The "Common Pool" Problems in the Protected Area Regarding Natural Tourism in Indonesia
Article Sidebar
Issue
Vol. 28 No. 2 (2022)
Accepted
18 April 2022
Published
2 August 2022
Keywords:
-
institutional analysis, protected areas, use of natural tourism
Abstract
Phenomena that indicate the performance of the use of natural tourism in protected areas indicate that there are institutional problems in it. This study aims to determine the influence of exogenous variables on the action arena for the use of natural tourism in protected areas in Indonesia. Data were collected through in-depth interviews, participatory observation, document, and regulatory review. Then the data were analyzed using descriptive analysis. This study was analyzed using the institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework. This framework provides a useful approach to understanding institutional issues. Based on the research, the influence of exogenous variables on the action arena, among others 1) there is an incorrect implementation between the cooperation agreement and the permit carried out by the Mount Gede Pangrango National Park Office as the principal, which has resulted in the agent bearing additional costs to obtain exclusion rights, and the principal's loss does not receive a contribution in the form of Levies on The Results of Business Activities for Nature Tourism Facilities from the transfer of rights to agents; 2) when public access is closed in the public space, there will be a conflict between the agent and the community which creates a high cost of exclusion and is charged to the agent; 3) the agent is aware of the lack of principal resources to carry out supervision so that the agent does not immediately carry out his obligations.
References
Afriyanie, D., Akbar, R., & Suroso, D. S. A. (2018). Socio-ecological resilience for urban green space allocation. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 145, 012120. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/145/1/012120
Aryasa, A. M., Bambang, A. N., & Muhammad, F. (2017). The study of environmental carrying capacity for sustainable tourism in Telaga Warna Telaga Pengilon Nature Park, Dieng Plateu, Central Java. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 70, 012003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/70/1/012003
Ban, N. C., Mills, M., Tam, J., Hicks, C. C., Klain, S., & Stoeckl, N. (2013). A social ecological approach to conservation planning: Embedding social considerations. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11(4), 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1890/110205
Badola, R., Hussain, S. A., Dobriyal, P., Manral, U., Barthwal, S., Rastogi, A., & Gill, A. K. (2018). Institutional arrangements for managing tourism in the Indian Himalayan protected areas. Tourism Management, 66, 1–12.
Crona, B. I., & Parker, J. N. (2012). Learning in support of governance: Theories, methods, and a framework to assess how bridging organizations contribute to adaptive resource governance. Ecology and Society, 17(1), 32. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04534-170132
Diamond, D. W., & Verrecchia, R. E. (1991). Disclosure, liquidity, and the cost of capital. Journal of Finance, 46(4), 1325–1359. https://doi.org/10.2307/2328861
German, L. A., & Keeler, A. (2010). “Hybrid institutions”: Applications of common property theory beyond discrete property regimes. International Journal of the Commons, 4(1), 571–596. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.108
Gibson, C., Williams, J., Ostrom, E. (2005). Local enforcement and better forests. World Development, 33(2), 273–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.07.013
Hearne, R. R., & Santos, C. A. (2005). Tourists and locals preferences toward ecotourism development in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7(3), 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-004-2944-3
Imperial, M. T. (1999). Institutional analysis and ecosystem-based management: The institutional analysis and development framework. Environmental Management, 24(4), 449–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002679900246
Imperial, M. T., & Yandle, T. (2005). Taking institutions seriously: Using the IAD framework to analyze fisheries policy. Society and Natural Resources, 18, 493–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920590947922
Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behaviour, agency cost, and ownership structure. Jurnal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
Jeong, J. S., García-Moruno, L., Hernández-Blanco, J., & Jaraíz-Cabanillas, F. J. (2014). An operational method to supporting siting decisions for sustainable rural second home planning in ecotourism sites. Land Use Policy, 41, 550–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.04.012
Kartodihardjo, H. (2006). Economics and forest management institutions: Further analysis of forestry business policy analysis. Bogor: Institute for Deveopment Economics of Agriculture and Rural Areas (IDEALS).
