The Activation Trap: Why Top-Down Tourism Policy Fails in Nascent Destinations

This dataset was compiled for a qualitative study investigating the causes of developmental stagnation in Cilengkrang Village, Bandung Regency, Indonesia, a community officially designated by the government as a nascent tourism village. The research aims to analyse the preconditions necessary for the successful activation of the Pentahelix collaborative model (Government, Business, Community, Academia, and Media) within a pre-collaborative context. The data support the analysis that develops a new theoretical concept, the 'activation trap': a state of systemic inertia wherein a top-down policy fails to catalyse collaboration due to the absence of institutional readiness at the community level.

Data Collection Methodology
The data were gathered using a descriptive qualitative case study approach, employing a triangulation of methods to ensure validity and reliability. This comprised semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 15 purposively selected informants representing the five pillars of the Pentahelix (Government, Business, Community, Academia, and Media); passive participatory observation conducted over a three-month period to understand daily social interactions and economic structures; and an analysis of official documents.

Data Structure and Content
This dataset comprises primary and secondary qualitative data, organised into several folders. The /Guidance_Reports folder contains guidance and process reports that document observations and summarise interactions with stakeholders in Cilengkrang Village. The /Field_Notes folder contains notes from passive participatory observation, detailing social interactions and the economic conditions of the village. Finally, the /Documents folder holds digital copies of the public documents analysed in the research, such as the Regent's Decree and village planning documents.

Data Availability and Ethical Considerations
To protect the confidentiality and anonymity of the informants in accordance with research ethics standards, raw interview transcripts have not been made publicly available. The interview data analysed in the article were fully anonymised. The shared dataset (guidance reports, field notes, and public documents) does not contain any personally identifiable information.