Self-Reliance in Community-Based Rural Tourism: Observing Tourism Villages (Desa Wisata) in Sleman Regency, Indonesia

Abstract

Self-reliance is essential for community-based rural tourism (CBRT), ensuring effective running in the long term. However, existing studies have focused on general self-reliance conditions while overlooking details surrounding the community’s self-reliance in each activity of the CBRT value chain. This study filled this significant gap by observing community self-reliance in CBRT and considering the tourism value chain (TVC) framework. Built upon the abduction method, this study applied the systematic combining approach to observe three aspects of self-reliance, i.e., goals or objectives, rights and abilities, and owned resources, in the TVC of CBRT entities. Taking the case of CBRT in Sleman Regency, Indonesia, the data collection involved representatives of 49 community-based tourism villages (desa wisata). The results showed that observing community self-reliance in CBRT allows for the identification of multifaceted self-reliance problems in rural tourism communities. Apparently, the observed CBRT initiatives are unable to achieve complete self-sufficiency across all aspects of self-reliance. Reliance on external collaboration and support networks persists out of necessity rather than an inability to self-manage. Policy protections, capacity building, and collaborative partnerships are necessary to develop resilient and sustainable rural tourism amidst necessary dependencies. CBRT planning and policies should hence consider the abovementioned aspects of self-reliance to empower CBRT toward sustainable rural development.

1. Introduction

Rural development aims at improving various aspects of rural regions. The economic structure and landscape of rural communities tend to rely more heavily on agriculture and natural resources [1,2,3]. These characteristics lead to unique focuses and priorities in the development of rural areas compared to their urban counterparts. Consequently, impactful strategies strive to improve incomes, diversify economies, build infrastructure, and enhance the quality of life for rural residents [4]. This frequently involves supporting traditional rural industries like farming, fishing, and forestry while also cultivating new economic sectors that leverage local assets [5]. One pathway for rural development involves nurturing industrial growth beyond agriculture [6]. Strategic investments in roads, internet, electricity, and other infrastructure aim to support rural businesses by ensuring adequate physical and non-physical enablers comparable to urban areas [7]. At the same time, experts have highlighted tourism as an impactful development sector [8,9]. Since rural areas often boast extensive natural beauty and cultural heritage, tourism initiatives could promote these attributes to visitors while generating revenue for local communities. Nature-based tourism, agritourism, culinary tourism, and cultural tourism represent lucrative opportunities [10], especially when sustainably managed to balance economic gains and ecological protection. Tourism growth further enables complementary businesses like hotels, restaurants, shops, and transport services to expand as well [11].

Rural tourism is often developed by following a top-down approach directed by government policies and plans [12,13]. This can result in development that aligns more with exogeneous actors’ visions rather than the local community’s goals and values [14]. Rural destinations may also evolve in ways that do not optimally benefit residents or preserve local culture and environments [15]. In response, community-based rural tourism (CBRT) has emerged as an alternative model that positions local communities as key decision-makers in rural tourism development [16]. CBRT fosters community control and participation, enabling residents to guide tourism growth based on their priorities [17]. Tourism growth would thus reflect indigenous values, protect environmental or cultural assets valued by residents, and channel benefits into community-chosen initiatives [18]. In practice, CBRT enables communities to develop tourism offerings that provide authentic experiences for visitors while accurately representing local traditions, lifestyles, and culture. It leads to local circulation of revenues among locally owned tourism businesses [16]. Residents also gain fair employment, entrepreneurship, and training opportunities, enabling direct participation in tourism sectors based on their skills and interests [19]. In short, as rural areas navigate complex decisions regarding if and how to develop tourism sustainably, CBRT offers a grounded path to develop rural tourism guided from within.

Looking at these explanations, CBRT holds significant potential to foster community self-reliance in rural regions [17]. CBRT induces self-reliance by enabling rural communities to optimally utilize local assets, including natural resources, cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, buildings, foods, etc., and transform them into tourism products that generate socioeconomic returns for locals [15]. CBRT also helps strengthen community capacity and levels the playing field for rural communities previously disadvantaged by lack of opportunity, resources, or external support [20]. By fostering participation, consultation, and the sharing of benefits across different stakeholder groups in a rural community, CBRT could help establish inclusive community institutions and equitable mechanisms for tourism planning, implementation, and returns distribution, which are essential for self-reliant rural development [16,17,19,21]. Still, challenges remain in translating CBRT’s self-reliance goals into practical outcomes. Rural communities can struggle with limited funding, inadequate skill sets, internal conflict, market access barriers, and other resource disadvantages [22]. Well-intentioned CBRT initiatives may falter without resolving such constraints. More research is vital for understanding the conditions and policies that can enable self-reliance through CBRT in diverse rural contexts. As CBRT expands globally, a deeper investigation of its conjunction with community self-reliance can inform policies and interventions for rural community resilience and sustainability.

However, research on CBRT has often overlooked detailed observations of self-reliance conditions from the ground-up perspectives of rural communities themselves [23]. While past studies have tested theoretical frameworks against real-world case studies of tourism development, there has been limited exploration into how rural communities perceive and pursue self-reliance conditions across the interrelated components of rural tourism. A comprehensive understanding is lacking with regard to how self-reliance manifests in the management and organization of CBRT initiatives aiming to spur the sustainable growth of rural tourism. In short, self-reliance conditions remain an underexplored dimension within the expanding literature on CBRT initiatives across the developing world. Therefore, this research aimed to fill this complex and multilayered research gap through an exploratory, abductive approach centered on rural communities’ firsthand experiences with self-reliant local tourism development, which would create openings for enriched insights by further observing the resonance with relevant theoretical knowledge. Filling the gap thus requires bringing together community viewpoints, analytical frameworks, established theories, and secondary records to discover the on-the-ground thinking of and real-world practices by rural communities in developing CBRT to achieve different self-reliant conditions. A grounded but theoretically supported investigation as such promises more contextualized insights into how rural communities work toward self-reliance within their unique asset portfolios, tourism resources, and local governance dynamics. In practice, this study attempted to answer the following research questions:

• RQ1 What aspects of self-reliance should be observed in CBRT?
• RQ2 What approach could be used to integrate bottom-up community perspectives and top-down theoretical knowledge for observing self-reliance in CBRT?
• RQ3 How do rural communities pursue self-reliant conditions in managing and organizing their CBRT activities?