Kartodihardjo, H., Nagara, G., & Situmorang, A. W. (2015). Transaction cost of forest utilization licenses: Institutional issues. Jurnal Manajement Hutan Tropika, 21(3), 184–191. https://doi.org/10.7226/jtfm.21.3.184
Kartodihardjo, H. (2017). Natural resource management policy analysis: Discourse-politics-actors-network. Bogor: Sajogyo Institute.
Kiser, L., & Ostrom, E. (1982). The three worlds of action: A metatheoretical synthesis of institutional approaches. In E. Ostrom (Ed.), Strategies for political inquiry (pp. 179–222). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Klein, T. J., Lambertz, C., & Stahl, K. O. (2016) Market transparency, adverse selection, and moral hazard. Journal of Political Economy, 124(6), 1677–1713. https://doi.org/10.1086/688875
Libecap, G. (1989). Distributional issues in contracting for property rights. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 145(1), 6–24.
Lin, H. -H., Lee, S. -S., Perng, Y. -S., & Yu, S. -T. (2018). Investigation about the impact of tourism development on a water protected area in Taiwan. Sustainability, 10(7), 2328. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072328
Muradian, R., & Rival, L. (2012). Between markets and hierarchies: The challenge of governing ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.009
Mustafa, D. (2012). Bureaucratic Ethics and Community Culture in Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmiah Administrasi, 1(1), 99–113.
Orams, M. B. (1995). Towards a more desirable form of ecotourism. In C. Ryan, & S. Page (Eds.), Tourism management (pp. 315–323). London: Routledge. http://doi.org/10.4324/9780080519449-31
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ostrom, E., & Crawford, S. (2005). A grammar of institutions (Understand). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2008). Institutions and the environment. Economic Affairs, 28(3), 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0270.2008.00840.x
Pegas, F. V., & Castley, J. G. (2014). Ecotourism as a conservation tool and its adoption by private protected areas in Brazil. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(4), 604–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2013.875550
Pohan, C. A. (2014). Cadangan reklamasi pertambangan sebagai loopholes pajak dalam penerapan prinsip taxability-deductibility. Transparansi: Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Administrasi, 6(2), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.31334/trans.v6i2.41
Sabatier, P. A., Leach, W., Lubell, M., & Pelkey, N. (2005). Theoretical frame-works explaining partnership success. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Schlager, E., & Blomquist, W. (1996). A comparison of three emerging theories of the policy process. Political Research Quarterly, 49(3), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299604900311
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
Aryasa, A. M., Bambang, A. N., & Muhammad, F. (2017). The study of environmental carrying capacity for sustainable tourism in Telaga Warna Telaga Pengilon Nature Park, Dieng Plateu, Central Java. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 70, 012003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/70/1/012003
Ban, N. C., Mills, M., Tam, J., Hicks, C. C., Klain, S., & Stoeckl, N. (2013). A social ecological approach to conservation planning: Embedding social considerations. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11(4), 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1890/110205
Badola, R., Hussain, S. A., Dobriyal, P., Manral, U., Barthwal, S., Rastogi, A., & Gill, A. K. (2018). Institutional arrangements for managing tourism in the Indian Himalayan protected areas. Tourism Management, 66, 1–12.
