Beyond Tourism: Community Empowerment and Resilience in Rural Indonesia

Abstract

Community-Based Tourism (CBT) is increasingly pivotal for sustainable rural development in emerging economies, particularly in culturally rich nations like Indonesia. The vulnerability of tourism-dependent communities, starkly exposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, underscores the urgent need to understand how CBT can foster socio-economic resilience—the capacity to withstand, adapt to, and recover from shocks. This study aims to investigate the relationship between CBT governance models and socio-economic resilience in rural Indonesia, identifying the critical factors that enable communities to thrive amidst adversity. A comparative qualitative case study design was employed, focusing on three tourism villages in Yogyakarta (Nglanggeran) and Bali (Penglipuran, Jasri). Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, and participant observation conducted from June to August 2024. The findings reveal that villages with inclusive participation, strong local leadership, and equitable benefit-sharing mechanisms (e.g., Nglanggeran) demonstrate higher resilience, characterized by economic diversification, robust social capital, and strong adaptive capacity. In contrast, top-down governance (Penglipuran) or entrepreneurial but fragmented initiatives (Jasri) can limit inclusivity and adaptability, constraining resilience. This research contributes to the CBT literature by providing a comparative analysis of resilience outcomes across different governance contexts in Indonesia. It offers a refined framework for understanding how local institutions and community agency interact to build resilience. The study provides practical insights for policymakers and community leaders, highlighting the importance of fostering inclusive governance, strategic partnerships, and economic diversification to enhance the long-term sustainability and resilience of tourism-dependent communities.

1. Introduction

Community-Based Tourism (CBT) has gained significant recognition in Indonesia as a strategic approach to sustainable rural development and community empowerment, particularly in regions endowed with rich cultural and natural heritage (Ardika, 2003). The Indonesian government has actively promoted the “Desa Wisata” (tourism village) program since the early 2000s, leading to the establishment of over 2000 registered tourism villages by 2023 (Ministry of Tourism and Creative Economy, 2023). This policy shift aligns with global sustainable development goals and responds to the limitations of conventional mass tourism, which often marginalizes local communities (Higgins-Desbiolles et al., 2019). CBT, by contrast, emphasizes local ownership, participation, and control, aiming to ensure that benefits are equitably distributed among community members (Goodwin & Santilli, 2009).

Community-Based Tourism (CBT) has gained increasing recognition in Indonesia as a sustainable approach to rural development and community empowerment, especially in regions rich in cultural and natural heritage. CBT refers to tourism initiatives that are owned, managed, and operated by local communities, where the benefits are equitably shared among members and contribute to local well-being (Asker et al., 2010; Dodds et al., 2023). In Indonesia, this model has been widely promoted by both governmental and non-governmental organizations as a tool for poverty alleviation, cultural preservation, and environmental conservation.

Since the early 2000s, the Indonesian Ministry of Tourism has supported the development of tourism villages as a manifestation of CBT practices. These villages serve as platforms for community participation in tourism, offering homestays, local-guided tours, handicrafts, and cultural performances. Notable examples include Nglanggeran in Yogyakarta, which was internationally recognized by UNWTO as one of the best tourism villages in 2021, and Penglipuran in Bali, which is renowned for its community-based environmental governance and traditional architecture (UNWTO, 2021; Fujihasa et al., 2023). However, these same structures can also perpetuate existing power hierarchies, potentially marginalizing women, youth, and migrant residents (Trupp & Sunanta, 2017).

CBT in Indonesia is shaped by the diversity of local governance structures, customary laws (adat), and socio-cultural values. These factors influence how tourism is managed and how benefits are distributed within the community. In many cases, traditional institutions such as desa adat (customary villages) in Bali play a significant role in decision-making processes, ensuring that tourism activities align with cultural values and communal interests (Cole, 2006).

Despite its potential, the implementation of CBT in Indonesia faces several challenges, including uneven power relations, limited capacity in tourism management, and dependency on external actors. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the vulnerability of rural tourism economies, prompting questions about the resilience and adaptability of CBT communities in times of crisis (Aryaningtyas et al., 2024; Lasso & Dahles, 2023).

Given these dynamics, understanding how CBT contributes to socio-economic resilience is crucial for informing more sustainable and inclusive tourism policies in Indonesia. This paper seeks to explore the link between CBT practices and the resilience of local communities through a comparative study of three tourism villages in Yogyakarta and Bali.

Socio-economic resilience is a critical factor in ensuring the sustainability of rural tourism, particularly in developing countries where communities often face environmental, economic, and social vulnerabilities. In tourism-dependent rural areas, socio-economic resilience refers to the community’s ability to absorb, adapt to, and recover from external shocks—such as natural disasters, economic downturns, and health crises—while maintaining or improving their livelihood and social well-being (Biggs et al., 2015; Cheer & Lew, 2018).

Rural tourism is inherently sensitive to external disruptions. Events like the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, have significantly impacted rural tourism destinations worldwide by halting visitor arrivals, reducing income, and exposing the fragility of informal economies (Gössling et al., 2020). In such contexts, resilient communities are better positioned to pivot toward alternative livelihoods, utilize local resources efficiently, and maintain social cohesion during periods of uncertainty.

In Indonesia, where many tourism villages rely on small-scale, community-led enterprises, socio-economic resilience determines not only the survival of tourism ventures but also the long-term empowerment of local residents. Resilience in these settings includes diversified income sources, community solidarity, robust social networks, and the capacity for collective action (Wilson, 2012). These elements help communities not only to endure crises but also to innovate and transform their local economies sustainably.

