RUANG


CULTURAL HERITAGE TOURISM – CASE STUDY OF PALEMBANG

SPACE


Oleh : Listen Prima 1

Abstrak

Artikel ini mengkaji tentang site-site peninggalan yang ada di Palembang, beserta potensinya untuk dijadikan wisata warisan budaya di Indonesia. Palembang sangat tergantung terhadap tantangan dan keuntungan yang diperoleh dari industri kepariwisataan, sehingga proses perbaikan-pun perlu dilaksanakan di segala bidang untuk keberlanjutan kondisi serta kesejahteraan ekonomi dari salah satu provinsi yang berlokasi di sebelah selatan Pulau Sumatra ini. Penelitian ini merupakan sebuah studi empiris yang menginvestigasi: beragam metode terkait konservasi serta peningkatan dan efektifitas dari tata aturan yang ada, baik yang diinstigasi di tingkat nasional, regional, dan lokal. Setiap variabel dikaji dari sisi potensi yang kemungkinan dimilikinya, dan dievaluasi berdasarkan data-data yang telah didokumentasikan berkenaan dengan masing-masing studi kasus. Ketergantungan Palembang terhadap pendapatan yang diperoleh dari industri kepariwisataan, mensyaratkan adanya peningkatan dalam aspek pendanaan, kesadaran masyarakat, konservasi, perubahan dalam tata aturan, dan yang paling penting adalah proses pentaatan masyarakat terhadap tata aturan yang ada pada semua level. Hasil analisis disini secara mengkhusus merekomendasikan adanya efesiensi dari perundang-undangan yang ada, salah satu aspek dasar yang sangat perlu peningkatan di Palembang.

Kata kunci: proteksi, peningkatan, peninggalan, legislasi, pariwisata

Abstract

This paper examines heritage sites in Palembang and their potential for cultural heritage tourism in Indonesia. Palembang is very reliant on the challenges and dominance of tourism benefits, and upgrading in all areas is necessary for Palembang's (a province located in the southern part of Sumatra) continuing economic well-being. This research is empirically focused and investigates methods for conservation, enhancement and the effectiveness of existing legislation at national, regional and local levels. Each variable is assessed as to its potential, and evaluated on the basis of case study material. Since Palembang is very reliant on revenues from tourism and it is imperative that significant improvement occurs in terms of funding, public awareness, conservation, legislative change and most importantly, enforcement of the law at all levels. The result of this analysis lead to recommendations in all areas, but specifically for the effectiveness of regional legislation, which is currently represents a catastrophe for Palembang.

Keywords: protection, enhancement, heritage, legislation, tourism

Introduction

It is important to define the influence and role of regional legislation in the protection and enhancement of heritage sites. The legislation in Palembang is implemented in such a way that it reflects local character in terms of the potential for cultural heritage tourism.

Regarding the importance of the protection and enhancement of heritage sites based on the potential for cultural heritage tourism, methods that have been applied in Palembang for integrating the protection of the heritage sites and tourism development need to be urgently examined. Such examination would provide a comparison of the implementation of local legislation through local programs in order to find appropriate methods for the case study area. Besides, no study has been conducted within the case study area about the evaluation of the methods for the protection and enhancement of heritage sites based on their potential for cultural heritage tourism will be undertaken.

A heritage site is more than the aesthetics of buildings or a unique area. It holds cultural values for the local area and community (Hosagrahar 2010). Hence, it is the national identity that differentiates historically between one civilization and another. However, cultural value that is evident in the heritage site needs to be continually maintained and enhanced to prevent deterioration. Such not only saves and increases the cultural value of the heritage area it also improves the potential economic value. The aim is to maximize both functions. The conflict of interest between the protection itself and the tourism business could be a problem for the local government, because, the government needs to decide which interest should be prioritized. Thus, the involvement of the community, academics, experts and other related groups could provide the additional value to the programs in each case study area.

