The Role of Tourism Villages: Contextual Support for Sustainable Livelihoods Based on Destination Characteristics

Highlights

What are the main findings?

• Destination characteristics shape distinct livelihood-capital priorities: human and social capital dominate in culture-based Wanurejo, whereas physical, human, and natural capital are more prominent in nature-based Gunung Prau.
• Community-based tourism strengthens sustainable livelihoods through community capacity building, participation, local institutions, livelihood diversification, and reinforcement of social capital as a resilience resource.

What are the implications of the main findings?

• Tourism village development should avoid a one-size-fits-all approach; intervention priorities should be tailored to each destination type’s dominant and weaker livelihood capitals.
• The SLFT can serve as a context-sensitive policy-evaluation framework for designing tourism strategies that balance livelihood improvement, community inclusion, cultural continuity, infrastructure needs, and environmental sustainability.

Abstract

This study introduces the concept of contextuality in sustainable livelihood support, shaped by destination characteristics. In cultural tourism, support is most pronounced for human and social capital, reflecting the importance of knowledge, skills, creativity, cultural identity, community participation, and local institutions. In nature-based tourism, support is most pronounced for physical, human, and natural capital, highlighting the importance of infrastructure, accessibility, safety, innovation, adaptability, and environmental conservation. Meanwhile, social capital serves as a vital social investment during times of crisis. The research evaluates five types of capital—human, social, financial, physical, and natural—using the Sustainable Livelihood Framework for Tourism (SLFT) to explore the role of tourism villages in supporting sustainable livelihoods. The study employed a sequential explanatory mixed-methods approach. It collected quantitative data from 140 local stakeholders using a 25-item Likert-scale questionnaire and gathered qualitative data through semi-structured interviews with 90 stakeholders to validate the quantitative findings. The study concludes that community-based tourism does not yield uniform livelihood patterns. To achieve sustainable livelihoods, tourism village policies must be formulated contextually, based on local assets, to strengthen community resilience, inclusivity, and sustainability.

1. Introduction

Tourism is a strategic sector that boosts the local economy, including in rural areas, through the development of tourism villages. This sector directly impacts local community welfare in several ways: (1) creating new jobs (Briedenhann & Wickens, 2004; Devikrishna & Kolar, 2026; Ion & Petre, 2024; Marlina et al., 2026; Mudriati, 2023; Syafrini et al., 2026) by employing local workers as tour guides, homestay operators, transport providers, and souvenir artisans; (2) generating a multiplier effect (Rahmini et al., 2024; Sastri et al., 2025), where tourist spending benefits not only destination managers but also other businesses such as local eateries, grocery stores, and even cleaning service providers; and (3) developing the creative economy (Negara et al., 2025; Rina et al., 2025) by fostering growth in sub-sectors like handicrafts, local culinary specialties, fashion, and performing arts. Beyond its economic impact, tourism also drives social and cultural transformation, including: (1) community empowerment (Devikrishna & Kolar, 2026; Marlina et al., 2020; Mudriati, 2023), such as forming tourism awareness groups, managing culinary or handicraft businesses, and providing guidance to local operators so they can independently develop their village’s potential; (2) preserving cultural and natural heritage (Gökarslan & Tuncer Pürselim, 2025; Surata & Sarjana, 2026; Syafrini et al., 2026), for instance, through visitor quotas and ecosystem conservation efforts like mangrove planting and coral reef restoration; and (3) shifting community perspectives (Marlina et al., 2026; Syafrini et al., 2026). Interactions with domestic and international tourists can alter how the community views the tourism village—shifting from seeing the village as a “left-behind” area to viewing it as a high-value economic asset, transforming from passive subjects into active tourism participants (Community-Based Tourism/CBT), and moving from neglecting traditions to actively preserving local culture to attract visitors.

Overall, tourism village development tends to improve community welfare (Ari et al., 2025; Marlina et al., 2026). This suggests that tourism villages contain livelihood assets that, if managed effectively, can support sustainable community livelihoods (Luc et al., 2026). However, not all tourism village management efforts succeed. CBT initiatives in villages often fail to improve local livelihoods because they do not align with local livelihood contexts and sometimes offer inequitable participation opportunities (Legatzke et al., 2025).

The development of tourism villages—a form of CBT—depends heavily on cultural and natural assets but faces challenges in financial distribution, infrastructure development, and cultural preservation, particularly among younger generations (Wibowo et al., 2025). Contemporary tourism trends favor reflective, nature-oriented, and experience-based tourism. This shift in tourist preferences also influences the development of tourist attractions, fostering experiences that enrich visitors or bring them closer to nature and culture (Marlina et al., 2026). Rural areas possess significant potential in this regard. Consequently, villages with natural or cultural appeal—and the potential to offer travel experiences that evoke emotional resonance, mental relaxation, or simply a space for reflection and gratitude—draw significant numbers of tourists, regardless of the village’s or community’s readiness to host them. These visits often prompt community responses and frequently become livelihood assets. Effective tourism village development can position tourism as a pillar of community livelihoods (Luc et al., 2026). However, development efforts often falter, leaving tourism unable to support sustainable livelihoods (Legatzke et al., 2025).

In developing countries, where rural livelihoods remain largely rooted in primary production, livelihood diversification is crucial for enhancing community well-being. Therefore, to improve rural well-being, the role of tourism in supporting sustainable livelihoods needs to be strengthened. Conversely, the application of the sustainable livelihoods concept within the tourism sector remains fragmented (Liu et al., 2025) and has not been fully adapted to the tourism context; existing applications tend to focus on sustainability at the individual or household level rather than at the broader destination scale (Shen et al., 2008). Several previous studies have also shown that the application of the Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLFT) remains concentrated on rural tourism destinations or specific communities (Chen & Cai, 2025; M. M. Su et al., 2019; Z. Su et al., 2019; Yi et al., 2022), with limited operationalization in the context of “tourism villages”—essentially village-based tourism institutions and destinations developed using the CBT model. For instance, a study on the application of SLFT in Sambi Tourism Village, Yogyakarta, focused primarily on transformation processes and livelihood challenges, without quantifying the livelihood capital needed to sustain the local community (Ari et al., 2025). Similarly, Siregar et al. (2024) examined SLFT strategies in Serang Tourism Village in response to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet tourism villages generally face vulnerabilities beyond those caused by the pandemic.

Previous studies have documented tourism’s impact on community well-being. However, it has also been widely noted that the economic gains communities derive from tourism remain partial or unevenly distributed. Other studies indicate that tourism drives social and cultural transformation. At the same time, the unique livelihoods of rural communities—which often rely heavily on the primary sector or are transitioning from total dependence on nature to the secondary sector—require closer examination. Rural livelihoods, deeply rooted in social wisdom, culture, and tradition, may value assets beyond mere financial capital. Therefore, the role of tourism in supporting sustainable livelihood assets for rural communities warrants investigation. Because Community-Based Tourism (CBT) focuses on tourism village development, nature-based and culture-based tourism villages serve as suitable case studies. Based on the foregoing, this research aims to address the following questions:

• How does tourism village development support the community’s sustainable livelihood assets?
• Which livelihood assets does tourism village development support most?

2. Literature Review

2.1. Tourism Village Development

Tourism villages develop through various models that can influence community access to tourism-based livelihood assets. One such model is CBT village development (Wibowo et al., 2025). Generally, a village can become a tourism destination because of unique features—often rooted in cultural and natural assets—that attract visitors (Ari et al., 2025; Wibowo et al., 2025). Despite their distinctive appeal, developing these villages into tourism destinations often faces challenges related to financial distribution, infrastructure development, and cultural preservation, particularly among younger generations.

As tourism villages evolve, they can spur additional tourism activities, such as capital-intensive attractions like cruise tourism in coastal or island villages, or off-road tourism in mountain villages. Capital-intensive tourism requires substantial financial investment and operational capabilities, including human resource capacity, robust infrastructure, and collaborative networks to ensure tourism sustainability (Wibowo et al., 2025). Optimizing a tourism village’s appeal requires commitment and creativity from its managers; limited managerial capacity can hinder the village’s development (Djumrianti & Osseo-Asare, 2025; Tarlani et al., 2022). Dai et al. (2025) also highlight the importance of tourism stakeholders’ educational background in ensuring tourism villages’ success. Although tourism villages can absorb a significant workforce, their contribution to sustainable local livelihoods is often overlooked. This is partly because tourism employment opportunities are seasonal and highly dependent on fluctuations in visitor numbers. If tourism villages do not develop sustainably, communities relying on this sector risk serious long-term economic vulnerability (Ari et al., 2025). Interventional studies involving animals or humans, and other studies requiring ethical approval, must list the approving authority and the corresponding ethical approval code.

The above study supports the Ministry of Tourism and Creative Economy’s classification of tourism villages into cultural and natural tourism villages, which was one criterion for selecting the case studies for this study. Various issues in tourist villages, when linked to their impact on community livelihood capital, can be expressed in terms of financial investment—financial capital; human resource capacity (including commitment, creativity, and educational background)—human capital; infrastructure—physical capital; and collaborative networks—social capital. Furthermore, a unique characteristic of villages that attracts tourists is nature, which can influence natural capital. This underscores the need to examine how tourist villages support sustainable livelihood capital.

2.2. Community-Based Tourism (CBT)

One concept for rural tourism development is CBT, which emphasizes community participation, improved well-being, and cultural and environmental sustainability (Tasnim et al., 2023; Trang & Tuyen, 2021). With appropriate development, this approach can involve tourists in the community’s daily activities—including cultural practices and traditions—transforming the village into a living cultural landscape (J. Li et al., 2025; R. Li et al., 2024; Wu et al., 2023). Direct interaction with residents fosters belonging and creates an immersive experience for tourists (Juliana et al., 2024, 2025; Lemy et al., 2021, 2022). Effective community participation can strengthen ownership and responsibility toward the tourism village (Tosun, 2006). Furthermore, community participation can drive socio-economic transformation (Scheyvens, 1999, 2002). In line with this, Gayo and Katonge (2025) state that CBT success depends on the level of community participation and on strategies for managing local economic, environmental, and cultural resources to enhance tourism appeal.

