Open AccessEvaluation of the village conservation model program in Mount Rinjani National Park using institutional sustainability principles
Author(s) -
Andi Chairil Ichsan,
Hairil Anwar,
Irwan Mahakam Lesmono Aji,
Kornelia Webliana,
Indra Gumay Febryano,
Tenri Waru
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
iop conference series. earth and environmental science
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 1755-1307
pISSN - 1755-1315
DOI - 10.1088/1755-1315/886/1/012070
Subject(s) - operationalization , sustainability , clarity , process (computing) , business , institution , national park , environmental planning , process management , environmental resource management , political science , computer science , geography , economics , ecology , philosophy , biochemistry , chemistry , archaeology , epistemology , law , biology , operating system
Conservation Village Model (MDK) is one form of institution since it contains various mechanisms and rules to ensure the operationalization of activities in the field. In this regard, the evaluation process plays a substantial role in ensuring the sustainability of MDK institutions. Thus, studies related to institutional performance are crucial to describe the conditions of MDK implementation in TNGR based on the principles of institutional sustainability. This research was done between April and July 2016, focusing on two villages (i.e. Santong Village and Pesangrahan Village) that have been designated by the Mount Rinjani National Park Office as recipients of the conservation village model program. The analytical tool used to evaluate institutional performance refers to the eight principles of sustainable institutional. The results showed that the implementation of MDK in Mount Rinjani National Park had a low institutional performance. Several facts revealed in this study indicate that so far, the implementation of MDK in TNGR has not accommodated several sustainable institutional principles. These include the absence of mechanisms that regulate the clarity of community access to the use of national parks, differences in program interventions with community preferences, and the absence of mechanisms on benefit cost-sharing and dispute resolution at the operational level.