Furthermore, socio-economic resilience aligns closely with the goals of community-based tourism (CBT), which emphasizes local ownership, participation, and benefit-sharing. When resilience is integrated into the planning and governance of CBT initiatives, communities are more likely to withstand market volatility, environmental challenges, and socio-political changes (Lew, 2014). In this sense, fostering resilience is not merely about recovery but also about enabling rural communities to thrive in dynamic and uncertain tourism landscapes.

While community-based tourism (CBT) has been widely promoted as a strategy for sustainable rural development in Indonesia, empirical research linking CBT practices directly with the enhancement of socio-economic resilience remains limited. Much of the existing literature focuses on the economic benefits of CBT or its role in cultural preservation, yet relatively few studies systematically examine how CBT models contribute to a community’s capacity to cope with and recover from crises (Giampiccoli & Mtapuri, 2012; Novelli et al., 2018). Additionally, there is a lack of comparative analysis between different CBT contexts particularly across regions with diverse socio-cultural and governance structures, such as Yogyakarta and Bali. Moreover, critical dimensions such as intra-community power dynamics and ecological sustainability are often under-discussed in resilience frameworks applied to tourism (Fletcher, 2021; Yang & Wong, 2023).

Despite its potential, the implementation of CBT in Indonesia faces persistent challenges, including uneven power relations, limited managerial capacity, and dependency on external actors (Pitana & Diarta, 2009). The COVID-19 pandemic, which caused a dramatic 74% decline in international tourist arrivals to Indonesia in 2020 (Statista, 2021), exposed the acute vulnerability of rural tourism economies. This crisis prompted critical questions about the resilience of CBT communities—their ability to absorb, adapt, and transform in the face of such disruptions (Aryaningtyas et al., 2024). While CBT is often promoted for its benefits, empirical research directly linking specific CBT practices to enhanced socio-economic resilience remains limited, especially in comparative contexts (Giampiccoli & Mtapuri, 2012).

Existing literature on CBT in Indonesia has predominantly focused on economic impacts or cultural preservation, with fewer studies systematically examining its role in building comprehensive socio-economic resilience (Novelli et al., 2018). A significant gap exists in comparative analyses that explore how different local governance structures and cultural contexts—such as the distinct socio-cultural environments of Yogyakarta and Bali—influence resilience outcomes. This study addresses this gap by investigating the nexus between CBT models and resilience capacities across diverse village settings.

This study addresses this gap by investigating how CBT is practiced and experienced in three tourism villages, and how these practices affect the communities’ socio-economic resilience. By comparing villages with different models of community engagement and tourism governance, this research aims to uncover the critical factors that enable or hinder resilience-building in rural tourism settings. The findings are expected to provide valuable insights for policymakers, development agencies, and local stakeholders seeking to strengthen the sustainability and adaptability of tourism-dependent communities.

This study aims to examine how community-based tourism (CBT) is practiced in selected tourism villages in Yogyakarta and Bali and how it relates to socio-economic resilience. It explores various CBT models, identifies key dimensions of resilience, and analyzes how local factors—such as leadership, culture, and governance—shape resilience outcomes in rural tourism settings.

Recent studies have further highlighted the critical role of local governance and social capital in building resilience post-pandemic, underscoring the need to examine these factors in the Indonesian CBT context (Dodds & Butler, 2021; Higgins-Desbiolles et al., 2019). The study reveals that resilience is not an automatic outcome of CBT but is contingent upon inclusive governance, strong local institutions, and equitable benefit-sharing. The findings contribute to academic discourse by providing a nuanced, empirically grounded understanding of the CBT-resilience link in Indonesia. For practitioners, the study offers valuable insights for designing more effective policies and interventions that can strengthen the sustainability and adaptive capacity of rural tourism communities. Recent scholarship continues to emphasize the critical role of community-based tourism in enhancing socio-economic resilience in rural contexts, particularly in post-pandemic recovery (Lasso & Dahles, 2023; Ruiz-Ballesteros, 2011; Šegota et al., 2022). By integrating these perspectives, this study situates its findings within the most current theoretical and empirical discussions on resilience in tourism.

2. Literature Review

2.1. The Concept of Community-Based Tourism

Community-Based Tourism (CBT) is a tourism model that emphasizes community ownership, participation, and control over tourism activities, with the goal of generating economic, social, and environmental benefits for local people. CBT emerged as a response to the negative impacts of mass tourism, offering an alternative that centers on empowerment, equity, and sustainability (Goodwin & Santilli, 2009). It is built upon the principles of inclusivity, respect for local culture, and benefit-sharing among community members.

The philosophical underpinnings of CBT are rooted in participatory development and empowerment theories, positioning tourism as a tool for community-driven development rather than merely an economic sector (Tosun, 2000). Murphy (1985) was among the first to advocate for a “community approach” to tourism, arguing that involving residents in planning and decision-making leads to more sustainable outcomes and greater local acceptance. CBT initiatives typically involve small-scale tourism enterprises, such as homestays, guided tours, traditional performances, and handicraft production, all managed by the local population. The core idea is that tourism should serve the community, not dominate it. As noted by Manyara and Jones (2007), successful CBT projects often involve strong community institutions, capacity-building, and supportive policy environments. However, critical scholarship cautions that power imbalances within communities can lead to the ‘elite capture’ of benefits, undermining the equity principle of CBT (Kayat, 2023; Zapata et al., 2011).

