Abstract
In the midst of global change uncertainties, Indonesian spatial planning authorities are developing 20-year strategies. However, the lack of collaborative engagement of stakeholders and unclear methodology around using futures studies in addressing land management undermine such plans and affect environmental governance. A crucial question is how to link a future-oriented process with governance transformation processes, particularly related to land-use planning and management. To address this issue, we used a co-elaborative scenario-building approach, referred to as participatory prospective analysis (PPA), to facilitate the creation of local multistakeholder platforms considering future-oriented perspectives. The PPA design combines equally the knowledge of local communities, technical experts and decision-makers, and was applied in a series of sequential multistakeholder workshops in two regencies in Indonesia, followed by public consultations on the main results. In both regencies, participants agreed on a common topic related to spatial planning in their jurisdiction to be explored with a 20-year time horizon. They reached consensus on relevant variables, analyzed their dependence/influence, and developed several plausible yet contrasting scenarios for land management and road maps with guidelines for the implementation of desired outcomes. The PPA approach stimulated stakeholder engagement and ensured that more local voices were not only heard but also duly included in the process. It allowed participants to consider strategies that would otherwise have been less readily accepted by their respective organizations. It showed that it is possible to improve existing spatial planning processes in Indonesia by integrating tools for a more inclusive and long-term future-oriented collaborative approach.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Data are available at CIFOR https://www1.cifor.org/colupsia/home.html.
Code availability
The software module created in Excel is given in Supplementary Material.
Notes
The European Union funded Collaborative Land Use Planning and Sustainable Institutional Arrangements (CoLUPSIA) project in Indonesia aimed to contribute to reducing environmental degradation and strengthening land tenure and community rights by collaboratively integrating all stakeholders’ views in landscape management. The outputs revolved around the relationship between land-use planning, land allocation, livelihood, and the provision and scoping for possible payments of ecosystem services in selected social ecological systems. https://www1.cifor.org/colupsia/home.html
Morphological analysis was designed as a nonquantified problem structuring method, which results in an inference model striving to represent the total problem space, and as many of the potential solutions to the given problem as possible (Ritchey, 2003)
References
Abram NK, Meijaard E, Wilson KA et al. (2017) Oil palm–community conflict mapping in Indonesia: a case for better community liaison in planning for development initiatives. Appl Geogr 78:33–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.10.005
ADB-MoEF (2018) Forest Investment Program 1 2018-2021 ADB-MoEF-Hatfield Indonesia. https://www.fip1-adb.com/about-fip1/ accessed 28 Dec 2020.
Ahlqvist T, Rhisiart M (2015) Emerging pathways for critical futures research: changing contexts and impacts of social theory. Futures 71:91–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.07.012
Álvarez A, Ritchey T (2015) Applications of general morphological analysis. Acta Morphologica Generalis 4(1):1–40
AMAN (2018) Wilayah Adat Masih Diabaikan, Dukungan Jokowi Dievaluasi. http://www.aman.or.id/wilayah-adat-masih-diabaikan-dukungan-jokowi-dievaluasi/. Accessed 30 Aug 2020
Amer M, Daim TU, Jetter A (2013) A review of scenario planning. Futures 46:23–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2012.10.003
Anandi MA, Yuliani EL, Moeliono M et al. (2020) Kapuas Hulu: a background analysis to implementing integrated landscape approaches in Indonesia. In: Reed J, Ros-Tonen M, Sunderland T (eds) Operationalizing integrated landscape approaches in the tropics. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. 176−204
Anderson ZR, Kusters K, McCarthy J, Obidzinski K (2016) Green growth rhetoric versus reality: insights from Indonesia. Glob Environ Change 38:30–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.02.008
Ardiansyah F, Marthen AA, Amalia N (2015) Forest and land-use governance in a decentralized Indonesia: a legal and policy review. Occasional Paper 132. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia
Arts B, Buizer M, Horlings L et al. (2017) Landscape approaches: aa state-of-the-art review. Annu Rev Environ Resour 42(1):439–463. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-060932
Astuti R M (2016) Indigenous land claims or green grabs? Inclusions and exclusions within forest carbon politics in Indonesia. The J of Peasant Stud https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.1197908
Bäckstrand K (2006) Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. Eur Environ 16(5):290–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.425
Bai X, van der Leeuw S, O’Brien K et al. (2016) Plausible and desirable futures in the Anthropocene: a new research agenda. Glob Environ Change 39:351–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.017
Banjade MR, Paudel NS, Mwangi E (2020) Insights from Participatory Prospective Analysis (PPA) workshops in Nepal. Info Brief No. 276. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia, http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/infobrief/7553-infobrief.pdf
BAPPEDA (2020) Laporan Kinerja Tahun 2019. Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah Kapuas Hulu, Kalimantan Barat
Barr C, Resosudarmo IAP, Dermawan A et al. (2006) Decentralization of forest administration in Indonesia: Implications for forest sustainability, economic development and community livelihoods. Report. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia
Bennett NJ, Satterfield T (2018) Environmental governance: a practical framework to guide design, evaluation, and analysis. Conserv Lett https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12600
Bennett NJ, Whitty TS, Finkbeiner E et al. (2018) Environmental stewardship: a conceptual review and analytical framework. Environ Manag 61(4):597–614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0993-2
Bezold C (2010) Lessons from using scenarios for strategic foresight. Technol Forecast Soc Change 77:1513–1518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.06.012
Bishop P, Hines A, Collins T (2007) The current state of scenario development: an overview of techniques. Foresight 9:5–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680710727516
Börjeson L, Höjer M, Dreborg K-H, Ekvall T, Finnveden G (2006) Scenario types and techniques: towards a user’s guide. Futures 38:723–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2005.12.002
Bourgeois R, Jésus F (2004) Participatory prospective analysis: Exploring and anticipating challenges with stakeholders. CGPRT Publication No. 46. ESCAP, Bogor, Indonesia
Bourgeois R, Jésus F (2010) Storage, calculation and visualization of Participatory Prospective Analysis [Computer software]. CIRAD, Montpellier, France, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343987161_Structural_Analysis_Software_Basexl300sx
Bourgeois R, Liswanti N, Mukasa C et al. (2017a) Guide for co-elaboration of scenarios: Building shared understanding and joint action for reform and security of forest tenure. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia, 10.17528/cifor/006749
Bourgeois R, Penunia E, Bisht S, Boruk D (2017b) Foresight for all: co-elaborative scenario building and empowerment. Technol Forecast Soc Change https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.04.018
BPS (2019) Statistik Indonesia 2019. Badan Pusat Statistik, Jakarta. 748 pp.
Bradfield R, Derbyshire J, Wright G (2016) The critical role of history in scenario thinking: augmenting causal analysis within the intuitive logics scenario development methodology. Futures 77:56–66
Bretz KJ (2017) Indonesia’s one map policy: a critical look at the social implications of a ‘mess’. Thesis University South Carolina. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.25247.87209
Brockhaus M, Obidzinski K, Dermawan A et al. (2012) An overview of forest and land allocation policies in Indonesia: is the current framework sufficient to meet the needs of REDD+? Policy Econ 18:30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.09.004
Brouwer JH, Woodhill AJ, Hemmati M et al. (2018) The MSP guide: How to design and facilitate multi-stakeholder partnerships. Wageningen Centre for Development Innovation, Wageningen
Cairns G, Ahmed I, Mullett J, Wright G (2013) Scenario method and stakeholder engagement: critical reflections on a climate change scenarios case study. Technol Forecast Soc Change 80:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.08.005
Camill P (2010) Global change. Nat Educ Knowl 3(10):49
Carpenter SR, Bennett EM, Perterson GD (2006) Scenarios for ecosystem services: an overview. Ecol Soc 11(1):29, http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art29/ [online] URL
