1. bookVolume 75 (2021): Issue 1 (December 2021)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1736-8723
First Published
24 Mar 2011
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
Open Access

The effect of implementation on successful forest management policy, moderated by actor-network and stakeholder collaboration

Published Online: 04 Jun 2022
Volume & Issue: Volume 75 (2021) - Issue 1 (December 2021)
Page range: 119 - 139
Received: 27 Oct 2021
Accepted: 31 Dec 2021
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1736-8723
First Published
24 Mar 2011
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
Introduction

Forests are one of Indonesia’s largest natural resources. A forest has an essential role in life; it provides assets for Indonesian development and benefits its people ecologically, socio-culturally, and economically. People receive direct benefits, such as timber and non-timber products from the forest, and indirect benefits such as protecting life’s support systems to regulate water management. Consequently, forests have a strategic role and position in national development. Law No. 41 of 1999 concerning Forestry mandated forest resource management by establishing forest management areas at the provincial level. The law was issued for realizing sustainable forest management to maintain balanced production and ecological aspects; it also provides maximum benefits for the community’s welfare. Regencies/municipalities and management units are called the Forest Management Units abbreviated as FMU (Indonesian: Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan or KPH). FMU is established following its primary function and designation, for efficient and sustainable management.

Law No. 41 of 1999 defines a forest as a unitary ecosystem in the form of land containing biological natural resources dominated by trees in their natural environment, inseparable from one another. The concept is different from a forest area defined as a specific area designated and/or stipulated by the government to be maintained as a permanent forest. Law No. 41/1999, in article 17, mandates the establishment of forest management areas at the management unit level by taking land characteristics, forest types, forest functions, watershed conditions, socio-culture, economy, community institutions (customary law), and government administrative boundaries into account.

The development of Forest Management Units as a public policy requires full support from all respective parties since 60 percent of a public policy’s success is mostly determined by the effectiveness of its implementation (Dwidjowijoto, 2006). Implementation is the most challenging part of a public policy process, compared to formulation, monitoring, and evaluation. In some cases, implementing a public policy has to deal with complex problems that were not found and predicted in the initial concept. However, it is not easy to integrate hierarchies among the respective agencies. The effectiveness of public policy implementation can be seen from its effects on the community; positive effects mean an effective policy implementation is effective, and negative effects or not what the government expects means ineffective implementation (Sunggono, 1994).

Implementation is the most crucial stage in the public policy process to achieve the desired impact or goal (Winarno, 2002). The implementers can use a model as an analytical tool in measuring the success of a public policy. According to Edward III in Nugroho (2012), the four aspects that need to be considered to realize an effective public policy implementation are (1) Communication, regarding how policies are communicated and the responsiveness of the parties involved; (2) Resources, related to the availability of supporting resources; (3) Disposition, concerning the willingness of implementers in carrying out the public policy. (4) Bureaucratic structure, related to the suitability of bureaucratic organizations implementing the public policy.

One of the FMU development problems is that the existing FMU policies are not entirely aligned with other policies, and not all stakeholders are involved. Stakeholder analysis should be performed as early as possible when starting the program to identify variously interested and related groups in FMU development issues. Identifying each stakeholder’s views and characteristics are essential for implementing the FMU development advocacy initiative’s next stage. The more specific the information is for each stakeholder, the easier it is to provide information, messages, and investments. Stakeholder analysis is crucial in determining advocacy efforts to perform. The success in determining public policies and support for resolving a particular problem depends on the stakeholders involved; it directly affects the FMU development. FMU development is expected to become the rudiment of independent forest management at the site level, with its regional units’ various potentials.

In the current forestry decentralization era, a special approach is imperative to develop a successful program, a few of which are identifying and mapping stakeholders involved in FMU development, as well as analyzing several policies related to FMUs. These are carried out to assist the FMU development activities and prevent them from implementing implementation at the field level. The approach encourages democratic participation in building a stakeholder network in any form of public policy, especially at the formulation stage. The network approach in public policy has undergone rapid development with the growth of cluster and quango organizations due to interactions among the government, the private sector, and the public (Alwi, 2012). Policy networks in the policy formulation stage have been widely discussed in agenda-setting theory, policy formulation, coalition advocacy, and iron triangles that have been discussed in Sabatier (1991) and also in Mukherjee & Howlett (2015). At this stage, the policy network contributes to changing goals by the emergence of actors with motivational values and interests.

As Rhodes & Marsh (1992) stated, the network concept focuses on the relationship between government and non-government actors in the policy process and public services. This study’s coalition advocacy approach helps explain the change in goals caused by actors’ interaction and value systems in the policy network. Policy networks among government, private and public actors, as well as the changing goals, can be the controls for labelling the public interest. Public organizations need to build stakeholder networks or policy networks. Accordingly, this study discussed the successful implementation of policies and programs carried out by the government to support the decentralization of Indonesian forest governance; this study is entitled “The effect of implementation on the successful forest management policy, moderated by actor-network and stakeholder collaboration”. As a research novelty, the study also examined the effect of actor-network and stakeholder collaboration as moderation in strengthening the community empowerment and successful implementation.

Literature review
Communication

Communication is a process when a person or several people, groups, organizations, and communities create and use information to connect with the environment and other people. According to Merkl-Davies & Brennan (2017) in their study entitled “A theoretical framework of external accounting communication”, communication is carried out verbally and understood by both parties involved.

Resource

A resource is a potential value of a particular material or element in life. Resources are physical and non-physical (intangible). Some resources can change; they can be bigger, permanent (always constant), and disappear. Besides, some of them can be recovered or renewable (renewable resources), such as plants and animals; some are non-renewable resources.

Disposition

A disposition is a brief instruction regarding the follow-up (completion) of an issue or a letter. The leader makes dispositions for staff or subordinates based on his/her area of expertise or authority. A disposition is made for staff to follow up on or complete a meeting or incoming letter as requested by the leader, which can be in the form of a reply letter or other actions to resolve the problem. According to Kuo (1985), a disposition has been a problem in the spotlight for more than two decades.

Organizational structure

Organizational structure is how work is divided into different tasks, achieving coordination (Mintzberg, 1979). The most widespread difference in organizational structure is the vertical (mechanistic) vs. horizontal (organic) structural form (Ambrose & Schminke, 2003; Aryee et al., 2008; Burns & Stalker, 1961; Slevin & Covin, 1997). Vertical organizational structures tend to be rigid, hierarchical, strict, and formal, characterized by centralized power/control/authority and decision-making, rigid communication channels, and requiring strict adherence to formal rules and regulations. In contrast, horizontal organizational structures tend to be more flexible and decentralized; compliance with formal rules and procedures is less emphasized. Managers and subordinates can collaborate to make decisions.