A critical aspect of CBT is the distribution of power and benefits. Scheyvens (1999) identifies four dimensions of empowerment—economic, social, psychological, and political—that can be fostered through well-managed CBT. However, achieving genuine empowerment is challenging. Critics note that CBT can be co-opted by local elites or external agencies, leading to token participation rather than substantive community control (Blackstock, 2005). Furthermore, the term “community” itself is often problematic, as it may mask internal heterogeneity, power imbalances, and conflicting interests within a locality (Okazaki, 2008).

In the Indonesian context, CBT has been institutionalized through the development of desa wisata (tourism villages), which aim to promote grassroots tourism while preserving local traditions and improving livelihoods (Sunaryo, 2013). However, the implementation of CBT is not without challenges, including limited managerial skills, lack of marketing access, and internal conflicts related to benefit distribution (Giampiccoli & Mtapuri, 2012).

2.2. Socio-Economic Resilience

Socio-economic resilience refers to the ability of a community or system to absorb, adapt to, and recover from shocks and stresses while maintaining or improving its socio-economic functions. It is a key concept in sustainability studies and increasingly relevant to rural tourism, where communities often face volatile market conditions, natural disasters, or pandemics (Folke, 2006; Hall et al., 2018).

Resilience in a socio-economic context involves more than just bouncing back from crises—it includes learning, transformation, and innovation. Norris et al. (2008) define community resilience as a set of networked adaptive capacities, including economic development, social capital, information and communication, and community competence.

Key indicators of socio-economic resilience in tourism contexts include:

• Economic diversification: The extent to which a community has multiple sources of income beyond tourism.
• Social capital: Trust, cooperation, and networks within the community.
• Institutional capacity: Leadership, governance, and the ability to mobilize resources.
• Adaptive capacity: The ability to respond to change or disturbance effectively.
• Equity and inclusion: Fair distribution of tourism benefits across gender, age, and social groups.
• Ecological sustainability: The integration of environmental stewardship into community practices, ensuring the long-term health of the natural resources upon which tourism depends (Cochrane, 2010; Ruiz-Ballesteros, 2011).

In tourism villages, these indicators reflect how well communities can withstand shocks like a pandemic or natural disaster, and how effectively they can reorganize to sustain their livelihoods.

The COVID-19 pandemic served as a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities within the global tourism system, accelerating research into community resilience and adaptive strategies (Ioannides & Gyimóthy, 2020; Cheer & Lew, 2021). This study contributes to this growing body of literature by examining resilience capacities in a post-pandemic context.

2.3. Relationship Between Community-Based Tourism (CBT) and Community Resilience

The relationship between Community-Based Tourism (CBT) and community resilience is increasingly recognized in academic and policy discussions. CBT has the potential to strengthen resilience by fostering local ownership, enhancing economic diversification, preserving cultural identity, and reinforcing social cohesion. Through participatory tourism development, CBT enables communities to build adaptive capacities, reduce dependence on external actors, and better respond to shocks and disruptions (Lew, 2014; López-Sanz et al., 2021).

CBT encourages the development of social capital—such as trust, reciprocity, and collective action—which is essential for resilience (Wilson, 2012). Moreover, when communities are actively involved in decision-making, they are more likely to develop context-appropriate strategies that align with local values and needs. This autonomy enhances their ability to adapt to changing circumstances, whether they be economic downturns, natural disasters, or global health crises like COVID-19 (Aryaningtyas et al., 2024).

However, the impact of CBT on resilience is not automatic. If poorly implemented—e.g., dominated by elites or heavily dependent on a single market segment—CBT can increase vulnerability rather than mitigate it (Scheyvens, 2007; Šegota et al., 2022). Therefore, the strength of the CBT–resilience link depends on governance structures, inclusiveness, capacity-building, and long-term planning.

2.4. Previous Studies on CBT in Indonesia and Globally

A growing body of research has examined CBT practices in both Indonesian and international contexts. In Indonesia, studies have documented various CBT models in tourism villages such as Nglanggeran (Yogyakarta), Penglipuran (Bali), and Pentingsari (Central Java). These studies highlight the importance of traditional governance, cultural heritage, and community leadership in shaping the outcomes of CBT initiatives (Filantropi & Bella, 2022; Fujihasa et al., 2023).

For example, Nglanggeran’s success is attributed to strong local leadership, community cohesion, and collaboration with universities and government agencies, which together fostered innovation and resilience (UNWTO, 2021). In contrast, some CBT projects in Indonesia have struggled due to weak institutional support, limited access to markets, or unequal distribution of benefits (Pitana & Diarta, 2009).

Globally, CBT has been studied in diverse settings—from indigenous tourism in Canada and Latin America to ecotourism in Africa and Asia. Research from Nepal, Thailand, and South Africa shows that CBT can contribute to empowerment, conservation, and post-disaster recovery when implemented with genuine community involvement (Manyara & Jones, 2007; Giampiccoli & Saayman, 2018; Dangi & Jamal, 2016).

Nonetheless, global studies also caution against the over-romanticization of CBT. Without adequate support systems, many CBT ventures fail to generate significant economic returns or foster long-term resilience. This underscores the need for integrated policies, capacity development, and ongoing monitoring to ensure that CBT delivers on its promises. A growing body of research has examined CBT practices globally.

Table 1. Summary of Literature on Community-Based Tourism and Resilience.

