighbouring Central Java. Local authorities, however, are responsible for
implementing most of the recommendations made in the regional and national
plans. In addition to these nationally driven programs, several local initiatives
have also been undertaken in the past to develop tourism in the province.
As in many other developing countries, the planning tradition in Yogyakarta
is a top-down approach, is sectoral in nature, and focuses on physical, or spatial,
planning for the improvement of tourist attractions and infrastructure. Since
1979, a common practice in Yogyakarta has been the formulation of provincial
master plans to guide tourism development generally, and the formulation of
subsequent 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 tourism
section of the document establishes the country’s goals and policies for tourism
development and is compiled by the national-level Department of Tourism, Post
and Telecommunications (Deparpostel). In addition, each province produces its
own regional five-year plan, Repelitada, which also includes a tourism section.
At the provincial level there are presently two parallel government agencies
whose responsibilities include collecting tourism-related data and directing the
development of tourism within the province. Kanwil is the provincial office for
the national government’s Deparpostel, and Dinas Pariwisata is the provincial
government’s tourism development agency. Kanwil reports both to the provincial
Governor and to its home ministry in Jakarta, while Dinas Pariwisata reports only
to the Governor (Mitchell, 1994). Each of these agencies has its own responsibili-
ties, although many of their duties overlap.
Cooperative Tourism Planning in Yogyakarta

The earliest Repelitada plans highlighted development that would require only
minimal cooperation between economic sectors and government agencies. The
most recent plans, however, have begun to broaden their recommendations to
include projects that will require multi-sectoral cooperation. Repelitada VI
(1994–1999), for example, clearly states that one of the principal goals of
provincial administrators is to increase the status of tourism as the primary
economic sector in Yogyakarta Province in terms of regional income and jobs.
Hence, efforts have been made in recent years to increase various types of
cooperation so that tourism can be developed more smoothly. The very fact that
a tourism chapter has been included in the national and provincial development
plans, is evidence that the need for integrative planning is being recognised.
Cooperation between government agencies

