Description
This paper has two main aims: to provide evidence of an often overlooked dimension of
cultural conflict: tourist versus tourist conflict; to raise awareness of the dual benefits gained by
educating tourists, reducing conflict with hosts as well as with fellow tourists.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Cultural conflict: tourists versus tourists in Bali, Indonesia
Thomas J . Iverson
Article information:
To cite this document:
Thomas J . Iverson, (2010),"Cultural conflict: tourists versus tourists in Bali, Indonesia", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 4 Iss 4 pp. 299 - 310
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181011081488
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:11 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 25 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2150 times since 2010*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Marianne C. Bickle, Rich Harrill, (2010),"Avoiding cultural misconceptions during globalization of tourism", International J ournal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 4 Iss 4 pp. 283-286 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181011081460
Antónia Correia, Metin Kozak, J oão Ferradeira, (2013),"From tourist motivations to tourist satisfaction", International J ournal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 4 pp. 411-424 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-05-2012-0022
Lan-Lan Chang, Kenneth F. Backman, Yu Chih Huang, (2014),"Creative tourism: a preliminary examination of creative tourists’ motivation,
experience, perceived value and revisit intention", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp.
401-419 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-04-2014-0032
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Special section paper
Cultural con?ict: tourists versus tourists in
Bali, Indonesia
Thomas J. Iverson
Abstract
Purpose – This paper has two main aims: to provide evidence of an often overlooked dimension of
cultural con?ict: tourist versus tourist con?ict; to raise awareness of the dual bene?ts gained by
educating tourists, reducing con?ict with hosts as well as with fellow tourists.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper presents data from a series of self-administered
questionnaires, conducted with tourists in the popular resort island of Bali, over a three-year period
(1999-2001). Two additional questions asked if the tourists were offended by the behavior of other
tourists and if they found behavior of Balinese to be offensive. Content analysis of these questions
provides the base data for this study.
Findings – Tourists expressed the most concern for loud behavior, drunkenness, and lack of respect for
the local Balinese. Many were aware of the modest nature of the Balinese and recognized the
importance of appropriate dress, as well as the offensive nature of topless or nude bathing. Australians
were targeted the most as demonstrating rude behavior, mostly associated with drinking.
Research limitations/implications – While some of the facilitators were faculty, most were
undergraduate students. Students were not trained in ethnographic techniques, there was little dialog
between respondent and facilitator. Visitors to Ubud are not representative of the Balinese visitor mix, so
the results may not be generalized to that population.
Practical implications – Educating tourists regarding appropriate behavior has two effects. It improves
relations between guests and hosts while also improving relations among tourists. Tour, transport and
MICE planners might consider the positive and negative encounters within their tourism mix.
Originality/value – Since most studies focus on guest/host con?icts, the emphasis on tourist/tourist
con?ict may raise some awareness regarding this issue and stimulate interventions to minimize this
stress.
Keywords Con?ict, Tourism, Indonesia, National cultures, Social interaction, Individual behaviour
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
‘‘An area which has received scant attention in the literature is the extent to which cultural
con?icts may exist between groups of tourists themselves . . . .’’ (Robinson and Boniface,
1999, p. 17). Admittedly, the main thrust of the broader research project described in this
paper was directed towards the more common perception of touristic con?ict – that
between hosts and guests. A survey instrument was designed measure tourist awareness of
local taboos in the host community of Ubud, in central Bali. Almost as an afterthought, two
questions were added to the survey instrument. Respondents had just indicated their
awareness of 11 separate local taboos. They were then asked if they found any offensive
behaviors in their fellow tourists, and then if they (respondents) found any behavior of their
hosts, the local Balinese community, to be offensive. This paper reports results fromthe latter
DOI 10.1108/17506181011081488 VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010, pp. 299-310, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 299
Thomas J. Iverson is based
at the University of Guam,
Mangilao, Guam, USA.
Received: April 2009
Revised: June 2009
Accepted: November 2009
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
two questions, while the awareness of local taboos has been reported elsewhere (Iverson
et al., 2000; Iverson, 2008).
Undergraduate students, graduate students, and university professors participating in a
?eld school facilitated the survey administration. The interviews took place in 1999, 2000,
and 2001, mostly in the month of July, as the ?eld school was offered as a course for credit for
a variety of students, mostly from universities in the USA. Though interrupted temporarily,
due to safety concerns following the October 12, 2002 ‘‘Bali bombing’’ incident, the ?eld
school has generated a variety of inquiries from several disciplines, and continues to strive
for quality interdisciplinary research and learning experiences with local and international
participation.
The products of the ?eld school include guest lectures by prominent local and international
academics, student research projects, occasional papers, conference papers, and several
publications (Iverson and Bendesa, 2004; Stephenson et al., 2002). Interdisciplinary
projects in the areas of anthropology, sociology, primatology, economics, and tourism have
been initiated in cooperation with Balinese colleagues, from Udayana University.
Tourism-speci?c research began with an inquiry into the awareness of local taboos, in
1999, and has developed into related areas in subsequent years.
Tourist-tourist con?ict within the 1999 pilot study
The initial line of inquiry developed from concerns for properly preparing students for the
?eld school, and was later in?uenced by a review of proceedings of the conference hosted
by the University of Northumbria in 1996, entitled ‘‘Tourism and Culture: Towards the 21st
Century.’’ These papers were compiled in the text Tourism and Cultural Con?icts (Robinson
and Boniface, 1999). The research objectives of the initial study, stated informally, were:
1. To measure awareness by tourists of Balinese taboos.
2. To capture data enabling analyses by region, gender and age.
3. To measure tourists’ attitudes towards the behaviors of other tourists.
4. To over-sample Japanese respondents to facilitate analysis of that segment.
5. To measure the degree of severity of Balinese taboos from the perspective of local
residents.
Analysis of the ?rst three objectives in combination with feedback from an initial conference
paper lead to further inquiry, again stated informally, as:
B To investigate Asian/Western cultural norms related to the taboos.
B To investigate length of stay as a measure of increasing knowledge acquisition.
The paper speci?cally discusses research objective 3; however some discussion of the
results of the other investigations might inform the reader towards limitations of the current
analysis. With feedback fromBalinese colleagues, the study identi?es 11 ‘‘taboos.’’ A survey
instrument was designed to measure the tourists’ awareness of these taboos (see Appendix:
2001 Survey Instrument – Figure A1). These taboos are mostly self-explanatory, however,
consider (2) that local people often bathe in rivers and it is custom to cleanse with the left
hand (in the absence of toilet paper); ‘‘hands on hips’’ (8) is a derogatory position used in
ceremonial performances; and for 11, Pak translates as ‘‘Mr.’’ and Bu as ‘‘Mrs.’’
1. It is rude, when bargaining, to offer a price for something if you do not intend to buy.
2. Using the left hand to give or receive things, or pointing with the left hand is considered
rude.
3. Swimsuits are not acceptable attire on the street.
4. Nude bathing by tourists is illegal and impolite.
5. It is necessary to wear a sarong/waist sash to enter a temple.
6. Menstruating women and anyone with a bleeding cut are not allowed in the temples.
PAGE 300
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
7. At a temple festival, it is rude to have one’s head higher than the priest or village
headman.
8. Standing or talking with hands on hips is considered rude.
9. Touching someone’s head is inappropriate.
10. Putting your feet on the table while talking with someone is impolite.
11. It is not polite to call someone by his or her family name without the Pak (Bapak) or Bu
(Ibu) title.
Respondents had this rather comprehensive list in mind when they were then asked to
identify any offensive behaviors of their fellowtourists. In fact, a level of empathy with the host
community (described in more detail below) was often expressed as ‘‘yes, all of the above.’’
Review of the literature
Two rather separate strains of research are discussed here. One represents the
‘‘Baliologist’’ (Barker et al., 2006), and one represents the tourist-tourist dimension of the
more general model of cultural con?ict. Barker et al. (2006) note that the Bali Tourism Of?ce
surveys (circa 1997) indicated that 56 per cent of foreign tourists were interested in the
Balinese people and their culture. While this is interesting, of itself, they go on to write,
almost parenthetically:
Many foreign academics including anthropologists, ethnomusicologists, and artists have also
built their reputation by conducting research on the island. They have become known as
‘‘Baliologists’’ and have helped to shape our general understanding or misunderstanding of the
island. It could be argued that external commentators provide a privileged point of view that
shapes the ‘‘way of seeing’’ Balinese culture and provides voice to certain minority perceptions
while silencing ‘‘others’’ (Barker et al., 2006, p. 216, quotes in original, italics added).