Community involvement in managing and developing tourism villages can create new employment opportunities, thereby contributing to local income. Thus, the CBT concept can be viewed as an effective mechanism for ensuring that tourism villages support sustainable livelihoods (Dangi & Jamal, 2016). CBT emphasizes community empowerment, thereby increasing the community’s sense of ownership over the tourism village. This concept also integrates local social and cultural assets into tourism attractions (Fahmi et al., 2025; Tasnim et al., 2023). In essence, CBT contributes to livelihood diversification, income growth, social strengthening, and cultural preservation (Gayo & Katonge, 2025).

In some cases, community capacity to manage tourism villages needs strengthening or external support to prevent issues stemming from unequal benefit distribution or poor coordination (Azwar et al., 2025; Thái, 2018). Other challenges include a lack of synergy between tourism villages and tourism stakeholders (Cherian & Natarajamurthy, 2025; Djumrianti & Osseo-Asare, 2025), uneven community participation, and failure to incorporate community aspirations into tourism village development decisions (Kurniawan et al., 2022; Santoso et al., 2019). To implement CBT successfully, it is crucial to integrate its three core pillars—community participation, economic benefits, and environmental and cultural sustainability—supported by adequate commitment and policies. Previous studies on CBT have largely focused on satisfaction, experience acquisition, or service evaluation (García-Madurga & Grilló-Méndez, 2023; Zhou et al., 2024). Other research has examined community involvement in CBT to foster a sense of ownership and responsibility regarding tourism (Tosun, 2006). However, when viewed through the fundamental principles of CBT, the concept’s success in tourism villages can also be measured by the extent to which the village supports sustainable livelihoods. This integration warrants further study to elucidate the direct and indirect relationships between tourism development and sustainable livelihood outcomes (Dangi & Jamal, 2016; Gayo & Katonge, 2025; Stone & Nyaupane, 2017). Tourism village development that fails to consider local socio-economic aspects risks creating vulnerability, inequality, and even marginalizing communities living near tourism destinations (Tao & Wall, 2009). A sustainable livelihoods approach must ensure that tourism villages’ economic benefits are not monopolized by investors or local elites but are equitably distributed, supporting the community’s long-term economic and social resilience (Iorio & Corsale, 2010). CBT policy planning must prioritize integrating human and social capital with access to local productive assets (Z. Su et al., 2022).

Various studies have highlighted CBT’s potential to strengthen community participation, leading to social empowerment, improved well-being, and support for cultural and environmental preservation. On the one hand, CBT’s success depends heavily on community participation; on the other, it can drive socio-economic transformation, as evidenced by improvements in the local economy. In this regard, CBT serves as an effective mechanism for ensuring that tourism villages positively impact sustainable livelihoods. Nevertheless, challenges remain, such as limited community capacity to manage tourism, which can lead to unequal distribution of benefits. This creates the potential for social conflict, particularly when coordination is suboptimal. Another challenge is a lack of synergy between tourism village managers and stakeholders, along with a failure to incorporate community aspirations into tourism development decision-making. Existing studies tend to focus more on tourist satisfaction and experiences; meanwhile, another pillar of CBT—enhancing the local economy—is often viewed only partially, primarily in terms of short-term economic gains. whereas the government envisions tourism villages playing a role in long-term community social and economic resilience. To ensure tourism villages play a long-term role in enhancing community well-being, it is crucial to examine how these villages support the community’s livelihood assets. In this context, community well-being must be viewed comprehensively, reflecting the unique character of rural life—which is sustained not only by economic factors but also by deeply ingrained socio-cultural elements.

2.3. Sustainable Livelihood Framework for Tourism (SLFT)

The Sustainable Livelihood Framework for Tourism (SLFT) explains how tourism activities help local communities achieve sustainable livelihoods—encompassing income generation, managing livelihood assets, reducing vulnerability, and maintaining environmental sustainability and long-term well-being (Susilowati et al., 2026). Chambers and Conway (1992) introduced the Sustainable Livelihood concept, emphasizing five livelihood capital assets—human, social, financial, physical, and natural capital—because these assets can constrain or enhance community livelihood opportunities. Under this concept, a livelihood is considered sustainable if it can cope with and recover from stresses, maintain or enhance its assets over time, and avoid degrading natural and social resources (Scoones, 2015). While the different forms of capital are not interchangeable, they complement and reinforce one another (Pindyck & Rubinfeld, 2013). In a study conducted in the rural Migori River basin in Kenya, where community livelihoods depend on the Migori River ecosystem, Opiyo et al. (2024) found high levels of social capital support, whereas support for human and financial capital regarding sustainable livelihoods remained low. Conversely, in the Gosaba block of the Sundarbans, India, where most livelihoods are forest-based, livelihood capital sustainability was below average; progress in human capital was limited, and financial, social, and physical capital needed strengthening (Das & Das, 2024). Human capital related to community livelihoods in this region was relatively moderate—reflected in adequate levels of education, health status, and villagers’ willingness to innovate and develop skills—whereas financial capital tended to be unsustainable. The community’s reliance on the forest created vulnerability to environmental disasters, all of which significantly hindered livelihood sustainability (Das & Das, 2025). In relatively remote areas, physical capital, such as access to the region, can be a decisive factor in the sustainability of community livelihoods; Ma et al. (2024) observed this in their study of poverty-alleviation relocation programs in China. These programs strengthened physical capital within the sustainable livelihoods framework by reducing geographic isolation and improving transport access.

In developing countries, the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework helps identify individual livelihoods by assessing community capital and assets (Gebru & Beyene, 2012). This approach emphasizes resource mobilization at the micro (village) level rather than the macro (regional or national) level (Knutsson & Ostwald, 2006). In rural development, overlooking livelihood capital makes achieving sustainable rural livelihoods impossible (Shakourifard et al., 2016). Consequently, community access to livelihood capital is crucial when assessing development, particularly in the rural areas of developing countries (Barimani et al., 2016). In the context of tourism village development, where the rural community is the central subject, this approach is an appropriate strategy for evaluating the extent to which tourism villages support sustainable community livelihoods, even though the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework is sometimes still operationalized merely as an inventory of assets and income within tourism contexts (de Haan & Zoomers, 2005).

In their study of CBT in Vietnam, Luc et al. (2026) showed that community participation and job creation in the tourism sector can transform tourism-related livelihood assets into sustainable livelihoods. Local cultural values, institutional commitment, community awareness, human resource capacity, and access to financial capital support this process. Similarly, Yi et al. (2022) found that after rural tourism development, farmers’ livelihood capital increased—regardless of whether they participated directly in tourism activities. This demonstrates the multiplier effect of tourism activities, although the livelihoods of farmers participating in tourism tend to be more diversified than those of those not involved, who remain heavily dependent on natural resources. A study by Chen and Cai (2025) on rural tourism in Pingqian Village, China, also indicates that empowering villagers through tourism can enhance physical and financial capital and reduce reliance on nature, specifically agriculture, despite the risk of poverty associated with tourism business operational capabilities. Abduh and Sinaga (2026) offer a similar view, stating that high-quality tourism village governance, security arrangements, social improvements, and infrastructure development, including communication and transport services, enhance the village’s overall quality. Furthermore, high-quality infrastructure and public facilities can increase tourist satisfaction (Sunandar et al., 2022). Infrastructure development in tourism villages can improve accessibility for residents and contribute to local economic growth (Calderón & Servén, 2010; Kouladoum, 2023; Owusu-Manu et al., 2019). Regarding this infrastructure, Small and van der Meulen Rodgers (2023) emphasize the need for inclusivity to ensure greater comfort for women.

Alam (2026) identified information capital as a new resource for boosting tourism revenue. Research by M. M. Su et al. (2019) in Hetu Town, China, also showed tourism’s positive impact on rural livelihoods by fostering livelihood diversity; this enables combining tourism with other income sources, thereby enhancing livelihood sustainability. Conversely, negative impacts arise when not all community members participate, as many struggle to transition to the more varied livelihood opportunities offered by the tourism sector. To integrate resilience into the sustainable livelihood tourism framework, several strategies are required: crisis management measures (such as savings or insurance) to withstand external shocks; the role of community-level organizations as platforms for sharing response experiences, building community capacity, and strengthening livelihood resilience; and cross-stakeholder integration for more sustainable destination management (Liu et al., 2025). Another challenge for SLFT is that many rural tourism initiatives overlook seasonality, which can jeopardize livelihood sustainability, particularly during the off-season (Z. Su et al., 2019, 2022). Households engaged in tourism have greater livelihood capital reserves than those that treat tourism merely as a supplementary activity. SLFT outcomes vary depending on how the community responds to resource availability, social dynamics, and governance support; thus, achieving sustainable livelihoods requires the active engagement of local communities (Alam, 2026).

Rural tourism is expected to support rural communities’ livelihoods sustainably. More broadly, this means society can face and recover from shocks, maintain or increase its assets over time, and avoid degrading natural and social resources. In SLFT, these capabilities depend on five livelihood capital assets—human, social, financial, physical, and natural capital. Community strategies for maintaining and improving livelihoods vary by region, and previous studies have linked these strategies to livelihood outcomes. Therefore, the efforts required to improve welfare differ.