Environmental conditions

The environment is a combination of physical conditions (including the state of natural resources, such as land, water, solar energy, minerals, and flora and fauna on the land and in the oceans) and institutions that include human creation, such as the decision on how to use the environment. The environment can also be interpreted as everything around humans that affects the development of human life; it consists of biotic and abiotic components. The abiotic component is lifeless, such as soil, air, water, climate, humidity, light, and sound. In contrast, the biotic component is every living thing, such as plants, animals, humans, and micro-organisms (viruses and bacteria).

Relations between organizations

Relationships in an organization can be in terms of good communication between the leader and employees; communication is a vital part and the most critical managerial work. Managers must convey their vision and goals to run the organization well. Good communication can reveal what is going on in the environment and how the organization can run effectively. The relationship is the second characteristic of the organization, and only the people in it can create a relationship. The types are personal relationships, social relationships, and task relationships. These relationships will be critical to organizational success. Individuals are aware of their position in the group; thus, it is unethical to work for an individual’s interests. Likewise, groups will create an atmosphere of cooperation or good coordination in carrying out activities towards achieving organizational goals. Coordination is the key to organizational success, not fragmented individuals.

Community development

Empowerment theory includes both process and outcome (Swift & Levine, 1987). The theory suggests that actions, activities, or structures may be empowering and that the process results produce a level of empowerment. The empowerment process and outcomes are varied because no standard can fully grasp their meaning for all people and contexts (Rappaport, 1984; Zimmerman, 1995). The behavior of an empowered 16-year-old mother is different from a recently widowed middle-aged man; likewise, empowering these two individuals should not be done in the same way.

Successful implementation of forest management policies

The success of policy implementation is assessed based on the implementation process (process perspective) and the results achieved (results perspective). From a process perspective, a government program is deemed successful if its implementation follows the program maker’s guidelines and provisions, including the implementation procedures, agenda, target groups, and program benefits. Meanwhile, the program is considered successful from the results perspective when the program has the desired effect. A program may be successful in its process but may fail in its effect, or vice versa. In other words, policy implementation can be considered successful when the processes and results are consistent. Edward in Widodo (2011) perceives policy implementation as a dynamic process, in which there are many interacting factors affecting policy implementation.

Actor-network

The actor-network is based on Actor-Network Theory (ANT). ANT was developed in the early 1980s at the Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation (CSI) Paris by Latour (1987), Law (1987), and Callon (1998). The ANT conceptual framework explores sociotechnical collective processes. ANT uses general symmetry principles to explain social phenomena and is not based on social determination approaches (macro and micro). According to Latour (1987), the central topic is not microagents or macrostructures, but the social processes that rotate the entities. In other words, the real focus should be on networks. ANT is not a social theory but a theory of fluid space revolving around the modern situation.

Stakeholder collaborations

Collaboration is cooperation, interaction, and compromise of several related elements between individuals, institutions, or parties involved, directly or indirectly (Lembaga Administrasi Negara, 2017). Collaboration is a mutually beneficial relationship between two or more parties working towards a common goal by sharing responsibility, authority, and accountability to achieve the goal (Wood & Gray, 1991).

Importance Performance Analysis (IPA)

IPA was first proposed by Martilla & James (1977) to measure the importance and performance of service attributes. This measurement is done from the perspective of the customer. The level of importance indicates the expectations of the customer. Meanwhile, the level of performance shows the perception of the empirical state received by the customer. Science results are presented in a graphical form that is easy to interpret, namely in the form of a Cartesian diagram with four quadrants as shown in Figure 1 (Martilla & James, 1977).

Figure 1

Explanation of the importance–performance analysis quadrant.

The vertical axis shows customer expectations (importance), while the horizontal axis shows customer perceptions (performance). An explanation of each quadrant is presented as follows (Cheng & Tzeng, 2011).

Quadrant I: this quadrant indicates that the attribute is considered very important for the respondent, however, the performance level of the attribute is quite low. This suggests that improvement efforts should be concentrated here.

Quadrant II: this quadrant indicates that the attribute is considered very important for the respondent, and at the same time this attribute has a very good performance. Thus, this performance must be maintained.

Quadrant III: this quadrant indicates that the attribute has a low level of importance and its performance is also low. Thus, even though performance is low, this is nothing to be concerned about given that these attributes are not considered very important. Available resources can be used to improve the performance of other, more important attributes.

Quadrant IV: this quadrant shows attributes that are less important, but their performance is relatively high. Customers are satisfied with the performance, but excessive use of resources needs to be considered.

Methodology

This study used a quantitative approach to examine specific populations and samples. The data were analyzed using a statistical method to test the research hypothesis. The research instrument was a questionnaire. The sample used in this study was 100 people around the KPHP Model Yogyakarta. The data were collected by distributing questionnaires to several selected communities around the KPHP Model Yogyakarta. Data was collected from September to November 2021 using a Likert scale questionnaire. The scope of this research was the forest management policy. The collected data were analyzed using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) analysis with the WarpPLS and IPA approaches.

Please see the Figure 2 for the conceptual framework of this research.

Figure 2

Conceptual framework.

Based on the conceptual framework, the hypotheses are as follows:

H1: Communication has a significant effect on community empowerment

H2: Resources have a significant effect on community empowerment

H3: Disposition has a significant effect on community empowerment

H4: Organizational structure has a significant effect on community empowerment

H5: Environmental conditions have a significant effect on community empowerment

H6: Relationships between organizations have a significant effect on community empowerment

H7: Community empowerment has a significant effect on the success of forest management policy implementation

H8: Communication has a significant effect on community empowerment, moderated by actor-network

H9: Resources have a significant effect on community empowerment, moderated by actor-network

H10: Disposition has a significant effect on community empowerment, moderated by actor-network

H11: Organizational structure has a significant effect on community empowerment, moderated by actor-network

H12: Environmental conditions have a significant effect on community empowerment, moderated by actor-network

H13: Relationships between organizations have a significant effect on community empowerment, moderated by actor-network

H14: Community empowerment has a significant effect on the success of forest management policy implementation, moderated by stakeholder collaboration

In addition, this study also examines the role of mediation in several very important previous studies (Solimun & Fernandes, 2017; Fernandes et al., 2014; Purbawangsa et al., 2020; Fernandes & Solimun, 2017; Sumardi & Fernandes, 2018) but in this case the focus is on assessing the role of community empowerment as a mediation in realizing the success of forest management policy implementation.

Results and Discussion
The analysis of Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) using the WarpPLS approach

The hypothesis of this study uses a structural model test. Tests in this study were carried out using partial SEM analysis for each variable relationship.

Table 1 shows that nine hypotheses have a p-value less than 0.05, indicating a significant effect. Each effect is explained at length in the discussion of each research hypothesis. A direct effect is shown as several hypotheses produce a p-value less than 0.05, indicating that the variables of communication, resources, environmental conditions, relationships between organizations have a significant effect on community empowerment.