A subtle nuance is part of this comment, by Balinese authors, that is clear and slightly
humorous to those who work regularly with Balinese colleagues. The nuance is a re?ection of
their very polite manner which nonetheless is able to address issues of tension, albeit rather
indirectly. For those unfamiliar with Bali it helps to remember that Bali is atypical in many
regards. Bali is a Hindu enclave in a predominantly Muslim nation. Bali receives frequent
citations as a destination that has been able to accommodate tourism without destroying
culture, though this view is not shared by all. In a synthesis of the Dutch, English, and French
literature regarding Bali, Picard provides a fascinating sequence of statements that
demonstrate the extremes that are still found in current studies. Excerpted, they tell a story
just in the reading, ‘‘Let us hurry while there is still time, and contemplate it closely before it
gives in to the contagion of modern Indonesia’’ (Durtain, 1956, quoted in Picard, 1996: 91).
‘‘but it seems imperative to me to sound a cry of alarm because, in reality, the gangrene is
already there, ready to devour the marvelous edi?ce of one of the purest civilizations in the
world’’ (Millau, 1974, quoted in Picard, 1996, p. 92). ‘‘Bali is losing its soul. . .And the
offending virus is called international tourism’’ (Froment, 1981, quoted in Picard, 1996, p.
91). ‘‘It is now clear that the unbelievably complex social and religious fabric of the Balinese
is at last breaking down under the tourist onslaught.’’ (Dalton, 1990, quoted in Picard, 1996,
p. 92).
These ‘‘cries of alarms,’’ when viewed over the considerable time span, might appear na? ¨ve,
as Bali is still routinely cited as an example of a society that can embrace tourism and
preserve its culture at the same time. As Margaret Mead (1977, p. 161) expresses, ‘‘..they let
what is alien ?ow over their heads.’’
More recent English-language works by indigenous researchers help to explain Bali’s
resilience through the explication of the religious framework that one must use to view the
actions of the Balinese. For example, Manuaba (1995, p. 523) notes that:
Balinese culture has shown ?exibility and adaptiveness relative to outside cultures, and this
capability must be used to reduce ‘‘cultural collisions.’’ Balinese culture has shown its capability
to incorporate foreign elements to enrich itself, without losing its own identity.
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 301
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
One of the Balinese ?eld school lecturers likes to stress the important concept of Tri Hita
Karana. This concept emphasizes the harmonious relationship between people and god,
between people and the environment, and between people and people. Also, Rwa Bhineda,
a dualistic concept which divides life into two opposing categories, such as good and bad,
sacred and profane, up and down-stream, but these always exist in equilibrium and
harmony. Taken together, these concepts provide some insight into the tolerance of the
Balinese and their reputation as gracious hosts. This is in part because, as pointed out by
Bendesa, ‘‘[. . .] the effect of tourism, whether positive or negative, has already been
anticipated’’ (Bendesa, 2001; see also Geertz, 1994; Wheatley, 1999).
Of course some indigenous writers express grave concerns. As Bagus (1993, p. 31) notes:
What is worrying is the commercialization of the aesthetic function, which tends to shift its
relevance from the life of the society. Unless great care is taken, the Balinese cosmological order
will inevitably change. The symptoms of commercialization have been visible in various forms, in
various aspects of life. The process, as already mentioned above, is not caused by tourism alone
but, rather, by a complex process involving various components of political change, the change
from agrarian to non-agrarian life and so on (see also Cohen, 1994).
Putra and Hitchcock (2006), in an application of Butler’s tourismlife cycle to the island of Bali,
point to the resiliency of the culture to shocks as severe as the ‘‘Bali bombing,’’ the threat of
SARS, bird ?u, and the second Gulf War. They argue that the resurgence in tourism following
these threats is not an accident, but the result of carefully constructed responses of village
councils, urban wards, politicians, and religious bodies (Putra and Hitchcock, 2006, p. 164).
To summarize this strain of research, one wonders if the resiliency of the Balinese culture will
surrender to globalization or simply adapt. Some preliminary evidence may be found in
National Geographic Traveler’s Delphi study rating island destinations. Earning only a
medium rating of 57 points (50-65: ‘‘In moderate trouble: all criteria medium-negative or a
mix of negatives and positives’’), the excerpted comments of the experts are quite revealing:
Bali is one of the world’s magical places. Even though it has been overrun by tourism
development and population growth, somehow it has been able to maintain its unique character,
though some parts of the island – Denpasar, Kuta Beach – are now incredibly degraded and
depressing for those of us who knew Bali in the good old days.
Yes, Kuta and Nusa Dua represent the ugly faces of crass commercialism – but if they are
developed as speci?c mass tourism enclaves and generate income, and if development in the
rest of the island is more restrained, Bali will still be worth visiting. The ?owers are still colorful, the
smiles still warm, the rice ?elds still mesmerizing, and the gamelan music still a calming, soothing
backdrop – after 30 years of rampant development.
Bali is a mixed bag of tourism projects that represent the absolute worst (Kuta) in sustainable
travel and some of the best (Ubud) (Destinations rated: Islands, 2007).
In spite of the recent terrorist events, Bali is still an excellent destination. Magni?cent rice terraced
landscapes. Gentle, warm people. The culture is strong, vivid, and vibrant. Facilities are varied,
catering to many tastes. However, beaches are not good, and the environment is under threat
from destruction of reefs and mangroves, linear development, salt water intrusion, etc.
(Destinations rated: Islands, 2007).
The work on cultural con?ict, speci?cally the tourist-tourist dimension is a second strain of
research important to this study. Most research in cultural con?ict focuses on the host-tourist
dimension. For example, Sandiford and Ap, in promoting the idea of analyzing ethnographic
case studies, argue that ‘‘Comparing different ethnographies may help isolate tourism
systems that can complement, rather than modify existing cultures, in addition to showing
how to protect hosts from guests’’ (Sandiford and Ap, 1996, p. 5, emphasis added). In
introducing the tourist-tourist dimension in her dissertation, Yagi (also in?uenced by the
Robinson and Boniface text) notes that ‘‘tourist-tourist relations simply has not received
much attention’’ (Yagi, 2003, p. 1). While her study focused on Japanese/Westerner
differences, much of the conceptual work is applicable to studies of other areas and to other
cohorts. In particular, the social identity theory of in-group out-group stereotypes and the
concept of nationality stereotyping informed the present study (Yagi, 2003, pp. 9, 55). With
the dearth of comparable studies available, Yagi formulated most of her study on the
psychological work of Hofstede (1980) and the ‘‘carrying capacity’’ research conducted by
PAGE 302
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
recreation researchers, mostly examining tourist encounters in wilderness areas or in
recreational settings. The extensive studies in this area are mostly con?ned to Americans or
recreation settings in the USA and Canada.
Baysan (2001) compares the attitudes and behavior of German, Russian, and Turkish
tourists and, while he does not investigate the tourist-tourist interaction, does ?nd limited
evidence that one ‘‘carries’’ notions such as environmental responsibility to the destination.
For example, if one is aware of the polluting aspects of oil-based suntan lotions, one is more
likely to avoid these products when traveling. Yagi (2003, p. 28) points out that this is not
necessarily the case with Japanese tourists; rather, they feel free to do ‘‘shameful’’ things
when traveling free of social pressures.
The tone of the survey instrument used in the present study was negative, i.e. it focused on
offensive behaviors. More balanced approaches, such as Yagi (2003) emphasize the
positive side of tourism encounters, such as making new friends or meeting interesting
people.
Method
An initial list of taboos was pre-tested with foreign students at Bali’s Udayana University,
resulting in a revision and some expansion of the taboos. A convenience sample of tourists
taking breaks, in transport, or spending time in Ubud’s Monkey Forest Sanctuary were asked
to complete the short two-page survey. Facilitators were primarily undergraduate students
from USA institutions who were earning credit for a ?eld school in Bali. Graduate students
and professors, adjunct to the project, both facilitated and supervised. The questionnaire
captured awareness of offensive behaviors by asking respondents to list observed offenses
by other tourists. Each respondent was given ?ve open-ended spaces to list offenses. Then
the list of eleven taboos was presented and respondents were asked if they were aware of
each taboo.
At this point in the survey, tourists were asked if they were personally offended by other
tourists, or the Balinese. These two questions were content analyzed and coded into
categories. Where speci?c mention of nationalities occurred, the researcher returned to the
database and recorded the background characteristics of the respondent.
Some of the facilitators were adjunct or primary faculty associated with the ?eld school.
Some of these were trained in ethnographic and qualitative methods and observations were
recorded. These discussions inform the current study but have been published elsewhere
and are broader in focus.
