This article was downloaded by: [Computing & Library Services, University of

Huddersfield]
On: 01 January 2015, At: 01:59
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Tourism Planning & Development

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rthp21

The Application of Environmental

Governance Networks in Small Island
Destinations: Evidence from Indonesia
and the Coral Triangle
a a a
Charlie Charlie , Brian King & Michael Pearlman
a
Centre for Tourism and Services Research , Victoria University ,
Melbourne , Australia
Published online: 16 Oct 2012.

To cite this article: Charlie Charlie , Brian King & Michael Pearlman (2013) The Application of
Environmental Governance Networks in Small Island Destinations: Evidence from Indonesia and the
Coral Triangle, Tourism Planning & Development, 10:1, 17-31, DOI: 10.1080/21568316.2012.730056

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2012.730056

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Tourism Planning & Development, 2013
Vol. 10, No. 1, 17–31, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2012.730056

The Application of Environmental

Governance Networks in Small Island
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 01:59 01 January 2015

Destinations: Evidence from Indonesia and

the Coral Triangle
CHARLIE CHARLIE, BRIAN KING AND MICHAEL PEARLMAN
Centre for Tourism and Services Research, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia

ABSTRACT The natural environment plays a major role in determining destination attractiveness
in many small island destinations. This is particularly the case in settings which are characterised by
limited natural resources and environmental carrying capacity. Some small island destinations in
developing countries have adopted environmental governance networks as a means of advancing
environmental protection. However, little is known about how such networks operate. Drawing
upon two Indonesian examples within the area known as the “Coral Triangle”, this paper
explains how environmental governance networks operate in the context of marine-based tourism
in small island settings within developing countries. The analysis is approached in three stages:
firstly, by reviewing the literature relevant to environmental governance networks, and by
proposing an applicable analytical framework. Secondly, two collaborative governance network
case studies are examined. Thirdly, a revised conceptual framework is proposed to explain the
operations, characteristics and effectiveness of environmental governance networks in the two
case study settings. The frameworks from this paper can serve as a basis for further research into
the operation of other environmental governance networks.

Introduction
To establish and maintain competitive advantage, small island tourism destinations com-
monly place greatest emphasis on attractions based around the natural environment. Such
destinations are characterised by limited natural resources and associated visitor carrying
capacity (Gossling, 2003). These circumstances are often accompanied by uncontrolled
tourism development, environmental degradation, and diminishing destination attractive-
ness (Weaver, 2006; Williams and Ponsford, 2009). Such conditions are particularly
prevalent in small island developing country destinations where local government capacity
is lacking, resident populations are poorly educated, and environmental awareness is
limited (Apostolopoulos and Gayle, 2001).

Correspondence Address: Charlie Charlie, Centre for Tourism and Services Research, Faculty Business and Law,
Victoria University, Footscray Park Campus, Ballarat Road, Footscray, PO Box 14428, Melbourne, Victoria
8001, Australia. Email: Charlie.Charlie@live.vu.edu.au

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

 18 C. Charlie et al.

Some of the most frequently applied approaches to environmental conservation are

highly contested, including prohibitions on all man-made activities pending environmental
recovery, visitation controls, or toughening environmental protection laws. The imposition
of complete tourism shutdowns in the pursuit of preservation is difficult because resident
human rights need to be considered, particularly where human occupation is long estab-
lished (Wunder, 2003). Limiting visitation may also impact negatively on small island des-
tination economies which are heavily tourism reliant (Sasidharan and Thapa, 2001). More
stringent environmental protection laws and regulations may also be ineffective as a
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 01:59 01 January 2015

result of weak enforcement and resistance from residents, tourists and tourism businesses
(Chang et al., 2012). The implementation of zoning regulations may, for example, lead to
competition between the various stakeholders for access to resources (Halpern et al.,
2008). Even in cases where local residents and tourism businesses cooperate and
adhere to the prevailing zoning requirements, inadequate manpower and policing may
mean that destructive practices on the marine environment proceed unimpeded (Setiawati,
2009a).
Researchers have made increasing use of the tourism systems perspective to investigate
and implement sustainable tourism practices, thereby acknowledging the need for “joint
management” between relevant stakeholders such as “tourism, local government, ecosys-
tem ecologists, NGOs and local residents”(Farrell and Twining-Ward, 2005, p. 117). Soi-
salon-Soininen and Lindroth (2006) have endorsed this shift in approach, noting the
important role for collaboration with stakeholders within tourism networks. This approach
has involved a pooling of resources with a view to enhancing destination image. Williams
and Ponsford (2009) have argued that concerted and collective action by tourism stake-
holders is needed if the relationship between tourism and the environment is to be
managed effectively. This is likely to involve the creation of environmental governance
networks and of shared understandings which enhance collaboration and shape environ-
mental conservation practices (Ladkin and Bertramini, 2002; Svensson et al., 2006).
Such networks involve a pooling of resources by stakeholders out of a shared concern
for environmental conservation and have been established in a number of developing
country small island destinations (Goreau, 2009; Hidayat, 2006; Mitchell and Reid, 2001).
Most of the examinations of environmental governance networks within the literature
have been theory based, prompting Erkus-Ozturk and Eradyn to note that “case studies
that define them are limited” (2010, p. 123). To develop a deeper understanding of how
effective environmental conservation can accompany tourism development, further
study is needed on the application of environmental governance network theories in
small island tourism destinations. This paper adopts a staged approach to these issues.
Firstly, a literature review is undertaken in fields relevant to environmental governance net-
works (EGNs). The review concludes by proposing a conceptual framework. Secondly, the
application of EGNs in small island destinations is discussed focusing on Gili Trawangan
Island and Nusa Lembongan Island in Indonesia within the broader Coral Triangle area.
Thirdly, the paper proposes a framework to explain the operation, characteristics and
effectiveness of EGNs in the two case study settings, with a preliminary analysis of the
characteristics of each EGN.

Literature Review
This literature review consists of three sections. The first provides some context to inves-
tigate the importance of environmental conservation strategies in marine-based tourism
drawing upon the literature on ocean and coastal management. The second section
reviews theories from political science relevant to governance and networks. The final
 Evidence from Indonesia and the Coral Triangle 19

section brings these two elements together within a conceptual framework for examining
EGNs.

