Abstract :

The Sultan Suriansyah Tomb Complex is a well-known religious tourist attraction and cultural heritage site in the city of Banjarmasin, rich in the historical significance of the Banjar Sultanate. However, the mausoleum faces a crisis stemming from a conflict over management between the descendants of the sultan and the local community. Therefore, this study aims to analyze stakeholder involvement in its management. This study employs a descriptive qualitative approach, with data collected through observation, literature review, and in-depth interviews with key informants. The data was then analyzed using NVivo 12 for Windows to identify the typology of the stakeholders. The results indicate that the government level falls under the “definitive stakeholder” typology, the descendants’ group and the local community fall under the “dormant stakeholder” typology, and the City’s Cultural Heritage Expert Team (TACB) falls under the “discretionary stakeholder” typology. However, although the government level holds the highest typology, it cannot make final decisions, so management appears to proceed independently without collaboration among actors. In fact, the City Cultural Heritage Expert Team (TACB) is not involved in making final decisions regarding the management of the Sultan Suriansyah Tomb Complex. Thus, management conflicts do not arise from the absence of stakeholders, but rather from an unbalanced distribution of power, legitimacy, and urgency.

---

Keywords :

Cultural Heritage, heritage tourism, religious tourism, Stakeholder, Sultan Suriansyah Tomb Complex

---

References :

1. Levi and S. Kocher, “Perception of Sacredness at Heritage Religious Sites,” Environ. Behav., vol. 45, no. 7, pp. 912–930, Oct. 2013, doi: 10.1177/0013916512445803.
2. Lourenço-Gomes, L. M. C. Pinto, and J. F. Rebelo, “Visitors’ preferences for preserving the attributes of a world heritage site,” J. Cult. Herit., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 64–67, Jan. 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.culher.2013.01.003.
3. Rabotić, “Tourist guides as cultural heritage interpreters: Belgrade experience with municipality-sponsored guided walks for local residents,” presented at the International Tourism Conference: Cultural and Event Tourism Issues & Debates, 2008, pp. 213–233.
4. Firsty and I. A. Suryasih, “Strategi Pengembangan Candi Muaro Jambi Sebagai Wisata Religi,” J. Destin. Pariwisata, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 36, 2019.
5. Islamiyah and H. Holis, “Potensi Wisata Religi Syaikhona Kholil Bangkalan Pada Pengembangan Umkm,” SIWAYANG J. Publ. Ilm. Bid. Pariwisata Kebud. Dan Antropol., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 29–38, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.54443/siwayang.v2i1.498.
6. Griffin and R. Raj, “The Importance of Religious Tourism and Pilgrimage: reflecting on definitions, motives and data,” Int. J. Relig. Tour. Pilgr., vol. 53, 2018, doi: 10.21427/D7242Z.
7. F. Febrianti and L. H. Handoko, “The Economic Impact of Religious Tourism in Indonesia: A Systematic Literature Review (SLR),” J. Magister Ekon. Syariah, vol. 4, no. 1 Juni, 2025.
8. Rofiati and N. Rahmini, “Dampak Objek Wisata Religi Makam Sultan Suriansyah Terhadap Pelaku Usaha Sekitar kawasan Kajian Aspek Ekonomi dan Pendidikan,” JIEP J. Ilmu Ekon. Dan Pembang., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 24–37, 2025.
9. P. Febriani, I. W. Srijaya, and Zuraidah, “Pola Keletakkan Masjid di Kalimantan Bagian Selatan,” HUMANIS J. Arts Humanit., vol. 27, no. 2, Mei 2023.
10. Suartina, “Dimensi Hukum dan Cagar Budaya,” Kritis, vol. Edisi Khusus, pp. 26–48, 2022.
11. -P. Lin, “The salience of stakeholders in religious tourism: A case study of the Dajia Mazu pilgrimage,” Ann. Tour. Res., vol. 86, p. 103091, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2020.103091.
12. R. Basyar, A. Mardiyanta, and E. Setijaningrum, “Multi-Stakeholder Analysis in Building Tourism Resilience: Collaborative Governance Implementation in the Majapahit House Heritage Area, Indonesia,” Tour. Hosp., vol. 6, no. 1, p. 5, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.3390/tourhosp6010005.
13. Aulet and D. Vidal, “Tourism and religion: sacred spaces as transmitters of heritage values,” Church Commun. Cult., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 237–259, Sep. 2018, doi: 10.1080/23753234.2018.1542280.
14. Kruczek, A. R. Szromek, B. Walas, and L. Mazanek, “Sources of conflict among tourism stakeholders in historical cities,” J. Policy Res. Tour. Leis. Events, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 117–138, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1080/19407963.2022.2027953.
15. E. Freeman, Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art, 1st ed. Pitman Publishing Inc, 1984. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511815768.
16. C. Jensen, “Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function,” Bus. Ethics Q., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 235–256, Apr. 2002, doi: 10.2307/3857812.
17. K. Mitchell, B. R. Agle, and D. J. Wood, “Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts,” Acad. Manage. Rev., vol. 22, no. 4, p. 853, Oct. 1997, doi: 10.2307/259247.
18. B. Miles, A. M. Huberman, and J. Saldaña, Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook, Edition 3. Los Angeles London New Delhi Singapore Washington DC: Sage, 2014.