Email this article 
Community Based Forest Management Strategies and Projections In KPH XIX Saka South Oku, South Sumatera
Abstract
In accordance with the mandate of the law, forests are part state-controlled and must be managed sustainably, for that the existence of KPH is a necessity for all parties. Forest management is generally realized based on forest governance, management plans, forest rehabilitation, forest protection, and conservation. To improve people's welfare, it is necessary to make optimal use of forest areas to support the preservation of natural resources and overcome global climate change. This research was carried out in KPH Unit XIX Saka, South OKU Regency which is located in the forest group of HL Saka, HPT Saka, and HP Saka, South OKU Regency. Data presentation was carried out descriptively and analyzed using the SWOT method. The results of the study show that KPH as a forest area manager at the site level can guarantee the continuity of forest area functions by implementing sustainable forest management with forest ecological values, based on community welfare. The strategy adopted is the SO Strategy, namely by utilizing and promoting the potential of forest resources, especially non-timber forest product resources (HHBK), and the potential for forest environmental services in the KPH.
Keywords
Full Text:
FULL TEXT PDFReferences
M. Roberts, C. A. Gilligan, A. Kleczkowski, N. Hanley, A. E. Whalley, and J. R. Healey, “The Effect of Forest Management Options on Forest Resilience to Pathogens,” Front. For. Glob. Chang., vol. 3, no. February, 2020, doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2020.00007.
Y. S. Kim et al., “Indonesia’s Forest Management Units: Effective intermediaries in REDD+ implementation?,” For. Policy Econ., vol. 62, pp. 69–77, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2015.09.004.
A. Juutinen et al., “Forest owners’ preferences for contract-based management to enhance environmental values versus timber production,” For. Policy Econ., vol. 132, no. March, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102587.
M. A. Shaleh, “Perspective on Forest Management,” ICR J., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 214–229, 2017, doi: 10.52282/icr.v8i2.196.
C. Kusmana, “Forest resources and forestry in Indonesia,” Forest Sci. Technol., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 155–160, 2011, doi: 10.1080/21580103.2011.625241.
U. Paudel, S. R. Adhikari, and K. P. Pant, “Economics of environmental effects on health: A methodological review based on epidemiological information,” Environ. Sustain. Indic., vol. 5, no. December 2019, p. 100020, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.indic.2020.100020.
L. Nerfa, J. M. Rhemtulla, and H. Zerriffi, “Forest dependence is more than forest income: Development of a new index of forest product collection and livelihood resources,” World Dev., vol. 125, p. 104689, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104689.
T. T. Gatiso, “Households’ dependence on community forest and their contribution to participatory forest management: evidence from rural Ethiopia,” Environ. Dev. Sustain., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 181–197, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s10668-017-0029-3.
T. H. Luong, “Forest resources and forestry in Vietnam,” J. Vietnamese Environ., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 171–177, 2014, doi: 10.13141/jve.vol6.no2.pp171-177.
J. S. Bae, Y. Kim, and S. M. Lee, Opportunities for implementing REDD + to enhance sustainable forest management and improve livelihoods in Lombok , NTB , Indonesia. .
K. G. MacDicken, “Global Forest Resources
Assessment 2015: What, why and how?,” For. Ecol. Manage., vol. 352, pp. 3–8, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2015.02.006.
D. Morales-Hidalgo, S. N. Oswalt, and E. Somanathan, “Status and trends in global primary forest, protected areas, and areas designated for conservation of biodiversity from the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015,” For. Ecol. Manage., vol. 352, pp. 68–77, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2015.06.011.
M. A. Wulder et al., “Lidar sampling for large-area forest characterization: A review,” Remote Sens. Environ., vol. 121, pp. 196–209, 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2012.02.001.
R. d’Annunzio, M. Sandker, Y. Finegold, and Z. Min, “Projecting global forest area towards 2030,” For. Ecol. Manage., vol. 352, pp. 124–133, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2015.03.014.
S. Mizaras and D. Lukmine, “Forest and society’s welfare: Impact assessment in Lithuania,” Sustain., vol. 13, no. 10, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su13105598.
M. Riniarti and A. Setiawan, “Status Kesuburan Tanah Pada Dua Tutupan Lahan Di Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan Lindung (Kphl) Batutegi Lampung,” J. Sylva Lestari, vol. 2, no. 2, p. 99, 2014, doi: 10.23960/jsl2299-104.
O. Onrizal and M. Mansor, “Forest conservation and management practices in Minangkabau Society: Forbidden Forest,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 1542, no. 1, 2020, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1542/1/012062.
L. Dorji, E. L. Webb, and G. P. Shivakoti, “Forest property rights under nationalized forest management in Bhutan,” Environ. Conserv., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 141–147, 2006, doi: 10.1017/S0376892906002979.
K. T. Nura and F. S. Endris, “Assessment of Levels of Community Awareness to Effects of Forest Degradation and their Environmental Management Practices in Jimma Zone, South western Ethiopia,” Int. J. Multicult. Multireligious Underst., vol. 7, no. 2, p. 212, 2020, doi: 10.18415/ijmmu.v7i2.1501.
F. Schwaiger, W. Poschenrieder, P. Biber, and H. Pretzsch, “Ecosystem service trade-offs for adaptive forest management,” Ecosyst. Serv., vol. 39, no. July, p. 100993, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100993.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22135/sje.2022.7.3.129-135
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2022 Sriwijaya Journal of Environment
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