Marine-Based Tourism and Environmental Conservation

Although humans have actively engaged with coastal areas throughout history, the rapid
expansion of marine-based tourism in the late twentieth century into the twenty-first
century has significantly transformed islands and coastal areas (Miller and Auyong,
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 01:59 01 January 2015

1991). Marine-based tourism has emerged as one the fastest growing activities for the
tourism industry (Luck, 2008). The development of transportation technologies and
recreation-specific equipment has expanded the reach of associated activities far beyond
coastal resorts and beaches. Cruise ship, submarine, and scuba-diving equipment for
example, has given humans the capacity to explore the oceans, remotest islands, and
even the marine Arctic (Higham and Luck, 2008).
In the face of such growth there has been growing concern about the environmental
degradation that is sometimes associated with marine-based tourism. This is a real
concern considering changing land use patterns, whereby large parcels of agricultural
land and natural coastal forests are converted into tourism-based establishments such as
hotels, service buildings and settlements (Balaguer et al., 2011; Otto et al., 2007;
Wesley and Pforr, 2010; Wong, 1998; Yepes and Medina, 2005). Studies have shown
that the physical coastal and marine environment can experience negative impacts from
tourism activities such as wildlife watching (Devney and Congdon, 2009; Hardiman
and Burgin, 2010), cruise tourism (Stewart et al., 2007), dive tourism (Worachananant
et al., 2008), recreational fishing (Borch, 2010), and recreational boating (Burgin and
Hardiman, 2011).
There are examples of strategies that have been developed with a view to conserving the
environment while accommodating the development of marine-based tourism. The for-
mation of marine protected areas (MPAs) is a widely applied strategy (Ojeda-Martinez
et al., 2009). This approach usually includes land and ocean zoning by the relevant auth-
ority, thereby limiting activities within each zone to its designated function (Halpenny,
2004; Wells et al., 2007). However, stakeholders can come into conflict as a result of dis-
satisfaction about the formation and ongoing decision-making of a particular MPA (Chang
et al., 2012). On this basis, it is worthwhile considering the applicability of co-governance
mechanisms to develop environmental conservation strategies and actions. To be effec-
tive, these need to be embraced by a range of stakeholders, including by individuals,
groups, businesses and organisations at a “grass-roots” level (Kelly et al., 2012).

Governance and Networks

Laws et al. (2011) explained that the concept of governance has been addressed in many
academic disciplines including social science, political science, psychology, political
economy, law, corporate affairs, higher education, and tourism. The term governance is
defined as “activities of social, political, and administrative actors that can be seen as pur-
poseful efforts to guide, steer, control, or manage societies” (Kooiman, 1993, p. 2). It is
closely associated with the concept of government in its capacity as a form of political
unit which exercises authority (Hall, 2008). The concept of governance is broader than
government, because it occurs at various levels from local to global, and in addition to
branches or agencies of government, may involve private firms, local communities and
even volunteer groups which acknowledge collective interests and operate collaboratively
(Kooiman, 2003). Bramwell (2011) has stated that governance provides a means to drive
 20 C. Charlie et al.

collective actions in pursuit of sustainable tourism. The governance concept connects

closely with sustainability and is particularly applicable to planning for sustainable
tourism because “sustainable development relates to long term horizons” (Bramwell
and Lane, 2011, p. 411).
Kooiman (2003) has explained that among the three modes of governance, co-governance is
the one referred to most by observers. Co-governance means “utilising organised forms
of interactions for governing purposes” (p. 97), and may be manifest in five different types
of co-arrangements with “networks” being one of them (p. 104). This view is endorsed
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 01:59 01 January 2015

by Svensson et al. (2006) who have noted that governance can manifest itself through networks.
A governance network has been defined as a “select, persistent, and structured set of
autonomous firms (as well as non-profit agencies) engaged in creating products or services
based on implicit and open ended contracts to adapt to environmental contingencies and to
coordinate and safeguard exchanges” (Jones et al., 1997, p. 194). A network may also
promote capacity building, thus confronting challenges that are frequently encountered
within poor communities, by stimulating more active involvement by small business enti-
ties, community groups and local government authorities (Michael, 2007). The govern-
ance network concept is particularly applicable in the case of small island destinations
within developing countries because local governments in such settings often lack relevant
management competencies (Dahles and Bras, 1999). Even where local governments have
a genuine interest in addressing the challenges, they rarely have sufficient resources to
reach solutions (Setiawati, 2009a).
Relying on governance networks to promote capacity building can prospectively lead to
tensions between the stakeholders. This is acknowledged within the competing values fra-
mework (Cameron and Quinn, 2005). Organisations that exhibit a collaborative orientation
fall into the “clan” type of culture, where effectiveness is based on the ability of the facil-
itator to foster participation and stakeholder involvement. Whilst the role of facilitator
within the competing values framework generally refers to an individual, an equivalent
role may be played by a facilitating organisation in the case of destinations. Tensions
may arise from the dynamics of the network operations and from the various agendas
being advocated by different participants. Provan and Kenis (2007) noted three potential ten-
sions. The first is efficiency versus inclusiveness (namely between “the need for administra-
tive efficiency in network governance and the need for member involvement, through
inclusive decision making”(p. 242)). The second is internal versus external legitimacy
(tension which occurs when “building external legitimacy involves actions and activities
beneficial to the overall network, but not to some individual participants or the internal
needs of the network itself”(p. 243)); and finally flexibility versus stability (tension when
a network wishes to balance short-term goals with long-term focus (p. 244)). Such tensions
can influence power relations within the decision-making process, and may exacerbate any
differences between the espoused values of the network and its practices.
Various types of network display distinct characteristics. One way of examining the differ-
ences between the types of network is to consider their primary characteristics. Beaumont and
Dredge (2010) identified seven such characteristics as follows: facilitators (the people or insti-
tution in charge of the network); the network community (type of community where the
network is located and operated); location (physical areas relevant to the network operations);
the focus of network activity (aims and orientation); resourcing (sources of funding, knowl-
edge and manpower); the background of the network facilitator (the nature of the individuals
or institution in charge); and roles and responsibilities (the major network functions).
Beaumont and Dredge (2010) proposed seven parameters as determinants of network
effectiveness. The parameters are: positive cultures, constructive communication and
engaged communities; transparency and accountability; vision and leadership; acceptance
 Evidence from Indonesia and the Coral Triangle 21

of diversity, pursuit of equity and inclusiveness; developing knowledge, learning and

sharing expertise; clear roles and responsibilities of participants, and clear operational
structures and processes of the networks (pp. 10– 17). Such parameters are an adaptation
of Dredge and Pforr’s “principles of good governance” (2008, p. 69).
Governance networks typically involve multiple stakeholders, and for the maintenance
of legitimacy the aims, efforts, and results of the network should include their interests
(Provan and Kenis, 2007). This is important because stakeholders have divergent interests
and agendas, and may be competitors. On this basis, the success of collaborative environ-
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 01:59 01 January 2015

mental governance networks (EGNs) cannot rely exclusively upon positive results towards
the physical environment, but will also depend on stakeholder perceptions of operations,
effectiveness, and environmental outcomes achieved by EGNs.