2. Literature Review

2.1. CBRT and Tourism Value-Chain

As a multidimensional phenomenon, tourism is not formed of a singular activity [24]. Instead, it encompasses a vast array of interrelated activities that synergistically function to cater to the needs of tourists [25]. These activities are interdependent, each relying heavily on the other to deliver tourism services or products. This network of activities and their interrelationships form the backbone of the tourism industry. In practice, various stakeholders, each with their unique roles and responsibilities, work in parallel or sequence to deliver services or goods to tourists at different stages of their journey [26]. These stakeholders could range from travel agencies and tour operators to hospitality establishments and local attractions, each contributing an essential part to the overall tourism experience. For example, transport carriers convey visitors to destinations, while food producers supply eateries and hotels. As a system, their collective efforts and interactions form what is known as the Tourism Value Chain (TVC [27]; Figure 1). Each link in this chain, from the initial contact with a potential tourist to their return home, is an opportunity for value creation and co-creation [28]. In the TVC, value is not just created in the form of tangible products or services but also co-created through intangible aspects such as experiences, memories, and cultural exchanges.

Basically, values attract consumer demands. Suppliers follow it up by allocating adequate resources to add the consumer-desired values to their products or services [29]. In that sense, values added in CBRT hold significance for both tourism providers (suppliers) and tourists (consumers). As noted above, in addition to typical values added from a supply chain perspective, the TVC also encompasses value co-creation stemming from the interactions between supplier propositions and consumer benefits [30]. In the TVC, values are added in five consecutive value-chain phases: pre-delivery, travel-in, delivery, travel-out, and post-delivery (Figure 1), forming a general journey of tourists [27]. These phases consist of multiple stages that constitute a series of value-added activities [31], which are area-specific depending on the characteristics of services or products provided in particular CBRT location(s). Given the vast array of suppliers and other relevant stakeholders involved in CBRT, each with distinct interests and activities within the broader tourism systems, CBRT planning and development should account for all TVC components. Effective management of the TVC is thus pivotal for holistic CBRT development. Properly managed partnerships in the TVC can serve as a catalyst for sustainable growth and development in CBRT [32]. It can foster collaboration among stakeholders, streamline operations, enhance customer satisfaction, and, ultimately, drive economic growth for rural areas.

As a framework, the TVC provides a valuable reference for understanding tourist–provider interactions in CBRT. In the pre-delivery phase, promotion often involves grassroots marketing through word-of-mouth, social media, and collaboration with travel agencies or tour operators to feature CBRT destinations in tourism packages [19,33]. Furthermore, reservations may be handled directly by the community or via intermediaries [34]. In the travel-in/-out phases, accessible infrastructure to rural destinations is often lacking; thus, CBRT ventures assist tourists in arranging transportation through third-party providers or community-owned vehicles [35,36]. In the delivery phase, their accommodation provides visitors with an authentic taste of local life through homestays, farm stays, or community-run guest houses [37]. Information centers orient guests, while area guides share insider expertise [19]. Local cuisine at community-based restaurants or home-cooked meals offers immersive culinary experiences [38]. Attractions like cultural sites, natural landscapes, and community life itself draw tourist interest [39,40]. In addition, activities range from everyday rural tasks to ceremonial traditions that visitors can participate in. In parallel, local transport [16] via tuk-tuks, motorcycles, or even animal carts enables exploration. Then, handicrafts and food specialties sold as souvenirs provide livelihood opportunities [41]. In the post-delivery phase, tourist feedback helps rural communities to track satisfaction and highlight points for improvements. Follow-up communication thanks guests and establishes ongoing relationships for return visits [42].

2.2. Self-Reliance in CBRT

The TVC of a CBRT destination does not operate in isolation. Instead, it connects to an extensive, multilayered network of actors, which, in conjunction with the TVC, forms tourism value webs (TVWs) [27]. This interconnected web of value chains works simultaneously to ensure the delivery of products and services in the entire CBRT system. In addition to typical CBRT value chains, TVWs introduce significantly complex routes interlinking diverse value chains [43]. In other words, TVWs represent a broader framework encompassing numerous connections and interactions between layer- and route-specific stakeholders across CBRT systems. They have specific roles within TVWs to obtain individual benefits by providing value-added activities for tourists. Within this complex web, the TVC of a CBRT destination links to the wider tourism global value chain (TGVC) [44]. The TGVC consists of multiple transit routes used to deliver final tourism products and services from initial manufacturers or providers to stage-specific actors in particular TVC phases. Moreover, the TGVC connects further to multiple convergences, representing multi-level suppliers who transform raw materials into intermediate products or assemble those intermediate components into final products [45]. In other words, the early phases of the TVW encompass the logic of supply chains spanning diverse raw material sources and convergences to produce ready-to-deliver tourism products and services.

To establish self-reliance, the TVW of a specific CBRT destination should lean toward the self-sufficiency principles of rural communities [46]. Conceptually, TVW can be divided into three main parts that relate directly to three aspects of community self-reliance (Figure 2). The first part includes tourism products or services [47], which are provided immediately to tourists in the phase-specific stages of a destination-specific TVC. In short, this part focuses on what a CBRT produces or provides for visitors. For the CBRT to be self-reliant, it needs to offer authentic local tourism experiences making use of the community’s assets. Meanwhile, the second part covers convergences and transits used to convert raw materials, assemble intermediate products, and deliver final products to the TVC. This part thus deals with what the CBRT does or decides when producing/providing tourism products or services [48]. To enable self-sufficiency, a CBRT destination should have control over as many production processes as possible. This includes sourcing inputs, adding value, distributing products, managing partnerships, making strategic decisions, and more. In addition, the third part includes the resources and raw materials taken to produce the products or services. This part, hence, focuses on what the CBRT has or does not have locally to produce tourism offerings [49]. Self-reliance requires minimizing the dependence on outsourced raw materials or resources.

Considering the logical relationships between the three main parts of TVWs and the three focuses of community self-reliance, each is further derivable to understand a specific aspect of community self-reliance in a CBRT (Figure 2;

Table 1. Self-reliance aspects, objects of analysis, and the theoretical basis.

Aspects of Self-Reliance	Objects of Investigation	Data Requirement	Theoretical Basis
Goals or objectives	Presence of tourism products or services in each TVC phase, with local communities as suppliers	Products or services in each TVC phase Types of the products or services Expectations for product or service development in each TVC phase	Local communities as tourism suppliers in CBT development [15] TVW [27]
Rights and abilities	Rights and abilities of local communities to set and realize their own objective(s)	Legal status Community role in the provision of tourism products or services in the TVC Initiative and decision-making process in the provision of products or services in the TVC Presence and roles of third-party actors in the provisioning process Cost and revenue management	Community initiative and decision-making [15] Entrepreneurship in CBT [50]
Own factors or resources	Dependency on external factors of production in the provision of tourism products or services	Presence of external factors in the provision process Existing challenges, problems, or dependencies	Factors of production in tourism [51]

). The first aspect reflects the goals or objectives of CBRT, which are evident through the presence of tourism products or services in each TVC phase [27], particularly those with local communities as suppliers [15]. Investigating this requires observing the products or services delivered in each TVC phase, the types and varieties of said products or services, and the expectations toward future development or expansion of such offerings. Furthermore, the second self-reliance aspect reflects the rights and abilities of rural communities to set and realize their own objectives [15] in the product or service provisions in CBRT [50]. This depends on several critical factors, including the legal status and operational structure of CBRT programs, the depth of community roles in providing tourism products or services, community involvement in tourism-related decision-making processes, the presence and influence of external (third-party) actors, and community control over costs and revenues associated with CBRT. In addition, the third aspect reflects CBRT’s dependency on any external factors of production involved in the provision of tourism products and services [51]. Thoroughly examining this requires discovering the presence of external factors in the provision processes, which would practically lead to the discovery of existing challenges, problems, or dependencies on said factors.

