Vol. 9(2): 239-251, May 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.23960/jsl29239-251

Jurnal Sylva Lestari

P-ISSN: 2339-0913
E-ISSN: 2549-5747

Journal homepage: https://jurnal.fp.unila.ac.id/index.php/JHT

Full Length Research Article

Delivering Benefits from State Forest: Lesson from Partnership of NatureBased Tourism Development in KPH Yogyakarta
Prasetyo Nugroho1, Wiyono1,*, Azwar Najib Alhafi2
1

Department of Bioresources Technology and Veterinary, Vocational College of Universitas Gadjah Mada. Yogyakarta, 55281,
Indonesia
2
Aliansi Relawan untuk Penyelamatan Alam (ARuPA). Yogyakarta, 55284, Indonesia
*
Corresponding author. E-mail address: wiyono.putro@ugm.ac.id
ARTICLE HISTORY:
Received: 2 February 2021
Peer review completed: 22 March 2021
Received in revised form: 23 March 2021
Accepted: 9 April 2021

KEYWORDS:
Forest Management Unit
Nature-based tourism
Social forestry

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by
Department of Forestry, Faculty of
Agriculture, University of Lampung in
collaboration with Indonesia Network for
Agroforestry Education (INAFE).
This is an open access article under the
CC BY-NC license:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync/4.0/.

ABSTRACT
While many studies have examined Forest Management Unit or Kesatuan
Pengelolaan Hutan (KPH) management in Indonesia, studies that focused
on specific partnership policies in developing nature-based tourism in KPH
remain understudied. This study offered a case of partnership in naturebased tourism development in the Mangunan area, KPH Yogyakarta,
Indonesia. To understand to what degree the partnership benefits locals and
forest areas, a triangulation approach includes secondary data collection,
interviews, and field observations were employed. In the case considered,
it is evident that the deliberative policies of KPH Yogyakarta foster social
innovations in nature-based tourism development and serve the pathway in
delivering simultaneous benefits for locals and forest areas. In drawing its
conclusion, the study highlights that the nature-based tourism development
in the Mangunan area has fostered locals’ roles in managing state-forest
areas by which they generate numerous benefits. Furthermore, this study
provides valuable insights that would allow us to better grasp the positive
impacts of innovative policies in managing KPH.

1. Introduction
The sustainability of forest resources and ecosystems has become a global concern. In
Indonesia, Forest Management Unit or Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan (KPH) have been the core of
the forest management policy system (Setyarso et al. 2014). Indonesian forest constitutions
mandate that the KPH system is imperative for sustainable forest management (SFM). It is beyond
the doubt that to be considered sustainably managed, forests should have an essential role in
producing timber, conserving biodiversity, and providing sustainable livelihoods for locals. Also,
earlier studies concurred that a successful collaborative natural resources management system is
generally contingent upon a set of reliable institutions and multilevel support (Cox et al. 2010;
Erbaugh 2019; Julijanti et al. 2015).
Over the years, there has been growing attention that the implementation of forestry
partnership in KPH would support SFM (Julijanti et al. 2015; Kim et al. 2016; Tajuddin et al.
2019). It may be influenced by the notion of the decentralization of power from state authority to
locals as well as private stakeholders at different levels of governance is required (Howlett et al.
2009). At this point, KPHs are expected to play a significant role in reforming the domestic forestry

239

Nugroho et al. (2021)

Jurnal Sylva Lestari 9(2): 239-251

sector to be more effective, equitable, and sustainable by assisting collaboration among
government, local communities, and private sectors. KPHs are also mandated to be self-financial
sustained and generate diverse income streams for the state while benefits adjacent local
communities. The transformative roles of KPH in reshaping relations with neighboring local
communities and external stakeholders are consequential (Kim et al. 2016). However, effective
control over SFM in KPH has been curtailed by the highly complex and ever-changing
policies/regulations over the years (Julijanti et al. 2015; Tajuddin et al. 2019). Given these
circumstances, KPHs are encouraged to find innovative approaches for carrying out their
management objectives (Julijanti et al. 2015; Setyarso et al. 2014). Specifically, regardless of the
existing forest management paradigm, Tajuddin et al. (2019) recommend implementing a specific
form of forestry partnership schemes should be promoted to support the self-sustained KPH’s
management.
A pool of studies has indeed been dedicated to explaining the dynamic of KPH
implementation in Indonesia, but most of them focus on the dynamic process at the national level,
specifically on the changing policy-socio-political landscapes (Julijanti et al. 2015; Kim et al.
2016; Sahide et al. 2016; Tajuddin et al. 2019). Scholars have also described the existing forestry
partnership schemes in the KPH context. For instance, Septiana (2020) demonstrated how locals
in two villages in central Java have benefited from the profit-sharing of partnership scheme teak
(Tectona grandis) forest management in a state-owned forestry company, Perhutani. Also, Sahide
et al. (2020) testified how locals in some areas of Java and Sulawesi islands perceived their
economic benefits from their tree plantation forest in KPH. Despite the fact that the
aforementioned studies offer valuable insights and explanations of KPH management in Indonesia,
they do not provide sufficient answers on how forest areas and their adjacent local communities
benefit from the forestry partnership scheme, particularly in nature-based tourism development, in
KPH. Limited attention has also been given to the prospective of specific forestry partnership
schemes (i.e., nature-based tourism development) implementation. More importantly, a matter of
how locals’ power is strengthened through the partnership policies, which eventually generate
benefits for both locals and forest areas in the context of KPH in Indonesia, remains underexplored.
Using the case of the Mangunan area of KPH Yogyakarta, the pilot of the KPH system in
Indonesia, this study attempts to elucidate the forestry-partnership scheme’s local dynamic,
specifically in nature-based tourism destinations development initiative, in KPH. To what degree
does forestry partnership in the Mangunan area of KPH Yogyakarta reflect the increasing
implementation of a sustainable forest management orientation through simultaneous institutional
changes and social innovations. This study focused on finding the empirical evidence of the
strengthening role of adjacent local communities in managing the state-forest area through naturebased tourism development and understanding the extent to which this scheme benefits locals,
local government, and forest areas. The study will serve a better picture of plausible forestry
partnership scheme options over KPH in Indonesia. Ultimately, this provides an essential initial
step towards evaluating this partnership scheme’s effectiveness in achieving economic,
environmental, and social goals. To explain that, this study borrows the concept of institutional
changes and social innovations as the theoretical framework of the study. These have been
intensively used in research that focuses on understanding the governance of social innovation in
forestry sectors and marginalized rural areas (Ludvig et al. 2020; Lukesch et al. 2020; Polman et
al. 2017).

