Institutional Alignment and Perceived Conservation Outcomes in Social Forestry: Evidence from a Sloping Highland Landscape in West Java, Indonesia

Authors

  • Omo Rusdiana

    Department of Forest Silviculture, Faculty of Forestry and Environment, IPB University, Academic Ring Road Campus IPB Dramaga, Bogor 16680, Indonesia; Center for Regional System Analysis, Planning and Development (CrestPent), IPB University, Bogor 16680, Indonesia
  • Dani Setiawan

    Department of Forest Silviculture, Faculty of Forestry and Environment, IPB University, Academic Ring Road Campus IPB Dramaga, Bogor 16680, Indonesia
  • Moch Yunus Gerry Fitriadi

    Faculty of Science and Technology, Universitas Terbuka, Tangerang Selatan 15418, Indonesia
  • Bayu Winata

    Department of Forest Silviculture, Faculty of Forestry and Environment, IPB University, Academic Ring Road Campus IPB Dramaga, Bogor 16680, Indonesia
  • Niechi Valentino

    Faculty of Agriculture, University of Mataram, Mataram City 83125, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30564/re.v8i4.13478
Received: 6 May 2026 | Revised: 26 June 2026 | Accepted: 2 July 2026 | Published Online: 14 August 2026

Abstract

Social Forestry is a flagship tenure-reform policy in Indonesia that seeks to reconcile rural livelihood improvement with forest sustainability. Yet, in steep upland landscapes, it remains uncertain whether expanded access rights translate into conservation-oriented land management. This study investigates how socio-economic pressures, institutional arrangements, and ecological conditions shape soil and water conservation within a Social Forestry scheme in Giriawas, West Java. Using a qualitative-dominant mixed-methods design, data were collected through household interviews, field observations, stakeholder consultations, and institutional analysis. The analysis was guided by a Drivers–Perception–Practices–Outcomes framework and an institutional fit perspective. Findings indicate that although farmers generally recognise erosion risks, land-use decisions are still dominated by short-term economic imperatives, and horticultural production remains largely production-oriented. Conservation practices are applied inconsistently, reflecting weak integration of soil and water conservation into local governance, limited alignment of incentives, and modest institutional capacity. Importantly, the assessment of conservation outcomes is based on stakeholder perceptions and qualitative field observations rather than direct biophysical measurements. The study suggests that tenure security alone is insufficient to generate environmentally sustainable land management. Instead, the findings suggest that perceived conservation outcomes are more favourable where governance arrangements, incentive structures, extension support, and ecological conditions are more closely aligned. These findings contribute an exploratory, context-specific explanation of why Social Forestry may succeed in expanding access while still falling short in delivering conservation benefits in erosion-prone upland systems.

Keywords:

Institutional Alignment; Institutional Fit; Social Forestry; Soil and Water Conservation; Upland Horticulture

References

[1] Fisher, M.R., Moeliono, M., Mulyana, A., et al., 2018. Assessing the new social forestry project in Indonesia: Recognition, livelihood and conservation? International Forestry Review. 20(3), 346–361. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1505/146554818824063014

[2] Moeliono, M., Thuy, P.T., Waty Bong, I., et al., 2017. Social Forestry—Why and for whom? A comparison of policies in Vietnam and Indonesia. Forest and Society. 1(2), 78–97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v1i2.2484

[3] Agrawal, A., Otrom, E., 2001. Collective Action, Property Rights, and Decentralization in Resource Use in India and Nepal. Politics & Society. 29(4), 485–514. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329201029004002

[4] Ostrom, E., 2009. A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science. 325(5939), 419–422. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133

[5] Oldekop, J.A., Sims, K.R.E., Karna, B.K., et al., 2019. Reductions in deforestation and poverty from decentralized forest management in Nepal. Nature Sustainability. 2(5), 421–428. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0277-3