Crona, B. I., & Parker, J. N. (2012). Learning in support of governance: Theories, methods, and a framework to assess how bridging organizations contribute to adaptive resource governance. Ecology and Society, 17(1), 32. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04534-170132
Diamond, D. W., & Verrecchia, R. E. (1991). Disclosure, liquidity, and the cost of capital. Journal of Finance, 46(4), 1325–1359. https://doi.org/10.2307/2328861
German, L. A., & Keeler, A. (2010). “Hybrid institutions”: Applications of common property theory beyond discrete property regimes. International Journal of the Commons, 4(1), 571–596. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.108
Gibson, C., Williams, J., Ostrom, E. (2005). Local enforcement and better forests. World Development, 33(2), 273–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.07.013
Hearne, R. R., & Santos, C. A. (2005). Tourists and locals preferences toward ecotourism development in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7(3), 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-004-2944-3
Imperial, M. T. (1999). Institutional analysis and ecosystem-based management: The institutional analysis and development framework. Environmental Management, 24(4), 449–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002679900246
Imperial, M. T., & Yandle, T. (2005). Taking institutions seriously: Using the IAD framework to analyze fisheries policy. Society and Natural Resources, 18, 493–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920590947922
Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behaviour, agency cost, and ownership structure. Jurnal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
Jeong, J. S., García-Moruno, L., Hernández-Blanco, J., & Jaraíz-Cabanillas, F. J. (2014). An operational method to supporting siting decisions for sustainable rural second home planning in ecotourism sites. Land Use Policy, 41, 550–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.04.012
Kartodihardjo, H. (2006). Economics and forest management institutions: Further analysis of forestry business policy analysis. Bogor: Institute for Deveopment Economics of Agriculture and Rural Areas (IDEALS).
Kartodihardjo, H., Nagara, G., & Situmorang, A. W. (2015). Transaction cost of forest utilization licenses: Institutional issues. Jurnal Manajement Hutan Tropika, 21(3), 184–191. https://doi.org/10.7226/jtfm.21.3.184
Kartodihardjo, H. (2017). Natural resource management policy analysis: Discourse-politics-actors-network. Bogor: Sajogyo Institute.
Kiser, L., & Ostrom, E. (1982). The three worlds of action: A metatheoretical synthesis of institutional approaches. In E. Ostrom (Ed.), Strategies for political inquiry (pp. 179–222). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Klein, T. J., Lambertz, C., & Stahl, K. O. (2016) Market transparency, adverse selection, and moral hazard. Journal of Political Economy, 124(6), 1677–1713. https://doi.org/10.1086/688875
Libecap, G. (1989). Distributional issues in contracting for property rights. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 145(1), 6–24.
Lin, H. -H., Lee, S. -S., Perng, Y. -S., & Yu, S. -T. (2018). Investigation about the impact of tourism development on a water protected area in Taiwan. Sustainability, 10(7), 2328. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072328
Muradian, R., & Rival, L. (2012). Between markets and hierarchies: The challenge of governing ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.009
Mustafa, D. (2012). Bureaucratic Ethics and Community Culture in Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmiah Administrasi, 1(1), 99–113.
Orams, M. B. (1995). Towards a more desirable form of ecotourism. In C. Ryan, & S. Page (Eds.), Tourism management (pp. 315–323). London: Routledge. http://doi.org/10.4324/9780080519449-31
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ostrom, E., & Crawford, S. (2005). A grammar of institutions (Understand). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2008). Institutions and the environment. Economic Affairs, 28(3), 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0270.2008.00840.x
Pegas, F. V., & Castley, J. G. (2014). Ecotourism as a conservation tool and its adoption by private protected areas in Brazil. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(4), 604–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2013.875550
Pohan, C. A. (2014). Cadangan reklamasi pertambangan sebagai loopholes pajak dalam penerapan prinsip taxability-deductibility. Transparansi: Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Administrasi, 6(2), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.31334/trans.v6i2.41
Sabatier, P. A., Leach, W., Lubell, M., & Pelkey, N. (2005). Theoretical frame-works explaining partnership success. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Schlager, E., & Blomquist, W. (1996). A comparison of three emerging theories of the policy process. Political Research Quarterly, 49(3), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299604900311
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
Authors
Badi’ah, KartodihardjoH., NugrohoB., & SupriyantoB. (2022). The "Common Pool" Problems in the Protected Area Regarding Natural Tourism in Indonesia. Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, 28(2), 128. https://doi.org/10.7226/jtfm.28.2.128
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika is an open access journal which means that all contents is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition of open access.Article Details
