No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
Abstract The Indonesian state and local community have been conducting forest co-management as part of a new social forestry program initiative. This initiative is proposed to overcome environmental degradation as well as to enhance community well-being by increasing economic outcome of the forest. However, this program has the potential for conflict because of asymmetry between resources dedicated to approving social forestry permits versus capacity building, monitoring, and evaluating management outcomes. The social innovation approaches have been adopted as a potential solution to address complex social forestry program. This article aims to explore how social innovation and village governance in forest communities works. The research framework is designed by modifying the social innovation concept from the Theoretical, Empirical and Policy Foundations for Building Social Innovation in Europe (TEPSIE). Qualitative method is applied, by conducting in-depth interview and focus group discussion with forest policy experts, village authorities, and other stakeholders. Two neighbouring villages namely Sirnajaya and Tugu Utara in the Bogor District, West Java are visited. Sirnajaya represents village with strong government support by the Pilot Program for Incubation of Village Innovation in Local Economic Development (PIID-PEL), while Tugu Utara represents a strong society initiative in local development. The result reveals that social innovation has worked at different phases. However, good cooperation between formal and informal actors can have a better outcome on village development, compared to if each moves independently. The extension of social innovation and network of development can become an engine of village growth to the larger scope. The successful management for social forestry in Indonesia needs to be based on a hybrid governance model that needs to be “good” and “proper”. Therefore, the designs and practices for social forestry governance must be developed in more socially inclusive, reflected local social-economic, political, and cultural conditions.
Loading…
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.