Regarding the role of tourist villages, previous studies have shown that households involved in tourism generally have better economies, for example, through additional income or more diverse livelihoods. However, these studies also reveal problems associated with rural tourism development. Including because not all people can be involved in tourism, for example, because their capabilities are limited, or indeed because management is less than optimal. In relation to SLFT, efforts need to support sustainable livelihoods. Tourism, as a sector expected to support sustainable community livelihoods, needs research. How does tourism actually support, especially in rural areas, sustainable community livelihoods? This research aims to clarify how tourism villages support sustainable livelihood capital, so it can inform a more targeted tourism village development strategy.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Cases

This study examines two villages in Central Java Province: Wanurejo Tourism Village, a cultural tourism village, and Gunung Prau Tourism Village, a nature-based tourism village. The selection of these cases was based on the following considerations:

• The Indonesian Ministry of Tourism and Creative Economy classifies tourism villages into two types: cultural tourism villages and nature tourism villages. The distinctiveness and appeal of culture and nature are assets for developing tourism villages (Ari et al., 2025; Wibowo et al., 2025).
• Both villages received the Indonesian Tourism Village Awards (ADWI) in 2024 for meeting and developing five key indicators: (1) attraction (uniqueness, authenticity, and creativity in tourism products—natural, man-made, or cultural—as well as in creative economy products such as culinary items, crafts, and fashion); (2) amenities (high-quality, comfortable tourism-supporting facilities and services, such as homestays, standard restrooms, and accessibility); (3) digital (use of digital technology and information for marketing and village management, such as social media and online booking systems); (4) institution & human resources (sound tourism village organizational governance and the empowerment of the local community and Tourism Awareness Groups/Pokdarwis); and (5) resilience (adaptability, innovation, and environmental sustainability—adopting an environmentally conscious or green tourism approach).

3.2. Research Design

This study employs a mixed-methods approach using an Explanatory Sequential Design. The mixed-methods approach was selected to combine quantitative and qualitative methods and to gain a comprehensive understanding of the SLFT phenomenon. The Explanatory Sequential Design is carried out in two consecutive stages: the researcher first collects and analyzes quantitative data, followed by collecting and analyzing qualitative data (Creswell, 2014). This design was chosen to explain the quantitative findings through the qualitative method’s descriptive approach, resulting in a comprehensive understanding. Qualitative data collection aimed to deepen the contextual understanding of SLFT across the five sustainable livelihood dimensions identified in the quantitative results.

3.3. Data Collection and Sampling

Data collection combined primary and secondary methods. Primary data collection involved questionnaires, field observations, and interviews. Secondary data collection involved document reviews, including tourism village profile books, news articles, and literature on Wanurejo and Gunung Prau Tourism Village.

In the initial stage of the research, the researcher conducted a “grand tour” to deepen understanding of the research case. During this grand tour, the researcher observed tourism activities and general community life and conducted preliminary interviews on community livelihoods and the capital influencing them, using the interview guide in

Table 1. Grand Tour Interview Guidelines.

SLFT Component	Grand Tour Interview Guidelines (Adaptable Based on Informant Responses)
Human Capital	Process of tourism village development
	Average community education level prior to the tourism village
	Unemployment within the community
Social Capital	Community response to tourism village development
	Process of establishing the tourism village management body/Tourism Awareness Group (Pokdarwis)
	Community participation in tourism village development
	Arts, cultural activities, and traditions in the village
Financial Capital	Benefits of tourism village development for the community
	Community well-being prior to the tourism village
	Financial assistance from family members working in the city
Physical Capital	Changes occurring after the establishment of the tourism village
	Village improvements following tourism village development
Natural Capital	Extent of agricultural land/orchards prior to the tourism village
	Sustainability of the village environment

Source: Adapted from Das and Das (2025); Siregar et al. (2024), developed by the authors.

.

Based on the results of the grand tour and observations of tourism activities, questionnaire items and interview guidelines were developed to assess the extent to which the tourism village supports sustainable livelihood assets—encompassing the five variables of financial, social, human, physical, and natural capital (Das & Das, 2025; Siregar et al., 2024)—and adapted to the tourism sector context, as outlined in

Table 2. SLFT Components and Indicators.

SLFT Components	Indicators		Questionnaire Statement
Financial Capital	Total income	1	Since the establishment of the tourism village, my income has increased compared to before.
	Income sources	2	The tourism village has opened up new income opportunities for me and my family.
	Meeting needs	3	With the growth of the tourism village, I am better able to meet my family’s needs than before.
	Access to bank credit	4	Since running a tourism business, it has become easier for me to access bank loans for tourism-related activities.
	Savings	5	I have been able to save more money since running a tourism business compared to before.
Social Capital	Communication and trust among residents	6	Communication and trust among residents have improved since the establishment of the tourism village.
	Level of participation in decision-making	7	With the growth of tourism village, community participation and involvement in decisions regarding village development have increased.
	Conflict management	8	Since the establishment of the tourism village, conflicts among residents have decreased and/or are better resolved.
	Security and order	9	Since the establishment of the tourism village, security and order in the village have improved.
	Cultural activities	10	Since the establishment of the tourism village, cultural activities are held more frequently, and more residents participate in them.
Human Capital	Education	11	Community awareness regarding the importance of education has increased alongside the development of the tourism village.
	Diversity of skills	12	Since the development of the tourism village, there has been an increase in the diversity of skills and knowledge within the community and for me.
	Urbanization and unemployment	13	The development of the tourist village has helped reduce unemployment and the interest of people/young people in moving to/looking for work in cities.
	Health	14	The development of the tourism village has raised awareness—both for the community and me—regarding the importance of health and nutrition.
	Innovation and adaptability	15	The development of tourism village has enhanced innovation, creativity, and the ability of the community and me to adapt to changing trends and modern developments.
Physical Capital	Road & Access	16	The condition of the roads leading to the village and surrounding areas has improved since the development of the tourist village.
	Access to Clean Water	17	As the tourist village has developed, the community and my own access to clean water have improved.
	Sanitation	18	As tourism develops, sanitation conditions in the village are improving.
	Internet access	19	Internet access in the village has increased significantly since the development of the tourist village.
	Housing availability	20	As the tourist village develops, the condition and quality of the community’s and my own homes are improving.
Natural Capital	Level of conversion of agricultural/green land	21	As tourism develops, there has not been much change in the use of agricultural/green land.
	Waste management	22	As the tourist village develops, the waste management system is improving.
	Environmental sustainability	23	As the tourist village develops, environmental sustainability and preservation are improving.
	Pollution	24	Tourism activities do not cause significant pollution.
	Disaster potential	25	The development of the tourist village does not make the village area more vulnerable to disasters.

Source: Adapted from Das and Das (2025); Siregar et al. (2024), developed based on the grand tour.

.

The questionnaire used a Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all dominant) to 5 (highly dominant). It used a closed-ended format, allowing respondents to select from predetermined answers to make completion easier. The questionnaire was administered to 140 respondents—70 from each tourism village. According to Cochran (1977), a sample size of approximately 30 or more is sufficient to ensure that the sample mean distribution approaches a normal distribution, even if the underlying population is not normally distributed. Furthermore, the sample size was determined based on the accessibility of tourism stakeholders and the comparative case-study design, with an equal allocation of 70 respondents in each village. The sample is not intended to provide population-level statistical representativeness, as it is based on a non-probability sampling strategy.

Respondents were selected using a convenience sampling technique based on purposive criteria. First, purposive criteria were used to identify individuals working or earning a livelihood in the tourism sector, such as tourism village managers, artisans, accommodation and transportation providers, attraction managers, vendors, tour guides, and others, on the premise that these groups are key participants in primary and supporting tourism activities and thus possess a better understanding of their tourism-related livelihoods. During data collection, the researcher visited tourism activity sites or locations where tourism stakeholders were present in each village and selected respondents through chance encounters (convenience sampling) who met the criteria and were willing to participate. Data collection continued until the required sample size was reached.

Field observations examined tourism activity dynamics and the adequacy of tourism facilities. The researcher used non-participant observation, acting solely as an observer without engaging in the activities being observed; specifically, the researcher observed the activities of tourists and tourism stakeholders without direct involvement.

Interviews used an open-ended, semi-structured format with 90 informants—45 from each tourism village—following the guidelines in

Table 3. Interview Guidelines.

SLFT Components	Interview Guidelines (Adaptable Based on Informant Responses)
Financial Capital	Increase in current income compared to the pre-tourism village era
	Types of livelihoods previously pursued
	Ability and methods to meet family needs
	Increase in current savings compared to the pre-tourism village era
	Solutions used during financial difficulties/crisis
Social Capital	History of the tourism village’s development
	Stakeholders involved in the tourism village’s development
	Frequency and quality of community gatherings
	Community involvement in the tourism village’s development
	Conflict management
	Strategies and programs for cultural development
	Strategies and programs for strengthening social cohesion
	Social culture that has evolved since the tourism village’s inception
Human Capital	Increased motivation for education and skills development since the tourism village’s inception
	Strategies and programs for enhancing resident capacity and skills
	Change in the number of residents working in cities since the tourism village’s inception
	Community culture of healthy living
	Innovation, creativity, and residents’ ability to adapt to economic dynamics
	Mentorship for tourism village development
Physical Capital	Quality of roads leading to and within the tourism village area
	Access to clean water
	Availability and quality of sanitation facilities
	Internet access
	Frequency of house construction/renovation since the tourism village’s inception
	Village physical development programs since the tourism village’s inception
Natural Capital	Rate of agricultural/green land conversion
	Waste management
	Environmental conservation awareness and culture
	Increase in pollution and contamination since the tourism village’s inception
	Disaster occurrences and management since the tourism village’s inception

Source: Adapted from Das and Das (2025); Siregar et al. (2024), developed based on the grand tour.

. These interviews served as a triangulation strategy to validate and reinforce questionnaire data. We selected informants using purposive sampling, distinct from the questionnaire sample. Selection was based on the urgency of the information sought and its alignment with the research variables. Specifically, informants included community members with experience and livelihoods in the tourism sector, selected for their capacity, experience, and relevance to the tourism village.

3.4. Ethical Considerations

This study involved human participants and received ethical approval from the Research Institute’s Ethics Committee at the University of Technology Yogyakarta, as evidenced by Ethical Clearance Decision Letter Number 21.1/UTY/KLP-BP/III/2026. Because this study involves human subjects, the researchers strictly adhered to ethical standards for data collection, processing, and presentation. Before data collection through questionnaires and interviews, respondents or informants were informed of the study’s objectives, data collection procedures, and the nature of their expected involvement. Participation was entirely voluntary and free from coercion by the researchers or other parties. In the quantitative phase, respondents completed questionnaires reflecting their actual conditions and experiences as tourism stakeholders. In the qualitative phase, informants answered interview questions based on their personal experiences, perspectives, and understanding and could decline to answer specific questions. The research team maintained the confidentiality of all respondents’ and informants’ identities throughout the process; personal identities were excluded from the presentation of findings, and the information obtained was used solely for research purposes.

