CC BY
0
RJOAS, 5(125), May 2022 UDC 332; DOI 10.18551/rjoas.2022-05.16
NETWORK OF STAKEHOLDERS: A CASE STUDY OF BONGKASA PERTIWI AND PANGSAN TOURISM VILLAGE IN BALI PROVINCE, INDONESIA
Dewi Nyoman Indah Kusuma*
Department of Business Administration, Bali State Polytechnic, Bali, Indonesia
Abdi I Nyoman
Department of Accounting, Bali State Polytechnic, Bali, Indonesia
Mataram I Gusti Agung Bagus, Suarja I Ketut
Department of Tourism, Bali State Polytechnic, Bali, Indonesia
*E-mail: ikdewi@pnb.ac.id
ABSTRACT
The first purpose of this paper was to construct the framework of relational networks of stakeholders. The second was to unveil the participation of stakeholders in the social network context. The notion mentioned by Kimbu and Ngoasong (2013) regarding participation in a social network context was applied as a reference. Two tourism villages were selected as case studies. They were Bongkasa Pertiwi tourism village and Pangsan tourism village located in Badung Regency, Bali Province, Indonesia. This study examined the attitude of stakeholders when performing cooperation by utilizing qualitative research. Thus this study was exploratory in nature. A semi-structured in-depth interview with the stakeholders, observation and documentation were the data collection method used. The data collected was analyzed by using a cross-case method. The frameworks of relational networks and the participation in social network context deduced from the data. The findings revealed that frameworks of the relational network divided into Tourism Distribution Network and Tourist Experience Network. The participation of stakeholders in tourism village networks classified into strong interlocking ties that was relationship bound by formal contract and strength of weak ties (relationship bound by informal agreement). Thus, the suggestion was that a tourism village should have a legal contract with significant stakeholders to ensure collaboration in a network and maintain sustainability.
KEY WORDS
Social networks, networks, stakeholders, tourism village.
The tight competition in the tourism market encourages tourism businesses or destinations to seek new approaches, adopting new strategies and models to respond to the current requirement of the tourism industry (Marion, Eddleston, Friar and Deeds, 2015). Establishing cooperation in a network instead of merely competing as a stand-alone business is an alternative solution (Fyall and Garrod, 2005; Beritelli, 2011; Czernek, 2014). The sustainability of business can be developed by maintaining and nurturing cooperation with the stakeholders involved directly and indirectly in the network. The network concept explores the relationship among entities such as organizations or people that are called nodes (Baggio and Sainaghi, 2016). They are embedded in a relational structure and do not act in isolation but engage in relationships with other actors (Jesus and Franco, 2016). Nodes may represent individuals, teams, organizations, communities, regions, or social artifacts (Jesus and Franco, 2016). The members work together based on trust, commitment, communication, exchange, mutuality, respect, and reciprocity (Ramayah, Lee, and In, 2011). A cooperation network is a process of a limited number of organizations working together to achieve the same goals but remains in control of their resources (Baggio, Scott and Cooper, 2010). Most of the studies about networks relate to the structure of this relationship. The network has been acknowledged as the fundamental way to transfer information and
resources and establish cooperation among firms (Lemmetyinen and Go, 2009). Tourism has always been a networked industry comprised of national tourism offices, hotels, attractions, transport, tours, travel agents, and restaurants (Baggio and Sainaghi, 2016).
Network analysis in the tourism sector gains attention from researchers (Liu, Huang, and Fu, 2017). The network is a framework for analyzing the evolution of business, product development, and opportunities for further development (Presenza and Cipollina, 2010). The network also has a role in managing public-private relationships and understanding the structure of tourism governance (Presenza and Cipollina, 2010). Three research streams identified that related to network analysis in the tourism contexts: (1) network analysis on the tourism research collaboration and knowledge creation; (2) network analysis on the tourism supply, destination, and policy systems; and (3) network analysis based on the tourist movements and behavioral patterns (Liu, Huang, and Fu, 2017). Tourism networks have different types of relations, such as dense ties that encourage conformity, acceptable action, and inclusion; therefore, they encouraged destination cohesion (Pavlovich, 2003). Next is sparse ties that can exclude stakeholders as bridges to external players to the destination, facilitate the new information flows, and introducing innovation (Scott, Cooper, and Baggio, 2008). Participation in the network is divided into; (1) the strength of weak ties; (2) the strong interlocking ties; (3) the cross-cutting ties; and (4) the structural equivalence ties (Kimbu and Ngoasong, 2013). The exploration of the existing social network in tourism is studied using these four tiers types of participation.