240

Nugroho et al. (2021)

Jurnal Sylva Lestari 9(2): 239-251

2. Materials and Methods
The research was conducted in the Mangunan area, KPH Yogyakarta. Administratively,
KPH Yogyakarta is managed under the Environment and Forestry Agency of Yogyakarta
province. Due to its forest management achievement, KPH-Yogyakarta has been acknowledged
as a pilot in Indonesian KPH (Nurjaman et al. 2019). The forest areas of the Mangunan are about
570.7 Ha are dedicated to protection forest, and it is directly adjacent to three villages with a total
population is more than 16,000 people.
The current research constitutes a part of our more extensive study of nature-tourism
destinations development in the KPH Yogyakarta. With regard to forest management practices,
the link between institutional changes and social innovation in sustainably managing forest areas
has received increasing attention (Kluvánková et al. 2018; Ludvig et al. 2021; Lukesch et al. 2020;
Nijnik et al. 2019). It is mainly to address complex environmental, social, and economic problems.
For instance, Luo et al. (2016) demonstrated how institutional changes through changes in policies
and political directions play an essential role in providing space for China’s nature-based tourism
development. For this study, institutional changes were defined as policies or political frameworks
that can provide enabling environments and create social innovations (Lukesch et al. 2020), which
eventually derive outputs. At this point, this study hypothesizes that shifting policies from landbased activities to nature-based tourism development in the Mangungan area will generate
simultaneous economic, socio-cultural, and environmental results for locals and forest areas.
Indeed, nature-based tourism development is fostered to serve more sustainable livelihoods for
locals while maintaining forest conservation efforts (Chung et al. 2018; Lee and Jan 2019; Luo
and Deng 2008). Therefore, evaluating the extent to which nature-based tourism initiatives benefit
locals and forest areas is crucial.
The present study employed a triangulation approach as secondary data collection (reports
review), interviews, and field observations. Data collection was conducted in 2018 (May –
September) and at the end of 2019. In total, 14 key informants were interviewed. Those consisted
of the Koperasi Notowono (KNW) head and secretary, three informants of KPH Yogyakarta’s
representatives, and nine tourism site operators throughout the Mangunan area. A descriptive
statistic was used to explain the implementation of a forestry-partnership scheme in nature-based
tourism destination development. Likewise, to what extent locals and forest areas were benefited
from the scheme was also elucidated descriptively.
As mentioned earlier, the concept of institutional changes and social innovation was used as
the theoretical framework of the study. The current study on the theoretical framework is built on
actors-centered institutional theory (Ostrom 2011), which posits that institutions are governed by
norms and rules as well as actors and groups of actors. Following the non-hierarchical governanceprocesses approaches, scholars have concurred that the formulation of public policies is generated
from collective actions (e.g., participation, negotiation) of various stakeholders (e.g., private
sectors, civil society) (Ludvig et al. 2020; Lukesch et al. 2020). Additionally, Polman et al. (2017)
defined social innovation as “the reconfiguring of social practices, in response to societal
challenges, which seeks to enhance outcomes on societal well-being and necessarily includes the
engagement of civil society actors”. Those mentioned conceptual backgrounds implied that
particular institutional arrangements and policy initiatives might foster or hinder social
innovations, vice versa. This study also explored how the role of locals was strengthened in
managing the state-forest area through nature-based tourism development facilitated by KPH

241

Nugroho et al. (2021)