Heritage areas are important in developing the strong character of the regions. The term ‘heritage’ encompasses more than national pride and is not simply a descriptive term; ‘it is equally important as the capacity for myth creation, legends and stereotypes form from the original identity’ Further, cultural heritage significance means aesthetic, historic, scientific or social value or other special values for future generations as well as for present community as stated in The Burra Charter: For indigenous people, the significance of aplace is the spiritual, social, historic, and aesthetic value which the place holds for the community or groups in the community. Furthermore, heritage buildings and areas can be found in almost every region in the world. The characteristics of heritage areas help form the identity of each region, since they vary from one region to another. However, the perception of uniqueness of the specific sites of heritage could differ between some communities. As defined that cultural heritage is universal in that every culture has a heritage, but that heritage is unique to each culture or community (Mathews 2010). Heritage demonstrates the national identity and the sense of belonging to a nation. In addition, a sense of national belonging, grounded in the collective memories, myths and symbols of a nation and its people, lies at the core of maintaining the existence of a nation and fortifying national sovereignty (Park 2009).

There are three means the use and role of heritage as identity and belonging, political uses and economic (Greame & Aplin, 2002). Heritage triggers a sense of belonging. It may also benefit the national image, and provide political and economic stimulus for local people. However, there are national and local conservation challenges. For example while this heritage is the country’s pride and identity, Afghanistan’s the authorities lack policies and resources for the preservation and the protection of historic sites; communities lack awareness of the monuments’ significance and need for their protection (Najimi 2011). This situation is commonly found in the developing countries that lack law enforcement and have less sustainable management, for heritage protection and enhancement, such as Indonesia today.

There is strong potential for cultural tourism offered by heritage sites. For example, the recent increase of tourism in heritage sites began to have negative impacts. It has also been argued that heritage tourism becomes a growth industry in declining localities, bolstering local economies (Chamas et al 2010, Aplin 2002). So potential cultural heritage tourism should also be supported by the development of other sectors, such as education and industry. Consider what has happened in George Town, Penang, Malaysia. The development of Penang since the 1970s has been driven by a policy of low-skill, low-wage manufacturing (State of Penang, Malaysia 2008). Such a policy cannot support the development of the management or even infrastructure, since there is a lack of skilled people. The area could not compete with other regions, since the development was slow. Hence, the fewer the investors, the less the rapidly areas developed. When, there is limited availability of skilled people, it can be difficult to improve the development of other industries. Thus, cultural heritage tourism remains the priority sector of the state. In another example, the Italian city of Venice has other problems in relation to cultural heritage tourism development. “Venice is also a site that exhibits many of the issues that are/indicative of, and which confront contemporary tourism: environmental degradation; heritage/management problems; conservation issues; major impacts on, and implications for, the host/community” (Rowe & Lawrence 1998). Many historical experts are worried that there will be only the myth of Venice will remain, since it is not supported by the improvement and development of other sectors (Staiff 2011). Thus, it could be said that the economic value of cultural heritage should not be relied upon exclusively without other supporting sectors of heritage development management.

Furthermore, good management is necessary to realize the potential of heritage sites to attract tourists. It is also important to consider the point of tourism development;

“There are some principles to be considered in developing the tourism development, such as encompassing natural, built and cultural components; meeting the needs of the local host community by improving the living conditions and quality of life; satisfying tourist demands while continuing to attract tourist” (Hunter 1997:10).

Tourism development of heritage sites should: reflect and respect the scale, nature and distinct character of the local people; support a wide range of local economic activities; not obliterate the natural and cultural environment; balancing the need of the visitors; the development activities must be based on local value systems; economic benefits must be equitably distributed; and involvement of the stakeholders (Slee et. Al 1997 & WTO 1993).

While the potential of heritage tourism to bring economic benefit may improve economic conditions of local areas, there are consequences of cultural tourism. Economic development could over exploit tourist attractions, with, for example, the destruction of sites by too many visitors. There is direct conflict between a site/manager who wants to limit the number of visitors to avoid the site’s damage, and from local people and national government for the purposes of income and branding respectively. Moreover, There is a danger that the short-term imperative economic development impedes the sustainable development of tourism (Helmy 2012). Stakeholder involvement is an important aspect of cultural heritage tourism. Stakeholder identification is important as there are numerous entities that can be/identified based on one or all of the following

attributes: their power to influence/decisions; the legitimacy of their relationship with the business; and the urgency of their/claim on the business (Mitchell et al. 1997; Sauter and Leisen 1999).

