Abstract
JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE 2021, VOL. 19, NO. 4, 427–443 https://doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2020.1797063 Affinity tourism and exotic tourism in Bali. The Chinese and Indian tourist gaze in the Garuda Wisnu Kencana Park a b a a I Nyoman Darma Putra , Bart Verheijen , I Wayan Ardika and Putu Sucita Yanthy a b Centre of Excellence in Tourism, Udayana University, Bali, Indonesia; Faculty of Humanities, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Received 17 December 2019 The island of Bali and its cultural heritage have been inseparably Accepted 10 July 2020 entwined with the global tourism industry. In recent years, outbound tourism from India and China to Bali has skyrocketed, KEYWORDS but very few studies examine this important development. This Affinity tourism; Balinese article uses the concepts of ‘affinity tourism’ and ‘exotic tourism’ identity; Chinese and Indian to discuss and analyse the contemporary relationship between tourism; exotic tourism; the large Chinese and Indian tourism influx and the different global Hindu culture historical and cultural layers that constitute the Asian tourist gaze towards Balinese cultural hotspots. In particular, the article concentrates on Bali’s newest tourist attraction, the recently unveiled Garuda Wisnu Statue in the Garuda Wisnu Kencana Cultural Park in south Bali, to examine the cultural touristic experiences for Indian and Chinese tourists visiting this site. It shows that Bali’s cultural heritage and its representations have many different historical and religious roots, and do not necessarily generate the same enthusiasm or feelings of cultural similarity and affinity for all Asian tourists. 1. Introduction In September 2018, the development of the Balinese mega project Garuda Wisnu Kencana Park (GWK Park) was completed by the unveiling of one of the largest statues in the world: the Garuda Wisnu Kencana statue. The GWK project is the newest tourist attraction in South Bali and is being promoted as a highlight of Indonesian and Balinese culture and identity. The development of the Park has had a long and complicated history. During the initial development phase in 1993 it was strongly opposed by Balinese intellectuals and religious leaders, who displayed their aversion in local newspapers such as the Bali Post (Hitchcock & Putra, 2007; Suasta & Connor, 1999; Verheijen & Putra, 2019). A few years later during the Asian financial crisis of 1997–98, the process was halted completely. The pedestal remained empty for almost two decades. Despite the various problems, the initiator of the project and artist I Nyoman Nuarta was able to continue the project and development of the statue, completing it more than thirty years after the initial plans CONTACT Bart Verheijen l.j.verheijen@gmail.com Faculty of Humanities, University of Amsterdam, Kloveniers- burgwal 48, 1000 BP Amsterdam, The Netherlands © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. 428 I. N. DARMA PUTRA ET AL. were developed. During the opening ceremony on 22 September 2018, President Joko Widodo praised the statue as a modern cultural heritage site and a masterpiece and pin- nacle of Indonesian civilisation, comparable to the Borobudur and the Prambanan temples in Central Java. The opening of the new touristic landmark coincides with a recent and important development for tourism growth for Bali: the rapid increase in the influx of Asian tourists to the island. China and India are currently the fastest growing tourism outbound markets in the world; it is estimated that in less than ten years almost a quarter of all international tourism will come from China. In Bali, Chinese tourists already account for 29% of the total foreign tourism influx (1.36 million in 2018), and Indian tourists account for over 8% (353.894 in 2018). The growth in tourism numbers from these countries has been even more spectacular. In 2017 Chinese tourism to Bali rose by 40%, and the number of Indian tourists even increased by 45%. It is expected that these numbers will continue to grow in the coming years. Meanwhile, the influx from other Asian countries to Bali has stabilised or is in (slight) decline (Figure 1). This article aims to analyse recent developments of global tourism towards Balinese cul- tural heritage, through the lens of the biggest Asian tourism markets: India and China. It uses the GWK Park as a case study for this development. We chose this touristic location Figure 1. Number of visitors arriving directly to Bali from Asian countries, as compared to other con- tinents 2014–2018 [data from: Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi Bali/ Statistic Body of Bali Province, 2019]. Retrieved October 22, 2019, from https://bali.bps.go.id/statictable/2018/02/09/27/jumlah-wisatawan- mancanegara-yang-datang-langsung-ke-bali-menurut-kebangsaan-2014-2018.html. JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE 429 because the GWK Park and Garuda-Wisnu statue embody all the important antagonisms of Bali’s touristic developments over the last few years: those between Balinese religion and national heritage culture, and those between global tourism demand versus the national- ist intentions of cultural tourism (Verheijen & Putra, 2019). To an important extent the Park forms the newest highpoint of an attempt to present the Balinese-Hindu-Indonesian iden- tity to the outside world. At the same time, the ambiguous identity of the Park – it was the location for the international commemoration of the Bali bombings, and hosted multiple music festivals as well as the IMF and World Bank annual meeting in October 2018 – rep- resents the current multi-layered composition of contemporary Balinese cultural identity. Questions on the dynamics between Balinese culture and the ever-growing tourism influx are not new. Bali has long offered tourists a cultural experience and the government has relied on the concept of ‘cultural tourism’ to manage the tourism flow (Picard, 1996; Vickers, 2012). Despite predictions of ‘over-tourism’ and ‘disneyfication’– which would demolish Balinese ‘authentic’ culture – Bali has shown itself to be a versatile and dynamic brand (Hobart, 2011, p. 10). While confronted with the drawbacks of globalisa- tion, economic crisis and terrorist attacks in the past decennia, it succeeded in integrating demands from the global tourism industry, at the same time maintaining an ‘image’ of its own unique Hindu cultural identity. However, what is new today is the swift transform- ation in the composition of the tourism influx. Since many developments in Bali are intrin- sically linked to the tourism industry, the change in tourism influx will undoubtedly affect the way it can present itself to the world, while trying to maintain a degree of cultural auth- enticity in its own unique culture and religion (Vickers, 2012, p. 308). This article offers a qualitative description and analysis of the recent Asian tourism boom in Bali, by using two concepts from the field of cultural tourism studies: ‘affinity tourism’ and ‘exotic tourism’. Both concepts have been used in an antagonistic way describing the ‘pull’ of western tourists to Bali as the centre of cultural ‘otherness’ (Picard, 1996; Thirumaran, 2009; Vickers, 2012) and, on the other hand, the traction of fam- iliarity and proximity in Asian culture in Bali (Thirumaran, 2009, pp. 127–28). In the next paragraph this article will problematise the application and scope of these concepts for the future of tourism studies in Bali. In the following two paragraphs we will present both a historical and conceptual analysis of developments in Chinese and Indian influ- ences in Bali, as well as a short description of the results of fifty qualitative interviews with both Chinese and Indian tourists visiting the GWK Park between May and October 2019. By interviewing these Asian tourists, and contextualising the touristic gaze in the GWK Park, this research focuses primarily on the cultural connection between the tourists’ experience and the Balinese culture presented here. The analysis will contribute to under- standing the different ways Chinese and Indian tourists can relate to the cultural experi- ences offered in the Park and will provide us with more insight on the shared cultural experience of the Asian tourist market towards Bali’s newest cultural heritage site. By giving voice to the touristic experience it also asks how the narrative of ‘Balinese culture’– which is based on ‘affinity’ rather than an ‘exotic’ experience – is presented. Which different manifestations of affinity can be found in the Asian touristic experience? In the conclusion we will show that the asserted dichotomy between exotic and affinity tourism is not as strong as presumed, and that the historically multi-layered and culturally diverse Balinese heritage does not generate the same feelings of cultural connection for all Asian tourists. 