Findings
Table I shows a pro?le of the respondents. Nationality was tracked because it has been
associated with tourist behavior (e.g. Pizam and Sussmann, 1995). However, with 37
countries represented in the sample, the group was considered too diverse for this type of
analysis, and simple groups were created. The sample was not necessarily representative of
the tourismmix to Bali, in part due to language limitations of the facilitators. For example, only
one could speak Japanese. To assist in this regard, later attempts to over-sample Japanese
visitors and visitors from Taiwan were made; these results are reported elsewhere
(Stephenson et al., 2002).
The gender split was almost even, with 54 per cent of the respondents being female. Age
groups were reasonably representative of the Ubud visitor, though again, the sample is not
assumed to be representative of visitors to Bali, in general. Ubud attracts an atypical mix of
Bali tourists, more culturally oriented than those who frequent the beach areas of Kuta and
Sanur. To clarify, the typical Ubud visitor has been to Kuta, but many visitors to Bali stay in the
Kuta area for the nightlife and do not venture to the more quiet areas such as Ubud.
Comparison with recent in?ows may be made by viewing the web site of the Bali Branch of
the Indonesian Bureau of Statistics: http://regional.bps.go.id/,bali/
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 303
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
While the results of the ‘‘taboo awareness’’ study are not critical to this current report, the
summary data are provided for the interested reader, in Table II. As a reminder, many of the
tourists participating in the survey had been to the popular Monkey Forest Sanctuary in
Ubud. This helps to explain the high awareness of temple etiquette, as one must wear a sash
or sarong to enter the compound. Empirical studies which more closely examine these
results and provide some tests of signi?cant relationships to background characteristics of
the sample may be found in Iverson (2008).
Table III reports new information summarized from content analysis of responses to the
open-ended question: ‘‘Are you offended by any tourist behaviors?’’ It was not uncommon
for respondents to list several responses. For the purposes of this paper, only the ?rst
response was coded. Categories that were established using the 1999 survey data were
revised for the cumulative data due to low responses in one category.
Students and faculty who assisted the respondents were not asked to follow up or lead the
tourists in regard to this question, but they were asked to record ‘‘No’’ if that was indicated.
There were still some missing values but it would be reasonable to assume that nothing was
coming to mind in this case, so that just over half of the sample (51.1 per cent) had nothing to
Table I Pro?le of respondents
Number of cases Per cent
Region
a
Australia/New Zealand 142 27
Japan 33 6
Europe 205 39
North America 116 22
Other 31 6
Total 527 100
Gender
Male 218 46
Female 252 54
Total 470 100
Age groups
18-29 218 42
30-44 180 35
45þ 122 24
Total 520 100
Note:
a
A total of 37 nations were represented
Table II Awareness (proportion aware of the taboo) by year
Year of survey
Taboo 1999 2000 2001 AVG
When bargaining, offer a certain price and then
renege 0.55 0.63 0.78 0.68
Using the left hand to eat or exchange things 0.68 0.67 0.65 0.66
Wearing swimsuits around town 0.74 0.72 0.76 0.74
Nude bathing 0.71 0.78 0.77 0.76
Must wear sarong when visiting the temple 0.95 0.96 0.92 0.94
Entering the temple when bleeding or
menstruating 0.84 0.66 0.73 0.71
Positioning your head higher than the priest 0.49 0.40 0.45 0.44
Placing hands on hips 0.42 0.41 0.47 0.43
Touching the head 0.64 0.64 0.73 0.67
Placement of feet on table, pointing them
towards people 0.64 0.63 0.76 0.68
Not using the honori?c of Bapak (Mr) or Ibu (Mrs) 0.17 0.13 0.26 0.19
PAGE 304
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
report. One of the categories developed after the 1999 pilot study was ‘‘Disrespect’’ – which
keyed on that word but also included complaints of ‘‘loud’’ or ‘‘loutish’’ behavior.
Drunkenness was not often the ?rst-mentioned complaint, but was often included in listings
of offensive behavior. Inappropriate dress complaints ranged from nude or topless bathing
to the more subtle understanding that wearing beach wear or revealing clothing in the village
of Ubud is inappropriate. Temple etiquette was infrequently mentioned because this is
policed quite well at the entrance to major temples and sacred sites.
The ?ndings include Table IV not because the report provides de?nitive evidence of national
behavior or stereotypes but as a matter of interest regarding the in-group / out-group
distinction. Three characteristics (nationality, gender, and age) are provided to give a
selected pro?le of the respondent. As a reminder, less than 10 per cent of the respondents
speci?cally identi?ed the nationality of the offensive tourist.
Within this select sub-sample, the Australians are keen to provide in-group criticism. Of the
nine responses, at least ?ve appear to be directed towards Aussies (possibly 8, 11, possibly
15, 17, 2, 26 and possibly 27). One of the four Americans in the sample also expressed this
sentiment (10). Indeed, this feeling of embarrassment towards the behavior of fellow tourists
is a theme found in the ethnographic observations of the senior faculty who participated in
the ?eld school surveys, and will be reported in a separate paper at a later date.
Somewhat of a surprise, since the survey was conducted in the central village of Ubud, was
the response towards the sex industry in Bali. Other tourist areas within Bali, particularly
Sanur and Kuta, are usually associated with this type of activity. Some of these remarks
could be racist or directed towards milder activity (see, e.g. 4 and 15); but others are
directed towards the sex trade and pedophilia (5 and 8).
While negative stereotypes should not be reinforced with anecdotal evidence, the relatively
high incidence of complaints towards loud and drunk Australians is at least limited evidence
that tourists in Bali associate Australians with several negative images – being ‘‘pushy,’’
‘‘loud,’’ and so forth. Half of the comments were directed towards Australians.
Turning to the second study question, tourists were asked if any behavior of their Balinese
hosts was offensive. The majority of the respondents quickly answered ‘‘No,’’ and the others
generally focused on one particular area – the pushy nature of hawkers and vendors (see
Table V). Regular travelers to Bali have perhaps become accustomed to this and ?nd the
other issues (money exchange cheats, drugs, airport problems) to be more serious. Thus it
is enlightening to see the obvious frustration that these tourists, many of whom were
?rst-timers, with the constant propositioning of vendors.
Ironically, most of these vendors are not Balinese. Baker and Coulter studied beach vendors
in Bali in 2003 and found that 83 per cent of their Sanur sample were non-Balinese and 73
per cent of their Kuta sample were non-Balinese (Baker and Coulter, 2007, p. 253). Mostly
from Madura and Java, these Indonesian vendors would not be distinguishable from
Balinese to the na? ¨ve traveler.
Re?ections and discussions over the years have caused the core research group to
re-examinemany of our original assumptions. Someof us feel that theinitial efforts to‘‘protect’’
Table III Offensive tourist behaviors (as identi?ed by other tourists)
Behavior category Number Per cent
Temple etiquette/dress 8 1.5
Inappropriate dress 36 6.8
Disrespect 87 16.4
Miscellaneous 100 18.9
Bartering rudely 11 2.1
Drunkenness 17 3.2
‘‘No’’ 231 43.6
Missing 40 7.5
Total 530 100.0
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 305
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
the host community were an over-reaction, considering the strength and the resilience of the
Balinese culture. Yet that same sentiment is expressed in these open ended comments of
many participants where they stress that the people of Ubud are not like the ‘‘hawkers and
vendors’’ found in Kuta. For example, here are some of the open-ended responses:
B Vendors in Kuta but not Ubud.
B Pushy vendors, but still nice.
B Annoyed by continued offers; but really really nice.
B Hawkers, but everyone polite and no need for police.
B Get tired of saying ‘‘no thank you’’.
B I didn’t like Kuta; pushy vendors.
Table V Offensive behaviors of ‘‘Balinese’’ (as identi?ed by tourists)
Categories Number Per cent
Pushy transport 24 4.5
Pushy vendor 123 23.2
Cheated (money exchange, driver, temple) 12 2.3
Airport 6 1.1
Offered drugs 3 0.6
Miscellaneous 50 9.4
‘‘No’’ 278 52.5
Missing 34 6.4
Total 530 100.0
Table IV Offensive tourist behaviors – speci?c mention
Are you offended by any tourist behaviors?
a
No. Open-ended response – ?rst instance Nationality of respondent Gender
b
Age group
c
1 American music in restaurants Japanese M 3
2 Taiwanese cut in line Japanese M 1
3 Being ignored by German and Dutch Australian M 3
4 Interacting with beach boys Japanese F 1
5 Old people ‘‘renting’’ a young boy/girl French M 2
6 Aggressive Australian men British M 1
7 Topless at hotel (NZ) Australian F 2
8 Renting young boys Australian M 2
9 Rude and disrespectful Aussies British M 1
10 Loudness and rude (stereotypical American behavior) American F 1
11 Drunkenness (namely Australians) Australian F 1
12 Australians – knocking into people English (missing) 1
13 Chinese/Japanese loud singing at inappropriate times Scotland M 2
14 Japanese are rude/ignorant/pushy/never apologize Australian F 3
15 Women on the beach ?irting with young Balinese men Australian F 1
16 Japanese teasing monkeys Danish M 1
17 Drunkenness and rudeness (Australian) Australian F 2
18 Japanese gave monkey burning cigarette Swedish M 3
19 Australians – drunk, rude, loud German (missing) 1
20 German and Australian behavior in general Dutch (missing) 3
21 French woman very rude French F 2
22 Australians – loud Australian M 2
23 German behavior – lack of respect, snooty American M 2
24 Did not appreciate Australian lady’s behavior American F 1
25 Australians are sometimes racist British F 1
26 Loud Australians, drunk Aussies American M 1
27 Young Australians teaching some Balinese. . . . Australian F 2
28 Australians very blunt Irish F 1
Notes:
a
Speci?c nationalities mentioned: 28 of 490 responses;
b
M: Male F: Female;
c
1: 18-29 2: 30-44 3: 45+
PAGE 306
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
B Pushy – want us to buy – but I understand.