Officially, including tourism as part of broader economic development is the
policy in Yogyakarta. In practice, however, this is difficult to achieve because of
the lack of coordination between various planning agencies. The problem is
created by the province’s sectoral planning tradition, which allows too many
organisations and agencies to plan and implement development projects at the
local level. This creates a great deal of overlap between projects, and parallel
research and development often takes place.
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 little
cooperation between these agencies in matters of tourism. As well, Kanwil and
Dinas Pariwisata collect parallel information, such as accommodation statistics
and visitor numbers, spending huge amounts of money and time. If cooperation
was in place, official tourism statistics would probably be more consistent and
reliable.
Although cooperative planning has been difficult to achieve in the past, a few
signs exist that it is beginning to emerge in Yogyakarta. For example, during the
mid-1980s, cooperation between Dinas Pariwisata and the Department of Public
Works resulted in the improvement of the highway between the city, the airport,
and Prambanan temple complex. The road was widened, motorcycle and bicycle
lanes were added, and trees were planted to improve the highway environment
for tourists and locals. According to officials at Dinas Pariwisata, there are ongoing
plans to collaborate with Public Works to continue improving the highway by
adding toll booths. It is believed that this will enhance the quality of the road and
decrease travel time to the airport by decreasing crowded conditions.
The Kraton (palace) Festival 1991, which focused on the Sultan palaces in
Yogyakarta and Surakarta, is viewed by local planners as an example of
successful cross-sectoral cooperation. The festival was held from 7–21 September
1991, and was featured as one of four core events during Visit Indonesia Year.
The festival drew thousands of foreign and domestic visitors to Yogyakarta and
Surakarta and featured many aspects of everyday life among palace residents
and workers. In both public and private circles the festival was considered a huge
success. The gala was unique and successful in many people’s view because it
involved planned cooperation among 15 separate government agencies in
Yogyakarta 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 to
coordinate their efforts.
Planning for heritage-based tourism presents some unique difficulties leading
to a similar fragmentation of responsibilities. By legislation, the national-level
Department of Education and Culture is directly responsible for the restoration
and preservation of the historic structures themselves. The grounds surrounding
the monuments and their related infrastructure, such as ticket booths, interpre-
tative centres and parking lots, are administered by PT Taman Wisata (Tourism
Parks), a public corporation under the administration of the national Department
of Tourism, Post and Telecommunications. On the other hand, souvenir stands,
food stalls, and other tourism-related structures outside the main grounds fall
under the control of Dinas Pariwisata of the province in which they are located.
This kind of spatial arrangement has the potential to create administrative
problems and indeed it has in the past. The current practice, however, is to make
the spatial delineations prior to development of the attraction, so that conflicts
between departments are usually avoided. One recent example of an operational
horizontal delineation of this nature occurred at the Ratu Boko palace complex
to the northeast of Yogyakarta City. The historic structures themselves are
currently being restored by archaeologists under the Department of Education
and Culture. The grounds have already been improved a great deal, and a ticket
booth is operated by Taman Wisata. The tourism infrastructure in surrounding
communities is being improved with shops, snack bars, and other facilities under
the administration of Dinas Pariwisata.
Cooperation was also recently achieved between Dinas Pariwisata and the
Department of Agriculture for the development of the Salak Pondoh agrovillage
project. Salak is a unique fruit with a snakeskin-like appearance and is a popular
food among Indonesians. The pondoh variety is apparently found only at the base
of Yogyakarta’s Mount Merapi in Bangunkerto Village. Owing to the fruit’s
uniqueness, the decision was made by provincial administrators to promote salak
cultivation as a form of agrotourism. Promotion for the project began in 1992,
with Japanese, Dutch, and domestic tourists being targeted as the primary market
groups for half-day tours to the area in conjunction with visits to Prambanan and
Borobudur. Interpretative information regarding the plant itself and cultivating
and harvesting procedures were dealt with by the Department of Agriculture.
The more direct touristic aspects, such as organising tour groups, establishing
eating facilities and small guest houses, and erecting signs, were handled by
Dinas Pariwisata. Telfer’s (1997) work provides a detailed account of the growth
of salak tourism in Bangunkerto.
Cooperation was also achieved between Dinas Pariwisata and the police
department in 1991 with the creation of tourist police. This was a response to the
need to improve safety for tourists during Visit Indonesia Year, and the service
still 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 recognised
the 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 still
a notable lack of cooperation and communication among government agencies.
To the admission of some informants, as mentioned above, there is a significant
dearth of cooperation between Dinas Pariwisata and Kanwil, even though both
have 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.
Cooperation between administrative levels

Bottom-up planning occurs in Yogyakarta in the sense that decentralisation of
decision making is official policy and lower-level governments are now
beginning to be involved in decision-making processes. In common with
national-level planning, on paper, lower administrative levels are permitted and
encouraged to propose ideas for tourism development. However, according to
some informants, these grassroots proposals are rarely taken into account, since
higher-level priorities always tend to take precedence, even within the province.
This problem was also observed by van Steenbergen (1992) in the broader
Indonesian 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 cooperative
efforts between provincial and municipal governments in matters of tourism
management. For example, according to the director of Yogyakarta’s municipal-
level planning agency, certain responsibilities relating to tourism, such as
overseeing the operations of some restaurants and entertainment facilities, were
handed over to the municipal government of Yogyakarta in 1995 by Dinas
Pariwisata and Kanwil. Similarly, dealings with street vendors are divided
between the municipal government and the provincial Dinas Pariwisata. The city
handles matters of taxation and licensing, while the province handles matters of
tourism-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-breaking
cooperation between the national government in Jakarta (responsible for
budgeting and marketing) and the two provincial governments (responsible for
local arrangements) was achieved (UNESCO/UNDP, 1992).
Despite these initial attempts to share tourism responsibilities between
administrative levels, little other progress is actually being made along these
lines. That the recommendation in the third Regional Five-Year Development
Plan to establish sub-provincial branches of Dinas Pariwisata, made nearly 19
years ago, has not yet been accomplished, attests to this fact.
Cooperation between same-level political units

