The Institutional of Local Community and Stratification of Land Ownership in Surrounding Community Forests in Bogor

Abstract

Management of forest resources cannot be separated from the character attributes of the community. In the arena of community forest action, access to forest resources, which is a people's livelihood, is an important element. The study aimed to analyze the performance of the local community attributes towards community welfare and examine the stratification of community land ownership. This research was carried out in the qualitative descriptive analysis. The results of the analysis showed that 41.56% of the community forest farming groups classified as land-owners. Based on the strata of land ownership showed that 70% in the third strata, which was land-ownership of less than 0.5 ha. This study concluded that the institutional of local community was relatively low because not effective in regulating community behavior. These indicated by the low performance achieved on the welfare of the community, the low ownership of the area of arable land, and the level of welfare of the local community falls into the category of poor and low community education.

Full text

3Forestry Engineering, School of Life Sciences and Technology ITB, Kampus Jatinangor, Sumedang, Indonesia 45363
Abstract
1
Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Sahid University, Kampus Soepomo, Jakarta, Indonesia 12870
2Soil Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, Haluoleo University, Kampus Hijau Bumi Tridharma, Kendari, Indonesia 93232
Keywords:community attributes, community forests, land stratification, qualitative-descriptive analysis
in Surrounding Community Forests in Bogor
1* 2 3
Tatan Sukwika , Dewi Nurhayati Yusuf , Ichsan Suwandhi
The Institutional of Local Community and Stratification of Land Ownership
Received December 6, 2019/Accepted March 5, 2020
Management of forest resources cannot be separated from the character attributes of the community. In the arena of
community forest action, access to forest resources, which is a people's livelihood, is an important element. The study
aimed to analyze the performance of the local community attributes towards community welfare and examine the
stratification of community land ownership. This research was carried out in the qualitative descriptive analysis.
The results of the analysis showed that 41.56% of the community forest farming groups classified as land-owners.
Based on the strata of land ownership showed that 70% in the third strata, which was land-ownership of less than 0.5
ha. This study concluded that the institutional of local community was relatively low because not effective in
regulating community behavior. These indicated by the low performance achieved on the welfare of the community,
the low ownership of the area of arable land, and the level of welfare of the local community falls into the category of
poor and low community education.
*Correspondence author, email: tatan.swk@gmail.com
The community forest is one of the resources that provide
significant benefits for human welfare, both directly and
indirectly benefits. Direct benefits such as the provision of
wood, supporting the availability of food and spices, herbal
medicine, and animals. Indirect benefits of community
forests such as protecting and regulating water flow, land
conservation, forest protection, and prevention of erosion.
The benefits mentioned above can be optimal if aspects of the
availability of land around community forests in their
management can provide a positive influence on welfare
(social and economic) and environment (ecology) in a
sustainable manner.
The form of cooperation in managing forest resources
cannot be separated from the character attributes of the
community itself. In fact, in the arena of community forest
action, access to forest resources is considered a source of
community livelihood (Sukwika et al., 2018) and is an
important element in creating group collaboration (Ratner et
al., 2013; Sukwika, 2018a). Ostrom (2005) stated that some
communities that influence the arena of action include: (1)
behavioral values recognized by the community; (2) the level
of homogeneity of people's life preferences; and (3) the size
and composition of the community.
Introduction
In community forests, there are various initiatives, forms
and management systems. Based on its management
initiatives, there were three initiators of community forest
development, namely: land-owners, the government and the
private sector. Community forests built at the initiative of
land-owners were found in Bogor. The owner takes the
initiative to plant an annual crop as a source of income for his
family. In the community forest model such as this aspect of
species selection, capital development and technology input
depends entirely on the desire, level of knowledge, capital
ownership and the environment that influences it. According
to Suharti (2001), environmental factors such as the success
of others in developing a commodity become the reasons
often raised by community forest farmers in choosing the
The pattern of land tenure in community forests consists
of three patterns, namely private land, family-owned land,
and leased land. (1) Private land is the land that belongs to
one person, and he manages the land. (2) Family-owned land
is a land in one stretch, derived from the legacy of deceased
parents, but has not been distributed to each of the heirs
(children). For the land, they usually manage and use the land
together or take turns. If the land wants to be sold, all heirs
must approve it. (3) The leased land is a land that is leased to
someone to be managed or utilized for commercial purposes.
Scientific Article
ISSN: 2087-0469
Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, 26(1), 59- 71, April 2020
EISSN: 2089-2063
DOI: 10.7226/jtfm.26.1.59

type of crop.
Research location and data collection This research was
conducted in the Bogor community forest area. The selection
of research locations and respondents was made by purposive
sampling with the consideration that the location had
The community forest developed by the government on
community-owned land, functions as a demonstration plot
for land rehabilitation, and aims to increase land productivity.
This community forest development utilizes the government
budget through the stages of land preparation, planting, and
maintenance activities. In addition to building land
physically, there is also preparation of socialization for
beneficiary farmer groups in the form of management and
technical training as well as mentoring by extension workers.
BKP5K (2014) stated that farmer groups in the community
forest area of Bogor were classified into four groups, namely
beginner, intermediate, advanced, and primary groups.
Community forests developed by the private sector are scarce
in Bogor. The purpose of this study is explaining the local
community institution and reviewing the stratification of
community land ownership in community forest areas.
The community forest model in Bogor is a traditional
community forest, which is developed from generation to
generation by several community groups. Its main
characteristic is management with agroforestry patterns and
minimal technological input. It is in line with the results of a
study by Sukwika et al. (2016) and Sukwika (2018a), which
stated that community forest management in Bogor was still
traditionally carried out by the people with minimal
silvicultural techniques and management so that the results
and sustainability were not optimal.
Methods
community forest areas, and respondents had been declared
capable of managing their forests in groups. The research
method was a survey using a questionnaire with data
collection techniques, including observation, interviews, and
documentation. Data analysis was performed in a descriptive
qualitative manner.
Figure 1 explains the patterns of interaction between
actors with dimensions of regulation and control. Therefore,
the function and benefits of forests as community forest areas
The framework elaborated below builds on the
institutional analysis and development (IAD) model
(Oakerson, 1992; Ostrom, 2005; Poteete et al., 2010). Ratner
et al. (2013) selected the IAD model as the foundation
because it is highly adaptable, had been applied to a wide
range of institutional analyses across different resource
systems, and because it also enables an analysis of divergent
outcomes, even if historically it has primarily been applied to
understand the sources of cooperation.
Data used to carry out analysis of local institutions
include (1) Secondary data, including biophysical/material
conditions, community attributes, and types of land
ownership and utilization. These biophysical data on
community forests collected from BPS (central bureau of
statistics) in Bogor, village offices and district offices,
research results, and other publication materials. (2) Primary
data obtained from farmers, community leaders, local
government agencies, government officials in agricultural
and forestry extension services, agroforestry managers, and
the results of field triangulation in community forests.
Attribute s include socio-economi c data inc luding
demographics and monographs, farmer groups, land
ownership and control, actors interacting in the field, forest
management rules, local community norms/rules, and
coordination.
60
Scientific Article
ISSN: 2087-0469
Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, 26(1), 59- 71, April 2020
EISSN: 2089-2063
DOI: 10.7226/jtfm.26.1.59
Figure 1 Arena of action for community forest management action.