3.5. Data Analysis

3.5.1. Quantitative Data Analysis

The analysis used a scoring method. It employed a pre-existing research instrument with a five-point Likert scale, where 1 represented the lowest score and 5 the highest level or condition. The first stage involved tabulating sample responses for each question, followed by calculating the frequency and percentage for each response category. The second stage involved calculating the average or mean score for each indicator by summing the scores from all samples for that indicator and dividing the total by the number of samples; this can be expressed by the following formula:

$${\overline{X}}_i={\displaystyle \frac{{\sum }_{j=1X_{ij}}^n}{n}}$$

• ${\overline{X}}_i$: The average score of indicator I;
• $X_{ij}$: The score of the j-th sample for the i-th indicator;
• n: Number of samples.

The third stage involves calculating the overall SLFT score based on the five dimensions of sustainable livelihoods. This score describes each tourism village’s SLFT status and classifies it as either highly dominant or non-dominant in supporting sustainable livelihoods.

Table 4. SLFT Class Classification.

SLFT Value Range	SLFT Classification
1.00–1.80	Highly non-dominant
1.81–2.60	Non-Dominant
2.61–3.40	Moderately Dominant
3.41–4.20	Dominant
4.21–5.00	Highly Dominant

Source: Developed based on own collaboration.

presents the five-class SLFT classification. Class determination is calculated using the following formula:

$$I={\displaystyle \frac{X_{max}-X_{min}}{k}}$$

• I: The class interval;
• X_max: The maximum score (5);
• X_min: The minimum score (1);
• K: The number of classes (5 classes, corresponding to the Likert scale used).

A “highly dominant” SLFT classification indicates that the specific indicator or variable is the most dominant factor within sustainable livelihood capital. Conversely, a “highly non-dominant” SLFT classification indicates that the specific indicator or variable is the least dominant factor within that capital.

3.5.2. Quantitative Instrument Validity and Reliability

Instrument validity testing assessed the accuracy and precision of the measurement tool. This study employed Spearman’s Rank Correlation in IBM SPSS Statistics 26. Spearman’s Rank Correlation was selected because the data used a Likert scale, which is ordinal. Hauke and Kossowski (2011) state that Spearman’s Rank Correlation is a non-parametric statistical analysis tool that does not require normally distributed data and is suitable for ordinal variables. We tested this by correlating each statement item score with the total variable score. A statement item was deemed valid if the significance value (Sig. 2-tailed) was less than 0.05 or if the calculated r-value exceeded the table r-value. In the Wanurejo Tourism Village case study, using data from 70 respondents and a 5% significance level, the table r-value was 0.235. Similarly, for the Gunung Prau Tourism Village case study, using data from 70 respondents and a 5% significance level, the table r-value was also 0.235. The Spearman’s Rank Correlation test results for both Gunung Prau and Wanurejo Tourism Villages indicated that all question items were significant (Sig. 2-tailed < 0.05) and valid.

Reliability testing assessed the instrument’s consistency and stability by repeating measurements at different times. This study used Cronbach’s alpha in IBM SPSS Statistics 26. The research instrument was considered reliable (consistent) if the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient exceeded 0.70. Taber (2018) notes that a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.7 or higher indicates internal consistency. The reliability test results for Wanurejo Tourism Village showed a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.961, indicating reliability. Likewise, the reliability test results for Gunung Prau Tourism Village showed a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.878, indicating reliability.

3.5.3. Qualitative Data Analysis

The qualitative analysis used explanatory descriptive techniques to explain and interpret the quantitative scoring results. The qualitative data analysis process followed the framework proposed by Miles and Huberman (1994), comprising data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing or verification. During data reduction, interview transcripts were simplified to retain only information relevant to the research objectives. This stage was guided by the SLFT dimensions: human, social, financial, physical, and natural capital, as well as other themes supporting the quantitative findings. The researchers collaboratively developed codes and themes from qualitative data sources. In the data display stage, the reduced data were presented as descriptive narratives supported by interview excerpts. The conclusion-drawing stage involved synthesizing interview results through source triangulation by comparing information from different informants. The researchers also cross-referenced interview data with observational findings to strengthen interpretations of SLFT conditions. The researchers further used the verification results to formulate integrated conclusions about SLFT conditions in each tourism village by comparing qualitative findings with quantitative calculations. Ultimately, the interview results explained the underlying reasons for the SLFT scoring outcomes.

3.5.4. Qualitative Data Verification

Qualitative data verification was conducted to ensure the trustworthiness of the information and interpretations, that is, to establish internal validity. The study used source triangulation, drawing on diverse data sources, including interviews, observations, and document or literature reviews of the study sites, to strengthen the evidence base and ensure accurate qualitative interpretations that reflect actual SLFT conditions. For ensuring the reliability and validity of qualitative data, a manual inter-coder reliability check was conducted between the authors. Author 1 performed the primary coding, transcribing, and initial thematic analysis. Author 2 and Author 3 independently reviewed the derived themes and a subset of the raw interview transcripts to verify the alignment between the informants’ quotes and the final interpretations. Discrepancies in the manual themes and summarized quotes were discussed and resolved collectively to achieve a unified consensus for ensuring the credibility of the interpretations.

4. Results

4.1. Profile of Samples

To assess the extent to which tourism villages support local communities’ sustainable livelihood assets, we selected samples of local tourism stakeholders to ensure they could complete the questionnaire effectively. We collected quantitative data from 140 respondents, 70 from each tourism village. In Wanurejo Tourism Village, most respondents were women (61.43%), whereas in Gunung Prau Tourism Village, most were men (78.57%), as shown in

Table 5. Sample profile for quantitative data mining.

		Wanurejo Tourism Village		Gunung Prau Tourism Village
		N	Percentage (%)	N	Percentage (%)
Gender	Male	27	38.57%	55	78.57%
	Female	43	61.43%	15	21.43%
Age	11–20	2	2.86%	9	12.86%
	21–30	24	34.29%	24	34.29%
	31–40	11	15.71%	17	24.29%
	41–50	15	21.43%	16	22.86%
	>50	18	25.71%	4	5.71%
Education	Elementary School	4	5.71%	18	25.71%
	Junior High School	3	4.29%	20	28.57%
	Senior High School	44	62.86%	29	41.43%
	Bachelor’s Degree	19	27.14%	3	4.29%
Role	Tourism village manager	11	15.71%	15	21.43%
	Restaurant/food stall owner	28	40.00%	27	38.57%
	Tourist attraction manager/operator	6	8.57%	6	8.57%
	Village tour/hiking guide	9	12.86%	7	10.00%
	Shop owner	11	15.71%	6	8.57%
	Travel agency	0	0.00%	5	7.14%
	Homestay	5	7.14%	4	5.71%

Source: Interviews, 2026.

. In terms of age, respondents aged 21–30 were the largest group in both tourism villages, accounting for 34.29% of the sample in each village.

To improve clarity and support a more comprehensive understanding, we gathered information through semi-structured interviews with 90 informants—45 from each tourism village. Most informants from Wanurejo Tourism Village were female (57.78%), whereas most from Gunung Prau Tourism Village were male (62.22%), as shown in

Table 6. Sample profile for qualitative data mining.

		Wanurejo Tourism Village		Gunung Prau Tourism Village
		N	Percentage (%)	N	Percentage (%)
Gender	Male	19	42.22%	28	62.22%
	Female	26	57.78%	17	37.78%
Age	11–20	3	6.67%	2	4.44%
	21–30	15	33.33%	18	40.00%
	31–40	12	26.67%	13	28.89%
	41–50	7	15.56%	8	17.78%
	>50	8	17.78%	4	8.89%
Education	Elementary School	0	0.00%	4	8.89%
	Junior High School	2	4.44%	16	35.56%
	Senior High School	33	73.33%	21	46.67%
	Bachelor’s Degree	10	22.22%	4	8.89%
Role	Tourism village manager	5	11.11%	4	8.89%
	Restaurant/food stall owner	12	26.67%	15	33.33%
	Tourist attraction manager/operator	8	17.78%	6	13.33%
	Village tour/hiking guide	6	13.33%	11	24.44%
	Shop owner	6	13.33%	3	6.67%
	Travel agency	0	0.00%	0	0.00%
	Homestay	8	17.78%	6	13.33%

Source: Interviews, 2026.

.

4.2. The Role of the Culture-Based Tourism Village in Supporting Sustainable Livelihoods

Wanurejo Tourism Village has developed through a community-based approach, with its cultural richness as its primary attraction. The village’s appeal has grown rapidly, bolstered by its strategic location within the “Ring 1” zone—just 600 m from Borobudur Temple—making it a key gateway to the temple complex. Wanurejo’s cultural wealth is evident in centers for *batik tulis* (hand-drawn batik), traditional dance and music, local culinary ventures, and distinctive handicrafts—all managed directly by the local community. The village also offers educational tourism packages, including cultural performances, batik-making workshops, and classes in *gamelan*, Javanese dance, local culinary arts (e.g., mushroom cultivation, *rengginan* rice crackers), and local crafts (e.g., bamboo carving, temple miniatures). Additionally, village exploration packages are available, featuring cycling tours, *andong* (traditional horse-drawn carriage) rides, and safari car tours.

In 2024, Wanurejo Tourism Village won first place in the amenities category at the Indonesian Tourism Village Awards (ADWI). Tourism development is community-driven, with 57% of residents participating in tourism activities alongside their primary occupations. Roles include tour guides, artists, artisans, culinary entrepreneurs, homestay operators, tour package organizers, and performance managers. Community empowerment has revitalized Wanurejo, making it a popular tourism village and more than just a destination—it is now a space for learning about local wisdom and community empowerment. Furthermore, tourism activities generate additional income and support the community’s well-being, demonstrating that tourism effectively fosters sustainable livelihoods in the village. The SLFT questionnaire was used to examine tourism support for the community’s livelihoods in Wanurejo Village, as shown in

Table 7. Tourism Village Support by Sustainable Livelihood Indicator in Wanurejo Village.

