Premature Stagnation in Policy-Driven Tourism Development: Early-Stage Failures in Tourism Village Development

2.1 Institutional capacity and the paradox of administrative legitimacy

Studies on destination development frequently remain constrained by a form of physical reductionism that equates development readiness with the availability of infrastructure, tourism attractions, and spatial accessibility [35-37]. This perspective assumes that destinations will evolve organically once physical resources and tourism potential become available for economic utilization [11, 38, 39]. Such an orientation privileges material indicators of development while underestimating the institutional processes through which destinations are socially organized, economically coordinated, and politically sustained [9, 40-42]. Consequently, destination development is often approached primarily as a problem of resource availability instead of systemic organization [17, 18]. This perspective obscures a more fundamental dimension: institutional capacity as the underlying condition that enables fragmented resources, actors, and interests to be transformed into a functional destination system [20-22].

Within the institutional literature, destination development is increasingly understood as the capacity to construct stable mechanisms capable of coordinating collective action across multiple actors and sectors [19, 43, 44]. In this context, institutional capacity extends beyond administrative competence and formal organizational existence, encompassing the ability of local institutions to regulate interdependencies, establish credible decision-making structures, mediate competing interests, and organize resources into integrated economic configurations [20, 45-47]. Tourism destinations therefore evolve through institutional arrangements that coordinate dispersed activities into interconnected systems of governance, participation, and economic integration [19, 21, 48, 49]. Institutional capacity consequently becomes the foundational mechanism through which destination systems acquire operational coherence and long-term sustainability.

These dynamics become substantially more complex within policy-driven tourism development, where administrative intervention frequently precedes institutional consolidation at the local level [11, 50-52]. In such contexts, destination status is often formally assigned before the organizational, social, and governance foundations necessary for operational development have been established, generating a disjuncture between administrative legitimacy and operational capacity [17, 18, 34]. This condition reflects the paradox of administrative legitimacy, in which destinations may appear institutionally legitimate from a policy perspective while remaining operationally fragile in practice [41, 53-55]. Governance scholarship associates this condition with institutional voids, where formal rules exist legally but fail to acquire functional relevance because they are not embedded within local routines, collective practices, and systems of coordination [21, 56, 57]. Consequently, administrative legitimacy may generate formally stable yet operationally hollow arrangements. Under these conditions, destinations lack the organizational capacity required to coordinate actors, sustain participation, and integrate economic activities into coherent systems [11, 18, 34].

2.2 Systemic integration and early path dependence

CBT development is fundamentally shaped by the extent to which economic actors, local institutions, and tourism activities are integrated into coherent destination structures [58-61]. Within tourism systems, value is generated through interconnected relationships that enable coordination among production, participation, and governance processes [15]. Systemic integration therefore becomes a critical condition enabling dispersed tourism activities to acquire operational coherence and collective direction [62-65]. In this context, participation should be understood as an institutionalized process of coordinated engagement [66-69]. The absence of integration during the early stages of development often produces fragmented activity patterns in which tourism initiatives evolve independently without forming a functional destination system [17, 34]. Under such conditions, tourism potential may continue to exist spatially and economically, yet remain structurally disconnected due to the absence of mechanisms capable of linking actors, interests, and economic activities into an integrated configuration.

This condition can be further explained through the perspective of path dependence, which emphasizes how early institutional configurations shape long-term development trajectories [31, 32, 70]. Initial decisions that emerge without adequate institutional foundations frequently generate weak starting conditions that constrain subsequent transformation processes [33, 70]. Such a perspective challenges the linear assumptions embedded within the TALC, where stagnation is generally positioned as a consequence of the later stages of destination evolution [24, 27]. In policy-driven tourism development contexts, stagnation may emerge during the earliest phases when systemic foundations fail to materialize. Without effective mechanisms for coordination and participation, destinations remain unable to progress toward the involvement stage and become trapped within prolonged exploration [15, 16, 71].

4.1 Administrative legitimacy as symbolic recognition without operational translation

The designation of villages as tourism destinations through the Decree of the Regent of Bandung Number 556/KEP.923-DISBUDPAR/2023 represents a form of administrative legitimacy within the framework of policy-driven tourism development. This policy constitutes part of a broader governmental initiative to expand rural tourism, through which 50 villages were formally designated as tourism villages, following a prior decree in 2022 that established an additional 50 villages under the same classification. Normatively, such legitimacy is expected to function as an initial trigger for the formation of destination management systems through institutionalization processes. However, empirical findings indicate that this legitimacy fails to operate as a mechanism for system activation and instead remains symbolic in the absence of operational capacity. Administrative recognition is not translated into structures capable of coordinating activities, leaving formal legitimacy detached from the operational mechanisms required for destination formation. Under these conditions, legitimacy functions only as administrative recognition, while the role as foundation of a functioning destination system is not operating.