B Men were very assertive – not here in Ubud though.
And then there was the comment by the more informed tourist, ‘‘not Balinese, Javanese
though are aggressive.’’ These selected comments are shown to support a view held by
many that the Balinese hospitality, particularly over time, makes one empathetic and more
considerate of them. What is not particularly clear is why some people ‘‘get it’’ and some do
not, though it may be a matter of repeat visitation.
Conclusions
An interesting ethical issue may follow from the dilemma of discovering evidence for
stereotypes. What are the management implications of these ?ndings? If one culture
appears to be offended by another, how does one reduce this discomfort? Designated
smoking areas are now becoming the norm rather than the exception in many destinations –
evidence that some segmentation makes sense. But does it make sense to segment tourists
by their characteristics such as nationality? As Yagi notes ‘‘Other tourists become,
regardless of one’s liking or not liking it, part of one’s travel experience because they share
the facilities and attractions [. . .]’’ (Yagi, 2003, p. 52).
This study does not provide evidence for, or encourage broad national stereotypes, but it
raises interesting issues about in-group and out-group encounters. Americans and
Australians were more likely to criticize their own culture, to the point of embarrassment.
Brits, on the other hand, were more likely to ?nd fault with tourists of other nationalities.
Concern for monkeys and animals was expressed by some. But nationality does not seemto
explain the negative encounters explained by the Ubud tourists, nor does gender or age.
Instead, the explanation likely relates to the purpose of their travel. Ubud visitors, in the main,
are probably what McKercher and du Cros (2002) called the ‘‘purposeful cultural tourist’’ –
seeking what Richards describes as ‘‘authentic experiences. . .seen as encompassing high
culture, or traditional local culture, while speci?cally avoiding popular and contemporary
culture’’ (Richards, 2007, p. 4, emphasis added).
Recommendations for future research
Yagi (2003) approaches the problemof tourist-tourist relationships fromabroader framework,
addressing positive and negative encounters. Her methods, though, were based on internet
researchandsimulations, andstrictly focusedonJapanese/Westernrelationships. Inaglobal
tourism environment, more studies from an ethnographic perspective might be helpful and
with more analysis of emerging markets such as China and Russia.
While some feel that the Balinese culture is quite resilient, speci?c intervention treatment
such as airline videos, posters in the customs clearance area, or slide shows for incoming
visitors waiting in immigration clearance lines may be warranted. As Manuaba (1995, p. 528)
notes, lea?ets and television programs might also be appropriate. He viewed the
educational need as bi-directional, commenting, ‘‘The local population must be educated
about tourism in general and about tourist behaviour patterns and customs in particular. The
major issue in this regard is how to achieve this goal? Television programs and Balinese
newspapers could play a much more signi?cant role.’’
A key area that is receiving some study and generating some concern is the effect of
migration to Bali, primarily by Javanese, but also other Indonesian migrants. One can
imagine a not-so-distant future where the cultural tourist travels to Bali to ?nd that most of the
front line service workers are, in fact, not Balinese.
References
Bagus, I.G.N. (1993), ‘‘Experts study effects of universal tourism on culture’’, Travel Indonesia, January,
p. 1.
Baker, K. and Coulter, A. (2007), ‘‘Terrorismand tourism: the vulnerability of beach vendors’ livelihoods in
Bali’’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 249-66.
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 307
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Barker, T., Putra, D. and Wiranatha, A. (2006), ‘‘Authenticity and commodi?cation of Balinese dance
performances’’, in Smith, M. and Robinson, M. (Eds), Cultural Tourism in a Changing World, Channel
View Publications, Bristol, pp. 215-24.
Baysan, S. (2001), ‘‘Perceptions of the environmental impacts of tourism: a comparative study of the
attitudes of German, Russian and Turkish tourists in Kemer, Antalya’’, TourismGeographies, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 218-35.
Bendesa, I. (2001), ‘‘Sustainable development of tourism in Bali’’, paper presented to the 10th Paci?c
Science Inter-Congress, University of Guam, 31 May.
Cohen, M. (1994), ‘‘God and mammon: luxury resort triggers outcry over Bali’s future’’, Far Eastern
Economic Review, Vol. 26, pp. 28-33.
Destinations rated: Islands (2007), ‘‘Delphi survey results posted by National Geographic Traveler’’,
available at: www.nationalgeographic.com/traveler/features/islandsrated0711/islands_asia.html
(accessed 29 October 2007).
Geertz, H. (1994), Images of Power, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values, Sage,
Beverly Hills, CA.
Iverson, T.J. (2008), ‘‘Sanctioned behavior in Bali’’, International Journal of Tourism and Travel, Vol. 1
No. 1, pp. 13-22.
Iverson, T.J. and Bendesa, I.K.G. (2004), ‘‘The economic impact of German graduate students in Bali’’,
Tourism Review International, Vol. 8, pp. 153-7.
Iverson, T.J., Bendesa, I.K.G., Stephenson, R.A. and Kurashina, H. (2000), ‘‘Perceptions of cultural
con?ict: a pilot project conducted in Ubud, Bali’’, Conference Proceedings, Sixth Asia Paci?c Tourism
Association (APTA) Annual Conference, Phuket, Thailand, 28 June.
McKercher, B. and du Cros, H. (2002), Cultural Tourism: The Partnership Between Tourism and Cultural
Heritage Management, Haworth Hospitality Press, New York, NY.
Manuaba, A. (1995), ‘‘Enhancing the culture’’, in Martopo, S. and Mitchell, B. (Eds), Bali: Balancing
Environment, Economy and Culture, Department of Geography Publication Series Number 44,
University of Waterloo, Waterloo.
Mead, M. (1977) in Aschen, R.N. (Ed.), Letters from the Field, 1925-1975, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Picard, M. (1996), Bali: Cultural Tourism and Touristic Culture, Archipelago Press, Singapore.
Pizam, A. and Sussmann, S. (1995), ‘‘Does nationality affect tourist behavior?’’, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 901-17.
Putra, N.D. and Hitchcock, M. (2006), ‘‘The Bali bombs and the tourismdevelopment cycle’’, Progress in
Development Studies, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 157-66.
Richards, G. (Ed.) (2007), Cultural Tourism: Global and Local Perspectives, Haworth Hospitality Press,
New York, NY.
Robinson, M. and Boniface, P. (Eds) (1999), Tourism and Cultural Con?icts, CABI Publishing, New York,
NY.
Sandiford, P.J. and Ap, J. (1998), ‘‘The role of ethnographic techniques in tourism planning’’, Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 3-11.
Stephenson, R.A., Kurashina, H., Iverson, T.J. and Chiang, L.N. (2002), ‘‘Visitors’ perceptions of cultural
improprieties in Bali, Indonesia’’, Journal of National Park (Taipei, Taiwan), Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 156-69.
Wheatley, B. (1999), The Sacred Monkeys of Bali, Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, IL.
Yagi, C. (2003), ‘‘Tourist encounters with other tourists’’, doctoral dissertation, James Cook University,
Townsville.
Further reading
Yagi, C. (2001), ‘‘How tourists see other tourists: analysis of online travelogues’’, The Journal of Tourism
Studies, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 22-31.
