The "Common Pool" Problems in the Protected Area Regarding Natural Tourism in Indonesia

Badi'ah, Hariadi Kartodihardjo, Bramasto Nugroho, Bambang Supriyanto


Phenomena that indicate the performance of the use of natural tourism in protected areas indicate that there are institutional problems in it. This study aims to determine the influence of exogenous variables on the action arena for the use of natural tourism in protected areas in Indonesia. Data were collected through in-depth interviews, participatory observation, document, and regulatory review. Then the data were analyzed using descriptive analysis. This study was analyzed using the institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework. This framework provides a useful approach to understanding institutional issues.  Based on the research, the influence of exogenous variables on the action arena, among others 1) there is an incorrect implementation between the cooperation agreement and the permit carried out by the Mount Gede Pangrango National Park Office as the principal, which has resulted in the agent bearing additional costs to obtain exclusion rights, and the principal's loss does not receive a contribution in the form of Levies on The Results of Business Activities for Nature Tourism Facilities from the transfer of rights to agents; 2) when public access is closed in the public space, there will be a conflict between the agent and the community which creates a high cost of exclusion and is charged to the agent; 3) the agent is aware of the lack of principal resources to carry out supervision so that the agent does not immediately carry out his obligations. 



Afriyanie, D., Akbar, R., & Suroso, D. S. A. (2018). Socio-ecological resilience for urban green space allocation. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 145, 012120.
Aryasa, A. M., Bambang, A. N., & Muhammad, F. (2017). The study of environmental carrying capacity for sustainable tourism in Telaga Warna Telaga Pengilon Nature Park, Dieng Plateu, Central Java. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 70, 012003.
Ban, N. C., Mills, M., Tam, J., Hicks, C. C., Klain, S., & Stoeckl, N. (2013). A social ecological approach to conservation planning: Embedding social considerations. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11(4), 194–202.
Badola, R., Hussain, S. A., Dobriyal, P., Manral, U., Barthwal, S., Rastogi, A., & Gill, A. K. (2018). Institutional arrangements for managing tourism in the Indian Himalayan protected areas. Tourism Management, 66, 1–12.
Crona, B. I., & Parker, J. N. (2012). Learning in support of governance: Theories, methods, and a framework to assess how bridging organizations contribute to adaptive resource governance. Ecology and Society, 17(1), 32.
Diamond, D. W., & Verrecchia, R. E. (1991). Disclosure, liquidity, and the cost of capital. Journal of Finance, 46(4), 1325–1359.
German, L. A., & Keeler, A. (2010). “Hybrid institutions”: Applications of common property theory beyond discrete property regimes. International Journal of the Commons, 4(1), 571–596.
Gibson, C., Williams, J., Ostrom, E. (2005). Local enforcement and better forests. World Development, 33(2), 273–284.
Hearne, R. R., & Santos, C. A. (2005). Tourists and locals preferences toward ecotourism development in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7(3), 303–318.
Imperial, M. T. (1999). Institutional analysis and ecosystem-based management: The institutional analysis and development framework. Environmental Management, 24(4), 449–465.
Imperial, M. T., & Yandle, T. (2005). Taking institutions seriously: Using the IAD framework to analyze fisheries policy. Society and Natural Resources, 18, 493–509.
Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behaviour, agency cost, and ownership structure. Jurnal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.
Jeong, J. S., García-Moruno, L., Hernández-Blanco, J., & Jaraíz-Cabanillas, F. J. (2014). An operational method to supporting siting decisions for sustainable rural second home planning in ecotourism sites. Land Use Policy, 41, 550–560.
Kartodihardjo, H. (2006). Economics and forest management institutions: Further analysis of forestry business policy analysis. Bogor: Institute for Deveopment Economics of Agriculture and Rural Areas (IDEALS).
Kartodihardjo, H., Nagara, G., & Situmorang, A. W. (2015). Transaction cost of forest utilization licenses: Institutional issues. Jurnal Manajement Hutan Tropika, 21(3), 184–191.
Kartodihardjo, H. (2017). Natural resource management policy analysis: Discourse-politics-actors-network. Bogor: Sajogyo Institute.
Kiser, L., & Ostrom, E. (1982). The three worlds of action: A metatheoretical synthesis of institutional approaches. In E. Ostrom (Ed.), Strategies for political inquiry (pp. 179–222). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Klein, T. J., Lambertz, C., & Stahl, K. O. (2016) Market transparency, adverse selection, and moral hazard. Journal of Political Economy, 124(6), 1677–1713.
Libecap, G. (1989). Distributional issues in contracting for property rights. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 145(1), 6–24.
Lin, H. -H., Lee, S. -S., Perng, Y. -S., & Yu, S. -T. (2018). Investigation about the impact of tourism development on a water protected area in Taiwan. Sustainability, 10(7), 2328.
Muradian, R., & Rival, L. (2012). Between markets and hierarchies: The challenge of governing ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 93–100.
Mustafa, D. (2012). Bureaucratic Ethics and Community Culture in Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmiah Administrasi, 1(1), 99–113.
Orams, M. B. (1995). Towards a more desirable form of ecotourism. In C. Ryan, & S. Page (Eds.), Tourism management (pp. 315–323). London: Routledge.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ostrom, E., & Crawford, S. (2005). A grammar of institutions (Understand). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2008). Institutions and the environment. Economic Affairs, 28(3), 24–31.
Pegas, F. V., & Castley, J. G. (2014). Ecotourism as a conservation tool and its adoption by private protected areas in Brazil. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(4), 604–425.
Pohan, C. A. (2014). Cadangan reklamasi pertambangan sebagai loopholes pajak dalam penerapan prinsip taxability-deductibility. Transparansi: Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Administrasi, 6(2), 181–198.
Sabatier, P. A., Leach, W., Lubell, M., & Pelkey, N. (2005). Theoretical frame-works explaining partnership success. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Schlager, E., & Blomquist, W. (1996). A comparison of three emerging theories of the policy process. Political Research Quarterly, 49(3), 31–50.
Schlager, E., & Ostrom, E. (1992). Property-rights regimes and natural resources: A conceptual analysis. Land Economics, 68(3), 249–262.


Badi'ah (Primary Contact)
Hariadi Kartodihardjo
Bramasto Nugroho
Bambang Supriyanto
Badi’ah, KartodihardjoH., NugrohoB., & SupriyantoB. (2022). The "Common Pool" Problems in the Protected Area Regarding Natural Tourism in Indonesia. Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, 28(2), 128.

Article Details

Socio-Ecological System within Governance of Marine Protected Area: Case from Cenderawasih Bay National Park, Indonesia

Roni Bawole, Fredinan Yulianda, Dietriech Geoffrey Bengen, Achmad Fahrudin, Mudjirahayu Mudjirahayu
Abstract View : 742
Download :995