What is tourism industry? Every people knew that tourism is an activity of traveling to a place for pleasure (Webster, 2017) and since the activity is commercial thus it would be kind of an industry. Recently, tourism is one of the most exciting and progressive industries in all over the world. Part of the visitor economy, tourism is also big business and it impacts on almost every other industry. Hence everyone gains from properly managed tourism.
Tourism can be especially important in regional areas because it diversifies the area’s economic base and expands the employment market (UNWTO, 2017). In its broadest sense, the tourism industry is the total of all businesses that directly provide goods or services to facilitate business, pleasure and leisure activities away from the home environment. Like most industries, the tourism industry requires you to have industry-specific knowledge and information to create and run a successful business.
As a potential industry, of course tourism may positively impact one’s country or city in terms of economic advantages, employment opportunities, foreign exchange earnings, and growth in the service sector. However, it may also put pressure on the environment, especially when where’s a huge number of visitors in regions where the resources are already inadequate.
In fact, unrestrained traditional tourism has possible threats to a lot of natural resources from across the globe. It can lead to a lot of major problems that could totally harm the environment, such as natural habitat loss, increased pollution, soil erosion, and more. It will never be a great idea to exceed limits when it comes to tourism, particularly if the natural resources are at stake. Tourism is the most visible changes in the lifestyle of Balinese people for example, where Balinese people increasingly materialistic because money is a top priority in life. Social lives of the Balinese people are very well known and are now increasingly chaotic individualism. Money is central to their daily lives. The growth of tourism in Bali also has impacted to the productivity of rice fields. Many rice fields were sold for the benefit of foreign investors who want to build luxury resorts and villas. Not only that malls and shopping complex has been built on a wetland. Subak organizations increasingly threatened. Irrigation channels closed by buildings and roads, so the rice fields’ droughts and converted into residential and shopping complex (Bali Orti, 2015).
Lampung province is one of national tourism destination in Indonesia, where the development of tourism in 2010 the number of tourists by the occupancy rate of hotels and accommodations amounted to 395,961 tourist arrivals and an increase of 39.27 percent in 2011 which became 551,476. As well as in 2012 rose to 577,893 visits; increase of 4.79 percent over the previous year. Furthermore, a significant increase occurred in 2013 where the number of visits amounted to 971,400 visits, an increase of 68.1 percent over 2013, despite a decline of 5.6 percent in 2014 but in 2015 was a significant increase of 30 percent (Singagerda, 2016).
As a potential tourism destination, Lampung has many tourism objects with coastal and rural areas as the most of the characteristics of Lampung tourism destination (Singagerda, 2016). This can be interpreted that Lampung natural resources potential is a superior product for tourism development in the region so far. Furthermore, the pros and cons of the natural exploitation of late have also generated much debate, especially for activists who rely on the protection of nature and conservation (Walhi, 2016). The natural resources as a commodity of rural area destination, called by eco-tourism, focus focuses on actively participating in a rural lifestyle. Many rural villages can facilitate tourism because many villagers are hospitable and eager to welcome (and sometimes even host) visitors. Agriculture is becoming highly mechanized and therefore, requires less manual labor. This trend is causing economic pressure on some villages, which in turn causes young people to move to urban areas. There is, however, a segment of the urban population that is interested in visiting the rural areas and understanding the lifestyle.
Any successful tourism development, whether rural or not, depends on commercial, economic, and logistical issues, such as the quality of the product, accessibility and infrastructure of the destination, availability of skills, and interest of investors. In most of these aspects, rural areas may well be at a disadvantage compared to urbanized and more developed areas. These challenges may be compounded by political and institutional obstacles, particularly in developing countries, i.e. the administrative complexity of dealing with low-populated areas, the lack of policy coordination between rural development and tourism development, and low priority provided to rural areas by central governments. Thus, ways to deal with these challenges are needed. Rural tourism takes many different forms and is pursued different reasons. There are developmental reasons to promote tourism as a growth pole such as for regeneration following an agro-industrial collapse, or diversification of a remote marginal agricultural area into adventure tourism or cultural tourism. Moreover, rural tourism preserves some depth to a world increasingly being flattened out by the forces of globalization (Tanahashi, 2010). Other reasons relate more to development of the tourism product such as diversifying a country’s image or alleviating bottlenecks in popular sites. With downturns in rural economies over the last three decades, it is perhaps understandable that governments have given a great deal of attention to the economic benefits of tourism, particularly for rural areas attempting to keep pace and adapt to the vigorous globalized economy.
Any successful tourism development, whether rural or not, depends on commercial, economic, and logistical issues, such as the quality of the product, accessibility and infrastructure of the destination, availability of skills, and interest of investors. In most of these aspects, rural areas may well be at a disadvantage compared to urbanized and more developed areas. These challenges may be compounded by political and institutional obstacles, particularly in developing countries, i.e. the administrative complexity of dealing with low-populated areas, the lack of policy coordination between rural development and tourism development, and low priority provided to rural areas by central governments. Thus, ways to deal with these challenges are needed. Rural tourism takes many different forms and is pursued different reasons. There are developmental reasons to promote tourism as a growth pole such as for regeneration following an agro-industrial collapse, or diversification of a remote marginal agricultural area into adventure tourism or cultural tourism. Moreover, rural tourism preserves some depth to a world increasingly being flattened out by the forces of globalization (Tanahashi, 2010). Other reasons relate more to development of the tourism product such as diversifying a country’s image or alleviating bottlenecks in popular sites. With downturns in rural economies over the last three decades, it is perhaps understandable that governments have given a great deal of attention to the economic benefits of tourism, particularly for rural areas attempting to keep pace and adapt to the vigorous globalized economy.
Based on Chaudhry and Gupta, (2010), as many as 75% of the world’s poor live in the rural areas and more than one-third of rural areas are in arid and semiarid regions. It is in the context that rural tourism is identified as a tool for rural revitalization. An important question is whether more can be done to develop tourism within such rural areas, as a way of dispersing the benefits of tourism and increasing its poverty impact (Holland, et al., 2003). Lampung, within third-four as part of rural with some them is remote area also need revitalization by the local government using the optimization of a potential of resources. It means how the tourism sector can be involved in the revitalization of development both in economic and sosio-cultural in those areas.
Recently, The Government of Lampung province announced that tourism based community is one of the solution to develop the tourism sector (Kagungan et.al 2016). Such as the development of tourism in South Lampung district for example through the increasing participation and involvement of the community in managing tourism located in the tourist village, to optimize the development of community-based tourism, the Department of Tourism and Culture of Lampung Province in cooperation with the Department of Tourism and Culture of South Lampung district had organized “Pokdarwis” then legalized by Decree Bupati of South Lampung No. B / 612.a / III.16 / HK / 2013 on Stipulation of Awareness Group (Pokdarwis) and Forum for Awareness Group Communication (Forkom Pokdarwis) of South Lampung District. Hence, Pokdarwis has a very important role in the development of tourism and community empowerment because of Pokdarwis as a non-governmental organization is required to improve public awareness to participate in activities and tourism development in the village and utilize its potential.
The effectiveness of Pokdarwis in tourism development can be seen based on three indicators of organizational effectiveness presented by Duncan (Ariyanti, 2015), which are indicators of goal achievement, integration, and adaptation. On study by Ariyanti (2015) showed that Pokdarwis Desa Muli Way (as a sample area) has not been independent. Lack of independence of members and management of Pokdarwis in carrying out its functions and duties due to capacity and number of human resources, lack of assistance of related agencies in the process of community empowerment. Hence, the activities of Pokdarwis in Desa Muli Way are only in the form of coaching and counseling that has not been applicable. Therefore, the sustaining plan of tourism development must taken into account by local government through community base plan.
The term of planning is a process of human forethought and the subsequent actions based upon that thought that is focused on the future (Yiftachel, 2006) where planning is future orientated and simultaneously optimistic because it assumes the ability of the humans within the system to control the forces that impact upon the future. Community-based planning is a form of planning that focuses on the grass roots level of the community as the alternative to a top down approach (Beer, et al, 2005). Based on Kumar (2005), the concept of community can also be referred to as a community of practice whereby the networks of people are geographically dispersed but are linked by a shared set of interests or experiences. In general terms, the various definitions of a community all use some combination of space, people, and social interactions.
For postmodernists, the notion of community represents a desire to regain what has been lost as a result of modernity, in this sense community offers an alternative to modern society and the opportunity to gain something that was lost when people were transformed from an agrarian community structure to that of an industrialized society. It is perceived that social networks, a sense of belonging and self-identity were lost in the industrial transformation of society. Moreover, the notion of community assumes that the individual places the benefit of the collective over their own in the belief that those within the collective reciprocate the action in their decision making. Unlike those in modern society who operate under the premise of self-interest or individualism.
Criticisms of “community” abound in relation to social homogeneity, exclusion of minorities and that community represents a search for something that was never possessed in the first place. However, the notion of community is significant to planning in remote locations, as it provides a rich description of the relationship that a collection of relatively isolated people have with both the social and spatial attributes associated with their territory.
Community Base of Tourism is tourism activity, community owned and operated, and managed or coordinated at the community level that contributes to the well-being of communities through supporting sustainable livelihoods and protecting valued sosio-cultural traditions and natural and cultural heritage resources (ASEAN, 2016). Based on the definition, CBT must: 1. Involve and empower the community to ensure ownership and transparent management, 2. Establish partnerships with relevant stakeholders, 3. Gain recognized standing with relevant authorities, 4. Improve social well-being and maintenance of human dignity, 5. Include a fair and transparent benefit sharing mechanism, 6. Enhance linkages to local and regional economies, 7. Respect local culture and tradition, 8. Contribute to natural resource conservation, 9. Improve the quality of visitor experiences by strengthening meaningful host and guest interaction, and 10. Work towards financial self-sufficiency (UNWTO, 2017 and ASEAN, 2016), hence, CBT views tourism as an economic driver that enables each community member to have equal access to an improved quality of life. The premise behind tourism in this sense is that the industry will provide economic benefits that are not available from current economic development strategies. The process that the community undergoes in deciding the types of tourism that it will be involved in focuses on building capacity. The planning process enables the community to access information regarding tourism; make an informed decision on issues related to tourism; influence the decision making process and to have the skills to participate in tourism enterprises.