430 I. N. DARMA PUTRA ET AL. Just as Asian mass tourism is a recent phenomenon, so is its academic tradition. The Asian tourism conference in 2006 in Singapore (‘Of Asian origin: Rethinking tourism in con- temporary Asia’) can be regarded as a first moment when Asian tourism was studied in a broader academic setting. Over the last decade more studies have been conducted on Asian tourism, touristic preferences and the Asian ‘tourist gaze’, although intra-regional Asian tourism remains relatively understudied until this day (Cochrane, 2008; Khoo-Latti- more & Mura, 2016; Nguyen & Cheung, 2016; Winter, Teo, & Chang, 2009). The publication of the recent volume ‘Asian Qualitative Research in Tourism. Ontologies, Epistemologies, Methodologies, and Methods’ in 2018, shows that Asian tourism is growing into a more fully developed field in tourism studies (Mura & Khoo-Lattimore, 2018, pp. 1–23). This article associates itself with this new emerging tradition in Asian qualitative tourism research by trying to incorporate Balinese cultural tourism into this field. Academic studies are often preceded and accompanied by popular articles and collec- tive prejudices in social media. Most notably, there is a growing concern voiced in local and social media that the scale of tourism growth in Asia today is unprecedented and will bring new social, economic and cultural problems. This discourse is especially strong regarding Chinese tourists in Bali, which are expected to bring about (profound) social and cultural changes to the island. For the negative impact on Chinese tourists on Bali the term ‘zero-dollar tourism’ has been coined. This term has found broad resona- tion in social and conventional media and has already been copied by policy makers. Indian tourists have also fallen victim to massive stereotyping on social media in Bali after an Indian family had been caught stealing hotel items (Coconuts Bali, 29 July, 2019; Shamani, 2019). It is vital to go beyond these oversimplified and generalising opinions on the new Asian tourism influx, especially since no real in-depth qualitative study on the Chinese and Indian tourist gaze, encounters, preferences or interactions in Bali has been carried out (Ginaya, Made, & Wayan, 2019; Pratama, Mananda, & Sudiarta, 2016; Rosyidi, 2018). Moving away from westernised interpretations of the ‘tourist gaze’, as famously coined by John Urry in 1990 as a set of expectations that tourists project on heritage sites in search for authentic cultural experiences, we want to shift our focus to the ‘Asian affinity gaze’ that we define as: a tourist experience wherein tourists are attracted to affinity in culture and share these experiences with their hosts. This Asian gaze in Bali will alter the way Bali presents itself to the world as a touristic destination, but at the same time will prove that Asian touristic preferences can be as many layered and plural as the preferences of the ‘western tourists’. 2. ‘Cultural tourism’, ‘exotic tourism’ and ‘affinity tourism’: three concepts for understanding contemporary tourism in Bali Bali has since long been known as a global tourist destination. The number of foreign tour- ists that visit the island every year increased to more than five million in 2018. The shaping of a Balinese tourism industry and culture originated from the Dutch colonial period but has taken on a new dynamic in a globalised world (Hitchcock & Putra, 2007; Picard, 1996; Schulte Nordholt, 2007; Vickers, 2012; Yamashita, 1998). It has been convincingly argued that externally constructed images of Bali’s unique Hindu religion, as well as the identity of the Balinese people, have always had a great influence on the Balinese self-image (Vickers, 2012; Warren, 1993). JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE 431 Scholars have studied the relation between tourism and Balinese cultural identity in great detail. In their studies on the dynamics between Balinese culture and the tourism industry, Michel Picard and Adrian Vickers have analysed the use of the concept of cultural tourism. Cultural tourism is a form of tourism that weakens the antagonism between Bali- nese ‘authentic culture’ on the one hand and the devastating force of the global tourist industry on the other. According to Picard and Vickers, Balinese culture has remained strong and dynamic over the years mainly because of tourism. Because Balinese culture could be turned into a product for mass-tourism, it could consequently be shaped by policy makers and national state policy’s trying to control the tourism influx to the island. Bali became a ‘brand’ (Hobart, 2011). By doing so, the Balinese culture became inex- tricably bound up with the tourism industry and was shaped by its dynamics. With the exponential rise in the number of tourists over the last decades, this relation has become increasingly relevant. However, it is not unproblematic. Today, the tourism industry contributes to seventy per cent of the island’s economy (Antara & Sri Sumarniasih, 2017). Meanwhile, the number of people working in agricultural employment dropped to under thirty per cent. Therefore, the island’s most important commodity is its ‘paradise aesthetic’ and unique culture (Bendesa & Aksari, 2017). This reliance on the global tourism industry has created significant benefits for the island, including an impressive reduction of the overall poverty rate, but also created a range of social-economic, environmental and cultural problems (Lewis & Lewis, 2009; Pickel-Che- valier, Violier, Parantika, & Sartika, 2017; Rindrasih, Witte, Spit, & Zoomers, 2019). From the 1990s onwards there have been constant worries about cultural dilution and landscape transformation among the locals, especially in villages nearby tourist attractions, in relation to capital-intensive tourism development (Chong, 2020). This development accel- erated as part of a planned national programme. In the final decade of Suharto’s rule (1990–1998) a massive growth and investment programme was rolled out to attract inter- national tourism to the island (Picard, 2008). During these years’ developers showed little interest in preserving the island’s environment, hereby harming local interests that were not included in the decisions on the development of the territory (Pickel-Chevalier et al., 2017a). Consequently, economic interests and planning dictated how Balinese cul- tural heritage was shaped and offered to tourists (Lewis & Lewis, 2009). The GWK statue and park are a prime example of such a mega project being developed and implemented under Suharto’s rule, in which Balinese cultural identity was shaped by economic strategic interests. Joop Ave – who can be considered as the driving force behind the statue, as the Indonesian Director General