Carpenter SR, Folke C, Scheffer M et al. (2009) Resilience: accounting for the noncomputable. Ecol Soc 14(1):13, http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art13/ http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art13/
Chakib A (2014) Civil society organizations’ roles in land-use planning and community land rights issues in Kapuas Hulu regency, West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Working Paper 147. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia, 10.17528/cifor/005426
Chermack TJ, Coons LM (2015) Integrating scenario planning and design thinking: learnings from the 2014 Oxford Futures Forum. Futures 74:71–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.07.014
Churchman CW (1967) Wicked Problems. Management Science Vol. 14 (4) Guest editorial. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.14.4.B141
Colchester M, Jiwan N, Kleden E (2014) Independent review of the social impacts of Golden Agri Resources’ forest conservation policy in Kapuas Hulu district, West Kalimantan. Forest Peoples Programme Indonesia, Moreton-in-Marsh, UK and Jakarta, Indonesia, http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2014/01/pt-kpc-report-january-2014final.pdf
Corlett RT, Primack RB, Devictor V et al. (2020) Impacts of the coronavirus pandemic on biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv 246:108571
Crawford MM (2019) A comprehensive scenario intervention typology. Technol Forecast Soc Change 149:119748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119748Cruz2015
Cruz SO (2015) Alternative futures of global governance: scenarios and perspectives from the Global South. Foresight 17(2):125–142. https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-05-2014-0030
Dator J (2009) Alternative futures at the Manoa School. J Futur Stud 14:1–18
David F, Efstathios T (2020) Opening the ‘black box’ of scenario planning through realist synthesis. Technol Forecast Soc Change 151:119801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119801
Dove MR (1993) A revisionist view of tropical deforestation and development. Environ Conserv 20(1):17–24
Enrici A, Hubacek K (2016) Business as usual in Indonesia: Governance factors effecting the acceleration of the deforestation rate after the introduction of REDD+. Energy Ecol Environ 1:183–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40974-016-0037-4
Falkner R ed. (2013) The Handbook of Global Climate and Environment Policy. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Fischer J, Peterson GD, Gardner TA et al. (2009) Integrating resilience thinking and optimisation for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 24(10):549–554
Fisher MR, Workman T, Mulyana A et al. (2017) Striving for PAR excellence in land use planning: multi-stakeholder collaboration on customary forest recognition in Bulukumba, South Sulawesi. Land Use Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.09.057
Fisher MR, Moeliono M, Mulyana A et al. (2018) Assessing the new social forestry project in Indonesia: recognition, livelihood and conservation? Int Forestry Rev 20:3
Freeth R, Drimie S (2016) Participatory scenario planning: from scenario ‘stakeholders’ to scenario ‘owners.’. Environment 58:32–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2016.1186441
Fuerth LS (2009) Foresight and anticipatory governance. Foresight 11(4):14–32. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680910982412
Giessen W (2000) Flora and vegetation of Danau Sentarum: unique lake and swamp forest ecosystem of West Kalimantan. Borneo Res Bull 31:89–122
Godet M (2000) The art of scenarios and strategic planning. Technol Forecast Soc Change 65:3–22
Godet M (2010) Future memories. Technol Forecast Soc Change 77:1457–1463
Green K (2005) Decentralization and good governance: the case of Indonesia. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/18097/
Guston DH (2014) Understanding ‘anticipatory governance’. Soc Stud Sci 44:218–242
Hannibal LW (1950) Vegetation Map of Indonesia. Planning Department of the Forest Service, Kolff, Djakarta, Indonesia
Hebinck A, Vervoort JM, Hebinck P et al. (2018) Imagining transformative futures: participatory foresight for food systems change. Ecol Soc 23(2):16. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10054-230216
Hilbert M, Miles I, Othmer J (2009) Foresight tools for participative policy-making in inter-governmental processes in developing countries: Lessons learned from the eLAC Policy Priorities Delphi. Technol Forecast Soc Change 76:880–896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.01.001