When we talk about CBT, the local communities are will not become tourist entrepreneurs, hence farmers still want to grow vegetables and breed animals, indigenous peoples still want to live their culture and preserve their traditions, and fishermen just want to fish. CBT is a source of complementary income (the average only 15%) that they use to improve their standard of living and to preserve their culture and eco-systems (Felipe, 2014). Therefore, they will be guided and provided by a set of principles to increase their income redistribution, transparency and capacity building. In another word, this type of tourism will opposite and rather different to mass tourism.
Thus, CBT in Lampung Provinces is only but a trickle today, but Lampung has the opportunity to enjoy a quality of sustainable tourism growth which can be a major contributor to their overall economic development which creates the appropriate balance with the local environment and cultures. This is contingent on the nurturing of new equal public-private sector partnerships, good governance, firmly-enforced regulatory frameworks to give investors and consumers’ confidence, along with environmentally- and culturally-sensitive development.
The entire community in Lampung province stands to gain most if the tourism industry is managed by an efficient, competitive and transparent legal, financial and political system. While Lampung is still at the early stages of being major destinations within the totality of Indonesian tourism, in Lampung, the provincial tourism infrastructure and current visitor markets are at a less mature stage of development than other provinces such as Banten, and West Java as the nearest Provinces. This suggests differing approaches required to address the tourism development-related issues and opportunities of Lampung.
Within Lampung Provinces, there are many opportunities for increased community involvement and control of tourism development that generates revenue that will stay in the host communities. The concept of ‘community tourism’ has the capacity to empower local and indigenous communities through community participation in tourism planning and management, ownership of tourism-related infrastructure and interpretation of traditional values and history to visitors. Within this Task Force report, in addition to the issues raised above, there are specific comments and recommendations designed to assist Lampung Provinces in relation to the collection of tourism statistics, destination marketing, product development, and the itineraries of future local government task forces.
REFERENCES
Ariyanti, E. (2015). Pembangunan Kepariwisataan Berbasis Masyarakat (Studi Efektivitas Kelompok Sadar Wisata Desa Way Muli, Kecamatan Rajabasa, Kabupaten Lampung Selatan). Retrieved from http://digilib.unila.ac.id/10684/1/ABSTRAK.pdf
Bali Orti. (2015). Positive and negative impacts on the tourism industry in Bali ~ Bali Orti, tour and travel guide in Bali, news, information about Bali, Indonesia. Retrieved August 29, 2017, from http://www.baliorti.com/2015/03/positive-and-negative-impacts-on.html
Chaudhry, P. and Gupta, R. K. (2010). Urban greenery and its sustainable extension strategies in the hot arid region of India. International Journal of Sustainable Society, 2(2), 146-155.
de Beer, F. (2005). Rural communities, the natural environment, and development - some challenges, some successes. Community Development Journal, 40(1), 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsi006
Felipe. (2014). Community-based tourism: a tool for sustainable development - Sumak Sustainable Travel | Tailor-made Latin America Tours and Adventures. Retrieved May 20, 2017, from http://www.sumak-travel.org/community-based-tourism-a-tool-for-sustainable-development/
Holland, J., Burian, M., and Dixey, L. (2003) Tourism in Poor Rural Areas: Diversifying the product and expanding the benefits in rural Uganda and the Czech Republic. http://www.propoortourism.org.uk/12_rural_areas.pdfKumar, C. (2005). Revisiting “community” in community-based natural resource management. Community Development Journal, 40(3), 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsi036
Kagungan, D., & Sari, Y. R. (2016). Kebijakan Pengembangan Kawasan Wisata Bahari Berbasis Kearifan Lokal dan Penguatan Kelembagaan Desa Dalam Rangka Meningkatkan Kesejahteraan Masyarakat. Jurnal Ilmiah Econosains (Vol. 14). Ed. Univ. Retrieved from http://journal.unj.ac.id/unj/index.php/econosains/article/view/595
Singagerda, Faurani Santi; Septarina, L. (2016). Journal of Indonesian Tourism and Development Studies. Journal of Indonesian Tourism and Development Studies, 4(3), 129–136. Retrieved from http://www.jitode.ub.ac.id/index.php/jitode/article/view/196
Tanahashi, T. K. (2010). A theoretical profile of globalization and its sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Society, 2(3), 306-325.
UNWTO. (2007). Tourism and Poverty Alleviation | World Tourism Organization. Retrieved March 20, 2017, from http://step.unwto.org/
Yiftachel, O. (2006). Essay: Re-engaging Planning Theory? Towards “South-Eastern” Perspectives. Planning Theory, 5(3), 211–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095206068627
http://www.asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ASEAN-Community-Based-Tourism-Standard.pdf
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tourism