of Tourism and Communications and later Minister of Tourism under Suharto, – strongly believed that Bali was in need of larger culture-based tourist attractions. In his vision the GWK Park would function as a tribute to Balinese culture (in the form of a Hindu deity), while growing into a new symbol of Indonesian pride and sim- ultaneously affirm Bali as a centre of economic touristic growth. These qualities were repeated during the inauguration speech of the statue of President Joko Widodo, on Sep- tember 22, 2018. The GWK Park is currently the most obvious form of a recent cultural commodification on the island, serving the tourism economy while at the same time pre- serving and promoting cultural practices and Balinese identity (Verheijen & Putra, 2019). Other examples of Balinese culture that have been adapted to fit the asserted tourist gaze are cultural performances like the Kecak, Kris and Legong dance, Hindu iconography, 432 I. N. DARMA PUTRA ET AL. and even some religious ceremonies. All have been modified to some degree, and then offered as a tourist attraction or sold as cultural commodity (Lewis & Lewis, 2009). Similar examples of top-down mega projects primarily driven by economic motives like the GWK Park are the Bali Nirwana Resort and the Bali Turtle Island Development (BTID) reclamation, and both projects also incited furious opposition by Balinese locals (Hitchcock & Putra, 2007). The island’s global tourism industry sustains a problematic dynamic with local interests as shown by the current debates on the Benoa Bay reclamation, the UNESCO World Heritage status of the Subak and the plans for a second airport in the north of the island. The plans are framed to serve the growing culture-based tourism con- sumerism economy but contribute to the marginalisation of local farmers and their land- scapes and traditional livelihoods (Wardana, 2019, 2020). These debates are constantly confronting the Balinese with questions about their own economic and cultural identity. Today, Balinese cultural identity is a notoriously difficult concept to define, because it adapts and crystallizes into different forms through local, national and global develop- ments. Bali’s hybrid culture today is a mishmash of a global modern society, maintaining invented ‘authentic’ images on its tradition, Hindu-religion and past. It is shaped by local and state policies on cultural tourism agendas and is constantly being confronted with global tourism that brings westernised images of Bali-ness into its culture. New to this mis- hmash is the Asian tourism gaze that will add another layer to Balinese culture. Over the last few years, and under the influence of the phenomenon of global tourism, new concepts have been coined to describe the relationship between Balinese identity and the changing tourism influx. For this research the concept of ‘affinity tourism’,as opposed to ‘exotic tourism’, is especially useful, because it shows that the pull of tourism towards cultural heritage may be based on similarities (Pryce & Pryce, 2018). As the Singapore based researcher Thirumaran explains in the article ‘Renewing bonds in an age of Asian travel, Indian tourists in Bali’ (2009), Asian tourists are drawn towards a shared heritage in religion, cultural exchange and geographical proximity. He shows that the tourism pull towards Balinese touristic sites does not necessarily have to be based on ‘exotic’ differences but may also be grounded in similarities. While this new host–guest dynamic is especially true for Indian tourists – Thirumaran convincingly illus- trates how this is grounded in a clear preconception of a shared cultural Indian/Hindu heri- tage – we assert that these arguments may also be applied to Chinese tourists. In their study, Thi Hong Hai Nguyen and Catherine Cheung underpin these assertions by showing the high demand for heritage site experiences among Chinese tourists when choosing a tourist destination (Nguyen & Cheung, 2016). Initiatives of establishing touristic affinity that already have been developed in South-East Asia include for example the veg- etarian food festival in Krabi, South Thailand, where a Chinese shrine street procession is merged with Thai religious prayer at the Krabi City Pillar Shrine. The successful festival hosts an amalgamation of religious symbolism showing the successful integrating of different Asian cultural practices in an attempt to attract more tourists (Cohen, 2012). Recent examples of similar initiatives for Bali that have been developed by the tourism industry to appeal to Chinese tourists and their cultural values include the popular Baling- kang Kintamani Festival, which is celebrated every year during Chinese New Year and is specifically aimed at attracting Chinese tourists. Both India and China have maintained a long historical relationship with Indonesia and Bali, and these links form the foundation for new tourism exchanges. Just as the colonial image constructed by the Dutch coloniser JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE 433 has strongly influenced the perception of Bali as an exotic ‘Island of the Gods’– which remains a dominant image in the western tourist gaze – images based on affinity can now help to analyse the tourism influx from Asian countries (Hobart, 2011, p. 8; Vickers, 2012, p. 17). We will discuss the Chinese and Indian experience in the GWK Park succes- sively over the next two paragraphs. 3. Chinese tourists in Bali: a new relationship? The number of Chinese tourists visiting Bali has skyrocketed in the last decade. In 2014, the Chinese outbound market already made up the biggest number of foreign arrivals to Bali (585.922 tourists). An unprecedented growth followed in the years 2015 (688.469), 2016 (975.152) and 2017 (1.356.412). Contributing to this growth has been the indisputable rise of the Chinese middle class in the last decade, and the enabling and promotion (initiated by the Chinese government using a ‘Approved Destination Status system’)of Bali as a tourist destination in China (Li & Ryan, 2015, pp. 1313–1331; Rosyidi, 2018, p. 145). This was accompanied by new flexibility in visa procedures in 2015, allowing for Chinese tourists to easily acquire free tourist visas upon arrival. The Indonesian govern- ment also promotes this development: it aims to attract twenty million tourists to Indone- sia in 2019 and China is one of the most important markets to realise this target. Therefore, the Ministry of Tourism of Indonesia has deliberately targeted the Chinese tourist market in online campaigns. This idea is not farfetched: Chinese tourists are known to primarily travel to other destination in (South-East) Asia. A recent study indicated that eight out of the top ten countries visited by Chinese tourists are Asian countries, including Japan, Thailand, Hong Kong, and Macau (Smith, 2018). The United States of America and Italy sup- plemented the list as the only non-Asian countries. Chinese tourist visits already exert a significant impact over the tourist economy on the island. Recent events such as the dip in Chinese economic growth, the on-going US–China trade war, and the weakening Yuan have together negatively affected Bali’s tourist infrastructure. Bali accounts for around 60% of all Chinese visits to Indonesia, making it the absolute favourite destination (Rosyidi, 2018). Only one other destination in the Indonesian archi- pelago can compete with Bali: Manado in Sulawesi. Since the start of direct flights from China to Manado, combined with an extensive promotion campaign in China, the number of its visitors has increased by 263% over 2015 and 2016. Despite this ‘compe- tition’, it is fair to say that Bali has established itself as a preferred destination for Chinese outbound tourism to Indonesia, because of its proximity, beaches, cultural attrac- tions and attractive prices (Suryawardani & Wiranatha, 2014). The influential and largest online Chinese travel agency Trip.com (formerly named CTrip) has named Bali multiple times as the ‘Best island destination’ and ‘Best overseas tourist location’, contributing to the popularity of Bali in China (Hendriyani, 2017). The website is selling multiple Bali culture packages with names as ‘Best of Bali Culture’ and ‘Bali Culture and tradition Tour’. The website also offers pre-booked admission tickets to the GWK Park. Drawing on recent research by Rosyidi, we can produce further statistic information on Chinese tourists in Bali; 72,7% of the Chinese tourists are between the age of 25 and 44. Chinese tourists choose to travel in groups in organised trips, booked through (Chinese) travel agents. Bali is a cheaper destination for Chinese tourists than other destinations in the region, including Thailand (Hendriyani, 2017). The spending power of Chinese 434 I. N. DARMA PUTRA ET AL. tourist is relatively low, compared to visitors from other countries or continents. Because of the prearranged tours and cheap packages, the term Chinese ‘zero dollar tourism’ has been used to describe the Chinese tourist package deals. However, Hendriyana concludes in his research that Chinese tourists spend more and more time in middle – and upper- class hotels in Nusa Dua in the southern part of the island, suggesting the development of a financially more diverse Chinese tourist market. That being said, Chinese tourists are known for their preferences for Chinese speaking hotel staff and Chinese language guides, non-cash payment facilities such as UnionPay or WeChat payment (a payment plat- form in China), and TV channels airing Chinese events (Rosyidi, 2018, pp. 148–150). These numbers are supported by the information we collected during our qualitative interviews in the GWK Park. Around 90% of the Chinese tourists we interviewed travelled in groups, organised through a travel agent. Their age ranged between 20 and 55 years old, and most tourists stayed for five days to a week. Most admitted that they were primarily attracted to Bali for its scenery, including its beaches and volcanoes, which are well known in China as being ranked among the most beautiful in the world. The Indonesian State and tourism industry is employing their familiar approach of cul- tural tourism to accommodate Chinese tourists to the island. However, it seems that a coherent narrative on Balinese cultural heritage that fits Chinese touristic expectations on Balinese culture has not yet reached its full potential. There are several historical elements that can fit this narrative of cultural familiarity. Significant cultural exchange between Bali and China started in the twelfth century, as a result of the legendary marriage between Kang Cing Wi and the Balinese King Jayapangus. Many Balinese traditions are believed to be the result of this marriage, including the performance of Barong Landung and the practice of using Chinese coins in Balinese offerings (Gottowik, 2010; Stuart- Fox, 2002). The marriage between king Jayapangus and Kang Cing Wi is featured in a touristic performance called ‘The Legend of Balinese Goddesses’, performed regularly in the Bali Safari (theme) Park (Suardana, Putra, & Atmaja, 2018). The Chinese New Year is the most popular time for Chinese tourist to visit Bali. New Year festivities (held in January – February) are celebrated in multiple places on the island. Chinese temples can be found in Singaraja (Ling Gwan Kiong), in Kuta (Vihara Dharmayana) and in Tanjung Benoa Caow Eng Bio. Historically, Indonesia has a large ethnic Chinese minority that has often suffered persecution at times of political unrest. During the political turmoil that accompanied the fall of the Suharto regime in 1998, more ethnic Chinese sought refuge in Bali (Vickers, 2012, p. 300). Bali also has a long history of other Chinese ethnic minority groups residing on the island, who have started to become more vocal over the last few years in reclaiming their own distinct identity (Putra, unpublished). There is a fast-growing field of literature on Chinese touristic preferences, motivations and satisfactions. A large analytical study featuring data on Chinese touristic expectations in Bali is much needed, since the tourism influx, especially the number of Chinese tourists coming to Bali that now exceeds millions, is influencing the culture and identity of the island. In his work from 2006, China’s outbound Tourism, Wolfgang Arlt states that China’s outbound tourism is entering ‘its third phase’. He means that Chinese outbound tourism is developing characteristics of a full-grown business, in which demands of (indi- vidual) Chinese tourists are creating new dynamics in which the Chinese government plays a less significant role. In other words: they are behaving like global tourists. The market and personal preferences of Chinese tourists are determining tourist behaviour, JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE 435 and not so much the Chinese state. As a consequence, Chinese tourism has become more diversified (Arlt, 2006, pp. 220–225). We expected this diversification in tourism prefer- ences to be reflected in the interviews we held in the GWK Park. During the interviews, almost all Chinese tourists mentioned the statue as the absolute highlight of the location. However, it was hard for most of them to connect this to a broader representation of cultural tourism in the GWK Park. Nearly all those interviewed acknowledge that the Statue had no meaning for them, as they considered Balinese or Indonesian identity very remote from Chinese. For example, as 25 years old Ms. Li Xue Na from Hefei City, Anhui Province explains: ‘I don’t understand, especially that [Kecak] performance, is a little bit strange (…) The introduction is written in English, so I can’t understand’. Other tourists shared this opinion; they found it hard to directly relate to the cultural performance in the Park due to the lack of explanations. This had an effect on the cultural experience in the park as a whole. Another interviewed, Mr. Yin Ting Shan (51, from Huai Nan City, Anhui Province), could not relate to the specific cultural heri- tage in the Park. Ms. Hong Yuting (24, Jiangxi Province), even called the Park ‘boring’, explaining that: ‘Maybe this park has its own culture or meaning but as a foreigner I can’t understand it. I think it represents Indonesia or its history.’ Most Chinese tourists are primarily attracted to the GWK Park because of the physical size of the Garuda-Wisnu statue. However, the size of the statue alone does not incite much cultural enthusiasm, nor does the cultural performance of the Kecak dance held in the Park. The interviewed Chinese tourists almost all admitted they felt no relation to the cultural heritage presented. When asked about the cultural meaning of the statue, many answered they didn’t know, and the Park did not give them a clear idea. Some ela- borated that the Park did resemble a form of personal peace and balance. However, most interviewed considered the Park and statue as a Balinese symbol, that could carry no meaning beyond its intrinsic ‘bali-ness’. Most notably: only two of the interviewed Chinese tourists recognised the Garuda as a symbol of Indonesia. And only two tourists connected the statue to Hindu religion. There was minimal reflection in the interviews con- cerning the Balinese identity in regard to the Indonesian identity, for example the relation between Islam and Hindu religion or the manifestation of the Hindu Deity. We conclude this based on the fact that none of the interviewed problematised or categorised different levels in identity or cultural heritage in Bali, Hindu or Indonesian nation-ess. In short: the Balinese identity, the religious symbol of the statue and the Indonesian identity were perceived as alien and unfamiliar, by all Chinese tourists. This however is still different than an ‘exotic,’ viewpoint, meaning the way that most western tourists would perceive it and fitting their ‘paradisiacal’ ideas about Bali. We should consider these answers in a broader light of expectations and demands of Chinese tourists. Especially since Thi Hong Hai Nguyen and Catherine Cheung agued in their recent study that cultural tourism and authenticity is important for Chinese tourists. Heritage sites should reflect an authentic idea, related to the country’s historical identity and be at the same time a representation of culture. In their words: ‘Authentic heritage experiences is believed to be an adaption or integration into the modern life and a way of communication between the past and the present.’ These cultural-pull factors on Chinese tourists are also motivated by knowledge pursuit. Cultural tourism is primarily grounded in being able to learn about different cultures. A study on tourism behaviour in Thailand argued that historical and religious sites and cultural festivals and events, 436 I. N. DARMA PUTRA ET AL. are the second and third most important motivation – after natural beauty and beaches – to visit tourist sites in Thailand (Amonhaemanon & Amornhaymanon, 2015). Other recent surveys underline the cultural and religious interests and preferences of Chinese tourists for Bali (Rosyidi, 2018; Suryawardani & Wiranatha, 2014). Based on our limited group of interviewees, we can carefully assert that tourist’s satis- faction was not high. This has little to do with the size of the statue and the beauty of the attraction, because these were the most positive elements mentioned. It relates to the appeal of the cultural heritage presented in the Park. It was not tangible. From the per- spective of the Chinese tourists the GWK did not serve its original purpose to be a monu- ment for Indonesian civilisation, and/or a representation of Balinese and Indonesian culture. We believe that this somewhat unexpected result has to do with Bali being a rela- tively new destination for the Chinese tourists. Externally shaped images can influence the touristic experience, but for this to happen they must exist. It seems that the represen- tation of Bali for many Chinese tourists does not go beyond ‘natural beauty and Balinese beaches’. The ‘Balinese culture’, we may carefully conclude, has not been fully problema- tised in Chinese tourism discourses on Bali. When interviewed, a Chinese travel agent confirmed that the Chinese tourists experience in the GWK Park would gain from more information on the Park’s identity and the heritage shown. Another argument is that the Chinese tourists we interviewed did not travel independently to the GWK Park. It has already been argued that young, independent Chinese tourists, and also more experi- enced Chinese tourists, have a different and a more ‘mindful’ cultural agenda when visiting tourism spots. Their cultural experience might connect with the GWK statue on a different cultural level and integrate this experience into a more general Asian affinity gaze towards cultural familiarity and heritage (Arlt, 2006; Du Cros & Jingya, 2013). Cultural heritage tourism remains a complicated puzzle to solve from a Chinese per- spective. Unless a different representation of Balinese culture can be constructed in the GWK Park that fits the Chinese tourism expectations, it seems that the Chinese gaze does not align with the general concept of Asian affinity tourism. Therefore, we conclude that cultural tourism in its current form is of secondary importance to Chinese tourists, and that only cultural initiatives in which a close link to China is amplified, like the popular cel- ebration of Chinese New Year in Bali, are of interest to Chinese tourists seeking cultural enrichment. However, as Bali is frequented more and more by Chinese tourists in the years to come, the different cultural manifestations might crystallise into a diversified ‘invented’ image of Bali that can better align with the cultural preferences of this group. 4. Indian tourists and cultural Hindu affinity in the GWK Park India is the second Asian country that has launched itself onto the global tourism market in the last decade. Statistics from the Indian Tourism Bureau show that the number of Indian outbound tourists increased from 16.6 million in 2013 to 23.9 million in 2017. The average increase over the last five years was almost 10%. Like the Chinese, Indian tourists mostly travel to other Asian countries. The Indian outbound market shows an enormous increase of tourist numbers to Bali in the last five years. In 2014, the number of Indian tourists was still relatively small (88.049). Numbers increased rapidly in the years 2015 (119.304), 2016 (180.770), 2017 (264.516) to a total of 353.894 tourists in 2018. The huge population and economic growth of India has clearly contributed to the increase in the number of JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE 437 outbound tourists, including those who choose Bali as their holiday destination. Pickyour- trail, a popular Indian online booking agency, names Bali as one of the best ‘value-for- money’ options for Indian tourists. Other reasons to pick Bali as a holiday destination according to the website are the easy visa procedure, the family friendliness and that fact that it is relatively close. Additional information of Indian touristic preferences in Bali are scarce, but based on our thirty-five interviews we can say that 70% of the Indian tourists travelled with family, without using a pre-booked ‘Bali tour’ package through a travel agency. Others did book a packaged tour to visit other islands and high- lights in Indonesia as well. Their ages were between 18 and 65 and they would stay for five days up to two weeks. The most obvious cultural connection between India and Bali lies in their adherence to the Hindu religion. Both Balinese and Indians believe that their Hindu tradition comes from the same religious source. Trade relations between Bali and India go back to two thousand years ago (Ardika & Bellwood, 1991). The transfer of Hindu religious practices to Bali took shape in the first century AD. In addition to the arrival of Hindu teachings, cultural contacts between Bali and India are also present in other cultural phenomena. For example, the two epic Indian tales of Mahabharata and Ramayana were adopted into Balinese culture after the twelfth century. However, the Balinese Hindu tradition is not solely based on connec- tions with India. The Dutch historian Henk Schulte Nordholt shows in his book ‘The making of traditional Bali’ (1994) how Balinese culture primarily understood itself as a continuation of the Hinduistic Majapahit-empire that was located in Java in the fourteenth century. This idea is still strong in contemporary reflections on Balinese identity. We can even argue that the statue in the GWK Park represents this interpretation of Balinese culture: it is a perso- nification of the Indonesian nation in symbolic form and establishes continuity with the national past, which is connected to a Hindu tradition that continues to shape Balinese identity (Verheijen & Putra, 2019). These cultural constructions fulfil an important role in societies, and historians consider them to be an example of what Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger have described as ‘the invention of tradition’ (Hobsbawm & Ranger, 1983). The Hindu identity is a significant part of the Balinese self-image. Different forms of Hin- duism have a longstanding presence on the island. Some Balinese define Balinese Hindu- ism as a distinct form, separated from other currents in Indonesia Hinduism (Vickers, 2012, p. 301). Modern initiatives to purify Hindu religion in Bali go back to the 1920s and India has often been at the centre of renewal initiatives of Balinese religious identity (Picard, 2017). This identity was strengthened in the 1950s after independence, in which the Bali- nese were looking for a new understanding of their origins. It culminated in the Angkatan Muda Hindu Dharma, but the initiative soon feel prey to politicisation. However, the main goal of the religious renewal persisted: how to turn Balinese religion into a rational rep- resentation of Balinese identity, connecting its roots to a pure Indian form of Hinduism, that – and this is very important – was able to compete with the monotheistic strength of Islam and Christianity. The initiatives of the reformists were fruitful, and Hinduism gained its status in the Indonesian archipelago as a religion with international standing. These initiatives made Hinduism in Indonesia connect itself with Balinese identity, while at the same time canonising and nationalising it, and even globalising it as part of a larger Hindu culture (Picard, 2011a). Picard has shown that since the fall of Suharto also a new religious landscape emerged, in which attempts have been made to re-Balinese reli- gion, thereby removing it from an Indonesian and global Hindu context. He calls this the 438 I. N. DARMA PUTRA ET AL. re-localisation of Hindu religion (Picard, 2011b, 2011c). Simultaneously, we witness the emergence of other Hindu religious movements, especially that of ‘Sai Baba’ and Hare Krishna Hinduism, that are attracting attention in Bali and providing other references of identity (Howe, 2005, pp. 101–109). In short: new religious practices and modern, dynamic adaptations of religious teachings are integrated and show that many different forms of ‘Hinduism’ co-exist on the island today. The Indian online booking website Tripoto acknowledges this fusion of Hindu traditions and describes the Balinese Hindu temples and culture as a reflection of ‘an exquisite amalgamation of Hindu religion and Indonesian traditions’. It is important to note that there are multiple different forms of Hin- duism present that constitute Balinese culture and that this broad tradition of Hinduism provides multiple possibilities in which India and Bali religiously connect. According to Thirumaran this is a two-way interaction. He states: ‘religion offers a medium through which the Balinese and Indian visitors culturally interface’ (…) ‘Indian tourists connect with the Balinese to discuss their religion’. At the same time Balinese elites, officials and ordinary people are aware of ‘India’s religious and philosophical contribution to their reli- gion’. This religious connection ‘is an indication of the interest of the visitor as much as the host’ (Thirumaran, 2009, pp. 130–136). Feelings of a shared Hindu connection were indeed very explicit in many of the inter- views conducted with Indian tourists in the GWK Park. Most Indian tourists related to the Balinese culture that is presented in the GWK Park and connected this to the represen- tation of Hindu culture embodied by the Garuda-Wisnu statue. This culture, many asserted, is mostly similar to the Indian culture: a relation that was explained by the Hindu identity being a prominent part of the Indian culture. As Ms. Ayusipanjali, an 18 years old student, explained: ‘The stories that constitute our religion in India are the same as here.’ When asked about the cultural symbolism of the Park, Indian tourists immediately mentioned the Hindu culture as a distinct reason to visit Bali. Bali is seen as the ‘little brother’ of India. Mr. Shat (39 years, from Delhi) said: ‘Bali is the essence of Hindu culture, and that is very much appreciated by the Indian people’. Ms. Priyanka (35 years from Mumbai) even asserted that Bali demonstrates a pure form of Hindu culture, which ‘has been so well preserved’. Because of their proudness of Hindu culture, Indian tourists think the Park can provide a good introduction to Hinduism for many different tourists. One inter- viewee even mentioned having the same spiritual experience provided by Hindu temples in India. However, when asked about the religious value of the Park, most Indian tourists were able to clearly distinguish between Balinese and Indian Hindu religion. In the words of one tourist: ‘there is a clear difference between a Hindu culture and [Balinese] Hindu reli- gion’. Mr. Asraad (45 years, Delhi) explained: ‘we look at the statue as a deity. However, since it is made for a tourist thing it is different’. Therefore, the Park can never become a place of Hindu worshipping. Feelings of affinity are concentrated in the shared ‘religious culture’, not in the religion itself. Remarkably enough this criticism was also voiced by the Balinese opposition two decennia ago when the plans for the enormous statue were rolled out. The consensus was that the Garuda-Wisnu statue could carry some cultural value. However, none of the Balinese believed that it would turn into a place of worship (Verhei- jen & Putra, 2019). Nevertheless, there is a place in the GWK Park with a shrine and holy water where visitors can pray and pay their respects to the Hindu Gods. And last year – on April 28, 2019 – a big religious celebration and mediation event for World Peace was JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE 439 held in the GWK Park, including four Indian priests, showing the different utilizations of this heritage site. When analysed from the perspective of affinity tourism we can say that the statue and Park serve as a cultural attraction that establishes cultural connections in which Indian visi- tors are motivated to share and celebrate a similar cultural Hindu heritage with their hosts. In these cultural connections the visitors provide the resources as well, given how they shape the meaning that the heritage site presents. This exchange also developed into the opposite direction. From the mid 1980s onwards, there have been package tours for Balinese tourists aiming to experience a spiritual journey (‘Tirta Yatra’) to India. These tours include a visit to the river Ganges and other important places of the origin of the Hindu religion. This package is still on demand now in Bali and aligns with a tourist urge to feel part of a Hindu identity (Vickers, 2012, p. 301). Balinese might even visit Hindu heritage places outside of India (the Hindu Batu Caves Temple and the Balathandayuthapani Temple in Malaysia). It says something about a global Hindu culture, where different representations can be found across South-East Asia but are grounded in a shared cultural identity. The pivotal point of this Hindu culture is found in India but has successfully disseminated around Asia. This fact is clearly acknowledged in the interviews. However, the interview results point at a more nuanced idea of the concept of affinity tourism for Bali when discussing the Indian tourism gaze. Shared reli- gious heritage and culture is clearly distinguished from religious pilgrimage. The location provides neither a place for worship, nor is the Garuda-Wisnu statue a holy idol. 5. Conclusion: affinity tourism and exotic tourism The impact of the recent Asian tourism boom should be integrated into research on Bali in order to understand how it will affect Bali’s tourism industry and relate to its unique cul- tural heritage. This article has used the case study of the recently unveiled Garuda-Wisnu Statue to describe the cultural experiences of Chinese and Indian tourists in Bali. To struc- ture this qualitative analysis, it has used the concepts of ‘exotic tourism’, ‘affinity tourism’, and asserted that there exists a particular connection for Chinese and Indian tourists to Indonesia, and Bali in particular. This means that the historical, geographical and cultural proximity between Bali and China, and Bali and India should be taken into account when analysing cultural tourism. For the western view of Bali, this analysis has already been made in extenso. According to this frame the Balinese culture is a reinterpretation and invention of a culture that was partly created by the Dutch colonisation. This relation has been transformed under the influence of the global tourist industry that linked Bali- nese culture and touristic preferences into an inseparable dynamic and consequently determines Balinese identity, while it has largely maintained an image of Bali as an ‘exotic paradise’. Under the influence of the Asian tourism influx, this image is likely to undergo new changes in the foreseeable future. Just as the development and construction of the GWK Park was initially driven by economic state interests concerning Balinese tourism under the Suharto regime, the formation of future cultural tourist projects is likely to integrate new demands from new tourists, and adding yet another skin to the already multifaced Balinese identity. This development is already underway considering the initiatives primarily directed towards Chinese tourists and economic strategies to host this new influx on the island. 440 I. N. DARMA PUTRA ET AL. This article confined itself to the cultural touristic experiences of Indian and Chinese tourists in the GWK Park and described the different historical and cultural layers of a new Asian tourism affinity gaze. Based on the interviews we can conclude the following: (i) the Garuda-Wisnu statue is considered a landmark of Bali’s tourist industry for almost all visitors in the Park; (ii) the cultural value of the statue as a symbol of Balinese culture is strongly connected to affinity tourism. However, not all Asian tourists feel affinity with Bali- nese culture; (iii) for Asian tourists that feel affinity with Balinese culture, the Park functions as a representation of Hindu culture, but not as a religious landmark. This means the statue can grow into a symbol of the broader Hindu touristic culture. But it does not serve this role as part of a Balinese form of Hindu religion; and (iv) Chinese tourists see the Park and statue primarily as a remote representation of culture. This means a form of culture that they are not familiar with, and that is experienced from a more unfamiliar, ‘othering’ viewpoint. This is yet different than an ‘exotic’ viewpoint, in which Balinese culture does have a clear meaning, namely as a unique mysterious representation of paradise. As this article has shown, national, cultural and religious preferences should be taken into account when analysing touristic behaviour, especially since tourism has become such an important cultural, political and economic tool in the twenty-first century. However, the difference between Chinese and Indian tourists, when analysed though the case study of the GWK Park, seems greater than expected. This leads us to the con- clusion that the term ‘Asian tourism’ is misleading when relating it to Balinese culture and the concept of affinity tourism is complicated and multi-layered. The affinity among Indian tourists was present to a relative great degree, but not for Chinese tour- ists. There is no such thing as ‘Asian tourism’ in regard to ‘western tourism’. This dichot- omy is a false one. By analysing the GWK Park using concepts of affinity tourism and exotic tourism, we have established that there was no similarity between the experi- ences of the Chinese tourists and the Indian tourists in the Park. Differences should be found among different age groups, and the cultural preferences of tourists, and not be measured along ethnic lines. The world of international tourism is already far too global for that. Acknowledgement This article is based on a research project funded by the 2019 Udayana University PNPB scheme with contract number 838–21 / UN14.4.A / LT / 2019. We express our thanks to the Chancellor of Udayana University Prof. A A. Raka Sudewi, head of the Research and Community Service Institute, Prof. Rai Maya, and head of the Centre of Excellence of Tourism, University of Udayana. Dr. A A. Suryawan Wiranatha for their financial and administrative support. The author(s) received no external financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Notes on contributors I Nyoman Darma Putra teaches Indonesian literature and culture at the Faculty of Arts, Udayana Uni- versity (Bali), and is an adjunct professor in the School of Language and Cultures, the University of JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE 441 Queensland. He is the author of A literary mirror: Balinese reflections on modernity and identity in the twentieth century (KITLV/Brill, 2011) and with Michael Hitchcock he published Tourism Development and Terrorism in Bali (2007). From 2014–2018 he was the head of the Masters programme in Tourism Studies, University of Udayana. He is a researcher at the Centre of Excellence of Tourism, University of Udayana. Bart Verheijen completed his PhD on national identity and nationalism during the Napoleonic era, at the Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen (2017). He teaches at the Open Universiteit in the Netherlands and at Hasanuddin University in Makassar, Sulawesi and works as a postdoctoral researcher on Dutch colonial history at the University of Amsterdam. His research interests include political history of the long nineteenth century, colonial citizenship and cultural identity. I Wayan Ardika is a professor in Archaeology, at Udayana University, Bali. He is the former dean of the Faculty of Arts at Udayana University. His research interest is on heritage tourism. He wrote several articles on cultural and heritage tourism in Bali. He is also studying the relationship between the Bali- nese and Chinese community in Bali. Putu Sucita Yanthy is a lecturer in Tourism Studies at the Faculty of Tourism, Udayana University. She completed her Doctorate programme in tourism in 2016 at Udayana University, resulting in a disser- tation entitled Kontribusi Perempuan Dalam Mengangkat Kuliner Lokal Untuk Mendukung Pariwisata Bali (Women’s Contribution in Promoting Local Food to Support Tourism in Bali). Her publications include Exploring the Tourism Culinary Experiences: An Investigation of Tourist Satisfaction in Ubud (2018). Since 2019 she works at the research postdoctoral programme ‘Tourism Education and Women in Bali’ at University of Angers, France. References Amonhaemanon, D., & Amornhaymanon, L. (2015). Mainland Chinese tourist behavior and motiv- ations: Evidence from two destinations in southern Thailand. International Thai Tourism Journal, 11(1), 18–36. Antara, M., & Sri Sumarniasih, M. (2017). Role of tourism in economy of Bali and Indonesia. Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Management, 5(2), 34–44. Ardika, I. W., & Bellwood, P. (1991). Sembiran: The beginnings of Indian contact with Bali. Antiquity, 65, 221–232. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00079679 Arlt, W. (2006). China’s outbound tourism. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203968161 Bendesa, I. K. G., & Aksari, N. M. A. (2017). From agricultural to tourism hegemony: A deep socio-econ- omic structural transformation. In S. Pickel-Chevalier (Ed.), Tourism in Bali and the challenge of sus- tainable development (pp. 76–102). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Chong, K. L. (2020). The side effects of mass tourism: The voices of Bali Islanders. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 25(2), 157–169. Cochrane, J. (2008). Asian tourism: Growth and change. Advances in tourism research. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Coconuts Bali. (2019, July 29). Family of Indian tourists caught stealing hotel accessories from Bali villa. Retrieved September 19, 2019, from https://coconuts.co/bali/news/family-of-indian- tourists-caught-stealing-hotel-accessories-from-bali-villa-video/ Cohen, E. (2012). The vegetarian festival and the city pillar: The appropriation of a Chinese religious custom for a cult of the Thai civic religion. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 10(1), 1–21. Du Cros, H., & Jingya, L. (2013). Chinese youth tourists views on local culture. Tourism Planning & Development, 10(2), 187–204. doi:10.1080/21568316.2013.783732 Ginaya, G., Made, R., & Wayan, W. A. N. (2019). Zero dollar tourist: Analisis Kritis Diskursus Segmen Pasar wisatawan Tiongkok dalam Pariwisata Bali. Jurnal Kajian Bali (Journal of Bali Studies), 9(1), 141–164. doi:10.24843/JKB.2019.v09.i01.p07 Gottowik, V. (2010). Transnational, translocal, transcultural: Some remarks on the relations between Hindu-Balinese and ethnic Chinese in Bali. Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 25(2), 178–212. 442 I. N. DARMA PUTRA ET AL. Hendriyani, I. G. A. D. (2017). Chinese tourists perception on service quality in hotel at Nusa Dua Tourism Resort in Bali. Conference: Asia Pasific Council on Hotel Restaurant and Institutional Education 2017. Hitchcock, M., & Putra, I. N. D. (2007). Tourism, development and terrorism in Bali. London: Ashgate. Hobart, M. (2011). Bali is a brand: A critical approach. JURNAL KAJIAN BALI, 01,1–26. Hobsbawm, E., & Ranger, T. (1983). The invention of tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Howe, L. (2005). The changing world of Bali: Religion, society and tourism. London: Routledge. Khoo-Lattimore, C., & Mura, P. (2016). Asian genders in tourism. Bristol: Channel View Publications. Lewis, J., & Lewis, B. (2009). Bali’s silent crisis. Desire, tragedy and transition. Plymouth: Lexington Books. Li, F., & Ryan, C. (2015). Chinese tourists’ motivations and satisfaction of visiting North Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 20(12), 1313–1331. doi:10.1080/10941665.2014.978343 Mura, P., & Khoo-Lattimore, C. (2018). Locating Asian research and Selves in qualitative tourism research. In P. Mura, & C. Khoo-Lattimore (Eds.), Asian qualitative research in tourism. Ontologies, epistemologies, methodologies, and methods (pp. 1–29). Singapore: Springer. Nguyen, T. H. H., & Cheung, C. (2016). Chinese heritage tourists to heritage sites – what are the effects of heritage motivation and perceived authenticity on satisfaction? Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 21(11), 1155–1168. doi:10.1080/10941665.2015.1125377 Picard, M. (1996). Bali: Cultural tourism and touristic culture. Singapore: Archipelago Press. Picard, M. (2008). Balinese identity as tourist attraction: From `cultural tourism’ (pariwisata budaya) to `Bali erect’ (ajeg Bali). Tourist Studies, 8(2), 155–173. Picard, M. (2011a). Balinese religion in search of recognition: From Agama Hindu Bali to Agama Hindu (1945-1965). Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, 167(4), 482–510. Picard, M. (2011b). From Agama Hindu Bali to Agama Hindu and back. Toward a relocalization of the Balinese religion? In M. Picard, & R. Madinier (Eds.), The politics of religion in Indonesia. Syncretism, orthodoxy, and religious contention in Java and Bali (pp. 117–141). London: Routledge. Picard, M. (2011c). What’s in a name? An enquiry about the interpretation of Agama Hindu as “Hinduism”. Jurnal Kajian Bali (Journal of Bali Studies), 2(2), 13–140. Picard, M. (2017). From Agama Hindu Bali to Agama Hindu: Two styles of argumentation. Jurnal Kajian Bali (Journal of Bali Studies), 7(2), 199–228. Pickel-Chevalier, S., Violier, P., Parantika, A., & Sartika, N. P. (2017). The globalization of tourism in Bali: A shared destination for diversified practices and representations. In S. Pickel-Chevalier (Ed.), Tourism in Bali and the challenge of sustainable development (pp. 40–75). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Pratama, A. C., Mananda, S., & Sudiarta, N. (2016). Karakteristik, motivasi dan aktivitas wisatawan Asia di Kelurahan Ubud. Jurnal IPTA, 4(1), 43–48. Pryce, J., & Pryce, H. (2018). Utilising collaborative autoethnography in exploring affinity tourism: Insights from experiences in the field at gardens by the bay. In P. Mura, & C. Khoo-Lattimore (Eds.), Asian qualitative research in tourism. Ontologies, epistemologies, methodologies, and methods (pp. 205–220). Singapore: Springer. Putra, I. N. D. Hakka Bali’s winter camp: Promoting ‘one belt one road’ through cultural exchange (unpublished research paper). Rindrasih, E., Witte, P. A., Spit, T. J. M., & Zoomers, E. B. (2019). Tourism and disasters: Impact of dis- aster events on tourism development in Indonesia 1998–2016 and structural approach policy responses. Journal of Service Science and Management, 12,93–115. Rosyidi, M. I. (2018). The characteristics of Chinese tourists in Indonesia and its performance in 2013 −2017. Binus Business Review, 9(2), 145–152. doi:10.21512/bbr.v9i2.4240 Schulte Nordholt, H. (2007). Bali. An open fortress 1995-2005. Regional autonomy, electoral democracy and entrenched identities. Leiden: KITLV Press. Shamani, J. (2019, August 1). Question of the Day: Are Indians the World’s Worst Tourists. Vice. Retrieved October 22, 2019, from https://www.vice.com/en_in/article/paj77b/are-indians-the- worlds-worst-tourists-travellers JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE 443 Smith, O. (2018, April 11). The unstoppable rise of the Chinese traveller – where are they going and what does it mean for overtourism? The Telegraph. Retrieved September 10, 2019, from https:// www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/comment/rise-of-the-chinese-tourist/ Stuart- Fox, D. (2002). Pura Besakih: Temple, religion and society in Bali. KITLV: Leiden. Suardana, G., Putra, I. N. D., & Atmaja, N. B. (2018). “The legend of Balinese Goddesses”: Komodifikasi Seni Pertunjukan Hibrid dalam Pariwisata Bali. Jurnal Kajian Bali, 08(01), 35–52. doi:10.24843/JKB. 2018.v08.i01.p03 Suasta, P., & Connor, L. (1999). Democratic mobilization and political authoritarianism. In R. Rubinstein, & L. Connor (Eds.), Staying local in the global village: Bali in the twentieth century (pp. 91–122). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Suryawardani, I. G. A. O., & Wiranatha, A. S. (2014). Chinese tourists: Emerging tourism market for Bali. Proceedings of the 5th International Tourism Studies Association Conference: Tourism, Cities and the Environment in the Asian Century, 26th-28th November 2014, Perth Australia. Thirumaran, K. (2009). Renewing bonds in an age of Asian travel, Indian tourists in Bali. In T. Winter, P. Teo, & T. C. Chang (Eds.), Asia on tour exploring the rise of Asian tourism (pp. 127–137). London: Routledge. Urry, J. (1990). The tourist gaze: Leisure and travel in contemporary societies. London: SAGE. Verheijen, B., & Putra, I. N. D. (2019). Balinese cultural identity and global tourism: The Garuda Wisnu Kencana cultural Park. Asian Ethnicity,1–18. doi:10.1080/14631369.2019.1641691 Vickers, A. (2012). Bali: A paradise created (2nd ed.). Singapore: Tuttle. Wardana, A. (2019). Contemporary Bali. Contested space and governance. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Wardana, A. (2020). Neoliberalizing cultural landscapes: Bali’s agrarian heritage. Critical Asian Studies. doi:10.1080/14672715.2020.1714459 Warren, C. (1993). Adat and Dinas. Balinese communities in the Indonesian state. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Winter, T., Teo, P., & Chang, T. C. (2009). Asia on tour: Exploring the rise of Asian tourism. Abington and New York: Routledge. Yamashita, S. (1998). Bali and beyond: Explorations in the anthropology of tourism. Tokyo; Eng. Translation, 2nd print, New York; Oxford 2004.
Journal
Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change
– Taylor & Francis
Published: Jul 4, 2021
Keywords: Affinity tourism; Balinese identity; Chinese and Indian tourism; exotic tourism; global Hindu culture