Research (Year)	Context	Methodology	Key Findings
Manyara and Jones (2007)	Kenya	Case Study	CBT can reduce poverty but requires strong community institutions and external support.
Cole (2006)	Bali, Indonesia	Ethnographic Study	Traditional institutions (desa adat) are crucial for cultural tourism but can limit participatory governance.
Scheyvens (2007)	Multiple	Conceptual/Theoretical	CBT can empower communities, but elite capture can exacerbate inequalities if not carefully managed.
Lew (2014)	Multiple	Literature Review	Resilience in tourism is linked to adaptive capacity, which can be fostered through community-based approaches.
UNWTO (2021)	Nglanggeran, Indonesia	Case Study	Strong local leadership and partnerships are key success factors for award-winning tourism villages.
Aryaningtyas et al. (2024)	Indonesia	Qualitative Study	Community engagement was a critical factor for resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic.

below synthesizes key studies relevant to this research, highlighting their focus, methodology, and primary findings.

3. Methodology

This study employs a comparative qualitative case study design to explore the relationship between community-based tourism (CBT) and socio-economic resilience in rural settings. A qualitative approach is particularly appropriate for understanding the complex, context-dependent processes that shape community engagement, governance structures, and adaptive capacities (Creswell & Poth, 2018).

The comparative case study method enables in-depth examination of multiple tourism villages with varying socio-cultural, institutional, and geographical characteristics. This design allows for cross-case analysis, which helps identify both common patterns and unique contextual factors that influence CBT implementation and resilience outcomes (Yin, 2018). The research process, summarized in Figure 1, involved several sequential phases to ensure rigor and depth.

Data collection involves multiple sources of evidence, including semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions (FGDs), participant observation, and document analysis. The primary fieldwork for this study was conducted over a three-month period, from June to August 2024. Triangulation across these sources increases the validity of the findings and allows for a more comprehensive understanding of each case (Patton, 2015).

Three tourism villages were selected based on their long-standing engagement with CBT practices, visibility in national tourism development programs, and diversity in cultural and environmental contexts. The selected sites are:

• Nglanggeran Tourism Village (Yogyakarta)

Located in Gunungkidul Regency, Nglanggeran is known for its geotourism and community-based environmental conservation initiatives. It has received recognition from the UNWTO as one of the Best Tourism Villages in 2021. Nglanggeran offers a model of CBT with strong community leadership, institutional partnerships, and environmental stewardship (UNWTO, 2021).

2.

Penglipuran Tourism Village (Bali)

Situated in Bangli Regency, Penglipuran is one of Bali’s most iconic traditional villages, known for its unique layout, preservation of Balinese customs, and village-based tourism governance. The community employs traditional desa adat structures to regulate tourism development while ensuring cultural continuity and equitable benefit-sharing (Fujihasa et al., 2023).

3.

Jasri Tourism Village (Bali)

Located in Karangasem Regency, Jasri is an emerging CBT site with an emphasis on creative industries, such as traditional chocolate-making and handicrafts. It represents a growing tourism destination that balances modern innovation with local traditions. Jasri offers a contrasting case to more established CBT models and allows examination of resilience in newer tourism communities.

The diversity among the selected villages—in terms of institutional maturity, tourism scale, and local culture—enables meaningful comparisons and the identification of critical success factors and constraints in building community resilience through CBT.

To obtain a comprehensive understanding of the dynamics between CBT and socio-economic resilience, this study utilized multiple qualitative data collection techniques:

• In-depth Interviews: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders, including community leaders, tourism entrepreneurs, representatives of local tourism organizations, and government officials.
• Focus Group Discussions (FGDs): FGDs were held with local residents in each village to understand broader community perceptions regarding the impacts of tourism on livelihoods, social cohesion, and resilience.
• Participant Observation and Field Notes: The researcher engaged in short-term immersion in each site to observe tourism-related activities, village governance meetings, and daily interactions.
• Document Analysis: Secondary data such as village profiles, tourism master plans, and government policies were reviewed to supplement primary sources.

Data from interviews, FGDs, field notes, and documents were analyzed using thematic analysis, following the six-phase approach outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006). NVivo software was used to organize and code qualitative data systematically.

This study followed established ethical standards for qualitative research. Prior to data collection, informed consent was obtained from all participants. To protect participants’ identities, pseudonyms were used in transcripts and publications.

4. Findings

4.1. Community-Based Tourism Models in Each Village

The three tourism villages—Nglanggeran (Yogyakarta), Penglipuran (Bali), and Jasri (Bali)—exhibit different community-based tourism (CBT) models shaped by local governance structures, cultural institutions, and levels of community ownership. Although all three villages operate under the banner of CBT, the ways in which governance, participation, and benefit-sharing are organized differ significantly.

4.1.1. Governance and Participation Structure

In Nglanggeran, the CBT model is managed by a formal community organization called Pokdarwis (Kelompok Sadar Wisata), which collaborates closely with village government and external partners such as universities and NGOs. Participation is relatively inclusive, with rotating leadership, involvement of women and youth, and regular community meetings. Residents report feeling “actively consulted” in tourism planning, and decisions are made through musyawarah (deliberative consensus), a traditional Javanese form of participatory governance (Interview: Community Leader Nglanggeran, July 2024). This governance model aligns with Goodwin and Santilli’s (2009) principles of CBT, emphasizing transparency, shared responsibility, and collective benefits. However, even here, some female participants noted that while they were included, their influence in final strategic decisions was sometimes limited compared to male elders, indicating subtle gendered power dynamics.

In Penglipuran, governance is rooted in the desa adat (customary village), which plays a dominant role in regulating tourism activities. The leader of desa adat (traditional leader) and village council manage visitor access, enforce spatial regulations, and oversee community contributions from tourism revenue. While this model ensures cultural preservation and orderly tourism development, some residents expressed limited influence in decision-making unless they are part of the krama desa (active customary members). This reflects findings by Cole (2006), who noted that traditional authority structures can both support and constrain participatory governance, depending on their inclusivity. The power clearly resides with the traditional council, marginalizing the voices of youth and non-hereditary residents, creating a clear intra-community power hierarchy.