Jurnal Sylva Lestari 9(2): 239-251

Yogyakarta. In addition, social innovation theory was used to explore the locals’ social, economic,
and ecological practices through nature-based tourism destinations development in the Mangunan
area to deliver simultaneous benefits for both forest and locals.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Overview of Partnership Scheme in Mangunan KPH Yogyakarta
KPH Yogyakarta is predominantly dedicated to production forests or Kesatuan Pengelolaan
Hutan Produksi (KPHP), the Mangunan area, located in the hilly area, is mainly covered by Pine
forests. Thus, they eventually play an essential role in the life-supporting system for their
neighboring communities (i.e., forest-based ecosystem services) and limit their ability to produce
timber. On the other hand, the areas are directly adjacent to three villages, which can subsequently
be considered forest-dependent communities (Nurjaman et al. 2019; Riyanto et al. 2020). Indeed,
most of the neighboring locals had long been involved in forest management, mainly through pinetapping activities and agroforestry. However, the institutional changes of KPH Yogyakarta have
restricted their access to conduct land-based activities, including pine-tapping (Riyanto et al.
2020). While generating incomes from land-based activities was forbidden in the Mangunan area,
KPH Yogyakarta seeks to provide a mutually beneficial scheme for locals and forest areas. Given
these scenarios, the partnership scheme between KPH and locals in developing nature-based
destinations in the Mangunan area is believed as a plausible option in addressing social, economic,
and environmental concerns (Nurjaman et al. 2019).
Over the years, KPH Yogyakarta has faced complex challenges to maintain their forest areas
are sustainably managed. Nurjaman et al. (2019) indicated that land encroachment and adjacent
locals’ poverty were prominent issues. The present study found that instead of being more coercive
in managing forest areas, the institutional bureaucracy of KPH Yogyakarta has been shifted toward
more using a cooperative forest management approach. Moreover, optimizing forest-based
ecosystem services through nature-based tourism developments is becoming more prominent
(Alhafi 2020). Our results also indicate that how KPH Yogyakarta generates social innovation to
govern forest areas through partnership schemes with promising incentives is fundamental in
engaging locals in developing nature-based tourism destinations in the Mangunan area. These
findings corroborated by earlier studies suggest that simultaneous institutional changes and social
innovation are prerequisites to tackle persistent forest management problems, e.g., social conflicts
(Kluvánková et al. 2018; Kurniasih et al. 2021; Nijnik et al. 2019).
Regarding Indonesian national policies, KPHs are responsible for managing forests
sustainably while also mandated to be self-financial sustained by diversifying their business units
(Nurjaman et al. 2019; Setyarso et al. 2014). These circumstances forced KPH Yogyakarta to be
agile institutions in adapting to dynamic environments. At this point, KPH Yogyakarta’s
orientation has been shifted from land-based activities toward more optimizing forest-based
ecosystem services, i.e., nature-based tourism (Kaharuddin et al. 2020a, 2020b; Wiyono et al.
2020). Concerning the Mangunan area, they faced problems with old pine forest areas with low
pine-sap productivity. On the other hand, Pine-forest areas are located in the hilly area, which is
eventually critical for maintaining the watershed’s ecological functions. Therefore, harvesting the
old pine forests in the Mangunan area may trigger environmental issues such as water scarcity and
erosion (Nurjaman et al. 2019). Accordingly, nature-based tourism development is believed a
viable option to diversify KPH’s business unit by providing a more sustainable livelihood for
242

Nugroho et al. (2021)

Jurnal Sylva Lestari 9(2): 239-251

adjacent locals while maintaining the forest areas. Although KPH Yogyakarta initiated naturebased tourism destinations development in the Mangunan area in 2014 (Nurjaman et al. 2019;
Riyanto et al. 2020), it just subsequently officially undertaken by the signing memorandum of
understanding (MoU) between the Environment and Forestry Agency of Yogyakarta province and
Koperasi Notowono (KNW) in 2017. KNW is a community-based cooperative (CBC) consisting
of previous members of forest-user groups and local communities adjacent to the Mangunan area.
In total, 6,633 locals were being a member of KNW. Fig. 1 shows the institutional structures in
managing nature-based tourism destinations.
National regulations
UU No. 41 tahun 1999
UU No 23 tahun 2014
PP No. 6 tahun 2007

Provincial regulations
Perda No. 7 tahun 2015
Pergub No. 84 tahun 2016

MoU
Environmental &
Forestry Agency of
Yogyakarta Province

Koperasi Notowono
(KNW)

Nature-based tourism
development

KPH Yogyakarta
(including the Mangunan
area)

Members of Koperasi
Notowono

Coordination

Coordination, Supervision, monitoring
& evaluation, empowerment

Forest management of the
Mangunan area
Nature-based tourism

Strengthened locals'
roles in managing forest
areas

Promoting local's
socio-cultural
authenticities

Enhanced local
government’s
revenue

Increased job
opportunities and
locals’ income

Fig. 1. Institutional structures in managing nature-based tourism destinations in the Mangunan
area.
3.2. Outputs of the Partnership Scheme
Cases of nature-based tourism development managed by the community worldwide have
taught that tourism development potentially generates simultaneous economic, socio-cultural, and
environmental benefits (Lee 2013; Nugroho and Numata 2020; Nunkoo and Gursoy 2012;
Rasoolimanesh et al. 2017; Sharpley 2020). Outputs of the partnership scheme in developing
nature-based tourism in the Mangunan area are discussed below.