[6] Sahide, M.A.K., Fisher, M.R., Erbaugh, J.T., et al., 2020. The boom of social forestry policy and the bust of social forests in Indonesia: Developing and applying an access-exclusion framework to assess policy outcomes. Forest Policy and Economics. 120, 102290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102290

[7] MoEF (Ministry of Environment and Forestry), 2025. Ministry of Forestry Statistics 2024, Vol. 1 2025. Pusat Data dan Informasi Kementerian Kehutanan: Jakarta, Indonesia. Available from: https://statistik.kehutanan.go.id/publication/show/buku-statistik-2024-kementerian-kehutanan

[8] Rakatama, A., Pandit, R., 2020. Reviewing social forestry schemes in Indonesia: Opportunities and challenges. Forest Policy and Economics. 111, 102052. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102052

[9] Bong, I.W., Moeliono, M., Wong, G.Y., et al., 2019. What is success? Gaps and trade-offs in assessing the performance of traditional social forestry systems in Indonesia. Forest and Society. 3(1), 1–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v3i1.5184

[10] Sirimorok, N., Sahide, M.A.K., Herrawan, H., et al., 2024. Linking commoning with social forestry: An Indonesian case. Trees, Forests and People. 18, 100737. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2024.100737

[11] Borrelli, P., Robinson, D.A., Fleischer, L.R., et al., 2017. An assessment of the global impact of 21st century land use change on soil erosion. Nature Communications. 8(1), 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02142-7

[12] Li, H., Tang, J., Wang, J., et al., 2024. Long-Term Conservation Agriculture Improves Soil Quality in Sloped Farmland Planting Systems. Plants. 13(23), 3420. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13233420

[13] Gunawan, H., Yeny, I., Karlina, E., et al., 2022. Integrating social forestry and biodiversity conservation in Indonesia. Forests. 13(12), 2152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/f13122152

[14] Liswanti, N., Kirby, D., Tamara, A., et al., 2021. Tenure reform and perceived food security in Indonesia: An exploratory study. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR): Bogor, Indonesia. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/008380

[15] Rahayu, S., Sakuntaladewi, N., Sumirat, B.K., et al., 2024. The Role of Local Governments in Supporting Social Forestry Implementation in Indonesia: A Social Network Analysis and Evidence from Eastern Indonesia. Forest and Society. 8(1), 154–178. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v8i1.28524

[16] Knowler, D., Bradshaw, B., 2007. Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy. 32(1), 25–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.01.003

[17] Ngaiwi, M.E., Molua, E.L., Sonwa, D.J., et al., 2023. Do farmers' socioeconomic status determine the adoption of conservation agriculture? An empirical evidence from Eastern and Southern Regions of Cameroon. Scientific African. 19, e01498. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2022.e01498

[18] Ismariana, E., Kusuma, A.F., Permadi, D.B., et al., 2024. Corruption in Social Forestry in Indonesia. Forest and Society. 8(2), 443–463. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v8i2.34782

[19] Helms, M.M., Nixon, J., 2010. Exploring SWOT analysis—Where are we now? Journal of Strategy and Management. 3(3), 215–251. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/17554251011064837

[20] Gürel, E., Tat, M., 2017. SWOT analysis: A theoretical review. Journal of International Social Research. 10(51), 994–1006.

[21] Cleaver, F., 2012. Development through Bricolage: Rethinking Institutions for Natural Resource Management. Routledge: London, UK. pp. 1–61.

[22] Pannell, D.J., Marshall, G.R., Barr, N., et al., 2006. Understanding and Promoting Adoption of Conservation Practices by Rural Landholders. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 46(11), 1407–1424. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/EA05037

[23] Morgan, R.P.C., 2005. Soil Erosion and Conservation. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK.

[24] Agrawal, A., 2001. Common Property Institutions and Sustainable Governance of Resources. World Development. 29(10), 1649–1672. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00063-8

[25] Chhatre, A., Agrawal, A., 2009. Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106(42), 17667–17670.

[26] Creswell, J.W., Plano Clark, V.L., 2018. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.