PAGE 308
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Appendix: 2001 survey instrument
Figure A1
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 309
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Corresponding author
Thomas J. Iverson can be contacted at: [email protected]
Figure A1
PAGE 310
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Dale Sanders, Greg Willson, Pattanee Susomrith, Ross Dowling. 2016. Fly in to work; fly out to Bali: An exploration of
Australian fly-in-fly-out (FIFO) workers leisure travel. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 26, 36-44. [CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_300843289.pdf
This paper has two main aims: to provide evidence of an often overlooked dimension of
cultural conflict: tourist versus tourist conflict; to raise awareness of the dual benefits gained by
educating tourists, reducing conflict with hosts as well as with fellow tourists.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Cultural conflict: tourists versus tourists in Bali, Indonesia
Thomas J . Iverson
Article information:
To cite this document:
Thomas J . Iverson, (2010),"Cultural conflict: tourists versus tourists in Bali, Indonesia", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 4 Iss 4 pp. 299 - 310
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181011081488
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:11 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 25 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2150 times since 2010*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Marianne C. Bickle, Rich Harrill, (2010),"Avoiding cultural misconceptions during globalization of tourism", International J ournal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 4 Iss 4 pp. 283-286 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181011081460
Antónia Correia, Metin Kozak, J oão Ferradeira, (2013),"From tourist motivations to tourist satisfaction", International J ournal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 4 pp. 411-424 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-05-2012-0022
Lan-Lan Chang, Kenneth F. Backman, Yu Chih Huang, (2014),"Creative tourism: a preliminary examination of creative tourists’ motivation,
experience, perceived value and revisit intention", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp.
401-419 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-04-2014-0032
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Special section paper
Cultural con?ict: tourists versus tourists in
Bali, Indonesia
Thomas J. Iverson
Abstract
Purpose – This paper has two main aims: to provide evidence of an often overlooked dimension of
cultural con?ict: tourist versus tourist con?ict; to raise awareness of the dual bene?ts gained by
educating tourists, reducing con?ict with hosts as well as with fellow tourists.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper presents data from a series of self-administered
questionnaires, conducted with tourists in the popular resort island of Bali, over a three-year period
(1999-2001). Two additional questions asked if the tourists were offended by the behavior of other
tourists and if they found behavior of Balinese to be offensive. Content analysis of these questions
provides the base data for this study.
Findings – Tourists expressed the most concern for loud behavior, drunkenness, and lack of respect for
the local Balinese. Many were aware of the modest nature of the Balinese and recognized the
importance of appropriate dress, as well as the offensive nature of topless or nude bathing. Australians
were targeted the most as demonstrating rude behavior, mostly associated with drinking.
Research limitations/implications – While some of the facilitators were faculty, most were
undergraduate students. Students were not trained in ethnographic techniques, there was little dialog
between respondent and facilitator. Visitors to Ubud are not representative of the Balinese visitor mix, so
the results may not be generalized to that population.
Practical implications – Educating tourists regarding appropriate behavior has two effects. It improves
relations between guests and hosts while also improving relations among tourists. Tour, transport and
MICE planners might consider the positive and negative encounters within their tourism mix.
Originality/value – Since most studies focus on guest/host con?icts, the emphasis on tourist/tourist
con?ict may raise some awareness regarding this issue and stimulate interventions to minimize this
stress.
Keywords Con?ict, Tourism, Indonesia, National cultures, Social interaction, Individual behaviour
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
‘‘An area which has received scant attention in the literature is the extent to which cultural
con?icts may exist between groups of tourists themselves . . . .’’ (Robinson and Boniface,
1999, p. 17). Admittedly, the main thrust of the broader research project described in this
paper was directed towards the more common perception of touristic con?ict – that
between hosts and guests. A survey instrument was designed measure tourist awareness of
local taboos in the host community of Ubud, in central Bali. Almost as an afterthought, two
questions were added to the survey instrument. Respondents had just indicated their
awareness of 11 separate local taboos. They were then asked if they found any offensive
behaviors in their fellow tourists, and then if they (respondents) found any behavior of their
hosts, the local Balinese community, to be offensive. This paper reports results fromthe latter
DOI 10.1108/17506181011081488 VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010, pp. 299-310, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 299
Thomas J. Iverson is based
at the University of Guam,
Mangilao, Guam, USA.
Received: April 2009
Revised: June 2009
Accepted: November 2009
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
two questions, while the awareness of local taboos has been reported elsewhere (Iverson
et al., 2000; Iverson, 2008).
Undergraduate students, graduate students, and university professors participating in a
?eld school facilitated the survey administration. The interviews took place in 1999, 2000,
and 2001, mostly in the month of July, as the ?eld school was offered as a course for credit for
a variety of students, mostly from universities in the USA. Though interrupted temporarily,
due to safety concerns following the October 12, 2002 ‘‘Bali bombing’’ incident, the ?eld
school has generated a variety of inquiries from several disciplines, and continues to strive
for quality interdisciplinary research and learning experiences with local and international
participation.
The products of the ?eld school include guest lectures by prominent local and international
academics, student research projects, occasional papers, conference papers, and several
publications (Iverson and Bendesa, 2004; Stephenson et al., 2002). Interdisciplinary
projects in the areas of anthropology, sociology, primatology, economics, and tourism have
been initiated in cooperation with Balinese colleagues, from Udayana University.
Tourism-speci?c research began with an inquiry into the awareness of local taboos, in
1999, and has developed into related areas in subsequent years.
Tourist-tourist con?ict within the 1999 pilot study
The initial line of inquiry developed from concerns for properly preparing students for the
?eld school, and was later in?uenced by a review of proceedings of the conference hosted
by the University of Northumbria in 1996, entitled ‘‘Tourism and Culture: Towards the 21st
Century.’’ These papers were compiled in the text Tourism and Cultural Con?icts (Robinson
and Boniface, 1999). The research objectives of the initial study, stated informally, were:
1. To measure awareness by tourists of Balinese taboos.
2. To capture data enabling analyses by region, gender and age.
3. To measure tourists’ attitudes towards the behaviors of other tourists.
4. To over-sample Japanese respondents to facilitate analysis of that segment.
5. To measure the degree of severity of Balinese taboos from the perspective of local
residents.
Analysis of the ?rst three objectives in combination with feedback from an initial conference
paper lead to further inquiry, again stated informally, as:
B To investigate Asian/Western cultural norms related to the taboos.
B To investigate length of stay as a measure of increasing knowledge acquisition.
The paper speci?cally discusses research objective 3; however some discussion of the
results of the other investigations might inform the reader towards limitations of the current
analysis. With feedback fromBalinese colleagues, the study identi?es 11 ‘‘taboos.’’ A survey
instrument was designed to measure the tourists’ awareness of these taboos (see Appendix:
2001 Survey Instrument – Figure A1). These taboos are mostly self-explanatory, however,
consider (2) that local people often bathe in rivers and it is custom to cleanse with the left
hand (in the absence of toilet paper); ‘‘hands on hips’’ (8) is a derogatory position used in
ceremonial performances; and for 11, Pak translates as ‘‘Mr.’’ and Bu as ‘‘Mrs.’’
1. It is rude, when bargaining, to offer a price for something if you do not intend to buy.
2. Using the left hand to give or receive things, or pointing with the left hand is considered
rude.
3. Swimsuits are not acceptable attire on the street.
4. Nude bathing by tourists is illegal and impolite.
5. It is necessary to wear a sarong/waist sash to enter a temple.
6. Menstruating women and anyone with a bleeding cut are not allowed in the temples.
PAGE 300
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
7. At a temple festival, it is rude to have one’s head higher than the priest or village
headman.
8. Standing or talking with hands on hips is considered rude.
9. Touching someone’s head is inappropriate.
10. Putting your feet on the table while talking with someone is impolite.
11. It is not polite to call someone by his or her family name without the Pak (Bapak) or Bu
(Ibu) title.
Respondents had this rather comprehensive list in mind when they were then asked to
identify any offensive behaviors of their fellowtourists. In fact, a level of empathy with the host
community (described in more detail below) was often expressed as ‘‘yes, all of the above.’’
Review of the literature
Two rather separate strains of research are discussed here. One represents the
‘‘Baliologist’’ (Barker et al., 2006), and one represents the tourist-tourist dimension of the
more general model of cultural con?ict. Barker et al. (2006) note that the Bali Tourism Of?ce
surveys (circa 1997) indicated that 56 per cent of foreign tourists were interested in the
Balinese people and their culture. While this is interesting, of itself, they go on to write,
almost parenthetically:
Many foreign academics including anthropologists, ethnomusicologists, and artists have also
built their reputation by conducting research on the island. They have become known as
‘‘Baliologists’’ and have helped to shape our general understanding or misunderstanding of the
island. It could be argued that external commentators provide a privileged point of view that
shapes the ‘‘way of seeing’’ Balinese culture and provides voice to certain minority perceptions
while silencing ‘‘others’’ (Barker et al., 2006, p. 216, quotes in original, italics added).