SLFT Capital	No	Indicators	Score	Std Dev.	Average
Financial Capital	1	Total income	4.00	0.87	3.63
	2	Income sources	4.03	0.92
	3	Meeting needs	3.04	0.92
	4	Access to bank credit	3.44	0.77
	5	Savings	3.64	1.02
Social Capital	6	Communication and trust among residents	3.86	0.80	3.92
	7	Level of participation in decision-making	3.84	0.73
	8	Conflict management	3.64	0.76
	9	Security and order	3.89	0.84
	10	Cultural activities	4.37	0.59
Human Capital	11	Education	4.29	0.85	4.00
	12	Diversity of skills	4.03	0.82
	13	Urbanization and unemployment	3.91	0.74
	14	Health	3.83	0.82
	15	Innovation and adaptability	3.94	0.72
Physical Capital	16	Road & Access	3.69	0.86	3.79
	17	Access to Clean Water	3.91	0.81
	18	Sanitation	3.93	0.62
	19	Internet access	3.71	0.87
	20	Housing availability	3.70	0.92
Natural Capital	21	Level of conversion of agricultural/green land	3.40	0.84	3.75
	22	Waste management	3.99	0.71
	23	Environmental sustainability	3.79	0.74
	24	Pollution	3.79	0.56
	25	Disaster potential	3.80	0.73

Source: Primary data analysis, 2026.

.

Based on the SLFT analysis results shown in Figure 1, human capital emerged as the most dominant form of capital supporting sustainable livelihoods, with a mean score of 4.00 (SD = 0.72; high category). This was followed by social capital (mean = 3.92; SD = 0.62; high category), physical capital (mean = 3.79; SD = 0.68; high category), natural capital (mean = 3.75; SD = 0.45; high category), and financial capital (mean = 3.63; SD = 0.72; high category). The overall average SLFT score for Wanurejo Tourism Village was 3.82, which falls into the high category; this indicates that the tourism village.’s existence and status strongly support the Wanurejo community’s sustainable livelihoods. Figure 1 illustrates the tourism village’s dominant support for the Wanurejo community’s sustainable livelihood capitals.

Human capital is the most prominent sustainable livelihood asset in Wanurejo Village. This aligns with an excerpt from an interview with WS, a local tour guide, conducted on 22 June 2026: “Most residents are involved in tourism activities. Some work as tour guides, sell food products or souvenirs, produce batik, run homestays, or operate tour package businesses. Many community members are reaping the benefits of the tourism village. Consequently, people are very enthusiastic about improving their individual skills so they can sustain their participation in these tourism activities. Some are improving their English proficiency; others are learning screen printing to create attractive souvenir T-shirts... basically, a wide variety of things. What is clear is that the community is becoming more knowledgeable.” (WS, personal communication, 22 June 2026). This also aligns with an excerpt from an interview with BR, a homestay entrepreneur, on 28 June 2026: “Nowadays, more and more tour guides can speak fluent English, which is making tourists more satisfied, as more foreign tourists are coming to Wanurejo. The tour guides also learn about Javanese culture and traditions, as well as the tradition of cooperation (gotong royong). The local government, in collaboration with universities, also trains them in guiding skills so they can offer even more engaging tours. Now, the number of tourists, including foreigners, is increasing, creating more job opportunities. This has had a positive impact on Wanurejo Village, as the unemployment rate has decreased, and the community is becoming more prosperous.” (BR, personal communication, 28 June 2026).

An excerpt from an interview with BAS, Head of the Village Economic Center and Head of the Wanurejo Village Tourism Awareness Group (Pokdarwis), on 8 June 2026, supports this statement: “One of the important factors in developing Wanurejo Tourism Village is human resource capacity, especially in today’s digital era. The Wanurejo Pokdarwis holds training sessions to improve young people’s digital skills so they can support tourism marketing, website development, and more. The number of participants is high... This demonstrates the community’s enthusiasm for improving their skills. We also frequently hold training sessions to address community suggestions, such as culinary training, packaging, and even tourist service training to enhance residents’ creativity in developing their culinary businesses so they can compete with other tourism destinations.” (BAS, personal communication, 6 June 2026).

Interviews with the community, the Tourism Awareness Group (Pokdarwis), and the village government revealed that the people of Wanurejo Village benefit in many ways from the tourism village. Increased enthusiasm for learning and improved knowledge and skills can support the sustainability of tourism businesses and create more employment opportunities. This has reduced unemployment and slowed urbanization. Previously, many residents sought work in the city. However, with tourism growth, many residents have chosen to stay and develop tourism businesses in the village.

Social capital also benefits significantly from the village’s tourism development. This is evidenced by the establishment of the Wanurejo Tourism Awareness Group (Pokdarwis) in 2004, which demonstrates community empowerment. Interviews with the community, Pokdarwis, and the village government revealed that Pokdarwis actively organizes activities and tour packages in Wanurejo Village. Togetherness and cooperation underlie the working principles of the Tourism Awareness Group (Pokdarwis), which aim to improve the community’s welfare equally. As stated in an interview with S, a culinary vendor selling traditional Wanurejo Village food on 24 May 2026: “The development of tourism in Wanurejo Village is managed by the Tourism Awareness Group (Pokdarwis) in collaboration with the village government. Those of us involved in various tourism activities—me included—are members of the Pokdarwis. The group holds regular meetings on the 10th of every month; these meetings foster social bonds and help us discuss planned activities. They address any issues that arise during these meetings and seek solutions in a spirit of kinship. Our shared progress matters most, so we resolve problems quickly to prevent them from escalating into prolonged conflicts. Ultimately, communal harmony is the top priority.” (S, personal communication, 24 May 2026).

Interview results indicate that the tourism village initiative has increased community participation and concern for the village’s development. To achieve shared prosperity, the community established a schedule of regular Pokdarwis meetings to facilitate communication and discussion. Residents are moving toward more harmonious interactions and communication while actively avoiding conflict. This process has not been difficult, thanks to the community’s long-standing traditions of harmony and *gotong royong* (cooperation). As highlighted in an interview with SHS, the Hamlet Head of Tinggal Kulon in Wanurejo Village, on 18 June 2026: “The community has always engaged in mutual cooperation for various village activities. However, since the village’s development as a tourist destination, more residents have participated in regular cooperative efforts—such as maintaining environmental cleanliness, caring for public facilities, or organizing tourism amenities. A prime example is the *Merti Dusun* tradition, a cultural practice of village cleansing, which has also become a tourist attraction. As a hamlet official, I have personally witnessed a growing sense of solidarity among the residents. They understand that togetherness and harmony are the key assets for developing the tourism village. Concern for one another has increased; everyone is quick to help those in need, doing so without keeping score. After all, neighbors are our closest family.” (SHS, personal communication, 18 June 2026).

The development of the tourism village has also heightened community awareness of cultural preservation. Artisans specializing in Wanurejo’s distinctive batik continue to develop Borobudur-themed motifs, some of which were showcased at the Magelang Batik Festival in October 2025. Local artists work in studios dedicated to dance, *gamelan* and *karawitan* (traditional music), *angklung*, painting, acrobatics, and *wayang* (puppetry). These artists also organize village cultural festivals to showcase various art forms to tourists; the Tourism Awareness Group (Pokdarwis) coordinates these activities. This heightened cultural awareness is reflected in an excerpt from an interview with PS, a dance artist, on 8 June 2026: “Many children participate in the Kinnara Kinnari Studio, ranging from elementary school age to university students. I am delighted, as this demonstrates their love for art and culture. We practice dancing every Saturday afternoon. However, when a performance is coming up, we practice more frequently, especially if tourist groups make requests. We perform a variety of dances, so the practice schedule becomes more intensive. I feel very proud when the children perform traditional dances beautifully.” (PS, personal communication, 8 June 2026).

Physical capital supporting the tourism village is evident in the excellent condition of road access to and within Wanurejo Village, which facilitates easy arrival and ensures a comfortable travel experience for tourists. Wanurejo Village also has assets that directly support tourism activities, including 85 homestays that are part of the Borobudur Homestay Village network; these homestays offer the experience of living with local families. The village hall and open-air stage host art performances and batik workshops, while the Village Economic Center serves as a batik gallery and handicraft hub showcasing Wanurejo’s signature local products. Wanurejo Village has also developed village tour routes—traversed by bicycle, *andong* (traditional horse-drawn carriage), and safari car—that pass through rice fields, gardens, the open-air stage, and homestays. High-quality village road infrastructure supports these attractions. A centralized parking area and clear signage also make visits easier. Wi-Fi is available in various areas, including homestays, the Village Economic Center, souvenir shops, and other facilities. This infrastructure demonstrates that the physical capital in Wanurejo—developed to support the tourism village—also enhances the convenience of local mobility, as noted in an interview excerpt with NW, a food stall owner, on 8 June 2026: “Since becoming a tourism village, many facilities have been added to Wanurejo Village, such as an open-air stage and a Village Economic Center. Village roads have also been improved, making them more comfortable for cycling, taking *andong* (traditional horse-drawn carriage) rides, or driving. Wi-Fi access is now widely available as well; almost every restaurant, shop, and public facility offers it, making the experience more convenient for tourists.” (NW, personal communication, 8 June 2026).

Wanurejo Village’s natural capital has benefited from support tied to its status as a tourism village, even though its dominance score is lower than those of its human and social capital. The tourism village initiative has heightened community awareness of cleanliness and environmental sustainability. Household and environmental waste management have become more organized since the village’s development as a tourist destination. As noted in an interview on 24 May 2026, with PDJ, a sanitation worker in Wanurejo Village: “Residents’ concern for environmental cleanliness has grown recently because they realize that if the village is dirty, tourists will be reluctant to visit. Residents are increasingly disciplined about disposing of trash in the proper receptacles. No one burns their trash anymore, as they know it only increases pollution. You can see for yourself—the environment here in Wanurejo Village is clean and beautiful.” (PDJ, personal communication, 24 May 2026).