2.3. Observing Self-Reliance in CBRT: The Research Approach

CBRT relies heavily on the active participation and leading roles of rural communities to sustainably develop and manage rural tourism in their regions [52]. Consequently, understanding self-reliance through the complex socioeconomic and ecological structures within rural communities and their surrounding rural areas requires an abductive research approach that can accommodate emerging practical insights in conjunction with theoretical knowledge [53]. At this point, investigating CBRT and community self-reliance in every component of its TVC/TVW can benefit significantly from the systematic combining approach [54]. Technically, the approach provides an iterative abductive process of going back and forth between theory and data to progressively search for resonance between the objects and framework of analysis [54,55,56]. This would enable the in-depth investigation of self-reliance in CBRT across multidimensional value webs interconnecting diverse stakeholders, resources, activities, and products/services. In particular, the systematic combining approach allows us to span multiple levels of analysis from on-site TVC stages and phases to the upstream TVW directions. Furthermore, the nonlinearity of the systematic combining approach [57] permits CBRT research to tackle complex configurations of economic, sociocultural, political, and environmental factors shaping community experiences. An abductive exploration can discover feedback loops, mutualistic partnerships, conflicting interests, and unintended consequences that may help tourism outcomes toward sustainable rural development.

The systematic combining approach recognizes four critical information sources for investigating community self-reliance in CBRT. The first source encompasses relevant theories [58], which, in the context of CBRT, focus on self-reliance, community development, sustainable tourism, and related concepts that provide an initial analytical framework. These theories supply constructs and logic models for the examination of self-reliance in the context of CBRT. The second information source involves the conceptual framework as it evolves [59], i.e., the relationships between the three aspects of self-reliance in CBRT—goals/objectives, rights/abilities, and owned factors/resources. The systematic combining approach provides flexibility to refine this framework and the connections between crucial variables as new empirical insights. The third information source encompasses the empirical world [60] according to secondary records, statistics, and evidence documenting community self-reliance in actual CBRT practices. They help to contextualize the research focus and provide comparative triangulation. The fourth source [54] involves direct case studies and primary data-gathering from respondents in selected CBRT locations to help to understand practical on-the-ground circumstances. For example, interviews and focus groups with community members, leaders, tourism operators, local authorities, and other stakeholders could reveal place-specific insights into self-reliance processes and outcomes. In practice, the systematic combining approach conducts repetitive matching between these four information groups in iterative cycles, directing and redirecting inquiry toward a more profound understanding.

3. Methodology

3.1. Context and Study Area

Despite the worldwide trend of urbanization [61], rural areas and communities remain a significant part of the world, especially in developing countries [62,63]. Of those in the developing world, Indonesia is an upper-middle-income country with a sizeable rural population [64]. The significance of rural communities in the country’s rural–urban linkage has made rural development a priority in its social and regional development programs. However, potential tourism destinations in Indonesia’s rural areas were largely treated as a given, hence receiving insignificant attention. It was not until 2010 that the National Medium-Term Development Plan (Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional, or RPJMN) finally considered rural tourism as a focus point of rural development through the tourism village program [65]. The initial purpose was to improve rural competitiveness, which would foster economic value-added activities. The RPJMN 2010–2014 set the initial target of establishing 200 tourism villages in year one, with a projection of 2000 tourism villages in 2019 [65,66]. It was later progressed in the RPJMN 2020–2024, which promoted self-reliance issues. However, the targeted state of self-reliance in the RPJMN is inapplicable due to different dependency issues between tourism villages [23], leading to difficulties in achieving self-reliance conditions in rural tourism.

In general, the development of rural areas in Indonesia reflects a traditional emphasis on the agricultural sector [67,68,69]. The strategic move to focus on developing rural tourism has led to the designation of several regions with substantial rural populations as global tourism destinations, including Toba in North Sumatra [70], Mandalika in West Nusa Tenggara [71], and Yogyakarta on Java Island [72]. However, the lack of basic infrastructure hinders tourism development in rural regions outside the Java and Bali islands [73,74,75], making self-reliance in CBRT a distant target. Consequently, self-reliant CBRT is a more achievable goal for regions on Java or Bali islands, given the better prepared infrastructure. Among the significant tourism destinations on Java Island, the Special Region of Yogyakarta (Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta), or Yogyakarta for short, holds a strategic position in the country’s tourism industry, attributed to its carefully preserved natural landscape and sociocultural assets. Yogyakarta’s unique appeal lies in the longstanding legacy of the Sultanate of Yogyakarta (Ngayogyakarta Hadiningrat) since the middle of the 1700s [76]. This historical and cultural heritage has played a crucial role in shaping the region’s identity and attracting visitors from around the world. The combination of well-prepared infrastructure, solid communal backgrounds, and rich sociocultural assets has created a promising future for self-reliant CBRT in Yogyakarta.

Of the five administrative regions in Yogyakarta, Sleman Regency (Figure 3) has the most significant position in Indonesia’s tourism industry. In 2016, Sleman was inaugurated by the Ministry of Tourism as the regency with the highest tourism index in the country [77]. This achievement indicates Sleman’s rising prominence as a leading tourism region capable of attracting both domestic and international visitors. As reflected in national and regional policies [65,78], Indonesia considers the significance of strengthening the rural economy through rural tourism. The policies specifically advocate community-based tourism (CBT) in rural areas, which, in practice, implies CBRT. Following these policy guidelines, Sleman Regency has established tourism villages (desa wisata) to stimulate socioeconomic growth. A desa wisata constitutes a rural community working collectively in the tourism sector by adhering to CBT principles [79]. Technically, a desa (village) refers to the smallest administrative entity for rural areas within the hierarchical structure of the Indonesian government. However, an officially recognized desa wisata does not necessarily fall within the physical boundaries of a single administrative desa. In fact, several tourism villages in Sleman Regency fall together within the exact administrative village boundaries. This reflects the organic development of rural tourism clusters based on communal movements rather than administrative divisions.