There is a view that heritage as a component of cultural tourism should be managed and marketed separately (Lounski & Lounlanski 2011). Most research discusses the development of the heritage tourism industry (see Ashworth & Tunbridge 2000; Graham, Ashworth & Tunbridge 2000). Only a few researches are considering the question of heritage supply and its management (Lounski & Lounlanski 2011). They argue that local economic development cannot be set up as the main goal of cultural heritage tourism without integrated management of the heritage itself. It seems that without good heritage management, the result of the heritage project results purely in commercialization. There are five P’s in developing cultural heritage tourism which should be balance (Slee et al. 1997 & WTO 1993) each other, namely preservation, planning, packaging, promotion and partnership.

Policies and Strategy

The main aims and areas of policy are the requirement for and orientation to the development process. These are derived from common cases which have occurred in heritage tourism sites. Many areas of cultural heritage are difficult to access and local economic development is stagnant. It is important to set up policies in order to develop the economy by infrastructure development and community involvement. Paradoxically, community involvement can also be a threat. Such involvement without expert supervision may have negative impacts. There is also danger from community-led selfhelp restoration’ (Abdul W. Najimi 2011). Community involvement should be assisted by local initiatives and training or education from experts. Community involvement in delivering conservation/benefits to the Annapurna Conservation Area, in Nepal was based on ecological assessments and social surveys (Bajracharya, Siddharta et al. 2005). It is important to educate both villagers and tourists about existing problems and to seek participation in rescuing heritage sites (Chakravarty 2008).However, investigation of the results of community-based heritage conservation is still lacking. Assuming community involvement, it is important to make sure the community is one of the actors in heritage protection and enhancement, since the community can bring another point of view to promote heritage values, as well as to support tourism development, local areas. Furthermore, learning about a community's history through its historic places fosters civic pride, reinforces people's sense of identity and strengthens feelings of connectedness among members (anonymous 2011).

Hence, it is not a simple matter for the local authority to apply effective policies and strategies. In Egypt, problems in implementing tourist policies in heritage sites were as follows- limited objectives, a gap between the general tourism policy and the strategy for culturalheritage conservation, absence of accountability, policy not integrated with the archaeological/authority, and finally insufficient strategies (Helmy 2002). Strategies adopted by the local authority could be developed for following aspects as suggested, such as the maximum permitted number of tourists to each site calculated in tourist/days, the recommended entrance/fee, the sites that will be temporarily closed for restoration and renovation, the sites that have recently been discovered and can be used as tourist/attractions and the current pressures and threats to sites due to tourist activities. However, there is less discussion about how conservation goals can be found in early

planning legislation and its development as a state activity (Pendlebury & Strange 2011). Most of the regulations put more focus on urban development rather than the conservation movement and are also weak in the protection of the heritage buildings. Legislation should mediate the common interest and conservation needs by involving relevant party such as independent groups/community and experts in related field.

The implementation of policies and strategies should be determined by both organizational structure and organizational culture (Weed 2002). However, this analysis is quite narrow, since the management and implementation of the policies and strategies demands an integrated management approach, not only by the organizational structure and culture, but also by other related parties or authorities such as planners, and architects (Hall & McArthur 1998). This research determines those elements of organizational structure and culture, as well as related parties in terms of the policy implementation of heritage protection and enhancement heritage sites based on their potential for cultural heritage tourism. However, to my knowledge no previous research has discussed the effectiveness of policies in the protection movement of heritage sites in the case studies of Palembang.

Methodology

The main perspective of discussion is the potential of Palembang heritage site for cultural heritage tourism. As the case study is Kampung Kapitan as one of heritage villages in Palembang. Policy implementation and environmental concerns, and the social and economic impacts of cultural heritage tourism were studied. Furthermore, I will focus on how regulations have been applied and their effectiveness in relation to existing cultural heritage sites, compared to an ideal system, management and forms of protection and enhancement of such cultural heritage areas. To date, there is no study about the effectiveness of existing legislation at any level of regulation, to protect and enhance cultural heritage sites in relation to their potential in the case study area.

To conduct this study, the author uses the methods of analysis policies and case study. Analysis policy is a step to familiarize the researcher with the kind of policies that have been applied in Indonesia, especially in local government of Palembang, South Sumatera Province in the protection and enhancement of cultural heritage as it relates to tourism. This step conducted by collecting, describing and analyzing the policy at the level of national regulation, local or regional regulation. The second steps of research are analyzing the case studies. It is the adopted method for further investigating Palembang city. Analyzing the case study is an insight into people’s life which is required for better understanding and an improved response or attitude (Gilham 2000). The case study is also defined as “a potentially large number/of observations on intervening variables and qualitative/measures of different aspects of the dependent/variable, so there is not just a ‘single measure’ of the/variables” (King et al. 1994).

