Priorities Mapping in Landscape: Spatial Decision Support of the Indonesian Forest Landscape

  • Beni Raharjo
  • Nobukazu Nakagoshi


This study was aimed to develop and assess the application of the priorities mapping using landscape perspective in order to develop spatial decision support system for conservational forest management unit (FMU). The study was conducted in Sultan Adam Forest Park, Indonesia. It follows series of steps, i.e., formulating the prioritization framework, preparing the biophysical condition data and assessing their spatial and temporal changes, assessing the spatial and temporal patterns of the resultant preservation on each management task, formulating the proposed contribution of the forest landscape prioritization for forest zonation, and assessing the optimum proportion for conservation priority. The two identified conservation tasks, namely preservation and rehabilitation, were used as the main prioritization goals in a GIS-based multi-criteria analysis. The framework for conservation prioritization of the forest landscape was developed. It has multi-criteria of tasks, components, sub-components, and parameters. Management preference was accommodated by weighting techniques using an analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Further analyses were carried out, i.e., spatial and temporal analysis in relating parameters with the biophysical conditions (vegetation, forest fragmentation, species’ status, settlement, accessibility, forest fire, soil erosion, topography, and land management). The study has shown a successful development and application of prioritization in the forest landscape with the introduction of new conservation concept, redefined criteria/component identification, and landscape approach. Spatial and temporal patterns of the biophysical conditions affect the spatial and temporal patterns of prioritization in both preservation and rehabilitation tasks. The incorporation of the threat component into preservation prioritization significantly changes the resultant priority area. In addition, the incorporation of the recoverability component into the rehabilitation prioritization also significantly changes the resultant rehabilitation priority area. Therefore, redefined criteria identification into value/importance and threat/urgency is crucial in prioritization. Priority area changed spatially and temporally. The acknowledgment on their patterns is indispensable for forestry planning. The concept that considers preservation and rehabilitation as the two main conservation tasks shows its usable application for prioritization. This study is valuable in providing a spatial decision support system in existing conservational area.


Preservation Rehabilitation Threat Recoverability Conservation 



We would like to express our sincere appreciation to several people who kindly provided advice and guidance throughout the study. Our foremost debt is to Assoc. Prof. KAWAMURA Kensuse, Prof. KANEKO Shinji, Assoc. Prof. TRAN Dang Xuan, and Prof. IKEDA Hideo of International Development and Cooperation of Hiroshima University. We also thank all members of Nakagoshi Laboratory of IDEC. All of this research was supported by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT).


