From Laborers to Coffee Farmers: Collaborative Forest Management in West Java, Indonesia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors evaluated process and impact of community involvement in forest management through the Pengelolaan Hutan Bersama Masyarakat program. The topic is of general interest, but the description is insufficient to replicate the study in another geographic area.
The introduction exposes community forestry, both benefits and weaknesses. However, given the description, they omit present what they expect to find, as well as highlighting why this program is better than others implemented in other geographic areas. The authors refer that "The study shows that the PHBM program implementation in the study area provided benefits for improving forest ecological conditions and developing a coffee-based economy". Therefore, I suggest that introductions could expand on environmental and economic benefits.
Objective reported in introduction was "this article discusses the community involvement in a forest management program called Pengelolaan Hutan Bersama Masyarakat (PHBM), a kind of collaborative forest management in Java (line 67-68)", while in methods reported "the research aims to study the process and impact of community involvement in forest management through the PHBM program (line 83-84". Therefore, I suggest homogenize objective in their study.
Line 83-90. I suggest that authors present their prediction of impact of program Pengelolaan Hutan Bersama Masyarakat
Line 91-92. Figure 1. I suggest that authors include position of Island of Java in the south of Asia. West Java can be removed, and replaced by Island Java, while position of Island of Java in region can be placed instead of Island Java map. Include coordinates in all maps.
The description of the methods is insufficient. The variables used to analyze of community forest management were absent.
Line 97. They reported a surveys observations and in-depth interviews with purposively selected, but are absent which information were obtained from this survey.
Line 104-108. The methods to analyze satellite imagery were deficient, at least to reader can replicate their study in another area. I suggest that authors include spatial, radiometric, and spectral specifications. Include remote sensing methods that used to classification of their study area, and analysis they performed with the classification data.
Section 3.1 and 3.2. The information was not generated by the authors, they collected it from different sources, which describe forest management program. Therefore, I suggest that this section be moved to methods, due present social, environmental, and political context that drive their implementation. The information help to introduce study area to readers.
Line 217. I suggest that authors include, possibly as supplementary material, a transition probability matrix to identify changes between type of land cover for each analysis of land cover change.
Line 197. The methods that used to obtain composition of plant species were absent in methods and in introduction, which also occur with 3.4 section. Specify where vegetation identification carried out as well as sampling design. The sampling was carried out in a particular forest cover?
I suggest that tables 2 to 4 can be moved to supplementary material.
The authors argue that there is a significant increase in forest cover (line 225 and 335) but omitted to present a statistical test to confirm that these results are not due to chance.
Line 318-325. Include a table or figure to present types of work related to coffee cultivation activities.
Discussion. I suggest that the authors discuss the sources of variation that may compromise their results, the recommendations that could improve the program, the studies they will need to conduct to support the results they found. Also, discuss the viability of using this program in other geographic areas.
Homogenize when report volumes (for example line 460 and 462), numbers (for example line 484 and 492), and years of articles (for example line 531 and 540)
Author Response
Dear Reviewer.
The following are our responses to the notes and suggestions provided. We hope that the revisions meet the expectations of the reviewers.
The introduction exposes community forestry, both benefits and weaknesses. However, given the description, they omit present what they expect to find, as well as highlighting why this program is better than others implemented in other geographic areas. The authors refer that "The study shows that the PHBM program implementation in the study area provided benefits for improving forest ecological conditions and developing a coffee-based economy". Therefore, I suggest that introductions could expand on environmental and economic benefits.
Indirectly, the introduction section raises the debate about the economic benefits of CFM. In the introduction section, this paper refers to articles which suggest that CFM apart from providing benefits for environmental conservation also provides economic benefits, CFM has benefited community livelihoods. Despite this, a reference is added in the introduction section to show that apart from having benefitted community livelihoods, CFM has also provided benefits in the form of village development. Line 43-44.
Objective reported in introduction was "this article discusses the community involvement in a forest management program called Pengelolaan Hutan Bersama Masyarakat (PHBM), a kind of collaborative forest management in Java (line 67-68)", while in methods reported "the research aims to study the process and impact of community involvement in forest management through the PHBM program (line 83-84". Therefore, I suggest homogenize objective in their study.
The objective has been revised. The revised text is: this article discusses the process and impact of community involvement in a forest management program called Pengelolaan Hutan Bersama Masyarakat (PHBM). Line 68.