The disconnect between legitimacy and operational capacity is clearly reflected in field practices. In Sukamulya Village, the absence of a formal management body has encouraged the emergence of temporary and ad hoc arrangements. As reflected in the statement of a tourism management actor, this condition indicates an unplanned institutionalization process and confirms that management structures were not established from the outset. The situation is further exacerbated by the absence of active management practices following formal designation, demonstrating that administrative status is not accompanied by operational capacity.

“Because a tourism management body has not yet been established, we will form a temporary institution by recruiting youth…” (P001).

“The status of a tourism village already exists, but in practice, there are no activities that are truly operating optimally” (P002).

From a conceptual perspective, this condition can be understood as an institutional void, where formal structures exist without the operational mechanisms required to coordinate economic and social activities [41, 56]. Within the context of this study, however, the phenomenon extends beyond a conventional implementation gap. The issue lies in the sequencing of policy formation, where administrative legitimacy is granted before institutional foundations and collective capacity have been adequately established. This condition, which is conceptualized in this study as premature formalization, indicates that administrative status precedes system readiness. Consequently, administrative legitimacy may generate formally stable yet operationally hollow arrangements. Under these conditions, destinations lack the organizational capacity required to coordinate actors, sustain participation, and integrate economic activities into coherent systems [45, 55, 68].

The absence of institutional capacity also destabilizes the social dimension, particularly through the failure to cultivate collective awareness. Information regarding the designation of tourism villages is often not systematically disseminated. As reflected in the statement from a community member (P006), legitimacy is not distributed as collective knowledge capable of fostering engagement. From the perspective of CBT, this condition helps explain why participation fails to emerge, as social involvement depends on institutionalization processes capable of building shared understanding [15, 66].

“I only recently found out that this village has been designated as a tourism village, even though I know that some local residents have often visited Hantap Dam” (P006).

Furthermore, from a path dependence perspective, legitimacy granted without foundational capacity creates weak initial conditions that constrain future development trajectories [31, 32]. Consequently, the destination remains unable to transition from exploration into the involvement stage as conceptualized in the TALC framework (Figure 2). Instead, the stagnation phenomena showed that development becomes trapped within a passive exploration phase, where administrative legitimacy paradoxically contributes to structural stagnation from the outset and lays the groundwork for premature stagnation.

tu_pian_2.jpg

Figure 2. Original Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) proposed by Butler [24]

4.2 Institutional fragility and the absence of collective capacity

Institutional conditions across the three research locations demonstrate that the formal establishment of organizational structures does not automatically generate operational capacity. Although institutional arrangements such as the Tourism Awareness Groups (Kelompok Sadar Wisata / POKDARWIS) in Jatisari Village and Nagrak Village have been officially established, they have not evolved into functional destination systems. This weakness is reflected in the limited ability to mobilize members into coordinated action, particularly in initiating early collective activities capable of signaling operational presence. Informants consistently described difficulties in organizing members and a prevailing sense of disengagement among local actors, resulting in institutions that exist formally yet remain inactive in practice. These conditions indicate that institutional formation functions primarily as performative compliance with policy mandates rather than as an organic institutionalization process rooted in local readiness. This finding aligns with the literature on policy-driven development, which suggests that top-down institutional formation frequently produces operationally weak structures when local actors are excluded from the foundational stages of development [11, 34, 58, 61]. Consequently, these institutions persist as stagnant administrative structures instead of evolving into dynamic systems capable of sustaining collective action.

This fragility is particularly evident in Jatisari Village, where formal organizational structures lack genuine member engagement. As reflected in the statement of a tourism management actor, the institution was established primarily through top-down appointment mechanisms, while the ideal approach should focus on internalization of shared roles and responsibilities. Without a participatory foundation, the organization fails to consolidate into a collective actor and remains dependent on isolated individuals. Under these conditions, institutional structures lose the collective ownership required for community-based sustainability and function merely as formal administrative containers devoid of collective agency.