Thus, it is hoped that through the case study method, there could emerge a clear description about the condition of the related elements and legislation improvement in terms of the protection and enhancement of the local heritage sites. Hence, the result of the case study research could be used to generalize and to contribute to the development of the theory about the protection and enhancement of the heritage sites in terms of the regulatory framework and its implementation (Chatterji 2001). In addition, it has been argued that the case study method may include both/within-case analysis of single cases and comparisons/between or among a small number of cases (Bennett 2001). The last

step of analysis involves the comparison of the implementation of regulations within the three study cases. The analysis focuses on the impacts of the regulation implementation by the local government as the local authority, the role of tourism and management as part of the way to protect and maintain the cultural heritage sites and community involvement. There will also be analysis of the differences which may assist in developing a system applicable to other areas in Indonesia. Evaluation of the existing regulations aims to show whether such regulation is effective.

Case Study Area

Palembang city is the center of transportation, docking and trading in South Sumatera. The location is strategic because it passes by the road linking Trans Sumatra with regions in Sumatra Island. Palembang city is divided in two areas by the Musi River; Seberang Ilir to the north and Seberang Ulu to the south. The Seberang Ilir is Palembang's economic and cultural centre and the Seberang Ulu is the political center. Deep-water port facilities have been built along the Musi River. Thus the government established Palembang’s as “City of Water Tour’ with Musi River as the icon of the city. Beside the port along Musi River, Palembang has many heritage sites, such as houses, graves, churches, mosques, and sites. In this research, Kampung Kapitan, which consists of traditional houses will be analyzed further as the case study project in terms of the legislation enforcement in cultural heritage protection.

Government of Palembang city does not have any specific regional regulation which focuses on the cultural heritage protection. Issues which relate to that are conducted in accordance with the National Regulation of the Law No.11 Year 2010.This regulation has general application and does not apply to Palembang. The criteria and the classification of the cultural heritage are limited. They do not cover all of the areas needed to for security and preservation. As Tanudirjo Daud (2012) argues that requirements of the regulation are set up by the central government, thus there are some objects which do not fulfill the requirements in provinces or districts.

Some data concerning the social and economic conditions of the case study area of Palembang are presented in Table 1. It shows the effectiveness of the regulation implementation in these areas in regard to social, economic and environmental considerations. The total area of Palembang is 400,610 km2 with a population of 1,481,814 people, give an indication of the available natural and human resources. The number of unemployed and poor people demonstrates the local condition as one of the challenges in developing the program in Palembang city. Those numbers of historical sites are stated by the government based on the criteria which are mentioned in the Law (Undang-undang or UU) No. 11 Year 2010 about heritage culture. There is a complex system of tourism management. The number of tourists is the main factor in the total contribution of tourism to regional income. Furthermore, as a next step, regional legislation could be introduced to support the enhancement of the tourism development, especially the cultural heritage tourism.

Table 1. Socio - economic figures of case study areas

Data

Case Study Area (Palembang City)

Total Area

400,610 km2

Population

1,481,814

Unemployment

9,183

Number of Poor People

33, 11% of total population

Contribution of Tourism Sector to the Regional Income

12%

Number Hotel

  • -    Classified Hotel

  • -    No classified Hotel

26

100

Tourist Domestic Foreign

831,948**

831,509

439

**in 2012 there was a national sport competition in Palembang

Year 2008 = 645.255

Year 2009 = 675.952

Historical Sites

Grave         = 6

Mosques     = 4

Church       = 5

Heritage House = 2

Museum     = 2

Sites           = 30

Garden        = 3

Source: BPS- Statistics of Palembang 2010-2011

Based on those data, the great number of the heritage sites is one of the potential resources to develop the tourism, especially the cultural heritage tourism. Indeed, the existence of the regional legislation as a controller and guidance is important. The national legislation is not enough to develop strong cultural heritage tourism which is built based on the local values. The regional legislation covers the detail requirements and important needs to set the programs of local cultural heritage tourism. Thus, it will support to decrease the poverty or poor people in Palembang and promote better supporting facilities such as hotels.