Research hypothesis testing.

Structural Model Coefficient Std Error Critical Ratio (CR) P-value Remark
Direct Effect

Communication Community development 0.325 0.086 3.779 0.000 Significant
Resource Community development 0.240 0.093 2.581 0.010 Significant
Disposition Community development 0.064 0.085 0.753 0.451 Not Significant
Organizational structure Community development 0.060 0.073 0.822 0.411 Not Significant
Environmental conditions Community development 0.336 0.093 3.613 0.000 Significant
Relations between Organizations Community development 0.336 0.072 4.667 0.000 Significant
Community development Successful Implementation of Forest Management Policies 0.326 0.082 3.976 0.000 Significant

Moderation Effect Actor-Network

Structural Model Coefficient Std Error CR P-value Remark
Communication Community development 0.339 0.079 4.291 0.000 Significant
Resource Community development 0.226 0.070 3.229 0.001 Significant
Disposition Community development 0.092 0.087 1.057 0.290 Not Significant
Organizational structure Community development 0.142 0.093 1.527 0.127 Not Significant
Environmental conditions Community development 0.120 0.072 1.667 0.096 Not Significant
Relations between Organizations Community development 0.356 0.098 3.633 0.000 Significant

Moderation Effect Stakeholder Collaborations

Structural Model Coefficient Std Error CR P-value Remark
Community development Successful Implementation of Forest Management Policies 0.292 0.077 3.792 0.000 Significant
The effect of communication on community empowerment

Table 1 presents the effect of communication (X1) on community empowerment (Y1); a coefficient of 0.325 was obtained with a p-value less than 0.001, meaning that communication has a significant and positive effect on community empowerment. This study is in line with the research conducted by Ding & Haynes (2006), revealing that differences in the telecommunication infrastructure affected regional economic growth in China. Information Technology through the Information Technology Development Index variable also has a significant effect on human development in Indonesia’s provinces (Murtiadi, 2019). Syarif & Saadah (2016) and Obayelu & Ogunlade (2006) disclosed the significant effect of communication on community empowerment. According to Murtiadi (2019), communication is a contributing factor in regional economic growth and community development.

The effect of resources on community empowerment

Table 1 shows the effect of resources (X2) on community empowerment (Y1) and a coefficient of 0.240 with a p-value of less than 0.001. It means that resources have a significant and positive effect on community empowerment. This study is in line with Quiñones et al. (2013) indicating that job resources can increase employee empowerment perceptions, which is an essential factor for increasing work engagement. Jonathan & Tarigan (2016) asserted that government empowerment is also affected by other factors such as government policies and the community’s cultural economy.

The effect of disposition on community empowerment

Table 1 displays the effect of disposition (X3) on community empowerment (Y1): a coefficient of 0.064 with a p-value of more than 0.001, indicating that disposition does not affect community empowerment. There has not been a study examining the effect of disposition on community empowerment, so it is considered a novelty.

The effect of organizational structure on community empowerment

Table 1 reveals the effect of organizational structure (X4) on community empowerment (Y1): a coefficient of 0.060 with a p-value of more than 0.001; it means that organizational structure does not affect community empowerment. There has not been a study examining the effect of organizational structure on community empowerment, so it is considered a novelty.

The effect of environmental conditions on community empowerment

Table 1 indicates the effect of environmental conditions (X5) on community empowerment (Y1): a coefficient of 0.336 with a p-value less than 0.001, meaning that environmental conditions have a significant and positive effect on community empowerment. There has not been a study examining the effect of environmental conditions on community empowerment, so it is considered a novelty.

The effect of relationships between organizations on community empowerment

Table 1 presents the effect of relationships between organizations (X6) on community empowerment (Y1): a coefficient of 0.336 with a p-value of less than 0.001. This means that relationships between organizations have a significant and positive effect on community empowerment. There has not been a study examining the effect of relationships between organizations on community empowerment, so it is considered a novelty.

The effect of community empowerment on the success of forest management policy implementation

Table 1 displays the effect of community empowerment (Y1) on the success of forest management policy implementation (Y2): a coefficient of 0.326 with a p-value of less than 0.001. This indicates that community empowerment has a significant and positive effect on the successful implementation of forest management policies. There has not been a study examining the effect of community empowerment on the successful implementation of forest management policies, so it is considered a novelty.

The effect of communication on community empowerment moderated by actor-networks

As shown in Table 1, communication significantly and positively affects community empowerment moderated by the actor-network variable, with a coefficient of 0.339. This means that the effect of communication will increase community empowerment, counterbalanced by the actor-network factor. There has not been a study examining the effect of communication on community empowerment moderated by actor-network, so it is considered a novelty.

The effect of resources on community empowerment moderated by actor-networks

As shown in Table 1, resources significantly and positively affect community empowerment moderated by the actor-network variable, with a coefficient of 0.226. This means that the effect of resources will increase community empowerment, counterbalanced by the actor-network factor. There has not been a study examining the effect of resources on community empowerment moderated by actor-network, so it is considered a novelty.

The effect of disposition on community empowerment moderated by actor-networks

As shown in Table 1, disposition does not affect community empowerment, moderated by the actor-network variable with a coefficient of 0.092. This indicates that the actor-network variable does not strengthen or weaken the effect of disposition on community empowerment. There has not been a study examining the effect of disposition on community empowerment moderated by actor-network, so it is considered a novelty.

The effect of organizational structure on community empowerment moderated by actor-networks

As shown in Table 1, the organizational structure does not affect community empowerment, moderated by the actor-network variable with a coefficient of 0.142. This means that the actor-network variable does not strengthen or weaken the effect of the organizational structure on community empowerment. There has not been a study examining the effect of organizational structure on community empowerment moderated by actor-network, so it is considered a novelty.

The effect of environmental conditions on community empowerment moderated by actor-networks

As shown in Table 1, environmental conditions do not affect community empowerment, moderated by the actor-network variable with a coefficient of 0.120. This means that the actor-network variable does not strengthen or weaken the effect of environmental conditions on community empowerment. There has not been a study examining the effect of environmental conditions on community empowerment moderated by actor-network, so it is considered a novelty.

The effect of relationships between organizations on community empowerment with actor-networks moderated

As shown in Table 1, the relationship between organizations significantly and positively affects community empowerment, moderated by the actor-network variable with a coefficient of 0.356. This means that the effect of relationships between organizations will increase community empowerment, counterbalanced by the actor-network factor. There has not been a study examining the effect of inter-organizational relations on community empowerment moderated by actor-network, so it is considered a novelty.

The effect of community empowerment on the success of forest management policy implementation moderated by stakeholder collaboration

As shown in Table 1, community empowerment significantly affects the successful implementation of forest management policies moderated by the stakeholder collaboration variable, with a coefficient of 0.292. This means that community empowerment will increase the success of the implementation of forest management policies, counterbalanced with the stakeholder collaboration factor. There has not been a study examining the effect of community empowerment on the successful implementation of forest management policies moderated by stakeholder collaboration, so it is considered a novelty.