The application of a network of stakeholders is also relevant in the tourism village as a tourist destination. The purpose of a tourism village involves a relationship within a network is to maintain its sustainability in the long term (Graci, 2013). Thus, cooperation and collaboration of stakeholders have a role in a network. Additionally, no study focuses on the tourism supply chain in the tourism distribution network of a tourism village (Liu, Huang, and Fu, 2017). With this regard, the purpose of this paper is twofold. Firstly, to construct the framework of relational networks of stakeholders. Secondly, to unveil the participation of stakeholders in a social network context. The notion by Kimbu and Ngoasong regarding stakeholders' participation in a social network context is as a reference in this study. Conceptually, this study explores the concept from stakeholder theory as well as social network theory (Kimbu and Ngoasong, 2013) that is to: (1) identify stakeholders in tourism (Timur and Getz, 2008; Timur and Getz, 2009; Waligo, Clarke and Hawkins, 2013); (2) examine the patterns of network relationship (Poudel, Nyaupane, and Budruk, 2014); and (3) analyze their roles (Baggio, Scott, and Cooper, 2010). The following is the literature review related to the discussion of this study includes describing the networks in the tourism sector, stakeholders in the tourism sector, and social network structure in tourism.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Networks in the tourism sector. A network is defined simply as inter-organization cooperation and collaboration (Merinero-Rodríguez and Pulido-Fernández, 2016). The embeddedness, dominance, and the overlapping of resources are the success factors of a network (Van der Zee and Vanneste, 2015). Embeddedness is related to how a firm has dense relationships within the network caused by the series of positive results of being in the relationship. Dominance is the physical or information resource flows within the network reflect the power of each firm relative to others. The overlap of resources means the similarity of resources that firms have in a network. Thus network reflects relationship enhancement. Network in tourism destinations such as tourism villages has drawn attention from many researchers. A tourism network is "a set of formal, co-operative relationships between appropriate organizational types and configurations, stimulating inter-organizational learning and knowledge exchange and a sense of community and the collective common purpose that may result in qualitative and/or quantitative benefits of business activity, and/or network collaboration and performance community nature relative to building profitable and sustainable tourism destinations" (Ramayah, Lee, and In, 2011).
Being involved in a network for a tourist destination has some benefits. The benefits are: (1) able to organize and integrate tourism destinations; (2) improve the performance of tourism destination; (3) provide tourists with unforgettable experiences; and (4) function in turbulence competitive world (Zach and Racherla, 2011; Cawley, Marsat and Gillmor, 2007; Gretzel and Fesenmaier, 2003).
Stakeholders in the tourism sector. The source for maintaining sustainability in a network depends on stakeholder involvement or collaboration in the tourism sector (Ramayah, Lee and In, 2011; Graci, 2013; McComb, Boyd and Boluk, 2016; Robertson, 2011). Tourism stakeholders include various types such as immigration, customs, local government, locals, hotels, tourism site management, suppliers, distributors, competitors, transporters, and other firms carrying out complementary activities (Ramayah, Lee and In, 2011 ). The stakeholders of the tourism distribution network of a tourism village consist of organizations (private or public) those are travel agents, tour operators, performance providers, attraction providers, activity providers, owners of the accommodation (homestay), and owners of small businesses. These stakeholders in the tourism industry coordinate and collaborate to synergize their resources to achieve their common goals that are tangible (profit) and intangibles (knowledge sharing) which trust, commitment, and effective communication are the foundation (Ramayah, Lee and In, 2011 ).
