The Desa Wisata Terpadu as a vector of sustainable development in Bali ?

Sylvine Pickel-Chevalier, Associate Professor, Geographer

University of Angers, ESTHUA, ESO CNRS UMR 6590,

Introduction

The huge increase of tourism in Bali since the 1980’s generated a double phenomena:

• Boost the economic growth of Bali,

• but also the growing feelings of discontent against the capital-intensive tourism development (Picard and Vickers, 2017 –for coming).

These thoughts met the international new interrogations about the fairness of world development in the 1990, leading to the creation of the sustainable development and sustainable tourism development paradigms (1987 ; 1992).

>> Creation of the International Bali Sustainable Development Project (BSDP), carried out from 1989 to 1994

>> Lead to the creation of the : “integrated touristc village” (desa wisataterpadu) :

“village areas which have an atmosphere reflecting the authenticity of the Balinese village in regards to social and cultural activities, everyday customs, buildings and the traditional use of space, which at the same time able to provide the infrastructure, attractions, catering, and accommodations requires for tourists’ (cauted by Iwahara, 2016, 194).

Objectives:

To question, 25 years after their creation, the sustainability of this touristic village, interrogating their capacity to define new sustainable touristic models. We intend:

To confront their structure to the sustainable tourism paradigm, analyzing their economic, social and environmental characteristics.

We focus more especially on 3 specific cases, that are considered successful :

•Penglipuran (Bangly Regency), one of the historical touristic villages, organized on its traditional pattern regarding the layout of the houses and the exploitation of its Bamboo forest.

•Jatiluwith (Tabanan Regency), for its traditional rice terraces, one of the emblematic site of the Subak system, registered on the UNESCO heritage list in 2012.

•Tenganan (Karangasem regency), considered maintaining the

“Bali Aga culture”.

Methodology:

Literature review about sustainable development, sustainable tourism development, and tourism in Bali;

Analyze of the tourism statistics;

Qualitative survey, associating observations between March 2017 and March 2018 in each of the three villages, with:

-two representatives of the desa wisata terpadu policy working within the Ministry of Tourism, seeking to understand policy objectives and modus operandi;

-nine village residents, among them five woman, with diverse responsibilities in tourism development;

-one Balinese tourist guide who takes tourists to the three villages, thus offering us an outsider's perception of what recent evolutions in tourism of this type offers.

42 hours of interviews ; 200 hours of participant observation, conducted on-site.

I. The economic viability

Numbers of visitors varied according to their configuration : from around 15 000 (in Tenglanan) to 90 000 (Jatiliwith) and 150 000 a year (Penglipuran), but 70 to 100 % are visits only.

An economic diversification : Between 30 to 40% of the village work in tourism, between 40 % to 50% work in agriculture, around 20 % work outside the village.

Thanks to tourism, the village re-develop their population since the 2000’s : Penglipuran, Tenganan : around 230 families; Jatiluwith 350 families; between 700 and 1000 persons, 70% are less than 50 years old..

Limits:

• In exchange to local government help (parking area, accessibility, promotion), they give them between 40 to 60% (Penglipuran) of the entry tickets retribution.

>> To avoid the system, Tenganan village has no fee tickets entry : people give what they want. The income is less sure, but all for the community

II. Social organisation: a participative governance ?

From an up-bottom to a bottom-up dynamic ? > Created by the national governement but it works only if the local population appropriates and develops it.

> Imbrication of actors: national government for national promotion and integration into educational Tour; local governent for accessibility; local organization.

Local organization :• The money coming from the tickets entrance is kept for the community (organization of rituals, maintance of commun

areas, etc.)

• Inside the village, the families sell independantely their goods or accomodation.

• Tourism development is different according to the villages : 30 homestays and 3 guest house in Penglipuran; 5 homestays, 1 resort with 10 rooms and 5 restaurants in Jatiluwith and no homestay in Tenganan.

Conservation of traditional organization, based on the existence of a chief, leader of village….

But important decisions are always discussed during the community meeting. Participative governance.

All the touristic business (hotel, accommodation, goods selling) must belonged to the inhabitants.