Environmental Governance Networks

In an assessment of environmentally sustainable tourism in Turkey, Erkus-Ozturk and
Eradyn (2010) proposed two types of EGN orientation, namely: action-oriented networks
where the initiative comes from private and/or voluntary institutions within the same area
and are self-regulating with the aim of addressing specific issues, and policy and planning
networks where the government or public institutions initiate and develop collaboration by
coordinating relationships with other stakeholders such as NGOs, local business entities
and local communities. These two types of network have different orientations. The
policy and planning network has a mandatory dimension, because it is initiated by govern-
ment or by another public institution where government is the dominant stakeholder, and
where the purpose is to generate and implement plans. An action oriented network, on the
other hand, has a stronger voluntary ethos because it is initiated by private institutions
and/or members of the community who collaborate with a view to addressing mutual
and specific issues. The main purpose of such networks is to engage in direct action
with a view to tackling problems. Erkus-Ozturk and Eraydin (2010) recommended
further analysis of the comparative effectiveness of EGNs in different settings.
Based on the literature review, EGNs may be viewed as organisations involving mul-
tiple stakeholders which may be private businesses entities, local residents, government
agencies, and/or non-governmental organisations. As illustrated in Figure 1, the concep-
tual framework takes account of five elements for EGNs in developing country small
island destinations, namely:

. EGN characteristics,
. Any tensions arising from the agendas of different stakeholders and the dynamics of
EGN operations,
. Parameters for measuring EGN effectiveness,
. The impacts of the EGNs on destination environmental outcomes,
. Stakeholder perceptions of the EGN, its operations, effectiveness, and environmental
outcomes.
The framework is an adaptation of elements of Erkus-Ozturk and Eraydin’s classifi-
cation of governance networks (2010), of Provan and Kenis’s stakeholder perceptions
of EGNs (2007), and of Beaumont and Dredge’s network characteristics, tensions, and
parameters of governance network effectiveness (2010).
Within the proposed framework, an EGN is viewed as a collaborative organisation
which brings together a group of stakeholders in pursuit of a mutual goal to conserve
the environment, while accommodating tourism and other economic activities.
 22 C. Charlie et al.
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 01:59 01 January 2015

Figure 1. Environmental governance network (EGN): a conceptual framework.

Source: adapted from Provan and Kenis (2007), Beaumont and Dredge (2010) and Erkus-Ozturk
and Eraydin (2010).

Methodology
A case study approach was adopted to examine the application of EGNs drawing upon the
examples of Gili Trawangan and Nusa Lembongan islands. Analysis was undertaken
towards the EGNs in the two islands based on a fieldwork of direct observations and
stakeholder consultations, and also on secondary information obtained from academic
journals, EGN reports, media releases and websites, relevant newspaper articles, and
local government village profile reports. The stakeholder consultations were in the form
of semi-structured interviews to the main stakeholders in the two islands. It is the intention
of the researchers to publish the outcomes of the stakeholder consultations in subsequent
papers following completion of the full data analysis. Evaluation of the information
gathered was subsequently used to develop a revised conceptual framework that would
be applicable to the EGNs in the two island settings. A preliminary analysis focuses
on identifying the characteristics of the respective EGNs resulting in the differences
illustrated in Table 1.

Discussion
Application in Small Island Destinations
Indonesia’s circumstances, as a developing country consisting of 17,508 islands, have
particular relevance to the present investigation. According to a Mintel Country Report,
Indonesia is one of the world’s most biodiverse nations and is its largest archipelago
(Ball, 2008). The islands along the eastern side of Indonesia, along with Malaysia, the
 Evidence from Indonesia and the Coral Triangle 23

Table 1. Characteristics of EGNs in Gili Trawangan Island and Nusa Lembongan Island.
Sources: Direct observation, stakeholder consultations, Graci (2007); Robbe (2010), Segre
(2010), Suriyani (2008), Ver Berkmoes et al. (2009) and Welly (2009)
EGN characteristics GET in Gili Trawangan TNC-CTC in Nusa Lembongan

Facilitators of the Local dive shops The Nature Conservancy (TNC)

network
The network Gili Trawangan Island The three Nusa islandsa
community
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 01:59 01 January 2015

Location of the Main administration office on Gili Main administration office on Bali
network Trawangan Island (another island)
The focus of network Replenishing the local maritime area Creating national marine protected areas
activity especially coral reefs (MPA)on Nusa Lembongan Island, but
also throughout Indonesia
Resourcing Eco-tax from tourists Funding from central and local
Donations governments, and international NGOs
Volunteers
Local NGO
Roles and Coordinate beach clean-up programme Provide expert advice on the development
responsibilities Rebuild coral reef through the Biorock of the MPA plan, locally and nationally
programme Coordinate the planning process with
Pay the SATGAS(local NGO) for local government
policing the island Create a business plan for the self-
Pay local fishermen todesist from sustaining management of the MPA
destructive fishing methods Coordinate with the local NGO (SPN)
Coordinate waste management and and local community to conduct
recycling environmental awareness education and
Provide an environmental awareness training for local school children and
education and training to local school local businesses
children and local businesses
The background of Private business entities US based NGO focusing on environmental
the network protection
facilitator
a
The phrase “three Nusa islands” refers to the closely located Nusa Lembongan Island, Nusa Ceningan Island and
Nusa Penida Island. This is one of many EGNs facilitated by TNC around Indonesia.

Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Timor Leste and the Solomon Islands, comprise the Coral
Triangle Area which is one of the world’s most significant conservation areas (Welly,
2009). Many of these islands are heavily reliant on tourism revenues (Dodds et al.,
2010). However, a combination of inadequate tourism planning, unsustainable tourism
practices, destructive fishing methods, and coral bleaching has threatened the sustainabil-
ity of the marine environment and hence the area’s main tourist attractions (Goreau, 2009).
In addressing these threats, Gili Trawangan and Nusa Lembongan islands have adopted a
collaborative EGN approach. The following sections examine the implementation of this
approach in these two settings:

Tourism and Environmental Governance on Gili Trawangan Island

Located northwest of Lombok and unoccupied until 1976, Gili Trawangan Island is admi-
nistered under the Lombok Regency, West Nusa Tenggara Province and has a landmass of
approximately 6 km2. Following the first reported arrivals in 1981, tourism has progress-
ively emerged as an economic activity. The primary emphasis on younger backpackers,
divers and surfers has led to the island’s reputation as a “party island” (Hampton and
 24 C. Charlie et al.