IPA (Importance Performance Analysis)

The data analyzed were questionnaire responses obtained from 100 samples of forest communities, processed using the Importance Performance Analysis (IPA) on each variable indicator. Importance Performance Analysis is an analytical technique used to identify the important performance factors an organization must demonstrate. Importance value and performance data for the communication variable (X1) are presented in Table 2.

The IPA results of the communication variable (X1).

Variable Indicator Importance Performance
Communication (X1) Transmission (X11) 59.20 58.50
Clarity (X12) 40.10 48.38
Consistency (X13) 69.60 65.25

Table 2 shows the size of the analysis gap by considering the value of importance and performance. The smaller the value of the gap analysis, the better the indicator; it is because it has a higher level of performance than the importance value or the respondents’ expectations for this indicator. The communication variable (X1) consists of three indicators: transmission (X11), clarity (X12), and consistency (X13). The IPA results of the three indicators are presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3

The IPA results of variable X1.

Figure 3 shows that the two indicators for the communication variable (X1) in the KPHP Model Yogyakarta area are in quadrant II (recommendation). This means that the respondent has a high-performance communication. The respondents’ perception regarding the X11 (transmission) indicator’s expectations is relatively high, as seen from the importance value of 60%. In comparison, the performance value is around 59%, which is the actual performance level, as seen from the transmission indicator for communication. This indicates that the transmission performance in communication went well. The X13 indicator has a lower performance value at 65%, while the importance value is 70%.

One indicator for the communication variable (X1) in the KPHP Model Yogyakarta area is quadrant III (recommendation). The X12 indicator reveals respondents’ perception that it has an importance value of around 40% and a drastic increase in the performance value of around 48%. Accordingly, the communication has been successful, as seen from the clarity indicator. Furthermore, the IPA results of the the resource variable (X2) can be seen in Table 3.

The IPA results of the resources variable (X2).

Variable Indicator Importance Performance
Resource (X2) Member (X21) 52.30 55.25
Information (X22) 62.60 52.63
Authority (X23) 63.20 57.75
Amenities (X24) 55.90 58.00

Table 3 shows the size of the analysis gap concerning the importance and performance values. The smaller the value of the gap analysis, the better the indicator; it is because it has a higher level of performance than the importance value or the respondents’ expectations for this indicator. The resource variable (X2) consists of four indicators: member (X21), information (X22), authority (X23), and facilities (X24). The IPA results of the four indicators are presented in Figure 4.

Figure 4

The IPA results of variable X2.

Figure 4 shows that all indicators for the resource variable (X2) in the KPHP Model Yogyakarta are in quadrant II (recommendation), indicating that respondents have high performance regarding resources. The respondents’ perception regarding the X21 indicator (members) expectations is relatively high, which can be seen from the importance value of 52%. In comparison, the performance value is 55%, which is the actual performance level, as seen from the member indicator for resources. The X22 indicator has a lower performance value with 53%, while the importance value is 63%. The X23 indicator has a lower performance value with a value of 58%, while the importance value is 63%. The X24 indicator has a performance value of 58%, while the importance value is 56%. This indicates the good performance of resources. The IPA results of the disposition variable (X3) are presented in Table 4.

The IPA results of the disposition variable (X3).

Variable Indicator Importance Performance
Disposition (X3) Disposition effects (X31) 59.40 59.00
Staffing the bureaucracy (X32) 44.60 72.75
Incentive (X33) 68.90 54.13

Table 4 shows the size of the analysis gap by considering the value of importance and performance. The smaller the value of the gap analysis, the better the indicator; it is because it has a higher performance level than the importance value or the respondents’ expectations for this indicator. Variable disposition (X3) consists of three indicators: disposition effects (X31), staffing the bureaucracy (X32), and incentives (X33). The IPA results of the three indicators are presented in Figure 5.

Figure 5

The IPA results of variable X3.

Figure 5 shows that the two indicators for the disposition variable (X3) in the KPHP Model Yogyakarta are in quadrant II (recommendation). This shows that the respondent has high performance regarding disposition. The respondents’ perception regarding the expectations of the X31 indicator (disposition effects) is relatively high, which can be seen from the importance value of 60%. In comparison, the performance value is 59%, which is the actual performance level, as seen from the member indicator for disposition. The X33 indicator has a lower performance value with a value of 54%, while the importance value is 69%. The X32 indicator is in quadrant I; the performance value is higher with a value of 73%, while the importance value is 45%. The IPA results of the organizational structure variable (X4) can be seen in Table 5.

The IPA results of the organizational structure variable (X4).

Variable Indicator Importance Performance
Organizational structure(X4) Standard operating procedures (X41) 57.30 58.38
Fragmentation (X42) 68.00 58.50

Table 5 shows the size of the analysis gap by considering the value of importance and performance. The smaller the value of the gap analysis, the better the indicator; it is because it has a higher level of performance than the importance value or the respondents’ expectations for this indicator. The organizational structure variable (X4) consists of two indicators: standard operating procedures (X41) and fragmentation (X42). The IPA results of the two indicators are presented in Figure 6.

Figure 6

The IPA results of variable X4.

Figure 6 shows that the two indicators for the organizational structure variable (X4) in the KPHP Model Yogyakarta area are in quadrant II (recommendation). This indicates that the respondent has a high performance regarding the organizational structure. The respondents’ perception regarding the expectations of indicator X41 (disposition effect) is relatively high, which can be seen from the importance value of 57%. In comparison, the performance value is 58%, which is the actual performance level, as seen from the indicator of disposition effects for organizational structure. The X42 indicator has a lower performance value with a value of 59%, while the importance value is 68%. The IPA results of the environmental condition variable (X5) can be seen in Table 6.

The IPA results of environmental condition variables (X5).

Variable Indicator Importance Performance
Environmental conditions (X5) Physical (X51) 53.60 37.75
Flora and fauna (X52) 55.40 52.88

Table 6 shows the size of the analysis gap by considering the value of importance and performance. The smaller the value of the gap analysis, the better the indicator; it is because it has a higher level of performance than the importance value or the level of respondents’ expectations for this indicator. The environmental condition variable (X5) consists of two indicators: physical (X51) and flora and fauna (X52). The IPA results of the two indicators are presented in Figure 7.

Figure 7

The IPA results of variable X5.

Figure 7 shows that one indicator for the environmental condition variable (X5) in the KPHP Model Yogyakarta area is in quadrant II (standard operating procedure). This shows that the respondent has a high performance regarding environmental conditions. The respondents’ perception regarding the expectations of the X51 (physical) indicator is relatively high, which can be seen from the importance value of around 54%. In comparison, the performance value is around 38%, which is the actual level of performance. The X52 indicator has a lower performance value with 53%, while the importance value is 55%. The IPA results of the relationship between organizations variable (X6) can be seen in Table 7.