In Jasri, a newer CBT initiative is led by a small group of local entrepreneurs who initiated tourism programs centered around chocolate-making and cultural workshops. Governance is more informal and entrepreneurial, with less structured community-wide participation. FGDs in Jasri (July 2024) revealed that while many residents appreciate the economic opportunities, they feel less involved in planning and lack clarity about how decisions are made or profits are allocated. This model resembles what Giampiccoli and Saayman (2018) describe as “CBT in form but not in substance”—initiatives branded as community-based but with limited democratic control, where power is concentrated in the hands of a few entrepreneurial elites.

4.1.2. Role of Traditional and Cultural Institutions

In all three villages, traditional and cultural institutions play varying roles in shaping tourism development. In Penglipuran, the desa adat is central not only to governance but also to the maintenance of cultural rituals, spatial organization, and visitor behavior. Tourists are required to adhere to local customs, such as wearing modest clothing and respecting sacred zones, reinforcing the integration of cultural values into tourism management (Observation notes, July 2024). This echoes the work of Suansri (2003), who argues that cultural institutions are key to safeguarding authenticity in CBT.

In contrast, Nglanggeran integrates cultural elements—such as wayang performances, traditional farming, and local legends about the Ancient Volcano—through modern programming and collaborations with educational institutions. Cultural traditions are revitalized as part of the tourism experience, but do not dominate governance structures.

Jasri, while rich in cultural heritage, has only recently begun to incorporate traditional practices into tourism. Interviews with local elders indicated a growing concern that tourism is becoming disconnected from Balinese cultural values, as most activities are designed for market appeal rather than cultural transmission.

4.1.3. Local Ownership and Benefit-Sharing Mechanisms

Nglanggeran exhibits a relatively equitable benefit-sharing system. Tourism revenue is pooled through the CBT organization, and a portion is redistributed for community projects such as waste management, youth training, and infrastructure development. Households that offer homestays or serve as local guides receive direct income, while non-participating residents benefit indirectly through improved public services. This aligns with the findings of Asker et al. (2010), who emphasize that equitable distribution is critical to long-term support for CBT.

In Penglipuran, revenue from entrance fees is managed collectively by the desa adat, with funds allocated to temple maintenance, cultural ceremonies, and village upkeep. While this supports cultural sustainability, FGDs revealed that some younger residents seek greater transparency and opportunities for entrepreneurship beyond traditional structures. This generational tension highlights a power dynamic where control over resources is tied to adherence to traditional hierarchies.

Jasri, by contrast, currently lacks formal mechanisms for revenue sharing. Most tourism income is retained by the few business owners who initiated the program. While these entrepreneurs contribute occasionally to community events, the absence of a collective fund or transparent accounting system has led to perceptions of inequality and exclusion among residents (FGD: Jasri residents, July 2024). This represents a clear case of uneven power distribution directly impacting benefit-sharing equity.

These findings demonstrate that while CBT is present in all three villages, the degree of community participation, institutional support, and benefit-sharing varies significantly. Strong local leadership and culturally embedded governance structures—as seen in Nglanggeran and Penglipuran—tend to support more inclusive and resilient tourism models. In contrast, emerging CBT efforts like those in Jasri may require further institutional development and community organizing to fulfill the principles of equitable and participatory tourism.

4.2. Dimensions of Socio-Economic Resilience

The three villages demonstrate different levels and dimensions of socio-economic resilience in response to both chronic pressures (e.g., economic inequality, youth outmigration) and acute shocks (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic, natural disasters). Drawing on the analytical framework, the study identifies several key dimensions of resilience: economic diversification, social capital, institutional capacity, adaptive capacity, and equity. To this, we add observations on ecological resilience, a critical yet often overlooked dimension.

Nglanggeran has successfully diversified its local economy through multiple tourism-linked enterprises, such as homestays, traditional food production, souvenir shops, and agro-tourism activities. Interview data revealed that households often combine tourism income with agriculture and livestock, allowing them to remain economically stable during off-peak seasons or crises. During the COVID-19 pandemic, some households shifted to online marketing of local products, sustaining income flows. This diversification reflects the findings of Biggs et al. (2015), who emphasize that livelihood flexibility is a key marker of resilience.

In contrast, Penglipuran is more heavily reliant on visitor entrance fees and cultural tourism, with fewer supplementary economic activities. When tourism declined during the pandemic, income for many families dropped significantly. Some attempted to engage in online commerce, but lacked digital skills and infrastructure. While Penglipuran shows cultural resilience, its economic model is more vulnerable due to limited diversification.

Jasri, being at an earlier stage of tourism development, exhibits moderate economic resilience. A few households benefit from tourism through creative industries, but the broader community remains reliant on agriculture, particularly coconut and cacao farming. FGDs suggest that this agricultural base provided a safety net during tourism slowdowns, but also indicates that tourism’s potential as a resilience strategy remains underutilized.

Strong social capital was observed in Nglanggeran, where communal labor (gotong royong), youth involvement, and inclusive decision-making processes are deeply embedded in the tourism model. Community members frequently cited a sense of pride and shared identity, particularly in managing environmental resources together. These social bonds facilitated coordinated responses during the pandemic, including food-sharing networks and mutual aid (Interview: Pokdarwis, July 2024).

Penglipuran also maintains high levels of social cohesion through its customary village structure. However, this cohesion is primarily based on traditional obligations (awig-awig) rather than voluntary participation. While effective for maintaining order and ritual life, it may limit spontaneous innovation or intergenerational dialogue, especially as younger residents express aspirations beyond the rigid structures of desa adat (Observation & FGD, July 2024).