Hampton, 2009; Kamsma and Bras, 2000). More recent developments have included the
establishment of up-scale tourism businesses such as high quality restaurants, hotels and
spas. These reflect a trend towards attracting more affluent visitors and to the growth of
Gili’s expatriate community (Ver Berkmoes et al., 2009). Since the island’s 800 inhabi-
tants are predominantly Muslim, visitors are expected to respect the local traditions and
religious beliefs, especially during the fasting month of Ramadan (Guard, 2005;
Hampton and Hampton, 2009).
As explained by Graci (2007), the development of sustainable tourism has been impeded
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 01:59 01 January 2015

in Gili Trawangan Island by a combination of financial, social, and educational problems.

Many stakeholders are resistant to change because of the costs associated with improved
environment management, potential loss of income through restrictions on their activities,
and lack of knowledge and education about the impacts of their actions on the environment
(Graci, 2007). The EGN which operates on Gili Trawangan Island is known as the Gili Eco
Trust (GET). GET was established by the island’s expatriate-managed dive shops in 2002 as
a not-for-profit initiative, prompted by destruction of the coral reefs due to global warming,
untreated waste, uncontrolled tourism activities and destructive fishing practices (Dodds
et al., 2010; Graci, 2007; Robbe, 2010). The approach involves the levying of an “eco-
tax” on divers and snorkelers by the various dive shops. The revenue is used by GET to
clean up the beaches, to pay fishermen to desist from destructive fishing activities around
the coral reefs, and to rebuild the coral reefs through the Biorock reef programme (Graci,
2007). GET collaborates with the SATGAS—a law enforcement NGO formed by the
locals—to undertake island patrols by monitoring fishing practices, protecting the reefs
and running the Biorock programme (Robbe, 2010). In recent years GET has focused on
waste management and recycling, and on environmental awareness education and training
(Guard, 2005). The dive shops are the dominant GET stakeholders (Segre, 2010).
The limited capacity of local government in relation to tourism management and its
minimal involvement in environmental protection has been compounded by the status
of West Nusa Tenggara Province as one of Indonesia’s poorest (Fallon, 2008; Kamsma
and Bras, 2000). Furthermore, the situation is complex in Gili Trawangan because of
long-established land ownership conflicts between the locals and PT Wahana (Wahana
Company) that, according to discussions with local opinion leaders, is backed by interests
closely associated with the Central Jakarta Government. However, expatriate interests—
evidenced by the inclusion of this island within the Bali and Lombok Lonely Planet travel
guide (Taylor and Turner, 1997; Ver Berkmoes et al., 2009) and mushrooming expatriate
ownership of tourism businesses—are rapidly making the island into a developed tourism
destination without the benefits of local government intervention. Shantiuli and Sugiyanto
(2008) have argued that, after implementation of the decentralisation policy in 2001, local
government in Lombok channelled funding primarily into the health and education
sectors. These are more electorally popular policies than developing the tourism sector.

Tourism and Environmental Governance on Nusa Lembongan Island

Nusa Lembongan Island is located southeast of Bali and is under the administration of the
Klungkung Regency, Bali Province (Welly, 2009). The 7,000 inhabitants of the 8-km2
island are predominantly Hindu (Ver Berkmoes et al., 2009). Backpackers started arriving
on the island during the 1970s. Though the first guest house was built in 1980, it was not
until 1990 that commercial tourism activities commenced with the establishment of Bali
Hai Cruises pontoons and a village tour (Long and Wall, 1996).
The level and type of tourism development is similar to what occurs on Gili Trawangan
Island. Both settings are moving away from backpacker style to more up-scale tourism
 Evidence from Indonesia and the Coral Triangle 25

(Ver Berkmoes et al., 2009). Nusa Lembongan’s coral reefs are deteriorating rapidly, as a
consequence of destructive fishing methods, and the overcrowding of boats, pontoons and
other tourism activities (Wardany, 2008). The marine area is overexploited because of
competition between various income generating activities, including seaweed production,
aquaculture, capture fisheries and marine tourism. This over-exploitation has led to
decreasing marine biodiversity, to falling catches of fish and seaweed harvests, and to
an environment which is less attractive for marine tourism (Welly, 2009).
The Nature Conservancy Coral Triangle Centre (TNC-CTC) is an EGN that operates in
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 01:59 01 January 2015

seven sites around Indonesia (Wardany, 2008). One of these includes a group of three
small islands south east of Bali Island, made up of Nusa Lembongan, Nusa Ceningan
and Nusa Penida. Of these three, the present case study focuses exclusively on Nusa
Lembongan Island because tourism is more developed there than in the other islands.
‘The Nature Conservancy’, an international NGO, is one of the partners that established,
funded, and provided the expertise needed for the Bali-based TNC-CTC in 2000 (Suriyani,
2008). In the case of Nusa Lembongan, TNC-CTC facilitated a collaboration between the
local government (Klungkung Regency), central government (Ministry of Marine Affairs
and Fisheries), the local NGO (Satya Posana Nusa/SPN), tourism business operators, and
local fishermen and farmers (Setiawati, 2009a, 2009b). The centre aims to create a marine
protected area in order to protect the environment, whilst accommodating nature-based
tourism activities (Welly, 2009).
TNC-CTC has formed a community centre for training and advocacy in order to raise
environmental awareness. It also conducts research to form strategies and a business plan
for the proposed MPA, and facilitates stakeholder collaborations (Wardany, 2008; Welly,
2009). The active participation of multiple parties is probably attributable to the larger size
and population of Nusa Lembongan Island. Moreover, as a part of Bali Province,
Klungkung Regency Government should have been more familiar with the long history
of Bali’s government involvement with tourism management (Picard, 1996), in compari-
son with the track record of the Lombok Government’s relatively younger history of “un-
planned and ‘bottom-up’” tourism planning in Gili Trawangan (Hampton and Hampton,
2009, p. 295). Klungkung Regency Government is also more conscious of the contribution
made by tourism and has substantially greater environmental protection and tourism man-
agement capacity than the poorer West Nusa Tenggara Province. This is supported by two
reports in the Indonesian language on the 2010 village profile (Murta, 2010; Suliana, 2010)
from both of the villages in Nusa Lembongan — Lembongan and Jungut Batu. The reports
demonstrated evidence of local government’s awareness of tourism as an economic
activity and as a potential agent for development (Murta, 2010; Suliana, 2010). The equiv-
alent information was unavailable from the relevant archives in the case of Gili Trawangan
Island where the local village office set-up is more basic. Furthermore, interviewees from
TNC-CTC revealed that they received legal local government backing in the forms of
Klungkung District Regents Rule number 12 of 2009, and the memorandum of under-
standing (MOU) declaration for the formation of a marine protected area on 22 November
2010, whose signing ceremony was also attended by the US Ambassador for Indonesia and
the Indonesian Minister of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (Woronowycz, 2010).