Biophysical conditions: Land cover In 2012, the condition
of land cover in Bogor forest consisted of production forests
covering an area about 16,945.40 ha, rice fields 6,260.46 ha,
grazing fields 980.44 ha, and fields/moorings covering an
area about 4,833.51 ha. In 2015 there has been a change in
land cover in the form of production forests, which decreased
by 0.31% to 16,848.60 ha and rice fields, which also
decreased by 2.06% to 5,617.24 ha. In the same year, there
was an increase in settlement to 2,638.45 ha, and
fields/moorlands increased to 5,058.33 ha (Sukwika et al.,
2016; Sukwika et al., 2018). From 2012 to 2015, there had
been a reduction in community forest cover with an average
annual rate of 0.19% and rice fields of 3.42%, while the rate
of increase in settlements was 6.56% (Sukwika, 2018a).
Throughout 2010, part of the state forest area in National
Park of Mountain Gede-Pangrango in Bogor has been
rehabilitated by the forest, and since the issuance of
Presidential Regulation Number 54/2008, the Perhutani
(state-owned enterprises) has banned logging activities on
Results and Discussion
can be preserved, and the improvement of community
welfare can be achieved. The criteria used to assess the
results were the low of land-use conversion, extensive forest
cover (agroforestry), and productive activities carried out by
communities in the area surrounding community forests.
Land-use Community forest in Bogor has an area of
16,945.40 ha, around 13,314.02 ha of land-use in the form of
plantations forest, rice fields, plantations and agroforestry,
seasonal crops, fisheries, livestock, and settlements. The
characteristics of land use in community forests are affected
by commodities but are not influenced by the planting
system and land area, and land status (Table 2), land use, or
farming motivation.
pine forests (Pinus mercusii), but only carried out activities
to protect, rehabilitate and extract forest products in the form
of pine sap. Whereas in community forests, land cover
conditions outside the forest area have increased. Even
though land ownership and transfer of arable land occur to
the community outside Bogor, especially from DKI-Jakarta,
there is very little land converted to non-forestry. Cultivating
farmers who are employed generally are previous
landowners or residents who live around community forest
areas, making it easier to rehabilitate land vegetatively by
planting new trees or technically by making infiltration
wells. This mutualism relationship occurs because local
people need land that can be processed to increase their
income, while landowners outside the community forest area
need security over their land rights.
Commodities in community forests are dominated by
forest plants, food crops, and horticulture (Table 3).
61
Scientific Article
ISSN: 2087-0469
Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, 26(1), 59- 71, April 2020
EISSN: 2089-2063
DOI: 10.7226/jtfm.26.1.59
Table 2 Strata of land ownership rights and community forest farming community groups
Table 3 Source of income of the respondent farmer's family from agricultural activities and additional activities in community
forests

Based on the results of sampling of 70 community
households of community forest farmer groups (KTHR),
information was obtained that land ownership of farmer
communities per household consisted of 0.17 ha of land
owned, 0.47 ha of leased land, 0.45 ha of arable land, and
0.12 ha of borrowed land. The average land ownership and/or
tenure is 0.36 ha. Based on stratification, the area of land
managed by community forest farmers in Bogor is divided
into 3 (three) strata groups, namely (1) stratum I: the area of
community forest land is more than 1 ha; (2) stratum II:
community forest land area 0.5 to 1 ha; and (3) strata III:
community forest land area is less than 0.5 ha. As much as
70% of community forest farmers manage community forest
land less than 0.5 ha (Figure 2).
Community forest farmers who manage agricultural land
can be classified into five groups, namely: (1) farmer-owners
as well as cultivators of land, (2) farmer-owners whose land
is cultivated by others, (3) farmers cultivating land belonging
to others, (4) farmers as proficient who guard other people's
land, and (5) farm laborers who work for other farmers.
Based on land ownership status, the number of farmers who
own and cultivate land is 40.94%, farm labourers account for
49.81%, and the number of farmers working on land
belonging to other people and farmers (cultivator and farm
workers) is 9.25% (BKP5K, 2014).
(1) The group of landowners (owner) is 41.56%, consisting
of landowners but not cultivating as much as 0.67% and
the group of owners and cultivators of the land as much as
40.89%. The landowner (owner) has the right to enter and
utilize land resources (access and withdrawal), determine
the form of management (management), determine
participation/issue other parties (exclusion) and the right
to trade land (alienation).
From the results of field identification through a
questionnaire survey, land ownership in Bogor's community
forests was divided into four classifications (Schlager &
Ostrom, 1992), namely:
Commodity selection influenced by suitability, wishes of
landowners, following other farmers, easy to plant, easy to
market, and variety of food for self-consumption. Forest
farmers' resources include agriculture, fisheries, forests,
grasslands. Farmer resources are input factors of production,
which significantly affect production, including land, labor,
and capital. Production influenced by the farming
environment, technology, and social characteristics of
farmers. According to (Mardikanto, 1996) socioeconomic
factors in community forests are very influential on groups of
farmers in working and innovating.
Land of business In 2015, land managed by community
forest farmers covering an area of 30,162.62 ha, including
land belonging to local communities and land owned by
communities outside of community forests. Of the land area,
27,524.18 ha (91.25%) is land that can be cultivated by the
community in the form of production forest land, dry rice
fields and the remaining 2,638 ha (8.75%) are land for
grazing, ponds and settlements. The number of people ,
working in the community around the community forest is
26,030 households, therefore the average area cultivated by
-1
the community is 0.28 ha household (BKP5K, 2014).
The community conducts forestry activities (in the form
of , , and ka plants), agroforestry and sengon jabon afri
agriculture (in the form of food crops, ornamental flowers,
vegetables, fruits, and other perennials), fisheries (in the
form of fish ponds), livestock (in the form of chickens and
goats), and other productive cultivation activities. Among
the cultivated forest plants, there are intercropping plants
including corn, sweet potatoes, cassava, and other food
The low level of community land tenure and the small
income opportunities outside the forestry and agricultural
sectors have resulted in the exploitation of land controlled
through agricultural cultivation to meet their physical needs,
without regard to soil and water conservation efforts. Food
crop cultivation is done in monoculture. Planting a mixture
of woody plants with food crops can reduce the productivity
of food crops because they compete with each other in the
site and lighting. With a narrow level of land ownership,
there is no opportunity for the community to conserve land so
that it has a negative impact on the management of
community forest sustainability. The low level of control of
land owned and cultivated land by local communities has
resulted in a high economic dependence on the families of
tenants/farm labourers to the landowners who live in and
outside the community forest. Farm labourers, which
account for 50.02% of the total number of farmers, do not
have land assets to support their family's physical needs so
they try to work in landowners (owner), claimants, and
aut orized land or work in the sector other or out of h the
territory.
(2) The bounded owner group (prop ietor) has no land r
ownership of 0%.
Outside the four groups are farm labourers (50.02%)
from community forest farmers, who do not have land
ownership rights. The farmer group can only work and get
wages from the owner, claimant, or authorized user. The
strata of community forest land ownership rights in Bogor
are presented in Table 2.
(3) Claimants are 1.39% of farmers who work on land using a
profit-sharing system.
(4) The aut orized user group is 7.03%. The smallholder h
groups have the right to enter and use land (access and
withdrawal).
62
Scientific Article
ISSN: 2087-0469
Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, 26(1), 59- 71, April 2020
EISSN: 2089-2063
DOI: 10.7226/jtfm.26.1.59
Figure 2 Strata of land ownership by community forest
farmers.
N-70: Average farmer ’s land area 0.36 ha-
Stratum I
21%
Stratum II
9%
Stratum III
70%