A subtle nuance is part of this comment, by Balinese authors, that is clear and slightly
humorous to those who work regularly with Balinese colleagues. The nuance is a re?ection of
their very polite manner which nonetheless is able to address issues of tension, albeit rather
indirectly. For those unfamiliar with Bali it helps to remember that Bali is atypical in many
regards. Bali is a Hindu enclave in a predominantly Muslim nation. Bali receives frequent
citations as a destination that has been able to accommodate tourism without destroying
culture, though this view is not shared by all. In a synthesis of the Dutch, English, and French
literature regarding Bali, Picard provides a fascinating sequence of statements that
demonstrate the extremes that are still found in current studies. Excerpted, they tell a story
just in the reading, ‘‘Let us hurry while there is still time, and contemplate it closely before it
gives in to the contagion of modern Indonesia’’ (Durtain, 1956, quoted in Picard, 1996: 91).
‘‘but it seems imperative to me to sound a cry of alarm because, in reality, the gangrene is
already there, ready to devour the marvelous edi?ce of one of the purest civilizations in the
world’’ (Millau, 1974, quoted in Picard, 1996, p. 92). ‘‘Bali is losing its soul. . .And the
offending virus is called international tourism’’ (Froment, 1981, quoted in Picard, 1996, p.
91). ‘‘It is now clear that the unbelievably complex social and religious fabric of the Balinese
is at last breaking down under the tourist onslaught.’’ (Dalton, 1990, quoted in Picard, 1996,
p. 92).
These ‘‘cries of alarms,’’ when viewed over the considerable time span, might appear na? ¨ve,
as Bali is still routinely cited as an example of a society that can embrace tourism and
preserve its culture at the same time. As Margaret Mead (1977, p. 161) expresses, ‘‘..they let
what is alien ?ow over their heads.’’
More recent English-language works by indigenous researchers help to explain Bali’s
resilience through the explication of the religious framework that one must use to view the
actions of the Balinese. For example, Manuaba (1995, p. 523) notes that:
Balinese culture has shown ?exibility and adaptiveness relative to outside cultures, and this
capability must be used to reduce ‘‘cultural collisions.’’ Balinese culture has shown its capability
to incorporate foreign elements to enrich itself, without losing its own identity.
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 301
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
One of the Balinese ?eld school lecturers likes to stress the important concept of Tri Hita
Karana. This concept emphasizes the harmonious relationship between people and god,
between people and the environment, and between people and people. Also, Rwa Bhineda,
a dualistic concept which divides life into two opposing categories, such as good and bad,
sacred and profane, up and down-stream, but these always exist in equilibrium and
harmony. Taken together, these concepts provide some insight into the tolerance of the
Balinese and their reputation as gracious hosts. This is in part because, as pointed out by
Bendesa, ‘‘[. . .] the effect of tourism, whether positive or negative, has already been
anticipated’’ (Bendesa, 2001; see also Geertz, 1994; Wheatley, 1999).
Of course some indigenous writers express grave concerns. As Bagus (1993, p. 31) notes:
What is worrying is the commercialization of the aesthetic function, which tends to shift its
relevance from the life of the society. Unless great care is taken, the Balinese cosmological order
will inevitably change. The symptoms of commercialization have been visible in various forms, in
various aspects of life. The process, as already mentioned above, is not caused by tourism alone
but, rather, by a complex process involving various components of political change, the change
from agrarian to non-agrarian life and so on (see also Cohen, 1994).
Putra and Hitchcock (2006), in an application of Butler’s tourismlife cycle to the island of Bali,
point to the resiliency of the culture to shocks as severe as the ‘‘Bali bombing,’’ the threat of
SARS, bird ?u, and the second Gulf War. They argue that the resurgence in tourism following
these threats is not an accident, but the result of carefully constructed responses of village
councils, urban wards, politicians, and religious bodies (Putra and Hitchcock, 2006, p. 164).
To summarize this strain of research, one wonders if the resiliency of the Balinese culture will
surrender to globalization or simply adapt. Some preliminary evidence may be found in
National Geographic Traveler’s Delphi study rating island destinations. Earning only a
medium rating of 57 points (50-65: ‘‘In moderate trouble: all criteria medium-negative or a
mix of negatives and positives’’), the excerpted comments of the experts are quite revealing:
Bali is one of the world’s magical places. Even though it has been overrun by tourism
development and population growth, somehow it has been able to maintain its unique character,
though some parts of the island – Denpasar, Kuta Beach – are now incredibly degraded and
depressing for those of us who knew Bali in the good old days.
Yes, Kuta and Nusa Dua represent the ugly faces of crass commercialism – but if they are
developed as speci?c mass tourism enclaves and generate income, and if development in the
rest of the island is more restrained, Bali will still be worth visiting. The ?owers are still colorful, the
smiles still warm, the rice ?elds still mesmerizing, and the gamelan music still a calming, soothing
backdrop – after 30 years of rampant development.
Bali is a mixed bag of tourism projects that represent the absolute worst (Kuta) in sustainable
travel and some of the best (Ubud) (Destinations rated: Islands, 2007).
In spite of the recent terrorist events, Bali is still an excellent destination. Magni?cent rice terraced
landscapes. Gentle, warm people. The culture is strong, vivid, and vibrant. Facilities are varied,
catering to many tastes. However, beaches are not good, and the environment is under threat
from destruction of reefs and mangroves, linear development, salt water intrusion, etc.
(Destinations rated: Islands, 2007).
The work on cultural con?ict, speci?cally the tourist-tourist dimension is a second strain of
research important to this study. Most research in cultural con?ict focuses on the host-tourist
dimension. For example, Sandiford and Ap, in promoting the idea of analyzing ethnographic
case studies, argue that ‘‘Comparing different ethnographies may help isolate tourism
systems that can complement, rather than modify existing cultures, in addition to showing
how to protect hosts from guests’’ (Sandiford and Ap, 1996, p. 5, emphasis added). In
introducing the tourist-tourist dimension in her dissertation, Yagi (also in?uenced by the
Robinson and Boniface text) notes that ‘‘tourist-tourist relations simply has not received
much attention’’ (Yagi, 2003, p. 1). While her study focused on Japanese/Westerner
differences, much of the conceptual work is applicable to studies of other areas and to other
cohorts. In particular, the social identity theory of in-group out-group stereotypes and the
concept of nationality stereotyping informed the present study (Yagi, 2003, pp. 9, 55). With
the dearth of comparable studies available, Yagi formulated most of her study on the
psychological work of Hofstede (1980) and the ‘‘carrying capacity’’ research conducted by
PAGE 302
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
recreation researchers, mostly examining tourist encounters in wilderness areas or in
recreational settings. The extensive studies in this area are mostly con?ned to Americans or
recreation settings in the USA and Canada.
Baysan (2001) compares the attitudes and behavior of German, Russian, and Turkish
tourists and, while he does not investigate the tourist-tourist interaction, does ?nd limited
evidence that one ‘‘carries’’ notions such as environmental responsibility to the destination.
For example, if one is aware of the polluting aspects of oil-based suntan lotions, one is more
likely to avoid these products when traveling. Yagi (2003, p. 28) points out that this is not
necessarily the case with Japanese tourists; rather, they feel free to do ‘‘shameful’’ things
when traveling free of social pressures.
The tone of the survey instrument used in the present study was negative, i.e. it focused on
offensive behaviors. More balanced approaches, such as Yagi (2003) emphasize the
positive side of tourism encounters, such as making new friends or meeting interesting
people.
Method
An initial list of taboos was pre-tested with foreign students at Bali’s Udayana University,
resulting in a revision and some expansion of the taboos. A convenience sample of tourists
taking breaks, in transport, or spending time in Ubud’s Monkey Forest Sanctuary were asked
to complete the short two-page survey. Facilitators were primarily undergraduate students
from USA institutions who were earning credit for a ?eld school in Bali. Graduate students
and professors, adjunct to the project, both facilitated and supervised. The questionnaire
captured awareness of offensive behaviors by asking respondents to list observed offenses
by other tourists. Each respondent was given ?ve open-ended spaces to list offenses. Then
the list of eleven taboos was presented and respondents were asked if they were aware of
each taboo.
At this point in the survey, tourists were asked if they were personally offended by other
tourists, or the Balinese. These two questions were content analyzed and coded into
categories. Where speci?c mention of nationalities occurred, the researcher returned to the
database and recorded the background characteristics of the respondent.
Some of the facilitators were adjunct or primary faculty associated with the ?eld school.
Some of these were trained in ethnographic and qualitative methods and observations were
recorded. These discussions inform the current study but have been published elsewhere
and are broader in focus.