Social network structure. The transfer of information and resources demonstrates an overview of the architecture of a network structure (Bagio, 2017). The density of a network structure reflects the number of connections between actors within the network. The highly dense networks consist of many connections and information exchanges within the network to prevent third-party influence. Less dense networks have fewer connections which allow organizations to have more liberty in their actions. Kimbu and Ngoasong state the social network as: "understanding the nature of participation in tourism development involves an examination of the structure of the tourism industry, defined as a social network, to uncover the representative stakeholders, the attributes they have with other stakeholders, the nature of interactions and how these influenced different elements of tourism development" (Kimbu and Ngoasong, 2013). Trust, commitment, and communication within stakeholders in the networks lead to the development of a social network (Ramayah, Lee, and In, 2011; Marion, Eddleston, Friar, and Deeds, 2015). Stakeholders participation in a social network context are: (1) Strength of weak ties (stakeholders who are acquaintances based on informal contacts); (2) Strong interlocking ties (stakeholders who are strongly connected based on formal contacts); (3) Cross-cutting ties (stakeholder relationships that cut across competing and conflicting interests); and (4) Structural equivalence or status in a network (Kimbu and Ngoasong, 2013).
Tourism Village. A tourism village is a tourist destination in a rural area equipt with the integration of sources of attractions (physical, social and cultural uniqueness), accommodation, and supporting facilities embedded in the daily life of the community include procedures and traditions (Utami, Taufik, and Bhakti, 2019; Zebua (2016). The tourism village concept is to improve the participation of residents to manage their natural resources to benefit from this development. The Ministry of Tourism and Creative Economy defines a tourism village as an administrative village area that have potential and unique tourist attractions where tourists are experiencing daily life and traditions of community with all potential (2019). The criteria of tourism village are: (1) having a potential attraction (nature, culture, and creative work; (2) having a community; (3) having potential human resources involved in developing tourism village; (4) having an ancillary to manage the operation of tourism village; (5) having an opportunities, facilities, dan basic infrastructure to support tourism activities; and (6) having resources to develop tourist market. Muresan (2016) and Zhang (2012) stated that the impact of tourism village to the residents are: (1) improving the quality of life caused by the economic improvement of the area; (2) enhancing new jobs opportunities; (3) developing the general infrastructure; (4) constructing environmental degradation; (5) reducing the urban-rural gap; and (6) building a harmonious society. The tourism components necessary to establish a tourism village are: (1) attraction is any activities experienced by the tourist during their stay in the village such as local daily life,
traditions, arts, festival, and local nature; (2) accommodation is in terms of homestay own by residents; (3) amenities include supporting infrastructures such as institutions, souveniers shops, food stall, money changers, tour operators, tourist information center, and transportation (Anikasari, Haryono, and Utomo, 2020).
METHODS OF RESEARCH
Regarding the objectives of this study, an approach of qualitative research has been applied in this study. The qualitative approach is not rigid therefore it allows interaction with the subject of investigation, the process is inductive to provides a general conception of a network in a tourism village (Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill, 2012). The case study (as one of the qualitative methods) is applied in this study because it allows the researcher to examine a contemporary phenomenon in a real-life context where the phenomenon and the context are not clearly defined (Yin, 2014). The application of the multiple case studies in this study is in light of the replication intention (Yin, 2014). Two tourism villages are the cases which have similar tourism attractions, activities, and location. These are Bongkasa Pertiwi and Pangsan tourism villages located in Badung Regency, Bali Province, Indonesia. Bali is a famous tourist destination in Indonesia and well known throughout the world as the best destination by Tripadvisor Travelers' Choice Award 2021 regardless of the pandemic (indonesia.travel, 2021). Bali is the leading tourist destination in Indonesia which Badung Regency is the most famous tourist spot in Bali. Data collections utilized a semi-structured in-depth interview with the stakeholders, then enriched and cross-checked by enforcing observation and documentation (Yin, 2014). The number of informants is from travel agents, tour operators, performance providers, attraction providers, activity providers, the owner of accommodation (homestay), and owners of small businesses as the stakeholders of tourism destinations. Each case was analyzed separately applied within-case and cross-case analysis to invent the patterns of stakeholder's network. Within-case analyzed following Miles and Huberman (1994) by focusing on data reduction, data display, conclusion drawing, and verification. Data was presented in a table to facilitate conclusion drawing and verification.