243

Nugroho et al. (2021)

Jurnal Sylva Lestari 9(2): 239-251

3.2.1. Strengthened locals’ roles in managing forest areas
A bulk of scientific publications has indicated the importance of partnership in supporting
sustainable forest management, particularly to address economic, social, and environmental
problems between forest areas and forest-dependent communities (Erbaugh 2019; Kurniasih et al.
2021; Putraditama et al. 2019; Sahide et al. 2020; Wong et al. 2020). This study found that the
partnership scheme for nature-based tourism development in the Mangunan area provides a
channel for locals to regain access to and benefits from forest areas. The partnership
simultaneously strengthened local institutions and adjacent locals in managing forest areas.
However, prior to its establishment, the Mangunan area mainly produced pine-sap from their
Pine forest areas. Those locals joining the forest user group (KTH, Kelompok Tani Hutan in
Indonesian) were used to conduct land-based activities, including temporal agricultural cropping
under the forest canopy and pine-tapping. Hence, they generally had no or limited experience in
tourism. These eventually had led to forest users’ barriers to adapt to KPH’s forest management
system changes, which have shifted toward developing nature-based tourism (Riyanto et al. 2020).
Concerning partnership in tourism development policies in the Mangungan area, a
community-based cooperative (CBC) as a community’s legal representation is required. Kurniasih
et al. (2021) indicated that the CBC had the potential for stronger roots in rural livelihood economic
activities. However, it was found that those previously belong to several forest user groups
scattered in the Mangunan area have subsequently merged into a single community-based
cooperative, Koperasi Notowono (KNW). By joining into a single community-based cooperative,
KNW has become a more reliable local organization. They have a more robust legal standing,
stable structures, and structured internal regulations. Indeed, reliable CBC would play a significant
role in addressing locals’ key barriers (e.g., lack of knowledge, managerial, entrepreneurship,
external relations, communication) and creating a pathway to empower local communities
(Kurniasih et al. 2021). In addition to former forest user group members, the younger generation
of adjacent locals has also joined the KNW. Indeed, scholars have concurred that younger locals
are usually more agile, interested in developing tourism, and eventually generating benefits. Given
this scenario, this study observed that KNW plays significant roles in enhancing locals’ capacities
to overcome barriers in developing nature-based destinations. KNW managed to organize sharing,
discussion, and training sessions periodically to strengthen knowledge and skills in managing
tourist destinations. More importantly, KNW has a decisive role in mediating the coordination and
mutually benefiting relations among local government (i.e., Environment and forestry agency of
Yogyakarta province), KPH Yogyakarta, and external stakeholders.
This study also indicated that the local government, KPH, and KNW share roles in naturebased tourism destination development in the Mangunan area through the partnership. It was found
that the roles of locals in forest governance in the Mangunan area are strengthened. By joining
KNW, locals would have higher opportunities to be actively involved in proposing, planning,
decision-making, and managing tourist destinations. Under KPH officials’ supervision, KNW is
enabled to propose, plan, build, and manage tourism attractions and facilities at the nature-based
tourist sites in the Mangunan area. Nevertheless, the partnership scheme also obligates KNW to
support the conservation efforts of forest areas fully. These also supported the notion that by
enabling the locals’ participation in forest management and adjust development intentions,
sustainable forest management is secured (Erbaugh 2019; Friedman et al. 2020). Ultimately, those
strategies have also been increasingly conclusive that building locals’ institutional capacity to play

244

Nugroho et al. (2021)

Jurnal Sylva Lestari 9(2): 239-251

an active role in forest governance is pivotal (Akamani et al. 2015; Friedman et al. 2020;
Putraditama et al. 2019; Rakatama and Pandit 2020; Santika et al. 2017).
3.2.2. Increased job opportunities and locals’ income
Compared to other social forestry schemes, nature-based tourism development in the
Mangunan area’s partnership offers tantalizing economic benefits for KWN and its members.
Since the first establishment, KNW has now managed nine tourist sites across the Mangunan area.
Once tourism becomes trickle down in the Mangunan area, numerous job opportunities for KNW’s
members and locals are offers; they include parking staff, tour guide, shopkeepers, homestay,
selling souvenirs, traditional food, and beverages. These eventually generated incomes for KNW.
Table 1 demonstrates the revenues generated by tourism in 2017–2019. Table 1 also describes
how tourism revenue from tourism increased every year. By the end of 2019, KNW earned a total
of IDR 9,644,541,019.
Tabel 1. Nature-based tourism revenue in the Mangunan area in 2017 - 2019
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Sites

Gunung Pengger
Puncak Becici
Bukit Lintang Sewu
Pinus Asri
Pinus Sari
Seribu Batu
Bukit Mojo
Bukit Panguk
Lembah Ndahromo
Total (100%)
KNW (75%)
Sharing
Local government (25%)

2017
1,084,721,000
1,417,840,000
240,390,000
466,301,000
2,976,909,500
1,228,491,000
133,677,000
269,403,000
33,592,000
7,851,324,500
5,888,493,375
1,962,831,125