Inayatullah S (2015) What works: case studies in the practice of foresight. Tamkang University Press, Taipei, p 133. ISBN 978-986-598-2-96-6
Karrasch L, Maier M, Kleyer M et al. (2017) Collaborative landscape planning: co-design of ecosystem-based land management scenarios. Sustainability 9(10):1668. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091668
Kartodihardjo H, Supriono A (2000) The impact of sectoral development on natural forest conversion and degradation: The case of timber and tree crop plantations in Indonesia. Occasional Paper No 26. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia
van’t Klooster SA, van Asselt MBA (2006) Practising the scenario-axes technique. Futures 38:15–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2005.04.019
KSP Kantor Staf Presiden – President Office Staf (2017) Pelaksanaan Reforma Agraria Arahan Kantor Staf Presiden: Prioritas Nasional Reforma Agraria dalam Rencana Kerja Pemerintah Tahun 2017
Kusters K, De Graaf M, Buck L (2016) Guidelines: participatory planning, monitoring and evaluation of multi-stakeholder platforms in integrated landscape initiatives. Working paper. Tropenbos International and EcoAgriculture Partners, Wageningen, the Netherlands
Larson AM, Sarmiento Barletti JP, Ravikumar A et al. (2018) Multi-level governance: some coordination problems cannot be solved through coordination. In: Angelsen A, Martius C, De Sy V, et al., (eds) Transforming REDD+: Lessons and new directions. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia, p 81–91
Laumonier Y, Hadi DP, Setiabudi et al. (2020) “Kapuas Hulu Ecological Vegetation Map 1:50 000”, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), V1, https://doi.org/10.17528/CIFOR/DATA.00202
Lehoux P, Miller FA, Williams-Jones B (2020) Anticipatory governance and moral imagination: Methodological insights from a scenario-based public deliberation study. Technol Forecast Soc Change 151:119800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119800
Liswanti N (2012) Building a shared vision: Scenarios for collaborative land use planning in Central Moluccas regency, Indonesia. The Future of Agriculture Brief No. 39. Global Forum on Agriculture Research, Rome
Liswanti N, Fripp E, Silaya T et al. (2013) Socio-economic considerations for land use planning: the case of Seram, Central Moluccas. Working Paper No. 109. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia
Liswanti N, Mwangi E, Banjade MR, Herawati T (2019) What future direction for forest tenure reform implementation in Indonesia? Perspectives of national-level stakeholders. Info Brief No. 256. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia
Luttrell C, Obidzinski K, Brockhaus M et al. (2011) Lessons for REDD+ from measures to control illegal logging in Indonesia. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, and CIFOR, Jakarta and Bogor, Indonesia
Maryudi A, Nawir AA, Permadi DB et al. (2015) Complex regulatory frameworks governing private smallholder tree plantations in Gunungkidul District, Indonesia. For Policy Econ 59:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.05.010
McCarthy JF (2000) The changing regime: forest property and reforms in Indonesia. Dev Change 31(1):91–129
MacKay RB, McKiernan P (2004) The role of hindsight in foresight: refining strategic reasoning. Futures 36(2):161–179
MacKay RB, McKiernan P (2018) Scenario thinking: a historical evolution of strategic foresight (elements in business strategy). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 10.1017/9781108571494
Miller R (2015) Learning, the future, and complexity. An essay on the emergence of futures literacy. Eur J Educ 50(4):513–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12157
Miller R (2018) Transforming the future: anticipation in the 21st century. Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351048002
Miller R, Poli R, Rossel P (2018) The discipline of anticipation. In: Miller R (ed) Transforming the future: anticipation in the 21st century. UNESCO, Paris, France
Metternich GI (2018) Land use and spatial planning enabling sustainable management of land resources. Springer Nature, Cham, 10.1007/978-3-319-71861-3
Moeliono M, Gallemore C, Santoso L et al. (2014) Information networks and power: confronting the “wicked problem” of REDD+ in Indonesia. Ecol Soc 19(2):9. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06300-190209
Mora O, Le Mouël C, de Lattre-Gasquet M, Donnars C, Dumas P, Réchauchère O, Brunelle T, Manceron S, Marajo-Petitzon E, Moreau C, Barzman M, Forslund A, Marty P (2020) Exploring the future of land use and food security: a new set of global scenarios. PLoS One 15(7):e0235597. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235597