The IPA results of the relationship between organizations variable (X6).

Variable Indicator Importance Performance
Relations between organizations (X6) Organizational culture (X61) 46.40 53.38
Leadership (X62) 51.60 48.13
Work motivation (X63) 61.10 72.50

Table 7 shows the size of the analysis gap by considering the value of importance and performance. The smaller the value of the gap analysis, the better the indicator; it is because it has a higher level of performance than the importance value or the respondents’ expectations for this indicator. The relationship between organization’s variable (X6) consists of three indicators: organizational culture (X61), leadership (X62), and work motivation (X63). The IPA results of the three indicators are presented in Figure 8.

Figure 8

The IPA results of variable X6.

Figure 8 shows that one indicator for the inter-organizational relationship variable (X6) in the KPHP Model Yogyakarta area is quadrant II (standard operating procedure). This indicates that the respondent has a high performance regarding environmental conditions. The respondents’ perception regarding the indicator of work motivation (X63) expectations is relatively high, which can be seen from the importance value of 61%. In comparison, the performance value is 73%, which is the actual level of performance. The IPA results of the actor-network variable (X7) can be seen in Table 8.

The IPA results of the actor-network variable (X7).

Variable Indicator Importance Performance
Actor-network(X7) Actor participation (X71) 43.10 45.25
Actor's perspective (X72) 64.50 57.75
Actor accessibility (X73) 51.70 54.13
Determination of action (X74) 41.10 54.75

Table 8 shows the size of the analysis gap by considering the value of importance and performance. The smaller the value of the gap analysis, the better the indicator; it is because it has a higher level of performance than the importance value or the respondents’ expectations for this indicator. The actor-network variable (X7) consists of four indicators: actor participation (X71), actor’s perspective (X72), actor accessibility (X73), and determination of action (X74). The IPA results of the four indicators are presented in Figure 9.

Figure 9

The IPA results of variable X7.

Figure 9 shows that the two indicators for the actor-network variable (X7) in the KPHP Model Yogyakarta area are in quadrant II (standard operating procedure). This indicates that the respondent has a high performance regarding the actor-network. The respondents’ perception regarding the expectations of the X72 indicator (actor’s perspective) is relatively high, which can be seen from the importance value of 65%. In comparison, the performance value is 58%, which is the actual level of performance. The IPA results of the stakeholder collaboration (X8) variable can be seen in Table 9.

The IPA results of stakeholder collaboration variable (X8).

Variable Indicator Importance Performance
Stakeholder Collaboration (X8) Networked structure (X81) 68.10 66.88
Commitment to a common purpose (X82) 57.20 60.25
Trust among the participants (X83) 41.70 64.13
Governance (X84) 52.70 49.50
Access to authority (X85) 64.60 58.50
Distributive accountability/responsibility (X86) 51.40 58.25
Information sharing (X87) 57.10 49.75
Access to resources (X88) 69.60 65.25

Table 9 shows the size of the analysis gap by considering the value of importance and performance. The smaller the value of the gap analysis, the better the indicator; it is because it has a higher level of performance than the importance value or the respondents’ expectations for this indicator. The variable stakeholder collaboration (X8) consists of eight indicators: networked structure (X81), commitment to a common purpose (X82), trust among the participants (X83), governance (X84), access to authority (X85), distributive accountability/responsibility (X86), information sharing (X87) and access to resources (X88). The IPA results of the eight indicators are presented in Figure 10.

Figure 10

The IPA results of variable X8.

Figure 10 shows that most indicators for the stakeholder collaborations (X8) variable in the KPHP Model Yogyakarta area are in quadrant II (standard operating procedures). The IPA analysis results for the community development (Y1) can be seen in Table 10.

The IPA results of the community development variable (Y1).

Variable Indicator Importance Performance
Community development (Y1) Human development (Y11) 42.20 51.75
Business Building (Y12) 45.20 52.63
Building the Environment (Y13) 42.40 55.25
Building Institutions (Y14) 41.40 48.88

Table 10 shows the size of the analysis gap by considering the value of importance and performance. The smaller the value of the gap analysis, the better the indicator; it is because it has a higher level of performance than the importance value or the respondents’ expectations for this indicator. The community development (Y1) consists of four indicators: human development (Y11), business development (Y12), environmental development (Y13), and institutional development (Y14). The IPA results of the four indicators are presented in Figure 11.

Figure 11

The IPA results of variable Y1.

Figure 11 shows that all indicators for the community empowerment variable (Y1) in the KPHP Model Yogyakarta are in quadrant IV (overconfidence). The IPA results of the success of forest management policy implementation (Y2) can be seen in Table 11.

The IPA results of the successful implementation of forest management policy variable (Y2).

Variable Indicator Importance Performance
Successful Implementation of Forest Management Policy (Y2) Communication (Y21) 40.90 36.63
Resources (Y22) 65.60 58.63
Disposition (Y23) 47.50 64.38
Bureaucratic structure (Y24) 67.10 72.75

Table 11 shows the size of the analysis gap by considering the value of importance and performance. The smaller the value of the gap analysis, the better the indicator; it is because it has a higher level of performance than the importance value or the respondents’ expectations for this indicator. The successful implementation of forest management policy (Y2) consists of four indicators: communication (Y21), resources (Y22), disposition (Y23), and bureaucratic structure (Y24). The IPA results of the four indicators are presented in Figure 12.

Figure 12

The IPA results of Y2 variable.

Research Limitations

The research instrument of this study was a questionnaire using a quantitative approach. There are two limitations of research in this study. First, in filling out the questionnaire, the respondents’ degree of honesty was unknown, so even though the data were valid and reliable, this study cannot precisely measure the variables’ correct value. The second limitation is that this study only used actor-network and stakeholder collaboration as moderating variables while using community empowerment variables and the success of forest management policy implementation variables as response variables.

Conclusion and Suggestions

Based on the analysis results, it can be concluded that five hypotheses namely H1, H2, H5, H6 and H7 significantly affect each other. The variables directly affecting each other are communication, resources, environmental conditions, and relationships between organizations, affecting community empowerment directly and significantly. The empowerment variable has a direct and significant effect on the successful implementation of forest management policies. Moreover, the disposition and organizational structure variables do not significantly affect community empowerment. Three hypotheses namely H8, H9 and H13 with the actor-network moderating variable significantly affect the other; communication, resources, and relationships between organizations significantly affect community empowerment. Furthermore, disposition, organizational structure, and environmental conditions do not affect community empowerment, moderated by the actor-network variable. The stakeholder collaboration variable has a significant moderating effect on the relationship between community empowerment and the successful implementation of forest management policies.

