From Village Control to Corporate Enclave: Tourism Governance and Livelihood Resilience in Indonesia
This systematic literature review analyzes how Indonesia's tourism governance models, ranging from community-based to corporate enclaves, shape multidimensional livelihood resilience, revealing that hybrid community-dominant models offer the most comprehensive benefits while highlighting a critical research and policy gap regarding spatial rights and private-dominant enclaves.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Imagine the world of tourism as a giant, bustling marketplace where people from all over come to explore, eat, and take photos. But behind the scenes, there's a quiet, complex game being played about who actually runs the show. This game is called "tourism governance," and it's not just about who holds the keys; it's about who gets to decide how the money is shared, who gets to keep their home, and how the local environment is treated. To understand this, scientists use a few big ideas. First, there's "livelihood resilience," which is like a community's immune system: how well can a village bounce back when a storm hits, a pandemic strikes, or a big company moves in? Second, there's the "governance spectrum," which is a sliding scale. On one end, the local villagers run everything themselves (like a neighborhood potluck organized by the neighbors). On the other end, a giant corporation or the government runs the show, and the locals are just employees or bystanders (like a theme park built on a village's land). Why does this matter? Because if the wrong person is holding the reins, a community might make a lot of money for a few years but lose their land, their culture, or their ability to survive when the tourists stop coming.
This paper is a massive detective story that looked at 80 different research reports about tourism in Indonesia between 2016 and May 2026. The authors wanted to see how different ways of running tourism affect the four pillars of a community's life: their money (economic), their friendships and teamwork (social), their right to stay on their land and use the sea or forests (spatial rights), and the health of nature around them (ecological). They treated these reports like puzzle pieces, sorting them into four different "governance teams" to see which team built the strongest, most resilient communities.
The investigation revealed a fascinating, and slightly worrying, imbalance. The vast majority of the research (about 81%) focused on the "Community Teams"—places where locals run the show or where they have a strong say. These studies showed that when communities have a say, they are usually great at making money and staying socially tight-knit, especially when disasters like earthquakes or pandemics hit. It's like a neighborhood that bands together to fix a broken fence; they are fast, strong, and supportive. However, the researchers found a huge blind spot. They barely studied the "Corporate Enclaves"—the places where big companies or the government take total control, which are actually the focus of Indonesia's biggest new tourism projects. It's as if scientists were only studying how well family gardens grow, while ignoring the massive industrial farms right next door, even though those industrial farms are the ones getting all the new funding.
When the authors mapped out the results, they found that the "Hybrid Community-Dominant" model was the clear winner. Think of this as a team where the locals are the captains, but they have a coach (like a local business group or a park manager) helping them with resources and rules. This group was the only one that showed strength in all four areas: they made money, stayed united, kept their land rights somewhat secure, and even looked after the environment. It was the most well-rounded player on the field.
In contrast, the "Pure Private" or "Enclave" models were the most dangerous for the locals, but also the least understood. The few studies that did look at these areas found that while they might bring in some cash, they often led to people losing their land or being pushed off their traditional fishing spots. The research on these areas was mostly about the conflicts and the fights over land, rather than how the communities were actually thriving. The paper suggests that the "Spatial Rights" dimension—keeping people on their land—is the most ignored part of the puzzle across the board. Even in the successful community models, scientists rarely asked, "Did they lose their land rights while making money?"
The paper concludes with a clear message for the government: stop guessing and start planning. They suggest that the "Hybrid Community-Dominant" model should be the standard rulebook for all new tourism projects. They also propose that before any big company is allowed to build a massive resort, they must prove they won't hurt the community's land rights or environment, similar to how a builder needs a permit to ensure a house won't fall down. The authors warn that without these checks, Indonesia's tourism boom might build a shiny castle on a foundation of sand, leaving the local communities to wash away when the next wave comes.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.