Morgan DR (2015) Six treatments of global ruling power/governance and prospects for the future: an overview. Foresight 17:97–111. https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-01-2015-0005. Notten van (2003)
van Notten PW, Rotmans J, van Asselt MB, Rothman DS (2003) An updated scenario typology. Futures 35:423–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(02)00090-3
OECD (2001) Governance in the 21st Century, Future Studies. OECD Publications, Paris, p 217
Oliver JJ, Parrett E (2018) Managing future uncertainty: Reevaluating the role of scenario planning. Bus Horiz 61:339–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2017.11.013
Oteros-Rozas E, Martín-López B, Daw TM, Bohensky EL, Butler JRA, Hill R, Martin-Ortega J, Quinlan A, Ravera F, Ruiz-Mallén I, Thyresson M, Mistry J, Palomo I, Peterson GD, Plieninger T, Waylen KA, Beach DM, Bohnet IC, Hamann M, Hanspach J, Hubacek K, Lavorel S, Vilardy SP (2015) Participatory scenario planning in place-based social-ecological research: Insights and experiences from 23 case studies. Ecol Soc 20(4):32. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07985-200432
Özkaynak B, Rodríguez-Labajos B (2010) Multi-scale interaction in local scenario-building: a methodological framework. Futures 42:995–1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2010.08.022
Patel M, Kok K, Rothman DS (2007) Participatory scenario construction in land use analysis: An insight into the experiences created by stakeholder involvement in the Northern Mediterranean. Land use policy 24:546–561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2006.02.005
Polasky S, Carpenter SR, Folke C et al. (2011) Decision-making under great uncertainty: environmental management in an era of global change. Trends Ecology Evol 26(8):399–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.04.007
Poli R (2015) The implicit future orientation of the capability approach. Futures 71(2015):105–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.03.002
Popper R (2008) Foresight methodology. In: Georghiou L, Cassingena J, Keenan M, et al., eds. The handbook of technology foresight. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, p 44–88
Pretty JN (1995) Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Dev 23(8):1247–1263
Quay R (2017) Anticipatory Governance. J Am Plan Assoc 76(4):496–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2010.508428
Ramirez R, Wilkinson A (2014) Rethinking the 2×2 scenario method: Grid or frames? Technol Forecast Soc Change 86(2014):254–264
Ramírez R, Selin C (2014) Plausibility and probability in scenario planning. Foresight 16:54–74. https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-08-2012-0061
Ramos JM (2014) Anticipatory governance: traditions and trajectories for strategic design. J Futur Stud 19(1):35–52. http://jfsdigital.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/JFS19-1-A3-Ramos.pdf http://jfsdigital.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/JFS19-1-A3-Ramos.pdf
Reed J, Barlow J, Carmenta R et al. (2019) Engaging multiple stakeholders to reconcile climate, conservation and development objectives in tropical landscapes. Biol Conserv 238:108229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108229
Reed J, van Vianen J, Deakin EL et al. (2016) Integrated landscape approaches to managing social and environmental issues in the tropics: learning from the past to guide the future. Glob Chang Biol 22(7):2540–2554. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13284
Resosudarmo IAP, Tacconi L, Sloan S et al. (2019) Indonesia’s land reform: implications for local livelihoods and climate change. Forest Policy and Econ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.04.007
Ritchey T (2003) Modeling complex socio-technical systems using morphological analysis. Adapted from an address to the Swedish Parliamentary IT Commission, Stockholm, December 2002. http://www.swemorph.com/downloads.html
Ritchey T (2011) Modeling alternative futures with general morphological analysis. World Futures Review (1):83–94. 10.1177/194675671100300105. Accessed 18 Dec 2020
Rondinelli DA, London T (2003) How corporations and environmental groups cooperate: assessing cross-sector alliances and collaborations. Acad Manag Perspect 17(1):61–76. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2003.9474812
Ros-Tonen MAF, Reed J, Sunderland T (2018) From synergy to complexity: the trend toward integrated value chain and landscape governance. Environ Manage https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1055-0