Figure 1

Explanation of the importance–performance analysis quadrant.
Explanation of the importance–performance analysis quadrant.

Figure 2

Conceptual framework.
Conceptual framework.

Figure 3

The IPA results of variable X1.
The IPA results of variable X1.

Figure 4

The IPA results of variable X2.
The IPA results of variable X2.

Figure 5

The IPA results of variable X3.
The IPA results of variable X3.

Figure 6

The IPA results of variable X4.
The IPA results of variable X4.

Figure 7

The IPA results of variable X5.
The IPA results of variable X5.

Figure 8

The IPA results of variable X6.
The IPA results of variable X6.

Figure 9

The IPA results of variable X7.
The IPA results of variable X7.

Figure 10

The IPA results of variable X8.
The IPA results of variable X8.

Figure 11

The IPA results of variable Y1.
The IPA results of variable Y1.

Figure 12

The IPA results of Y2 variable.
The IPA results of Y2 variable.

The IPA results of the community development variable (Y1).

Variable Indicator Importance Performance
Community development (Y1) Human development (Y11) 42.20 51.75
Business Building (Y12) 45.20 52.63
Building the Environment (Y13) 42.40 55.25
Building Institutions (Y14) 41.40 48.88

The IPA results of the actor-network variable (X7).

Variable Indicator Importance Performance
Actor-network(X7) Actor participation (X71) 43.10 45.25
Actor's perspective (X72) 64.50 57.75
Actor accessibility (X73) 51.70 54.13
Determination of action (X74) 41.10 54.75

The IPA results of stakeholder collaboration variable (X8).

Variable Indicator Importance Performance
Stakeholder Collaboration (X8) Networked structure (X81) 68.10 66.88
Commitment to a common purpose (X82) 57.20 60.25
Trust among the participants (X83) 41.70 64.13
Governance (X84) 52.70 49.50
Access to authority (X85) 64.60 58.50
Distributive accountability/responsibility (X86) 51.40 58.25
Information sharing (X87) 57.10 49.75
Access to resources (X88) 69.60 65.25

The IPA results of the disposition variable (X3).

Variable Indicator Importance Performance
Disposition (X3) Disposition effects (X31) 59.40 59.00
Staffing the bureaucracy (X32) 44.60 72.75
Incentive (X33) 68.90 54.13

The IPA results of the successful implementation of forest management policy variable (Y2).

Variable Indicator Importance Performance
Successful Implementation of Forest Management Policy (Y2) Communication (Y21) 40.90 36.63
Resources (Y22) 65.60 58.63
Disposition (Y23) 47.50 64.38
Bureaucratic structure (Y24) 67.10 72.75

Research hypothesis testing.

Structural Model Coefficient Std Error Critical Ratio (CR) P-value Remark
Direct Effect

Communication Community development 0.325 0.086 3.779 0.000 Significant
Resource Community development 0.240 0.093 2.581 0.010 Significant
Disposition Community development 0.064 0.085 0.753 0.451 Not Significant
Organizational structure Community development 0.060 0.073 0.822 0.411 Not Significant
Environmental conditions Community development 0.336 0.093 3.613 0.000 Significant
Relations between Organizations Community development 0.336 0.072 4.667 0.000 Significant
Community development Successful Implementation of Forest Management Policies 0.326 0.082 3.976 0.000 Significant

Moderation Effect Actor-Network

Structural Model Coefficient Std Error CR P-value Remark
Communication Community development 0.339 0.079 4.291 0.000 Significant
Resource Community development 0.226 0.070 3.229 0.001 Significant
Disposition Community development 0.092 0.087 1.057 0.290 Not Significant
Organizational structure Community development 0.142 0.093 1.527 0.127 Not Significant
Environmental conditions Community development 0.120 0.072 1.667 0.096 Not Significant
Relations between Organizations Community development 0.356 0.098 3.633 0.000 Significant

Moderation Effect Stakeholder Collaborations

Structural Model Coefficient Std Error CR P-value Remark
Community development Successful Implementation of Forest Management Policies 0.292 0.077 3.792 0.000 Significant

The IPA results of the organizational structure variable (X4).

Variable Indicator Importance Performance
Organizational structure(X4) Standard operating procedures (X41) 57.30 58.38
Fragmentation (X42) 68.00 58.50

The IPA results of the communication variable (X1).

Variable Indicator Importance Performance
Communication (X1) Transmission (X11) 59.20 58.50
Clarity (X12) 40.10 48.38
Consistency (X13) 69.60 65.25

The IPA results of environmental condition variables (X5).

Variable Indicator Importance Performance
Environmental conditions (X5) Physical (X51) 53.60 37.75
Flora and fauna (X52) 55.40 52.88

The IPA results of the resources variable (X2).

Variable Indicator Importance Performance
Resource (X2) Member (X21) 52.30 55.25
Information (X22) 62.60 52.63
Authority (X23) 63.20 57.75
Amenities (X24) 55.90 58.00

The IPA results of the relationship between organizations variable (X6).

Variable Indicator Importance Performance
Relations between organizations (X6) Organizational culture (X61) 46.40 53.38
Leadership (X62) 51.60 48.13
Work motivation (X63) 61.10 72.50

Alwi, 2012. Network implementation analysis on democratic public service. – International Journal of Administrative Science & Organization, 19(2), 94–109. Alwi 2012 Network implementation analysis on democratic public service International Journal of Administrative Science & Organization 19 2 94 109 Search in Google Scholar

Ambrose, M.L., Schminke, M. 2003. Organization structure as a moderator of the relationship between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived organizational support, and supervisory trust. – Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 295–305. AmbroseM.L. SchminkeM. 2003 Organization structure as a moderator of the relationship between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived organizational support, and supervisory trust Journal of Applied Psychology 88 2 295 305 10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.29512731713 Search in Google Scholar

Aryee, S., Sun, L.-Y., Chen, Z.X.G., Debrah, Y.A. 2008. Abusive supervision and contextual performance: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion and the moderating role of work unit structure. – Management and Organization Review, 4(3), 393–411. AryeeS. SunL.-Y. ChenZ.X.G. DebrahY.A. 2008 Abusive supervision and contextual performance: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion and the moderating role of work unit structure Management and Organization Review 4 3 393 411 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2008.00118.x Search in Google Scholar

Burns, T., Stalker, G.M. 1961. Mechanistic and organic systems. Classics of organizational theory. – Burns, T., Stalker, G.M. (eds.). The Management of Innovation. London, Tavistock Publications, 209–214. BurnsT. StalkerG.M. 1961 Mechanistic and organic systems. Classics of organizational theory BurnsT. StalkerG.M. (eds.). The Management of Innovation London Tavistock Publications 209 214 Search in Google Scholar

