Dampak Perubahan Pemanfaatan Hutan Lindung di RPH Mangunan terhadap Pendapatan Penyadap Getah Pinus

https://doi.org/10.22146/jik.57465

Slamet Riyanto(1*), Wahyu Andayani(2), Hilma Nadhifa(3)

(1) Departemen Manajemen Hutan, Fakultas Kehutanan, Universitas Gadjah Mada
(2) Departemen Manajemen Hutan, Fakultas Kehutanan, Universitas Gadjah Mada
(3) Departemen Manajemen Hutan, Fakultas Kehutanan, Universitas Gadjah Mada
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


Sejak tahun 2015 Balai Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan Yogyakarta mengehentikan kegiatan pemanfaatan hutan dalam bentuk penyadapan getah pinus di kawasan hutan lindung yang secara adminitrasi pengelolaan hutan berada di Resort Pengelolaan Hutan Mangunan Bagian Daerah Hutan Bantul-Kulonprogo. Bentuk pemanfaatan hutan lindung selanjutnya dialihkan menjadi pemanfaatan hutan untuk wisata alam dan jasa lingkungan. Perubahan bentuk pemanfaatan ini mempengaruhi penghidupan ekonomi bagi rumah tangga penyadap getah pinus yang telah memiliki ketergantungan sumber pendapatan terhadap kegiatan pemanfaatan tersebut. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk membandingkan tingkat pendapatan rumah tangga penyadap getah pinus serta kontribusi sumber pendapatan dari sumberdaya hutan terhadap pendapatan total rumah tangga. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan survei dengan melibatkan 56 responden dari 69 penyadap getah pinus yang berdomisili di tiga desa yaitu Desa Munthuk, Desa Mangunan dan Desa Terong. Pengumpulan data melalui wawancara secara mendalam, observasi dan pemanfaatan data sekunder. Data dianalisis secara deskriftif-kuantitatif untuk memberikan penjelasan perubahan atau perbandingan aktivitas, tingkat dan kontribusi sumber pendapatan dari hutan dengan adanya perubahan pemanfaatan hutan. Temuan-temuan dari penelitian ini adalah: (1) Hanya sebagian dari penyadap getah pinus (35 responden) yang dapat beralih aktivitasnya menjadi pekerja hutan wisata, (2)Rata-rata tingkat pendapatan bagi penyadap yang tidak dapat beralih menjadi pekerja atau pengelola wisata sebelum dan sesudah adanya perubahan pemanfaatan berturut-turut sebesar Rp 16.033.062/tahun dan Rp 13.320.967/tahun, (3)Rata-rata tingkat pendapatan bagi penyadap yang dapat beralih menjadi pekerja atau pengelola wisata sebelum dan sesudah adanya perubahan pemanfaatan berturut turut sebesar Rp 12.076.329/tahun dan Rp 29.809.157/tahun, (4) Kegiatan penyadapan berkontribusi sebesar 23% dan pendapatan dari aktivitas di kegiatan wisata hutan pinus berkontribusi sebesar 62% terhadap pendapatan total tahunan. 

 

The Impact of Change in Protected Forest Utilization in RPH Mangunan on Income of Pine Sap Tapper

Abstract

Since 2015 the Balai Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan Yogyakarta has stopped the activity of utilizing pine sap tapping in protected forest areas which administratively located at Resort Pengelolaan Hutan Mangunan, Bagian Daerah Hutan Bantul Kulon Progo. Forest Utilization was then shifted into recreational forest. The change in forest utilization affected the livelihood of pine sap tapper households that already have dependence on a source of income based on these utilization activities. This study aims to compare the source diversity and level of household income of pine sap tappers as well as the share of income from forest resources to total income due to the change in forest utilization. This study used a survey involving 56 respondents from 69 pine sap tappers domiciled in three villages namely Munthuk, Mangunan and Terong Village. Data collection through in-depth interviews, observations and use of secondary data. The data were analyzed in a descriptive quantitative approach to provide an explanation of comparisons of activities, levels and contributions of sources of income from the forest due to changes in forest utilization. The important findings of this study are: (1) Only a portion of pine sap tappers (35 respondents) can switch their activities to workers in recrational forest (2) Average level of household income for tappers who cannot shift to workers in recreational forest are Rp 16033,062 /year and Rp. 13,320,967 /year, (3)Meanwhile, for tappers who can switch to workers in recreational forest are Rp. 12,076,329 / year and Rp. 29,809,157/year respectively for before and after changes in forest utilization(4) Income from tapping activitiy contributed 23% and income from activities in pine recreational forest contributed 62% to total annual income.