The sentence of “the research aims to study the process and impact of community involvement in forest management through the PHBM program” is erased. Line 84.
Line 83-90. I suggest that authors present their prediction of impact of program Pengelolaan Hutan Bersama Masyarakat
We retain the text, except for the deletion of the sentence: “the research aims to study the process and impact of community involvement in forest management through the PHBM program
Line 91-92. Figure 1. I suggest that authors include position of Island of Java in the south of Asia. West Java can be removed, and replaced by Island Java, while position of Island of Java in region can be placed instead of Island Java map. Include coordinates in all maps.
Figure 1 has been revised,
The description of the methods is insufficient. The variables used to analyze of community forest management were absent.
Line 97. They reported a surveys observations and in-depth interviews with purposively selected, but are absent which information were obtained from this survey.
Information obtained are added in the text, line 120-127
“The data collected includes among others the history of forestland encroachment, the development of PHBM policy, the development of CFM in the study area and the history of involvement of local community in PHBM program. The researchers also interviewed 48 households involved in the PHBM program who live in a sub-village of Lebak Muncang Village and were members of a farmer group. The data collected in this household survey includes among others socioeconomic status of the household: occupation, land ownership, involvement in PHBM program, and sources of living.”
Line 104-108. The methods to analyze satellite imagery were deficient, at least to reader can replicate their study in another area. I suggest that authors include spatial, radiometric, and spectral specifications. Include remote sensing methods that used to classification of their study area, and analysis they performed with the classification data.
Description on the methods of satellite imagery analysis has been added, line 130-168.
Section 3.1 and 3.2. The information was not generated by the authors, they collected it from different sources, which describe forest management program. Therefore, I suggest that this section be moved to methods, due present social, environmental, and political context that drive their implementation. The information help to introduce study area to readers.
To introduce the research context to the readers, Section 3.1. is moved to Methods (section 2.3. Collaborative Forest Management and Coffee Cultivation: Research Context, line 178).
Line 217. I suggest that authors include, possibly as supplementary material, a transition probability matrix to identify changes between type of land cover for each analysis of land cover change.
Transition probability matrices of land cover changes of the 54 hectares forest land are added in the appendices.
Line 197. The methods that used to obtain composition of plant species were absent in methods and in introduction, which also occur with 3.4 section. Specify where vegetation identification carried out as well as sampling design. The sampling was carried out in a particular forest cover? Nd
Vegetation identification methods is added in section 2.2, line 171-177
I suggest that tables 2 to 4 can be moved to supplementary material.
Tables 2 to 4 are moved to supplementary material (Appendix 1 to 3)
The authors argue that there is a significant increase in forest cover (line 225 and 335) but omitted to present a statistical test to confirm that these results are not due to chance.
Figure 8 is added to show the spatial autocorrelation, instead of statistical analysis such as Chi-square. Line 338-339.
Line 318-325. Include a table or figure to present types of work related to coffee cultivation activities.
A table of type of works related to coffee cultivation is added. Line 452
Homogenize when report volumes (for example line 460 and 462), numbers (for example line 484 and 492), and years of articles (for example line 531 and 540)
References have been homogenized
Discussion. I suggest that the authors discuss the sources of variation that may compromise their results, the recommendations that could improve the program, the studies they will need to conduct to support the results they found. Also, discuss the viability of using this program in other geographic areas.
The authors evaluated process and impact of community involvement in forest management through the Pengelolaan Hutan Bersama Masyarakat program. The topic is of general interest, but the description is insufficient to replicate the study in another geographic area.
By discussing the process and impact of community involvement in a forest management program called Pengelolaan Hutan Bersama Masyarakat (PHBM), the study intends to show a case of “success story study” in collaborative forest management in Java, Indonesia. This study supports the idea that collaborative forest management (CFM) is the right forest management system/program to be implemented in forest areas where the dependence of the surrounding population on land (forest) resources is very high.
Different from several other studies which state that CFM programs are often only accessible to elite groups in society, this study shows that even the poor can access and maintain their rights over land in the forest areas. However, due to limited resources, the study recommends that protection from the government for the poor is needed so that they can obtain and maintain their rights.
We are grateful for the review provided to improve this article.
With best regards,
Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The theme of the paper is very interesting and topical because it addresses the balance between environmental and social sustainability of forests managements.
Some indications for the authors:
- add some explanation on how community-based forest management systems (CBFMs) and collaborative forest management systems (CFMs) work. What are the rules, the principles, the obligations for those who join, the control systems? What is the difference between the two systems?