Revenue (IDR) per year
2018
2019
1,926,755,000
2,897,688,000
1,963,266,000
2,041,645,000
355,857,000
222,709,500
429,000,000
351,229,000
2,547,625,000
2,505,901,000
1,348,408,000
1,158,746,500
301,481,000
399,402,000
47,832,000
12,037,500
122,189,000
55,180,500
9,042,413,000
9,644,539,000
6,781,809,750
7,233,404,250
2,260,603,250
2,411,134,750

Interestingly, this study found that the proportion of tourism revenue sharing is more
significant for KNW and its members than for the government. More importantly, it was found
that the partnership offers higher benefits sharing than other social forestry schemes throughout
Indonesia’s forest management system. Concerning the legal partnership agreement, 75% of
tourism revenue goes to KNW, and 25% remaining for the local government’s revenue. Moreover,
through their comparative studies on social forestry schemes across Indonesia, Sahide et al. (2020)
described that various social forestry schemes implementation offer roughly 25–70% benefits
sharing for locals. Likewise, scholars have also indicated that under the collaborative forest
management scheme in Perhutani, a state-owned forestry company, the forest user group received
less than 75% of the benefits sharing of forest production (Bratamihardja et al. 2005; Septiana
2020; Yokota et al. 2014). Those finding was supported by Riyanto et al. (2020) findings that
before tourist destination development, those locals joining forest user groups of the Mangunan
area only received the wage from tapping the pine-sap and small amounts of money from cropping.
They also described that joining nature-based tourism increased locals’ income by 135%.
Therefore, those explanations as mentioned above have confirmed that partnership in managing
245

Nugroho et al. (2021)

Jurnal Sylva Lestari 9(2): 239-251

nature-based tourist destinations in the Mangunan area offers meaningful economic benefits for
locals and local government.
3.2.3. Enhanced local government’s revenue
Instead of only fostering locals’ incomes, nature-based tourism development in the
Mangunan area by KPH Yogyakarta has supplemented the local government’s incomes, i.e.,
Yogyakarta province. As mentioned earlier, 25% of the total tourism revenue goes to local
government income (Pendapatan Asli Daerah/PAD). For instance, a substantial amount of money,
i.e., IDR 2,411,135,255, has been earned by the local government from tourism in the Mangunan
area by 2019. Detailed benefit sharings of tourism between 2017–2019 can be seen in Table 1.
Surprisingly, it was noticed that the partnership of nature-based tourism destinations in the
Mangunan area has a novel approach in managing tourism revenue from the government’s forest
areas. Both locals and local government earned portions of tourism economic benefits. In contrast,
existing studies have described that a portion of tourism revenue in Indonesian national parks
directly goes to the central government through non-tax government income (PNBP, Pendapatan
Negara Bukan Pajak in Indonesian) (Istiqomah et al. 2019; Rakhmah and Handayani 2019;
Yuniarsih et al. 2014). Also, the implementation of social forestry schemes across Indonesia has
taught us that they usually focus on distributing benefits for locals and the central government.
The local government may usually be ruled out from economic benefit-sharing policies (Sahide et
al. 2020; Septiana 2020). Accordingly, those benefit-sharing practices in the Mangunan area may
potentially strengthen local government relationships and weaken the potential conflict of interest.
3.2.4. Enhanced environmental conservation efforts
Nature-based tourism has become a rapidly growing segment of the tourism sector
worldwide (Chung et al. 2018; Kim et al. 2019). One of the primary reasons is that it positively
influences ecological awareness (Amornwitthawat and Phongkhieo 2019; Clifton 2013; Lee and
Jan 2019; Sharma and Gupta 2020; Walpole and Goodwin 2001). Our study found that tourism
development in the Mangunan area has increased locals’ awareness on how properly manage forest
areas, which eventually generate meaningful ecosystem services. Whilst obtaining benefits from
tourism, the agreement obligates KNW and its members to engage in forest conservation efforts
(Alhafi 2020). KNW subsequently manages this by conducting forest patrol, forest fire prevention,
and alleviating illegal logging. Moreover, KNW has also collaborated with KPH, local
government, and related stakeholders in establishing attractive programs for its members and
adjacent locals to conserve the forest area by planting the trees. They allocate a portion of tourism
revenue for environmentally sound activities. Since its first establishment in 2017, KNW has
planted more than 22,437 trees. Table 2 demonstrates the number of trees planted between 2017–
2019 across the sites.
3.2.5. Promoting local’s socio-cultural authenticity
Historically, Mangunan forest areas have long been holding a strong cultural link to Mataram
and Yogyakarta empires. Therefore, the local’s socio-cultural authenticity (e.g., local wisdom,
local’s culture) is considered as the basis of the nature-based tourism destinations development in
the Mangunan area. Tourism development orientation is for obtaining economic benefits and

246

Nugroho et al. (2021)

Jurnal Sylva Lestari 9(2): 239-251

strengthening locals’ cultures while also ensuring forest sustainability. At the beginning of tourist
site establishment, KNW has explored how locals manage relationships with the forest areas
traditionally, included how the culture is locally rooted in the communities. Those locally rooted
cultures eventually manifested in numerous tourist attractions such as photo spots, traditional
dance, festivals, parades, traditional markets, local’s food and beverages, souvenirs, homestay, and
village excursions. As a result, the partnership between KNW and KPH Yogyakarta has
strengthened the integration of authentic cultures and locally rooted wisdom in managing forest
areas.
Table 2. Number of trees planted in 2017-2018
No.