“Members do exist, but only a few are truly active, perhaps because the formation of the management body was carried out through direct appointment by the village government, those involved do not feel a sense of responsibility” (P003).

Conceptually, this condition demonstrates that institutional capacity emerges through the ability to coordinate actors, distribute roles, and sustain collective decision-making [19, 20, 68]. In these cases, the absence of participatory mechanisms renders institutions incapable of mobilizing collective action. This weakness is further intensified by the temporal gap between administrative designation and actual institutional formation. From a path dependence perspective, such delays indicate that policy decisions introduced without adequate foundational structures create unstable developmental trajectories from the outset [21, 31, 70]. This condition is reflected in the statement from P003:

“The tourism village status was designated in 2023 but the POKDARWIS institution was only established in 2025.”

The consequences of this fragility are reflected in fragmented and individualistic activity patterns that fail to develop into cohesive destination systems. Economic activities remain oriented toward individual benefit rather than collectively organized value creation. Within the framework of collective action theory, this condition reflects a coordination failure in which actors are unable to establish shared rules or equitable mechanisms for benefit distribution [63, 65]. The heavy dependence on village government further indicates that community-based institutions such as POKDARWIS have not achieved organizational autonomy and continue to function primarily as extensions of state bureaucracy. As a result, these fragile institutional arrangements inhibit transition toward the involvement stage within the TALC framework and put destinations within a condition of early-stage stagnation. This condition is reinforced by the statement from P003:

“What is currently being done is more individual effort, not yet integrated into a unified tourism village system… profits are also individual” (P003).

4.3 The decoupling of social support from operational participation

This study reveals that community participation is never institutionalized as an operational mechanism from the first place. Across the three research locations, community support exists primarily as a positive social disposition that remains detached from the destination management system. This finding suggests that the principal constraint on tourism development lies in the absence of structures capable of transforming individual support into coordinated collective action. Much of the CBT literature conceptualizes participation as a gradual process that develops alongside tourism activities [15, 16]. The findings of this study, however, indicate that participation cannot emerge organically without institutional arrangements capable of organizing engagement from the early stages of development.

The dynamics observed in Sukamulya Village clearly illustrate this disconnect, where a generally supportive community remains detached from destination management practices. Testimonies from informants (P004 and P007) indicate that participation persists in the form of latent social support without mechanisms capable of translating support into operational engagement. This condition is reinforced by fragmented information dissemination, which limits both public understanding and opportunities for involvement. As a result, community members remain socially supportive yet institutionally disconnected from the development process.

“In principle, the community supports the program, but a process and stages are needed to ensure they are truly ready to be involved” (P004).

“I found out that my village became a tourism village from a friend, but honestly, I have never directly visited those places” (P007).

Conceptually, these findings challenge assumptions regarding the organic emergence of participation within policy-driven tourism development. Participation requires institutional architectures and participatory mechanisms capable of deliberately organizing engagement from the initiation phase. Without such structures, social support remains latent and fails to evolve into collective practice. The uneven levels of readiness among residents further demonstrate the absence of coordinated strategies capable of integrating individual support into shared action. From a collective action perspective, this reflects the failure to establish coordination arenas and shared rules through which collaborative potential can be mobilized [63, 64]. This condition is also reflected in the statement from P005:

“Further outreach is essential. Some residents may already be prepared because they’ve received the information, but those who still don’t fully understand the programme are not ready, and this could lead to confusion” (P005).

Ultimately, this condition reflects a participation design failure, where community engagement mechanisms are absent from the institutional structure of tourism development itself. Participation remains unstructured because clear pathways for role distribution, coordination, and articulation are never established. Under these conditions, community members become passive observers of a program they nominally support, while the ideal state is they become active participants within a functioning destination system. Within the TALC framework, this condition helps explain why destinations fail to transition from the exploration stage toward involvement, as the participatory foundations required for further development never fully materialize. Consequently, the absence of operational participation should be understood as a structural mechanism that reinforces premature stagnation.