- on methodology: it is stated that the study was conducted with qualitative methodology with in-depth observations and interviews with specially selected informants: officials of the Forest Management Unit, the village apparatus, representatives of the LMDH, forest farming groups and also families involved in the programme. But I notice these shortcomings:
- the type of questionnaire used is not reported or, at least, the topics that were addressed in the interview and therefore, I suggest adding this part;
- another critical point is the discussion of the results which, in my opinion, is too general and does not adequately highlight whether, among the groups interviewed, different perceptions emerge or there is a certain homogeneity of positions as well as these considerations should be supported by data deriving from the statistical processing of the answers;
- I don't know if it has been addressed in interviews, but nothing is said about the perception between aspects of environmental sustainability and social sustainability: is the use of the forest excessive, does it lead to excessive exploitation or not?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer.
The following are our responses to the notes and suggestions provided. We hope that the revisions meet the expectations of the reviewers.
The theme of the paper is very interesting and topical because it addresses the balance between environmental and social sustainability of forests managements.
Some indications for the authors:
- - add some explanation on how community-based forest management systems (CBFMs) and collaborative forest management systems (CFMs) work. What are the rules, the principles, the obligations for those who join, the control systems? What is the difference between the two systems?
This study does not specifically differentiate between CBFM and CFM. We are of the opinion that both emphasize the participation of the community in the management of forest resources.
We agree with Petheream (2004) who argues that “the term ‘collaborative forest management’ (CFM) is adopted as a generic description of a range of approaches involving some form of co- management between government and other stakeholders. Here, CFM is regarded as almost synonymous with various other terms, such as community forestry, community-based forest management or participatory forest management.”
- - on methodology: it is stated that the study was conducted with qualitative methodology with in-depth observations and interviews with specially selected informants: officials of the Forest Management Unit, the village apparatus, representatives of the LMDH, forest farming groups and also families involved in the programme. But I notice these shortcomings:
the type of questionnaire used is not reported or, at least, the topics that were addressed in the interview and therefore, I suggest adding this part;
We have revised the text and added a description of the data collected. Kine 120-127.
another critical point is the discussion of the results which, in my opinion, is too general and does not adequately highlight whether, among the groups interviewed, different perceptions emerge or there is a certain homogeneity of positions as well as these considerations should be supported by data deriving from the statistical processing of the answers;
I don't know if it has been addressed in interviews, but nothing is said about the perception between aspects of environmental sustainability and social sustainability: is the use of the forest excessive, does it lead to excessive exploitation or not?
This study emphasizes the issue of how local people are involved in forest management and what effect this involvement has on the condition of the forest. This study does not directly examine how people perceive environmental and social sustainability.
By discussing the process and impact of community involvement in a forest management program called Pengelolaan Hutan Bersama Masyarakat (PHBM), the study intends to show a case of “success story study” in collaborative forest management in Java, Indonesia. This study supports the idea that collaborative forest management (CFM) is the right forest management system/program to be implemented in forest areas where the dependence of the surrounding population on land (forest) resources is very high.
Different from several other studies which state that CFM programs are often only accessible to elite groups in society, this study shows that even the poor can access and maintain their rights over land in the forest areas. However, due to limited resources, the study recommends that protection from the government for the poor is needed so that they can obtain and maintain their rights.
We are grateful for the review provided to improve this article.
With best regards,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors made changes to the manuscript that improved its quality, but the introduction and discussion still require explicit presentation of the theoretical basis that supports (introduction) and interprets (discussion) their study.
The introduction continues lacking in presenting the characteristics of the program that can lead to successful resource use given the environmental and social characteristics of the study area. Authors include references that does not clarify the study approach. For example, they omit to specify what they expected to find given the environmental-social characteristics of the study area. The introduction should directly present what the authors want to present, avoiding the assumption that the reader will identify the importance of their study. I appeal to the authors to reconsider the content of the introduction, as they would have to offer the reader the theoretical basis that led to propose their potential explanation, i.e., their hypothesis (what they expect to find).
Section 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 describe the social conditions and characteristics of the program, which are the basis for the study, so you should move to the methods section.
The effect of collaborative programs on local species composition at introduction continued to be absent.
The description of the vegetation continues to be deficient, for example, they report that they sampled 54 hectares, which is a very large sampling size. In addition, they need to expand on what the roving method consists of, as it was obtained from "The survey includes the collection of land use data on the vegetation type along with vegetation inventory based on species in the certain land uses", so the species identity was obtained from the use data?
