COMMUNITY-BASED TOURISM DEVELOPMENT AND ITS EFFECTS ON THE LOCAL COMMUNITY: THE CASE OF PENGLIPURAN VILLAGE, INDONESIA By Astri Briliyanti A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Sustainable Tourism and Protected Area Management – Master of Science 2021 ABSTRACT COMMUNITY-BASED TOURISM DEVELOPMENT AND ITS EFFECTS ON THE LOCAL COMMUNITY: THE CASE OF PENGLIPURAN VILLAGE, INDONESIA By Astri Briliyanti Community-based Tourism (CBT), a concept that focuses on community participation to minimize the costs and maximizes the benefits of tourism development for a community, has been promoted in Indonesia since the 1990s. However, as many CBT initiatives have failed to acquire the desired positive gains, the practicality and usefulness of CBT have been questioned. This study offers case study evidence of the Penglipuran Village CBT initiative, which has received considerable recognition for its natural and cultural protection efforts. Despite its image as Indonesia’s most successful tourism village, little is known about why its CBT is considered a ‘success.’ The village, which serves as a model of CBT in Indonesia, was selected for this study, which aims to investigate how the community has developed itself as a tourism village using CBT processes, and the effects of tourism development on the community. Based on interview with 21 villagers and 6 external stakeholders, findings suggest that the community’s pre-established traditional governance and decision-making mechanism, and its tradition of organizing its members to complete self-initiated natural and cultural protection projects, form the foundation for its CBT operations and management. Easy access and strategic location also have enabled the village to be a competitive tourist destination. The community has played a significant role in producing and selling tourism products and services, sharing tourism benefits among themselves, and independently solving and anticipating tourism-related problems. External support in the form of regulations, marketing and promotion, training, research, advice, and resource support also have contributed to the success of its CBT operations. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitude for my advisor, Dr. Gail Vander Stoep, who has been very thoughtful and patient in guiding me throughout my master’s journey. She has helped me broaden my perspectives, which deepen my understanding of sustainable tourism and qualitative research. Thanks are extended to my committee members, Dr. Maria Claudia Lopez and Dr. Mark Axelrod, for their supervision through the completion of this master’s thesis. Without their enduring support and passion, finishing my thesis would not be as fulfilling as it is. My deepest gratitude is dedicated to those who have contributed to this study, including all interviewees, all Penglipuran residents, all those who generously donated their time for informal meetings with me, and all my friends in Indonesia who have helped me with fieldwork and logistics preparation, especially Wija and Kamala’s family, and Echa. I am also thankful for the MSU Asian Study Center (Dr. Siddharth Chandra) for partially funding this study. As the experience of being a student at MSU would not be possible without their support, my sincerity is also extended to my assistantship supervisors at the CMSE Department: Dr. Dirk Colbry, Dr. Katy Colbry, and Dr. Julie Rojewski, as well as the late Dr. Bob Coffey for connecting me with them. Also, thanks to the CSUS community, friends in East Lansing, and the Indonesian community in Michigan who have made my journey as a student enjoyable. To my families, thanks for your endless support and prayers. To Ryan M. Khawarizmi, thanks for being a wonderful husband and the “fourth supervisor” in this study. Thanks to everyone who has kindly supported me throughout this journey. Although it is impossible to mention each one of you, I will remember your helpfulness, and I hope that your kindness is returned in the same way that it was offered. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... viii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 Need for the Study ...................................................................................................................... 4 Study Purpose and Research Questions ..................................................................................... 5 Definitions of Terms .................................................................................................................. 5 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................................... 6 Thesis Organization .................................................................................................................... 6 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................... 7 Tourism Definitions ................................................................................................................... 7 Disillusionment with Mass Tourism .......................................................................................... 8 Community-based Tourism (CBT) as One Alternative to Mass Tourism ............................... 10 Community-based Tourism Destinations ............................................................................. 12 Community Participation in CBT Development................................................................... 13 Barriers to Community Participation in CBT Development................................................. 17 Involvement of External Stakeholders in CBT Development .............................................. 19 The Effects of Community-based Tourism (CBT) Development on Community ................... 22 Benefits of Community-based Tourism ................................................................................ 22 Negative Effects of Community-based Tourism .................................................................. 23 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 24 CHAPTER 3: CASE STUDY CONTEXT ................................................................................ 25 Indonesia’s Geographic and Tourism Contexts ....................................................................... 25 Bali’s Geographic and Tourism Contexts ................................................................................ 26 Community-based Tourism Development in Bali .................................................................... 29 Penglipuran Village .................................................................................................................. 32 Geographic Context .............................................................................................................. 32 Historical Context ................................................................................................................. 33 Physical Heritage Features .................................................................................................... 34 Tri Hita Karana Philosophy ................................................................................................. 39 Community Structure ............................................................................................................ 40 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 47 CHAPTER 4: METHODS ......................................................................................................... 48 Study Population and Sampling Procedure .............................................................................. 49 Study Population: Community Members.............................................................................. 50 Study Population: External Stakeholders.............................................................................. 51 Instrument Development and Data Collection Methods .......................................................... 53 Background Research to Understand the Case Study Community ....................................... 53 Interview Guide Development .............................................................................................. 54 iv Verbal Consent...................................................................................................................... 55 Pilot Study ............................................................................................................................. 56 Guided Semi-structured Interviews ...................................................................................... 57 Challenges during Data Collection ....................................................................................... 59 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 62 Validity ..................................................................................................................................... 65 Ethics ........................................................................................................................................ 65 Profile of Internal and External Interviewees ........................................................................... 66 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 71 CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS .......................................................................................................... 73 Traditional Community Participation in Penglipuran Village ................................................. 74 Traditional Governance and Decision-making Processes..................................................... 74 Religious and Socio-cultural Activities ................................................................................ 81 Community Participation in Tourism Benefits ........................................................................ 91 History of CBT Designation ................................................................................................. 91 Ways to Participate in Tourism............................................................................................. 98 Benefits of Participation in Tourism ................................................................................... 111 Factors Affecting Community Participation in the Tourism Benefits ................................ 120 Effects of Tourism and CBT Responses ................................................................................ 139 CBT Responses to Ongoing Tourism Effects ..................................................................... 139 CBT Responses in Anticipation of Future Tourism Effects ............................................... 151 Summary ................................................................................................................................ 159 CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................... 162 Traditional Community Participation in Penglipuran Village ............................................... 163 Traditional Governance and Decision-making Processes................................................... 163 Religious and Socio-cultural Activities .............................................................................. 166 Community Participation in Tourism Benefits ...................................................................... 169 Effects of Tourism and CBT Responses ................................................................................ 179 CBT Responses to Ongoing Tourism Effects ..................................................................... 179 CBT Responses in Anticipation of Future Tourism Effects ............................................... 180 Summary of Key Findings ..................................................................................................... 183 Scholarly Implications ............................................................................................................ 186 Practical Implications ............................................................................................................. 191 Study Limitations ................................................................................................................... 194 Recommendations for Future Research ................................................................................. 196 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................... 199 APPENDIX A: Oral Consent Form ....................................................................................... 200 APPENDIX B: Oral Consent Form (Indonesian Version) ..................................................... 201 APPENDIX C: Interview Guide – Community Members ..................................................... 202 APPENDIX D: Interview Guide – Community Members (Indonesian Version) .................. 206 APPENDIX E: Interview Guide – External Actors ............................................................... 210 APPENDIX F: Interview Guide – External Actors (Indonesian Version) ............................. 213 APPENDIX G: Codebook ...................................................................................................... 217 v APPENDIX H: Indonesian Research Permit ......................................................................... 225 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 226 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Community Members – Sociodemographic Profile ........................................................ 66 Table 2 External Stakeholders – Sociodemographic Profile ........................................................ 71 Table 3 Annual Number of Visitors to Penglipuran Village, 2013-17 ..........................................97 Table 4 Traditional Community Participation in Penglipuran Village – Coding Scheme ..........217 Table 5 Community Participation in the Benefits of Tourism – Coding Scheme .......................220 Table 6 Effects of Tourism and CBT Responses – Coding Scheme ...........................................223 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 International Tourists Arrival 1989-2020 ......................................................................... 9 Figure 2 Archipelago of Indonesia ............................................................................................... 25 Figure 3 Indonesia (left), Bali Province (right) ............................................................................ 27 Figure 4 Bali Province (left), Penglipuran Village location in Kubu, Bangli Regency (right) .... 33 Figure 5 Penglipuran Village Map ................................................................................................ 36 Figure 6 Traditional Buildings ...................................................................................................... 38 Figure 7 Connection among Penglipuran Village Study Participants .......................................... 69 Figure 8 Indonesian Research Permit ..........................................................................................225 viii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Tourism is an essential economic activity in Indonesia. Its high growth and development activities bring a significant volume of foreign currency inflow and employment generation, which positively affect the country’s social and economic development (Antara & Sumarniasih, 2017). The tourism sector is the fourth highest foreign exchange earner, after production of palm oil and extraction of coal and oil, making it one of Indonesia’s most important foreign exchange contributors (Antara & Sumarniasih, 2017). Such significant economic contributions have inspired the Indonesian government to continue prioritizing tourism development. Among the many and diverse Indonesian tourist attractions, Bali is the most popular tourist destination. The island is blessed with stunning landscapes, white sandy beaches, cultural sites, green rice fields, and lakes (Byczek, 2011). Its natural beauty, combined with artistic talents, unique traditions, and colorful ceremonies, makes Bali attractive to tourists. Since the 1970s, the tourism industry has expanded rapidly, resulting in improved Balinese living standards. However, excessive tourism has caused socio-environmental problems, such as environmental degradation, groundwater scarcity, profit leakage to foreign investors, and over- dependence on tourism (Blapp, 2015; Tomomi, 2019). Furthermore, it has created income inequality between urban and rural populations (Tomomi, 2019). The adverse effects of tourism in Bali have triggered a shift in its tourism development paradigm. After the fall of the New Order Regime in 1998, there was growing demand for an alternative tourism form that would minimize the costs of tourism and maximize the benefits. Some scholars argue that the Community-based Tourism (CBT) approach can help meet these goals (Daging, Martiningsih, & Arnawa, 2019). In Indonesia, this model has been implemented 1 in rural areas, resulting in what are known as desa wisata, or tourism villages (Dolezal, 2015). In addition to reducing some of the negative effects of tourism forms more often associated with mass tourism and external investors, reasons for application of CBT in villages include addressing urban and rural disparities and reflecting the authenticity of Indonesia’s culture (Dolezal, 2015; Manaf, Purbasari, Damayanti, Aprilia, & Astuti, 2018). Development and operation of tourism villages is supposed to follow principles of CBT, including the community members’ participation in, ownership of, and control over their own tourism development decisions (Vajirakachorn, 2011). Finally, CBT is expected to improve a local community’s quality of life and conserve cultural and natural resources (Tolkach, 2013). After approximately three decades of development of tourism villages using the CBT process in Bali, there is evidence of benefits for villagers. CBT initiatives have begun to address communities’ concerns about nature and culture preservation (Sardiana & Purnawan, 2015), strengthen local community capacity and cohesivity, improve economic linkages with local products, and diversify income (Martokusumo, 2015). However, many tourism villages do not experience these benefits and seem to struggle to establish themselves. Goodwin & Santilli (2009) have pointed out that good examples of CBT are difficult to find in practice. Suartika (2018) noted that tourism village development has been oriented heavily to exploiting every element of local culture for tourists to ‘consume,’ while the extent to which the community truly enhances its own potential remains questionable. Difficulties in developing CBT, such as lack of local capacity, lack of financial resources, and lack of skills can prevent or limit communities from receiving and experiencing the full range of CBT benefits (Dolezal, 2015; Martokusumo, 2015). As a result, investigating how successful CBT initiatives develop their villages and gain 2 benefits from tourism is important. Results can provide lessons learned for other communities whose members wish to develop their own villages using the CBT process. Penglipuran Village is one of the villages that can provide lessons for other CBT initiatives. The village is a well-known CBT initiative, and has the image of being the ‘most successful’ in Indonesia. The community has received numerous awards for its ability to preserve its ancestral buildings and traditional spatial layout as well as maintain its bamboo forest. However, it is still unclear why this village is considered a success in the context of CBT. While previous studies have reported some effects, both positive and negative, of CBT development on the community (Pradnyaparamita, 2018; Pickel-Chevalier, Bendesa, & Putra, 2019), most studies do not include perspectives of diverse stakeholders within the community. A comprehensive understanding of how the community has developed itself as a tourism village using the CBT process, including factors that both contribute to and inhibit development, also is missing from published literature. Given that this village serves as a model for other CBT initiatives in Indonesia (Handayani, 2015), a holistic study about CBT development and its effects on Penglipuran community is needed. This study addresses this gap by contributing to understanding CBT and its effects as viewed primarily from the perspectives of villagers, supplemented by viewpoints of a limited number of relevant external stakeholders. This study is delimited to a single case study community. It is based also on the assumption that incorporating and accommodating multiple stakeholders’ concerns and perspectives about CBT development is important in CBT studies (Rocharungsat, 2005). Therefore, to achieve the study purpose, this research has solicited multiple stakeholders’ perspectives (most are community members; some are stakeholders external to the community). This study considers the heterogeneity of villagers and includes perspectives of non-elite 3 residents (non-leaders) as well as of those in leadership roles. Also, this study includes perspectives of selected external stakeholders’ because they are crucial players whose actions may have either enabled and/or inhibited CBT development (Tolkach, 2013; Dolezal, 2015). Need for the Study Tourism studies conducted specifically in the context of Indonesia are essential because tourism is increasingly important in improving Indonesian economic competitiveness. The government supports development of CBT in villages to increase employment opportunities and improve local communities’ welfare, thereby discouraging villagers’ migration to cities (Suhandi & Simatupang, 2013). Despite CBT being regarded as a priority, however, the amount of published literature about CBT in the Indonesian context is limited (Martokusumo, 2015) and the term ‘tourism villages’ is rarely found in the literature (Damanik, Rindrasih, Cemporaningsih, Marpaung, Raharjana, Brahmantya, & Wijaya, 2018). Therefore, this study can contribute to filling the gap in Indonesian CBT studies. Government justifications for use of the CBT approach in Indonesia focus primarily on economic implications rather than considering the full range of potential benefits and costs to communities, their culture, and their environment. Further, inclusion of diverse community members’ and external stakeholders’ perspectives often is neglected in tourism studies. In response, this Indonesia-based study expands on and contributes to understanding CBT by incorporating multiple stakeholders’ perspectives and by considering economic and other effects (perceived both negatively and positively by varied stakeholders) of CBT development. Therefore, this study contributes to the scholarship about CBT in Indonesian contexts, in developing countries more generally, and to CBT as a tourism development approach. 4 Study Purpose and Research Questions The purpose of this study is to better understand both the development of a tourism village using the CBT process and the effects of this tourism development on the Penglipuran community. This study attempts to answer these two research questions: 1. How has Penglipuran Village developed as a tourism village using the CBT process? 2. How has CBT development in Penglipuran affected the community? Definitions of Terms Community: “A group of people with diverse characteristics who are linked by social ties, share common perspectives, and engage in joint action in geographical locations.” (MacQueen, McLellan, Metzger, Kegeles, Strauss, Scotti, Blanchard, & Trotter, 2001, p. 1,936). In this study, the target community is the group of people living in Penglipuran Village. Tourism: “The process, activities, and outcomes arising from the relationships and the interactions among tourists, tourism suppliers, host governments, host communities, and surrounding environments that are involved in the attracting and hosting of visitors” (Goeldner and Ritchie, 2011, p. 4). Community-based Tourism (CBT): “Small-scale [tourism that] involves interactions between visitor and host community, [and is] particularly suited to rural and regional areas, CBT is commonly understood to be managed and owned by the community, for the community. It is a form of ‘local’ tourism, favoring local service providers and suppliers and focused on interpreting and communicating the local culture and environment” (Asker, Boronyak, Carrard, & Paddon, 2010, p. 2). Village: The smallest administrative unit in Indonesia, which also is considered a legal community with clear boundaries (Antlöv, Wetterberg, & Dharmawan, 2016). 5 External Stakeholders: Individuals and/or organizations that are involved or influential in CBT development, but are external to the Penglipuran community. In this study, external stakeholders refer to the local government, NGOs, academic institutions, external private businesses, and neighboring villagers. Significance of the Study Although the government of Indonesia has focused on CBT development in the country, the amount of published literature about CBT in the Indonesian context is limited. As poor knowledge of CBT in practice may lead to poor decision-making with financial and human resources allocation in the country (Ernawati, 2015), this study can be used as a source to provide guideline for effective CBT development and operations in Indonesia and/or other developing countries, thus helping the community, government, or relevant agencies with effective CBT planning, decision-making, and implementation. Most importantly, this study contributes to the literature related to CBT in practice, enriching the current body of knowledge about CBT. Thesis Organization The thesis contains six chapters. This introduction is followed by a literature review in chapter two that explains the shift in the tourism development paradigm from mass tourism to CBT development, and the effects CBT on the community. Chapter three explains the geographic and historical tourism contexts of Bali and Penglipuran, as used in this case study. Chapter four elaborates data collection and analysis methods. Chapter five presents findings of this study, illustrated with representative interview quotes. The discussion and conclusions are presented in chapter six, supplemented with theoretical and practical implications, weaknesses of the study, and recommendations for future research. 6 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter reviews the literature as applies to the definition of tourism, critiques of mass tourism, the growing demand of Community-based Tourism (CBT) as an alternative tourism concept, factors affecting CBT development, and the effects of CBT on communities. Tourism Definitions Tourism is regarded as one of the world’s largest industries, and consists of a variety of interrelated products and services in particular geographic areas that can attract visitors, or ‘tourists’ (Judisseno, 2015). Below are two definitions of tourism: A social, cultural, and economic phenomenon which entails the movement of people to countries or places outside their usual environment for personal or business/professional purposes. These people are called visitors (which may be either tourists or excursionists; residents or non-residents) and tourism has to do with their activities, some of which involve tourism expenditure (UNWTO, n.d.) The process, activities, and outcomes arising from the relationships and the interactions among tourist, tourism suppliers, host governments, host communities, and surrounding environments that are involved in the attracting and hosting of visitors” (Goeldner and Ritchie, 2011, p. 4) These definitions incorporate varied components (e.g., socio-cultural, environmental, economic, and technological components plus marketing, infrastructure development, and community relationships) that are linked to each other to produce a particular tourism product (Judisseno, 2015). This complex industry is multidimensional, multisectoral, and involves multiple stakeholders, so it is difficult to formulate a universally accepted definition of tourism (Buhalis, 2000). ‘Destination’ is a term that is used frequently with tourism. According to Buhalis (2000), a destination is a place where people travel and stay for a period of time to experience one or more attraction elements. A destination offers an amalgam of tourism products and services, 7 which will be ‘consumed by tourists.’ To analyze a tourism destination, Buhalis (2000) offered the “6As framework” that includes: 1) Attractions (e.g., natural, man-made, artificial, heritage, special events), 2) Access (e.g., entire transportation system, including routes, terminals, and vehicles), 3) Amenities (e.g., accommodations, food & beverage services, retailing [shopping opportunities], entertainment [e.g., cinemas, pubs]), 4) Available packages (e.g., pre-arranged tourism experience packages), 5) Activities (e.g., what consumers will do during the visit [painting, photography, hiking], and 6) Ancillary services (e.g., banks, telecommunications, postal services, news media, hospitals). Each element interacts with the others, thereby producing an overall experience for tourists. A tourist’s experience in a destination, for instance, could involve local taxi services, waiters, restaurants, museums, beaches, and entertainment. Experiences with each component will affect tourists’ overall impression of a particular tourism destination (Buhalis, 2000). Disillusionment with Mass Tourism Tourism has resulted in positive economic effects in many countries around the world. This large and fast-growing industry has created a considerable number of jobs and attracted inflow of foreign currency (Antara & Sumarniasih, 2017). According to the UNWTO (2020), almost 1.5 billion international tourist arrivals were recorded globally in 2019, reflecting 4% growth over 2018 arrivals, 64% growth over 2009 arrivals, and 117% growth over 2000 arrivals (see Figure 1). Concurrently, international air passenger traffic increased 4% in 2019 over 2018. Globally, tourism economic growth increased 3.4% in 2019 over 2018; this growth rate has outpaced that of the world’s Gross Domestic Product.1 1 The COVID-19 pandemic hit the world in 2020, which drastically reduced international travel and disrupted the economy. UNWTO (2020) revealed that most tourism experts predicted that international tourism would not return to pre-COVID levels before 2023. It also reported changes in travelers’ behaviors in times of Covid-19; most people preferred to travel closer to home, go to rural areas, and take road trips as they may be safer than going to 8 Figure 1 International Tourist Arrivals 1989-2020 Note. Reprinted from “Unprecedented Fall of International Tourism,” by UNWTO, 2020 (https://www.unwto.org/covid-19-and-tourism-2020) The tourism industry has been identified as an economic sector that can boost economic growth and ameliorate poverty. Governments in developing countries have seen tourism as “a relatively easy, cheap, and viable instrument to achieve export-led industrialization as a core principle of free market economy” (Tosun, 2000, p. 618). Compared with other non-agricultural activities, it offers labor intensive activities having strong linkages with agriculture (e.g., poultry, livestock, fisheries), transportation and infrastructure, and local cultural products (e.g., artworks) (Michael, 2009; Martokusumo, 2015). These diverse employment opportunities also provide income improvement opportunities for local people, profits from which can be used to develop useful facilities to improve their well-being (Michael, 2009). However, such large investments in this industry have resulted in an abundance of mass tourism opportunities and destinations. urban destinations or engaging in mass tourism. Many travelers now stressed the importance of sustainability, authenticity, and creating a positive impact on local communities in their destination decisions (this ongoing trend has been strengthened in response to COVID-19 impacts). Note that data collection for this study began just prior to global imposition of pandemic-related travel restrictions, and the field season was truncated as a result. 9 Mass tourism is a form of tourism linked to mass production and consumption, and occurs when a holiday or vacation is ‘standardized,’ ‘rigidly packaged,’ ‘mass produced,’ and ‘mass marketed’ (Vainikka, 2013). Tourism products and services are highly commercialized, allowing tourists to travel with relatively low costs, which in turn enables massive numbers of people to travel. The mass tourism experience typically is culturally poor and commodified (Tomomi, 2015), whereby tourists all have the same standard experiences, with limited opportunities for interaction and understanding among hosts and tourists. Economic leakage away from host communities has been recognized as a major negative effect of mass tourism for local communities. Giampiccoli and Mtaputri (2017) mentioned that only 5% of foreign tourist spending remains in developing countries because most airline, accommodation, and travel companies are owned, developed, and managed by foreign entities (Tomomi, 2019). Their products and services have limited links with local foods or products. Finally, mass tourism often is market-oriented, favoring tourist demands over local community needs (Tomomi, 2019), which in turn leads to socio-cultural and environmental degradation (Laksmi et al., 2018; Tasci, Semrad & Yilmaz, et al., 2013). Community-based Tourism (CBT) as One Alternative to Mass Tourism The adverse effects of mass tourism worldwide created a partial shift in the tourism development paradigm beginning in the 1970s (Picard, 2008). During this period, there was growing demand for alternative tourism forms that would minimize costs and maximize benefits of tourism (Rocharungsat, 2005). While numerous alternative concepts emerged, many scholars have noted that CBT is one of the most promising concepts proposed since the 1990s (Asker et al., 2010; Byczek, 2011). Despite the growing number of studies on CBT, however, there has been no consensus on its definition, making it a rather contested concept (Mtapuri & 10 Giampiccoli, 2013). The existence of diverse CBT cases has led to terminological debate (Rocharungsat, 2005), which makes final consensus on the definition difficult (Dolezal, 2015). Nevertheless, some scholars have attempted to define CBT. For example: Generally small-scale [tourism that] involves interactions between visitor and host community, [and is] particularly suited to rural and regional areas; CBT is commonly understood to be managed and owned by the community, for the community. It is a form of ‘local’ tourism, favoring local service providers and suppliers and focused on interpreting and communicating the local culture and environment” (Asker et al., 2010, p. 2). Economically, environmentally, socially, and culturally responsible visitation to local/indigenous communities to enjoy and appreciate their cultural and natural heritage, whose tourism resources, products, and services are developed and managed with their active participation, and whose benefits from tourism, tangible or otherwise, are collectively enjoyed by the communities. (Boonratana 2010, p. 286). Despite minor differences, many scholars agree that the core of CBT is community participation, local ownership of, and local control over the tourism development, “from initiating, implementing, and evaluating, to benefit sharing” (Vajirakachorn, 2011, p. 3). It often is focused on utilizing natural and/or cultural local assets to attract tourists within communities (Dolezal, 2015). Also, it prioritizes community empowerment and equitable benefit distribution (Tolkach, 2013). Ultimately, this concept is intended to improve community members’ quality of life, strengthen local leadership, and help with conservation of cultural and natural resources (Blapp, 2015). It provides experiential tourism opportunities in which tourists may engage in a variety of activities and experiences within the communities, such as performing arts, festivals, cuisine, history, and ways of life (Hardini et al., 2015). Through such experiences, tourists can learn about local people’s ways of life that, in turn, can facilitate cultural exchange between hosts and tourists (Vajirakachorn, 2011). Based on eleven scholars’ definitions of CBT, Martokusumo (2015) identified eighteen essential CBT components. Overall, CBT should incorporate goals and practices that contribute 11 to local control, communities’ empowerment, local ownership, low economic leakage, equitable participation in decision-making and benefit sharing, small-scale development, community well- being, sustainable livelihoods enhancement and diversification, bottom-up approaches, use of local resources and knowledge, conservation of the environment and natural resources, improved quality of life, preservation of cultural heritage, provision of quality visitor experiences, enhanced host-guest interactions, community development and cohesion, and gender sensitivity. Community-based Tourism Destinations As the demand for alternative tourism is growing globally, there is a strong market for CBT destinations. Buhalis (2000), Suandi and Simatupang (2013), and Daging et al. (2019) noted that tourists increasingly want their travel to bring benefits to local communities and contribute to environmental conservation.2 Tourists attracted to CBT communities tend to prefer a type of destination that enables them to interact directly with local communities. Higher awareness of being responsible tourists, coupled with global interconnectedness and enhanced information access, convenient transportation, and improved infrastructure, are some of the reasons why alternative tourism is emerging (Rocharungsat, 2005; Sutawa, 2012). Indeed, CBT destinations have the possibility of meeting preferences and demands of this market segment, as they offer authentic and personalized cultural and educational experiences to visitors (Buhalis, 2000) and allow local people to reap tourism benefits (Rocharungsat, 2005). When agriculture and manufacturing offer limited income opportunities in a changing economy, tourism can be used as a development tool for communities (Ernawati, 2015). However, successful tourism development does not rely solely on community participation. 2 As travelers’ recognition of the importance of sustainability, authenticity, and creating a positive impact on local communities has been growing during the pandemic (UNWTO, 2020), it is likely that the demand for alternative tourism that minimizes costs and maximizes benefits of tourism will continue to grow. 12 Strategic location, availability of infrastructure and supporting transportation services, accommodations, food and drink, entertainment produced by community members through small- to medium-sized enterprises, guides, tourist information, as well as safety and health services also should be considered (Armstrong, 2012; Ernawati, 2015). Furthermore, there must be attractive cultural and/or natural assets that allow tourist participation in local people’s daily activities (e.g., dance, language, cooking classes) (Dewi, Astawa, Siwantara, & Mataram, 2018). The Ancillary component, which includes tourism regulatory institutions, also is necessary (Dewi et al., 2018). These elements are important for enabling a destination to attract a sufficient number of tourists to maintain destination competitiveness and sustainable tourism businesses (Ernawati, 2015). Community Participation in CBT Development Community participation is the most critical element in developing CBT. Because community is the main stakeholder in the process, informed consent of the whole community for tourism development is essential (Armstrong, 2012). Eventually, community members are the ones who will enjoy the benefits and bear the costs of tourism (Tosun, 2000). They are responsible for developing local tourism products, including diversifying and branding those products, developing networks (Manaf et al., 2018), and for providing experiences that visitors seek (Michael, 2009). Full decision-making rights in tourism enables the local community to maximize socio-economic and environmental benefits (Tosun, 2000; Rocharungsat, 2005), as decisions are made based on local knowledge and wisdom (Sutawa, 2012). In turn, these processes have the potential to result in long-term poverty reduction (Michael, 2009). In summary and as mandated by CBT principles, the community should participate in tourism planning and decision-making processes and must be recipients of tourism benefits. 13 Community participation blends concepts of ‘community’ and ‘participation.’ Community is defined as “a group of people, often living in the same geographic area, who identify themselves as belonging to the same group” (Sproule, 1994, p. 235). According to MacQueen et al. (2001), community is “a group of people with diverse characteristics who are linked by social ties, share common perspectives, and engage in joint action in geographical locations or settings” (p. 1929). Rocharungsat (2005) noted that community should not be perceived only as a place, but should incorporate the people and their daily lives. If perceived as only a place, it may be confused with the term “destination.” In the 1980s, the term ‘participation’ became a buzzword for many development projects, and its use remains prominent in the 2000s (Cornwall, 2008). According to Tosun (2000), participation refers to “a form of voluntary action in which individuals confront opportunities and responsibilities of citizenship” (p. 615). Examples of community participation in tourism can be in the form of “joining in the process of self-governance, responding to authoritative decisions that impact on one's life, and working co-operatively with others on issues of mutual concern” (Tosun, 2000, p. 615). Sutawa (2012) added other examples, such as in the form of managing tourism businesses, conserving natural resources, formulating zoning plans, budgeting, providing tourism information, and maintaining cleanliness and security of places. So far, there are no standardized procedures for community participation or agreement about who exactly should participate and to what extent (Sproule, 1994). Therefore, such a concept should be explored from multiple perspectives. Boyce and Lysack (2000) explained that community participation can be conceptualized as both a means and an end, which depends on the purpose of community participation. Participation as a means focuses on achieving a set of common social objectives or benefits 14 while participation as an end emphasizes a long-term process of developing a condition of empowerment. Community participation as a means does not always lead to long-term improved individual capacity. Community participation as an end underscores capability enhancement for people so that they can participate effectively in development. Pretty (1995) also noted that participation can be understood from two viewpoints: as a means to increase efficiency, and as a fundamental right to mobilize collective action and community empowerment. Pretty (1995) offers seven typologies of participation: 1) manipulative participation, “with people’s representatives on official boards but who are unelected and have no power” (p. 1,252); 2) passive participation, which refers to the form of participation in which people are being informed about what has been decided and what has been done; 3) participation by consultation, which refers to people being consulted and answering questions created by external agents; 4) participation in exchange for receiving material incentives, which refers to people participating by contributing resources in return for, for example, goods or monetary incentives (for example, “farmers may provide the fields and labor, but are involved in neither the process of learning nor experimentation” [p. 1,252]); 5) functional participation, which occurs when people are used as a means to achieve project goals (for example, while the locals’ involvement may be interactive, it tends to arise solely after major decisions are made by external agents); 6) interactive participation, which refers to people participating in joint analysis, action plan development, and local institution formation; and 7) self-mobilization, which refers to participation in which local people take initiative independently of external institutions to change a system. Cornwall (2008) noted that it is possible for each type of participation to be found during different stages of a single project or a process. When studying community participation, thus, one should be clear about who can participate in different kinds of decision-making. 15 Timothy (1999) noted that community participation can be seen from at least two points of view: first, as participation in the decision-making process; second, as participating in the benefits of tourism development, for example, as a result of job creation. Participation in decision-making can provide opportunity for communities to determine their own development goals, thus ensuring that tourism benefits go to the community and that local culture is respected. Such an approach also enables them to anticipate and/or respond to negative tourism effects. Participation strictly for purposes of receiving direct benefits involves community participation in producing and selling tourism goods and services, which can be in the form of cooperatives, individually- or family-owned enterprises, or collaborations between the community and external private businesses (Dewi et al., 2018). Because tourism can produce economic multiplier effects, it may generate numerous job opportunities that potentially can reach marginal groups. Local communities can participate in tourism by becoming artisans, guesthouse owners, street vendors, and drivers (Michael, 2009). Cornwall (2008) identified two critical procedures in studying community participation, as practiced in any given context. First, researchers must examine carefully “what exactly people are being enjoined to participate in, for what purpose, who is involved and who is absent” (p. 281). Opportunities for participation must be clearly identified, such as building a secretariat building, participating in an event committee, forming a club, or mobilizing a protest. Second, Cornwall (2008) stressed that researchers must avoid treating an entire community as a single unit. Although segmenting a community by labeled community subgroups is beneficial for operational purposes (e.g., ‘the poor,’ ‘women’), categorizing them into discrete and mutually exclusive boxes reduces understanding of the complexity of a community. In reality, there may be significant socioeconomic relationships between marginal and well-off segments, or between 16 women and men. Lack of understanding such interrelationships may lead to disillusionment by community members during efforts by others to facilitate inclusive community development. Barriers to Community Participation in the CBT Development Community participation, control, and ownership are the core of CBT, making the role of community critical in the CBT development. However, communities often face barriers in operating and managing their CBT initiatives independently. Barriers may thwart inclusive decision-making processes for issues or decisions facing a community. Bhaskara (2015) noted that cultural factors (e.g., religion, ethnicity, caste), socio economic factors (e.g., poverty and lack of education), and political factors (e.g., feudalism and elite domination) may discriminate against groups of people by limiting or prohibiting their active participation in public spaces, particularly in developing countries. Cornwall (2008) pointed out that most participatory processes rely on community representatives – those who speak about and for a particular interest group – and cannot literally involve each individual member of a community. However, involvement by representatives does not mean that they automatically have their voices heard. Some people may choose not to use their voices for a variety reasons, such as lack of confidence or to avoid social costs of participation (Cornwall, 2008). Specific to this study’s context, barriers can occur in the process of community participation in tourism. Armstrong (2012) noted that, to make CBT successful, a local community must have an entrepreneurial spirit and a good understanding of the tourism industry. However, since they may not have any experience with tourism, individual community members as well as the community as a whole may lack one or more of the following: capacity in needed knowledge and skills to tackle a given goal (Armstrong, 2012), financial resources (Giampiccoli et al., 2015), awareness and knowledge about the tourism industry, professional tourism skills 17 (e.g., language, entrepreneurial, managerial skills) (Sebele, 2010; Dolezal, 2015), self-confidence (Dolezal, 2015), participation and sense of ownership (Sebele, 2010), and information access (Sebele, 2010). In particular, lack of skills can be a major inhibitor to CBT development, because CBT relies on community members having the required skills to pursue the collective goal of tourism operations (Sebele, 2010). Further, lack of skills and resources makes villagers dependent on stakeholders having higher financial and tourism capabilities, thus increasing their vulnerability to being appropriated by local elites or external stakeholders (Dolezal, 2015). Power imbalances within communities and the absence of expression of, or attention to, some villagers’ interests are additional factors that inhibit CBT development. “Community” often is assumed to be a homogenous group of people. In reality, it comprises complex power structures, people of varied castes, genders, ethnicities, education, economic status, location, or resources (Sproule, 1994; Iorio & Wall, 2012; Dolezal, 2015). Frequently only the local elites create decisions, indicating an ineffective democratic process (Dolezal, 2015). Furthermore, inequality among villagers can lead to inequitable benefit distribution, hindering poverty reduction efforts in the community. When some groups of people perceive tourism benefits to be unfair or inequitably distributed, this can result in lack of sense of ownership in tourism and subsequent harassment of visitors (Asker et al., 2010), which may lead to failure of CBT. Some community members may not be interested personally in tourism development, even when they do not actively object to it. This individual lack of interest by some may negatively impact the potential for success of the entire community. Dolezal (2015) discovered that lack of interest by residents can result in unwillingness to participate in training programs, thus undermining a community’s ability to sustain tourism operations. Martokusumo (2015) revealed that traumatic experiences with tourism (e.g., displacement and water scarcity), lack of 18 confidence and information, and slow return on investment are some reasons why some communities are disinterested in participating in CBT. Thus, to facilitate active participation of local people in tourism, obstacles that work against local communities must be minimized or removed. A systematic effort to build capacity in a variety of tourism-related knowledge and skills is essential to enable the community as a whole to engage effectively in tourism markets (Michael, 2009). It is recognized that an underlying implication of this statement is that motivation by and involvement of external actors often influence local communities in some way. Thus, “community-based tourism” is not always entirely self-initiated. Involvement of External Stakeholders in CBT Development Given various challenges faced by communities interested in CBT, external involvement to remove barriers often is a necessary component of the process. Armstrong (2012) pointed out no communities ever have successfully established CBT autonomously. Even completely community-owned and managed CBT enterprises require advice from experienced external stakeholders. In fact, it is often outsiders who initially see business potential in villages (Iorio & Wall, 2012). It is only with multi-stakeholder support that CBT initiatives can sustain themselves (Mtapuri & Giampiccoli, 2013). While each destination will have a different mix of stakeholders involved, the importance of government at various levels, NGOs, academic institutions, external private businesses, and other partners outside a CBT destination have been well documented in the literature (Amstrong, 2012; Tolkach, 2013; Mtapuri & Giampiccoli, 2013). Governments Governments—at local, regional, and/or national levels—play a critical role in CBT development. Because tourism consists of a variety of products and services, government commitment to developing policies to assist tourism stakeholders and allocate adequate 19 resources is necessary (Judisseno, 2015). Its roles can include establishing regulatory and policy frameworks that support development of CBT (Manaf et al., 2018), assuring that external private businesses do not appropriate CBT assets (Scheyvens, 2003), helping with continuous provision of psychological, financial, technical, and educational support (Tasci et al., 2013), and legitimizing the communities’ right to manage their CBT (Sproule, 1994). Although CBT destinations occur at the local level, CBT development needs to fit within the respective regional and national constellation (Sproule, 1994). As such, government should provide services outside the destination that affect tourism development within communities, including infrastructure (e.g., electricity, water), transportation systems (e.g., airports and roads), and health/medical facilities. According to Sproule (1994), governments also can help in providing coordination between CBT projects and other CBT or related projects in the region, conducting market research, providing promotional assistance, and minimizing or exempting tax payments from communities. Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) NGOs often are valuable partners in CBT development. While there are many types and missions of NGOs, NGOs involved in CBT are typically those concerned with environmental issues, small-business management, and traditional community development (Sproule, 1994). When the local communities lack of financial capacity, the role of NGOs to find additional financial resources for implementing participatory approaches in tourism development becomes critical (Tosun, 2000). NGOs can assist CBT implementation by providing training, advocacy, funding, and technical assistance, thus improving community confidence (Tosun, 2000). Additionally, they can help with monitoring and evaluating CBT outcomes, ensuring that tourism quality standards are met, providing advice on livelihoods and information related to CBT 20 development, providing financial incentives, and helping with network development (Sproule, 1994) with entities such as banks, schools, and municipalities (Tosun, 2000). Private Businesses One example of a prominent actor in private business is tour operators. Manaf et al. (2018) pointed out that they may have role in the provision of transportation assistance for tourists. Rocharungsat (2005) asserts that they play a vital role in disseminating information directly to tourists about the presence of a particular CBT destination; thus, they strongly influence the volume of traffic to a particular site. Marketing is critically important to making tourism businesses economically sustainable. Further, Dolezal (2015) found that the number of tourists is critical to enabling community participation and empowerment, and in providing income benefits, which often is a major incentive for a community’s participation. Other Communities Other communities may receive benefits from and also contribute to small-scale CBT development. CBT in one village can provide employment opportunities for individuals outside the tourism village boundary, such as for employing tour guides when no local villagers have such skills, establishing motorcycle taxis as local transportation services (Manaf et al., 2018), and producing arts and crafts in neighboring CBT villages (Sebele, 2010). Academic Institutions Academic institutions can provide education and training related to tourism systems and skills to communities. They can provide advice based on research studies, become mentors, mediators, advisors, and innovators for tourism development or conservation efforts in the community (Manaf et al., 2018). Support may be not only about the business of tourism, but also about environmental and/or cultural aspects of tourism. 21 The Effects of Community-based Tourism (CBT) Development on Community Development of CBT can generate both positive and negative effects on the local community, though perceptions of positive or negative effects are based on individual’s preferences, goals, values (Hillman, 2016). The following section explains some of the benefits and negative effects of CBT that have been identified in the literature. Benefits of Community-based Tourism Previous studies have highlighted a plethora of benefits of CBT development. Community participation in tourism has provided alternative livelihoods (Sebele, 2010; Manaf et al., 2018), strengthened economic linkages among local product artisans (Martokusumo, 2015), increased incomes (Timothy, 1999; Hillman, 2016), increased communities’ knowledge about their own culture (Blapp, 2015), improved communities’ concerns about nature and culture preservation (Boonratana, 2010; Sebele, 2010; Sardiana & Purnawan, 2015; Manaf et al., 2018) and pride in their respective cultures and living areas (Dolezal, 2015), increased collective assets (Martokusumo, 2015), strengthened community capacity and cohesion (Martokusumo, 2015), and provided education about tourism and entrepreneurship (Timothy, 1999). In addition to direct benefits, communities also receive indirect benefits of tourism development in their areas. Sutawa (2012) pointed out that tourism village development in Indonesia has resulted in indirect benefits to the local area, such as improved infrastructure and housing, transportation access, provision of health and sanitation facilities, and development of Small-Medium Enterprises (SMEs). Indirect outcomes of a CBT project in Botswana included orphanage house construction and SME development (Sebele, 2010). Indeed, all these effects should not be overlooked, as they are as important and beneficial as direct impacts. Sproule and Suhandi (1998) further acknowledge that, while some community members may be direct 22 beneficiaries (e.g., employees, guides, crafts people, and porters), some community members may become indirect beneficiaries, such as recipients of education and training funded by tourism revenues. In some cases, overall village development due to tourism helps to address out-migration issues, incentivizing young generations to live in villages, and simultaneously discouraging urbanization and its related negative effects (Manaf et al., 2018). Negative Effects of Community-based Tourism Previous studies have identified negative effects of tourism on communities, such as littering, congestion in village areas, destruction of local facilities (Andriyani et al., 2017), and commercialization of local customs (Sardiana & Purnawan, 2015). CBT can create tension between groups within a community, especially when unequitable distribution of benefits exists between those who profit and those who are less fortunate (Tolkach, 2013). Tasci et al. (2013) listed that tourism can threaten natural resources in the village, destroy scenery, or increase emissions due to transportation vehicles, a result that is similar to Hillman's (2016) study. Further, Tasci et al., (2013) assert that consequences of CBT may be worse than typical negative effects of tourism developed without application of CBT principles, if certain factors are not recognized or addressed during CBT development and implementation. For example, when power disparity, information asymmetries, and lack of transparency exist within a community, coupled with lack of local capacity and cultural obstacles, conflict within a community, hostility toward tourists and local environmental degradation can result (Asker et al., 2010). This implies that a local community must anticipate or address negative effects of tourism to keep tourism operating into the future. 