Cooperation between same-level polities is especially important in this
location because the main attractions are located in the province of Central Java
even though the transportation and accommodation centre is Yogyakarta. In
1984, the fourth Repelitada recognised the need to coordinate efforts with other
destination provinces, namely Central Java, for joint promotion. There is no
evidence that this ever occurred. More recent regional plans have encouraged a
similar 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. The
process of the formulation of this plan broke free of the traditional planning
practices in that it included shared efforts between the Department of Tourism,
the Department of Economic Development, and the Department of Education
and Culture in both provinces.
From the experience gained during the Kraton Festival, the UNESCO/UNDP
report (1992) recognised two needs related to cooperative planning that must be
met on a continuing basis. One is the need to allow decentralisation of decision
making and budgeting to give provincial governments the freedom to undertake
tourism planning. The second need, more pertinent to this section, is to increase
cooperation between the two provinces for cultural tourism development. In
order to accomplish this, a regional cultural tourism planning approach was
recommended 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 the
governors of both provinces in June 1993. Although this has been established,
according to one participant, it is having difficulty functioning and is essentially
defunct 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 ambitious
plans have been considered for international tourism alliances. The Indonesia–
Malaysia–Singapore Growth Triangle is one example of these international

arrangements (Lee, 1990; Ooi, 1995). The focus of this triangle is to develop closer
economic ties, including tourism, between Indonesia’s 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 between
members of economic communities such as ASEAN and organisations such as
PATA, increase the possibilities of forming these kinds of growth triangles. In
terms of provincial and district governments in Yogyakarta, however, there is
little evidence that local-level administrative units are endeavouring to achieve
cooperation with same-level polities.
Cooperation between public and private sectors

As early as 1979 (in Repelitada III), the provincial government recognised the
lack of cooperation between private and public sectors, but the concept did not
appear again in any of the plans and appears not to have influenced planning
efforts since then. All informants agreed that this type of cooperation does not,
as yet, exist in Yogyakarta, except where permission is granted by the
government for private investments in developing the tourism supply.
Constraints to Cooperative Tourism Planning

The examples in this paper demonstrate that most cooperative planning
principles are lacking in Yogyakarta. There are, however, signs that some of them
are beginning to be realised in some isolated instances. Cross-sectoral coopera-
tion, cooperation between administrative levels, and cooperation between
autonomous polities are strongly advocated in the planning documents, but in
practice they only occasionally occur. Cooperation between government agen-
cies and between the private and public sectors is just now beginning to occur in
a few limited cases. It is still not the norm. Cooperation between levels of
administration is also in its infancy, and decentralisation has yet to be realised
on a sub-provincial level to the extent that it has begun to occur at the national
level, 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.
Several possible reasons were identified during the field research for this
dearth of cooperative efforts. According to all government and other planning
informants, the traditional social and political hierarchy in the country is a major
factor 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 to
the extent that such power, or 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
socio-political figure (Moedjanto, 1986) — a concept that has allowed the
concentration of power in the hands of President Suharto and his family for more
than 30 years. According to Brown (1994: 117), the Javanese concept of power
presumes that ‘power ¼ diminishes with distance from the individual at the
centre’. And, according to tradition, ‘power generates its own authority in that
those who attain positions of dominance are assumed to have deserved it because
of 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 are
for the good of everyone, including lower levels of government. To break from
this hierarchical tradition is a sign of rebellion and would be insulting to social
and political superiors (Anderson, 1972). Some of this sentiment can probably be
attributed to the fact that those in positions of control are reluctant to share their
power. As Reed (1997: 589) suggests, stakeholders in tourism planning ‘who
traditionally hold power may resist its redistribution, thereby hindering attempts
for collaboration’. This attitude has been demonstrated strongly in recent years
in Indonesia with the suppression of political rivals, captious journalists, and
other outspoken critics on the part of leading national politicians (Liddle &
Mallarangeng, 1997).
According to several private and academic planners, local tourism planning
authorities are simply unaware of the need for, and do not understand the
possible benefits of, cooperative tourism planning. In terms of cooperation
between same-level polities, several informants observed that local leaders are
sometimes unaware of their jurisdictional rights, in other words, whether or not
they are permitted to establish cross-border ties with other jurisdictions. Dupuy
(1982: 58) suggested that, in some political systems, it is believed that only
national governments are competent to enter into international agreements, even
informal, local ones. Local authorities and public establishments in these systems
have no right to contract with their trans-boundary partners, no matter how
equal, unless they have received prior authorisation from a higher government.
The hierarchical nature of the Indonesian state likely contributes to this as a
significant reason for a lack of cooperation in Indonesia as well.
According to one informant, the physical development of attractions is the
most popular planning approach because of its quick and conspicuous nature.
This type of planning can be carried out expeditiously and thus can show
outwardly that government agencies are busy developing tourism, which will
likely help reduce critical appraisals of their efforts. Cooperative efforts may
require significant amounts of time, so that they are not a high priority for
bureaucrats. Furthermore, goals of other agencies, polities, and levels of
government might not be in harmony with those of the agency or government in