In recent years, tourism villages in Sleman Regency have shown significant development in quality and quantity. As of 2019, Sleman was home to 44% of all tourism villages in Yogyakarta [66], indicating the dominance of the regency in the local tourism village sector. By 2020, the number of registered tourism villages under the administration of the Regional Government of Sleman Regency (Pemerintah Daerah Kabupaten Sleman, or Pemkab Sleman) increased to 53, showcasing the continuous expansion of tourism villages across the regency. Of those registered villages, Pentingsari stands out as an exceptional case. In 2018, Pentingsari tourism village received an international award from Global Green Destination Days (GGDD) for implementing sustainable tourism practices across various indicators [23]. At the local level, the evaluation and classification of tourism villages in Sleman Regency are periodically conducted by Pemkab Sleman every two years [79]. The bi-annual periodic evaluation subsequently indicates the number of officially recognized tourism villages in Sleman, which may increase along with the emergence of new CBRT initiatives turned tourism villages or decrease when previously registered tourism villages become inactive. Only tourism villages that pass the demanding criteria of the assessment receive official legal status from Pemkab Sleman, complete with specific classifications that indicate their quality levels.

3.2. Sampling and Data Collection

This study followed a three-phase research design (Figure 4), which included sampling, data collection, and data analysis. The first phase focused on the sampling process to obtain a representative sample. Since many tourism villages were established across the entire Sleman Regency, purposive sampling [80,81] was utilized to select the most suitable cases that align closely with the research objectives. Of the 53 tourism villages registered in the Sleman Tourism Office database in 2020, the government records indicated that 49 were still active in 2022. Only tourism villages certified as currently active were included in the final sample (

Table A1. Observed tourism villages and respondents.

No	Village Name	Year 1	Scale 2	Fund 3	Respondents
1	Beteng	2017	Hamlet	✓	leader
2	Blue Lagoon	2014	Hamlet	✓	leader
3	Bokesan	2016	Hamlet	✓	former leader
4	Brajan	2008	RW	✓	leader
5	Brayut	1999	Hamlet	✓	leader
6	Bromonilan	2018	RW	✓	leader
7	Bulak Salak	2017	Hamlet	✓	leader
8	Cibuk Kidul	2020	Hamlet	N/A	leader
9	Diro	2012	Hamlet	✓	leader
10	Dukuh Sempor	2015	Hamlet	✓	active member
11	EKJ Sempu	2017	Hamlet	✓	leader, treasurer
12	Gabugan	2004	Hamlet	✓	secretary
13	Gamol	2018	Hamlet	✓	leader
14	Gamplong	2004	Hamlet	✓	leader
15	Garongan	2008	Hamlet	✓	leader
16	Green Kayen	2016	Hamlet	✓	active member
17	Grogol	2010	Hamlet + 1 RT	✓	secretary
18	Kadisobo 2	2007	Hamlet	✓	leader, local figure
19	Kali Klegung	2016	Hamlet	✓	leader
20	Kali Opak 7 Bulan	2018	2 Hamlets	✓	leader
21	Kampung Satwa	2017	RT	✓	secretary
22	Karang Tanjung	2017	Hamlet	✓	treasurer, general coordinator
23	Kelor	1996	RW	✓	leader
24	Ledhok Blotan	2018	Hamlet	✓	secretary
25	Ledok Nongko	2005	RW	✓	leader
26	Nawung	2010	Hamlet	✓	leader
27	Nganggring	2015	Hamlet	✓	active member
28	Ngembesan	2017	RW	✓	leader
29	Nologaten	2020	Hamlet	✓	leader
30	Padukuhan Timur	2018	Hamlet	N/A	active member
31	Pancoh	2012	Hamlet	✓	vice leader
32	Pendidikan	2012	Hamlet	✓	secretary
33	Pentingsari	2008	Hamlet	✓	leader
34	Plempoh	2020	Hamlet	✓	active member
35	Plosokuning	2018	Hamlet	✓	leader
36	Pulesari	2012	RW	✓	leader
37	Pulewulung	2017	RW	✓	leader
38	Rajek Wetan	2018	Hamlet	N/A	leader
39	Rumah Dome	2009	Hamlet	✓	leader
40	Sambe Rembe	2019	Hamlet	✓	leader
41	Sambirejo	2016	Village	N/A	leader
42	Sangurejo	2014	Hamlet	✓	leader
43	Sendang Penjalin	1997	Hamlet	✓	leader 1, leader 2, treasurer
44	Sukunan	2009	RW	✓	leader
45	Tanjung	2001	4 Hamlet	✓	active member
46	Tunggul Arum	2013	Hamlet	✓	leader
47	Turgo	2019	2 RW	✓	leader
48	Watu Ledhek	2019	RW	✓	vice leader, local figure
49	Watu Purbo	2020	Hamlet	✓	active member

¹ Year of establishment of respective tourism village. ² Spatial coverage of tourism village (RW is one level below hamlet, RT is two levels below hamlet). ³ Community fund.

). Furthermore, the second phase encompassed the data collection process, which began with preparation to ensure the collection of high-quality information. An interview guide containing non-repetitive, detailed questions on all required data points was designed [82]. As interviews can be susceptible to interviewer bias due to tone of voice or question wording [83], training sessions were conducted with the research assistant to standardize data collection. The research assistant was a local community member familiar with norms and customs, facilitating trust-building and engagement with respondents [84]. However, the assistant was not a resident of any sampled village, thus mitigating insider bias during interviews.

The data collection was conducted through semi-structured interviews with respondents from the sampled tourism villages. The interview protocol consisted of open-ended questions to allow the interviewees to elaborate on their unique experiences and perspectives related to the development of tourism villages. Follow-up probing questions were used to gather more in-depth information when needed [85]. Within each tourism village, the preference was to interview the formal community leader, usually the chief or head. These individuals were best positioned to speak knowledgeably regarding the history and status of local tourism initiatives. When there was no suitable community leader, an alternative representative who played an active organizing role was selected. Of the 49 chosen tourism villages, 34 were represented by their community leaders, while the other 15 were represented by active organizers of village-specific tourism village initiatives (Table A1). The interviews were conducted face-to-face in each of the tourism villages from September to November 2022, ranging from 33 to 102 min in length, with an average of 65.6 min. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded to reveal essential issues recognized by the interviewees [82]. In addition to the interview data, tourism-related documents from district, regency, and provincial governments were gathered as secondary data sources. The primary data were then triangulated with the secondary records to complete the missing information and validate the data [86].

3.3. Data Analysis

Furthermore, this research phase applied Goldsmith’s five steps of framework analysis [87] in conjunction with the systematic combining approach. Data familiarization was the initial step aimed at understanding critical ideas from the data. This involved reading through the interview transcripts multiple times to become immersed in the details and gain a sense of the entire interview content before breaking it into parts. It was followed by framework identification to confirm whether the frameworks and theories used were applicable to the dataset. The next step was the indexing process that systematically applied qualitative coding to all the interview datasets (Figure 5). It was conducted using NVivo software version 14 while keeping the transcripts in the original language to provide culturally specific information for data interpretation. Preserving the original language and context helps to avoid losing meaning through translation. Coding in the original language first allows culturally specific themes and concepts to emerge from the data [88], which could be overlooked if translated prematurely. NVivo was selected for its usefulness in qualitatively analyzing non-numerical, unstructured data. Its tools for classifying, sorting, and arranging information assisted enormously in the indexing process.