Jasri shows emerging social networks, particularly among women’s groups involved in crafts and home industries. However, broader community cohesion is still developing, and there is fragmentation between tourism actors and non-participating households. Strengthening horizontal networks could enhance Jasri’s resilience and foster more collective responses to external shocks (Wilson, 2012).

Nglanggeran exhibits relatively high institutional capacity, with formal partnerships involving universities, NGOs, and the local government. These collaborations have enabled training programs, innovation in tourism services, and digital marketing strategies. Adaptive capacity is evident in the village’s quick pivot to e-commerce and virtual tours during the pandemic, consistent with Folke’s (2006) notion of resilience as the capacity to learn and reorganize.

Penglipuran’s institutional strength lies in its strong traditional authority, but its adaptive flexibility is limited. The desa adat system is highly effective for managing rituals and spatial order, but less responsive to market changes or external crises. For instance, initiatives to expand product diversification or adopt digital tools faced slow uptake due to hierarchical decision-making.

Jasri shows potential in adaptive capacity through entrepreneurial leadership but lacks institutional support. Interviewees expressed interest in accessing government or NGO assistance but cited bureaucratic barriers and lack of information as key challenges. This confirms the importance of enabling institutions as external scaffolds for resilience-building (Norris et al., 2008).

Equitable benefit-sharing remains a defining factor of resilience. Nglanggeran’s profit-sharing mechanisms—where revenues are partially reinvested into community development—enhance perceptions of fairness. Training opportunities for women and youth further support inclusive resilience.

In Penglipuran, although tourism revenues benefit all krama desa, those outside the traditional system—such as migrants, youth, or informal workers—often feel excluded. This gap in inclusion reflects Scheyvens (2007) caution that CBT must be continually assessed for equity, not just participation.

In Jasri, income from tourism is concentrated among a few entrepreneurial families. Without transparent revenue-sharing or participatory planning, the community risks social tension and low collective support for tourism activities.

Observations revealed varying levels of attention to environmental sustainability. Nglanggeran has integrated waste management and reforestation into its community projects, funded partly by tourism revenue, demonstrating a link between CBT and ecological resilience. Penglipuran maintains pristine surroundings through strict customary rules (awig-awig) governing spatial order and cleanliness, a form of culturally embedded environmental stewardship. In Jasri, however, environmental concerns were less prominent in tourism planning, with potential issues like waste from visitors and production processes not yet systematically addressed. This suggests that ecological resilience is not an automatic outcome of CBT but must be consciously integrated into governance models.

These findings suggest that resilience is not solely a function of having tourism, but of how tourism is organized, governed, and distributed. Villages with inclusive participation, diversified income, strong institutions, and equitable systems, and environmental awareness are better able to adapt, recover, and thrive amidst uncertainty.

4.3. Comparative Analysis: Yogya vs. Bali Villages

The comparative analysis between Nglanggeran (Yogyakarta) and the two Balinese villages—Penglipuran and Jasri—reveals both common patterns and critical differences in the implementation of community-based tourism (CBT) and its contributions to socio-economic resilience. These comparisons highlight how cultural traditions, leadership styles, and institutional environments shape the effectiveness of CBT as a resilience strategy.

Across all three villages, tourism has brought tangible economic benefits, including income diversification, improved infrastructure, and increased external visibility. Residents in all sites acknowledged that CBT helped stimulate pride in local culture and a desire to preserve traditions.

However, several key differences emerged:

• Governance Structure

Nglanggeran operates under a formalized, inclusive, and participatory structure, led by Pokdarwis and supported by multi-sectoral collaborations. In contrast, Penglipuran is governed by the desa adat, a traditional institution with strong internal authority but limited participatory mechanisms for non-customary members. Jasri’s governance is informal and entrepreneurial, with limited village-wide coordination or institutional legitimacy.

2.

Stage of Tourism Development:

Nglanggeran and Penglipuran represent mature CBT destinations, while Jasri is still emerging. As a result, Nglanggeran and Penglipuran have more defined tourism products, external recognition, and more established benefit-sharing models. Jasri is still experimenting with tourism activities and has not yet developed collective structures.

3.

Cultural Integration:

Penglipuran demonstrates deep integration of tourism with traditional spatial and ritual systems, while Nglanggeran adopts a hybrid approach, blending cultural heritage with modern programming (e.g., digital platforms, geotourism). Jasri’s cultural elements are less institutionalized and more market-driven.

Leadership plays a pivotal role in shaping community-based tourism (CBT) outcomes

• In Nglanggeran, leadership is distributed and collective, involving youth leaders, women’s groups, and senior community members. External partnerships—with universities, government, and NGOs—have bolstered institutional support, enabling innovation and adaptive learning (Interview with Pokdarwis, July 2024). This aligns with the argument by Beeton (2006) that visionary, collaborative leadership is key to sustainable CBT.
• Penglipuran benefits from strong traditional leadership, which ensures cultural continuity and orderly development. However, its top-down nature can hinder responsiveness to market changes or grassroots innovation, particularly among youth and women (Observation, July 2024). Leadership here is protective rather than transformative.
• Jasri’s leadership is entrepreneurial but fragmented. While local tourism pioneers have initiated creative enterprises, there is little coordination with broader village governance or long-term strategic planning. The lack of institutional anchoring limits scalability and resilience, echoing Giampiccoli and Saayman’s (2018) caution against CBT efforts driven by individual interests without collective mechanisms.