Attributes of local communities in community forests The
population of forest village communities in Bogor in 2011
was 88,109 people and in 2015 there were 108,084 people
-1
with a density of 6.42 people ha , meaning that everyone
inhabitant occupies every 0.17 ha in the community forest
area in Bogor. The rate of population increase between 2011
and 2015 was 3.27% per year. The average number of family
members is 4 people per family head. This population growth
rate includes very high and exceeds the national population
growth rate of 1.49%. The high rate of population growth has
resulted in higher land needs for settlements and land for
businesses, on the other hand, the availability of land is
increasingly limited. This condition encourages high
changes in the function of yard/business land for settlements.
According to Sukwika (2018b), the change of vegetated land
into built-up land continues in Bogor, this is in line with the
increase in the number of local residents and the demand for
urban land (Siregar & Sukwika, 2007), therefore, the
function of land as community forests is increasingly
disrupted.
crops. Crop productivity per season for rice reaches 6.3 tons
-1 -1 -1
ha , sweet potatoes 12 tons ha , cassava 17 tons ha , corn 4
-1 -1
tons ha , and peanuts 1.25 tons ha . Food crops, vegetables ,
and fruits that are cultivated by the community are not carried
out intensively. The production of non-timber farmers is
mostly for daily needs. While timber farmers' production,
tends to be difficult to compete. According to Racevskis and
Lupi (2006), competitively in business, rural, timber-
dependent community members are very concerned about
the continued provision of both market and nonmarket forest
outputs.
The role of the young productive workforce working in
the community forestry sector in Bogor is very low at only
25.71%, this sector is still dominated by a fairly old age
workforce of 57.14%. The level of formal education of small-
holding forest farmers which is in the low category is 54.29%
and the level of informal education which is in the low
category is 92.86%. The area of land owned/controlled by
community forest farmers with a narrow category (< 0.5 ha)
of 70%. The average farmer income is about 187 5 USD .
the The education level of forest community in Bogor is
classified as low, amounting to 76. % of the people who 67
only have elementary and junior high school education. The
population with elementary education is 40,519 (46.86%),
junior high school 25,776 people (29.81%), high school
education 11,638 people (4%), and the level of academy the
and tertiary education are 303 people (0.35%). (Pramono,
2009) reported that 85.3% of the respondents in Cisarua
Subdistrict had a low level of education (had attended
elementary school) and 8.8% had attended school. This
social situation fosters a poor perception of efforts to
conserve the environment and empower local communities.
The results of the study by state Pramono and Aminah (2010)
that the livelihoods of community forests in Bogor were still
dominated by dryland agriculture, fisheries and agricultural ,
labour activities by 39.36%, private sector by 28.62%,
service sector by 21.62%, trade sector by 9.41% and state
civil apparatus by 0.9%.
In the forest farmer households that process land in the
strata III group, they tend to use their land for agroforestry
activities. Conversely, farmers in the strata I group are more
balanced between land-use for timber and agroforestry. In the
three strata groups, there was almost a common tendency,
where farmers provided land-use allocation for agroforestry
activities. In general, the contributions obtained from the
results of agroforestry are very helpful in fulfilling daily
needs. Dev et al. (2003) also emphasize on the access of
poorer households to essential forest products for their
subsistence. In fact, in most developing countries, desires on
community forestry are markedly linked to meeting basic
needs and serving subsistence purposes, and therefore the
benefits to the community is achieved by extracting them
directly from the forest (Glasmeier & Farrigan, 2005).
According to Suharjito et al. (2003), if the amount of
contribution provided by agroforestry is 10 per cent of the
total income of agroforestry activities then it is considered
very helpful in meeting needs.
month with the average family burden of 4 family members
-1
-1
family head . The average community forest farmer in Bogor
has quite high farming experience, which is above 10 years
(Table 1) The observation of Ofoegbu et al. (2017) shows .
that socioeconomic characteristics of households such as
farm husbandry skills, years of residence in the community
and age influenced use of the forest resources.
Farmer's family income The source of farmers' income, if
viewed by stratification of land area, shows that the more land
cultivated, the more land-use for various types of plants
(Figure 3). According to , the area of land that Saihani (2011)
is managed has an effect on the amount of income received by
community forest owners, the more land area the greater the
income received so as to be able to meet the needs of their
families. stated that significant variation Fikir et al. (2016)
was also found among income groups: households with
higher total annual income obtain more forest income than
those with lower income, but they are relatively less
de p e n dent on fo r est produ c t s. Besid e s , v arious
socioeconomic factors were found to influence forest and
land income and dependency.
Based on the results of a questionnaire survey of 70
respondents, data was obtained that the income of community
forest farmers came from the main activities of farming with
an average tenure of 0.17 ha and 0.45 ha of arable land and
additional income from buying and selling ( ), farm warung
labourers, and other additional income. The income of the
farmer's family (with the number of members of 4 people) is
an average of 192 5 month . The lowest income is
-1
USD .
-1 -1
USD . USD7 50 month and a maximum of 236 month . This
average income is still below the 201 Bogor UMR (regional 8
minimum wages) value of USD376.34 month . This is
-1
caused by the limited land owned and cultivated land only
covering an area of 0.31 ha (< 0.5 ha).
Farmers' income with land ownership of 1.0 ha from
sengon ( ) wood averaged 45 2 Paraserianthes falcataria USD .
month , mahogany ( ) 15 3 month ,
-1 -1
Swietenia mahagoni USD .
and frica ( ) 6 7 month . Farmers'
-1
a Maesopsis eminii USD .
income from cultivating food crops (rice, sweet potatoes,
Scientific Article
ISSN: 2087-0469
63
Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, 26(1), 59- 71, April 2020
EISSN: 2089-2063
DOI: 10.7226/jtfm.26.1.59