  1. Aksenov DE (2006) Mapping high conservation value forests of Primorsky Kray, Russian Far East—English summary. WWF & Global Forest Watch Russia, VladivostokGoogle Scholar
  2. Aksenov DE, Dubinin MY, Karpachevskiy ML, Liksakova NS, Skvortsov VE, Smirnov DY, Yanitskaya TO (2006) Mapping high conservation value forests of Primorsky Kray, Russian Far East—English summary. In: Aksenov DE (ed). WWF & Global Forest Watch Russia, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  3. Alig R, Stewart S, Wear D, Stein S, Nowak D(2010) Conversions of forest land: trends, determinants, projections, and policy considerations. In: Pye JM, Rauscher HM, Sands Y, Lee DC, Beatty JS (eds) Advances in threat assessment and their application to forest and Rangeland Management. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest and Southern Research Stations, p 246Google Scholar
  4. Arroyo-Rodríguez V, Aguirre A, Benítez-Malvido J, Mandujano S (2007) Impact of rain forest fragmentation on the population size of a structurally important palm species: Astrocaryum mexicanum at Los Tuxtlas, Mexico. Biol Conserv 138(1–2):198–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aurambout JP, Endress AG, Deal BM (2005) A spatial model to estimate habitat fragmentation and its consequences on long-term persistence of animal populations. Environ Monit Assess 109:199–225CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Balaguru B, John Britto SJ, Nagamurugan N, Natarajan D, Soosairaj S (2006) Identifying conservation priority zones for effective management of tropical forests in Eastern Ghats of India. Biodivers Conserv 15:1529–1543Google Scholar
  7. Barber CP, Cochrane MA, Souza CM Jr, Laurance WF (2014) Roads, deforestation, and the mitigating effect of protected areas in the Amazon. Biol Conserv 177:203–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Broadbent EN, Asner GP, Keller M, Knapp DE, Oliveira PJC, Silva JN (2008) Forest fragmentation and edge effects from deforestation and selective logging in the Brazilian Amazon. Biol Cons 141(7):1745–1757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carwardine J, Wilson KA, Watts M, Etter A, Klein CJ, Possingham HP (2008) Avoiding costly conservation mistakes: the importance of defining actions and costs in spatial priority setting. PLoS ONE 3(7):e2586. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Costanza R, d’Arge R, Groot R, Farberk S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387(6630):253–260.
  11. Forestry Service of South Kalimantan Province (2011) Long term planning of the Sultan Adam Forest Park (2011–2021). Forestry Service of South Kalimantan Province, Banjarbaru, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  12. FWI/GFW (2002) The state of the forest: Indonesia. Forest Watch Indonesia, Bogor, Indonesia, and Global Forest Watch, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  13. Geneletti D (2004) A GIS-based decision support system to identify nature conservation priorities in an alpine valley. Land Use Policy 21:149–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Government of the Banjar Regency (2009) Statistical yearbook of Banjar Regency 2009. Government of Banjar District, MartapuraGoogle Scholar
  15. Government of the Republic of Indonesia (1989) Presidential Decree No 52 Year 1989 on Assigning Riam Kanan Forests as Sultan Adam Forest Park, 52 C.F.R.Google Scholar
  16. Government of the Republic of Indonesia (1999) Forestry Act No. 41/1999. Ministry of Forestry, JakartaGoogle Scholar
  17. Hansen MC, Potapov PV, Moore R, Hancher M, Turubanova SA, Tyukavina A, Townshend JRG (2013) High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342:850–853CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Indonesian Ministry of Forestry (2011) Forest management unit development. Ministry of Forestry of Indonesia, Jakarta, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  19. Indonesian Ministry of Forestry (2012) Forestry statistics of Indonesia. Ministry of Forestry of Indonesia, Jakarta, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  20. Indonesian Ministry of Forestry (2013) Ministry of Forestry Decree No. P. 4/V-SET/2013 on guideline on spatial data arrangement for degraded land. Ministry of Forestry, JakartaGoogle Scholar
  21. Intarawichian N, Dasananda S (2010) Analytical hierarchy process for landslide susceptability mapping in Lower Mae Chaem Watershed, Northern Thailand. Suranaree J Sci Technol 17(3):277–292Google Scholar
  22. ITTO (2005) Revised ITTO criteria and indicators for the sustainable management of tropical forests inlcluding reporting format. Int Trop Timber Organ, YokohamaGoogle Scholar
  23. Jaiswal RK, Thomas T, Galkate RV, Ghosh NC, Singh S (2014) Watershed prioritization using Saaty’s AHP based decision support for soil conservation measures. Water Resour Manage 28(2):475–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jiménez-Alfaro B, Colubi A, González-Rodríguez G (2010) A comparison of point-scoring procedures for species prioritization and allocation of seed collection resources in a mountain region. Biodivers Conserv 19(13):3667–3684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kartodihardjo H, Nugroho B, Putro HR (2011) Forest management unit development—concept, legislation and implementation, JakartaGoogle Scholar
  26. King AW (2005) Hierarchy theory and the landscape … level? Or, words do matter. In: Wiens J, Moss M (eds) Issues and perspectives in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Krieger DJ (2001) Economic value of forest ecosystem services: a review. The Wilderness Society, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  28. Langner AJ (2009) Monitoring tropical forest degradation and deforestation in Borneo, Southeast Asia. Ph. D., Ludwig-Maximilian-University, MunichGoogle Scholar