The indexing process came after a three-step coding process for qualitative data analysis (Figure 5). The first step was open coding; the subsequent two were axial and selective coding [89]. Open coding was conducted first to identify potential indexing objects from the textual data derived from the interview transcripts. This exploratory process involved assigning conceptual labels to discrete elements across the transcripts. This inductive analysis produced a total of 10 indexing objects. Upon completion of the open coding, the data analysis proceeded to the axial coding step, which aimed to identify relationships and convergence among the indexing objects. The ten objects were analyzed to reveal alignments toward three distinct aspects of community self-reliance (Figure 2; Table 1). The axial coding step enabled this study to uncover patterns and themes that were not immediately apparent during the open coding stage. The final step, selective coding, concentrated on synthesizing the construction of the self-reliance conditions of CBRT entities from the self-reliance attributes of their constituent communities. The process carefully examined the relationships between the indexing objects, the aspects of community self-reliance, and the overall self-reliance conditions of the CBRT entities.

This study implemented the systematic combining approach from the coding process onward (Figure 4). The preliminary framework of community self-reliance, which was constructed from the literature, was evaluated against multiple cases (tourism villages) from the study area to reveal empirical findings that might modify or generalize existing theories [56], without relying only on case study data, unlike grounded theory [90]. Analysis was made by justifying how the communities fulfilled their goals using their ability and resources and identifying the problems they faced. Theoretically, self-reliant CBRT should have no dependency problem when delivering tourism products. Still, dependencies might occur in different aspects of self-reliance in other circumstances, indicating the community’s limitations in achieving self-reliance conditions. The details of problems and positions in the TVC would have particular characteristics that require different solutions from the community or other stakeholders. Moreover, employing the abduction processes to discover self-reliance conditions denoted the core of the data analysis. With the coding sequences completed and the analytical framework calibrated, the next step focused on charting and mapping the results for synthesis. The charted and mapped coding and systematic combining results were compared across the samples to derive patterns.

4. Results

4.1. Basic Characteristics of the Tourism Villages

The results of this study reveal substantial variations in the scales and conditions of the tourism villages across the study area (Table A1). Despite the term “tourism village”, the CBRT entities do not necessarily refer to “village” as a formal administrative region. In fact, only one tourism village covers the whole administrative village, indicating the involvement of the entire village in tourism activities. In contrast, the core scale (delivery phase) in most tourism villages is limited to the sub-village level, with 37 tourism villages clustered around individual hamlets (dusun), ten formed at the level of smaller surrounding groups (Rukun Warga, or RW), and one even smaller tourism village centered around a neighborhood (Rukun Tetangga, or RT) level. Furthermore, the founding years of existing tourism villages range from as early as 1996 to as recently as 2020 (Table A1). The oldest tourism village had over 25 years to develop, with more robust activities, recognition, and visitation. On the other hand, tourism villages established even within the past few years are still in their early stages. The inconsistency in scales and maturity levels across villages will pose challenges for equitable and sustainable tourism planning at the regency level. Meanwhile, most tourism villages operate as independent community-based organizations. The rest function as sub-organizations of Kelompok Sadar Wisata (Pokdarwis, or Tourism Awareness Groups). Pokdarwis are village-level participatory groups aimed at building enabling environments for CBRT development [79].

Furthermore, the rural communities first initiated all the observed tourism villages organically, before later establishing formal organizational structures. This provided an encouraging start for CBRT development built on strong local participation. However, further analysis showed that not all established structures were fully functional. Several communities still relied heavily on their leaders for general decision-making about tourism activities. This indicates a lack of capability among tourism organizations in some villages to facilitate independent, active community participation. Notably, the tourism villages were legally registered with their local governments, granting them an official status that must be re-evaluated every two years. Obtaining this status enabled the communities to autonomously manage their tourism initiatives, forge partnerships with external stakeholders, and receive assistance through government programs. Nonetheless, the bi-annual review process places pressure on tourism villages to demonstrate progress in CBRT development, such as with organization, partnerships, environmental conservation, cultural preservation, participation, etc. [79]. Those unable to show progress risk losing their legal standing, leading to the risk of missing partnership opportunities with external parties and financial support from the government. In addition, quick examinations of financial records revealed that most tourism villages had transparent and accountable systems for administering tourism revenue and allocating funds. This evidence of sound financial management aligns with standards for sustainable CBT.

4.2. Goals or Objectives

In the first aspect of self-reliance, the findings reveal that most of the tourism villages in Sleman Regency have the capacity to offer an array of tourism products and services across all phases of the TVC. Still, some essential products are absent in particular villages. As Hjalager et al. [31] discussed, each phase of the TVC comprises a range of tangible and intangible products tailored to fulfill tourists’ needs and enhance their overall tourism experience. However, the present analysis indicates that the availability of these products varies significantly from one tourism village to another within the same regional jurisdiction. Remarkably, the results reveal that souvenirs are missing in the highest number of observed tourism villages, followed by information, attraction, after-sales service, reservation, and activity products, in descending order (Figure 6). The absence of particular products in a given tourism village does not necessarily imply that the local community lacks the skills, resources, or infrastructure to offer such products. On the contrary, not providing specific tourism products appears to be an intentional decision aligned with the community’s values, needs, and strategic priorities. For instance, some villages may consciously opt to focus on cultural and educational attractions rather than prioritize shopping and entertainment.

Rural tourism commonly utilizes rural living experiences as the primary product to attract visitors [10]. In Sleman Regency, most tourism villages lack significant natural landscapes or cultural activities that could serve as the main attraction for visitors. As an alternative, these villages depend on portraying idyllic rural lifestyles and activities as their primary commodity and revenue generator. The observations revealed that almost all of the observed tourism villages marketed some form of staged or authentic rural living experience as the core element of their tourism offering. Furthermore, one particular tourism village lacks any highlighted attraction or rural experience as its definitive tourism commodity. With no main product, it did not require reservations and operated an on-site ticket counter for walk-in visitors. Upon entering the tourism village, visitors can explore its surroundings without a dedicated tour program. However, lacking major attractions beyond staged activities, tourism villages in Sleman Regency risk losing visitors’ interest, especially repeat visitors seeking novel experiences. Thus, the long-term goal for these villages remains to establish a unique identity by blending local cultural elements with rural activities to craft an authentic tourism experience. If successfully achieved, promoting immersive rural tourism may incentivize community-wide preservation of ecological resources, traditional knowledge, and cultural heritage.