Keywords


change in forest utilization; change in income level; household income; pine sap tapper; share of income;

Full Text:

PDF


References

Angelsen A, Wunder S. 2003. Exploring the forest-poverty link: Key concepts, issues and research implications. CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 40. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research

Angelsen A, Jagger P, Babigumira R, Belcher B, Hogarth JN, BAuch S, Borner J, Hall SC, Wunder S. 2014. Environmental income and rural livelihoods: a Global-Comparative Analysis. World Development 64 (1): S12–S28

Ali A, Rahut BD. 2018. Forest-based livelihoods, income, and poverty: Empirical evidence from the Himalayan region of rural Pakistan. Journal of Rural Studies 57:44-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.10.001

Arnold M, Powell B, Shanley P, Sunderland TCH. 2011. Editorial: forests, biodiversity and Food Security. International Forestry Review 13 (3): 259–264.

Byron N, Arnold M. 1999. What futures for the people of the tropical forests?. World Development 27(5): 789–805.

Brown T. 2004 Analysis of population and poverty in Indonesia’s forests. Draft Natural Resources Management Program Report, Jakarta.

BPS. 2015. Analisis Rumah Tangga Sekitar Hutan di Indonesia: Hasil Survey Kehutanan 2014. Badan Pusat Statistik. Jakarta

Cavendish W. 1999. Poverty, inequality and environmental resources: Quantitative Analysis of Rural Households. Centre for the Study of African Economies (CSAE) Paper Series, Paper 93

Chao S. 2012. Forest Poeples: Number Across the Word. Forest Poeple programme. Moreton-on-Mars. United Kingdom

Covarrubias K, Campos OLDPA, Zezza A. 2009. Accounting for the Diversity of Rural IncomeSources in Developing Countries: The Experience of the Rural Income Generating Activities Project. Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome-Italy (Technical Paper prepared for presentation at the Wye City Group Meeting on Rural Development and Agricultural Household Income, 11-12 June, 2009, Rome, Italy)

Ellis F. 2000. Rural Household and Diversify in Developing Countries. pp. 1–15. Oxford University Press. Oxford. UK 

Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) . 2008. Links between national forest programmes and poverty reduction strategies. Forestry Policy and Institutions Working Paper 22. Rome: Forestry Department

Fisher M.2004.Household welfare and forest dependence. Environmentand Development Economics 9(2): 135–154.

Gray N. 2003. Unpacking the baggage of ecotourism: Nature, science, and local participation. Great Lakes Geographer 9(2): 113–123

Jagger P, Luckert MK, Banana A, Bahati J. 2012. Asking questions to understand rural livelihoods: Comparing disaggregated vs. aggregated approaches to household livelihood questionnaires. World Development 40(9): 1810–1823.

Kaimowitz D. 2003. Not by bread alone... Forests and rural livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa. pp. 45–63. In: Oksanen, T., Pajari, B. and Toumasjukka, T., (Eds.), Forests in poverty reduction strategies: Capturing the potential. EFI Proceedings No. 47.