  29. Liu Y, Gao J, Yang Y (2003) A holistic approach towards assessment of severity of land degradation along the Great Wall in Northern Shaanxi Province, China. Environ Monit Assess 82:187–202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Margono BA, Turubanova S, Zhuravleva I, Potapov P, Tyukavina A, Baccini A, Goetz S, Hansen MC (2010) Mapping and monitoring deforestation and forest degradation in Sumatra (Indonesia) using landsat time series data sets from 1990 to 2010. Environ Res Lett 7Google Scholar
  31. Marshall EP, Homans FR (2006) Juggling land retirement objectives on an agricultural landscape: coordination, conflict, or compromise? Environ Manage 38(1):37–47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Mulyana A, Moeliono M, Minnigh P, Indriatmoko Y, Limberg G0, Utomo NA, Saparuddin, Hamzah (2010) Establishing special use zones in national parks. CIFOR Brief 1Google Scholar
  33. Myers N (1991) Tropical forests: present status and future outlook. Clim Change 19(1–2):3–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Nislow KH, Marks CO, Lutz KA (2010) Aquatic conservation planning at a landscape scale. In: Trombulak SC, Baldwin RF (eds) Landscape-scale conservation planning. Springer Science + Business Media BV, The NetherlandGoogle Scholar
  35. Phua M-H, Minowa M (2005) A GIS-based multi-criteria decision making approach to forest conservation planning at a landscape scale: a case study in the Kinabalu Area, Sabah, Malaysia. Landscape Urban Plann 71:207–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roni P, Hanson K, Beechie T, Pess G, Pollock M, Bartley DM (2005) Habitat rehabilitation for inland fisheries: global review of effectiveness and guidance for rehabilitation of freshwater ecosystems FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 484. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  37. Rutledge D (2003) Landscape indices as measures of the effects of fragmentation: can pattern reflect process? DOC Science Internal Series, New Zealand Department of Conservation, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  38. Saaty TL (2005) The analytic hierarchy and analytic network processes for the measurement of intangible criteria and for decision-making. In: Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrogott M (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer, New York, pp 345–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2001) The value of forest ecosystems. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological DiversityGoogle Scholar
  40. Soosairaj S, Britto SJ, Balaguru B, Nagamurugan N, Natarajan D (2007) Zonation of conservation priority sites for effective management of tropical forests in India: a value-based conservation approach. Appl Ecol Environ Res 5(2):37–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sunderlin WD, Resosudarmo IAP (1996) Rate and causes of deforestation in Indonesia: toward a resolution of the ambiguities. Occasional Paper No. 9: CIFORGoogle Scholar
  42. Tejaswi G (2007) Manual on deforestation, degradation, and fragmentation using remote sensing and GIS: Strengthening monitoring, assessment and reporting on sustainable forest management in Asia (GCP/INT/988/JPN). Forestry Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsGoogle Scholar
  43. The Consortium for Revision of the HCV Toolkit Indonesia (2009) Guidelines for the identification of high conservation values in Indonesia (HCV Toolkit Indonesia). The Nature Conservancy, Jakarta, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  44. Tigas LA, Vuren DHV, Sauvajot RM (2002) Behavioral responses of bobcats and coyotes to habitat fragmentation and corridors in an urban environment. Biol Cons 108(3):299–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Trombulak SC, Baldwin RF (2010) Introduction: creating a context for landscape-scale conservation planning. In Trombulak SC, Baldwin RF (eds) Landscape-scale conservation planning. Springer Science + Business Media BV, The NetherlandGoogle Scholar
  46. Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (2001) Landscape ecology in theory and practice: pattern and process. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Valente RDOA, Vettorazzi CA (2008) Definition of priority areas for forest conservation through the ordered weighted averaging method. For Ecol Manage 256(6):1408–1417Google Scholar
  48. Viñas SM (2005) Contemporary theory of conservation. Elsevier, Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington, USAGoogle Scholar
  49. Woodhouse S, Lovett A, Dolman P, Fuller R (2000) Using a GIS to select priority areas for conservation. Comput Environ Urban Syst 24(2):79–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Woolmer G (2010) The GIS challenges of ecoregional conservation planning. In Trombulak SC, Baldwin RF (eds) Landscape-scale conservation planning. Springer Science + Business Media BV, The NetherlandGoogle Scholar
  51. Wulder MA, White JC, Andrew ME, Seitz NE, Coops NC (2009) Forest fragmentation, structure, and age characteristics as a legacy of forest management. For Ecol Manage 258(9):1938–1949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zhang L, Xu W-H, Ouyang Z-Y, Zhu C-Q (2014) Determination of priority nature conservation areas and human disturbances in the Yangtze River Basin, China. J Nat Conserv 22(4):326–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Forestry Service of South Kalimantan ProvinceBanjarbaruIndonesia
  2. 2.Graduate School for International Development and CooperationHiroshima UniversityHigashi-HiroshimaJapan

Personalised recommendations