The lush rural landscape, featuring rice fields and gardens, offers a natural vista and a tranquil atmosphere. Wanurejo’s proximity to Borobudur Temple further enhances its tourism appeal, allowing visitors to combine a trip to the World Heritage site with a rural tourism experience. The community capitalizes on these natural assets by offering village tour packages—using bicycles, *andong* carriages, or safari cars—that allow visitors to enjoy views of the rice fields, gardens, and river. Community-managed organic rice fields offer a unique attraction by allowing tourists to actively participate in traditional farming activities, as noted in an interview on 5 July 2026, with H, a village tour guide: “Tourists seem very enthusiastic when given the chance to join in farming activities. The activities vary by season. Sometimes they might try planting rice during the planting season, or shout to scare off birds while shaking strings of cans used as bird scarers. They look very happy, even though their clothes sometimes get dirty.” (H, personal communication, 5 July 2026).

Regarding financial capital, the tourism village provides support, as stated by HW, a cycling tour guide, on 6 June 2026: “The tourism village provides extra income for my family. Besides working as a staff member at the Borobudur District office, I also joined the cycling tour team at the Village Economic Center. My main asset is my bicycle. I lead tours on Saturday and Sunday mornings and afternoons. Thank God, the earnings are decent and serve as additional income for my family; I can earn an extra IDR 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 per month.” (HW, personal communication, 6 June 2026).

Residents earn additional income from tourism-related activities, including homestay operations, batik production and sales, local culinary specialties, bicycle rentals, and performing arts services. Despite ongoing challenges—such as reliance on tourist numbers, particularly during the off-season—the tourism village has created new income streams for residents. As YM, a local culinary entrepreneur, stated on 18 June 2026: “I used to be just an ordinary housewife. I started selling *rengginan* [traditional rice crackers] back in 1996, consigning them to various shops and stalls. However, as the Wanurejo tourism village developed, I decided to open a shop selling local culinary souvenirs—including these *rengginan*. Since 2019, the number of tourists visiting Wanurejo has surged, and they’ve really supported my business. Now, ‘Bu Yatin’s *rengginan*’ is a hit—it’s famous. Basically, if you visit Wanurejo, you must stop by and buy souvenirs from Yatin’s Shop” (YM, personal communication, 18 June 2026).

4.3. The Role of the Nature-Based Tourism Village in Supporting Sustainable Livelihoods

Gunung Prau Tourism Village, located in the Dieng Plateau region, focuses on developing mountain tourism and hiking. The village’s primary assets are its spectacular natural panoramas, including the famous “golden sunrise” of Mount Prau, expansive grasslands, and mountain scenery. Beyond its natural attractions, the village offers unique agricultural educational packages, such as learning to plant potatoes in highland fields, vegetable garden tours, and opportunities to enjoy local produce that defines the region’s agrarian identity.

In 2024, Gunung Prau Tourism Village received an award in the Indonesian Tourism Village Awards (ADWI) in the resilience category; this accolade recognized the village’s ability to adapt, maintain environmental sustainability, and recover from crises. The Gunung Prau community actively engages in tourism activities, including homestays, eateries, sales of local culinary specialties and souvenirs, and rentals of camping equipment, tour guides, and porter services. In addition to natural attractions, community-organized cultural events and traditional activities, such as the “Prau Bersih” (Clean Prau) conservation initiative and annual participation in the Dieng Culture Festival (DCF), also draw tourists. The SLFT questionnaire assessed the tourism sector’s support for community livelihoods in Gunung Prau Village, as shown in

Table 8. Tourism Village Support by Sustainable Livelihood Indicator in Gunung Prau Village.

SLFT Capital	No	Indicators	Score	Std Dev.	Average
Financial Capital	1	Total income	4.13	0.51	4.02
	2	Income sources	4.24	0.49
	3	Meeting needs	4.00	0.64
	4	Access to bank credit	3.61	0.75
	5	Savings	4.09	0.56
Social Capital	6	Communication and trust among residents	3.87	0.70	3.88
	7	Level of participation in decision-making	3.63	0.82
	8	Conflict management	3.74	0.58
	9	Security and order	4.07	0.57
	10	Cultural activities	4.10	0.64
Human Capital	11	Education	4.26	0.72	4.15
	12	Diversity of skills	4.16	0.67
	13	Urbanization and unemployment	3.96	0.82
	14	Health	4.04	0.49
	15	Innovation and adaptability	4.31	0.47
Physical Capital	16	Road & Access	4.03	0.88	4.16
	17	Access to Clean Water	4.16	0.47
	18	Sanitation	4.07	0.64
	19	Internet access	4.26	0.56
	20	Housing availability	4.30	0.55
Natural Capital	21	Level of conversion of agricultural/green land	3.96	0.65	4.07
	22	Waste management	3.87	0.82
	23	Environmental sustainability	4.30	0.46
	24	Pollution	4.06	0.68
	25	Disaster potential	4.19	0.46

Source: Primary data analysis, 2026.

.

Figure 2 illustrates the hierarchy of support provided by the Gunung Prau tourism village for sustainable livelihood capitals: physical capital at 4.16 (SD = 0.46; high category), human capital at 4.15 (SD = 0.48; high category), natural capital at 4.07 (SD = 0.28; high category), financial capital at 4.02 (SD = 0.38; high category), and social capital at 3.88 (SD = 0.46; high category).

The SLFT analysis indicates that physical capital receives the most support in the Gunung Prau tourism village. This is evident in the good condition of the village’s access infrastructure and the presence of five official hiking trails (Patak Banteng, Dwarawati, Kalilembu, Dieng, and Wates). Each trail features a base camp that serves as a registration point, along with amenities such as parking areas, food stalls, places of worship, restrooms, directional signage, and camping equipment rental services. These features enhance Gunung Prau’s appeal by making tourists feel safer and more comfortable during their hikes. As JW, a hiking guide, stated on 12 June 2026: “Gunung Prau used to be just a farming village, with most residents working in agriculture; vegetable gardens dominated the landscape. However, since the village began developing as a tourist destination around 2010, Gunung Prau has attracted many visitors, particularly hikers. This surge in interest was driven by viral social media photos of the village scenery—especially sunrise shots from Mount Prau. The influx of tourists has had a positive impact: village roads have been improved, hiking trails have been repaired, and base camps have been built with excellent facilities, including restrooms, prayer rooms, food stalls, and adequate parking. Access to clean water and drainage systems has also improved. This physical development has brought tangible benefits to the community’s quality of life. Tourism villages also significantly bolster human capital, as a large portion of the local population (46%) works in tourism-related activities—tour guides, porters, camping gear or motorbike rental providers, homestay operators, food and souvenir vendors, or jeep tour operators. The growth of the tourism village has enhanced the community’s knowledge and skills.” (JW, personal communication, 12 June 2026).

Many local youths have joined the Mount Prau Basecamp Association to serve the needs of hiking tourists. To support this role, they learn rescue techniques and mountaineering ethics. As W, the coordinator of the Patak Banteng basecamp, noted in a 21 June 2026, interview: “Many young people have joined the Mount Prau Basecamp Association. For some, it is a side job alongside farming, while for others, it is their primary occupation; thus, the tourism village helps reduce unemployment. Most local youths can serve as hiking guides because they know the area intimately and are accustomed to climbing Mount Prau. However, to guide professionally, they need the necessary knowledge and skills. Consequently, we have conducted training sessions covering land navigation, logistics and risk management, and wilderness first aid. These skills are crucial for ensuring the safety and smooth progress of hikers’ journeys.” (W, personal communication, 21 June 2026).

Some community members have developed additional tourism attractions—such as educational potato-farming packages and potato field tours—that allow visitors to gain new insights into the Dieng Plateau’s unique cultivation methods. Tourism activities in Gunung Prau Village are further supported by the English proficiency of some tour guides, which facilitates communication with the growing number of international visitors. This English proficiency exemplifies the community’s capacity building, as noted by AB, a farmer, during an interview on 21 June 2026: “I collaborate with the Patak Banteng Agrotourism Package provider on potato farming and field tour packages. Tourists can learn how potatoes grow in the highlands. It is challenging with foreign tourists, though, because I don’t speak English. However, the tour guides have learned English; the demands of the job have driven them to acquire these language skills.” (AB, personal communication, 21 June 2026).

Gunung Prau has immense natural appeal and is a primary tourism icon. Its main attraction is the “golden sunrise” view from the summit, which also offers a panorama of Central Java’s major peaks: Mount Sindoro, Sumbing, Merbabu, Merapi, and Lawu. Another natural asset is the vast summit meadow, dotted with wildflowers such as daisies and edelweiss. Hiking trails that wind through Dieng’s characteristic potato and vegetable fields enhance the natural appeal by adding an agrarian atmosphere to the journey. Tourism numbers have steadily increased, driven by visitors sharing stories and photos online.

The tourism village model strongly supports the community’s sustainable livelihoods. Residents recognize that the area’s natural beauty is a tourism asset that must be preserved to ensure continued positive impacts on community well-being. This aligns with hiking ethics; consequently, developing the tourism village has improved waste management and fostered environmental cleanliness and sustainability. This is reflected in an interview with S, the head of the Patak Banteng Tourism Awareness Group (Pokdarwis), on 20 June 2026: “The Mount Prau area must be preserved to ensure it remains clean and sustainable. We enforce rules for hikers: they are prohibited from leaving trash in the Mount Prau area and must maintain environmental cleanliness and sustainability. Damaging the environment is strictly forbidden. Thankfully, the cleanliness and sustainability of the Mount Prau area have been successfully maintained to date. Beyond serving as a tourist attraction, we also personally benefit from this cleanliness and environmental preservation; the clean environment makes us feel more comfortable.” (S, personal communication, 20 June 2026).

The local community consistently implements the “Prau Bersih” (Clean Prau) program in collaboration with nature enthusiasts to clean the Mount Prau area and reduce litter along hiking trails. Residents have also adopted regulations that limit the number of daily hikers and prohibit damage to edelweiss vegetation to support conservation.