23 Summary The negative effects of mass tourism have led to a shift in the tourism development paradigm. In the 1990s, a growing demand for an alternative tourism paradigm emerged, in which the CBT concept that emphasizes community ownership and participation in tourism development was promoted. In short, community participation can be explored from many perspectives, including as related to decision-making and benefits of tourism. However, the literature has shown that active community participation alone does not automatically lead to a successful CBT destination. As a competitive industry, tourism requires components of attractions, access, amenities, packages, activities, and ancillary services to operate successfully. Typically, communities are not able to establish a successful local tourism system by themselves due to several barriers, such as lack of local capacity and funding resources. This indicates the need for external support. In many cases, external support comes from governments, NGOs, private businesses, academic institutions, and other communities. The next chapter explains the case study context for this study about CBT decision-making and implementation in Penglipuran Village, Bali, Indonesia. 24 CHAPTER 3: CASE STUDY CONTEXT As a qualitative study requires a careful description of the case study (Bazeley, 2013), this chapter describes the contexts of Indonesia, Bali, and Penglipuran Village from geographical and historical perspectives, as most relevant to tourism growth. Indonesia’s Geographic and Tourism Contexts Indonesia is the largest archipelago country in the world. The country’s more than 17,000 islands are distributed between the Asia and Australia continents and between the Indian and the Pacific Oceans. The country consists of 5 main islands (see Figure 2), of which Java is the most densely populated. It comprises 1.8 million km2 of land area and 93,000 km2 of water area. In 2019, the population of Indonesia was 274,192,240 people, making it the fourth most populous country in the world. Generally, the country’s climate is tropical, hot, and humid, although temperatures are more moderate in the highlands (Judisseno, 2015). Figure 2 Archipelago of Indonesia Jakarta Note. Reprinted from People of the Sea, by People of the Sea, 2015 (https://sites.psu.edu/passionallywagner/2015/10/26/49/) 25 As with other developing countries throughout the world, Indonesia has given tourism development great importance. Tourism is one of the top four contributors to national revenue, along with agricultural commodities, oil, and gas (Antara & Sumarniasih, 2017). The Indonesian government has recognized that tourism can drive development of many sectors that support tourism activities (resulting in economic multiplier effects), such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries, manufacturing, and infrastructure (Pratiwi, 2004). Consequently, the government of Indonesia has used tourism to increase its foreign exchange, bolster economic growth and local revenue, create local job opportunities, improve recognition of local products (Antara & Sumarniasih, 2017), and justify natural resources conservation (Pratiwi, 2004). Although Indonesia has many potential tourist destinations, Bali remains the focus of tourism development. Since the 1970s, the government has been encouraging local and foreign investment, which in turn encourages more tourists to arrive in Bali. Labelling this phenomenon as the ‘Bali First Policy,’ Judisseno (2015) noted that this effort has familiarized Balinese with local and foreign tourists and intensified economic transactions among them, which further encourages Balinese dependence on tourism for their livelihoods and prosperity. Nowadays, the province of Bali is the largest foreign exchange earner in Indonesia’s economy (Judisseno, 2015). It receives the highest average tourist length-of-stay and hotel occupancy in Indonesia (Pratiwi, 2004). The next section describes Bali’s geographic and tourism context in more detail. Bali’s Geographic and Tourism Contexts Popularly known as the “Island of Gods” and “The Last Paradise,” Bali is one of the most famous tourist destinations in the world (Tomomi, 2019). Located between Java and Lombok Islands, Bali is one of Indonesia’s 34 provinces. The Island covers an area of 5,632.86 km2. Administratively, Bali is divided into eight kabupaten (regencies) – Badung, Gianyar, Bangli, 26 Klungkung, Karangasem, Buleleng, Jembrana, Tabanan – and one capital city – Denpasar (see Figure 3). Each regency is partitioned into several kecamatan (municipalities), and each kecamatan is divided again into desa3 (villages) or kelurahan (subdistricts). In 2019, the population of Bali was 4,362,000 people. Differing from most of Indonesia, which is inhabited predominantly by those who believe in Islam, the majority of Balinese are Hindu. Figure 3 Indonesia (left), Bali Province (right) Note. Reprinted from “Printable Map of Indonesia” by World Map Blank, 2020. (https://worldmapblank.com/blank-map-of-indonesia/) Copyright 2020 by WorldmapBlank.com (left) and from “Bali Map,” by Bali.com, (n.d.) (https://www.bali.com/map.html) (right) This island has been famed as a tourist destination since the 1920s, during the Dutch colonial era (Picard, 2008). Intensive promotion and infrastructure development were carried out, enabling travelers to move around the island conveniently (Judisseno, 2015). At that time, Bali’s distinctive culture and diverse natural resources were the main attractions, which drew wealthy 3 Village is the smallest Indonesian administrative unit, and has a unique function and place in Indonesian society (Antlöv et al., 2016) 27 people, intellectuals, and artists to the island (Judisseno, 2015; Antara & Sumarniasih, 2017). In 1945, Indonesia declared its independence. In 1970s, the central government focused on developing infrastructure, hotels, and other amenities to service tourists (Picard, 2008). Following the decline of oil revenue in the 1990s, tourism was prioritized as a way to reap foreign currency earnings and raise the national income (Judisenno, 2005; Tomomi, 2007; Ernawati, 2015). Continuing what the Dutch had done, Indonesia prioritized Bali as the country’s top destination for international visitors. The first hotels in Kuta and Sanur, built during the 1960s, provided secluded hotel facilities and luxury bungalows along the waterfront (Pratiwi, 2014). To accommodate the growing number of tourists, the international airport was enlarged (Wall, 1993; Ernawati, 2015) and supplemented with development of many other mega-projects in Denpasar and Badung District (Pratiwi, 2004; Byczek, 2011; Ernawati, 2015). Responding to affordable international long-haul travel (Byczek, 2011) and with improved access to information, international and domestic tourists began arriving in Bali in significant numbers, turning it into a mass tourism destination, especially on the southern area of the island. As a result, Bali has been the highest contributor to foreign exchange, making Indonesia heavily reliant on Bali’s tourism (Wall, 1993). Balinese livelihoods, too, increasingly rely on tourism (Judisseno, 2015). By the 1990s, tourism increasingly was perceived as an industry that marginalized local communities (Byczek, 2011). Decisions were made primarily by the national government in Jakarta without integrating local voices. This process has been criticized by labeling Bali as “Bali’s Jakarta Colony” (Byczek, 2011; Tomomi, 2019). The government purchased land from local residents with the promise of hiring them for various jobs. However, migrants who came mainly from Java were hired instead (Pratiwi, 2004; Tomomi, 2007). In 2003, 85% of hotels, 28 restaurants, and travel agencies belonged to non-Balinese investors (Tomomi, 2019). Thus, most regional revenue outflowed to non-Balinese investors (leakage). The growth of Balinese tourism appears likely to continue, although pandemic impacts are unknown as of this writing. In 2019, Balinese received 6.28 million international tourists who came directly into Bali, representing growth of 3.37 % over 20174 (BPS, 2019). The majority of visitors were from Asia, Europe, and Australia. Also, tourism activities keep expanding to previously untouched (by tourism) areas (Blapp, 2013). As a result, the agricultural landscape has been replaced with hotels and villas (Pratiwi, 2004). Farmers have shifted their jobs from agriculture, previously the island’s main industry, to tourism-related jobs (Sutawa, 2012). Social ties between agricultural organization members began to loosen (Pratiwi, 2004). Regionally, the concentration of tourism activities in southern Bali accelerated urbanization (Pratiwi, 2004), which resulted in widening social inequality between urban and rural populations (Tomomi, 2019). Massive immigration from outside the island has exacerbated issues of overcrowding, land use changes, water scarcity, and mass production and consumption of Balinese culture (Sutawa, 2012). These problems have led to the demand for alternative tourism approaches. Community-based Tourism Development in Bali The negative effects of mass tourism have encouraged the government to change its tourism development approach from mass tourism to “eco‟ and “cultural‟ tourism (Ernawati, 2015). In the early 1990s, CBT was implemented as an alternative to mass tourism development, 4 The COVID-19 pandemic hit Indonesia and Bali in March 2020, which drastically reduced international and domestic travel and disrupted the Balinese economy. The Balinese government, following the Indonesian government, implemented a large-scale social distancing policy, which gradually has been lifted beginning in June 2020. A set of rules for tourism industries to operate safely were implemented, which aims to keep tourism industries operating, to reverse economic declines resulting from the pandemic. Although it is now difficult to predict the future of Balinese tourism, UNWTO (2020) noted that most tourism experts predicted that international tourism would not return to pre-COVID levels before 2023. Also, most travelers now prefer to travel closer to their homes, to visit rural areas, and to engage in road trips as ways to stay safe during the pandemic. 29 with the purpose of returning to communities control over their lands, emphasizing community participation and promoting equitable tourism benefits (Dolezal, 2015). Under the Governor’s Decree 1993, 21 villages were designated as CBT destinations (Ernawati, 2015). At the same time, the Decentralization Law 22/1999 that aimed to restore the village authority and promote participatory approach for tourism development was introduced (Suhandi & Simatupang, 2013). As with those in other developing countries, most CBT initiatives in Indonesia are small- scaled and typically are located in rural areas. Formulated using a bottom-up approach (Suartika, 2018), CBT communities in Indonesia commonly are known as desa wisata, or Tourism Villages (TV) (Sutawa, 2012), though the theoretical connection between a tourism village and CBT remains unclear (Dolezal, 2015). According to Suhandi and Simatupang (2013), the TV approach is expected to promote job creation, increase local income, disperse tourism benefits to the northern, western, and eastern parts of Bali, and to diversify Balinese tourism products away from those reliant on mass tourism. It is hoped that these efforts can discourage villagers from migrating to and seeking jobs in cities (Suhandi & Simatupang, 2013). Special qualities of villages, including their rich diversity of culture and history as well as pristine environments, are promoted as reasons for developing CBT and maintaining quality of life for local populations. All in all, villages have numerous reasons to be developed as CBT destinations (Dolezal, 2015). A TV is a rural community that reflects “the [authenticity] of the village, [including] its socio-economic life, social [and] cultur[al qualities], custom[s], daily life, architecture, unique spatial structure, [and] particular and attractive economic activities.” (Suhandi & Simatupang, 2013, p. 48). This cultural life has potential to be developed as a component of tourism. The Ministry of Culture and Tourism Regulation 26/2010 defined TV as “a form of integration [among] attractions, accommodations and supporting facilities that are presented [with]in [the] 30 structure of community life [and that are] integrated with [a community’s] prevailing procedures and traditions” (Daging et al., 2019, p. 21,230). This form of tourism can offer homestays, which promote interaction between tourists and Balinese hosts, thereby bolstering cultural exchange for both parties (Dolezal, 2015). Development of a tourism village can be intentional or the result of a village that naturally attracts tourists (Damanik et al., 2018). However, Tolkach (2013) suggested that top-down approaches to tourism development, such as when communities are forced to accept tourism in their area and/or are not empowered, should not be considered as CBT. Ideally, development of CBT should be implemented bottom-up. According to Dewi et al. (2018), accommodations and attractions are two main components of a cultural-based tourism village. Accommodations include community residences. Attractions incorporate “all [activities of] daily life of the local population, along with the physical setting of the village location, that allows the integration of tourists as active participants [in activities] such as dance or language courses” (Dewi et al., 2018, p. 3). They pointed out seven requirements of a cultural village: 1) good access; 2) availability of interesting objects such as nature, arts, and local foods and drinks; 3) strong local support for tourism; 4) village security; 5) adequate accommodations, human labor sources, and telecommunications; 6) cool or cold climate; and 7) relationship to other well-known tourism objects. Involving external stakeholders also has been considered critical for developing tourism villages. Ideally, “the government is supposed to facilitate the whole process of developing a controlled administrative process while consciously maintaining the prominent position of the community, as both the subject and possibly the object of the whole development process” (Suartika, 2018, p. 5). Funds should be given for development of physical (e.g., parking lot, 31 signage) and nonphysical (e.g., human resource capacity development and hospitality training) amenities to support tourism in these tourism villages (Sutawa, 2012). Penglipuran Village This section explains the geographic and historic context, physical features, and community structure of Penglipuran Village. Geographic Context The study site for this research is Penglipuran Village. As can be seen in Figure 4, this Village is located in Kubu Subdistrict, Bangli District, Bangli Regency, and is 45 km from Denpasar, the capital city. Penglipuran is a desa adat, or a customary village. Administratively, it is included in Kelurahan Kubu (Kubu Subdistrict), a formal administrative subdistrict created by the Indonesian government. Kubu Subdistrict is divided again into three neighborhoods: Kubu, Penglipuran, and Tegal Suci. It is bordered on the north by Kayang Village, by Gunaksa Village to the south, Kubu Village to the east, and Cekang Village and the Sangsang River to the west. This village covers 112 hectares of land; 15 percent of the land is allocated for homes, 50 percent is for dry cultivation uses, and the remaining land contains a bamboo forest (Suartika, 2018), holy places, and a timber forest (Laksmi et al., 2018). More specifically, this village, having nine ha of houses and four hectares of public facilities, is surrounded by a 45-hectare bamboo forest and 55 hectares of agricultural fields. This village offers a cool climate; the temperature varies between 18 and 32° C, and the area has an average annual rainfall of approximately 2,000 mm, including rainfall amounts during the dry season (Dorn, 2012). In 2020, the community had 240 families. Most of them were Hindu; 40% were farmers, 30% worked in tourism, and 30% worked outside the village as government employees or cruise-line workers (Pickle-Chevalier, 2018). 32 Figure 4 Bali Province (left), Penglipuran Village location in Kubu, Bangli Regency (right) Penglipuran Village within Bangli Regency Note. Reprinted from “Bali Map,” by Bali.com, (n.d.) (https://www.bali.com/map.html) (left) and from “Peta Jalan di Kab. Bangli, Provinsi Bali,” by Peta-hd.com, 2019 (https://www.peta- hd.com/2019/06/peta-kabupaten-bangli.html) (right) Historical Context Generally, Balinese villages may be populated by one of two distinct cultural groups, based on their ancestral origins. Most villages are populated by people of Majapahit origin from Java, and some of them are Bali Aga (whose ancestors are from pre-Hindu original Balinese ancient villages). Bali Aga typically live in the mountains and their communities have no social stratification. Having been in existence for more than 700 years (originating during the Bangli Kingdom era), Penglipuran Village residents are Bali Aga. The community has a direct line of descent from another Bali Aga Village, Bayung Gede in Bangli. Suartika (2018) noted that the 33 Penglipuran area was recognized by Bangli's historic Royal Family as a place to seek solace due to its cool climate and comforting living environment. Bangli’s King took some of Bayung Gede’s community members to the current location of Penglipuran Village to work for him. As a place to reside permanently, land that is today’s Penglipuran Village was provided to them by the kingdom. They cleared some forest areas to build a settlement, which grew into Pangeling Pura Village (now Penglipuran Village). According to Dorn (2012), there are two subjective perceptions of the meaning of the word Penglipuran. First, it is believed that that the word itself derives from the words Pengeling Pura, which mean remembering (Pengeling) the ancestors (Pura). Second, based on characteristics of the place as one of relaxation, the name could derive from the words Pelipur (relaxation/entertainment) and lara (sadness/sickness). Dorn (2012) further explained that the local community lives by the concept of “simple in togetherness,” as consistent with their ancestors’ guidance. Every community member is regarded as equal to each other, regardless of their socio-economic status. As a visual representation of this concept, everybody has the same house, in terms of design, arrangement, and size, plus everybody must adhere to the same rules. Physical Heritage Features This section describes the unique physical heritage features of Penglipuran Village, which have been inherited by Penglipuran ancestors. This includes traditional buildings, the temple, the community bamboo forest, karang memadu, and the hero statue. Basically, as other Bali Aga villages located mostly in mountainous environments, Penglipuran’s spatial arrangement has three zones (Tri Mandala). The north area (utara mandala) is the most sacred zone, and is the temple area where Penglipuran Community members worship the God Sang 34 Hyang Widhi. The south area (nista mandala) is considered the least sacred zone, and contains the community cemetery and the Dalem Temple. As shown in Figure 5, the settlement zone (madya mandala) (orange color), which forms a linear pattern from north to south (Daging et al., 2019), is situated in between utara and nista mandala zones. On the west and east sides of the linear axis are the yards of the residents. Penglipuran Village has four settlement areas: northwest, northeast, southwest, southwest. Such a division is called tempe. Each yard is 0.025 hectare (Daging et al., 2019), and traditional buildings are located in each yard. Yards are connected by rurung gede (main community lane) (Handayani, 2015; Suartika, 2018; Daging et al., 2019). Each pekarangan (yard) also has three zones, based on the Tri Mandala: 1) Utara Mandala, the sacred zone for the family temple (sanggah), and is the world of the ancestors, 2) Madya Mandala, the place for daily family activities, and 3) the Loji building on the west (currently replaced by modern buildings), as the family bedroom, a place to accept guests, and the children’s playground (Dorn, 2012). The lane between the west and east settlements (the main street), bamboo forest area, and hero statue in the south are used as the main tourism area. 35 Figure 5 Penglipuran Village Map a. Penataran Temple e. Bamboo Forest b. Gateyard (East Side) c. Gateyard (West Side) f. Parking Lot (North) g. Parking Lot (South) d. Karanng Memadu h. Garden Note. The picture on the center is reprinted from “Peta Desa Wisata Penglipuran” by Hariawan, 2021 (https://www.kompasiana.com/www.teguhhariawan/5feb161b8ede480e5b590c92/panglipuran-desa-paling-instagramable-dan- terbersih-sejagad?page=all) 36 Temple According to Pujaastawa and Putro (2017), temples having distinct architectural characteristics are primary tangible attractions of Penglipuran Village. Dorn (2012) explained that the village has three main temples: Pura Penataran, Puseh, and Dalem. Pura Penataran is dedicated to the Hindu Goddess “Brahma,” creator of the universe (see Figure 5a). Pura Puseh is dedicated to the Hindu Goddess “Wisnu,” the life sustainer. Pura Dalem is dedicated to the Hindu Goddes “Shiwa,” the destroyer and representation of death. These temples allow community members to perform ceremonial rituals, which occur from every six months to every 10 years, depending on the type of ceremony (Pujaastawa & Putro, 2017). Each family yard also has one family temple that allows each family member to perform daily ceremonial rituals. Traditional Buildings Daging et al. (2019) describe that buildings in each Penglipuran yard must have a similar architectural style, physical configuration, and construction materials. In the past, the traditional settlement of Penglipuran Village, which consisted of 76 yards, was a settlement located only along the main axis of the village. As shown in Figure 6, buildings in this village were angkul- angkul (gateyard) (see also Figure 5b and 5c), bale sakaenem (traditional pavilion for ceremonies), and pawon (kitchen). Bale sakaenem is a place for family religious and traditional activities, such as ngaben (cremation ceremonies), metatah (tooth filling ceremonies), yadnya ceremonies, and wedding ceremonies. Pawon is used as both a kitchen and a bedroom, though now it is used only as a kitchen. The north or east part of each yard contains the family temple. The primary materials used for traditional buildings are sandstone, clay, wood, and bamboo taken from the forest owned by and located nearby Penglipuran Village (Ernawati, 2015). According to Ernawati (2015), use of bamboo roof structures is consistent with the principle of 37 sustainable uses of resources. Rapid growth of bamboo makes the community less dependent on wood, thus conserving the timber forest. It also creates a traditional look and enables buildings to be constructed economically. Figure 6 Traditional Buildings Note. Angkul-angkul (left), Balesakaenem (center), Pawon (right) Karang Memadu (Poligamy Place) Another unique community tradition is monogamy, which is included in their customary rules (awig-awig). Penglipuran men are allowed to have only one wife each. Those who violate this rule are evicted and ordered to live in a special area called karang memadu (a polygamy place), located in the southeastern part of the village (see Figure 4d). They are prevented from entering temples and getting involved in community activities. The meaning of this practice can be viewed from several perspectives. It can be seen as a form of respect and protection for women (Suartika, 2018) and as an attempt to control population. Because the village is relatively small, crowded yards inhibit future generations from all living in those spaces (Pujaastawa & Putro, 2017). Another way of viewing the meaning of this practice, as one interviewee of this study indicated, is that it keeps men’s ability to devote themselves to the customary village and not too busy with personal life (e.g., taking care of his wives and his many children). 38 Bamboo Forest The whole settlement is surrounded by a bamboo forest and dry cultivated land (see figure 4e for bamboo forest). Forty-five hectares of bamboo forest is conserved by the village. The forests contain a variety of bamboo types, which are used as building materials and for constructing ceremonial religious items, traditional music instruments, and handicrafts (Pujaastawa & Putro, 2017). Because Penglipuran villagers believe that the forest was planted by their ancestors, the bamboo is a symbol of their “historical roots and civilization process” (Dorn, 2012, p. 26). In addition to the bamboo forest, there is a four-ha timber forest located in the north of the village (Laksmi et al., 2018). Hero statue A statue of Anak Agung Gede Anom Mudita, a national hero who died in Penglipuran in 1947, is located in the southern part of the village. According to the former head of customary village, this statue attracts many non-Penglipuran pilgrims to the village every national holiday (e.g., Indonesian Independence Day) to commemorate his service. Tri Hita Karana Philosophy Tri Hita Karana (THK) is a Balinese sustainability philosophy, which comprises three elements: God, Humans, and Nature. Combining three Sanskrit words – tri, meaning three; hita meaning harmony; and karana meaning reason – Ernawati (2015) explained that this concept stresses the importance of maintaining concurrent harmonious relationships between Humans and the Universe-spirit (H-U), Humans and other humans (H-h), and Humans and Nature (H-N). Balinese believe that achieving balance between these components is equivalent to reaching maximum life satisfaction. In this context, balance requires the same proportion of H-U, H-h, and H-N A guide on how to achieve THK is included in the village’s customary rules (adat) or 39 awig-awig, which includes three components: parahyangan (moral and religious ethics) pawongan (humanity), and palemahan (environment) (Pujaastawa & Putro, 2017). Community Structure5 Penglipuran adheres to both the dinas and adat governing body systems. According to (Suartika, 2018), dinas was a consequence of Bali’s integration with the Indonesian state that bound the Balinese to state policy. Adat is rooted in local tradition, religion, codes, consensus, and communal practices. Dinas provides administrative village functions, based on the governmental structure, and focuses on administrative tasks (e.g., issuing Indonesian Identity Cards and birth certificates, and collecting taxes), and uses top-down processes. In contrast, the adat system allows villagers to make their own decisions using a bottom-up approach. Adat has the right to own temples and property, and manage their own customary village autonomously using their customary rules (awig-awig), which are based on the Tri Hita Karana philosophy. In the governing structure, both adat and dinas function in parallel, which implies that dinas cannot make a decision without Adat’s consent. The two entities and processes cooperate to ensure that awig-awig is in line with Pancasila (foundational philosophical theory of Indonesia), Undang- Undang Dasar 1945 (The 1945 State Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia), and human rights, and are used to resolve problems that arise within the community. Penglipuran has a strict rule prohibiting selling land to any outside person or entity, and a significant portion of the land is owned by adat. As a result, community adherence to awig-awig (which reflects moral and religious ethics [parahyangan], humanity [pawongan], and environment [palemahan]) and participation in customary activities are mandatory. 5Information without literature citations in this village derives from collective comments from the head of customary village (klian adat), head of neighborhood (kepala lingkungan), family representatives, and each organization head. 40 Nevertheless, Klian Adat (Head of the customary village) explained that adherence is applied only to Hindus who officially live within the village and Hindus who live in Penglipuran but officially are members of another customary village. The responsibilities of non-Hindu people who live in Penglipuran include only pawongan and palemahan. Forcing non-Hindu people to engage in parahyangan activities (e.g., participation in religious activities) is an example of human rights infringement, which is not in line with the State institution. As in other Bali Aga communities, each villager belongs to a single caste, sudra6, leading to egalitarian social interactions and relationships (Ernawati, 2015). Penglipuran has two types of krama (community members): krama pangarep (77 representatives) and krama roban. Pengarep are representatives of families, and have the right to be involved with decision-making in the village and are responsible for implementing customary activities. Krama roban include all other members of the extended family (Ernawati, 2015). The membership of Adat is determined by marital status and religion (must be Hindu). Once a man marries, he can be considered for pangarep membership (Ernawati, 2015). Each villager must be a member of an organization; and a person retires when they are no longer married due to divorce or spousal death. Described in the following subsections are descriptions of each community organization, its membership, and its role within the overall system: Pangarep, Sekaa Truna Truni (youth organization), Sekaa Gong (traditional gamelan [traditional musical instrument]) and Sekaa Baris (traditional dance) organizations, Sekaa Paratengan (cooking organization), Sekaa Pecalang (security and safety organization), and Tourism Management Organization. Each head of organization receives an incentive payment of IDR 300.000 (USD 21.4) every three months. 6 The three higher castes of Brahman (priests and teachers), Satria (warriors and kings), and Wesya (merchants) form the “Triwangsa” (Tri=three, Wangsa=Dynasty) – the aristocracy. Sudra is the caste of peasants and craftspeople, as represented by 95% of the Balinese population (Dorn, 2012) . 41 Pangarep (Family Representatives) In Penglipuran, each family is equally granted a plot of land (pekarangan) on which to build a home. As Balinese society is patrilineal (Bhaskara, 2015), each pekarangan is represented by a male household member, who is chosen based on deliberation and consensus among family members (musyawarah mufakat). Representatives are given a family compound, bamboo allocation, and both agricultural and dry fields. They have the right to cultivate a piece of agricultural land and to harvest resources from the Penglipuran bamboo forest, granted upon consent of other representatives (Suartika, 2018). Each representative also is responsible for implementing customary village’s activities. They are equally obliged to pay IDR 2,000 (USD 0.14) at each monthly meeting, though more wealthy representatives normally contribute more (Dorn, 2012). Also, when the village wants to develop a new temple, for example, each pekarangan is responsible for contributing equal amounts of money to fund construction, or send an adult for collective gotong royong (mutual aid) work. At present (2021), the Adat has 77 representatives: 72 people from the village main area and 5 people from outside the main area. Each pekarangan (yard) contains a different number of households, depending on the number of men in each family. For instance, if a representative has six married brothers, he will represent six families. If a representative does not have any brother, he represents only his family. Should a family fail to select a pengarep (representative), the current Adat will appoint one. Without representation, their right to live on the land will be retracted and the entire family must leave the village. The Ulu Apad historic leadership scheme is applied to the organization of Adat. The scheme is a ranking system that indicates seniority, as indicated by each representative being assigned a number. The lower the number, the longer the experience as a representative. 42 Pengarep having numbers 13-77 are part of krama patilan; the other 12 senior pengarep are considered priests (Kancan Roras). The highest positions, considered as holy men, are Jro Kubayan Mucuk and Jro Kubayan Nyoman. The next level below Jro Kubayan includes Jro Bahu, Jro Singgukan, Jro Cacar, Jro Balung, and Jro Pati (Dorn, 2012). Their job is to make decisions related to offerings. The numbering order is determined by one's marital status seniority. The more years a couple is married, the greater the opportunity for a man to be part of this Adat leadership. “Thus, where[as] the opportunity for political manipulation and bribery is a common occurrence in the election of dinas (administrative village) leadership members, in this arrangement, corruption has little chance of success” (Suartika, 2018, p. 10). Despite already having a holy man (Jro Kubayan) who acts as a leader, a second leader has to be elected –Klian Adat (Head of Customary Village). Elections are held democratically every five years. Together, Jro Kubayan and Klian Adat form a twin leadership team for planning and implementing religious ceremonies. The ten priests of Kancan Roras are also responsible for implementing them (Dorn, 2012). In particular, Klian Adat has the responsibility for keeping traditions alive, leading discussions during meetings, and implementing socio- cultural activities in the village. To help him implement his daily activities, he is assisted by his two secretaries (penyarikan), who are elected by all representatives every five years (Dorn, 2012). Representatives are retired for several reasons: when he divorces, when his last child is married, when his wife dies (balu), or if he has developed any disabilities. Once a representative is retired from kancan roras (the first 12 representatives) position, he will be completely retired (nyade). If one retires but is not part of kancan roras, he will join other community organizations. If one is retired, he must appoint another family member as a replacement. The 43 new representative member’s number will be 77. To illustrate, if representative number 2 retires, representative number 3 becomes number 2, representative number 4 becomes number 3, so on. Sekaa Truna Truni (Youth Organization) Having 226 members, the youth organization includes anyone who has graduated from primary school and is unmarried. Those who pass the age of 35 are free to attend or not attend youth activities, although joining customary village activities (e.g., religious ceremonies and mutual aid) is mandatory. The purpose for establishing this organization was for regeneration of pengarep (77 representatives) and to help acquaint the youth with customary village activities, thereby keeping the culture and traditions alive (Dorn, 2012). Youth organization leader elections takes place every three years. The election process includes nominating one candidate from each tempe (the four-settlement divisions), which results in a total of 4 candidates. All organization members either deliberate or vote for the new head of the organization. The person who receives the most votes will be the chairperson. Those receiving the second, third, and fourth highest number of votes become the vice chairperson, secretary, and treasurer, respectively. The executive board is responsible for encouraging all members to participate actively in every customary village activity. The rest of the members are involved with other divisions: pengarisan (environment and sanitation), suka duka (e.g., marriages and funerals), pangupajiwa (economy and welfare), lelanguan (art: orchestra and dance), brahmacari (education and training), and panca baya (security) (Dorn, 2012). Sekaa Baris and Gong (Dance and Music Organization) These two organizations work closely together, as dance and music often go hand in hand. The traditional Gong and Dance organizations consist of 86 and 55 members, respectively. Members are chosen by the heads of each organization. Current members are all married men. 44 These organizations are responsible for performing sacred dances and playing in the traditional musical instrument (gamelan) orchestra during religious ceremonies. Sekaa Paratengan (Cooking Organization) This organization was established in the 1990s to accommodate married men who do not dance or play traditional music. The role of this organization focuses of preparing traditional dishes during ritual ceremonies, including slaughtering livestock and cooking them for offerings. This organization carries out its duties when the community performs a major ceremony. Basic cooking ability is not required for one to be a member of this organization. Sekaa Pecalang (Security Organization) Sekaa Pecalang makes sure that the village is safe for residents and visitors, and religious ceremonies are safely implemented. Their role includes listing all newcomers, including tourists, who stay in the village, and reporting them to the pengarep. In addition, Sekaa Pecalang members are responsible for enforcing rules created by Adat (77 male representative). The number of Sekaa Pecalang members depends on the population size of the village; at present (2021), there are 21 members who are chosen directly by Adat. Generally, married men who spend most of their lives in the village, are chosen as Sekaa Pecalang members. After Adat has selected a person, that person must agree to be a Pecalang, unless they have reasonable excuses. Normally, a Pecalang must be sprightful, loyal, and genuinely willing to protect the village. Pengelola Pariwisata (Tourism Management Organization [TMO]) This organization was established in 2012 as a result of a government recommendation to improve tourism management and accountability. The purpose of establishing this organization was to assist the Adat in managing tourism administration and operations. At present (2021), there are 23 members of TMO. As TMO is a relatively newly established organization, members 45 of TMO also are members of other organizations. Becoming a member of TMO represents the practice of ngayah (devotion). Department heads do not receive wages, but they are each given a small financial incentive every three months (IDR 150.0000-250.000 [USD 10.7-17.86]). The professions of TMO members are varied; ex-cruise ship workers typically are assigned to be department coordinators in this organization. The Head of TMO was selected based on management and leadership qualities, which were acquired from previous professional work. Kepala Lingkungan (Head of Neighborhood) Supporting the twin leadership team of the Klian Adat and Jro Kubayan, as explained by Dorn (2012), is Kepala Lingkungan, a representative within the formal governing body (dinas). Because Penglipuran is administratively part of the sub-district Kubu (kelurahan), the Head of Neighborhood belongs to the lurah. While the lurah is appointed by the government, Head of Neighborhood is elected by representatives. However, lurah and Head of Neighborhood receive a salary from the government. In short, Head of Neighborhood is the liaison officer between government officials and the local community. His primary responsibilities include taking care of administrative work, such as issuing family, divorce, marriage, and business certificates. Pemberdayaan Kesejahteraan Keluarga (Family Welfare Empowerment) Organization Another formal organization is the married women’s group, known as Pemberdayaan Kesejahteraan Keluarga/PKK (Family Welfare Empowerment Organization). The wife of the Kepala Lingkungan automatically becomes the leader of this organization. This organization has 20 representatives (kader) who are chosen based on member voting or deliberation every five years. The election process includes nominating five candidates from each tempe (based on the four-settlement division), which results in a total of 20 candidates. Criteria for becoming a kader includes having no prior experience as a kader and not being a pengarep’s wife. Kader are prioritized to join community activities (e.g., preparing foods for the customary village’s guests) 46 and externally provided training. In 2020, there were 240 members; each member and kader must contribute IDR 1,000 (USD 0.07) and IDR 5,000 (USD 0.35) per month, respectively. The money is used to fund organization activities. Though some of the members live outside Penglipuran, their families should help these members pay their assigned contributions. Summary As in other developing countries, tourism is deemed as one of the most important industries in Indonesia. In particular, the government has focused on developing Bali Island as a tourist destination since the 1970s, continuing what the Dutch had done since the 1920s. However, massive tourism development in the southern part of Bali has led to many socio- economic problems, such as local community marginalization, economic leakage, and environmental degradation. In the 1990s, the CBT concept, which emphasizes community control, ownership, participation, and equitable benefits distribution were promoted as an alternative tourism development paradigm. Because of their existing rich diversity of culture and history, and pristine natural environment, villages (also known as desa wisata or tourism village) most often are the targets for CBT implementation. Accommodations and attractions are essential components of a tourism village, both of which facilitate interactions between tourists and Balinese hosts. Penglipuran Village, a CBT initiative that has the image of being Indonesia’s “most successful village,” has been regarded as a CBT destination model within the country. While the community has inherited unique physical heritage and intangible cultural features from its ancestors, what makes the village perceived to be a success, either for its CBT development process or for CBT effects on the community, is unclear. This study intends to begin to address this knowledge gap. The next chapter explains the methods used for this study. 47 CHAPTER 4: METHODS The purpose of this study is to better understand both the development of the tourism village using the CBT process in Penglipuran and the effects of CBT development on the community. A social constructivist approach, which stresses knowledge creation rather than discovery, was used to answer the study’s research questions. Constructivists believe that “our concepts, beliefs, and theories about the objects and experiences with which we engage will be continually modified in the light of new experience” (Bazeley, 2013, p. 23), which recognizes the subjectivity of people’s experiences. Constructivists acknowledge multiple realities in this world because realities are socially constructed through discourse and are historically and culturally specific (Bazeley, 2013). The perceptions and interpretations of an event or an entity among people vary. The constructivist paradigm is used because this study focuses on a culturally specific community experience in developing a CBT destination by investigating community participation in decision-making, the benefits of tourism, factors associated with benefits sharing, and CBT effects on the community’s socio-economic and cultural life. I used a qualitative approach for a single case study using guided semi-structured interviews for data collection. Case study research, used extensively in social science, often employs qualitative methods. According to Bazeley (2013), qualitative analysis focuses on “observing, describing, interpreting, and analyzing the way that people experience, act on, or think about themselves and the world around them” (p. 4). Because this study investigates the perspective of villagers about their own participation experiences in the CBT development process and results (e.g., including cultural and tourism activities), and because tourism is such a complex phenomenon based on interactions among an amalgam of socio-cultural and 48 environmental components, a qualitative case study is suitable (Phillimore & Goodson, 2004). Using a qualitative approach has helped me grasp the ‘insider’ point of view (Phillimore & Goodson, 2004), and has provided holistic, rich and thick descriptions about CBT development in the context of Penglipuran Village (Bazeley, 2013). This method has helped me observe and deeply explore ‘what is going on’ in the village primarily from the community’s perspectives, supplemented by perspectives of a few involved external stakeholders. Qualitative approaches allow researchers maximum flexibility as the research can be adapted, changed, and redesigned during the process (Phillimore & Goodson, 2004), which was needed during the field season. Therefore, the research has not been constrained by me, as the researcher, and my worldview and assumptions, which has allowed new concepts or ideas during data collection and analysis to emerge. In this case study, interviews were used to explore and describe each interviewee’s participation, experiences, and perspectives about CBT implementation in the village. A specific case study community was chosen because it is in line with this study’s purpose, which is to discover, obtain insights, and understand CBT development and effects of tourism on the community. Having multiple years of experience as a CBT destination and being recognized as one of the most popular CBT destinations in Indonesia and Bali, the Penglipuran community can offer meaningful insights about their experiences in developing a tourism village using the CBT process. Study Population and Sampling Procedure As community participation is the core of CBT development, and external stakeholders’ involvement also is important, this section describes the study population, the sampling procedure, and the rationale for choosing community members and external stakeholders as 49 interviewees. This study is delimited to respondents aged 18 and above, who currently are involved in and/or affected by Penglipuran CBT activities, and were willing to be interviewed. Study Population: Community Members Recognizing that the community is heterogenous (Phillimore & Goodson, 2004; Cornwall, 2008), in terms of structure, organization, gender roles and relations, I chose my interviewees purposively based on Penglipuran’s community structure (see chapter 3 for details). To obtain rich information about top-level management who typically are articulate and familiar with their village’s context, including about the community system and decision-making processes, I chose the top-level community members first (purposive sampling). These people were assumed to have sufficient knowledge, experience, expertise, and involvement with the Penglipuran CBT initiative to be able to address my research questions thoughtfully. They were the head of customary village (Klian Adat), the former Klian Adat, head of Tourism Management Organization (TMO), community representatives, and each organization head (see chapter 3 for organization details). Also, because Penglipuran Village adheres to dinas/formal government, I selected the head of neighborhood (Kepala Lingkungan) and head of the Family Welfare Empowerment (FWE) Organization to interview. In choosing family representatives and villagers who were not members of top-level community leadership, I employed a blend of three sampling strategies: snowball, convenience, and criterion. Initially I used the first two: snowball sampling relies on the recommendation of a community informant (Battaglia, 2008); convenience sampling focuses on selecting interviewees who are most willing to take part or for whom researchers have the easiest access (Battaglia, 2008; Anderson, 2010). In this study, convenience sampling was applied to some villagers whom I encountered randomly when wandering around the village and with whom I had a conversation, 50 and some villagers who were food stall and small restaurant owners from whom I bought meals. After meeting with them several times, I explained my research, and asked about their willingness to be interviewed. If they agreed, I scheduled a time and place, at their convenience. Later, I decided to add criterion sampling, which is used to identify individuals who meet specific criterion/criteria (Bhaskara, 2015), to ensure diverse perspectives among interviewees. Prior to fieldwork, I had set some criteria to select some of my interviewees (e.g., organization membership, age, length of residence, tourism participation). During my fieldwork, as I became more familiar with the village, I observed other factors that might affect interviewees’ views about their village’s CBT operations. Therefore, to diversify interviewee perspectives, I added other criteria for selecting interviewees, such as time spent living in the village for newcomers and house location (adding those living outside the main tourism area). After drawing a family relationship diagram, I noticed that many of my early interviewees were related to each other. Therefore, family relationship by marriage and blood (adding those having no direct blood or family relationship with other interviewees) also was included as a criterion. Study Population: External Stakeholders External stakeholders were included in the study population because their contributions and influence have been well-documented in the literature about CBT in general and about CBT in Penglipuran (Handayani, 2015). Prior to carrying out fieldwork, I discovered that external stakeholders who were involved in Penglipuran’s CBT development primarily have been organizations. For organization representation, I relied on a single individual from each. Given the complexity of the organizational structure of external organizations, there was no guarantee that top managers were knowledgeable about the CBT initiative. Therefore, I asked the Head of TMO about his opinions about the involvement of each external organization as relevant to 51 Penglipuran’s CBT development. Then, I asked whether or not interviewing those organizational representatives about the Penglipuran CBT initiative would be relevant and appropriate, and which person within each external organization I should interview. After identifying potential interviewees, I contacted each of them, explained my research, and asked about their willingness to be interviewed. If they agreed, I scheduled a time and place, at their convenience. Because external stakeholders were a second priority, used to provide complementary data, I interviewed community members before interviewing external stakeholders. In total, nine external stakeholders were interviewed; most of them were from some branch of the government. Although I consulted with head of TMO about selecting individuals, some of the government representatives failed to provide relevant information for each interview question, which resulted in much information being excluded. During analysis, I determined that three external interviewees failed to provide any relevant information. The other six, identified as a result of snowball (via consultation with head of TMO) and convenience sampling, were: one representative each from the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Department of Tourism and Culture (DTC), Department of Public Works and Public Housing (DPWPH), Department of Agriculture, Food Security, and Fisheries (DAFSF), Department of Environment and Cleaning (DEC), and the Bali Community-based Tourism Organization Association (Bali COBTA). Two factors might contribute to this inability of identified organization representatives to speak knowledgably about PV’s CBT initiative. First, some villagers stated that external parties had limited involvement in the village’s CBT development. Second, the government is a complex entity, which made it difficult for even the community leaders to choose an appropriate interviewee. The government has a rotation system that requires an employee to rotate to a different department every few years. To illustrate, one DTC’s representative might work closely 52 with Penglipuran to develop their CBT; however, when he rotates to DTI, for example, he no longer represents DTC, nor could he represent DTI because he was a new employee. Thus, it might be impossible to find a single person who has maintained a relationship with Penglipuran over many years as a representative of a single government department. Instrument Development and Data Collection Methods This section describes: background research needed to understand the case study community, interview guide development, pilot study implementation, verbal consent process, the guided semi-structured interview process, and challenges experienced during data collection. Background Research to Understand the Case Study Community I reviewed relevant news articles, promotional materials, and documents focused on Penglipuran Village development prior to carrying out fieldwork and to prepare for formal data collection. This enabled me to understand my case study context, and to familiarize myself with the Penglipuran community. I also reviewed the Penglipuran Village CBT Facebook page and website, blog, Internet news regarding the village, and previous studies conducted in the village to help me prepare for instrument development and fieldwork. During my fieldwork, I observed and took pictures (with approval) about the types of tourism products and experiences offered in Penglipuran Village as well as of residents’ daily routines. In qualitative studies, it is imperative that researchers gain trust from the community and familiarize themselves with the community. According to Bloor and Wood (2006), good fieldwork relations, characterized by trust and openness, are critical to building research validity because such relations affect the extent to which the researcher is allowed to observe or be told. To begin to build trust, I wandered around the village every day and interacted informally with many residents to get to know them, presenting myself as a friendly person having genuine 53 interest in knowing their opinions and learning about their way of life (Bloor and Wood, 2006). I also participated in a few religious ceremonies, a community event, and residents’ daily life activities. Bloor and Wood (2006) pointed out that such activities can develop friendships, which enables researchers to draw out deeper personal thoughts from interviewees than would be possible without such relationships. In addition, I respected the local culture (e.g., dressing and behaving in ways that are culturally acceptable) to prevent relationship deterioration. Interview Guide Development The primary data collection method used for this study was guided semi-structured interviews, one of the most common data collection procedures in qualitative research. According to Saldana (2011), interviews “directly solicit the perspectives of the people we want to study” (p. 75). In-depth interviewing could answer research questions focused on “how,” which fit this study’s purpose. Semi-structured interviews were used to explore each respondent’s opinions, beliefs, attitudes, feelings, understanding of, and experiences with CBT development in Penglipuran Village, including community participation and external stakeholders’ involvement during the process, and CBT effects on the community. I developed interview guides in English to ensure that the interviews would help me achieve the purpose of this study. Interview questions were developed in a semi-structured format because of its elastic quality and fluid structure (Ernawati, 2015), which would allow me to remain flexible during the actual interview process and to use probing follow-up questions. Then, I translated the guides into the Indonesian language because the actual interview sessions would be carried out in the Indonesian language (forward translation) (Nurjannah, Mills, Park, & Usher, 2014). To assure congruence in meaning between the two language versions, I asked an Indonesian native speaker fluent in English to translate the instrument back to English (back 54 translation). This resulted in a need for a few minor modifications of some Indonesian language used initially. Questions were adapted slightly to the role of each interviewee within the community. Nevertheless, each community interviewee was asked similar questions about their sociodemographic background (e.g., age, gender, educational level, position/type of jobs in the community, if they were born in or how long they had lived in the village, and how long they had participated in tourism-related activities). If a community interviewee held an important community position, I asked how long they had been in that position. For external interviewees, I identified their age, gender, educational level, position, how long their organization/department had participated in supporting the Penglipuran CBT initiative, and how long they personally had participated in supporting the CBT initiative. Age of community and external interviewees was assumed to have some influence on the longevity of their experience in Penglipuran tourism activities; thus, older respondents might be expected to know more about earlier stages of CBT development than younger respondents or new arrivals. Understanding their sociodemographic backgrounds was important for later contextualization of the findings. Verbal Consent All subjects were provided with information about their voluntary participation, confidentiality of their comments, and anonymous presentation of data. Before each interview began, I asked the interviewee to provide their consent orally, with no signed form required, and assured them of the confidentiality of their responses because I would not associate their names with any specific comments in the presentation of results (see Appendix A and B). I assigned each community interviewee a pseudonym and created a special code for each organization representative. Considering the possibility that some interviewees were illiterate and because a 55 written consent form potentially could be perceived to create an uneven power structure between interviewees and researcher for this village population, verbal explanation and oral consent granting was more preferable than written consent. In Indonesia, it is not common for people to sign a form before participating in a study; they may perceive a written form to be threatening. The consent language was written simply and clearly so it was perceived as non-threatening. Pilot Study Prior to conducting the official study interviews, I conducted two pilot interviews with two Penglipuran community members on February 14, 2020. All the Penglipuran men conducted a religious ceremony at that time; consequently, I could interview only women. Each pilot interview started with the verbal consent process, which included introducing myself as the researcher and describing the purpose and scope of this research study. After both interview sessions, I reflected on the strengths and weaknesses of my interview guide, my interview style, and interview logistics. Overall, pilot study results and interviewee input were useful for evaluating and modifying my interview guides, improving my interview style and process, and testing the quality of my recording device. After the pilot study, I determined that the overall interview guide was realistic enough to elicit relevant responses from interviewees to address my research purpose. Yet, some minor adjustments in the interview guide were made. First, realizing that one of my questions was unclear and difficult to answer, I tweaked the wording and changed the way I asked the question so that the content sounded familiar to them. Second, I learned how to manage my interview style more effectively, such as managing the interview pacing and dealing with silence (e.g., I learned to allow long pauses as some interviewees needed time to think before responding). Third, I decided not to ask female interviewees about issues with the decision-making process 56 and the early CBT development because my pilot interviewees indicated that only the men knew and would be more articulate in explaining these processes. Instead, for the women, I investigated their personal participation in tourism and in the community’s cultural activities (e.g., community organizations and tourism), and how tourism affects their personal lives and their families. I learned that tailoring the interview guide to ‘who the interviewee is’ is important to avoid the interviewee feeling pressured to answer questions for which they did not know answers or did not know how to explain. This approach prevented using questions that could reduce their confidence and interest in continuing the interview sessions. Guided Semi-Structured Interviews After conducting the pilot interviews and modifying the interview guide and process, I moved on to the official study interviews. To review, guided semi-structured interviews are used to generate in-depth understanding of a complex issue. This type of interview allowed me to discuss relevant issues beyond those in direct response to the prepared questions (via probing questions), thus enabling more depth and data richness to emerge beyond the planned instrument. Besides that, this approach has generated detailed information about CBT development and tourism effects (both negative and positive). During the fieldwork, I found that using semi- structured interviews was a good choice because I had to remain flexible in interviewing some community groups, as I was not familiar with some things. Each interview, which began with the verbal consent process, was recorded using a digital voice recorder (with interviewee’s approval) and supplemented with handwritten notes. All interviews were conducted in Indonesian, the national language of Indonesia, in which I am fluent, as a native speaker. To schedule each interview, I arranged for a time, date, and location of the interview at their convenience. Most interviewees chose their home or home balcony for 57 the interview. Most of the women informants were interviewed while they operated their shops, small restaurants, or food stalls. As a result, a few distractions from guests or other community members occurred. Most of the interviews with external stakeholders took place in their respective offices, with one being conducted via telephone. Overall, I interviewed 18 community members and 6 external stakeholders, although one of the six external stakeholders also lives in Penglipuran and occasionally spoke from his point of view as a community member. Also, I added one informal conversation with a bamboo artisan to the data. Together, with two pilot interviews and one informal conversation, interviews lasted from 30 minutes to 174 minutes, with a total of 2,553 minutes of interviews. The average interview length was 94 minutes. Each interview session was a learning process. I evaluated my interview style during and after each interview session, which enabled me to continuously improve the way I conducted my interviews. Also, some comments by early interviewees suggested new content or issues to explore. For example, some interviewees indicated that flaws in the village’s decision-making process can affect overall CBT management operations and affect equitable community benefits distribution; as a result, I was keen on investigating more about the dynamic process in the decision-making arena with non-female interviewees. However, I discovered that many of the organization heads, despite holding leadership positions in the community, did not know much about the decision-making process and early CBT development. As with female interviewees, some male interviewees appeared pressured when they could not answer questions, thus reducing their confidence in continuing the interview sessions. Therefore, when I noticed an interviewee’s discomfort, I focused mostly on investigating their personal participation in tourism and cultural activities, and how tourism affects their families and their personal lives. I asked only the family representatives and some roban (non-representatives) about their perceptions of local traditional 58 governance and the decision-making process. This reinforces the importance of tailoring the interview guide to ‘who the participants are’ and avoiding the assumption that everyone must ‘know’ the answer just because they reside in the village. Challenges during Data Collection While I initially planned to spend twelve weeks collecting data (February 9 through May 1, 2020), I ultimately spent half of that – six weeks – on Bali Island. The reason for ending my fieldwork early was the Michigan State University requirement for students to end fieldwork because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Also, Bali was hit by the COVID-19 pandemic, which made conditions unsafe for both my study participants and me to continue data collection. By early in the third week of March 2020, Bali’s government issued a mandatory Work-from-Home order, and Penglipuran Village issued a letter that prohibited all guests from visiting the village. Despite spending six weeks in Bali, actual data collection via interviews occurred only for two weeks. Some of the rest of the time was dedicated to logistical preparation, such as securing a local research permit, making my first visit with and introducing myself to the community leader, conducting the pilot interviews, evaluating the pilot survey, and modifying the interview guide and procedures. Other challenges included personal illness and a series of religious ceremonies that were carried out by Penglipuran community, which prevented interviews during those times. Nevertheless, I stayed ten days in Penglipuran Village and formally interviewed 18 community members February 21 - March 2, 2020. Living locally, in and with the community, allowed me flexibility and easy access to my interviewees, which made data collection run smoothly. After that, I interviewed external stakeholders on March 13 and March 16 -17, 2020. I departed Indonesia for the United States on March 23, 2020. 