Regulatory Framework and Implementation

My analysis covers the general regulation at the national level as the basic source for local cultural heritage areas. It will also influence the form and focus of local government as the local authority. Furthermore, there will identification of regional legislation and the focus on its conservation content.

The number of heritage sites in Palembang is large. However, the sites have not yet been registered. Since conservation in Palembang is based on national legislation, there is a big problem with the listing of heritage sites. The criteria set up in the national legislation may not be applicable to the heritage sites in Palembang. Regional legislation which suits the conditions and needs of Palembang has not yet been ratified by local government. Thus the heritage sites in Palembang are based on the registration of national heritage criteria. In contrast, the heritage sites in Yogyakarta and Bali are based on regional

heritage criteria, since those heritage sites are protected under the regional legislation in each area.

Implementation

To advance heritage protection in Palembang, local government has attempted to introduce certain programs. However, the number of local programs is still limited. The government of Palembang has developed a program of listing and publicizing heritage sites as the priority destination for local cultural heritage tourism and has set up the iconic “city of water tourism” which offers the view of heritage sites during the water trip along the Musi River. The boat passes the certain heritage sites, such as Traditional Houses along the river, Pulau Kemaro, and Kampong Arab.

Table 2. Local regulation on cultural heritage tourism programs of Palembang City

Implementation

Guideline

National Legislation

Law No. 11 year 2010 about the Culture Heritage

Focus

General guidelines about every issue related to the cultural heritage and applied as the national guideline for all provinces/cities/districts in Indonesia.

In the implementation, the scope of the program of related boards/local government covers the three provinces of Jambi, South Sumatera and Bengkulu.

Local Program

Research and development program

No recent international cooperation in developing the cultural heritage. The government of Palembang city is still seeking the opportunities developing an understanding the potential aspects through comparison other provinces/cities in Indonesia.

Methods of promoting the potential

Setting the heritage tourism sites as the main destination for tourism.

Alternative program encouraging local participant

No supporting/alternative method for encouraging local participants

Local group involvement

Limited involvement of interested groups; however academics and educational institutions attempted involvement in the cultural heritage tourism.

The absence of protective regional legislation has encouraged the establishment of the working unit/team of “Unit Pelaksana teknis/Direktorat/Perlindungan dan Pembinaan/ Peninggalan/Sejarah” (technical unit of historical protection and maintenance) which covers the three provinces of Jambi, South Sumatera and Bengkulu. This unit is responsible for issues related to the protection and maintenance of the historical sites within those three provinces.

In other sites, Palembang city’s government is setting the revitalization project of Benteng Kuto Besak (Kuto Besak Fort). This project has involved the government of Palembang City and the Defence and Resilience Directorate of Indonesia. This project is believed to be quite successful, since the area has become more livable and one of the tourist destinations. Based on the programs above, the application of those could be analyzed as shown by Table 2.

Ideally Palembang needs more local programs for the protection and enhancement of such heritage sites. The existence of regional legislation with compulsory programs isa crucial factor in fostering the protection of heritage sites, as well as encouraging their effective management.

However, the protection and enhancement of CHT in Palembang, together with two provinces near Palembang is still covered by one regulatory framework. Thus, it is difficult to set programs which totally fit with the specific conditions of Palembang. Hence the opportunity for the involvement of a third party or related group is still very limited, and there are fewer programs set up by the local government in order to protect and enhance the CHT.

Case Study Project of Seribu Lilin (Thousand of Candles) in Kampung Kapitan (Kapitan Village), Palembang

This section examines the project that was controversial in case study area. This examination highlights the challenges and the impacts of local regulation for protection and enhancement of these heritage sites as well as issues related to the development of tourism. In addition, it will contain a description of the local regulatory frameworks and how these relate to the application and implementation of regulatory regimes.

Government of Palembang city names the Kampung Kapitan as one of the cultural heritage tourism areas in Palembang. This is because the history of the KampungKapitan, which is an area/village consisting of some traditional houses (a mix of Malay, Chinese and Europe styles in the design). Now, most of the houses are in poor condition, since the owners do not have enough money for their maintenance or renovation. As Kohar (2011) says the government of Palembang city always promises to give funds for renovating and maintaining the houses, but so far has not come through as yet. The local government only did some basic maintenance based on limited money, for example replacing a roof or wall with cheap material. This supports the view in the literature that the most vulnerable changes to cultural heritage sites or buildings are those done by the owners themselves. The government of Palembang city tried to preserve the area of Kampung Kapitan by focusing on the whole area rather than just the buildings/houses.