4.3.1. Lessons Learned and Critical Challenges

• Inclusive governance and shared ownership are crucial for community buy-in and long-term sustainability. Nglanggeran’s participatory model has fostered trust and shared responsibility.
• Institutional partnerships can provide access to capacity-building, markets, and innovation. External support was essential to Nglanggeran’s and, to a lesser extent, Penglipuran’s success.
• Cultural legitimacy enhances destination appeal while anchoring tourism within community values. Penglipuran’s strict adherence to Balinese adat structures has preserved authenticity and attracted consistent tourist interest.

4.3.2. Critical Challenges

• Benefit inequality: In Jasri, uneven access to tourism opportunities has led to social tensions and low collective morale. In Penglipuran, non-krama members feel excluded from decision-making and revenue.
• Adaptability: Traditional governance structures like those in Penglipuran may resist rapid adaptation, particularly in response to global shocks like pandemics or climate change.
• Youth engagement: Across sites, youth involvement is uneven. While Nglanggeran has integrated youth into leadership and innovation, Penglipuran and Jasri struggle with generational transitions and digital literacy.

This comparative perspective underscores that CBT is not a one-size-fits-all model. Success depends on how well local leadership, institutional arrangements, and cultural systems align with community aspirations and changing external conditions.

The complex interplay between CBT characteristics and resilience dimensions identified in this study is illustrated in the conceptual map below (Figure 2). It visually summarizes how governance models influence key resilience factors and ultimately lead to positive or constrained resilience outcomes.

5. Discussion

This section discusses how Community-Based Tourism (CBT) initiatives in Nglanggeran, Penglipuran, and Jasri contribute to or constrain socio-economic resilience. It also reflects on the role of community agency, culture, and local institutions in shaping the outcomes of CBT in rural Indonesia.

5.1. How CBT Contributes to or Limits Socio-Economic Resilience

The findings suggest that CBT has the potential to significantly enhance socio-economic resilience in rural communities by generating alternative livelihoods, reinforcing social capital, and fostering localized innovation. In Nglanggeran, for example, CBT has diversified income streams, encouraged youth participation, and strengthened community preparedness for crises such as COVID-19. This aligns with previous studies that highlight CBT’s role in building livelihood security and community adaptability (Biggs et al., 2015; Lew, 2014).

CBT also provides an institutional platform for collective action, allowing communities to respond to shocks more effectively. In both Nglanggeran and Penglipuran, the existence of structured community organizations or traditional councils enabled coordinated responses to the pandemic, including health protocols, food-sharing initiatives, and economic recovery plans.

However, CBT can also limit resilience if poorly managed or overly dependent on tourism as a single economic driver. In Penglipuran, heavy reliance on entrance fees and cultural tourism created vulnerability when visitor numbers declined. Similarly, in Jasri, the absence of transparent governance and equitable benefit-sharing contributed to social tensions and economic fragility. These findings are consistent with Scheyvens (2007) and Šegota et al. (2022) who warned that CBT, when dominated by elites or lacking inclusive governance, can exacerbate rather than alleviate vulnerability. The study underscores that power dynamics—whether based on tradition, entrepreneurship, or gender—are central to determining whether CBT builds or undermines resilience.

Moreover, CBT initiatives without institutional support or long-term planning may fail to build resilience beyond a few economic indicators. For example, while Jasri exhibits entrepreneurial spirit, its limited access to external partnerships or training programs restricts its adaptive capacity in the face of external shocks. Thus, the contribution of CBT to resilience depends not only on its presence but also on how it is structured, governed, and supported.

5.2. The Role of Community Agency, Culture, and Local Institutions

Community agency the capacity of local actors to make decisions and act collectively—is a central factor in determining CBT outcomes. In Nglanggeran, strong agency was evident in the way local leaders mobilized resources, engaged youth, and sought collaborations with universities and NGOs. This dynamic capacity to learn, innovate, and adapt is a hallmark of resilient systems (Folke, 2006; Norris et al., 2008).

By contrast, Penglipuran’s agency is embedded in traditional institutions, which provide stability and cultural continuity but also limit flexibility. While the desa adat structure ensures discipline and shared values, it can marginalize those outside its hierarchical system, such as non-krama residents or youth with different aspirations. Thus, cultural institutions can be both enablers and barriers to resilience depending on their openness to inclusive participation (Cole, 2006). This highlights the critical interplay between culture, power, and agency.

In Jasri, agency is fragmented. The tourism initiative is led by a few individuals without formal community mandates, which limits broader community ownership and participation. This reflects the importance of having legitimate local institutions to coordinate collective efforts and distribute benefits equitably (Wilson, 2012).

Culture also plays a complex role. While Penglipuran’s strong cultural norms protect identity and heritage, they may resist innovation or alternative livelihood models. Nglanggeran’s more flexible cultural approach, which integrates local legends and traditional practices with modern tourism experiences, allows for cultural adaptation without erosion—a feature that supports long-term resilience.

Finally, local institutions, both formal (e.g., Pokdarwis, village government) and informal (e.g., kinship networks, religious groups), provide the scaffolding for effective CBT. The capacity of these institutions to facilitate inclusive participation, manage conflict, and attract external support determines whether CBT can evolve into a sustainable and resilient strategy.

Overall, the findings support the view that CBT can enhance socio-economic resilience, but only under certain conditions: when it is community-led, culturally grounded yet adaptive, and supported by capable institutions. Where these conditions are absent—as seen partially in Jasri and, to a degree, in Penglipuran—CBT risks reinforcing existing inequalities or failing to prepare communities for future shocks.