4.4 Fragmented economic practices and the failure of system integration

The findings of this study indicate that tourism potential across the three villages has evolved into early-stage economic activities that remain fragmented and disconnected from an integrated destination system. As a result, these activities fail to generate sustainable collective value. This condition suggests that the principal challenge lies in the absence of coordination structures capable of linking economic activities within a coherent systemic framework. Within the tourism literature, systemic integration is widely regarded as a prerequisite for functional destination development because value emerges through the strategic interconnection of actors, activities, and supporting networks [19, 45, 86]. Fragmentation therefore reflects more than an ordinary early-stage condition; it signals a failure in the formation of destination systems from the outset.

tu_pian_3.jpg

In Sukamulya Village, tourism potential has generated clear expectations regarding the integration of nature-based tourism, culinary activities, and cultural attractions (Figure 3). An informant described an ideal tourism experience in which these elements operate as interconnected components of a unified destination experience (P009). This testimony demonstrates that local actors already possess a cognitive understanding of tourism as an integrated system. However, institutional mechanisms capable of organizing such integration remain absent, producing a disconnect between imagined destination structures and operational coordination systems. Similar conditions have frequently been associated with weak coordination capacity in policy-driven tourism development contexts [11, 17, 61].

“It would be great if, after coming down from Mount Singa, we could try the village’s traditional food, or if there were cultural festivals at certain times of the year” (P009).

This fragmentation becomes more pronounced in Jatisari Village, where economic activities evolve independently and fail to form cohesive value chains. Economic initiatives therefore remain atomistic and disconnected from broader destination structures. From the perspective of institutional economics, this condition reflects the absence of incentive systems capable of encouraging collaboration among actors. Within collective action theory, it indicates the absence of shared rules governing trust, coordination, and benefit distribution [63, 64, 87]. The absence of institutional arrangements also intensifies competition once economic value begins to emerge. In both Jatisari and Nagrak, competition among actors increased as tourism activities became economically profitable, demonstrating that economic growth without institutional coordination tends to generate unregulated competition.

“In the case of Lembur Awi tourism, the community and local leaders initially worked together to develop the area, both morally and materially, through collective self-help. However, after some time, once the tourism activities started to generate income, some of those involved began trying to take control of the tourism activities for their own personal interests” (P003).

At a broader level, this condition reflects an institutional void in which coordination mechanisms fail to regulate relationships among actors [41, 56]. Consequently, tourism potential remains unable to evolve into a cohesive destination system, while economic activities continue to operate without a shared destination narrative or integrative governance structure. These findings demonstrate that economic activity alone does not automatically stimulate destination development. Functional destination systems require institutional arrangements capable of integrating actors, activities, and reward structures into coherent configurations. In the absence of such integration, destinations remain unable to transition from the exploration stage toward involvement within the TALC framework. Fragmentation therefore becomes a structural mechanism that reinforces premature stagnation through the failure of system formation itself.

4.5 Premature stagnation as an early-stage structural lock-in

Within destination development literature, stagnation is conventionally positioned as a terminal phase emerging after a prolonged period of growth, as conceptualized in the TALC model [23, 24]. The findings of this study, however, reveal a fundamentally different developmental trajectory within policy-driven tourism village development. Rather than emerging after destinations have progressed through successive stages of growth, stagnation occurs before destinations are able to transition from exploration to involvement. This condition originates from the failure to establish the institutional and social foundations required for operational destination formation during the earliest stage of development. Consequently, stagnation reflects a structural failure occurring at the point where destination systems are expected to begin taking shape. The analytical problem therefore shifts from explaining destination decline to explaining why destinations fail to progress beyond the exploration stage despite possessing formal administrative legitimacy.

The findings further demonstrate that this failure cannot be attributed to a single institutional deficiency but instead emerges through the cumulative interaction of four interrelated structural mechanisms identified across the three cases. First, administrative legitimacy remains symbolic because it is not translated into operational institutional arrangements. Second, institutional structures consequently fail to develop the collective capacity necessary for coordinating destination development. Third, the absence of effective institutions further prevents community participation from becoming operationally organised. Fourth, tourism-related economic activities continue to evolve independently without systemic coordination. Together, these conditions prevent the emergence of the organisational characteristics expected to support the transition from exploration to involvement within the TALC framework. Such condition confines destination development to prolonged exploration and inhibits the formation of a functional destination system.

Building on these findings, this study proposes the concept of premature stagnation to explain situations in which destination development becomes structurally stalled before reaching the involvement stage. Because this study extends Butler's TALC, the proposed concept must be interpreted in relation to the transition from exploration to involvement. Within the TALC framework, progression beyond the exploration stage is expected to be accompanied by the emergence of organisational arrangements, increasing community participation, and progressively more structured destination development [24, 26]. The cross-case findings consistently demonstrate that these transition characteristics failed to materialise despite formal policy designation. Hence premature stagnation can be identified through four observable characteristics in which a tourism destination remains unable to establish (1) an operational destination management institution, (2) effective institutional capacity for collective coordination, (3) structured community participation, and (4) integrated tourism-related economic activities.