Site

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Gunung Pengger
Puncak Becici
Bukit Lintang Sewu
Pinus Asri
Pinus Sari
Seribu Batu
Bukit Mojo
Bukit Panguk
Lembah Ndahromo
Total

Number of seedlings planted per year
2017
2018
2019
320
250
500
2,570
840
685
140
238
100
105
150
100
5,486
1,131
1,000
227
330
255
116
250
280
1,028
31
214
27
10
11,475
6,012
4,950

4. Conclusions
The present research concludes that partnerships in managing tourism destinations in the
Mangunan area have primarily strengthened locals’ roles in managing forest areas. Evidence has
also been indicated that nature-based tourism development also provides job opportunities and
locals’ income, supplements the local government’s revenue, promotes the local’s socio-cultural
authenticity, and supports forest conservation efforts. Ultimately, this research offers insight that
deliberative policy instruments and promising incentives play an essential role as the catalyst for
enhancing forest management to maintain sustainability and provide sustainable livelihoods for
locals.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express appreciation to the KPH Yogyakarta and Koperasi
Notowono staff to support this research. We are also thankful to the reviewers for their valuable
comments on the manuscript.
References
Akamani, K., Wilson, P. I., and Hall, T. E. 2015. Barriers to Collaborative Forest Management
and Implications for Building the Resilience of Forest-Dependent Communities in the
Ashanti Region of Ghana. Journal of Environmental Management 151: 11–21. DOI:
10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.12.006
247

Nugroho et al. (2021)

Jurnal Sylva Lestari 9(2): 239-251

Alhafi, A. N. 2020. Strategi Pengelolaan Wanawisata Budaya Mataram di RPH Mangunan
Yogyakarta. Thesis. Fakultas Kehutanan Universitas Gadjah Mada. Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
Amornwitthawat, P., and Phongkhieo, N. T. 2019. Pro-Environmental Behaviours of Visitors to
Thailand’s National Parks and Factors Discriminating the Behaviours. Asia Pacific Journal
of Tourism Research 24(10): 993-1004. DOI: 10.1080/10941665.2019.1653337
Bratamihardja, M., Satyawan, and Kartasubrata. 2005. Forest Management in Java 1975–1999:
Towards Collaborative Management. ICRAFT Southeast Asia Working Paper, No. 2005-1.
ICRAFT Southeast Asia Regional Office, Bogor, Indonesia.
Chung, M. G., Dietz, T., and Liu, J. 2018. Global Relationships Between Biodiversity and NatureBased Tourism in Protected Areas. Ecosystem Services 34: 11-23. DOI:
10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.09.004
Clifton, J. 2013. Refocusing Conservation through a Cultural Lens: Improving Governance in the
Wakatobi National Park, Indonesia. Marine Policy 41: 80-86. DOI:
10.1016/j.marpol.2012.12.015
Cox, M., Arnold, G., and Tomás, S. V. 2010. A Review of Design Principles for CommunityBased Natural Resource Management. Ecology and Society 15(4): 38. DOI: 10.5751/ES03704-150438
Erbaugh, J. T. 2019. Responsibilization and Social Forestry in Indonesia. Forest Policy and
Economics 109: 1-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102019
Friedman, R. S., Guerrero, A. M., Mc Allister, R. R. J., Rhodes, J. R., Santika, T., Budiharta, S.,
Indrawan, T., Hutabarat, J. A., Kusworo, A., Yogaswara, H., Meijaard, E., st. John, F. A. V.,
Struebig, M. J., and Wilson, K. A. 2020. Beyond the Community in Participatory Forest
Management: A Governance Network Perspective. Land Use Policy 97: 104738. DOI:
10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104738
Howlett, M., Rayner, J., and Tollefson, C. 2009. From Government to Governance in Forest
Planning? Lessons from the Case of the British Columbia Great Bear Rainforest Initiative.
Forest Policy and Economics 11(5–6): 383-391. DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2009.01.003
Istiqomah, A., Ekayani, M., Pramudita, D., and Idris, B. 2019. Economic Benefits of Natural
Tourism Activities to Fulfill Household Expenditure and Conservation of National Park.
Jurnal Ilmu Pertanian Indonesia 24(3): 280-288. DOI: 10.18343/jipi.24.3.280
Julijanti, Nugroho, B., Kartodihardjo, H., and Nurrochmat, D. R. 2015. Operasionalization Process
of Forest Management Unit Policies: A Perspective of Diffusion of Innovations Theory.
Jurnal Analisis Kebijakan Kehutanan 12(1): 67-88.
Kaharuddin, Pudyatmoko, S., Fandeli, C., and Martani, W. 2020a. Local Communities
Participation in Ecotourism Development. Jurnal Ilmu Kehutanan 14: 42-54. DOI:
10.22146/jik.57462
Kaharuddin, Pudyatmoko, S., Fandeli, C., and Martani, W. 2020b. Wujud Adaptasi Masyarakat
Kalibiru dalam Pengembangan Ekowisata. Jurnal Pariwisata Terapan 4(1): 35-47. DOI:
10.22146/jpt.50439
Kim, Y. S., Bae, J. S., Fisher, L. A., Latifah, S., Afifi, M., Lee, S. M., and Kim, I. A. 2016.
Indonesia’s Forest Management Units: Effective Intermediaries in REDD+ Implementation?
Forest Policy and Economics 62: 69-77. DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2015.09.004
Kim, Y., Kim, C., Kun, D., Lee, H., Ii, R., and Andrada, T. 2019. Quantifying Nature-Based
Tourism in Protected Areas in Developing Countries by using Social Big Data. Tourism
Management 72: 249-256. DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2018.12.005
248

