DAMPAK PENGELOLAAN HUTAN DESA TERHADAP SOSIAL EKONOMI MASYARAKAT NEGERI OMA, MALUKU TENGAH
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.69840/marsegu/2.12.2026.887-903Keywords:
socio-economic impact, Village Forest, institutional capacity, Maluku, social forestryAbstract
The social forestry program through the Village Forest scheme aims to improve community welfare while ensuring forest sustainability. However, the socio-economic effectiveness of this program remains varied, particularly in island regions. This study aims to analyze the social and economic impacts of Village Forest management and to identify the factors influencing its implementation in Negeri Oma, Central Maluku Regency. This research employed a mixed-methods approach, involving a survey of 30 respondents from Social Forestry Business Groups (KUPS), key informant interviews, field observations, and document analysis. Data were analyzed using descriptive quantitative and qualitative approaches, including data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing. The results show that the Village Forest program has generated positive social impacts, particularly in strengthening social cohesion and mutual cooperation among community members, especially within non-timber forest product (NTFP)-based groups. However, the level of community participation remains limited and tends to be dominated by core group leaders. From an economic perspective, the program has not significantly contributed to household income, functioning only as a supplementary income source with limited business scale and low production efficiency. The main factors influencing program implementation include weak institutional capacity, limited business skills and market access, tenure conflicts—particularly in ecotourism development—and insufficient facilitation and external support. This study emphasizes that the success of Village Forest management is not solely determined by legal access to forest resources, but also by strengthening local institutions, scaling up economic activities, and ensuring sustainable market integration.
Downloads
References
Agarwal, B. 2010. Gender and green governance. Oxford University Press.
Agrawal, A., & Gibson, C. 1999. Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development, 27(4), 629–649.
Bennett, N. J., Blythe, J., White, C. S., & Campero, C. 2021. Blue growth and blue justice: Ten risks and solutions for the ocean economy. Marine Policy, 125, 104387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104387
Brockhaus, M., Di Gregorio, M., Djoudi, H., Moeliono, M., Pham, T. T., & Wong, G. Y. 2021. The forest frontier in the Global South: Climate change policies and the promise of development and equity. Ambio, 50(12), 2238-2255.
Callegari, B., & Nybakk, E. 2022. Schumpeterian theory and research on forestry innovation and entrepreneurship: The state of the art, issues and an agenda. Forest Policy and Economics, 138, 102720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102720
Cole, S. 2016. Tourism, culture and development: Hopes, dreams and realities in East Indonesia. Channel View Publications.
Colfer, C. J. P. 2016. Responding to Environmental Issues through Adaptive Collaborative Management.
Daw, T. M., Hicks, C. C., Brown, K., Chaigneau, T., Januchowski-Hartley, S., Cheung, W. W. L., & McClanahan, T. R. 2016. Elasticity in ecosystem services: Exploring the variable relationship between ecosystems and human well-being. Ecology and Society, 21(2), 11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08173-210211
Fisher, M. R., Moeliono, M., Mulyana, A., Yuliani, E. L., Adriadi, A., Kamaluddin, & Judda, J. 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
Goodwin, H., & Santilli, R. (2009). Community-based tourism: A success? ICRT Occasional Paper No. 11. International Centre for Responsible Tourism.
Jamasy, O., Pranoto, Y., & Yasin, A. P. 2025. Konsep Dan Model Pendampingan Berkelanjutan Untuk Organisasi Berbasis Masyarakat. PT KIMHSAFI ALUNG CIPTA.
Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan. 2016. Peraturan Menteri LHK Nomor P.83/MenLHK/Setjen/Kum.1/10/2016 tentang perhutanan sosial. KLHK.
Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan. 2021. Roadmap perhutanan sosial 2020–2024. KLHK.
Larson, A. M., Monterroso, I., Liswanti, N., Herawati, T., Banana, A. Y., & Wollenberg, E. 2018. Gender lessons for climate initiatives: A comparative study of REDD+ impacts on subjective wellbeing. World Development, 108, 86–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.03.001
Maryudi, A., Devkota, R. R., Schusser, C., Yufanyi Movuh, M. C., Aurenhammer, H., & Krott, M. 2016. Back to basics: Considerations in evaluating the outcomes of community forestry. Forest Policy and Economics, 62, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.10.017
Moeliono, M., Gallemore, C., Santoso, L., Brockhaus, M., & Di Gregorio, M. 2014. Information networks and power: Confronting the “wicked problem” of REDD+ in Indonesia. Ecology and Society, 22(2), 9. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08900-220209
Mwangi, E., & Wardell, A. 2012. Multi-level governance of forest resources. Ecology and Society, 17(4), 14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05288-170414
Myers, R., Larson, A. M., Ravikumar, A., Yang, A., Trench, T., & Sanders, A. 2018. Messiness of forest governance: How technical approaches suppress politics in REDD+ and conservation projects. Global Environmental Change, 50, 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.02.015
Oldekop, J. A., Holmes, G., Harris, W. E., & Evans, K. L. 2016. A global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas. Conservation Biology, 30(1), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12568
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.
Pretty, J., & Ward, H. 2001. Social capital and the environment. World Development, 36(2), 209–227.
Purnomo, H., Okarda, B., Shantiko, B., Achdiawan, R., Dermawan, A., Kartodihardjo, H., & Dewayani, A. A. 2019. Forest and land fires, toxic haze and local politics in Indonesia. International Forestry Review, 21(4), 486-500.
Putnam, R. D. 2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of the American community. Simon & Schuster.
Rachmatsyah, T. H. 2025. Pemberdayaan masyarakat berbasis teknologi untuk optimalisasi UMKM sebagai pilar utama ekonomi Indonesia. ABDI MOESTOPO: Jurnal Pengabdian Pada Masyarakat, 8(1), 164-173.
Reed, M. S., Vella, S., Challies, E., de Vente, J., Frewer, L., Hohenwallner-Ries, D., & van Delden, H. 2018. A theory of participation: What makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? Restoration Ecology, 26(S1), S7–S17. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12541
Ribot, J. C., & Larson, A. M. 2005. Democratic decentralization through a natural resource lens. Routledge.
Sahide, M. A. K., Fisher, M. R., Erbaugh, J. T., Intarini, D., Dharmiasih, Makmur, M., Faturachmat, F., Verheijen, B., & Maryudi, A. 2020. The boom of social forestry policy and the bust of social forests in Indonesia. Forest Policy and Economics, 120, 102290.
Sahide, M. A. K., Supratman, S., Maryudi, A., Kim, Y. S., & Giessen, L. 2016. Decentralisation policy as recentralisation strategy: Forest management units and community forestry in Indonesia. International Forestry Review, 22(1), 78–95. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554820829523563
Sunderlin, W. D., Angelsen, A., Belcher, B., Burgers, P., Nasi, R., Santoso, L., & Wunder, S. 2005. Livelihoods, forests, and conservation in developing countries. World Development, 33(9), 1383–1402.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Alvienly Mezli Paly, Evelin Parera, Iskar Iskar (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