64
Scientific Article
ISSN: 2087-0469
Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, 26(1), 59- 71, April 2020
EISSN: 2089-2063
DOI: 10.7226/jtfm.26.1.59
Table 1 Attributes of community forest farming communities
Figure 3 Contribution of the source of income to community forest farmer households.
Description
Category
Total
n %
Age Youth (< 41 years) 18 25.71
Middle age (41 -56 years) 40 57.14
Old age (> 57 years) 12 17.14
Total 70
Low (< 9 years) 38 54.29
Formal education Medium (10-12 years) 21 30.00
High (> 12 years) 11 15.71
Total 70
Low (< 29 hours) 65 92.86
Non-formal education Medium (30-59 hours) 5 7.14
High (> 60 hours) 0 0.00
Total 70
Low (< 5 years) 4 5.71
Farming Experience Medium (5-10 years) 18 25.71
High (> 10 years) 48 68.57
Total 70
Narrow (< 0.5 ha) 49 70.00
Land area Medium (0.5-1.0 ha) 15 21.43
Wide (> 1.0 ha) 6 8.57
Total 70
Low (< USD 150) 23 32.86
Income Medium (USD 150-225) 38 54.29
High (> USD 225) 9 12.86
Total 70
Number of family Small (< 3 people) 11 15.71
Medium (3-5 people) 36 51.43
Large (> 5 people) 23 32.86
Total 70

Farmers' income is spent on eight main needs, namely
purchasing food staples (58.05%), operational costs for
school children (20.13%), PLN electricity (8.01%),
procurement of clothing (2.07%), health maintenance
(6.43%), social activities (3.07%), home improvement
(1.22%), and purchase of hoe farming equipment and other
(1.02%). Most of the income of farmer households is spent
on meeting basic food needs and operational costs of school
children.
The income of these farmer households is still below the
minimum physical requirement (KFM) to meet basic
-1 -1
consumption needs of USD1,088 year or USD90.7 month .
This income is also below the regional minimum wage
-1
(UMR) of Bogor in 2018, which is USD376.34 month .
Decent living needs (KHL) for families with 4 (four)
-1 -1
members amounting to USD272 year or USD226.7 month .
The calculated value of KHL per capita is calculated based on
the expenditure of community households equal to the value
-1 -1
of 800 kg of rice person year based on the average
benchmark price for minimum physical needs (KFM) of 320
kg, education, health, and social respectively 161.31 kg
(Sinukaban, 2007). The level of income when compared with
the values of KFM and KHL, the community forest farmers
community in Bogor can be classified as a condition that is
less prosperous. The KHL analysis of Bogor farmers is
presented in Table 4.
-1
cassava) averaged USD48.55 month . The income from
vegetable farming and fruit is an average of USD56.5. The
income of farmer families who conduct a business shop with
2 -1
a size of 23 m at USD41 month , and become farm labourers
-1
of USD45 month . Another productive activity is to do 510
2
goat breeding activities and 510 m size ponds, each earning
-1 -1
an average of USD66 month and USD53.5 month . The
sources of farmers' income are presented in Table 3.
Community forest farmer group Based on data from the
fisheries and forestry agricultural extension centre (BP3K)
community forest farmer groups (KTHR) in Bogor there
were 312 farmer groups and spread in 12 sub-districts. BP3K
is an extension institution at the sub-district level formed by
the government as a centre of excellence for farmers by
extension workers in the field. Farmer groups are engaged in
agriculture and forestry. In Bogor, forestry activities include
timber products such as ( ), mahogany (sengon P. falcataria S.
mahagoni , a Maeosopsis eminii .) frika ( ), etc , and non-wood
such as nutmeg, coffee, cloves, and others. Activities in the
forestry sector also include fertilizer-making activities for
making forest nurseries, making terraces, agroforestry and
conserving other lands and water. Based on the type of
business, soil conservation activities include vegetative
activities and civil engineering.
Landowners from outside the village The community
groups that own land domiciled outside the forest area
dominate land ownership of almost 70-80% with an average
area of 0.5-2 ha. Most of these community groups come
from Jakarta. The land owned by this group is spread in
Agricultural activities are cultivated in the form of food
crops such as crops, rice, cassava, sweet potatoes and others. ,
Livestock activities and inland fisheries in the form of
raising goats and carp, and cultivating mushrooms, organic
grass, elephant grass and others. The findings of this study ,
echo those of Gill et al. (2010) an , d Abrams and Bliss (2013)
state that amenity landowners continued, broadly, to institute
land-use characteristic of traditional productivist practices:
farming, livestock grazing, and timber harvesting.
The number of farmer groups who are interested in
vegetative activities as many as 312 farmer groups, while is
the number of farmer groups interested civil engineering is in
activities as much as 1 farmer group. Farmers who join forest
farmer groups are grouped by level of ability, namely the
beginner, intermediate, middle and main groups (Table 5).
The results of field observations indicate that there are
several farmer groups that are active and independent in their
activities, some farmer groups that show a less active
attitude, and there are also several other farmer groups just
waiting and becoming a place to accommodate government
programs. ccording to Means et al. (2002), decision- A
making is often based on collaboration, with a consensus
emerging from wide-ranging discussions, often fostering
local reconciliation.
Scientific Article
ISSN: 2087-0469
65
Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, 26(1), 59- 71, April 2020
EISSN: 2089-2063
DOI: 10.7226/jtfm.26.1.59
Table 4 The necessities of life are worthy of community forest farmers the necessities of life are worthy of community forest
farmers