question and thus some of its development plans might be thwarted.
Another constraint to cooperative tourism planning lies within the model
itself. The model in fact promotes a form of comprehensive planning, which, as
mentioned earlier, has received significant criticism by planning scholars. It is
possible that the cooperative form of tourism planning is too comprehensive, so
that it is too difficult to implement all aspects of the approach at one time and in
one region, especially in regions where planning traditions have until now
essentially ignored cooperation in all or some of the forms recommended in the
model.
Conclusions
This paper has presented a normative approach to tourism planning that

requires cooperation between intra-government agencies, different levels of
government, same-level political units, and the private and public sectors.
However, although these principles are important and could improve the local
tourism industry, Western visions of what tourism planning ought to be might
not always fit neatly into the planning practices already in place in many
developing countries. Owing to local social and political conditions, as well as a
lack of awareness about the utility of cooperative planning on the part of
government planners, these cooperative principles have not been operational-
ised as the norm in tourism planning in Yogyakarta. This lack of cooperation in
tourism planning likely exists in many other developing countries where social
and political mores and planning traditions are similar to those of Java and the
rest of Indonesia.
There is a significant lack of research on tourism planning in developing
countries, even though it is clear that planning and the political environments in
which planning occurs are very different from those in developed, Western
societies. More research is needed on local and indigenous approaches to tourism
planning in a variety of socio-political contexts. The model presented in this
paper might fit appropriately in some destination areas in both developed and
developing countries and inappropriately in others. Additional research would
be useful in refining this prescriptive model and in adapting it to other situations
where complete cooperation might or might not be feasible.
The underlying tenets of cooperative tourism planning correspond closely
with Bramwell and Lane’s (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 among
development authorities. Cooperative tourism planning aims to increase effi-
ciency, harmony, and equity in the development of regional tourism — principles
that in part define sustainability in the context of other destination areas in
Indonesia (Wall, 1993) and principles that, if followed, can assist a destination in
developing a tourism industry that will be sustained over the long term.
Acknowledgement
The author is grateful for financial support from the Canadian International
Development Agency, and administrative support from the Centre for Environ-
mental Studies at Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
References
Anderson, B.R.O. (1972) The idea of power in Javanese culture. In C. Holt (ed) Culture and
Politics in Indonesia (pp. 1–70). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Baud-Bovy, M. (1982) New concepts in planning for tourism and recreation. Tourism
Management 3 (4), 308–13.
Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (1993) Sustainable tourism: An evolving global approach.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1 (1), 1–5.
Brohman, J. (1996) New directions in tourism for third world development. Annals of
Tourism Research 23 (1), 48–70.
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), 17–37.
Dupuy, P.M. (1982) Legal aspects of transfrontier regional cooperation. West European
Politics 5, 50–63.
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), 21–32.
Getz, D. (1987) Tourism planning and research: Traditions, models and futures. In
Proceedings of the Australian Travel Workshop (pp. 407–48). Bunbury, Western Australia:
Australian Travel Workshop.
Getz, D. and Jamal, T.B. (1994) The environment–community symbiosis: A case for
collaborative tourism planning. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2 (3), 152–73.
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), 387–98.
Inskeep, E. (1987) Environmental planning for tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 14 (1),
118–35.
Inskeep, E. (1988) Tourism planning: An emerging specialization. Journal of the American
Planning Association 54 (3), 360–72.
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), 186–204.
Kliot, N. (1996) Turning desert to bloom: Israeli-Jordanian peace proposals for the Jordan
Rift Valley. Journal of Borderlands Studies 11 (1), 1–24.
Lee, G. (1987) Future of national and regional tourism in developing countries. Tourism
Management 8 (2), 86–8.
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 and
below. Asian Survey 37 (2), 167–74.
Marcouiller, D.W. (1997) Toward integrative tourism planning in rural America. Journal
of Planning Literature 22 (3), 338–57.
Minca, C. and Getz, D. (1995) Public and private-sector cooperation in destination
planning: A comparison of Banff and Niagara Falls. The Tourist Review 4, 49–59.
Mitchell, B. (1989) Geography and Resource Analysis (2nd edn). London: Longman.
Mitchell, B. (1994) Institutional obstacles to sustainable development in Bali, Indonesia.
Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 15 (2), 145–56.
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.
Murphy, P.E. (1988) Community driven tourism planning. Tourism Management 9 (2),
96–104.
Nunn, S. and Rosentraub, M.S. (1997) Dimensions of interjurisdictional cooperation.
Journal of the American Planning Association 63 (2), 205–19.
Ooi, G.L. (1995) The Indonesia-Malaysia-Singapore growth triangle: Sub regional
economic cooperation and integration. GeoJournal 36 (4), 337–44.
Prentice, R.C. (1993) Community-driven tourism planning and residents’ preferences.
Tourism Management 14 (3), 218–27.
Reed, M.G. (1997) Power relations and community-based tourism planning. Annals of
Tourism Research 24 (3), 566–91.
Richard, W.E. (1993) International planning for tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 20 (4),
601–4.
Simmons, D.G. (1994) Community participation in tourism planning. Tourism Management
15 (2), 98–108.
Spann, R.N. (1979) Government Administration in Australia. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Suryadinata, L. (1997) Democratization and political succession in Suharto’s Indonesia.
Asian Survey 37 (3), 269–80.
Telfer, D.J. (1997) Agrotourism: A path to community development? Paper presented at
the ATLAS International Conference, Viana do Castelo, Portugal, 4–6 September.
Timothy, D.J. (1995) International boundaries: New frontiers for tourism research. Progress
in Tourism and Hospitality Research 1 (2), 141–52.
Tjatera, W. (1994) A model for integrating sub-provincial traditional and official regional
planning 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 case
of Indonesia. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 83 (3), 216–25.
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. 45–58).
Waterloo, ON: University of Waterloo, Department of Geography.

Timothy 1998

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Timothy 1998

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Indiana Universities]

On: 09 September 2012, At: 01:51

Version of record first published: 29 Mar

To cite this article: Dallen J. Timothy (1998): Cooperative Tourism Planning

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669589808667301

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/

0966-9582/98/01 0052-17 $10.00/0 ©1998 D.J. Timothy

cooperation’. Regardless of its importance, however, this may be difficult to

Sustainability and Cooperative Tourism Planning

ecological integrity, efficiency, equity, cultural integrity, community, integra-

Cooperative Tourism Planning

Cooperation Cooperation Cooperation Private-

Cooperation between government agencies is essential if tourism is to develop

economic, social, and environmental imbalances that might occur on opposite

initiatives may occur and result in a deterioration of relations between them.

recorded. The information presented in this paper is based on this research.

Tourism in Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Tourism Planning in Yogyakarta

Figure 2 Yogyakarta Province on the South coast of Java

Figure 3 The five levels of government in Indonesia

Yogyakarta has been nationally sponsored, usually in conjunction with tourism

Cooperative Tourism Planning in Yogyakarta

Cooperation between government agencies

Even in tourism-related government sectors, fragmented development com-

Cooperation between administrative levels

Cooperation between same-level political units

Malaysia–Singapore Growth Triangle is one example of these international

Cooperation between public and private sectors

Constraints to Cooperative Tourism Planning

government might not be in harmony with those of the agency or government in

This paper has presented a normative approach to tourism planning that

Tahun 1994. Yogyakarta: Departemen Pariwisata, Pos dan Telekomunikasi.

You might also like