Rukmana D (2015) The change and transformation of Indonesian spatial planning after Suharto’s New Order regime: the case of the Jakarta Metropolitan area. Int Plan Stud 20(4):350–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2015.1008723
Ruysschaert D, Hufty M (2018) Building an effective coalition to improve forest policy: lessons from the coastal Tripa peat swamp rainforest, Sumatra, Indonesia. Land Use Policy https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.04.034
Sahide MAK, Giessen L (2015) The fragmented land use administration in Indonesia – Analysing bureaucratic responsibilities influencing tropical rainforest transformation systems. Land Use Policy 43:96–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.11.005
Sahide, MAK, Fisher MR, Supratman S et. al. (2020). Prophets and profits in Indonesia’s social forestry partnership schemes: Introducing a sequential power analysis. Forest Policy and Econ 115:102160
Sarmiento Barletti JP, Larson AM, Hewlett C et al. (2020) Designing for engagement: A realist synthesis review of how context affects the outcomes of multi-stakeholder forums on land use and/or land-use change. World Dev 127:104753
Sayer J, Sunderland T, Ghazoul J et al. (2013) Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. PNAS 110(21):8345–8348
Scherr SJ, Buck LE, Willemen L, Milder JC (2014) Ecoagriculture: Integrated landscape management for people, food and nature. Encycl Agriculture Food Syst 3:1–17. In Van Alfen, NK (Ed.)Amsterdam, Netherlands
Selsky JW, Parker B (2005) Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: challenges to theory and practice. J Manag 31(6):849–873. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279601
Shahab N (2016) Indonesia One Map Policy. Open Government Partnership. https://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/case-study_Indonesia_One-Map-Policy.pdf.
Shantiko B (2012) Seeking harmony: scenarios for nature conservation and agricultural development in Kapuas Hulu regency, Indonesia. The Future of Agriculture Brief No. 18. Global Forum on Agriculture Research, Rome
Shantiko B, Fripp E, Taufiqoh T et al. (2013) Socio-economic considerations for land use planning: the case of Kapuas Hulu, West Kalimantan. CIFOR Working Paper No. 120. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia, https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/004349
Simamora JR (2011) Decentralisation, participation, downward accountability: the case of Indonesia. MA thesis. International Institute of Social Studies (ISS), The Hague, Netherlands
Spaniol MJ, Rowland NJ (2019) Defining scenario. Futur Foresight Sci 1:e3. https://doi.org/10.1002/ffo2.3
Stickler CM, Duchelle AE, Ardila JP et al. (2018) The State of Jurisdictional Sustainability. San Francisco, USA: Earth Innovation Institute/Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research/Boulder. Governors’ Climate & Forests Task Force Secretariat, USA, https://earthinnovation.org/state-of-jurisdictional-sustainability/
Tacconi L, Muttaqin MZ (2019) Reducing emissions from land use change in Indonesia: an overview. Forest Policy and Economics 108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.101979.
Toffler A (1970) Future shock. Random House, New York, NY
Totin E, Butler JR, Sidibé A, Partey S, Thornton PK, Tabo R (2018) Can scenario planning catalyse transformational change? Evaluating a climate change policy case study in Mali. Futures 96:44–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2017.11.005
Tombourou T (2017) Using a Delphi approach to identify the most efficacious interventions to improve Indonesia’s forest and land governance. Land Use Policy https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.05.017
Urueña S (2019) Understanding “plausibility”: a relational approach to the anticipatory heuristics of future scenarios. Futures 111:15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2019.05.002
Vervoort JM, Kok K, Beers PJ et al. (2012) Combining analytic and experiential communication in participatory scenario development. Landsc Urban Plan 107:203–213
Vervoort JM, Thornton PK, Kristjanson P et al. (2014) Challenges to scenario-guided adaptive action on food security under climate change. Glob Environ Change 28:383–394
Vervoort JM, Gupta A (2018) Anticipating climate futures in a 1. 5°C era: the link between foresight and governance. Curr Opin Environ Sustainability 31(Jan):1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.01.004
Volkery A, Ribeiro T (2009) Scenario planning in public policy: understanding use, impacts and the role of institutional context factors. Technol Forecast Soc Change 76:1198–1207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.07.009
Wright G, Bradfield R, Cairns G (2013) Does the intuitive logics method – and its recent enhancements – produce “effective” scenarios? Technol Forecast Soc Change 80:631–642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.09.003
Wyborn CA, Dunlop M, Dudley N, van Kerkhoff L, Guevara O (2016) Future oriented conservation: knowledge governance, uncertainty and learning. Biodivers Conserv 25:1401–1408
Yuliani EL, Indriatmoko Y, Salim MA et al. (2010) Biofuel policies and their impacts on local people and biodiversity: a case study in Danau Sentarum. Borneo Res Bull 41:109–144
Yusran Y, Sahide MAK, Supratman S et al. (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.12.033
Vallet A, Locatell B, Barnaud C et al. (2020) Power asymmetries in social networks of ecosystem services governance. Environ Sci Policy 114:329–340
Acknowledgements
This research received financial support from the EU-financed project DCI - Collaborative Land Use and Sustainable Institutional Arrangement (CoLUPSIA); the Center International pour la Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD); the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR); the Consortium Research Program on Forests, Trees, and Agroforestry (CRP-FTA); and the International Climate Initiative (IKI) of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), grant number 18_IV_084. The authors gratefully acknowledge Participatory Prospective Analysis (PPA) group participants in Kapuas Hulu and Central Moluccas regencies for their contributions to the process, with special thanks to the PPA facilitators: Alo Tao, Valentinus Heri, Nina Sesili, Marthina Tjoa and Thomas Silaya. The authors would also like to acknowledge the substantial improvements that were made to the manuscript as a result of the thorough and professional comments provided by two anonymous reviewers and the guest editors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee.
Consent to Participate
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Consent for Publication
Informed consent for publication was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Annex 1. Example of the variables in the Kapuas Hulu case study, as identified by the PPA group of stakeholders. Internal variables are those over which stakeholders have some degree of control and can influence, while external variables refer to those over which stakeholders have little control and cannot easily influence
Annex 1. Example of the variables in the Kapuas Hulu case study, as identified by the PPA group of stakeholders. Internal variables are those over which stakeholders have some degree of control and can influence, while external variables refer to those over which stakeholders have little control and cannot easily influence
INTERNAL VARIABLES | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
No. | Variable | ID | Definition | |
1 | Coordination between sectors | COORDSECTOR | The pattern of labor between sectors, in accordance with duties and functions. | |
2 | Paradigm | MINDSET | Perspective in viewing and analyzing a problem | |
3 | Customary law | ADATLAW | Recognition and enforcement of indigenous law in the customary territory | |
4 | Number of pupils | NUMPUPILS | The number of school-age children who attend school | |
5 | Community income | COMMTINCOME | Community income | |
6 | Level of public health | LEVELHEALTH | Public health | |
7 | Access to health care | ACCHEALTHCARE | Availability of facilities and health care workers serving public health needs | |
8 | Level of education | EDUCATION | Average education held by the general public | |
9 | Competence of government officials | COMPETENCEGOVTOFFC | Governmental operational effectiveness | |
10 | Development policy | DEVTPOLICY | Direction of future development; the result of multistakeholder agreement, as outlined in central and local development plans | |
11 | Distribution of teachers | TEACHERDISTR | Distribution of teachers in schools | |
12 | Cost of education | COSTOFEDUC | Costs incurred by the public for education | |
13 | Educational facilities | EDUCFACILITIES | Amount of financial resources and educational facilities provided by local government | |
14 | Employment | EMPLOYMENT | Availability of employment opportunities across the various sectors | |
15 | Competence of graduates | COMPETENCEGRAD | The quality of graduates in the world of work | |
16 | Competence of members of parliament | COMPETENCE_MP | Ability to carry out the functions of legislation, budgeting and monitoring | |
17 | Availability of fish | AVAILFISH | Availability of fish stocks, both in the wild and from aquaculture | |