Figure 8. Moral's autocorrelation index is a standardized measure of correlation between observations in neighboring areas (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019897150600072X). However, this index does not evaluate the increase or decrease of a cover type between years.
Discussion. I suggest that the authors discuss the sources of variation that may compromise their results, the recommendations that could improve the program, the studies they will need to conduct to support the results they found.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer.
The following are our responses to the notes and suggestions provided. We hope that the revisions meet the expectations of the reviewers.
The authors made changes to the manuscript that improved its quality, but the introduction and discussion still require explicit presentation of the theoretical basis that supports (introduction) and interprets (discussion) their study.
The introduction continues lacking in presenting the characteristics of the program that can lead to successful resource use given the environmental and social characteristics of the study area. Authors include references that does not clarify the study approach. For example, they omit to specify what they expected to find given the environmental-social characteristics of the study area. The introduction should directly present what the authors want to present, avoiding the assumption that the reader will identify the importance of their study. I appeal to the authors to reconsider the content of the introduction, as they would have to offer the reader the theoretical basis that led to propose their potential explanation, i.e., their hypothesis (what they expect to find).
The introduction section is rewritten.
Section 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 describe the social conditions and characteristics of the program, which are the basis for the study, so you should move to the methods section.
To avoid overlap and show the research context, the section on background of the CFM is moved and merged with section 2.3. Collaborative Forest Management and Coffee Cultivation: Research Context. Title of Section 3.1, is changed to be "Brief description of a Forest Village Organization in Bandung District"
The effect of collaborative programs on local species composition at introduction continued to be absent.
The authors do not specifically provide a description of the effect of CFM on local species composition. Instead of discussingn such impact, as briefly written in lines 655-660, we briefly describe the composition of the plants that makes up forest stands, under storey vegetation, and cultivated plants on the forestland managed by a Farmer Group (54 hectares).
The description of the vegetation continues to be deficient, for example, they report that they sampled 54 hectares, which is a very large sampling size. In addition, they need to expand on what the roving method consists of, as it was obtained from "The survey includes the collection of land use data on the vegetation type along with vegetation inventory based on species in the certain land uses", so the species identity was obtained from the use data?
Description of the vegetation inventory methods is edited (line 383-387).
Figure 8. Moral's autocorrelation index is a standardized measure of correlation between observations in neighboring areas (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019897150600072X). However, this index does not evaluate the increase or decrease of a cover type between years.
The study purposively conducted identification of forest vegetation in 54 hectares of forest areas managed by the members of a Farmer Group. This is not “ a sample” of the 3340 hectares of forest in the study area.
We did analysis of Local Moran’s I as one of the geostatistical ways to show that there is change that is not random.
Discussion. I suggest that the authors discuss the sources of variation that may compromise their results, the recommendations that could improve the program, the studies they will need to conduct to support the results they found.
We rewrote the discussion by focusing on two crucial issues related to the implementation of the collaborative management program: the impact of PHBM and the access of the poor to forest management. Recommendation regarding the involvement of the poor is mentioned and also the need to identify the socio-economic characteristics of the people targeted to be a stakeholder of the collaborative forest management.
Government policies regarding forest management may change. As noted in the Postcript, policy about the third generation of social forestry in Indonesia, has been in force since 2016/17, including forestry areas in Java. In this regard, it is recommended to further study the sustainability of forest management under the new paradigm.
We are grateful for the review provided to improve this article.
With best regards,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors evaluated vegetation composition in different land uses (lines 165-166). Therefore, we would expect that in the introduction the authors would present the reason why they suspect that collaborative management will affect local species composition. For example,
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/2/126
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7810709/
https://smujo.id/ajf/article/view/7716
Author Response
Dear Reviewer.
The following is our responses to the notes and suggestions provided. We hope that the revisions meet the expectations of the reviewers.
The authors evaluated vegetation composition in different land uses (lines 165-166). Therefore, we would expect that in the introduction the authors would present the reason why they suspect that collaborative management will affect local species composition.
The reason is added to the text on lines 600-602.. This study refers to the results of research which states that participatory forest management can have a positive impact on species composition (Ameha et al, 2016/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 21513732.2015.1112305)
In this revised manuscript, we also made improvements to the Introduction section and added some reference articles. We also did a grammar check.
We are grateful for the review provided to improve this article.
With best regards,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