A controversial project has been run in the area called as “Seribu Lilin (Thousand of Candles)”. The project is to try to maximize tourism potential of the open space by installing many lamps stands in order to attract tourists as part of the plan “Visit Musi” adopted as a slogan of Palembang tourism. In contrast, the local people in that area do not have sufficient places for cultural ceremony, such as traditional wedding parties or even places for the children to play in. The project did not take account of the opinion of the local people. The government wanted to make the area was interesting for tourists without giving attention to the impacts of the project itself. Another problem has emerged in relation to the preservation of heritage sites in this area. The traditional houses have not been well maintained with the result that traditional houses with weakened structure cannot be visited by large number of tourists anymore as before. Unfortunately, the local government does not appear to be able to take further action for better protection of sites and for better management of tourism.

Figure 1. Kampung Kapitan (Kapitan Village) with the Seribu Lilin (Thousand Candles) Source: rentmob.blogspot.com/2012/03/wisata-alam-di-kota-palembang.html

Proposals

Hence, regarding the effectiveness of existing legislation some challenges remain, such as interference from the tourism business. A number of negative aspects of regulatory regimes emerged from an investigation of projects in the case study area. They are as follows:

  • 1.    Low local public policy enforcement

This is weakly enforced and relates to the dominance of other interests. Developer has too much power in influencing the government.

  • 2.    Lack of funds and supervision

The Indonesian government has increased the budget of each region. However, province/district sets the priorities in making the using of funds. Inadequate training is also problematic at all levels.

  • 3.    Limited involvement of local community.

Commonly, the community does not involve in projects of the heritage area. The local government runs the projects without giving attention to local community needs. As John Schofield and Rosy Schmanski (1948) pointed out, heritage management policy and practices are increasingly moving away from state-led interventions and actions and instead are attempting to take account of ’the local’, and draw on the views and expressions of interest amongst local communities. The case study of Kampung Kapitan (Kapitan Village) described a local government that did something that could not promote the need of the local area, and to renovate their traditional houses which are in poor condition. Local government moved the focus to open space.

Conclusion

Based on the above discussion and analyses the protection and enhancement of heritage sites within the study case area of Palembang has diversity in approaches. There is a strong relationship with the existing legislation, since local government is ultimately responsible. In implementing the law, regional government would have to coordinate

with local people as the main stakeholder, since cultural heritage tourism can not stand without local enforcement.

The regulatory framework of Indonesian government provides the possibility for the local government to develop regional legislation in all provinces/cities in Indonesia. This would be based on their establishment of priorities under the law of regional autonomy. However, not all the provinces have their own regional legislation in all sectors/issues. The government of Palembang city is only based on national legislation regarding heritage sites, in the absence of any regional legislation. The difference in levels of the legislation would influence the implementation. Existing regional legislation could help the area by applying more specific implementation through the programs based or local wisdom and values. National legislation should be reduced in specific areas, and local legislation maximized so as to increase local autonomy in the interests of heritage conservation in Palembang.

An outcome of the analyses of the case study area of Palembang is that we should improve the regulatory framework in order to increase the quality of the implementation and local program. As a result, the existence of the legislation as the first manifestation in the protection and enhancement of the heritage sites could motivate the further movement of the related groups and local community movement. Thus, the system not only increases the cultural values but also make the potential of the heritage sites the magnet for tourism.

References

Anonymous (2011) ‘Top ten reasons why heritage conservation matters’ Star-phoenix (Saskatoon) p: B6.

Aplin, G (2002) Heritage Identification, Conservation and Management Australia: Oxford University Press: Australia, p: 7-19.

Ashworth, G, & Tunbridge, J (2000) The Tourist-Historic City United Kingdom: Pergamon Imprint.

Bajracharya, Siddharta B et al (2005) ‘Effectiveness of community involvement in delivering conservation benefits to the Annapurna conservation area, Nepal,’ Environmental Conservation Vol.32 (3), p: 239–247.