The Gunung Prau Tourism Village initiative primarily supports financial capital. Residents earn income from various sources, including hiking fees, guide and porter services, camping equipment and vehicle rentals, food and beverage sales at the basecamp, souvenir sales, tour packages, and homestay businesses. This is illustrated by an interview with TS, a souvenir shop owner, on 20 June 2026: “I opened a souvenir shop in 2022 because more tourists were visiting Gunung Prau Tourism Village. Thankfully, the returns are quite substantial; I can earn an additional Rp3,000,000 per month. This really helps cover daily needs and school expenses. It is especially helpful when a child falls ill, as it helps offset medical costs.” (TS, personal communication, 20 June 2026).

Pokdarwis manages tourism revenue at the hiking basecamp. This revenue—derived from registration fees (or Conservation Area Entry Permits), parking, equipment rentals, and food stall operations—amounts to IDR 50,000,000 per month. A portion of these earnings goes to developing and maintaining infrastructure and facilities, while the remainder is distributed as supplementary income to the team members involved. This is reflected in an interview with S, the head of the Patak Banteng Tourism Awareness Group (Pokdarwis), on 20 June 2026: “We can truly feel the benefits of the Gunung Prau Tourism Village. The Patak Banteng basecamp alone generates about IDR 50,000,000 per month. That is under normal conditions, of course; during the holiday season, the figure can be even higher. We use part of this money for facility maintenance and repairs—such as maintaining hiking trails and upgrading parking areas, restrooms, and other amenities. The rest is distributed based on workload. *Alhamdulillah*, it serves as a source of additional monthly income.” (S, personal communication, 20 June 2026).

Tourism village development plays a significant role in strengthening the social capital that underpins the community’s sustainable livelihoods. Social ties have grown alongside the village’s tourism growth, as evidenced by the establishment of the Patak Banteng Tourism Awareness Group (*Pokdarwis*) in March 2020. A sense of social togetherness is also evident in residents’ collaborative management of the hiking basecamp, their *gotong royong* (cooperation) to ensure safety and comfort along the hiking trails, and their strong mutual concern for one another. Community members are increasingly active in village activities, as noted in an interview with N, Head of the Gunung Prau Village Youth Organization (*Karang Taruna*), on 21 June 2026: “The growth of this tourism village has fostered a stronger sense of community. United by a shared goal—advancing tourism—residents have become increasingly cohesive in their collaboration. Everyone—from the public, the *Pokdarwis*, and the Youth Organization to local home-based businesses—works together to advance tourism. We hold regular meetings, once or twice a month, to discuss improvements that can attract more tourists. Participation in village activities has also increased; after all, if tourist numbers rise, everyone reaps the benefits. Residents also look out for one another more; if someone faces difficulties or a crisis, people step in to help without being asked. Consequently, these social bonds prove truly reliable when the need arises.” (N, personal communication, 21 June 2026).

However, community interactions are not without challenges, as conflicting interests and economic demands can create issues. To address these and other problems, the community agreed to hold monthly *Pokdarwis* meetings. These meetings prioritize togetherness and solidarity, ensuring that tourism development in Gunung Prau Village continues harmoniously.

5. Discussion

This study examines the dominant role of tourism support in rural areas (tourism villages), specifically nature-based and culture-based tourism villages, in sustaining community livelihoods within the sustainable livelihoods framework. In both types of tourism villages, tourism development is the primary support for sustainable community livelihoods, as illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

The sustainable livelihoods framework is often operationalized in tourism contexts through asset-based inventories and stable income metrics (de Haan & Zoomers, 2005). However, this study finds that Community-Based Tourism, focused on community empowerment and local economic growth, underpins the dominant support tourism villages provide across the five sustainable livelihood capitals. This aligns with Tosun (2006) the view that a participatory perspective, realized through community engagement, strengthens local ownership of the tourism village. In culture-based tourism villages, the most dominant forms of support for livelihood capital are found in human and social capital. This is understandable, as cultural development relies heavily on human innovation and creativity; thus, developing culture-based tourism villages is directly linked to—and fosters—enhanced human capital. The more creative the people, the more effective cultural development is as a tourism attraction. This aligns with Scheyvens (2002) and Trang and Tuyen (2021), which emphasizes that community empowerment in implementing CBT is reflected, among other things, in improved community knowledge and skills.

Wanurejo Village’s cultural attractions include unique local customs and social traditions, traditional arts, local cuisine and handicrafts, local agriculture, traditional Javanese settlement architecture, and the opportunity to experience authentic daily Javanese life firsthand. The community manages these attractions to ensure memorable experiences. In this regard, Wanurejo Village functions as a “living cultural landscape,” a concept described by J. Li et al. (2025), R. Li et al. (2024), and Wu et al. (2023), where tourists engage with local culture and traditions through direct interaction with the community. Experiences ranging from staying in local homestays and exploring the village to participating in shared cultural activities create an immersive experience for visitors through co-created interactions (Juliana et al., 2024, 2025; Lemy et al., 2021, 2022). Implementing the CBT concept, which highlights community participation, serves as a framework that strengthens the social capital underpinning sustainable livelihoods. For the community, while this social capital cannot be quantified in financial terms, its contribution to achieving sustainable livelihoods is invaluable.

Certain social issues identified in previous studies are largely absent in Wanurejo Tourism Village. A lack of synergy between tourism villages and stakeholders (such as the government, mass organizations, and NGOs) can hinder tourism development (Cherian & Natarajamurthy, 2025; Djumrianti & Osseo-Asare, 2025). However, Wanurejo Tourism Village has largely avoided this issue thanks to strong commitment and effective coordination among village tourism managers and stakeholders. Community participation in village tourism activities and development is harmonious and well-aligned, grounded in principles of togetherness and shared progress. These principles prevent participation disparities and ensure the community is included in local tourism development decisions, avoiding potential conflicts that can arise from exclusion (Kurniawan et al., 2022; Santoso et al., 2019). Involving the community in local decision-making on village tourism development, supported by effective communication, mutual trust among residents, and sound conflict management, demonstrates how the tourism village builds the social capital needed for sustainable livelihoods in Wanurejo.

In nature-based tourism villages, physical and human capital are the two most dominant forms of support for sustainable livelihoods. The dominance of physical capital is understandable, given that most nature-based tourism villages are situated in areas of unique natural beauty, often in remote or isolated rural locations. Gunung Prau Tourism Village is in a mountainous region where most of the population are farmers. Since the village began developing as a tourism destination, the community’s biggest investment has been in infrastructure, especially road access to and within the village, particularly the route for climbing Mount Prau. Road access is a crucial indicator, as it determines the village’s accessibility to tourists; villages that are difficult to reach pose challenges for visitors. Conversely, good road conditions facilitate travel and improve tourist comfort, potentially increasing visit frequency. This aligns with findings by Ma et al. (2024) in their study in China, which indicated that improved transport accessibility boosts physical capital within sustainable livelihoods. Findings by Abduh and Sinaga (2026) further reinforce evidence that tourism villages strongly support the physical capital component of sustainable livelihoods. The study also reveals that competent governance, robust safety frameworks, social capital, and infrastructure, including communication and transport services, substantially enhance village sustainability. Infrastructure investment is essential to ensure long-term sustainable tourism and maintain the village’s competitiveness, as accessibility and public facilities are the infrastructure factors that most significantly influence tourist satisfaction (Sunandar et al., 2022).

Infrastructure development driven by the growth of tourism villages contributes to economic expansion and supports sustainable livelihoods (Calderón & Servén, 2010; Kouladoum, 2023; Owusu-Manu et al., 2019). In response to the development of Gunung Prau Tourism Village—whose main attraction is the “Golden Sunrise” view from the summit—the community has established safe, comfortable hiking trails with necessary facilities. This support for physical capital through tourism village development aligns with Small and van der Meulen Rodgers (2023), who emphasize the need for adequate infrastructure and the importance of prioritizing inclusivity to minimize significant barriers for women.

To meet the demands of tourism activities, investment is also emphasized for clean water, drainage, and internet access. Inadequate infrastructure would significantly hinder the progress and development of Gunung Prau Tourism Village. Abduh and Sinaga (2026) and Sunandar et al. (2022) also highlight the importance of prioritizing tourism village infrastructure, noting that tourism infrastructure enhances the sustainability of tourism villages.

The Indonesian Tourism Village Awards (ADWI) received by Wanurejo Tourism Village and Gunung Prau Tourism Village demonstrate successful tourism village management, with strong human capital as a key factor. This study highlights the significant role human capital plays in supporting sustainable livelihoods in both tourism villages. Strong human resource capacity has proven effective in developing and managing these tourism villages. This aligns with Djumrianti and Osseo-Asare (2025) and Tarlani et al. (2022), who argue that limited capacity and skills among tourism village managers hinder development. These capabilities were not acquired overnight; rather, the community has continuously enhanced its capacity. Although some managers hold only high school or even junior high school diplomas, they continue to build capacity, demonstrating strong motivation for self-development. The Tourism Awareness Group (Pokdarwis) often initiates community capacity building in collaboration with local governments or higher education institutions. This further shows the managers’ high motivation for capacity building and their strong sense of social responsibility. Thus, the ability to manage and develop the village and tourism enterprises depends more on individuals’ motivation for self-development than on their educational backgrounds. This finding contrasts with Dai et al. (2025), who argue that the educational backgrounds of those involved influence tourism village development.

The successful development of these tourism villages has boosted community confidence in their tourism potential and motivated self-development, including innovation in tourism business operations. In the long term, this reduces unemployment and residents’ migration to cities for work. Enhancing tourism managers’ capacity fosters a sustainable livelihood cycle in Wanurejo and Gunung Prau villages, as illustrated in Figure 3. This implies that emphasizing human capital within the tourism village framework supports the realization of sustainable livelihoods.