A Preliminary Analysis of EGNs in Gili Trawangan and Nusa Lembongan Islands

Drawing from the observation, stakeholder consultations, and secondary information, the
two islands offer an interesting and instructive comparison. Both groupings are located in
the Lombok Strait between Bali and Lombok Islands, possess attractive marine areas, have
collaborative EGN, and are attempting to progress from being budget backpacker
 26 C. Charlie et al.

destinations towards a more resort-based style, catering to more affluent visitors

(Hampton, 1998; Hampton and Hampton, 2009; Ver Berkmoes et al., 2009). The two
islands differ in terms of size, demography, cultural practices, local government partici-
pation, and prevailing EGNs. The EGNs in the two settings have replenished the
marine environment while helping local fishermen, farmers and tourism businesses to
reduce their environmental impacts. Whilst environmental impacts on the marine environ-
ment have begun to be addressed, there are severe land-based environmental issues, for
example an acute shortage of potable water and ongoing problems with sewage and
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 01:59 01 January 2015

rubbish from increasing visitor numbers. In the case of Gili Trawangan, GET was insti-
gated by a group of dive businesses and has progressively developed into an EGN invol-
ving almost all local businesses, locals, and tourists within the island (Goreau, 2009;
Robbe, 2010). In Nusa Lembongan, TNC-CTC, in conjunction with local and national
governments and the local community network, SPN, is creating a marine protected
area to protect the environment, whilst allowing the occurrence of nature-based tourism
activities (Welly, 2009).
Although the two islands are in close proximity and have similar dimensions and phys-
ical attributes, the respective EGNs have some distinctive characteristics. GET consists of
local business operators and local residents, and local government participation is minimal
(Segre, 2010). Conversely, TNC-CTC links local community groups, national and local
governments, and national and international NGOs (Welly, 2009). These have important
parallels with the two types of EGN that Erkus-Ozturk and Eradyn (2010) proposed,
namely: policy and planning networks and action oriented networks. The action oriented
network applies to Gili Trawangan Island where the stakeholders have created the self-
regulating GET private partnership. This collaborative action occurred voluntarily,
based on a collective concern about the well-being of the coastal environment generally
and of the coral reefs in particular. The minimal local government involvement in Gili Tra-
wangan has probably been attributable to the risks associated with long-standing land-
ownership conflict. On the other hand, the policy and planning network applies in the
case of Nusa Lembongan Island where TNC-CTC, serves as a facilitator for stakeholders.
The network categorisation of the two EGNs complies with the approach adopted by
Erkus-Ozturk and Eradin (2010) where an action-oriented network is portrayed as being
self-regulating and voluntary, whereas a policy and planning network is described as
being regulating and compulsory. Based on the prior discussion, the EGN conceptual fra-
mework can be applied in the case of both study areas. The revised conceptual framework,
proposed in Figure 2, illustrates how the different types of EGNs identified by Erkus-
Ozturk and Eraydin (2010), are applicable in the two settings. Whilst the EGNs are
focused on positive environmental outcomes, a range of social, political, and economic
factors may impact on the EGN’s ability to achieve these outcomes.
The revised framework illustrates the different characteristics and terms of the two
EGNs in relation to stakeholder participation, as discussed by Erkus-Ozturk and
Eraydin (2010). The application of the five key elements of the revised conceptual frame-
work may be compared and contrasted for each of the types of EGN. Based on the field-
work of direct observations and stakeholder consultations, and also on secondary
information, a preliminary analysis of the characteristics of the EGNs as identified by
Beaumont and Dredge (2010) and described in Table 1 reveals the similarities and differ-
ences between the EGNs in the two settings. GET is a more locally based network and is
more dependent on non-government funding than is the case with TNC-CTC. The latter is
more concerned with the development of policies and plans to establish MPAs throughout
Indonesia, including on Nusa Lembongan Island. However, there are some similarities
between their respective roles and responsibilities, notably environmental awareness
 Evidence from Indonesia and the Coral Triangle 27
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 01:59 01 January 2015

Figure 2. Revised conceptual framework for the analysis of EGNs for Gili Trawangan and Nusa Lembongan
islands.
Source: adapted from Provan and Kenis (2007), Beaumont and Dredge (2010) and Erkus-Ozturk and Eraydin
(2010).

education and training for local school children and local businesses. The preliminary
analysis shows that applying the conceptual framework can assist with the identification
of EGN characteristics and can deepen our understanding of EGN operations.

Conclusions and Implications for Further Research

This paper has identified the importance of the natural environment for tourism in small
island destinations and the emergence of EGNs as a means of addressing the associated
challenges. It proposes a conceptual framework to analyse EGNs, drawing upon a litera-
ture review covering the fields of environmental conservation, governance, networks, and
environmental governance networks. The proposed framework has identified relevant sta-
keholders, and five elements for analysing EGNs. The application of EGNs to the two case
study destinations has resulted in the identification of GET in Gili Trawangan Island as an
action-oriented network, and TNC-CTC in Nusa Lembongan Island as a policy and plan-
ning network. From this assessment, a revised conceptual framework was developed to
understand the operation of EGNs in these two small island destinations. Fieldwork of
observations and stakeholder consultations together with village profile reports and
other secondary information facilitated the preliminary analysis of EGN characteristics
in the destinations and revealed that GET is a more locally based network, dependent
on the support of local non-governmental stakeholders, whereas TNC-CTC received
more substantial government and international NGO involvement in developing policies
and plans for the network.
The conceptual framework can serve as a basis for further research into the operation of
other EGNs in relation to the five key elements that have been identified in this paper. In
addition to researching the classification of EGNs based on their characteristics, further in-
depth research about stakeholder perceptions of EGNs should be able to validate and
 28 C. Charlie et al.

explain the operational tensions arising from the differing stakeholder agendas and the
EGN operational dynamics identified in the framework, assess the importance of par-
ameters of effectiveness in the operation of EGNs, identify other parameters to assess
EGN effectiveness, and evaluate the impacts of EGNs on environmental outcomes for
tourism in small island destinations. Such research will provide insights into whether
one type of EGN is more effective than another for managing the sometimes conflicting
interests of tourism and the natural environment in small island destinations, and also
how the type and scale of future development in the two case study destinations will
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 01:59 01 January 2015

impact on their respective EGNs and their capacity to address negative environmental
outcomes.
The paper also identified different levels of local government involvement where in
both cases there was a lack of urgency for local governments to be involved in policing
tourism-related activities since they were already growing before local governments
became actively involved. However, the situation in Gili Trawangan is more complex,
whereas Nusa Lembongan is less complex, and benefits from the involvement of an inter-
national NGO, the Indonesian central government and closer proximity to Bali as an
already well-known destination. It would be interesting to further analyse the timing of
government involvement related to the political circumstances, which might not necess-
arily be driven by concerns about the environment.

Notes on Contributors
Charlie Charlie is a PhD candidate in the School of International Business at Victoria
University, Australia. Prior to his current station he occupied a range of academic
positions in STIE Triatma Mulya Bali and Stenden University Bali, and also has
worked in various operational positions in the hospitality and tourism sector in Indonesia.
He has been awarded the Australian Development Scholarship for his study. His research
interests are small island destination management, tourism and the environment, and
tourism in developing countries.

Brian King is Professor in the School of Hotel and Tourism Management at Hong Kong
Polytechnic University. Prior to his current appointment he occupied a range of senior
roles at Victoria University, Australia including Pro Vice-Chancellor (Industry &
Community) and Head of the School of Hospitality, Tourism & Marketing. His research
expertise is in tourism marketing with an emphasis on cultural dimensions and emerging
Asia-Pacific markets. He has published several books on tourism marketing, resorts and
tourism in the Asia-Pacific Region and has contributed to all leading journals in the
field. He is Editor-in-chief and co-founder of Tourism, Culture and Communication.
He has been a Visiting Professor at Universities in Italy, the USA and Hong Kong
and has consulted extensively to international agencies on tourism marketing and work-
force development. Building on his experience in airlines, tour operations and hotels he
has held a number of industry board positions. He is an elected fellow of the Inter-
national Academy for the Study of Tourism (IAST) and of the Council of Australasian
University Tourism and Hospitality Education (CAUTHE). He chairs the International
Centre of Excellence for Tourism and Hospitality Education (THE-ICE) assessment
panel.

Michael Pearlman is a senior lecturer in the School of International Business at Victoria

University, Australia. He is also a research associate with the Centre for Tourism and
Services Research. The main focus of his research is the planning, development, and
 Evidence from Indonesia and the Coral Triangle 29

management of regional tourism. He is a member of the Executive Committee of the

Network of Asia-Pacific Education and Training Institutes in Tourism (APETIT) with
responsibility for fostering research and development activities.

References
Apostolopoulos, Y. and Gayle, D.J. (2001) From MIRAB to TOURAB? Searching for Sustainable Tourism in the
Maritime Carribean, Pacific, and Mediterranean, In Y. Apostolopoulos and D.J. Gayle (Eds), Island Tourism
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 01:59 01 January 2015

and Sustainable Development: Caribbean, Pacific, and Mediterranean Experiences, pp. 3–14 (Westport,
Connecticut: Praeger).
Balaguer, P., Diedrich, A., Sardá, R., Fuster, M., Cañellas, B. and Tintoré, J. (2011) Spatial Analysis of
Recreational Boating as a First Key Step for Marine Spatial Planning in Mallorca (Balearic Islands, Spain),
Ocean and Coastal Management, 54(3), pp. 241–49.
Ball, M. (2008) Indonesia, Country Report, Travel and Tourism Intelligence, February 2008 Travel and Tourism
Intelligence, Country Reports, pp. 1–34 (London: Mintel International).
Beaumont, N. and Dredge, D. (2010) Local Tourism Governance: a Comparison of Three Network Approaches,
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(1), pp. 7–28.
Borch, T. (2010) Tangled Lines in New Zealand’s Quota Management System: the Process of Including Rec-
reational Fisheries, Marine Policy, 34(3), pp. 655–62.
Bramwell, B. (2011) Governance, the State and Sustainable Tourism: a Political Economy Approach, Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 19(4–5), pp. 459–77.
Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (2011) Critical Research on the Governance of Tourism and Sustainability, Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 19(4–5), pp. 411–21.
Burgin, S. and Hardiman, N. (2011) The Direct Physical, Chemical and Biotic Impacts on Australian Coastal
Waters due to Recreational Boating, Biodiversity and Conservation, 20(4), pp. 683–701.
Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E. (2005) Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture [Electronic Resource]:
Based on the Competing Values Framework/Kim S. Cameron, Robert E. Quinn (San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass).
Chang, K.-C., Hwung, H.-H. and Chuang, C.-T. (2012) An Exploration of Stakeholder Conflict Over the
Taiwanese Marine Protected Area. Ocean and Coastal Management, 55, pp. 36–41.
Dahles, H. and Bras, K. (1999) Tourism and Small Entrepreneurs: Development, National Policy, and Entrepre-
neurial Culture: Indonesian Cases (New York: Cognizant).
Devney, C.A. and Congdon, B.C. (2009) Testing the Efficacy of a Boundary Fence at an Important Tropical
Seabird Breeding Colony and Key Tourist Destination, Wildlife Research, 36(4), pp. 353–60.
Dodds, R., Graci, S.R. and Holmes, M. (2010) Does the Tourist Care? A Comparison of Tourists in Koh Phi Phi,
Thailand and Gili Trawangan, Indonesia, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(2), pp. 207–22.
Dredge, D. and Pforr, C. (2008) Tourism Policy Networks: Implications for Governance and Third Way Politics,
in: N. Scott, R. Baggio and C. Cooper (Eds) Network Analysis and Tourism, pp. 58–78 (Clevedon, UK:
Channel View).
Erkus-Ozturk, H. and Eraydin, A. (2010) Environmental Governance for Sustainable Tourism Development:
Collaborative Networks and Organisation Building in the Antalya Tourism Region, Tourism Management,
31, pp. 113–24.
Fallon, F. (2008) Sustainability and Security: Lombok Hotel’s link with local communities, in: J. Connell and
B. Rugendyke (Eds) Tourism at the Grassroots: Villagers and Visitors in the Asia Pacific, pp. 164–78
(Hoboken: Routledge).
Farrell, B. and Twining-Ward, L. (2005) Seven Steps Towards Sustainability: Tourism in the Context of New
Knowledge, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(2), pp. 109–22.
Goreau, T.J. (2009) Tourism and Sustainable Coral Reefs. Available at http://www.globalcoral.org/Ecotourism%
20Biorock%20complete.pdf
Gossling, S. (2003) Tourism and Development in Tropical Islands: political ecology perspectives, in S. Gossling
(Ed.) Torusim and Development in Tropical Islands: Political Ecology Perspectives, pp. 1–37 (Cheltenham:
Elgar).
Graci, S.R. (2007) Accomodating Green: Examining Barriers to Sustainable Tourism Development. Available at
http://linkbc.ca/torc/downs1/GraciAccommodatingGreen.pdf.
Guard, V.K. (2005) Dampak Sosial-Budaya, Ekonomi dan Lingkungan Alam terhadap Pariwisata di Gili Matra:
Nusa Tenggara Barat, Indonesia [The Impact of Tourism toward the Socio-Cultural, Economic and Natural
Environment of Gili Matra: West Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia], ACICIS Studi Lapangan Malang. Fakultas
Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang. Malang.
 30 C. Charlie et al.

Hall, C.M. (2008) Governance, in M. Luck (Ed.) The Encyclopedia of Tourism and Recreation in Marine
Environments, p. 194. (Wallingford: CABI).
Halpenny, E.A. (2004) Tourism in Marine Protected Areas, in: P.F.J. Eagles and S.F. McCool (Eds) Tourism in
national parks and protected areas, pp. 211–34 (Wallingford: CABI).
Halpern, B.S., McLeod, K.L., Rosenberg, A.A. and Crowder, L.B. (2008) Managing for Cumulative Impacts in
Ecosystem-Based Management Through Ocean Zoning. Ocean and Coastal Management, 51(3), pp. 203–11.
Hampton, M.P. (1998) Backpacker Tourism and Economic Development, Annals of Tourism Research, 25(3),
pp. 639–60.
Hampton, M.P. and Hampton, J. (2009) Is the Beach Party Over? Tourism and the Environment in Small Islands:
a case study of Gili Trawangan, Lombok, Indonesia, in: M. Hitchcock, V.T. King and M. Parnwell (Eds)
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 01:59 01 January 2015

Tourism in Southeast Asia challenges and new directions, pp. 286–308 (Copenhagen, Denmark: Nias Press).
Hardiman, N. and Burgin, S. (2010) Recreational Impacts on the Fauna of Australian Coastal Marine Ecosystems,
Journal of Environmental Management, 91(11), pp. 2096–108.
Hidayat, A. (2006) Property Right Changes of Coral Reef Management: From a State Property Regime Towards a
Sustainable Local Governance: Lessons from Gili Indah Village. Available at http://www.indiana.edu/~iascp/
bali/papers/Hidayat__Aceng.pdf
Higham, J.E.S. and Luck, M. (2008) Marine Wildlife and Tourism Management: in search of scientific
approaches to sustainability. in: J.E.S. Higham and M. Luck (Eds) Marine Wildlife and Tourism Management,
pp. 1–18 (Wallingford: CABI).
Jones, C., Hesterly, W.S. and Borgatti, S.P. (1997) A General Theory of Network Governance: Exchange Con-
ditions and Social Mechanism. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), pp. 911–45.
Kamsma, T. and Bras, K. (2000) Gili Trawangan—from Desert Island to “Marginal” Paradise: local participation,
small-scale entrepreneurs and outside investors in an Indonesian tourist destination. in: G. Richards and D. Hall
(Eds) Tourism and Sustainable Community Development, pp. 170–84 (London: Routledge).
Kelly, C., Essex, S. and Glegg, G. (2012) Reflective Practice for Marine Planning: a Case Study of Marine
Nature-Based Tourism Partnerships, Marine Policy, 36(3), pp. 769–81.
Kooiman, J. (1993) Socio-Political Governance. in J. Kooiman (Ed.) Modern Governance: New Government-
Society Interactions, pp. 1–9 (London: Sage).
Kooiman, J. (2003) Governing as Governance. Available at http://VU.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=
483391
Ladkin, A. and Bertramini, A.M. (2002) Collaborative Tourism Planning: a Case Study of Cusco, Peru, Current
Issues in Tourism, 5(2), pp. 71–93.
Laws, E., Agrusa, J., Scott, N. and Richins, H. (2011) Tourist Destination Governance: practice, theory and
issues, in: E. Laws, H. Richins, J. Agrusa and N. Scott (Eds) Tourist Destination Governance: Practice,
Theory and Issues, pp. 1–16 (Wallingford: CABI).
Long, V. and Wall, G. (1996) Successful Tourism in Nusa Lembongan, Indonesia? Tourism Management, 17(1),
pp. 43–50.
Luck, M. (2008) Encyclopedia of Tourism and Recreation in Marine Environments: (Wallingford: CABI).
Michael, E.J. (2007) Micro-Clusters and Networks : the Growth of Tourism (Oxford: Elsevier).
Miller, M.L. and Auyong, J. (1991) Coastal Zone Tourism: a Potent Force Affecting Environment and Society,
Marine Policy, 15(2), pp. 75–99.
Mitchell, R.E. and Reid, D.G. (2001) Community Integration: Island Tourism in Peru, Annals of Tourism
Research, 28(1), pp. 113–39.
Murta, I.N. (2010) Profil Desa Lembongan, Kecamatan Nusa Penida, Kabupaten Klungkung, Provinsi Bali, 2010
(pp. 94): Departemen Dalam Negeri Direktorat Jenderal Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Dan Desa [The Profile of
Lembongan Village, Nusa Penida sub-district, Klungkung regency, Bali Province, 2010 (pp. 94): Ministry of
Home Affairs Directorate General of Community and Village Empowerment].
Ojeda-Martinez, C., Casalduero, F.G., Bayle-Sempere, J.T., Cebrian, C.B., Valle, C., Sanchez-Lizaso, J.L.,
Forcada, A., Sanchez-Jerez, P., Martin-Sosa, P., Falcon, J.M., Salas, F., Graziano, M., Chemello, R.,
Stobart, B., Cartagena, P., Perez-Ruzafa, A., Vandeperre, F., Rochel, E., Planes, S. and Brito, A. (2009) A Con-
ceptual Framework for the Integral Management of Marine Protected Areas, Ocean and Coastal Management,
52(2), pp. 89–101.
Otto, R., Krüsi, B.O. and Kienast, F. (2007) Degradation of an Arid Coastal Landscape in Relation to Land Use
Changes in Southern Tenerife (Canary Islands), Journal of Arid Environments, 70(3), pp. 527–39.
Picard, M. (1996) Bali: Cultural Tourism and Touristic Culture (Singapore: Archipelago).
Provan, K.G. and Kenis, P. (2007) Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness,
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), pp. 229–52.
Robbe, D. (2010) www.giliecotrust.com Available at http://www.giliecotrust.com/en/about-gili-eco-trust.html.
 Evidence from Indonesia and the Coral Triangle 31

