Community Economic Priorities as Gating Mechanisms in Urban Tourism: Empirical Evidence from Surabaya
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.69930/ajer.v3i2.812Keywords:
Policy Integration; Urban Tourism; Emerging Cities; Community Perception; MSME ParticipationAbstract
Urban tourism policy in emerging Southeast Asian cities tends to operate along separate tracks. Heritage preservation, destination marketing, MSME development, and employment policy seldom intersect in practice, even when planning documents gesture toward coordination. This study examines whether a more deliberate form of policy integration, one anchored to the economic priorities residents actually hold, can offer a sturdier path for cities such as Surabaya than the prevailing sector-by-sector orthodoxy. The study combines a quantitative survey of 800 Surabaya residents conducted during October 2024 (multistage random sampling, margin of error ±3.5 percent, 95 percent confidence level) with documentary analysis of municipal tourism instruments and structured observation across five administrative regions. Cross-tabulation analysis reveals perception variation across demographic strata. Correlation analysis maps relationships among prioritisation dimensions. Policy mapping identifies the operational seams where intended integration falters. Economic improvement dominates community priorities at 57.8 percent overall, rising to roughly 71 percent among economically precarious populations. Community endorsement of tourism initiatives proved conditional rather than enthusiastic; it depends on visible job pathways and MSME integration. Culinary tourism enjoys broad support (76.3 percent); heritage development sits at 68.9 percent; generic destination marketing trails at 51.7 percent. The most consequential finding concerns the gap separating tourism policies as articulated from tourism policies as residents consider deliverable. This implementation gap is best understood not as a perception problem but as a design problem demanding architectural integration. Beyond local livelihoods, integrating community economic priorities into urban tourism policy supports sustainable urban development, eases pressure on natural resources by diversifying economic opportunities, and advances Sustainable Development Goal 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and Goal 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) in emerging Southeast Asian cities.
References
1. Ashworth GJ, Page SJ. Urban tourism research: Recent progress and current paradoxes. Tourism Manage. 2011;32(1):1-15.
2. Bellini N, Pasquinelli C, editors. Tourism in the City: Towards an Integrative Agenda on Urban Tourism. Cham: Springer; 2017.
3. Hall CM, Page SJ. The Geography of Tourism and Recreation: Environment, Place and Space. 4th ed. London: Routledge; 2014.
4. Pforr C, Pechlaner H, Volgger M, Thompson G. Welfare destinations: A conceptual approach to tourism research. Tourism Rev. 2014;69(4):261-273.
5. Underdal A. Integrated marine policy: What? Why? How? Mar Policy. 1980;4(3):159-169.
6. Star SL, Griesemer JR. Institutional ecology, 'translations' and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-1939. Soc Stud Sci. 1989;19(3):387-420.
7. Ashworth GJ, Tunbridge JE. The Tourist-Historic City. London: Belhaven Press; 1990.
8. Timothy DJ. Managing Heritage and Cultural Tourism Resources: Critical Essays. London: Routledge; 2017.
9. Henderson JC. Tourism in Asia: Issues, Implications and Innovations. London: Routledge; 2018.
10. Wesley A, Pforr C. The governance of coastal tourism: Unravelling the layers of complexity at Smiths Beach, Western Australia. J Sustain Tour. 2010;18(6):773-792.
11. Hall CM. Tourism policy integration: Recognising and embracing complexity. In: Hall CM, Lundmark L, Zhang J, editors. Degrowth and Tourism. London: Routledge; 2020. p.192-211.
12. Cahyadi HS, Newsome D. The post-COVID-19 tourism dilemma for geoparks in Indonesia. Int J Geoheritage Parks. 2021;9(2):199-211.
13. Putra AH, Pongsakornrungsilp S, Salam S. Community-based tourism in Indonesia: Reframing the post-pandemic recovery. Tourism Rev Int. 2022;26(2):137-150.
14. Hall CM. Tourism Planning: Policies, Processes and Relationships. 2nd ed. Harlow: Pearson; 2008.
15. Stevenson N, Airey D, Miller G. Tourism policy making: The policymakers' perspectives. Ann Tour Res. 2008;35(3):732-750.
16. Bramwell B. Governance, the state and sustainable tourism: A political economy approach. J Sustain Tour. 2011;19(4-5):459-477.
17. Pforr C. Tourism policy in the making: An Australian network study. Ann Tour Res. 2006;33(1):87-108.
18. Stoffelen A, Vanneste D. Tourism and cross-border regional development: Insights in European contexts. Eur Plan Stud. 2017;25(6):1013-1033.
19. Sharpley R. Host perceptions of tourism: A review of the research. Tourism Manage. 2014;42:37-49.
20. Nunkoo R, Gursoy D. Residents' support for tourism: An identity perspective. Ann Tour Res. 2012;39(1):243-268.
21. Joppe M. Sustainable community tourism development revisited. Tourism Manage. 1996;17(7):475-479.
22. Choi HC, Murray I. Resident attitudes toward sustainable community tourism. J Sustain Tour. 2010;18(4):575-594.
23. Bellini N, Go FM, Pasquinelli C. Urban tourism and city development: Notes for an integrated policy agenda. In: Bellini N, Pasquinelli C, editors. Tourism in the City: Towards an Integrative Agenda on Urban Tourism. Cham: Springer; 2017. p. 333–339.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Astariadi Kurniawan, Mas Dedi Hidayatullah, Nur isra Resyah, Rahmat Hidayat, Saskia Ariani
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