In both culture-based and nature-based tourism villages, the support tourism development provides to the social capital component of sustainable livelihoods is clearly felt by the community. In culture-based tourism villages, this support ranks second in impact, while in nature-based tourism villages it is considered significant despite ranking fifth. CBT development in this study is deemed successful, as evidenced by these two villages’ achievements in the Indonesian Tourism Village Awards. Tourism village development has mobilized and directed direct community participation in tourism activities. The study’s findings reinforce the view Tasnim et al. (2023) and Trang and Tuyen (2021) that tourism positively enhances social capital within rural communities’ sustainable livelihoods. In both Wanurejo and Gunung Prau Tourism Villages, residents confirmed tourism development’s positive contribution to social capital through various strategies, including: (1) increased trust among residents, (2) harmonized communication, (3) increased community participation in decision-making, and (4) conflict management.

Additionally, the community reported improvements in public safety and order. A particularly appreciated aspect is heightened awareness and concern for cultural preservation and development. Analysis of questionnaires and in-depth interviews indicates strengthened social capital. This aligns with Gayo and Katonge (2025), who argue that an emphasis on participation fosters community social cohesion. It also mirrors Fahmi et al. (2025), who state that CBT emphasizes community-led decision-making. However, challenges can still arise during CBT implementation, such as unequal benefit distribution and inadequate policy coordination (Azwar et al., 2025; Thái, 2018). The relatively lower prominence of social capital in Gunung Prau may reflect the spatially dispersed organization of nature-based tourism across five hiking routes and multiple basecamps. Unlike culture-based tourism, where tourism products are collectively produced through shared traditions and repeated community interaction, tourism activities in Gunung Prau are more functionally divided among guides, porters, basecamp managers, accommodation providers, and other service groups. Such specialization may strengthen operational capacity but weaken bridging relationships and village-wide participation. Moreover, unequal access to tourism assets, strategic roles, and visitor flows may create competition over employment and economic benefits, suggesting that social harmony should not necessarily be interpreted as evidence of equitable benefit distribution.

Nevertheless, this study found that, driven by the goal of collective progress and well-being, the community developed effective conflict management practices. Emphasizing principles of togetherness and harmony serves as a form of social investment, whose benefits become particularly evident during times of crisis. In this context, social capital is a non-financial asset comprising trust, concern, and participation in shared progress, alongside a drive for harmony that underpins and facilitates cooperation. Although difficult to quantify in economic terms, social capital serves as a vital foundation for sustainable livelihoods by streamlining interactions and information access, mitigating risks, and mobilizing collective support during crises. In tourism villages, community participation in CBT can be viewed as a channel for social transmission. At the same time, empowering local economic potential can be seen as a channel for economic transmission.

6. Conclusions

Tourism villages developed through CBT can serve as a pathway to transform local potential into sustainable livelihood assets. However, these villages sometimes fail to fulfill this role because they are misaligned with local livelihood contexts or because participation is unequal.

Most tourism villages rely on cultural and natural assets. This study identifies how tourism villages support sustainable livelihoods in context, tailored to the destination’s specific character. The support tourism villages provide across the five sustainable livelihood capitals differs between cultural tourism villages and nature-based tourism villages. In cultural tourism villages, human and social capital provide the strongest support for sustainable livelihoods. Developing culture as a tourism asset relies heavily on human innovation and creativity. While human capital can be the most vulnerable element of this asset, the growth of cultural tourism villages plays a dominant role in strengthening human capital for sustainable livelihoods, highlighting the importance of knowledge, skills, creativity, cultural identity, community participation, and local institutions.

In nature-based tourism villages, physical, human, and natural capital provide the strongest support, underscoring the importance of infrastructure, accessibility, safety, adaptability, and environmental conservation. The emphasis on physical capital is understandable, as nature-based destinations are often located in remote or underdeveloped areas, making infrastructure improvements a primary focus. Support for human capital is also significant in nature-based tourism villages, reflecting the need for innovation, knowledge, skills, creativity, and adaptability to open and develop destinations often situated in hard-to-reach locations.

Overall, tourism villages provide substantial support for human capital within sustainable livelihoods, as human resource capacity is the key driver of tourism village development. Rather than prioritizing formal education, human capital in this context emphasizes motivation and a commitment to self-development; these qualities foster the capacity building necessary to ensure the success of both the village and the tourism enterprise. Furthermore, residents’ motivation and capacity to develop tourism enterprises can drive the tourism village’s overall development. Confidence in the tourism village’s potential as an economic asset can improve overall well-being.

This study also shows that tourism village initiatives significantly strengthen the social capital component of sustainable livelihoods. CBT mobilizes and channels direct community participation in tourism village development, thereby enhancing social capital through (1) increased trust among residents, (2) harmonious communication, (3) greater community participation in decision-making, and (4) the development of conflict management mechanisms. Principles of togetherness and social harmony are cultivated as a form of social investment for times of crisis. The study highlights social capital as a crucial non-financial asset underpinning sustainable livelihoods, given its role in facilitating interaction and access to information, mitigating risk, and mobilizing collective support during crises. Within the CBT framework, community participation serves as a channel for social transmission, while empowering local economic potential serves as a channel for economic transmission.

This study demonstrates that tourism villages can strengthen sustainable rural livelihoods, but the configuration of livelihood capital varies according to destination characteristics. Therefore, rural tourism development should move beyond a uniform, visitor-growth-oriented approach toward context-sensitive policies that strengthen community livelihood assets. Culture-based tourism can use human and social capital as key development drivers through skills, creativity, cultural knowledge, participation, and local institutions, while nature-based tourism requires stronger attention to infrastructure, accessibility, safety, human capacity, and environmental management.

Policy interventions should also address relatively weaker capitals in each destination type. In culture-based Wanurejo, strengthening financial capital should focus on improving access to finance, household economic resilience, and opportunities to translate cultural skills into more stable and diversified income. In nature-based Gunung Prau, strengthening social capital requires more inclusive decision-making, stronger coordination across tourism groups and basecamps, transparent benefit-sharing mechanisms, and effective conflict management. Thus, destination-specific allocation of resources, strengthening weaker capitals while leveraging dominant ones, offers a more effective pathway for inclusive, resilient, and sustainable rural tourism development.

6.1. Practical Implications

This research has practical implications: Tourism village development should prioritize strengthening community livelihood assets rather than simply increasing tourist visits. The SLFT can serve as a policy evaluation tool for identifying intervention needs based on destination characteristics and community capacity. The results indicate that tourism villages’ support for sustainable livelihoods varies with the characteristics of their tourist attractions. Wanurejo Tourism Village, a cultural tourism village, is dominated by human and social capital. In contrast, Gunung Prau Tourism Village, a natural tourism village, is dominated by physical, human, and natural capital. From a managerial perspective, resource allocation should reflect each destination type’s dominant and weaker livelihood capitals. In culture-based destinations such as Wanurejo, investment should prioritize human-capital development, cultural creativity, community participation, and local institutional capacity. In nature-based destinations such as Gunung Prau, direct more resources toward accessibility, visitor safety, environmental management, and tourism-related skills, while strengthening participation and conflict-management mechanisms. This differentiated allocation approach enables tourism managers and local governments to target resources according to destination-specific livelihood needs rather than applying uniform interventions.

The results emphasize that tourism village policies cannot adopt a uniform approach. Each destination has a distinct configuration of livelihood capital, so development strategies must be tailored to the community’s cultural, environmental, institutional, and capacity characteristics. These differences should guide intervention priorities: the most dominant capital in a destination can serve as a primary lever for sustainability, while relatively weak capital should be targeted for policy strengthening. Thus, tourism village planning needs a more contextual approach based on local assets. This approach makes interventions more targeted and efficient and better balances economic, social, cultural, and environmental benefits.

6.2. Theoretical Implications

Theoretically, this study strengthens the link between Community-Based Tourism (CBT) and the Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF) by demonstrating that CBT can transform local potential into sustainable livelihood assets through participation, capacity building, institutional strengthening, and economic diversification. The findings also indicate that livelihood capital configurations vary by destination characteristics. In Wanurejo, a culturally based destination, human and social capital are more dominant, whereas in Gunung Prau, a nature-based destination, physical and human capital are more decisive.

This study’s theoretical contribution is that it confirms that destination characteristics influence interactions among livelihood capitals. Therefore, the five capitals in the SLF do not operate with equal weight across tourism villages. These findings extend the application of the SLFT to a more contextual setting, positioning CBT as a transformation mechanism and the SLFT as a framework for assessing how this process produces different livelihood patterns in each destination type.

6.3. Research Limitations

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting the results within the study’s scope and context. First, the study was conducted in two tourism villages with distinct characteristics, so the findings are best understood as an in-depth description of culture- and nature-based tourism villages rather than as a representation of all tourism villages in Indonesia. Therefore, applying the results to other contexts requires accounting for differences in destination characteristics, institutions, and local community conditions.

Second, some SLFT indicators rely on community perceptions, so the results may still reflect subjective assessments within the sample. Interviews and observations strengthened interpretations through triangulation, but the single-point-in-time design cannot capture dynamic changes in livelihood capital over time. Third, this study did not analyze in detail how tourism benefits are distributed across community groups, including potential inequalities, differences in access to economic opportunities, and the influence of local power relations. Furthermore, the analysis did not explicitly account for external factors such as policy changes, economic conditions, shifts in tourist preferences, and disaster risk.

6.4. Further Research

Further research could expand the application of SLFT by using data collected over multiple time periods, enabling more detailed observation of changes in community livelihood assets as tourism villages develop. Comparative studies across additional destination types, such as coastal tourism villages, agrotourism, conservation, and creative tourism villages, are also important for examining whether patterns of relationships among livelihood assets vary by destination characteristics.

Future research could also incorporate increasingly relevant factors in tourism village development, such as digitalization, the creative economy, climate change, penta-helix governance, and spatial dynamics. Methods such as structural modeling, stakeholder network analysis, and digital tourism data can help elucidate relationships among variables in greater depth. Consequently, future studies would not only assess tourism’s impact on community livelihoods but also develop models that explain and predict how tourism villages can achieve economic growth while maintaining social, cultural, and environmental sustainability.