Nugroho et al. (2021)

Jurnal Sylva Lestari 9(2): 239-251

Kluvánková, T., Brnkaľáková, S., Špaček, M., Slee, B., Nijnik, M., Valero, D., Miller, D., Bryce,
R., Kozová, M., Polman, N., Szabo, T., and Gežík, V. 2018. Understanding Social
Innovation for the Well-Being of Forest-Dependent Communities: A Preliminary
Theoretical Framework. Forest Policy and Economics 97: 163-174. DOI:
10.1016/j.forpol.2018.09.016
Kurniasih, H., Ford, R. M., Keenan, R. J., and King, B. 2021. The Evolution of Community
Forestry through the Growth of Interlinked Community Institutions in Java, Indonesia.
World Development 139: 105319. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105319
Lee, T. H. 2013. Influence Analysis of Community Resident Support For Sustainable Tourism
Development. Tourism Management 34: 37-46. DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2012.03.007
Lee, T. H., and Jan, F. H. 2019. Can Community-Based Tourism Contribute to Sustainable
Development? Evidence from Residents’ Perceptions of the Sustainability. Tourism
Management 70: 368-380. DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2018.09.003
Ludvig, A., Sarkki, S., Weiss, G., and Živojinović, I. 2021. Policy Impacts on Social Innovation
in Forestry and Back: Institutional Change as a Driver and Outcome. Forest Policy and
Economics 122: 102335. DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102335
Lukesch, R., Ludvig, A., Slee, B., Weiss, G., and Živojinović, I. 2020. Social Innovation, Societal
Change, and the Role of Policies. Sustainability 12(18): 7407. DOI: 10.3390/SU12187407
Luo, F., Moyle, B. D., Bao, J., and Zhong, Y. 2016. The Role of Institutions in the Production of
Space for Tourism: National Forest Parks in China. Forest Policy and Economics 70: 47-55.
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.05.021
Luo, Y., and Deng, J. 2008. The New Environmental Paradigm and Nature-Based Tourism
Motivation. Journal of Travel Research 46(4): 392-402. DOI: 10.1177/0047287507308331
Nijnik, M., Secco, L., Miller, D., and Melnykovych, M. 2019. Can Social Innovation Make a
Difference to Forest-Dependent Communities? Forest Policy and Economics 100: 207-213.
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2019.01.001
Nugroho, P., and Numata, S. 2020. Resident Support of Community-Based Tourism Development:
Evidence from Gunung Ciremai National Park, Indonesia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism
1-16. DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2020.1755675
Nunkoo, R., and Gursoy, D. 2012. Residents’ Support for Tourism: An Identity Perspective.
Annals of Tourism Research 39(1): 243-268. DOI: 10.1016/j.annals.2011.05.006
Nurjaman, A. S. B., Nawir, A. A., Maryudi, A., Permadi, D. B., Pratama, A. A., Currasavica, F.,
Laraswati, D., Rahayu, S., and Kurniawan, H. 2019. KPH Yogyakarta: Membangun Model
Pengelolaan Hutan yang Mandiri dan Profesional (Vol. 1). CIFOR, Fakultas Kehutanan
Universitas Gadjah Mada, KPH Yogyakarta.
Ostrom, E. 2011. Background on the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Policy
Study Journal 39(1): 7-27. DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00394.x
Polman, N., Slee, B., Kluvánková, T., Dijkshoorn, M., Nijnik, M., Gezik, V., and Soma, K. 2017.
Classification of Social Innovations for Marginalized Rural Areas. Social Innovation in
Marginalised Rural Areas
Putraditama, A., Kim, Y. S., and Sánchez Meador, A. J. 2019. Community Forest Management
and Forest Cover Change in Lampung, Indonesia. Forest Policy and Economics 106:
101976. DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2019.101976
Rakatama, A., and Pandit, R. 2020. Reviewing Social Forestry Schemes in Indonesia:
Opportunities and Challenges. Forest Policy and Economics 111: 102052. DOI:
249

Nugroho et al. (2021)