Nonetheless, women stay very little present among those local chiefs. The situation is different according to the village : in Tenganan, the women participate to the meeting for the decisions (official equality)

… including societal transformations:

-It creats competition between the inhabitants involved into tourism and with the ones not working in tourism

>> To avoid it, in Penglipuran was created a community management for the accommodation: when tourists call to reserve homestay, they distributed them according to a « take turn » system.

>> In Tenglanan, to avoid too much change, the community forbid homestay.

-The role of women can increase thanks to their economic activity (homestay, selling goods) that give themmore automony.

-Growing importance of younger people, graduated from tourism higher education. They have the double skills: strong knowledge of their culture & the professionalization learned at University.

III) Enhance and transmisson of heritage: between conservation, transformation and reinvention

The double effect of tourism : conservation by adaptation.

• Gives the possibility to conserve the traditional activities of the village, with the condition to adapt them to the needs of tourists, who are co-producers.

• In a close/open dynamic characteristic from Bali (Picard, 1994), the villages are partially open to tourists:

>> A main street devoted to tourism (shopping, accommodation) but with the conservation of traditional shape. Behind, the village usually stays traditional. People are very sensitive about keepingdemarcation between the tourists « window » (main street) and personnal life, including elements of modernity.

It is not tourism that weaken first traditional agriculture activity, but modernisation and globalization, because of a lack of efficiency (Bendesa, 2017)

Yet, in the 3 villages, traditional rural activity stay dominant (between 40 to 50%)because they are combined with tourism that gives opportunity to sell at higher prices, directly to the tourists.

But this tourism activity requires transformation and reinvention of culture, to to be attractives:

-Penglipuran : goods products from Bamboo; -Tenganan : basketery and Gringsing, textile with double ikat technique. 40 families products the textile; 2 families made the Gringsing. - Jatiluwith : accommodation activity but direct sell stay little and need improvement of quality.

The conservation of traditions require adaptation

>> Tenganan local people can nowadays marry someone coming from outside the village thanks to a ceremony making « re-birth » the newcomer.

Tourism favors this double-process of transmission & integration into the modern world through adaptation:

• Increase of modernity, comfort and accessibility (for accommodation);

• Enhance of cultural minorities such as Aga Bali (Tenganan)

Pandan War Ritual

IV) Environmental management

It stays poor, for economic and cultural reasons:

• Environmental management –water recycling, energy saving system- required lot of money and skills.

• Remaining cultural lack of interest among the lower-class population, about concrete pollution or animals well-being (cock fights living under a basket ; cows tied by noosemost of their live)

Under the pression of tourists and thanks to the professionalization of the youngpeople going to University, the sensitivity seems to increase but stay difficult to reach.

Conclusion

Sustainable development is not a scientific concept defining a « perfect model » of developmentthat can’t exist, since it depends of socio, economic and cultural factors and interpretation.

> But it is a project of development, including economic, social, cultural and environmentalstakes.

According to this definition, the « integrated touristis village » assimilated those consideration, with the diversities echoing their specifities. Nonetheless, some commun characteristicsemerge :

• Nor a up-bottom neither a bottom-up phenomena, but a combinaison of the stakeholders;

• Based on a strong invovlement of the local population, including traditional organisation (chiefs of village) and young people educated at university/college.

• Tourism is a strong vector of cultural enhance, through adaptation, including cultural re-invention (process of collective memory selections).

• By this, tourism favors both the conservation of the traditional village and their entry intothe modern world.

Remaining difficulties:

• Lack of qualified human ressource, since the income and salary staylow. Only 5 owners can speak English in Jatiluwith and can be guide; the tourist manager in Penglipuran isn’t pay for this work for the community.

• Lack of Environmental management and sanitation, reducing tourismpotencies and local development (problem of access to water in Tenganan).

This study demostrates :

1) The capacity of those villages to tend to a « sustainable model » thatnonetheless keep limits and difficulties, finding a balance between

conservation, evolution and reinvention.

2) The necessity for the sustainability paradigm to integrate flexibility, echoing the economic, social and cultural world diversity.