66
Scientific Article
ISSN: 2087-0469
several districts, such as in Babakanmadang, Sukaraja,
Leuwiliang, Dramaga, Ciawi, and Cisarua ub- istricts. S D
With the high access to transportation, the area in these sub-
districts forms a series of settlements or housing and has
connected settlement/public housing activities along the
Bogor-Jakarta route. Sukwika (2018a) stated that lands
belonging to people outside the community forest area are
generally used for settlement construction, vegetable
cultivation, fruits, medicinal and ornamental plants, and
economic value activities. Before the land is used by the
owner for residential buildings, generally the land is not
cultivated and neglected ( land) so that it becomes empty idle
land or becomes shrubs and reeds. Land controlled by people
outside the forest area in the form of land owned. Some of the
land are entrusted to guards or cultivators, and some are s
directly controlled by the owner. reminded Peluso (1992)
that secure property rights are often a crucial element in
creating clear expectations and thereby reducing conflict.
But the distribution of property rights also matters. Highly
unequal property rights that deprive many people of even the
basic means of subsistence can also lead to conflict. This
condition is a challenge for policymakers to formulate
development models in the natural resource sectors can link
with complementary efforts to strengthen the underlying role
of equitable governance and secure rights as a foundation for
resilient livelihoods (Ratner, 2013). Bohle and Fünfgeld
(2007) and Cronkleton et al. (2008) emphasize the concept of
a political ecology approach, which emphasizes the positive
potential of conflict to spawn social movements or
institutional changes that lead to more socially equitable
forms of resource use.
Local action arena haIn 2012, around 20,000 of forest land
in Bogor were severely damaged, including community
(7 ha), Dramaga (4 ha), Leuwiliang (3 ha). As for the land
with the TBE 4 category, 3 of the 16 Sub-Districts identified
forests. Community forest land in Bogor is spread in 40 sub-
districts, 18 Sub-Districts are in a severe category and the
worst damage occurs in the western region, precisely in the
Cisarua District upland area. Damage generally occurs as a
result of land-use change and the increase in villa buildings or
hotels that convert forest land into residential land, in
addition to the many illegal buildings that are the main cause
of forest destruction. The natural beauty and coolness of the
area is a special attraction, so many build buildings for resting
or other commercial buildings. The proximity and ease of
accessibility from and to Jakarta, such as Babakanmadang,
Bojonggede, Ciawi, Cileungsi, Dramaga, Jonggol and
Parung Sub-Districts, were the reasons for the conversion of
community forest land in the region. According to Verbist et
al. (2004) the drivers of land-use change are distinguished by
external and internal factors, population growth as external
variables and road and infrastructure development (Siregar &
Sukwika, 2007), collection of levies or taxes, and land tenure
arrangements as internal variables.
Environmental damage is a major cause of increased
natural disasters such as floods and landslides in a number of
areas. Ironically, the ecological destruction caused by forests
and watersheds is exploited without control (Kahn, 2005;
Hidayat, 2008). The shift in the function of community
forests also makes the surrounding area prone to landslides,
although there are indeed community forest areas in several
sub-districts of Bogor that have been categorized as
landslides. The results of the Herawati (2010) study based on
the class of TBE (erosion hazard level) 5 showed that there
were 10 Sub-Districts identified as having land areas with
very heavy erosion hazard levels, four of which were
Pamijahan (80 ha), Ciawi (8 ha), respectively. Cigombong
Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, 26(1), 59- 71, April 2020
EISSN: 2089-2063
DOI: 10.7226/jtfm.26.1.59
Table 5 Data recapitulation of forest farmer groups
BP3K/Groups
Level of group ability
Total
B
A
I
M
Cariu 18
16
3
0 37 868
Jonggol 8
22
14
0 44 1,676
Gunung Putri 13
1
1
0 15 248
Cibinong 14
40
7
1 62 1,018
Ciawi 8
8
2
0 18 524
Caringin 18
7
0
0 25 885
Dramaga 10
4
2
0 16 375
Cibungbulang 1
21
9
0 31 892
Leuwiliang 4
14
2
1 21 1,051
Cigudeg
4
11
0
0
15
614
Parung Panjang
6
10
0
0
16
587
Ciseeng
3
6
2
1
12
243
Total
107
160
42
3
312
8,981
Number of
members
Note: B: Beginner group, A: Advanced group, I: Intermediate group, M: Main group

as having a land area with severe erosion are Caringin (200
ha), Dramaga (10 ha), Ciomas (5 ha). In these Sub-Districts
so that heavy erosion potential can be reduced, it is necessary
to take soil conservation measures and improve soil
management, not the other way around, land conversion on
the basis of economic value. Change or conversion of forest
areas into other forms of use (deforestation) that have high
economic values such as agriculture (Ewers, 2006) and
residential area development (Jorgenson & Burns, 2007;
Nasendi, 2000). Verbist et al. (2004) and Yusuf (2004)
indicate that damage to forest areas is caused by several
factors, one of which is the problem of changing
(transferring) forest areas into other areas. Changes in forest
areas can be in the form of changes in designation, namely in
the form of exchanging forest areas and releasing forest
areas, for the benefit of plantations, transmigration
settlements, industries, housing, offices and so on. The
change in the function of the forest area is to change the
function of the forest area for interests outside the forestry
sector (Maladi, 2013). In addition, there is another form,
namely the use of forest areas known as forest use loan
permits (Siombo, 2014).
Transfer of community forest land ownership The transfer
of land ownership in community forests involves the role of a
land broker or a local term called biyong. Biyong generally
comes from the local village community, although there are
also those from outside the village but still within the
community forest area. Biyong has an active role in finding
information on land that will be sold by local people and
seeking information on potential buyers from outside the
community forest. In its development, in the 2000s, the share
of sales commissions (fees) for biyong averaged 2.5% of
buyers and also requested a number of voluntary
commissions from the buyers. According to Sukwika
(2018a), there are some biyong who use the scheme, if there
is a seller offering a certain price, for example, USD10 m ,
-2
then offered to the buyer with a selling price of USD20 or
greater than the original price. With the increase in the price
offered by biyong, biyong asks for a portion of the voluntary
sales commission of 0–2.5% from the seller. Administrative
arrangements to complete the sale and purchase agreement
starting from RT/RW to Sub-Districts reached 2.5–5% of the
sales value of the land. The role of RT/RW, village to Sub-
District is to make a statement that the land being traded is
not in dispute with other parties. This certificate is generally
a guarantee to the buyer that the land to be traded is safe to
buy. The role of biyong is very important in land ownership,
which is to help find buyers for the local community, find
land to be bought by the buyer, and provide security
guarantees for the land that is traded to the buyer. While
Fisher et al. (2018) suspected that land conversion was easy
because of flawed land administration processes, entrenched
political-economic interests among local actors, and lack of
institutional engagement beyond the permitting process.
Mendham and Curtis (2010) examine the phenomenon of
turnover in rural property ownership by certain actors. Its
findings in the form of sales records and spatially referenced
rural landholder survey data. Mendham and Curtis (2010)
The level of ownership of land owned and cultivated land
by the outside community is wider (70–80%) than the
ownership of local communities (20–30%). Communities
outside make decisions in managing land owned in
community forests. The outside community is more
powerful in controlling the behaviour of local farmers who
work on their land or they allow their land to become idle
land. Gill et al. (2010) state that amenity ownership of rural
lands by outside community often implies a blurring of
production, consumption, and protection practices rather
than a wholesale eclipse of production. Research by Chomba
et al. (2015) in community forests found that national forest
policies and actors transferred minimal powers that enabled
local communities to execute forest protection and
conservation roles while maintaining legislative powers and
control of economic benefits centrally. Responding to the
conditions above, L’Roe and Rissman (2017) considers the
need for a partnership strategy in the form of joint forest
management (Ran gan & Lane, 20 01) with l ocal
commu nit ies. Inv estor pa rtnersh ip strategi es and
conservation programs can be shaped by the provision of
forest benefits during ownership transitions.
et al. (2015) that development policy, formalization
frequently based on current social and environmental norms.
However, its adoption is often unsuccessful and entails risks
including leakage, barriers to small or poor actors, and
negative effects on marginalized groups.
stated that new property owners are significantly different
from longer-term landholders in that they own smaller
properties; are less likely to be farmers by occupation; are
more likely to value conservation over agricultural
production, and are less likely to adopt recommended
sustainability practices.
Local rules with existing wisdom and land-use rules from
the government are no longer able to direct the behaviour of
farmers properly. Demand for agricultural commodities and
demand for land for villa settlements or tourism businesses
has reduced farmland capital and changed the behaviour of
farmers to be not conservative. Such conditions cause land
resources and water sources to decline. According to Putzel
Poor environmental quality due to the neglect of
problems and environmental impacts in forest development
is a major factor in environmental disasters that affect the
unsustainable social and economic quality (Rahman et al.,
2017; Kusmana & Sukwika, 2018) This places the level of .
vulnerability of the region to environmental disasters even
greater. A study conducted by Skulska et al. (2019) stated that
community-based forestry is faced with environmental
challenges such as degradation, wildfires and loss of
biodiversity. Resolution of these challenges is urgently
needed at the legal, administrative and local levels. While
(Rangan and Lane (2001) highlighted that forest access and
ownership made by indigenous communities that have been
historically disadvantaged and marginalized from the
benefits of mainstream social and economic development.
The problem can be approached with joint forest
management (JFM). There are three concepts JFM approach
scheme are access, control, and substantive democracy to
assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of institutional
Scientific Article
ISSN: 2087-0469
67
Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, 26(1), 59- 71, April 2020
EISSN: 2089-2063
DOI: 10.7226/jtfm.26.1.59