Jurnal Sylva Lestari 9(2): 239-251

10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102052
Rakhmah, B., and Handayani, N. 2019. Internal Control of Non-Tax State Revenue in the Bali
Barat National Park. E-Journal Ekonomi Bisnis dan Akuntansi 6(1): 97-101. DOI:
10.19184/ejeba.v6i2.11146
Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Roldán, J. L., Jaafar, M., and Ramayah, T. 2017. Factors Influencing
Residents’ Perceptions toward Tourism Development: Differences across Rural and Urban
World Heritage Sites. Journal of Travel Research 56(6): 760-775. DOI:
10.1177/0047287516662354
Riyanto, S., Andayani, W., and Nadhifa, H. 2020. The Impact of Change in Protected Forest
Utilization in RPH Mangunan on Income of Pine Sap Tapper. Jurnal Ilmu Kehutanan 14(1):
62-70. DOI: 10.22146/jik.57465
Sahide, M. A. K., Maryudi, A., Supratman, S., and Giessen, L. 2016. Is Indonesia Utilising its
International Partners? The Driving Forces behind Forest Management Units. Forest Policy
and Economics 69: 11-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.04.002
Sahide, M. A. K., Fisher, M. R., Supratman, S., Yusran, Y., Pratama, A. A., Maryudi, A., Runtubei,
Y., Sabar, A., Verheijen, B., Wong, G. Y., and Kim, Y. S. 2020. Prophets and Profits in
Indonesia’s Social Forestry Partnership Schemes: Introducing a Sequential Power Analysis.
Forest Policy and Economics 115: 102160. DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102160
Santika, T., Meijaard, E., Budiharta, S., Law, E. A., Kusworo, A., Hutabarat, J. A., Indrawan, T.
P., Struebig, M., Raharjo, S., Huda, I., Sulhani, Ekaputri, A. D., Trison, S., Stigner, M., and
Wilson, K. A. 2017. Community Forest Management in Indonesia: Avoided Deforestation
in the Context of Anthropogenic and Climate Complexities. Global Environmental Change
46: 60-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.08.002
Septiana, R. M. 2020. Benefit Sharing Allocation on Community Collaborative Forest
Management (PHBM) In Java, Indonesia. Jurnal Silva Tropika 4(1): 206-221.
Setyarso, A., Djajono, A., Nugroho, B., Wulandari, C., Suwarno, E., Kartodihardjo, H., &
Sardjono, M. A. 2014. Strategi Pengembangan KPH dan Perubahan Struktur Kehutanan
Indonesia (Sugiharto, Ed.). Direktorat Wilayah Penglolaan dan Penyiapan Areal
Pemanfaatan Kawasan Hutan, Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan.
Sharma, R., and Gupta, A. 2020. Pro-Environmental Behaviour among Tourists Visiting National
Parks: Application of Value-Belief-Norm Theory in an Emerging Economy Context. Asia
Pacific
Journal
of
Tourism
Research
25(8):
829-840.
DOI:
10.1080/10941665.2020.1774784
Sharpley, R. 2020. Tourism, Sustainable Development and the Theoretical Divide: 20 Years On.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 28(11): 1932-1946. DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2020.1779732
Tajuddin, T., Supratman, S., Salman, D., and Yusran, Y. 2019. Bridging Social Forestry and Forest
Management Units: Juxtaposing Policy Imaginaries with Implementation Practices in a Case
from Sulawesi. Forest and Society 3(1): 97-113. DOI: 10.24259/fs.v3i1.6049
Walpole, M. J., and Goodwin, H. J. 2001. Local Attitudes towards Conservation and Tourism
around Komodo National Park, Indonesia. Environmental Conservation 28(2): 160-166.
DOI: 10.1017/S0376892901000169
Wiyono, Hidayat, R., and Oktalina, S. 2020. The Community Empowerment Strategy in Protected
Forest Management through Community-Based Ecotourism Development in Kalibiru
Village,
Kulon
Progo
Regency.
Habitat
31(1):
11-27.
DOI:
10.21776/ub.habitat.2020.031.1.2
250

Nugroho et al. (2021)

Jurnal Sylva Lestari 9(2): 239-251

Wong, G. Y., Moeliono, M., Bong, I. W., Pham, T. T., Sahide, M. A. K., Naito, D., and Brockhaus,
M. 2020. Social Forestry in Southeast Asia: Evolving Interests, Discourses and the Many
Notions of Equity. Geoforum 117: 246-258. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.10.010
Yokota, Y., Harada, K., Rohman, Silvi, N. O., Wiyono, Tanak, M., and Inoue, M. 2014.
Contributions of Company-Community Forestry Partnerships (PHBM) to the Livelihoods of
Participants in Java, Indonesia: A Case Study in Madiun, East Java. Japan Agricultural
Research Quarterly 48(3): 363-377. DOI: 10.6090/jarq.48.363
Yuniarsih, A., Marsono, D., Pudyatmoko, S., and Sadono, R. 2014. Modelling of Nature Tourism
Management System in Gunung Ciremai National Park, West Java. Jurnal Manusia Dan
Lingkungan 21(2): 220-231. DOI: 10.22146/jml.18547

251