Bennett, A (2001) ‘Case study: methods and analysis’, in International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavior Science, p: 1513-1519.

Byrd, E (2007) ‘Stakeholders in sustainable tourism development and their roles: applying stakeholder/theory to sustainable tourism development’ Tourism Review Vol. 62 (2), p: 6–13.

Chakravart, I (2008) ‘Heritage tourism and community participation: a case study of Sindhudurg Fort, India’, in Prideaux, B. et.al (Ed.) Cultural and Heritage Tourism in Asia and the Pacific Oxon: Routledge, p: 189-201.

Chamas,C C & Schmit, A (2010) ‘Ecoturism and heritage conservation’ Journal of Coastal Research Vol. 61, p: 234.

Chatterji, M (2001) ‘Case study methods’ Book Reviews/Evaluation and Program Planning Vol. 24, p: 363-373.

Draft Guidelines for the/Protection, Management and Use of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Places, 1997.

Gillham, B (2000) Case Study Research Methods London: Continuum International Publishing.

Graham, B, Ashworth, G, & Tunbridge, J (2000) A geography of Heritage – Power, Culture and Economy London: Arnold.

Helmy, E & Cooper, C (2002) ’An assessment of sustainable tourism planning for the archaeological heritage: the case of Egypt’ Journal of Sustainable Tourism Vol. 10 (6), p: 514-535.

Hosagrahar, J (2010) ‘Cultural heritage’ in Hutchison,' in R (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Urban Studies p: 195.

Hunter, C (1997) ’Sustainable tourism as an adaptive paradigm’ Annals of Tourism Research Vol. 24 (4), p: 850–867.

Indrayana, D (2008) Indonesian Constitutional Reform 1999-2002: An Evaluation of Constitution-Making in Transition Jakarta: Kompas Book Publishing.

King G, Keohane R, Verba S (1994) Designing Social Inquiry Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kohar (2011) Kampung/Kapitan/Memprihatinkandan/Terancam/Musnah (Kapitan Village is worried and Threatened Distinct), Info kito, viewed 10 September 2012,              http://infokito.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/kampung-kapitan-

memprihatinkan-dan-terancam-musnah/

Loulanski, T & Loulanski, V (2011) ‘The sustainable integration of cultural heritage and tourism: a meta-study’Journal of Sustainable TourismVol. 19(7), p: 837-862.

Mathews, L G (2010) ‘Economic aspects of cultural heritage’ in Free, R C (Ed.) 21st Century Economics: A Reference Handbook Vol. 2, SAGE reference online, p: 819-826.

Mitchell, R, Agle, B, & Wood, D (1997) ‘Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts’ Academy of Management Review Vol. 22, p:853–886.

Najimi, A W (2011) ‘Built heritage in Afghanistan: threats, challenges and conservation’ International Journal of Environmental Studies Vol. 68 ( 3), p: 343–361.

Pendlebury, J & Strange, I (2011) ‘Urban conservation and the shaping of English city’ Centenary Paper TPR Vol. 82 (4), p: 361-392.

Park, H Y (2009) ‘Heritage tourism: emotional journeys into nationhood’Annals of Tourism Research Vol. 37( 1), p: 116–135.

Sauter, S. T & Leisen, B (1999) ‘Managing stakeholders: a tourism planning model’ Annals of Tourism/Research Vol. 26 (2), p: 312–328.

Shackley, M (1998) ‘Introduction – world cultural heritage’ in Shackley, M (Ed.) Visitor/Management: Case Studies from World Heritage Sites Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, p: 1–9.

Slee, W, Farr, H, & Snowdon, P (1997) ‘Sustainable tourism and the local economy’ in Stabler, M J (Ed.) Tourism & Sustainability: Principles to Practice Wallingford, UK: CABI, p: 69–87.

Staiff, R (2011) ‘Contemporary tourism issues Venice: a case study’ Tourism Geography, Faculty of Environmental Management & Agriculture, Hawkesbury: University of Western Sydney.

State of Penang, Malaysia (2008) OECD Review of Higher Education in Regional and City Development: Assessment and Recommendations.

Wall, P (2006) ‘The identity and multiculturalism: the important heritage values in a changing society’ Australian Institute Policy and Science Vol. 78 (5), p: 25-26.

150 SPACE - VOLUME 1, NO. 2, OCTOBER 2014