Kalaba KF, Quinn HC, Dougil JA. 2013. Contribution of Forest Provisioning Ecosystem Services to Rural Livelihoods in the Miombo woodlands of Zambia Population and Environment 35(2): 159–182

Langat KD, Maranga KE, Abound AA, Cheboiwo. 2016. THe Role of Forest Resources to Local Livelihood: The Case of East Mau Forest Ecosystem, Kenya. International Journal of Forestry Research 2016:1-10. DOI: 10.1155/2016/4537354

Mamo G, Sjaastad E, Vedeld P. 2007. Economic Dependence on Forest Resources: A Case from Dendi District, Ethiopia. Forest Policy and Economics 9(8): 916–927

Nerfa L, Rhemtulla MJ, Zerriffi H.2020. Forest dependence is more than forest income: Development of a newindex of forest product collection and livelihood resources. Word Development 125:1-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104689

Niehof A. 2004. The Significance of Diversification For Rural Livelihood System. Food Policy 23(4): 321-338 Reksoprayitno, Soediyono. 2009. Ekonomi Makro. Badan Penerbit Fakultas Ekonomi (BPFE) Universitas Gadjah Mada.Yogyakarta

Ribot JC, Peluso IN . 2003. A Theory of Access. Rural Sociology 68(2): 153-181

Senadza B. 2014. Income Diversification Strategies Among Rural Livelihood in Developing Countries: Evidence from Ghana. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies 5(1): 75-92

Shackleton MC, Shackleton ES. 2004.The importance of nontimber Forest Products in Rural Livelihood Security and as Safety Nets: a review of evidence from South Africa. South African Journal of Science 100(11-12): 658–664

Shackleton MC, Shackleton ES. 2006.Household wealth status and natural resource use in the Kat River Valley, South Africa. Ecological Economics 57(2): 306–317

Sunuharjo SB. 2009. Kemiskinan dan Kebutuhan Pokok. Yayasan Ilmu Sosial. Jakarta 

Sunderlin DW, Angelsen A, Belcher B. 2005. Livelihoods, Forests, and Conservation in Developing countries: an overview. World Development 33(9): 1383–1402

Oksanen T, Mersmann C. 2003. Forestry in poverty reduction strategies – An assessment of PRSP processes in sub-Saharan Africa. pp. 121–158. In T. Oksanen, B. Pajari, & T. Tuomasjukka (Eds.). Forestry in poverty reduction strategies: Capturing the potential. EFI Proceedings (No.47). European Forest Institute: Joensuu, Finland.

Vedeld P, Angelsen A, Sjaastad E, Berg, G. K. 2004. Counting on the environment: Forest incomes and the rural poor. Environment Department Papers, Paper No. 98, Environmental Economics Series. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Wan J, Li R, Wang W, Liu Z, Chen B. 2016. Income Diversification and Rural Consumption—Evidence from Chinese Provincial Panel Data, Sustainability 8(10), 1064.DOI:10.3390/su8101064

Wei D, Chao H, Yali W. 2016.Role of income diversification in reducing forest reliance: Evidence from 1838 rural households in China. Journal of Forest Economics 22: 68–79

World Bank. 2004. Sustaining forests: A development strategy. Washington, DC: World Bank

Wollenberg E, Belcher B, Sheil D, Sonya D, Moeliono M. 2004. Mengapa Kawasan Hutan Penting bagi Penanggulangan Kemiskinan di Indonesia? Governance Brief. Nomor 4(1). CIFOR.Bogor

Yanes A, Zielinski S, Cano DM, Kim IS. 2019.Community-Based Tourism in Developing Countries: A Framework for Policy Evaluation. MDPI 11(9):1-23. DOI: 10.3390/su11092506



DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/jik.57465

Article Metrics

Abstract views : 331 | views : 214

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2020 Jurnal Ilmu Kehutanan

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


© Redaksi Jurnal Ilmu Kehutanan
Fakultas Kehutanan Universitas Gadjah Mada
Jl. Agro No 1, Bulaksumur, Sleman 55281
Telp. (0274) 512102, 550541, 6491420
Fax. (0274) 550541 E-mail : jik@ugm.ac.id
website : jurnal.ugm.ac.id/jikfkt/

 

Indexed by:

 

Jurnal Ilmu Kehutanan is under the license of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International

Creative Commons License