Farm owner and farm labourers Farmers owning land in
community forests in Bogor plant areas with wood species
such as ( ), (sengon P. falcataria jabon Anthocephalus
cadamda S. mahagoni M. eminii), mahogany ( ), afrika ( ), teak
( ), and mixtures. The community is Tectona grandis
interested in the ownership rights of forest areas, especially
for planting plants because of the benefits of sengon
economic value that can be obtained in it and others. Sengon
wood species are chosen by farmers because their cultivation
has been mastered for generations, has a relatively short life
cycle (58 years) and has a clear market. Farmers usually sell
sengon in the form of stands and several types of annual
crops such as durian, mangosteen, rubber, coconut, , petai
clove and others, besides that there are also rice and
secondary crops.
The type of work of farm labourers in community forest
areas is the highest occupancy after farmers. Farmers in
processes that aim to engage in the sustainable management
of forest resources.
Communities that have community forest land play an
important role in making decisions about the land they have.
Then, if farmers owning community forests have been
incorporated into community forest farmer groups, then in
relation to decisions in the exploitation of community
forests, the farmer's family is the most decisive party. In
community forestry, direct forest users are expected play an
important role in the common decision making procedures
and implementation of forestry activities (Boon, 2000;
Charnley & Poe, 2007; Pramono & Aminah, 2010; Maryudi
et al., 2012; Sukwika, 2018a). Families also have a dominant
role in deciding whether their land will still be maintained as
community forests or will be used for other uses. For
example, the land originally designated as community forest
was diverted to building houses, building infrastructure and
other public facilities. Community forests are considered to
have high economic, ecological and social values, therefore
it is necessary to consider the existence of an institutional
model that can play an effective role in preserving
community forests, for example, the village government
regulates the management of logging permits and the Bogor
government controls development in its territory. Further
according to Charnley and Poe (2007) that community
forestry refers to forest management that has ecological
sustainability and local community benefits as central goals,
with some degree of responsibility and authority for forest
management formally vested in the community.
Land ownership in community forest areas is not only
owned by local communities, but also from people who live
outside community forest areas, even 60% of land ownership
rights are owned by people who live outside the community
forest area. This community group plays a role in making
decisions about the land owned and the land that it controls.
Besides that, he also has an interest in controlling his land so
that it is safe from other parties' claims (secure property
right). In a community group, Putzel et al. (2015) stressed
that they also contend with histories of ownership, access
rights, market configurations, and practices attached to
resources and the lands in which they are located.
community forests are generally farmers, of which there are
also those who own their own land, usually less than 0.10 ha.
Types of activities carried out by farmworkers starting from
land clearing, planting and harvesting. The existence of
these community groups is the driver of the implementation
of agroforestry activities in community forest areas. Farm
workers are often involved because of shortages of labour
from within the family. The labour costs of farm labourers in
community forests are in accordance with community
recognition of USD2.5–3.5 day .
-1
The level of welfare of the local community On the
economic aspect, farmers' land tenure in the form of land
owned by 0.17 ha and 0.45 ha of arable land only earn an
average income of USD231 year or USD192.5 month .
-1 -1
This average income is still below the 2018 Bogor regional
minimum wage value of USD376.34 month . This is caused
-1
by the limited land owned and cultivated land only covering
an area of 0.31 ha (< 0.5 ha). The standard of decent living
needs (KHL) for families with 4 (four) members is USD272
year or USD226.7 month . The value calculated from the
-1 -1
KHL per capita is calculated based on the expenditure of the
community household equal to the value of 800 kg of rice
person year based on the average benchmark price for
-1 -1
minimum physical needs (KFM) of 320 kg, education,
health and social respectively 160 kg (Sinukaban, 2007).
Based on the level of income, when compared with the
values of KFM and KHL, the community forest farmers in
Bogor can be classified as under-prosperous.
For smallholding forest farmers, community forestry
businesses generally become the main source of income.
Farmers' household income can reflect their household
economic condition. The high and low level of household
income can be used as one indicator of the level of welfare of
a household. The level of income is influenced by the
number of types of business carried out by farmers. Tree
ownership also creates more permanent rights to farmland
and is prestigious in the community. (Khususiyah et al.,
2010; Maryudi et al., 2012; Rahman et al., 2017; Sukwika et
al., 2016; Sukwika et al., 2018). Farmers' income in the
community forest area of Bogor comes from income sources
in the form of: timber products averaging USD22.4 month
-1
for ownership of an area of 1.0 ha, food crops on average
USD48.55 month , vegetables and fruits on average an
-1
average of USD6.5 month , a house stall business with a size
-1
of 23 m of USD45 month , and being a farm laborer of
2 -1
USD45 month . Other productive activities from raising 510
-1
goats and 510 m ponds each earn an average of USD66
2
month and USD53.5 month .
-1 -1
Referring to the income from some of these farming
activities, farmers in community forests can be classified as
poor or not prosperous. With these poor conditions, the
behaviour of farmers is not able to finance their family
members to continue their education to a higher level.
Current conditions, according to data from 70 respondents,
the education level of community forests are classified as
low educated with the majority of elementary and junior
high school education (84.29%). With narrow land
Scientific Article
ISSN: 2087-0469
68
Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, 26(1), 59- 71, April 2020
EISSN: 2089-2063
DOI: 10.7226/jtfm.26.1.59