5.3. Interaction Between External Actors (Government, NGOs, Private Sector) and Local Communities

The effectiveness of Community-Based Tourism (CBT) in enhancing socio-economic resilience is significantly shaped by how external actors—such as government bodies, NGOs, and private sector actors—engage with local communities. These interactions can either empower or disempower communities depending on the mode, intensity, and governance of engagement.

In Nglanggeran, collaboration with academic institutions and NGOs played a critical role in capacity building, marketing, and digital innovation. For instance, partnerships with universities led to youth training in hospitality, development of virtual tours during the pandemic, and support in product branding. Importantly, these relationships were community-driven and based on mutual trust, aligning with the principle of “facilitated self-help” rather than top-down intervention (Asker et al., 2010). The local Pokdarwis maintained autonomy over decisions, ensuring that external inputs strengthened rather than supplanted local agency.

In contrast, Penglipuran’s interaction with the government has been more regulatory and ceremonial. Government agencies often promote Penglipuran as a model tourism village in national campaigns, but local leaders reported limited involvement in actual planning or funding decisions. The strong traditional structure of the desa adat means external actors must navigate cultural protocols, which can limit the scope for participatory planning. This highlights the tension between recognition and genuine co-production of tourism development (Scheyvens, 2011; Scheyvens & van der Watt, 2021).

In Jasri, private actors—particularly local entrepreneurs—drive CBT, with minimal external institutional support. Residents expressed a desire for more structured assistance from local government, such as training, access to grants, and help with promotion. However, bureaucratic complexity and unclear policies often hinder engagement. This reflects the need for a clear policy interface between local initiatives and development agencies to avoid fragmentation and elite capture (Lemy et al., 2022).

5.4. Reflection on the Resilience Framework Used

The analytical framework employed in this study—drawing on dimensions such as economic diversity, social capital, institutional capacity, adaptive capacity, and equity—proved effective in capturing both tangible and intangible aspects of community resilience. It allowed for an integrated view of how CBT influences communities’ ability to withstand, recover from, and adapt to both long-term pressures and sudden disruptions (Folke, 2006; Norris et al., 2008).

However, the framework could be further enhanced by more explicitly addressing power dynamics—particularly intra-community inequalities (e.g., between youth and elders, men and women, formal and informal actors) as these affect the distribution of resilience capacities. For example, while Penglipuran shows strong overall cohesion, youth and women often remain at the margins of decision-making. Similarly, in Jasri, entrepreneurial leadership may concentrate benefits among a few. This study’s findings affirm the necessity of integrating a power analysis into resilience frameworks, as suggested by critics like Fletcher (2021).

Moreover, future applications of the resilience framework in tourism contexts could integrate dimensions of environmental resilience more fully, especially as climate change increasingly impacts rural destinations. While this study focused on socio-economic resilience, observations suggest that ecological degradation or poor waste management could undermine long-term tourism sustainability. The nascent attention to ecological practices in Nglanggeran and Penglipuran, and its absence in Jasri, points to environmental stewardship as a crucial, interdependent component of a comprehensive resilience model (Ruiz-Ballesteros, 2011).

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

This study has examined the interplay between Community-Based Tourism (CBT) and socio-economic resilience through a comparative analysis of three rural villages in Indonesia. The findings demonstrate that CBT can significantly strengthen socio-economic resilience, but its effectiveness is contingent upon the quality of local governance, institutional support, and the inclusiveness of community participation. Nglanggeran demonstrates a successful, participatory model with diversified income and adaptive leadership. Penglipuran offers cultural cohesion but limited flexibility. Jasri shows emerging potential but lacks coordination and institutional support.

This research makes several key contributions to academic discourse. First, it provides empirical evidence from diverse Indonesian contexts that reinforces and nuances the multi-dimensional nature of resilience, illustrating how economic, social, and institutional capacities interact dynamically within CBT settings. Second, by comparing mature and emerging CBT models across different cultural governance systems (Javanese and Balinese), the study offers a refined understanding of how context-specific factors—particularly traditional institutions (desa adat) and leadership styles—shape resilience outcomes. This addresses a gap in the comparative literature on CBT in Southeast Asia. Finally, the study validates and applies an integrated resilience framework in a post-pandemic tourism context, demonstrating its utility for analyzing community adaptability. Beyond its theoretical contributions, the study provides actionable insights for tourism practitioners and policymakers. The findings demonstrate that inclusive governance, diversified local economies, and strategic partnerships are critical not only for Indonesian villages but also for other rural communities globally that seek to enhance socio-economic resilience through tourism.

7. Recommendations

For tourism practitioners, policymakers, and local communities, the study yields actionable insights:

For Policymakers: Support should focus on strengthening local tourism institutions (e.g., Pokdarwis) rather than imposing top-down models. Policies must promote inclusive planning processes and facilitate access to capacity-building programs, particularly in digital literacy and strategic planning for emerging destinations like Jasri.

For Tourism Planners and NGOs: Interventions should encourage economic diversification beyond core tourism activities and foster culturally grounded innovation. Building partnerships between communities, academic institutions, and the private sector, as seen in Nglanggeran, is a key strategy for enhancing adaptive capacity.

For Local Communities: The cases underscore the importance of transparent benefit-sharing mechanisms and proactive youth engagement. Communities are advised to foster inclusive leadership structures that can navigate between preserving cultural integrity (as in Penglipuran) and embracing necessary adaptation (as in Nglanggeran).

Future research should explore the longitudinal evolution of resilience in these villages, incorporate quantitative metrics to measure resilience indicators, and expand the comparative scope to include other regions in Indonesia or internationally to further generalize the findings.