Findings
Table I shows a pro?le of the respondents. Nationality was tracked because it has been
associated with tourist behavior (e.g. Pizam and Sussmann, 1995). However, with 37
countries represented in the sample, the group was considered too diverse for this type of
analysis, and simple groups were created. The sample was not necessarily representative of
the tourismmix to Bali, in part due to language limitations of the facilitators. For example, only
one could speak Japanese. To assist in this regard, later attempts to over-sample Japanese
visitors and visitors from Taiwan were made; these results are reported elsewhere
(Stephenson et al., 2002).
The gender split was almost even, with 54 per cent of the respondents being female. Age
groups were reasonably representative of the Ubud visitor, though again, the sample is not
assumed to be representative of visitors to Bali, in general. Ubud attracts an atypical mix of
Bali tourists, more culturally oriented than those who frequent the beach areas of Kuta and
Sanur. To clarify, the typical Ubud visitor has been to Kuta, but many visitors to Bali stay in the
Kuta area for the nightlife and do not venture to the more quiet areas such as Ubud.
Comparison with recent in?ows may be made by viewing the web site of the Bali Branch of
the Indonesian Bureau of Statistics: http://regional.bps.go.id/,bali/
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 303
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
While the results of the ‘‘taboo awareness’’ study are not critical to this current report, the
summary data are provided for the interested reader, in Table II. As a reminder, many of the
tourists participating in the survey had been to the popular Monkey Forest Sanctuary in
Ubud. This helps to explain the high awareness of temple etiquette, as one must wear a sash
or sarong to enter the compound. Empirical studies which more closely examine these
results and provide some tests of signi?cant relationships to background characteristics of
the sample may be found in Iverson (2008).
Table III reports new information summarized from content analysis of responses to the
open-ended question: ‘‘Are you offended by any tourist behaviors?’’ It was not uncommon
for respondents to list several responses. For the purposes of this paper, only the ?rst
response was coded. Categories that were established using the 1999 survey data were
revised for the cumulative data due to low responses in one category.
Students and faculty who assisted the respondents were not asked to follow up or lead the
tourists in regard to this question, but they were asked to record ‘‘No’’ if that was indicated.
There were still some missing values but it would be reasonable to assume that nothing was
coming to mind in this case, so that just over half of the sample (51.1 per cent) had nothing to
Table I Pro?le of respondents
Number of cases Per cent
Region
a
Australia/New Zealand 142 27
Japan 33 6
Europe 205 39
North America 116 22
Other 31 6
Total 527 100
Gender
Male 218 46
Female 252 54
Total 470 100
Age groups
18-29 218 42
30-44 180 35
45þ 122 24
Total 520 100
Note:
a
A total of 37 nations were represented
Table II Awareness (proportion aware of the taboo) by year
Year of survey
Taboo 1999 2000 2001 AVG
When bargaining, offer a certain price and then
renege 0.55 0.63 0.78 0.68
Using the left hand to eat or exchange things 0.68 0.67 0.65 0.66
Wearing swimsuits around town 0.74 0.72 0.76 0.74
Nude bathing 0.71 0.78 0.77 0.76
Must wear sarong when visiting the temple 0.95 0.96 0.92 0.94
Entering the temple when bleeding or
menstruating 0.84 0.66 0.73 0.71
Positioning your head higher than the priest 0.49 0.40 0.45 0.44
Placing hands on hips 0.42 0.41 0.47 0.43
Touching the head 0.64 0.64 0.73 0.67
Placement of feet on table, pointing them
towards people 0.64 0.63 0.76 0.68
Not using the honori?c of Bapak (Mr) or Ibu (Mrs) 0.17 0.13 0.26 0.19
PAGE 304
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
report. One of the categories developed after the 1999 pilot study was ‘‘Disrespect’’ – which
keyed on that word but also included complaints of ‘‘loud’’ or ‘‘loutish’’ behavior.
Drunkenness was not often the ?rst-mentioned complaint, but was often included in listings
of offensive behavior. Inappropriate dress complaints ranged from nude or topless bathing
to the more subtle understanding that wearing beach wear or revealing clothing in the village
of Ubud is inappropriate. Temple etiquette was infrequently mentioned because this is
policed quite well at the entrance to major temples and sacred sites.
The ?ndings include Table IV not because the report provides de?nitive evidence of national
behavior or stereotypes but as a matter of interest regarding the in-group / out-group
distinction. Three characteristics (nationality, gender, and age) are provided to give a
selected pro?le of the respondent. As a reminder, less than 10 per cent of the respondents
speci?cally identi?ed the nationality of the offensive tourist.
Within this select sub-sample, the Australians are keen to provide in-group criticism. Of the
nine responses, at least ?ve appear to be directed towards Aussies (possibly 8, 11, possibly
15, 17, 2, 26 and possibly 27). One of the four Americans in the sample also expressed this
sentiment (10). Indeed, this feeling of embarrassment towards the behavior of fellow tourists
is a theme found in the ethnographic observations of the senior faculty who participated in
the ?eld school surveys, and will be reported in a separate paper at a later date.
Somewhat of a surprise, since the survey was conducted in the central village of Ubud, was
the response towards the sex industry in Bali. Other tourist areas within Bali, particularly
Sanur and Kuta, are usually associated with this type of activity. Some of these remarks
could be racist or directed towards milder activity (see, e.g. 4 and 15); but others are
directed towards the sex trade and pedophilia (5 and 8).
While negative stereotypes should not be reinforced with anecdotal evidence, the relatively
high incidence of complaints towards loud and drunk Australians is at least limited evidence
that tourists in Bali associate Australians with several negative images – being ‘‘pushy,’’
‘‘loud,’’ and so forth. Half of the comments were directed towards Australians.
Turning to the second study question, tourists were asked if any behavior of their Balinese
hosts was offensive. The majority of the respondents quickly answered ‘‘No,’’ and the others
generally focused on one particular area – the pushy nature of hawkers and vendors (see
Table V). Regular travelers to Bali have perhaps become accustomed to this and ?nd the
other issues (money exchange cheats, drugs, airport problems) to be more serious. Thus it
is enlightening to see the obvious frustration that these tourists, many of whom were
?rst-timers, with the constant propositioning of vendors.
Ironically, most of these vendors are not Balinese. Baker and Coulter studied beach vendors
in Bali in 2003 and found that 83 per cent of their Sanur sample were non-Balinese and 73
per cent of their Kuta sample were non-Balinese (Baker and Coulter, 2007, p. 253). Mostly
from Madura and Java, these Indonesian vendors would not be distinguishable from
Balinese to the na? ¨ve traveler.
Re?ections and discussions over the years have caused the core research group to
re-examinemany of our original assumptions. Someof us feel that theinitial efforts to‘‘protect’’
Table III Offensive tourist behaviors (as identi?ed by other tourists)
Behavior category Number Per cent
Temple etiquette/dress 8 1.5
Inappropriate dress 36 6.8
Disrespect 87 16.4
Miscellaneous 100 18.9
Bartering rudely 11 2.1
Drunkenness 17 3.2
‘‘No’’ 231 43.6
Missing 40 7.5
Total 530 100.0
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 305
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
the host community were an over-reaction, considering the strength and the resilience of the
Balinese culture. Yet that same sentiment is expressed in these open ended comments of
many participants where they stress that the people of Ubud are not like the ‘‘hawkers and
vendors’’ found in Kuta. For example, here are some of the open-ended responses:
B Vendors in Kuta but not Ubud.
B Pushy vendors, but still nice.
B Annoyed by continued offers; but really really nice.
B Hawkers, but everyone polite and no need for police.
B Get tired of saying ‘‘no thank you’’.
B I didn’t like Kuta; pushy vendors.
Table V Offensive behaviors of ‘‘Balinese’’ (as identi?ed by tourists)
Categories Number Per cent
Pushy transport 24 4.5
Pushy vendor 123 23.2
Cheated (money exchange, driver, temple) 12 2.3
Airport 6 1.1
Offered drugs 3 0.6
Miscellaneous 50 9.4
‘‘No’’ 278 52.5
Missing 34 6.4
Total 530 100.0
Table IV Offensive tourist behaviors – speci?c mention
Are you offended by any tourist behaviors?
a
No. Open-ended response – ?rst instance Nationality of respondent Gender
b
Age group
c
1 American music in restaurants Japanese M 3
2 Taiwanese cut in line Japanese M 1
3 Being ignored by German and Dutch Australian M 3
4 Interacting with beach boys Japanese F 1
5 Old people ‘‘renting’’ a young boy/girl French M 2
6 Aggressive Australian men British M 1
7 Topless at hotel (NZ) Australian F 2
8 Renting young boys Australian M 2
9 Rude and disrespectful Aussies British M 1
10 Loudness and rude (stereotypical American behavior) American F 1
11 Drunkenness (namely Australians) Australian F 1
12 Australians – knocking into people English (missing) 1
13 Chinese/Japanese loud singing at inappropriate times Scotland M 2
14 Japanese are rude/ignorant/pushy/never apologize Australian F 3
15 Women on the beach ?irting with young Balinese men Australian F 1
16 Japanese teasing monkeys Danish M 1
17 Drunkenness and rudeness (Australian) Australian F 2
18 Japanese gave monkey burning cigarette Swedish M 3
19 Australians – drunk, rude, loud German (missing) 1
20 German and Australian behavior in general Dutch (missing) 3
21 French woman very rude French F 2
22 Australians – loud Australian M 2
23 German behavior – lack of respect, snooty American M 2
24 Did not appreciate Australian lady’s behavior American F 1
25 Australians are sometimes racist British F 1
26 Loud Australians, drunk Aussies American M 1
27 Young Australians teaching some Balinese. . . . Australian F 2
28 Australians very blunt Irish F 1
Notes:
a
Speci?c nationalities mentioned: 28 of 490 responses;
b
M: Male F: Female;
c
1: 18-29 2: 30-44 3: 45+
PAGE 306
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
B Pushy – want us to buy – but I understand.