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Bongkasa Pertiwi and Pangsan tourism villages were appointed as tourism villages by Badung Regent Regulation Number 47 Year 2010 with nine other villages. Bongkasa Pertiwi is a tourism village located in Abian Semal District, Badung Regency, Bali Province. The area of Bongkasa Pertiwi is 1.6 km2 with 2,531 people live here. Bongkasa Pertiwi is an area located in the highlands with an altitude of 312 m above sea level, a humid tropical climate with almost 2000-3000 mm/year rainfall with an average regional temperature of 25-29°C. Bongkasa Pertiwi is sitted in the river bank of Ayung River. It is famous for panoramic views of the rice terrace, adventurous attractions and activities (rafting, swing, paintball, and trekking), and silver handicraft. Accommodation belongs to residents in their houses available for tourists to stay overnights. Amenities are available such as money changers, food stalls, souvenir shops, tourist information centers, and easy access by cars.
Pangsan Village is a village located in Petang District, Badung Regency, Bali Province. The area of Pangsan covers 5.76 km2 with a population of 2,597 people. The location of Pangsan is easy to access by private vehicles and in the highlands with undulating contours 480 m above sea level. The rainfall is around 3.500 mm/year the average temperature is 22-28°C. The same as Bongkasa Pertiwi, Pangsan also is located on the bank of Ayung river. The nature scenery is the main tourist attraction with the attractive rice field with the traditional Balinese irrigation system called Subak. The tourism activities and attractions in Pangsan include a trekking route around the rice field, plowing the rice fields using the Balinese cattle, and other integrated agriculture attractions. Cycling, rafting, and culture are other attractions to be explored. Accommodation is available although in small numbers, and amenities are limited.
Table 1 - Social Relationship Participation of Stakeholders with Bongkasa Pertiwi Tourism Village
Stakeholders Relationship Participation with Bongkasa Pertiwi Tourism Village
Community Community involvement plays an active role in supporting the existence of a tourism village through the establishment of Tourism Awareness Group (TAG) with duties to improve the understanding of the residents about the importance of the tourism village to improve their welfare. Therefore, they will willingly participate in tourism activities. The relationship within TAG and between TAG and the tourism village bind with a formal contract. The contract covers the right and obligations of the bounded parties.
Performance Providers The dance group, traditional music group, and other arts groups and cultural performances have an insignificant role in tourism villages activities. This is because the main attraction in this village is adventure tourism activities such as extreme swings and rafting. There is no formal contract between the tourism village management with the service providers. The relationships are based on performance.
Village Officials Village officials have a contribution in ensuring the availability of supporting infrastructure. For example, one of the Village-Owned Enterprises is responsible for the availability of clean water to the community because of the abundant water in Bongkasa Pertiwi village.
Government The local government has a role in enhancing the skill and knowledge of the community by providing training and workshops based on the need for tourism villages or special programs from the government such as entrepreneurship and excellent services. Although, this is not a regular occasion.
Travel Agents/ tour operators Travel agents/tour operators have a role in bringing tourists to this village, no formal contract between travel agents and the tourism village, only an informal agreement. They work together based on trust and commitment.
Tourists Tourists visit the village predominantly arranged by travel agents and only a few by their initiative. Usually, the tour package has already included tour activities and visit attractions. Voluntary travelers get information about the village from friends' recommendations, social media, and browse the Internet.
Homestay owner There is one homestay in the village that consists of 10 rooms. The number of tourists stays here are low, most of the tourist go back to the hotel where they stay. This is due to the type of tourist attraction is adventures tourism which only takes a short time. There is no formal contract with the tourism village.
Tourism Business Tourism businesses, such as rafting, silver shops, swings, and paintball have an exclusive contract with the tourism village. Profit-sharing is the main focus of the contract.