18 | Electricity infrastructure | ELECTRINFRA | Facilities providing electrical energy to the community | |
19 | Indigenous natural resource management | LOCWISDOM | Procedures or practices of natural resource use within a particular region | |
20 | Preservation of cultural assets | CULTASSETS | Efforts to preserve and maintain the diversity of local culture | |
21 | Community participation | COMMTPARTICIPATION | Community participation in planning, implementing and monitoring | |
22 | Mine reserves | MININGSTOCK | Availability of minerals held as capital construction | |
23 | Government policy | REGGOVTPOL | Executive and legislative rules impacting governance and development | |
24 | Road infrastructure | ROADINFRA | Availability of infrastructure supporting mobility and road conditions | |
25 | Environmental health | ENVHEALTH | Environmental health conditions in the village | |
26 | Sanitation | SANITATION | Availability of environmental health infrastructure (e.g. toilets, water supply, drainage) | |
27 | Indigenous land management | INDLANDMGT | Arrangements agreed upon by indigenous people on ways to use land owned by indigenous people | |
28 | Law enforcement | LAWENFORCE | Implementation and compliance with local regulations | |
29 | Tolerance between religions | TOLERANCERELIG | Appreciation of the differences between state-recognized religious beliefs | |
30 | Professionalism/entrepreneurship | PROFFESIONALISM | Managerial capacity of business people | |
31 | Pests and diseases | PESTS | Intensity (quantity and frequency) of animal/insect attacks and diseases (e.g. viruses, bacteria, fungi) that interfere with and undermine the productivity of farming | |
32 | Area | AREA | Coverage area that can be managed administratively | |
33 | Forest fires | FORESTFIRE | Intensity of intentional or unintentional forest fires | |
34 | Use of technology | USEOFTECH | Public ability level and use of technology | |
35 | Access to technology | ACCESSTEKNO | Ease of access and availability of technology | |
36 | Market access | ACCESSMARKET | Ease of obtaining and marketing products, including creating market opportunities | |
37 | Access to information | ACCESSINFO | Ease of accessing information | |
38 | Revenue | REGIONALINCOME | Income earned by local government through local taxes, levies and other legally generated income | |
39 | Allocation of land for plantations | OPALLOCATION | Designation of areas/regions for the cultivation of oil palm plantations | |
40 | Use of pesticides | USEOFPESTICIDES | Use of chemicals to eradicate pests and plant diseases | |
41 | The use of mercury | USEOFMERCURY | Levels of mercury use in mining activities without a license | |
42 | Layout | SPATIALPLAN | The division of an area designated for each sector of construction | |
43 | Distribution of the population | POPULDIST | Distribution of the population in a region | |
44 | Access to capital | ACCESSCAPITAL | Ease of obtaining venture capital | |
45 | Investment policy | INVESTPOLICY | Regulations governing investment in the region | |
46 | Non-wood forest products (NTFPs) utilization | NTFP | Utilization and marketing of NTFPs by communities | |
47 | Farming systems | FARMSYSTEM | Methods used by the public for agricultural cultivation | |
48 | Political dynamics | POLDYNAMIC | Conditions and circumstances of local politics | |
49 | Resettlement policy | RESETTLPOL | Policy to settle migrants in the Kapuas Hulu region | |
50 | Skills | SKILL | Skills sourced through talent, experience and informal education | |
EXTERNAL VARIABLES | ||||
No. | Variable | Label | Definition | |
1 | International influence | INTLINFLUENCE | Effect caused by the interaction between the upstream Kapuas Hulu regency and outsiders, including international policy | |
2 | State law | STATELAW | Rules and regulations set by the government which must be adhered to by all citizens of the state, which if broken will result in sanctions/penalties | |
3 | Population | POPULNUM | The number of people who lived/are living in an area | |
4 | Flood | FLOOD | Intensity (quantity and frequency) of floods within a region | |
5 | Water discharge | WATERDISCHARGE | Conditions and the volume of water in rivers and lakes | |
6 | Sedimentation | SEDIMENTATION | Condition of material build up at the bottom of rivers and lakes | |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shantiko, B., Liswanti, N., Bourgeois, R. et al. Land-use Decisions in Complex Commons: Engaging Multiple Stakeholders through Foresight and Scenario Building in Indonesia. Environmental Management 68, 642–664 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01470-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01470-1