PENGGUNAAN KONSEP RULES-IN-USE OSTROM DALAM ANALISIS PERATURAN PEMANFAATAN AIR DI KAWASAN KONSERVASI: STUDI KASUS TAMAN NASIONAL GUNUNG GEDE PANGRANGO
Abstract
This study aims to analyze the substantial weaknesses of water utilization regulations in wildlife reserves, national parks, forest parks, nature tourism parks, and their effects on individual or organizational decision[1]making and actions. The research location is in the area of Taman Nasional Gunung Gede Pangrango (TNGGP). The analysis of this research is limited to Environment and Forestry Ministerial Regulations No. P.18/MENLHK/ SETJEN/KUM.1/4/2019, Law No. 17 of 2019, and Environment and Forestry Ministerial Regulations No. P.6/ MENLHK/SETJEN/KUM.1/1/2020. Regulatory analysis is carried out by identifying the characteristics of content of the regulations and comparing them with the conditions of water utilization in TNGGP to find out the implications of regulations on participant behavior and performance. Issues and problems are collected through interviews with participants. Furthermore, the regulations are analyzed using Ostrom's rules-in-use concept. The findin , based on the concept is that there is a discrepancy in the three regulations that all regulate water utilization permits in the conservation areas. This is mainly due to weak institutional strengthening among decision makers as well as laws and regulations made according to the interpretation of the government which often do not consider the conditions of the community.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDF (Bahasa Indonesia)References
Anwar, A. & Rustiadi, E. (2000). Natural resources management problems and economic policies for damage control. Bogor: IPB University. Retrieved from http://repository.ipb.ac.id/ handle/123456789/24803.
Birkland, T. A. (2001). An introduction to the policy process: theories, concepts, and models of public policy making. New York, US: M.E. Sharpe.
Cole, D. H. (2017). Laws, norms, and the institutional analysis and development framework. Journal of Institutional Economics, 13(4), 829–847. https:// doi.org/10.1017/s1744137417000030.
Cubbage, F., Harou, P., & Sills, R. (2007). Policy instruments to enhance multi-functional forest management. Forest Policy and Economics, 9, 833–851.
Diamond, J. (2005). Collapse: how societies choose to fail or survive. New York, US: Viking Press.
Dunn, W. (2003). Pengantar analisis kebijakan publik. Yogyakarta, ID: Gadjah Mada University Press.
FORPELA. (2009). Laporan tahunan 2009 FORPELA Taman Nasional Gunung Gede Pangrango. Bogor: BBTNGGP.
Kartodihardjo, H. (2006a). Masalah kapasitas kelembagaan dan arah kebijakan kehutanan: studi tiga kasus. Manajemen Hutan Tropika, XII(3), 14–25.
Kartodihardjo, H. (2006b). Economics and forest management institutions: further analysis of forestry business policy analysis. Bogor, id: Institute for Deveopment Economics of Agriculture and Rural Areas (IDEALS).
Kartodihardjo, H. (2006c). Masalah kelembagaan dan arah kebijakan rehabilitasi hutan dan lahan. Jurnal Analisis Kebijakan Kehutanan, 3(1), 29– 41.
Knox, A. & Meinzen-Dick, R. (2001). Collective action, property rights, and devolution of natural resource management: a conceptual framework. Washington DC, USA: IFPRI.
Nurrochmat, D. R. (2011). Review infra-structure framework and mechanism related to SFM as important option in reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation. Bogor: IPB University. Retrieved from https://repository.ipb. ac.id/jspui/handle/123456789/82947.
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, US: Princeton University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2008). Institutions and the environment. Economic Policy, 28(3), 24–31. https://doi. org/10.1111/1468-0327.00036.
Ostrom, E. & Crawford, S. (2005). A grammar of institutions (Understand). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ostrom, E., Gardner, G., &Walker, J. (2006). Rule, games & common-pool resources. Michigan, US: University of Michigan Press.
Peters. (2000). The politics of bureaucracy. London UK: Routledge.
Sabatier, P. A., Leach, W., Lubell, M., & Pelkey, N. (2005). Theoretical frame-works explaining partnership success. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Suwarno, E., Kartodihardjo, H., Kolopaking, L. M., & Soedomo, S. (2015). Penggunaan konsep rules-in-use Ostrom. Jurnal Analisis Kebijakan Kehutanan, 12(38), 13–27.
Weeden, B. C. & Chow, T. (2012). Taking a common pool resources approach to space sustainability: a framework and potential policies. Space Policy, 28(3), 166–172.
Wibisana, A. G. (2019). Instrumen ekonomi, command and control, dan instrumen lainnya: kawan atau lawan? Suatu tinjauan berdasarkan smart regulation. Bina Hukum Lingkungan, 4(1), 172– 197.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20886/jakk.2021.18.2.91-104
Copyright (c) 2021 Jurnal Analisis Kebijakan Kehutanan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