Acknowledgment
Conclusion
The institutional of local community is classified as weak
because it is not effective in regulating community behavior
to achieve the objectives of community forest management,
including economic, social, and ecological goals, this
condition indicated by the low performance achieved in
community welfare and forest exploitation that occurs.
Ownership of land resources is very low and even almost
does not own land, the level of welfare of local people can be
categorized as poor people, and public education is relatively
low. The most significant contribution to the income sources
of smallholder forest farmers comes from the agroforestry
sector. However, the challenge for the community forest
farmer families is that the level of expenditure of the farm
family is still higher than the monthly income. The number of
dependents is relatively high, making it difficult for them to
have family savings. Based on the results of strata analysis of
land ownership rights by community forest farmers, 70% of
farmers are in the third strata, namely land ownership less
than 0.5 ha, and 41.56% of community forest farmer groups
classified as landowners.
ownership, low education, and relatively small family
income, the tendency of community behaviour in farming is
more exploitative.
References
Abrams, J., & Bliss, J. C. (2013). Amenity landownership,
land use change, and the re-creation of “working
landscapes”. Society & Natural Resources: An
International Journal, 26(7), 845–859. https://doi.org/
10.1080/08941920.2012.719587
Bohle, H.G., & Fünfgeld, H. (2007). The political ecology of
violence in eastern Sri Lanka. Development and Change,
38(4), 665–687. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.
2007.00428.x
[BKP5K] Badan Ketahanan Pangan dan Pelaksana
Penyuluhan Pertanian, Perikanan dan Kehutanan-
Kabupaten Bogor. (2014). Rencana strategis tahun 2013-
2018 Badan Ketahanan Pangan dan Pelaksana
Penyuluhan Pertanian, Perikanan dan Kehutanan
(BKP5K). Bogor: Dinas Pertanian dan Kehutanan
Kabupaten Bogor.
We wish to thank a number of institutions and individuals.
We are also grateful to many families and individuals of
farmers groups in Bogor who participated and shared their
ideas. Finally, thanks to the reviewers for their valuable
comments on the manuscript and thank the editorial team for
its support.
Charnley, S., & Poe, M. R. (2007). Community Forestry in
Boon, T. E. (2000). Conceptualisation and evaluation of
participation in danish state forest management.
[dissertation]. Copenhagen: Royal Veterinary and
Agricultural University.
Ewers, R. M. (2006). Interaction effects between economic
development and forest cover determine deforestation
rates. Global Environmental Change, 16(2), 161–169.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.12.001
Gill, N., Klepeis, P., & Chisholm, L. (2010). Stewardship
among lifestyle oriented rural landowners. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, 53(3),
317–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640561003612890
Herawati, T. (2010). Spatial analysis of erosion hazard level
in the Cisadane watershed area of Bogor Regency.
Journal of Forest and Nature Conservative Research,
Chomba, S. W., Nathan, I., Minang, P. A., & Sinclair, F.
(2015). Illusions of empowerment? Questioning policy
and practice of community forestry in Kenya. Ecology
and Society, 20(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-
07741-200302
Di Gregorio, M., Hagedorn, K., Kirk, M., Korf, B., N.
McCarthy, N., & Meinzen-Dick, R. (2008). Property
rights, collective action, and poverty: The role of
institutions for poverty reduction. CAPRi Working Paper
No. 81. Washington, DC: International Food Policy
Research Institute.
Dev, O. P., Yadav, N. P., Springate-Baginski, O., & Soussan,
J. (2003). Impacts of community forestry on livelihoods
in the middle hills of Nepal. Journal of Forest and
Livelihood, 3(1), 6477.
Theory and Practice: Where are we now? Annual Review
of Anthropology, 36, 301–336. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev.anthro.35.081705.123143
Fikir, D., Tadesse, W., & Gure, A. (2016). Economic
contribution to local livelihoods and households
dependency on dry land forest products in Hammer
District, Southeastern Ethiopia. International Journal of
Forestry Research, 2016, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/
2016/5474680
Cronkleton, P., Stone-Jovicich, S., Schmink, M., Taylor, P.L.,
& Barry, D. (2008). Environmental Governance and the
Emergence of Forest-Based Social Movements. CIFOR
Occasional Paper No. 49. Bogor: Center for International
Forestry Research.
Fisher, M. R., Moeliono, M., Mulyana, A., Yuliani, L.,
Adriadi, A., Kamaluddin, …, & Sahide, M. A. K. (2018).
Assessing the new social forestry project in Indonesia:
Recognition, livelihood and conservation? International
Forestry Review, 20(3), 346–361. https://doi.org/
10.1505/146554818824063014
Glasmeier, A. K., & Farrigan, T. (2005). Understanding
community forestry: A qualitative meta-study of the
concept, the process, and its potential for poverty
alleviation in the United States case. The Geographical
Journal, 171(1), 56–69.
Scientific Article
ISSN: 2087-0469
69
Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, 26(1), 59- 71, April 2020
EISSN: 2089-2063
DOI: 10.7226/jtfm.26.1.59