Table 2 - Social Relationship Participation of Stakeholders with Pangsan Tourism Village
Stakeholders Relationship Participation with Pangsan Tourism Village
Community The involvement of the Tourism Awareness Group (TAG) in the community is very comprehensive. TAG has succeeded in gauging public awareness of tourism to the community. TAG leads the coordination within tAg (internal) and with other stakeholders as well (external). TAG and village-owned enterprises that responsible for managing tourism villages are bound with a formal contract.
Performance Providers There are dance and traditional music groups performer to present the traditional and cultural uniqueness of the village. The groups perform based on request and appointment. The coordination among the group and tourism village is without a formal contract. It is nurtured from trust and commitment.
Village Officials The role of the village officials is significant for the development of Pangsan tourism village. They participate in ensuring the infrastructure is ready to support tourism activities. For example, ensuring the tourism village environment is proper, and having sufficient water and electricity. There is a formal contract between village officials and TAG.
Government The Badung Regent government has a role to facilitate workshops and training, establish a waste management system, and conduct the promotion of tourism villages actively. The role of the Bali Provincial Government is limited to coordinate the tourism villages.
Travel Agencies/tour operators The participation of travel agents/tour operators in bringing in tourists to visit is insignificant. Tourist comes to the village by their arrangement. There is no contract between travel agencies and the tourism village.
Tourists The number of tourists visits Pangsan is very few. The reason is there is a small number of tourists having consideration to cycling, trekking, and rafting from Pangsan. The tourist comes because of the recommendation from friends and relatives. Some of them know the place from browsing the Internet to look for a more private destination. Tourists come because of their own will.
Homestay There is one homestay ready for tourists provided by residents. There is a contract with TAG.
Tourism Business There is one small business that belongs to a resident that provides rafting, trekking, and cycling. There is no formal contract with the tourism village.
The management of tourism villages is different from the management of administrative villages. The tourism village is a business operated by a village-owned enterprise (Badan Usaha Milik Desa) which manages, controls, and is responsible for the tourism activities within the villages. The village-owned enterprise is responsible for tourism activities works hand in hand with the Tourism Awareness Group (TAG) to sustain the tourism village. A tourism village may have more than one enterprise depends on the available resources.
The data gathered from the interview with 22 informants with the distribution of 3 people each from the community, performance providers, village officials, government, travel agencies/tour operators, tourists, and tourism business except one from homestay owner. Data analyzed to expose the relationships participation of stakeholders of a tourism village. The composition of informants is 3. The result is presented in Table 1.
The data is collected by the interview with 19 informants consisting of 3 people each from the community, performance providers, village officials, and travel agents/tour operators. 2 people each from the government, tourists, and tourism business, and 1 from the homestay owner. The result of data analysis is presented in Table 2.
The framework of relational network and social network participation is drawn from the data analyzes of the two cases that are Bongkasa Pertiwi and Pangsan tourism villages (Figure 1).
Figure 1 - The framework of relational network and social network participation in tourism village
Figure 1 demonstrates the relational network of a tourism village with its stakeholder in which the tourism village is the center of the network. The relation is divided into Tourism Distribution Network and Tourist Experience Network. Tourism Distribution Network consists of Tour Operator and Travel Agent. While, Tourist Experience Network consists of Tourism Business, Government, Community, Homestay, Performance Provider, Village Official, and Tourists. They inter-related and cooperated in doing business with different rates of participation. In the same light as Kimbu and Ngoasong (2013) statement, the social network participation existing in the tourism village network has 2 types, they are: (1) strength of weak ties (among Tourism Village with Tour Operator, Travel Agent, and Tourists); and (2) strong interlocking ties (only dyadic relationship between Tourism Village and Government, Homestay, Community, Performance Provider, and Village Official). Strong interlocking ties
are because they have a formal contract in their relation. This is in line with (Del Chiappa and Presenza, 2013) stated that a destination is a sparse network characterized by a low level of density meaning most of the relationship in the network is a strength of weak ties. The social network among other the stakeholders such as Tour Operator, Travel Agent, Tourism Business, Government, Homestay, Community, Performance Provider, Village Official, and Tourist are categorized as strength of weak ties.
