Institutional Sustainability of a Community Conservation Agreement in Lore Lindu National Park

Sudirman Daeng Massiri, Bramasto Nugroho, Hariadi Kartodihardjo, Rinekso Soekmadi


The arrangement of self-governance institutions is the main obstacle to achieving sustainability for ecosystems and local livelihoods. The aim of this study was to describe the institutional sustainability of Community Conservation Agreement (CCA) in Lore Lindu National Park (LLNP), located in Central Sulawesi Province, Indonesia. This study applied a descriptive method by identifying and analyzing the relationship between characteristics of the community and nearby resources, as well as the regulations and rules (formal and local rules arranged in CCA), behavior and performance of institutional CCA, and the interests and power of stakeholders. The research demonstrates that high institutional sustainability of CCA is not only determined by the relations among the community, but that it is also motivated by the common interests to preserve water in the LLNP area as a means for avoiding disaster. However, principles of collective-choice arrangements, minimal recognition of rights to organize, and nested enterprises in CCA were not running well. Strategies to improve the institutional sustainability of CCA include unifying landscape zones that describe property rights of local communities within a conservation area that is recognized by all stakeholders and should be supported by formal legal rules.


Conservation; sustainability, local community; Lore Lindu; National Park; collaborative management

Full Text:



Acheson, J. M. (2006). Institutional failure in resource management. Annu. Rev. Anthropol., 35, 117-134.doi:

Adiwibowo, S., Shohibuddin, and Kartodihardjo, H. (2012). Kontestasi Devolusi: Ekologi Politik Pengelolaan Hutan Berbasis Masyarakat. In "Kembali Ke Jalan Lurus. Kritik Penggunaan Ilmu dan Praktek Kehutanan Indonesia" (H. Kartodihardjo, ed.). Forci Development, Bogor.

Agrawal, A., & Ostrom, E. (2001). Collective action, property rights, and decentralization in resource use in India and Nepal. Politics & Society, 29(4), 485-514. doi:

Agrawal, A., & Yadama, G. (1997). How do local institutions mediate market and population pressures on resources? Forest Panchayats in Kumaon, India. Development and change, 28(3), 435-465. doi:

Anderies, J. M., Folke, C., Walker, B., and Ostrom, E. (2013). Aligning key concepts for global change policy: robustness, resilience, and sustainability. Ecology and society (18)8.

Andersson, K., Benavides, J. P., & León, R. (2014). Institutional diversity and local forest governance. Environmental Science & Policy, 36, 61-72. doi:

Baggio, J. A., Barnett, A. J., Perez-Ibara, I., Brady, U., Ratajczyk, E., Rollins, N., ... & Anderies, J. M. (2016). Explaining success and failure in the commons: the configural nature of Ostrom’s institutional design principles. International Journal of the Commons, 10(2), 417-439.doi:

Birner, R., and Mappatoba, M. (2009). Co-management of protected areas: A case study from Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. In "Conserving and Valuing Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity: Economic, Institutional and Social Challenges" (K. Ninan, ed.). Francis and Tailor, United Kingdom.

Carlsson, L., & Berkes, F. (2005). Co-management: concepts and methodological implications. Journal of environmental management, 75(1), 65-76.doi:

Cox, M., Arnold, G., and Tomás, S. V. (2010). A review of design principles for community-based natural resource management. Ecology and Society, 15, (4).

Gautam, A. P., & Shivakoti, G. P. (2005). Conditions for successful local collective action in forestry: some evidence from the hills of Nepal. Society and Natural Resources, 18(2), 153-171. doi:

Gavrilets, S. (2015). Collective action problem in heterogeneous groups. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (370), 20150016. doi: .

Gibson, C. C., Williams, J. T., and Ostrom, E. (2005). Local enforcement and better forests. World Development, 33, 273-284.doi:

Irawan, P. (2006). "Penelitian Kualitatif dan Kuantitatif untuk Ilmu-Ilmu sosiall," DIA FISIP UI, Jakarta.

Kartodihardjo, H. (2006). Ekonomi dan Institusi Pengelolaan Hutan. Institute for Development Economics of Agronomic and Rural Areas, Bogor.

Kartodihardjo, H. (2016). Diskursus dan Kebijakan Institusi-Politik Kawasan Hutan: Menelusuri Studi Kebijakan dan Gerakan Sosial Sumberdaya Alam di Indonesia. In "Orasi Ilmiah Guru Besar IPB". Institut Pertanian Bogor, Bogor.

Massiri, S. D. (2015). Institutional Sustainability Barriers of Community Conservation Agreement as a Collaboration Management in Lore Lindu National Park. Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, 21(3), 147-154. doi:

Neville, C. (2007). "Introduction to research and research methods," University of Bradford, United Kongdom.