Mendham, E., & Curtis, A. (2010). Taking over the reins:
Trends and impacts of changes in rural property
ownership. Society & Natural Resources, 23(7),
653–668. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920801998893
Nasendi, B. D. (2000). Deforestation and forest policies in
Indonesia. In M. Palo & H. Vanhanen, World forests from
deforestation to transition? (pp. 167–182). Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publisher. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-94-010-0942-3_9
7(4), 413–424. https://doi.org/10.20886/jphka.2010.7.
4.413-424
Kusmana, C., & Sukwika, T. (2018). Coastal community
preference on the utilization of mangrove ecosystem and
channelbar in Indramayu, Indonesia. AACL Bioflux,
11(3), 905–918.
Maladi, Y. (2013). Critical legal study of capitalist-oriented
forest conversion. Jurnal Dinamika Hukum, 13(1),
109–123. https://doi.org/10.20884/1.jdh.2013.13.1.160
Hidayat, H. (2008). Politik lingkungan: Pengelolaan hutan
masa orde baru dan reformasi. Jakarta: Yayasan Obor
Indonesia.
Jorgenson, A. K., & Burns, T. J. (2007). Effects of rural and
urban population dynamics and national development on
deforestation in less-developed countries, 1990–2000.
Sociological Inquiry, 77(3), 460–482. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1475-682X.2007.00200.x
Kahn, J. R. (2005). The economic approach to environmental
and natural resources. Ohio: Thomson/South-Western.
Khususiyah, N., Buana, Y., & Suyanto. (2010). Community
forestry: Efforts to improve welfare and equitable
distribution of farmers' income around the forest. Bogor:
World Agroforestry Centre.
L'Roe, A. W., & Rissman, A. R. (2017). Changes in
Wisconsin's large private forests, 1999–2015: Land
ownership, conservation, and recreational access. Society
& Natural Resources, 30(1), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.
1080/08941920.2016.1180729
Mardikan to, T. (1 996). Penyuluha n pembangunan
kehutanan. Surakarta: Departemen Kehutanan dan
Fakultas Pertanian UNS.
Maryudi, A., Devkota, R. R., Schusser, C., Yufanyi, C., Sall,
M., Aurenhammer, H., …, & Krott, M. (2012). Back to
basics: Considerations in evaluating the outcomes of
community forestry. Forest Policy and Economics, 14(5),
1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.07.017
Means, K., Josayma, C., Nielsen, E., & Viriyasakultorn, V.
(2002). Community based forest resource conflict
management: A training package. Rome: Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Pramono, A. A. (2009). Forest environmental services for
local communities in the Ciliwung Hulu watershed.
Jurnal Penelitian Sosial dan Ekonomi Kehutanan, 6(1),
39–51. https://doi.org/10.20886/jpsek.2009.6.1.39-51
Rahman, S. A., Jacobsen, J. B., Healey, J. R., Roshetko, J. M.,
& Sunderland, T. (2017). Finding alternatives to swidden
agriculture: Does agroforestry improve livelihood
options and reduce pressure on existing forest?
Agroforestry Systems, 91(1), 185–199. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10457-016-9912-4
Putzel, L., Kelly, A. B., Cerutti, P. O., & Artati, Y. (2015).
Formalization as development in land and natural
resource policy. Society & Natural Resources, 28(5),
453–472. https:/ /doi.org/10.1080/089 41920.2015.
1014608
Ofoegbu, C., Chirwa, P., Francis, J., & Babalola, F. D.
(2017). Socio-economic factors influencing household
dependence on forests and its implication for forest-
based climate change interventions. Southern Forests: a
Journal of Forest Science, 79(2), 109–116. https://doi.
org/10.2989/20702620.2016.1255420
Poteete, A. R., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2010). Working
together: Collective action, the commons, and multiple
methods in practice. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Peluso, N. L. (1992). Rich forests, poor people: resource
control and resistance in Java. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Oakerson, R. J. (1992). Analyzing the commons: A
framework. In D. W. Bromley, Making the commons
work. San Francisco: ICS Press.
Pramono, A. A., & Aminah, A. (2010). Analisis faktor yang
berpe ngaruh terhadap kepu tus an ra kyat untuk
mengkonversi hutan rakyat di DAS Ciliwung Hulu.
Jurnal Penelitian Sosial dan Ekonomi Kehutanan, 7(3),
197–208.
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Racevskis, L. A., & Lupi, F. (2006). Comparing urban and
rural perceptions of and familiarity with the management
of forest ecosystems. Society & Natural Resources,
19(6), 479–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/0894192060066
3862
Rangan, H., & Lane, M. B. (2001). Indigenous peoples and
forest management: Comparative analysis of institutional
approaches in Australia and India. Society & Natural
Resources, 14(2), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/0894
19201300000544
Ratner, B. D. (2013). Building resilience in rural livelihood
systems as an investment in conflict prevention. In H.
Young, & L. Goldman, Livelihoods, natural resources,
Scientific Article
ISSN: 2087-0469
70
Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, 26(1), 59- 71, April 2020
EISSN: 2089-2063
DOI: 10.7226/jtfm.26.1.59

Schlager, E. & Ostrom, E. (1992). Property rights regimes
and natural resources a conceptual analysis. Land
Economics, 68(3), 249–262. https://doi.org/10.2307/
3146375
Saihani, A. (2011). Factor analysis of socioeconomic on
farmer's income in Sungai Durait Tengah village, Hulu
Sungai Utara regency. Jurnal Ziraa'ah, 31(3), 219–225.
https://doi.org/10.31602/zmip.v44i2
Skulska, I., Colaço, M. C., Aggarwal, S., Didier, H.,
Monteiro, M. L., & Rego, F. C. (2019). Assessment of
Portuguese community forestry using the voluntary
guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure and
FAO community-based forestry framework. Society &
Natural Resources, 33(1), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.
1080/08941920.2019.1660934
Siregar, H., & Sukwika, T. (2007). Faktor-faktor yang
mempengaruhi kinerja pasar tenaga kerja dan implikasi
kebijakannya terhadap sektor pertanian di Kabupaten
Bogor. SOCA: Jurnal Sosial Ekonomi Pertanian, 7(3),
1–22.
Siombo, M. R. (2014). The responsibility of regional
governments for environmental damage and its relation
to licensing authority in the forestry and mining sectors.
Jurnal Dinamika Hukum, 14(3), 394–405. https://doi.
org/10.20884/1.jdh.2014.14.3.306
Ratner, B. D., Meinzen-Dick, R., May, C., & Haglund, E.
(2013). Resource conflict, collective action, and
resilience: An analytical framework. International
Journal of the Commons, 7(1), 183–208. https://doi.org/
10.18352/ijc.276
and post-conflict peacebuilding. London: Earthscan.
Sinukaban, N. (2007). Soil and water conservation, key to
sustainable development. In F. Agus, Soil and water
conservation. Jakarta: Masyarakat Konservasi Tanah dan
Air.
Suharti, S. (2001). Increased community participation in
forest management through the development of social
forestry programmes in Indonesia. In P. J. M. Hillegers, &
H. H. Longh (Eds.), Proceedings of The Balance Between
Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use of
Tropical Rain Forests (pp. 233–244). Wageningen:
Tropenbos.
Suharjito, D., Sundawati, L., Suyanto, S. R. U., & Utami, A.
(2003). Socio-economic and cultural aspects of
th
agroforestry (5 Ed.). Bogor: World Agroforestry Centre
(ICRAF) Southeast Asia.
Sukwika, T. (2018b). Peran pembangunan infrastruktur
terhadap ketimpangan ekonomi antarwilayah di
Indonesia. Jurnal Wilayah dan Lingkungan, 6(2),
115–130. https://doi.org/10.14710/jwl.6.2.115-130
Sukwika, T., Darusman, D., Kusmana, C., & Nurrochmat, D.
R. (2016). Evaluating the level of sustainability of
privatel y manage d forest in Bogor, Indon esia.
Biodiversitas, Journal of Biological Diversity, 17(1),
241–248. https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d170135
Sukwika, T., Darusman, D., Kusmana, C., & Nurrochmat, D.
R. (2018). Policy scenarios for managing of sustainability
private-forests in Bogor Regency. Journal of Natural
Resources and Environmental Management, 8(2),
207–215. https://doi.org/10.29244/jpsl.8.2.207-215
Verbist, B., Putra, A.E., & Budidarsono, S. (2004). Penyebab
alih guna lahan dan akibatnya terhadap fungsi daerah
aliran sungai (DAS) pada lansekap agroforestri berbasis
kopi di Sumatera. Jurnal Agrivita, 26(1), 29–38.
Sukwika, T. (2018a). Actor analysis in formulating
institutional models for community-forest development
in Bogor Regency. Journal of Regional and Rural
Development Pla nning , 2(2), 133 –150. https://
doi.org/10.29244/jp2wd.2018.2.2.133-150
Yusuf, Y. (2004). Hukum lingkungan versus pembangunan
nasional. Jurnal Respublica, 4(1), 97–109.
Scientific Article
ISSN: 2087-0469
71
Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, 26(1), 59- 71, April 2020
EISSN: 2089-2063
DOI: 10.7226/jtfm.26.1.59