The interviews with tourism village representatives revealed issues regarding the absence of certain tourism products. Problems were mainly found with the provision of souvenirs, information materials, and after-sales services in the observed CBRT entities. Of the surveyed villages, 18 admitted not offering souvenir products to visitors. Upon further investigation into these cases, five communities explained that the main barrier was an inability to create or decide on an appropriate item to represent their village’s identity and be marketable as souvenirs. While these five villages struggled with developing suitable souvenir products, responses gathered from representatives of other villages with existing souvenir items suggested that many types of products could potentially be developed and sold successfully with careful branding and packaging. Examples of successful souvenirs provided included locally produced food items, recycled products, T-shirts, and even fertilizers. This contrast implies that with proper awareness, education, and entrepreneurial initiative, communities can leverage their existing resources and assets to create unique souvenir items. Thus, the limitation appears to lie more in a lack of ideas, motivation, and skills rather than a lack of potential products to develop into souvenirs.

Furthermore, the absence of after-sales services was primarily attributed to a lack of awareness and consideration by the management of the tourism villages, resulting from their organic beginnings, initiated by people with practically no background in formal tourism education. After-sales services could include responding to guest inquiries or complaints after their stay, providing updates if plans change, or checking in to ensure satisfaction with the experience. However, the tourism village representatives demonstrated little familiarity with after-sales services. This knowledge gap appears to be the primary contributor to the missing after-sales component for these community tourism initiatives. Without awareness or appreciation of the importance of maintaining open communication and meeting visitor needs even after the transaction, the villages essentially “close the door” on their guests after they depart. In addition, financial limitations were a primary barrier to providing adequate information services and infrastructure to visitors. While producing brochures and websites allows visitors to understand and engage better with the CBRT destination pre-, during, and post-visit, these information channels require upfront and continuous investments that many tourism villages struggle to access or allocate from limited budgets and resources. With already stretched financial resources, CBRT managers also explained their difficulties justifying spending on non-critical information outlets that may only indirectly enhance visitors’ experiences.

Looking at these issues and attributed causes, the goals and objectives of the observed CBRT entities may be more ambitious and challenging to achieve than initially presumed. While the absence of specific attractions and activity products was mainly due to intentional prioritization decisions by the communities, the missing souvenirs, information products, and after-sales services can be attributed to other issues like lack of awareness, lack of capabilities, or lack of access to financial capital. This shows that various dependency factors, limitations, and barriers can influence the presence and breadth of tourism products at the village level. Still, there is substantial room for growth and improvement for the CBRT villages. Equipping communities with more excellent knowledge, skills, and access to funding opportunities can allow them to better capitalize on their assets and provide diverse products that meet visitor demands. Addressing the detected dependency issues and barriers will require thorough collaboration, capacity-building interventions, and access to financial resources. In other words, while the CBRT model aims for self-sufficiency, guidance, training, and seed funding remain necessary for the tourism villages. Investing in such solutions can result in the more holistic capacity of the CBRT entities to fulfill their goals and objectives.

4.3. Rights and Abilities

Regarding rights and abilities, the results of this study reveal that the respondents in the observed tourism villages stated that they generally managed the tourism villages independently, embracing a concept of complete self-reliance with no interference from external actors. However, further analysis indicates that in some respects, the tourism villages cannot totally rely only on their internal resources and capacities; they still need to build partnerships and cooperation with third parties to strengthen specific dimensions of their CBRT development. The tourism villages mostly require external support in certain TVC phases, such as promotion, transportation, and information (Figure 7). Cooperation with travel agencies, local government units, and non-government organizations proves necessary to enhance the promotional capacity of the villages. Moreover, partnerships with external transport providers form a vital component in connecting the tourism villages with the nearest regional hubs. Critically, the official recognition and legal status granted to the tourism villages by the Sleman Regency government empowered them to manage their CBRT activities. As mandated by relevant policies [65,78,79], the government monitors the tourism villages while providing developmental support. The legal standing gives them the authority and credibility to build links with potential partners while retaining control over tourism affairs in their rural communities.

Some of the observed tourism villages in Sleman Regency are organized under the Pokdarwis. As a result, the Pokdarwis committees are involved in the provision of tourism products and services in the tourism villages under their management. In one tourism village, the Pokdarwis even fully manage the promotion and activity stages in the TVC of the tourism village. This level of authority enables the Pokdarwis committee to make unilateral decisions regarding CBRT activities. In that sense, the deep involvement of Pokdarwis could hinder the rural community from having full initiative and decision-making power in CBRT development. However, there remain opportunities for community involvement. The Pokdarwis have emerged as government-recognized multi-stakeholder groups supporting rural tourism development [79]. They aim to foster tourism education and awareness, coordinate tourism stakeholders, initiate the development of tourism infrastructure, and help market rural destinations. When the Pokdarwis coordinate tourism activities in a tourism village, the rural community retains involvement through their membership in the group. In practice, Pokdarwis might also involve villagers in coordinating tourism initiatives. As such, the broader community participates by proxy through joining and engaging with the Pokdarwis. This allows them to provide input into tourism decisions, even if the Pokdarwis committees handle day-to-day management.

While Pokdarwis might be semi-exogenous actors in CBRT management, other third-party actors that could be involved in CBRT development include the government, universities, the private sector, and organizations from outside the local community. Further interviews with community members revealed crucial insights into the complexity of relationships underpinning successful CBRT initiatives. They highlighted the more considerable significance of cooperation with external third-party actors along with the increase of CBRT scales. As Yilmaz and Bititci [91] noted, the interdependencies binding together tourism stakeholders tend to multiply with the scale of CBRT operations. The largest tourism village observed in terms of land area serves as an illustrative example. This community established partnerships with various third parties to coordinate and sustain its sprawling CBRT initiatives. The predominant reason underlying these cooperative ties was the need to overcome local resource limitations. However, cooperation was more likely established for the transportation stages (in and out) of the TVC due to authority problems. Tourism villages that are commonly located far from the main roads need signage and better accessibility to help tourists reach the CBRT destinations. However, since the rural communities do not have authority over lands outside their tourism villages, they do not have the right to manage or develop the signage or access roads.

4.4. Own Resources

Regarding the third aspect of community self-reliance (owned resources or factors of production), the interviews and secondary data observations discovered several problems related to four different types of resources (capital, land, labor, and environmental). They manifested in the observed tourism villages in different TVC phases (Figure 8).