Nugroho, B. (2013). Reformasi kelembagaan dan tata pemerintahan. Faktor pemungkin menuju tata kelola kehutanan yang baik. In "Kembali Ke Jalan Lurus. Kritik Penggunaan Ilmu dan Praktek Kehutanan Indonesia" (H. Kartodihardjo, ed.). Forcy Development, Bogor.

Nurrochmat, D. R., Darusman, D., and Ekawati, M. (2016). "Kebijakan Pembangunan Kehutanan dan Lingkungan," IPB Press, Bogor.

Ostrom, E. (1990). "Governing the Common," Cambidge University Press, New York.

Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., Walker, J., and Walker, J. (1994). "Rules, games, and common-pool resources," University of Michigan Press.

Ostrom, E. (2009). Design principles of robust property-rights institutions: what have we learned? Property Rights and Land Policies, K. Gregory Ingram, Yu-Hung Hong, eds., Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Ostrom, E., & Cox, M. (2010). Moving beyond panaceas: a multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological analysis. Environmental conservation, 37(4), 451-463. doi: .

Ostrom, E., and Nagendra, H. (2006). Insights on linking forests, trees, and people from the air, on the ground, and in the laboratory. Proceedings of the national Academy of sciences, 103, 19224-19231.

Pandey, D. N. (2010). Critical necessity of local monitoring and enforcement for sustainable governance of forests. Indian Forester, 136, 1155-1163.

Poteete, A. R., and Ostrom, E. (2004). Heterogeneity, group size and collective action: The role of institutions in forest management. Development and change, 35, 435-461. doi:

Putnam, R. (2001). Social capital: Measurement and consequences. Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2, 41-51.

Quinn, C. H., Huby, M., Kiwasila, H., and Lovett, J. C. (2007). Design principles and common pool resource management: An institutional approach to evaluating community management in semi-arid Tanzania. Journal of Environmental Management, 84, 100-113. doi:

Ray, B., and Bhattacharya, R. N. (2011). Transaction costs, collective action and survival of heterogeneous co-management institutions: case study of forest management organisations in West Bengal, India. The Journal of Development Studies, 47, 253-273. doi:

Roslinda, E. (2013). Pilihan Kebijakan Pengelolaan Taman Nasional Danau Sentarum Provinsi Kalimantan Barat. Disertasi, Institut Pertanian Bogor, Bogor.

Safitri, M. A. (2013). Keniscayaan Transdisiplinaritas dalam Studi Sosio-Legal terhadap Hutan Hukum dan Masyarakat. In "Kembali Ke Jalan Lurus. Kritik Penggunaan Ilmu dan Praktek Kehutanan Indonesia" (H. Kartodihardjo, ed.). Nailil Printika, Yogyarakarta.

Schlager, E., and Ostrom, E. (1992). Property-rights regimes and natural resources: a conceptual analysis. Land economics, 249-262.doi:

Schmid, A. A. (2004). "Conflict and Coorperation; Institutional and Behavioral Economics," Blackwell Publishing, United Kingdom.

Sinabutar, P., Nugroho, B., Kartodihardjo, H., and Darusman, D. (2014). Reforming the gazettment of state forest area in Riau Province. Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, 20, 179-186. doi

Singh, V. S., Pandey, D. N., and Prakash, N. P. (2011). What determines the success of joint forest management? Science-based lessons on sustainable governance of forests in India. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 56, 126-133. doi:

Ting, Z., Shivakoti, G. P., Haiyun, C., and Maddox, D. (2012). A survey-based evaluation of community-based co-management of forest resources: a case study of Baishuijiang National Natural Reserve in China. Environment, development and sustainability, 14, 197-220. doi:

Tucker, C. M., J. C. Randolph, and E. J. Castellanos. 2007. “Institutions, Biophysical Factors and History: An Integrative Analysis of Private and Common Property Forests in Guatemala and Honduras.” Human Ecology, 35(3):259–74.doi:

Uphoff, N. T. (1992). "Local institutions and participation for sustainable development," Sustainable Agriculture Programme of the International Institute for Environment and Development London.

Wood, P., Sheil, D., Syaf, R., and Warta, Z. (2014). The Implementation and Sustainability of Village Conservation Agreements Around Kerinci Seblat National Park, Indonesia. Society & Natural Resources, 27, 602-620. doi:

Yusran, Y., Sahide, M. A. K., Supratman, S., Sabar, A., Krott, M., and Giessen, L. (2017). The empirical visibility of land use conflicts: From latent to manifest conflict through law enforcement in a national park in Indonesia. Land Use Policy, 62, 302-315. doi:



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Forest and Society is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

View My Stats

Forest and Society has been indexed/registered/mentioned in : 


View full indexing services