59 To help me make sense of village characteristics, tourism products, and stakeholders’ characteristics, particularly as they relate to and contextualize data gained from interviews, I had intended to collect documents related to village history and its tourism development, maps having geographical information, tourism promotional materials, plus documented evidence of village tourism revenues, village demographic information (including in- and out- migration), visitor numbers and patterns (including their origins and types), and documents related to external stakeholders. However, due to time limitations (partly as a result of having to cut short my field work due to pandemic-related constraints), I failed to collect most of this data. Therefore, this study relies predominantly on the qualitative interview data. Reaching out to residents representing marginal groups in the community was a significant challenge during data collection, and time limitations exacerbated this difficulty. Some of my purposive informants had indicated that tourism staff (e.g., receptionists, ticketing workers) typically were from poor community segments. Also, non-organization members typically are elders. Therefore, building trust with these community members was most essential. To gain trust, some portion of my fieldwork time was dedicated to mingling and interacting with them. Starting on day nine, I talked about my research and asked six tourism staff and one elder if they were willing to be interviewees. All of them declined to participate in this study. A key reason was lack of confidence in their ability to articulate their thoughts and speak the Indonesian language. They suggested I interview community leaders rather than them. Although I anticipated this challenge, based on informal conversation and interactions with them, I thought that perhaps I could interview them informally, taking notes on informal interactions. However, personal illness and the pandemic situation prevented me from trying to implement this idea. 60 My original plan was to review each interview, then conduct follow-up interviews, as needed, to fill information gaps and to ask for clarifications. Pandemic conditions prevented this. However, when I returned to the United States, I was able to continue one interview via phone with an external stakeholder April 16-17, 2020. I also reached out to two potential community interviewees that I met during my fieldwork, but I received no responses. Nonetheless, I managed to ask for clarifications from 16 interviewees via a chat application. To allow them to be flexible with the timing of their responses, I sent follow-up questions via the chat app so they could read the questions first. After that, I offered them three ways to respond: chat, phone call, or voice note. Of those who responded, most preferred to text the answer via chat or voice note features as those were the most convenient options for them. Overall, only seven people replied to my messages; one of them chose a phone call, but the poor Internet connection interfered with our interview session. Therefore, his verbal responses were supplemented by chat-based responses. One of my interviewees indicated that reaching out to community members might be difficult because they were generally busier than usual during COVID-19. Additionally, insufficient Internet bandwidth in the village during the pandemic was an issue. In addition to affecting my fieldwork plan, the short fieldwork season also affected my data analysis plan and process. Due to my hectic departure for the United States, one interview recording with one external stakeholder was lost (though I decided to exclude this data later on). Additionally, I had planned to check transcription accuracy and send the interview transcripts to respective informants during the field season so they could review my notes to ensure accuracy of their statements. However, I could not manage to do that. Therefore, I altered my plan by hiring an Indonesian research assistant to distribute the transcript documents to each interviewee when the COVID-19 pandemic situation was resolved. However, the pandemic situation in Bali 61 had not improved by the end of 2020, rendering that plan also infeasible. Anticipating this pandemic expansion, I decided to send the transcript files to 16 of my interviewees in early August 2020 via a chat application. I did not send transcripts to interviewees who did not have the same chat application. Only one of my interviewees appeared to have read his interview transcript; he did point out a few mistakes in the transcript. Data Analysis Originally, I planned to begin data analysis during the fieldwork phase. I planned to write a memo (jotting) immediately after each interview, to summarize my perceptions of key points based on interview responses (especially as related to research questions), note any potential gaps, and record any other information about the context and interview process that might affect the results. However, due to time limitations and my health condition mentioned previously, I did not engage in comprehensive reflection after each interview. I did note major weaknesses and potential gaps from each interview session, as well as record all contextual information (e.g., place, local situation, and collective practices) that I had obtained as a result of mingling and having informal conversations with community members every day. According to Bazeley (2013), detailed contextual information is vital for data interpretation and generalization. I hired an Indonesian assistant to transcribe verbatim the audio recording of each interview into written text. I personally checked transcription accuracy while listening to each audio recording. After that, I created a detailed English summary of each interview. This summary included every piece of information the informant provided as relevant to my research question, plus other contextual information. As I did not write in-depth reflections during the fieldwork, this summary writing was useful for me to re-familiarize myself with the data. Also, because my advisor could not access the raw data, as it is written in Indonesian, these summaries 62 have been helpful in communicating data details with my advisor. Each summary was supplemented with my reflection on each interview transcript, which included how I personally related to each participant’s experiences, emergent patterns, possible networks, missing information, questions, and concerns I had (Saldana, 2015). I also noted particularly interesting and relevant comments, and constantly questioned myself about why I was interested in those things (Bazeley, 2013). I also noted inconsistencies in responses across interviewees and commented about how their experiences might be related to their demographic background. I did not complete full translations into English of all my interview transcriptions. Only the selected quotes and codes relevant to my study were translated into English. The primary reason was to avoid losing the original meaning during coding as a result of inserting additional layers of interpretation (Bhaskara, 2015). Codes were developed in the Indonesian language, and then were translated into English, resulting in a complete English language codebook (see Appendix G). Nurjannah et al. (2014) recommend not using professional translators because they may not capture the nuances of what was originally meant by interviewees as written in transcription text. It is preferable, when applying the social constructionist approach, to rely on the researcher’s translation for contextualizing data during its transformation from one language to another. In this way, the researcher becomes a co-producer of data, for which their identity and experiences affect the analysis process and results (Nurjannah et al., 2014). I analyzed all interview transcripts’ content and meaning using content analysis, which is a common technique for analyzing interviews and responses to open-ended questions. According to Hsieh and Shannon (2005), “content analysis focuses on the characteristics of language as communication, with attention to the content or contextual meaning of the text” (p. 1,278). They further explained that content analysis should go beyond quantifying words, and should focus on 63 examining, interpreting, and classifying text that represent similar meanings into several categories. In the process of analysis, I began with reading the whole individual transcript and “reflect[ing] to gain perspective on each individual data source and on the project as a whole” (Bazeley, 2013, p. 15), and I looked for and identified patterns in the data. Conventional analysis (in which coding schemes were derived from interview data) and directed content analysis (used to develop initial pre-analysis coding schemes based on existing theoretical frameworks or prior research) were applied during data analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Following the suggestions of Lofgren (2013), I coded passages that appeared several times, that were expressed as important by the interviewees, and could be linked to a theory or a concept related to my study. After that, I organized all codes, sometimes refining them in the process and combining them in a way that made sense to me, created a label for each code, and then organized them into a hierarchical system of codes (Bazeley, 2013). Because the volume of data may be unmanageable if using manual or paper-based analysis methods, I used MAXQDA 2020 software to support my data storage and management, and to assist with my coding and organizing process. Later, code categories were arranged by research question. Categorizing helped me better grasp the particular features of each category or responses and the interrelationships among categories (Saldana, 2011). During this process, a number of iterations occurred; the concepts were modified and reorganized several times. As commonly found in qualitative studies, I have selected representative quotes from interview transcriptions to describe my research findings (Anderson, 2010). As I was writing about data analysis, I identified connections with the literature to further enable data interpretation. Results are interpreted based on research questions and contextual information about the case (Bazeley. 2013). 64 Validity All qualitative studies involve subjectivity in both interviewees and researchers, which may introduce error. To strengthen the validity of research findings, I initially planned to adopt two types of triangulation: source triangulation and analyst triangulation (Patton, 1999). The former emphasizes the use of multiple data sources to validate findings; in this study, secondary data was going to be used to complement interview data. The latter uses multiple analysts to reduce potential bias from having a single person do both data collection and analysis; in this project, I initially planned to hire a coding assistant. However, due to time constraints and difficulties in finding an Indonesian research assistant who could fully commit to supporting this study during the pandemic, use of these triangulation methods was limited. Nevertheless, I used a common interview guide and interview questions across diverse informants to ensure broad representation by community members and external stakeholders. This approach enables both reinforcement of some types of information (cross-verification) (Pratiwi, 2004) and emergence of diverse viewpoints that, according to Patton (1999), is also a part of source triangulation. As an alternative and to provide some insight about the validity of my work, I engaged an Indonesian to code one of my interviews and compared her coding scheme with mine. The two coding schemes were quite similar, providing support for confidence in the results. Additionally, the coding scheme has gone through numerous iterations and constant checking with my advisor, which improved the accuracy of the coding decision rules and the overall scheme. Ethics This study has complied with Michigan State University’s ethical guidelines, which is an obligation for all researchers who conduct data collection involving humans. The study was approved by MSU’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) prior to carrying out the fieldwork (ID 65 STUDY00003919). Additionally, I acquired Indonesian government research permits issued by Bangli’s Government (letter number: 070/016/DPMPTSP/2020) prior to conducting the research (see Appendix H). Informed consent was given orally by Indonesian interviewees at the beginning of each interview. Pseudonyms have been used during data analysis and reporting, which assures respondent privacy and data confidentiality. In addition, participants were informed that they would be given a small thank you gift, in the form of a small pouch, for their participation in this study. During my stay in the village, I respected their culture by being polite and dressing in a culturally acceptable manner. When interviewing government officials, I wore formal dress as a symbol of respect. Profile of Internal and External Interviewees This section describes the study population. Because the sample is relatively small, results from two pilot studies and one informal conversation are included (with permission). Table 1 displays the sociodemographic profile of my 21 community interviewees. Table 1 Community Members – Sociodemographic Profile ID Sex Age Education Level Length of Residence Organization Sarah F 53 Vocational School Born in PV Reni F 40 Upper Middle School Since 2000 FWE FWE Tourism Business House Location Active Northeast Active Northwest Malik M 60 Bachelor’s Degree Born in PV M 22 Bachelor’s Degree Born in PV Erik Born in PV (+returner) Upper Middle School Prama M 37 Naufal M 72 Bachelor’s Degree Born in PV TM (Head) Y (Head) Active Northeast Non-active Southwest SS (Head) & TM Non-active Northwest Non-Organization (ex- Head of Adat) Non-active Southeast Satria M 63 Elementary School Born in PV Mansur M 70 Associate Degree Born in PV R R Lingga M 53 Vocational School Born in PV R and (Head of Neighborhood) Active Active Southeast Northeast Active Northeast 66 Table 1 (cont’d) ID Sex Age Education Level Teja M 42 Upper Middle School Length of Residence Organization Tourism Business House Location Born in PV C (Head) Non-active Southwest Surya M 62 Bachelor’s Degree Born in PV Novi F 48 Elementary School Since 1993 Born in PV (+returner) Adam M 39 Associate Degree TM and M FEW (Head) Active Active Southeast Northeast M Non-active Northeast Sakti M 52 Bachelor’s Degree Born in PV TM & D (ex-head) Active Northwest Bima M 45 Ayla F 24 Riri F 30 Upper Middle School Upper Middle School Upper Middle School Born in PV (+returner) Born in PV Born in PV R Y FEW (Woman Representative) Active Northwest Active Outside Main Area Non-active Northeast Asha F 28 Vocational School Since 2016 FWE Active Outside Main Area Tirta M 45 Associate Degree Born in PV (+returner) Panji M 48 Bachelor’s Degree Born in PV Note. ID = Interviewee Pseudonym; M = Male; F= Female; Returner = born in the village, lived in other places for several years and come back to live in the village; FWE = Female Welfare Empowerment; TM = Tourism Management; SS = Security and Safety; R = Family Representatives; C = Cooking; M = Music; D = Dance. TM and M Outside Main Area Northeast TM and M Active Active In this study, active participation in tourism business is considered as a behavior by those villagers who are a part of the TMO and/or who directly engage in producing or selling tourism products and services for profit, either part- or full-time. Those in the category of ‘non-active’ do not own or work in tourism-related businesses. However, it is important to note that many villagers still are connected by blood or marriage (family) with each other. Although thirty percent of the sample is considered ‘non-active,’ many of them still are related to ‘active’ villagers. For example, two interviewees are identified as ‘non-active’ in tourism because they work full-time outside of the village, but their parents own tourism-related businesses. 67 Twenty-one community interviews were used. Of these, 79% were male and 21% were female; their ages ranged from 22 to 72 years (the median age was 48). The largest group of interviewees based on age categories (38%) was between 45 and 59 years old. Of the 21 total, 48% had completed upper middle/vocational school, 9% had completed elementary school, 29% completed a university degree, and 14% had earned an associate’s degree. Most (90%) interviewees were born in the village, while a few – considered ‘newcomers’ – had lived in Penglipuran Village between 3.5 and 27 years. Of those who were born in the village, 19% had lived outside the village for a while. Five interviewees are members of the FWE organization, and five interviewees are family representatives (two of them are either the current head of Adat or head of a neighborhood). Six are members of the TMO and four are members of the Music Organization. Three other interviewees identified themselves as either a pecalang (security officer organization member), a dance organization member, or a non-organization member. As many of my interviewees are related to each other as a family by blood or through marriage, I noticed that these close relationships influence their opinions and experiences. In addition, informants often used ‘we’ or ‘us’ to describe their experiences, which might not necessarily refer to all villagers, but reflected their inner circle (family or friends). I decided to investigate the interconnections among them because this could provide insight about the other people to whom they referred during their interviews. I sketched and diagrammed the connections, then consulted with two villagers. My knowledge of these connections came from a variety of sources. First, if the interviewee happened to live in the same pekarangan (yard), they were automatically considered as part of one family. Second, the interviewee him/herself identified his/her connection with other interviewees. Third, two villagers confirmed my relationship diagram, and identified any connections that were not identified. 68 Figure 7 Connection among Penglipuran Village Study Participants Female Male Note. Most of my study participants are a part of two big families. Doing this before completing all my interviews helped me avoid recruiting additional participants from the same families from which I already had an interviewee (note that Figure 7 represents the relationships among the final set of Penglipuran Village interviewees). Despite this effort, total avoidance of multiple representatives from single families was difficult, partly because the village population is small and because those willing to be interviewed often came from families who were leaders, educated, and able to use the Indonesian language. Later on, I input relationship data into UCINET 1.20 (‘1’ for existing relationship; ‘0’ for no relationship). Then, I used NETDRAW to depict the connections among interviewees. As illustrated in Figure 8, sixteen interviewees are members of two large families. It is important to note that these connections are based on both blood relationships and as a result of marrying into a family. Another contextual factor that I noticed and that affects informants’ perceptions about CBT is their living/home location. The village has two main areas: the primary tourism area and 69 the non-tourism area (see Chapter 3, including Figure 5 for details). The main tourism area is sub-divided into four segments: northeast, northwest, southeast, and southwest. Being aware of these spatial areas helped me minimize recruiting multiple research participants from within the same house locations, even though some multiples do exist. In total, I interviewed 8 people living in the northeast (38%), 4 community members living in the northwest (19%), 3 community members living in the southwest (14%), 3 community members living in the southeast (14%), and 3 other community members living outside the main tourism area (14%). As external stakeholders have been involved with Penglipuran’s tourism effort generally, or CBT specifically, they might have different experiences with and perspectives about the process and current status of tourism; therefore, I interviewed a small number of external actors. Table 2 summarizes information about the external actor interviewees. Six semi-structured interviews were conducted with external actors who represent: NGO Bali Community Based Tourism Association (Bali CoBTA) plus five government agencies (Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Department of Tourism and Culture (DTC), Department of Public Works and Public Housing (DPWPH), Department Agriculture, Food Security, and Fisheries (DAFSF), and Department Environment and Cleaning (DEC). It should be noted that the DTI representative also lives in Penglipuran. Although this interviewee was asked to speak on behalf of his organization, he occasionally answered based on his views as a community member. 70 Table 2 External Stakeholders – Sociodemographic Profile No Code Organization 22 Bali COBTA Bali COBTA Organization Involvement 2010-2013 Length of Personal Involvement 2010-now (but not as frequent as 2010-2013) 23 DTI Dept. of Trade & Industry 24 DTC 25 DPWPH 26 DAFSF 27 DEC Dept. of Tourism & Culture Dept. of Public Works and Public Housing Dept. of Agriculture, Food Security, and Fisheries Dept. of Environment and Cleaning Long before tourism village designation Long before tourism village designation Long before tourism village designation Long before tourism village designation Long before tourism village designation Since 2015-now Since 2005-now Officially, for 2 months. Personally, since 1994-now 2016-now 2010-now Briefly, Bali CoBTA was a non-governmental organization that assisted community- based eco-tourism villages development in less developed areas of Bali. This organization was established on 20 October 2010 with support from the Ministry of Culture and Tourism’s Destination Development Department, Bali Provincial Tourism Office, and other independent contributors. The mission of this organization was to “create quality Tourism Villages with special and interesting cultural and natural tourist attractions in order to improve welfare of local village communities.” Tourism village development also aimed to give a unique opportunity for tourists to experience local culture. Based on interviews with government personnel, DTI focuses on developing the industry and trade sector in Bangli. The industry and trade sector are related to tourism, such as in the context of handicrafts and Food and Beverages (F&B) production, which is inseparable from the accommodation sector. DTC focuses on formulating and implementing regional tourism policies; DPWPH focuses on developing regional roads and bridges to connect villages (Bina Marga), and providing clean water and irrigation (Cipta Karya), wastewater treatment and environmental 71 sanitation (Environmental Health), and low-income housing and spatial planning (Public Housing); DAFSF focuses on agriculture, food security, and fisheries. These three sectors are connected to tourism in the context of food supply for lodging and F&B sectors, and/or agritourism. Finally, DE focuses on formulating and implementing environmental regulations. Summary This study aims to gain understanding and insider perceptions of the development of CBT and its effects on the community. A qualitative approach for a single case study using guided semi-structured interviews was used. Purposive, snowball, convenience, and criterion sampling were applied to choose community member and external stakeholder interviewees. Semi-structured interviews were used to generate in-depth understanding about this complex issue. The interview guide was developed carefully through backward and forward translation processes and pilot study refinement. Also, interviews were conducted with full consideration of ethical matters (e.g., government permission, verbal consent, pseudonym use). This section is explained in detail so that readers are aware of potential limitations of this study. In retrospect, I faced constraints during the data collection process that was primarily caused by the COVID-19 crisis. This resulted in failure to gather all relevant secondary data, incorporate all aspects of rigorous interview data collection, and conduct the ideal processes for qualitative data analysis that improve research validity (e.g., additional coding assistant). Nevertheless, I was still able to collect and analyze useful data. Some efforts in maintaining research validity were implemented. In analyzing the data, content analysis was applied, and MAXQDA 2020 software was used to assist with data storage and management. Numerous coding iterations and concept modifications and reorganizations during the data analysis stage. The findings are reported in Chapter 5. 72 CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS The purpose of this study is to better understand both the development of a tourism village using the CBT process and the effects of tourism development on the Penglipuran community. Research questions of this study are: 1) How has Penglipuran Village developed as a tourism village using the CBT process? 2) How has CBT development in Penglipuran affected the community? Overall, this study reveals that information associated with CBT development and the information associated with tourism effects on the community are interrelated. Therefore, results are not organized based on research questions; instead, it is organized in a way that depicts the complex relationships among both phenomena. Findings are based on interviews with 21 villagers and six external stakeholders7. Findings are summarized from the collective comments from interviewees, and are illustrated with translated interview quotes. Pseudonyms/codes are applied as identifiers to protect the identity of interviewees8. Some information, based on personal observations, is provided for context or observational support for interviewee comments. Because of some challenges in data collection that prevented complete collection of data, information from previous studies in Penglipuran Village or other Balinese Villages, as relevant to this chapter, are used to clarify some interviewee comments and to provide contextual information, so that the results can be better understood by readers. Personal observations and literature citations are clearly differentiated in the writing. In other words, any information without these notations come from interviews. 7 As CBT development involves both community members and external stakeholders, their perspectives contribute to broad understanding of CBT development. 8 In some cases, family members of my official interviewees joined our conversation, and their statements are included in the transcript records, and are clearly differentiated in the writing of this chapter. 73 Traditional Community Participation in Penglipuran Village This section describes community participation in the decision-making process, and religious and cultural activities in Penglipuran Village, which represent the traditional ways of community participation that have been inherited across generations. This traditional community organization and processes underlie and ground the processes, decisions, and perceived effects of community-based tourism in the village. Even though much of this information could be gleaned from other sources, it is noteworthy that interviewees clearly described these processes, and linked many of their tourism-specific comments to their understanding of their traditional community life. Traditional Governance and Decision-making Processes A decision-making meeting usually is organized prior to any formal engagement by the community. Because the community adheres to both adat (customary village) and dinas (administrative village) systems, they make a decision in both systems. Each system has a slightly different process of decision-making. While adat meetings involve 77 male household heads only, dinas meetings allow women representatives to participate in making decisions. The dinas meetings, commonly known as musyawarah rencana pembangunan desa (consensus-based village development plan) meetings, are attended by four male community leaders (head of customary village (Klian Adat) and his two secretaries, and head of neighborhood), and each community organization chairperson and vice-chairperson. At this meeting, all participants are involved in deciding on and prioritizing government programs9. In adat, the responsibility for decision-making is held by 77 male household members (pengarep) who represent 77 existing pekarangan (yards) in Penglipuran. These meetings are 9 In this study, the dynamic decision-making process within the administrative system is less explored because adat plays a more significant role in the tourism development. 74 held monthly in the village hall (Bale Banjar). At least two thirds of the pengarep must attend the meeting to legitimate any decisions made during a given meeting. Meeting attendance is mandatory, though tolerance is given to those who work, are sick, or have important personal business. Small fines and social sanctions are applied to those who are absent without prior notice. All discussion issues are related to Tri Hita Karana (one of the Balinese life philosophies), including: collective funds spending and revenue generation; elections of Klian Adat and head of a neighborhood; facilities or infrastructure development; rules development guiding all community behaviors and actions (awig-awig); security; marriage and divorce; religious ceremonies; disputes; tourism events; and other things of concern (Dorn, 2012). Prior to the decision-making meeting, the entire community is allowed to share their ideas with pangarep. After decisions are made, all or some community members will implement the decisions. Despite the relatively clear procedure, reality sometimes is different. The next section describes traditional governance and the decision-making process in more detail. Idea Sharing Idea sharing refers to how villagers’ ideas, hopes, concerns, and ambitions are placed into the decision-making arena, or pengarep (family representative) meeting. These can include a response to problems within the village, a desire to do something new, or ideas from external stakeholders. Essentially, villagers can get their aspirations placed into the meeting unsolicited or solicited. Four ways are used to convey unsolicited community ideas. First, an individual can express an idea directly to their own and/or other family pengarep. Second, if villagers are reluctant to talk directly to pangarep, they can tell it to the head of an organization within the village, who then will let the Klian Adat know. Third, a group of people can invite a group of 75 pengarep to discuss a specific issue or idea; the pengarep then will convey the result of their conversation to the other representatives. Lastly, ideas can be conveyed directly to Klian Adat. Although opportunities exist for anyone to express their ideas, and there is evidence that roban (non-representatives) actively convey their ideas to representatives, three roban said that they rarely express their opinions because they trust their representatives and would just agree with any decisions made by the 77 family representatives (Adat). When asked about whether or not a representative is obliged to ask each family members’ opinions, one interviewee declared “[it] rarely happens. So, we trust our [family representatives]” (Malik). Another interviewee said: “As their member, [we just] follow them… When [Adat] said yes, we should [agree]” (Riri). While representatives hold the most rights to voice their opinions about a decision in Penglipuran, Klian Adat occasionally opens a space for roban participation in the decision- making process (solicited method). This depends on his leadership style and the urgency of issues being discussed. One interviewee expressed that a former Penglipuran Klian Adat usually directly sought other community members’ opinions prior to making a decision during a meeting with the other 76 representatives. He also criticized the current Klian Adat, saying: The art of persuading [people], so that they agree, so that a decision becomes a consensus … [the current leader] has no such [ability] … [The former] Klian Adat, when any problems arose [or] when we wanted to build [something], gathered prominent figures, employees, and the retired Klian Adat… They were all invited. ‘We want to build this [and] this.’ After it had been decided, [he would] present it to the [other] 76 [representatives]. (Surya) Nevertheless, another interviewee recalled a case in which the current Klian Adat solicited roban opinions for an urgent matter. To illustrate: “An impromptu meeting [in the] village [was held]. Everyone, not only the pangarep, all community members… well, let’s say just the men’s opinions were asked ‘what if the [ticket fee] is increased?’ ‘oh, [we] disagreed’ 76 (Bima). This shows that there may be some issues for which more community members must participate in order to have a decision legitimately represent the will or opinions of the village. Decision-making Meeting The community, via representatives, holds full authority to make decisions that affect the community. Klian Adat cannot decide authoritatively and impose his orders on anyone. Instead, all representatives may speak up, bringing their family ideas, concerns, and ambitions to the table for discussion. Each of them has the right to agree or disagree on a particular issue during the meeting. Decisions are based upon collective agreement among members (musyawarah mufakat) or, when consensus is not achieved, by voting. When voting is used, decisions are based upon the voice of the majority. At present, however, the Balinese government mandates that local communities use only musyawarah mufakat as opposed to voting, with the goal of maintaining harmonious relationships within the community. Because voting results in having some proportion of the people agreeing and some disagreeing, the governor recently has encouraged the community to keep debating until they reach agreement on any given issue. When a family representative is not ready to express his position over an issue and needs more time to hold a family discussion, a representative may request to postpone the decision- making. In other words, taking a step backward to the ‘idea sharing’ stage is possible. As illustrated by one interviewee: “‘I need to coordinate with my family first’… just like… [a political] party, right. ‘I, as the representative of the red party am not [ready to decide]; I need to deliberate with my party internally.’ [We] can do that.” (Supri). However, as three roban indicated that most community members trust and accept whatever has been decided, in reality, taking one step backward may rarely be the case. 77 Although representatives have the right to argue during the meeting, many representatives have just followed the voice of the majority (those who chose to speak). One roban interviewee pointed out a concern about newly appointed young representatives: The 76 representatives, sometimes, are afraid to speak up. How many community [members] dare to speak up, right? (laugh)… [we] cannot expect [much] … young people need time to [become comfortable with the community system]. They have just been [appointed as a representative] … [When we said], ‘these are my aspirations, please let [other representatives] know in the meeting,’ they may not be placed [into the agenda for discussion]. (Surya) One family representative also contended that democracy in the village has been ineffective as many representatives would not talk. Two interviewees mentioned that low literacy due to low education level, lack of ability/confidence, and fear of being disliked for ‘speaking up’ are some reasons why ‘speaking up’ is difficult: [There are] only some people who [can] express [opinions]. The remaining others, if [you] say [go] to the east, [they go] to the east. Say west, [they go] to the west. It is certainly like that. [That is] because our system here does not see the ‘smart’ and the ‘unsmart.’ [This is] different from the elected Indonesia’s People Representative Council [whose] brains are okay. Here, illiterate family members can be representatives. (Bima) Sometimes [people said], ‘[I will] speak up in the [meeting].’ But they do not have the nerve… Sometimes, they just talk in the street, but like, in the meeting, they keep silent… [They are] afraid, sometimes, afraid to be disliked.” (Adam) Once there is agreement about a decision on a specific idea/issue, the whole community can ‘move forward’ to the next agenda item, or to implementing a decision. Decision Implementation Decision implementation has two stages: information dissemination and plan execution. The way 77 representatives spread their information to the remaining community members and implementing the plan for executing decisions are explained in the next subsections. Information Dissemination. To implement a decision, there is a need to ensure that each community member is aware of the meeting results. Decisions made by the 77 pengarep (family 78 representatives), such as new rules or plans for public facility development, will be disseminated to Penglipuran community members who will participate in implementing the decisions. Information typically is disseminated three days prior to implementation day, so that community members have time to let each other know. Both traditional and modern ways of disseminating information are used. An example of the traditional way is having the customary village’s secretary (sinoman) announce the news by shouting around the main street of the village. As families who live in the front yards are likely to hear the sound of shouting, they will listen, then disseminate the information to other households that live in the backyard and outside the main street. Three interviewees have stated that the nature of the spatial layout enables rapid information dissemination. An example of a modern communication strategy is that pengarep tell other villagers via technology-based communication tools, such as via phone calls or chat groups. Some families have a family chat group through which pangarep typically spread information about a group decision. In fact, the Penglipuran Community also has a community chat group through which the head of customary village can tell the whole community directly (at least those members who have the technology). Although not all community members are a part of the chat group, this strategy helps with information dissemination. Plan Execution. After spreading the information, decision outcomes bind all community members, and the decisions will be translated into actions. One interviewee said: “Because in administrative or customary village here, once we decide something, we must implement it…” (Lingga). The community is generally obedient to Adat decisions and never complain about them, as one roban (non-representative) interviewee indicates: “So far, no one [opposed Adat decisions] … Here, the [local] people never say ‘oh, why can I not do this…?’ [They are never] 79 demanding....” (Adam). Another roban emphasized that what has been decided cannot be opposed: “As a community member, we [will] still agree… We cannot not execute it; decisions must be [implemented] because it is Adat’s decision... It cannot be opposed” (Sakti). Plan execution starts by assigning the responsible community stakeholder to execute the decision. These stakeholders vary, depending on what the decision outcomes are. For example, if decisions are related to a new rule establishment, Sekaa Pecalang (organization of security and safety) will help with the rule’s enforcement. If decisions are related to meal preparation for welcoming guests, the FWE Organization holds the responsibility. If decisions are related to youth activities, young people will participate. If decisions are about religious ceremonies, all villagers must participate to successfully implement the rituals. If decisions are about tourism, TMO is primarily responsible to execute the decisions. If decisions are related to Bangli government’s responsibility, community representatives will let the respective government department know by sending them a letter containing their traditional community meeting minutes. Any stakeholders who are on duty will coordinate with pengarep (representatives), especially the head of customary village (Klian Adat), to implement the decisions. Although decisions are based on consensus, the extent to which decisions are fully implemented as planned depends on the community leaders (e.g., Klian Adat). In some cases, as two interviewees reported, the leader has sometimes changed an action (after a community decision has been made) himself according to his will, as illustrated by this quote: “[Klian Adat] has the right to accept or reject my suggestions. [What makes] me disappointed is that [my suggestions] were accepted but [they were] not implemented” (Bima). In addition, although some people appear fine with not having their opinions be the majority opinion during the decision-making meeting, they may still dislike the result. Such opposing opinions can become a 80 source of motivation for those having the majority opinion to successfully implement the decisions as a way of demonstrating that the decision was a good one: If implementation [of the ideas] is successful, [the defeated group] will say ‘oh, [you are] right!’ … What is more important is that the winning group must successfully [implement]. If [we] lost it, they won it, right… If, for example, the festival was not success, ‘ah, [that is what happened] when you do not believe in my ideas!’ Humans are typically like that. (Malik) Religious and Socio-cultural Activities This section explains religious activities and cultural protection efforts that are carried out in the village. Most of these activities are implemented cooperatively by neighbors and/or community groups with the spirit of gotong royong (literally, reciprocal help, Bhaskara, 2015). Bhaskara (2015) explained that gotong royong, or mutual aid, is a tradition that involves organizing residents in small groups to achieve mutual goals. This practice is a common phenomenon in Indonesian villages, and is commonly applied in the case of public community activities, weddings and funerals, and the repair of roads, bridges, and mosques. In Bali, villagers typically participate in contributing goods, money, and/or time. This participation is based on ngayah, which is devoting oneself to the village without hoping for or receiving any reciprocity. Dorn (2012) stated that “working together as an equal unity not only leads to [harmonious] relationships, but also is important for a deeper understanding of collectively shared resources and the responsibility of everyone to take care of their duties” (p. 18). As is decision-making meeting attendance, community participation in implementing religious and socio-cultural activities is mandatory, although tolerance is given for those who work, are sick, or have important personal business to attend to at the time. As with decision- making meetings, small fines are applied to those who do not participate. Because the village is small, and spatial arrangement facilitates rapid information between villagers, the whole community recognizes each other’s participation in social activities; thus, social sanctions and 81 personal feelings of embarrassment (lek) for not participating in a community activity become the tools that ensure people’s participation in cultural activities. Three male interviewees stated that the community has been easy to mobilize, and members generally are aware of their responsibilities to devote themselves to the customary village. Religious Participation As life after death is more important than the present life, Balinese dedicate most of their lives making offerings and rituals to worship the island owner, Sanghyang Widhi. This is the reason for Balinese ambition to build numerous temples all over the island (Bhaskara, 2015). Participation in major religious ceremonies is not obligatory for only those who currently live in the village, but also for family members who reside away from the village (Dolezal, 2015). Bhaskara (2015) noted that this mandatory participation in religious festivities contributes to the impression by many employees that Balinese are ‘bad workers,’ as they often demand days off to participate in home village activities, and rarely meet work-related project deadlines. In Penglipuran, too, Asha and Riri explained that people who worked outside of the village often leave in the middle of their work to attend communal rituals or to help with a neighbor’s ceremonial event (e.g., wedding). In Penglipuran, three interviewees stated that the frequency of their religious ceremonies was greater than in any other villages in Bali. A newcomer explained: “In my [former] village, the religious ceremonies were not as many as [in Penglipuran]. Here, [religious ceremonies] are held every month, especially last month in February, before galungan, uh, the ceremonies were really every day” (Asha). Galungan and Kuningan are the most important celebrations for Balinese, and are held every 210 days based on the Balinese calendar. Villages are involved not only in conducting ceremonies internally in Penglipuran, but the whole community also often 82 holds joint rituals with neighboring villages. Dorn (2012) explained that Penglipuran and the other villages in Bangli area are a part of gebog domas, which represents the interregional spiritual connection. For example, because many Penglipuranese are originally from Bayung Gede Village, the whole Penglipuran community often visits their ancestors in Bayung Gede. Sometimes, Bayung Gede villagers even visit Penglipuran. Lingga stated that the community has connections with approximately 23 villages in the Bangli Region. Ritual ceremonies require the participation of all villagers. When conducting a ceremony, each pekarangan (yard) must equally contribute cash, energy, time (ngayah), materials for offerings (e.g., rice, pork), and everything else needed for the big ceremonies. To manage this amount of labor, the village is organized in a way to get all the labor completed. Pangarep (representatives) focus on handling and leading the rituals. While women prepare small snacks and beverages, Cooking Organization members cook the main offering dishes. These cuisines are dedicated as offerings to Sang Hyang Widhi and consumed by ritual participants; the dishes are delivered by Sekaa Truni (unmarried females). Pecalang (Security and Safety) Organization members make sure that religious ceremonies are implemented safely, with limited outside interference. If rituals are carried out in another village, Pecalang secure transportation and ensure smooth traffic to the destination. Unmarried males and Gong Organization members play traditional musical instruments. Baris (Dance) Organization members, including some married woman and some young people, perform sacred dances. Cultural Protection This section explains community participation in cultural protection activities: organization meetings and activities related to environmental protection, both natural and built (physical) environment. It is important to note that these activities provide a source of social 83 interaction, thereby strengthening relationships among villagers. Details about social and environmental functions of these activities are explained in the next subsections. Community Organization Meetings. In addition to the monthly decision-making meetings in adat (customary village) and dinas (administrative village), each community organization holds regular formal or informal meetings. Each formal meeting has its own agenda. For example, Sekaa Baris (Dance Organization) and Sekaa Gong (Music Organization) hold a dance and music practice meeting twice a month. The frequency of such meetings intensifies the closer the time gets to religious ceremonies. The FWE Organization also holds an arisan10 formal meeting. Because many Penglipuran women are housewives and spend most of their time in the village, they often gather informally. The TMO also holds meetings to discuss tourism issues in the village; sometimes TMO also invites some pengarep. Sekaa Truna Truni (Youth Organization) conducts a monthly meeting to discuss youth activities, such as cultural performance contests during Indonesian Independence Day and Balinese literature contests, or their involvement in broader community activities (e.g., religious and tourism-related activities). Sometimes, some youth group members also gather to practice dances that are supervised by Sekaa Baris representatives. As young people will be the ones who will serve in Adat in the future, youth meetings familiarize them with the structure of the customary village and overall traditions, customs, and other elements of the village’s local culture. All these organization meetings serve as social interaction opportunities for community members, and as strategies for preserving other cultural elements, such as art, music, and cuisine. 10 According to Bhaskara (2015), arisan is a social activity associated with credit and money transfer between organization members. 84 Natural Environment-related Cultural Protection. The community has implemented three kinds of environmental-related cultural protection, which includes sustaining the environment, cleaning the environment, and beautifying the environment. First, environmental sustainability actions aim to minimize effects of environmental disasters (e.g., landslides, flooding, erosion) and protect traditional building construction. One example of such action is protecting the bamboo forest. The community has implemented a rule that prevents selling any of the 45 hectares of bamboo forest to outsiders and prevents changing its land use and established ways of conserving the bamboo using THK Principles. In addition to having environmental sustainability functions, bamboo forest conservation has supported the community’s desire to continue practices of their ancestors, protect traditional buildings, and maintain relationships among humans. The following statement illustrates how the community implements this cultural practice: When we want to save the forest, Balinese have a ‘save the forest’ ritual once every 210 days… In every activity, there must be parahyangan, pawongan, and palemahan elements. What is an [example of] parahyangan [element]? We provide offerings… What is an [example of] the palemahan [element]? [It is the] human activities to save the environment. Then, what is the pawongan [element]? We plant, [we] act to save [the forest]. Not only [do we] pray to God, but also we must act [harvest bamboo using a selective cutting method]. (Supri) Second, two environmental cleaning habits are practiced by the community as related to 'clean living,’ which is a habit that has been passed down from one generation to the next. First is the daily sweeping practice conducted by villagers, usually women. The practice includes keeping the household yards and the house interiors clean in the mornings and evenings. Nobody ever directs them to sweep simultaneously. One female interviewee explained: “[It is] common. Early morning, we just wake up, take a sweep up, cleaning telajakan11 outside the yard” (Sarah). 11 Balinese traditional green open space that separates the wall of a housing compound and the ditch. 85 Next, villagers must work together on a monthly basis to clean the temple area, neighborhood, and cemetery. This activity includes sweeping dirt and cutting grass. Such activities are carried out twice a month, every purnama (full moon) and tilem (dark moon) day (Suartika, 2018). Third, some environmental beautification projects have been carried out in the community. For example, in the 1990s, a garden and pond were built using collective funds from the village. Additionally, some university students planted grasses along the main street, which inspired other community members to follow what the students did. One interviewee explained: “The University Wharmadewa students… planted flowers [and] grasses… [as an example], and other villagers spontaneously followed [what they did] … [the village] looked beautiful” (Naufal). In addition to contributing to formal projects that are carried out collectively, many villagers beautify their surrounding yard environments by growing agricultural plants in pots. In addition to having an environmental function, it is important to note that all these three cultural practices were implemented in a collective manner, thus providing social interaction opportunities among villagers, representing the palemahan element of Tri Hita Karana. One interviewee explained: “When [we] wanted to plant flowers, one brought flower seeds from home… After we finished working, we ate [together], in rotation, in A’s house [today], in another’s house tomorrow.” (Mansur). Another interviewee stated: “we worked together … [were just] given… coffee, snacks, and lunch, but there was togetherness during gathering.” (Tirta). Another interviewee reported a similar social function of the daily sweeping practice: Indeed, [even] before tourism, people are used to cleaning [their environment] in Penglipuran. At least, [they] sweep two times [per day]. Together, they still sweep the street, sweep in the morning while chatting (laugh). The ladies commonly chat. And nobody ever directed [them] to do that. (Surya) Two interviewees declared that Penglipuran villagers have a profound love for beauty, a trait that has been passed down from their ancestors. One interviewee explained that it became a 86 reason why the community likes to participate in gotong royong activities in the context of environmental cleaning and beautification. In his words: “There is happiness [when] we can arrange [the environment] prettier, [it is] pleasant to see… It is uncommon for ordinary people [in other parts of the world] to have such a trait” (Surya). In general, all these environmental- related cultural practices are essential community contributions. One interviewee opined: “The [environmental] cleaning price is actually expensive. If [it is being] calculated with the price of humans working… If, for example, every person is being paid this much. … [Cleanliness] is entrenched, it came from [our ancestors].” (Mansur). Built Environment-related Cultural Protection. The community has implemented three kinds of built environment-related cultural protection, which include preserving the spatial arrangement, conserving heritage buildings, and developing and maintaining infrastructure. Preserving the Village’s Spatial Arrangement. The community intentionally has kept the existing village land use and structure in its traditional form since the 1980s, when it could have made decisions to develop in an entirely different way. Two actions to support this goal were reported: relocating street vendors from along the main road to inside their individual yards and keeping the main street safe for pedestrians. In the 1980s, many villagers opened food or grocery stalls in the main street, occupying half of the street. As this made it difficult for them to walk, a group of young people suggested relocating these stalls inside each family yard. The primary motives for this action were to keep the original spatial layout intact, keep the overall village tidy, protect the scenic areas, and create a safe pedestrian area. One interviewee explained that the solution was made as fair as possible: “The way our parents [dealt with the vendor problem] … just like what I said, they are our community, we did not arbitrarily displace them, but we gave them a solution” (Lingga). 