{"title":"Analisis Aktor dalam Perumusan Model Kelembagaan Pengembangan Hutan Rakyat di Kabupaten Bogor","authors":"Tatan Sukwika","doi":"10.29244/JP2WD.2018.2.2.133-150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Bogor regency has an area of 16,945 hectares’ community-forests or 22% of the forest area in the regency. Institutional problems of community-forest management include weak interaction of actors within the organization. Since the organization is part of the institution, its existence becomes an important technical part in securing the operation of the institution. Objectives of this research on analyzing actors and the institution in the community-forest area are: (1) to determine the dominant key actors in community-forests action arena; and (2) to formulate community-forests development institutional models. Qualitative descriptive analysis of actors and institutions employs content analysis. Key actors analysis utilized ISM (Interpretive Structural Modeling) analysis methods. Results of the analysis identified seven key actors in community forest management, namely UPTD BP3K, landowners who lives outside the village, farmer landowners, land tenants, farm labors, lumbermens, and middlemen. Of the seven key actors, four key actors are the most dominant in the community-forest action arena, which are farmer landowners, farm labors, lumbermens and middlemen. There are three models of community-forest management institutions for capacity development actors, namely the institutional model related to venture capital, handling waste of resources, and coordination. This study recommends the necessity to strengthen dominant actors at site level according to the criteria of efficiency, equity, and sustainability. The policy makers need to optimize the capacity and coordination function of government agencies through the institutional coordination model.","PeriodicalId":355598,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Regional and Rural Development Planning","volume":"70 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Regional and Rural Development Planning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29244/JP2WD.2018.2.2.133-150","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8
Abstract
Bogor regency has an area of 16,945 hectares’ community-forests or 22% of the forest area in the regency. Institutional problems of community-forest management include weak interaction of actors within the organization. Since the organization is part of the institution, its existence becomes an important technical part in securing the operation of the institution. Objectives of this research on analyzing actors and the institution in the community-forest area are: (1) to determine the dominant key actors in community-forests action arena; and (2) to formulate community-forests development institutional models. Qualitative descriptive analysis of actors and institutions employs content analysis. Key actors analysis utilized ISM (Interpretive Structural Modeling) analysis methods. Results of the analysis identified seven key actors in community forest management, namely UPTD BP3K, landowners who lives outside the village, farmer landowners, land tenants, farm labors, lumbermens, and middlemen. Of the seven key actors, four key actors are the most dominant in the community-forest action arena, which are farmer landowners, farm labors, lumbermens and middlemen. There are three models of community-forest management institutions for capacity development actors, namely the institutional model related to venture capital, handling waste of resources, and coordination. This study recommends the necessity to strengthen dominant actors at site level according to the criteria of efficiency, equity, and sustainability. The policy makers need to optimize the capacity and coordination function of government agencies through the institutional coordination model.