Regarding capital resources, some view the involvement of their community members in developing the tourism village as a contribution to society and an effort to preserve their cultural and traditional legacies. As a result, the financial returns generated from tourism activities remain limited in scale and insufficient to fully fund the entire spectrum of CBRT initiatives being pursued. This financial constraint forces communities to prioritize certain aspects of CBRT development over others. Based on the evidence, lower priority areas in the Sleman tourism villages occur in the promotion, transportation, and information stages of the TVC. However, the interviews also revealed opportunities for the rural communities to obtain financial support for tourism development through cooperation with external stakeholders like government agencies and private sector companies. Particularly, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives from private firms present a promising path, as these partnerships can provide adequate resources to propel community-driven development without leading to dependency. Runyowa [36] argued that clearly defined contracts and mutual benefits enable productive collaborations between rural communities and sources of external support, like CSR programs. Nonetheless, the government plays an even more vital role, as Pratt and Harrison [92] found that CSR assistance for rural areas is often restricted in scale and fails to reach the communities with the greatest needs. Thus, government support through grants, subsidies, or public–private partnerships is essential for ensuring inclusive and equitable tourism development.

In Sleman Regency, adequate land supply is essential to support certain TVC stages, including transportation (in and out), accommodation, attractions, and activities. In practice, the land is required for roads, parking facilities, hotels, restaurants, shops, cultural shows, recreational areas, and more. However, interviews and secondary data on the tourism villages in Sleman Regency reveal variability in the availability of privately owned land. While some rural communities possess expansive territories that can be leveraged for tourism development, others lack substantial land resources. Furthermore, current regulations prohibit government-funded construction on private lands. Consequently, communities with urgent needs for land supply rely heavily on local authorities to utilize public lands for tourism projects. This dependence has led to several complications. Firstly, high rental rates for public areas may financially overburden residents or deter utilization. Additionally, ambiguous contractual terms between landowners and CBRT management risk conflicts regarding development decisions, profit distribution, and maintenance duties. The absence of standardized procedures enables manipulation on either side. These uncertainties threaten to obstruct the provision of products or services or completely halt CBRT growth. Therefore, formal policies and frameworks to govern public–private land partnerships could promote tourism sustainability in the Sleman Regency. Fiscally and legally protecting villagers from arbitrary landlords would enable self-determined growth. Fostering land security empowers communities to construct a prosperous tourism economy themselves rather than depending on external authorities.

In Sleman Regency, there is an ongoing outflow of young villagers leaving their rural hometowns. This rural exodus of young people has created a shortage of labor to support CBRT development across Sleman. Young villagers possess the vitality, capacity for learning new skills, and comfort with technology that makes them well-suited for many jobs in the attraction and promotion stages of tourism development. Furthermore, young people’s familiarity with information and communication technologies (ICTs) is invaluable for promoting rural tourism through various digital marketing campaigns. However, with many young people leaving and not returning, tourism villages are left without this critical demographic group to rejuvenate local traditions or utilize new promotion techniques. This lack of human capital also creates a gap in the availability of suitably qualified personnel to lead key tourism activities. For example, tour guides require strong communication abilities, extensive cultural and geographical knowledge of the area, and customer service skills, which few villagers inherently possess. Outbound operators leading visitors on adventure trips need certification in areas like first aid, safety procedures, and equipment maintenance, which are unlikely to be found in rural communities. Even tourism staples like traditional dance troops, batik fabric producers, or woodcarving souvenir makers rely heavily on the intergenerational transfer of cultural knowledge and artisanal techniques, which has declined over time. In that sense, the tourism villages need urgent support from external partners to supply trained laborers.

In terms of environmental resources, locally available resources used in the observed tourism villages are commonly found in food and beverage (F and B) and souvenir products. Rural communities managing the tourism villages attempt to utilize local commodities and raw materials to provide authentic cuisines and souvenirs to visitors. However, the availability of these local commodities can be limited or seasonal, causing problems in maintaining sufficient supplies. For example, during the harvesting season of certain fruits, the tourism villages have an abundant fruit supply for their food and beverage offerings. However, their ability to continue providing products from the fruits during off-seasons becomes constrained due to the lack of fresh supply. Rural communities have implemented various solutions to anticipate and overcome these issues with limited or seasonal resources. Some villages build cooperatives with neighboring villages and districts to obtain supplemental resources that are locally unavailable. Additionally, when supplies of specific commodities dwindle or become price-prohibitive, the communities display ingenuity in utilizing substitute ingredients that remain locally accessible. Through cooperation and substitution, tourism villages in Sleman Regency pursue consistency in providing authentic cuisine and artisan goods to visitors. The limited and seasonal nature of specific natural resources does not entirely prevent the tourism villages from showcasing such commodities. Instead, they adapt to work around and overcome challenges related to resource availability.

5. Discussion

Responding to the first research question (RQ1), this study learned what aspects of self-reliance should be observed in CBRT. The findings related to three aspects: goals or objectives, rights and abilities, and dependency on external resources. In agreement with prior studies [15,27], tourism products and services delivered at each stage of the TVC represent an essential aspect of self-reliance to be examined. This means observing the types of tourism offerings to see if they represent authentic tourism experiences. Meanwhile, the rights and abilities in production and decision-making processes in developing and delivering CBRT products/services comprise another key aspect [15,48,50]. The legal status and operational structure are initial indicators, as community-owned and operated tourism programs with cooperative structures demonstrate self-governance capabilities. In parallel, observing the depth of community member roles across the TVW in supplying inputs, making products, adding value, distributing offerings, managing partnerships, and directing strategic decisions shows the extent of self-directed action. Additionally, the degree of dependence on externally sourced inputs, resources, materials, and infrastructure represents a further aspect of self-reliance [49,51]. Therefore, observing the sourcing of crucial inputs and uncovering challenges or barriers to accessing essential local resources helps discover self-reliance conditions.

Furthermore, the systematic combining approach is an effective abductive method to investigate self-reliance in the CBRT context, answering the second research question (RQ2). CBRT relies heavily on active community participation and leadership to develop and manage tourism sustainably [19,38,52]. Thus, understanding self-reliance requires examining the complex socioeconomic and ecological systems that rural communities are embedded within [93,94]. Fundamentally, an abductive approach can uncover complex evidence missed by linear positivist paradigms [95,96]. In practice, the systematic combining approach allows iterative cycling between theory and data to search for their resonance [54,55,56]. An abductive process enabled this study to investigate self-reliance more deeply across multidimensional TVWs, connecting diverse CBRT stakeholders, resources, activities, products, and services. This allowed holistic investigation to observe self-reliance in CBRT. Regarding limitations, the systematic combining approach required extensive time and resources to gather and analyze multiple information sources through repetitive cycles. According to Philipsen [60] and Behfar and Okhuysen [97], abductive reasoning involves interpretive leaps between evidence and theoretical explanations that can lead different observers toward alternative inferences. This study maintained continuous triangulations during the systematic combining process using complementary deductive and inductive investigations to enhance validity.