Callon, M. 1998. The Laws of the Markets. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers. 278 pp. CallonM. 1998 The Laws of the Markets Oxford Blackwell Publishers 278 pp. Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, M.-C., Tzeng, Z.-C. 2011. The effect of leverage on firm value and how the firm financial quality influence on this effect. – World Journal of Management, 3(2), 30–53. ChengM.-C. TzengZ.-C. 2011 The effect of leverage on firm value and how the firm financial quality influence on this effect World Journal of Management 3 2 30 53 Search in Google Scholar

Ding, L., Haynes, K. 2006. The role of telecommunications infrastructure in regional economic growth in China. – Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 12(3), 281–302. DingL. HaynesK. 2006 The role of telecommunications infrastructure in regional economic growth in China Australasian Journal of Regional Studies 12 3 281 302 Search in Google Scholar

Dwidjowijoto, R.N. 2006. Public Policy for Developing Countries. (Kebijakan Publik Untuk Negara-negara Berkembang). Jakarta, PT Elex Media Komputindo. 197 pp. (In Indonesian). DwidjowijotoR.N. 2006 Public Policy for Developing Countries. (Kebijakan Publik Untuk Negara-negara Berkembang) Jakarta PT Elex Media Komputindo 197 pp. (In Indonesian). Search in Google Scholar

Fernandes, A. A. R., Budiantara, I. N. I., Otok, B. W., Suhartono. 2014. Reproducing Kernel Hilbert space for penalized regression multi-predictors: Case in longitudinal data. – International Journal of Mathematical Analysis, 8(40), 1951–1961. FernandesA. A. R. BudiantaraI. N. I. OtokB. W. Suhartono 2014 Reproducing Kernel Hilbert space for penalized regression multi-predictors: Case in longitudinal data International Journal of Mathematical Analysis 8 40 1951 1961 10.12988/ijma.2014.47212 Search in Google Scholar

Fernandes, A.A.R., Solimun 2017. Moderating effects orientation and innovation strategy on the effect of uncertainty on the performance of business environment. – International Journal of Law and Management, 59(6), 1211–1219. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-10-2016-0088. FernandesA.A.R. Solimun 2017 Moderating effects orientation and innovation strategy on the effect of uncertainty on the performance of business environment International Journal of Law and Management 59 6 1211 1219 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-10-2016-0088. 10.1108/IJLMA-10-2016-0088 Search in Google Scholar

Jonathan, C.J., Tarigan, R.E. 2016. The effects of e-tourism to the development of tourism sector in Indonesia. – CommIT (Communication and Information Technology) Journal, 10(2), 59–62. JonathanC.J. TariganR.E. 2016 The effects of e-tourism to the development of tourism sector in Indonesia CommIT (Communication and Information Technology) Journal 10 2 59 62 10.21512/commit.v10i2.1669 Search in Google Scholar

Kuo, C.-M. 1985. Taxonomy and phytogeography of Taiwanese pteridophytes. – Taiwania, 30(1), 5–100. KuoC.-M. 1985 Taxonomy and phytogeography of Taiwanese pteridophytes Taiwania 30 1 5 100 Search in Google Scholar

Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. 274 pp. LatourB. 1987 Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society Cambridge, Massachusetts Harvard University Press 274 pp. Search in Google Scholar

Law, J. 1987. Technology and heterogeneous engineering: The case of Portuguese expansion. – Bijker, W.E., Hughes, T.P., Pinch, T.J. (eds.). The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press, 1–134. LawJ. 1987 Technology and heterogeneous engineering: The case of Portuguese expansion BijkerW.E. HughesT.P. PinchT.J. (eds.). The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts MIT Press 1 134 Search in Google Scholar

Lembaga Administrasi Negara. 2017. ASN Management: Basic Training Module for CPNS Group III. (Manajemen ASN: Modul Pelatihan Dasar CPNS Golongan III.). Jakarta, State Administration Institute. (Lembaga Administrasi Negara). 1–54. (In Indonesian). Lembaga Administrasi Negara 2017 ASN Management: Basic Training Module for CPNS Group III. (Manajemen ASN: Modul Pelatihan Dasar CPNS Golongan III.) Jakarta State Administration Institute. (Lembaga Administrasi Negara) 1 54 (In Indonesian). Search in Google Scholar

Martilla, J.A., James, J.C. 1977. Importance-performance analysis. – Journal of Marketing, 41(1), 77–79. MartillaJ.A. JamesJ.C. 1977 Importance-performance analysis Journal of Marketing 41 1 77 79 10.1177/002224297704100112 Search in Google Scholar

Merkl-Davies, D.M., Brennan, N.M. 2017. A theoretical framework of external accounting communication: Research perspectives, traditions, and theories. – Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(2), 433–469. Merkl-DaviesD.M. BrennanN.M. 2017 A theoretical framework of external accounting communication: Research perspectives, traditions, and theories Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 30 2 433 469 10.1108/AAAJ-04-2015-2039 Search in Google Scholar

Mintzberg, H. 1979. An emerging strategy of “direct” research. – Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 582–589. MintzbergH. 1979 An emerging strategy of “direct” research Administrative Science Quarterly 24 4 582 589 10.2307/2392364 Search in Google Scholar

Mukherjee, I., Howlett, M.P. 2015. Who is a stream? Epistemic communities, instrument constituencies and advocacy coalitions in multiple streams subsystems. – Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, 15–18. MukherjeeI. HowlettM.P. 2015 Who is a stream? Epistemic communities, instrument constituencies and advocacy coalitions in multiple streams subsystems Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy 15 18 10.2139/ssrn.2593626 Search in Google Scholar

Murtiadi, M.R. 2019. Impact of information and communication technology on economic growth and human development in Indonesia. (Dampak Teknologi Informasi Dan Komunikasi Terhadap Pertumbuhan Ekonomi Dan Pembangunan Manusia Di Indonesia). – Doctoral dissertation. Jatinangor, Universitas Padjadjaran. (In Indonesian). MurtiadiM.R. 2019 Impact of information and communication technology on economic growth and human development in Indonesia. (Dampak Teknologi Informasi Dan Komunikasi Terhadap Pertumbuhan Ekonomi Dan Pembangunan Manusia Di Indonesia) Doctoral dissertation. Jatinangor Universitas Padjadjaran (In Indonesian). Search in Google Scholar

Nugroho, R. 2012. Public Policy: Policy Dynamics, Policy Analysis, Policy Management. (Kebijakan Publik: Dinamika Kebijakan, Analisis Kebijakan, Manajemen Kebijakan). Jakarta, Elex Media Komputindo. 512–513. (In Indonesian). NugrohoR. 2012 Public Policy: Policy Dynamics, Policy Analysis, Policy Management. (Kebijakan Publik: Dinamika Kebijakan, Analisis Kebijakan, Manajemen Kebijakan) Jakarta Elex Media Komputindo 512 513 (In Indonesian). Search in Google Scholar