87 In the 1990s, the community continued to carry out a second spatial layout preservation effort. This time, they intended to keep the village main street free from motorized vehicles, especially from four-wheeled vehicles. Therefore, they built an outer ring road, which can be accessed by motorized vehicles. Also, they installed paving block materials instead of using asphalt materials for the main street. A new drainage system also was installed with the support of Department of Public Works. This action enabled pedestrians to walk and children to play safely in the main street, as well as protected the traditional buildings as the main street structure was not designed for car access. Malik explained that this action also was in line with their Bayung Prumpung Isi Brem philosophy, making the village look simple from the main street. As with previous environmental-related cultural actions, spatial layout preservation is essential for maintaining other cultural elements. First, it helps to maintain the structure of existing traditional heritage buildings. Second, such an open-style layout makes interaction among villagers easy, which is important because they regard every person as a member of their own family. In contrast to urban residents whose houses typically are separated by high walls, the community installed doors that directly connect one’s yard with their neighbors’ pekarangan (yards). The following quotation describes how such a layout enables easy interaction and is a symbol of harmonious relationships and togetherness. [Having] a disharmonious life, one would be afraid to build [a connecting door]. [They might think] ‘If I build a connecting door… my pretty wife will be peeked at by [my] neighbors,’ for example. Here, we do not have such a concept because [we are a] family … [Since] a long time ago, [when] guests visited our customary village], if you cannot [service the guests] because your wife is not home, [your] neighbors’ wife can help you make the coffee, right. Without the side doors, we [cannot do that]. (Supri) One villager, who recently moved to Penglipuran, confirmed that the village spatial layout fosters social interaction among neighbors by comparing it to that of her previous village. 88 In other villages [in Bali], [the distance between] houses is far, from one neighbor to the [other neighbors]. That makes it difficult to gather [and] to take care of [each] household… [Penglipuran] is so different than other villages. Here, sometimes, if [you need] salt, or chili, [you just go to your neighbor]. (Asha) Another interviewee explained that the village layout contributes to the village safety: I never take out my bike key though I never lock [my] house gate… Neighbors’ tolerance is good here. Access to neighbors provides evidence that we protect and respect each other. When strangers [visit], because we recognize [our] neighbors, [strangers] are easily identifiable… [Although one’s neighbors are not home], one can watch [our home] and ask what [the strangers] are looking for. (Tirta) Based on these statements, it is clear that spatial arrangement is connected with the way the villagers interact with each other. Because of such significant socio-environmental functions, the local community has included spatial arrangement preservation in its rules (awig-awig). Conserving Traditional Buildings. The community has acted to conserve the local traditional buildings, keeping the buildings and their arrangement intact. In the 1980s, some angkul-angkul had their physical structure or roofs missing because of a huge earthquake that hit Penglipuran a long time ago. Because most villagers were too poor to pay for repairs, the buildings remained damaged for decades. In 1992, they heard news that the second president of Indonesia planned to visit Penglipuran. The government encouraged them to beautify the village to welcome Mr. Soeharto, who would be visiting in two weeks. This became the motivation to execute their postponed conservation ideas. With the help neighboring communities, and the Regent’s permission for some community members to take days off from their work, the community repaired angkul-angkul using bamboo that was available nearby the village. With gotong royong (mutual aid), the men focused primarily on the physical work while the women cooked for them. Rich villagers funded and worked on their angkul-angkul installations them- selves. Middle-income villagers were helped with low interest loans from the bank, as supported by the Regent, and poor villagers were fully supported financially for their installations. 89 Finally, the community, via family representatives, decided to issue an awig-awig (local rules) that mandated conservation of other heritage buildings, particularly balesakaenem (the traditional pavilion for ceremonies) and pawon (kitchens). In addition, building multi-story houses was prohibited. According to some interviewees, the purpose of conserving traditional buildings was not primarily for economic reasons. One interviewee explained: “[What we did] here was bottom-up and not solely for money. In the beginning, [we] were just happy to see buildings [that were] inherited by our parents [from their parents] “(Mansur). Furthermore, Supri mentioned that the reason for building conservation was to allow future generations to see tangible representations of their heritage. As traditional buildings have both social and religious functions, protecting them also means protecting related intangible cultural elements. He said: [Traditional] buildings have social and religious functions. The social functions are for sleeping, for cooking, right… No matter how modern Penglipuran people are [in the future], when these traditional buildings with the bamboo roofs… are still used for religious functions, as meditation or coronation spots… [these cultural elements] will still be preserved… The religious function [serves] as a brake, [so we] can protect the existence of [our] traditions. (Supri) Developing and Maintaining Village Infrastructure. Penglipuran community often has done things in a bottom-up manner, including developing and maintaining temple, infrastructure, and public facilities. For example, the community repaved the village’s main street with paving blocks, moved the tourism secretariat’s materials to a new building, and renovated the village hall and temple by themselves. These projects were implemented with gotong royong, thus also providing social interaction opportunities among villagers. One interviewee illustrated: The customary village works without even being given funds [or] directions, because [they do everything] in a bottom-up manner: bottom-up in terms of ideas, bottom-up in terms of funding. When we were hit by the Lombok earthquake, there were a lot of walls… damaged. We did not report it to the government. Despite reporting [such damages], the government will just record [it without taking any action]. For us, ‘how do [we fix] this?... With the community’s gotong royong, we mobilized [the community], we repaired [the infrastructure], so to speak. No money? Urunan (each household equally contributes). (Supri) 90 When the government failed to finish its projects in the village, the community continued the development projects themselves, as one interviewee explained: “Bangli’s government owned [the hero statue project] ... [The statue] was not built for years… Eventually, the community built the statue itself… Most of Penglipuran development has been [bottom-up]” (Surya). In fact, villagers often have participated in monitoring infrastructure projects that are built by the government within their village, ensuring that the quality matches what is in the plan. One government interviewee illustrated: “Let us say, [the government] builds a road, the local community monitors… [evaluating] whether or not the [road development] matches with what was in the plan… As a result, the contractor consultant is afraid to cheat” (DPWH). Community Participation in Tourism Benefits This section elucidates interviewee comments about community participation in tourism benefits. It begins with a brief history of tourism village designation and the tourism condition, then discusses ways in which community members participate in the community-based tourism system, benefits to individuals and the society as a result of participation, and factors associated with the sharing of tourism benefits. Understanding the history of tourism village development using CBT principles during the earlier process is critical in providing context for the current tourism and community conditions in the village. History of CBT Designation Two important temporal landmarks have influenced Penglipuran designation and operation as a tourism village. The first subsection provides an overview of the first period, 1993-2010, which focuses on designating a tourism obyek (object) or tourist destination. The second subsection describes the time period since 2010, and focuses on “tourism village,” or Community-based Tourism (CBT), implementation. 91 1993-2010: Tourism ‘Object’ Designation Penglipuranese cultural life comprises rich cultural and natural resources. The local cultural protection efforts led them to win a few contests related to environmental cleaning and sustainability in Bangli Regency, which resulted in this village being recognized by the local and central governments, media, and the public in general. Even prior to its designation as a tourism destination, Penglipuran already was visited by a few foreigners who transited in the village before visiting Kintamani—the main tourist destination in Bangli Regency. At that time, the community already had received donations from visitors. In 1993, the local government offered the idea of giving the village a tourist destination designation, with the purpose of increasing the local community’s welfare and local government revenues. The community did not object when the Bangli Government encouraged the village to open its homes to visitors. Designation as a tourism destination had been discussed and granted by community representatives (Adat). Four interviewees explained that some people disagreed with becoming a tourism destination, which some interviewees explained as disagreement that was based on a lack of understanding about tourism. However, they later changed their minds when they experienced economic benefits personally. The village was designated officially as a tourist destination on April 29, 1993 (confirmed by Bangli Regency’s Decision Number 115 Year 1993 concerning the Determination of Tourist Destinations in Bangli Regency). The following day, Bangli Regency’s Decision Number 116 specifying entrance fees was issued12, whereby sixty percent of the tourism village’s entrance ticket revenues would go to the Bangli Government13. After this 12 At the present (2021), the price for admission to Penglipuran Village for foreign tourists is IDR 30,000 (USD 2.14) for adults and IDR 25,000 (USD 1.78) for children, while domestic tourists are IDR 15,000 (USD 1.07) for adults and IDR 10,000 (USD 0.71) for children. 13 Some interviewees explained that the reasons the community being agreed to the government getting 60% revenue share, which was higher than the community’s share, were because 1) the community was lacking knowledge of potential economic tourism benefits, 2) the community did not prioritize money and focused on 92 designation, Penglipuran continued receiving awards, such as the Kalpataru Award from the central government for bamboo forest conservation in 1995. Many of my study participants indicated that their participation in ceremonies, as well as environmental- and physical-related cultural protection, are some of the reasons their village has won numerous awards and was designated as a tourism village. For example, two government interviewees said that visitors also are interested in observing local environmental management practices, as well as religious practices and daily ways of life. Three interviewees stated that tourism in the community was God’s will, as the community often dedicated their time, energy, and cash for ritual ceremonies. Two interviewees stated that their environmental cleaning practice and their former efforts in spatial arrangement preservation are reasons their village receives high levels of attention from the public today: “[Daily sweeping] is a fantastic custom, I think… Ultimately, it brings [us] fortune like today” (Surya). Also: I am certain that [other villages] cannot be a tourism village because cars [are allowed to enter] their main streets, [which is] annoying for tourists. Here, no cars and motorcycles are around, just pedestrians, right. Indeed, [this] village is the most unique [village]; many visitors say that. (Teja) Prior to 2000, most tourists coming to the village were international tourists. However, the tourist demographic changed dramatically following Bali’s bombings in 2000 and 2002. Since those incidents, as two interviewees pointed out, most tourists had been Asians and Indonesians, primarily from Java. According to Ernawati (2015), Penglipuran Village has been visited by mixed types of tourists, including independent travelers and excursion tourists on bus tours. Furthermore, some interviewees pointed out that the atmosphere of the Balinese traditional village had attracted some film entertainment companies to use the village as their filming cultural protection, 3) the government did not differentiate nature-based and man-made tourism. Tourism Village is a part of the latter; it requires greater amounts of money and work to develop than nature-based tourism. 93 location. The community has been visited often by national and international celebrities and popular politicians. Some corporations, such as cigarette and airline companies, also have promoted their products against the backdrop of the village. It is important to note, however, that Penglipuran was merely a ‘tourist object,’ or ‘tourist destination,’ from 1993 to 2010. Although the community had gained revenue from the tickets, it focused solely on ‘community-based conservation,’ all efforts that were elucidated in the previous ‘cultural protection’ section. Community-owned tourism products and services were provided without guidance or coordination by a proper tourism-related organization, so they were handled directly by Adat (77 family representatives). It was in 2010 that the community started to develop a tourism village using Community-based Tourism principles properly. Details about implementation of CBT are explained in the next section. 2010-Present: Tourism Village or Community-based Tourism Development In 2010, because the community was considered to have met all the elements expressed in the principle of sapta pesona14 – had good access, offered existing cultural and natural attractions and tourism products – the government offered them designation as a ‘tourism village,’ for which they would use CBT principles. The NGO Bali COBTA, with funding support from the Indonesian Bank, provided them training and advice and connected them with external resources (e.g., promotion). CBT was used as a tool to incentivize the community to further protect their culture, which otherwise could be exploited by investors. Adat decided to build a committee to write a proposal to the government; this committee later became the Penglipuran Tourism Management Organization (TMO), members of which 14 Sapta pesona is a term introduced by the central government as a national brand of Indonesia’s Tourism of ‘Wonderful Indonesia.’ It offers seven tourism qualities: security, orderliness, cleanliness, cool temperatures, beauty, friendliness, and being a memory-maker. 94 were trusted people within the village who would manage development of community-owned tourism products and services. After Bali COBTA trained Penglipuranese for six months, Bali COBTA with its team decided that the community could operate itself as a CBT destination. Since TMO establishment in 2012, the village has offered more tourism products than previously, including amenities (e.g., homestays, small family-owned restaurants and food stalls) and attractions (e.g., tourism packages, festivals). Three interviewees pointed out that some people disagreed with establishment of festival and homestay products, although they later changed their minds when they experienced the economic benefits personally. Based on my interviews with Klian Adat, head of TMO, head of neighborhood, and Bali COBTA, the Penglipuran CBT development concept comprises four major components: 1) The community is both a ‘subject’ and an ‘object’ of tourism, which means tourism development does not rely on a few capital owners while the majority of the community act as supporting members. Rather, Penglipuran CBT is implemented based on the principle of ‘for, from, and by’ the community, which demands that community members work, plan, implement, evaluate, and gain benefits themselves. 2) Penglipuran CBT cooperate and build harmonious relationships with external stakeholders: government, private sector, media, academic institutions, and tourists. The success of CBT establishment would not happen without them, though the community, as advised by Bali COBTA, was encouraged not to be dependent on external stakeholders. 3) Penglipuran CBT clearly operates based on the concept of ‘tourism for Penglipuran’ and not ‘Penglipuran for tourism.’ While the latter requires the community accept and adapt to the tourism market, the former allows the community to protect its culture. 4) The community uses 95 local life philosophies, such as Tri Hita Karana, Desa Kala Patra15, Rwa Bhineda16, Karmaphala17, and Bayuk Prumpung isi Brem18, as guides for developing their CBT. TMO represented the community and encouraged it to join contests. As a result, the community earned more local, national, and international awards: Citra Pesona Pariwisata National Award in 201319, ASEAN Standard Homestay in 201420, one of the world’s cleanest villages in 201621, ISTA (Indonesia Sustainable Tourism Award) in 201722, Program Kampung Iklim (The Climate Village Program) in 201823, and was rated as one of the top four national tourism villages for the Green Destination contest in 201924. The Head of TMO explained that these awards boosted Penglipuran’s popularity, making the village recognized by national and international tourists. Combining the village’s strategic location and easy access, Penglipuran has become one of the most famous tourist destinations in Bangli Regency and Bali Province. This village has served as a model for tourism village development in Indonesia (Handayani, 2015). As presented in Table 3, the village has received a large number of tourists, and its visitor numbers increased regularly between 2013 and 2017. Many business owners in the community said that the weekend was the most crowded time of the week. Major Holy Days, such as Eid Mubarak, Christmas and New Year’s Eves, and Kuningan and Galungan (Hindus’ Major Holy 15 Desa Kalapatra is the principle of flexibility, which allows humans to adapt based on ‘time, situation, and place.’ Penglipuranese believes in “dimana tanah dipijak, disana langit dijunjung” (equivalent to ‘when in Rome, do as the Romans do’) and “lain lubuk lain ikannya/different pools have different kinds of fish.” 16 Rua bhineda the philosophy of balance, which is the precursor to this world’s existence. The world will have good and bad things; the bad things may be good, depending on how humans deal with them. 17 Karmaphala is the Law of Karma, which posits that our actions are equal to what we get. 18 Bayuk Prumpung isi Brem means that we must hide our possessions and appear simple from outside. 19 Being regarded as the best cultural ‘attraction,’Penglipuran Village received this award, given by the Ministry of Tourism and Creative Economy. 20, 21 Details about this award are unknown. 22 Granted by the central government, the gold award for green culture and green environment categories was granted to Penglipurn. The researcher did not get further information about this award. 23 The climate change adaptation award was a program initiated by the Indonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry. The researcher did not get further information about this award. 24 This competition was organized by the Partnership for the Top 100 and the ITB Berlin Earth Award. The researcher did not get further information about this award. 96 Days), attract more crowds. From July through September, when most students are on summer break, the village is occupied with students on excursions and those involved with Student Study Service activities. The community receives 150 to 200 tourists per day during most of the year, and up to 4,000 tourists per day on national holidays. Additionally, Blapp (2015) noted that tourists typically visit for a short time (on average 10-20 minutes). Pickel-Chevalier et al., (2019) noted that only 10% of tourists spend one night or more in the village. At the time of this study, all government interviewees stated that Penglipuran is the most popular tourism village in the region, and the second most visited tourist destination in Bangli after Kintamani. Table 3 Annual Number of Visitors to Penglipuran Village, 2013-17 International Domestic Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 20,896 25,687 20,381 27,095 36,837 20,200 38,805 26,021 88,485 122,332 295,843 Total 41,096 64,492 46,402 115,580 159,169 426,739 TOTAL 130,896 Note. Reprinted from Penglipuran Tourism Village Facebook Page. http:/facebook.com/desapenglipuran/. Copyright 2019 by Penglipuran Tourism Village In her study, Dorn (2012) noted that tourists previously were not allowed to stay in the village because of guests’ potential negative effects on the local culture. Since there have been many requests by tourists to stay longer, combined with thoughts by Penglipuran residents to provide more job opportunities and gain higher economic benefits in the village, and also combined with the advice of Bali COBTA to add ‘amenities’ in the village for them to be a tourist destination, the people of Penglipuran decided that guests could stay in the village, as long as they do not break any rules and they respect the culture. Cooperating with several travel agents, the village homestay coordinator explained that the community occasionally receives 97 visitor groups that stay overnight in the village, such as groups of international school students and foreigners. In 2018, 30 visitor groups were estimated to have stayed in the village in a single year, with each group typically having a maximum of 20 people. As a result of the developments described above, built on the CBT approach whereby villagers make the decisions, they also participate in the benefits of tourism. The following section describes interviewees’ perceptions and beliefs about the ways in which communities participate and the kinds of benefits they receive as a result of their tourism engagement. Factors affecting the sharing of tourism benefits throughout the community also are discussed. Ways to Participate in Tourism Community members have three ways in which to participate in tourism: being a TMO member, sharing ideas and suggestions for discussion that feed into tourism-based decisions, and providing tourism products and services. These three actions are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may engage in one or more of them. Being a Tourism Management Organization (TMO) Member Between 1993 and 2012, tourism was managed directly by Adat (representatives). Because the number of tourists visiting the community grew significantly each year and Adat has limited time and energy to manage all the religious, cultural, and economic activities in the village, Adat decided in 2012 to form a special organization to manage tourism professionally, which was in accord with recommendations of NGO Bali COBTA and the Bangli government. One of the former Klian Adat’s relatives explained that the government suggested that the community form a tourism organization so that the government did not need to coordinate always with community representatives who did not necessarily understand tourism. In addition, 98 the current Head of Adat explained that TMO was formed to support the Adat in that the Adat could focus on handling religious and cultural activities. TMO members represent the community in meetings with the government about tourism. Typically, TMO members also often have been the ones who received tourism training provided by the government and external stakeholders. The NGO Bali COBTA, supported with the Bank of Indonesia’s CSR funds, assisted in developing the TMO’s vision and mission, purpose, and the organization’s structure. On December 15, 2012, TMO declared its vision of establishing a CBT village that is culturally and environmentally sound based on the THK philosophy. The first layer of organization structure includes the head of TMO, vice head of TMO, treasurer, secretary, development department, operational department, and safety and security department. Under these departments are functions of security, cleaning, health, accommodations (e.g., homestays and guesthouses), culinary services, arts and culture, information, and ticketing.25 In general, the role of TMO includes formulating, implementing, and evaluating tourism development plans and policies, establishing the standard operational procedures for assuring safety and security, and handling and setting a payroll mechanism for tourism staff. TMO also has the right to manage revenues from community-owned businesses. Sometimes, TMO members also conduct daily paid work, such as becoming parking attendants. Implementation of major tourism decisions requires a large amount of money, which is provided by Adat. The TMO can only formulate small and low-risk policies related to tourism operations and administration. Essentially, TMO is the primary thinker for the whole tourism system. It also is responsible for many promotional and operational details, such as managing its website and e-mails, and cooperating with travel agents, external Balinese cultural institutions, hospitals, doctors, 25 The researcher did not get access to the organizational structure. Thus, the exact organization structure is unknown. 99 mechanics, and police to ensure tourists’ security and safety. Additionally, TMO connects the community with external stakeholders, such as the government and external travel agents, to address tourism issues. For example, while travel agents previously had to contact Klian Adat, they now can contact TMO representatives directly. The TMO often contributes ideas about sustainable tourism development in the village, as well as solutions to issues that arise as a result of tourism (e.g., related to traditional building conservation, traffic challenges, business competition, tourism infrastructure, and environmental cleaning). After TMO was established, new tourism products and services were created for three reasons: maximizing potential tourism-based economic benefits, extending educational and cultural experiences for tourists (Dorn, 2012), and fulfilling the Indonesian Bank Corporate Social Responsibility requirement. With assistance from Bali COBTA, TMO managed the newly established products such as homestays, educational and cultural packages, festival events, and gathering services in a more organized way. Tourism Idea Sharing Tourism idea sharing refers to the associated acts of giving suggestions, thoughts, or ideas about tourism to the TMO or the family representatives, who are the influential stakeholders in formulating and implementing tourism-related decisions in this village. Basically, any community member may contribute their ideas, thoughts, and suggestions. As noted in the ‘idea sharing’ section, some people may actively contribute their ideas and opinions while others may contribute their ideas only when community leaders ask them (solicited). While two interviewees said that some young people had started contributing their ideas about tourism concerns and solutions, especially former cruise ship workers who had tourism experience and abilities, two youth participants mentioned that it was rare to find ordinary villagers who actively 100 contributed their thoughts about tourism. One interviewee mentioned that TMO members were creative already, so other villagers rarely contributed ideas about tourism development. Providing Tourism Products and Services Tourism provides numerous opportunities for the community to participate in the production or selling of tourism products and services, such as food and beverages, accommodation, entertainment, and recreation (Buhalis, 2000). Prior to local engagement in tourism-related businesses, the majority of villagers – both men and women—worked as farmers. As tourism has developed, many villagers gradually have shifted their jobs to tourism. Some of them, typically older people, continue to work as full-time farmers. Some of them modified their work to be part-time tourism business operators while others shifted their work activities entirely to tourism. Some had owned in-home shops prior to tourism development. While they had sold groceries in the past, they began to sell souvenirs to tourists. Similarly, while small local restaurants typically served only local people, they adapted their menus to accommodate tourists. Three interviewees explained that villagers are interested primarily in getting the benefits of tourism because tourism-related jobs can produce the same amount of income, with less physical demand and working time, compared with agriculture. Additionally, one interviewee explained that relying on agriculture was impossible as the locals did not have vast agricultural lands. Overall, tourism has created numerous employment opportunities, which supported the statement by the head of neighborhood who indicated that villagers do not need to find jobs outside to live a simple life. In Penglipuran, tourism products and services typically are provided in the form of small-scale businesses (both family-owned and community-owned businesses) and daily activities that support tourism. Based on my observations and close engagement with the 101 interview data, I have identified four major characteristics of community-owned businesses26 that differentiate them from family-owned businesses. With community-owned businesses: 1) management and operational responsibility belong to the TMO instead of to a single family; 2) product development uses tourism operational or collective funds rather than family resources; 3) the price of the product is set by the TMO; and 4) a higher share of business revenue goes to the community’s collective and tourism-specific operational funds rather than to families or individuals. While participation in small-scale businesses is profit-based, villagers’ daily activities and tourism support functions are not necessarily motivated by or result in profits directly, but they still contribute to the tourism experience for visitors to the village. Family-owned Businesses. After Penglipuran Village was designated as a tourism village, many families began to engage in producing or selling tourism products and services for profit, such as producing local handicrafts and products, operating souvenir shops, small restaurants (warung), food stalls, and homestays. An individual family may engage in one or more of these businesses, which typically are privately owned by a family and they use family members as ‘employees.’ Local Products. Some community members participate in tourism by producing local products, including artwork and culinary products. Handmade artwork includes bamboo handicraft painting, canvas painting, and orange root carving. Culinary products include loloh cemcem, loloh teleng, and loloh kunyit27, all original local drinks, which were invented and are produced locally. Others produce homemade Indonesian snacks (e.g., klepon [Javanese palm sugar rice cake], yam doughnuts, and sweet potato chips) or sew Balinese clothing. These 26 The Head of Adat indicated that these businesses are ‘community-owned,’ and some other interviewees use the term ‘TMO-managed’ businesses, but they refer to the same business operations. 27 A drink that is made of cemcem leaves (blue pea vine leaves), and turmeric. 102 products are sold in three ways: 1) through other family members who own a local souvenir shop, and who share their profits, 2) outside Penglipuran Village, and 3) through government exhibition events or during the Penglipuran Village Festival. Local handicraft production and sales are related directly to tourism development in the village. In addition to sales of products directly, the production of local handicrafts can be incorporated into educational and cultural classes for visitors, for which they pay a fee (detailed in the next section). The most popular culinary product in the village is loloh cemcem. Surya and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) representative explained that the women’s organization often served this drink to government officials visiting the village. After finding out that many people liked the drink, one organization member produced the drinks herself and packaged them in a way that they could be sold to customers. Because many consumers liked it, her business grew. Consequently, other villagers followed her path by becoming the producer and/or distributor of the product. Currently, Penglipuran Village can produce approximately 6,000 bottles of loloh cemcem per day. The fact that Penglipuran is a tourism village that attracts many visitors helps growth of product sales. As of 2020, the rights for loloh cemcem production have been secured by Penglipuran Village. As a result, and in addition to local sales, the product has been sold on the multinational market and exported to other regents in Bali. Bamboo handicrafts also became popular after tourism village designation. One bamboo artisan explained that important government officials visited and often took guests to the bamboo handicrafts studio in Penglipuran. Other visitors who wander through the village also can find the workshop. Two interviewees explained, however, there had been more bamboo craftspeople in the village in the past. After tourism village designation, its number declined because most villagers choose to become involved in the culinary sector and sell souvenirs instead. 103 Souvenir Shops. Many families whose houses are located in the main street have a small supply of souvenirs placed inside their property. In 2020, almost all pekarangan (yards) had a shop inside. Women typically are the ones who manage the shops. Based on my personal observation, most vendors sell Penglipuran-made handicrafts, fruits and flowers, food and beverage snack products commonly found in Indonesian multinational markets, and a variety of souvenirs, such as Balinese outfits, fabrics, and handicrafts. Villagers also import other villages’ products, such as coffee and handicrafts, to sell in Penglipuran. Nevertheless, Penglipuran-based products also are available for sale in each shop. Most of the souvenir products have been imported from the Sukawati Market, a popular tourist market that sells mass-produced arts and crafts in Ubud, Gianyar Regency. Most sellers choose to focus on selling mass-produced arts than producing arts themselves for two reasons. Surya pointed out that he directly gets products from the mass art market because he has no time to make products himself. Malik and the DIT representative explained that villagers prefer to sell the mass market products because they offer the highest profits with minimal effort, compared with producing handicrafts from scratch. Small Restaurants. Based on my personal observation, some families have opened a small restaurant inside their properties. The menus offered are mostly home-cooked Balinese and Indonesian cuisine, although a few small restaurant owners provide international menu options. Family members typically participate as the chef, waiter/waitress, cleaner, and dishwasher. Also, based on her observation, Ernawati (2015) stated that restaurant buildings typically have been designed and constructed to be consistent with the authentic traditional atmosphere of the village. Food Stalls. Based on my personal observation, as differentiated from small restaurants (warung), food stalls have a smaller guest capacity and a more limited choice of home-cooked Balinese or Indonesian foods and beverages. While some villagers open food stalls inside their 104 home properties, others open a food stall only on special occasions, such as during holiday seasons, for externally initiated exhibitions, or for the Penglipuran Village Festival. Homestays. Early in tourism development within Penglipuran Village, most tourists typically simply observed the village and took photos; homestays were developed officially as a tourism product in 2012, with the goal of enhancing host-guest interactions. Unlike mass tourists, who typically seek high-end hotel facilities and crowds, tourists interested in authentic local experiences do not care much about having high-end facilities. In addition to enjoying the rural atmosphere, these guests typically seek interaction with community members. The Penglipuran homestay coordinator declared, “[Based on] my experience [working] on a cruise ship… good interaction, although the bedroom [condition] is not good… will prevent guests from complaining. Having no interaction, a little mistake can make them complain” (Tirta). When host-guest interactions are good, guests may give the host a souvenir/tip and even get emotional when their stay ends. In contrast, staying in a homestay with limited interaction with the host will produce an experience similar to having stayed in mainstream hotels. A homestay experience is offered in a private room within private homes of villagers, which is rented to guests for a nominal fee. As of 2020, three categories of homestays are offered, labelled A, B, and C. Facilities of Type A include a private bathroom and installed warm water. Type B homestays offer multiple bedrooms in one house, with one shared bathroom. Type C homestays provide a restroom outside the house. With prices being established by TMO, the 2020 charges for staying at type A, B, and C homestays are IDR 375.000 (USD 26.8), IDR 250.000 (USD 17.86), and IDR 150.000 (USD 10.71), respectively. When homestays were first offered, only 5 Type A homestays were available; as of 2020, approximately 15 are available. One purpose of homestay development is to utilize empty rooms within the community’s houses. 105 Hence, the exact number of homestays is unknown because normally empty rooms may be occupied periodically by outside family members who visit and stay in the village. The highest number of homestays ever rented for a single night was 40 rooms, serving a total of 120 guests. As for other family-based tourism businesses, homestay development requires investment of personal funds. These funds are used to make structural modifications to meet homestay criteria set by TMO. These criteria were influenced by Bali COBTA’s ‘western comfort’ concept. Every homestay must provide a bed, a wardrobe, a chair and a table, a trash bin, a mirror, a television, and electrical outlets. A bathroom is required to have a sitting toilet, a sink, a shower, tissues, and a trash bin. In Penglipuran, homestays are not built for business purposes. Rather, homestays aim to utilize empty rooms in houses and simultaneously provide tourism experience opportunities for visitors. Nonetheless, community members who build a new house typically are advised to construct an additional room to store homestay amenity supplies, to install warm water equipment, and to create additional comfortable rooms that can be enjoyed either by themselves or guests. Additionally, they are advised to provide a Balinese style homestay by using bedeg (a woven bamboo) for interior and exterior walls and ceilings. Homestays as a tourism product were offered even before 2012. However, the number of guests was small and there was no TMO who managed the homestay system. In the past, a homestay was treated similarly to other family businesses, with management fully belonging to a household. Additionally, there was no obligation for families to share their profits with the TMO or collective funds. As demand for homestays grew, after 2012, the TMO established a system that enables fair rotation of visitors across all families offering homestays. The TMO homestay coordinator collects guest payments and distributes the room allocation fairly. The TMO also is responsible for writing a report. When tourists stay in a homestay, guests have a free breakfast 106 provided by a small restaurant owner that has been chosen by TMO as its culinary partner in the homestay business. Community-owned Businesses. Community-owned businesses are those that are owned by the community and managed by TMO. They include: a traditional clothing rental service, cultural and educational tourism packages, guesthouse rentals, meeting services, and festival operations. As the whole village itself is a ‘business,’ some villagers are hired to work as tourism staff. This section explains community participation in these products and services. Traditional Clothing Rental Service. The single clothing rental business is provided in an area close to the main temple. To be allowed to enter a temple, tourists must wear proper Balinese traditional clothing. This service, therefore, can satisfy the needs of tourists who wish to enter the local temple or observe religious ceremonies. Anyone in the community can donate their personal traditional Balinese outfits and rent them to tourists at this rental center. Cultural and Educational Tourism Classes and Packages. The community offers cultural and educational classes and packages that allow tourists to learn more about their way of life. In these classes, tourists may register for a dancing class, offering-making class, bamboo painting class, cooking class (e.g., loloh cemcem, klepon), Balinese instrumental music class, or may purchase an environmental sustainability practices tour. Based on the Penglipuran website, other packages include local adventure-based experiences, such as cycling around the bamboo forest, trekking, and outbound activities (e.g., camping, team building). The TMO also develops one- or two-day tour packages that connect the village with other nearby destinations, such as Kintamani; the tour drivers are Penglipuran residents. Tourism classes and packages provide an opportunity for villagers who have the skills, knowledge, and teaching abilities to act as 107 instructors and who organize their own classes and provide cultural experiences for tourists. In addition to having opportunities to showcase their skills, they are paid for their services. Guest Houses. Bangli government built guest houses in Penglipuran Village in 2011. Standard amenities offered in guest houses are the same as in homestays. Unlike homestays, guest houses offer privacy because they are not situated in a community compound (pekarangan). Guest houses also have different interiors, with a bathtub installed in the toilet room, in accordance with the Bangli Regent’s recommendation. TMO and tourism staff are responsible for guesthouse maintenance. The 2020 cost for staying at the guesthouse is IDR 500,000 (USD 35.7) per night, as established by the TMO. As with homestays, guests receive a free breakfast provided by a small restaurant owner chosen as TMO’s culinary partner. Meeting and Gathering Services. The community offers meeting and gathering products and services, which is similar to MICE (Meeting, Incentive, Conference, and Exhibition) products, common with hotels. Examples of this product are wedding receptions, graduation celebrations, and reunion gatherings. Tourist groups that have purchased these services include students, government officials, police, school employees, office groups, and travel agents. To schedule meeting services, tourists should call the TMO, which will secure gathering areas in the village, organize the meeting layout, and provide a sound system required to support the gathering event. If tourists need coffee breaks to supplement their meeting and gathering event, TMO will appoint the same culinary partner that provides homestay and guesthouse breakfasts to cater gatherings. Prior to establishment of the TMO, however, meeting and gathering services would require the entire community’s voluntary participation: Golden Christ [travel agent] brought 1,300 guests… At that time, the price was IDR 10,000 per person, [which means] 13 million, right… [The people] who [worked on] welcoming guests were not paid… [The income] went to [the village’s] collective funds, except for funds to buy materials… IDR 10,000 is 108 used for [meals], [which was less than] IDR 5,000 per person… the remaining money was used to feed the community [who worked]. [They] bought young coconuts. Penglipuran coconut cutters were lacking here, [so we] asked the Cekang community to chop the young coconuts. (Naufal) To supplement the basic meeting or gathering event packages, guests may request dance and music performances, which will be performed by skilled community members, typically young people. Tourists also may request an educational or cultural seminar, for which they are gathered at the village hall. Students from all over Indonesia, ranging from primary through university students, have had excursions to this village to learn about CBT development. Based on my observation, the head of Adat or the head of TMO typically were the ones who delivered lectures about local culture, tourism, and economic development. Festival Event. Established in 2012, this annual festival is an event in which the whole community must participate to successfully deliver this product for tourists (gotong royong). This event includes Balinese cultural competitions between villages in Bali (e.g., music, painting, and cooking), and a Penglipuran historical drama is performed. Besides serving as a cultural attraction, this event also serves as a tourism village promotion effort. National and local government officials, media, and private business partners from all over Indonesia are invited to participate in this event. The Penglipuran Village local businesses also are invited to participate in selling their products at the festival exhibition. Villagers who work in the culinary and art sectors are welcome to open a stand in the exhibition area. At present, because this event has successfully attracted visitors from all over the world, the Penglipuran Village Festival has been adopted into the Tourism Ministry agenda. Other small businesses in Bangli also are invited to participate in selling their products at the festival exhibition. The TMO plays a major role as the planner and coordinator. Other villagers may be involved in providing and installing decorations, serving as treasurer, organizing individual 109 events, organizing competitions, or working as security officers. Some Youth Organization members take part in the competitions and help with decorations. Just as for ritual ceremonies, Security officers take care of village security and safety, and some Youth and Baris and Gong Organization members, dance and play music to welcome guests. The married women’s group, Paratengan, and pengarep prepare meals for invited official guests and all workers, while some women and Youth Organization members focus on serving them. Additionally, all villagers take part in the opening parade, marching around the village while wearing traditional clothing. Tourism Staff. As a tourism village, the whole village itself is an ‘object’ or ‘business.’ As a result, some people participate in providing support and peripheral services that support tourism; community members working as tourism staff fulfill one of those roles. Tourism staff jobs are held by people who work as janitors who sweep the whole village, room boys who clean guesthouses, ticketing workers, security officers who act as parking attendants or security officers in front of the village, and information workers who act as receptionists for the tourism village. These jobs typically are provided for low-income community members having low levels of education and low economic status. Typically, they are either unemployed or have only odd jobs, although physical ability, intellectual capability, and commitment also are considered. Security officers are recruited directly from the Pecalang Organization. Tourism staff are paid based on a local minimum wage and are registered in a national insurance program. Adat decided the payment amount; the TMO has been responsible for managing its payroll. Daily Activities that Support Tourism. Because Penglipuran is a cultural-based tourism village, any community activity becomes a ‘product’ itself, or is part of the background context for specific tourism products and services. Although the community does not intentionally do their daily activities to entertain tourists in an organized manner, anything they do – farming, 110 climbing trees, plowing, and creating offerings – are naturally attractions that contribute to authentic rural experiences and provide local ambience for tourists. Regardless of whether or not residents actively participate in tourism businesses, their being friendly and respectful to visitors is an important support function for a tourism village. Giving assistance to visitors, such as letting visitors use their household restrooms, welcoming tourists to walk around their private compounds, and sharing the local way of life with random visitors who approach, also are forms of participation in tourism. Luckily, as Surya, Eka, and Bali COBTA declared, the villagers have been friendly and hospitable enough, as they are accustomed to serving external guests (e.g., government officials, neighboring communities) and are accustomed to having daily social interactions with each other. However, some TMO members also has pointed out the issue of a few business participants calling out to visitors to visit their yards, which can make visitors uncomfortable. Benefits of Participation in Tourism This section summarizes what interviewees perceive to be socio-economic benefits that are experienced by individuals, families, and community members, typically as a direct result of participating in tourism business and coming in contact with tourists or external stakeholders who help the community with CBT development. This includes economic improvement, social network development and interpersonal interactions, skills and knowledge development, and working environment improvements. Economic Improvement Economic improvement refers to a noticeable improvement in the amount of money received on a regular basis by individuals, households, and the community collectively as a result of participating in tourism. Overwhelmingly, economic improvement is the most frequently 111 mentioned benefit of being involved with tourism. After tourism village designation, the whole community received noticeably increased income benefits, mainly from entrance tickets, community-owned enterprises, and family-owned small businesses. It is important to note that community-level and household-level revenues are interrelated. As the number of tourists who visit Penglipuran Village has increased, and they have purchased community-provided products, the village collective funds have increased significantly. As previously noted, the community has received forty percent of the village’s entrance revenue. Half of this is allocated for tourism operations (e.g., employee salaries, expense payments, and maintenance costs for cleaning, landscaping, security services) and half is used for communal activities (e.g., religious ceremonies, sacred building repairs, and residential maintenance subsidies) (Laksmi et al., 2018). For homestay products, the income is divided among the homestay owner, TMO’s tourism operational fund, and the customary village fund, in the ratio of 80:15:5, respectively. When visitors purchase educational and cultural packages, the net revenue is split evenly, with 50% going to the TMO and 50% to the collective funds. For guesthouse rentals, the collective fund receives 80%. As the collective funds increase as a result of tourism, the household contributions made by individuals for communal activities is reduced. In fact, some villagers actually receive funds from the collective fund to support their efforts rather than paying to support communal activities. Two interviewees explained how this community-level economic improvement has helped them with their religious life: Moslems [celebrate] holy days annually, right; we can say Hindus [perform rituals and give offerings] every day. Moslems pray daily, but [they] do not need some kind of offerings… Here, sometimes, if [you are] incapable of making your own canang (Balinese daily offering), we buy [it]… Let us say, we [need] 50 canang. [which costs] IDR 50,000. Let alone the cake… coffee [for offerings]. After [the prayer is] finished, rice [will be] used… [As a] Hindu, we need money for [our] religion. (Asha) 112 [Previously, when organizing] a big activity, [we] would contribute [more than] a million [IDR]. Now [the personal contribution] is smaller. We still contribute money, but it is smaller. In the past, at least, [it] could be IDR 5,000,000 (USD 357) … [Some of] our elders [decided to] move to other village because of the large required contributions. (Teja) Another interviewee explained how tourism-based personal income has helped him and his family with their daily lives. The highest business profit he received was in 2016, when the village first was recognized as one of ‘the world’s cleanest villages.’ He declared: In 1987, I was a civil servant; I got my first kid to go to school. Whenever she asked for money, I borrowed money [from my friends]. [When my] child asked for money, ‘please, lend me [some]’… [I would try to provide it]’ Of course, now I do not do that [anymore]… [I can] fund 3 [or] 2 people to go to college. [My daughters] have bachelor’s degrees [now]… Now, we [are] the one who share [our] money [with others]. If [my] friends ask ‘do you have money [to loan us]?’ [I say] ‘here you go, I will lend you [some]’ (Surya) Because each household no longer needs to contribute money for the community to achieve its common goals, and because many households participate in tourism businesses, household income has grown as well. The fact that the community does not need to rent a kiosk to engage in a business and can link local agricultural yield to tourism also contributes to this income improvement. Overall, household income improvement is reported by housewives, low- education and low-income community groups, elders, representatives, pecalang (security and safety organization), and even non-tourism business participants. Tourism also boosts the popularity of traditional handicrafts, which has increased local artisans’ income. All female interviewees reported gaining income as a result of participating in tourism businesses; thus, they are able to contribute to their households’ income. For example, one interviewee said, “[I am] better economically … [I] get more income. I can help [my] husband” (Sarah). Similarly, another interview reported: “…most sellers are women, right? At least, it is such a pride for housewives to have their own income” (Asha). Another interviewee expressed: “My wife, she was not a loloh producer, now she is … it improves employment [numbers] and 113 income too” (DTI). Additionally, poor community members receive increased incomes. Two interviewees explained: “My cleaning workers’ economic condition was very weak, but now [it is] not anymore. S/he could buy a motorbike, could build a simple house, [had] no problem with daily food and drink, [had] no problem with [buying] outfits. That means s/he got benefits” (Malik) and “The [person] who produced loloh cemcem did not finish primary school... She bought land, bought cars. While I bought a car with credit from the bank, she did not…” (Surya). Although villagers who do not actively participate in tourism businesses may not get economic benefits directly, they still enjoy the benefits indirectly through collective funds (for which the distribution is dependent on Adat or 77 male representatives), through their neighbors’ voluntary profit contributions, through being hired as neighbors’ workers. TMO and Adat have tried continuously to broaden distribution of benefits to the whole community, including those who do not participate in tourism businesses. Also, business owners share their profits directly with non-business owners and/or contribute to collective funds (the next section explains this in more detail). Therefore, low-income villagers who do not participate still may receive benefits from those who participate in tourism businesses. One interviewee illustrated: Let’s say business owners build houses, right? [They] minimally want to [renovate their] buildings, washing areas, etc., so that our friends who work as building labor… also got employment opportunities. Even here, we [experience] difficulties in finding workers for [those kinds] of jobs… they have already become sweepers and security officers… those who do not sell souvenirs, they [distribute] loloh [cemcem outside]. (Department of Trade and Industry) Representatives and pecalang (security organization) are villagers who previously had limited opportunities to earn significant income outside the village. These two stakeholder groups are required to devote themselves to the village without receiving significant payment. Prama explained that pecalang must be ready to devote themselves to the customary village for 24 hours to ensure the village’s daily security, as well as during religious and other special 114 events. The fact that Penglipuran has such frequent socio-cultural activities, particularly ritual ceremonies, makes it difficult for representatives to find and commit to a job elsewhere. Now, tourism has provided them job opportunities within the village, thus raising their incomes: Surya: Roban (non-representatives) may have a greater economic [opportunity] because [they] still have many chances to [work on] business. But for the representatives, uh, the opportunity is so small (laugh). Researcher: [Because] of the monthly meeting, Sir? Surya: Oh, not only that. Many ceremonies, a lot of ceremonies in the village. We also have sixteen neighboring villages… That is why we are very busy. That is what is unique [about] Penglipuran. Gratefully, we have tourism. Otherwise, uh, where do we get money? There is no employment opportunity; it is limited. Tangibly, economic improvement is reflected through upgraded house conditions, business expansion, the ability to afford vacations, gadgets, and the Internet, and the ability of families to fund their children’s pursuit of higher education. One interview said: “Some new houses’ facilities are [upgraded]. The [type of] toilet is a sitting toilet. Then, the bed standard is [improved]” (Tirta). He further expressed the general ease for the community to pay for their children’s education: “It was difficult to get children to [study]… especially those who studied in Denpasar; [they needed] to pay for room rent [and] tuition. Now, they have sufficient income. Wherever the children want to study, they let [them]” (Tirta). In the 1990s, the village had only a few residents with bachelor’s degrees; now the community has some master’s and PhD graduates living in Penglipuran. More residents having higher education levels also contributes to the overall improved economic conditions of the village. As a result, the community is able to host larger scale religious ceremonies and improve the condition of the village’s facilities. Social Network Development and Interpersonal Interactions Some people have or perceive as having more non-Penglipuranese or non-Balinese interactions as a result of CBT. Five interviewees reported to have their social networks expanded. Interviewees who both participate directly in tourism businesses and those who do not 115 have reported similar benefits. The fact that tourists can freely access anyone’s yard makes it easy for tourists and community members to encounter and interact with each other. When guests visit someone’s souvenir shop, community members can have a conversation with them: “The effect of tourism is [that] I can talk to my friends, I can [get to] know people here, get acquainted [with them] here” (Satria). Both tourism business participants and non-business participants have reported expanded interpersonal networks. Excitement about these interactions is represented by one interviewee, who said: “Yogyakartans, I knew [him and] he remembers this warung. He came here in November, then last January. ‘Mbok (sister), do you still remember me?’ ‘I do, I do’ ‘I visit [Penglipuran] with [my] parents’” (Riri). One interviewee reported happiness when sharing her culture with foreigners: “We create canang (offering) for a ceremony, [visitors] asked [questions]; I am happy to exchange information” (Asha). Homestay products also offer an opportunity for residents to interact and build social networks with visitors. The homestay coordinator expressed happiness when anyone who became a host successfully makes guests happy. In expressing their gratitude, guests may give their host a memento, tip, or even cry when the stay ends. As visitors now frequently stay in the village for one or more nights, community members can have deeper-than-superficial interactions with them, as one interviewee explained: There was [one] guest [staying here] and was given kamen, a Balinese [traditional] attire. [She was invited by words of] ‘let’s go to the temple!’ That is good… I also had an experience, inviting international high school students for… breakfast. I did not finish one portion, s/he finished it… [when] s/he left, I was given money—100,000 IDR (7.14). ‘This is for you, Sir.’ ‘No.’ ‘Oh, please, for you, I am so happy [with this experience]’ … the [money] is bonus, but making visitors feel like [they are] at their own home [is] more important. (Tirta) Social network expansion happens not only through meeting tourists, but also as a result of meeting with external stakeholders who have helped the villagers with tourism development, as illustrated in the two quotations below. The first quote represents a TMO member who has a 116 lot of friends from the national tourism village network. The second quote describes a relationship with a university student who conducted a university-related project in the village: I, or, Penglipuran Tourism Village, have many friends within that national [tourism village] network … I am invited several times [as a Penglipuran Village Tourism representative] … [such as] the Indonesia Tourism Summit at the Minister’s place… I was [appointed] as a juror in the national tourism and homestay contest… I have friends there; sometimes I forget ‘who is this friend who calls me?’ (Malik) [A student] from Bandung worked here for six months, [carrying out] a study at the ticket [office]. All villagers were befriended. So, when she left, she had a farewell [party] with her friends, with pecalang, with… all villagers. (Teja) Skills and Knowledge Development Some community members have or perceive as having new knowledge and/or skills as a result of CBT. Various types of knowledge, such as about the tourism system, village cultural and historical understanding, and local ecological knowledge, were strengthened. A variety of skills, such as communication, hospitality, social, language (a variety of Indonesian Indigenous and foreign languages), handicrafts, and business (e.g., quality management, service, production, sales and marketing, and business ethics) also were reported. Skills are gained as a result of daily direct interaction with visitors and/or participating in externally provided training. Two interviewees reported gaining new skills and knowledge: “Now we are going to go to Kediri, East Java … It is okay, we are given funds that need to be used for capacity building. We [take part in a] training, study tour, and travel” (Malik). Also: [Tour guides] gave [us]… [brochures]. ‘This is how to greet [tourists]. If [you] want to ask them [things], this is how you do that … ‘If [the guests] are French, say this. If Italian, [say] this.’ We are taught by tour guides. Because we are often visited by guests every day, we know. (Novi) Two government representatives explained the kind of training that they have provided to craftspeople in Penglipuran, which has improved their business production and management skills, and has enhanced their knowledge about their own village: 117 Our advice is [related to] how craftspeople need to provide service quality, product quality – the term is quality management. Customer satisfaction is also what we supervise… quality of consumable products if it is a culinary [product]. Then, quality of service, how to provide good service to consumers – smile… Then, delivery quality, how to deliver in time, in size, in amount, right. Then, the quality of the price, too, [so that our product] can compete with others… [Also], moral quality, honesty as businesspeople. (DTI) What are the benefits of [loloh teleng], what is it used for; the community really understands… Here, people typically understand [the benefits of environmental conservation]. [The villagers] are [not only] beautiful [in appearance], but [they] also have knowledge [about their cultural practices], right. (DEC) Working Environment Improvement Community participation in tourism businesses has shifted daily work patterns and practices. As a result of participating in tourism businesses, seven business participants reported convenience and flexibility as key benefits of working in tourism businesses within the community. First, this includes ‘being your own boss’ because the businesses are family-owned. For example, an interviewee stated: “[Working from] home, nobody governs [me], whether I want to sleep or anything. Nobody governs me anymore” (Bima). The second type of convenience is the ability to work from home. This gives them schedule flexibility, which enables them to reap income while working in a relaxed manner at home, taking care of household tasks, and avoiding shop rental costs. In contrast with other jobs whereby employees need to travel to workplaces, tourists come directly to people’s front doors in the tourism village. One interviewee stated: “I often asked my wife, ‘why does somebody bring us money while we are sleeping?” (laugh). We sleep inside, guests [call us], ‘hello, hello…’ It is [convenient]” (Surya). A woman and elder interviewee reported: “We [previously] went to the agricultural field. Now, [we] do not do that” (Sarah) and “[I am] keeping the shop and also [creating] jaritan (long traditional fabric). Well, just that, relax, because [I am] old” (Mansur). 118 Despite the perceived benefits of tourism, some challenges also exist. During major Hindu Holy Days, the number of visitors coming into Penglipuran is greater than previously, which raises crowd and privacy issues. One business interviewee said: “When we [receive] a great number of visitors, economically, we [receive] a lot of money... However, psychologically, we also feel… not really good, sometimes... [Some] people want crowds, others want to be alone. There are many factors. That depends on the person” (Lingga). Further, he said: “When a great number of people visited, our movement space is limited as well, right? Such as … [when] we need to go outside the village by car or motorcycle.” However, despite recognizing the inconveniences of tourism, none of the interviewees who raised this issue labeled it as negative. Lingga said that crowded moments only happen 4-5 times during religious festive celebrations. None of interviewees overtly expressed negative attitudes about tourism. Rather, they seem to have learned to adapt because the overall benefits have outweighed the costs. The first two statements below indicate perceptions of crowds as ‘income;’ the third quote labels this phenomenon solely as a ‘consequence’ of being a tourism village. [It is] a little bit difficult to walk. For example, I want to go to [the temple] … we must concede [by] walking on the side of the street because we consider [tourists] as income [sources]. So, I am okay, happy. [We] respect each other. (Surya) Sometimes, foreigners ask like this: ‘Are you really comfortable with people entering your house without permission …? I reply, ‘Well, I am happy… if guests come; we are sad if nobody visits our house.’ ‘Seriously?’ I reply, ‘Indeed.’ Sometimes, foreigners like privacy, right; we are the other way around… because it can be said that [tourists are the source of] our income. (Asha) Well, temporarily, [I am] fine because the [crowd] is a risk or our consequence of being a [tourist destination]. So, we [have no choice] but to accept positive and negative [things]… we can just [keep] trying. Things that are not good, uncomfortable, we try to fix [them]. (Lingga) 119 Factors Affecting Community Participation in Tourism Benefits While there is evidence that community members reap benefits of CBT through business creations and interactions with tourists and external stakeholders, the extent to which each individual/household gains benefit is contingent upon several factors. Results are categorized into three types of factors: personal factors, benefit distribution systems, and external factors. Personal Factors This section describes personal factors that enable or inhibit an individual’s and households’ participation in family- or community-owned tourism businesses. Five factors are identified: awareness of tourism economic benefits, life priorities, house location, financial capital, and tourism-related skills. Awareness of Tourism Economic Benefits. Awareness of tourism economic benefits can serve both as an incentive and impediment to local participation in tourism business. Some community members are more aware of the potential economic benefits that tourism can bring than are others. During the earlier tourism ‘object’ designation period (1993-2010), only a few people engaged in tourism businesses because most community members were lacking awareness of the potential for economic benefits from tourism, as indicated by this statement: After TMO got trained, [and as a result of] focus group discussions and meetings, we were aware that Penglipuran as a [tourism] ‘object’ received not so significant benefits to be enjoyed by the community; it was only [from] the ticket revenue. At that time [prior to 2010], our community was not aware of the tourism potential for improvement of [our] well-being. (Malik) While some villagers began participating in tourism-related businesses soon after the 1993 designation as a tourism village destination, others joined several years later. Villagers typically participated only after they saw evidence of tourism benefits, which was gained by seeing the growing influx of tourists in the community and observing their neighbors’ business 120 successes. Two interviewees illustrated: “[With] guests coming here, everybody opened a shop, so I just followed [them]. Who knew [if] I [would] get income” (Reni) and: The proliferation of souvenir shops is recent, around 7 years… It was rare in the past, [with] only 3, 2, 4, until 5 [shops]. Now, [we have] more souvenir sellers because [they] probably saw [their neighbors] got [buyers]. So, they also opened up a shop to earn a bit [of income]. (Satria) Over time, the community has learned that tourism brings economic benefits. Interestingly, this awareness was an impediment to their participation in the case of providing homestay products. The village homestay coordinator explained that some villagers refused to be a homestay host in the beginning: The second [reason for additional residents not wanting to be a host] may be [wondering] ‘if I build a homestay, will I get guests?’… I cannot answer [their questions] because there are many [homestay] owners. [If the whole village receives] two or three guests only, [I] cannot [guarantee when and how many guests will stay at their homestays] (Tirta). Life Priorities. Life priorities is another factor enabling or inhibiting community participation in tourism businesses. Having a full-time job outside of the village, prioritizing traditional building conservation, desiring to be closer to family, and family member health conditions are some reasons why an individual may choose to participate in tourism businesses or not. First, some community members may have a full-time job outside of the village, limiting them from participating in Penglipuran’s tourism businesses. Second, one interviewee does not want to participate in a family business because he prioritizes traditional building conservation over tourism business. In his words, “The scenery [of the traditional buildings] is damaged if I open up a shop” (Teja). It is important to note that life priorities of an individual are dynamic, constantly changing throughout their lives. For example, one interviewee declared that he did not open his small restaurant business until 2015. Prior to that, he chose to work outside of the village to seek 121 another life experience. As he grew older, and when it made financial sense to do, he returned to the village to be close to his family. In his words, “Togetherness with [my] kids, [my] brother, that was my goal since a long time ago” (Bima). Meanwhile, another interviewee who used to operate a souvenir shop closed the business because of a family health issue: “[Lately] my wife is sick, so [we are taking a] break [from operating our souvenir shop]” (Satria). This quotation illustrates a life-changing event that makes participation in tourism a lesser priority. House Location. House location is one factor that affects one’s participation in the benefits of tourism. Due to the nature of the village layout, some households in hidden or distant parts of the village are unable to engage in some types of tourism businesses while those in other locations have a higher probability of being visited by guests. In Penglipuran, houses close to the main street are more strategically located, thus attracting more visitors. Typically, households who live in front yards are the ones who engage in operating souvenir shops, food stalls, or small restaurants. If those who live in a front yard choose not to open a business, households living in the connected backyard can negotiate to open a business in the other person’s front yard. However, even among those who live close to the main street, the opportunity for getting buyers to visit their house is uneven. One interviewee declared: “The northern [area attracts] more crowds… because there is a temple in the north, [which] is much prettier [for] people to see… tourists who visit here walk directly to the north” (Ayla). Community members who live in the backyards and agricultural fields expressed difficulties in opening a warung (souvenir or culinary shops). One interviewee pointed out: “Here, if you want to [open] a shop, [you] can. But who is going to go to the back yard and shop?” (Adam’s Mom). Other community members who live in back yards find it difficult to open a shop. The western part of the settlement still has economic potential from opening a 122 warung because it is surrounded by the public outer ring road, which provides easy access. However, their business target market is primarily local people rather than tourists. One interviewee stated: “There are [shops]… in the [west back yard area because] there is a ring road, but over here, this [east] back yard is a bit quiet; there are no shops” (Sakti). Homestay participation is less dependent on location than are warung (small restaurant or shop) businesses. Villagers living away from the main street have the same opportunity to receive guests as those living along the main street, particularly since the rotation system for placing guests in specific homestays was established by the TMO. According to the homestay coordinator, however, tourists still may have a preference for a certain house location (e.g., close to public facilities). When a guest has requested a specific location, the TMO cannot reject their demand because customer satisfaction and safety are prioritized. In the words of the TMO homestay coordinator: “Sometimes [guests] prefer to stay nearby. If I advise them [to be lodged at a] far [distant homestay], I will get [complaints]” (Tirta). Financial Capital. Availability of financial capital is another factor that affects individual participation in tourism businesses, thus affecting their ability to reap economic benefits of tourism. While having sufficient financial capital enables them to open a family business, financial constraints may limit their participation. This financial capital also can determine what type of tourism business that each family can afford. One interviewee explained: “[Opening up] this [food stall requires] a small amount of capital. Other [types] of businesses require a greater amount of capital. With IDR 50,000,000 (USD 3,571), you can rent [land], build a building, and open warung” (Ayla). On the other hand, one interviewee expressed that lack of financial capital was a major inhibitor to his ability to engage in a family-operated tourism business. To illustrate: “Yes, the 123 risk [is too much for me]. ‘Will there be buyers?’ [I] thought… [what if the products] could not be sold? It became, became an economic [hardship], for [me to buy] groceries” (Satria). In contrast, another interviewee – who also had expressed concern about not having personal financial capital – borrowed some money. In his case, his past personal business experience improved his confidence. In his words: “Financial capital [is necessary, so even] though I borrowed [the funds], we must be brave [to carry on the business]. I am not afraid to do that; I am used to the ups and downs [of operating a business]” (Bima). Tourism-related Skills. Community members may engage in tourism business when they perceive that they personally have tourism-related skills. Three interviewees engaged in tourism-related businesses because they perceived themselves to have relevant skills. For example, one interviewee touted her cooking skills: “I like cooking, and my cooking is tasty” (Ayla). Another interviewee indicated, these skills may be gained through educational background or past work experience: “[My] Mom, Dad, and brother worked in a restaurant in Kintamani. So, indeed, we can say [that she] is a chef. Dad was a waiter” (Asha). However, even among community members with cooking skills, some may have more skills than others. For example, one culinary provider in Penglipuran was chosen by TMO to serve customers who purchase gathering services because they can cook not only Balinese, but also national and international cuisine, and his restaurant capacity is much larger than that of other restaurants. Being able to interact with domestic and foreign tourists also requires language abilities. One interviewee explained: “People can [interact with international visitors] if they know English, right. Otherwise, they just greet [visitors]” (Eka). However, Bali COBTA stated that technology-based translation applications might help with interaction with foreigners. Interacting 124 with domestic tourists also requires Indonesian language skills. One interviewee reported that villagers having low education levels often have limited Indonesian language skills: I am happy [to be interviewed], [as I am] also learning. But my Indonesian skill is not, not, I cannot... [I did not] go to school. In the village, it is rare [to find] Indonesian language speakers; not everyone [can speak Indonesian] … I [graduated] from primary school. Sometimes, [even people who have] graduated from high school cannot [speak] Indonesian. (Satria) Benefits Distribution Factors Due to personal conditions described in the previous section, some villagers can participate in family- or community-owned businesses while others cannot. Even among those who participate in tourism businesses, some people may gain more benefits than the others. This indicates inequitable distribution of tourism benefits among community members. Nevertheless, this study also identified actions by the community, village authorities (Adat and TMO), and external stakeholders that affect distribution of tourism benefits. Various actions have been implemented to make benefits distribution more equitable, as discussed in this section. Community Social Strategy. This study found that neighbors’ social support through resources-sharing, benefits-sharing, and cooperation among tourism businesses contribute to individuals’ and households’ ability to operate businesses. This study also found voluntary profit transfers from people who engage in businesses to people who do not engage in businesses. Because of such actions of helping each other, some non-businesspeople still are able to reap direct economic benefits of tourism. When a business participant said he did not have financial capital, his neighbor helped him set up his current souvenir shop. He stated: “The profit is shared because I do not have the [financial] capital, [so] I just borrow [products from neighbors] because [my] money is [limited]” (Surya). Additionally, despite having no place to open a shop, interviewees who lived in a back yard mentioned that renting neighbors’ yards is possible, as is being hired as an employee in a 125 neighbor’s business. For example: “My wife rents, rents a place over there. [Our family] does not have a place [to sell]” (Malik) and “my wife helps sell in [another souvenir shop]; that also generates [income]” (Sakti). In fact, the DIT representative also reported that some villagers who previously worked as their neighbors’ employees now have their own businesses. When training entrepreneurs, DTI has stressed the importance of business guidance for their employees and encouraged letting employees start their own business when they want and feel they are ready. Even after a family tourism business has been established successfully, business participants continue to support each other. “[Business owners] also cooperate with each other. For example, [the family] next door does not sell, for instance, does not sell [things] like noodles. Meanwhile, their neighbor sells noodles. Sometimes, they borrow [the neighbors’] noodles… [They] cooperate, the profits are shared” (Adam). Similarly, another interviewee reported: “If we are lacking [specific] souvenirs to sell, [we ask our neighbor], ‘let me borrow [your products] …’ Sometimes, customers want a different fabric color… [we] must [access] our neighbors’ as well [because] maybe we are out of stock” (Asha). Despite not engaging in tourism-related businesses, non-business participants still can reap tourism benefits from voluntary contributions by their neighbors. These quotations explain: “Each year, [our family business profits] are shared [with households who live in the middle/back yards] … my Mom shares our profits to, how is it, well, like to make it fair, so that [they] can enjoy the result of tourism” (Riri). Tirta also reported that tourism business participants had voluntarily shared their profits with the customary village, saying: Because we got profits from renting [our] houses [as homestays], we contributed as [we] wished [to collective funds] … ‘I got this much profit [from selling]; I want to share [some of my profits],’ for example. There were no requirements on how much you should [contribute]; the village did not know how much [profit] you earned… [we] just trusted each other. (Tirta) 126 Village Authorities’ Policy. The TMO and 77 male representatives (Adat) are two stakeholder groups in the village that have the potential to distribute tourism benefits throughout the community because of the power they have in tourism decision-making operations and management. This section explains policy implementation that either intentionally or unintentionally enables or inhibits equitable benefit distribution among community members. Evidence was provided during interviews that TMO members and family representatives have been inclusive in their thinking so as to more widely distribute tourism-related benefits to villagers who otherwise would be marginalized and not receive socio-economic benefits from tourism. Several TMO members and family representatives are aware of the importance of establishing policies that support both middle-to-high-income and low-income community members as a function of developing a successful tourism village. One family representative stated, “Poor communities… must be given attention… They are also a part of our community. We cannot develop [this village] ourselves. [Although some people] are rich [or] smart, [village development] is impossible without [the whole] community’s support” (Lingga). Because the whole village itself is an attraction, as stated previously, each individual’s participation in being friendly, polite, and letting tourists use household toilets is required for providing a positive community-based tourism experience. Thus, implementing a policy of fairness also is necessary to avoid poor treatment of tourists by villagers who may feel disgruntled, as follows: [For example, assume tourists] stay [at one homestay] … and our community members mock [tourists] or whatever, right, because they do not have any homestays… [tourists] will not feel good [and may] later complain to the [homestay] owner... [With our CBT concept], despite having no homestays… [non-homestay owners will still get benefits from] the customary funds. (Supri) These inclusive understandings are actually manifested in policies that work to more evenly distribute benefits. First, TMO has been aware of the importance of avoiding real and perceived conflicts of interest by TMO members. Even though TMO members and 127 representatives are the policymakers for tourism operations and management, they are, after all, still a part of the Penglipuran community and participate in producing and selling tourism products and services for profit. One TMO member, the lodging coordinator, reported: “My room is often empty because I am the [room coordinator] officer … If my room is always occupied [and others’ are not], what would people say?” (Tirta). Second, low-income and unemployed villagers are prioritized to work as tourism staff (e.g., janitors, room boys, ticketing workers). While outsiders may be more qualified to fulfill these positions, TMO and Adat have been prioritizing marginal groups within the Penglipuran community to take these jobs. When some workers are deemed unprofessional, instead of giving them warnings and firing them as in many corporate businesses, Lingga and Tirta explained that Adat and TMO would supervise and advise them about how to improve their job performance. Third, policies have been implemented to address and anticipate business competition problems. To ensure fair competition, for example, Mansur stated that Adat has decided that a family may not hire outsiders to work for family-owned businesses and families must not seek guests for itself. Also, because benefits are not automatically equitably distributed, partly because the locations of some households are more strategic than others, some business owners felt compelled to compete with each other by actively asking visitors to visit their houses. To reduce this competition, Adat implemented a rule to ensure that every one of the 76 households (pekarangan) had an equal probability of receiving visitors. No longer needed, this allocation procedure was removed after the community received a sufficient number of tourists to use most or all of the provided tourism services, as the number of vendors grew, and as the high number of tourists became more difficult to control28. A similar rotating mechanism currently is applied to 28 The exact year of the rule removal is unknown. 128 homestay distribution, which prevents individual homestay owners from independently seeking guests outside of the distribution system. The same rotation system also is seen in the women’s organization, whereby each member takes a turn in receiving externally provided training. Fourth, Adat created some policies that favor the whole community’s interests rather than those of only a few people. Because not all villagers can participate in tourism businesses, some may not receive tourism benefits without these policies. To make tourism inclusive, a portion of all community-owned businesses and homestay revenues deliberately are shared with the village’s collective funds. This means everyone, not only homestay owners or skilled community groups, can enjoy the benefits. When addressing decisions about how to spend tourism revenue, the TMO can influence the Adat to initiate policies that benefit the entire community: A particular community group does not enjoy the benefits of tourism directly. Do they want to contribute to payments for [village] development while others are the ones who enjoy [the profits and other benefits]? Of course, not ... For example, I say ‘I am not a seller, nor do I have a homestay; why do I need to [take part in tourism village development]?’ … we observe and hear that kind of thing, so propose [ideas] to the [Adat], so that the whole community, especially the 76 [representatives], are subsidized every time [they personally] fund building maintenance. I, too, want everyone to [participate] … so that all layers of community members can enjoy the benefits directly, right, so that they have [the sense of] ownership… Once, I [gave an idea to fund] ngaben (a death ceremony) using tourism revenue. [In this way], those who do not enjoy the [tourism’s economic] benefits directly, [they still] can enjoy [benefits]… Once, during a death ceremony, I was on the committee of the ceremony. [At the same time, however], I, as a TMO [member, received] guests… Many people [asked] ‘why are you handling guests [during] ngaben? But [handling guests] is also, what is it, the village’s job… I talked to [TMO] fellows [and suggested] ‘what if [we use] tourism funds [to pay for] the cost of ngaben, so that when I handle a [tourism] activity, the profits go to the village, and they understand…” (Tirta). Despite evidence of inclusive policies that aim to broaden distribution of benefits among community members, some exclusive policies also were found. Although only one interviewee raised this issue, and he said other community members might be reluctant to tell the truth, his 129 statement is worth attention. Pointing out two examples, he described policies that have resulted in higher benefits for a few families over community-level benefits. First, in managing community-level businesses, the TMO may find itself in a dilemma between meeting visitor expectations and local tourism product and services quality. Malik and Tirta explained that, despite the existing rotation system for homestay distribution, visitor preference still is prioritized, resulting in disruption of the rotation system. Additionally, to meet an expected level of visitor satisfaction, the TMO sets standards. It may make a decision that favors a few skilled or resourceful villagers while excluding other individuals or tourism business providers. For gathering services, festivals, homestays, and guesthouses, for example, TMO has appointed a single culinary provider whom it trusts to meet the visitors’ demands, thereby restricting business opportunities for other restaurant owners. Researcher: …so in the beginning, there were several [culinary partner] candidates, and you were chosen? Bima: Yes. Until now, [TMO] usually seeks other [culinary partners], but … [they] may be afraid to receive complaints and be blamed [for poor quality service] … ‘Why do you only give [a chance] to Mr. Bima?’ I will leave it to the TMO. ‘Go ahead, if [anyone else] wants [to be a culinary partner with TMO],’ so [the opportunity] is equal… but TMO is still afraid to make such a decision. Second, the same interviewee perceived the TMO as favoring family-level business owners over community-level services by providing an example of a neglected guesthouse. We have [a guesthouse] in the front [village area], [which] has been neglected until now. It may leak or be damaged already… We wanted to prioritize [the guesthouse that is a community-owned business] first, so the overall [community can enjoy] the benefits. Now, it is just like you stay at [one homestay owner’s home]. ‘A’ stays in [one]’s home, ‘B’ stays over there. [The guesthouse] is neglected…. It is unfortunate. (Bima) In addition, he criticized the TMO as setting too high a price for community-owned gathering services and homestay products, which has caused tourists to buy catering services 130 directly from a single culinary provider in the village. Despite being unintentional, this policy resulted in one restaurant owner receiving more benefits than the community. In his words: Why do I [receive] more guests than [do TMO-managed gathering services] …? Here, I sell food for IDR 30,000 (USD 2.50) [per person]. By becoming [the culinary partner for TMO, [the TMO] sells [my food] for IDR 70,000 (USD 5.00) [per person], [which is] double [the cost]. As a result, [tour] guides think ‘oh, why is Penglipuran so expensive?” (Bima) External Pressure and Monitoring. This study found that external stakeholders can step in to monitor tourism effects, and pressure Penglipuran leaders to provide equitable distribution of benefits throughout the village. For example, Bali COBTA, an NGO that assisted with CBT development in Penglipuran Village, stressed the importance of establishing a mechanism that facilitates equitable benefits distribution. In the words of the Bali COBTA representative: I asked [professors and travel agents] to join the survey [of]… [the] tourism village development initiative… These people will determine the success of a tourism village. When [these people] do not like [a community’s CBT implementation], we could boycott the village, which we did in [another village]. I told [the travel agent] … ‘Sir, the community is no longer cohesive. Tourists were brought to [one person’s house], and his kid was asked to dance.’ It is not community, right, not community-based. [He said], ‘Okay, Sir.’ He will not send [them] guests again. [The local community] will then understand [the importance of distributing tourism benefits]. (Bali COBTA) In addition to that, the government can monitor benefits distribution during assessment for a contest. To illustrate: “[In the contest], [we] were assessed about the extent to which [the tourism village] increases the community’s welfare… That is one of the criteria… to what extent is the community involved as the subject [of development] rather than as an object” (Malik). External Factors External stakeholders (e.g., Bangli’s government, NGOs, private businesses, and academic institutions) can either enable or inhibit the majority of or the whole community from participating in tourism, thus reaping socio-economic benefits. Because tourism is one of the largest industries in the region, the destination is related to many external tourism stakeholders 131 (e.g., government agencies, NGOs, external private businesses). Therefore, exploring the dynamic relationships between the community and external actors is useful. This study confirms four types of external contributions: 1) regulation, 2) marketing and public relations, 3) training, research and advice, and 4) resource support. An external stakeholder may contribute one or more types of support, either independently or in collaboration with other external stakeholders. Regulation. As Penglipuran Village is embedded in Bangli Region, tourism operations in Penglipuran should comply with regional-level regulations. One government official interviewee stated: “We are a law-based country, right, a law-based country, so whatever the community does, it must do so in accord with existing laws” (DPWPH). Therefore, regulation is one tool that can enable the community to reap tourism benefits. First, the government issued a regulation that legalized the village’s designation as Penglipuran Tourism Village, which enabled the community to collect entrance fees as authorized by the SK Bangli Regent 115 and 116 in 1993. This regulation provided the critical foundation for Penglipuran’s CBT establishment, as asserted by a Bangli Tourism and Culture Department representative: “If [the village] was not [officially] designated as a tourism village, [the community] could not collect entrance fees, [external] support [would not] come in… Regulation is the opening door to further development” (DTC). Second, additional regulations were created after the village was designated successfully. For example, the government issued regulations about traffic management, infrastructure development, tourism product quality standards (e.g., sanitation, sound business practices), and to ensure implementation of agricultural practices that are in line with tourism. As environmental sustainability is an ‘attraction’ or ‘product’ in Penglipuran tourism village, the government, via DFASF, prohibited agricultural practices that cause environmental degradation. 132 In stipulating regulations, community representatives, TMO members, or the head of customary village (Klian Adat) typically are consulted before regulations are finalized. Community representatives are invited to regulation-making meetings during which the government presents regulation plans, and community representatives provide feedback. Three government interviewees stressed the importance of matching regulation and government programs with local needs to make regional spending efficient and to ensure successful implementation. However, some regulations for which the community was not consulted have been implemented, illustrating top-down rather than community-based development. Two examples were when the government unilaterally changed the price of entry tickets in 2019 and changed the tourism profit-sharing scheme in 2001. When that happened, the community protested and threatened the government. To illustrate: In 2001, the government wanted to claim 80% [of the] tourism revenue; [our] tourism village [would receive] only 4% … I, as the Klian Adat, based on a [Penglipuran] community mandate, had a dialogue with Bangli’s Regent. I told him ... the demands of [my] community… if [Penglipuran receives] only 4%, as the culture owner, as the [culture] implementer, as the [culture] protector, it is better to remove [us] as a tourism Village. (Supri) This reaction by the community also illustrates its commitment to maintaining control of its tourism decisions and operations, as well as profits, and as staying true to the community-based tourism approach. Marketing and Public Relations. Tourists, as ‘buyers’ or ‘consumers,’ are the reason that the community can reap tourism benefits (Dolezal, 2015). Therefore, promotion is important to public awareness of the village and to attract tourists. In the case of Penglipuran, promotional efforts are carried out actively by the government, private businesses (e.g., Indonesian Hotel and Restaurant Association, travel agents), Bali COBTA NGO, and media (local, regional, national, and international). This promotion can be in the form of media publicity, tourist destination 133 exhibitions, university research or projects, and can be implemented as external stakeholders actively bring visitors to Penglipuran. In the social media era, visitors also act as promoters, as they take pictures of the village and upload them on social media, illustrating a ‘word-of-mouth’ marketing strategy (Asker et al., 2010). After the TMO was established, the community also promoted itself by cooperating with national and international travel agents. A few villagers also participated in externally initiated film documentaries or reality shows that documented the daily lives of villagers. In addition, the community, through TMO, participated in externally initiated contests whereby Penglipuran received numerous awards. Although taking part in a contest is not an explicit promotion effort, the outcomes of these contests often result in public recognition: [Penglipuran Tourism Village] was announced [to be] the national winner of… a cultural [contest] … We were promoted by the [event’s] Master of Ceremonies, by the Minister, and by whomever attended the [event], right. [It] led to [some business] negotiations; for example, travel [agents] said ‘ah, I want to visit [Penglipuran]!’ Automatically, this [happened] because [of the] announcement. ‘What does the tourism village look like? Why is it a winner? (Malik) Training, Research, and Advice. Because some villagers lack skills or knowledge about tourism, external stakeholders have provided training, workshops, seminars, study tours, research studies, and advice to support community tourism activities, thus enabling them to reap tourism benefits. Each stakeholder within the community gained a different type of training. For example, TMO members participated in Bali COBTA-provided training and seminars about the tourism system (e.g., 4A [Amenity, Attraction, Accessibility, Ancillary] framework), tourism product development and management (e.g., homestays, tour guiding, educational packages, trip planning) to increase tourists’ length of stay and economic contributions, promotional efforts (e.g., website development), and environmental management seminars and training. Homestay owners were trained by a hotel and a university to clean bedrooms and interact with guests. 134 Entrepreneurs received business product development and quality management training (e.g., sanitation, financial management, nutrition, property rights, service, and business ethics) from the DIT. In implementing the training, DIT typically forms an entrepreneur group or visits each business owner to ensure that every business owner and worker has received relevant training. Women reported participating in the government- or university- provided training, such as tour guide training, foreign language skill training, culinary product development training (e.g., fruit candy, fruit jam, klepon, yam doughnut), halal (Moslem standard) product development, hygiene standards, hospitality skill development, service, beauty (e.g., make up, hairdo, dress, etiquette), sewing, and environmental management training. The head of the FWE organization stated that participants were typically given money for participating in the training. Women representatives also were trained to monitor business sanitation practices in the village. Women representatives surveyed [household businesses], [bringing] questionnaires like [yours], too, [checking] whether their waste bins were closed… First, [women representatives] told [business owners that] waste bins must be closed… Secondly, we checked whether this had been implemented. Thirdly, [we asked] were the dishes covered? [Did they] grab the food by, what is it, clip clamps and not hands? So to speak. There were like, but I did not join, a beauty-related training at the subdistrict office. A sewing program, [too]. But not everybody joined. [The participants] were chosen one by one. For example, [the training provider] asked for 5 participants; we found 5 people. It is impossible to [keep sending] the same person; [they will be] rotated. (Riri) Because quotas established by external providers made it impossible for all women to participate in each training, women established two systems to help ensure that everyone received benefits of training: 1) they created a rotation system for participation, and 2) those receiving training would share the training ideas with non-participants. According to the Head of the FWE Organization, trainings were implemented to equip villagers with specific skills, which contributes to poverty eradication in the long run. In fact, Asha reported that some female villagers have successfully produced and sold culinary products after receiving training. 135 The government also carried out training in the form of contests. According to one interviewee, a contest can be a source of learning for the community. One interviewee described an example of how the community learns from participating in government-initiated contests: [We] took part in contests because with contests… there was a learning process… For example, we registered in a contest first, and we would be sent an evaluation assessment form, right? For example, say, the Cipta Award. First, [we will be asked], do we have the institution? Is it legal? [Does it have a] Memorandum and Article of Association? (Malik) Additionally, university students and professors often conduct research in the village, helping the community solve their problems and address their concerns by providing recommendations or contributing practical projects. According to one interviewee, researchers helped the community understand their own heritage more fully: “If we asked [our parents] unusual things … [they would say ‘it is what its is’]. [That is] their answer. But now, we are given understanding. With research studies, [everything] is uncovered. Every activity has its [own] essence, philosophies” (Supri). Further, private businesses, Bali COBTA, and Bangli’s government often contribute opinions and advice directly to community members and representatives about how to develop tourism villages. Topics have included tourism management, restroom standards, and the importance of and reasons for avoiding mass tourism. Resource Support. Resource support refers to financial or material (goods) from external stakeholders that contribute to tourism development in the village. Private businesses (e.g., banks, corporations) and the government are reported to have contributed funding, infrastructure development (e.g., sidewalk, asphalt road, drainage system, sanitation, trash management system, underground electrical wire, biopori29), and tourism facilities development (e.g., guesthouse, garden, parking lot, public restroom, and tourism office building). The 29 A cylindrical hole that increases the infiltration rate of rainwater into the ground. 136 DPWPH representative emphasized the importance of building a road to support destination access by shortening the distance between tourists’ origins and destinations. Resource contributions are provided in the form of logistics materials to support festivals (e.g., committee uniforms, event publication materials) and homestays (e.g., electronic items, dining utensils, bedding). Resources also can be directed to specific stakeholders in the village, such as bamboo craftsmen or loloh cemcem producers, in the form of production tools or financial resources. For private businesses, resources are donated as a form of business sponsorship. A corporation may contribute funding in exchange for displaying their corporation logo in the village or promoting their products in the village. To acquire resources, often the community actively requests resource support by submitting a proposal to some external government or organizations. In some cases, external stakeholders are the ones who approach the local community; community representatives are consulted about the type of resources they need for tourism village development. As long as the support does not bind the community, contributions are accepted. Should the support cause negative effects on the community, Lingga explained that they will be rejected. Business sponsorship typically is the result of external business actors negotiating with community representatives. This indicates that the community, through community representatives, has been involved actively in deciding how much and what type of external resources they want and need. Perceptions of External Support. Although interview results indicate evidence of external contributions, interviewees offered a variety of perceptions about the extent to which they have been helpful or not. Four community members perceived external contributions to be helpful. Sarah explained that these contributions can help the community save personal and community funds. Another interviewee stated that these contributions have been beneficial when 137 based on local consent: “[We] are very grateful [for these contributions] as long as they do not bind us. They, as the supporters, feel happy, feel promoted, and we also get benefits from those contributions. Otherwise, why do we ask for support [in the first place]?” (Lingga) When specific to the government’s contributions, however, fifteen community members perceived that the amount of support they received was unfair. The government reaps sixty percent of the community’s ticket revenue, while the daily maintenance of the entire settlement is paid for by the community, perceived as expropriation by many in the community. In particular, Bali COBTA criticized Bangli’s government for focusing only on policies that increase regional revenue while contributing very little to cultural conservation. One community interviewee demonstrated their disappointment with the government: “It is unfair unless we get 60 and [Bangli] government gets 40. That is [okay]. They only collect money. They do not create [anything]. Here... if one thing is damaged, the community is the one who fixes it” (Teja). Some community members also expressed their dissatisfaction about some of the government contributions, criticizing the quality of the tourism facilities and waste management infrastructure that were provided by the government. Two quotes illustrate this frustration: “The road [quality] is not so good, the parking lot, the toilet was built but the ownership was not transferred; we did not receive [it]. It was eventually unused and damaged” (Adam). Also: [We are] not even given trash bins. We put trash in front of my house. Tomorrow, sometimes Department of Environment and Cleaning’s personnel carry it, sometimes [they] do not. Sometimes, it was not carried for two days; a researcher visited [and wondered] ‘oh, is this the cleanest village?’ Then, dogs raided the trash; it became scattered. It destroys the image of Penglipuran. (Bima) Two interviewees explained that villagers have protested and complained directly or through social media about these flaws and overall limited government contributions to tourism 138 village development.30 Media has helped communicating the villagers’ needs to the public. However, the government’s responses have been slow; three reasons were suggested by three interviewees. First, as one of the regions with the smallest revenue in Bali, Bangli has a lot of loans. The DPWPH representative stated that, because Bangli is located in a mountainous area and is asked to conserve freshwater supplies for the southern mass tourism area (Denpasar and Kuta), sources of regional revenue are limited because of restricted development activities. Second, three interviewees suspected that such limited contributions are because of the Penglipuran community’s political preference to not be dictated by the government. Third, three government interviewees explained that Penglipuran currently is prioritized lower than other villages because it already is independent in many respects. Limited government contributions partly explain why the community often chooses to act on its own. In fact, they often solve and anticipate tourism-caused problems by themselves, as described in the next section. Effects of Tourism and CBT Responses Interviewees were asked their opinions about the effects of tourism development on the community, and how the community has responded to these perceived effects. This section is divided into two categories: 1) CBT responses to ongoing tourism effects, and 2) CBT responses in anticipating future tourism effects. CBT Responses to Ongoing Tourism Effects Perceived CBT effects on a variety of community-based relationships and activities connected with the village’s cultural life, both natural environment-related cultural practices and built environment-related cultural practices, are explained in this section. 30 Some interviewees stated that the regulation is finally in the process of change in 2020. The community would receive sixty percent of the revenue share while the government got forty percent. 139 CBT Responses for Maintaining Community Relationships. Interviewees have shared varied perceptions about community relationships as a result of participation by many villagers in Penglipuran’s tourism businesses. While three interviewees reported that their relationships with other villagers have remained as harmonious as they were prior to CBT designation, others pointed out issues related to competition and social jealousy. Despite these negative effects of tourism on interpersonal relationships, the community has responded to address these problems. The head of customary village (Klian Adat), Adat policies, religion, and socio-cultural activities all play roles in responding to and addressing these issues. First, instances of social jealousy were noticed after the TMO was established officially in 2012. One interviewee explained: “There was a lot of [jealousy] toward Mr. Malik, after the TMO was established … it was thought that TMO owned [tourism], [and that tourism-related] work [would be] carried out by [TMO members]; [such an approach was perceived to] not be community-based” (Supri). To resolve this misunderstanding, Klian Adat explained the actual position of TMO within the village to these villagers, explaining that TMO would represent the community in managing community-owned tourism assets while a significant portion of tourism decision-making still belonged to Adat. Secondly, economic competition developed between business owners. In the 1990s, business participants competed by physically approaching visitors directly to sell their products, thus making visitors uncomfortable; in response, rules banning such behavior was implemented. As of 2020, business competition still was present. One interviewee reported: “With regard to souvenir selling, [one issue] that I feel the most [strongly about] is [related to] pricing. Sometimes, there are people who get the price down so much to sell their products… So, we cannot sell [our products]” (Asha). Although a few interviewees stated that such competition 140 may result in social jealousies, they tend to be subtle or unexpressed. In the words of one interviewee: “Social jealousy, for example. Some people get [buyers], others do not. Inside their heart, there may be a not-good-feeling.” (Satria). Nevertheless, two interviewees explained that the competition has been healthy as business owners also support each other in the form of psychological or practical support, as follows: Sometimes, yes [business operators compete], but here… I can say that the competition is healthy... Sometimes, [we] ask each other ‘do you get buyers?’ ‘We do.’ ‘How about over there?’ ‘We do, too.’ Well, sometimes, though we do not [get any buyers]; ‘be patient; we may get [one] later.’ [We] also support each other… I do not know if [others] talk about us behind [our backs] … at least, when we meet each other, we never fight. (Asha) The ‘benefits distribution factors’ section has elucidated some community social strategies and village authority policies. Policies such as prioritizing poor community members for tourism staff jobs, using the rotation mechanism for souvenir vendors, homestay owners, and tourism training, and aiming for wealth distribution among villagers were implemented to address social jealousy, and thereby maintain community relationships. To illustrate: [We] shared a little of [our business profits] so that [our extended family neighbors] were not jealous [of our business] … so that [tourism] is [perceived as] fair, and it does not become [a source of social jealousy]. [We] anticipated [such jealousy happening], though [the amount of money] is small” (Riri). Despite experiencing competition, the fact that many community members are related to each other by blood or marriage facilitates maintaining positive community relationships. One interviewee said: “[We] still have a family relationship with neighbors, solidarity still exists, gotong royong (mutual aid) still exists. Though [many of us] are sellers… [social jealousy] does not exist” (Novi). Another interviewee reported that her family neighbors who own no tourism business had been supportive of her involvement in tourism by providing an example of her family neighbors occasionally ask the guest presence to her: 141 We are all one family, [a family] is supposed to support each other, right… Neighbors, too, we support each other, so they may be happy [with tourism] … Like in the backyard, my in-law is an employee [outside of the village]; sometimes, ‘where are the guests?’ sometimes, he asked [me], too (Asha) Religious values also serve as a facilitator, as two interviewees expressed: “Well, fortune will never go away, it [is meant to be] shared. If [we] do not get it now, maybe neighbors get [it], maybe we will [get it] tomorrow” (Asha) and “We should prevent disharmony, because our purpose is Hita, right, harmony… If [disharmony] occurs, we have failed to implement Tri Hita Karana.” (Supri). The quote below illustrates an example of the role of socio-cultural activities and co-dependency among neighbors that encourage them to maintain good relationships. In Bali, it may be not the family who [understands] us. Instead, neighbors [know] us [better]. So, we must really protect [our relationships] with neighbors. Here, especially, if there are wedding ceremonies, [and because our home] is small, it is impossible to [host a ceremony] at [our own] house, right; therefore, we must go to [our] neighbors… That is why [we have cultural practice], if there is a death [ceremony in my family], neighbors next to [us must take part in our ceremony] and must not go to the temple [if the death ceremony happens to be in the same day with a community ceremony]. (Asha) CBT Responses to Effects of Tourism on the Natural Environment. After the village was designated as a CBT destination, some effects of tourism on the natural environment are apparent. The community has addressed these effects based on their common environment- related cultural practices. The community has focused not only on tourism development, but also on strengthening their conservation efforts. Two key natural environment-related effects of tourism development are the growing amount of waste and land use changes resulting from bamboo forest demolishment for housing and tourism facility development. In response, the village has implemented three actions to sustain the natural environment, and to anticipate and minimize future environmental 142 destruction. The first new project, initiated by Bangli’s government, was to create biopori31. The second initiative, which was considered a new form of agricultural practice in the community, was to add more plant pots in each household’s yard (pekarangan). This aims to maintain the visual aesthetics of the environment and to absorb CO2. The third program, initiated by the subdistrict government, focused on waste management. This program is integrated into the existing FWE Organization monthly meeting, whereby organization members separate waste into three categories: organic, which is composted; plastics, which are sold to the waste bank; and the remaining garbage, which is taken away by the Department of Environment and Cleaning’s truck. Organization members who live outside Penglipuran still are obliged to participate in this program by assigning other family members to haul the waste for them. revenue from this waste goes to the organization to pay for women’s communal activities. One interviewee explained the waste sorting process: [Each household] takes one plastic bag of waste… [and] ten used plastic bottles. If [you] have more, you may bring [them]. The number of Female Welfare Organization members is 240; [they] all bring [trash]. [Kader/woman representatives] directly sort the waste during [the meeting]. Each month, we get an average 150 kg of garbage. It will be sold by the waste bank. We cooperate with the waste bank. (Novi) The second environment-related effect of tourism development is littering, though the perceptions of interviewees about this effect vary. Three community interviewees stated that tourists keep their environment clean by throwing away trash properly. For example: “Here, [I] have not found [scattered trash] because we have provided… trash bins in strategic areas, so that [tourists] understand [where to place their trash]” (Prama). However, three other interviewees said they had witnessed some visitors who littered. One male interviewee declared that such visitor behavior typically is tolerated; however, a female interviewee, who typically is 31 Cylindrical holes bored into the ground that increase the infiltration rate of rainwater into the ground. 143 responsible for keeping household pekarangan (yards) tidy, complained about such visitor behavior. Nevertheless, in response, she will directly clean visitors’ dirt, as all women always do with the daily sweeping cultural practice. To illustrate: Mansur: Foreign tourists rarely [throw trash all over the place]. It is typically local [tourists] (laugh). Sometimes, we just understand [them], right, maybe [it is] common to [do that] in their villages… Me: Oh, so the Penglipuran community just understands [and accepts such behavior]? Mansur: Yes… It is common (laugh). We provide [visitors] comfort. Sometimes, [guests] borrowing [household] toilets do not flush [the toilets] … they cannot throw tissue or whatever things in the waste bins even though we provide them… That is the negative [impact from tourists] … every day, housewives clean [the household yard] first in the morning. In the late afternoon, ugh, why do people leave [our] toilet like that? We never ask for payment. Well, [some guests] pay voluntarily, but I often reject [the payment] ‘no, it is free…’ Sometimes, [this is because] we understand [that] guests buy souvenirs [so that is the fair trade-off] … we do not [force] them to [buy souvenirs], though... [Our village] is called the cleanest village, so how come the toilet is dirty? We are just aware of keeping the restroom clean for the guests (Asha) The third environment-related effect of tourism development is destruction of local environmental beautification projects. For example, one interviewee explained that many tourists walk on the grass rather than on the street, damaging the grass and compacting the soil. Suspecting that this behavior (walking on grass) may be associated with a safety issue, he said, “When [tourists] are afraid [to walk on the steep, and sometimes slippery, road], they must walk on the side [of the street], on the grass. So, the grass was all dead [because] it was stepped on. If stairs [are installed], the grass would be alive because [tourists would] step on the stairs” (Satria). Furthermore, a second interviewee said that, by the end of 2015, the community created the ‘Flowery Penglipuran’ garden project in the village. The community, represented by family representatives, participated via gotong royong, digging the soil, cultivating the land, and watering the plants together. This beautification project attracted a large number of visitors who took ‘selfie’ photos in the garden. Despite the community’s occasional announcements that 144 prohibited visitors from stepping on the flowers, many visitors ignored it, resulting in damaged plants. Nevertheless, one interviewee, discussing this problem, chose to be reflective: We just look at the positive side… there were a great number of visitors, vendors got a lot of [income] …We made an announcement using a speaker; I had directed [tourists] ‘do not step on the plants,’ but because there were many guests, the plants were stepped on. In 2015, we arranged [plants] to make [the garden] beautiful. That’s [what happened] with a great number of tourists. (Surya) All the above are examples of tourism’s contribution to environmental degradation in the village. The community has solved the problem independently using existing environment- related cultural practices. However, a few changes in the way the community deals with these issues are noticeable. First, motivations for engaging in such projects are no longer merely cultural and religious; as of 2020, tourism and its associated effects have reinforced the need for, and engagement in, such practices. For example, products resulting from some of Penglipuran’s sustainability practices (e.g., fertilizer, plant pots) have become products that visitors may purchase. Thus, economic incentives have become one motive for engaging in such behaviors. Also, foreign tourist’s ‘clean’ behavior inspires the community to keep the environment clean, as reported by one interviewee: “Singaporeans, for example, throw garbage [in its place]. Foreigners protect the environment; how come we do not?” (Eka). Collectively, the community cleans the environment to protect its ‘clean village’ image, as illustrated below: I do not know why, [I am] just aware, seeing a little bit of trash, [I] surely want to sweep. It is embarrassing [if] guests find our ‘clean’ tourism village dirty (Asha) [Tourism] contributes revenue to the customary village. Buildings’ [conditions] are better because of [tourism income]. Therefore, we must keep [tourism going] … [We] must do good things, for example, cleaning the yard [environment] and holy places, wherever, so that it is attractive for tourists. (Satria) Second, the whole community participates in mutual aid (gotong royong) for environmental activities less frequently than before CBT was developed. As the community receives more collective community funds than prior to designation as a tourism destination, they 145 can pay poor villagers to sweep the village’s common areas and help with waste management, providing them employment while maintaining village cleanliness and sustainability. For example, some low-income villagers are hired to produce fertilizers based on locally generated organic waste. Some villagers are hired to be gardeners; the Head of TMO has planned to hire more in the future. Three villagers were hired to help the village with environmental cleaning the TMO was established; five more people were hired to clean the forest and temple areas when tourism boomed after the village was recognized as ‘the cleanest village.’ To illustrate: During the beginning of TMO’s [existence], it was common [to work together]. ‘Let’s gotong royong, let’s learn how to make an organic fertilizer…’ ‘let’s grab rice!’ Now, [gotong royong frequency] is less. We recruit workers… Indeed, [we] have money [now]; [we] give it to community members who need employment. There is also [a member of a] neighboring village [who] works here because nobody here wants to work in fertilizer processing. (Malik) CBT Responses to Effects of Tourism on the Built Environment. Perceived CBT effects on a variety cultural practices related to the built environment are explained in this section. This includes preserving the village’s spatial arrangement, conserving traditional buildings, and developing and maintaining infrastructure. Preserving the Village’s Spatial Arrangement. This study found no negative effects of tourism on the local spatial arrangement preservation effort. Instead, CBT designation motivated villagers to continue preserving the village’s spatial arrangement. While some policies were in place prior to CBT designation – such as banning motorized transportation within the village and moving vendors out of the main street –motives for traditional spatial arrangement preservation shifted and expanded. Previously the main motives were to keep the traditional spatial layout intact, keep the village tidy, protect aesthetic scenery and traditional buildings, and create a safe and comfortable space for pedestrians to walk and for children to play in the street. Now the community is motivated also to provide a safe and comfortable space for tourists. 146 One interviewee reported expanding the policy for banning motorized transportation to provide comfortable spaces for tourists to walk freely throughout the village: Motorcycles were allowed to [enter] the main street… seemingly, it was changed [in] 2017… In the morning until 9 [am], motorbike users were allowed to [enter the street]. After 6 pm [they] were also allowed. Since 2017, [the policy] was changed completely [because] maybe [motor vehicles] interrupted tourists’ comfort, right. Sometimes, at 6:00 p.m., there were still tourists [in the village]; motorcycles [make them uncomfortable], especially because the road is rather narrow, right. (Asha) Another controversial issue involved placement of vendor stalls within the village as tourism developed. One proposal was to let vendors open stalls in the main street. As illustrated in the quote below, one interviewee reported his opposition to this idea. While previously the motive for banning vendors occupying the street was cultural, keeping tourism businesses operating into the future also became a reason. I was the strictest, [when] arguing with the community. [Some people] say ‘TMO, let the vendors sell in the [main] street to reap income…’ ‘Well, now they earn income… there may still be 1-2 sellers in the street now, but when other [people] become aware of [the benefits of putting the stalls in the main street], everyone [will] follow… If anyone does [open stalls in the main street], who is coming [to Penglipuran]? It is better for [the guests] to visit the market.’ [I told them so] because [letting people put vendor stalls in the street] is suicide. We gain [benefits] by protecting [our] cultural values, the iconic buildings, [which are] the [reasons] why [visitors come here] … (Tirta) Conserving Traditional Buildings. Both before and after the village was designated as a CBT destination, the community has conserved its traditional buildings. However, there are changes in the practice. While previously the community focused only on angkul-angkul (gateyard) building conservation, they have expanded their conservation efforts to other buildings, including pawon (kitchens) and balesakaenem (buildings for ceremonial activities). TMO and Adat implemented policies that prevent people from changing the construction material of the roofs of those buildings. While previously the motivation for building preservation was solely cultural, tourism now provides another reason for protecting the 147 buildings, because the entire village’s social and physical cultural characteristics are the fabric that makes Penglipuran an attractive destination. What is [our] first concept? Conservation, right? With the conservation concept, the quality of the thing that attracts [visitors] should be increased. For example, each yard is obliged to [have] traditional houses as an icon. They are angkul- angkul (yard gates), pawon (traditional kitchens), balesakaenem (ceremony pavilions). The roof must [be constructed of] bamboo. (Malik) Because the community was aware of the importance of protecting traditional buildings to improve the village’s tourism selling points, the village implemented a traditional building conservation subsidization program in 2018. For each building, each household was given IDR 5,000,000 (USD 357). This program aimed to encourage each household to conserve the pawon, angkul-angkul, and balesakaenem bamboo roofs. The cost of installing bamboo roofs on a household’s balesakaenem and kitchen is IDR 12,000,000 (USD 857), and IDR 3,500,000 (USD 250) for angkul-angkul. However, the conservation process has changed. Instead of maintaining the building using gotong royong as in the past, households now prefer to hire villagers who work as laborers. Consequently, the frequency of community participation in mutual aid to construct bamboo roofs and maintain traditional buildings has decreased. To illustrate: In the past, for example, when building the [traditional] houses, especially the Balinese kitchen, we did gotong royong… Now, developing [a building requires] hiring laborers, because 1) the economic [condition of individuals and families] has improved, and 2), [community members] are equally busy, right. So, they are professional now… In the past, we worked together; we were just given, what is it, coffee, snacks, and lunch, right, but there was togetherness [while] gathering. But now, we just pay [building laborers]. For me to be able to sell [goods and services to tourists], I prefer to pay [somebody] to build this [and] that. (Tirta) Although traditional building conservation efforts have improved, community participation in tourism family businesses (e.g., shops, restaurants), combined with the narrow yard alley, has degraded the visual aesthetic of all the buildings. As some would argue, the most ideal situation (for an authentic cultural experience) would be for tourists to observe traditional 148 buildings directly. Now, however, visitors are welcomed visually with shops and restaurants. Five interviewees stated that the abundance of modern shops and restaurants is contrary to the conservation concept. As illustrated in this quote: “The traditional Balinese building will automatically be gone if a shop is opened in the front [yard]” (Lingga). Another interviewee expressed the same opinion: “[Shops] destroy the scenery. People in the past could observe the real Balinese house.” (Riri). In response to this concern, 77 household representatives (Adat) have implemented policies that prevent shops from being too visible from the main street; however, many business operators violate this rule. One interviewee explained that economic competition is the main impetus for this problem. She explained: “If we keep [our shops] behind [our homes], we will not sell anything… Others follow [their neighbors’ behavioral examples in order] to get [their own income] … It has been two years [during which people have opened stores in their front yards]” (Riri). In fact, as two interviewees pointed out, some family representatives and TMO members have violated this policy, making it harder to enforce the policy effectively. Overall, family tourism businesses have made traditional buildings throughout the village less visible. Further efforts for policy enforcement still are needed to address this issue. Developing and Maintaining Village Infrastructure. After the village was designated as a CBT destination, some effects of tourism on village infrastructure are apparent. For example, the community reported a higher frequency of public toilet damage. Controversy exists about the reasons for damage to the public toilet, and where responsibility lies for the toilet maintenance. Of course, as more visitors come to the village, public toilet usage increases. The community discovered that some visitors throw trash into the toilet. Wanting to deflect blame for the problems, one interviewee said: “Do not blame TMO or [tourism] staff for the damaged [toilet] 149 because visitors may not be capable of using our facilities [appropriately]. While they are not supposed to throw tissue or sanitary pads [in the toilet], there they throw [them]” (Supri). Next, tourism accelerates road damage. Despite having a narrow road, Penglipuran Village often is visited by a great number of people who come to the village in large buses and cars. Although a parking lot is available, the capacity is not adequate to handle a large number of vehicles. Consequently, traffic congestion is prevalent and local roads are easily damaged. Although infrastructure development is the government’s responsibility, as explained in the ‘external factors’ section, the government often has failed to build and maintain the village’s tourism infrastructure properly, which has necessitated that the community fix the infrastructure themselves if it is to be fixed. To illustrate: The ditch was damaged because the project [executor] maybe wanted to get higher profits… [even with low use, the ditch was] damaged already; buses or cars [could] fall. We fixed it ourselves. We did not want big buses to fall [into the damaged ditch]. [If] our image is destroyed... People [will not come here]. (Teja) Budi explained that, when tourists find out about destroyed infrastructure, they do not think about the government. Instead, they just blame the community for local dirtiness or poor infrastructure; thus, the community’s image is destroyed. Therefore, the community has responded by developing and maintaining infrastructure independently, as they always have done. When traffic is perceived to be a problem, the community solves the issue independently. One example was by creating a one-way traffic policy. Pecalang and TMO members were deployed as parking rangers. This was done because the community wants to keep the tourism village image positive, which is essential for sustaining their village tourism businesses. When [it was] crowded, we implemented a one-way policy. The cars that exited [the village] needed to circle around. Indeed, it is longer [for them], but [the traffic flow] is better [because vehicles are not] facing each other and causing deadlock due to one lane of the road being occupied by parked cars. (Tirta) 150 All the above are examples of how tourism has negatively affected village infrastructure. The community, as always, has solved problem itself using existing cultural practices and developing new policies. However, some changes in how the community deals with these problems are noticeable. First, motivations for engaging in projects related to infrastructure development and maintenance are no longer merely community enhancement for the sake of the community; the desire to create a safe and comfortable space for tourists, and to protect their tourism village image have become additional motives for developing and maintaining Penglipuran’s infrastructure. Second, as they did prior to tourism development, community members no longer need to contribute personal money for infrastructure or public facility development. Rather, they use tourism operational and collective funds to pay local laborers to develop and maintain infrastructure. CBT Responses in Anticipation of Future Tourism Effects This section explores interviewees’ hopes and concerns, as well as plans and thoughts, about the future of Penglipuran CBT. Two categories of issues – cultural protection and sustaining tourism operations – are described. Cultural Protection Plans and Ideas. Thirteen interviewees hope to maintain local cultural protection into the future. In addition to conserving tangible and intangible culture for tourism, they also want to do so for the sake of appreciating their heritage and educating future generations about the local culture. Some interviewees have pointed out concerns over some issues and provided ideas to anticipate and/or address them. First, some interviewees are aware of additional potential negative effects of community participation in tourism on the villagers’ relationships (e.g., competition, social jealousy), which is contradictory to their principal value of Hita (harmony). In response, three interviewees 151 suggested improving the system for equitable benefits distribution by developing homestay opportunities in each pekarangan (yard). One interviewee suggested forming a vendor union to establish a standardized and fair price for items across all vendors. Second, some interviewees are aware of potential negative effects of tourism on local religious life and behavioral ethics. In response, the community has banned tourists from observing sacred dances, mandated that tourists wear culturally appropriate dress upon entering temples, and implemented a rule that visitors must get permission to stay in the village. Pecalang (Social and Security Organization) will ensure that rules are enforced. Third, some interviewees emphasized the role of the young generation in protecting local culture; some young people are expected to stay in the village to protect the village from outsiders. Four interviewees expressed their optimism about young people: one interviewee indicated that visitors who stay in the village typically do not engage in behaviors common among mass tourists (e.g., use of drugs, excessive alcohol); four interviewees also said that the village has strong customary law (e.g., banning outsiders from occupying the land, social sanctions that cause embarrassment when people violate rules, and pecalang readiness to enforce laws) that can ensure villagers follow their code of ethics. However, some interviewees expressed concerns about youth’s social gotong royong (mutual aid) spirit because many young people are addicted to technology and associated gadgets, and are losing interest in traditional games requiring social interaction. As economic improvement has reduced community participation in cultural protection activities, and has contributed to making the younger generation’s lives convenient, three interviewees questioned youth’s willingness to maintain the community’s spirit of togetherness and cultural protection. 152 Our concern is…a paradigm shift. Our social spirit was high, [but] it is lower in some cases… adat gotong royong still continues. [However], [gotong royong] for tourism is [now] paid, which is fine, but when we developed this tourism village, [the community] devoted itself [without asking for payment]. (Malik) The customary village must really inherit not only money and materials… but [youth] character must also be built just like we were [and] our former [prominent figures] … If I no longer work [and current prominent figures] do not work, I am concerned that those kids who [have] enjoyed the benefits will forget their responsibilities. (Surya) While one may argue that reduced voluntary community participation in traditional cultural activities is a negative thing, four interviewees declared that this is not necessarily considered negative. In the case of Penglipuran, the reduction in mutual aid participation in projects to enhance, clean and beautify the environment, and to conserve traditional buildings, is balanced by provision of employment opportunities for low-income villagers and an improved entrepreneurship spirit of the local community. Tirta also stated that this situation contributes to income redistribution in the community. Further, he expressed that the extent to which this issue is perceived as negative or positive depends on which perspective one is using: Based on our lives as social creatures, [less intense] gotong royong is [a] negative [thing] because the gotong royong that supposedly exists is gone. On the other hand, however, [the community] is also happy. For example, they can get [IDR] 100 per day from working. If they [use their time] to do gotong royong, [the money] is gone… It is not about the community choosing not to [do] gotong royong, but it is more like… first, they are busy, secondly, they are also capable [economically], right. Sometimes, [it is] embarrassing to ask [people to work for] free [because] gotong royong means we work for free, right... but now, sometimes, [the initiator] of a project is embarrassed [to ask someone work for free] because they are considered capable [economically]. ‘Why should I ask people [to work] without reciprocity?’ so to speak. (Tirta) In responding to this concern about youth behavioral changes, Adat has ensured that young people still conduct monthly gatherings and meetings, which aim to maintain the spark of the youth’s social spirit and increase their awareness of the local culture, religious beliefs, and the customary village system, as well as develop their pride in being part of Penglipuran Village. 153 Also, tourism revenue is allocated for intangible cultural protection through an annual festival. Sakti explained that the festival has improved young people’s enthusiasm in learning about local cuisines, traditional musical instruments, and traditional dance. As kids traditionally performed only in religious ceremonies, they now have the opportunity to perform in a big festival contest. Bali’s government also has contributed funds for a language preservation program in the village. Additionally, religious participation is still intact and the mandatory contribution of a small amount of money to each organization and the Adat is preserved so that future generations do not forget the gotong royong (mutual aid) cultural practice. Tourism Development Plans and Ideas. When interviewees were asked about the future of Penglipuran CBT, most of them were keen on growing their tourism village even more. Seven interviewees hoped to receive more visitors while four others wished to increase visitors’ length of stay or have repeat tourists. While many wanted to increase their income, one interviewee wanted the community to keep reaping social benefits (e.g., skills and knowledge development). Two government interviewees wanted more visitors to boost regional revenue and to incentivize the community to continue protecting its culture. In general, three strategies to achieve these goals were identified by interviewees: 1) developing new attractions, 2) solving current tourism problems to improve visitors’ comfort, and 3) recruiting full-time, paid TMO members. These strategies aim to keep their CBT destination able to compete with other destinations in Bali, thus allowing the community and young generations to keep reaping tourism benefits into the future. First, seventeen interviewees stated that new tourism attractions should be developed so that visitors are not bored with the village. Some specific suggestions were expressed, such as developing a children’s playground, traditional swimming pools, agritourism (utilizing products or crops such as cemcem and betel leaves, snack fruit trees, banana trees, coffee, and plant pots), 154 tour packages that connect Penglipuran Village with neighboring villages, regular dance performances, hero statue and outbound area revitalization, environmental education attractions based on activities such as livestock waste processing, and more community-owned products (e.g., developing a souvenir market or community-owned souvenir shop, a community-owned restaurant, a bamboo museum). One interviewee suggested the idea of developing more authentic local products. With some other TMO members, he hoped that the community would focus more on creating local ‘authentic’ handmade products made out of bamboo, silver, or woven fabric than on selling mass art products from the Sukawati Market. He said: “Souvenir shops are better located in a special building [not at home] … At home, we are supposed to create woven bamboo, [turning it into] a product. [Thus], the product is ‘craftspeople’ not ‘sellers.’ (DTI). As previously explained, traditional buildings currently have limited visibility due to the growing presence of souvenir and culinary shops. Building a new community-owned souvenir shop, or relocating all family shops to a single area, could prevent the traditional buildings from being overshadowed by shops. Being aware that traditional buildings are the village’s main selling point, some interviewees expressed concern that tourists no longer are interested in visiting the village. In fact, two interviewees have received complaints directly from tour guides about the unseen traditional buildings. Some interviewees stated that completely implementing and enforcing the rule of banning shops from being too visible from the main street is a must. The TMO also encourages maintaining a traditional look for all components of new home construction (not only the traditional buildings) to make new homes consistent with the tourism village’s traditional image. Many interviewees pointed out that it is critical to provide and maintain quality visitor experiences to sustain tourism businesses. Thus, the second group of suggestions are 155 implementing actions to increase visitors’ comfort by tackling currently identified tourism problems. Interviewees revealed five problems and solutions: 1) As illustrated by the currently damaged road and toilet, combined with the fact that Penglipuran’s tourism village has become an international destination, Penglipuran’s tourism infrastructure needs to be replaced or upgraded using sturdy materials for longer product life span. 2) Because some tourists have complained about the presence of wild dogs, policies to control them must be implemented and enforced. 3) The TMO should implement fair prices for tourists, matching the prices with the quality of tourism products offered – both to ensure visitor satisfaction and to increase community-level benefits. 4) Although rules banning business owners from calling out to visitors exist, some shop owners still actively call out, making some visitors uncomfortable; therefore, enforcement of this policy should be improved. 5) Because a few homestay owners and tourism staff are deemed to be unprofessional, the community’s hospitality should be improved. Illustrating the fourth and fifth problems above, three interviewees pointed out that hospitality service is very important for maintaining visitor satisfaction and sustaining CBT enterprises. In the words of two interviewees: [The ticketing officers’] hospitality [skill is lacking]. We [talk about] service for guests. How come [they] ran after a new guest who did not stop [at the ticket office]? I asked the head of customary village, please tell them or [teach] them a language, at least, English [language]... Penglipuran’s attitude is bad… [They] better smile, be polite [or] dress properly… I am concerned with ticketing or parking officers [because] they are our first [contacts, and thus create a ‘first impression’… if the first impression is bad, maybe [guests will think that] the community is worse [than the ticketing workers’ attitudes] … (Bima) One example that makes visitors uncomfortable is when sellers, for example, have this “force” mechanism [to force visitors to buy products], which I disagree with because it kills us… What I want is that the service [has to make] visitors want to come back here again and again and again, so to speak. Based on other tourist destinations’ experiences, when [the destination] is damaged, it is difficult to develop it again, much more difficult than developing a new destination… (Tirta) 156 A third suggestion is to recruit and hire full-time, paid TMO members. Because TMO members currently are unpaid and work only part-time, and because the community now has more tourism revenue, two interviewees suggested turning this organization into a professional organization for which all members are paid to work full-time on tourism village management. Several of the above-mentioned ideas are under discussion by the Adat (77 representatives), while some are merely thoughts of individuals that have not been conveyed to other villagers. Some interviewees reported facing roadblocks with ideas currently under discussion. Two interviewees pointed out that government had been slow and unresponsive in considering or developing attractions, amenities, and infrastructure that require cooperation with the government. With regard to community-level product development (e.g., a communally owned souvenir shop or restaurant), two interviewees explained that discussion had been postponed because some families still oppose the idea. Decision-makers’ general lack of tourism knowledge, time constraints for discussing all agenda items, lack of funding32, and a community leader who occasionally changes collectively-made decisions by himself, are among factors that inhibit the community from implementing these ideas. To illustrate: Because the [77 representatives] have a variety of professions, different capabilities, and different mindsets, [implementing tourism development] has been difficult. When one [person] disagrees, for example, if today [they] discuss [one thing], [they] will postpone the decision... Even toilet development [triggers] a lot of debate. For us [with] long [experience] working for tourism, it is very important, right… because I work in the field, I often get [reprimanded] by visitors – ‘why is the toilet limited…?’ Some community members [said] ‘do not build too many [toilet] buildings; otherwise, [we will] run out of money…’ Their tourism knowledge is lacking…’ If you really understand tourism, let’s calculate how many people are inside one bus, 40. If 50% of them want to use the toilet, it is 20 people. We minimally need 10 toilets… Let alone [providing facilities for visitors in] 3-4 buses [and] also other visitors. (Tirta) 32 Sakti has pointed out that the importance of changing the revenue sharing scheme from 40% to 60% for the government, so the community can have more funds to develop tourism. In 2020, Bangli’s Regent has approved to change the revenue sharing scheme, but it has not yet stated into a written legal document. 157 Overall, no interviewees shared any significant concerns about additional future negative effects of tourism. Rather, the community shared many concerns about not being able to sustain tourism businesses, thus preventing future generations from reaping tourism benefits. Nevertheless, some interviewees also have thought about a variety of ideas to address potential overtourism. If it were to occur, for example, one interviewee explained that the TMO has an idea to establish a scheduling management system. Two interviewees mentioned the idea of developing a tour package that links Penglipuran with nearby villages. In addition to dispersing Penglipuran visitors to other places, this could result in economic improvement in other villages and other tourist destinations in Bangli Regency, thus increasing visitors’ length of stay in the region. The DPWPH representative explained that overtourism may be tackled by physical infrastructure and traffic policy management. With regard to concern with the issue of environment, two TMO members expressed a need to ban single-plastic use, while Bali COBTA hoped that the community would hire external experts to assist them, especially because TMO members do not work full time for sustainable tourism development in the village. The TMO also has an idea to provide alternative high-quality tourism experiences, whereby on occasion they will limit the number of tourists on some days, dedicating those days to a small number of visitor groups who want to enjoy a quiet rural atmosphere. Most importantly, TMO plans to encourage the community to allocate more tourism revenue for human development, which aims to ensure sustainable tourism development in the future that favors more cultural protection and environmental sustainability. Surya pointed out his criticism to the current Adat for often favoring tourism spending for religious activities over spending on human development and environmental conservation, indicating an imbalance of THK implementation. While Bima stated that spending money for developing a better temple is 158 fine because of the current available money, and three interviewees mentioned that their CBT success was partly “God’s will,” Surya opined that allocating more spending for human development, such as education and training with a rotating system, would better equip young people to handle CBT sustainably in the future. Two interviewees deemed financial literacy training important for helping equip youth with financial management awareness, thereby protecting young people from shock of tourism’s vulnerability. Tourism principles (e.g., sapta pesona) study tours for women are among some ideas for needed training. His group currently is trying to make progress in the village. The community’s understanding of yadnya [holy offerings] is limited to religious ceremonies… Taking care of plants is also [one form of] yadnya. Then, maintaining human resources [through] training is [also a part of] yadnya. That is [how] I understand it. How many people understand? Not much… Tri Hita Karana… [the way people understand] the community’s relationship with God, is by [holding] a huge ritual. We must balance that [with human development and environmental conservation]. [We] do not need to hold [a big] ceremony. Instead, huge spending [should be] allocated to human development. We allocated it to education… If needed, we pay [low-income villagers] to go to school… Once, I protested development of the biggest Dalam Temple. Why? Because it was [to be placed in] a forest, [which would be] demolished for temple building… Who [bears] the cost? Do you know the impacts? It damages the ozone… it is what we call global warming, right… (Surya) Summary Overall, this study found that the Penglipuran community has been participating actively in the process of CBT development, including in planning, decision-making, receipt of tourism benefits, and solving perceived problems and concerns resulting from tourism development. Using traditional governance and decision-making mechanisms inherited by their ancestors, 77 male household representatives hold decision-making authority. All villagers are welcome to share their ideas and concerns with their representatives. Decisions are made through deliberation and consensus (musyawarah mufakat) or, if consensus is not achieved, by voting. Information about decisions then is disseminated to other community members and the 159 community organizes itself to accomplish actions identified by those decisions. Although the ideal procedure for decision-making is clear, this study has confirmed challenges to the process that are associated with the leadership style of the Klian Adat, combined with lack of willingness by some representatives to speak up. The community has a rich history in implementing its own collective cultural and religious activities. Most of these activities are carried out with gotong royong (mutual aid), whereby each household must voluntarily and equally contribute money, time, energy, and/or goods to successfully implement each activity. In addition to providing time and space for social interaction among community members, these activities have a cultural protection function, such as preserving art, music, the environment, as well as developing and maintaining the traditional spatial layout, traditional buildings, and infrastructure. As a result of their bottom-up, or community-based, initiatives, the community has won various local, national, and international awards, which increase public recognition. Combined with good access and its strategic location, this village had the potential to be developed as a tourism village. In short, this indicates that local, bottom-up, socio-cultural initiative processes (e.g., collective decision-making and mutual aid-based implementation) and outcomes, as well as good access, were reasons why tourism development using the CBT process could be applied to Penglipuran Village. When the village was designated as a tourism village in 1993, some villagers started to participate in providing tourism amenities. Later, after the TMO and more community-owned tourism products were established in 2012, and the number of tourists visiting the village increased, local tourism engagement has continued to increase. Interviewees reported gaining a variety of individual/household benefits, such as economic improvement, working environment improvement, skill and knowledge development, social network development and interpersonal 160 interactions, which they have gained through being a TMO member and providing tourism products and services (e.g., through family-owned businesses, community-owned businesses, and daily activities and support functions). The degree to which each community member gains benefits depends on various personal factors (e.g., awareness of tourism benefits, life priorities, house location, financial capital, and tourism-related skills), benefits distribution factors (e.g., community social strategies, village authority’s policies, and external pressure and monitoring), and external factors (e.g., regulations, marketing and public relations, training, research, external advice, and resource support [e.g., infrastructure, logistics, and materials). Indeed, negative effects as a result of CBT in the village (e.g., social jealousy, competition, environmental degradation) exist, but the community continues to address such problems by contributing ideas, making decisions, and implementing projects, policies, and programs using strategies based on local wisdom and cultural practices. In fact, tourism has motivated the community to enhance protection of local cultural and natural assets. Interest in growing their tourism enterprise sustainably, anticipation of potential negative effects of economic shock vulnerability, and cultural and environmental degradation are apparent in the village. Although difficulties exist, some villagers have generated ideas for moving forward with CBT sustainably. 161 CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Community-based Tourism is an alternative tourism development concept that emphasizes the role of community ownership and participation in tourism development (Asker et al., 2010; Vajirakachorn, 2011, Mtapuri & Giampiccoli, 2013; Dolezal, 2015). Although the term CBT increasingly has been used since the 1990s, and CBT destinations have grown in Indonesia, the literature about CBT in the context of Indonesia still is limited (Martokusumo, 2015; Damanik et al., 2018). This study provides empirical evidence of CBT practice for one case study location – Penglipuran Village, Bali, one of the country’s most popular tourism villages that serves as a model for other CBT initiatives in Indonesia (Handayani, 2015). The purpose of this study is to better understand both the development of a tourism village using the CBT process and the effects of tourism on the community. Research questions are as follows: 1) How has Penglipuran Village developed as a tourism village using the CBT process? 2) How has CBT development in Penglipuran affected the community? I employed a qualitative approach using guided semi-structured interviews for data collection. This study is delimited to respondents aged 18 and above, who currently are involved in and/or affected by Penglipuran Village CBT activities, and willing to be interviewed. In total, 21 community members were interviewed; they have represented diversity across age, gender, education level, community organization membership, length of residence, and house location (see chapter 4 for more details). Additionally, six external interviewees representing six external organizations that have been involved in PV’s CBT in some ways were interviewed. One represents NGO Bali COBTA and five represent government agencies in Bangli. 162 This chapter discusses the key findings and links them with the literature. Findings for each theme are discussed: 1) Traditional community participation in Penglipuran Village (e.g., traditional governance and decision-making process, and religious and cultural protection activities, 2) Community participation in tourism benefits, 3) Effects of tourism and CBT responses. After that, I present a summary of key findings that integrates key information in each. These discussions are followed by scholarly and practical implications related to CBT development in Indonesia. Finally, limitations of this study and recommendations for future research are discussed. Traditional Community Participation in Penglipuran Village This section discusses key findings about traditional community participation in the decision-making process and socio-cultural activities, and links them with existing literature. Traditional Governance and Decision-making Processes Using traditional governance and decision-making processes inherited by their ancestors, the people of Penglipuran have shown ownership and control over their CBT initiative, which reflects the CBT principle of ‘local ownership and control’ (Armstrong, 2012; Mtapuri & Giampiccoli, 2013). The process encompasses three steps: idea sharing, decision-making meeting, and decision implementation. Each resident can participate in sharing their ideas and concerns through 77 male household representatives who then make decisions during a regularly scheduled decision-making meeting. As in many other Indonesian villages, decisions rarely rest with a single person because decisions are reached through collective agreement among members (musyawarah mufakat) (Byczek, 2011; Bhaskara, 2015; Manaf et al., 2018) or by voting. The community also has established mechanisms for disseminating information about decisions to the whole community. Asker et al., (2010) noted that communities having a pre- 163 established decision-making system have a sound foundation for CBT implementation. Existing information dissemination systems also can ensure tourism-related information distribution (Tasci, et al., 2013), which is important for creating rapport between decision-makers and the whole community (Sebele, 2010). Nevertheless, this study identifies four issues, as reported by some interviewees, in Penglipuran’s governance and decision-making processes. First, one issue in the ‘idea sharing’ stage is identified. This study’s finding resonates with Sproule (1994) and Cornwall (2008), who noted that community participation in decision- making typically uses some kind of representative system, rendering direct involvement by each member of the community impossible. In Penglipuran, the right to provide input directly into community decisions is held by a household male who is chosen based on family musyawarah mufakat. Although space exists for roban (non-representatives) to express their opinions during the ‘idea sharing’ stage, roban often do not use such opportunities. Reflecting on some interviewees’ comments, roban seem to trust all representatives to make decisions on behalf of the whole village. This is in line with Bhaskara (2015), who discovered that most community members in his Balinese village case study typically accept whatever decisions are approved during the representatives’ meeting, making decision-making participation by other community members rather passive (Pretty, 1995). Further, Bhaskara (2015) noted that Indonesians have characteristics that tend to respect and obey superiors, teachers, and elders. Second, an issue associated with the ‘decision-making meeting’ stage has been identified, namely the absence of women representatives in the adat decision-making meetings. Although no interviewees regarded this as an issue, this is contradictory to the CBT principle of the importance of women’s participation (Asker et al., 2010) and the State Institution. Bali is known for its paternalistic social system in which women do not have the right to make significant 164 decisions in their families and communities, and are not involved in community meetings (Pickel-Chevalier et al., 2019). Bhaskara (2015) noted that Balinese adhere to traditional laws (awig-awig), which are controlled by males and favor patriarchy. Although women’s participation may be contradictory to the law of adat, in practice, women are an important stakeholder group in providing tourism products and services. Their participation can maximize benefits for women, as tourism affects not only men, but also women. Nevertheless, according to Bhaskara (2015), establishing Family Welfare Empowerment organizations, a community development movement focusing on women’s empowerment that was initiated during former president Suharto’s era, is a sign of hope for future increased women’s active participation in village political and other decision-making affairs. The third issue is related to the willingness of representatives to use their voices, which can be an issue during the ‘decision-making meeting’ stage. Although representative attendance in Penglipuran decision-making meetings is excellent due to application of social (e.g., embarrassment or ostracization) and tangible (e.g., fines) sanctions for non-participation, Bhaskara (2015), Michael (2009), and Cornwall (2008) noted that attendance itself is not equal to having a voice. This study has revealed that many representatives choose not to speak up, but rather they follow the majority (those who choose to speak up). Low literacy, lack of ability/ confidence to ‘speak up,’ and fear of social costs are perceived to be reasons for such voicelessness. Those who disagree are likely to remain quiet during meetings and will discuss their thoughts with others having similar opinions only outside of those meetings. According to Bhaskara (2015), because the collectivist Balinese culture focuses on group rights and needs, public disagreement and criticism often are avoided to maintain group harmony. As Indonesians 165 tend to obey superiors, teachers, and elders, decisions made by people in those positions are not to be questioned. Finally, this study found that leadership affects the overall traditional governance and decision-making processes, through all stages – from ‘idea sharing’ through ‘decision implementation.’ This study found that the extent to which other non-representative villagers are invited into the decision-making meeting, the extent to which each representative’s opinion will be heard and fully considered, and the degree to which decisions will be completely implemented as planned are affected by the community leaders. In addition to a leader’s influence on internal processes and decisions, the community leader plays a role in filtering the influence of external stakeholders and defending the entire community’s rights when infringed upon by external parties. Recognizing the critically pivotal role of community leaders, this study’s results are consistent with Vajarikachorn (2012), Armstrong (2012), and Kontogeorgopoulos et al. (2014), who contended that the success of CBT development is affected by the quality of local leadership. The effectiveness of traditional governance and decision-making processes, therefore, depends on the leader’s leadership style. Even though these four issues in traditional governance and the decision-making process seemed to be a sign of ineffective democracy, thus raising questions about the extent to which decisions have reflected the interests of all individual villagers, the entire community still actively participates in ritual ceremonies and cultural protection efforts. All interviewees, regardless of their demographic background and participation in decision-making, has received satisfying socio-economic benefits from their participation in tourism and have expressed positive views toward tourism development, which are explained in the next sections. 166 Religious and Socio-cultural Activities This study has revealed the rich history of Penglipuran’s bottom-up initiatives. The community itself has decided and implemented socio-cultural activities independently. These include participation in religious events, community organization meetings, environmental sustainability efforts, environmental cleaning, environmental beautification, spatial layout preservation, traditional building conservation, and infrastructure development and maintenance. As commonly found in other Bali villages, each household is required to equally contribute funds, energy, and/or time to implement these activities together (Bhaskara, 2015), though in Penglipuran, wealthy villagers occasionally contribute more than the poor (Dorn, 2012). This self-organized activity commonly is known as gotong royong (mutual aid), a cultural practice that has been inherited by their ancestors. While religious participation often is self-motivated based on religious beliefs (Bhaskara, 2015), participation in cultural protection activities is based on individuals’ awareness of their roles in the community, coupled with tangible (e.g., fines) and social sanctions, which discourage non-participation. The small population size and village geographic size reinforce community cohesiveness (Martokusumo, 2015), as they enable community members to monitor each other’s participation. In Penglipuran, community cooperation is the manifestation of Tri Hita Karana (THK), a local sustainability philosophy that requires them to maintain harmonious relationships: Humans with Humans, Humans with Environment, and Humans with the Universe/Spirit (Ernawati, 2015). Each community activity has covered each element of THK; in addition to having religious and/or environmental functions, each provides an opportunity for social interaction among villagers. For example, although the focus of a project is conserving bamboo forests, the community has decided and implemented the activity together, and they combine religious 167 rituals and selective cutting methods to conserve the bamboo. Such collective activities strengthen the connection among villagers, which is an important foundation established prior to exposing the community to the various effects of tourism (Armstrong, 2012; Martokusumo, 2015). Thus, this study’s results coincide with those of Kontogeorgopoulos et al. (2014) and Armstrong (2012), who noted that communities having an existing history of active participation in key decisions are well-positioned to develop CBT. From the tourism perspective, Penglipuran’s socio-cultural life has resulted in tangible evidence of positive outcomes – a ‘clean’ and ‘beautiful’ environment, a well-built hero statue, intact traditional buildings, safe pedestrian street and neighborhoods, well-maintained village infrastructure, colorful ceremonial activities, and friendly and welcoming demeanor of the community. Regular community organization meetings and ritual activities also have the function of intangible cultural resource preservation, such as of art, music, and cuisine. In turn, these socio-cultural outcomes offer additional and attractive intangible products for tourists to ‘consume’ (Ernawati, 2015; Giampiccoli et al., 2017). Dorn (2012) noted that local cultural protection efforts also make Penglipuran Village unique, distinguishing it from typical villages in Indonesia where clothes hang in outside house yards and livestock wander randomly everywhere. Having rich cultural resources, Penglipuran has many assets for tourism development (Pujaastawa & Putro, 2017; Armstrong, 2012; Laksmi et al., 2018). This phenomenon reflects the argument that tourists will not travel into distant regions to visit a small, non-descript village simply to visit and stay in that community. Attractions (e.g., natural and man-made cultural resources) existing within those communities that can satisfy tourists’ desires and expectations play a significant role in travel decisions (Ernawati, 2015; Dewi et al., 2018). This shows that community participation in religious and cultural protection, which was based on 168 the traditional decision-making process to engage in such activities, created an interesting, unique village having physical and social characteristics attractive to visitors, thereby contributing to tourism village development. Penglipuran Village also is lucky to be located in a geographic area attractive to visitors. Its high elevation offers a rather temperate climate and fresh air. Moreover, the village is relatively close and well-connected to urban areas (e.g., Denpasar and Bangli City), where typically the tourism market exists (Byczek, 2011). This helps connect visitors to the village, indicating good accessibility of Penglipuran as a tourist destination, which is an important factor for destination development (Dewi et al., 2018). Overall, unique socio-cultural, environmental, and physical features in the village, coupled with its Balinese rural atmosphere and strategic location, combine to offer an experience that is the very reason that makes this village interesting and accessible to outsiders. This implies that community ownership and decision-making alone do not guarantee CBT development success. Additionally, easy access for tourists, sufficient infrastructure, and cultural attractions all are part of the system that contribute to many successful competitive industrial activities, particularly tourism (Asker et al., 2010; Armstrong, 2012; Tasci et al., 2013; Ernawati, 2015). Community Participation in Tourism Benefits The community agreed to be designated as a tourist destination in 1993. However, from 1993 through 2010, only a small number of tourists visited the village, and community participation in tourism benefits was limited. During that period, Penglipuran Village was simply a village that tourists visited, and the village had limited community participation in tourism development, management, and operations. Often this condition, in which people visit a small village even if the village does not actively engage in the process, is confused with CBT 169 (Boonratana, 2010; Dolezal, 2015). At that time, the community had limited awareness of benefits that tourists could bring to their lives, which undermined their willingness to engage in tourism-related businesses. This condition is common in the beginning of CBT development (Tosun, 2000; Martokusumo, 2015). The majority of villagers were poor, having most of their income dedicated to socio-cultural and religious activities. According to Tosun (2000), when people struggle in fulfill their basic needs, participating in tourism development, which demands time and energy, may be a luxury that villagers cannot afford. As the time and energy of poor people typically were allocated to survival, it is not surprising that their participation in tourism was lacking in the beginning. In 2010, the discourse about CBT and desa wisata (tourism village) emerged, with the influence of Bangli’s government, the Indonesian Bank, and NGO Bali COBTA. With the assistance of Bali COBTA, the Tourism Management Organization (TMO) was established in 2012 to organize and formalize Penglipuran’s tourism management. The community, via TMO, registered itself in various local, national, and international tourism village competitions. Penglipuran received numerous awards, and travel agencies, the government, and the media broadcasted the operation of Penglipuran Village as a CBT destination. Bolstered also by the presence of the Internet, which enables tourists to voluntarily post their pictures on social media, the village increasingly was recognized by the public, resulting in a significant influx of visitors to the village. This phenomenon corroborates Li et al.'s (2008) contention that special designations, such as ‘World Heritage Site,’ can be a ‘magnet for visitors’ because such branding catalyzes increased publicity that results in tourism growth. In Penglipuran, having a brand image based on being a ‘winner of numerous awards,’ especially as the ‘world’s cleanest village,’ seemed to produce similar effects. Additionally, Penglipuran Village may be lucky in 170 that it inherited many tangible cultural elements (e.g., traditional buildings, temples), which Blapp (2013) found to be easier to promote than intangible cultural components alone (e.g., cuisine, social interactions). A significant influx of tourists finally has convinced many villagers to participate actively in operating small tourism businesses. This finding echoes comments by Dolezal (2015) and Martokusumo (2015), who concluded that financial benefits are a major incentive for tourism participation. As tourism triggers job creation (Bhaskara, 2015; Manaf et al., 2018), many villagers participate in producing and selling goods and services to visitors (Tosun, 2000). Their professions shift gradually from full-time farmers to either part- or full-time tourism-related entrepreneurs. Consistent with results presented by Bhaskara (2015), Penglipuran’s tourism industry is deemed attractive for villagers because of challenges associated with farming as the primary occupation: laborious nature of farming, limited availability of agricultural land, and low revenue generation from farming. In Penglipuran, two categories of tourism businesses exist: family-owned (e.g., local handicrafts, souvenir shops, small restaurants, food stalls, and homestays) and community-owned (e.g., clothing rental service, cultural and educational tourism packages, guest house, meeting services, festivals). While the former category includes businesses owned and managed by individual families, the latter category businesses are managed by the TMO. According to Ernawati (2015), provision of products that allow tourists to experience local culture can maintain destination competitiveness. In a CBT destination, the community itself is an attraction (Boonratana, 2010). Because all tangible and intangible elements of the village are integrated within the tourism landscape, daily activities having no intent to entertain visitors become support functions that provide the comprehensive rural ambiance of the community. Regardless of an individual’s direct 171 engagement (or not) in tourism businesses for profit, the whole community must participate in being friendly and respectful to tourists, and must interact with and answer tourists’ questions (Ernawati, 2015; Giampiccoli et al., 2017). From the market perspective, tourists visiting a village want an authentic experience; villagers must be willing to share their culture and let tourists be a part of their private spheres (Blapp, 2013). Hence, allowing them to engage in their normal daily lives may be perceived as authentic because tourists can integrate into locals’ lives. Such opportunities can provide educational experiences for tourists (Buhalis, 2000), promote cultural exchange (Vajirakachorn, 2011), encourage visitors to appreciate local heritage (Boonratana, 2010), and offer pleasant experiences and unforgettable memories, thereby increasing the amount that visitors are willing to pay (Hardini et al., 2015). In contrast, when a community converts its structure and focuses completely and specifically on actions to service tourism, traditional ways of life may be overshadowed or overtaken by the tourism industry, thereby creating a tourism experience that appears artificial and leaves tourists unsatisfied (Blapp, 2013), and results in a community’s over-reliance on an industry that is vulnerable to external influences that could threaten the entire industry. In addition to providing job opportunities, as reported by this study’s interviewees, tourism provides other benefits. As reported also in other studies, benefits are related to expanding community members’ social networks (Michael, 2005; Tasci et al., 2013), improving their working environment, and improving their skills and knowledge (Tolkach, 2013; Giampiccoli et al., 2017). The most often reported benefit is economic improvement, both for families and the community overall. In Penglipuran, income benefits for families and the community are interrelated. Because community-level income is used to fund collective religious and cultural activities, the entire community no longer needs to contribute a significant amount 172 of personal money to implement those activities. As tourism is an economic sector having a high multiplier effect (Michael 2009; Dolezal 2015; Pickel-Chevalier et al. 2019), economic improvement in Penglipuran is reported to flow to underprivileged segments of the community, such as women, elders, and those having low income and low education levels. In fact, most family-based tourism businesses are female-managed. Tangibly, the economic benefits are manifested in improved housing and village facility conditions, the ability to afford the Internet, gadgets, and vacations, and get higher education levels of young generations. Despite the existing tourism benefits, this study has discovered some inhibiting factors for individual families to accrue direct tourism benefits in Penglipuran, thus leading to benefits distribution issues. In accordance with results of numerous other studies, these factors include presence or lack of awareness of tourism benefits (Dolezal, 2015; Martokusumo, 2015), availability of financial capital (Michael, 2009; Dolezal, 2015; Giampiccoli et al., 2015), possession of tourism-related skills (e.g., language, business, hospitality) (Blapp, 2013; Dolezal, 2015; Armstrong, 2012; Sebele, 2010) as well as house location (people located close to the main street have more access to tourism benefits than those located elsewhere) (Michael, 2009), and life priorities other than tourism (e.g., other ways of earning income, poor health condition) (Dolezal, 2015). Existence of personal barriers is in line with some scholars’ caution to not treat a ‘community’ as a homogenous unit (Cornwall, 2008; Iorio & Wall, 2012; Tasci et al., 2013; Dolezal, 2015) because, in reality, a community comprises people of various demographic backgrounds and social status. In the context of some community-owned businesses, barriers are created by local elites, as confirmed by Dolezal (2015). Due to the need for ensuring tourist satisfaction, skillful and capable community members are prioritized to work on community-owned businesses, shrinking 173 community participation to only those residents who have met certain standards (Dolezal, 2015). This phenomenon reflects the belief that tourism offers more possibilities to highly skilled people rather than to those who still need to learn or practice their skills (Tosun, 2000; Dolezal, 2015). A phenomenon of favoring individual/household benefits over community-level benefits, combined with a variety of aforementioned personal factors that affect individual ability to accrue tourism benefits, can lead to inequitable benefits distribution among villagers. As in Dolezal’s (2015) and Vajarikachorn’s (2012) study communities, this phenomenon has resulted in some social jealousy and frictions between those who do and do not profit in Penglipuran. Nevertheless, the people of Penglipuran have developed ingenious solutions to address competition and social jealousy problems within the community. Naturally, religious beliefs limit the growth of this problem because the effects of competition are not compatible with the THK philosophy (Dorn, 2012). Second, residents are heavily dependent on each other to maintain and perform multiple religious-cultural practices (e.g., wedding and death ceremonies); thus, they are obliged to maintain group harmony. Third, a systematic benefit-sharing mechanism for community-owned businesses was established, which ensures everybody receives some benefits. Although no systematic benefits-sharing scheme was established for some privately-owned businesses, neighbors’ social support through resources-sharing and cooperation (e.g., renting a neighbor’s yard, being an employee into a neighbor’s business) enables non- tourism-business members to accrue direct tourism benefits. In fact, business participants often voluntarily share their monetary income directly with non-business participants or contribute to collective funds. In contrast to the argument that private business owners may have little or no interest in ameliorating poverty, private businesses in Penglipuran actively attempt to broaden 174 wealth distribution, which is consistent with the CBT principle of equitable benefits distribution (Boonratana, 2010; Armstrong, 2012; Martokusumo, 2015; Giampiccoli et al., 2017). While community-owned businesses are vulnerable to appropriation by local elites (Dolezal; 2015), this study partially refutes this finding. As stakeholders with more power in Penglipuran’s decision-making, community leaders (e.g., head of customary village, TMO members, family representatives) have recognized the importance of equitable tourism benefits distribution and accountability. Asker et al., (2010) stressed that community leaders’ understanding of equitable benefits distribution is crucial as they have enormous influence on how tourism will operate in the field. In Penglipuran, community leaders have realized that an inclusive management system should be developed to avoid the perception of unfair leader treatment of individual community members, to reduce community members’ hostility toward tourists, and to improve the community’s sense of ownership of tourism (also found in the literature: Timothy, 1999; Asker et al., 2010; Sebele, 2010; Tasci et al., 2013). This recognition has been manifested in several policies, such as developing a rotation system that ensures that shop and homestay owners have an equal probability of getting ‘customers,’ developing a rotation system for community members to receive tourism-related training, avoiding conflict of interest in homestay distribution, prioritizing marginal groups to work as tourism staff, and spending collective revenue for the greater good rather than to enhance the wellbeing of individual families. Finally, as also reported by Blapp (2013), this study has discovered the role of external stakeholders in monitoring benefits distribution in the community and providing incentives for equitable distribution of benefits. Using these strategies, equitable benefits distribution among business owners and between business and non-business owners are being managed. 175 Despite observing efforts to broaden benefits distribution, this study also found policies that potentially marginalize some villagers and inhibit their receipt of significant tourism benefits. To meet visitor demands and maintain their satisfaction, the TMO set some standards that eventually have favored family- over community-level benefits. This phenomenon illustrates the complex dilemma for decisions to be made in favor of equitable benefits distribution or in favor of visitor satisfaction. On the one hand, extending participation-in-tourism opportunities for businesses can ensure improved community empowerment (Dolezal, 2015). On the other hand, also noted by Asker et al., (2010), a CBT destination should maintain a certain level of visitor satisfaction to keep the tourism business viable; this may potentially exclude some unskilled villagers from participating in tourism businesses. In Penglipuran, some efforts to include unskilled villagers directly in tourism are found (e.g., hired as receptionists and ticketing workers). It is also important to note that some poor villagers are involved indirectly (e.g., involved as building workers). This study has confirmed plans to further broaden benefits distribution. Despite the issue of potential marginalization, however, it is a sign of inclusion that family businesses are allowed to operate in the village. As decisions about how to use business income in the context of family businesses are not dictated by community leaders, family-based businesses can help to prevent inequitable benefits distribution created by elites. Thus, Penglipuran’s tourism benefits distribution practice still is supported by literature that demands benefits be enjoyed at both community and individual/household levels (Armstrong, 2012). Finally, another important factor of CBT-based benefits distribution is the influence of external support (Rocharungsat, 2005; Giampiccoli and Mtapuri, 2012; Kontogeorgopoulos et al., 2014). First, the ideas for ‘tourist destination’ and ‘CBT’ designations came from Bangli’s government and Bali COBTA, respectively. This is consistent with Iorio & Wall’s (2012) 176 statement that outsiders often are the first to see opportunity for a tourism village. Second, the government issued regulations that facilitated establishment of the tourism village (e.g., legalizing tourism village designation, permitting the ability to collect entrance fees, and providing for traffic management), which are important precursors for CBT operation (Giampiccoli et al., 2017). Third, marketing and public relations (e.g., media broadcasts, destination exhibitions, university projects, social media posts) are critical for tourism to be economically sustainable (Rocharungsat, 2005; Dolezal, 2015; Martokusumo, 2015). Most importantly, promotion is carried out for the whole community rather than for individual local businesses; according to Vajarikachorn (2012), promotion of an entire community is one key success factor for CBT. Fourth, resources were given in the form of funding (Tosun, 2000; Tasci, Semrad, & Yilmaz, 2013), infrastructure (e.g., asphalt road, waste management system, clean water, electricity, Internet, underground electrical wire) (Mtapuri & Giampiccoli, 2013; Sutawa, 2012; Sproule, 1994), tourism facilities development (e.g., guesthouse, garden, parking lot, public restroom, and tourism office building), and other specific logistics materials needed for tourism products and services. Finally, training, research, and advice – ranging from broad theories to specific skills (e.g., hospitality, cooking) – were given to equip villagers with the necessary knowledge and skills to participate in decision-making, operations, and tourism benefits (Dolezal, 2015; Tomomi, 2015). As tourism is a highly competitive industry, training is important to ensure sustained viability of a CBT initiative (Asker et al., 2010). Although the importance of external involvement in CBT development is well recorded, the literature has been unclear in explaining how external support should flow to the community. Although Tosun (2000) has noted that external funding can result in loss of local control, the case of Penglipuran shows that most external contributions have been based on locally identified 177 needs and consent. Penglipuran has managed the threat of losing control by screening offers for external funding and other support, whereby they will not accept any support that binds them in any way. They have assured that external resources support what they have chosen to do; therefore, they have been able to avoid over-dependence on external parties. Moreover, when an externally developed regulation does not meet local needs, the community has protested and threatened to withdraw itself as a tourist destination. As sixty percent of entrance ticket revenue had been appropriated by Bangli’s government, the community has perceived the government’s contributions to be unequal to their financial “take.” As a result of their discontent, the community has worked to claim a higher revenue share. In response to the community’s protest, the revenue regulation was in the modification process in 2020, with the community proposing that it will claim sixty percent of the revenue. These examples suggest that there is an element of active community participation in the conversation about external support. A strong community is important in protecting the community’s sovereignty from external appropriation. Overall, this section has shown that the community has enjoyed social and economic benefits of tourism. There are numerous ways in which villagers can participate, support, and receive benefits within the community-based tourism context; some benefits are direct in nature, and some are indirect. Many factors affect each individual’s pattern of accruing these benefits. Active efforts to distribute benefits have been carried out by the community with the aim of achieving equitable benefits distribution. However, as with other tourism activities, in addition to bringing benefits, tourism also has brought changes to local cultural life. The next section explains how tourism has affected the socio-cultural life of the community, and how the community participates in responding to current or potential effects caused by tourism activities. 178 Effects of Tourism and CBT Responses This section has two categories: CBT responses to ongoing tourism effects, and CBT responses in anticipation of future tourism effects. CBT Responses to Ongoing Tourism Effects Tourism has resulted in some negative effects for Penglipuran, which include environmental degradation (e.g., littering, a growing amount of waste, traffic congestion and noise, infrastructure and facility destruction) and social problems (e.g., social jealousy and competitions), which are common in mass tourism sites also (Tasci et al., 2013; Tomomi, 2015; Hillman, 2016; Andriyani et al., 2017). Nevertheless, as the community is accustomed to solving its environmental, social, and infrastructure problems themselves, it can independently continue to anticipate and address potential harmful effects of tourism. In Penglipuran, for example, the community women’s group cooperates with the waste bank to recycle plastic trash, and women continue to clean their pekarangan (yards) every morning and evening. Adat policies that favor broad tourism benefits distribution have been perceived to help with social jealousy and competition issues. These findings are in accord with Timothy (1999), who noted that a strong community will mitigate tourism’s negative effects, possibly because their decisions are made based on local knowledge and wisdom (Sutawa, 2012). Some changes in local cultural practices after tourism was introduced are noticeable. While previously the motivation for doing socio-cultural activities was solely cultural and religious, now tourism provides an additional motivation that reinforces the need for such cultural practices. First, tourism has motivated the community to continue and enhance protection of its local cultural and natural assets, as also reported in previous studies (Sebele; 2010; Blapp, 2015; Martokusumo 2015; Ernawati 2015; Sardiana & Purnawan, 2015; Hillman, 179 2016). Similar to findings of Ernawati (2015), Dolezal (2015), and Picard (2008), the community understands that the primary reason visitors come to Penglipuran is because of its unique cultural features. The community has enjoyed monetary gains from tourism (Tomomi, 2007), which inspires them to continue protecting these assets. As such, the community has been allocating part of its tourism revenue to some new cultural initiatives (e.g., expansion of coverage for its environmental cleaning program, conservation of its traditional buildings, and support for its art, music, and cuisine festivals). These allocations represent distribution of non-monetary enhancements that benefit the entire community (Armstrong, 2019). At the same time, these activities are carried out to ensure that tourism operates into the future. Rather than performing important and needed community functions with the traditional gotong royong (mutual aid) cultural practice, however, tourism-based economic improvement enables the community to hire poor villagers to do much of the work, thereby providing them employment opportunities. Sweepers, building laborers, and gardeners are hired to clean the village, renovate buildings, and take care of gardens and manage organic waste. Consequently, the frequency of community participation in some communal activities has declined, which reduces social interaction and togetherness. Indeed, this phenomenon has been observed in general Balinese society (Picard, 2008; Tomomi, 2015; Bhaskara, 2015). When individual and household financial status increases, community participation in certain activities decreases because people are busier and more money-oriented (Bhaskara, 2015). However, none of the Penglipuran interviewees viewed this phenomenon negatively. Asker et al., (2010) also suggested that CBT revenue that is reinvested by hiring community members to fulfill tourism staff positions is a positive CBT practice. Most importantly, some community members already 180 pointed out some plans and ideas for additional efforts dedicated to protecting the local culture and developing tourism that broadens benefits distribution. CBT Responses in Anticipation of Future Tourism Effects Many interviewees were able to point out some potential negative effects of tourism on the socio-cultural life of the community. Many of them, mostly TMO members, have come up with plans and ideas that potentially can address these issues. Currently, their greatest concern is the potential erosion of local values due to reduced gotong royong activities, combined with young people being addicted to technological gadgets and the Internet. CBT scholars have noted that young people’s role in implementing the overall customary village’s activities is a key factor for successful CBT (Manaf et al., 2018). To ensure that local culture is protected, the villagers have placed youth into their own organization, through which they are involved in most communal activities in the village. Young people are familiarized with local art, cuisine, dance, and music through an annual festival and monthly meetings. Religious ceremonies remain intact as they are in other Balinese villages (Bhaskara, 2015), which can slow the process of local cultural degradation. The mandatory contribution of a small amount of money to each organization and to the customary village still is preserved so that future generations do not forget the gotong royong (mutual aid) cultural practice. A portion of tourism revenue that is allocated back to cultural protection efforts is in line with the argument that CBT can be a means of revitalizing both tangible and intangible culture, thus strengthening young people’s cultural identity (Asker et al., 2010). It also is important to note that the community adheres to the Desa Kala Patra philosophy, which allows youth to adapt according to time and space. From the tourism perspective, Blapp (2005) argued that the fusion of traditional and modern is more authentic than locking culture into a certain 181 timeframe for the sake of tourism. Ernawati (2015) also noted that allowing changes can prevent the community from becoming a ‘living museum’ rather than a ‘living community.’ Residents expressed the desire for local cultural protection as a way to appreciate their own heritage and to educate future generations about local culture, but many interviewees also expressed the desire to protect their culture to sustain tourism. This is so that that the community and young generations can keep reaping tourism benefits into the future. The majority of interviewees, regardless of their demographic background, were keen on receiving more visitors. Some development plans and ideas for future CBT development were expressed, with the purpose of preventing tourists from being bored while also feeling comfortable to visit and stay in the village. Some of their ideas included creating new attractions and activities in the village, developing original local products, conserving traditional buildings that are currently overshadowed by family-based souvenir shops and restaurants, developing a community-owned souvenir shop and restaurant, and recruiting and hiring full-time TMO members. Furthermore, some interviewees expressed strategies to solve current problems that degrade visitors’ comfort (e.g., wild dogs that can make visitors afraid). Indeed, CBT can operate only when a sufficient number of tourists are visiting regularly (Tomomi, 2007). However, the desire of villagers to bring more tourists for getting maximum benefits may lead to overtourism in the future, which would be inconsistent with CBT’s ‘small- scale’ principle (Martokusumo, 2015; Ernawati, 2015). Buhalis (2000) has noted that pushing for a high volume of tourists to reach maximum benefits (when considering benefits beyond only economic growth) is an inaccurate assumption of a criterion for ‘success.’ Nevertheless, this study has revealed that some villagers have thought about such a possibility and developed some strategies to anticipate negative effects of overtourism, such as visitor management strategies and 182 a waste minimization policy. One TMO member stated a need for careful management of tourism to maintain destination competitiveness, so as not to push the destination into visitor and quality decline, as represented in Butler’s (1980) tourism life-cycle model. A desire for intentionally moving toward ‘quality’ tourism has been pointed out by some villagers. ‘Quality’ tourism is perceived as having characteristics that include a small number of tourists having an increased length of stay and high expenditures, and authentic local product development. Some ideas are mere thoughts that have not yet been conveyed to anyone; some ideas are being discussed by Adat (77 family representatives); some ideas are being implemented currently. Of those ideas being discussed and implemented, some interviewees reported facing some roadblocks, such as government’s slow response and lack of contributions, lack of funding, decision-makers’ general lack of tourism knowledge, time constraints, unsupportive local leadership style, and lack of tourism-related training. They are fully aware of these issues and have been trying to address them by themselves. One future plan includes capacity building across multiple elements of tourism operations, planning and management, which is a form of community empowerment that is highly endorsed by CBT scholars and advocates (Timothy, 1999; Asker et al., 2010; Dolezal, 2015). As tourism is a highly competitive industry, training is necessary for improving local skills and confidence in delivering tourism products and services, as well as for protecting local culture. Collectively, this helps ensure the sustained viability of a community’s CBT. All in all, the local enthusiasm for receiving more tourists in the future is a sign that the benefits of tourism have outweighed the costs. Despite some existing issues and concerns with the ongoing and future development of tourism and cultural life of the community, this study has revealed many local development and cultural protection ideas and plans. This indicates that the 183 community has been, as it has historically, independently solving current and anticipating future negative effects of tourism. However, one major barrier for the whole community in implementing future plans that is beyond its local control has been the government’s slow response and lack of contributions. This implies the need for further investigation of this issue. Recommendations for future research are explained in the last section of this chapter. Summary of Key Findings This study has found that Penglipuran tourism village has applied core concepts of CBT, mostly effectively, that emphasize community ownership and participation in tourism development. Confirming the literature (Armstrong, 2012; Iorio & Wall, 2012), external stakeholders also have contributed to Penglipuran’s CBT development. However, it is important to note that the term ‘external support’ in this study does not illustrate the passive role of the community. Because this study revealed that the community, through family representatives and/or TMO members, has participated actively in filtering external support and influences, the discussion of 'external stakeholders’ support’ is embedded in the concept of ‘community participation.’ In addition, this study also found some ‘uncontrollable’ factors that have enabled the success of Penglipuran Village as a CBT destination, such as its strategic location (close to urban areas) and accessibility (e.g., transportation and infrastructure system) (Ernawati, 2015). The concept of community participation remains vague in the literature (Sproule, 1994); thus, this study has explored the concept from multiple perspectives. In summary, for Penglipuran, four key themes of community participation have been identified. First, community participation is found in the traditional governance and decision-making process. Second, community participation is found in religious activities and cultural protection activities. The first and second expressions of community participation are both traditional ways of participation 184 that have been inherited across generations, which serve as important enabling conditions for tourism development in the village. Third, when tourism was introduced in the community, the decisions were based on local consent, and the community participated in tourism benefits in various ways. Fourth, when tourism has affected the community negatively, the community has responded independently by solving current and anticipating future negative effects resulting from tourism. These four elements are not independent of each other, but rather they are related to and interact with each other. External involvement is reflected in each broad category of participation; it is in the form of regulation, marketing and public relations, training, research, advice, and resource support. This study revealed that local, bottom-up, socio-cultural initiatives – all community- based processes (e.g., collective decision-making and mutual aid-based implementation) – and outcomes, as well as good access, were reasons that tourism development using the CBT process could be applied to Penglipuran Village. When tourism was introduced in the community, many interviewees participated in providing and managing their own tourism products and services in community-owned and/or family-owned businesses; others participated in tourism support functions (e.g., being friendly and answering tourist questions). In delivering some community- owned products, the community has done so with gotong royong (mutual aid), adopting the common traditional socio-cultural life practice. Additionally, benefits of participating in CBT are in the form of social networks and interpersonal interactions, convenient working environment, skills and knowledge improvement, and economic improvement at both the family and community levels. However, this study also has revealed that the degree of benefits accrued by each individual depends on several factors. Some factors were personal, and some were external to the 185 individual villagers. In particular, this study confirmed that the 77 male representatives (Adat)’ and/or TMO’s decisions affect the extent to which each villager receives tourism benefits. Nevertheless, even individuals having no or limited active participation in idea sharing and the decision-making process still receive tourism-related benefits by actively producing and selling tourism products and services for profit. Further, individuals having no or limited active participation in tourism businesses still receive similar types of benefits. This implies that tourism benefits are not exclusive to those who engage actively in small tourism businesses and/or decision-making. In Penglipuran, villagers can participate in and receive benefits within the community-based tourism context in numerous ways. This may be due to ongoing and intentional benefits distribution efforts that have been carried out, which I found to be connected with their traditional community participation values, explained previously. It is important to note that Penglipuran community has a history of members helping each other (which is a manifestation of their Tri Hita Karana philosophy and gotong royong practice) even before tourism was developed. This includes the act of community leaders providing extra financial and material support for poor villagers in implementing the village’s traditional building conservation initiative. Dorn (2012) also noted a common practice in Penglipuran whereby wealthier residents voluntarily contribute higher amounts of money to the community’s collective funds than their poorer residents. This form of solidarity continues to be reflected in Penglipuran’s tourism village operations. For example, some villagers can successfully operate their family businesses because of the support of their neighbors. Some business owners voluntarily share their business profits with non-business participants, demonstrating both wealth distribution efforts and attention to those who cannot afford to participate in tourism businesses. Additionally, community leaders have developed policies that favor broadening wealth 186 distribution. The local religious values and cultural life that make them dependent on each other incentivize the community to ensure that benefits are distributed equitably among villagers, thus maintaining group harmony based on the Tri Hita Karana philosophy. Hence, while local elites and/or business owners in other CBT cases may want to keep tourism benefits for themselves, Penglipuran community members have actively attempted to broaden wealth distribution. Tourism development in the village has resulted in not only benefits, but also negative effects, such as environmental and socio-cultural degradation. Nevertheless, the community has been participating actively in solving the problems resulting from tourism activities. As aforementioned, the community is accustomed to organizing itself in implementing religious, environmental, and cultural protection activities, with limited interventions from external stakeholders. This approach continues to be reflected in the way they tackle negative effects of tourism development. They address such problems by contributing ideas, making decisions, and implementing projects, policies, and programs; many of them are grounded in the local wisdom and cultural practices. In fact, tourism has motivated the community to allocate a portion of its tourism revenue to continue to enhance protection of local cultural and natural assets. The fact that all interviewees expressed interest in growing their tourism enterprise in the future is a sign that the perceived benefits of CBT in the village have outweighed the perceived costs. Although some has begun to concern with their long-standing community participation based on the gotong royong (mutual aid), as many villagers prefer to hire poor villagers to do work previously done jointly by all of them using gotong royong, villagers do not consider it as negative as it is part of wealth redistribution. All in all, the Penglipuran CBT has shown some signs of CBT components summarized by (Martokusumo, 2015), such as local control, local ownership, low economic leakage, small- 187 scale development, equitable participation in decision-making and benefit sharing, bottom-up approaches, use of local resources and knowledge, preservation of cultural heritage, host-guest interactions, provision of quality visitor experiences, and conservation of the environment and natural resources. However, this does not mean that Penglipuran CBT practice is free from issues. This study has found that community participation in tourism businesses has degraded the aesthetic look of traditional buildings, which is contradictory to the local cultural protection effort. This study also has revealed signs of some policies that intentionally and unintentionally favor some skillful villagers as related to wealth distribution. This study also has confirmed signs of ineffective democratic processes in the community. Most importantly, however, some villagers have been able to identify these issues and plan to move forward with more training and education for the villagers, a very important component of community empowerment tool in CBT development, with the hope for better sustainable tourism management in the village. Scholarly Implications This study contributes to the increasingly growing alternative tourism concept of CBT. This study offers evidence for how a local community participates in developing itself as a tourism village using CBT principles and how tourism has affected them. Penglipuran Village, a tourism village in Bali that is deemed by many to be the most successful CBT initiative, is used as a case study. Adopting Kontogeorgopoulos et al.’s (2014) statements, whether CBT success is defined as meaningful community participation in tourism management, equitable distribution of benefits, or strengthened cultural and environmental awareness, CBT initiatives with national and international recognition, as Penglipuran has received, are worthy of being highlighted. To date, few studies exist that focus on CBT development in Asian countries, particularly Indonesia. This study has offered a broad investigation of community member participation as planners, 188 decision-makers, tourism business operators, benefits recipients, and problem-solvers in the context of CBT development. This study has found several scholarly implications. Findings of this study confirm that development of CBT is not mutually exclusive to characteristics of mass tourism (Tosun, 2000; Byczek, 2011). Byczek (2011) noted that sustainable practices can be found in mass tourism and unsustainable practices can be found in CBT. The number of tourists alone does not define a place as being a mass or community-based destination; nor are the two mutually exclusive. Penglipuran offers some examples. First, the Penglipuran CBT initiative has relied on mass marketing, as their marketing is linked to the existing mass tourism national and international advertising systems (Byczek, 2011; Ernawati, 2015). Second, negative effects that often are recorded in mass tourism sites (e.g., traffic congestion, environmental degradation) also are evident in Penglipuran. Third, economic leakage also occurs in Penglipuran; however, the scale and the recipients of the leakage vary. While the leakage for many mass tourism sites has been to corporate tourism players or outside investors (Tasci et al., 2013, Dolezal, 2015; Martokusumo, 2015; Tomomi, 2019), leakage in CBT can be in the form of revenue expropriation by the state. In Penglipuran, the community’s initial lack of awareness about tourism benefits, as well as about the tourism system, made them easily appropriated by the state. Fourth, tourism has caused the issue of socio-economic disparity in the village. Therefore, it is important to note that CBT is simply an alternative form of tourism development, operation and management rather than a universal solution to any specific set of challenges (Byczek, 2011). Negative effects in CBT should continue to be monitored and addressed, just as in primarily mass tourism sites. And elements of both should be assessed for potential use by other communities. As an example, this study confirms that a CBT site’s connection with parts of the mass tourism system can be one factor in the success of CBT 189 development (Armstrong, 2012). Additionally, in applying CBT elsewhere, various characteristics of the community context should be analyzed carefully to determine factors that might facilitate effective CBT implementation, and factors that might inhibit or derail CBT approaches. Next, this study highlights the importance of qualitative studies to gain rich and in-depth understandings of CBT development. Byczek (2011) noted that most ecological and religious issues in Bali must be understood in connection with cultural practices. I found this to be true during my interviews with villagers and during my time spent in the village. This study also confirms that ecological, social, religious, economic, and cultural issues are highly interrelated. For example, most environmental issues in Penglipuran are inseparable from social and cultural issues; therefore, these aspects should not be considered separately. Additionally, this study also agrees with Cornwall’s (2008) caution to avoid segmenting community members into discrete, mutually exclusive groups and ignoring the socioeconomic relationships between marginal and non-marginal groups. For instance, although some people own no businesses in Penglipuran, tourism benefits still can be accrued directly by them through their neighbors’ or family’s voluntary profit sharing. Had the social and economic connections and relationships among villagers not been investigated in this study, results may have been misleading. Finally, this study provides some lessons for qualitative data collection in practice. As data collection affects the validity of information, these lessons need to be considered. First, this study highlighted the importance of tailoring the interview guide to the role of each interviewee. As humans are multifaceted, researchers must be flexible in accommodating each of the interviewees’ roles. This implies that thoroughly investigating the case study context (including a community’s social structure) prior to and during fieldwork is imperative. Researchers also must 190 be willing to be open-minded and willing to accommodate and adapt to changes during fieldwork. Second, use of written consent can be perceived as threatening in some countries or individual communities, thereby affecting power relations between study participants and researchers. To avoid unequal power relations, and to facilitate openness and development of trust with interviewees, use of verbal consent must be considered. Third, this study emphasizes the importance of making the time to interact informally with community members and gain local trust because it affects the extent to which interviewees are willing to be open and honest with the interviewer. This indicates that researchers should focus not only on rigorous research tasks, but also must present themselves as friendly, genuine, and sincerely interested in getting to know the community (e.g., by mingling informally, engaging in regular community activities, and behaving in a way that respects local values and behaviors). As a result, time management during fieldwork is essential. Practical Implications Indonesian national and local governments have prioritized alternative tourism development in rural areas. However, only a limited number of CBT studies exist in the context of Asian countries generally, and Indonesia specifically. Limited data and studies may lead to poor decision-making, which may lead to misallocation of financial and human resources in the country (Ernawati, 2015). Results of this study can be used as a source of guidelines for sustainable CBT development and operations in the context of Indonesia and other developing countries, as long as the individual community contexts are carefully considered prior to initiating a CBT process. As indicated previously, some characteristics of this particular community provided an existing foundation upon which CBT could be developed. Careful attention to some of these factors (e.g., location, local cultural practices, community governance 191 system) should be given prior to attempts to develop CBT in other communities. No single “development recipe” should be applied directly to other communities. Rather, existing conditions and community expectations, coupled with awareness and education, should be assessed and employed prior to CBT planning within other communities. Armstrong (2012) supports this, saying that CBT models must be carefully adapted to specific conditions and should be based on local beliefs and cultural practices. This implies that how CBT looks in practice may be different from one initiative to another. As each community has different social, environmental, cultural, and economic characteristics (Asker et al., 2010; Armstrong, 2012), the CBT model should not be imported in toto from other contexts (Asker et al., 2010). For example, Vajarikachorn (2012) noted that a village having more outsiders in the community than a community comprising predominantly multi-generational local residents can lead to more difficult village management. Penglipuran, in contrast, has limited outsiders living in the village. Asker et al., (2010) and Tasci et al. (2013) reiterate that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to CBT development, and different conditions will lead to different treatments. Nevertheless, this study still provides insights about practical applications for CBT that may be transferrable in other situations, as deemed relevant, as well as clearly presents characteristics of the pre-tourism community that have facilitated its CBT development. Results of this study may provide insight for other communities, agencies, or tourism practitioners about the real practice of tourism village development using the CBT process. Although tourism is deemed an industry with the potential for large economic multiplier effects, the story of Penglipuran shows that ‘success’ takes time and effort, which also has been emphasized by CBT scholars and advocates (Armstrong, 2012; Sproule, 1994). CBT should not be seen as a short-term project. Rather, CBT initiators should allow considerable time for CBT to 192 be organized (Asker et al., 2010). In Penglipuran, the community has moved through a long process until the time of this study. In fact, at the beginning of tourism designation, the community genuinely was focused only on cultural and environmental conservation; therefore, slow return on investment was not regarded as a problem. In contrast, hope for quick economic benefits has impeded community participation in CBT in numerous other locations, resulting in failed CBT initiatives, such as in Martokusumo (2015)’s study in other CBT initiatives in Bali. Additionally, there should not be an expectation that all villagers will master tourism occupations quickly, or at all (Byczek, 2011). Despite having tourism operating for more than twenty years in the community, this study found that many decision-makers and the Penglipuran community in general still have limited tourism knowledge, making CBT development slow. Supporting this temporal approach, CBT advocates have promoted the idea of ‘planning for a slow start,’ especially for communities with little or no prior tourism experience (Armstrong, 2012). This suggests that expecting quick income generation should not be a priority, particularly in the beginning. While ‘slow start’ may be contradictory to the timeline of external funders, in reality, it is still needed to ensure high levels of local control over tourism development (Armstrong, 2012). Indeed, the return on investment may be faster when a group of elites who understand tourism makes tourism-related decisions; however, as found by Dolezal (2015), there may be a chance that tourism participation is appropriated by only those who already have skills or resources, thus enhancing socio-economic disparity among villagers. Therefore, as CBT’s return on investment may be slow, the community should not see tourism as a main revenue source, particularly in the beginning. Rather, due to its vulnerable nature, tourism should be seen as a diversification strategy (Byczek, 2011; Sardiana & Purnawan, 2015). In fact, diversification 193 is crucial to any community’s well-being in the long-term. Reliance on any single industry or enterprise renders a community vulnerable. Finally, this study confirms that CBT is not isolated from external stakeholders around them; thus, investigating the relationship between the community and external stakeholders is critical (Manaf et al., 2018). As local community members often lack tourism-related skills – individually and collectively, external contributions are pivotal in supporting and facilitating overall CBT development. However, tourism practitioners must recognize that most external stakeholders possess an interest in a community because they also accrue economic benefits from the community. The government, tourism practitioners, and other external parties must understand that the community is responsible for managing everything in CBT destinations, thus prioritizing the community’s needs and desires over external interests should be the core principle of CBT management and operations. Tosun (2000) has supported this, saying: “local governments should defend, protect, and reflect concerns and interests of local people” (p. 628). Study Limitations As chapter four explains, I faced several challenges during the data collection phase because of the pandemic situation, which has, in turn, affected the analysis for this study. As a result, several limitations of this study are acknowledged. This study is lacking representation by some community segments, such as elders who were never part of the 77 representatives, newly appointed family representatives, and poor villagers who work as tourism staff. Although efforts were made to interview villagers having low economic status, most of them refused to be interviewed formally and asked me to interview community leaders instead. As a result, some statements that describe the conditions of the poor in this study derive from elite members of the community without being able to check their 194 accuracy from the perspectives of poor villagers. Sampling also is generally biased toward male and business participants. Therefore, study results may not necessarily represent all segments of the community. Had I lived longer in the village, integrated more with the community, and developed enhanced rapport with community members, this issue might have been more effectively addressed. Although I figured out that informal conversation rather than formal interviews could be an option to obtain perspectives of marginal groups, the pandemic crisis prevented my continued data collection. Further, limited Internet bandwidth and general difficulties in reaching out to busy villagers during the pandemic made it challenging to continue long-distance data collection. Several limitations during the analysis process also occurred. First, due to difficulties in reaching interviewees during the pandemic, I did not conduct multiple interview sessions, which might have increased this study’s depth. Also, I did not implement the planned member-checking process in which interview transcriptions were to be sent to and checked by all interviewees. Second, I failed to collect most secondary documents as planned, making this study’s results being derived entirely from interviews. Third, due to difficulty in finding an additional external coder who could fully commit to the research, I did not maintain rigorous code checking, which may affect the validity of the research. Fourth, most of the final translation was carried out independently by me, with limited involvement of external parties. Although rigorous transcription and translation checking have been conducted, my (as the researcher) personality and worldview still may have influenced the coding and analysis processes. These imply the importance that future research addresses the weaknesses of this study, as explained in the next section. 195 Recommendations for Future Research This study provides foundational research for understanding CBT development in the context of one village in rural Bali. Due to the many limitations of this study, additional studies are needed to understand the complete picture of CBT development in Penglipuran, as well as in other Indonesian contexts. As this study included numerous stakeholders from top management representatives of the village, and offers rich contextual and historical information about the village, future studies can expand this study by adding representation by more poor community members, female interviewees, non-business residents, residents who live in a location that is out of reach of tourism activities, residents who previously opposed tourism development in the village, and youth representatives. Adding more variability in the sample will further enrich the results. Additionally, future research should strive for more in-depth responses from each interviewee about CBT development. In particular, issues about what actually happens in the decision-making arena, and the relationship between tourism operations and equitable benefits distributions, can be explored further. Next, this study incorporates several topics that comprise an understanding of complex processes and results of ‘CBT development.’ ‘Community participation’ is the core concept used in this research. Following what the literature has suggested, this study investigated CBT from several perspectives: community participation in cultural activities, community participation in the decision-making process, community participation in the benefits of tourism, and community participation in solving tourism problems and addressing negative impacts. Although this study offers several perspectives in explaining CBT, it does not fully scrutinize each topic in-depth. For example, this study confirmed that the community has participated in externally initiated training (identified as one of the benefits of tourism); however, it failed to scrutinize the 196 effectiveness or impacts of such trainings. Hence, while fully replicating this study can be one option for future studies, I also recommend exploring each aspect individually and, in more depth, as this can produce more complete and richer information. Overall, this study does not answer the question of ‘to what extent.’ For example, theoretically, CBT should have strengthened the linkage between local arts and agricultural products (an example of multiplier effects). Although some interviewees perceived that local arts and agricultural products are linked within tourism villages, this study has failed to specify the degree to which and the mechanisms by which they are linked. Also, although all interviewees reported income improvement, this study has failed to investigate ‘how much’ as well as the variation of income improvement with respect to each individual’s/household’s demographic characteristics. When interviewees said that new environmental initiatives were established, such as spatial preservation policies or biopori, this study has failed to verify such information. Because relying on limited perceptions and reporting about this kind of information may be misleading, further qualitative observation and a supplemental quantitative approach could be applied to specify the extent to which CBT principles are applied and the extent of benefits. A survey instrument, with inclusive approach (e.g., using Balinese language-based survey, offering options for illiterate villagers) enables wide distribution to villagers to solicit their responses. Correlations and causal relationships among variables could be investigated through quantitative methods, thus providing a more complete picture of CBT effects on the community. As the literature has suggested, this study incorporates the perspectives of external stakeholders. Due to challenges in data collection, caused mainly by the pandemic crisis, I interviewed only one NGO and five government representatives. Nevertheless, this study offers initial hints of the influential role of external stakeholders in CBT development. Of some key 197 findings, this study revealed that some barriers in CBT development are attributed to the government’s lack of contributions, or tardiness or insufficiency of those contributions. Some community members and government personnel identified some issues and problems at the regional level that also affect the community in running their CBT initiatives. This implies that addressing existing problems at the community level should go hand-in-hand with addressing problems at the regional level, as well as looking at their interrelationships. Future studies can investigate this issue more deeply, exploring topics such as urban-rural linkages and disparities, the effectiveness of revenue distribution among Balinese regions, and effectiveness of incentives for politicians for sustainable tourism development in villages. Finally, this research can be replicated in other CBT contexts. It is clear that the Penglipuran community developed its tourism village using a grassroot, bottom-up approach, although the idea for the ‘tourism village’ came from the government. External interventions often are apparent at the beginning of CBT initiatives. It would be interesting to investigate other types of CBT initiatives in which, for example, the ideation of CBT is bottom-up and external interventions are more limited, or CBT initiatives in which external interventions are highly apparent. Additionally, the Penglipuran community is relatively small; some interviewees believe that it is relatively easier to manage a small community than a larger community or a community having a less homogenous population (confirmed by Vajarikachorn, 2005; Martokusumo, 2015). Studies of CBT in various contexts will enable comparison of inputs and outcomes, thus enabling planners, policymakers, and practitioners to develop the most effective approaches to CBT development as related to specific contexts. 198 APPENDICES 199 APPENDIX A: Oral Consent Form The Community-based Tourism Development and Its Effects on the Local Community: The Case of Penglipuran Village, Indonesia Hello! My name is Astri Briliyanti. I am a master’s student at Michigan State University, in the United States. You have been identified as a person who has been involved with tourism development in Penglipuran Village or are affected by tourism activity in the community. Therefore, your opinions are important to consider in understanding the community-based tourism development process in this village. We would like to ask you to participate in this research study. The purpose of this study is to understand the community-based tourism development process in Penglipuran Village and its effects on the local community. This study is a part of my master’s research project, which is required by my university for me to complete my master’s degree. We are not offering any services or promising anything to you as a result of your participation. We are only gathering information for this study. Your participation is voluntary. You may choose not to participate at all, or may refuse to answer certain questions, and may stop the interview at any time without any consequences. The time needed for the interview will depend on the length of your responses. Your answers will be completely confidential, and all results will be presented anonymously. Only our research staff will see your full set of comments. When we write our reports, your answers will be combined with others’ answers, so that we will have an overall understanding of community-based tourism development in this village. No one in your community or other external organizations will know which comments or quotes are yours unless you tell them. There are no foreseeable risks, and no cost or compensation offered to you to participate. However, as a thank you for your time spent with me, you will receive a small gift. Also, we hope that, in the future, other community-based tourism initiatives might benefit from results of this study – about what works and what does not work – because of Penglipuran Village’s experience. Do you have any questions about this study or your participation? Do you agree to participate in this interview? Yes / No [If no] Thank you for your time today. [If yes] Do you agree to record the interview? The digital audio recording will be stored in my secured computer, and only my research assistant and I have access to it. Yes / No [If yes] Thank you. Let’s start the interview! [If no] It is fine. I will not record the interview. If you have any questions or concerns, please ask me, either now or contact me at +6287 888 903 343. Or you may contact my supervisor, Dr. Gail Vander Stoep, at +1 (832) 799 8614. 200 APPENDIX B: Oral Consent Form (Indonesian Version) Pengembangan Pariwisata Berbasis Masyarakat dan Dampaknya Terhadap Masyarakat Lokal: Studi Kasus Desa Penglipuran, Indonesia Halo! Nama saya Astri Briliyanti. Saya mahasiswi S2 program studi Pariwisata Berkelanjutan di Michigan State University, Amerika Serikat. Terima kasih atas kesediaannya bertemu dengan saya. Anda teridentifikasi sebagai orang yang berpartisipasi dalam pengembangan pariwisata di Desa Penglipuran atau terkena dampak pariwisata. Maka dari itu, pandangan Anda penting guna memahami proses pengembangan pariwisata berbasis masyarakat ini. Saya mengajak Anda berpartisipasi untuk diwawancara dalam penelitian ini. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk memahami proses pengembangan pariwisata berbasis masyarakat di Desa Penglipuran dan dampaknya pada masyarakat lokal. Wawancara ini adalah bagian dari projek tugas akhir saya yang diwajibkan universitas agar dapat lulus. Kami tidak memberikan jasa atau janji apapun jika Anda berpartisipasi. Kami hanya mengumpulkan informasi untuk studi kami. Partisipasi Anda bersifat sukarela. Jika Anda memilih untuk berpartisipasi, saya akan menanyakan beberapa pertanyaan. Anda dipersilakan untuk tidak menjawab pertanyaan manapun yang saya ajukan dan memberhentikan wawancara kapanpun. Waktu yang dibutuhkan untuk wawancara tergantung respon Anda. Jawaban Anda akan kami rahasiakan. Hanya asisten saya yang dapat melihat jawaban Anda. Ketika penulisan laporan, jawaban Anda akan disatukan dengan jawaban responden lainnya, sehingga saya mendapat pemahaman menyeluruh mengenai pengembangan pariwisata berbasis masyarakat di desa ini. Tidak akan ada satu pun anggota masyarakat atau pihak eksternal lainnya yang tahu mana pernyataan Anda, kecuali Anda memberi tahu mereka. Tidak ada resiko untuk berpartisipasi dalam penelitian ini. Tidak ada biaya atau kompensasi yang diberikan. Akan tetapi, sebagai rasa terima kasih untuk waktu yang telah Anda berikan, Anda akan mendapatkan souvenir. Kami juga berharap inisiatif pariwisata berbasis masyarakat lainnya bisa mendapatkan manfaat dari hasil studi ini, terkait dengan pelajaran yang dapat diambil dari pengalaman masyarakat Penglipuran. Apakah ada pertanyaan terkait studi ini atau partisipasi Anda? Yes / No Apakah Anda setuju untuk partisipasi dalam wawancara ini? Yes / No [Jika iya] Terima kasih. Ayo kita mulai! [Jika tidak] Terima kasih atas waktu Anda. [Jika ya] Apakah Anda setuju untuk merekam wawancara? Rekaman akan disimpan di komputer yang aman. Hanya saya dan asisten saya yang bisa mengaksesnya. Yes / No [Jika ya] Terima kasih. Saya akan memulai wawancara! [Jika tidak] Baiklah, saya tidak akan merekamnya. Jika ada pertanyaan, silakan bertanya sekarang atau kontak saya di +6287 888 903 343. Atau, kontak pembimbing saya, Dr. Gail Vander Stoep, di +1 (832) 799 8614. 201 APPENDIX C: Interview Guides – Community Members INTERVIEW GUIDE – COMMUNITY MEMBERS This interview guide has four sections. These include personal information, Penglipuran Village (PV) Community, Community-based Tourism (CBT) development process, the effects of village development using the CBT process, and future village development. Personal Information 1. Please tell me about yourself. Name: Age: Gender: Highest Educational Level: Position/Occupation: How long have you been living in this village? How long have you been in this position? 