In response to the third research question (RQ3), further findings revealed crucial insights into how rural communities in Sleman Regency implement self-reliance in organizing and managing their CBRT initiatives. Analyzing the results based on the three aspects of community self-reliance in CBRT exposed several key dependency issues and barriers undermining the self-sufficiency goals. Still, the extent of these challenges varies, and opportunities exist to address them through collaboration, training, and access to financial resources. Regarding goals or objectives, which theoretically focus on the provision of tourism products (or services) [47], the availability of offerings across the TVC phases varied substantially between the CBRT villages. While most offered rural living experiences as the main attraction [98], critical products like souvenirs, information materials, and after-sales services were often absent. Interviews with community representatives attributed these gaps to a lack of ideas, skills, or financial resources rather than an inherent inability to provide such offerings. For instance, multiple CBRT villages struggled to develop suitable souvenirs despite the success of diverse products in other CBRT villages. This implies latent potential that could be unlocked through guidance, training, and initial funding support [99]. Thus, CBRT entities may require external collaboration and capacity building before achieving fully self-sufficient operations.

With respect to the rights and abilities of rural communities in CBRT, the legal standing attained by being officially recognized as tourism villages has empowered the communities to manage their CBRT affairs independently. Still, they relied considerably on partnerships with external entities, mainly the government, private sector, and NGOs [100], to strengthen certain TVC stages like promotion and transportation. Government recognition empowered the legal authority of CBRT to control its own affairs, but budget limitations necessitated cooperation in some areas with travel agencies, transport firms, and non-profit organizations. Additionally, multi-stakeholder Pokdarwis groups ran CBRT operations in some villages. While deeply involving groups like Pokdarwis risks minimizing community participation in decision-making processes, direct community involvement in the Pokdarwis allows, supporting other studies [101,102], proxy participation through membership and retains a route for villagers to provide input for CBRT development. Similar to previous studies [103,104], third-party dependencies rise as tourism entities scale up. Absolute self-management is thus unrealistic for advanced CBRT entities, confirming that a self-sufficient condition is almost impossible to achieve in the modern world [105]. With larger-scale CBRT operations, interdependencies and the need for cooperation multiply, but contracts outlining mutual benefits and community control over crucial decisions can enable self-determined development.

Then, multiple resource dependency issues were uncovered across TVC phases in the observed CBRT villages. The findings expose vulnerabilities in accessing land supply, financial capital, retaining human capital, and securing environmental resources. Regarding land supply, ambiguous land agreements risked development delays or profit conflicts, signaling a necessity for land policy protection [106]. Meanwhile, as Teare et al. [77] noted, capital limitation is a common problem for rural communities when developing their tourism industry. Financial constraints forced selective prioritization of CBRT development, hinting at a need for public–private partnerships and government assistance to fund more significant development. Additionally, studies [51,107] have suggested that rural tourism development also depends on environmental resources as an essential factor in production. In Sleman, limited and seasonal availability of certain local commodities required cooperation with neighboring suppliers or substitution flexibility to maintain consistent offerings. Finally, youth outmigration [85] created a shortage of human capital to perform key tourism roles. Thus, external training programs are vital to develop skilled workers. The outflow of rural youth mirrors Hidayat et al.’s [108] work on how rural exodus drains human capital. All those resource-related problems indicate that, while striving for self-reliance, CBRT must adapt to overcome external dependencies through cooperation, substitutions, policy changes, and access to financial and knowledge resources.

6. Conclusions

This research has discovered issues affecting community self-reliance in CBRT. Taking the case of 49 tourism villages in Sleman Regency, Indonesia, various theoretical and practical insights were provided to answer three research questions. Related to the first question (RQ1), analyzing three aspects, i.e., goals or objectives, rights and abilities, and own resources, across the TVW framework provides a robust viewpoint to observe self-reliance issues in CBRT. It builds on established CBT research while providing an innovative, structured approach aligned with the principles of sustainable (self-sufficient) rural development. Meanwhile, answering the second question (RQ2), the systematic combining approach is a robust framework for an abductive, in-depth investigation of community self-reliance in CBRT. By iteratively matching theories against evidence, this study gained insights into the complex social, economic, and political relationships, conflicting interests, and unintended impacts shaping tourism experiences within rural communities. In addition, in responding to the third research question (RQ3), the findings revealed that existing CBRT initiatives in Sleman Regency remain unable to achieve complete self-sufficiency across all self-reliance aspects. Reliance on external collaboration and support networks persists out of necessity rather than an inherent inability to self-manage. In that sense, self-reliance in CBRT should not be interpreted through an isolationist lens but rather as retained local influence over decision-making despite external partnerships.

Furthermore, the results provide empirical evidence that absolute self-reliance is likely to be unrealistic in contemporary rural tourism development. While legal recognition empowers CBRT entities with self-governance rights, scaling up operations induces complex dependencies on external entities. Practically, this research implies that rural communities require policy protections, capacity building, and collaborative partnerships to develop resilient and sustainable local tourism amidst these dependencies. Theoretically, this study challenges assumptions that self-reliant CBRT merely requires organizing existing community assets into tourism products. Instead, developing authentic, competitive offerings across the entire TVC relies on accessing supplementary resources vulnerable to external constraints. Rural communities can independently organize and make decisions but remain embedded in broader socioeconomic and ecological systems. Achieving self-determined tourism growth necessitates addressing dependencies through governance mechanisms that retain local control while allowing careful external collaboration. Accordingly, policy recommendations arise to foster self-reliant CBRT. Land use protections could prevent development delays due to ownership or tenure issues. Furthermore, governments should provide financial and training assistance to catalyze more holistic CBRT growth. Meanwhile, multi-stakeholder cooperative models balance self-governance with partnerships that fill resource gaps. Then, environmental constraints demand flexibility, such as cooperation between suppliers or substitution across seasons.

However, there were certain limitations with this research. In particular, the abductive methodology relies heavily on the observers’ interpretive reasoning between the practical evidence and theoretical explanations. Different observers could draw alternative theoretical inferences during the repetitive cycles between data and theory. Additionally, the extensive cycles demand extensive time and resources to gather and analyze the scale of information. Several promising opportunities thus emerge for further research. First, a more extensive study could cover multi-regional comparisons of self-reliance strategies across more CBRT villages in Indonesia and/or other developing countries. In practice, the research could further validate and generalize the findings of this study by applying systematic combining processes to larger samples of CBRT initiatives. Moreover, future studies could investigate self-reliance over more extended periods using longitudinal observations of CBRT entities at different maturity levels. Meanwhile, additional research could explore self-reliance in domestic tourism markets through comparisons with international tourism reliance. In addition, future inquiries could examine self-reliance in rural communities engaged in complementary rural enterprises beyond tourism. Then, an action research approach could directly support collaborative strategies to address resource dependencies impeding CBRT self-reliance. All these opportunities situate this study as a foundation for further investigations to strengthen policies and mechanisms for resilient, sustainable, and self-determined CBRT development.