Sasidharan, V. and Thapa, B. (2001) Sustainable Coastal and Marine Tourism Development: a Hobson’s choice,
in: Y. Apostolopoulos and D.J. Gayle (Eds) Island Tourism and Sustainable Development: Caribbean, Pacific,
and Mediterranean Experiences, pp. 93–112 (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger).
Segre, M. (2010) Delphine Robbe: Taking it Personally, Jakarta Post. Available at http://www.thejakartapost.
com/print/243224 (accessed 12 January 2011).
Setiawati, I. (2009a) Residents Lack Tools to Monitor Destructive Fishing, Jakarta Post, 24 February. Available at
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/02/24/residents-lack-tools-monitor-destructive-fishing.html (accessed
24 February 2010).
Setiawati, I. (2009b) Underwater Earth Day for Students. Jakarta Post, 23 April. Available at Please add
date.http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/04/23/underwater-earth-day-students.html-0 (accessed 23
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 01:59 01 January 2015

April 2010).
Shantiuli, T.M. and Sugiyanto, C. (2008) The Challenge of Tourism Development After Decentralization in
Lombok Island, West Nusatenggara, Indonesia. Paper presented at the Global Conference on Business and
Finance Proceedings, 9– 12 January, Sheraton Waikiki: Honolulu, Hawaii.
Soisalon-Soininen, T. and Lindroth, K. (2006) Regional Tourism Co-operation in Progress, in: L. Lazzeretti and
C.S. Petrillo (Eds) Tourism Local Systems and Networking, pp. 187–95 (Burlington: Elsevier Science).
Stewart, E.J., Howell, S.E.L., Draper, D., Yackel, J. and Tivy, A. (2007) Sea Ice in Canada’s Arctic: Implications
for Cruise Tourism, Arctic, 60(4), pp. 370–80.
Suliana, I.N. (2010) Profil Desa Jungut Batu, Kecamatan Nusa Penida, Kabupaten Klungkung, Propinsi Bali,
2010: Department Dalam Negeri Direktorat Jenderal Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Dan Desa [The Profile of
Jungut Batu Village, Nusa Penida sub-district, Klungkung regency, Bali province, 2010: Ministry of Home
Affairs Directorate General of Community and Village Empowerment].
Suriyani, L.D. (2008) Nusa Penida Marine Conservation Blueprint Prepared. Jakarta Post, 13 September.
Available at http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/09/13/nusa-penida-marine-conservation-blueprint-
prepared.html (accessed 13 September 2010).
Svensson, B., Nordin, S. and Flagestad, A. (2006) Destination Governance and Contemporary Development
Models, in: L. Lazzeretti and C.S. Petrillo (Eds) Tourism Local Systems and Networking, pp. 83–95 (Burling-
ton: Elsevier Science).
Taylor, C. and Turner, P. (1997) South-East Asia on a Shoestring (Hawthorn, VIC: Lonely Planet).
Ver Berkmoes, R., Skolnick, A. and Carroll, M. (2009) Bali and Lombok, 12th edition (Footscray, VIC: Lonely
Planet).
Wardany, I. (2008) TNC to Focus on Nusa Penida Coral Conservation. Jakarta Post, 29 January. Available at
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/01/29/tnc-focus-nusa-penida-coral-conservation.html (accessed 30
January 2010).
Weaver, D.B. (2006) Alternative Tourism. in D.B. Weaver (Ed.) Sustainable Tourism, pp. 38–57 (Burlington:
Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann).
Wells, S., Burgess, N. and Ngusaru, A. (2007) Towards the 2012 Marine Protected Area Targets in Eastern
Africa. Ocean and Coastal Management, 50(1– 2), pp. pp.67–83.
Welly, M. (2009) Local Community in Lembongan, Nusa Penida, Launches Community Center to Support
Marine Conservation and Establishment of Nusa Penida MPA. Available at http://www.coraltrianglecenter.
org/downloads/FINAL_Penida_Community_Center_Launch_NewsRelease_FEB09-EB_ENGLISH.pdf.
Wesley, A. and Pforr, C. (2010) The Governance of Coastal Tourism: Unravelling the Layers of Complexity at
Smiths Beach, Western Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(6), pp. 773–92.
Williams, P.W. and Ponsford, I.F. (2009) Confronting Tourism’s Environmental Paradox: Transitioning for Sus-
tainable Tourism, Futures, 41(6), pp. 396–404.
Wong, P.P. (1998) Coastal Tourism Development in Southeast Asia: Relevance and Lessons for Coastal Zone
Management. Ocean and Coastal Management, 38(2), pp. 89–109.
Worachananant, S., Carter, R.W., Hockings, M. and Reopanichkul, P. (2008) Managing the Impacts of Scuba
divers on Thailand’s coral reefs, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(6), pp. 645–63.
Woronowycz, R. (2010) Ambassador Marciel Helps Launch First Marine Protected Area in Indonesia. Press
release. Available at http://jakarta.usembassy.gov/pr_11222010.html
Wunder, S. (2003) Native Tourism, Natural Forests and Local Incomes on Ilha Grande, Brazil, in S. Gossling
(Ed.) Tourism and Development in Tropical Islands: Political Ecology Perspectives, pp. 148–77 (Cheltenham:
Elgar).
Yepes, V. and Medina, J.R. (2005) Land Use Tourism Models in Spanish Coastal Areas. A Case Study of the
Valencia Region. Journal of Coastal Research, 49, pp. 83–8.