CONCLUSION
The framework of a relational network in a tourism village, particularly in Bongkasa Pertiwi and Pangsan can be divided into Tourism Distribution Network and Tourist Experience Network. Meanwhile, social network participation reflects the strength of weak ties (relationship bound by informal agreement) and strong interlocking ties (relationship bound by formal contract). The suggestion for a tourism village is better to have a formal contract to ensure the relationship in the network and able to maintain sustainability.
REFERENCES
1. Anikasari, L., Haryono, A., & Utomo, S. H. (2020). Tourism Village: Economic Activity Increases? South East Asia Journal of Contemporary Business, Economics and Law, 21, 163-168.
2. Baggio, R. (2017). Network science and tourism - the state of the art. Tourism Review, 72, 120-131. doi:10.1108/tr-01-2017-0008.
3. Baggio, R., & Sainaghi, R. (2016). Mapping time series into networks as a tool to assess the complex dynamics of tourism systems. Tourism Management, 54, 23-33. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2015.10.008.
4. Baggio, R., Scott, N., & Cooper, C. (2010). Network science; a review focused on tourism Annals of Tourism Research, 37, 802-827. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2010.02.008.
5. Beritelli, P. (2011). Cooperation among prominent actors in a tourist destination, Annals of Tourism Research, 38, 607-629. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2010.11.015.
6. Cawley, M., Marsat, J. B., & Gillmor, D. A. (2007). Promoting integrated rural tourism: Comparative perspectives on institutional networking in France and Ireland. Tourism Geographies: An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment, 9, 405420. doi:10.1080/14616680701647626.
7. Czernek, K. (2014). Tourism features as determinants of knowledge transfer in the process of tourist cooperation. Current Issues in Tourism, 20, 204-220. doi:10.1080/13683500.2014.944107.
8. Del Chiappa, G., & Presenza, A. (2013). The use of network analysis to assess relationships among stakeholders within a tourism destination: An empirical investigation on Costa Smeralda-gallura, Italy. Tourism Analysis, 18, 1-13. doi:10.3727/108354213x136137202835.
9. Fyall, A., & Garrod, B. (2005). Global Tourism. (3rd ed). Burlington: ButterworthHeinemann/Elsevier publications, pp 52-73.
10. Graci, S. (2013). Collaboration and partnership development for sustainable tourism. Tourism Geographies, 15, 25-42. doi:10.1080/14616688.2012.675513.
11. Gretzel, U., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2003). Implementing a knowledge-based tourism marketing information system: The Illinois tourism network. Information Technology & Tourism, 6, 245-255. doi:10.3727/1098305032781175.
12. Indonesia.travel. (2021). Bali, #1 Winner of 2021 TripAdvisor Travelers' Choice Award. Retrieved from https://www.indonesia.travel/id/en/news/bali-1st-winner-of-2021-tripadvisor-travelers-choice-award.
13. Jesus, C., & Franco, M. (2016). Cooperation networks in tourism: A study of hotels and rural tourism establishments in an inland region of Portugal, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 29, 165-175. doi:10.1016/j.jhtm.2016.07.005.
14. Kimbu, A. N., & Ngoasong, M. Z. (2013). Centralised decentralisation of tourism
development: A network perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 40, 235-259. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2012.09.005.
15. Lemmetyinen, A., & Go, F. M. (2009). The key capabilities required for managing tourism business networks. Tourism Management, 30, 31-40. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2008.04.005
16. Liu, B., Huang, S., & Fu, H. (2017). An application of network analysis on tourist attractions: The case of Xinjiang, China. Tourism Management, 58, 132-141. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2016.10.009.
17. Marion, T. J., Eddleston, K. A., Friar, J. H., & Deeds, D. (2015). The evolution of interorganizational relationships in emerging ventures: An ethnographic study within the new product development process. Journal of Business Venturing, 30, 167-184. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2014.07.003.
