Collaborative Governance in Empowering Batik Lasem Creative Economy: A Community Engagement Perspective

The main goal of this community involvement event is to examine and improve how different groups work together to support the Batik Lasem creative economy. The program is designed in a way that encourages people to take part and share their ideas. It uses structured group discussions, called Focus Group Discussions (FGD), with people from local government, universities, non-profit groups, researchers, and batik makers. This method helps everyone involved to create knowledge together, talk openly, and find common problems and chances for growth within the Batik Lasem community. The results show that working together is very important for helping different groups work well together, building trust, and getting everyone on the same page for development. The program also gives useful results like creating mentorship programs for batik makers, including cultural values in local economic plans, and making a report to send to regional leaders. It also helps people understand how government systems work, build better connections between groups, and give batik makers more skills to deal with bigger economic and policy issues. Even though there are good results, there are some challenges, like the short time of the project and the need for ongoing support to keep things moving long-term. Overall, this program shows that working together can be a good way to connect cultural preservation with economic growth in creative industries that are based on heritage. It also offers a model that can be used in similar projects in other communities.

collaborative governance, creative economy, batik Lasem, community engagement, stakeholder collaboration..

1. Akbar, A. H. N., & Makarim, S. A. (2025). Cipasung Heritage Creative Hub: Innovation In Msme Development Based On Cultural Tourism And Agrotourism In Cipasung Village, Lemahsugih, Majalengka. Jurnal Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat Multi Disiplin, 2(3), 81–88. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Ansell, C., & Torfing, J. (2021). Public governance as co-creation: A strategy for revitalizing the public sector and rejuvenating democracy. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Arcos-Pumarola, J., Paquin, A. G., & Sitges, M. H. (2023). The use of intangible heritage and creative industries as a tourism asset in the UNESCO creative cities network. Heliyon, 9(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Atmojo, C. T., Putra, S. A. A. K., & Asmawan, Y. F. A. (2026). Creative Economy Development: Government Efforts and the Use of Digital Media for MSMEs in East Java. Jurnal Ilmiah Bisnis Dan Ekonomi Asia, 20(1), 59–70. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Avoyan, E., Kaufmann, M., Lagendijk, A., & Meijerink, S. (2024). Output performance of collaborative governance: Examining collaborative conditions for achieving output performance of the Dutch flood protection program. Public Performance & Management Review, 47(2), 291–322. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Banks, S., Hart, A., Pahl, K., & Ward, P. (2018). Co-producing research: A community development approach. In Co-producing Research (pp. 1–18). Policy Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Brandsen, T., Steen, T., & Verschuere, B. (2018). Co-production and co-creation. Taylor & Francis New York. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2015). Designing and implementing cross‐sector collaborations: Needed and challenging. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 647–663. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Buelow, C. A., Andradi‐Brown, D. A., Worthington, T. A., Adame, M. F., Connolly, R. M., Lovelock, C. E., Rogers, K., Villarreal‐Rosas, J., & Brown, C. J. (2025). Projecting uncertainty in ecosystem persistence under climate change. Global Change Biology, 31(9), e70468. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Cepiku, D., Giordano, F., Bovaird, T., & Loeffler, E. (2021). New development: Managing the Covid-19 pandemic—from a hospital-centred model of care to a community co-production approach. Public Money & Management, 41(1), 77–80. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Creswell, J. W. (2021). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Cristofoli, D., Trivellato, B., Micacchi, M., & Valotti, G. (2023). Finally throwing those wellies away? Collaborating in search of a solution for Venice flooding. Environmental Management, 71(3), 587–600. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Durose, C., Richardson, L., & Perry, B. (2018). Craft metrics to value co-production. Nature Publishing Group UK London. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Duxbury, N., Bakas, F. E., Vinagre de Castro, T., & Silva, S. (2020). Creative tourism development models towards sustainable and regenerative tourism. Sustainability, 13(1), 2. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Guest, G., Namey, E. E., & Mitchell, M. L. (2013). Collecting qualitative data: A field manual for applied research. Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Homsombat, W., Wrasai, P., & Benjabutr, N. (2025). Measuring the impact of creative city attributes on regional economic development in Thailand. Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, 9(2), 357–385. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Islam, N., & Sadhukhan, S. (2025). Relationship among creative tourism development strategies, creative industries, and activities: A case study of Lucknow, India. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 36, 100988. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Kindon, S., Pain, R., & Kesby, M. (2024). Critically engaging participatory action research. In Critically engaging participatory action research (pp. 1–29). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Kooiman, J. (2002). Governing as governance. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Krogh, A. H., & Triantafillou, P. (2024). Developing New Public Governance as a public management reform model. Public Management Review, 26(10), 3040–3056. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Kusumaningrum, D. N., Prasetya, D. M., & Wibowo, N. F. S. (2024). Unveiling creative economy resilience in indonesia amidst the global pandemic: A media analysis. Innovation in the Social Sciences, 2(1), 86–118. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Liamputtong, P., & Ezzy, D. (2005). Qualitative research methods (Vol. 2). Oxford university press Melbourne. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Licsandru, T., Meliou, E., Steccolini, I., & Chang, S. (2025). Citizens’ inclusion in public services: a systematic review of the public administration literature and reflection on future research avenues. Public Administration, 103(4), 1097–1119. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Liu, T., & Kou, I. E. (2024). Determinants for the development of creative tourism: A stakeholder perspective. Heliyon, 10(13). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Martin, R., Gardiner, B., Pike, A., Sunley, P., & Tyler, P. (2021). 4. Economic shocks and the differential resilience of places. Regional Studies Policy Impact Books, 3(2), 73–85. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. McLaughlin, K., & Osborne, S. P. (2000). A one-way street or two-way traffic? Can public-private partnerships impact on the policy-making process? Routledge Advances in Management and Business Studies, 19, 324–338. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. McNall, M., Reed, C. S., Brown, R., & Allen, A. (2009). Brokering community–university engagement. Innovative Higher Education, 33(5), 317–331. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Meijer, A., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2016). Governing the smart city: a review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 392–408. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Morgan, D. L. (2018). Basic and advanced focus groups. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Nabatchi, T., & Leighninger, M. (2015). Public participation for 21st century democracy. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Naeem, M., Ozuem, W., Howell, K., & Ranfagni, S. (2023). A step-by-step process of thematic analysis to develop a conceptual model in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 16094069231205788. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Neise, T., Verfürth, P., & Franz, M. (2025). The Changing Economic Geography of Companies and Regions in Times of Risk, Uncertainty and Crisis. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. O. Nyumba, T., Wilson, K., Derrick, C. J., & Mukherjee, N. (2018). The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(1), 20–32. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. O’leary, R., & Vij, N. (2012). Collaborative public management: Where have we been and where are we going? The American Review of Public Administration, 42(5), 507–522. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Øjvind Nielsen, R., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2024). Drivers of collaborative governance for the green transition. Public Management Review, 26(12), 3715–3740. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Osborne, S. (2020). Public service logic: Creating value for public service users, citizens, and society through public service delivery. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Pain, R., Whitman, G., & Milledge, D. (2022). Participatory action research toolkit: An introduction to using PAR as an approach to learning, research and action. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Pérez-Durán, I. (2024). Twenty-five years of accountability research in public administration: Authorship, themes, methods, and future trends. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 90(3), 546–562. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Pramono, S., Azmir, A. F., Aditia, Mahdania, H., & Rahmi. (2025). Arts and culture as a national competitive advantage in Indonesia: a systematic literature review. Discover Sustainability, 6(1), 639. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Richards, G. (2020). Designing creative places: The role of creative tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 85, 102922. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Richards, G. (2021). Rethinking cultural tourism. Edward Elgar Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Saputra, R. (2024). Governance frameworks and cultural preservation in Indonesia. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 11(3), 25–50. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Strzelecka, M., Mika, M., & Durydiwka, M. (2023). When tourism meets conservation: a deep dive into residents’ attitudes towards Tatra National Park. Current Issues in Tourism. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2023.2260063 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Sumanapala, D., Timothy, D. J., & Wolf, I. D. (2024). An agenda for heritage tourism research in Sri Lanka: current knowledge and future directions. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 1(1), 1–15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Ulibarri, N., Imperial, M. T., Siddiki, S., & Henderson, H. (2023). Drivers and dynamics of collaborative governance in environmental management. Environmental Management, 71(3), 495–504. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Vangen, S., Hayes, J. P., & Cornforth, C. (2015). Governing cross-sector, inter-organizational collaborations. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1237–1260. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Vardopoulos, I., Papoui-Evangelou, M., Nosova, B., & Salvati, L. (2023). Smart ‘tourist cities’ revisited: Culture-led urban sustainability and the global real estate market. Sustainability, 15(5), 4313. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Waardenburg, M., Groenleer, M., & de Jong, J. (2025). Performance management in collaborative governance: a review of the literature and synthesis of the challenges. Public Performance & Management Review, 48(4), 735–767. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Wang, H., Zhang, B., & Qiu, H. (2022). How a hierarchical governance structure influences cultural heritage destination sustainability: A context of red tourism in China. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 50, 421–432. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Wilkinson, C., Carter, B., Satchwell, C., & Bray, L. (2022). Using methods across generations: Researcher reflections from a research project involving young people and their parents. Children’s Geographies, 20(5), 648–660. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Zainuri, Z., Yasin, M. Z., Amijaya, R. N. F., Wilantari, R. N., & Vipindrartin, S. (2025). The role of government policy on the performance of MSMEs in the creative industry: evidence from Jember Regency, East Java, Indonesia. Cogent Economics & Finance, 13(1), 2446657. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Block-Based Programming for Education: A Comprehensive Analysis of Visual Programming Environments in K-12 Learning
• Management of Academic Libraries and Client Satisfaction Towards Digital Utilization: Basis for Monitoring Library Operations in SOCCSKSARGEN Region.
• Revenue Leakages in TPA Insurance Claims and Corporate Claims: An Institutional Overview of Aster Prime Hospital, Hyderabad
• Technology and Innovation in Hospitality and Tourism: A Management Perspective
• Geospatial Distribution of Tarok Sacred Grove of Langtang North and Langtang South Local Government Areas