Across the three tourism villages examined, these structural conditions remained consistently evident throughout the study period. At the time of data collection, all three villages had remained in this condition for more than two years after their designation under Regent Decree No. 556/KEP.923-DISBUDPAR/2023. Within the empirical context of this study, the persistence of these conditions indicates a structural failure of stages transition. Figure 4, extending Butler's TALC, illustrates this alternative developmental trajectory, in which destination development remains structurally confined to the Exploration stage, and the explicit decision point between the Exploration and Involvement stages. Rather than assuming that destinations naturally progress beyond exploration, the proposed model argues that such progression depends on the fulfilment of several necessary conditions, namely operational destination management, institutional capacity for coordination, structured community participation, and integrated tourism-related economic activities. Conversely, when one or more of these conditions remain absent, destination development becomes locked into an alternative pathway conceptualised as Premature Stagnation.

tu_pian_4.png

The broader implications of this condition are reflected in a trajectory characterised by structural lock-in. Initial policy decisions that confer legitimacy without corresponding institutional capacity create weak starting conditions that constrain subsequent transformation processes. Fragile institutions, fragmented participation, and disconnected economic activities subsequently reinforce one another, generating a self-reproducing structure that remains unstable yet persistent over time [31, 41]. Under these conditions, conventional interventions such as infrastructure provision or additional tourism programming frequently fail to produce meaningful transformation because they do not address the underlying absence of systemic integration. This finding explains why physical development alone does not automatically catalyse destination evolution when the principal constraint lies in the weakness of institutional coordination structures.

These findings also reveal important implications for policy-driven tourism development. Administrative designation alone is insufficient to stimulate destination formation when detached from institutional preparation and participatory design. More effective policy approaches therefore require sustained investment in institutional capacity, including the establishment of local organisations, mechanisms for coordination, and structured pathways for community participation from the outset. Destination development is consequently more likely to evolve sustainably when approached as a gradual process of collective learning, institutional consolidation, and rule formation rather than as a purely administrative intervention. Such an orientation increases the likelihood that policy initiatives will support the emergence of operational destination systems and reduce the risk of early-stage stagnation.

4.6 Synthesis of findings

The findings of this study demonstrate that premature stagnation does not emerge through a single institutional failure, but through the sequential interaction of multiple structural weaknesses that collectively inhibit destination formation. Administrative legitimacy initiates the development process, yet in the absence of institutional readiness it produces premature formalization rather than operational activation. Weak institutional capacity subsequently limits the ability of local actors to organize participation, coordinate collective action, and integrate economic activities into coherent destination structures. Under these conditions, community support remains socially dispersed while tourism-related economic activities continue to evolve in fragmented and disconnected forms. The cumulative effect of these interrelated weaknesses prevents the emergence of an operational destination system and ultimately anchors development within the exploration stage.

The findings further reveal that early-stage stagnation should not be understood as a temporary developmental delay, but as a structurally reproduced trajectory. From a path dependence perspective, weak initial conditions generate self-reinforcing dynamics in which institutional fragility, fragmented participation, and weak economic integration continuously reproduce one another over time. As these dynamics become increasingly embedded, destinations experience a form of structural lock-in that constrains subsequent transformation. The conceptual framework developed in this study (Figure 5) synthesizes these relationships by illustrating how policy-driven tourism development may unintentionally generate stagnation at the earliest stage of destination evolution. Rather than functioning as isolated institutional deficiencies, these dimensions operate as interconnected mechanisms that collectively prevent transition toward the involvement stage within the TALC framework.

tu_pian_5.png

While these findings contribute conceptually to the understanding of premature stagnation in policy-driven tourism development, several limitations should be acknowledged. The analysis is confined to tourism villages operating within a specific regional policy framework and therefore does not aim to establish statistical generalization across broader tourism contexts. Furthermore, although the qualitative approach enables an in-depth examination of institutional dynamics and structural configurations, the study remains primarily focused on the initiation phase of destination development. Long-term trajectory shifts therefore remain insufficiently observed. Future research may extend this analysis through longitudinal approaches capable of examining how destinations transition from conditions of premature stagnation toward involvement, institutional consolidation, or alternative developmental pathways over time.