The Dynamics of Collaboration in Developing Sustainable Cultural Heritage Destinations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gedongsongo Temple is a multi-actor tourism site (involving Government, MCB, Perhutani, Private Sector, and Community) that requires sustainable development to effectively balance economic priorities with cultural and environmental preservation. This qualitative descriptive study utilizes the Collaborative Governance Regime (CGR) theory (Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015) and the Government of Canada's framework to analyze the collaborative dynamics and their hindering factors. Findings conclude that collaboration is suboptimal, characterized by the persistent pull-and-push of competing interests. Specifically, Principled Engagement faces structural imbalance, Shared Motivation is fragile and pragmatic due to emerging trust issues, and Capacity for Joint Action is constrained by deviance and suboptimal knowledge/resource management. The identified inhibiting factors are rooted in cultural, institutional, and political aspects. The study ultimately concludes that the dynamics remain structurally weak, primarily due to asymmetric power relations and a profound lack of trust, failing to fully optimize the sustainable development goals. Keywords: Temple; Multi-actor; Tourism;
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".