18. Mbaiwa, J. E. (2011). Changes on traditional livelihood activities and lifestyles caused by tourism development in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Tourism Management, 32, 10501060.
19. McComb, E. J., Boyd, S., & Boluk, K. (2016). Stakeholder collaboration: A means to the success of rural tourism destinations? A critical evaluation of the existence of stakeholder collaboration within the Mournes Northern Ireland. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 17, 286-297. doi:10.1177/1467358415583738.
20. Merilainen, K., & Lemmetyinen, A. (2011). Destination network management: a conceptual analysis. Tourism Review, 66, 25-31. doi:10.1108/16605371111175302.
21. Merinero-Rodríguez, R., & Pulido-Fernández, J. I. (2016). Analysing relationships in tourism: A revie. Tourism Management, 54, 122-135. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2015.10.010
22. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. (Chapter 1).
23. Mira, M. U., Taufik, H. E. R., & Bhakti, W. N. (2019). Village tourism: The implementation of Community Based Tourism. International Conference of Organizational Innovation (ICOI 2019) Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, 100, 537542.
24. Muresan, I. C. et al. (2016). Local residents' attitude toward sustainable rural tourism development. Sustainability, 8, 1-14. doi:10.3390/su8010100.
25. Pavlovich, K. (2003). The evolution and transformation of a tourism destination network: The Waitomo Caves, New Zealand. Tourism Management, 24, 203-216. doi:10.1016/S0261-5177(02)00056-0.
26. Pechlaner, H., & Volgger, M. (2012). How to promote cooperation in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24, 925-945 doi:10.1108/09596111211247245.
27. Presenza, A., & Cipollina, M. (2010). Analysing tourism stakeholders networks. Tourism Review, 65, 17-30. doi:10.1108/16605371011093845.
28. Poudel, S., Nyaupane, G. P., & Budruk, M. (2014). Stakeholders' perspectives of sustainable tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 55, 465-480. doi:10.1177/0047287514563166.
29. Ramayah, T., Lee, J. W. C., & In, J. B. C. (2011). Network collaboration and performance in the tourism sector Service Business, 5, 411-428. doi: 10.1007/ s11628-011-0120-z.
30. Robertson, P. J. (2011). An assessment of collaborative governance in a network for sustainable tourism: The case of Redeturis. International Journal of Public Administration, 34, 279-290. doi:10.1080/01900692.2010.550078.
31. Scott, N., Cooper, C., & Baggio, R. (2008). Destination networks. Annals of Tourism Research, 35, 169-188. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2007.07.004
32. The Ministry of Tourism. (2019). Buku Pedoman Desa Wisata. (1st ed). Jakarta: The Ministry of Tourism, (Chapter A).
33. Timur, S., & Getz, D. (2008). A network perspective on managing stakeholders for sustainable urban tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20, 445-461.doi:10.1108/09596110810873543.
34. Timur, S., & Getz, D. (2009). Sustainable tourism development: How do destination stakeholders perceive sustainable urban tourism? Sustainable Development, 17, 220-
232. doi:10.1002/sd.384.
35. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research Methods for Business Students. (6th ed). Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited. (Chapter 5).
36. Van der Zee, E., & Vanneste, D. (2015). Tourism networks unravelled; a review of the literature on networks in tourism management studies. Tourism Management Perspectives, 15, 46-56. doi:10.1016/j.tmp.2015.03.006.
37. Waligo, V. M., Clarke, J., & Hawkins, R. (2013). Implementing sustainable tourism: A multi-stakeholder involvement management framework. Tourism Management, 36, 342-353. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2012.10.008.
38. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research Design and Methods. (5th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, (Chapter 2).
39. Zach, F., & Racherla, P. (2011). Assessing the value of collaborations in tourism networks: a case study of Elkhart County Indiana. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 28, 97-110. doi:10.1080/10548408.2011.535446.
40. Zhang, X. M. (2012). Research on the Development Strategies of Rural Tourism in Suzhou Based on SWOT Analysis. Energy Procedia, 16, 1295 - 1299.