2. (For those community members that hold an official position) Please tell me about your role in this village, in general? About the Penglipuran Village Community 3. (For community leaders only) I heard that Penglipuran Village adhered to both administrative and traditional laws. Please explain how this works. Potential probing Qs: • What are the differences between administrative village and traditional village leadership responsibilities? 4. (For community leaders + the tourism management board) How is tourism managed under such a joint system? Potential probing Qs: • How are the responsibilities for development activities in the village using the CBT process divided or shared across these two leadership groups?? 5. How do community members participate in CBT activities and the decision-making process? Potential probing Qs: • Who participates? • How does an individual or a family become a resident of Penglipuran Village? • Is there anyone who is not a PV resident who works here? Can they also participate in and get benefits from tourism? How? • How long has PV implemented this participation mechanism? Do you think that it is effective? Why/why not? 202 RQ1: How has Penglipuran Village developed as a tourism village using the CBT process? 6. Please describe how Penglipuran community members developed the tourism village using the CBT process. (pay attention to key timeline events) Potential Probing Qs: • Whose decision was it to use the CBT process for its village development? 7. (especially for the tourism management board) When did the number of tourists to PV begin to increase as a result of CBT implementation? Potential Probing Qs: • What type of tourism products did you offer at that time? • What are the characteristics of visitors who usually visit (then and now)? • When are the busiest/quietest periods? • How long do/did they typically visit/stay? 8. From your perspective, what was the reason for the Penglipuran community to develop the village using the CBT process? Potential Probing Qs: • What was the main occupation of people before tourism? • What were the local people’s reactions when tourism was introduced? • Is their reason today for being involved in tourism the same as their reason in the past? 9. During the process of CBT development and implementation, what was and is the roles/contributions of Penglipuran community members (varied stakeholders)? Potential Probing Qs: • When and how did they contribute to/participate in the CBT process? • What was the specific contribution of (that specific person/group)? • How frequent is active community participation in ongoing CBT development (if any)? • Who usually participates in the process? 10. During the process of CBT development and implementation, what type of contributions did or do external actors (e.g., government, private businesses, NGOs, academic institutions, and communities from other villages) provide in supporting the community in developing PV using the CBT process? Potential Probing Qs: • Who were the external actors, specifically? • Do you collaborate with them in supporting PV? How? • Was it a long-term contribution or just a one-time contribution? When did that happen? • Was it the Penglipuran Community representatives who approached them, or were external actors the ones who approached the community? • What do you think of the result of their contributions? 203 11. What were the things that might have inhibited you and the community from developing PV using the CBT process? Potential Probing Qs: • When did each inhibiting event or condition occur? Who or what contributed to the inhibiting condition? • Were there any conflicts? • How did you and/or Penglipuran Community deal with such inhibiting events or conditions? 12. I know that Penglipuran CBT Village shares its revenues with the government: 40% is for the community and 60% for the local government. How did you and the government decide such a mechanism? Potential Probing Qs: • • How does your village use its 40%? • What do you think about the government having a larger portion? In which year was the mechanism implemented? Has the mechanism ever changed? RQ2: How has the CBT process affected the community? 13. Since its implementation, what do you think are the effects of CBT development and implementation on Penglipuran community? Potential Probing Qs: • • If community as whole, ask: can you explain that in more detail? If individuals or households, ask: do you think every individual/household is affected the same way? Why/Why not? • When did you start perceiving the effects? • Are those effects always the same or do they change over time? • If they have changed, what has caused the changes? 14. Which of these resulting effects of the CBT process you like or not like? Why? 15. (For those with important positions) What are your recommendations, as (mentioned the position), for dealing with these negative effects? 16. How do you want external actors (e.g., government, NGOs, academic institutions, or external private businesses) to support you and Penglipuran Community members in dealing with these negative effects? 204 17. Looking forward and assuming that the number of tourists to PV continue to increase, Future Development what do you think will be the future of PV? 18. What is your hope for PV in the future? 19. What advice would you give to other community in other regions who wish to develop their villages using the CBT process? 20. Finally, is there anything else that you want to add/comment on with regard to your CBT development approach? Thank you for your time and willingness to share this information and your experiences with me. Later on, I will have my research assistant transcribe this interview. After it is finished, I will give you the printed transcription, just in case you to want to check the content accuracy. If you have any additions or corrections, you will be able to let me now until August 30rd.What is your preferred way to contact me? Also, if I find that I need additional information, is it okay for me to contact you or ask for another interview? Thank you very much for participating in this study. As a form of gratitude, I have a little gift for you. I hope you like it. Thanks again, and have a good day! 205 APPENDIX D: Interview Guides – Community Members (Indonesian Version) PEDOMAN WAWACARA – MASYARAKAT Pedoman ini terdiri dari lima bagian. Bagian tersebut antara lain informasi personal, masyarakat Penglipuran, proses pengembangan pariwisata berbasis masyarakat di Desa Penglipuran (DP), dampak pengembangan desa akibat dari proses pengembangan Pariwisata Berbasis Masyarakat (PBM), dan masa depan desa. 1. Jelaskan tentang diri Anda! Personal Name/Kode: Umur: Jenis Kelamin: Level pendidikan tertinggi: Posisi/Pekerjaan: Sudah berapa lama Anda tinggal di desa ini? Sudah berapa lama Anda berada di posisi/pekerjaan ini? 2. (Untuk para pejabat) Apa peran Anda di desa ini, secara umum? Masyarakat Penglipuran 3. (Untuk pemimpin desa) Saya dengar Desa Penglipuran memiliki dua sistem desa, desa dinas dan desa adat, tolong jelaskan! Probe: Apa perbedaan desa dinas dan desa administratif dalam kaitannya dengan peran/tanggung jawab? 4. (Untuk pemimpin desa + pengelola wisata) Bagaimana pariwisata dikelola di bawah system tersebut? Probe: Siapa yang lebih bertanggungjawab untuk aktivitas pembangunan di desa menggunakan pendekatan PBM? 5. Secara umum, bagaimana anggota masyakat Penglipuran berpartisipasi dalam proses pengembilan keputusan? Probe: • Siapa yang berpartisipasi? • Bagaimana seorang individu atau keluarga bisa menjadi anggota masyarakat Penglipuran? • Apakah ada seseorang yang bukan warga Penglipuran tapi bekerja disini? Apakah mereka juga bisa berpartisipasi dan mendapatkan manfaat dari pariwisata? Jelaskan! • Sejak kapan desa mengimplementasi mekanisme partisipasi seperti ini? Apakah menurut Anda ini sudah efektif? Mengapa? 206 PP2: Bagaimana Desa Penglipuran dikembangkan sebagai Desa Wisata berbasis PBM? 6. Deskripsikan bagaimana masyarakat Penglipuran terlibat dalam pengembangan desa wisata berbasis masyarakat? (perhatikan timeline peristiwa yang penting) Probe: • Siapa yang mengambil keputusan untuk mengembangkan desa ini dengan proses PBM? 7. (untuk pengelola pariwisata) Sejak kapan masyarakat mulai menerima pengunjung? Probe: • Produk wisata seperti apa yang Anda tawarkan saat itu? • Bagaimana karakteristik pengunjung yang biasanya datang? • Kapan waktu yang banyak/sedikit pengunjung? • Berapa lama pengunjung biasanya mengunjungi/menginap di desa ini? 8. Menurut Anda, apa alasan masyarakat Penglipuran untuk mengembangkan desa ini menggunakan proses PBM? Probe: • Apa pekerjaan masyarakat sebelum adanya pariwisata? • Bagaimana reaksi masyarakat ketika pariwisata diluncurkan pertama kali? • Apakah alasan masyarakat untuk berpartisipasi dalam pariwisata sekarang masih sama dengan dulu? 9. Dalam proses pengembangan dan implementasi PBM, apa peran/kontribusi anggota masyarakat (berbagai pemangku kepentingan)? Probe: • Kapan Anda berkontribusi? • Jika bentuk kontribusinya termasuk berpartisipasi dalam proses pengembangan desa berbasis PBM, bagaimana mereka berpartisipasi? • Seberapa sering partisipasinya dilakukan? • Siapa yang biasanya berpartisipasi? 10. Dalam proses pengembangan dan implementasi PBM, kontribusi apa yang (dulu dan sekarang) dilakukan oleh aktor eksternal dalam mendukung masyarakat Penglipuran mengembangakan desa wisata berbasis masyarakat? Probe: • Secara spesifik, siapa pihak eksternal tersebut? • Apakah departemen/organisasi Anda berkolaborasi dengan mereka dalam mendukung pengembangan Desa Penglipuran? Bagaimana? • Apakah kontribusi tersebut bersifat jangka panjang atau hanya dilakukan satu kali? Kapan kontribusi itu dilakukan? • Bagaimana menurut Anda hasil dari kontribusi yang mereka lakukan? 207 11. Apakah ada hal-hal yang menghambat anggota masyarakat Penglipuran ketika dalam proses pengembangan desa wisata berbasis masyarakat? Jika iya, tolong jelaskan. Probe: • Kapan kejadian atau kondisi yang menghambat itu terjadi? Siapa yang menyebabkan hambatan itu terjadi?Apakah pernah terjadi konflik? • Apakah organisasi/departemen Anda membantu masyarakat untuk mengatasi hambatan ini? Jika ya, bagaimana? 12. Saya tahu bahwa Desa Penglipuran membagi pendapatan pariwisatanya dengan pemerintah Bangli, 60% untuk Bangli dan 40% untuk Desa Penglipuran. Bagaimana pengambilan keputusan antara desa dan pemerintah dalam penerapan mekanisme tersebut? Probe: • Bagaimana desa menggunakan 40% uang pendapatan tersebut? • Sejak kapan mekanisme seperti itu diimplementasikan? • Apakah mekanisme pembagian keuntungan tersebut pernah berubah? Jika iya, bagaimana? • Apa pertimbangan dibalik pemerintah mendapatkan porsi pendapatan yang lebih besar? • Bagaimana pendapata Anda tentang pemerintah yang mendapat porsi lebih tinggi? PP2: Bagaimana proses PBM berdampak pada masyarakat? 13. Sejak PBM diimplementasikan, menurut Anda, apa dampak dari pengembangan desa wisata berbasis masyarakat akibat dari pengembangan dan implementasi desa wisata di masyarakat Penglipuran? Probe: • Jika dampak tersebut terjadi di level masyarakat, bisakah Anda menjelaskan lebih lanjut tentang hal tersebut? • Jika dampak tersebut terjadi di level rumah tangga/individu, apakah Anda berpikir bahwa pengalaman rumah tangga dan individu tersebut terjadi secara bersamaan? • Sejak kapan Anda merasakan dampak ini? • Apakah dampak tersebut selalu sama atau berubah-ubah setiap waktunya? Jika ia berubah, apa yang menyebabkan perubahan tersebut? • Pariwisata bersifat musiman, bagaimana hal tersebut juga mempengaruhi proses pengembangan dan implementasi desa wisata berbasis masyarakat dan bagaimana hal tersebut berpengaruh pada masyarakat? 14. Dari dampak-dampak yang ada, dampak yang mana yang Anda suka atau tidak suka? Mengapa? 15. (Untuk para pejabat) Bagaimana Anda, sebagai (sebutkan jabatannya), mengatasi dampak ini? 16. Dukungan seperti apa yang dapat dilakukan aktor eksternal untuk membantu anggota masyarakat mengatasi dampak-dampak negatif ini? 208 Pengembangan Kedepan 17. Melihat ke depan dan jika jumlah pengunjung ke Desa Penglipuran terus meningkat, akan seperti apa menurut Anda masa depan Desa Penglipuran? 18. Apa harapan Anda untuk Desa Penglipuran di masa depan? 19. Saran seperti apa yang akan Anda berikan kepada masyarakat yang berada di daerah lain yang juga ingin mengembangkan desanya menggunakan proses PBM? 20. Akhirnya, apakah ada hal lain yang ingin Anda tambahkan/komentar terkait dengan Desa Penglipuran dan pendekatan PBM? Terima kasih banyak atas waktu dan kesediaan Anda untuk membagi informasi dan pengalaman Anda kepada saya. Nantinya, asisten saya akan menranskripsi wawancara ini. Setelah proses transkripsinya selesai, saya akan memberikan Anda hasil transkripsinya agar Anda bisa mengecek akurasi kontennya. Jika ada tambahan atau koreksi, Anda bisa memberi tahu saya antara sekarang hingga April 3rd. Apakah Anda memiliki preferensi terkait cara mengontak saya? Lalu, jika ternyata saya membutuhkan informasi tambahan, bolehkah saya mengontak Anda dan melakukan wawancara lagi? Terima kasih banyak atas partisipasi Anda dalam penelitian ini. Sebagai rasa terima kasih, saya mempunyai hadiah kecil untuk Anda. Semoga Anda menyukainya. Terima kasih banyak, dan 209 APPENDIX E: Interview Guides – External Actors INTERVIEW GUIDE – EXTERNAL ACTORS This interview guide has five sections. These include personal and organizational information, tourism in Bangli, Community-based Tourism (CBT) development process in Penglipuran Village (PV), the effects of village development as a result of using the CBT process, and future village development. 1. Please tell me about yourself. Personal and Organizational Information Name: __________________________________________________________________ Organization/Department: Age: Gender: Highest Educational Level: Position: How long have you been working in this department/organization? How long have you been in this position? How long has your department participated in PV’s CBT initiative? How long have you participated in PV’s CBT initiative? 2. Please tell me about the role of your department/organization in Bangli, in general? Bangli’s Tourism 3. In Bangli Regency, what is the relationship and relative importance of tourism as related to other economic sectors? 4. Penglipuran Village is considered by many to be one of the top destinations in Bangli. Do you agree with that? Why/why not? Potential probing Qs: Why did your department/organization choose to support PV as a village in which to use the CBT approach to its development? RQ1: How has Penglipuran Village developed as a tourism village using the CBT process? 5. Please describe how Penglipuran community members were involved in developing the village as part of the CBT process? (pay attention to key timeline events) Potential Probing Qs: • When did the number of tourists to PV begin to increase as a result of CBT implementation? • What types of tourism products and services did they offer at that time? 210 6. From your perspective, whose decision was it to use the CBT process for its village development? Why do you think the village should be developed using the CBT process? Potential Probing Qs: • What were the local people’s reactions when tourism was introduced? 7. During the process of CBT development and implementation, what was/were the role(s)/contribution(s) of Penglipuran community members (varied stakeholders)? 8. During the process of CBT development and implementation, what types of contributions did or does your department/organization provide to support Penglipuran Village’s CBT initiative? Potential Probing Qs: • When did you/your department/organization contribute? • How has your department/organization encouraged the participation of community members in your program/policy planning? • How frequent is the community participation? • Who usually participate? • What do you think of the results of your department’s/organization’s contributions? 9. During the process of CBT development and implementation, what types of contributions did or do other external actors (e.g., other government departments, private businesses, NGOs, academic institutions, and members of other villages) provide in supporting the community to develop PV using the CBT process? Potential Probing Qs: • Who were the external actors, specifically? • Do you collaborate with them in supporting PV? How? • Was it a long-term contribution or just a one-time contribution? When did that happen? • What do you think of the result of their contributions? 10. Are you aware of any things that might have inhibited Penglipuran community members during development of Penglipuran Village using the CBT process? If so, please explain. Potential Probing Qs: • When did each inhibiting event (or condition) occur? Who or what contributed to the inhibiting condition? • Did your organization/department help the community deal with these challenges? If so, how? 11. Now think about your department/organization. Are there things that have inhibited your organization’s/department’s ability to meaningfully support the development of Penglipuran Village using the CBT process? If so, please explain. Potential Probing Qs: • When did each inhibiting event (or condition) occur? Who or what contributed to the inhibiting condition? If inhibiting events or conditions occurred in the past, how did your organization/department deal with that? 211 • 12. I know that Penglipuran CBT Village shares its revenues with Bangli’s government, 60% to Bangli and 40% to PV. How was the decision made to devise such a mechanism? Potential Probing Qs: • Since when was such a revenue-sharing mechanism implemented? • Has the mechanism or the financial split ever changed? If so, how? • What was the consideration behind the government receiving the larger portion? RQ2: How has the CBT process affected the community? 13. Since its implementation, what do you think are the effects of CBT development and implementation on Penglipuran community? Potential Probing Qs: • • If community as whole, ask: can you explain that in more detail? If individuals or households, ask: do you think every individual/household is affected the same way? Why/Why not? • When did you start perceiving the effects? • Are those effects always the same or do they change over time? • • How does the seasonal nature of tourism affect the CBT village development and If they have changed, what has caused the changes? implementation process, and its effects on the community? 14. Is it your department’s/organization’s role to help the community members deal with these negative effects? How? Future Development 15. What do you think will be the future of PV? What is your hope for PV in the future? 16. What advice would you give to other community or similar department/organizations in other regions who wish to develop their villages using the CBT process? 17. Finally, is there anything else that you want to add/comment on with regard to PV and its CBT development approach? Thank you for your time and willingness to share this information and your experiences with me. Later on, I will have my research assistant transcribe this interview. After it is finished, I will give you the printed transcription, just in case you to want to check the content accuracy. If you have any additions or corrections, you will be able to let me between now until August 30th.What is your preferred way to contact me? Also, if I find that I need additional information, is it okay for me to contact you or ask for another interview? Thank you very much for participating in this study. As a form of gratitude, I have a little gift for you. I hope you like it. Thanks again, and have a good day! 212 APPENDIX F: Interview Guides – External Actors (Indonesian Version) PEDOMAN WAWACARA – AKTOR EKSTERNAL Pedoman ini terdiri dari lima bagian. Bagian-bagian tersebut antara lain informasi terkait personal dan organisasi, pariwisata di Bangli, proses pengembangan pariwisata berbasis masyarakat di Desa Penglipuran (DP), dampak pengembangan desa akibat dari proses pengembangan Pariwisata Berbasis Masyarakat, dan masa depan pengembangan desa. 1. Jelaskan tentang diri Anda! Personal dan Organisasi Name/Kode: Organisasi/Departemen: Umur: Jenis Kelamin: Level pendidikan tertinggi: Posisi: Sudah berapa lama Anda bekerja di departmen/organisasi ini? Sudah berapa lama Anda berada di posisi ini? Sudah berapa lama departemen Anda terlibat dalam inisiatif Desa Wisata Penglipuran berbasis masyarakat? Sudah berapa lama Anda berpartisipasi dalam inisiatif Desa Wisata Penglipuran berbasis masyarakat? 2. Apa peran department/organisasi Anda di Kabupaten Bangli, secara umum? Pariwisata Bangli 3. Di Kabupaten Bangli, bagaimana hubungan dan seberapa penting sektor pariwisata dibandingkan dengan sektor ekonomi yang lain? 4. Banyak orang yang menganggap Desa Wisata Penglipuran sebagai top destinasi wisata di Bangli. Apakah Anda setuju dengan hal tersebut? Mengapa/Mengapa tidak? Probe: Mengapa departemen/organisasi Anda mendukung Desa Penglipuran sebagai salah satu desa yang dikembangkan dengan pendekatan PBM? 213 PP2: Bagaimana Desa Penglipuran dikembangkan sebagai Desa Wisata berbasis PBM? 5. Deskripsikan bagaimana masyarakat Penglipuran terlibat dalam pengembangan desa wisata berbasis masyarakat? (perhatikan timeline peristiwa yang penting) Probe: • Sejak kapan jumlah wisatawan mulai meningkat sebagai akibat dari implementasi pariwisata berbasis masyarakat? • Tipe produk wisata dan jasa seperti apa yang ada tawarkan saat itu? 6. Menurut Anda, siapa yang memberi keputusan untuk mengembangkan desa Penglipuran menggunakan pendekatan PBM? Probe: Bagaimana reaksi masyarakat ketika pariwisata diluncurkan pertama kali? 7. Dalam proses pengembangan dan implementasi PBM, apa peran/kontribusi anggota masyarakat (berbagai pemangku kepentingan)? 8. Dalam proses pengembangan dan implementasi PBM, kontribusi seperti apa yang departemen/organisasi Anda lakukan untuk mendukung inisiatif desa wisata berbasis masyarakat ini? Probe: • Kapan Anda/departemen Anda/organisasi Anda berkontribusi? • Bagiamana departemen/organisasi Anda memberikan ruang untuk partisipasi anggota masyarakat dalam perencanaan program/kebijakan departemen/organisasi Anda? • Seberapa sering masyarakat berpartisipasi? • Siapa yang biasanya berpartisipasi? • Bagaimana menurut Anda hasil dari kontribusi departemen/organisasi Anda? 9. Dalam proses pengembangan dan implementasi PBM, kontribusi apa yang (dulu dan sekarang) dilakukan oleh aktor eksternal lainnya dalam mendukung masyarakat Penglipuran mengembangakan desa wisata berbasis masyarakat? Probe: • Secara spesifik, siapa pihak eksternal tersebut? • Apakah departemen/organisasi Anda berkolaborasi dengan mereka dalam mendukung pengembangan Desa Penglipuran? Bagaimana? • Apakah kontribusi tersebut bersifat jangka panjang atau hanya dilakukan satu kali? Kapan kontribusi itu dilakukan? • Bagaimana menurut Anda hasil dari kontribusi yang mereka lakukan? 10. Apakah Anda mengetahui hal-hal yang menghambat anggota masyarakat Penglipuran ketika dalam psoses pengembangan desa wisata berbasis masyarakat? Jika iya, tolong jelaskan. Probe: • Kapan kejadian atau kondisi yang menghambat itu terjadi? Siapa yang menyebabkan hambatan itu terjadi? • Apakah organisasi/departemen Anda membantu masyarakat untuk mengatasi hambatan ini? Jika ya, bagaimana? 214 11. Lalu bagaimana dengan departemen atau organisasi Anda? Apakah ada hal-hal yang menghambat kemampuan organisasi/departemen Anda untuk memberikan kontribusi yang berarti dalam pengembangan desa wisata berbasis masyarakat di Penglipuran? Jika iya, tolong jelaskan. Probe: • Kapan setiap kejadian (atau kondisi) yang menghambat itu terjadi? Siapa atau apa yang menyebabkan hambatan itu terjadi? • Jika kejadian itu terjadi di masa lalu, bagaiman departemen/organisasi Anda menyelesaikan hambatan tersebut? 12. Saya tahu bahwa Desa Penglipuran membagi pendapatan pariwisatanya dengan pemerintah Bangli, 60% untuk Bangli dan 40% untuk Desa Penglipuran. Bagaimana pengambilan keputusan antara desa dan pemerintah dalam penerapan mekanisme tersebut? Probe: • Sejak kapan mekanisme seperti itu diimplementasikan? • Apakah mekanisme pembagian keuntungan tersebut pernah berubah? Jika iya, bagaimana? • Apa pertimbangan dibalik pemerintah mendapatkan porsi pendapatan yang lebih besar? PP2: Bagaimana proses PBM berdampak pada masyarakat? 13. Sejak PBM diimplementasikan, menurut Anda, apa dampak dari pengembangan desa wisata berbasis masyarakat akibat dari pengembangan dan implementasi desa wisata di masyarakat Penglipuran? Probe: • Jika dampak tersebut terjadi di level masyarakat, bisakah Anda menjelaskan lebih lanjut tentang hal tersebut? • Jika dampak tersebut terjadi di level rumah tangga/individu, apakah Anda berpikir bahwa pengalaman rumah tangga dan individu tersebut terjadi secara bersamaan? • Sejak kapan Anda merasakan dampak ini? • Apakah dampak tersebut selalu sama atau berubah-ubah setiap waktunya? Jika ia berubah, apa yang menyebabkan perubahan tersebut? • Pariwisata bersifat musiman, bagaimana hal tersebut juga mempengaruhi proses pengembangan dan implementasi desa wisata berbasis masyarakat dan bagaimana hal tersebut berpengaruh pada masyarakat? 14. Dari dampak-dampak yang ada, dampak yang mana yang menurut Anda masyarakat Desa Penglipuran suka atau tidak suka? Mengapa? 15. Apakah departemen/organisasi memiliki peran untuk membantu anggota masyarakat mengatasi dampak-dampak negatif ini? Bagaimana caranya? 215 Pengembangan Kedepan 16. Melihat ke depan dan jika jumlah pengunjung ke Desa Penglipuran terus meningkat, akan seperti apa menurut Anda masa depan Desa Penglipuran? 17. Apa harapan Anda untuk Desa Penglipuran di masa depan? 18. Saran seperti apa yang akan Anda berikan kepada masyarakat atau departement/organisasi serupa yang berada di daerah lain yang juga ingin mengembangkan desanya menggunakan proses PBM? 19. Akhirnya, apakah ada hal lain yang ingin Anda tambahkan/komentar terkait dengan Desa Penglipuran dan pendekatan PBM? Terima kasih banyak atas waktu dan kesediaan Anda untuk membagi informasi dan pengalaman Anda kepada saya. Nantinya, asisten saya akan menranskripsi wawancara ini. Setelah proses transkripsinya selesai, saya akan memberikan Anda hasil transkripsinya agar Anda bisa mengecek akurasi kontennya. Jika ada tambahan atau koreksi, Anda bisa memberi tahu saya antara sekarang hingga tanggal 30 Agustus. Apakah Anda memiliki preferensi terkait cara mengontak saya? Lalu, jika ternyata saya membutuhkan informasi tambahan, bolehkah saya mengontak Anda dan melakukan wawancara lagi? Terima kasih banyak atas partisipasi Anda dalam penelitian ini. Sebagai rasa terima kasih, saya mempunyai hadiah kecil untuk Anda. Semoga Anda menyukainya. Terima kasih banyak, dan 216 Table 4 Traditional Community Participation in Penglipuran Village – Coding Scheme APPENDIX G: Codebook CODE DEFINITION SUBCODE RULE EXAMPLE CATEGORY 1: TRADITIONAL GOVERNANCE AND DECISION-MAKING PROCESS This refers to how villagers’ ideas, hopes, concerns, or ambitions are placed into the decision-making arena This refers to how decision is made during the decision-making meeting. Idea Sharing Decision- making Meeting Decision Implementation This refers to how any decision outcomes are carried out Information Dissemination Plan Execution Any text that indicates how ideas, concerns, hopes, or ambitions of the villagers are getting or not getting into the decision-making meeting arena Any text that describes what happens during the decision- making meeting and how a decision is formed among decision-makers. Any text that describes how information about decisions is or is not disseminated from Customary Village to community members Any text that describes decision execution planning process after information dissemination (e.g, assigning personnels, community’s response) My younger brothers will tell me ‘please, if [you] come to the meeting, tell them this.’ I tell the others [77 representatives] in the meeting. Haha. because I am the family representative (Mansur) In the past, [we] commonly [tried] musyawarah. Otherwise, [we] voted. But with the new [Regent] regulation, [musyawarah mufakat] is the direction… [He] hopes to make us completely Shanti, peaceful… (Supri) ... My adoptive brother and nibling live in Susut area. [When there is a] gotong royong tomorrow, I [will call] them… Luckily, now [we are supported by] the advancement of technology. (Supri) [once] adat make a decision… tourism-related businesses, TMO will [execute them]. Because customary village has a lot of [organizations]. There are [organization] called Sekaa Gong, Sekaa Baris, Sekaa Paratengan that will cook (Mansur) … because in adat or dinas here, once we decided something, we must implement it…” (Lingga) 217 Table 4 (cont’d) CODE DEFINITION SUBCODE RULE EXAMPLE CATEGORY 2: SOCIO-CULTURAL LIFE Roles of Community Organizations Any text that indicates what different organizations do in ceremonies Religious Participation This refers to community members taking part in religious ceremonies Cultural Protection This refers to community actions in protecting their own tangible or intangible cultural elements. when we have customary activities, Pecalang (Security Officer Organization) are deployed to ensure the safety of the customary village (Prama) in my [former] village, the religious ceremonies were not as many as [in Penglipuran]. Here, [religious ceremonies] are held every month, especially last month in February, before galungan, uh, the ceremonies were really every day… (Asha) …Besides medese (representatives), other organizations also obliged to throw a monthly meeting, such as Sekaa Gong (Youth Organization), Pecalang (Security Officers) … every organizations like Sekaa Gong, Family Welfare… (Asha) Balinese have a ‘save the forest’ ritual once every 210 days… In every activity, there must be parahyangan, pawongan, and palemahan elements. What is an [example of] parahyangan [element]? We provide offerings… What is an [example of] the palemahan [element]? [It is the] human activities to save the environment. Then, what is the pawongan [element]? We plant, [we] act to save [the forest]. Not only [do we] pray to God, but also we must act [harvest bamboo using a selective cutting method]. (Supri) … [it is] common. Early morning, we just wake up, take a sweep up, cleaning telajakan outside the yard. (Sarah). Prevalence of Religious Ceremony Any text that indicates the commonness of community participation in ceremonies. Community Organization Meetings Any text that indicates participation in organization meeting. Do not include text about decision-making meeting. Environmental Sustainability Environmental Cleaning Any text that indicates actions by a group of people or community that aim to manage their surrounding natural resources and/or prevent environmental disaster. Do not include actions that are inspired by tourism. Any text that indicates actions by a group of people or community that are commonly practiced keeping surrounding built or natural environments clean. Do not include if such actions are inspired by tourism. 218 Table 4 (cont’d) CODE DEFINITION SUBCODE RULE EXAMPLE Environmental Beautification Spatial Arrangement Preservation Traditional Building Conservation Infrastructure Development and Maintenance Any text that indicates actions by a group of people or community that aims to beautify their surrounding environment with plants. Do not include if such actions are inspired because of tourism. Any text that indicates actions by a group of people or community that aim to protect or keep the existing village land use and structure in its traditional form. Do not include if such actions are inspired because of tourism. Any text that indicates actions of a group of people or community to keep local traditional buildings existing, intact, or free from damage or decay. Do not include actions that they do after tourism. Any text that indicates actions of a group of people or community to build or maintain village public facilities or infrastructure. Do not include actions that they do after tourism. …the University Wharmadewa students… planted flowers [and] grasses… [as an example], and other community members spontaneously followed [what they did] … [the village] looked beautiful. (Surya) …because we wanted to preserve this village, in terms of spatial arrangement, architecturally, cultural[ly]. So, our elders got an idea…how to make warung exist, but [move it] inside each yard. We did not remove [them] but relocated them to the [right] place, made [it] tidy… (Supri) …Penglipuran leaders were invited to his house, [the new] regent house … he talked about how [to keep] Penglipuran just like the old days, which means [applying] bamboo to the gateyard’s roof. Why is it? Because in two weeks, Mr. President would come to visit us… (Naufal) …like fixing angkul-angkul, it is [a form of] maintenance, so it won’t be damage (Malik) Bangli’s government owned [the hero statue project] ... [The statue] was not built for years… Eventually, the community built the statue itself… Most of Penglipuran development has been [bottom-up]” (Surya) 219 Table 5 Community Participation in the Benefits of Tourism – Coding Scheme CODE DEFINITION SUBCODE RULE EXAMPLE CATEGORY 1: WAYS TO PARTICIPATE IN TOURISM Being a TMO Member Tourism Idea Sharing A community member being an official member of TMO Acts associated with giving suggestions, thoughts, or ideas about tourism This refers to the production or selling of tourism products, experiences and services (food & beverage, accommodation, entertainment, or recreation. It also can include providing marginal or peripheral services that support tourism. Family- owned Businesses Community- owned Businesses Daily Activities that Support Tourism Providing Tourism Products and Services Any text that indicates one’s membership in the Tourism Management Organization (TMO) and/or his/her role in TMO Any text that indicates an individual or a group of people giving either solicited or unsolicited tourism ideas, to TMO or Adat. Do not include text if TMO or Adat members contribute their ideas. Any text that indicates individual or family participation in producing or selling tourism products or services for profit. Any text that indicates individual/family/community participation in community-owned businesses (e.g., clothing rental, guesthouse, tour package, events). Any text that indicates unintentional participation in providing tourism products, experiences, ambience, such as community daily activities, welcoming and assisting the need of tourists. I [coordinate with] homestay owners. When there is a [homestay] booking, for example, guests stay, I will find [them] rooms, I distribute the rooms for [guest] group, so the homeowners just clean or accept the guests… (Tirta) …spontaneous meeting in the village [was thrown]. Everyone, not only the family representatives, but also all community members, our opinion was asked ‘what if the [ticket fees] is increased?’ ‘oh, [we] disagreed…’ (Bima) …[she] made and sold klepon cake herself, and distributed [them] somewhere, doughnut” (Asha) …if there are tourists who want to, for example, want to learn [to play our instrumental music], they involve youth [organization members] (Sakti) …because this is a tourism village … any kind of activities that are related to culture … are also activities that exist in tourism village … It can be… like, agricultural activities; students want to see Penglipuran environment, turning waste into biogas … how people plow, for example, how people climb the tree... (Supri) 220 Table 5 (cont’d) CODE DEFINITION SUBCODE RULE EXAMPLE CATEGORY 2: BENEFITS OF PARTICIPATION Economic Improvement Social Networks Development and Interpersonal Interactions Skills and Knowledge Development Working Environment Improvement This refers to perceived positive or negative economic and social impacts that are experienced by individual/ family/ community members, which are typically direct in nature as a result of coming into a contact with tourists or external actors that help them with tourism development. Any text that explicitly or implicitly indicates a significant improvement in the amount of money received by an individual/family/community on a regular basis after tourism. Do not include any description about job creation. Any text that indicates having or perceived having more interaction with non-Penglipuranese or non-Balinese as a result of tourism participation Any text that indicates having or perceived having any kind of new knowledge or skills as a result of tourism participation Any text that indicates the flexibility of working from home as a result of tourism participation [I am] better economically … [I] get more income. I can help [my] husband” (Sarah) …Yogyakartans, I knew [him and] he remembers this warung. He came here in November, then last January. ‘Mbok (sister), do you still remember me?’ ‘I do, I do’ ‘I visit [Penglipuran] with [my] parents’…” (Riri). [Tour guides] gave [us]… [brochures]. ‘This is how to greet [tourists]. If [you] want to ask them [things], this is how you do that … ‘If [the guests] are French, say this… ’ We are taught by tour guides. Because we are often visited by guests every day, we know. (Novi) I often asked my wife, ‘why does somebody bring us money while we are sleeping?” (laugh). We sleep inside, guests [call us], ‘hello, hello…’ It is good…” (Surya). CATEGORY 3: FACTORS AFFECTING COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE BENEFITS SHARING Personal Factors It refers to anything that facilitates or inhibits individuals from reaping tourism benefits Any text that explicitly or implicitly indicates personal reasons (e.g., skills, resources, perceptions) for participating or not participating in family or community enterprises. Yes, the risk [is too much for me]. ‘Will there be buyers?’ [I] thought… [what if the products] could not be sold? It became, became an economic [hardship], for [me to buy] groceries…” (Satria). 221 Table 5 (cont’d) CODE DEFINITION SUBCODE RULE EXAMPLE Community Social Strategy Benefits Distribution Factors Actions that either facilitates or inhibits equitable benefits distribution among community members. Village Authorities’ Policy External Pressure and Monitoring Any text that explicitly or implicitly indicates actions that family or neighbors do that can either facilitate or inhibit other villagers to reap tourism benefits. Do not include text where interviewees merely give a comment without giving evidence about how such actions create barriers or enablers for them to reap tourism benefits. Any text that implicitly or explicitly indicates any actions that TMO or Adat do that can either facilitate or inhibit equitable benefits distribution (e.g., policies, conflict of interest). Do not include text where interviewees merely give a comment without giving evidence about how such treatment creates barriers or enablers for community members to reap tourism benefits. Any text that implicitly or explicitly indicates any actions that external actors do to ensure that tourism benefits are equitably distributed among community members. Do not include text where interviewees merely give a comment without giving evidence about how such treatment creates barriers or enablers for community members to reap tourism benefits. 222 … [Business owners] also cooperate with each other. For example, [the family] next door does not sell, for instance, does not sell [things] like noodles. Meanwhile, their neighbor sells noodles. Sometimes, they borrow [the neighbors’] noodles… [They] cooperate, the profits are shared (Adam). … A particular community group does not enjoy the benefits of tourism directly. Do they want to contribute to payments for [village] development, while others are the ones who enjoy [the profits and other benefits]? Of course, not … we observe and hear that kind of thing, so propose [ideas] to the [Adat], so that the whole community, especially the 76 [representatives], are subsidized every time [they personally] fund building maintenance. I, too, want everyone to [participate] … so that all layers of community members can enjoy the benefits directly, right, so that they have [the sense of] ownership… (Tirta). When [these people] do not like [a community’s CBT implementation], we could boycott the village, which we did in [another village]. I told [the travel agent] … ‘Sir, the community is no longer cohesive. Tourists were brought to [one person’s house], and his kid was asked to dance.’ It is not community, right, not community-based. [He said], ‘Okay, Sir.’ He will not send [them] guests again. [The local community] will then understand [the importance of distributing tourism benefits]. (BALI COBTA) Table 5 (cont’d) CODE DEFINITION SUBCODE RULE EXAMPLE It refers to anything that external actors do that either facilitates or inhibits the majority of or the whole community from participating in tourism. External Factors Table 6 Any text that implicitly or explicitly indicates anything that external stakeholders do that either facilitates or inhibits the majority of or the whole community in reaping tourism benefits. Do not include text where interviewees merely give a comment without giving evidence about how such treatment creates barriers or enablers to local community participation in tourism Some (community members) took part in training from universities, [from tour guides], depending on their quota. This year, [we have] Japanese Language Training from the University of Mahasarawati… (Naufal’s relative) It is unfair, unless we get 60, government gets 40. They only collect [entry fees revenue]. They don’t create (anything). In here, [there are] many community activities. If one thing is damaged, community is the one who fixed it… (Teja) Effects of Tourism and CBT Responses – Coding Scheme CODE DEFINITION SUBCODE RULE EXAMPLE This refers to perceived current effects of tourism on the local socio- cultural life, and how the community has been responding to such situations CBT Responses for Maintaining Community Relationship CBT Responses for Environmental -related Effects of Tourism Any text that indicates perceived effects of tourism on community relationship, and/or how the community has responded to that. Do not include text where interviewees just point out their concerns without giving evidence that they are actually happening. Any text that indicates effects of tourism on the environment, and/or how the community has responded to that. Do not include text where interviewees just point out their concerns without giving evidence that they are actually happening. 223 CBT Responses for Ongoing Tourism Effects There was a lot of [jealousy] toward Mr. Malik, after the TMO was established … it was thought that TMO owned [tourism], [and that tourism-related] work [would be] carried out by [TMO]; [such an approach was perceived to] not be community-based… (Supri) … [guest] cannot throw tissue or whatever things in the waste bins even though we provide them… housewives clean [the household yard] first in the morning. In the late afternoon, ugh, why do people leave [our] toilet like that?... [Our village] is called the cleanest village, so how come the toilet is dirty? We are just aware of keeping the restroom clean for the guests (Asha) Table 6 (cont’d) CODE DEFINITION SUBCODE RULE EXAMPLE CBT Responses for Physical- related Effects of Tourism Cultural Protection Plan and Ideas Any text that indicates perceived effects of tourism on the physical environment of the village, and/or how the community has responded to that. Do not include text where interviewees just point out their concerns without giving evidence that they are actually happening. Any text that indicates perceived potential effects of tourism on the local culture, and/or how the community has responded or planned to anticipate that. Do not include texts where interviewees point out cultural protection plan and ideas that aim to satisfy tourist desire Tourism Development Plan and Ideas Any text that indicates plans, concerns, and/or ideas to keep tourism operating into the future. It can also include issues of sustainability aspect (local cultural protection and environmental conservation) that aim to sustain tourism business operations in the village. What is [our] first concept? Conservation, right? With the conservation concept, the quality of the thing that attracts [visitors] should be increased. For example, each yard is obliged to [have] traditional houses as an icon. They are angkul-angkul (gateyard), pawon (traditional kitchen), balesakaenem (ceremony pavilion). The roof must [be constructed of] bamboo… (Malik) …The customary village must really inherit, not only money and materials… But [youth] character must also be built just like we were [and] our former [prominent figures] … If I no longer work [and current prominent figures] do not work, I am concerned that those kids who [have] enjoyed the benefits will forget their responsibilities. (Surya) The community’s understanding of yadnya [holy offerings] is limited to religious ceremonies… Taking care of plants is also [one form of] yadnya. Then, maintaining human resources [through] training is [also a part of] yadnya. That is [how] I understand it. How many people understand? Not much… Tri Hita Karana… [the way people understand] the community’s relationship with God is by [holding] a huge ritual. We must balance that [with human development and environmental conservation]. [We] do not need to hold [a big] ceremony. Instead, huge spending [should be] allocated to human development. We allocated it to education… If needed, we pay [low- income community members] to go to school… (Surya) 224 CBT Responses for Anticipating Future Tourism Effects This refers to perceived potential effects of tourism on the local socio- cultural life, and how the community has been responding to such situations APPENDIX H: Indonesian Research Permit Figure 8 Indonesian Research Permit 225 REFERENCES 226 REFERENCES Anderson, C. (2010). Presenting and evaluating qualitative research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 74(8), 141. https://doi.org/10.5688/aj7408141 Andriyani, A. A. I., Martono, E., & Muhamad. (2017). Pemberdayaan masyarakat melalui pengembangan desa wisata dan implikasinya terhadap ketahanan sosial budaya wilayah (studi di desa wisata penglipuran bali). Jurnal Ketahanan Nasional, 23(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.22146/jkn.18006 Antara, M., & Sumarniasih, M. S. (2017). Role of tourism in economy of bali and indonesia. Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Management, 5(2), 34-44. https://doi.org/10.15640/jthm.v5n2a4 Antlöv, H., Wetterberg, A., & Dharmawan, L. (2016). Village governance, community life, and the 2014 village law in indonesia. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 52(2), 161– 183. https://doi.org/10.1080/00074918.2015.1129047 Armstrong, R. (2012). An analysis of the conditions for success of community-based tourism enterprises. ICRT Occasional Paper, No. OP 21, 1–52 Battaglia, M. P. (2008). Nonprobability sampling. In encyclopedia of survey research methods (pp. 524–527). Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963947 Bazeley, P. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: practical strategies. SAGE Publications Bhaskara, G. I. (2015). The local community as a stakeholder group and its participation in unesco’s world heritage nomination process: Jatiluwih village, bali, indonesia (22505) [Doctoral Dissertation, Bournemouth University]. Bournemouth University Research Online Blapp, M. (2015). Creative tourism in bali’s rural communities. [Master’s Thesis, NHTV University of Applied Sciences in Breda, Netherlands] Bloor, M., & Wood, F. (2006). Keywords in qualitative methods. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209403 Boonratana, R. (2010). Community-based tourism in thailand: The need and justification for an operational definition. Kasetsart Journal Social Science. Vol 31(2): 280-289 Asker, S., Boronyak, L., Carrard, N., & Paddon, M. (2010). Effective community-based tourism: A best practice manual. Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre. Australia. http://hdl.handle.net/10453/35150 Boyce, W. & Lysack, L. (2000). Community participation: Uncovering its meanings in cbr. In Thomas M, Thomas M.J. (eds) Selected Readings in Community-Based Rehabilitation Series 1, Bangalore, pp 39-54. BPS. (2019). Bali Province in Figures. Denpasar 227 Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism Management, 21(1), 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(99)00095-3 Butler, R. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for management of resources. Canadian Geographer, 24, 5–12. Byczek, C. (2011). Blessings for all? community-based ecotourism in bali between global, national, and local Interests – a case study. ASEAS - Österreichische Zeitschrift Für Südostasienwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.4232/10.aseas-4.1-5 Connor, L., & Vickers, A. (2003). Crisis, citizenship, and cosmopolitanism: Living in a Local and Global Risk Society in Bali. (Indonesia 75: 153-80) Cornwall, A. (2008). Unpacking ‘participation’: models, meanings, and practices. Community Development Journal, 43(3), 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsn010 Damanik, J., Rindrasih, E., Cemporaningsih, E., Marpaung, F., Raharjana, D., T, Brahmantya, H., Wijaya. (2018). Membangun pariwisata dari bawah. Yogyakarta: UGM Press Daging, I. G. D., Martiningsih, N. G. A. G. E., & Arnawa, I. K. (2019). View of preservation strategy of village tourism (case study in penglipuran village). International Journal of Contemporary Research and Review, 10(01), 21229–21236. https://doi.org/10.15520/ijcrr.v10i01.647 Dewi, N. I. K., Astawa, I. P., Siwantara, I. W., & Mataram, I. G. A. B. (2018). Exploring the potential of cultural villages as a model of community based tourism. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 953, 012072. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/953/1/012072 Dolezal, C. (2015). Questioning empowerment in community-based tourism in rural bali [Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Brighton]. Brighton Research Data Dorn, P. (2012). The sacred ecology of penglipuran: A traditional bamboo village on bali. [Bachelor’s Thesis]. Der Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen-Fakultät der Christian- Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel. Ernawati, N. M. (2015). Producer–market orientation of community-based tourism (CBT) products: A case study in bali, indonesia [Doctoral Dissertation, Edith Cowan University]. Edith Cowan University Research. https://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses/1685 George, B. P., Nedelea, A., & Antony, M. (2007). The business of community based tourism: A multi-stakeholder approach. Journal of Tourism Research, 1(1), 118–139. Goeldner, C. R., & Ritchie, J., R., B. (2011). Tourism: principles, practices, philosophies. New York: Wiley Giampiccoli, A., Jugmohan, S., & Mtapuri, O. (2015). Characteristics and policies of community- based tourism in the case of jamaica. Caucasus Journal of Social Sciences, 8, 45–70. http://hdl.handle.net/10321/2287 Giampiccoli, A., & Kalis, J. H. (2012). Community-based tourism and local culture: The case of the amampondo. PASOS Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 10(1), 173–188. https://doi.org/10.25145/j.pasos.2012.10.017 228 Giampiccoli, A., Mtapuri, O., & Local, C. D. T. D. B. (2017). Beyond community-based tourism. towards a new tourism sector classification system. Gazeta de Antropología, 33(1). http://www.gazeta-antropologia.es/?p=4974 Goodson, L., & Phillimore, J. (2004). The inquiry paradigm in qualitative tourism research. In J. Phillimore & L. Goodson (Eds.) Qualitative research in tourism: Ontologies, epistemologies, and methodologies (pp. 30-45). London, United Kingdom: Routledge Goodwin, H., & Santilli, R. (2009). Community-based Tourism: a success? (Vol. 39). University of Greenwich. Handayani, W., S. (2015). Tahapan pengorganisasian komunitas kreatif di desa penglipuran. [Undergraduate Thesis, Bandung Institute of Technology]. Hardini, W., K., N., L., P., A., & Suarthana, J., H., P. (2015). The study on bali tourism village management towards four dimensions of experience economy. E-Journal of Tourism, 2(1), 49–54. https://doi.org/10.24922/eot.v2i1.19444 Hillman, P. R. (2016). Tourism and quality of life: Perceptions of local industry employees in Ubud Bali. [Master’s Thesis, Southern Cross University]. Southern Cross Research Portal Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687 Ministry of National Tourism Development. (2009). Indonesian National Tourism Development Masterplan 2010-2025. https://www.kemenparekraf.go.id/post/peraturan-pemerintah- republik-indonesia-nomor-50-tahun-2011 Iorio, M., & Wall, G. (2012). Behind the masks: tourism and community in sardinia. Tourism Management, 33(6), 1440–1449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.01.011 Judisseno, R. K. (2015). Destination strategies in tourist development in indonesia, 1945–2014: Problems of bali centredness [Doctoral Dissertation, Victoria University]. VU Research Repository Kontogeorgopoulos, N., Churyen, A., & Duangsaeng, V. (2014). Success factors in community- based tourism in thailand: The role of luck, external support, and local leadership. Tourism Planning & Development, 11(1), 106–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2013.852991 Laksmi, A., Wisnumurti, A. A. G. O., & Mardika, I. M. (2018). Environmental wisdom in management of tourism village penglipuran in bangli regency. WARDS, Bali. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.30-10-2018.2281483 Löfgren, K. (2013, May 19). Qualitative analysis of interview data: A step-by-step guide [Video file]. Retrieved from (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRL4PF2u9XA) Li, M., Wu, B., & Cai, L. (2008). Tourism development of world heritage sites in China: A geographic perspective. Tourism Management, 29(2), 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.03.013 229 MacQueen, K. M., McLellan, E., Metzger, D. S., Kegeles, S., Strauss, R. P., Scotti, R., Blanchard, L., & Trotter, R. T. (2001). What is community? an evidence-based definition for participatory public health. American Journal of Public Health, 91(12), 1929–1938. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.91.12.1929 Manaf, A., Purbasari, N., Damayanti, M., Aprilia, N., & Astuti, W. (2018). Community-based rural tourism in inter-organizational collaboration: How does it work sustainably? lessons learned from nglanggeran tourism village, gunungkidul regency, yogyakarta, indonesia. Sustainability, 10(7), 2142. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072142 Martokusumo, K. S. (2015). Divergent expectations: Case studies of community-based tourism on the island of the gods, bali [Master’s thesis, Massey University]. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10179/7431 Michael, M., (2009). Community involvement and participation in tourism development in tanzania: A case study of local communities in barabani village, mto wa mbu, arusha- tanzania. [Master’s Thesis, Victoria University of Wellington]. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10063/968 Mtapuri, O., & Giampiccoli, A. (2013). Interrogating the role of the state and nonstate actors in community-based tourism ventures: Toward a model for spreading the benefits to the wider community. South African Geographical Journal, 95(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/03736245.2013.805078 Nurjannah, I., Mills, J., Park, T., & Usher, K. (2014). Conducting a grounded theory study in a language other than english: Procedures for ensuring the integrity of translation. Sage Journals, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014528920. Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Services Research, 34(5 Pt 2), 1189–1208. Phillimore, J., & Goodson, L. (2004). Progress in qualitative research in tourism. In J. Phillimore & L. Goodson (Eds.), Qualitative research in tourism: Ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies (pp. 3-29). London, United Kingdom: Routledge. Picard, M. (2008). Balinese identity as tourist attraction: From `cultural tourism’ (pariwisata budaya) to `bali erect’ (ajeg bali). Tourist Studies, 8(2), 155–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468797608099246 Pickel-Chevalier, S., Bendesa, I. K. G., & Putra, I. N. D. (2019). The integrated touristic villages: An indonesian model of sustainable tourism? Tourism Geographies, 0(0), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2019.1600006 Pratiwi, W, D. (2004). Tourism and built environment changes in traditional communities: Kuta and nusa dua, bali, indonesia as the case studies. [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Sheffield]. Retrieved from http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/12845/ Pretty, J, N. (1995). Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development 23: 1247–1263 Pujaastawa, I. B. G., & Putro, B. D. (2017). Desa wisata penglipuran: model pengelolaan daya tarik wisata berbasis tri hita karana. Balai Pelestarian Nilai Budaya. Jakarta 230 Rocharungsat, P. (2005). Community-based tourism: perspective and future possibilities. [Doctoral Dissertation. James Cook University]. Retrieved from http://eprints.jcu.edu.au/1323 Saldana, J. (2011). Fundamentals of qualitative research: understanding qualitative research. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. Saldana, J. M. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. Sardiana, I. K., & Purnawan, N. L. R. (2015). Community-based ecotourism in tenganan dauh tukad: An indigenous conservation perspective. Jurnal Kajian Bali (Journal of Bali Studies), 05(02), 22. Sebele, L. S. (2010). Community-based tourism ventures, benefits and challenges: Khama rhino sanctuary trust, central district, botswana. Tourism Management, 31(1), 136–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.01.005 Sproule, K. W. (1994). Community-based ecotourism development: Identifying partners in the process. In The ecotourism equation: Measuring the impacts (pp. 233–250). Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University. Sproule, K., W. & Suhandi, A., S. (1998). Guideline for community-based tourism programs: Lessons from Indonesia. In K. Lindberg, M. Elper Wood and D. Engeldrum (eds), Ecotourism: A Guide for Planners and Managers. Vol. 2. North Bennington: The Ecotourism Society Suartika, G. A. M. (2018). Global and domestic spheres: Impact on the traditional settlement of penglipuran in bali. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 123, 012014. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/123/1/012014 Sutawa, G. K. (2012). Issues on bali tourism development and community empowerment to support sustainable tourism development. Procedia Economics and Finance, 4, 413–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(12)00356-5 Tasci, A. D. A., Semrad, K. J., & Yilmaz, S. S. (2013). Community based tourism finding the equilibrium in the COMCEC Context (p. 109). COMCEC Coordination Office. Timothy, D. J. (1999). Participatory planning a view of tourism in indonesia. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2), 371–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(98)00104-2 Tolkach, D. (2013). Community-based tourism in timor-leste: A collaborative network approach [Doctoral Dissertation, Victoria University]. http://vuir.vu.edu.au/24383/1/Denis%20Tolkach.pdf Tomomi, I. (2007). Ecotourism in bali: Backgrounds, present conditions and challenges. 31. Tomomi, I. (2019). Tourism development and its social impacts in Bali, Indonesia, in the post- soeharto era. 26. 231 Tosun, C. (2000). Limits to community participation in the tourism development process in developing countries. Tourism Management, 21(6), 613–633. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(00)00009-1 UNWTO. (n.d.). Glossary of tourism terms | UNWTO. Retrieved April 27, 2021, from https://www.unwto.org/glossary-tourism-terms UNWTO. (2020). World Tourism Barometer No18 January 2020. Retrieved April 27, 2021, from https://webunwto.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2020- 01/UNWTO_Barom20_01_January_excerpt_0.pdf. Vainikka, V. (2013). Rethinking Mass Tourism. Tourist Studies, 13(3), 268–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468797613498163 Vajirakachorn, T. (2011). Determinants of success for community-based tourism: The case of floating markets in thailand. [Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University]. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-2011-08-9922 Wall, G. (1993). International collaboration in the search for sustainable tourism in bali, indonesia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1(1), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669589309450699 232