Sound tourism planning is widely viewed as a way of maximizing the benefits of tourism to an area and mitigating problems that might occur as a result of development. According to Getz, planning is a process . . . which seeks to optimize the potential contribution of tourism to human welfare and environmental quality (Getz 1987:409). Places with carefully planned development are likely to experience the most success in terms of high tourist satisfaction level, positive economic benefits, and minimal negative impacts on the local social, economic, and physical environments.

Scholars have identified a significant evolution in tourism planning paradigms from narrow concerns with physical planning and blind promotion to a more balanced form of planning that recognizes the need for greater community involvement and environmental sensitivity (Getz 1987; Inskeep 1991; Murphy 1985). de Kadt (1979)and Krippendorf (1982) realized the need for a type of product that would promise the greatest social benefits. Pearce (1989) declared that planning should become more concerned with integrating tourism with other forms of social and economic development. These changing emphases in planning suggest a significant dissatisfaction with traditional approaches to tourism development and a perception that improvements can be made. Further, because it is commonly accepted that tourisms impacts are most apparent at the level of the destination community, researchers have started to emphasize the need to decentralize planning and to integrate it into broader community-defined development objectives (Haywood 1988; Long 1993; Prentice 1993; Simmons 1994; Timothy 1998). Greater levels of public participation in tourism development have been heralded by many planning specialists (e.g., Gunn 1994; Inskeep 1991; Murphy 1985).

Public participation in tourism can be viewed from at least two perspectives: in the decision-making process and in the benefits of tourism development (Fig. 1) (McIntosh and Goeldner 1986; Wall 1995). Participation in the former generally refers to empowering local residents to determine their own goals for development, and consulting with locals to determine their hopes and concerns for tourism. The concept also includes the involvement of other stakeholders and interest groups in decision making. Increasing incomes, employment, and education of locals are the most apparent ways of involving community members in the benefits of tourism development (Brohman 1996; Echtner 1995; Pearce et al. (1996)). Tolerance to tourist activities appears to be strengthened if opportunities are provided for active resident participation in the ownership and operation of tourism facilities (DAmore 1983)

Therefore, three notions form the focus of this paper: involvement of community members in decision making, participation of locals in the benefits of tourism, and education of locals about tourism. These principles, albeit Western perspectives, collectively comprise the concept of participation in tourism development as used in this paper. By contrast, most of the literature deals with what should be done, at the expense of building understanding of what is actually undertaken and what can be employed given local conditions. Such a situation is especially true in the developing world. This paper examines to what extent these principles are actually implemented in Indonesia where the political, sociocultural, and economic environments are very different from those in the developed countries where these paradigms originate.

2. Participatory tourism planning

Most characteristics of community-based tourism are derived from the transactive and advocacy planning traditions, wherein weak interest groups are defended and local residents are given more control over the social processes that govern their welfare (Hudson 1979). This approach has recently received a great deal of attention in the literature in response to the obvious shortcomings of the traditional economic emphasis on tourism development. One of its most active proponents, Murphy 1985, emphasizes a strategy that focuses on identifying the host communitys goals and desires for and capacity to absorb tourism. According to Murphy, each community is supposed to identify its own goals and pursue tourism to the extent that it satisfies local needs. This style of planning recognizes that social and environmental considerations need to be included in planning and that tourism should serve both tourists and local residents. Long 1993 argues that if local people are not involved in this process, the implementation of even the most well-planned, well-meaning mitigating programs will be altered by those very people. Similarly, Gunn (Gunn, C.A. 1994 Tourism Planning: Basics, Concepts, Cases (3rd ed.). Washington DC: Taylor and Francis.Gunn 1994:111) claims that Plans will bear little fruit unless those most affected are involved from the start. According to Murphy,

Tourism . . . relies on the goodwill and cooperation of local people because they are part of its product. Where development and planning do not fit in with local aspirations and capacity, resistance and hostility can . . . destroy the industrys potential altogether (Murphy 1985:153).

Korten suggests that, for similar reasons, the more complex the problem, the greater the need for localized solutions and for value innovations—both of which call for broadly based participation in decision processes (Korten 1981:613). In addition, community-based planning also recognizes that various stakeholders need to be involved in decision making (Jamal and Getz 1995). The public sector, private businesses and organizations, and environmental advocates are interdependent stakeholders in a complex tourism domain, where no single individual or group can resolve tourism issues by acting alone (Brohman 1996; Gunn 1994).