B Men were very assertive – not here in Ubud though.
And then there was the comment by the more informed tourist, ‘‘not Balinese, Javanese
though are aggressive.’’ These selected comments are shown to support a view held by
many that the Balinese hospitality, particularly over time, makes one empathetic and more
considerate of them. What is not particularly clear is why some people ‘‘get it’’ and some do
not, though it may be a matter of repeat visitation.
Conclusions
An interesting ethical issue may follow from the dilemma of discovering evidence for
stereotypes. What are the management implications of these ?ndings? If one culture
appears to be offended by another, how does one reduce this discomfort? Designated
smoking areas are now becoming the norm rather than the exception in many destinations –
evidence that some segmentation makes sense. But does it make sense to segment tourists
by their characteristics such as nationality? As Yagi notes ‘‘Other tourists become,
regardless of one’s liking or not liking it, part of one’s travel experience because they share
the facilities and attractions [. . .]’’ (Yagi, 2003, p. 52).
This study does not provide evidence for, or encourage broad national stereotypes, but it
raises interesting issues about in-group and out-group encounters. Americans and
Australians were more likely to criticize their own culture, to the point of embarrassment.
Brits, on the other hand, were more likely to ?nd fault with tourists of other nationalities.
Concern for monkeys and animals was expressed by some. But nationality does not seemto
explain the negative encounters explained by the Ubud tourists, nor does gender or age.
Instead, the explanation likely relates to the purpose of their travel. Ubud visitors, in the main,
are probably what McKercher and du Cros (2002) called the ‘‘purposeful cultural tourist’’ –
seeking what Richards describes as ‘‘authentic experiences. . .seen as encompassing high
culture, or traditional local culture, while speci?cally avoiding popular and contemporary
culture’’ (Richards, 2007, p. 4, emphasis added).
Recommendations for future research
Yagi (2003) approaches the problemof tourist-tourist relationships fromabroader framework,
addressing positive and negative encounters. Her methods, though, were based on internet
researchandsimulations, andstrictly focusedonJapanese/Westernrelationships. Inaglobal
tourism environment, more studies from an ethnographic perspective might be helpful and
with more analysis of emerging markets such as China and Russia.
While some feel that the Balinese culture is quite resilient, speci?c intervention treatment
such as airline videos, posters in the customs clearance area, or slide shows for incoming
visitors waiting in immigration clearance lines may be warranted. As Manuaba (1995, p. 528)
notes, lea?ets and television programs might also be appropriate. He viewed the
educational need as bi-directional, commenting, ‘‘The local population must be educated
about tourism in general and about tourist behaviour patterns and customs in particular. The
major issue in this regard is how to achieve this goal? Television programs and Balinese
newspapers could play a much more signi?cant role.’’
A key area that is receiving some study and generating some concern is the effect of
migration to Bali, primarily by Javanese, but also other Indonesian migrants. One can
imagine a not-so-distant future where the cultural tourist travels to Bali to ?nd that most of the
front line service workers are, in fact, not Balinese.
References
Bagus, I.G.N. (1993), ‘‘Experts study effects of universal tourism on culture’’, Travel Indonesia, January,
p. 1.
Baker, K. and Coulter, A. (2007), ‘‘Terrorismand tourism: the vulnerability of beach vendors’ livelihoods in
Bali’’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 249-66.
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 307
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Barker, T., Putra, D. and Wiranatha, A. (2006), ‘‘Authenticity and commodi?cation of Balinese dance
performances’’, in Smith, M. and Robinson, M. (Eds), Cultural Tourism in a Changing World, Channel
View Publications, Bristol, pp. 215-24.
Baysan, S. (2001), ‘‘Perceptions of the environmental impacts of tourism: a comparative study of the
attitudes of German, Russian and Turkish tourists in Kemer, Antalya’’, TourismGeographies, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 218-35.
Bendesa, I. (2001), ‘‘Sustainable development of tourism in Bali’’, paper presented to the 10th Paci?c
Science Inter-Congress, University of Guam, 31 May.
Cohen, M. (1994), ‘‘God and mammon: luxury resort triggers outcry over Bali’s future’’, Far Eastern
Economic Review, Vol. 26, pp. 28-33.
Destinations rated: Islands (2007), ‘‘Delphi survey results posted by National Geographic Traveler’’,
available at: www.nationalgeographic.com/traveler/features/islandsrated0711/islands_asia.html
(accessed 29 October 2007).
Geertz, H. (1994), Images of Power, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values, Sage,
Beverly Hills, CA.
Iverson, T.J. (2008), ‘‘Sanctioned behavior in Bali’’, International Journal of Tourism and Travel, Vol. 1
No. 1, pp. 13-22.
Iverson, T.J. and Bendesa, I.K.G. (2004), ‘‘The economic impact of German graduate students in Bali’’,
Tourism Review International, Vol. 8, pp. 153-7.
Iverson, T.J., Bendesa, I.K.G., Stephenson, R.A. and Kurashina, H. (2000), ‘‘Perceptions of cultural
con?ict: a pilot project conducted in Ubud, Bali’’, Conference Proceedings, Sixth Asia Paci?c Tourism
Association (APTA) Annual Conference, Phuket, Thailand, 28 June.
McKercher, B. and du Cros, H. (2002), Cultural Tourism: The Partnership Between Tourism and Cultural
Heritage Management, Haworth Hospitality Press, New York, NY.
Manuaba, A. (1995), ‘‘Enhancing the culture’’, in Martopo, S. and Mitchell, B. (Eds), Bali: Balancing
Environment, Economy and Culture, Department of Geography Publication Series Number 44,
University of Waterloo, Waterloo.
Mead, M. (1977) in Aschen, R.N. (Ed.), Letters from the Field, 1925-1975, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Picard, M. (1996), Bali: Cultural Tourism and Touristic Culture, Archipelago Press, Singapore.
Pizam, A. and Sussmann, S. (1995), ‘‘Does nationality affect tourist behavior?’’, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 901-17.
Putra, N.D. and Hitchcock, M. (2006), ‘‘The Bali bombs and the tourismdevelopment cycle’’, Progress in
Development Studies, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 157-66.
Richards, G. (Ed.) (2007), Cultural Tourism: Global and Local Perspectives, Haworth Hospitality Press,
New York, NY.
Robinson, M. and Boniface, P. (Eds) (1999), Tourism and Cultural Con?icts, CABI Publishing, New York,
NY.
Sandiford, P.J. and Ap, J. (1998), ‘‘The role of ethnographic techniques in tourism planning’’, Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 3-11.
Stephenson, R.A., Kurashina, H., Iverson, T.J. and Chiang, L.N. (2002), ‘‘Visitors’ perceptions of cultural
improprieties in Bali, Indonesia’’, Journal of National Park (Taipei, Taiwan), Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 156-69.
Wheatley, B. (1999), The Sacred Monkeys of Bali, Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, IL.
Yagi, C. (2003), ‘‘Tourist encounters with other tourists’’, doctoral dissertation, James Cook University,
Townsville.
Further reading
Yagi, C. (2001), ‘‘How tourists see other tourists: analysis of online travelogues’’, The Journal of Tourism
Studies, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 22-31.
PAGE 308
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Appendix: 2001 survey instrument
Figure A1
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 309
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Corresponding author
Thomas J. Iverson can be contacted at: [email protected]
Figure A1
PAGE 310
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Dale Sanders, Greg Willson, Pattanee Susomrith, Ross Dowling. 2016. Fly in to work; fly out to Bali: An exploration of
Australian fly-in-fly-out (FIFO) workers leisure travel. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 26, 36-44. [CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_300843289.pdf