Obayelu, A., Ogunlade, I. 2006. Analysis of the uses of information communication technology (ICT) for gender empowerment and sustainable poverty alleviation in Nigeria. – International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 2(3), 45–69. ObayeluA. OgunladeI. 2006 Analysis of the uses of information communication technology (ICT) for gender empowerment and sustainable poverty alleviation in Nigeria International Journal of Education and Development using ICT 2 3 45 69 Search in Google Scholar

Purbawangsa, I.B.A., Solimun, S., Fernandes, A.A.R., Mangesti Rahayu, S. 2020. Corporate governance, corporate profitability toward corporate social responsibility disclosure and corporate value (comparative study in Indonesia, China and India stock exchange in 2013–2016). – Social Responsibility Journal, 16(7), 983–999. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-08-2017-0160. PurbawangsaI.B.A. SolimunS. FernandesA.A.R. Mangesti RahayuS. 2020 Corporate governance, corporate profitability toward corporate social responsibility disclosure and corporate value (comparative study in Indonesia, China and India stock exchange in 2013–2016) Social Responsibility Journal 16 7 983 999 https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-08-2017-0160. 10.1108/SRJ-08-2017-0160 Search in Google Scholar

Quiñones, M., Van den Broeck A., De Witte, H. 2013. Do job resources affect work engagement via psychological empowerment? A mediation analysis. – Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29(3), 127–134. https://doi.org/10.5093/tr2013a18. QuiñonesM. Van den BroeckA. De WitteH. 2013 Do job resources affect work engagement via psychological empowerment? A mediation analysis Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 29 3 127 134 https://doi.org/10.5093/tr2013a18. 10.5093/tr2013a18 Search in Google Scholar

Rappaport, J. 1984. Studies in empowerment: Introduction to the issue. – Prevention in Human Services, 3(2–3), 1–7. RappaportJ. 1984 Studies in empowerment: Introduction to the issue Prevention in Human Services 3 2–3 1 7 10.1300/J293v03n02_02 Search in Google Scholar

Rhodes, R.A.W., Marsh, D. 1992. New directions in the study of policy networks. – European Journal of Political Research, 21(1–2),181–205. RhodesR.A.W. MarshD. 1992 New directions in the study of policy networks European Journal of Political Research 21 1–2 181 205 10.1111/j.1475-6765.1992.tb00294.x Search in Google Scholar

Sabatier, P.A. 1991. Political science and public policy. – PS: Political Science & Politics, 24(2), 144–147. SabatierP.A. 1991 Political science and public policy PS: Political Science & Politics 24 2 144 147 Search in Google Scholar

Slevin, D.P., Covin, J.G. 1997. Strategy formation patterns, performance, and the significance of context. – Journal of Management, 23(2), 189–209. SlevinD.P. CovinJ.G. 1997 Strategy formation patterns, performance, and the significance of context Journal of Management 23 2 189 209 10.1177/014920639702300205 Search in Google Scholar

Solimun, Fernandes, A. A. R. 2017. Investigation the mediating variable: What is necessary? (case study in management research). – International Journal of Law and Management, 59(6), 1059–1067. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-09-2016-0077. Solimun FernandesA. A. R. 2017 Investigation the mediating variable: What is necessary? (case study in management research) International Journal of Law and Management 59 6 1059 1067 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-09-2016-0077. 10.1108/IJLMA-09-2016-0077 Search in Google Scholar

Sumardi, Fernandes, A.A.R. 2018. The mediating effect of service quality and organizational commitment on the effect of management process alignment on higher education performance in Makassar, Indonesia. – Journal of Organizational Change Management, 31(2), 410–425. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-11-2016-0247. Sumardi FernandesA.A.R. 2018 The mediating effect of service quality and organizational commitment on the effect of management process alignment on higher education performance in Makassar, Indonesia Journal of Organizational Change Management 31 2 410 425 https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-11-2016-0247. 10.1108/JOCM-11-2016-0247 Search in Google Scholar

Sunggono, B. 1994. Law and Public Policy. (Hukum dan Kebijaksanaan Publik). Jakarta, PT. Karya Unipress. 143. (In Indonesian). SunggonoB. 1994 Law and Public Policy. (Hukum dan Kebijaksanaan Publik) Jakarta, PT Karya Unipress 143. (In Indonesian). Search in Google Scholar

Swift C., Levin G. 1987. Empowerment: An emerging mental health technology. – Journal of Primary Prevention, 8, 71–94. SwiftC. LevinG. 1987 Empowerment: An emerging mental health technology Journal of Primary Prevention 8 71 94 10.1007/BF0169501924272076 Search in Google Scholar

Syarif, E., Saadah, I. 2016. The influence of work and communication facilities on employee work productivity at the office of the Community Empowerment and Family Planning Agency, Tasikmalaya Regency. (Pengaruh Fasilitas Kerja Dan Komunikasi Terhadap Produktivitas Kerja Pegawai Pada Kantor Badan Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Dan Keluarga Berencana Kabupaten Tasikmalaya). – Jurnal Ekonomi Perdesaan, 2(1), 45–58. (In Indonesian with English summary). SyarifE. SaadahI. 2016 The influence of work and communication facilities on employee work productivity at the office of the Community Empowerment and Family Planning Agency, Tasikmalaya Regency. (Pengaruh Fasilitas Kerja Dan Komunikasi Terhadap Produktivitas Kerja Pegawai Pada Kantor Badan Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Dan Keluarga Berencana Kabupaten Tasikmalaya) Jurnal Ekonomi Perdesaan 2 1 45 58 (In Indonesian with English summary). Search in Google Scholar

Widodo. 2011. Policy Implementation. (Implementasi kebijakan). Yogyakarta, Indonesia, Andi Offset. 96. (In Indonesian). Widodo 2011 Policy Implementation. (Implementasi kebijakan) Yogyakarta, Indonesia Andi Offset 96. (In Indonesian). Search in Google Scholar

Winarno, B. 2002. Theory and Process of Public Policy. (Teori dan proses kebijakan publik). Yogyakarta, Indonesia, Media Pressindo. 101. (In Indonesian). WinarnoB. 2002 Theory and Process of Public Policy. (Teori dan proses kebijakan publik) Yogyakarta, Indonesia Media Pressindo 101. (In Indonesian). Search in Google Scholar

Wood, D.J., Gray, B. 1991. Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. – The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 139–162. WoodD.J. GrayB. 1991 Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27 2 139 162 10.1177/0021886391272001 Search in Google Scholar

Zimmerman, B.J. 1995. Self-regulation involves more than metacognition: A social cognitive perspective. – Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 217–221. ZimmermanB.J. 1995 Self-regulation involves more than metacognition: A social cognitive perspective Educational Psychologist 30 4 217 221 10.1207/s15326985ep3004_8 Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo