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

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.

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.

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 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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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