[27] Cleaver, F., 2017. Development through Bricolage. Routledge: London, UK. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315094915

[28] Ostrom, E., 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA.

[29] Nair, P.K.R., 1993. An Introduction to Agroforestry. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

[30] Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., et al., 2005. Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 30(1), 441–473. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511

[31] Patton, M.Q., 2015. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.

[32] Hennink, M.M., Kaiser, B.N., Marconi, V.C., 2017. Code Saturation Versus Meaning Saturation. Qualitative Health Research. 27(4), 591–608. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316665344

[33] Bernard, B., Lux, A., 2017. How to Feed the World Sustainably: An Overview of the Discourse on Agroecology and Sustainable Intensification. Regional Environmental Change. 17(5), 1279–1290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1027-y

[34] Denzin, N.K., 2017. The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. Routledge: London, UK.

[35] Bowen, G.A., 2009. Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal. 9(2), 27–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027

[36] Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 3(2), 77–101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

[37] Angelsen, A., Kaimowitz, D., 1999. Rethinking the Causes of Deforestation: Lessons from Economic Models. The World Bank Research Observer. 14(1), 73–98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/14.1.73

[38] Larson, A.M., Barry, D., Dahal, D.R., et al. (Eds.), 2010. Forests for People: Community Rights and Forest Tenure Reform. Earthscan: London, UK.

[39] Pimentel, D., Harvey, C., Resosudarmo, P., et al., 1995. Environmental and Economic Costs of Soil Erosion and Conservation Benefits. Science. 267(5201), 1117–1123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.267.5201.1117

[40] Ricart, S., Gandolfi, C., Castelletti, A., 2025. What drives farmers' behavior under climate change? Decoding risk awareness, perceived impacts, and adaptive capacity in northern Italy. Heliyon. 11(1), e41328. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e41328

[41] Brooker, R.W., Hawes, C., Lannetta, P.P.M., et al., 2023. Plant diversity and ecological intensification in crop production systems. Journal of Plant Ecology. 16(6), rtad015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jpe/rtad015

[42] Ardyanto, N., Wulandari, C., Bakri, S., et al., 2026. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Social Forestry: A Meta-Analysis of Policy Documents and Implementation. Jurnal Pemerintahan dan Kebijakan (JPK). 7(2), 129–141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18196/jpk.v7i2.27416

[43] Saputra, I., Faturachmat, F., Muin, A.V.F., et al., 2025. Sequencing the political forest: Power, exclusion, and the corporate hijacking of social forestry in Indonesia. Forest Policy and Economics. 181, 103668. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103668

[44] Aggarwal, S., Larson, A., McDermott, C., et al., 2021. Tenure reform for better forestry: An unfinished policy agenda. Forest Policy and Economics. 123, 102376. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102376

[45] Rudolf, K., Edison, E., Wollni, M., 2022. Achieving landscape patterns for biodiversity conservation through payments for ecosystem services—Evidence from a field experiment in Indonesia. Ecological Economics. 193, 107319. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107319

[46] Nugroho, H.Y.S.H., Nurfatriani, F., Indrajawa Y., et al., 2022. Mainstreaming ecosystem services from Indonesia’s remaining forests. Sustainability. 14(19), 12124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912124

Downloads

How to Cite

Rusdiana, O., Setiawan, D., Fitriadi, M. Y. G., Winata, B., & Valentino, N. (2026). Institutional Alignment and Perceived Conservation Outcomes in Social Forestry: Evidence from a Sloping Highland Landscape in West Java, Indonesia. Research in Ecology, 8(4), 230–249. https://doi.org/10.30564/re.v8i4.13478

Issue

Vol.8, Iss.4 (August 2026): In Progress

Article Type

Article

License

Copyright © 2026 Omo Rusdiana, Dani Setiawan, Moch Yunus Gerry Fitriadi, Bayu Winata, Niechi Valentino

Creative Commons License

This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License.

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC